Search

Funder: MAVA Foundation; Id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100013324, Funder: The David and Claudia Harding Foundation, Funder: Arcadia; Id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100012088, Many types of guidance documents inform conservation by providing practical recommendations for the management of species and habitats. To ensure effective decisions are made, such guidance should be based upon relevant and up‐to‐date evidence. We reviewed conservation guidance for mitigation and management of species and habitats in the United Kingdom and Ireland, identifying 301 examples produced by over 50 organizations. Of these, only 29% provided a reference list, of which only 32% provided reference(s) relevant to justify the recommended actions (9% of the total). Furthermore, even this guidance was often outdated, lacked a methodology for production, or did not highlight uncertainty in the key evidence that supported the recommendations. These deficiencies can lead to misguided and ineffective conservation practices, policies, and decisions, and a waste of resources. Based on this review and co‐design by experts from 14 organizations, we present a set of principles for ensuring sufficient and relevant evidence is transparently incorporated into future conservation guidance. Producing evidence‐based guidance in line with these principles would enable more effective conservation outcomes.

Funder: Arcadia Fund; Id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100012088, Funder: MAVA Foundation; Id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100013324, Funder: The David and Claudia Harding Foundation, Funder: University of Cambridge, Department of Zoology; Id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000735, Making the reasoning and evidence behind conservation management decisions clear and transparent is a key challenge for the conservation community. Similarly, combining evidence from diverse sources (e.g., scientific and local knowledge) 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 customized downloadable report (or is documented if using the offline template), which we hope can stimulate the exchange of information on decisions within and between organizations. 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.