Managers consider multiple lines of evidence important for biodiversity management decisions

Abstract

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.

Introduction

With escalating pressure on natural areas from human populations, protected areas are an increasingly important conservation tool. Safeguarding this investment requires understanding the pressures on natural systems and which management strategies will be effective (Ervin, 2003, Pullin and Knight, 2001, Sutherland et al., 2004). There is evidence to suggest that conservation managers (i.e., those responsible for the day-to-day decisions about management, and those responsible for strategic decisions about management priorities and resource allocation) rarely use empirical data to select management actions (Pullin and Knight, 2005, Sutherland et al., 2004, Young and Van Aarde, 2011) or to judge the outcomes of their management (Cook et al., 2010). However, it remains unclear how managers apply evidence to decisions and why they so often fail to use empirical data. Explanations for the poor use of science in conservation management include that managers cannot access or interpret the peer-review literature (Arlettaz et al., 2010, Chapple et al., 2011, Fazey et al., 2005b), and that timeframes for providing clear answers are incompatible with urgent conservation problems (Kareiva et al., 2002, Young and Van Aarde, 2011). Alternatively, managers are said not to value empirical evidence because it often fails to address the issues most relevant to managers (Fazey et al., 2005b, Whitten et al., 2001), or they are more comfortable with experience-based evidence (Pullin et al., 2004, Sutherland, 2005). To improve the use of empirical evidence within conservation management it is important to distinguish between these competing hypotheses. Should conservation science focus on improving access to management-relevant science, as some suggest (Pullin and Knight, 2009), or on demonstrating the value of science to managers and how to integrate it into their decisions (Arlettaz et al., 2010)?

The poor use of science in conservation management also raises the question of which types of evidence managers use to inform their decisions and whether this is due to necessity or an active choice to use particular sources of evidence, such as personal experience (Pullin and Knight, 2005), or expert opinion (Sutherland, 2005). While empirical evidence has many advantages, it can also be challenging to collect (Ferraro and Pattanayak, 2006), and the information provided may not always justify the cost (Grantham et al., 2008, Grantham et al., 2009, McDonald-Madden et al., 2010). Collecting empirical information can be time consuming, which is incompatible with urgent decisions and can result in data that does not reflect a rapidly changing environment. Conversely, other types of evidence, such as expert opinion, can be a readily available alternative, are comparatively inexpensive to collect (Lele and Allen, 2006), can provide vital context for empirical data, and make a valuable contribution to conservation decisions (Baird and Flaherty, 2005, Fazey et al., 2005a, Fazey et al., 2006, Martin et al., 2005, Runge et al., 2011). Yet, expert opinion can be subject to bias (Martin et al., 2010), and acting on the prevailing wisdom can lead to negative outcomes (Sutherland et al., 2004). Understanding the nature of the evidence managers use to make decisions can provide valuable insight into whether managers are accessing the knowledge they require to manage protected areas effectively.

Given the conflicting costs and benefits of different types of evidence for decision-making, it is unlikely that conservation outcomes will be best served by uniformly requiring the highest standard of empirical evidence for decisions or by simply using readily available evidence regardless of its uncertainty. Instead, the most appropriate type of evidence is likely to depend on factors such as the nature of the decision, with empirical evidence being given higher priority for decisions with more severe consequences (Hockings et al., 2009). If this is the case, those making management decisions may be well placed to inform the evidence debate, even though their perspectives are rarely sought (Young and Van Aarde, 2011).

Our objective was to understand whether managers have the knowledge they need to manage protected areas effectively. Therefore, we asked managers: (i) what information they need to make management decisions, (ii) which evidence they find useful to support their conclusions, and (iii) which evidence they actually have to inform their decisions.