Teri M. Knight

Support for decision making in conservation practice: an evidence-based approach

Abstract Conservation managers are challenged with the task of compiling management plans in which they have to decide on appropriate actions to meet specific objectives. We argue that support for such decision-making is poor and that decision-makers have little opportunity to capture and evaluate the evidence for effectiveness of alternative management options. The result is that decisions are often made without access to the best quality evidence thus increasing the probability that inappropriate management options will be adopted. The aim of this paper is to propose a mechanism for increasing support by improving information flow to decision-makers within an evidence-based framework. The model of evidence-based practice in medicine and public health is used to explore possibilities for parallel practice in conservation. The processes of management plan and action plan formulation are used as examples of how this model provides opportunities to enhance information flow between scientists and practitioners and to encourage formation of productive partnerships and decision support systems, thereby improving effectiveness. Accessibility of evidence is a key issue addressed through the production of systematic reviews and their results being actively disseminated, in a usable format, to the point of need. The role of funding bodies and particularly governments in catalysing this process is seen as key to achieving more evidence-based conservation practice.

Does community forest management provide global environmental benefits and improve local welfare

Global financial donors have invested billions of dollars in “Sustainable Forest Management” to conserve forests and the ecosystem services they provide. A major contributing mechanism, community forest management (CFM), aims to provide global environmental benefits (reduce deforestation, maintain biodiversity), while also improving local human welfare (alleviate poverty). We have systematically reviewed available evidence of CFM effectiveness and consider the implications of our findings for future investment in CFM programs. There is evidence of CFM being associated with greater tree density and basal area but not with other indicators of global environmental benefits. We found no data on local human welfare amenable to meta-analysis. Poor study design, variable reporting of study methodology or context, and lack of common indicators make evidence synthesis difficult. Given the policy interest in and the planned donor expenditure on CFM, evaluation must be improved so that informed decisions can be made...

Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas

BackgroundEstablishing Protected Areas (PAs) is among the most common conservation interventions. Protecting areas from the threats posed by human activity will by definition inhibit some human actions. However, adverse impacts could be balanced by maintaining ecosystem services or introducing new livelihood options. Consequently there is an ongoing debate on whether the net impact of PAs on human well-being at local or regional scales is positive or negative. We report here on a systematic review of evidence for impacts on human well-being arising from the establishment and maintenance of terrestrial PAs.MethodsFollowing an a priori protocol, systematic searches were conducted for evidence of impacts of PAs post 1992. After article title screening, the review was divided into two separate processes; a qualitative synthesis of explanations and meaning of impact and a review of quantitative evidence of impact. Abstracts and full texts were assessed using inclusion criteria and conceptual models of potential impacts. Relevant studies were critically appraised and data extracted and sorted according to type of impact reported. No quantitative synthesis was possible with the evidence available. Two narrative syntheses were produced and their outputs compared in a metasynthesis.ResultsThe qualitative evidence review mapped 306 articles and synthesised 34 that were scored as high quality. The quantitative evidence review critically appraised 79 studies and included 14 of low/medium susceptibility to bias. The meta-synthesis reveals that a range of factors can lead to reports of positive and negative impacts of PA establishment, and therefore might enable hypothesis generation regarding cause and effect relationships, but resulting hypotheses cannot be tested with the current available evidence.ConclusionsThe evidence base provides a range of possible pathways of impact, both positive and negative, of PAs on human well-being but provides very little support for decision making on how to maximise positive impacts. The nature of the research reported to date forms a diverse and fragmented body of evidence unsuitable for the purpose of informing policy formation on how to achieve win-win outcomes for biodiversity and human well-being. To better assess the impacts of PAs on human well-being we make recommendations for improving research study design and reporting.

Time to build capacity for evidence synthesis in environmental management

The increasing need to intervene and manage our environment, from the local to global level, is evident from the impacts humans have on its condition. Nowhere on earth remains untouched by humanity. In turn, the state of the environment has both direct and indirect impacts on human health, wellbeing and developmental capacity. Environmental management is therefore inherently interdisciplinary and involves many interactions between the environment, human health, wellbeing and behaviour. Poverty alleviation is unlikely to be successful if we do not tackle climate change and food security, and similarly, disease eradication will not succeed without water security and pollution control. Environmental management is not an isolated task that can be put to one side in hard times but needs to be an integral part of all of our major global efforts to improve human welfare and quality of life. Tough policy decisions need to be made in environmental management just as in other sectors but the synthesised evidence base required to inform these decisions is largely absent. Although large amounts of data have been collected on the state of the environment, human impacts on the environment and effectiveness of efforts to manage it, this rapidly increasing body of data has not been organised into a coherent evidence base to inform decision making. The potential of this evidence to help us make tough decisions is therefore not being realised. In contrast, the evidence base for many health interventions is well established. For example, in the health sector the Cochrane Collaboration Library (www.cochrane.org) contains in the order of 6000 systematic reviews (SRs) of evidence of effectiveness of health interventions, the equivalent Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) Library (www.environmentalevidence.org/Reviews. html) for environmental management contains just 60; a two-orders of magnitude evidence deficit. This imbalance between sectors is brought into sharp focus when interdisciplinary evidence is required, such as for international

Science informing Policy – a health warning for the environment

Environmental scientists regularly receive encouragement to engage with both their policy counterparts and wider society, to increase the effectiveness with which they communicate their science and to demonstrate its beneficial impact on wider society [1-3]. A significant body of literature now exists on ways in which environmental scientists might engage with non-scientists and be understood [4] and representative scientific societies and funders of science provide advice on how scientists can increase their impact (e.g. Ecological Society of America, British Ecological Society, UK Natural Environment Research Council) and, in some cases, provide funds and training for such activities. The need for good science to inform environmental policy decisions is arguably more urgent than ever before and it follows that good translation of science both for policy communities and wider society, needs encouragement, but it does also need some methodological basis. The development of mutual understanding between scientist and policy maker of the role of scientific evidence in informing policy is critical to effective environmental management. A higher profile and greater media coverage such engagement might provide are potentially good things for environmental science and scientists. The value of original research needs greater appreciation by those who might pay for it (tax payers, donors). Truly novel and groundbreaking research should be widely and accurately reported using skilled journalism to explain often complex issues to a lay readership or viewing audience. But, along with these positives there are potential negatives when scientists or vested interest groups compete for attention to promote one piece of research as more important or interesting than another. Communicating science to a wider audience is already something of an industry. Many publishers now seek to gain media coverage for individual papers and summarize the findings of key papers in dedicated

Developing sustainable collaboration: learning from theory and practice

The governments health policy now demands effective collaboration between organizations, between commissioners and providers of care and between health and local authorities, the voluntary sector and the public. Making collaboration work at operational and strategic levels is a significant management challenge. This paper draws on experience and observation of two forms of strategic collaborative venture that have been established with the ultimate purpose of improving the publics health. The first concerned itself with mechanisms for commissioning health and social care services on a locality basis, while the other venture was concerned with the promotion of physical activity across a health authority district. Using a framework which identifies the forms of value attributable to collaborative working, the analysis evaluates the processes of development of the two initiatives and identifies some key lessons for developing sustainable collaborative ventures. The framework used is proposed as being appropriate for the formative evaluation of future collaborative initiatives.

How effective is ‘greening’ of urban areas in reducing human exposure to ground-level ozone concentrations, UV exposure and the ‘urban heat island effect’? A protocol to update a systematic review

BackgroundThe impact of climate change on public health may occur through a number of main pathways including increased temperature, ground-level ozone levels and ultra-violet radiation, which have a range of consequences for human health. One strategy for adaptation to the predicted effects of climate change on health that has been proposed, is to ‘green’ urban areas, essentially by increasing the abundance and cover of vegetation. This protocol is for an update of a systematic review which aimed to address the question: How effective is ‘greening’ of urban areas in reducing human exposure to ground-level ozone concentrations, UV exposure and the ‘urban heat island effect’?MethodsA sensitive search of multiple databases and relevant journals for relevant published articles will be conducted. A search for relevant unpublished articles will be undertaken through an internet search and of websites of relevant organisations. Inclusion criteria will be applied at title, abstract and full-text. Repeatability checks of this screening process will be undertaken. Articles included at full-text will be critically appraised using a standardised checklist. A repeatability check will be made of this process. Pre-defined data items will be extracted from included articles. If appropriate, quantitative synthesis will be undertaken through meta-analysis and/or a narrative synthesis will be undertaken.