<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
  <title>RPPN Research Network</title>
  <link>https://rppn.org/</link>
  <description>Evidence for conservation and public policy</description>
  <language>en</language>
  <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2026 16:11:42 GMT</lastBuildDate>
  <atom:link href="https://rppn.org/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
  <item>
    <title>From Shelf to Statute: Five Reports That Rewired US Conservation Policy</title>
    <link>https://rppn.org/from-shelf-to-statute-five-reports-rewired-conservation-policy/</link>
    <guid isPermaLink="true">https://rppn.org/from-shelf-to-statute-five-reports-rewired-conservation-policy/</guid>
    <description>Most white papers are downloaded, skimmed, and forgotten. A rare few reshape federal rules, redirect state budgets, and outlive their authors. We examine five that did — and distill the common ingredients any institution can apply to its next publication.</description>
    <author>RPPN Research Network</author>
    <category>Policy Analysis</category>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2026 16:11:42 GMT</pubDate>
  </item>
  <item>
    <title>Precedent Isn&#039;t Proof: Closing the Evidence Gap in American Land Conservation</title>
    <link>https://rppn.org/precedent-isnt-proof-evidence-gap-land-conservation/</link>
    <guid isPermaLink="true">https://rppn.org/precedent-isnt-proof-evidence-gap-land-conservation/</guid>
    <description>Land trusts and local conservation agencies routinely prioritize acquisitions based on institutional habit rather than peer-reviewed findings. This opinion piece argues that a formal, certifiable evidence-review standard — modeled on frameworks used in public health and education — is overdue in US conservation planning.</description>
    <author>RPPN Research Network</author>
    <category>Opinion</category>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2026 16:11:42 GMT</pubDate>
  </item>
</channel>
</rss>