Creating testable questions in practical conservation: a process and 100 questions

William J. Sutherland; Jake M. Robinson; David C. Aldridge; Tim Alamenciak; Matthew Armes; Nina Baranduin; Andrew J. Bladon; Martin F. Breed; Nicki Dyas; Chris C. Elphick; Richard A. Griffiths; Jonny Hughes; Beccy Middleton; Nick A. Littlewood; Roger Mitchell; William H. Morgan; Roy Mosley; Silviu O. Petrovan; Kit Prendwegast; Euan G. Ritchie; Hugh Raven; Rebecca K. Smith; Sarah H. Watts; Ann Thornton

doi:10.52201/CEJ19XIFF2753

Creating testable questions in practical conservation: a process and 100 questions

William J. Sutherland
, Jake M. Robinson
, David C. Aldridge
, Tim Alamenciak
, Matthew Armes
, Nina Baranduin
, Andrew J. Bladon
, Martin F. Breed
, Nicki Dyas
, Chris C. Elphick
, Richard A. Griffiths
, Jonny Hughes
, Beccy Middleton
, Nick A. Littlewood
, Roger Mitchell
, William H. Morgan
, Roy Mosley
, Silviu O. Petrovan
, Kit Prendwegast
, Euan G. Ritchie

Hugh Raven, Rebecca K. Smith, Sarah H. Watts, Ann Thornton

University of Cambridge
University of Sheffield
University of Waterloo, Canada
Birmingham and Black Country Amphibian and Reptile Group
Potwell Dyke Grasslands Action Group
Flinders University, Adelaide
Sheffield and Rotherham Wildlife Trust
University of Connecticut
University of Kent
UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre
St Andrews Botanic Garden, Fife
Scotland’s Rural College, Aberdeen
Cambridge Conservation Forum
West Coast Invertebrates Rescue and Rehoming
Deakin University, Victoria
Ardtornish, Argyll.
University of Stirling

Research output: Contribution to journal › Editorial

5 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

It is now clear that the routine embedding of experiments into conservation practice is essential for creating reasonably comprehensive evidence of the effectiveness of actions. However, an important barrier is the stage of identifying testable
questions that are both useful but also realistic to carry out without a major research project. We identified approaches for generating such suitable questions. A team of 24 participants crowdsourced suggestions, resulting in a list of a hundred
possible tests of actions

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1-7
Number of pages	7
Journal	Conservation Evidence
Volume	19
Early online date	1 Jan 2022
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.52201/CEJ19XIFF2753
Publication status	Published - 1 Jan 2022
Externally published	Yes

Access to Document

10.52201/CEJ19XIFF2753Licence: CC BY

Sutherland et al_CEJ_19_1_7Licence: CC BY

Cite this

Sutherland, W. J., Robinson, J. M., Aldridge, D. C., Alamenciak, T., Armes, M., Baranduin, N., Bladon, A. J., Breed, M. F., Dyas, N., Elphick, C. C., Griffiths, R. A., Hughes, J., Middleton, B., Littlewood, N. A., Mitchell, R., Morgan, W. H., Mosley, R., Petrovan, S. O., Prendwegast, K., ... Thornton, A. (2022). Creating testable questions in practical conservation: a process and 100 questions. Conservation Evidence, 19, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.52201/CEJ19XIFF2753

@article{fd18baff0fdd40e583b5b2057bd5d7b5,

title = "Creating testable questions in practical conservation: a process and 100 questions",

abstract = "It is now clear that the routine embedding of experiments into conservation practice is essential for creating reasonably comprehensive evidence of the effectiveness of actions. However, an important barrier is the stage of identifying testable questions that are both useful but also realistic to carry out without a major research project. We identified approaches for generating such suitable questions. A team of 24 participants crowdsourced suggestions, resulting in a list of a hundred possible tests of actions",

author = "Sutherland, \{William J.\} and Robinson, \{Jake M.\} and Aldridge, \{David C.\} and Tim Alamenciak and Matthew Armes and Nina Baranduin and Bladon, \{Andrew J.\} and Breed, \{Martin F.\} and Nicki Dyas and Elphick, \{Chris C.\} and Griffiths, \{Richard A.\} and Jonny Hughes and Beccy Middleton and Littlewood, \{Nick A.\} and Roger Mitchell and Morgan, \{William H.\} and Roy Mosley and Petrovan, \{Silviu O.\} and Kit Prendwegast and Ritchie, \{Euan G.\} and Hugh Raven and Smith, \{Rebecca K.\} and Watts, \{Sarah H.\} and Ann Thornton",

year = "2022",

month = jan,

day = "1",

doi = "10.52201/CEJ19XIFF2753",

language = "English",

volume = "19",

pages = "1--7",

journal = "Conservation Evidence",

}

Sutherland, WJ, Robinson, JM, Aldridge, DC, Alamenciak, T, Armes, M, Baranduin, N, Bladon, AJ, Breed, MF, Dyas, N, Elphick, CC, Griffiths, RA, Hughes, J, Middleton, B, Littlewood, NA, Mitchell, R, Morgan, WH, Mosley, R, Petrovan, SO, Prendwegast, K, Ritchie, EG, Raven, H, Smith, RK, Watts, SH & Thornton, A 2022, 'Creating testable questions in practical conservation: a process and 100 questions', Conservation Evidence, vol. 19, pp. 1-7. https://doi.org/10.52201/CEJ19XIFF2753

TY - JOUR

T1 - Creating testable questions in practical conservation: a process and 100 questions

AU - Sutherland, William J.

AU - Robinson, Jake M.

AU - Aldridge, David C.

AU - Alamenciak, Tim

AU - Armes, Matthew

AU - Baranduin, Nina

AU - Bladon, Andrew J.

AU - Breed, Martin F.

AU - Dyas, Nicki

AU - Elphick, Chris C.

AU - Griffiths, Richard A.

AU - Hughes, Jonny

AU - Middleton, Beccy

AU - Littlewood, Nick A.

AU - Mitchell, Roger

AU - Morgan, William H.

AU - Mosley, Roy

AU - Petrovan, Silviu O.

AU - Prendwegast, Kit

AU - Ritchie, Euan G.

AU - Raven, Hugh

AU - Smith, Rebecca K.

AU - Watts, Sarah H.

AU - Thornton, Ann

PY - 2022/1/1

Y1 - 2022/1/1

N2 - It is now clear that the routine embedding of experiments into conservation practice is essential for creating reasonably comprehensive evidence of the effectiveness of actions. However, an important barrier is the stage of identifying testable questions that are both useful but also realistic to carry out without a major research project. We identified approaches for generating such suitable questions. A team of 24 participants crowdsourced suggestions, resulting in a list of a hundred possible tests of actions

AB - It is now clear that the routine embedding of experiments into conservation practice is essential for creating reasonably comprehensive evidence of the effectiveness of actions. However, an important barrier is the stage of identifying testable questions that are both useful but also realistic to carry out without a major research project. We identified approaches for generating such suitable questions. A team of 24 participants crowdsourced suggestions, resulting in a list of a hundred possible tests of actions

U2 - 10.52201/CEJ19XIFF2753

DO - 10.52201/CEJ19XIFF2753

M3 - Editorial

VL - 19

SP - 1

EP - 7

JO - Conservation Evidence

JF - Conservation Evidence

ER -

Creating testable questions in practical conservation: a process and 100 questions

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this