Absence of evidence for the conservation outcomes of systematic conservation planning around the globe: a systematic map

A systematic review reveals a significant gap in evidence regarding the effectiveness of systematic conservation planning worldwide. Despite its widespread use, only three rigorous studies—conducted in the Gulf of California (Mexico), Réunion Island, and The Nature Conservancy’s landholdings across the USA—met criteria for robust evaluation. These studies varied in context, purpose, and outcomes, employing non-experimental or qualitative designs such as spatial analysis, stakeholder surveys, and modeling. The findings highlight a lack of rigorous evaluations in academic journals or public repositories, suggesting that while systematic conservation planning is claimed to be effective, its actual impact remains poorly understood. This imbalance in the literature emphasizes the need for more robust evaluation methodologies and transparent reporting to improve conservation science and practice.

McIntosh, E. J., Chapman, S., Kearney, S. G., Williams, B., Althor, G., Thorn, J. P. R., Pressey, R. L., McKinnon, M. C., & Grenyer, R. (2018). Absence of evidence for the conservation outcomes of systematic conservation planning around the globe: a systematic map. Environmental Evidence, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-018-0134-2