LEADER 01000caa a22002652c 4500
001 NLM334439833
003 DE-627
005 20250302191429.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 231225s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
024 7 |a 10.1111/cobi.13876  |2 doi 
028 5 2 |a pubmed25n1114.xml 
035 |a (DE-627)NLM334439833 
035 |a (NLM)34907584 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rakwb 
041 |a eng 
100 1 |a Stevens, Madison  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
245 1 2 |a A mixed methodology for evaluating use of evidence in conservation planning 
264 1 |c 2022 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a ƒaComputermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a ƒa Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
500 |a Date Completed 01.08.2022 
500 |a Date Revised 12.09.2022 
500 |a published: Print-Electronic 
500 |a Citation Status MEDLINE 
520 |a © 2021 Society for Conservation Biology. 
520 |a Conservation practitioners widely recognize the importance of making decisions based on the best available evidence. However, the effectiveness of evidence use in conservation planning is rarely assessed, which limits opportunities to improve evidence-based practice. We devised a mixed methodology for empirically evaluating use of evidence that applies social science tools to systematically appraise what kinds of evidence are used in conservation planning, to what effect, and under what limitations. We applied our approach in a case study of the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC), a leading land conservation organization. We conducted qualitative and quantitative analyses of 65 NCC planning documents (n = 13 in-depth) to identify patterns in evidence use, and surveyed 35 conservation planners to examine experiences of and barriers to using evidence. Although claims in plans contained a wide range of evidence types, 26% of claims were not referenced or associated with an identifiable source. Lack of evidence use was particularly apparent in claims associated with direct threats, particularly those identified as low (71% coded as insufficient or lacking evidence) or medium (45%) threats. Survey participants described relying heavily on practitioner experience and highlighted capacity limitations and disciplinary gaps in expertise among planning teams as barriers to using evidence effectively. We found that although time-intensive, this approach yielded actionable recommendations for improving evidence use in NCC conservation plans. Similar mixed-method assessments may streamline the process by including interviews and refining the document analysis frames to target issues or sections of concern. We suggest our method provides an accessible and robust point of departure for conservation practitioners to evaluate whether the use of conservation planning reflects in-house standards and more broadly recognized best practices 
650 4 |a Journal Article 
650 4 |a América del Norte 
650 4 |a North America 
650 4 |a análisis de documentos 
650 4 |a conocimiento ecológico tradicional 
650 4 |a conservación basada en evidencias 
650 4 |a división ciencia-práctica 
650 4 |a document analysis 
650 4 |a ecosystem management 
650 4 |a evidence-based conservation 
650 4 |a gestión ambiental 
650 4 |a knowledge synthesis 
650 4 |a monitoreo y evaluación 
650 4 |a monitoring and evaluation 
650 4 |a science-practice divide 
650 4 |a síntesis del conocimiento 
650 4 |a traditional ecological knowledge 
650 4 |a 传统生态知识 
650 4 |a 北美洲 
650 4 |a 基于证据的保护 
650 4 |a 文件分析 
650 4 |a 生态系统管理 
650 4 |a 监测和评估 
650 4 |a 知识综述 
650 4 |a 科学与实践的差距 
700 1 |a Norris, D Ryan  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology  |d 1989  |g 36(2022), 4 vom: 14. Aug., Seite e13876  |w (DE-627)NLM098176803  |x 1523-1739  |7 nnas 
773 1 8 |g volume:36  |g year:2022  |g number:4  |g day:14  |g month:08  |g pages:e13876 
856 4 0 |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13876  |3 Volltext 
912 |a GBV_USEFLAG_A 
912 |a SYSFLAG_A 
912 |a GBV_NLM 
912 |a GBV_ILN_350 
951 |a AR 
952 |d 36  |j 2022  |e 4  |b 14  |c 08  |h e13876