Explore the vast range of titles available.

Other effective area‐based conservation measures (OECMs) create opportunities for a wide range of area‐based conservation strategies. As countries seek to integrate OECMs into conservation planning, it is useful to consider the types of areas that might meet the formal criteria. To support this goal, I analyzed the different types of measures discussed as possible OECMs in the literature, identifying a wide range of measures, far more diverse than those currently recognized as OECMs. There was a strong emphasis on measures with conservation as a secondary management objective, with most studies being supportive of the potential to balance biodiversity conservation and sustainable resource use. However, many studies have highlighted the need to ensure biodiversity outcomes are achieved and sustained, and that appropriate governance and management structures are in place. Concerns were raised about measures associated with resource extraction, such as fisheries and forestry, which were often considered incompatible with conservation. Very few studies offered a nuanced discussion of specific measures or evaluated whether sites offer conservation outcomes, leaving clear knowledge gaps in translating speculation into evidence. Nevertheless, the current literature offers a strong starting point from which to target potential case studies to build the evidence base necessary to advance OECMs.

The practice of conservation occurs within complex socioecological systems fraught with challenges that require transparent, defensible, and often socially engaged project planning and management. Planning and decision support frameworks are designed to help conservation practitioners increase planning rigor, project accountability, stakeholder participation, transparency in decisions, and learning. We describe and contrast five common frameworks within the context of six fundamental questions (why, who, what, where, when, how) at each of three planning stages of adaptive management (project scoping, operational planning, learning). We demonstrate that decision support frameworks provide varied and extensive tools for conservation planning and management. However, using any framework in isolation risks diminishing potential benefits since no one framework covers the full spectrum of potential conservation planning and decision challenges. We describe two case studies that have effectively deployed tools from across conservation frameworks to improve conservation actions and outcomes. Attention to the critical questions for conservation project planning should allow practitioners to operate within any framework and adapt tools to suit their specific management context. We call on conservation researchers and practitioners to regularly use decision support tools as standard practice for framing both practice and research.

An iterative process that recognizes different value systems may help to protect elephants Poaching for ivory has caused a steep decline in African elephant ( Loxodonta africana , see the photo) populations over the past decade ( 1 ). This crisis has fueled a contentious global debate over which ivory policy would best protect elephants: banning all ivory trade or enabling regulated trade to incentivize and fund elephant conservation ( 2 ). The deep-seated deadlock on ivory policy consumes valuable resources and creates an antagonistic environment among elephant conservationists. Successful solutions must begin by recognizing the different values that influence stakeholder cognitive frameworks of how actions lead to outcomes (“mental models”) ( 3 ), and therefore their diverging positions on ivory trade ( 4 ). Based on successful conflict resolution in other areas, we propose an iterative process through which countries with wild elephant populations may be able to understand their differences and develop workable solutions in a less confrontational manner.

Other effective area–based conservation measures (OECMs) are anticipated to play an important role in progress towards global protection targets, with progress being judged on the basis of the areas reported to the World Database on Other Effective area‐based Conservation Measures (WD‐OECM). Given concerns that OECMs may be designated inappropriately, in this study we asked what evidence has been provided to show that sites have been assessed against the criteria to be OECMs. We found <5% of the 6,482 sites in the dataset provide supporting information of any kind, and 2.2% of sites have features that conflict with the definition of an OECM. Although our results cannot determine if sites genuinely meet the criteria to be recognized as OECMs, they reveal a significant issue with the ability to verify whether sites should be in the WD‐OECM. To increase the credibility of OECMs, we recommend sites be classed as unconfirmed until they can demonstrate they meet the relevant criteria.

Protected areas are a crucial tool for halting the loss of biodiversity. Yet, the management of protected areas is under resourced, impacting the ability to achieve effective conservation actions. Effective management depends on the application of the best available knowledge, which can include both scientific evidence and the local knowledge of onsite managers. Despite the clear value of evidence-based conservation, there is still little known about how much scientific evidence is used to guide the management of protected areas. This knowledge gap is especially evident in developing countries, where resource limitations and language barriers may create additional challenges for the use of scientific evidence in management. To assess the extent to which scientific evidence is used to inform management decisions in a developing country, we surveyed Brazilian protected area managers about the information they use to support their management decisions. We targeted on-ground managers who are responsible for management decisions made at the local protected area level. We asked managers about the sources of evidence they use, how frequently they assess the different sources of evidence and the scientific content of the different sources of evidence. We also considered a range of factors that might explain the use of scientific evidence to guide the management of protected areas, such as the language spoken by managers, the accessibility of evidence sources and the characteristics of the managers and the protected areas they manage. The managers who responded to our questionnaire reported that they most frequently made decisions based on their personal experience, with scientific evidence being used relatively infrequently. While managers in our study tended to value scientific evidence less highly than other sources, most managers still considered science important for management decisions. Managers reported that the accessibility of scientific evidence is low relative to other types of evidence, with key barriers being the low levels of open access research and insufficient technical training to enable managers to interpret research findings. Based on our results, we suggest that managers in developing countries face all the same challenges as those in developed countries, along with additional language barriers that can prevent greater use of scientific evidence to support effective management of protected areas in Brazil.

Successful island conservation is critical to achieving global biodiversity targets, but significant gaps remain in our understanding of how to effectively engage island communities in conservation efforts. Social and political factors often play a major role in decision‐making processes on inhabited islands, making effective community engagement critical. To better understand the issue, we conducted an international survey of practitioners across 43 islands to understand how they engage with local communities and which methods they consider to be most effective to support their conservation goals. Most respondents used at least one form of community engagement, many using five or more different methods. Communicative and consultative modes of engagement were most commonly used, which require fewer resources and less intensive participation by the community, while only half used the more demanding collaborative approaches to engagement. Indigenous co‐management was reported by practitioners to be the most effective method for positive engagement and to support conservation outcomes, and was implemented on two‐thirds of islands with an indigenous population. Our study supports the view that practitioners consider community engagement an important part of island conservation management, but that there is a tendency for practitioners to rely on one‐way communication, rather than more resource intensive, collaborative approaches to working with communities. Future research should investigate how the communities themselves perceive different engagement methods to gain the full picture of engagement effectiveness. To better understand how community engagement is used in conservation on inhabited islands we elicited the experiences of 71 conservation professionals spanning 43 islands worldwide. We found that respondents typically reported using less resource‐intensive methods of engagement, though indigenous co‐management was reported to be the most effective at engaging the community. Our study supports the view that community engagement is an important part of island conservation management, but that there is a tendency to rely on one‐way communication, rather than more collaborative approaches to working with communities.

The scarcity of environmental data means that other sources of information are needed to complement empirical evidence for conservation decisions. By regularly interacting with their local environment, protected area practitioners may generate local ecological knowledge (LEK) that can be used to inform management decisions. However, the accuracy of LEK is generally poorly understood, and no studies have assessed the accuracy of practitioners’ personal knowledge, leading to a vital gap in our ability to best use this information to guide management. We measured the accuracy of practitioners’ knowledge of the vegetation condition within protected areas, relative to an empirical vegetation condition assessment tool. Despite the vast majority of practitioners having only personal experiences to inform their judgments, we found that almost 60% of practitioners made assessments of vegetation condition that matched the empirical condition estimates. When inaccurate, practitioners tended to be conservative in their estimates of condition. Although underestimating condition in this way may waste resources through unnecessary management actions, this is likely to be preferable to overestimating condition and thus failing to protect biodiversity by prematurely ceasing restoration programs. We found no relationship between the accuracy of practitioners’ LEK and their level of experience as a practitioner, their level of education, or their gender. We believe that under many circumstances practitioners can be a valuable and cost-effective source of information about the condition of the protected areas they manage, but that more research is needed to understand the wide range of factors that may contribute to how land managers build LEK and how management agencies can assist practitioners to build a good understanding of the conditions in their reserves.

In civil society we expect that policy and management decisions will be made using the best available evidence. Yet, it is widely known that there are many barriers that limit the extent to which that occurs. One way to overcome these barriers is via robust, comprehensive, transparent and repeatable evidence syntheses (such as systematic reviews) that attempt to minimize various forms of bias to present a summary of existing knowledge for decision-making purposes. Relative to other disciplines (e.g., health care, education), such evidence-based decision-making remains relatively nascent for environment management despite major threats to humanity, such as the climate, pollution and biodiversity crises demonstrating that human well-being is inextricably linked to the biophysical environment. Fortunately, there are a growing number of environmental evidence syntheses being produced that can be used by decision makers. It is therefore an opportune time to reflect on the science and practice of evidence-based decision-making in environment management to understand the extent to which evidence syntheses are embraced and applied in practice. Here we outline a number of key questions related to the use of environmental evidence that need to be explored in an effort to enhance evidence-based decision-making. There is an urgent need for research involving methods from social science, behavioural sciences, and public policy to understand the basis for patterns and trends in environmental evidence use (or misuse or ignorance). There is also a need for those who commission and produce evidence syntheses, as well as the end users of these syntheses to reflect on their experiences and share them with the broader evidence-based practice community to identify needs and opportunities for advancing the entire process of evidence-based practice. It is our hope that the ideas shared here will serve as a roadmap for additional scholarship that will collectively enhance evidence-based decision-making and ultimately benefit the environment and humanity.

[...]the pandemic illustrates how crises create opportunities to undercut programs to protect people and nature. [...]observing the willingness of people to make deep sacrifices for society to stem the pandemic shows the power of collective action to make governance succeed. Endnotes: 1https://www.duluthnewstribune.com/sports/outdoors/6478252-Minnesota-fishing-license-sales-explode-during-COVID-19-pandemic 2https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-memorial-day-weekend-beach/ 3https://www.nwpb.org/2020/04/04/washington-public-lands-are-still-closed-so-please-stop-going-around-closure-signs-officials-ask/ https://www.nrpa.org/globalassets/engagement-survey-report-2018.pdf 4https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-29/logging-bushfire-affected-areas-australia-increases-fire-risk/11903662; https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-29/logging-industry-and-nationals-call-for-burnt-timber-salvage/11903574 5https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/26/climate/epa-coronavirus-pollution-rules.html 6https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-rule-could-kill-billions-birds-former-wildlife-chief-don-ashe-migratory-bird-treaty-act/ 7https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/06/world/americas/amazon-deforestation-brazil.html