Understanding Conservation Decision-makers’ Preferences for Evidence

1. Effective conservation depends on decisions informed by evidence that is both trustworthy and relevant to specific local contexts. However, little is known about which characteristics of evidence conservation decision-makers prioritise when deciding what information to trust. 2. We explored decision-makers’ preferences for different attributes of evidence using a discrete choice experiment in which respondents (n = 62) repeatedly chose between pairs of evidence items described by six attributes: evidence source, type, timespan, habitat similarity, species relatedness and recency. We fitted conditional logit models to estimate the relative importance of attributes and levels within them, complemented by semi-structured interviews (n=10) to understand decision-makers reasoning behind their choices. 3. Species relatedness (32% relative importance) and evidence type (18%) most strongly influenced choices. Participants showed strong preferences for evidence from the same or similar habitats and species, from published evidence reviews, and to a lesser extent, from published scientific studies over unpublished reports and expert opinion. 4. Interviews reinforced the importance of context, especially local ecological relevance, and revealed tensions between valuing long-term datasets and needing timely evidence for decisions; participants often prioritised “the right species in the right habitat” over how recent or long-running a study was. Across methods, participants preferred synthesised evidence that closely matched the focal species and habitat, but were willing to draw on less directly relevant evidence when it was clearly presented and transferable in its context. Solution: To maximise trust in evidence and its use in conservation decision making, identifying the contextual similarity between decision-makers’ focal setting and the available evidence is important. Contextual information and metadata needs to be clearly communicated in studies, syntheses, and evidence platforms to ensure globally collated evidence can be contextualised to inform decisions for different taxa, locations, and socio-cultural contexts. Guidance is also needed on when and how evidence can be transferred across settings, especially when locally relevant evidence is unavailable.