4.6 Article

A mixed methodology for evaluating use of evidence in conservation planning

Journal

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY
Volume 36, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13876

Keywords

document analysis; ecosystem management; evidence-based conservation; knowledge synthesis; monitoring and evaluation; North America; science-practice divide; traditional ecological knowledge

Funding

  1. Nature Conservancy of Canada

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Researchers have developed a mixed methodology to evaluate the effectiveness of evidence use in conservation planning. They applied this approach in a case study of the Nature Conservancy of Canada and found that evidence use was lacking, particularly in claims associated with direct threats. Survey participants highlighted a reliance on practitioner experience and identified capacity limitations and disciplinary gaps as barriers to effective evidence use.
Conservation practitioners widely recognize the importance of making decisions based on the best available evidence. However, the effectiveness of evidence use in conservation planning is rarely assessed, which limits opportunities to improve evidence-based practice. We devised a mixed methodology for empirically evaluating use of evidence that applies social science tools to systematically appraise what kinds of evidence are used in conservation planning, to what effect, and under what limitations. We applied our approach in a case study of the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC), a leading land conservation organization. We conducted qualitative and quantitative analyses of 65 NCC planning documents (n = 13 in-depth) to identify patterns in evidence use, and surveyed 35 conservation planners to examine experiences of and barriers to using evidence. Although claims in plans contained a wide range of evidence types, 26% of claims were not referenced or associated with an identifiable source. Lack of evidence use was particularly apparent in claims associated with direct threats, particularly those identified as low (71% coded as insufficient or lacking evidence) or medium (45%) threats. Survey participants described relying heavily on practitioner experience and highlighted capacity limitations and disciplinary gaps in expertise among planning teams as barriers to using evidence effectively. We found that although time-intensive, this approach yielded actionable recommendations for improving evidence use in NCC conservation plans. Similar mixed-method assessments may streamline the process by including interviews and refining the document analysis frames to target issues or sections of concern. We suggest our method provides an accessible and robust point of departure for conservation practitioners to evaluate whether the use of conservation planning reflects in-house standards and more broadly recognized best practices.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available