Bridging research and practice in conservation.

Salafsky et al. (2019) added their voices to a growing call for biodiversity conservation practice to be more evidence-based. We agree that guidance for the use of evidence in conservation practice needs to be improved; however, we suggest that evidence-based conservation will not be realized without improved access to evidence. In medicine, unlike in conservation, a well-established and well-funded layer of intermediary individuals and organizations engage with medical practitioners, synthesize primary research that is relevant to decision-making, and make it easily accessible. These intermediaries prepare targeted evidence summaries and distribute them in a suitable form to practitioners faced with time-sensitive and value-laden decisions. To be effective, these intermediaries, which we term "evidence bridges" should identify research topics based on the priorities of practitioners; synthesize evidence; prepare and distribute easy-to-find and easy-to-use evidence summaries; and develop and maintain networks of connections with researchers and practitioners. Based on a review of the literature regarding evidence intermediaries in conservation and environmental management, as well as an anonymous questionnaire searching for such organizations, we found few intermediaries that meet all these criteria. Moreover, we found that the few evidence bridges that do exist are unable to reach most conservation practitioners, which include resource managers in government and industry, conservation organizations, and farmers and other private landowners. We argue that the lack of evidence bridges from research to practitioners contributes to "evidence complacency" and limits the use of evidence in conservation action. Nevertheless, several existing organizations do help to reduce the gap between evidence and practice and could serve as a foundation for building additional components of evidence bridges in conservation. While evidence bridges need expertise in research and evidence synthesis, they also require expertise in identifying and communicating with the community of practitioners most in need of clear and concise syntheses of evidence. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.