Absence of evidence for the conservation outcomes of systematic conservation planning around the globe: a systematic map

• Published in: Environmental evidence 2018-09, Vol.7 (1), p.1-23, Article 22
• Main Authors: McIntosh, Emma J, Chapman, Sarah, Kearney, Stephen G, Williams, Brooke, Althor, Glenn, Thorn, Jessica P. R, Pressey, Robert L, McKinnon, Madeleine C, Grenyer, Richard
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Alternative planning; Analysis; Biodiversity; Biodiversity conservation; Conservation; Conservation assessment; Conservation organizations; Evaluation; Evidence synthesis; Implementation; Literature reviews; Marine protected areas; Nature conservation; Planning; Prioritisation; Product development; Protected areas; Repositories; Resource allocation; Studies; Terrestrial environments; Transparency; Wildlife conservation
• ISSN: 2047-2382; 2047-2382
• DOI: 10.1186/s13750-018-0134-2

Background Systematic conservation planning is a discipline concerned with the prioritisation of resources for biodiversity conservation and is often used in the design or assessment of terrestrial and marine protected area networks. Despite being an evidence-based discipline, to date there has been no comprehensive review of the outcomes of systematic conservation plans and assessments of the relative effectiveness of applications in different contexts. To address this fundamental gap in knowledge, our primary research question was: what is the extent, distribution and robustness of evidence on conservation outcomes of systematic conservation planning around the globe? Methods A systematic mapping exercise was undertaken using standardised search terms across 29 sources, including publication databases, online repositories and a wide range of grey literature sources. The review team screened articles recursively, first by title only, then abstract and finally by full-text, using inclusion criteria related to systematic conservation plans conducted at sub-global scales and reported on since 1983. We sought studies that reported outcomes relating to natural, human, social, financial or institutional outcomes and which employed robust evaluation study designs. The following information was extracted from included studies: bibliographic details, background information including location of study and broad objectives of the plan, study design, reported outcomes and context. Results Of the approximately 10,000 unique articles returned through our searches, 1209 were included for full-text screening and 43 studies reported outcomes of conservation planning interventions. However, only three studies involved the use of evaluation study designs which are suitably rigorous for inclusion, according to best-practice guidelines. The three included studies were undertaken in the Gulf of California (Mexico), Réunion Island, and The Nature Conservancy's landholdings across the USA. The studies varied widely in context, purpose and outcomes. Study designs were non-experimental or qualitative, and involved use of spatial landholdings over time, stakeholder surveys and modelling of alternative planning scenarios. Conclusion Rigorous evaluations of systematic conservation plans are currently not published in academic journals or made publicly available elsewhere. Despite frequent claims relating to positive implications and outcomes of these planning activities, we show that