File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Ten-year assessment of the 100 priority questions for global biodiversity conservation

TitleTen-year assessment of the 100 priority questions for global biodiversity conservation
Authors
Keywordsnetwork analysis
文献综述, 水平扫描,知识空缺, 网络分析, 确定保护优先性, 问卷, 研究议程
vacíos de conocimiento
revisión de la literatura
research agenda
questionnaire
priority setting
literature review
knowledge gaps
horizon scanning
establecimiento de prioridades
escaneo del horizonte
cuestionario
análisis de redes
agenda de investigación
Issue Date2018
Citation
Conservation Biology, 2018, v. 32, n. 6, p. 1457-1463 How to Cite?
Abstract© 2018 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. In 2008, a group of conservation scientists compiled a list of 100 priority questions for the conservation of the world's biodiversity. However, now almost a decade later, no one has yet published a study gauging how much progress has been made in addressing these 100 high-priority questions in the peer-reviewed literature. We took a first step toward reexamining the 100 questions to identify key knowledge gaps that remain. Through a combination of a questionnaire and a literature review, we evaluated each question on the basis of 2 criteria: relevance and effort. We defined highly relevant questions as those that – if answered – would have the greatest impact on global biodiversity conservation and quantified effort based on the number of review publications addressing a particular question, which we used as a proxy for research effort. Using this approach, we identified a set of questions that, despite being perceived as highly relevant, have been the focus of relatively few review publications over the past 10 years. These questions covered a broad range of topics but predominantly tackled 3 major themes: conservation and management of freshwater ecosystems, role of societal structures in shaping interactions between people and the environment, and impacts of conservation interventions. We believe these questions represent important knowledge gaps that have received insufficient attention and may need to be prioritized in future research.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/269664
ISSN
2021 Impact Factor: 7.563
2020 SCImago Journal Rankings: 2.200
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorJucker, Tommaso-
dc.contributor.authorWintle, Bonnie-
dc.contributor.authorShackelford, Gorm-
dc.contributor.authorBocquillon, Pierre-
dc.contributor.authorGeffert, Jan Laurens-
dc.contributor.authorKasoar, Tim-
dc.contributor.authorKovacs, Eszter-
dc.contributor.authorMumby, Hannah S.-
dc.contributor.authorOrland, Chloé-
dc.contributor.authorSchleicher, Judith-
dc.contributor.authorTew, Eleanor R.-
dc.contributor.authorZabala, Aiora-
dc.contributor.authorAmano, Tatsuya-
dc.contributor.authorBell, Alexandra-
dc.contributor.authorBongalov, Boris-
dc.contributor.authorChambers, Josephine M.-
dc.contributor.authorCorrigan, Colleen-
dc.contributor.authorDurán, América P.-
dc.contributor.authorDuvic-Paoli, Leslie Anne-
dc.contributor.authorEmilson, Caroline-
dc.contributor.authorEmilson, Erik J.S.-
dc.contributor.authorda Silva, Jéssica Fonseca-
dc.contributor.authorGarnett, Emma E.-
dc.contributor.authorGreen, Elizabeth J.-
dc.contributor.authorGuth, Miriam K.-
dc.contributor.authorHacket-Pain, Andrew-
dc.contributor.authorHinsley, Amy-
dc.contributor.authorIgea, Javier-
dc.contributor.authorKunz, Martina-
dc.contributor.authorLuke, Sarah H.-
dc.contributor.authorLynam, William-
dc.contributor.authorMartin, Philip A.-
dc.contributor.authorNunes, Matheus H.-
dc.contributor.authorOckendon, Nancy-
dc.contributor.authorPavitt, Aly-
dc.contributor.authorPayne, Charlotte L.R.-
dc.contributor.authorPlutshack, Victoria-
dc.contributor.authorRademacher, Tim T.-
dc.contributor.authorRobertson, Rebecca J.-
dc.contributor.authorRose, David C.-
dc.contributor.authorSerban, Anca-
dc.contributor.authorSimmons, Benno I.-
dc.contributor.authorTayleur, Catherine-
dc.contributor.authorWordley, Claire F.R.-
dc.contributor.authorMukherjee, Nibedita-
dc.date.accessioned2019-04-30T01:49:14Z-
dc.date.available2019-04-30T01:49:14Z-
dc.date.issued2018-
dc.identifier.citationConservation Biology, 2018, v. 32, n. 6, p. 1457-1463-
dc.identifier.issn0888-8892-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/269664-
dc.description.abstract© 2018 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. In 2008, a group of conservation scientists compiled a list of 100 priority questions for the conservation of the world's biodiversity. However, now almost a decade later, no one has yet published a study gauging how much progress has been made in addressing these 100 high-priority questions in the peer-reviewed literature. We took a first step toward reexamining the 100 questions to identify key knowledge gaps that remain. Through a combination of a questionnaire and a literature review, we evaluated each question on the basis of 2 criteria: relevance and effort. We defined highly relevant questions as those that – if answered – would have the greatest impact on global biodiversity conservation and quantified effort based on the number of review publications addressing a particular question, which we used as a proxy for research effort. Using this approach, we identified a set of questions that, despite being perceived as highly relevant, have been the focus of relatively few review publications over the past 10 years. These questions covered a broad range of topics but predominantly tackled 3 major themes: conservation and management of freshwater ecosystems, role of societal structures in shaping interactions between people and the environment, and impacts of conservation interventions. We believe these questions represent important knowledge gaps that have received insufficient attention and may need to be prioritized in future research.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofConservation Biology-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.subjectnetwork analysis-
dc.subject文献综述, 水平扫描,知识空缺, 网络分析, 确定保护优先性, 问卷, 研究议程-
dc.subjectvacíos de conocimiento-
dc.subjectrevisión de la literatura-
dc.subjectresearch agenda-
dc.subjectquestionnaire-
dc.subjectpriority setting-
dc.subjectliterature review-
dc.subjectknowledge gaps-
dc.subjecthorizon scanning-
dc.subjectestablecimiento de prioridades-
dc.subjectescaneo del horizonte-
dc.subjectcuestionario-
dc.subjectanálisis de redes-
dc.subjectagenda de investigación-
dc.titleTen-year assessment of the 100 priority questions for global biodiversity conservation-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/cobi.13159-
dc.identifier.pmid29923638-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85053341510-
dc.identifier.volume32-
dc.identifier.issue6-
dc.identifier.spage1457-
dc.identifier.epage1463-
dc.identifier.eissn1523-1739-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000449856900022-
dc.identifier.issnl0888-8892-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats