Training future generations to deliver evidence‐based conservation and ecosystem management

Downey, Harriet; Amano, Tatsuya; Cadotte, Marc W.; Cook, Carly N.; Cooke, Steven J.; Haddaway, Neal R.; Jones, Julia P. G.; Littlewood, Nick A.; Walsh, Jessica C.; Abrahams, Mark I.; Adum, Gilbert B.; Akasaka, Munemitsu; Alves, José A.; Antwis, Rachael E.; Arellano, Eduardo C.; Axmacher, Jan C.; Barclay, Holly; Batty, Lesley; Benítez‐López, Ana; Bennett, Joseph; Berg, Maureen; Bertolino, Sandro; Biggs, Duan; Bolam, Friederike C.; Bray, Tim; Brook, Barry W.; Bull, Joseph W.; Buřivalová, Zuzana; Cabeza, Mar; Chauvenet, Aliénor L. M.; Christie, Alec P.; Cole, Lorna J.; Cotton, Alison J.; Cotton, Sam; Cousins, Sara A. O.; Craven, Dylan; Cresswell, Will; Cusack, Jeremy J.; Dalrymple, Sarah E.; Davies, Zoe G.; Díaz, Anita; Dodd, Jennifer A.; Felton, Adam; Fleishman, Erica; Gardner, Charlie J.; Garside, Ruth; Ghoddousi, Arash; Gilroy, James J.; Gill, David; Gill, Jennifer A.; Glew, Louise; Grainger, Matthew; Grass, Amelia; Greshon, Stephanie; Gundry, Jamie; Hart, Tom; Hopkins, Charlotte Rachael; Howe, Caroline; Johnson, Arlyne; Jones, Kelly W.; Jordan, Neil R.; Kadoya, Taku; Kerhoas, Daphné; Koricheva, Julia; Lee, Tien Ming; Lengyel, Szabolcs; Livingstone, Stuart W.; Lyons, Ashley; McCabe, Gráinne; Millett, Jonathan; Strevens, Chloë Montes; Moolna, Adam; Mossman, Hannah L.; Mukherjee, Nibedita; Muñoz‐Sáez, Andrés; Negrões, Nuno; Norfolk, Olivia; Osawa, Takeshi; Papworth, Sarah; Park, Kirsty; Pellet, Jérôme; Phillott, Andrea D.; Plotnik, Joshua M.; Priatna, Dolly; Ramos, Alejandra; Randall, Nicola; Richards, Rob M.; Ritchie, Euan G.; Roberts, David L.; Rocha, Ricardo; Rodrı́guez, Jon Paul; Sanderson, Roy; Sasaki, Takehiro; Savilaakso, Sini; Sayer, Carl D.; Şekercioǧlu, Çaǧan H.; Senzaki, Masayuki; Smith, Grania; Smith, Robert J.; Soga, Masashi; Soulsbury, Carl D.; Steer, Mark; Stewart, Gavin; Strange, Emily; Suggitt, Andrew J.; Thompson, Ralph R. J.; Thompson, Stewart; Thornhill, Ian; Trevelyan, Rosie; Usieta, Hope O.; Venter, Oscar; Webber, Amanda D.; White, Rachel L.; Whittingham, Mark J.; Wilby, Andrew; Yarnell, Richard W.; Zamora, Veronica; Sutherland, William J.

doi:10.1002/2688-8319.12032

Cited by 41 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, the use of existing non-English-language science is not a panacea. Generating more local evidence, based on robust study designs, and publishing it in any language should be further encouraged and supported globally, but especially in those evidence-poor regions, for example, through the distribution of free teaching materials to facilitate the testing of conservation interventions [ 28 ]. Although not included in this study, non-English-language grey literature could be another potentially important source of evidence [ 29 ]; whether and how non-English-language grey literature might fill gaps in English-language evidence still remains to be tested (also see Limitations in Materials and methods for other limitations).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tapping into non-English-language science for the conservation of global biodiversity

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The widely held assumption that any important scientific information would be available in English underlies the underuse of non-English-language science across disciplines. However, non-English-language science is expected to bring unique and valuable scientific information, especially in disciplines where the evidence is patchy, and for emergent issues where synthesising available evidence is an urgent challenge. Yet such contribution of non-English-language science to scientific communities and the application of science is rarely quantified. Here, we show that non-English-language studies provide crucial evidence for informing global biodiversity conservation. By screening 419,679 peer-reviewed papers in 16 languages, we identified 1,234 non-English-language studies providing evidence on the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation interventions, compared to 4,412 English-language studies identified with the same criteria. Relevant non-English-language studies are being published at an increasing rate in 6 out of the 12 languages where there were a sufficient number of relevant studies. Incorporating non-English-language studies can expand the geographical coverage (i.e., the number of 2° × 2° grid cells with relevant studies) of English-language evidence by 12% to 25%, especially in biodiverse regions, and taxonomic coverage (i.e., the number of species covered by the relevant studies) by 5% to 32%, although they do tend to be based on less robust study designs. Our results show that synthesising non-English-language studies is key to overcoming the widespread lack of local, context-dependent evidence and facilitating evidence-based conservation globally. We urge wider disciplines to rigorously reassess the untapped potential of non-English-language science in informing decisions to address other global challenges. Please see the Supporting information files for Alternative Language Abstracts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tapping into non-English-language science for the conservation of global biodiversity

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, a survey of environmental policy makers in Canada revealed that they were aware of the value of systematic reviews and would use them preferentially over other forms of evidence if they were available for a given issue or topic (Thomas-Walters et al 2021). In addition specialized training of practitioners and managers has been proposed as a solution to decrease information overload and mitigate time limitations (Cook et al 2013;Downey et al 2021), especially for WBS that is technical in nature and prone to using jargon (e.g., conservation genomics). Further, Downey et al ( 2021) created a database of online teaching materials stored on the Applied Ecology Resources website, which include development courses aimed at improving skills related to appraisal and increased use of WBS in decision making and NRM.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Natural resources management (NRM) also involves managing habitat and the people who engage and interact with fish, wildlife, and ecosystems such as hunters, anglers, and other increasingly diversified actors (e.g., industry, farmers, private landowners, conservation organizations, rights holders, non-profit organizations (ENGOs), environmental consultants, and community groups). Further, these actors may have high expectations for involvement in programs and decisions (Decker et al 2012). Salafsky et al (2019) define evidence as information that contributes to the assessment of hypotheses related to a question of interest in the form of basic data, primary studies, syntheses, decision support systems, and/or theory.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Natural Resource Managers Use and Value Western-Based Science, but Barriers to Access Persist

Piczak

Kadykalo

Cooke

et al. 2021

Environmental Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Natural resources management (NRM) is complex and relies on decisions supported by evidence, including Western-based science (WBS) and Indigenous and local knowledge. However, it has been shown that there is a disconnect between WBS and its application, whereby managers often draw on non-empirical sources of information (i.e., intuition or advice from colleagues). This article focuses on the role of WBS in decisions made in management of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the province of British Columbia, Canada. We conducted open-ended interviews with NRM branches of Indigenous and parliamentary governments, as well as with nongovernmental stakeholder groups, to examine (a) sources of WBS consulted in decision-making and (b) barriers to accessing WBS by managers. We found that respondents involved with NRM relied on a diverse set of sources for WBS, seldom relying exclusively on one source. However, respondents relied more on internal sources (government databases) compared to external ones (peer-reviewed journal articles). We also found that respondents described WBS as valuable and generally accessible, yet barriers were identified with respect to the interface and organization of government grey data and literature, paywalls associated with peer-reviewed journals and articles, and institutional capacity, time, and support. We recommend strategies and tools to facilitate accessibility of WBS in support of bridging the knowledge-action divide, including increased publishing of open access data/articles, systematic reviews, use of knowledge brokers, specialized WBS training, and knowledge co-production. It is our hope that identification of barriers and the implementation of improved access to WBS will result in more effective NRM by giving managers access to the tools and knowledge they need for evidence-based decision-making.

show abstract

“…Practitioners have also reported a lack of skills in evaluating evidence and critical thinking (Downey et al 2021). Ockendon et al (2021) identifies barriers to testing, especially the challenge of identifying suitable experimental designs, and offers guidance on overcoming them.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Using these as the basis of a 'toolkit' for practitioners to use evidence-based conservation, we can identify where there are gaps in our knowledge on how to find, test, and interpret the evidence. In addition, Downey et al (2021) identified five key elements required in the teaching of evidence-based conservation: Ask, Access, Appraise, Apply, Audit. The first step, Ask (identifying the problem and formulating a focused question), is the target of this paper.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2022

Conserv Evid Jour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is now clear that the routine embedding of experiments into conservation practice is essential for creating reasonably comprehensive evidence of the effectiveness of actions. However, an important barrier is the stage of identifying testable questions that are both useful but also realistic to carry out without a major research project. We identified approaches for generating such suitable questions. A team of 24 participants crowdsourced suggestions, resulting in a list of a hundred possible tests of actions.

show abstract

Training future generations to deliver evidence‐based conservation and ecosystem management

Abstract: This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Cited by 41 publications

References 27 publications

Tapping into non-English-language science for the conservation of global biodiversity

Tapping into non-English-language science for the conservation of global biodiversity

Natural Resource Managers Use and Value Western-Based Science, but Barriers to Access Persist

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About