Facilitating the wise use of experts and evidence to inform local environmental decisions

Using biodiversity management within New Zealand's agricultural landscape as a case study, we apply ‘boundary science’ approaches to overcome two persistent deficiencies in environmental decision-making: ‘evidence disparity’, the discrepancy between evidence desired and generated, complacency’, where is not sought or used, out of date, incomplete biased. Specifically, assess how recent innovations gathering, evaluating communicating syntheses can: give local stakeholders from diversity roles interests voice setting priorities, systematically tailor global meet needs make wise use specialists enhance accuracy reliability their judgements. Initial study material comprised comprehensive lists 18 outcome groups 84 actions potential value Zealand farms. Of 40 that mattered most stakeholders, 90% required editing preparation for expert assessments. The final list priorities encompassed 43 11 groups. gaps were detected 10 assessed, with half these plugged using studies. Six experts then evaluated this its interpretation context, mitigating risks different subsets evaluation criteria. effectiveness each action delivering benefits was also assessed by panel specialist judgement mitigate of: (a) skewed assessment derived one experts; (b) overwhelming panellists long issues debate; (c) conflicts arising misunderstandings about outcomes. stakeholder delivered useful insights, which could be used direct facilitate inclusive policy investments beyond our project. Auditing studies existing synopses recommended help improve conservation bases. Our highlights crucial role boundary-spanning team can play organising, summarising integrating datasets address disparity complacency affecting decisions policy. Read free Plain Language Summary article on Journal blog.