Using conservation evidence to guide management

Segan, Daniel B., Bottrill, Madeleine C., Baxter, Peter W. J. and Possingham, Hugh P. (2011) Using conservation evidence to guide management. Conservation Biology, 25 1: 200-202. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01582.x

Author Segan, Daniel B.
Bottrill, Madeleine C.
Baxter, Peter W. J.
Possingham, Hugh P.
Title Using conservation evidence to guide management
Journal name Conservation Biology   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0888-8892
Publication date 2011-02
Year available 2010
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01582.x
Volume 25
Issue 1
Start page 200
End page 202
Total pages 3
Editor Erica Fleishman
Place of publication Malden, MA, U.S.A.
Publisher Blackwell
Collection year 2011
Language eng
Formatted abstract
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
Keyword Conservation management
Conservation planning
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Institutional Status UQ
Additional Notes Article first published online: 1 OCT 2010. Published under "Diversity".

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: School of Mathematics and Physics
Official 2011 Collection
School of Biological Sciences Publications
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 18 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 28 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Tue, 01 Mar 2011, 16:07:50 EST by Kay Mackie on behalf of School of Biological Sciences