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     

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.     

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.     

Metrics of progress in the understanding and management of threats to Australian birds

Although evidence-based approaches have become commonplace for determining the success of conservation measures for the management of threatened taxa, there are no standard metrics for assessing progress in research or management. We developed 5 metrics to meet this need for threatened taxa and to quantify the need for further action and effective alleviation of threats. These metrics (research need, research achievement, management need, management achievement, and percent threat reduction) can be aggregated to examine trends for an individual taxon or for threats across multiple taxa. We tested the utility of these metrics by applying them to Australian threatened birds, which appears to be the first time that progress in research and management of threats has been assessed for all threatened taxa in a faunal group at a continental scale. Some research has been conducted on nearly three-quarters of known threats to taxa, and there is a clear understanding of how to alleviate nearly half of the threats with the highest impact. Some management has been attempted on nearly half the threats. Management outcomes ranged from successful trials to complete mitigation of the threat, including for one-third of high-impact threats. Progress in both research and management tended to be greater for taxa that were monitored or occurred on oceanic islands. Predation by cats had the highest potential threat score. However, there has been some success reducing the impact of cat predation, so climate change (particularly drought), now poses the greatest threat to Australian threatened birds. Our results demonstrate the potential for the proposed metrics to encapsulate the major trends in research and management of both threats and threatened taxa and provide a basis for international comparisons of evidence-based conservation science.     

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.     

Priority areas for conservation of and research focused on terrestrial vertebrates

Effective conservation policies require comprehensive knowledge of biodiversity. However, knowledge shortfalls still remain, hindering possibilities to improve decision making and built such policies. During the last 2 decades, conservationists have made great efforts to allocate resources as efficiently as possible but have rarely considered the idea that if research investments are also strategically allocated, it would likely fill knowledge gaps while simultaneously improving conservation actions. Therefore, prioritizing areas where both conservation and research actions could be conducted becomes a critical endeavor that can further maximize return on investment. We used Zonation, a conservation planning tool and geographical distributions of amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles to suggest and compare priority areas for conservation and research of terrestrial vertebrates worldwide. We also evaluated the degree of human disturbance in both types of priority areas by describing the value of the human footprint index within such areas. The spatial concordance between priority conservation and research areas was low: 0.36% of the world's land area. In these areas, we found it would be possible to protect almost half of the currently threatened species and to gather information on nearly 42% of data-deficient (DD) species. We also found that 6199 protected areas worldwide are located in such places, although only 35% of them have strict conservation purposes. Areas of consensus between conservation and research areas represent an opportunity for simultaneously conserving and acquiring knowledge of threatened and DD species of vertebrates. Although the picture is not the most encouraging, joint conservation and research efforts are possible and should be fostered to save vertebrate species from our own ignorance and extinction.     

Phylogeny-based conservation priorities for Australian freshwater fishes

Conservation scientists are increasingly interested in the question of how extinction prunes the tree of life. This question is particularly important for Australian freshwater fishes because there is a broad mix of ∼300 old and young species, many of which are severely threatened. We used a complete species-level phylogeny of Australian freshwater fishes to examine phylogenetic nonrandomness of extinction risk. We computed the potential loss of phylogenetic diversity by simulating extinction across the tree under a pattern weighted based on International Union for Conservation of Nature extinction risk category and compared this loss to projected diversity loss under a random null model of extinction. Finally, we calculated EDGE (evolutionary distinctiveness, global endangerment) scores for 251 freshwater and 60 brackish species and compiled a list of high-priority species for conservation actions based on their extinction risk and evolutionary uniqueness. Extinction risk was not random and was clustered in both diversity cradles (recently diversifying, species-rich clades, such as Galaxiidae and Percichthyidae) and museums (older, species-poor groups, such as freshwater chondrichthyans). Clustered extinction made little difference to the average expected loss of phylogenetic diversity. However, the upper bound of loss was higher under a selective model of extinction, particularly when the counts of species lost were low. Thus, the loss of highly threatened species would diminish the tree of life more than a null model of randomly distributed extinction.  High priority species included both widely recognized and charismatic ones, such as the Queensland lungfish (Neoceratodus forsteri), river sharks, and freshwater sawfishes, and lesser-known species that receive less public attention, including the salamanderfish (Lepidogalaxias salamandroides), cave gudgeons, and many galaxiids, rainbowfishes, and pygmy perches.     

A guide to qualitative attribution methods for evaluation in conservation

Knowledge of what conservation interventions improve biodiversity outcomes, and in which circumstances, is imperative. Experimental and quasi-experimental methods are increasingly used to establish causal inference and build the evidence base on the effectiveness of interventions, but their ability to provide insight into how and under what conditions an intervention should be implemented to improve biodiversity outcomes faces limitations. A suite of attribution methods that leverage qualitative methods for causal inference is available but underutilized in conversation impact evaluation. This article provides a guide to 5 such qualitative attribution methods: contribution analysis, process tracing, realist evaluation, qualitative comparative analysis, and most significant change. It defines and introduces each method and then illustrates how they could be applied through a case study of community conservancies in Namibia. This guide provides examples of how qualitative attribution methods can advance knowledge of what works, in which contexts, and why in biodiversity conservation.     

Bridging research and practice in conservation

Calls for biodiversity conservation practice to be more evidence based are growing, and we agree evidence use in conservation practice needs improvement. However, evidence-based conservation will not be realized without improved access to evidence. In medicine, unlike in conservation, a well-established and well-funded layer of intermediary individuals and organizations engage with medical practitioners, synthesize primary research relevant to decision making, and make evidence easily accessible. These intermediaries prepare targeted evidence summaries and distribute them to practitioners faced with time-sensitive and value-laden decisions. To be effective, these intermediaries, who we refer to as evidence bridges, should identify research topics based on the priorities of practitioners; synthesize evidence; prepare and distribute easy-to-find and easy-to-use evidence summaries; and develop and maintain networks of connections with researchers and practitioners. Based on a review of the literature regarding evidence intermediaries in conservation and environmental management, as well as an anonymous questionnaire searching for such organizations, we found few intermediaries that met all these criteria. Few evidence bridges that do exist are unable to reach most conservation practitioners, which include resource managers in government and industry, conservation organizations, and farmers and other private landowners. We argue that the lack of evidence bridges from research to practitioners contributes to evidence complacency and limits the use of evidence in conservation action. Nevertheless, several existing organizations help reduce the gap between evidence and practice and could serve as a foundation for building additional components of evidence bridges in conservation. Although evidence bridges need expertise in research and evidence synthesis, they also require expertise in identifying and communicating with the community of practitioners most in need of clear and concise syntheses of evidence. Article Impact Statement: Evidence-based conservation will not be realized without improved access to evidence. We call for intermediary evidence bridges.     

Evaluating the conservation impact of Antarctica's protected areas

Antarctic specially protected areas (ASPAs) are a key regulatory mechanism for protecting Antarctic environmental values. Previous evaluations of the effectiveness of the ASPA system focused on its representativeness and design characteristics, presenting a compelling rationale for its systematic revision. Upgrading the system could increase the representation of values within ASPAs, but representation alone does not guarantee the avoided loss or improvement of those values. Identifying factors that influence the effectiveness of ASPAs would inform the design and management of an ASPA system with the greatest capacity to deliver its intended conservation outcomes. To facilitate evaluations of ASPA effectiveness, we devised a research and policy agenda that includes articulating a theory of change for what outcomes ASPAs generate and how; building evaluation principles into ASPA design and designation processes; employing complementary approaches to evaluate multiple dimensions of effectiveness; and extending evaluation findings to identify and exploit drivers of positive conservation impact. Implementing these approaches will enhance the efficacy of ASPAs as a management tool, potentially leading to improved outcomes for Antarctic natural values in an era of rapid global change. Evaluación del impacto de conservación de las áreas protegidas de la Antártida     

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.     

Towards a framework for assessment and management of cumulative human impacts on marine food webs

Effective ecosystem‐based management requires understanding ecosystem responses to multiple human threats, rather than focusing on single threats. To understand ecosystem responses to anthropogenic threats holistically, it is necessary to know how threats affect different components within ecosystems and ultimately alter ecosystem functioning. We used a case study of a Mediterranean seagrass (Posidonia oceanica) food web and expert knowledge elicitation in an application of the initial steps of a framework for assessment of cumulative human impacts on food webs. We produced a conceptual seagrass food web model, determined the main trophic relationships, identified the main threats to the food web components, and assessed the components’ vulnerability to those threats. Some threats had high (e.g., coastal infrastructure) or low impacts (e.g., agricultural runoff) on all food web components, whereas others (e.g., introduced carnivores) had very different impacts on each component. Partitioning the ecosystem into its components enabled us to identify threats previously overlooked and to reevaluate the importance of threats commonly perceived as major. By incorporating this understanding of system vulnerability with data on changes in the state of each threat (e.g., decreasing domestic pollution and increasing fishing) into a food web model, managers may be better able to estimate and predict cumulative human impacts on ecosystems and to prioritize conservation actions.     

Defining practical and robust study designs for interventions targeted at terrestrial mammalian predators

Conflicts between humans and mammalian predators are globally widespread and increasing, creating a long-lasting challenge for conservation and local livelihoods. Protection interventions, which are essential to conflict mitigation, should be based on solid evidence of effectiveness produced by robust study designs. Yet, it is unclear what study designs have been used in predator-targeted interventions and how they can be improved to provide best practices for replications. I examined how applications of five study designs (before-after, before-after-control-impact, control-impact, crossover [i.e., the same randomly assigned study units acting as treatments and controls during alternating trials], and randomized controlled trial) have changed over time and how these changes are related to authors, predator species, countries, and intervention types (aversion, husbandry, mixed interventions, invasive management, lethal control, and noninvasive management). I applied multinomial regression modeling to 434 cases (28 predator species and 45 countries) from 244 studies published from 1955 to 2020. Study design was related only to intervention type. Less reliable before-after and control-impact studies were the most common (47.7% and 38.2% of cases, respectively), and their use increased over years as did all interventions. The contribution of the most robust before-after-control-impact (7.4%), randomized controlled trial (5.3%), and crossover designs (1.4%) remained minor over time. Crossover is suitable for aversion, most husbandry techniques, and a few other interventions, but crossover interventions also have the most limitations in terms of applicability. Randomized controlled trial is generally applicable, but impractical or inappropriate for some interventions, and before-after-control-impact appears to be the most widely applicable study design for predator-targeted interventions.     

Contribution of Systematic Reviews to Management Decisions

Systematic reviews comprehensively summarize evidence about the effectiveness of conservation interventions. We investigated the contribution to management decisions made by this growing body of literature. We identified 43 systematic reviews of conservation evidence, 23 of which drew some concrete conclusions relevant to management. Most reviews addressed conservation interventions relevant to policy decisions; only 35% considered practical on‐the‐ground management interventions. The majority of reviews covered only a small fraction of the geographic and taxonomic breadth they aimed to address (median = 13% of relevant countries and 16% of relevant taxa). The likelihood that reviews contained at least some implications for management tended to increase as geographic coverage increased and to decline as taxonomic breadth increased. These results suggest the breadth of a systematic review requires careful consideration. Reviews identified a mean of 312 relevant primary studies but excluded 88% of these because of deficiencies in design or a failure to meet other inclusion criteria. Reviews summarized on average 284 data sets and 112 years of research activity, yet the likelihood that their results had at least some implications for management did not increase as the amount of primary research summarized increased. In some cases, conclusions were elusive despite the inclusion of hundreds of data sets and years of cumulative research activity. Systematic reviews are an important part of the conservation decision making tool kit, although we believe the benefits of systematic reviews could be significantly enhanced by increasing the number of reviews focused on questions of direct relevance to on‐the‐ground managers; defining a more focused geographic and taxonomic breadth that better reflects available data; including a broader range of evidence types; and appraising the cost‐effectiveness of interventions. Contribuciones de las Revisiones Sistemáticas a las Decisiones de Manejo     

Reconciling multiple counterfactuals when evaluating biodiversity conservation impact in social-ecological systems

When evaluating the impact of a biodiversity conservation intervention, a counterfactual is typically needed. Counterfactuals are possible alternative system trajectories in the absence of an intervention. Comparing observed outcomes against the chosen counterfactual allows the impact (change attributable to the intervention) to be determined. Because counterfactuals by definition never occur, they must be estimated. Sometimes, there may be many plausible counterfactuals, including various drivers of biodiversity change and defined on a range of spatial or temporal scales. Here, we posit that, by definition, conservation interventions always take place in social-ecological systems (SES) (i.e., ecological systems integrated with human actors). Evaluating the impact of an intervention in an SES, therefore, means taking into account the counterfactuals assumed by different human actors. Use of different counterfactuals by different actors will give rise to perceived differences in the impacts of interventions, which may lead to disagreement about its success or the effectiveness of the underlying approach. Despite that there are biophysical biodiversity trends, it is often true that no single counterfactual is definitively the right one for conservation assessment, so multiple evaluations of intervention efficacy could be considered justifiable. Therefore, we propose calculating the sum of perceived differences, which captures the range of impact estimates associated with different actors in a given SES. The sum of perceived differences gives some indication of how closely actors in an SES agree on the impacts of an intervention. We applied the concept of perceived differences to a set of global, national, and regional case studies (e.g., global realization of Aichi Target 11 for marine protected areas, effect of biodiversity offsetting on vegetation condition in Australia, and influence of conservation measures on an endangered ungulate in Central Asia). We explored approaches for minimizing the sum, including a combination of negotiation and structured decision making, careful alignment of expectations on scope and measurement, and explicit recognition of any intractable differences between stakeholders.     

Use of surrogate species to cost-effectively prioritize conservation actions

Conservation efforts often focus on umbrella species whose distributions overlap with many other flora and fauna. However, because biodiversity is affected by different threats that are spatially variable, focusing only on the geographic range overlap of species may not be sufficient in allocating the necessary actions needed to efficiently abate threats. We developed a problem-based method for prioritizing conservation actions for umbrella species that maximizes the total number of flora and fauna benefiting from management while considering threats, actions, and costs. We tested our new method by assessing the performance of the Australian federal government's umbrella prioritization list, which identifies 73 umbrella species as priorities for conservation attention. Our results show that the federal government priority list benefits only 6% of all Australia's threatened terrestrial species. This could be increased to benefit nearly half (or 46%) of all threatened terrestrial species for the same budget of AU$550 million/year if more suitable umbrella species were chosen. This results in a 7-fold increase in management efficiency. We believe nations around the world can markedly improve the selection of prioritized umbrella species for conservation action with this transparent, quantitative, and objective prioritization approach.     

Resource users as land-sea links in coastal and marine socioecological systems

Coastal zones, which connect terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, are among the most resource-rich regions globally and home to nearly 40% of the global human population. Because human land-based activities can alter natural processes in ways that affect adjacent aquatic ecosystems, land-sea interactions are increasingly recognized as critical to coastal conservation planning and governance. However, the complex socioeconomic dynamics inherent in coastal and marine socioecological systems (SESs) have received little consideration. Drawing on knowledge generalized from long-term studies in Caribbean Nicaragua, we devised a conceptual framework that clarifies the multiple ways socioeconomically driven behavior can link the land and sea. In addition to other ecosystem effects, the framework illustrates how feedbacks resulting from changes to aquatic resources can influence terrestrial resource management decisions and land uses. We assessed the framework by applying it to empirical studies from a variety of coastal SESs. The results suggest its broad applicability and highlighted the paucity of research that explicitly investigates the effects of human behavior on coastal SES dynamics. We encourage researchers and policy makers to consider direct, indirect, and bidirectional cross-ecosystem links that move beyond traditionally recognized land-to-sea processes.     

A framework for allocating conservation resources among multiple threats and actions

Land managers decide how to allocate resources among multiple threats that can be addressed through multiple possible actions. Additionally, these actions vary in feasibility, effectiveness, and cost. We sought to provide a way to optimize resource allocation to address multiple threats when multiple management options are available, including mutually exclusive options. Formulating the decision as a combinatorial optimization problem, our framework takes as inputs the expected impact and cost of each threat for each action (including do nothing) and for each overall budget identifies the optimal action to take for each threat. We compared the optimal solution to an easy to calculate greedy algorithm approximation and a variety of plausible ranking schemes. We applied the framework to management of multiple introduced plant species in Australian alpine areas. We developed a model of invasion to predict the expected impact in 50 years for each species-action combination that accounted for each species’ current invasion state (absent, localized, widespread); arrival probability; spread rate; impact, if present, of each species; and management effectiveness of each species-action combination. We found that the recommended action for a threat changed with budget; there was no single optimal management action for each species; and considering more than one candidate action can substantially increase the management plan's overall efficiency. The approximate solution (solution ranked by marginal cost-effectiveness) performed well when the budget matched the cost of the prioritized actions, indicating that this approach would be effective if the budget was set as part of the prioritization process. The ranking schemes varied in performance, and achieving a close to optimal solution was not guaranteed. Global sensitivity analysis revealed a threat's expected impact and, to a lesser extent, management effectiveness were the most influential parameters, emphasizing the need to focus research and monitoring efforts on their quantification.     

When all life counts in conservation

Conservation science involves the collection and analysis of data. These scientific practices emerge from values that shape who and what is counted. Currently, conservation data are filtered through a value system that considers native life the only appropriate subject of conservation concern. We examined how trends in species richness, distribution, and threats change when all wildlife count by adding so-called non-native and feral populations to the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List and local species richness assessments. We focused on vertebrate populations with founding members taken into and out of Australia by humans (i.e., migrants). We identified 87 immigrant and 47 emigrant vertebrate species. Formal conservation accounts underestimated global ranges by an average of 30% for immigrants and 7% for emigrants; immigrations surpassed extinctions in Australia by 52 species; migrants were disproportionately threatened (33% of immigrants and 29% of emigrants were threatened or decreasing in their native ranges); and incorporating migrant populations into risk assessments reduced global threat statuses for 15 of 18 species. Australian policies defined most immigrants as pests (76%), and conservation was the most commonly stated motivation for targeting these species in killing programs (37% of immigrants). Inclusive biodiversity data open space for dialogue on the ethical and empirical assumptions underlying conservation science.