Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

The lack of availability of larger-scale evidence can thus lead to an unfortunate mismatch in knowledge of the relative effects of local-scale interventions versus regional-scale ecological processes, and thus also to incomplete knowledge about where local conservation interventions would be most effective.

Integrating specific intervention-guided conservation with a deeper understanding of moderating regional ecological contexts requires combining intervention-driven conservation thinking with “holistic” conservation thinking. As an example, incentives intended to benefit farmland biodiversity may increase one resource, such as food availability, but fail to provide other key resources such as nesting sites or overwintering habitats (Kleijn et al. 2011).

Embedding specific conservation interventions within the context of multiscale ecological principles could help alleviate the problem that a focus on local conservation interventions is unable to deal with multiscale phenomena. However, it does not yet address another main criticism raised in the past, namely that existing work on evidence-based practice in general has been overly technocratic in its conception of real-world policy implementation and governance (Greenhalgh & Russell 2009, but see Pullin et al. 2009). In this context, drawing on insights from multilevel governance research could help to understand key challenges of implementing evidence-based interventions in practice. Such insights can be applied to both specific interventions, as well as to a more general, multiscale approach to conservation that is based on guiding ecological principles.