Evidence use in conservation practice : Using interviews to understand the opinions of conservation practitioners on the use, availability, and diversity of evidence in conservation practice

There has been a discussion in the last decades about a perceived lack of scientific evidence use in conservation practice, affecting its legitimacy and efficiency. Some researchers argue that peer-reviewed science is rarely used in conservation practice. Others argue that more engagement with different evidence types is needed to make informed decisions, especially local ecological knowledge (LEK). However, little is known about the types of evidence that conservation practitioners use in their decision-making, nor what they think about their usability and accessibility. This study uses a grounded theory approach to explore this issue by conducting semi-structured interviews with eight NGO practitioners engaged in community-based conservation, asking questions about what they consider evidence and how they engage with different types of knowledge. The results show that conservation practitioners engage with a wide range of evidence types, such as peer-reviewed science, LEK but also expert opinion, grey literature, and NGO-generated data. The popularity of expert opinion and LEK suggests that locally sourced knowledge, regardless of whether it is peer-reviewed science, LEK or another knowledge type, is especially valued by practitioners. Participants value peer-reviewed evidence but criticize its availability and accessibility, mainly focusing on a lack of relevant research, paywalled content, and use of inaccessible language by scientists. Some practitioners working in developed areas do not feel the need to engage more with science, suggesting that a degree of “evidence saturation” is happening in developed countries. All participants value LEK, many considering it at least equally important to scientific knowledge, and want it to be more valued and respected in conservation practice. These results suggest that practitioners use a wide range of evidence types which should be held into account by academics and NGOs who wish to improve conservation outcomes. NGOs could equip their practitioners with more tools to engage with this variety of evidence types, and promote the generation of locally sourced knowledge. More research is needed to understand how and how often practitioners engage with evidence