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.     

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.     

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.     

Putting People on the Map through an Approach That Integrates Social Data in Conservation Planning

Conservation planning is integral to strategic and effective operations of conservation organizations. Drawing upon biological sciences, conservation planning has historically made limited use of social data. We offer an approach for integrating data on social well‐being into conservation planning that captures and places into context the spatial patterns and trends in human needs and capacities. This hierarchical approach provides a nested framework for characterizing and mapping data on social well‐being in 5 domains: economic well‐being, health, political empowerment, education, and culture. These 5 domains each have multiple attributes; each attribute may be characterized by one or more indicators. Through existing or novel data that display spatial and temporal heterogeneity in social well‐being, conservation scientists, planners, and decision makers may measure, benchmark, map, and integrate these data within conservation planning processes. Selecting indicators and integrating these data into conservation planning is an iterative, participatory process tailored to the local context and planning goals. Social well‐being data complement biophysical and threat‐oriented social data within conservation planning processes to inform decisions regarding where and how to conserve biodiversity, provide a structure for exploring socioecological relationships, and to foster adaptive management. Building upon existing conservation planning methods and insights from multiple disciplines, this approach to putting people on the map can readily merge with current planning practices to facilitate more rigorous decision making. Poner a la Gente en el Mapa por Medio de una Estrategia que Integra Información Social en la Planeación de la Conservación     

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     

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.     

Research priorities for conservation and natural resource management in Oceania's small‐island developing states

For conservation science to effectively inform management, research must focus on creating the scientific knowledge required to solve conservation problems. We identified research questions that, if answered, would increase the effectiveness of conservation and natural resource management practice and policy in Oceania's small‐island developing states. We asked conservation professionals from academia, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations across the region to propose such questions and then identify which were of high priority in an online survey. We compared the high‐priority questions with research questions identified globally and for other regions. Of 270 questions proposed by respondents, 38 were considered high priority, including: What are the highest priority areas for conservation in the face of increasing resource demand and climate change? How should marine protected areas be networked to account for connectivity and climate change? What are the most effective fisheries management policies that contribute to sustainable coral reef fisheries? High‐priority questions related to the particular challenges of undertaking conservation on small‐island developing states and the need for a research agenda that is responsive to the sociocultural context of Oceania. Research priorities for Oceania relative to elsewhere were broadly similar but differed in specific issues relevant to particular conservation contexts. These differences emphasize the importance of involving local practitioners in the identification of research priorities. Priorities were reasonably well aligned among sectoral groups. Only a few questions were widely considered answered, which may indicate a smaller‐than‐expected knowledge‐action gap. We believe these questions can be used to strengthen research collaborations between scientists and practitioners working to further conservation and natural resource management in this region.     

A typology of time‐scale mismatches and behavioral interventions to diagnose and solve conservation problems

Ecological systems often operate on time scales significantly longer or shorter than the time scales typical of human decision making, which causes substantial difficulty for conservation and management in socioecological systems. For example, invasive species may move faster than humans can diagnose problems and initiate solutions, and climate systems may exhibit long‐term inertia and short‐term fluctuations that obscure learning about the efficacy of management efforts in many ecological systems. We adopted a management‐decision framework that distinguishes decision makers within public institutions from individual actors within the social system, calls attention to the ways socioecological systems respond to decision makers’ actions, and notes institutional learning that accrues from observing these responses. We used this framework, along with insights from bedeviling conservation problems, to create a typology that identifies problematic time‐scale mismatches occurring between individual decision makers in public institutions and between individual actors in the social or ecological system. We also considered solutions that involve modifying human perception and behavior at the individual level as a means of resolving these problematic mismatches. The potential solutions are derived from the behavioral economics and psychology literature on temporal challenges in decision making, such as the human tendency to discount future outcomes at irrationally high rates. These solutions range from framing environmental decisions to enhance the salience of long‐term consequences, to using structured decision processes that make time scales of actions and consequences more explicit, to structural solutions aimed at altering the consequences of short‐sighted behavior to make it less appealing. Additional application of these tools and long‐term evaluation measures that assess not just behavioral changes but also associated changes in ecological systems are needed.     

Investment and the Policy Process in Conservation Monitoring

Despite decades of discussion and implementation, conservation monitoring remains a challenge. Many current solutions in the literature focus on improving the science or making more structured decisions. These insights are important but incomplete in accounting for the politics and economics of the conservation decisions informed by monitoring. Our novel depiction of the monitoring enterprise unifies insights from multiple disciplines (conservation, operations research, economics, and policy) and highlights many underappreciated factors that affect the expected benefits of monitoring. For example, there must be a strong link between the specific needs of decision makers and information gathering. Furthermore, the involvement of stakeholders other than scientists and research managers means that new information may not be interpreted and acted upon as expected. While answering calls for sharply delineated objectives will clearly add focus to monitoring efforts, for practical reasons, high‐level goals may purposefully be left vague, to facilitate other necessary steps in the policy process. We use the expanded depiction of the monitoring process to highlight problems of cooperation and conflict. We critique calls to invest in monitoring for the greater good by arguing that incentives are typically lacking. Although the benefits of learning accrued within a project (e.g., improving management) provide incentives for investing in some monitoring, it is unrealistic, in general, to expect managers to add potentially costly measures to generate shared benefits. In the traditional linear model of the role of science in policy decisions, monitoring reduces uncertainty and decision makers are rational, unbiased consumers of the science. However, conservation actions increasingly involve social conflict. Drawing insights from political science, we argue that in high‐conflict situations, it is necessary to address the conflict prior to monitoring. Las Inversiones y el Proceso de Políticas en el Monitoreo de la Conservación Sanchirico et al.     

A framework to guide the conservation of species hybrids based on ethical and ecological considerations

Species hybrids have long been undervalued in conservation and are often perceived as a threat to pure species. Recently, the conservation value of hybrids, especially those of natural origin, has gained recognition; however, hybrid conservation remains controversial. We reviewed hybrid management policies, including laws, regulations, and management protocols, from a variety of organizations, primarily in Canada and the United States. We found that many policies are based on limited ethical and ecological considerations and provide little opportunity for hybrid conservation. In most policies, hybrids are either unrepresented or considered a threat to conservation goals. This is problematic because our review of the hybrid conservation literature identified many ethical and ecological considerations relevant to determining the conservation value of a hybrid, all of which are management‐context specific. We also noted a lack of discussion of the ethical considerations regarding hybrid conservation. Based on these findings, we created a policy framework outlining situations in which hybrids could be eligible for conservation in Canada and the United States. The framework comprises a decision tree that helps users determine whether a hybrid should be eligible for conservation based on multiple ecological and ethical considerations. The framework may be applied to any hybrid and is flexible in that it accommodates context‐specific management by allowing different options if a hybrid is a threat to or could benefit conservation goals. The framework can inform policy makers and conservationists in decision‐making processes regarding hybrid conservation by providing a systematic set of decision criteria and guidance on additional criteria to be considered in cases of uncertainty, and it fills a policy gap that limits current hybrid management.     

Successes and Challenges from Formation to Implementation of Eleven Broad‐Extent Conservation Programs

Integration of conservation partnerships across geographic, biological, and administrative boundaries is increasingly relevant because drivers of change, such as climate shifts, transcend these boundaries. We explored successes and challenges of established conservation programs that span multiple watersheds and consider both social and ecological concerns. We asked representatives from a diverse set of 11 broad‐extent conservation partnerships in 29 countries 17 questions that pertained to launching and maintaining partnerships for broad‐extent conservation, specifying ultimate management objectives, and implementation and learning. Partnerships invested more funds in implementing conservation actions than any other aspect of conservation, and a program's context (geographic extent, United States vs. other countries, developed vs. developing nation) appeared to substantially affect program approach. Despite early successes of these organizations and benefits of broad‐extent conservation, specific challenges related to uncertainties in scaling up information and to coordination in the face of diverse partner governance structures, conflicting objectives, and vast uncertainties regarding future system dynamics hindered long‐term success, as demonstrated by the focal organizations. Engaging stakeholders, developing conservation measures, and implementing adaptive management were dominant challenges. To inform future research on broad‐extent conservation, we considered several challenges when we developed detailed questions, such as what qualities of broad‐extent partnerships ensure they complement, integrate, and strengthen, rather than replace, local conservation efforts and which adaptive management processes yield actionable conservation strategies that account explicitly for dynamics and uncertainties regarding multiscale governance, environmental conditions, and knowledge of the system? Éxitos y Retos de la Formación a la Implementación de Once Programas de Conservación de Amplio Alcance     

Achieving Open Access to Conservation Science

Conservation science is a crisis discipline in which the results of scientific enquiry must be made available quickly to those implementing management. We assessed the extent to which scientific research published since the year 2000 in 20 conservation science journals is publicly available. Of the 19,207 papers published, 1,667 (8.68%) are freely downloadable from an official repository. Moreover, only 938 papers (4.88%) meet the standard definition of open access in which material can be freely reused providing attribution to the authors is given. This compares poorly with a comparable set of 20 evolutionary biology journals, where 31.93% of papers are freely downloadable and 7.49% are open access. Seventeen of the 20 conservation journals offer an open access option, but fewer than 5% of the papers are available through open access. The cost of accessing the full body of conservation science runs into tens of thousands of dollars per year for institutional subscribers, and many conservation practitioners cannot access pay‐per‐view science through their workplace. However, important initiatives such as Research4Life are making science available to organizations in developing countries. We urge authors of conservation science to pay for open access on a per‐article basis or to choose publication in open access journals, taking care to ensure the license allows reuse for any purpose providing attribution is given. Currently, it would cost $51 million to make all conservation science published since 2000 freely available by paying the open access fees currently levied to authors. Publishers of conservation journals might consider more cost effective models for open access and conservation‐oriented organizations running journals could consider a broader range of options for open access to nonmembers such as sponsorship of open access via membership fees. Obtención de Acceso Abierto a la Ciencia de la Conservación     

Generation of Priority Research Questions to Inform Conservation Policy and Management at a National Level

Abstract: Integrating knowledge from across the natural and social sciences is necessary to effectively address societal tradeoffs between human use of biological diversity and its preservation. Collaborative processes can change the ways decision makers think about scientific evidence, enhance levels of mutual trust and credibility, and advance the conservation policy discourse. Canada has responsibility for a large fraction of some major ecosystems, such as boreal forests, Arctic tundra, wetlands, and temperate and Arctic oceans. Stressors to biological diversity within these ecosystems arise from activities of the country's resource‐based economy, as well as external drivers of environmental change. Effective management is complicated by incongruence between ecological and political boundaries and conflicting perspectives on social and economic goals. Many knowledge gaps about stressors and their management might be reduced through targeted, timely research. We identify 40 questions that, if addressed or answered, would advance research that has a high probability of supporting development of effective policies and management strategies for species, ecosystems, and ecological processes in Canada. A total of 396 candidate questions drawn from natural and social science disciplines were contributed by individuals with diverse organizational affiliations. These were collaboratively winnowed to 40 by our team of collaborators. The questions emphasize understanding ecosystems, the effects and mitigation of climate change, coordinating governance and management efforts across multiple jurisdictions, and examining relations between conservation policy and the social and economic well‐being of Aboriginal peoples. The questions we identified provide potential links between evidence from the conservation sciences and formulation of policies for conservation and resource management. Our collaborative process of communication and engagement between scientists and decision makers for generating and prioritizing research questions at a national level could be a model for similar efforts beyond Canada.     

The case for policy‐relevant conservation science

Drawing on the “evidence‐based” (Sutherland et al. 2013) versus “evidence‐informed” debate (Adams & Sandbrook 2013), which has become prominent in conservation science, I argue that science can be influential if it holds a dual reference (Lentsch & Weingart 2011) that contributes to the needs of policy makers whilst maintaining technical rigor. In line with such a strategy, conservation scientists are increasingly recognizing the usefulness of constructing narratives through which to enhance the influence of their evidence (Leslie et al. 2013; Lawton & Rudd 2014). Yet telling stories alone is rarely enough to influence policy; instead, these narratives must be policy relevant. To ensure that evidence is persuasive alongside other factors in a complex policy‐making process, conservation scientists could follow 2 steps: reframe within salient political contexts and engage more productively in boundary work, which is defined as the ways in which scientists “construct, negotiate, and defend the boundary between science and policy” (Owens et al. 2006:640). These will both improve the chances of evidence‐informed conservation policy.     

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.     

Six Common Mistakes in Conservation Priority Setting

A vast number of prioritization schemes have been developed to help conservation navigate tough decisions about the allocation of finite resources. However, the application of quantitative approaches to setting priorities in conservation frequently includes mistakes that can undermine their authors’ intention to be more rigorous and scientific in the way priorities are established and resources allocated. Drawing on well‐established principles of decision science, we highlight 6 mistakes commonly associated with setting priorities for conservation: not acknowledging conservation plans are prioritizations; trying to solve an ill‐defined problem; not prioritizing actions; arbitrariness; hidden value judgments; and not acknowledging risk of failure. We explain these mistakes and offer a path to help conservation planners avoid making the same mistakes in future prioritizations. Seis Errores Comunes en la Definición de Prioridades de Conservación     

Effect of risk aversion on prioritizing conservation projects

Conservation outcomes are uncertain. Agencies making decisions about what threat mitigation actions to take to save which species frequently face the dilemma of whether to invest in actions with high probability of success and guaranteed benefits or to choose projects with a greater risk of failure that might provide higher benefits if they succeed. The answer to this dilemma lies in the decision maker's aversion to risk—their unwillingness to accept uncertain outcomes. Little guidance exists on how risk preferences affect conservation investment priorities. Using a prioritization approach based on cost effectiveness, we compared 2 approaches: a conservative probability threshold approach that excludes investment in projects with a risk of management failure greater than a fixed level, and a variance‐discounting heuristic used in economics that explicitly accounts for risk tolerance and the probabilities of management success and failure. We applied both approaches to prioritizing projects for 700 of New Zealand's threatened species across 8303 management actions. Both decision makers’ risk tolerance and our choice of approach to dealing with risk preferences drove the prioritization solution (i.e., the species selected for management). Use of a probability threshold minimized uncertainty, but more expensive projects were selected than with variance discounting, which maximized expected benefits by selecting the management of species with higher extinction risk and higher conservation value. Explicitly incorporating risk preferences within the decision making process reduced the number of species expected to be safe from extinction because lower risk tolerance resulted in more species being excluded from management, but the approach allowed decision makers to choose a level of acceptable risk that fit with their ability to accommodate failure. We argue for transparency in risk tolerance and recommend that decision makers accept risk in an adaptive management framework to maximize benefits and avoid potential extinctions due to inefficient allocation of limited resources. El Efecto de la Aversión de Riesgo sobre la Priorización de Proyectos de Conservación     

Wrestling with the complexity of evaluation for organizations at the boundary of science,policy, and practice

Boundary organizations are situated between science, policy, and practice and have a goal of supporting communication and collaboration among these sectors. They have been promoted as a way to improve the effectiveness of conservation efforts by building stronger relationships between scientists, policy makers, industry, and practitioners (Cook et al. 2013). Although their promise has been discussed in theory, the work of and expectations for boundary organizations are less defined in practice. Biodiversity conservation is characterized by complexity, uncertainty, dissent, and tight budgets, so boundary organizations face the challenging task of demonstrating their value to diverse stakeholders. We examined the challenges boundary organizations face when seeking to evaluate their work and thus aimed to encourage more productive conversations about evaluation of boundary organizations and their projects. Although no off‐the‐shelf solution is available for a given boundary organization, we identified 4 principles that will support effective evaluation for boundary organizations: engage diverse stakeholders, support learning and reflection, assess contribution to change, and align evaluation with assumption and values.     

Insights from life history theory for an explicit treatment of trade‐offs in conservation biology

As economic and social contexts become more embedded within biodiversity conservation, it becomes obvious that resources are a limiting factor in conservation. This recognition is leading conservation scientists and practitioners to increasingly frame conservation decisions as trade‐offs between conflicting societal objectives. However, this framing is all too often done in an intuitive way, rather than by addressing trade‐offs explicitly. In contrast, the concept of trade‐off is a keystone in evolutionary biology, where it has been investigated extensively. I argue that insights from evolutionary theory can provide methodological and theoretical support to evaluating and quantifying trade‐offs in biodiversity conservation. I reviewed the diverse ways in which trade‐offs have emerged within the context of conservation and how advances from evolutionary theory can help avoid the main pitfalls of an implicit approach. When studying both evolutionary trade‐offs (e.g., reproduction vs. survival) and conservation trade‐offs (e.g., biodiversity conservation vs. agriculture), it is crucial to correctly identify the limiting resource, hold constant the amount of this resource when comparing different scenarios, and choose appropriate metrics to quantify the extent to which the objectives have been achieved. Insights from studies in evolutionary theory also reveal how an inadequate selection of conservation solutions may result from considering suboptimal rather than optional solutions when examining whether a trade‐off exits between 2 objectives. Furthermore, the shape of a trade‐off curve (i.e., whether the relationship between 2 objectives follows a concave, convex, or linear form) is known to affect crucially the definition of optimal solutions in evolutionary biology and very likely affects decisions in biodiversity conservation planning too. This interface between evolutionary biology and biodiversity conservation can therefore provide methodological guidance to support decision makers in the difficult task of choosing among conservation solutions. Percepciones de la Teoría de Historia de Vida para una Tratamiento Explícito de las Compensaciones en la Biología de la Conservación     

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