Conservation practitioners' perspectives on decision triggers for evidence‐based management

Addison, Prue; Cook, Carly N.; Bie, Kelly de

doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12734

Cited by 48 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, some barriers are beyond the control of both groups, such as insufficient resources to make changes to existing management practices (Figure 4a). This is not surprising, given the widely acknowledged shortfall in funding for conservation management (Waldron et al., 2013) is frequently cited as a barrier to implementing more effective management (Addison, Cook, & Bie, 2016; Leverington, Costa, Pavese, Lisle, & Hockings, 2010). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The concern that conservation management is being given lower priority by politicians (Addison, Flander, & Cook, 2017; Addison et al., 2016) and the general community (McCallum & Bury, 2013) seems to be translating to more prominence for tourism and economic objectives for natural areas, particularly within protected areas (Balmford et al., 2009; Eagles, 2002). Managers reported that the ability to achieve best practice in management is being impeded by this lack of support, an idea that scientists appear to corroborate (Figure 4a).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding managers’ and scientists’ perspectives on opportunities to achieve more evolutionarily enlightened management in conservation

Cook

Sgrò

2018

Evolutionary Applications

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite wide acceptance that conservation could benefit from greater attention to principles and processes from evolutionary biology, little attention has been given to quantifying the degree to which relevant evolutionary concepts are being integrated into management practices. There has also been increasing discussion of the potential reasons for a lack of evolutionarily enlightened management, but no attempts to understand the challenges from the perspective of those making management decisions. In this study, we asked conservation managers and scientists for their views on the importance of a range of key evolutionary concepts, the degree to which these concepts are being integrated into management, and what would need to change to support better integration into management practices. We found that while managers recognize the importance of a wide range of evolutionary concepts for conservation outcomes, they acknowledge these concepts are rarely incorporated into management. Managers and scientists were in strong agreement about the range of barriers that need to be overcome, with a lack of knowledge reported as the most important barrier to better integration of evolutionary biology into conservation decision‐making. Although managers tended to be more focused on the need for more training in evolutionary biology, scientists reported greater engagement between managers and evolutionary biologists as most important to achieve the necessary change. Nevertheless, the challenges appear to be multifaceted, and several are outside the control of managers, suggesting solutions will need to be multidimensional.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding managers’ and scientists’ perspectives on opportunities to achieve more evolutionarily enlightened management in conservation

Cook

Sgrò

2018

Evolutionary Applications

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A reliance on forms of evidence such as anecdotes occurs as a result of barriers to the uptake of evidence, including lack of access to scientific literature, lack of practice-relevant conservation science, time constraints, or perhaps even evidence complacency (Addison et al 2015;Walsh 2015;Sutherland and Wordley 2017). To improve the use of evidence in practice, conservation scientists have suggested that decision support tools could be better designed and utilised to deliver evidence in a useable form (Cook et al 2016;Dicks et al 2014). Indeed, conservation practitioners responsible for management and policy decisions are also calling out for user-friendly decision support tools to help incorporate evidence into decision-making (Addison et al 2017;Addison et al 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To improve the use of evidence in practice, conservation scientists have suggested that decision support tools could be better designed and utilised to deliver evidence in a useable form (Cook et al 2016;Dicks et al 2014). Indeed, conservation practitioners responsible for management and policy decisions are also calling out for user-friendly decision support tools to help incorporate evidence into decision-making (Addison et al 2017;Addison et al 2016). These systems are designed to lead users through various decision steps towards an evidence-informed final decision, usually through a software-, app-or web-based application.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Academics and the wider conservation community are now increasingly designing such systems for practitioners (Cook et al 2016;Laniak et al 2013). Examples include the Conservation Evidence platform (University of Cambridge), web-based systems such as AquaMaps and online portals such as the one provided by the European Biodiversity Observation Network, as well as several software systems described in the academic literature (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Decision support tools in conservation: a workshop to improve user-centred design

Rose

Addison²,

Ausden³

et al. 2017

RIO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A workshop held at the University of Cambridge in May 2017 brought developers, researchers, knowledge brokers, and users together to discuss user-centred design of decision support tools. Decision support tools are designed to take users through logical decision steps towards an evidence-informed final decision. Although they may exist in different forms, including on paper, decision support tools are generally considered to be computer-(online, software) or app-based. Studies have illustrated the potential value of decision support tools for conservation, and there are several papers describing the design of individual tools. Rather less attention, however, has been placed on the desirable characteristics for use, and even less on whether tools are actually being used in practice. This is concerning because if policy-maker or practitioner, then its design will have wasted resources. Based on an analysis of papers on tool use in conservation, there is a lack of social science research on improving design, and relatively few examples where users have been incorporated into the design process. Evidence from other disciplines, particularly human-computer interaction research, illustrates that involving users throughout the design of decision support tools increases the relevance, usability, and impact of systems. User-centred design of tools is, however, seldom mentioned in the conservation literature. The workshop started the necessary process of bringing together developers and users to share knowledge about how to conduct good user-centred design of decision support tools. This will help to ensure that tools are usable and make an impact in conservation policy and practice.

show abstract

What state of the world are we in? Targeted monitoring to detect transitions in vegetation restoration projects

Jones

Thomas

Michael

et al. 2022

Ecological Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Monitoring vegetation restoration is challenging because monitoring is costly, requires long‐term funding, and involves monitoring multiple vegetation variables that are often not linked back to learning about progress toward objectives. There is a clear need for the development of targeted monitoring programs that focus on a reduced set of variables that are tied to specific restoration objectives. In this paper, we present a method to progress the development of a targeted monitoring program, using a pre‐existing state‐and‐transition model. We (1) use field data to validate an expert‐derived classification of woodland vegetation states; (2) use these data to identify which variable(s) help differentiate woodland states; and (3) identify the target threshold (for the variable) that signifies if the desired transition has been achieved. The measured vegetation variables from each site in this study were good predictors of the different states. We show that by measuring only a few of these variables, it is possible to assign the vegetation state for a collection of sites, and monitor if and when a transition to another state has occurred. For this ecosystem and state‐and‐transition models, out of nine vegetation variables considered, the density of immature trees and percentage of exotic understory vegetation cover were the variables most frequently specified as effective to define a threshold or transition. We synthesize findings by presenting a decision tree that provides practical guidance for the development of targeted monitoring strategies for woodland vegetation.

show abstract

Conservation practitioners' perspectives on decision triggers for evidence‐based management

Cited by 48 publications

References 17 publications

Understanding managers’ and scientists’ perspectives on opportunities to achieve more evolutionarily enlightened management in conservation

Understanding managers’ and scientists’ perspectives on opportunities to achieve more evolutionarily enlightened management in conservation

Decision support tools in conservation: a workshop to improve user-centred design

What state of the world are we in? Targeted monitoring to detect transitions in vegetation restoration projects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About