4.6 Article

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

期刊

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY
卷 32, 期 6, 页码 1457-1463

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13159

关键词

horizon scanning; knowledge gaps; literature review; network analysis; priority setting; questionnaire; research agenda

资金

  1. University of Cambridge Conservation Research Institute (UCCRI)
  2. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/K016377/1]
  3. Cambridge Earth System Science DTP programme [NE/L002507/1]
  4. Fondation Weiner-Anspach fellowship
  5. Dominic Scriven fellowship
  6. NERC [NE/K016377/1, 1653087] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据