A framework for evaluating the implications of assumptions in broad conservation strategies

Abstract

Assumptions about how conservation practices will affect ecological outcomes are critical for informing and learning from conservation actions. However, when assumptions do not reflect conditions to which they are applied, they can impede achievement of targeted outcomes and hinder capacity to contribute to conservation goals. We assert that identifying and examining technical assumptions, or those that relate to abiotic or biotic systems, in conservation practice retrospectively for broad conservation strategies is crucial for advancing learning in conservation. Unlike existing proactive assumption frameworks, retroactive examination, which is often realistic for broad scale conservation, allows for honest evaluation of the contributions of those strategies toward shared goals.We propose the state, identify, focus, and think (SIFT) framework, a four-step process, to guide examination of technical assumptions by defining how assumptions interact with biological circumstances to shape outcomes. We demonstrate use of the SIFT framework with a common technical assumption in US federal private lands conservation programs-that all acres are similarly valuable for achieving wildlife conservation benefits. With the SIFT framework, we show that the benefits of these programs are likely to be applicable to mobile, generalist species with small space requirements, while many species of conservation concern are less likely to benefit.

Assessing diverse evidence to improve conservation decision‐making

“…We believe that the BEAM provides an intuitive process that can help decision-makers identify and critically examine the assumptions they are making in conservation projects, as well as the important attributes of evidence to consider (e.g., information reliability, source reliability, and relevance). Explicitly defining key assumptions of conservation projects, critically evaluating the strength of support and weight of the available evidence, and our confidence in an assumption's validity, would be a crucial step forward toward ensuring more effective, efficient, and equitable conservation (Specht et al, 2022;Sutherland et al, 2022;White et al, 2022). This is because the more confidence we have in the validity of assumptions underpinning conservation projects, the more confident we can be that conservation projects will succeed at achieving their goals.…”

“…Defining the assumption to be assessed is a crucial part of the process and needs to be carefully considered. We recommend following the guidance provided by the Conservation Measures Partnership's Conservation Standards 4.0 in formulating core assumptions underpinning a project (CMP, 2020) or the SIFT framework (Specht et al, 2022). These assumptions may be best expressed within useful planning tools such as a Theory of Change for action‐related assumptions and a Situation Analysis for threat or status‐related assumptions (these can be presented in text form or a diagram such as a Results Chain, which visualizes a Theory of Change; CMP, 2020).…”

“…Whilst structured Decision Support Frameworks and tools exist to assess evidence and make decisions (e.g., structured decision‐making, argument maps, and evidence‐to‐decision tool; Schwartz et al, 2018), there is often insufficient guidance that addresses the quality and relevance of evidence and how to weigh evidence that can be messy, conflicting, and/or uncertain (Christie, Downey, et al, 2022). We also believe that a particular focus on using assumption‐based thinking could be integrated into, and improve, existing decision support frameworks and tools (Salafsky et al, 2022; Specht et al, 2022), particularly by linking to the Conservation Standards through tools such as situation analyses and theories of change (Box 1). The Conservation Standards is a framework to help support conservation decision‐making, consisting of a cycle of five steps (Assess, Plan, Implement, Analyze, and Adapt, Share).…”

What makes a bank a bank? Differences and commonalities in credit calculation, application, and risks in mitigation banks targeting freshwater systems

“…Reid et al, 2015). To slow current negative impacts and prevent future losses, conservation policies have become part of legislation in many countries (Droste et al, 2022;McKenney & Kiesecker, 2009;Specht et al, 2022). Part of this legislation is the establishment of the mitigation hierarchy.…”

Assessing diverse evidence to improve conservation decision-making

“…Whilst structured Decision Support Frameworks and tools exist to assess evidence and make decisions (e.g., structured decision-making, argument maps, and evidence-to-decision tool; Schwartz et al, 2018), there is often insufficient guidance that addresses the quality and relevance of evidence and how to weigh evidence that can be messy, conflicting, and/or uncertain (Christie, Downey, et al, 2022). We also believe that a particular focus on using assumption-based thinking could be integrated into, and improve, existing decision support frameworks and tools (Salafsky et al, 2022;Specht et al, 2022), particularly by linking to the Conservation Standards through tools such as situation analyses and theories of change (Box 1). The Conservation Standards is a framework to help support conservation decisionmaking, consisting of a cycle of five steps (Assess, Plan, Implement, Analyze, and Adapt, Share).…”