Diversity Using Conservation Evidence to Guide Management DANIEL B. SEGAN, ∗ MADELEINE C. BOTTRILL, PETER W. J. BAXTER, AND HUGH P. POSSINGHAM The University of Queensland, Applied Environmental Decision Analysis Centre, Queensland 4072, Australia Almost 10 years ago, Pullin and Knight (2001) called for an “effectiveness revolution in conservation” to be en- abled by the systematic evaluation of evidence for conser- vation decision making. Drawing from the model used in clinical medicine, they outlined the concept of “evidence- based conservation” in which existing information, or ev- idence, from relevant and rigorous research is compiled and analyzed in a systematic manner to inform conserva- tion actions (Cochrane 1972). The promise of evidence- based conservation has generated significant interest; 25 systematic reviews have been completed since 2004 and dozens are underway (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence 2010). However we argue that an “effective- ness revolution” (Pullin & Knight 2001) in conservation will not be possible unless mechanisms are devised for incorporating the growing evidence base into decision frameworks. Like Pullin and Knight (2001), we looked to the public- health discipline for a model that effectively assimilates evidence into guidance and policy. In addition to the or- ganizations that compile reviews of evidence (e.g., Clin- ical Evidence, Cochrane Library), a second set of insti- tutions in medicine, primarily at the national level (e.g., Australia, Belgium, Brazil, France, Netherlands, Sweden), are responsible for synthesizing information for decision making. These institutions consider the effectiveness of a given intervention and other factors that might affect in- vestment in the intervention, such as its cost, availability of alternative interventions to achieve the same objec- tive, and effect on the patient and society of not acting (Plumb et al. 2009). Using the National Institute for Health and Clinical Ex- cellence (NICE) in England and Wales as an example, we illustrate how conservation professionals could systemat- ically integrate conservation evidence into guidance for decision making. NICE was established in 1999 to pro- vide guidance on the cost-effective promotion of good health and treatment of poor health (NICE 2009). Al- ∗ email dbsegan@gmail.com Paper submitted February 18, 2010; revised manuscript accepted May 15, 2010. though NICE performs many functions, we focus here on its technology-appraisal process as a model for how systematically evaluated evidence can be incorporated into a transparent decision-making framework. Tech- nology appraisal is the formal process through which NICE provides the National Health Service with guid- ance on the use of interventions. The appraisal pro- cess has three phases: scoping, assessment, and ap- praisal (NICE 2008a). During the scoping phase, the context within which the appraisal will occur is identi- fied. This includes clearly defining the questions to be addressed, alternative interventions to be considered, and placing the interventions’ objectives in context of the agency’s wider mission. In the assessment phase, evidence on intervention effectiveness, cost, and asso- ciated uncertainty is collected and evaluated. During appraisal, the information compiled during scoping and assessment is reviewed by a committee, which also con- siders input from clinical specialists, patients, and the public (NICE 2008a). After the appraisal phase, NICE is- sues guidance on the use of all interventions considered and identifies gaps in current knowledge to direct future research. Systematic reviews should be underpinned by a ques- tion relevant to practitioners and policy makers (Pullin & Stewart 2006). In medicine the question might be whether garlic cures the common cold and in conserva- tion whether marine-protected areas protect fish stocks. A systematic review of evidence related to different inter- ventions is necessary to assess intervention effectiveness (answering the above questions), but not sufficient for choosing the most appropriate intervention to meet a given objective. For example, garlic may be used to treat the common cold, but is it the best treatment? Or, al- though a marine-protected area may protect fish stocks, it does not follow necessarily that its establishment is the most reliable, socially acceptable, or cost-effective con- servation action. 200 Conservation Biology, Volume 25, No. 1, 200–202 C 2010 Society for Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01582.x