Exploration of Concerns about the Evidence-Based Guideline Approach in Conservation Management: Hints from Medical Practice

The importance of using evidence in decision-making is frequently highlighted in policy reports and scientific papers. However, subjective judgments of the reliability of environmental evidence vary widely, and large-scale systematic searches for evidence are only common for climate-related topics. In the medical field, evidence-based guidelines are routinely used to guide treatments. In the management of multiple-use landscapes similar guidelines could substantially narrow the science-practice gap but are largely absent. The challenges potential guidelines face are therefore unknown. For the case of forest conservation, we conducted 14 semistructured interviews with mainly forest practitioners and presented them an example medical guideline together with evidence-based statements on forest conservation (hereinafter: statement paper). We identified 28 concerns related to potential evidence-based guidelines in forest conservation. The interviews yielded approximately three major findings. First, recommendations on forest conservation are better accepted if they include clear instructions and are formulated for a specific context. Fragmentary conservation evidence complicates the formulation of specific recommendations. Second, the level of evidence framework, which indicates the strength of the available evidence, is perceived as too complex. Third, neglecting forest multifunctionality in a potential guideline hampers its application but, if addressed, potentially weakens its ecological relevance. We show that major concerns about potential evidence-based conservation guidelines are similar to the challenges experienced by medical guidelines. We also identify concerns unique to forestry.