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.     

Practical guide to coproduction in conservation science

We considered a series of conservation-related research projects on the island of Pemba, Tanzania, to reflect on the broad significance of Beier et al.’s recommendations for linking conservation science with practical conservation outcomes. The implementation of just some of their suggestions can advance a successful coproduction of actionable science by small research teams. Key elements include, first, scientists and managers working together in the field to ensure feedback in real time; second, questions jointly identified by managers and researchers to facilitate engaged collaboration; third, conducting research at multiple sites, thereby broadening managers’ abilities to reach multiple stakeholders; and fourth, establishing a multidisciplinary team because most of the concerns of local managers require input from multiple disciplines.     

Conservation Planning as a Transdisciplinary Process

Abstract: Despite substantial growth in the field of conservation planning, the speed and success with which conservation plans are converted into conservation action remains limited. This gap between science and action extends beyond conservation planning into many other applied sciences and has been linked to complexity of current societal problems, compartmentalization of knowledge and management sectors, and limited collaboration between scientists and decision makers. Transdisciplinary approaches have been proposed as a possible way to address these challenges and to bridge the gap between science and action. These approaches move beyond the bridging of disciplines to an approach in which science becomes a social process resolving problems through the participation and mutual learning of stakeholders. We explored the principles of transdisciplinarity, in light of our experiences as conservation‐planning researchers working in South Africa, to better understand what is required to make conservation planning transdisciplinary and therefore more effective. Using the transdisciplinary hierarchy of knowledge (empirical, pragmatic, normative, and purposive), we found that conservation planning has succeeded in integrating many empirical disciplines into the pragmatic stakeholder‐engaged process of strategy development and implementation. Nevertheless, challenges remain in engagement of the social sciences and in understanding the social context of implementation. Farther up this knowledge hierarchy, at the normative and purposive levels, we found that a lack of integrated land‐use planning and policies (normative) and the dominant effect of national values (purposive) that prioritize growth and development limit the effectiveness and relevance of conservation plans. The transdisciplinary hierarchy of knowledge highlighted that we need to move beyond bridging the empirical and pragmatic disciplines into the complex normative world of laws, policies, and planning and become engaged in the purposive processes of decision making, behavior change, and value transfer. Although there are indications of progress in this direction, working at the normative and purposive levels requires time, leadership, resources, skills that are absent in conservation training and practice, and new forms of recognition in systems of scientific reward and funding.     

Enhancing the Engagement of U.S. Private Foundations with Conservation Science

Abstract: Funding for conservation is limited, and its investment for maximum conservation gain can likely be enhanced through the application of relevant science. Many donor institutions support and use science to pursue conservation goals, but their activities remain relatively unfamiliar to the conservation‐science community. We examined the priorities and practices of U.S.‐based private foundations that support biodiversity conservation. We surveyed 50 donor members of the Consultative Group on Biological Diversity (CGBD) to address three questions: (1) What support do CGBD members provide for conservation science? (2) How do CGBD members use conservation science in their grant making and strategic thinking? (3) How do CGBD members obtain information about conservation science? The 38 donor institutions that responded to the survey made $340 million in grants for conservation in 2005, including $62 million for conservation science. Individual foundations varied substantially in the proportion of conservation funds allocated to science. Foundations also varied in the ways and degree to which they used conservation science to guide their grant making. Respondents found it “somewhat difficult” to stay informed about conservation science relevant to their work, reporting that they accessed conservation science information mainly through their grantees. Many funders reported concerns about the strategic utility of funding conservation science to achieve conservation gains. To increase investment by private foundations in conservation science, funders, researchers, and conservation practitioners need to jointly identify when and how new scientific knowledge will lower barriers to conservation gains. We envision an evolving relationship between funders and conservation scientists that emphasizes primary research and synthesis motivated by (1) applicability, (2) human‐ecosystem interactions, (3) active engagement among scientists and decision makers, and (4) broader communication of relevant scientific information.     

On allegations of invasive species denialism

Science denialism retards evidenced-based policy and practice and should be challenged. It has been a particular concern for mitigating global environmental issues, such as anthropogenic climate change. But allegations of science denialism must also be well founded and evidential or they risk eroding public trust in science and scientists. Recently, 77 published works by scholars, scientists, and science writers were identified as containing invasive species denialism (ISD; i.e., rejection of well-supported facts about invasive species, particularly the global scientific consensus about their negative impacts). We reevaluated 75 of these works but could find no examples of refutation of scientific facts and only 5 articles with text perhaps consistent with one of the 5 characteristics of science denialism. We found, therefore, that allegations of ISD were misplaced. These accusations of science denialism may have arisen because invasion biology defines its subjects—invasive species—based on multiple subjective and normative judgments. Thus, more than other applied sciences its consensus is one of shared values as much as agreed knowledge. Criticisms of invasion biology have largely targeted those subjective and normative judgments and their global imposition, not the knowledge on which the discipline is based. Regrettably, a few invasion biologists have misinterpreted the critique of their values-based consensus as a denial of their science when it is not. To make invasion biology a more robust and widely accepted science and to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings and conflicts, invasion biologists could be more accepting of perspectives originating from other disciplines and more open to values-based critique from scholars and scientists outside their field. This recommendation applies to all conservation sciences, especially those addressing global challenges, because these sciences must serve and be relevant to communities with an extraordinary diversity of cultures and values.     

How Research‐Prioritization Exercises Affect Conservation Policy

Abstract: Conservation scientists are concerned about the apparent lack of impact their research is having on policy. By better aligning research with policy needs, conservation science might become more relevant to policy and increase its real‐world salience in the conservation of biological diversity. Consequently, some conservation scientists have embarked on a variety of exercises to identify research questions that, if answered, would provide the evidence base with which to develop and implement effective conservation policies. I synthesized two existing approaches to conceptualizing research impacts. One widely used approach classifies the impacts of research as conceptual, instrumental, and symbolic. Conceptual impacts occur when policy makers are sensitized to new issues and change their beliefs or thinking. Instrumental impacts arise when scientific research has a direct effect on policy decisions. The use of scientific research results to support established policy positions are symbolic impacts. The second approach classifies research issues according to whether scientific knowledge is developed fully and whether the policy issue has been articulated clearly. I believe exercises to identify important research questions have objectives of increasing the clarity of policy issues while strengthening science–policy interactions. This may facilitate the transmission of scientific knowledge to policy makers and, potentially, accelerate the development and implementation of effective conservation policy. Other, similar types of exercises might also be useful. For example, identification of visionary science questions independent of current policy needs, prioritization of best practices for transferring scientific knowledge to policy makers, and identification of questions about human values and their role in political processes could all help advance real‐world conservation science. It is crucial for conservation scientists to understand the wide variety of ways in which their research can affect policy and be improved systematically.     

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.     

Achieving Conservation Science that Bridges the Knowledge–Action Boundary

There are many barriers to using science to inform conservation policy and practice. Conservation scientists wishing to produce management‐relevant science must balance this goal with the imperative of demonstrating novelty and rigor in their science. Decision makers seeking to make evidence‐based decisions must balance a desire for knowledge with the need to act despite uncertainty. Generating science that will effectively inform management decisions requires that the production of information (the components of knowledge) be salient (relevant and timely), credible (authoritative, believable, and trusted), and legitimate (developed via a process that considers the values and perspectives of all relevant actors) in the eyes of both researchers and decision makers. We perceive 3 key challenges for those hoping to generate conservation science that achieves all 3 of these information characteristics. First, scientific and management audiences can have contrasting perceptions about the salience of research. Second, the pursuit of scientific credibility can come at the cost of salience and legitimacy in the eyes of decision makers, and, third, different actors can have conflicting views about what constitutes legitimate information. We highlight 4 institutional frameworks that can facilitate science that will inform management: boundary organizations (environmental organizations that span the boundary between science and management), research scientists embedded in resource management agencies, formal links between decision makers and scientists at research‐focused institutions, and training programs for conservation professionals. Although these are not the only approaches to generating boundary‐spanning science, nor are they mutually exclusive, they provide mechanisms for promoting communication, translation, and mediation across the knowledge–action boundary. We believe that despite the challenges, conservation science should strive to be a boundary science, which both advances scientific understanding and contributes to decision making. Logrando que la Ciencia de la Conservación Trasponga la Frontera Conocimiento‐Acción     

Studying citizen science through adaptive management and learning feedbacks as mechanisms for improving conservation

Citizen science has generated a growing interest among scientists and community groups, and citizen science programs have been created specifically for conservation. We examined collaborative science, a highly interactive form of citizen science, which we developed within a theoretically informed framework. In this essay, we focused on 2 aspects of our framework: social learning and adaptive management. Social learning, in contrast to individual‐based learning, stresses collaborative and generative insight making and is well‐suited for adaptive management. Adaptive‐management integrates feedback loops that are informed by what is learned and is guided by iterative decision making. Participants engaged in citizen science are able to add to what they are learning through primary data collection, which can result in the real‐time information that is often necessary for conservation. Our work is particularly timely because research publications consistently report a lack of established frameworks and evaluation plans to address the extent of conservation outcomes in citizen science. To illustrate how our framework supports conservation through citizen science, we examined how 2 programs enacted our collaborative science framework. Further, we inspected preliminary conservation outcomes of our case‐study programs. These programs, despite their recent implementation, are demonstrating promise with regard to positive conservation outcomes. To date, they are independently earning funds to support research, earning buy‐in from local partners to engage in experimentation, and, in the absence of leading scientists, are collecting data to test ideas. We argue that this success is due to citizen scientists being organized around local issues and engaging in iterative, collaborative, and adaptive learning.     

Experiencing Biodiversity as a Bridge over the Science–Society Communication Gap

Drawing on the idea that biodiversity is simply the diversity of living things, and that everyone knows what diversity and living things mean, most conservation professionals eschew the need to explain the many complex ways in which biodiversity is understood in science. On many biodiversity‐related issues, this lack of clarity leads to a communication gap between science and the general public, including decision makers who must design and implement biodiversity policies. Closing this communication gap is pivotal to the ability of science to inform sound environmental decision making. To address this communication gap, we propose a surrogate of biodiversity for communication purposes that captures the scientific definition of biodiversity yet can be understood by nonscientists; that is, biodiversity as a learning experience. The prerequisites of this or any other biodiversity communication surrogate are that it should have transdisciplinary relevance; not be measurable; be accessible to a wide audience; be usable to translate biodiversity issues; and understandably encompass biodiversity concepts. Biodiversity as a learning experience satisfies these prerequisites and is philosophically robust. More importantly, it can effectively contribute to closing the communication gap between biodiversity science and society at large. Experimentando la Biodiversidad como un Puente sobre el Vacío entre la Comunicación Ciencia‐Sociedad     

Considering science needs to deliver actionable science

Conservation practitioners, natural resource managers, and environmental stewards often seek out scientific contributions to inform decision-making. This body of science only becomes actionable when motivated by decision makers considering alternative courses of action. Many in the science community equate addressing stakeholder science needs with delivering actionable science. However, not all efforts to address science needs deliver actionable science, suggesting that the synonymous use of these two constructs (delivering actionable science and addressing science needs) is not trivial. This can be the case when such needs are conveyed by people who neglect decision makers responsible for articulating a priority management concern and for specifying how the anticipated scientific information will aid the decision-making process. We argue that the actors responsible for articulating these science needs and the process used to identify them are decisive factors in the ability to deliver actionable science, stressing the importance of examining the provenance and the determination of science needs. Guided by a desire to enhance communication and cross-literacy between scientists and decision makers, we identified categories of actors who may inappropriately declare science needs (e.g., applied scientists with and without regulatory affiliation, external influencers, reluctant decision makers, agents in place of decision makers, and boundary organization representatives). We also emphasize the importance of, and general approach to, undertaking needs assessments or gap analyses as a means to identify priority science needs. We conclude that basic stipulations to legitimize actionable science, such as the declaration of decisions of interest that motivate science needs and using a robust process to identify priority information gaps, are not always satisfied and require verification. To alleviate these shortcomings, we formulated practical suggestions for consideration by applied scientists, decision makers, research funding entities, and boundary organizations to help foster conditions that lead to science output being truly actionable.     

Using Twitter to communicate conservation science from a professional conference

Scientists are increasingly using Twitter as a tool for communicating science. Twitter can promote scholarly discussion, disseminate research rapidly, and extend and diversify the scope of audiences reached. However, scientists also caution that if Twitter does not accurately convey science due to the inherent brevity of this media, misinformation could cascade quickly through social media. Data on whether Twitter effectively communicates conservation science and the types of user groups receiving these tweets are lacking. To address these knowledge gaps, we examined live tweeting as a means of communicating conservation science at the 2013 International Congress for Conservation Biology (ICCB). We quantified and compared the user groups sending and reading live tweets. We also surveyed presenters to determine their intended audiences, which we compared with the actual audiences reached through live tweeting. We also asked presenters how effectively tweets conveyed their research findings. Twitter reached 14 more professional audience categories relative to those attending and live tweeting at ICCB. However, the groups often reached through live tweeting were not the presenters’ intended audiences. Policy makers and government and non‐governmental organizations were rarely reached (0%, 4%, and 6% of audience, respectively), despite the intent of the presenters. Plenary talks were tweeted about 6.9 times more than all other oral or poster presentations combined. Over half the presenters believed the tweets about their talks were effective. Ineffective tweets were perceived as vague or missing the presenters’ main message. We recommend that presenters who want their science to be communicated accurately and broadly through Twitter should provide Twitter‐friendly summaries that incorporate relevant hashtags and usernames. Our results suggest that Twitter can be used to effectively communicate speakers’ findings to diverse audiences beyond conference walls.     

Challenges to interdisciplinary research in ecosystem-based management

Despite its necessity, integration of natural and social sciences to inform conservation efforts has been difficult. We examined the views of 63 scientists and practitioners involved in marine management in Mexico's Gulf of California, the central California coast, and the western Pacific on the challenges associated with integrating social science into research efforts that support ecosystem-based management (EBM) in marine systems. We used a semistructured interview format. Questions focused on how EBM was developed for these sites and how contextual factors affected its development and outcomes. Many of the traditional challenges linked with interdisciplinary research were present in the EBM projects we studied. However, a number of contextual elements affected how mandates to include social science were interpreted and implemented as well as how easily challenges could be addressed. For example, a common challenge is that conservation organizations are often dominated by natural scientists, but for some projects it was easier to address this imbalance than for others. We also found that the management and institutional histories that came before EBM in specific cases were important features of local context. Because challenges differed among cases, we believe resolving challenges to interdisciplinary research should be context specific.     

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.     

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.     

Transforming conservation science and practice for a postnormal world

We examine issues to consider when reframing conservation science and practice in the context of global change. New framings of the links between ecosystems and society are emerging that are changing peoples’ values and expectations of nature, resulting in plural perspectives on conservation. Reframing conservation for global change can thus be regarded as a stage in the evolving relationship between people and nature rather than some recent trend. New models of how conservation links with transformative adaptation include how decision contexts for conservation can be reframed and integrated with an adaptation pathways approach to create new options for global‐change‐ready conservation. New relationships for conservation science and governance include coproduction of knowledge that supports social learning. New processes for implementing adaptation for conservation outcomes include deliberate practices used to develop new strategies, shift world views, work with conflict, address power and intergenerational equity in decisions, and build consciousness and creativity that empower agents to act. We argue that reframing conservation for global change requires scientists and practitioners to implement approaches unconstrained by discipline and sectoral boundaries, geopolitical polarities, or technical problematization. We consider a stronger focus on inclusive creation of knowledge and the interaction of this knowledge with societal values and rules is likely to result in conservation science and practice that meets the challenges of a postnormal world.     

Research methods and reporting practices in zoo and aquarium conservation-education evaluation

Zoos and aquariums are increasingly incorporating conservation education into their mission statements and visitor experiences to address global biodiversity loss. To advance knowledge and practice in the field, research is being conducted to evaluate the effect of zoo conservation-education experiences on visitor psychosocial outcomes (e.g., knowledge, attitude, emotions, motivations, behavior). Following recent discussions among scholars and practitioners concerning logistical and methodological challenges that likely undermine the conclusions of such research, we identified and reviewed the methods and reporting practices in peer-reviewed articles published in English from May 1998 to June 2016 that focused on adult visitor samples (47 articles, 48 studies). We examined elements of internal, external, construct, and statistical conclusion validity. Methodological quality of quantitative methods and reporting practices was determined using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool. Each study was coded as either strong (no weak ratings), moderate (1 weak rating), or weak (≥2 weak ratings). The quantitative methods of 83.3% of studies were weak. The remaining 16.7% had methods of moderate quality. Using an existing checklist, we also assessed the quality and rigor of qualitative methods and reporting practices and found that some aspects of these methods were reported more comprehensively than others. For example, 69.6% of articles discussed methods for identifying key themes from the data, whereas only 34.8% reported how data verification was performed. We suggest increased application of intensive longitudinal methods (e.g., daily diary) to strengthen self-reported data, experimental and repeated-measures designs, and mixed-methods approaches. Our findings and recommendations could strengthen and guide the research and evaluation agenda for the field and ultimately enhance the contribution zoos make to global biodiversity conservation.     

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.     

Species Inequality in Scientific Study

Abstract: Some conservationists argue for a focused effort to protect the most critically endangered species, and others suggest a large‐scale endeavor to safeguard common species across large areas. Similar arguments are applicable to the distribution of scientific effort among species. Should conservation scientists focus research efforts on threatened species, common species, or do all species deserve equal attention? We assessed the scientific equity among 1909 mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians of southern Africa by relating the number of papers written about each species to their status on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List. Threatened large mammals and reptiles had more papers written about them than their nonthreatened counterparts, whereas threatened small mammals and amphibians received less attention than nonthreatened species. Threatened birds received an intermediate amount of attention in the scientific literature. Thus, threat status appears to drive scientific effort among some animal groups, whereas other factors (e.g., pest management and commercial interest) appear to dictate scientific investment in particular species of other groups. Furthermore, the scientific investment per species differed greatly between groups—the mean number of papers per threatened large mammal eclipsed that of threatened reptiles, birds, small mammals, and amphibians by 2.6‐, 15‐, 216‐, and more than 500‐fold, respectively. Thus, in the eyes of science, all species are not created equal. A few species commanded a great proportion of scientific attention, whereas for many species information that might inform conservation is virtually nonexistent.     

Enhancement of conservation knowledge through increased access to botanical information

Herbarium specimens are increasingly recognized as an important resource for conservation science and virtual herbaria are making specimens freely available to a wider range of users than ever before. Few virtual herbaria are designed with conservation use as a primary driver. Exceptionally, Brazil's Reflora Virtual Herbarium (RVH) was created to increase knowledge and conservation of the Brazilian flora. The RVH is closely integrated with the Flora of Brazil 2020 platform on which Brazil's new national Flora is under construction. Both resources are accessible via the Reflora home page and thousands of users move seamlessly between these Reflora resources. To understand how the Reflora resources are currently used and their impact on conservation science, we conducted a literature review and an online survey. We searched for publications of studies in which Reflora resources were used and publications resulting from Brazilian researchers who were part of Reflora's research and mobility program. The survey contained multiple choice questions and questions that required a written response. We targeted Reflora webpage visitors with the survey to capture a wider range of Reflora users than the literature review. Reflora resources were used for a variety of conservation-relevant purposes. Half the 806 scientific publications in which Reflora was cited and 81% of the 1069 survey respondents accessing Reflora resources mentioned conservation-relevant research outputs. Most conservation-relevant uses of the Reflora resources in scientific publications were research rather than implementation focused. The survey of Reflora users showed conservation uses and impacts of virtual herbaria were more numerous and diverse than the uses captured in the literature review. Virtual herbaria are vital resources for conservation science, but they must document use and impacts more comprehensively to ensure sustainability.