We considered 70 pieces of evidence obtained from different sources to assess this assumption.

An in-depth search of the MAVA grants database provided 38 pieces of evidence from 32 sources that were used to test this assumption. An initial review highlighted 122 grants that were relevant to the topic of basic research and monitoring. These were further screened, and 49 grants that integrated research and conservation practice were retained. Documentation – including progress reports, final reports, technical reports, and MAVA evaluations – was searched in detail for statements or claims that linked conservation practice with research findings.

Exploratory searches of the wider literature found 32 pieces of evidence from 26 sources. Many of these sources were large-scale assessments aimed at detecting links between research efforts and conservation priorities, biases in research effort, or a prevalence of evidence use within particular sectors or disciplines.

Overall, the evidence neither supports nor refutes the assumption. Evidence supporting the assumption was found more often in the MAVA grant database. In contrast, evidence refuting the assumption was found more often in the wider literature.

Evidence from the wider literature suggests that conservation practice is frequently not aligned with broader research findings. The problem can be expressed through several scenarios: 

1. technical guidance or best practices are available but not followed when actions are implemented on the ground^{46, 55, 61};
2. guidance or best practices are followed, but monitoring is inadequate for assessing outcomes^{52, 61};
3. guidance or best practices are not developed using the findings of relevant research^{62, 64, 66}, with some measures being ineffective or even harmful⁴⁰;
4. relevant evidence for particular actions, locations, or contexts either does not exist, or is not available in a useful format^{59, 71}.

More broadly, many authors have highlighted a “science-practice” gap in the field of conservation⁴¹. There are problems at all stages, from knowledge generation to knowledge communication and knowledge use⁶³.

Several other sources present a more mixed view. For example, one study suggests that businesses may seek to align their biodiversity initiatives with the available evidence⁴⁸. But they rely on best practices, certifications, and guidance rather than directly engaging with the research⁴⁹. Another study found that conservation managers often sought research to guide their decision-making. Still, managers suggested that a lack of relevant and applicable evidence sources was a severe limitation⁵⁹.

Other studies presented a broad conception of the types of evidence that were used to support conservation action plans. The sources included published studies, experience, expert and in-house knowledge, and indigenous and local knowledge. However, the studies still found that around a quarter of the claims in management plans were unsupported by any source of evidence⁷¹.

In contrast to the wider literature, MAVA grantee reports highlight a number of cases where research and practice were well aligned. 

“The data produced during the first phase of the project has been analysed and used to edit the first National Action Plan (PAN) project for all the islands […].”

MAVA-G14 2019

Even within MAVA grants, there was sometimes a lack of clear information to link research and practice.

Two sources of potential bias for the MAVA grant reports are worth highlighting. Firstly, grants were initially screened to include only those that integrated research and conservation practice. Therefore, the grants selected for detailed review were the most likely to align their strategies with their research findings. 

The second and more general source of bias is that grantees may be more likely to report cases in which they have applied their research findings, but less likely to report when research findings were not used or when the research was unhelpful for guiding action. Similar biases for positive reporting have been discussed in the broader conservation literature.

To assess this assumption, we considered 16 pieces of evidence obtained from different sources.

An in-depth search of the MAVA grants database provided ten pieces of evidence from 49 sources that were used to test this assumption. An initial review highlighted 122 grants that were relevant to the topic of basic research and monitoring. These were further screened, and only grants that integrated research and conservation practice were retained. Documentation – including progress reports, final reports, technical reports, and MAVA evaluations – was searched in detail for statements or claims that linked research findings with conservation outcomes.

Exploratory searches of the wider literature found six pieces of evidence from five sources. Only a few studies were found that directly addressed this assumption, particularly within the conservation sector.

The small amount of evidence that was found provides some support for the assumption.

Overall, evidence from the MAVA grants database provided some support for the assumption. However, there was no evidence of direct link between the use of research findings and improved conservation outcomes. For example, one of the strongest pieces of evidence reported strengthened protection for key habitats and species but stopped short of assessing whether this resulted in improved status or a reduction in threats:

“The policy work (using the research findings) resulted in a significant increase in protected island wetlands. Out of 805 wetlands (mapped), 565 (70%) are now under protection with a strict legal framework. The policy work succeeded in the incorporation of the project’s scientific documentation into the […]  legislative framework.”

MAVA-G22 2013

The ability to assess impacts on conservation status or threats may be limited by the short timeframe of most grants, which is typically three years. 

The evidence from the wider literature also provided some support for the assumption, although there are not many relevant studies. The most compelling case was a hospital that found better patient outcomes in an evidence-based unit compared to a standard practice unit¹¹. Other studies found improved outcomes for some restoration projects^{14, 15}  and certification schemes¹⁶ when research findings were used to guide practice.

We considered 40 pieces of evidence obtained from different sources to assess this assumption.

An in-depth search of the MAVA grants database provided 30 pieces of evidence from 38 sources that were used to test this assumption. An initial review highlighted 140 grants that were relevant to the topic of basic research and monitoring. These were further screened, and only grants that integrated research and conservation practice, with conservation organisations as main implementers, were retained. Documentation – including full project proposals and evaluations of those proposals – was searched in detail for statements or claims about the intended use of research findings.

Exploratory searches of the wider literature found ten pieces of evidence from ten sources. Many of these sources were large-scale assessments aimed at detecting trends in conservation research or links between research effort and conservation priorities.

Overall, the evidence neither supports nor refutes the assumption. While evidence from the MAVA database provided some support, evidence from the wider literature tended to refute the assumption

Evidence from the MAVA grant proposals highlighted that projects with an integrated research and conservation component intended to use their research findings to inform their action. For example:

“Strategy 1 will focus on conducting in-depth research (distribution, abundance, density, threats, etc.) as well as regular monitoring of the pilot sites to allow the parallel development of ecological studies and socio-economic values of seagrass ecosystems. The main findings will directly inform site management plans and conservation actions, as well as feed in to advocacy and raising awareness activities.”

MAVA-G12 2020

All evidence from MAVA grant proposals supported the assumption, which may be explained in part by how the evidence was gathered. Only those grants with an integrated research and conservation component were searched in detail. It therefore follows that such projects will be very likely to propose a research component that will inform their later conservation action. Indeed, proposals that did not make that link explicit may not have been awarded funding. 

Furthermore, proposals that were purely research-focused, with no on-the-ground conservation component, were not searched for evidence. It remains how useful the research suggested in these cases will have been for conservation practice.

The wider literature suggests that research and conservation priorities are often not well aligned. For example, most of the research effort has targeted other species and landscapes than the most threatened ones^{31, 33, 36, 37, 39}. In addition, there are persistent biases in geography and taxonomy. These biases in research efforts may often be explained by a lack of funding and capacity, as well as logistical challenges.

However, another study suggests that despite some notable examples, conservation science as a whole has spent too much effort describing threats and status of species and habitats and too little time designing, implementing and testing the effectiveness of conservation responses³⁸.