Plenty of biodiversity data, but too few conservation answers

For decades, conservation has depended on a deceptively simple act: counting. Scientists tally birds along migration routes, measure forest cover from satellites, or track wildlife populations through camera traps. These numbers underpin the decisions that shape environmental policy, from protected-area planning to international biodiversity targets. Yet the system that produces them is changing quickly, and not always coherently.

A recent PNAS perspective led by William Sutherland and dozens of collaborators argues that biodiversity measurement is entering a pivotal moment. The tools used to monitor nature have expanded dramatically, while demand for reliable data has grown across governments, businesses and international agreements. The authors argue that making use of this expanding stream of biodiversity data will require changes not only in technology but also in how evidence is organized, shared, and interpreted.

The scale of data collection alone illustrates the shift. Global biodiversity databases now incorporate millions of observations from citizen scientists, museum collections, environmental DNA sampling and automated sensors. The Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), for example, adds hundreds of millions of species records each year, drawn from sources as varied as birdwatching apps and environmental impact assessments.

In principle, this abundance opens new possibilities. Environmental DNA allows researchers to detect species from traces left in soil or water. Acoustic sensors can record entire soundscapes, with machine-learning systems identifying species calls automatically. Remote sensing tracks deforestation and habitat change in near real time–even when it’s cloudy. In principle, these systems can measure biodiversity at scales unimaginable only a decade ago.

Yet more data does not automatically produce better understanding. Conservation has long struggled with a deeper problem: distinguishing what is happening from why it is happening. Monitoring programs track trends in forest cover or species abundance, but those patterns may reflect forces unrelated to conservation actions. Protected areas may appear successful simply because they are located in remote regions unlikely to be cleared even without protection. Establishing real impact requires a credible counterfactual: an estimate of what would have happened without the intervention.

A growing movement within conservation science has begun to address this gap. Researchers increasingly borrow tools from economics and public health, including experimental and quasi-experimental evaluation methods. The goal is to determine whether conservation actions genuinely change ecological outcomes, rather than merely coinciding with them. Without such analysis, programs risk appearing effective while delivering little measurable benefit.

Measurement challenges also arise at larger scales. Widely cited global indicators can shape public narratives but remain controversial among researchers. Critics of the Living Planet Index, for instance, argue that some global biodiversity metrics risk oversimplifying complex ecological trends or relying on limited datasets. Analyses of African wildlife populations suggest that dramatic global averages can obscure substantial regional variation.

For practitioners working on the ground, these debates matter less than a practical question: where will conservation actions work best? Here another strand of research has gained attention. Studies described as “precision ecology” argue that interventions should be targeted not merely to valuable ecosystems but to places where they will have the greatest measurable impact relative to doing nothing. The idea draws on precision medicine, where treatments are matched to individual patients.

In practice, conservation has long followed a similar logic. Protected areas are designed to capture concentrations of biodiversity. Anti-poaching patrols focus on known hotspots. Payments for ecosystem services are directed toward watersheds that protect downstream communities. Advances in data analysis may sharpen these decisions, but the underlying principle remains familiar: limited resources should be deployed where they matter most.

The challenge is bringing these different streams of evidence together into something usable for decision-making. Sutherland and colleagues propose several changes aimed at strengthening biodiversity measurement. Among them are standardizing data collection methods, ensuring that emerging technologies remain compatible with long-term datasets, expanding monitoring capacity in biodiversity-rich regions and safeguarding databases against errors or fabricated information.

One recommendation addresses a less discussed but significant issue: the recognition of knowledge generated outside formal science. Indigenous and local communities often possess long-term observations of ecosystems that extend far beyond the span of modern monitoring programs. Studies of birds, for example, show that community memory can reveal ecological shifts—such as changes in body size or species composition—that scientific datasets detect only later. Integrating such knowledge requires care and respect, but it can extend the historical baseline against which environmental change is measured.

All of this points toward a broader transformation in how conservation understands evidence. The field once relied heavily on global assessments and generalized prescriptions. Increasingly it is moving toward approaches that link detailed measurement with context-specific action.

That shift does not diminish the scale of the biodiversity crisis. Habitat loss, climate change and overexploitation continue to reshape ecosystems across the planet. But the growing sophistication of biodiversity measurement suggests that the next phase of conservation may depend less on gathering more data than on learning how to use it well.

Ultimately measurement is not an end in itself. Its purpose is to guide decisions about how people interact with the living world. Turning information into action remains the harder task.

Banner image: Elephants in Dzanga Bai in the Central African Republic. Photo by Rhett Ayers Butler..

• W.J. Sutherland, N.D. Burgess, S.V. Edwards, J.P.G. Jones, P.S. Soltis, D. Tilman, J.M. Allen, H.T. Andrianandrasana, C.J. Armour, T. August, K.S. Bawa, S. Bailey, T. Birch, P.H. Boersch-Supan, J. Cavender-Bares, M. Blaxter, R. Chaplin-Kramer, B.H. Daru, A. De Palma, C. Eisenberg, C.S. Elphick, R.P. Freckleton, W.F. Frick, A. Gonzalez, S.J. Goetz, L. Greenspoon, C.M. Grozingeree, D.L. Hankins, J. Hazell, N.J.B. Isaac, M. Lambertini, H.A. Lewin, O. Mac Aodha, A. Madhavapeddy, E. Milner-Gulland, R. Milo, J. O’Dwyer, A. Purvis, N. Salafsky, H. Tallis, I. Tanshi, V. Vijay, M. Wikelski, D.R. Williams, S.H. Woodard, & G.E. Robinson (2026). Nine changes needed to deliver a radical transformation in biodiversity measurement, Proceedings of the National Academies of Science 123 (10) e2519345123, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2519345123.
• Spake, R., Jackson, E.E., Bullock, J.M. et al. Precision ecology for targeted conservation action. Nat Ecol Evol 9, 1102–1111 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-025-02733-4
• Margules, C.R. & Pressey, R.L. (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405, 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1038/35012251
• Ferraro, P. J., & Pattanayak, S. K. (2006). Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLOS Biology, 4(4), e105. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040105
• Neugarten, R. A., et al. (2025). An introduction to impact evaluation for conservation. Conservation Science and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.70169
• Dos Santos Ribas, L. G., Pressey, R. L., Loyola, R., & Bini, L. M. (2020). A global comparative analysis of impact evaluation methods in estimating the effectiveness of protected areas. Biological Conservation, 246, 108595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108595
• Ferraro, P. J. (2009). Counterfactual thinking and impact evaluation in environmental policy. New Directions for Evaluation, 122, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.297
• Miteva, D. A., Pattanayak, S. K., & Ferraro, P. J. (2012). Evaluation of biodiversity policy instruments: What works and what doesn’t? Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 28(1), 69–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grs009
• Andam, K. S., Ferraro, P. J., Pfaff, A., Sanchez-Azofeifa, G. A., & Robalino, J. A. (2008). Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(42), 16089–16094. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0800437105
• Baylis, K., Honey-Rosés, J., Börner, J., Corbera, E., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Ferraro, P. J., … Wunder, S. (2016). Mainstreaming impact evaluation in nature conservation. Conservation Letters, 9(1), 58–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12180
• Pimm, S. L., Davies, T. J., & Gittleman, J. L. (2026). Out of Africa comes no support for global biodiversity catastrophes. Science Advances, 12, eaee6950. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aee6950
• Fernández-Llamazares, Á. et al. Indigenous Peoples and local communities report a consistent decline in the body mass of birds across three continents. Oryx (2025). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605325102615

Founder’s Briefs — Conservation effectiveness

A short thematic series of analysis and primers by Mongabay founder Rhett Ayers Butler.

Precision conservation: the rise of place-specific strategies where protection works best

Birds are changing — and Indigenous memory is the longest record we have

Measuring what works in conservation

Credits

Rhett Butler Editor

This story first appeared on Mongabay

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and Mongabay, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article.