A practical conservation tool to combine diverse types of evidence for transparent evidence-based decision-making

Abstract

Making the reasoning and evidence behind conservation decisions clear and transparent is a key challenge for the conservation community. Similarly, combining evidence from diverse sources (e.g., scientific vs non-scientific information) into decision-making is also difficult. Our group of conservation researchers and practitioners has co-produced an intuitive tool and template (Evidence-to-Decision (E2D) tool: www.evidence2decisiontool.com) to guide practitioners through a structured process to transparently document and report the evidence and reasoning behind decisions. The tool has three major steps: 1. Define the Decision Context; 2. Gather Evidence; and 3. Make an Evidence-Based Decision. In each step, practitioners enter information (e.g., from the scientific literature, practitioner knowledge and experience, and costs) to inform their decision-making and document their reasoning. The tool packages this information into a customised downloadable report (or is documented if using the offline template), which we hope can stimulate the exchange of information on decisions within and between organisations. By enabling practitioners to revisit how and why past decisions were made, and integrate diverse forms of evidence, we believe our open-access tool’s template can help increase the transparency and quality of decision-making in conservation.

Determining the economic costs and benefits of conservation actions: A decision support framework

“…However, cost‐effectiveness is not the only factor that should influence conservation action. Outputs of economic analysis can be used to guide decision makers alongside considerations of equity, traditional and local knowledge, and the values placed on different components of biodiversity by stakeholder groups, which are important considerations in designing feasible conservation actions (Adams & Sandbrook, 2013; Christie et al, 2022). Aggregate costings or economic analyses can also mask important inequalities in the distribution of costs and benefits between stakeholders meaning the consequences of an intervention/program are not felt equally on the ground.…”

“…This can be beneficial as the nonmonetary valuation of environmental assets can be problematic and challenging to many stakeholders (Pannell et al, 2013). Similarly, the Evidence to Decision tool allows users to compare information on the effectiveness, costs, acceptability, feasibility, and values of different actions while not combining them into a single metric (Christie et al, 2022).…”

What is the Price of Conservation? A Review of the Status Quo and Recommendations for Improving Cost Reporting

“…This could be combined with training on the use of specific software packages or tools that can help organizations report and assess cost-effectiveness and guidance materials on how to make evidence-based cost-effective decisions. For example, Christie and colleagues ( 2021b ) provided a tool to aid decision-making about conservation actions, with costs and cost-effectiveness being an important step in their process that helps practitioners think through the likely biodiversity outcomes (i.e., effectiveness), financial costs (including cost effectiveness), acceptability and feasibility of different actions.…”

A mixed methodology for evaluating use of evidence in conservation planning

“…Scholars and practitioners have generated a range of planning and decision support tools and frameworks to improve processes for evidence use, including systematic conservation planning (McIntosh et al, 2018), expert assessments (e.g., Dicks et al, 2016; Martin et al., 2012), decision triggers (Addison et al, 2016), and impact evaluation (McKinnon et al, 2015). Open‐source resources such as the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Synthesis Assessment Tool (Woodcock et al., 2014) and the Conservation Evidence Database (Sutherland et al., 2019) and the Evidence‐to‐Decision tool (Christie et al., 2022) can help practitioners use evidence effectively.…”