Applying a values‐based decision process to facilitate comanagement of threatened species in Aotearoa New Zealand

Hamilton, Thalassa McMurdo; Canessa, Stefano; Clark, Katie; Gleeson, Pani; Mackenzie, Fiona; Makan, Troy; Kani, Gena Moses-Te; Oliver, Shona; Parker, Kevin A.; Ewen, John G.

doi:10.1111/cobi.13651

Cited by 24 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The E2D tool (Figure 1) draws upon the aspects of the E2D framework described in clinical medicine (Alonso‐Coello et al, 2016), as well as the Conservation Standards (CMP, 2020) and structured decision‐making (Gregory, Long, et al, 2012; McMurdo Hamilton et al, 2021) frameworks from conservation. The tool guides users through three major steps to transparently document the evidence and reasoning used to make their decision (1.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Christie

Downey

Frick

et al. 2021

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Christie

Downey

Frick

et al. 2021

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Evidence-to-Decision tool (Fig. 1) draws upon the aspects of the Evidence-to-Decision framework described in clinical medicine (Alonso-Coello et al, 2016), as well as the Conservation Standards (CMP, 2020) and structured decision-making (Gregory et al, 2012b;Hamilton et al, 2020) frameworks from conservation. The tool guides users through three major steps to ultimately arrive at an evidencebased decision (Fig.…”

Section: Overview Of Tool and Intended Usersmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Christie¹,

Downey²,

Frick³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…A proactive conservation perspective is key, as dynamic natural and anthropogenic processes are equally important to include in research and management plans in order to reach effective conservation interventions (Pressey et al 2007). Conservation efforts need to consider the people coexisting with animals not only as an afterthought, but actively listen and integrate their opinions in each step of the management and policy development and implementation (Cassidy & Salerno 2020;McMurdo Hamilton et al 2020) and gradually towards a more active, transformative and empowering participation (Cornwall 2008). Research needs to link ecological and human dimensions (Teixeira et al 2020), include perspectives of people coexisting with species (McMurdo Hamilton et al 2020) and involve transdisciplinary and science-policy-management collaborations (König et al 2020).…”

Section: Recommendations To Increase Holistic Approaches and Inclusivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conservation efforts need to consider the people coexisting with animals not only as an afterthought, but actively listen and integrate their opinions in each step of the management and policy development and implementation (Cassidy & Salerno 2020;McMurdo Hamilton et al 2020) and gradually towards a more active, transformative and empowering participation (Cornwall 2008). Research needs to link ecological and human dimensions (Teixeira et al 2020), include perspectives of people coexisting with species (McMurdo Hamilton et al 2020) and involve transdisciplinary and science-policy-management collaborations (König et al 2020). This includes taking the complexity of human wildlife coexistence beyond tangible costs and benefits (König et al 2020) and acknowledging and addressing the inequality in the distribution of costs and benefits of coexisting with wildlife; these aspects need to be at the center of management and policy plans and implementation (Jordan et al 2020).…”

Section: Recommendations To Increase Holistic Approaches and Inclusivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Joining forces toward proactive elephant and rhinoceros conservation

Vogel

Pasgaard

Svenning

2021

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Proactive approaches aimed to anticipate the long-term effects of current and future conservation threats could increase the effectiveness and efficiency of nature conservation interventions. However, these processes can be obstructed by a lack of knowledge on habitat requirements for wildlife. In order to aggregate and assess the suitability of current information available on habitat requirements for proactive conservation, we used a research weaving approach, and conducted a systematic literature review on peer reviewed literature on elephant and rhino habitat requirements. We synthesized data by combining a vote counting assessment with bibliometric and term maps, and contextualized this with a narrative review. We mapped out the current methodologies, results, terminology and collaborations of 693 studies. Our results indicated that the gathering of habitat suitability knowledge and the ability for proactive conservation interventions to succeed will further increase by embracing two types of inclusiveness. First, since habitat requirements can be This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.3 classified as both ecological and anthropogenic, we call for the integration of these two dimensions into holistic habitat suitability and carrying capacity estimates, when planning conservation interventions like habitat restoration and (re-) introductions. Secondly, the active creation of collaborations within and across networks of researchers focusing on different species, as well as across regional and continental borders, and science-policy realms is necessary to avoid a waste of limited resources. These arguments are supported by previous research findings; yet, our literature case-study regarding elephant and rhino habitat requirements shows that there is still substantial room for improvement. We end with recommendations on how to engage with the challenge of utilizing this potential, learning from insights from the field of human-wildlife coexistence.

show abstract

Applying a values‐based decision process to facilitate comanagement of threatened species in Aotearoa New Zealand

Abstract: Article impact statement Values-based approaches like structured decision making successfully enable participation and inclusive conservation practice.

Cited by 24 publications

References 48 publications

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

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

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

Joining forces toward proactive elephant and rhinoceros conservation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About