Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA; Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology and the Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Trends Ecol Evol. 2019 Jul;34(7):669-679. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2019.03.002. Epub 2019 Apr 29.
To improve the likelihood of conservation success, donors, policy makers, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and researchers are increasingly interested in making conservation decisions based on scientific evidence. A major challenge in doing so has been the wide variability in the methodological rigor of existing studies. We present a simple framework to classify different types of conservation evidence, which can be used to understand the strengths, weaknesses, and biases in the conservation effectiveness literature. We then apply this framework to evaluate the evidence for the efficacy of four important strategies in tropical forest conservation. Even though there has been an increase in methodologically rigorous studies over time, countries that are globally important in terms of their biodiversity are still heavily under-represented by any type of conservation effectiveness evidence.
为了提高保护成功的可能性,捐赠者、政策制定者、非政府组织(NGO)和研究人员越来越有兴趣根据科学证据做出保护决策。这样做的一个主要挑战是现有研究方法严谨性的广泛差异。我们提出了一个简单的框架来对不同类型的保护证据进行分类,这可以用来了解保护有效性文献中的优势、劣势和偏差。然后,我们应用该框架来评估热带森林保护中四种重要策略的功效证据。尽管随着时间的推移,方法严谨性研究有所增加,但在任何类型的保护有效性证据方面,全球生物多样性重要的国家仍然严重缺乏代表性。