The effect of scientific evidence on conservation practitioners' management decisions
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...
Saved in:
| Published in | Conservation biology Vol. 29; no. 1; pp. 88 - 98 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors | , , |
| Format | Journal Article |
| Language | English |
| Published |
United States
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
01.02.2015
Wiley Periodicals Inc BlackWell Publishing Ltd |
| Subjects | |
| Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
| 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. Una justificación mayor de la investigación en el manejo ambiental es que ayuda a quienes lo practican, aunque estudios previos muestran que rara vez se usa para informar sus decisiones. Probamos si quienes practican la conservación enfocada en el manejo de aves estaban dispuestos a usar una sinopsis de literatura científica relevante para informar sus decisiones de manejo. Esto permitió que examináramos si el uso limitado de información científica en el manejo se debe a una falta de acceso a la literatura científica o si se debe a que quienes practican la conservación no están interesados o no son capaces de incorporar la investigación a sus decisiones. En encuestas en línea les preguntamos a 92 practicantes de la conservación, la mayoría de Australia, Nueva Zelanda y el Reino Unido, que nos proporcionaran opiniones sobre 28 técnicas de manejo que podrían aplicarse para reducir la depredación de aves. Les pedimos sus opiniones antes y después de darles un resumen de la literatura sobre la efectividad de las intervenciones. Calificamos la efectividad general y la certidumbre de la evidencia para cada intervención por medio de un proceso de extracción por expertos - el método Delphi. Usamos las calificaciones de la efectividad para evaluar el nivel de entendimiento y de precatación de la literatura de quienes practican la conservación. En promedio, cada participante de la encuesta cambió su probabilidad de usar 45.7% de las intervenciones después de leer la sinopsis de la evidencia. Fue más probable que implementaran intervenciones efectivas y evitar acciones poco efectivas, lo que sugiere que sus estrategias de manejo futuras puedan ser más exitosas que las de práctica actual. Los practicantes con mayor experiencia tuvieron una menor probabilidad de cambiar sus prácticas de manejo que aquellos con menos experiencia, aunque no estuvieron más conscientes de la información científica existente que quienses tenían menos experiencia. La disponibilidad de los practicantes para cambiar sus opciones de manejo al proporcionárseles evidencia científica resumida sugiere que el acceso mejorado a la información científica podría beneficiar los resultados del manejo de la conservación. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | 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. 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. El Efecto de la Evidencia Científica sobre las Decisiones de Manejo de Quienes Practican la Conservación Resumen Una justificación mayor de la investigación en el manejo ambiental es que ayuda a quienes lo practican, aunque estudios previos muestran que rara vez se usa para informar sus decisiones. Probamos si quienes practican la conservación enfocada en el manejo de aves estaban dispuestos a usar una sinopsis de literatura científica relevante para informar sus decisiones de manejo. Esto permitió que examináramos si el uso limitado de información científica en el manejo se debe a una falta de acceso a la literatura científica o si se debe a que quienes practican la conservación no están interesados o no son capaces de incorporar la investigación a sus decisiones. En encuestas en línea les preguntamos a 92 practicantes de la conservación, la mayoría de Australia, Nueva Zelanda y el Reino Unido, que nos proporcionaran opiniones sobre 28 técnicas de manejo que podrían aplicarse para reducir la depredación de aves. Les pedimos sus opiniones antes y después de darles un resumen de la literatura sobre la efectividad de las intervenciones. Calificamos la efectividad general y la certidumbre de la evidencia para cada intervención por medio de un proceso de extracción por expertos – el método Delphi. Usamos las calificaciones de la efectividad para evaluar el nivel de entendimiento y de percatación de la literatura de quienes practican la conservación. En promedio, cada participante de la encuesta cambió su probabilidad de usar 45.7% de las intervenciones después de leer la sinopsis de la evidencia. Fue más probable que implementaran intervenciones efectivas y evitar acciones poco efectivas, lo que sugiere que sus estrategias de manejo futuras puedan ser más exitosas que las de práctica actual. Los practicantes con mayor experiencia tuvieron una menor probabilidad de cambiar sus prácticas de manejo que aquellos con menos experiencia, aunque no estuvieron más conscientes de la información científica existente que quienes tenían menos experiencia. La disponibilidad de los practicantes para cambiar sus opciones de manejo al proporcionárseles evidencia científica resumida sugiere que el acceso mejorado a la información científica podría beneficiar los resultados del manejo de la conservación. 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. El Efecto de la Evidencia Científica sobre las Decisiones de Manejo de Quienes Practican la Conservación 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.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. 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. El Efecto de la Evidencia Científica sobre las Decisiones de Manejo de Quienes Practican la Conservación Una justificación mayor de la investigación en el manejo ambiental es que ayuda a quienes lo practican, aunque estudios previos muestran que rara vez se usa para informar sus decisiones. Probamos si quienes practican la conservación enfocada en el manejo de aves estaban dispuestos a usar una sinopsis de literatura científica relevante para informar sus decisiones de manejo. Esto permitió que examináramos si el uso limitado de información científica en el manejo se debe a una falta de acceso a la literatura científica o si se debe a que quienes practican la conservación no están interesados o no son capaces de incorporar la investigación a sus decisiones. En encuestas en línea les preguntamos a 92 practicantes de la conservación, la mayoría de Australia, Nueva Zelanda y el Reino Unido, que nos proporcionaran opiniones sobre 28 técnicas de manejo que podrían aplicarse para reducir la depredación de aves. Les pedimos sus opiniones antes y después de darles un resumen de la literatura sobre la efectividad de las intervenciones. Calificamos la efectividad general y la certidumbre de la evidencia para cada intervención por medio de un proceso de extracción por expertos – el método Delphi. Usamos las calificaciones de la efectividad para evaluar el nivel de entendimiento y de percatación de la literatura de quienes practican la conservación. En promedio, cada participante de la encuesta cambió su probabilidad de usar 45.7% de las intervenciones después de leer la sinopsis de la evidencia. Fue más probable que implementaran intervenciones efectivas y evitar acciones poco efectivas, lo que sugiere que sus estrategias de manejo futuras puedan ser más exitosas que las de práctica actual. Los practicantes con mayor experiencia tuvieron una menor probabilidad de cambiar sus prácticas de manejo que aquellos con menos experiencia, aunque no estuvieron más conscientes de la información científica existente que quienes tenían menos experiencia. La disponibilidad de los practicantes para cambiar sus opciones de manejo al proporcionárseles evidencia científica resumida sugiere que el acceso mejorado a la información científica podría beneficiar los resultados del manejo de la conservación. 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. Una justificación mayor de la investigación en el manejo ambiental es que ayuda a quienes lo practican, aunque estudios previos muestran que rara vez se usa para informar sus decisiones. Probamos si quienes practican la conservación enfocada en el manejo de aves estaban dispuestos a usar una sinopsis de literatura científica relevante para informar sus decisiones de manejo. Esto permitió que examináramos si el uso limitado de información científica en el manejo se debe a una falta de acceso a la literatura científica o si se debe a que quienes practican la conservación no están interesados o no son capaces de incorporar la investigación a sus decisiones. En encuestas en línea les preguntamos a 92 practicantes de la conservación, la mayoría de Australia, Nueva Zelanda y el Reino Unido, que nos proporcionaran opiniones sobre 28 técnicas de manejo que podrían aplicarse para reducir la depredación de aves. Les pedimos sus opiniones antes y después de darles un resumen de la literatura sobre la efectividad de las intervenciones. Calificamos la efectividad general y la certidumbre de la evidencia para cada intervención por medio de un proceso de extracción por expertos - el método Delphi. Usamos las calificaciones de la efectividad para evaluar el nivel de entendimiento y de precatación de la literatura de quienes practican la conservación. En promedio, cada participante de la encuesta cambió su probabilidad de usar 45.7% de las intervenciones después de leer la sinopsis de la evidencia. Fue más probable que implementaran intervenciones efectivas y evitar acciones poco efectivas, lo que sugiere que sus estrategias de manejo futuras puedan ser más exitosas que las de práctica actual. Los practicantes con mayor experiencia tuvieron una menor probabilidad de cambiar sus prácticas de manejo que aquellos con menos experiencia, aunque no estuvieron más conscientes de la información científica existente que quienses tenían menos experiencia. La disponibilidad de los practicantes para cambiar sus opciones de manejo al proporcionárseles evidencia científica resumida sugiere que el acceso mejorado a la información científica podría beneficiar los resultados del manejo de la conservación. |
| Author | Sutherland, William J. Walsh, Jessica C. Dicks, Lynn V. |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Jessica C. surname: Walsh fullname: Walsh, Jessica C. email: j.walsh@zoo.cam.ac.uk organization: Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, CB2 3E J, Cambridge, United Kingdom – sequence: 2 givenname: Lynn V. surname: Dicks fullname: Dicks, Lynn V. organization: Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, CB2 3E J, Cambridge, United Kingdom – sequence: 3 givenname: William J. surname: Sutherland fullname: Sutherland, William J. organization: Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, CB2 3E J, Cambridge, United Kingdom |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25103469$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNqNkV1rFDEUhoNU7Ife-ANkQEQRpub740bQRWtlsaAtgjchkznTZp2drMnsav-92W671CJibpKTPO_LyXn30c4QB0DoMcGHpKxXPjbhkFCm8D20RwRlNVHM7KA9rLWutTZ0F-3nPMMYG0H4A7RLBcGMS7OHzk4voIKuAz9WsauyDzCMoQu-glVoYfBQxaHycciQVm4MpVgk58ewPkLKz6u5G9w5zIusasGHXO7zQ3S_c32GR9f7ATp7_-508qGenhwdT95May-1wDXjTispGs07QRrhCAOsWiox6XxDZcsdloJrr8B46nhLnJbY6AZjJTuQHTtArze-i2Uzh9aXJpLr7SKFuUuXNrpg_3wZwoU9jyvLBRHY8GLw4togxR9LyKOdh-yh790AcZktkYZzzSnF_4GWyRtuuCro0zvoLC7TUCZRKC45ppKaQj253fy265twCvByA_gUc07QbRGC7Tp5u07eXiVfYHwH9mG8Cqx8PPR_l5CN5Gfo4fIf5nZy8vb4RvNso5nlMabbGsqwsrRMiwi95uoNF_IIv7acS9-tVEwJ-_XTkf2myPQz-_jFGvYbD0_awA |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1007_s13280_015_0718_9 crossref_primary_10_1111_csp2_6 crossref_primary_10_3354_esr00721 crossref_primary_10_1111_conl_12315 crossref_primary_10_1007_s13280_024_01979_9 crossref_primary_10_34068_joe_59_01_04 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ecoser_2019_100962 crossref_primary_10_1655_0018_0831_76_2_228 crossref_primary_10_2989_00306525_2024_2387723 crossref_primary_10_1111_faf_12411 crossref_primary_10_1111_csp2_13293 crossref_primary_10_3389_fcosc_2023_1094443 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jenvman_2019_109998 crossref_primary_10_1890_15_0595 crossref_primary_10_1002_ecs2_2730 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_biocon_2019_108199 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10592_021_01379_6 crossref_primary_10_1111_eva_13266 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13750_023_00302_5 crossref_primary_10_1111_cobi_13372 crossref_primary_10_1002_fsh_10419 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scitotenv_2024_171692 crossref_primary_10_1111_csp2_12911 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jnc_2021_125975 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ecolmodel_2020_109331 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41559_017_0281_9 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scitotenv_2019_133681 crossref_primary_10_3389_fmars_2017_00288 crossref_primary_10_1007_s13280_015_0706_0 crossref_primary_10_1111_acv_12260 crossref_primary_10_1111_conl_12564 crossref_primary_10_1111_jfb_13536 crossref_primary_10_1002_2688_8319_12032 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ecolmodel_2016_07_012 crossref_primary_10_1093_beheco_ary163 crossref_primary_10_1111_2041_210X_14017 crossref_primary_10_1111_cobi_12964 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10980_020_00970_5 crossref_primary_10_1007_s13280_024_02094_5 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_biocon_2019_108223 crossref_primary_10_1111_brv_13146 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_biocon_2019_108222 crossref_primary_10_1080_17550874_2019_1646831 crossref_primary_10_1080_23311843_2016_1254078 crossref_primary_10_1146_annurev_environ_111522_103028 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10841_017_0028_6 crossref_primary_10_1111_aec_13382 crossref_primary_10_1111_csp2_295 crossref_primary_10_1111_csp2_571 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jaridenv_2017_05_009 crossref_primary_10_1111_csp2_210 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_biocon_2022_109886 crossref_primary_10_1002_jwmg_21575 crossref_primary_10_3390_rs13204142 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00265_016_2238_4 crossref_primary_10_3354_esr01230 crossref_primary_10_5194_soil_2_511_2016 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jenvman_2017_10_049 crossref_primary_10_1093_beheco_ary130 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_biocon_2017_07_004 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_oneear_2023_04_005 crossref_primary_10_1002_aqc_2875 crossref_primary_10_1007_s13280_018_1056_5 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_envsci_2024_103713 crossref_primary_10_1098_rstb_2014_0282 crossref_primary_10_1111_rec_13581 crossref_primary_10_1002_2688_8319_12249 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11625_021_00920_3 crossref_primary_10_1111_csp2_13234 crossref_primary_10_1111_csp2_579 crossref_primary_10_1111_csp2_12663 crossref_primary_10_1139_er_2020_0045 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_biocon_2019_05_030 crossref_primary_10_1002_2688_8319_12089 crossref_primary_10_1111_cobi_13991 crossref_primary_10_1071_BT19083 crossref_primary_10_1073_pnas_2214574120 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jenvman_2019_109481 crossref_primary_10_1111_csp2_587 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_biocon_2022_109533 crossref_primary_10_1093_conphys_cox005 crossref_primary_10_1080_14486563_2019_1599742 crossref_primary_10_1111_disa_12644 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_envsci_2020_06_007 crossref_primary_10_1093_conphys_cox003 crossref_primary_10_1007_s13280_015_0723_z crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0279718 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_oneear_2020_04_012 crossref_primary_10_1086_719958 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41559_018_0608_1 crossref_primary_10_1111_csp2_467 crossref_primary_10_3389_fevo_2022_1031483 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10530_020_02267_9 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_biocon_2023_110257 crossref_primary_10_1111_csp2_12891 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00267_024_02080_3 crossref_primary_10_1080_01584197_2023_2275121 crossref_primary_10_1002_aqc_3318 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jobb_2021_08_003 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_pecon_2018_06_002 crossref_primary_10_1002_fee_1797 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jenvman_2019_109392 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jenvman_2022_116268 crossref_primary_10_3390_su131910625 crossref_primary_10_3897_zookeys_930_48943 crossref_primary_10_3356_JRR_21_13 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_biocon_2019_04_011 crossref_primary_10_3354_esep00175 crossref_primary_10_1098_rstb_2019_0011 crossref_primary_10_1111_1365_2664_12744 crossref_primary_10_1111_rec_12593 crossref_primary_10_1002_wfs2_1499 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jenvman_2021_113308 crossref_primary_10_1017_S0030605319000188 crossref_primary_10_1126_sciadv_aat4858 crossref_primary_10_7717_peerj_9404 crossref_primary_10_1111_jzo_12445 crossref_primary_10_1111_cobi_13054 crossref_primary_10_3389_fenvs_2021_715350 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_biocon_2023_110030 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_envsci_2018_11_006 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_tree_2016_09_001 crossref_primary_10_1111_cobi_13732 crossref_primary_10_3390_land9120501 crossref_primary_10_1111_brv_12774 crossref_primary_10_1111_brv_12385 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_biocon_2021_109327 crossref_primary_10_1111_aman_13295 crossref_primary_10_1111_1365_2664_12845 crossref_primary_10_1017_S0030605321000594 crossref_primary_10_3389_fcosc_2021_653056 crossref_primary_10_1126_sciadv_aao0167 crossref_primary_10_1080_01442872_2016_1188905 crossref_primary_10_1007_s13280_019_01281_z crossref_primary_10_1007_s00267_021_01558_8 crossref_primary_10_1139_facets_2018_0033 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pstr_0000023 crossref_primary_10_3389_fmars_2015_00102 crossref_primary_10_3389_fcosc_2024_1415127 crossref_primary_10_1111_1365_2664_14345 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ufug_2021_127019 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0188244 crossref_primary_10_1093_biosci_biae127 crossref_primary_10_3389_fevo_2016_00122 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_tree_2017_08_002 crossref_primary_10_1111_cobi_14081 crossref_primary_10_1111_conl_12385 crossref_primary_10_3897_neobiota_70_68202 crossref_primary_10_1002_fee_2610 crossref_primary_10_3390_rs14174304 crossref_primary_10_1093_biosci_biw022 crossref_primary_10_1071_AM16016 crossref_primary_10_1139_facets_2020_0085 crossref_primary_10_1002_csp2_6 crossref_primary_10_1111_1365_2656_13615 crossref_primary_10_1017_S003060532000023X crossref_primary_10_1038_s41559_017_0244_1 crossref_primary_10_1111_cobi_12346 crossref_primary_10_1111_csp2_426 crossref_primary_10_1139_facets_2017_0107 crossref_primary_10_1139_facets_2019_0012 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_isci_2023_106192 crossref_primary_10_1111_csp2_13024 crossref_primary_10_3390_su11184899 |
| Cites_doi | 10.1111/cobi.12050 10.1111/conl.12046 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.11.023 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01601.x 10.1016/j.envsci.2007.04.001 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30306.x 10.1371/journal.pone.0003785 10.1038/503335a 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.09.002 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.00561.x 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01742.x 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00914.x 10.1332/174426412X620128 10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71 10.1525/bio.2010.60.10.10 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00421.x 10.1098/rspb.2012.2649 10.1007/s10531-009-9752-x 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.04045.x 10.1016/j.jnc.2011.10.001 10.1111/conl.12042 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.01.013 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00287.x 10.1016/j.techfore.2011.09.002 10.1001/jama.280.15.1336 10.1111/1365-2664.12062 10.1111/cobi.12346 10.1890/090020 10.3399/bjgp12X652382 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.00563.x 10.1007/s10530-010-9812-x 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.05.007 10.1001/jama.2013.286182 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.00557.x 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.05.012 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00859.x |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | 2015 Society for Conservation Biology 2014 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology 2014 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology. 2015, Society for Conservation Biology 2014 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology 2014 |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: 2015 Society for Conservation Biology – notice: 2014 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology – notice: 2014 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology. – notice: 2015, Society for Conservation Biology – notice: 2014 The Authors. published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology 2014 |
| DBID | BSCLL 24P AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7QG 7SN 7SS 7ST 7U6 8FD C1K F1W FR3 H95 L.G P64 RC3 SOI 7X8 7S9 L.6 5PM |
| DOI | 10.1111/cobi.12370 |
| DatabaseName | Istex Wiley Online Library Open Access CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed Animal Behavior Abstracts Ecology Abstracts Entomology Abstracts (Full archive) Environment Abstracts Sustainability Science Abstracts Technology Research Database Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts Engineering Research Database Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts Genetics Abstracts Environment Abstracts MEDLINE - Academic AGRICOLA AGRICOLA - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) |
| DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional Technology Research Database Ecology Abstracts Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management Entomology Abstracts Genetics Abstracts Sustainability Science Abstracts Animal Behavior Abstracts ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts Engineering Research Database Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources Environment Abstracts MEDLINE - Academic AGRICOLA AGRICOLA - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE AGRICOLA MEDLINE - Academic CrossRef Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: 24P name: Wiley Online Library Open Access url: https://authorservices.wiley.com/open-science/open-access/browse-journals.html sourceTypes: Publisher – sequence: 2 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 3 dbid: EIF name: MEDLINE url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search sourceTypes: Index Database |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Biology Ecology |
| EISSN | 1523-1739 |
| EndPage | 98 |
| ExternalDocumentID | PMC4515094 3561662741 25103469 10_1111_cobi_12370 COBI12370 24481580 ark_67375_WNG_Z71LR3JS_9 |
| Genre | article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Journal Article |
| GeographicLocations | New Zealand Australia United Kingdom |
| GeographicLocations_xml | – name: United Kingdom – name: Australia – name: New Zealand |
| GrantInformation_xml | – fundername: Natural Environment Research Council, United Kingdom funderid: NE/K015419/1 |
| GroupedDBID | --- -DZ .-4 .3N .GA .Y3 05W 0R~ 10A 1OB 1OC 29F 31~ 33P 3SF 4.4 42X 50Y 50Z 51W 51X 52M 52N 52O 52P 52S 52T 52U 52W 52X 53G 5GY 5HH 5LA 5VS 66C 6J9 702 7PT 8-0 8-1 8-3 8-4 8-5 8UM 930 A03 AAESR AAEVG AAHBH AAHHS AAHKG AAISJ AAKGQ AANLZ AAONW AASGY AAUTI AAXRX AAZKR ABBHK ABCQN ABCUV ABEFU ABEML ABJNI ABLJU ABPLY ABPPZ ABPVW ABTLG ABXSQ ACAHQ ACBWZ ACCFJ ACCZN ACFBH ACGFO ACGFS ACNCT ACPOU ACPRK ACPVT ACSCC ACSTJ ACXBN ACXQS ADACV ADBBV ADEOM ADIZJ ADKYN ADMGS ADOZA ADUKH ADULT ADXAS ADZMN ADZOD AEEZP AEGXH AEIGN AEIMD AENEX AEQDE AEUPB AEUQT AEUYR AFAZZ AFBPY AFEBI AFFPM AFGKR AFPWT AFRAH AFZJQ AGUYK AHBTC AHXOZ AI. AIAGR AILXY AITYG AIURR AIWBW AJBDE AJXKR ALAGY ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS ALUQN AMBMR AMYDB ANHSF AQVQM ASPBG ATUGU AUFTA AVWKF AZBYB AZFZN AZVAB BAFTC BDRZF BFHJK BHBCM BMNLL BMXJE BNHUX BROTX BRXPI BSCLL BY8 C45 CAG CBGCD COF CS3 CUYZI D-E D-F D0L DCZOG DEVKO DOOOF DPXWK DR2 DRFUL DRSTM DU5 EBS ECGQY EJD ESX F00 F01 F04 F5P FEDTE G-S G.N GODZA GTFYD H.T H.X HF~ HGD HGLYW HQ2 HTVGU HVGLF HZI HZ~ IHE IPSME IX1 J0M JAAYA JBMMH JBS JEB JENOY JHFFW JKQEH JLS JLXEF JPM JSODD JST LATKE LC2 LC3 LEEKS LH4 LITHE LMP LOXES LP6 LP7 LUTES LW6 LYRES MEWTI MK4 MRFUL MRSTM MSFUL MSSTM MVM MXFUL MXSTM N04 N05 N9A NEJ NF~ O66 O9- OES OIG OVD P2P P2W P2X P4D PQQKQ Q.N Q11 QB0 QN7 R.K ROL RSU RX1 SA0 SAMSI SUPJJ TEORI TN5 UB1 UKR UQL V8K VH1 VOH W8V W99 WBKPD WHG WIH WIK WNSPC WOHZO WQJ WRC WXSBR WYISQ XG1 XIH XSW YFH YUY YV5 YZZ ZCA ZCG ZO4 ZZTAW ~02 ~IA ~KM ~WT AAHQN AAMMB AAMNL AANHP AAYCA ABSQW ACHIC ACRPL ACYXJ ADNMO AEFGJ AEYWJ AFWVQ AGQPQ AGXDD AGYGG AIDQK AIDYY ALVPJ 24P AAYXX ADXHL AGHNM CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7QG 7SN 7SS 7ST 7U6 8FD C1K F1W FR3 H95 L.G P64 RC3 SOI 7X8 7S9 L.6 5PM |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c6850-34a8765b84f51b5a13e07d2601fcb26d4a06548c7e9c2a4d1a86098b0076fe6f3 |
| IEDL.DBID | DR2 |
| ISSN | 0888-8892 1523-1739 |
| IngestDate | Thu Aug 21 18:24:22 EDT 2025 Fri Jul 11 18:24:28 EDT 2025 Fri Jul 11 06:07:16 EDT 2025 Fri Jul 25 10:20:49 EDT 2025 Mon Jul 21 06:03:44 EDT 2025 Tue Jul 01 02:25:24 EDT 2025 Thu Apr 24 22:58:47 EDT 2025 Wed Jan 22 16:23:58 EST 2025 Thu Jul 03 22:31:29 EDT 2025 Wed Oct 30 10:01:29 EDT 2024 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 1 |
| Keywords | conservación basada en evidencia sinopsis de conservación método Delphi knowledge use especies invasoras implementation gap Delphi method evidence-based conservation invasive species bird predation conservation synopsis cambio conductual depredación de aves uso del conocimiento behavior change falta de datos de implementación |
| Language | English |
| License | Attribution 2014 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c6850-34a8765b84f51b5a13e07d2601fcb26d4a06548c7e9c2a4d1a86098b0076fe6f3 |
| Notes | Natural Environment Research Council, United Kingdom - No. NE/K015419/1 ArticleID:COBI12370 ark:/67375/WNG-Z71LR3JS-9 istex:9D87A263741DFE696F276B976F575D54D3B94E60 ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 content type line 23 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111%2Fcobi.12370 |
| PMID | 25103469 |
| PQID | 1646402629 |
| PQPubID | 36794 |
| PageCount | 11 |
| ParticipantIDs | pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4515094 proquest_miscellaneous_1694484220 proquest_miscellaneous_1652394947 proquest_journals_1646402629 pubmed_primary_25103469 crossref_primary_10_1111_cobi_12370 crossref_citationtrail_10_1111_cobi_12370 wiley_primary_10_1111_cobi_12370_COBI12370 jstor_primary_10_2307_24481580 istex_primary_ark_67375_WNG_Z71LR3JS_9 |
| ProviderPackageCode | CITATION AAYXX |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | February 2015 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2015-02-01 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 02 year: 2015 text: February 2015 |
| PublicationDecade | 2010 |
| PublicationPlace | United States |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: United States – name: Washington – name: Oxford, UK |
| PublicationTitle | Conservation biology |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | Conservation Biology |
| PublicationYear | 2015 |
| Publisher | Blackwell Publishing Ltd Wiley Periodicals Inc BlackWell Publishing Ltd |
| Publisher_xml | – name: Blackwell Publishing Ltd – name: Wiley Periodicals Inc – name: BlackWell Publishing Ltd |
| References | Cook, C. N., M. Hockings, and R. W. Carter. 2010. Conservation in the dark? The information used to support management decisions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8:181-186. Cook, C. N., M. B. Mascia, M. W. Schwartz, H. P. Possingham, and R. A. Fuller. 2013. Achieving conservation science that bridges the knowledge-action boundary. Conservation Biology 27:669-678. Sackett, D. L., and S. E. Straus. 1998. Finding and applying evidence during clinical rounds: the "evidence cart". Journal of the American Medical Association 280:1336-1338. Zwolsman, S., E. te Pas, L. Hooft, M. W. Waard, and N. van Dijk. 2012. Barriers to GPs' use of evidence-based medicine: a systematic review. British Journal of General Practice July:e511-521. Sunderland, T., J. Sunderland-Groves, P. Shanley, and B. Campbell. 2009. Bridging the gap: How can information access and exchange between conservation biologists and field practitioners be improved for better conservation outcomes? Biotropica 41:549-554. Courter, J. R. 2012. Graduate students in conservation biology: bridging the research-implementation gap. Journal for Nature Conservation 20:62-64. Gibbons, D., et al. 2007. The predation of wild birds in the UK: a review of its conservation impact and management. RSPB Research Report no 23. 56 pp. Sandy. Fazey, I., J. Fischer, and D. B. Lindenmayer. 2005. What do conservation biologists publish? Biological Conservation 124:63-73. Young, K. D. D., and R. J. Van Aarde. 2011. Science and elephant management decisions in South Africa. Biological Conservation 144:876-885. Straus, S. E., C. Ball, N. Balcombe, J. Sheldon, and F. A. McAlister. 2005. Teaching evidence-based medicine skills can change practice in a community hospital. Journal of General Internal Medicine 20:340-343. Laurance, W. F., H. Koster, M. Grooten, A. B. Anderson, P. A. Zuidema, S. Zwick, R. J. Zagt, A. J. Lynam, M. Linkie, and N. P. R. Anten. 2012. Making conservation research more relevant for conservation practitioners. Biological Conservation 153:164-168. Arlettaz, R., M. Schaub, J. Fournier, T. S. Reichlin, A. Sierro, J. E. M. Watson, and V. Braunisch. 2010. From publications to public actions: when conservation biologists bridge the gap between research and implementation. BioScience 60:835-842. Redpath, S. M., B. E. Arroyo, F. M. Leckie, P. Bacon, N. Bayfield, R. J. Gutierrez, and S. J. Thirgood. 2004. Using decision modeling with stakeholders to reduce human-wildlife conflict: a raptor-grouse case study. Conservation Biology 18:350-359. Pullin, A. S., and T. M. Knight. 2005. Assessing conservation management's evidence base: a survey of management-plan compilers in the United Kingdom and Australia. Conservation Biology 19:1989-1996. Braunisch, V., R. Home, J. Pellet, and R. Arlettaz. 2012. Conservation science relevant to action: a research agenda identified and prioritized by practitioners. Biological Conservation 153:201-210. Baker, R., J. Camosso-Stefinovic, C. Gillies, E. J. Shaw, F. Cheater, S. Flottorp, and N. Robertson. 2010. Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. The Cochrane Library 3:1-78. Nutley, S., I. Walter, and H. Davies (Eds.). 2007. What does it mean to "use" research evidence? Using evidence: how research can inform public services. The Policy Press, Bristol, United Kingdom. Seavy, N. E., and C. A. Howell. 2010. How can we improve information delivery to support conservation and restoration decisions? Biodiversity and Conservation 19:1261-1267. Bayliss, H. R., A. Wilcox, G. B. Stewart, and N. P. Randall. 2011. Does research information meet the needs of stakeholders? Exploring evidence selection in the global invasive species community. Evidence and Policy 8:37-56. McGowan, J., W. Hogg, C. Campbell, and M. Rowan. 2008. Just-in-time information improved decision-making in primary care: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE 3 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003785. British Medical Journal Group. 2014. Learn, teach and practise evidence-based medicine. Clinical Evidence. Available from http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/x/index.html (accessed January 2014). Jones, H. P., B. R. Tershy, E. S. Zavaleta, D. A. Croll, B. S. Keitt, M. E. Finkelstein, and G. R. Howald. 2008. Severity of the effects of invasive rats on seabirds: a global review. Conservation Biology 22:16-26. Amano, T., and W. J. Sutherland. 2013. Four barriers to the global understanding of biodiversity conservation: wealth, language, geographical location and security. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 280:20122649. Knight, A. T., R. M. Cowling, M. Rouget, A. Balmford, A. T. Lombard, and B. M. Campbell. 2008. Knowing but not doing: selecting priority conservation areas and the research-implementation gap. Conservation Biology 22:610-617. Sutherland, W. J., D. Spiegelhalter, and M. A. Burgman. 2013. Policy: twenty tips for interpreting scientific claims. Nature 503:335-337. Karlsson, S., T. Srebotnjak, and P. Gonzales. 2007. Understanding the North-South knowledge divide and its implications for policy: a quantitative analysis of the generation of scientific knowledge in the environmental sciences. Environmental Science & Policy 10:668-684. Cook, C. N., R. W. B. Carter, R. A. Fuller, and M. Hockings. 2012. Managers consider multiple lines of evidence important for biodiversity management decisions. Journal of Environmental Management 113:341-346. Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. 2nd edition. Springer, New York. Shanley, P., and C. Lopez. 2009. Out of the loop: why research rarely reaches policy makers and the public and what can be done. Biotropica 41:535-544. Lauber, T. B., R. C. Stedman, D. J. Decker, and B. A. Knuth. 2011. Linking knowledge to action in collaborative conservation. Conservation Biology 25:1186-1194. Rowe, G., and G. Wright. 2011. The Delphi technique: past, present, and future prospects-introduction to the special issue. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 78:1487-1490. Dicks, L. V., I. Hodge, N. P. Randall, J. P. W. Scharlemann, G. M. Siriwardena, H. G. Smith, R. K. Smith, and W. J. Sutherland. 2014. A transparent process for "evidence-informed" policy making. Conservation Letters 7:119-125. Lucas, B. P., A. T. Evans, B. M. Reilly, Y. V. Khodakov, K. Perumal, L. G. Rohr, J. A. Akamah, T. M. Alausa, C. A. Smith, and J. P. Smith. 2004. The impact of evidence on physicians' inpatient treatment decisions. Journal of General Internal Medicine 19:402-409. Duchelle, A. E., K. Biedenweg, C. Lucas, A. Virapongse, J. Radachowsky, D. J. Wojcik, M. Londres, W. Bartels, D. Alvira, and K. A. Kainer. 2009. Graduate students and knowledge exchange with local stakeholders: possibilities and preparation. Biotropica 41:578-585. Oppel, S., B. M. Beaven, M. Bolton, J. Vickery, and T. W. Bodey. 2010. Eradication of invasive mammals on islands inhabited by humans and domestic animals. Conservation Biology 25:232-240. Ewen, J. G., L. Adams, and R. Renwick. 2013. New Zealand Species Recovery Groups and their role in evidence-based conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology 50:281-285. Gossa, C., M. Fisher, and E. J. Milner-Gulland. 2014. The research-implementation gap: how practitioners and researchers from developing countries perceive the role of peer-reviewed literature in conservation science. Oryx 48:in press. Matzek, V., J. Covino, J. L. Funk, and M. Saunders. 2014. Closing the knowing-doing gap in invasive plant management: accessibility and interdisciplinarity of scientific research. Conservation Letters 7:208-215. Fuller, R. A., J. R. Lee, and J. E. M. Watson. 2014. Achieving open access to conservation science. Conservation Biology 28:1550-1557. R Development Core Team. 2005. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Smith, R., and D. Rennie. 2014. Evidence-based medicine-an oral history. Journal of the American Medical Association 311:365-367. Sackett, D. L., W. M. Rosenberg, J. M. Gray, R. B. Haynes, and W. S. Richardson. 1996. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. British Medical Journal 312:71-72. Esler, K. J., H. Prozesky, G. P. Sharma, and M. McGeoch. 2010. How wide is the "knowing-doing" gap in invasion biology? Biological Invasions 12:4065-4075. 2010; 12 1998; 280 2009; 41 2013; 27 2012 2010; 19 2013; 503 2014; 48 2007 2005; 20 2005 2011; 78 2008; 3 2002 2014; 28 2013; 280 2007; 10 2011; 8 2010; 60 2014; 311 2012; 153 2005; 19 2010; 25 2012; 113 2004; 18 2004; 19 2005; 124 2013; 50 2008; 22 2014 2011; 25 2013 2010; 3 1996; 312 2014; 7 2012; 20 2011; 144 2010; 8 Nutley S. (e_1_2_6_30_1) 2007 e_1_2_6_32_1 e_1_2_6_10_1 e_1_2_6_31_1 Burnham K. P. (e_1_2_6_9_1) 2002 e_1_2_6_19_1 Baker R. (e_1_2_6_5_1) 2010; 3 British Medical Journal Group (e_1_2_6_8_1) 2014 R Development Core Team (e_1_2_6_33_1) 2005 e_1_2_6_13_1 e_1_2_6_36_1 e_1_2_6_14_1 e_1_2_6_35_1 e_1_2_6_11_1 e_1_2_6_34_1 e_1_2_6_12_1 e_1_2_6_17_1 e_1_2_6_18_1 e_1_2_6_39_1 e_1_2_6_15_1 e_1_2_6_38_1 e_1_2_6_16_1 e_1_2_6_37_1 Gibbons D. (e_1_2_6_20_1) 2007 e_1_2_6_42_1 e_1_2_6_43_1 e_1_2_6_41_1 Ajzen I. (e_1_2_6_2_1) 2005 e_1_2_6_40_1 Williams D. R. (e_1_2_6_44_1) 2013 e_1_2_6_4_1 e_1_2_6_7_1 e_1_2_6_6_1 e_1_2_6_25_1 Gossa C. (e_1_2_6_21_1) 2014; 48 e_1_2_6_24_1 e_1_2_6_3_1 e_1_2_6_23_1 e_1_2_6_22_1 e_1_2_6_29_1 e_1_2_6_28_1 e_1_2_6_45_1 e_1_2_6_27_1 e_1_2_6_46_1 e_1_2_6_26_1 18477033 - Conserv Biol. 2008 Jun;22(3):610-7 18254849 - Conserv Biol. 2008 Feb;22(1):16-26 9794314 - JAMA. 1998 Oct 21;280(15):1336-8 24449049 - JAMA. 2014 Jan 22-29;311(4):365-7 15857491 - J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Apr;20(4):340-3 21054528 - Conserv Biol. 2011 Apr;25(2):232-40 22781999 - Br J Gen Pract. 2012 Jul;62(600):e511-21 24273799 - Nature. 2013 Nov 21;503(7476):335-7 20238340 - Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(3):CD005470 15109337 - J Gen Intern Med. 2004 May;19(5 Pt 1):402-9 25158824 - Conserv Biol. 2014 Dec;28(6):1550-7 8555924 - BMJ. 1996 Jan 13;312(7023):71-2 23390102 - Proc Biol Sci. 2013 Apr 7;280(1756):20122649 23062270 - J Environ Manage. 2012 Dec 30;113:341-6 23574343 - Conserv Biol. 2013 Aug;27(4):669-78 19023446 - PLoS One. 2008;3(11):e3785 21967145 - Conserv Biol. 2011 Dec;25(6):1186-94 |
| References_xml | – reference: Cook, C. N., R. W. B. Carter, R. A. Fuller, and M. Hockings. 2012. Managers consider multiple lines of evidence important for biodiversity management decisions. Journal of Environmental Management 113:341-346. – reference: Shanley, P., and C. Lopez. 2009. Out of the loop: why research rarely reaches policy makers and the public and what can be done. Biotropica 41:535-544. – reference: Burnham, K. P., and D. R. Anderson. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. 2nd edition. Springer, New York. – reference: Cook, C. N., M. B. Mascia, M. W. Schwartz, H. P. Possingham, and R. A. Fuller. 2013. Achieving conservation science that bridges the knowledge-action boundary. Conservation Biology 27:669-678. – reference: Seavy, N. E., and C. A. Howell. 2010. How can we improve information delivery to support conservation and restoration decisions? Biodiversity and Conservation 19:1261-1267. – reference: Cook, C. N., M. Hockings, and R. W. Carter. 2010. Conservation in the dark? The information used to support management decisions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8:181-186. – reference: Gibbons, D., et al. 2007. The predation of wild birds in the UK: a review of its conservation impact and management. RSPB Research Report no 23. 56 pp. Sandy. – reference: Smith, R., and D. Rennie. 2014. Evidence-based medicine-an oral history. Journal of the American Medical Association 311:365-367. – reference: Dicks, L. V., I. Hodge, N. P. Randall, J. P. W. Scharlemann, G. M. Siriwardena, H. G. Smith, R. K. Smith, and W. J. Sutherland. 2014. A transparent process for "evidence-informed" policy making. Conservation Letters 7:119-125. – reference: Lucas, B. P., A. T. Evans, B. M. Reilly, Y. V. Khodakov, K. Perumal, L. G. Rohr, J. A. Akamah, T. M. Alausa, C. A. Smith, and J. P. Smith. 2004. The impact of evidence on physicians' inpatient treatment decisions. Journal of General Internal Medicine 19:402-409. – reference: Matzek, V., J. Covino, J. L. Funk, and M. Saunders. 2014. Closing the knowing-doing gap in invasive plant management: accessibility and interdisciplinarity of scientific research. Conservation Letters 7:208-215. – reference: Redpath, S. M., B. E. Arroyo, F. M. Leckie, P. Bacon, N. Bayfield, R. J. Gutierrez, and S. J. Thirgood. 2004. Using decision modeling with stakeholders to reduce human-wildlife conflict: a raptor-grouse case study. Conservation Biology 18:350-359. – reference: Knight, A. T., R. M. Cowling, M. Rouget, A. Balmford, A. T. Lombard, and B. M. Campbell. 2008. Knowing but not doing: selecting priority conservation areas and the research-implementation gap. Conservation Biology 22:610-617. – reference: Arlettaz, R., M. Schaub, J. Fournier, T. S. Reichlin, A. Sierro, J. E. M. Watson, and V. Braunisch. 2010. From publications to public actions: when conservation biologists bridge the gap between research and implementation. BioScience 60:835-842. – reference: Karlsson, S., T. Srebotnjak, and P. Gonzales. 2007. Understanding the North-South knowledge divide and its implications for policy: a quantitative analysis of the generation of scientific knowledge in the environmental sciences. Environmental Science & Policy 10:668-684. – reference: Oppel, S., B. M. Beaven, M. Bolton, J. Vickery, and T. W. Bodey. 2010. Eradication of invasive mammals on islands inhabited by humans and domestic animals. Conservation Biology 25:232-240. – reference: Duchelle, A. E., K. Biedenweg, C. Lucas, A. Virapongse, J. Radachowsky, D. J. Wojcik, M. Londres, W. Bartels, D. Alvira, and K. A. Kainer. 2009. Graduate students and knowledge exchange with local stakeholders: possibilities and preparation. Biotropica 41:578-585. – reference: Sunderland, T., J. Sunderland-Groves, P. Shanley, and B. Campbell. 2009. Bridging the gap: How can information access and exchange between conservation biologists and field practitioners be improved for better conservation outcomes? Biotropica 41:549-554. – reference: Laurance, W. F., H. Koster, M. Grooten, A. B. Anderson, P. A. Zuidema, S. Zwick, R. J. Zagt, A. J. Lynam, M. Linkie, and N. P. R. Anten. 2012. Making conservation research more relevant for conservation practitioners. Biological Conservation 153:164-168. – reference: McGowan, J., W. Hogg, C. Campbell, and M. Rowan. 2008. Just-in-time information improved decision-making in primary care: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE 3 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003785. – reference: Baker, R., J. Camosso-Stefinovic, C. Gillies, E. J. Shaw, F. Cheater, S. Flottorp, and N. Robertson. 2010. Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. The Cochrane Library 3:1-78. – reference: Ewen, J. G., L. Adams, and R. Renwick. 2013. New Zealand Species Recovery Groups and their role in evidence-based conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology 50:281-285. – reference: Sackett, D. L., W. M. Rosenberg, J. M. Gray, R. B. Haynes, and W. S. Richardson. 1996. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. British Medical Journal 312:71-72. – reference: Young, K. D. D., and R. J. Van Aarde. 2011. Science and elephant management decisions in South Africa. Biological Conservation 144:876-885. – reference: Lauber, T. B., R. C. Stedman, D. J. Decker, and B. A. Knuth. 2011. Linking knowledge to action in collaborative conservation. Conservation Biology 25:1186-1194. – reference: Nutley, S., I. Walter, and H. Davies (Eds.). 2007. What does it mean to "use" research evidence? Using evidence: how research can inform public services. The Policy Press, Bristol, United Kingdom. – reference: Straus, S. E., C. Ball, N. Balcombe, J. Sheldon, and F. A. McAlister. 2005. Teaching evidence-based medicine skills can change practice in a community hospital. Journal of General Internal Medicine 20:340-343. – reference: Zwolsman, S., E. te Pas, L. Hooft, M. W. Waard, and N. van Dijk. 2012. Barriers to GPs' use of evidence-based medicine: a systematic review. British Journal of General Practice July:e511-521. – reference: Fazey, I., J. Fischer, and D. B. Lindenmayer. 2005. What do conservation biologists publish? Biological Conservation 124:63-73. – reference: Sackett, D. L., and S. E. Straus. 1998. Finding and applying evidence during clinical rounds: the "evidence cart". Journal of the American Medical Association 280:1336-1338. – reference: Pullin, A. S., and T. M. Knight. 2005. Assessing conservation management's evidence base: a survey of management-plan compilers in the United Kingdom and Australia. Conservation Biology 19:1989-1996. – reference: British Medical Journal Group. 2014. Learn, teach and practise evidence-based medicine. Clinical Evidence. Available from http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/x/index.html (accessed January 2014). – reference: Amano, T., and W. J. Sutherland. 2013. Four barriers to the global understanding of biodiversity conservation: wealth, language, geographical location and security. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 280:20122649. – reference: Gossa, C., M. Fisher, and E. J. Milner-Gulland. 2014. The research-implementation gap: how practitioners and researchers from developing countries perceive the role of peer-reviewed literature in conservation science. Oryx 48:in press. – reference: R Development Core Team. 2005. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. – reference: Jones, H. P., B. R. Tershy, E. S. Zavaleta, D. A. Croll, B. S. Keitt, M. E. Finkelstein, and G. R. Howald. 2008. Severity of the effects of invasive rats on seabirds: a global review. Conservation Biology 22:16-26. – reference: Braunisch, V., R. Home, J. Pellet, and R. Arlettaz. 2012. Conservation science relevant to action: a research agenda identified and prioritized by practitioners. Biological Conservation 153:201-210. – reference: Sutherland, W. J., D. Spiegelhalter, and M. A. Burgman. 2013. Policy: twenty tips for interpreting scientific claims. Nature 503:335-337. – reference: Courter, J. R. 2012. Graduate students in conservation biology: bridging the research-implementation gap. Journal for Nature Conservation 20:62-64. – reference: Bayliss, H. R., A. Wilcox, G. B. Stewart, and N. P. Randall. 2011. Does research information meet the needs of stakeholders? Exploring evidence selection in the global invasive species community. Evidence and Policy 8:37-56. – reference: Rowe, G., and G. Wright. 2011. The Delphi technique: past, present, and future prospects-introduction to the special issue. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 78:1487-1490. – reference: Esler, K. J., H. Prozesky, G. P. Sharma, and M. McGeoch. 2010. How wide is the "knowing-doing" gap in invasion biology? Biological Invasions 12:4065-4075. – reference: Fuller, R. A., J. R. Lee, and J. E. M. Watson. 2014. Achieving open access to conservation science. Conservation Biology 28:1550-1557. – volume: 312 start-page: 71 year: 1996 end-page: 72 article-title: Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't publication-title: British Medical Journal – volume: 280 start-page: 1336 year: 1998 end-page: 1338 article-title: Finding and applying evidence during clinical rounds: the “evidence cart” publication-title: Journal of the American Medical Association – volume: 124 start-page: 63 year: 2005 end-page: 73 article-title: What do conservation biologists publish? publication-title: Biological Conservation – year: 2005 – volume: 8 start-page: 181 year: 2010 end-page: 186 article-title: Conservation in the dark? The information used to support management decisions publication-title: Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment – volume: 25 start-page: 232 year: 2010 end-page: 240 article-title: Eradication of invasive mammals on islands inhabited by humans and domestic animals publication-title: Conservation Biology – volume: 144 start-page: 876 year: 2011 end-page: 885 article-title: Science and elephant management decisions in South Africa publication-title: Biological Conservation – year: 2007 – volume: 19 start-page: 1989 year: 2005 end-page: 1996 article-title: Assessing conservation management's evidence base: a survey of management‐plan compilers in the United Kingdom and Australia publication-title: Conservation Biology – volume: 27 start-page: 669 year: 2013 end-page: 678 article-title: Achieving conservation science that bridges the knowledge‐action boundary publication-title: Conservation Biology – volume: 153 start-page: 201 year: 2012 end-page: 210 article-title: Conservation science relevant to action: a research agenda identified and prioritized by practitioners publication-title: Biological Conservation – volume: 78 start-page: 1487 year: 2011 end-page: 1490 article-title: The Delphi technique: past, present, and future prospects—introduction to the special issue publication-title: Technological Forecasting and Social Change – year: 2014 article-title: Learn, teach and practise evidence‐based medicine publication-title: Clinical Evidence – volume: 20 start-page: 62 year: 2012 end-page: 64 article-title: Graduate students in conservation biology: bridging the research–implementation gap publication-title: Journal for Nature Conservation – volume: 28 start-page: 1550 year: 2014 end-page: 1557 article-title: Achieving open access to conservation science publication-title: Conservation Biology – volume: 8 start-page: 37 year: 2011 end-page: 56 article-title: Does research information meet the needs of stakeholders? Exploring evidence selection in the global invasive species community publication-title: Evidence and Policy – volume: 3 year: 2008 article-title: Just‐in‐time information improved decision‐making in primary care: a randomized controlled trial publication-title: PLoS ONE – volume: 18 start-page: 350 year: 2004 end-page: 359 article-title: Using decision modeling with stakeholders to reduce human‐wildlife conflict: a raptor‐grouse case study publication-title: Conservation Biology – volume: 48 year: 2014 article-title: The research–implementation gap: how practitioners and researchers from developing countries perceive the role of peer‐reviewed literature in conservation science publication-title: Oryx – start-page: e511 year: 2012 end-page: 521 article-title: Barriers to GPs’ use of evidence‐based medicine: a systematic review publication-title: British Journal of General Practice – volume: 50 start-page: 281 year: 2013 end-page: 285 article-title: New Zealand Species Recovery Groups and their role in evidence‐based conservation publication-title: Journal of Applied Ecology – volume: 153 start-page: 164 year: 2012 end-page: 168 article-title: Making conservation research more relevant for conservation practitioners publication-title: Biological Conservation – volume: 41 start-page: 549 year: 2009 end-page: 554 article-title: Bridging the gap: How can information access and exchange between conservation biologists and field practitioners be improved for better conservation outcomes? publication-title: Biotropica – volume: 60 start-page: 835 year: 2010 end-page: 842 article-title: From publications to public actions: when conservation biologists bridge the gap between research and implementation publication-title: BioScience – volume: 22 start-page: 16 year: 2008 end-page: 26 article-title: Severity of the effects of invasive rats on seabirds: a global review publication-title: Conservation Biology – volume: 10 start-page: 668 year: 2007 end-page: 684 article-title: Understanding the North–South knowledge divide and its implications for policy: a quantitative analysis of the generation of scientific knowledge in the environmental sciences publication-title: Environmental Science & Policy – volume: 7 start-page: 119 year: 2014 end-page: 125 article-title: A transparent process for “evidence‐informed” policy making publication-title: Conservation Letters – volume: 20 start-page: 340 year: 2005 end-page: 343 article-title: Teaching evidence‐based medicine skills can change practice in a community hospital publication-title: Journal of General Internal Medicine – start-page: 56 pp year: 2007 – volume: 3 start-page: 1 year: 2010 end-page: 78 article-title: Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes publication-title: The Cochrane Library – year: 2002 – volume: 22 start-page: 610 year: 2008 end-page: 617 article-title: Knowing but not doing: selecting priority conservation areas and the research‐implementation gap publication-title: Conservation Biology – volume: 41 start-page: 535 year: 2009 end-page: 544 article-title: Out of the loop: why research rarely reaches policy makers and the public and what can be done publication-title: Biotropica – volume: 113 start-page: 341 year: 2012 end-page: 346 article-title: Managers consider multiple lines of evidence important for biodiversity management decisions publication-title: Journal of Environmental Management – volume: 25 start-page: 1186 year: 2011 end-page: 1194 article-title: Linking knowledge to action in collaborative conservation publication-title: Conservation Biology – volume: 19 start-page: 402 year: 2004 end-page: 409 article-title: The impact of evidence on physicians’ inpatient treatment decisions publication-title: Journal of General Internal Medicine – volume: 280 start-page: 20122649 year: 2013 article-title: Four barriers to the global understanding of biodiversity conservation: wealth, language, geographical location and security publication-title: Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences – volume: 503 start-page: 335 year: 2013 end-page: 337 article-title: Policy: twenty tips for interpreting scientific claims publication-title: Nature – volume: 19 start-page: 1261 year: 2010 end-page: 1267 article-title: How can we improve information delivery to support conservation and restoration decisions? publication-title: Biodiversity and Conservation – volume: 41 start-page: 578 year: 2009 end-page: 585 article-title: Graduate students and knowledge exchange with local stakeholders: possibilities and preparation publication-title: Biotropica – volume: 12 start-page: 4065 year: 2010 end-page: 4075 article-title: How wide is the “knowing‐doing” gap in invasion biology? publication-title: Biological Invasions – volume: 311 start-page: 365 year: 2014 end-page: 367 article-title: Evidence‐based medicine—an oral history publication-title: Journal of the American Medical Association – volume: 7 start-page: 208 year: 2014 end-page: 215 article-title: Closing the knowing‐doing gap in invasive plant management: accessibility and interdisciplinarity of scientific research publication-title: Conservation Letters – year: 2013 – ident: e_1_2_6_12_1 doi: 10.1111/cobi.12050 – ident: e_1_2_6_14_1 doi: 10.1111/conl.12046 – ident: e_1_2_6_45_1 doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.11.023 – ident: e_1_2_6_31_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01601.x – ident: e_1_2_6_23_1 doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2007.04.001 – ident: e_1_2_6_27_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30306.x – ident: e_1_2_6_29_1 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003785 – ident: e_1_2_6_43_1 doi: 10.1038/503335a – ident: e_1_2_6_10_1 doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.09.002 – ident: e_1_2_6_39_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.00561.x – ident: e_1_2_6_25_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01742.x – ident: e_1_2_6_24_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00914.x – ident: e_1_2_6_6_1 doi: 10.1332/174426412X620128 – ident: e_1_2_6_36_1 doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71 – ident: e_1_2_6_4_1 doi: 10.1525/bio.2010.60.10.10 – ident: e_1_2_6_34_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00421.x – ident: e_1_2_6_3_1 doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.2649 – ident: e_1_2_6_38_1 doi: 10.1007/s10531-009-9752-x – ident: e_1_2_6_41_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.04045.x – year: 2014 ident: e_1_2_6_8_1 article-title: Learn, teach and practise evidence‐based medicine publication-title: Clinical Evidence – ident: e_1_2_6_13_1 doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2011.10.001 – volume-title: Attitudes, personality and behavior year: 2005 ident: e_1_2_6_2_1 – ident: e_1_2_6_28_1 doi: 10.1111/conl.12042 – ident: e_1_2_6_18_1 doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.01.013 – volume-title: Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information‐theoretic approach year: 2002 ident: e_1_2_6_9_1 – volume: 48 year: 2014 ident: e_1_2_6_21_1 article-title: The research–implementation gap: how practitioners and researchers from developing countries perceive the role of peer‐reviewed literature in conservation science publication-title: Oryx – ident: e_1_2_6_32_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00287.x – ident: e_1_2_6_35_1 doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2011.09.002 – ident: e_1_2_6_37_1 doi: 10.1001/jama.280.15.1336 – volume: 3 start-page: 1 year: 2010 ident: e_1_2_6_5_1 article-title: Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes publication-title: The Cochrane Library – ident: e_1_2_6_17_1 doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12062 – ident: e_1_2_6_19_1 doi: 10.1111/cobi.12346 – ident: e_1_2_6_11_1 doi: 10.1890/090020 – ident: e_1_2_6_46_1 doi: 10.3399/bjgp12X652382 – ident: e_1_2_6_15_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.00563.x – volume-title: What does it mean to “use” research evidence? Using evidence: how research can inform public services year: 2007 ident: e_1_2_6_30_1 – ident: e_1_2_6_16_1 doi: 10.1007/s10530-010-9812-x – ident: e_1_2_6_7_1 doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.05.007 – ident: e_1_2_6_40_1 doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.286182 – ident: e_1_2_6_42_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.00557.x – start-page: 56 pp volume-title: The predation of wild birds in the UK: a review of its conservation impact and management year: 2007 ident: e_1_2_6_20_1 – ident: e_1_2_6_26_1 doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.05.012 – ident: e_1_2_6_22_1 doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00859.x – volume-title: Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series year: 2013 ident: e_1_2_6_44_1 – volume-title: R: a language and environment for statistical computing year: 2005 ident: e_1_2_6_33_1 – reference: 18477033 - Conserv Biol. 2008 Jun;22(3):610-7 – reference: 19023446 - PLoS One. 2008;3(11):e3785 – reference: 22781999 - Br J Gen Pract. 2012 Jul;62(600):e511-21 – reference: 15857491 - J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Apr;20(4):340-3 – reference: 21054528 - Conserv Biol. 2011 Apr;25(2):232-40 – reference: 15109337 - J Gen Intern Med. 2004 May;19(5 Pt 1):402-9 – reference: 20238340 - Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(3):CD005470 – reference: 18254849 - Conserv Biol. 2008 Feb;22(1):16-26 – reference: 23390102 - Proc Biol Sci. 2013 Apr 7;280(1756):20122649 – reference: 8555924 - BMJ. 1996 Jan 13;312(7023):71-2 – reference: 25158824 - Conserv Biol. 2014 Dec;28(6):1550-7 – reference: 23062270 - J Environ Manage. 2012 Dec 30;113:341-6 – reference: 9794314 - JAMA. 1998 Oct 21;280(15):1336-8 – reference: 24273799 - Nature. 2013 Nov 21;503(7476):335-7 – reference: 24449049 - JAMA. 2014 Jan 22-29;311(4):365-7 – reference: 21967145 - Conserv Biol. 2011 Dec;25(6):1186-94 – reference: 23574343 - Conserv Biol. 2013 Aug;27(4):669-78 |
| SSID | ssj0009514 |
| Score | 2.5418293 |
| Snippet | A major justification of environmental management research is that it helps practitioners, yet previous studies show it is rarely used to inform their... |
| SourceID | pubmedcentral proquest pubmed crossref wiley jstor istex |
| SourceType | Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source Publisher |
| StartPage | 88 |
| SubjectTerms | Animals Australia behavior change bird predation Birds Birds - physiology cambio conductual Choice Behavior conservación basada en evidencia Conservation Conservation of Natural Resources - methods conservation synopsis Contributed Papers Decision Making Delphi method depredación de aves Environmental management Environmental research especies invasoras evidence-based conservation expert opinion falta de datos de implementación implementation gap information management invasive species knowledge use managers método Delphi New Zealand predation sinopsis de conservación surveys United Kingdom uso del conocimiento Wildlife conservation Wildlife management |
| Title | The effect of scientific evidence on conservation practitioners' management decisions |
| URI | https://api.istex.fr/ark:/67375/WNG-Z71LR3JS-9/fulltext.pdf https://www.jstor.org/stable/24481580 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111%2Fcobi.12370 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25103469 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1646402629 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1652394947 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1694484220 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC4515094 |
| Volume | 29 |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1ta9RAEF5qRfCL7y-n9VhRBIUcyd6-BfyipbUWrVItLYIsm80GS9tc6d2B9ZN_w7_nL3FmN4k5LQX9Fsgkm2xmJs9snjxDyONUq3FZpg6Xl1jCvawSKzOfVCr3uhCVVhbXId9uyY0dvrkn9pbI8_ZfmKgP0S24YWSEfI0BbotpL8jdpNgfQd5VWLAjWQsR0TbrKe5GYW8o8RKtc9ZokyKN5_ehC2-jizixX1ti4lmQ82_mZB_RhlfS-lXyub2ZyEQ5GM1nxch9-0Pn8X_v9hq50mBV-iI613Wy5Osb5FLsXnkKW2tB8fr0JtkFZ6ORGUInFY0_WSIHifqmaSmd1NQhcbtZAqbHPZ2k6c_vP-hRx8OhZdP3Z3qL7KyvfVzdSJqODYmTWkBC5xayqyg0r0RWCJuNfapKVC2rXMFkyW3oU--Uzx2zvMyslmmuC_weWIGfjG-T5RoGvkuo4s5zaQW3knEpmHYptwjWqrzQQsgBedo-OeMaOXPsqnFo2rIGp8yEKRuQR53tcRTxONPqSXCAzsSeHCDtTQmzu_XKfFLZm-3x5geTD8gweEj_XMinNwCVdCY0nGmldR3TpISpQSE3KNYlg-MfdrshmPELja39ZI42AlvV51ydZ5PDMJwxGOZO9MbuQhjqI3IJI6gFP-0MUEx8cU-9_yWIinMAtlDqD8iz4IbnzJNZfffyddi69y_G98llAJsiMt5XyPLsZO4fAKCbFUNygfH3wxC-vwCpZ0Yw |
| linkProvider | Wiley-Blackwell |
| linkToHtml | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV3bbtQwELVQKwQv3C8LpRiBkEDKKvH6lkeoWrZlu0ilVau-WI7jiKptturuSpQnfoPf40uYsbNhF6pK8BbJkzhxZiYzk-MzhLxKteqVZeqwvMQS7mWVWJn5pFK514WotLJYh9weyv4e3zoQBw02B_fCRH6ItuCGlhH8NRo4FqTnrNyNiqMuOF4FGfsytvQOGdUOm-PcjdTekOQlWuesYSdFIM_vcxe-R8u4tF9n0MTLgs6_sZPzMW34KG3cjp1Xx4HLELEox93ppOi6b38wPf73894ht5pwlb6L-nWXXPP1PXI9NrC8gKP1QHp9cZ_sg77RCA6ho4rGfZYIQ6K-6VtKRzV1iN1uqsD0bI4qafzz-w962kJxaNm0_hk_IHsb67tr_aRp2pA4qQX4dG7BwYpC80pkhbBZz6eqROKyyhVMltyGVvVO-dwxy8vMapnmusBfghWoSu8hWaph4seEKu48l1ZwKxm8X6Zdyi3Ga1VeaCFkh7yZvTrjGkZzbKxxYmaZDS6ZCUvWIS9b2bPI43Gp1OugAa2IPT9G5JsSZn_4wRyqbLDT2_ps8g5ZDSoyfy2E1BuIlnQmNFxpZaY7pvEKY4NcbpCvSwbnv2iHwZ7xJ42t_WiKMgK71edcXSWTwzScMZjmUVTH9kYYUiRyCTOoBUVtBZBPfHGkPvoSeMU5xLaQ7XfI26CHV6yTWfv0fjMcPfkX4efkRn93e2AGm8OPT8lNiD1FBMCvkKXJ-dQ_g_huUqwGK_4FMzdJdA |
| linkToPdf | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1ta9RAEF5Ki-KX-m5Pa11RBIUcyd6-Bfyibc-21lOqpaUgy2azwVLNHb07sH7yb_j3_CXObF6801LQb4FMssnmmcnM5skzhDyOterleexweYlF3MsisjLxUaFSrzNRaGVxHfLNQG7t851DcbhAnjf_wlT6EO2CG3pGiNfo4KO8mHFyN8yOuxB3FRTsS1zGGjG9scdmJHcrZW-o8SKtU1aLkyKP5_exc6-jJZzZrw0z8byc82_q5GxKG95J_avkY3M3FRXlpDudZF337Q-hx_-93WtkuU5W6YsKXdfJgi9vkEtV-8oz2NoMktdnN8kBoI1W1BA6LGj1lyWSkKivu5bSYUkdMrfrNWA6mhFKGv_8_oN-aYk4NK8b_4xvkf3-5of1rahu2RA5qQVEdG4hvIpM80IkmbBJz8cqR9mywmVM5tyGRvVO-dQxy_PEahmnOsMPggUApXebLJYw8AqhijvPpRXcSsalYNrF3GK2VqSZFkJ2yNPmyRlX65ljW43PpqlrcMpMmLIOedTajioVj3OtngQAtCb29AR5b0qYg8Erc6SS3b3eznuTdshaQMjsuZBQbyBX0onQcKbVBjqmjgljg0puUK1LBsc_bHeDN-MnGlv64RRtBPaqT7m6yCaFYThjMMydCo3thTAUSOQSRlBzOG0NUE18fk95_CmoinPIbKHW75BnAYYXzJNZf_tyO2zd_RfjB-Tyu42-2d0evL5HrkDiKSr2-ypZnJxO_X1I7ibZWvDhX0C_SCw |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The+effect+of+scientific+evidence+on+conservation+practitioners%27+management+decisions&rft.jtitle=Conservation+biology&rft.au=Walsh%2C+Jessica+C&rft.au=Dicks%2C+Lynn+V&rft.au=Sutherland%2C+William+J&rft.date=2015-02-01&rft.pub=Blackwell+Publishing+Ltd&rft.issn=0888-8892&rft.eissn=1523-1739&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=88&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2Fcobi.12370&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT&rft.externalDocID=3561662741 |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0888-8892&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0888-8892&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0888-8892&client=summon |