A mixed methodology for evaluating use of evidence in conservation planning

Conservation practitioners widely recognize the importance of making decisions based on the best available evidence. However, the effectiveness of evidence use in conservation planning is rarely assessed, which limits opportunities to improve evidence-based practice. We devised a mixed methodology for empirically evaluating use of evidence that applies social science tools to systematically appraise what kinds of evidence are used in conservation planning, to what effect, and under what limitations. We applied our approach in a case study of the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC), a leading land conservation organization. We conducted qualitative and quantitative analyses of 65 NCC planning documents (n = 13 in-depth) to identify patterns in evidence use, and surveyed 35 conservation planners to examine experiences of and barriers to using evidence. Although claims in plans contained a wide range of evidence types, 26% of claims were not referenced or associated with an identifiable source. Lack of evidence use was particularly apparent in claims associated with direct threats, particularly those identified as low (71% coded as insufficient or lacking evidence) or medium (45%) threats. Survey participants described relying heavily on practitioner experience and highlighted capacity limitations and disciplinary gaps in expertise among planning teams as barriers to using evidence effectively. We found that although time-intensive, this approach yielded actionable recommendations for improving evidence use in NCC conservation plans. Similar mixed-method assessments may streamline the process by including interviews and refining the document analysis frames to target issues or sections of concern. We suggest our method provides an accessible and robust point of departure for conservation practitioners to evaluate whether the use of conservation planning reflects in-house standards and more broadly recognized best practices.     

Shared ways of thinking in Brazil about the science–practice interface in ecology and conservation

The debate in the literature on the science–practice interface suggests a diversity of opinions on how to link science and practice to improve conservation. Understanding this diversity is key to addressing unequal power relations, avoiding the consideration of only dominant views, and identifying strategies to link science and practice. In turn, linking science and practice should promote conservation decisions that are socially robust and scientifically informed. To identify and describe the viewpoints of scientists and decision makers on how the science–practice interface should work in order to improve conservation decisions, we interviewed Brazilian scientists (ecologists and conservation scientists, n = 11) and decision makers (n = 11). We used Q methodology and asked participants to rank their agreement with 48 statements on how the science–practice interface should work in order to improve conservation decisions. We used principal component analysis to identify shared viewpoints. The predominant viewpoint, shared by scientists and decision makers, was characterized by valuing the integration of scientific and strategic knowledge to address environmental problems. The second viewpoint, held mostly by decision makers, was distinguished by assigning great importance to science in the decision-making process and calling for problem-relevant research. The third viewpoint, shared only by scientists, was characterized by an unwillingness to collaborate and a perception of scientists as producers of knowledge that may help decision makers. Most participants agreed organizations should promote collaboration and that actors and knowledge from both science and practice are relevant. Disagreements concerned specific roles assigned to actors, willingness to collaborate, and organizational and institutional arrangements considered effective to link science and practice. Our results suggest there is ample room for collaborations and that impediments lie mainly in existing organizations and formal institutional arrangements rather than in negative attitudes between scientists and decision makers.     

The case for embedding researchers in conservation agencies

Although protected areas represent a pivotal response to escalating anthropogenic threats, they face many pressures, inside and outside their boundaries. Amid these challenges, effective conservation is guided by evidence-based decision making supported by dynamic processes of learning and knowledge exchange. Although different models promote knowledge exchange, embedding research scientists within conservation agencies is best suited to supporting evidence-based conservation. Based on available literature and our experiences on several continents, we considered the benefits, challenges, and opportunities associated with embedding research scientists within conservation agencies and the research required to better understand the effectiveness of the embedding model for evidence-based conservation. Embedded researchers provide long-term commitment to building social capital among academic and nonacademic stakeholders; act as skilled gatekeepers who increase 2-way flow of knowledge between scientists and managers; attract, coordinate, and support management-relevant external research projects; drive the design and maintenance of long-term monitoring; and align their research with information needs. Notwithstanding the many benefits, research capacity of conservation agencies is declining worldwide. A significant challenge is that the values, structures, functions, and effectiveness of the embedding model of knowledge exchange remain poorly evaluated and documented. Also, embedded researchers have to balance their desire for creativity and flexibility with the standardization and quality control required by their public sector agencies; may be perceived as not credible because they are not truly independent of their agency; and have to couple scientific productivity with skills for transdisciplinary research, social facilitation, and stakeholder engagement. Systematic research on embedding and other models of knowledge exchange, across different world contexts, is required to better understand the benefits, costs, and institutional arrangements associated with different models.     

The effect of scientific evidence on conservation practitioners’ management decisions

A major justification of environmental management research is that it helps practitioners, yet previous studies show it is rarely used to inform their decisions. We tested whether conservation practitioners focusing on bird management were willing to use a synopsis of relevant scientific literature to inform their management decisions. This allowed us to examine whether the limited use of scientific information in management is due to a lack of access to the scientific literature or whether it is because practitioners are either not interested or unable to incorporate the research into their decisions. In on‐line surveys, we asked 92 conservation managers, predominantly from Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, to provide opinions on 28 management techniques that could be applied to reduce predation on birds. We asked their opinions before and after giving them a summary of the literature about the interventions’ effectiveness. We scored the overall effectiveness and certainty of evidence for each intervention through an expert elicitation process—the Delphi method. We used the effectiveness scores to assess the practitioners’ level of understanding and awareness of the literature. On average, each survey participant changed their likelihood of using 45.7% of the interventions after reading the synopsis of the evidence. They were more likely to implement effective interventions and avoid ineffective actions, suggesting that their intended future management strategies may be more successful than current practice. More experienced practitioners were less likely to change their management practices than those with less experience, even though they were not more aware of the existing scientific information than less experienced practitioners. The practitioners’ willingness to change their management choices when provided with summarized scientific evidence suggests that improved accessibility to scientific information would benefit conservation management outcomes. El Efecto de la Evidencia Científica sobre las Decisiones de Manejo de Quienes Practican la Conservación     

Exploring the emergence of a tipping point for conservation with increased recognition of social considerations

Despite a common understanding of the harmful impacts of Western conservation models that separate people from nature, widespread progress toward incorporating socioeconomic, political, cultural, and spiritual considerations in conservation practice is lacking. For some, the concept of nature-based solutions (NbS) is seen as an interdisciplinary and holistic pathway to better integrate human well-being in conservation. We examined how conservation practitioners in the United States view NbS and how social considerations are or are not incorporated in conservation adaptation projects. We interviewed 28 individuals working on 15 different such projects associated with the Wildlife Conservation Society's Climate Adaptation Fund. We completed 2 rounds of iterative coding in NVivo 12.6.1 to identify in the full text of all interview responses an a priori set of themes related to our research questions and emergent themes. Many respondents saw this moment as a tipping point for the field (one in which the perceived values of social considerations are increasing in conservation practice) (76%) and that social justice concerns and the need to overcome racist and colonial roots of Western conservation have risen to the forefront. Respondents also tentatively agreed that NbS in conservation could support social and ecological outcomes for conservation, but that it was far from guaranteed. Despite individual intention and awareness among practitioners to incorporate social considerations in conservation practice, structural barriers, including limited funding and inflexible grant structures, continue to constrain systemic change. Ultimately, systemic changes that address power and justice in policy and practice are required to leverage this moment to more fully address social considerations in conservation.     

The challenge of biased evidence in conservation

Efforts to tackle the current biodiversity crisis need to be as efficient and effective as possible given chronic underfunding. To inform decision-makers of the most effective conservation actions, it is important to identify biases and gaps in the conservation literature to prioritize future evidence generation. We used the Conservation Evidence database to assess the state of the global literature that tests conservation actions for amphibians and birds. For the studies in the database, we investigated their spatial and taxonomic extent and distribution across biomes, effectiveness metrics, and study designs. Studies were heavily concentrated in Western Europe and North America for birds and particularly for amphibians, and temperate forest and grassland biomes were highly represented relative to their percentage of land coverage. Studies that used the most reliable study designs—before-after control-impact and randomized controlled trials—were the most geographically restricted and scarce in the evidence base. There were negative spatial relationships between the numbers of studies and the numbers of threatened and data-deficient species worldwide. Taxonomic biases and gaps were apparent for amphibians and birds—some entire orders were absent from the evidence base—whereas others were poorly represented relative to the proportion of threatened species they contained. Metrics used to evaluate effectiveness of conservation actions were often inconsistent between studies, potentially making them less directly comparable and evidence synthesis more difficult. Testing conservation actions on threatened species outside Western Europe, North America, and Australasia should be prioritized. Standardizing metrics and improving the rigor of study designs used to test conservation actions would also improve the quality of the evidence base for synthesis and decision-making.     

Catalyzing success in community-based conservation

Efforts to devolve rights and engage Indigenous Peoples and local communities in conservation have increased the demand for evidence of the efficacy of community-based conservation (CBC) and insights into what enables its success. We examined the human well-being and environmental outcomes of a diverse set of 128 CBC projects. Over 80% of CBC projects had some positive human well-being or environmental outcomes, although just 32% achieved positive outcomes for both (i.e., combined success). We coded 57 total national-, community-, and project-level variables and controls from this set, performed random forest classification to identify the variables most important to combined success, and calculated accumulated local effects to describe their individual influence on the probability of achieving it. The best predictors of combined success were 17 variables suggestive of various recommendations and opportunities for conservation practitioners related to national contexts, community characteristics, and the implementation of various strategies and interventions informed by existing CBC frameworks. Specifically, CBC projects had higher probabilities of combined success when they occurred in national contexts supportive of local governance, confronted challenges to collective action, promoted economic diversification, and invested in various capacity-building efforts. Our results provide important insights into how to encourage greater success in CBC.     

Closing the knowledge-action gap in conservation with open science

The knowledge-action gap in conservation science and practice occurs when research outputs do not result in actions to protect or restore biodiversity. Among the diverse and complex reasons for this gap, three barriers are fundamental: knowledge is often unavailable to practitioners and challenging to interpret or difficult to use or both. Problems of availability, interpretability, and useability are solvable with open science practices. We considered the benefits and challenges of three open science practices for use by conservation scientists and practitioners. First, open access publishing makes the scientific literature available to all. Second, open materials (detailed methods, data, code, and software) increase the transparency and use of research findings. Third, open education resources allow conservation scientists and practitioners to acquire the skills needed to use research outputs. The long-term adoption of open science practices would help researchers and practitioners achieve conservation goals more quickly and efficiently and reduce inequities in information sharing. However, short-term costs for individual researchers (insufficient institutional incentives to engage in open science and knowledge mobilization) remain a challenge. We caution against a passive approach to sharing that simply involves making information available. We advocate a proactive stance toward transparency, communication, collaboration, and capacity building that involves seeking out and engaging with potential users to maximize the environmental and societal impact of conservation science.     

Typifying conservation practitioners’ views on the role of education

Education is an established tool to enhance human–environment relationships, despite the lack of empirical evidence to support its use. We used theories of change to unpack assumptions about the role of education in conservation. We interviewed practitioners from 15 conservation organizations in Madagascar to typify implicit pathways of change and assess whether emerging pathways echo theoretical advances. Five pathways were drivers of change: increasing knowledge, changing emotional connection and changing traditional cultural practices, fostering leaders, diversifying outcomes, and influencing community and society. These pathways reflect existing sociopsychological theories on learning and behavioral change. Most interviewees’ organizations had a predominant pathway that was often combined with elements from other pathways. Most pathways lacked culturally grounded approaches. Our research reveals assumptions about the role of education in conservation and indicates that organizations had different ideas of how change happens. The diversity of practices reflects the complexity of factors that influence behavior. Whether this diversity is driven by local sociocultural context, interaction with other conservation approaches, or contingencies remains unclear. Yet, typifying the pathways of change and reflecting on them is the first step towards comprehensive evaluation of when and which pathways and interactions to promote.     

Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation

Despite broad recognition of the value of social sciences and increasingly vocal calls for better engagement with the human element of conservation, the conservation social sciences remain misunderstood and underutilized in practice. The conservation social sciences can provide unique and important contributions to society's understanding of the relationships between humans and nature and to improving conservation practice and outcomes. There are 4 barriers—ideological, institutional, knowledge, and capacity—to meaningful integration of the social sciences into conservation. We provide practical guidance on overcoming these barriers to mainstream the social sciences in conservation science, practice, and policy. Broadly, we recommend fostering knowledge on the scope and contributions of the social sciences to conservation, including social scientists from the inception of interdisciplinary research projects, incorporating social science research and insights during all stages of conservation planning and implementation, building social science capacity at all scales in conservation organizations and agencies, and promoting engagement with the social sciences in and through global conservation policy‐influencing organizations. Conservation social scientists, too, need to be willing to engage with natural science knowledge and to communicate insights and recommendations clearly. We urge the conservation community to move beyond superficial engagement with the conservation social sciences. A more inclusive and integrative conservation science—one that includes the natural and social sciences—will enable more ecologically effective and socially just conservation. Better collaboration among social scientists, natural scientists, practitioners, and policy makers will facilitate a renewed and more robust conservation. Mainstreaming the conservation social sciences will facilitate the uptake of the full range of insights and contributions from these fields into conservation policy and practice.     

Using knowledge mapping to rethink the gap between science and action

Scholars have long stressed the need to bridge the gap between science and action and seek the most efficient use of knowledge for decision making. Many contributors have attempted to consider and understand the sociopolitical forces involved in knowledge generation and exchange. We argue, however, that a model is still needed to adequately conceptualize and frame the knowledge networks in which these processes are embedded. We devised a model for knowledge mapping as a prerequisite for knowledge management in the context of conservation. Using great ape conservation to frame our approach, we propose that knowledge mapping should be based on 2 key principles. First, each conservation network results from the conglomeration of subnetworks of expertise producing and using knowledge. Second, beyond the research-management gradient, other dimensions, such as the scale of operation, geographic location, and organizational characteristics, must also be considered. Assessing both knowledge production and trajectory across different dimensions of the network opens new space for investigating and reducing the gap between science and action.     

How expert insight into alpine peatland conservation complements global scientific evidence

Experts can provide valuable information to fill knowledge gaps in published research on management effectiveness, particularly for threatened ecosystems, for which there is often limited evidence and the need for prompt intervention to ensure their persistence. One such ecosystem, alpine peatland, is threatened by climate change and other pressures, provides vital ecosystem services, and supports unique biodiversity. In a workshop, we gathered and synthesized into an accessible format information from experts on interventions used, threat context, and intervention effectiveness for Australian alpine peatland and used this knowledge to evaluate local relevance of the global literature for this threatened ecosystem. Experts identified 15 interventions used to conserve Australian peatlands, most of which enhanced or restored peatland condition and effectively addressed diverse threats. Experts’ perspectives and global studies were strongly aligned, suggesting that research on peatland management may be broadly relevant across contexts, despite the distinct characteristics of Australian systems. Our workshop-based expert elicitation approach provided insights into current management practices unavailable in the literature.     

Aligning the logics of inquiry and action to address the biodiversity crisis

Despite an abundance of research reaffirming biodiversity's importance to the health of the planet and society, species continue to go extinct at an alarming rate. Why has continued research on the value of biodiversity not had the intended effect and what can be done about it? We considered biodiversity loss as a public value failure and the result of a misalignment between the logic of inquiry (which guides scientists) and the logic of action (which guides practitioners). We drew lessons from our own research to propose the creation of a national biodiversity strategy designed to link the logic of inquiry with the logic of action and coordinate the production of actionable conservation science and informed conservation action.     

Mitigation translocation as a management tool

Mitigation translocation is a subgroup of conservation translocation, categorized by a crisis-responsive time frame and the immediate goal of relocating individuals threatened with death. However, the relative successes of conservation translocations with longer time frames and broader metapopulation- and ecosystem-level considerations have been used to justify the continued implementation of mitigation translocations without adequate post hoc monitoring to confirm their effectiveness as a conservation tool. Mitigation translocations now outnumber other conservation translocations, and understanding the effectiveness of mitigation translocations is critical given limited global conservation funding especially if the mitigation translocations undermine biodiversity conservation by failing to save individuals. We assessed the effectiveness of mitigation translocations by conducting a quantitative review of the global literature. A total of 59 mitigation translocations were reviewed for their adherence to the adaptive scientific approach expected of other conservation translocations and for the testing of management options to continue improving techniques for the future. We found that mitigation translocations have not achieved their potential as an effective applied science. Most translocations focused predominantly on population establishment- and persistence-level questions, as is often seen in translocations more broadly, and less on metapopulation and ecosystem outcomes. Questions regarding the long-term impacts to the recipient ecosystem (12% of articles) and the carrying capacity of translocation sites (24% of articles) were addressed least often, despite these factors being more likely to influence ultimate success. Less than half (47%) of studies included comparison of different management techniques to facilitate practitioners selecting the most effective management actions for the future. To align mitigation translocations with the relative success of other conservation translocations, it is critical that future mitigation translocations conform to an established experimental approach to improve their effectiveness. Effective mitigation translocations will require significantly greater investment of time, expertise, and resources in the future.     

Five approaches to producing actionable science in conservation

The knowledge produced by conservation scientists must be actionable in order to address urgent conservation challenges. To understand the process of creating actionable science, we interviewed 71 conservation scientists who had participated in 1 of 3 fellowship programs focused on training scientists to become agents of change. Using a grounded theory approach, we identified 16 activities that these researchers employed to make their scientific products more actionable. Some activities were more common than others and, arguably, more foundational. We organized these activities into 3 nested categories (motivations, strategies, and tactics). Using a co-occurrence matrix, we found that most activities were positively correlated. These correlations allowed us to identify 5 approaches, framed as profiles, to actionable science: the discloser, focused on open access; the educator, focused on science communication; the networker, focused on user needs and building relationships; the collaborator, focused on boundary spanning; and the pluralist, focused on knowledge coproduction resulting in valuable outcomes for all parties. These profiles build on one another in a hierarchy determined by their complexity and level of engagement, their potential to support actionable science, and their proximity to ideal coproduction with knowledge users. Our results provide clear guidance for conservation scientists to generate actionable science to address the global biodiversity conservation challenge.     

A roadmap for knowledge exchange and mobilization research in conservation and natural resource management

Scholars across all disciplines have long been interested in how knowledge moves within and beyond their community of peers. Rapid environmental changes and calls for sustainable management practices mean the best knowledge possible is needed to inform decisions, policies, and practices to protect biodiversity and sustainably manage vulnerable natural resources. Although the conservation literature on knowledge exchange (KE) and knowledge mobilization (KM) has grown in recent years, much of it is based on context‐specific case studies. This presents a challenge for learning cumulative lessons from KE and KM research and thus effectively using knowledge in conservation and natural resources management. Although continued research on the gap between knowledge and action is valuable, overarching conceptual frameworks are now needed to enable summaries and comparisons across diverse KE‐KM research. We propose a knowledge‐action framework that provides a conceptual roadmap for future research and practice in KE/KM with the aim of synthesizing lessons learned from contextual case studies and guiding the development and testing of hypotheses in this domain. Our knowledge‐action framework has 3 elements that occur at multiple levels and scales: knowledge production (e.g., academia and government), knowledge mediation (e.g., knowledge networks, actors, relational dimension, and contextual dimension), and knowledge‐based action (e.g., instrumental, symbolic, and conceptual). The framework integrates concepts from the sociology of science in particular, and serves as a guide to further comprehensive understanding of knowledge exchange and mobilization in conservation and sustainable natural resource management.     

Recognizing reflexivity among conservation practitioners

When deciding how to conserve biodiversity, practitioners navigate diverse missions, sometimes conflicting approaches, and uncertain trade-offs. These choices are based not only on evidence, funders’ priorities, stakeholders’ interests, and policies, but also on practitioners’ personal experiences, backgrounds, and values. Calls for greater reflexivity—an individual or group's ability to examine themselves in relation to their actions and interactions with others—have appeared in the conservation science literature. But what role does reflexivity play in conservation practice? We explored how self-reflection can shape how individuals and groups conserve nature. To provide examples of reflexivity in conservation practice, we conducted a year-long series of workshop discussions and online exchanges. During these, we examined cases from the peer-reviewed and gray literature, our own experiences, and conversations with 10 experts. Reflexivity among practitioners spanned individual and collective levels and informal and formal settings. Reflexivity also encompassed diverse themes, including practitioners’ values, emotional struggles, social identities, training, cultural backgrounds, and experiences of success and failure. Reflexive processes also have limitations, dangers, and costs. Informal and institutionalized reflexivity requires allocation of limited time and resources, can be hard to put into practice, and alone cannot solve conservation challenges. Yet, when intentionally undertaken, reflexive processes might be integrated into adaptive management cycles at multiple points, helping conservation practitioners better reach their goals. Reflexivity could also play a more transformative role in conservation by motivating practitioners to reevaluate their goals and methods entirely. Reflexivity might help the conservation movement imagine and thus work toward a better world for wildlife, people, and the conservation sector itself.     

Facilitating biodiversity conservation through partnerships to achieve transformative outcomes

Conservation biology is a mission-driven discipline that must navigate a new relationship between conservation and science. Because conservation is a social and political as well as an ecological project, conservation biologists must practice interdisciplinarity and collaboration. In a comparative study of 7 cases (Jaguars in the Chaco, Grevy's zebra in Kenya, Beekeeping in Tanzania, Andean cats in Argentina, Jaguars in Mexico, Lobster fishing, and Black bears in Mexico), we examined motivations for collaboration in conservation, who can collaborate in conservation, and how conservation professionals can work well together. In 5 case studies, successful conservation outcomes were prioritized over livelihood benefits. In the other 2 cases, livelihoods were prioritized. All case studies employed participatory approaches. There were multiple external actors, including local and Indigenous communities, nongovernmental organizations, agencies, regional and national governments, and international organizations, which enhanced conservation and wider sustainability outcomes. Key collaboration aspects considered across the case studies were time (mismatch between relationship building and project schedules), trust required for meaningful partnerships, tools employed, and transformative potential for people, nature, and the discipline of conservation biology. We developed guidelines for successful collaboration, including long-term commitment, knowledge integration, multiscalar and plural approaches, cultivation of trust, appropriate engagement, evaluation, supporting students, and efforts for transformation.     

Conservation practitioners’ understanding of how to manage evolutionary processes

Both academics and practitioners consider a lack of knowledge about evolutionary theory to be a general barrier to effectively managing genetic diversity. However, it is challenging to judge practitioners’ level of understanding and how this influences their management decisions. Knowledge built through experience may be difficult for practitioners to articulate, but could nonetheless result in appropriate management strategies. To date, researchers have assessed only the explicit (formal) knowledge practitioners have of evolutionary concepts. To explore practitioners’ understanding of evolutionary concepts, it is necessary to consider how they might apply explicit and implicit knowledge to their management decisions. Using an online survey, we asked Australian practitioners to respond to 2 common management scenarios in which there is strong evidence that managing genetic diversity can improve outcomes: managing small, isolated populations and sourcing seeds for restoration projects. In describing their approach to these scenarios, practitioners demonstrated a stronger understanding of the effective management of genetic diversity than the definitions of the relevant concepts. However, their management of genetic diversity within small populations was closer to best practice than for restoration projects. Moreover, the risks practitioners described in implementing best practice management were more likely to affect their approach to restoration than translocation projects. These findings provide evidence that strategies to build the capacity of practitioners to manage genetic diversity should focus on realistic management scenarios. Given that practitioners recognize the importance of adapting their practices and the strong evidence for the benefits of actively managing genetic diversity, there is hope that better engagement by evolutionary biologists with practitioners could facilitate significant shifts toward evolutionarily enlightened management.     

Conservation and Adaptation to Climate Change

Abstract: The need to adapt to climate change has become increasingly apparent, and many believe the practice of biodiversity conservation will need to alter to face this challenge. Conservation organizations are eager to determine how they should adapt their practices to climate change. This involves asking the fundamental question of what adaptation to climate change means. Most studies on climate change and conservation, if they consider adaptation at all, assume it is equivalent to the ability of species to adapt naturally to climate change as stated in Article 2 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Adaptation, however, can refer to an array of activities that range from natural adaptation, at one end of the spectrum, to sustainability science in coupled human and natural systems at the other. Most conservation organizations deal with complex systems in which adaptation to climate change involves making decisions on priorities for biodiversity conservation in the face of dynamic risks and involving the public in these decisions. Discursive methods such as analytic deliberation are useful for integrating scientific knowledge with public perceptions and values, particularly when large uncertainties and risks are involved. The use of scenarios in conservation planning is a useful way to build shared understanding at the science–policy interface. Similarly, boundary organizations—organizations or institutions that bridge different scales or mediate the relationship between science and policy—could prove useful for managing the transdisciplinary nature of adaptation to climate change, providing communication and brokerage services and helping to build adaptive capacity. The fact that some nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are active across the areas of science, policy, and practice makes them well placed to fulfill this role in integrated assessments of biodiversity conservation and adaptation to climate change.