Conservation, evidence and policy
Conservation, evidence and policy
复制标题
DOI：
10.1017/s0030605312001470
复制
发表时间：
2013-07-01
期刊：
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
Sandbrook, Chris
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Adams, William M.;Sandbrook, Chris
越来越多的文献主张以证据为基础的保护。这一概念反映了一种更广泛的决策方法，并遵循医学思维，其中严格，客观的证据分析有助于广泛改善医疗结果。显然，保护决定应该以现有的最佳信息为依据。然而，我们确定的问题有关的类型和常用的证据来源和以证据为基础的保护研究框架的政策辩论的方式。在本文中，我们讨论两个问题：首先，我们问“什么算证据？””（什么是证据，什么样的证据是可信的）。我们的结论是，以证据为基础的保护应采用广泛的定义的证据，给定性数据，地方和土著知识有意义的空间。其次，我们要问“证据如何算数？（证据与决策过程之间的关系）。我们的结论是，应该有更多的认识，政策制定是一个复杂和混乱的过程，证据在政策制定中的作用永远不会是中立的。鉴于这些问题，我们提出了一些修改，以建立在标题下的循证保护实践。术语的变化是微妙的，但它具有深远的影响，因为它要求重新定位和重新理解保护科学作为决策者众多信息来源之一。
A growing literature argues for evidence-based conservation. This concept reflects a wider approach to policy-making and follows thinking in medicine, in which rigorous, objective analysis of evidence has contributed to widespread improvements in medical outcomes. Clearly, conservation decisions should be informed by the best information available. However, we identify issues relating to the type and sources of evidence commonly used and the way evidence-based conservation studies frame policy debate. In this paper we discuss two issues; firstly, we ask 'what counts as evidence?' (what is meant by evidence, and what kind of evidence is given credibility). We conclude that evidence-based conservation should adopt a broad definition of evidence to give meaningful space for qualitative data, and local and indigenous knowledge. Secondly, we ask 'how does evidence count?' (the relationship between evidence and the policy-making process). We conclude that there should be greater recognition that policy-making is a complex and messy process, and that the role of evidence in policy making can never be neutral. In the light of these issues we suggest some changes to build on developing practice under the title evidence-informed conservation. The change in terminology is subtle, yet it has profound implications in that it calls for a re-positioning and re-understanding of conservation science as one source of information among many for decision-makers.