The role of scientific evidence and social context in protected area decision making

Abstract Evidence‐based decision making is increasingly recognized as vital for improving the effectiveness of conservation interventions. However, its practical application in protected area (PA) management remains limited. Drawing on face‐to‐face interviews with PA managers from 116 PAs across Africa and Europe, we investigated the use of scientific evidence in conservation decisions and the social context under which the decisions are made. Our results revealed that most PA managers believe that there is a favorable social context, highlighting supportive community attitudes and their willingness to participate in conservation. We also found that while only about one‐third of PA managers use scientific publications to inform their decisions, an overwhelming majority (85%) of PA managers rely primarily on personal experience. PA managers widely perceive the conservation interventions implemented by their respective PAs as highly effective, regardless of the type of intervention or the degree of scientific support behind it. They also recognize the trust, cooperation, and participation of local communities as crucial for the success of conservation interventions. Our study underlines that the influence of scientific evidence, particularly evidence from systematic research that has been published in peer‐reviewed scientific journals, on PA‐level decision making remains limited. Although the practical experience of PA managers is undeniably valuable, the underutilization of scientific evidence could undermine the effectiveness of PA managers' decisions and conservation interventions implemented by PAs. Fostering strong partnerships between researchers and PA managers (through co‐designed research, mutual learning, and effective communication) can help mainstream evidence‐based decision making in protected areas.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Conservation Science and Practice
Published
2025-11-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.70182
Primary Topic
Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The role of scientific evidence and social context in protected area decision making

Aletta Bonn, Marco Heurich, Tsegaye T. Gatiso, Tenekwetche Sop et al.
Conservation Science and Practice
Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
article

The role of scientific evidence and social context in protected area decision making

Aletta Bonn, Marco Heurich, Tsegaye T. Gatiso, Tenekwetche Sop, Mona Bachmann, Hjalmar S. Kühl, Karsten Wesche, Isabel Ordaz‐Németh, Lars Kulik, Andreas Freytag, Lukas Bösch
article en

Abstract

Abstract Evidence‐based decision making is increasingly recognized as vital for improving the effectiveness of conservation interventions. However, its practical application in protected area (PA) management remains limited. Drawing on face‐to‐face interviews with PA managers from 116 PAs across Africa and Europe, we investigated the use of scientific evidence in conservation decisions and the social context under which the decisions are made. Our results revealed that most PA managers believe that there is a favorable social context, highlighting supportive community attitudes and their willingness to participate in conservation. We also found that while only about one‐third of PA managers use scientific publications to inform their decisions, an overwhelming majority (85%) of PA managers rely primarily on personal experience. PA managers widely perceive the conservation interventions implemented by their respective PAs as highly effective, regardless of the type of intervention or the degree of scientific support behind it. They also recognize the trust, cooperation, and participation of local communities as crucial for the success of conservation interventions. Our study underlines that the influence of scientific evidence, particularly evidence from systematic research that has been published in peer‐reviewed scientific journals, on PA‐level decision making remains limited. Although the practical experience of PA managers is undeniably valuable, the underutilization of scientific evidence could undermine the effectiveness of PA managers' decisions and conservation interventions implemented by PAs. Fostering strong partnerships between researchers and PA managers (through co‐designed research, mutual learning, and effective communication) can help mainstream evidence‐based decision making in protected areas.

Conservation Science and PracticeVol. 7(12)
University of Copenhagen (DK), Ifo Institute for Economic Research (DE), Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (DE), University of Freiburg (DE), Copenhagen Business School (DK), Stellenbosch University (ZA), Bavarian Forest National Park (DE), German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (DE), Frederiksberg Hospital (DK), Dansk Sprognævn (DK), Wild Chimpanzee Foundation (DE), University of Inland Norway (NO), Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (DE), Senckenberg Museum für Naturkunde Görlitz (DE), International University Institute (IHI) Zittau (DE), Friedrich Schiller University Jena (DE), Technische Universität Dresden (DE), Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research (NZ)
Robert Bosch Stiftung, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Deutsches Zentrum für integrative Biodiversitätsforschung Halle-Jena-Leipzig
Openalex Percentile: Top 68%
Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.