Factors influencing the use of scientific evidence in conservation practice and policy: insights from a systematic map

•1. Evidence-based conservation has the potential to improve biodiversity outcomes. Yet many conservation decisions do not explicitly incorporate scientific evidence, despite efforts to promote its use. To strengthen the role of scientific evidence in informing conservation decisions, it is vital to understand which factors influence its use by decision makers. However, to date, there has been no comprehensive attempt to characterise the scientific literature on this topic.
•2. To fill this knowledge gap, we conducted a systematic map to synthesise the literature on factors that impact evidence use in conservation decision-making, including identifying where research has been conducted and which actors have been studied. Our searches and screening identified 169 relevant primary studies.
•3. We identified an apparent bias in the evidence use literature towards English-speaking countries in the Global North. Few studies reported focal ecosystems, or threats, but those that did often focused on marine, forest or freshwater systems. The majority of studies investigated practitioners and researchers as actors, with relatively few studies focused on policymakers or other actors.
•4. The most commonly reported factors influencing evidence use were relationships between scientists and decision makers, the relevance of evidence and the capacity and resources of conservation organisations. Factors relating to the characteristics of evidence and practitioners/policymakers, including their organisations and decision contexts, were frequently referenced. However, few studies identified factors relating to researchers and research organisations.
•5. Synthesis and applications. Researchers should move from characterising factors impacting scientific evidence use to identifying and testing interventions to facilitate its use by conservation decision makers. Since these factors are interlinked, implementation and testing of actions that tackle multiple barriers should be prioritised. Decision makers and researchers should engage with each other early on when defining management, policy and research synthesis questions, define knowledge needs clearly and, where possible, invest in mechanisms to facilitate dialogue and interpretation of evidence. Together, these approaches offer the potential to promote evidence-based conservation practice and policy, resulting in improved biodiversity outcomes.