Can methods applied in medicine be used to summarize and disseminate conservation research?

被引:68
作者
Fazey, I
Salisbury, JG
Lindenmayer, DB
Maindonald, J
Douglas, R
机构
[1] Australian Natl Univ, Ctr Resource & Environm Studies, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
[2] Biotext, Yarralumla, ACT 2600, Australia
[3] Australian Natl Univ, Inst Math Sci, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
[4] Australian Natl Univ, Natl Ctr Epidemiol & Populat Hlth, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
关键词
conservation research; disseminating research; evidence-based conservation; implementing science; science communication; systematic reviews;
D O I
10.1017/S0376892904001560
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
To ensure that the best scientific evidence is available to guide conservation action, effective mechanisms for communicating the results of research are necessary. In medicine, an evidence-based approach assists doctors in applying scientific evidence when treating patients. The approach has required the development of new methods for systematically reviewing research, and has led to the establishment of independent organizations to disseminate the conclusions of reviews. (1) Such methods could help bridge gaps between researchers and practitioners of environmental conservation. In medicine, systematic reviews place strong emphasis on reviewing experimental clinical trials that meet strict standards. Although experimental studies are much less common in conservation, many of the components of systematic reviews that reduce the biases when identifying, selecting and appraising relevant studies could still be applied effectively. Other methods already applied in medicine for the review of non-experimental studies will therefore be required in conservation. (2) Using systematic reviews and an evidence-based approach will only be one tool of many to reduce uncertainty when making conservation-related decisions. Nevertheless an evidence-based approach does complement other approaches (for example adaptive management), and could facilitate the use of the best available research in environmental management. (3) In medicine, the Cochrane Collaboration was established as an independent organization to guide the production and dissemination of systematic reviews. It has provided many benefits that could apply to conservation, including a forum for producing and disseminating reviews with emphasis on the requirements of practitioners, and a forum for feedback between researchers and practitioners and improved access to the primary research. Without the Cochrane Collaboration, many of the improvements in research communication that have occurred in medicine over the last decade would not have been possible.
引用
收藏
页码:190 / 198
页数:9
相关论文
共 61 条
[1]  
Allan C., 2003, Natural Resource Management, V6, P25
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2000, REV EVIDENCE SYSTEMA
[3]   A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. [J].
Benson, K ;
Hartz, AJ .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2000, 342 (25) :1878-1886
[4]   Design and implementation of monitoring studies to evaluate the success of ecological restoration on wildlife [J].
Block, WA ;
Franklin, AB ;
Ward, JP ;
Ganey, JL ;
White, GC .
RESTORATION ECOLOGY, 2001, 9 (03) :293-303
[5]   Grazing of lowland heath in England: Management methods and their effects on heathland vegetation [J].
Bullock, JM ;
Pakeman, RJ .
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 1997, 79 (01) :1-13
[6]   THE COCHRANE-COLLABORATION - PREPARING, MAINTAINING, AND DISSEMINATING SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS OF THE EFFECTS OF HEALTH-CARE [J].
CHALMERS, I .
DOING MORE GOOD THAN HARM: THE EVALUATION OF HEALTH CARE INTERVENTIONS, 1993, 703 :156-165
[7]  
CLARKE M, 1999, COCHRANE REVIEWERS
[8]   Factors influencing the effectiveness of wildlife underpasses in Banff National Park, Alberta, Canada [J].
Clevenger, AP ;
Waltho, N .
CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2000, 14 (01) :47-56
[9]  
Cooke B, 2002, WILDLIFE RES, V29
[10]   Conservation of threatened freshwater pearl mussel populations: river management, mussel translocation and conflict resolution [J].
Cosgrove, PJ ;
Hastie, LC .
BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2001, 99 (02) :183-190