Finding Common Ground between Adaptive Management and Evidence-Based Approaches to Biodiversity Conservation

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsey Gillson ◽  
Harry Biggs ◽  
Izak P.J. Smit ◽  
Malika Virah-Sawmy ◽  
Kevin Rogers
Keyword(s):  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Adaptive Management ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Evidence Based

The importance of ecological processes for terrestrial biodiversity conservation in Tasmania ? a review

2009 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter B. McQuillan ◽  
James E.M. Watson ◽  
Nick B. Fitzgerald ◽  
David Leaman ◽  
David Obendorf
Keyword(s):  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Adaptive Management ◽  
Biodiversity Assessment ◽  
Effective Management ◽  
Vegetation Types ◽  
Ecological Processes ◽  
European Settlement ◽  
Reserve Network ◽  
Current Trends ◽  
Terrestrial Biodiversity

The continental island of Tasmania supports an extraordinary biota featuring ancient communities, high levels of endemism and many species extinct on mainland Australia. However, more than 670 species are currently listed as threatened, mainly due to changes in their habitat since European settlement. Although Tasmania has a relatively high proportion of its land in reserves with some degree of representation for most vegetation types, habitat protection in some bioregions is very low. In this paper we approach biodiversity assessment in Tasmania by (i) addressing critical, natural ecological processes that underpin and sustain its biodiversity, (ii) assessing the current trends in, and threats to, these processes, and (iii) identifying gaps in knowledge that limit the effective management of these processes for conservation. It is hoped that this will contribute a sound basis for ongoing adaptive management for biodiversity conservation in Tasmania and assist in re-focusing the purpose of the reserve network from representation to persistence of the native biota.

Finding Common Ground: Patient-Centeredness and Evidence-Based Chronic Illness Care

2005 ◽  
Vol 11 (supplement 1) ◽  
pp. s-7-s-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward H. Wagner ◽  
Susan M. Bennett ◽  
Brian T. Austin ◽  
Sarah M. Greene ◽  
Judith K. Schaefer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Illness ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Chronic Illness Care ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Patient Centeredness

Cautionary considerations for positive dingo management: a response to the Johnson and Ritchie critique of Fleming et al. (2012)

2013 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. S. Fleming ◽  
Benjamin L. Allen ◽  
Guy-Anthony Ballard
Keyword(s):  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Mesopredator Release ◽  
Livestock Predation ◽  
Adaptive Comanagement ◽  
Opinion Piece ◽  
Free Ranging

Johnson and Ritchie (2012) have provided a criticism of our opinion piece (Fleming et al. 2012). There is some common ground, but we remain unconvinced by their view that our reasoning was unsound or beside the point. In this response, we discuss where Johnson and Ritchie have provided unconvincing evidence to refute our seven considerations, and reiterate and demonstrate why these considerations remain important. The mesopredator release or suppression hypothesis in Australian ecosystems must be objectively evaluated before positive management of dingoes and other free-ranging dogs is recommended or implemented. Adaptive comanagement of free-ranging dogs can be used for both biodiversity conservation and the mitigation of livestock predation but caution must be exercised when considering using free-ranging dogs as a conservation tool.

scholarly journals Tapping into non-English-language science for the conservation of global biodiversity

PLoS Biology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (10) ◽  
pp. e3001296
Author(s):  
Tatsuya Amano ◽  
Violeta Berdejo-Espinola ◽  
Alec P. Christie ◽  
Kate Willott ◽  
Munemitsu Akasaka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
English Language ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Local Context ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Scientific Communities ◽  
Language Studies ◽  
Global Biodiversity ◽  
Study Designs ◽  
Conservation Interventions

The widely held assumption that any important scientific information would be available in English underlies the underuse of non-English-language science across disciplines. However, non-English-language science is expected to bring unique and valuable scientific information, especially in disciplines where the evidence is patchy, and for emergent issues where synthesising available evidence is an urgent challenge. Yet such contribution of non-English-language science to scientific communities and the application of science is rarely quantified. Here, we show that non-English-language studies provide crucial evidence for informing global biodiversity conservation. By screening 419,679 peer-reviewed papers in 16 languages, we identified 1,234 non-English-language studies providing evidence on the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation interventions, compared to 4,412 English-language studies identified with the same criteria. Relevant non-English-language studies are being published at an increasing rate in 6 out of the 12 languages where there were a sufficient number of relevant studies. Incorporating non-English-language studies can expand the geographical coverage (i.e., the number of 2° × 2° grid cells with relevant studies) of English-language evidence by 12% to 25%, especially in biodiverse regions, and taxonomic coverage (i.e., the number of species covered by the relevant studies) by 5% to 32%, although they do tend to be based on less robust study designs. Our results show that synthesising non-English-language studies is key to overcoming the widespread lack of local, context-dependent evidence and facilitating evidence-based conservation globally. We urge wider disciplines to rigorously reassess the untapped potential of non-English-language science in informing decisions to address other global challenges. Please see the Supporting information files for Alternative Language Abstracts.

Uncertainty and adaptive management for biodiversity conservation

2011 ◽  
Vol 144 (4) ◽  
pp. 1175-1178 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Keith ◽  
Tara G. Martin ◽  
Eve McDonald-Madden ◽  
Carl Walters
Keyword(s):  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Adaptive Management

Seven considerations about dingoes as biodiversity engineers: the socioecological niches of dogs in Australia

2012 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. S. Fleming ◽  
Benjamin L. Allen ◽  
Guy-Anthony Ballard
Keyword(s):  
Biodiversity Conservation ◽  
Adaptive Management ◽  
Landscape Changes ◽  
Apex Predator ◽  
Mesopredator Release ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Management Framework ◽  
Human Perceptions ◽  
Threatened Fauna

Australian dingoes have recently been suggested as a tool to aid biodiversity conservation through the reversal or prevention of trophic cascades and mesopredator release. However, at least seven ecological and sociological considerations must be addressed before dog populations are positively managed.Domestication and feralisation of dingoes have resulted in behavioural changes that continue to expose a broad range of native and introduced fauna to predation.Dingoes and other dogs are classic mesopredators, while humans are the apex predator and primary ecosystem engineers in Australia.Anthropogenic landscape changes could prevent modern dingoes from fulfilling their pre-European roles.Dingoes are known to exploit many of the same species they are often presumed to ‘protect’, predisposing them to present direct risks to many threatened species.The assertion that contemporary dog control facilitates the release of mesopredators disregards the realities of effective dog control, which simultaneously reduces fox and dog abundance and is unlikely to enable increases in fox abundance.The processes affecting threatened fauna are likely a combination of both top-down and bottom-up effects, which will not be solved or reversed by concentrating efforts on managing only predator effects.Most importantly, human social and economic niches are highly variable across the ecosystems where dingoes are present or proposed. Human perceptions will ultimately determine acceptance of positive dingo management.Outside of an adaptive management framework, positively managing dingoes while ignoring these seven considerations is unlikely to succeed in conserving native faunal biodiversity but is likely to have negative effects on ecological, social and economic values.

scholarly journals Expert knowledge and policymaking: a multi-disciplinary research agenda

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johan Christensen
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Study ◽  
Research Agenda ◽  
Common Ground ◽  
Expert Knowledge ◽  
Epistemic Communities ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Systematic Research ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Theoretical Understanding

The role of experts and expert knowledge in policymaking has attracted growing public and academic attention. Scholarship on the topic has, however, remained deeply fragmented. It is discussed in separate silos of the literature – such as evidence-based policymaking, epistemic communities, and ideas and politics – and this has hindered sustained empirical study. This article argues that to stimulate more systematic research on the role that experts play in policymaking and develop a theoretical understanding of it, we need to foster dialogue across these literatures. To facilitate this, the article critically reviews how the role of expert knowledge in policymaking is conceptualised and explained in existing literatures, and offers suggestions about how to create common ground for future research by reframing research around the question of the influence of experts, and examining more closely the administrative underpinnings of expert influence.

scholarly journals Adapting to Learn and Learning to Adapt: Practical Insights from International Development Projects

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derick W. Brinkerhoff ◽  
Sarah Frazer ◽  
Lisa McGregor-Mirghani
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
International Development ◽  
Adaptive Management ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Reporting Requirements ◽  
Adaptive Programming ◽  
Donor Agencies ◽  
Program Cycle ◽  
Evidence Based Decision Making

Adaptive programming and management principles focused on learning, experimentation, and evidence-based decision making are gaining traction with donor agencies and implementing partners in international development. Adaptation calls for using learning to inform adjustments during project implementation. This requires information gathering methods that promote reflection, learning, and adaption, beyond reporting on pre-specified data. A focus on adaptation changes traditional thinking about program cycle. It both erases the boundaries between design, implementation, and evaluation and reframes thinking to consider the complexity of development problems and nonlinear change pathways.Supportive management structures and processes are crucial for fostering adaptive management. Implementers and donors are experimenting with how procurement, contracting, work planning, and reporting can be modified to foster adaptive programming. Well-designed monitoring, evaluation, and learning systems can go beyond meeting accountability and reporting requirements to produce data and learning for evidence-based decision making and adaptive management. It is important to continue experimenting and learning to integrate adaptive programming and management into the operational policies and practices of donor agencies, country partners, and implementers. We need to devote ongoing effort to build the evidence base for the contributions of adaptive management to achieving international development results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document