Guidelines for Systematic Review in Conservation and Environmental Management ANDREW S. PULLIN ∗ AND GAVIN B. STEWART Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, School of Biosciences, The University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom Abstract: An increasing number of applied disciplines are utilizing evidence-based frameworks to review and disseminate the effectiveness of management and policy interventions. The rationale is that increased accessibility of the best available evidence will provide a more efficient and less biased platform for decision making. We argue that there are significant benefits for conservation in using such a framework, but the scientific community needs to undertake and disseminate more systematic reviews before the full benefit can be realized. We devised a set of guidelines for undertaking formalized systematic review, based on a health services model. The guideline stages include planning and conducting a review, including protocol formation, search strategy, data inclusion, data extraction, and analysis. Review dissemination is addressed in terms of current developments and future plans for a Web-based open-access library. By the use of case studies we highlight critical modifications to guidelines for protocol formulation, data-quality assessment, data extraction, and data synthesis for conservation and environmental management. Ecological data presented significant but soluble challenges for the systematic review process, particularly in terms of the quantity, accessibility, and diverse quality of available data. In the field of conservation and environmental management there needs to be further engagement of scientists and practitioners to develop and take ownership of an evidence-based framework. Keywords: conservation policy, conservation practice, decision making, evidence-based knowledge transfer Directrices para la Revisi´ on Sistem´ atica en Gesti´ on Ambiental y de Conservaci´ on Resumen: Un mayor n´ umero de disciplinas est´ a utilizando marcos de referencia basados en evidencias para revisar y diseminar la efectividad de las intervenciones de gesti´ on y pol´ ıtica. El fundamento es que la mayor accesibilidad de la evidencia mejor disponible proporcionar´ a una plataforma de toma de decisiones menos sesgada y m´ as eficiente. Argumentamos que hay beneficios significativos para la conservaci´ on al utilizar tal marco de referencia, pero la comunidad cient´ ıfica debe emprender y diseminar revisiones m´ as sistem´ aticas antes de que se pueda comprender el beneficio completo. Dise˜ namos un conjunto de directrices para realizar revisiones sistem´ aticas formales, basado en un modelo de servicios de salud. Las etapas de las directrices incluyen la planificaci´ on y conducci´ on de una revisi´ on, incluyendo formaci´ on del protocolo, estrategias de b´ usqueda, inclusi´ on de datos, extracci´ on y an´ alisis de datos. La diseminaci´ on de revisiones es abordada en t´ erminos del desarrollo actual y los planes futuros para una biblioteca de acceso abierto en la Web. Al utilizar estudios de caso resaltamos modificaciones cr´ ıticas a las directrices para la formulaci´ on del protocolo, evaluaci´ on de la calidad de los datos, extracci´ on de datos y s´ ıntesis de datos para la gesti´ on ambiental y de conservaci´ on. Los datos ecol´ ogicos presentaron retos significativos, pero solucionables, para el proceso de revisi´ on sistem´ atica, particularmente en t´ erminos de la cantidad, accesibilidad y calidad de los datos disponibles. Se requiere un mayor compromiso de cient´ ıficos y profesionales de la gesti´ on ambiental y de conservaci´ on para desarrollar y apropiarse de un marco de referencia basado en evidencias. Palabras Clave: pol´ ıtica de la conservaci´ on, pr´ actica de la conservaci´ on, toma de decisiones, transferencia de conocimiento basado en evidencia ∗ email a.s.pullin@bham.ac.uk Paper submitted August 4, 2005; revised manuscript accepted January 25, 2006. 1647 Conservation Biology Volume 20, No. 6, 1647–1656 C 2006 Society for Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00485.x