
doi: 10.1111/conl.12330
Abstract The European Habitat Directive encompasses a conservation policy devoted to conserve habitats rather than single species. This ambition has strong ecological justifications, and inspires other initiatives such as the IUCN red list of ecosystems. Evaluating this policy is therefore pivotal to identify and reproduce best practices. However, the habitat aspect of this policy has so far not been systematically assessed. To make up for this lacuna, we take advantage of decision‐aiding methodologies to introduce a new normative framework. According to this framework, a conservation policy is positively evaluated if it contributes to conservation, is science‐based, operational, and legitimate. Based on an exploration of the published literature and unpublished reports and databases, we identify knowledge gaps plaguing the European habitat conservation policy. We argue that, due to these knowledge gaps, the contribution of this policy to the conservation of habitats is unproven, it is not science‐based, not operational and not legitimate. Our study draws heavily on the French implementation. Analyzing this example, we highlight knowledge gaps that carry lessons for European conservation policies as a whole, but also for conservation initiatives focused on habitats in a broader geographical and political context. We then identify concrete means to strengthen habitats conservation policies.
decision analysis, policy evaluation Correspondence, phytosociology, 577, legitimacy, policy evaluation, 320, habitats conservation, knowledge gaps, [SDE.BE] Environmental Sciences/Biodiversity and Ecology, Conservation policies, Communautés, 307, conservation policy, Recherche opérationnelle
decision analysis, policy evaluation Correspondence, phytosociology, 577, legitimacy, policy evaluation, 320, habitats conservation, knowledge gaps, [SDE.BE] Environmental Sciences/Biodiversity and Ecology, Conservation policies, Communautés, 307, conservation policy, Recherche opérationnelle
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 16 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
