Suchergebnisse

This is the final version. Available on open access from Elsevier via the DOI in this record ; Humanity's impact on the environment is increasing, as are strategies to conserve biodiversity, but a lack of understanding about how interventions affect ecological and conservation outcomes hampers decision-making. Time-series are often used to assess impacts, but ecologists tend to compare average values from before to after an impact; overlooking the potential for the intervention to elicit a change in trend. Without methods that allow for a range of responses, erroneous conclusions can be drawn. This is especially so for large, multi-time-series datasets which are increasingly available. Drawing on literature in other disciplines and pioneering work in ecology, we present a standardised framework to robustly assesses how interventions, like natural disasters or conservation policies, affect ecological time series. ; Royal Commission 1851 ; Cambridge Trust Poynton Scholarship ; Cambridge Department of Zoology J.S. Gardiner Studentship ; Cambridge Philosophical Society ; Australian Research Council (ARC) ; University of Queensland ; European Union Horizon 2020 ; Villum Fonden ; Arcadia ; Leverhulme Trust

Improving the use of scientific evidence in conservation policy has been a long-standing focus of the conservation community. A plethora of studies have examined conservation science-policy interfaces, including a recent global survey of scientists, policy-makers, and practitioners. This identified a list of top barriers and solutions to evidence use, which have considerable overlap with those identified by other studies conducted over the last few decades. The three top barriers – (i) that conservation is not a political priority, (ii) that there is poor engagement between scientists and decision-makers, and (iii) that conservation problems are complex and uncertain – have often been highlighted in the literature as significant constraints on the use of scientific evidence in conservation policy. There is also repeated identification of the solutions to these barriers. In this perspective, we consider three reasons for this: (1) the barriers are insurmountable, (2) the frequently-proposed solutions are poor, (3) there are implementation challenges to putting solutions into practice. We argue that implementation challenges are most likely to be preventing the solutions being put into practice and that the research agenda for conservation science-policy interfaces needs to move away from identifying barriers and solutions, and towards a detailed investigation of how to overcome these implementation challenges.

Conservation practitioners, policy-makers and researchers work within shared spaces with many shared goals. Improving the flow of information between conservation researchers, practitioners and policy-makers could lead to dramatic gains in the effectiveness of conservation practice. However, several barriers can hinder this transfer including lack of time, inaccessibility of evidence, the real or perceived irrelevance of scientific research to practical questions, and the politically motivated spread of disinformation. Conservation Evidence works to overcome these barriers by providing a freely-available database of summarized scientific evidence for the effects of conservation interventions on biodiversity. The methods used to build this database – a combination of discipline-wide literature searching and subject-wide evidence synthesis – have been developed over the last 15 years to address the challenges of synthesizing large volumes of evidence of varying quality and measured outcomes. Here, we describe the methods to enhance understanding of the database and how it should be used. We discuss how the database can help to expand multi-directional information transfers between research, practice and policy, which should improve the implementation of evidence-based conservation and, ultimately, achieve better outcomes for biodiversity.

Appendix A. Supplementary data: Supplementary material 1: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0006320719317124-mmc1.pdf (284KB) - Supplementary material 2: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0006320719317124-mmc2.pdf (276KB). ; EUs H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (No 676108); Villum Fonden (VKR023371); National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) (203407/2017-2); The Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT180100354); The Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment; The Kenneth Miller Trust; Natural Environment Research Council (NERC DTP [NE/L002507/1]); Cambridge International Scholarship from the Cambridge Trust; Newton International Fellowship of the Royal Society; Australian Government, Endeavor Postgraduate Scholarship; Branco Weiss Fellowship Administered by the ETH Zürich; Drapers' Company Fellowship, Pembroke College; Natural Environment Research Council (NERC DTP [NE/L002507/1 and NE/S001395/1]); Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851 Research Fellowship; Cambridge Trust Cambridge-Australia Poynton Scholarship; Cambridge Department of Zoology J. S. Gardiner Scholarship.

Conservation science is a crisis-oriented discipline focused on reducing human impacts on nature. To explore how the field has changed over the past two decades, we analyzed 3245 applications for oral presentations submitted to the Student Conference on Conservation Science (SCCS) in Cambridge, UK. SCCS has been running every year since 2000, aims for global representation by providing bursaries to early-career conservationists from lower-income countries, and has never had a thematic focus, beyond conservation in the broadest sense. We found that the majority of projects submitted to SCCS were based on primary biological data collected from local scale field studies in the tropics, contrary to established literature which highlights gaps in tropical research. Our results showed a small increase over time in submissions framed around how nature benefits people as well as a small increase in submissions integrating social science. Our findings suggest that students and early-career conservationists could provide pathways to increase availability of data from the tropics and address well-known biases in the published literature towards wealthier countries. We hope this research will motivate efforts to support student projects, ensuring data and results are published and data made publicly available. ; The project was made possible through funding from: JG: EUs Horizon 2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie program (No 676108) and VILLUM FONDEN (VKR023371), HA-P; National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) (203407/2017-2), TA: The Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT180100354), The Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment and The Kenneth Miller Trust, APC: the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC DTP [NE/L002507/1]), LC: Cambridge International Scholarship from the Cambridge Trust, FH: the Newton International Fellowship of the Royal Society, DM: the Australian Government, Endeavor Postgraduate Scholarhip, HM: Branco Weiss Fellowship Administered by the ETH Zürich and Drapers' Company Fellowship, Pembroke College BIS: the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC DTP[NE/L002507/1 and NE/S001395/1]) and the Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851 Research Fellowship, HW: Cambridge Trust Cambridge-Australia Poynton Scholarship and Cambridge Department of Zoology J. S. Gardiner Scholarship.

This is the author accepted manuscroipt. The final version is available from Elsevier via the DOI in this record ; Conservation science is a crisis-oriented discipline focused on reducing human impacts on nature. To explore how the field has changed over the past two decades, we analyzed 3245 applications for oral presentations submitted to the Student Conference on Conservation Science (SCCS) in Cambridge, UK. SCCS has been running every year since 2000, aims for global representation by providing bursaries to early-career conservationists from lower-income countries, and has never had a thematic focus, beyond conservation in the broadest sense. We found that the majority of projects submitted to SCCS were based on primary biological data collected from local scale field studies in the tropics, contrary to established literature which highlights gaps in tropical research. Our results showed a small increase over time in submissions framed around how nature benefits people as well as a small increase in submissions integrating social science. Our findings suggest that students and early-career conservationists could provide pathways to increase availability of data from the tropics and address well-known biases in the published literature towards wealthier countries. We hope this research will motivate efforts to support student projects, ensuring data and results are published and data made publicly available. ; European Union Horizon 2020 ; Villum Fonden ; National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) ; Australian Research Council Future Fellowship ; Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment ; Kenneth Miller Trust ; Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) ; Cambridge Trust ; Royal Society ; Australian Government ; Branco Weiss Fellowship ; Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851