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

This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 2 of this Preprint. You must log in to post a comment. There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article. This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 2 of this Preprint. Add a Comment You must log in to post a comment. Comments There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article. Evidence-based conservation can lead to better outcomes for biodiversity, through the integration of scientific evidence with other forms of knowledge to make transparent and effective decisions. However, despite efforts to promote evidence-based practice, many management and policy decisions do not incorporate scientific information. To strengthen the interface between science and practice/policy in conservation, it is vital to understand which factors influence the use of scientific evidence in decisions. Use of evidence has been widely studied across different conservation settings and contexts, but no comprehensive broad synthesis of the topic exists. To fill this knowledge gap, we conducted a systematic map to summarise where this research has been conducted, who has been the focus of these studies, and what influences the uptake of scientific evidence. Our searches found 29,422 studies and following screening 167 studies were identified as relevant. Across the studies, we identified a strong bias in the evidence literature towards English-speaking countries. Very few studies reported which types of ecosystems, taxonomic groups or threats were being addressed, but those that did typically focused on marine, forest, or freshwater systems. The majority of studies investigated practitioners and researchers as actors, while relatively few studies included policymakers or other actors. Regarding factors influencing evidence use, relationships between scientists and decision makers, and the capacity and resources of conservation organisations were those most commonly reported. More broadly, factors relating to the characteristics of the evidence itself and the characteristics of practitioners/policymakers, their organisations, and decision contexts were frequently referenced, while there was little focus on factors relating to researchers and research organisations. Synthesis and applications. Addressing the individual factors we identify through interventions may useful. However, because of the interlinked nature of the factors impacting evidence use, we think that solutions that tackle multiple barriers in a holistic fashion are likely to prove more effective. Targeting the underlying causes of these limitations could create a systemic shift across the conservation sector towards evidence-based practice and policy, resulting in better biodiversity outcomes. https://doi.org/10.32942/X2D08C Biodiversity, Life Sciences, Social and Behavioral Sciences evidence-based conservation, evidence-informed conservation, evidence use, knowledge co-production, knowledge exchange, knowledge transfer, science-practice gap, evidence-informed conservation, evidence use, knowledge co-production, knowledge exchange, knowledge transfer, science-practice gap Published: 2026-02-02 13:43 Last Updated: 2026-02-02 13:43 CC-BY Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Conflict of interest statement: There are no conflicts of interest. Data and Code Availability Statement: Data and code will be made available once study is published in a peer-reviewed journal Language: English