Using conservation evidence to guide management
Segan, D. B., Bottrill, M. C., Baxter, P. W. J., & Possingham, H. P. (2011) Using conservation evidence to guide management. Conservation Biology, 25(1), pp. 200-202.
Almost 10 years ago, Pullin and Knight (2001) called for an “effectiveness revolution in conservation” to be enabled by the systematic evaluation of evidence for conservation decision making. Drawing from the model used in clinicalmedicine, they outlined the concept of “evidencebased conservation” in which existing information, or evidence, from relevant and rigorous research is compiled and analyzed in a systematic manner to inform conservation actions (Cochrane 1972). The promise of evidencebased conservation has generated significant interest; 25 systematic reviews have been completed since 2004 and dozens are underway (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence 2010). However we argue that an “effectiveness revolution” (Pullin & Knight 2001) in conservation will not be possible unless mechanisms are devised for incorporating the growing evidence base into decision frameworks.
For conservation professionals to accomplish the missions of their organizations they must demonstrate that their actions actually achieve objectives (Pullin & Knight 2009). Systematic evaluation provides a framework for objectively evaluating the effectiveness of actions. To leverage the benefit of these evaluations, we need resource-allocation systems that are responsive to their outcomes. The allocation of conservation resources is often the product of institutional priorities or reliance on intuition (Sutherland et al. 2004; Pullin & Knight 2005; Cook et al. 2010). We highlight the NICE technologyappraisal process because it provides an example of formal integration of systematic-evidence evaluation with provision of guidance for action. The transparent process, which clearly delineates costs and benefits of each alternative action, could also provide the public with new insight into the environmental effects of different decisions. This insight could stimulate a wider discussion about investment in conservation by demonstrating how changes in funding might affect the probability of achieving conservation objectives. ©2010 Society for Conservation Biology
Impact and interest:
Citation counts are sourced monthly from and citation databases.
These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.
Citations counts from theindexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.
|Item Type:||Journal Article|
|Keywords:||conservation management, conservation planning, guideline, article, economics, environmental protection, human, methodology, organization, Conservation of Natural Resources, Decision Making, Organizational, Humans|
|Divisions:||Current > Schools > School of Earth, Environmental & Biological Sciences
Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Science & Engineering Faculty
|Copyright Owner:||Society for Conservation Biology|
|Deposited On:||10 Mar 2015 07:04|
|Last Modified:||16 Mar 2015 05:17|
Repository Staff Only: item control page