Managers consider multiple lines of evidence important for biodiversity management decisions

• Published in: Journal of environmental management 2012-12, Vol.113, p.341-346
• Main Authors: Cook, Carly N., Carter, R.W. (Bill), Fuller, Richard A., Hockings, Marc
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Animal, plant and microbial ecology; Applied ecology; Biodiversity; Biological and medical sciences; Conservation; conservation areas; Conservation management; Conservation of Natural Resources; Conservation practitioners; Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife; Decision Making; Empirical research; Environmental management; Evidence; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; General aspects; Information analysis; information management; Knowledge; Management decisions; Managers; National parks; Parks, reserves, wildlife conservation. Endangered species: population survey and restocking; Prioritization; Science-based management
• ISSN: 0301-4797; 1095-8630
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.09.002

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. ► Protected area managers describe complex and multifaceted decisions that require multiple lines of evidence. ► Managers value empirical evidence most highly for their decisions but tend to have less access to this information. ► Managers reported that many other sources of evidence provide useful information for their decisions. ► Robust decisions require an understanding of how to integrate science into management, and when to use other types of evidence.