Effects of long-term ecological research and cognitive biases on the evaluation of scientific information by public land managers in Oregon and Washington, USA

Natural resource managers (managers) value and use scientific information to inform their decision-making process in a variety of ways. The scientific information managers use depends on a variety of factors, including the source of the information and ease of access. Barriers, such as paywalls, insufficient capacity, and information overload play an important role in determining what scientific information managers have access and attend to. Additionally, characteristics of managers themselves also influence what scientific information they prioritize and implement. Specific factors likely play an important role in how managers evaluate the utility and strength of scientific information. We examine two potential factors, (1) the number of years of the study as an indicator of research quality, and (2) the cognitive bias to prefer confirming information. We surveyed public land managers in Oregon and Washington, USA and used a 2x2 experimental design to evaluate how time frame and agreement with prior beliefs influences the perceived usefulness of scientific information and the soundness of management prescriptions for three management issues: post-fire salvage logging, variable density thinning of mature growth stands, and translocation of native species as a climate adaptation behavior. We find in general respondents equally value the results of long-term and short-term studies but prefer information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs over information that challenges them. In open-ended responses about the soundness of action prescriptions, we found across all conditions respondents were resistant to adopting a management action because of the results of the example studies. Although previous research has examined the barriers and facilitators to getting managers access to scientific information, our study highlights the ways the mere provisioning of information does not guarantee its use, as managers evaluate information in light of their pre-existing values and beliefs. Scientists, science communicators, and boundary spanners should consider what characteristics managers use to evaluate the usefulness and applicability of information when designing studies and framing and communicating results.
Keywords: confirmation bias; evidence-based conservation; evidence evaluation; forest management; natural resource agencies; science-practice