Environmental evidence in action: on the science and practice of evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision-making.

In civil society we expect that policy and management decisions will be made using the best available evidence. Yet, it is widely known that there are many barriers that limit the extent to which that occurs. One way to overcome these barriers is via robust, comprehensive, transparent and repeatable evidence syntheses (such as systematic reviews) that attempt to minimize various forms of bias to present a summary of existing knowledge for decision-making purposes. Relative to other disciplines (e.g., health care, education), such evidence-based decision-making remains relatively nascent for environment management despite major threats to humanity, such as the climate, pollution and biodiversity crises demonstrating that human well-being is inextricably linked to the biophysical environment. Fortunately, there are a growing number of environmental evidence syntheses being produced that can be used by decision makers. It is therefore an opportune time to reflect on the science and practice of evidence-based decision-making in environment management to understand the extent to which evidence syntheses are embraced and applied in practice. Here we outline a number of key questions related to the use of environmental evidence that need to be explored in an effort to enhance evidence-based decision-making. There is an urgent need for research involving methods from social science, behavioural sciences, and public policy to understand the basis for patterns and trends in environmental evidence use (or misuse or ignorance). There is also a need for those who commission and produce evidence syntheses, as well as the end users of these syntheses to reflect on their experiences and share them with the broader evidence-based practice community to identify needs and opportunities for advancing the entire process of evidence-based practice. It is our hope that the ideas shared here will serve as a roadmap for additional scholarship that will collectively enhance evidence-based decision-making and ultimately benefit the environment and humanity.

How expert insight into alpine peatland conservation complements global scientific evidence.

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

Cómo los conocimientos de expertos sobre la conservación de las turberas alpinas complementan la evidencia científica mundial Resumen Los expertos pueden proporcionar información valiosa para llenar los vacíos de conocimiento en las investigaciones publicadas sobre la eficacia del manejo, en particular para los ecosistemas amenazados, para los cuales a menudo hay evidencia limitada y la necesidad de intervenciones inmediatas para garantizar su persistencia. Uno de esos ecosistemas, las turberas alpinas, está amenazado por el cambio climático y otras presiones, proporciona servicios ecosistémicos vitales y sustenta una biodiversidad única. En un taller, recopilamos y sintetizamos en un formato accesible, información de expertos sobre las intervenciones utilizadas, el contexto de la amenaza y la eficacia de la intervención para las turberas alpinas australianas, y utilizamos este conocimiento para evaluar la relevancia local de la literatura mundial para este ecosistema amenazado. Los expertos identificaron 15 intervenciones utilizadas para conservar las turberas australianas, la mayoría de las cuales mejoraron o restauraron la condición de las turberas y abordaron eficazmente diversas amenazas. Las perspectivas de los expertos y los estudios globales se alinearon fuertemente, lo que sugiere que la investigación sobre el manejo de las turberas puede ser ampliamente relevante en otros contextos, a pesar de características distintivas de los sistemas australianos. Nuestro método de de obtención de conocimiento de expertos basado en talleres proporcionó información sobre las prácticas de manejo actuales que no están disponibles en la literatura.

Lessons from other disciplines for setting management thresholds for biodiversity conservation.

Successful, state-dependent management, in which the goal of management is to maintain a system in a desired state, involves defining the boundaries between different states. Once these boundaries have been defined, managers require a strategic action plan with thresholds that initiate management interventions to either maintain or return the system to a desired state. This approach to management is widely used across diverse industries from agriculture, to medicine, to information technology, but it has only been adopted in conservation management relatively recently. Conservation practitioners have expressed a willingness to integrate this structured approach in their management systems, but they have also voiced concerns, including lack of a robust process for doing so. Given the widespread use of state-dependent management in other fields, we conducted an extensive review of the literature on threshold-based management to gain insight into how and where it is applied and identify potential lessons for conservation management. We identified 22 industries using 75 different methods for setting management thresholds in 843 studies. Methods spanned six broad approaches, including expert driven, statistical, predictive, optimization, experimental, and artificial intelligence methods. The objectives of each of these studies influenced the approaches used, including the methods for setting thresholds and selecting actions, and the number of thresholds set. The role of value judgments in setting thresholds was clear; studies across all industries frequently involved experts in setting thresholds, often accompanied by computational tools to simulate the consequences of proposed thresholds under different conditions. Of the 30 conservation studies examined, two-thirds used expert-driven methods, consistent with prior evidence that experience-based information often drives conservation management decisions. The methods we identified from other disciplines could help conservation decision makers set thresholds for management interventions in different contexts, linking monitoring to management actions and ensuring that conservation interventions are timely and effective.

Lecciones de Otras Disciplinas para Establecer Umbrales de Gestión para la Conservación de la Biodiversidad Resumen Una gestión exitosa dependiente del estado, en la que el objetivo del manejo es mantener un sistema en un estado deseado, involucra la definición de los límites entre estados diferentes. Una vez que se definen estos límites, los gestores requieren un plan de acción estratégico con umbrales que inicien las intervenciones de gestión, ya sea para mantener o regresar al sistema a un estado deseado. Este enfoque de la gestión se usa extensamente en diversas industrias, desde la agricultura y la medicina hasta la tecnología de la información, pero sólo ha sido adoptada recientemente dentro de la gestión de la conservación. Quienes practican la conservación han expresado el deseo de integrar este enfoque estructurado a sus sistemas de gestión, pero también han expresado sus preocupaciones al respecto, como la falta de procesos sólidos para lograr esta integración. Debido al uso extenso de la gestión dependiente del estado en otras áreas, realizamos una revisión detallada de la literatura sobre la gestión basada en umbrales para obtener información sobre cómo y dónde se aplica y para identificar los aprendizajes potenciales para la gestión de la conservación. Identificamos 22 industrias que usan 75 métodos diferentes para establecer los umbrales de gestión en 843 estudios. Los métodos abarcaron seis enfoques generales: el impulsado por expertos, el estadístico, el predictivo, el de optimización, el experimental y el artificial. Los objetivos de cada uno de estos estudios influyeron sobre los enfoques utilizados, incluidos los métodos para establecer los umbrales y seleccionar las acciones, así como el número de umbrales establecidos. Fue evidente el papel que jugaron los juicios de valor en el establecimiento de los umbrales; estudios de todas las industrias involucraron con frecuencia a expertos en el establecimiento de los umbrales, con frecuencia acompañados de herramientas computacionales para simular las consecuencias de los umbrales propuestos bajo diferentes condiciones. De los 30 estudios de conservación analizados, dos tercios usaron métodos impulsados por expertos, acorde con la evidencia previa de que la información basada en la experiencia orienta con frecuencia las decisiones de gestión de la conservación. Los métodos que identificamos a partir de otras disciplinas podrían ayudar a los órganos decisorios de la conservación a establecer umbrales para las intervenciones de gestión en diferentes contextos, vinculando las acciones de gestión con las de monitoreo y asegurándose de que las intervenciones de conservación sean oportunas y efectivas. Lecciones de Otras Disciplinas para Establecer Umbrales de Gestión para la Conservación de la Biodiversidad.

Relationships between Pacific salmon and aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems: implications for ecosystem-based management.

Pacific salmon influence temperate terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems through the dispersal of marine-derived nutrients and ecosystem engineering of stream beds when spawning. They also support large fisheries, particularly along the west coast of North America. We provide a comprehensive synthesis of relationships between the densities of Pacific salmon and terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, summarize the direction, shape, and magnitude of these relationships, and identify possible ecosystem-based management indicators and benchmarks. We found 31 studies that provided 172 relationships between salmon density (or salmon abundance) and species abundance, species diversity, food provisioning, individual growth, concentration of marine-derived isotopes, nutrient enhancement, phenology, and several other ecological responses. The most common published relationship was between salmon density and marine-derived isotopes (40%), whereas very few relationships quantified ecosystem-level responses (5%). Only 13% of all relationships tended to reach an asymptote (i.e., a saturating response) as salmon densities increased. The number of salmon killed by bears and the change in biomass of different stream invertebrate taxa between spawning and nonspawning seasons were relationships that usually reached saturation. Approximately 46% of all relationships were best described with linear or curved nonasymptotic models, indicating a lack of saturation. In contrast, 41% of data sets showed no relationship with salmon density or abundance, including many of the relationships with stream invertebrate and biofilm biomass density, marine-derived isotope concentrations, or vegetation density. Bears required the highest densities of salmon to reach their maximum observed food consumption (i.e., 9.2 kg/m2 to reach the 90% threshold of the relationship's asymptote), followed by freshwater fish abundance (90% threshold = 7.3 kg/m2 of salmon). Although the effects of salmon density on ecosystems are highly varied, it appears that several of these relationships, such as bear food consumption, could be used to develop indicators and benchmarks for ecosystem-based fisheries management.

A typology of barriers and enablers of scientific evidence use in conservation practice.

Over the last decade, there has been an increased focus (and pressure) in conservation practice globally towards evidence-based or evidence-informed decision making. Despite calls for increased use of scientific evidence, it often remains aspirational for many conservation organizations. Contributing to this is the lack of guidance on how to identify and classify the array of complex reasons limiting research use. In this study, we collated a comprehensive inventory of 230 factors that facilitate or limit the use of scientific evidence in conservation management decisions, through interviews with conservation practitioners in South Africa and UK and a review of the healthcare literature. We used the inventory, combined with concepts from knowledge exchange and research use theories, to construct a taxonomy that categorizes the barriers and enablers. We compared the similarities and differences between the taxonomies from the conservation and the healthcare fields, and highlighted the common barriers and enablers found within conservation organizations in the United Kingdom and South Africa. The most commonly mentioned barriers limiting the use of scientific evidence in our case studies were associated with the day-to-day decision-making processes of practitioners, and the organizational structures, management processes and resource constraints of conservation organizations. The key characteristics that facilitated the use of science in conservation decisions were associated with an organization's structure, decision-making processes and culture, along with practitioners' attitudes and the relationships between scientists and practitioners. This taxonomy and inventory of barriers and enablers can help researchers, practitioners and other conservation actors to identify aspects within their organizations and cross-institutional networks that limit research use - acting as a guide on how to strengthen the science-practice interface.

Working constructively toward an improved North American approach to wildlife management.

Mawdsley et al. (2018) respond disapprovingly to our 2018 review of 667 wildlife management systems across Canada and the United States, which found that many of these systems lacked the scientific hallmarks of clear objectives, evidence, transparency, and independent review. Although we strongly agree with several of Mawdsley et al.'s points about the role of science in management, their response suggests confusion about three elements of our approach that we clarify herein: (i) the selection of hallmarks, (ii) the role of science in wildlife management, and (iii) our engagement with wildlife agencies. We contend that both critics and defenders of the current approach to wildlife management in Canada and the United States similarly desire rigorous management that achieves social and ecological benefits. Our original study-which used a clear approach to define hallmarks of science-based management, employed a reasonable set of indicator criteria to test for them, and was based on data available to the general public on whose behalf management is conducted-found evidence that the current approach falls short. However, it also provided a framework for addressing shortcomings moving forward. We suggest that advancing discussion on the operational role of science in management, including clarifying what "science-based management" actually means, could curtail practitioners and critics of the status quo talking over each other's heads and encourage all parties to work constructively to improve the governance of wildlife at a continental scale.

Standardized reporting of the costs of management interventions for biodiversity conservation.

Effective conservation management interventions must combat threats and deliver benefits at costs that can be achieved within limited budgets. Considerable effort has focused on measuring the potential benefits of conservation interventions, but explicit quantification of the financial costs of implementation is rare. Even when costs have been quantified, haphazard and inconsistent reporting means published values are difficult to interpret. This reporting deficiency hinders progress toward a collective understanding of the financial costs of management interventions across projects and thus limits the ability to identify efficient solutions to conservation problems or attract adequate funding. We devised a standardized approach to describing financial costs reported for conservation interventions. The standards call for researchers and practitioners to describe the objective and outcome, context and methods, and scale of costed interventions, and to state which categories of costs are included and the currency and date for reported costs. These standards aim to provide enough contextual information that readers and future users can interpret the cost data appropriately. We suggest these standards be adopted by major conservation organizations, conservation science institutions, and journals so that cost reporting is comparable among studies. This would support shared learning and enhance the ability to identify and perform cost-effective conservation.

Hallmarks of science missing from North American wildlife management.

Resource management agencies commonly defend controversial policy by claiming adherence to science-based approaches. For example, proponents and practitioners of the "North American Model of Wildlife Conservation," which guides hunting policy across much of the United States and Canada, assert that science plays a central role in shaping policy. However, what that means is rarely defined. We propose a framework that identifies four fundamental hallmarks of science relevant to natural resource management (measurable objectives, evidence, transparency, and independent review) and test for their presence in hunt management plans created by 62 U.S. state and Canadian provincial and territorial agencies across 667 management systems (species-jurisdictions). We found that most (60%) systems contained fewer than half of the indicator criteria assessed, with more criteria detected in systems that were peer-reviewed, that pertained to "big game," and in jurisdictions at increasing latitudes. These results raise doubt about the purported scientific basis of hunt management across the United States and Canada. Our framework provides guidance for adopting a science-based approach to safeguard not only wildlife but also agencies from potential social, legal, and political conflict.

Scientific Evidence and Potential Barriers in the Management of Brazilian Protected Areas.

Protected areas are a crucial tool for halting the loss of biodiversity. Yet, the management of protected areas is under resourced, impacting the ability to achieve effective conservation actions. Effective management depends on the application of the best available knowledge, which can include both scientific evidence and the local knowledge of onsite managers. Despite the clear value of evidence-based conservation, there is still little known about how much scientific evidence is used to guide the management of protected areas. This knowledge gap is especially evident in developing countries, where resource limitations and language barriers may create additional challenges for the use of scientific evidence in management. To assess the extent to which scientific evidence is used to inform management decisions in a developing country, we surveyed Brazilian protected area managers about the information they use to support their management decisions. We targeted on-ground managers who are responsible for management decisions made at the local protected area level. We asked managers about the sources of evidence they use, how frequently they assess the different sources of evidence and the scientific content of the different sources of evidence. We also considered a range of factors that might explain the use of scientific evidence to guide the management of protected areas, such as the language spoken by managers, the accessibility of evidence sources and the characteristics of the managers and the protected areas they manage. The managers who responded to our questionnaire reported that they most frequently made decisions based on their personal experience, with scientific evidence being used relatively infrequently. While managers in our study tended to value scientific evidence less highly than other sources, most managers still considered science important for management decisions. Managers reported that the accessibility of scientific evidence is low relative to other types of evidence, with key barriers being the low levels of open access research and insufficient technical training to enable managers to interpret research findings. Based on our results, we suggest that managers in developing countries face all the same challenges as those in developed countries, along with additional language barriers that can prevent greater use of scientific evidence to support effective management of protected areas in Brazil.

An evidence assessment tool for ecosystem services and conservation studies.

Reliability of scientific findings is important, especially if they directly impact decision making, such as in environmental management. In the 1990s, assessments of reliability in the medical field resulted in the development of evidence-based practice. Ten years later, evidence-based practice was translated into conservation, but so far no guidelines exist on how to assess the evidence of individual studies. Assessing the evidence of individual studies is essential to appropriately identify and synthesize the confidence in research findings. We develop a tool to assess the strength of evidence of ecosystem services and conservation studies. This tool consists of (1) a hierarchy of evidence, based on the experimental design of studies and (2) a critical-appraisal checklist that identifies the quality of research implementation. The application is illustrated with 13 examples and we suggest further steps to move towards more evidence-based environmental management.

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.

Organising evidence for environmental management decisions: a '4S' hierarchy.

Making decisions informed by the best-available science is an objective for many organisations managing the environment or natural resources. Yet, available science is still not widely used in environmental policy and practice. We describe a '4S' hierarchy for organising relevant science to inform decisions. This hierarchy has already revolutionised clinical practice. It is beginning to emerge for environmental management, although all four levels need substantial development before environmental decision-makers can reliably and efficiently find the evidence they need. We expose common bypass routes that currently lead to poor or biased representation of scientific knowledge. We argue that the least developed level of the hierarchy is that closest to decision-makers, placing synthesised scientific knowledge into environmental decision support systems.