Managers consider multiple lines of evidence important for biodiversity management decisions

被引:86
作者
Cook, Carly N. [1 ,2 ]
Carter, R. W. [3 ]
Fuller, Richard A. [1 ,4 ,5 ]
Hockings, Marc [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Queensland, Environm Decis Grp, Sch Biol Sci, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia
[2] Univ Queensland, Sch Geog Planning & Environm Management, St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia
[3] Univ Sunshine Coast, Sustainabil Res Ctr, Maroochydore, Qld 4558, Australia
[4] CSIRO Climate Adaptat Flagship, Dutton Pk, Qld 4102, Australia
[5] CSIRO Ecosyst Sci, Dutton Pk, Qld 4102, Australia
基金
澳大利亚研究理事会;
关键词
Conservation management; Conservation practitioners; Decision-making; Evidence; Prioritization; Science-based management; SUPPORT CONSERVATION; EXPERT OPINION; EVIDENCE-BASE; KNOWLEDGE; ECOSYSTEMS; GAP;
D O I
10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.09.002
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Protected area managers often fail to use empirical evidence for their management decisions, yet it is unclear whether this arises from a lack of available data, difficulty in interpreting scientific information for management application, or because managers do not value science for their decisions. To better understand the use of evidence for management decisions, we asked protected area managers in Australia what information is important when making decisions, the types of evidence they find most valuable, and the types of evidence they have for their protected areas. Managers described a complex array of information needed for management decisions, with nine different factors representing decisions about individual management issues and how to prioritize management actions. While managers reported less access to empirical evidence than other sources, this is not because they do not value it, reporting it to be the most valuable source of evidence. Instead, they make up the shortfall in empirical evidence with experience and information synthesized from multiple lines of evidence, which can provide important context for their decisions. We conclude that managers value a diversity of evidence because they face complex conservation decisions. Therefore, while empirical evidence can play an important role, alone this cannot provide all the knowledge managers need. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:341 / 346
页数:6
相关论文
共 49 条
  • [11] Fazey I, 2005, ECOL SOC, V10
  • [12] What do conservation biologists publish?
    Fazey, I
    Fischer, J
    Lindenmayer, DB
    [J]. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2005, 124 (01) : 63 - 73
  • [13] The nature and role of experiential knowledge for environmental conservation
    Fazey, Ioan
    Fazey, John A.
    Salisbury, Janet G.
    Lindenmayer, David B.
    Dovers, Steve
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, 2006, 33 (01) : 1 - 10
  • [14] Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments
    Ferraro, PJ
    Pattanayak, SK
    [J]. PLOS BIOLOGY, 2006, 4 (04): : 482 - 488
  • [15] PRESERVING BIODIVERSITY - SPECIES, ECOSYSTEMS, OR LANDSCAPES
    FRANKLIN, JF
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL APPLICATIONS, 1993, 3 (02) : 202 - 205
  • [16] Rapidly quantifying reference conditions in modified landscapes
    Gibbons, Philip
    Briggs, S. V.
    Ayers, Danielle A.
    Doyle, Stuart
    Seddon, Julian
    McElhinny, Chris
    Jones, Nigel
    Sims, Rachel
    Doody, J. Sean
    [J]. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2008, 141 (10) : 2483 - 2493
  • [17] Gibbons Philip, 2008, Ecological Management & Restoration, V9, P182, DOI 10.1111/j.1442-8903.2008.00416.x
  • [18] Diminishing return on investment for biodiversity data in conservation planning
    Grantham, Hedley S.
    Moilanen, Atte
    Wilson, Kerrie A.
    Pressey, Robert L.
    Rebelo, Tony G.
    Possingham, Hugh P.
    [J]. CONSERVATION LETTERS, 2008, 1 (04): : 190 - 198
  • [19] Delaying conservation actions for improved knowledge: how long should we wait?
    Grantham, Hedley S.
    Wilson, Kerrie A.
    Moilanen, Atte
    Rebelo, Tony
    Possingham, Hugh P.
    [J]. ECOLOGY LETTERS, 2009, 12 (04) : 293 - 301
  • [20] Hockings M., 2009, N. Dir. Eval., V2009, P53, DOI DOI 10.1002/EV.295