Do conservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making?

被引:446
作者
Pullin, AS [1 ]
Knight, TM
Stone, DA
Charman, K
机构
[1] Univ Birmingham, Sch Biosci, Birmingham B15 2TT, W Midlands, England
[2] Solihull Primary Care Trust, Solihull B91 3BU, W Midlands, England
[3] English Nat, Peterborough PE1 1UA, England
关键词
conservation practice; conservation management; conservation policy; biodiversity management; decision support;
D O I
10.1016/j.biocon.2003.11.007
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
Conservation involves making decisions on appropriate action from a wide range of options. For conservation to be effective, decision-makers need to know what actions do and do not work. Ideally, decisions should be based on effectiveness as demonstrated by scientific experiment or systematic review of evidence. Can decision-makers get this kind of information? We undertook a formal assessment of the extent to which scientific evidence is being used in conservation practice by conducting a survey of management plans and their compilers from major conservation organizations within the UK. Data collected suggest that the majority of conservation actions remain experience-based and rely heavily on traditional land management practices because, many management interventions remain unevaluated and, although some evidence exists, much is not readily accessible in a suitable form. We argue that nature conservation along with other fields of applied ecology, should exploit the concept of evidence-based practice developed and used in medicine and public health that aims to provide the best available evidence to the decision-maker(s) on the likely outcomes of alternative actions. Through critical evaluation, we present the challenges and benefits of adopting evidence based practice from the decision-makers point of view and identify the process to be followed to make it work. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:245 / 252
页数:8
相关论文
共 12 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], ADV HDB METHODS EVID
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1972, PUBLIC HEALTH, DOI [DOI 10.1016/S0033-3506(02)00027-6, DOI 10.1016/S0033-3506(73)80082-4]
[3]  
Bender DJ, 1998, ECOLOGY, V79, P517, DOI 10.1890/0012-9658(1998)079[0517:HLAPDA]2.0.CO
[4]  
2
[5]  
Dawes M, 2000, HLTH SERVICE J MONOG, V1
[6]   Review of methodology of quantitative reviews using meta-analysis in ecology [J].
Gates, S .
JOURNAL OF ANIMAL ECOLOGY, 2002, 71 (04) :547-557
[7]   A meta-analysis of forest cover, edge effects, and artificial nest predation rates [J].
Hartley, MJ ;
Hunter, ML .
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 1998, 12 (02) :465-469
[8]  
*NAT HLTH SERV CTR, 2001, 4 CRD NAT HLTH SERV
[9]   Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions [J].
Petticrew, M .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2001, 322 (7278) :98-101
[10]   Support for decision making in conservation practice: an evidence-based approach [J].
Pullin, Andrew S. ;
Knight, Teri M. .
JOURNAL FOR NATURE CONSERVATION, 2003, 11 (02) :83-90