Capterra is free for users because vendors pay us when they receive web traffic and sales opportunities. Capterra directories list all vendors—not just those that pay us—so that you can make the best-informed purchase decision possible.

It is important to remember that this website is a guide to the evidence available for different conservation actions and as a starting point in assessing their effectiveness. The assessments are based on the available evidence for the target group of species or habitat for each action. The assessment may therefore refer to different species or habitat to the one(s) you are considering. Before making any decisions about implementing actions it is vital that you read the more detailed accounts of the evidence in order to assess their relevance for your study species or system.

It is compiled particularly for those working to support or protect biodiversity, such as land managers, conservationists, farmers, policymakers, researchers, advisors or consultants.

Two global conservation synopses are currently being produced on the conservation of corals and on rivers, lakes and lagoons. Additional topics are also being added to the synopsis on the control of invasive species. We are also currently updating the synopsis on the conservation of birds.

1. Does the study measure the effect of an action that is or was under the control of humans, on wild taxa (including captives), habitats, or invasive/problem taxa? If yes, go to 2. If no, go to 3.

After one or two rounds of initial scoring, interventions are categorized by their overall effectiveness, as assessed by the expert panel. The median score from all the experts’ assessments is calculated for the effectiveness, certainty and harms for each intervention. Categorization is based on these median values, i.e. on a combination of the size of the benefit and harm and the strength of the evidence. The categories and their associated scores are listed in the table below. There is an important distinction between lack of benefit and lack of evidence of benefit.

Actions/Interventions include types of habitat or species management, methods of species or site protection, methods of controlling invasive species, species reintroduction, captive breeding, legislation, and education programmes.

[3] Amano, T., González-Varo, J.P. and Sutherland, W.J. (2016). Languages Are Still a Major Barrier to Global Science. PLoS Biology, 14 (12), e2000933. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2000933

There may also be significant negative side-effects on the target groups or other species or communities that have not been identified in the assessments.

b) Could the action be put in place by a conservationist, manager or decision maker to change human behaviour? If yes, include. If no, exclude.

For a summary of the methods and evidence sources used for these synopses and others, please see the synopses, methods, protocols and catalogue of searched journals: by synopses pages.

Conservation Evidence synopses should be quoted in the form: Dicks L.V., Showler D.A. & Sutherland W.J. (2010) Bee Conservation: Evidence for the effects of interventions. Synopses of Conservation Evidence. Pegasus Publishing, Exeter.

RMSpoliceReporting system

A lack of evidence means that we have been unable to assess whether or not an intervention is effective or has any harmful impacts.

Our series of synopses will eventually provide a comprehensive overview of the effectiveness of conservation actions worldwide.

2024 Preconference: Healthcare TASER Instructor Course, presented by AXON. Item Options: Price: $375.00.

Policerecordsmanagementtraining

[2] Junker, J., Petrovan, S.O., Arroyo-Rodriguez, V., Boonratana, R., Byler, D., Chapman, C.A., Chetry, D., Cheyne, S.M., Christie, A.P., et al. (2020). Severe Lack of Evidence Limits Effective Conservation of the World’s Primates. Bioscience, Accepted Author Manuscript. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa082

Funding from the Natural Environment Research Council allowed us to develop the synopses of actions for sustainable production on farmland (such as natural pest regulation, and soil quality) and in aquaculture.

Suitable actions include habitat creation, habitat restoration, translocations, reintroductions, mitigation, and invasive species control. All that is required is an action and quantitative monitoring. We do not include studies solely reporting monitoring methods, species ecology, biodiversity surveys, or threats to biodiversity.

We also welcome reports of unsuccessful interventions – a key part of our philosophy is that it is just as important to report when something doesn’t work as when it does. If you don’t publish this information then people will continue to try the same, ineffective actions time after time.

Pick a simple action. Compare the consequences with either the situation beforehand, or in another equivalent (control) area without the action or compare different actions. Having multiple areas with the action and control greatly improves the quality of the science.

For example: if treating a large number of invasive shrubs by cutting and herbicide application, then it might be appropriate to mark and count a proportion of these, and subsequently record how many have died or regrown.

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

CaseClosedSoftware

In our synopses, we hope to have included all interventions used by conservationists. If we have missed techniques and practices that you know are being used or have been used in the past, please email [email protected].

Evidence is never perfect or completely unbiased, and it is important to understand that these biases that are present in our database are also systematic challenges that affect the whole of conservation – if the scientific literature suffers from biases, so will our database and summaries of scientific evidence unless we take action. Therefore, we are committed to addressing these biases and are working hard with various partners and stakeholders to improve the evidence base for conservation.

Synopses bring together all the evidence for the effects of actions for particular species groups, habitats or issues and contain all the ‘Action pages' for that topic.

UAVs may be used for search and rescue operations, aerial patrols, and other roles that are usually served by crewed police aircraft. UAVs can be powerful ...

Third, the grey literature (i.e., unpublished or non-peer reviewed reports and studies that are often hard to find) is known to contain relevant studies that test conservation interventions and we are making concerted efforts to integrate these studies in our database.

Similarly, if you think that there is a synopsis topic that would be particularly useful, then please contact us. We are always looking to collaborate with other institutions and organisations. If you think you could help plan or compile a synopsis then please do get in touch.

There is also a set of key messages that provide a descriptive index to the studies summarised. You can look at the key messages and then at the summary paragraph describing each study to get more details, and assess the quality of evidence and how relevant it is to your situation.

An individual study is a short summary of a specific scientific study. Each is a brief (150-200 word) description that provides the background context, the conservation action(s) taken and the consequences. Studies come from systematic searches of scientific journals and other sources of scientific evidence including reports ('grey literature').

A conservation action or intervention is anything you might do to manage, protect, enhance or restore biodiversity or ecosystem services.

For each intervention, experts are asked to read the summarized evidence in the synopsis and then score to indicate their assessment of the following:

Certainty of the evidence: 0% = no evidence, 100% = high quality evidence; complete certainty. This is certainty of effectiveness of intervention, not of harms.

A lack of evidence means that we have been unable to assess whether or not an action is effective or has any harmful impacts.

However, we would also encourage its use for general fact-finding, such as by students, teachers or anyone wanting to find out more about biodiversity conservation.

So far we have completed over 22 synopses. All but the farmland and sustainable agriculture synopes are global in scope. The farmland synopsis includes evidence from northern Europe (all European countries west of Russia, but not those south of France, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary and Romania). The sustainable agriculture synopsis is focussed on California and Mediterranean Climates.

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Yes there are. We and others have quantified several biases in the scientific literature and we are working hard to address these.

Two-way traffic sign ... The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) is a document issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the United ...

... Sign recognition – a new feature that uses a smartphone camera to recognise speed limits from traffic signs and LED screens and show the current maximum ...

3. Does the study measure the effect of an action that is or was under the control of humans, on human behaviour that is relevant to conserving biodiversity? If yes, go to a. If no, exclude.

RMSpolicemeaning

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

We need to know if this website and Conservation Evidence publications are as useful as they can be. If you have any suggestions for how to improve any aspect of Conservation Evidence, please let us know by emailing us at [email protected].

Perhaps the best example comes from medical practice. Medical training used to consist of trainee doctors following consultants and learning from their experience. It was then realised that there were enormous discrepancies in practice between hospitals which, when compared, showed striking differences in recovery rate of patients between approaches. This led to evidence-based medicine in which the assessment of effectiveness underpins almost all current practice.

Finally, a fundamental issue with published scientific evidence is publication bias, specifically the ‘file-drawer effect’, whereby positive results are more likely to be published than negative or neutral results. This is a major challenge to overcome, but we are promoting the publication of tests of interventions, regardless of their success or failure, through the Conservation Evidence journal and encouraging other journals and funders to promote similar approaches to addressing this bias. It is also possible that by integrating more non-English and grey literature studies we can address some of the bias against negative and neutral results.

Each individual study has a separate page that provides the summary written for each of the actions that it tested. There is a link to each of those action pages, where you can read other evidence for the effectiveness of that action.

[1] Christie, A.P., Amano, T., Martin, P.A., Petrovan, S.O., Shackelford, G.E., Simmons, B.I., Smith, R.K., Williams, D.R., Wordley, C.F.R. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020). The challenge of biased evidence in conservation. Conservation Biology, Early View Article. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13577

What Works in Conservation should be quoted in the form: Sutherland, W.J., Dicks, L.V. Ockendon, N. & Smith, R.K. (2019) What Works in Conservation. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers.

[4] Amano, T. and Sutherland, W.J. (2013). Four barriers to the global understanding of biodiversity conservation: wealth, language, geographical location and security. Proceedings of the Royal Society B - Biological Sciences, 280 (1756), 20122649-20122649. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.2649

Find Please Shut Gate Sign stock images in HD and millions of other royalty-free stock photos, illustrations and vectors in the Shutterstock collection.

Panels of experts have assessed the collated evidence for each action to determine effectiveness, certainty of the evidence and, in most cases, whether there are negative side-effects on the group of species or habitat of concern (harms). Using these assessments, actions are categorized based on a combination of effectiveness (the size of benefit or harm) and certainty (the strength of the evidence). The following categories are used: Beneficial, Likely to be beneficial, Trade-off between benefit and harms, Unknown effectiveness, Unlikely to be beneficial, Likely to be ineffective or harmful.

Conservation Evidence is also contributing to increasing the use of evidence-based practice in conservation by providing the tools and guidance needed to incorporate this evidence into conservation projects.

Conservation Evidence is a free, authoritative information resource aiming to support decisions about how to maintain and restore global biodiversity. The idea is to give busy conservationists access to the very latest and most relevant ecological knowledge to support their management, policy or funding decisions.

The median score from all the experts’ assessments is calculated for the effectiveness, certainty and harms for each intervention. The overall effectiveness categorization is based on these median values, i.e. on a combination of the size of the benefit and harm and the strength of the evidence.

P09 Police Pepper spray American Style - 40 ml · SP02 Taser Stun Gun + LED + Siren + Laser + 3 Air Cartridges · S03 Stun Gun Telescopic Baton HY-X10 + LED ...

Policerecordsmanagementjobs

right arrow symbols, entities & characters: → ➡️ ͍ ⃗ ⃡ ⃯ ↔ ↗ ↘ ↛ ↣ ↦ ↩ ↪ ↬ ↮ ↴ ↹ ⇄ ⇆ ⇒

Safety: Safety Symbols. Do you know what these safety symbols mean? Click on the symbol to find out! BACK · Big Kids Teen Track Home.

Taser X2 Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) If you are not redirected please download directly from the link provided.

Note that while experts use standardised instructions there will be some variation between synopses in how the evidence is interpreted given the differences in evidence quality and quantity for different species groups and habitats.

The average of several experts’ opinions is likely to be a more reliable and accurate assessment than the opinion of a single expert. We therefore ask a panel of experts (listed in What Works in Conservation for each synopsis) to use their judgement to assess whether evidence within a synopsis indicates that an intervention is effective or not. They are also asked to assess how certain they are of the effectiveness given the quality of evidence available for that intervention (certainty of the evidence). Negative side-effects described in the collated evidence are also assessed for the species group or habitat of concern (harms). Experts base their assessment solely on the evidence in the synopsis.

Law enforcement software helps public safety and security organizations manage data and public records. Law enforcement software systems facilitate the storage and transfer of data from body cameras, crime scene photographs, closed-circuit TV (CCTV) feeds, smartphones, satellites, and other agency databases.

Investigativecase management software

Over the next five years, Conservation Evidence aims to produce synopses covering every major habitat and taxonomic group.

Private investigatorcase management software

Unfortunately, Conservation Evidence cannot make recommendations for individual decisions. This is because it is difficult to give evidence-based conservation advice that is appropriate for every context. Instead, we provide evidence and an assessment of that evidence, which should be interpreted by conservationists who understand their own site and national or regional situation.

Once interventions are categorized, experts are given the chance to object if they believe an intervention has been categorized incorrectly. Interventions that receive a specified number (depending on the size of the panel) of strong objections from experts are re-scored by the expert panel and re-categorized accordingly.

recordsmanagementsystem (rms)

Jan 3, 2024 — The total cost of the proposed Axon OSP 10+ agreement is now $780,612.55, which works out to about $156,000 annually. No member of Council ...

Conservation Evidence is for anybody wishing to find the scientific evidence behind a specific management intervention. Crucially, this information is made available for free, so anyone can read it and see what has worked – and what hasn’t. Our aim is to help break down the barrier between science and practice, so that where relevant science exists, conservation practitioners, managers, and policy makers have access to it. The hope is that this will result in better-informed decisions and more effective management.

2. Could the action be put in place by a conservationist/decision maker to protect, manage or restore wild taxa or habitats, to reduce impacts of threats to wild taxa or habitats, or to control or mitigate the impact of the invasive/problem taxon on wild taxa or habitats? If yes, include. If no, exclude.

The information held on this site can be used for example, to guide conservation actions and management plans. However, it does not tell you what to do.

The Conservation Evidence Journal is an open access journal under a Creative Commons Attributions (CC BY) license. This means that anyone can access, download and distribute any article from the site, as long as they credit the authors and source.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)’s Conservation Actions Classification Scheme provides an overview of possible types of intervention.

Summaries of individual studies should be cited as the original reference (as given at the top of each individual summary).

To use the website efficiently, you can search for information relevant to your work, and then assess how applicable the interventions are to your situation. For example, ask yourself:

First, there is geographic and taxonomic bias in the evidence base because funding and logistical constraints mean that published studies tend to test interventions in North America, Europe and Australasia[1]. We have also found that fewer published tests of interventions tend to take place in locations with more threatened species, and that there are some severe gaps in the evidence for certain taxonomic orders and groups [1,2]. We are trying to encourage better prioritisation and funding of research that that tests conservation interventions by working with funders and various conservation NGOs, but also to investigate how much we can generalise and apply the findings of studies to different locations and taxonomic groups.

Conservation Evidence journal papers should be quoted in the form: Badley J. & Allcorn R.I. (2006) The creation of a new saline lagoon as part of a flood defence scheme at RSPB Freiston Shore Nature Reserve, Lincolnshire, England. Conservation Evidence, 3, 99-101.

The Conservation Evidence Journal is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes standard papers and short communications detailing the effectiveness of conservation actions. We aim to provide the key information for successful conservation as easily as possible.

There may also be significant negative side-effects on the target groups or other species or communities that have not been identified in the assessments.

These synopses will be available individually, online (both as a downloadable PDF and as a searchable database) and some in print, but will also be combined online as a searchable database to provide an authoritative guide to conservation practice for any habitat and taxon, anywhere in the world.

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

The evidence summarised for each action has also been assessed by a panel of experts to determine how effective the action is. For more details see What Works in Conservation.

Second, language bias is a major issue more generally for science, and we know that as much as 30% of studies in conservation science are published in non-English languages[3,4]. Dr Tatsuya Amano is helping us integrate the non-English literature that tests conservation interventions through the translatE project (Transcending Language Barriers to Environmental Sciences) and we already have included several non-English studies in our database.

Some interventions in the Farmland Conservation and Bird Conservation synopses have assessments of effectiveness and certainty but not of harms. This is because these assessments were carried out as part of different projects. Details of the assessment for interventions to deal with Invasive alien and other problematic species in the Bird Conservation synopsis are given in Walsh J.C., Dicks L.V. & Sutherland W.J. (2015) The effect of scientific evidence on conservation practitioners’ management decisions. Conservation Biology, 29, 88-98. The assessment methodology used on interventions in the Farmland Conservation synopsis is provided in Dicks L.V., Hodge I., Randall N.P., Scharlemann J.P.W., Siriwardena G.M., Smith H.G., Smith R.K. & Sutherland W.J. (2014) A Transparent Process for "Evidence-Informed" Policy Making. Conservation Letters, 7, 119-125.

Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) requires that decisions are based on the best available, current, valid and relevant evidence. These decisions should be informed by the tacit and explicit knowledge of those making the decision and within the context of available resources.

a) Does this study measure the effect of an action that is or was under human control on human behaviour (actual or intentional) which is likely to protect, manage or restore wild taxa or habitats, or reduce threats to wild taxa or habitats? If yes, go to b. If no, exclude.

If documenting a reintroduction, give the number of surviving individuals after a given period of time and any indication of reproductive success.

Although most interventions and synopses have been assessed to produce What Works in Conservation, some sections (notably the Bee Conservation synopsis) have not yet been assessed by an expert panel. These sections will be assessed soon.

Each will be produced through thorough literature reviews and with an international panel of experts advising on the scope and structure of the synopsis, ensuring that they communicate the information that conservation practitioners need in the easiest and most useful way possible.

If you think that we’ve missed some evidence on the action articles, then email [email protected] and send us the details. You can also attach the evidence if you have access to it, but it has to be work that scientifically quantifies the consequences of interventions. We will periodically review the interventions and update them using your suggestions and further literature reviews.

We use a modified Delphi method to quantify the effectiveness and certainty of evidence of each intervention, based on the summarized evidence. The Delphi method is a structured process that involves asking a panel of experts to state their individual opinion on a subject by scoring anonymously. They can then revise their own scores after seeing a summary of scores and comments from the rest of the panel. Final scores are then collated. Scores and comments are kept anonymous throughout the process so that participants are not overly influenced by any single member of the panel.

It is important to remember that this website is a guide to the evidence available for different conservation interventions and as a starting point in assessing their effectiveness. The assessments are based on the available evidence for the target group of species or habitat for each intervention. The assessment may therefore refer to different species or habitat to the one(s) you are considering. Before making any decisions about implementing interventions it is vital that you read the more detailed accounts of the evidence in order to assess their relevance for your study species or system.

There are both individual pieces of evidence - summaries of studies published in our own Conservation Evidence Journal or other scientific journals, or from other sources of evidence such as reports ('grey literature') - and ‘action’ pages, with summaries of all of the studies that tested that action (or intervention). We also provide expert assessment of the effectiveness of each action based on the summarized evidence, see What Works in Conservation for more details.

The approach to medical practice 30 years ago was similar to the current approach to nature conservation, so a number of people (Pullin & Knight 2001, Sutherland 2001, Sutherland et al. 2004) suggested that a similar revolution would benefit conservation management. The vision is that the assessment and dissemination of the effectiveness of conservation actions will be a routine part of conservation practice.