Evidence Complacency in Conservation

[Giant Panda]

This new article discusses the persistence of a culture where conservation decision-making is not rigorously evidence-based, which the authors term "evidence complacency". The second link summarizes and comments on the first.

Evidence complacency hampers conservation

Conservation community failing to use evidence to make decisions, scientists say

As a pertinent aside, animal management in zoos often suffers from the same issue. Also, Whitley and Dartmoor Zoo have partnered with the Conservation Evidence Project, mentioned in both articles. I've linked its website below:

Conservation Evidence - Site

 

[DavidBrown]

The more time I spend in the conservation world the more it becomes apparent that most conservation decisions are driven by politicians, not scientists.

Fundamentally only if people, especially young people, care about conservation issues like endangered species protection, halting the illegal wildlife trade, taking long term care of habitats, etc. will there be the political will to make conservation decisions based on scientific evidence rather than economic expediency. Engaging normal people in caring about conservation and translating that concern into meaningful political action is a critical conservation endeavor. Unfortunately the conservation community, zoos included, have not done a consistently good job of doing it because it is very hard to do.

 

[Jurek7]

It is often the least-bad compromise with development, which outsiders may not know. Alternative would be no conservation whatsoever, instead of proper conservation.

In my youth, I met a conservation officer who was charged with environment compensations for investors in a big city. The proper compensation would be buying and protection of some land outside the city, and he wished so. However, this was impossible: buying land was too slow, city council could not legally act outside the city, selecting land to buy was bound to be challenged legally and proving beforehand that there will be 'benefit to environment' was impossible.

Instead, he was forced to ask investors to buy bird boxes for city parks. It was poor compensation - some pairs of common birds extra. But it was the only one possible legally - clear cost, inside the city, doubtless benefit to nature to every clerk or lawyer.