Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
EcoEcoAnalysis, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Conserv Biol. 2021 Dec;35(6):1725-1737. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13732. Epub 2021 Jun 4.
Calls for biodiversity conservation practice to be more evidence based are growing, and we agree evidence use in conservation practice needs improvement. However, evidence-based conservation will not be realized without improved access to evidence. In medicine, unlike in conservation, a well-established and well-funded layer of intermediary individuals and organizations engage with medical practitioners, synthesize primary research relevant to decision making, and make evidence easily accessible. These intermediaries prepare targeted evidence summaries and distribute them to practitioners faced with time-sensitive and value-laden decisions. To be effective, these intermediaries, who we refer to as evidence bridges, should identify research topics based on the priorities of practitioners; synthesize evidence; prepare and distribute easy-to-find and easy-to-use evidence summaries; and develop and maintain networks of connections with researchers and practitioners. Based on a review of the literature regarding evidence intermediaries in conservation and environmental management, as well as an anonymous questionnaire searching for such organizations, we found few intermediaries that met all these criteria. Few evidence bridges that do exist are unable to reach most conservation practitioners, which include resource managers in government and industry, conservation organizations, and farmers and other private landowners. We argue that the lack of evidence bridges from research to practitioners contributes to evidence complacency and limits the use of evidence in conservation action. Nevertheless, several existing organizations help reduce the gap between evidence and practice and could serve as a foundation for building additional components of evidence bridges in conservation. Although evidence bridges need expertise in research and evidence synthesis, they also require expertise in identifying and communicating with the community of practitioners most in need of clear and concise syntheses of evidence. Article Impact Statement: Evidence-based conservation will not be realized without improved access to evidence. We call for intermediary evidence bridges.
呼吁将生物多样性保护实践建立在更多证据的基础上的呼声越来越高，我们也同意保护实践中证据的使用需要改进。然而，如果没有改善获取证据的途径，基于证据的保护将无法实现。在医学领域，与保护不同，有一个成熟且资金充足的中介人员和组织层与医疗从业者合作，综合与决策相关的主要研究，并使证据易于获取。这些中介人员准备有针对性的证据摘要，并将其分发给面临时间紧迫和价值取向的决策的从业者。为了有效，我们称之为证据桥梁的这些中介人员应该根据从业者的优先事项确定研究主题；综合证据；准备和分发易于查找和使用的证据摘要；并与研究人员和从业者建立和维护联系网络。基于对保护和环境管理中证据中介的文献综述以及针对此类组织的匿名问卷调查，我们发现很少有符合所有这些标准的中介人员。现有的少数证据桥梁无法接触到大多数保护从业者，包括政府和行业的资源管理者、保护组织以及农民和其他私人土地所有者。我们认为，从研究到从业者的证据桥梁的缺乏导致了证据自满情绪，并限制了证据在保护行动中的应用。然而，一些现有的组织有助于缩小证据与实践之间的差距，并可以为保护领域的证据桥梁的其他组成部分的建立提供基础。虽然证据桥梁需要研究和证据综合方面的专业知识，但它们还需要识别和与最需要明确简洁的证据综合的从业者社区进行沟通的专业知识。文章影响陈述：如果不能改善获取证据的途径，基于证据的保护将无法实现。我们呼吁建立中介证据桥梁。
