Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25103469›Full record

ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2015

The effect of scientific evidence on conservation practitioners' management decisions.

Jessica C Walsh, Lynn V Dicks, William J Sutherland

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
17.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 234 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Tracking the global application of conservation translocation and social attraction to reverse seabird declines.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Rewilded horses in European nature conservation - a genetics, ethics, and welfare perspective.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Funding evidence-based conservation.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Bridging research and practice in conservation.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2021
    Review
  16. Post COVID-19: a solution scan of options for preventing future zoonotic epidemics.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2021
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jessica C WalshDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3E J, United Kingdom.
Lynn V Dicks
William J Sutherland
University of Cambridge · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A major justification of environmental management research is that it helps practitioners, yet previous studies show it is rarely used to inform their decisions. We tested whether conservation practitioners focusing on bird management were willing to use a synopsis of relevant scientific literature to inform their management decisions. This allowed us to examine whether the limited use of scientific information in management is due to a lack of access to the scientific literature or whether it is because practitioners are either not interested or unable to incorporate the research into their decisions. In on-line surveys, we asked 92 conservation managers, predominantly from Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, to provide opinions on 28 management techniques that could be applied to reduce predation on birds. We asked their opinions before and after giving them a summary of the literature about the interventions' effectiveness. We scored the overall effectiveness and certainty of evidence for each intervention through an expert elicitation process-the Delphi method. We used the effectiveness scores to assess the practitioners' level of understanding and awareness of the literature. On average, each survey participant changed their likelihood of using 45.7% of the interventions after reading the synopsis of the evidence. They were more likely to implement effective interventions and avoid ineffective actions, suggesting that their intended future management strategies may be more successful than current practice. More experienced practitioners were less likely to change their management practices than those with less experience, even though they were not more aware of the existing scientific information than less experienced practitioners. The practitioners' willingness to change their management choices when provided with summarized scientific evidence suggests that improved accessibility to scientific information would benefit conservation management outcomes.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorDecision MakingAnimalsAustraliaBirdsConservation of Natural ResourcesNew ZealandUnited Kingdombehavior changebird predationcambio conductualconservación basada en evidenciaconservation synopsisDelphi methoddepredación de avesespecies invasorasevidence-based conservationfalta de datos de implementaciónimplementation gapinvasive speciesknowledge usemétodo Delphisinopsis de conservaciónuso del conocimiento

Identifiers

PMID25103469
PMCPMC4515094
OpenAlexW1565797924

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.