Abstract
AbstractThe identification of research questions with high relevance for biodiversity conservation is an important step towards designing more effective policies and management actions, and to better allocate funding among alternative conservation options. However, the identification of priority questions may be influenced by regional differences in biodiversity threats and social contexts, and to variations in the perceptions and interests of different stakeholders. Here we describe the results of a prioritization exercise involving six types of stakeholders from the Mediterranean biome, which includes several biodiversity hotspots spread across five regions of the planet (Europe, Africa, North and South America, and Australia). We found great heterogeneity across regions and stakeholder types in the priority topics identified and disagreement among the priorities of research scientists and other stakeholders. However, governance, climate change, and public participation issues were key topics in most regions. We conclude that the identification of research priorities should be targeted in a way that integrates the spectrum of stakeholder interests, potential funding sources and regional needs, and that further development of interdisciplinary studies is required. The key questions identified here provide a basis to identify priorities for research funding aligned with biodiversity conservation needs in this biome.
Highlights
There is a large diversity of methods and approaches to improve environmental decision-making, including horizon scanning (Sutherland & Woodroof, 2009), expert elicitation (Hemming, Burgman, Hanea, McBride, & Wintle, 2018), scenario planning (Cook, Inayatullah, Burgman, Sutherland, & Wintle, 2014), or the identification of priority issues for conservation (Ockendon et al, 2018)
Regional differences in the type and magnitude of biodiversity threats, socioeconomic and political contexts might affect the outcomes of a question prioritization exercise
The type of stakeholders involved in the consultation may affect the outcome, as scientists, practitioners, policy makers and other stakeholder types may have different views on priority topics for biodiversity conservation (Kark et al, 2016)
Summary
There is a large diversity of methods and approaches to improve environmental decision-making, including horizon scanning (Sutherland & Woodroof, 2009), expert elicitation (Hemming, Burgman, Hanea, McBride, & Wintle, 2018), scenario planning (Cook, Inayatullah, Burgman, Sutherland, & Wintle, 2014), or the identification of priority issues for conservation (Ockendon et al, 2018). In the context of biodiversity conservation, horizon scanning and the identification of priority policy-relevant research questions have been commonly used approaches (Kark et al, 2016). Other exercises using a similar approach have since been developed, focusing on different aspects of biodiversity or natural resources (e.g., Fleishman et al, 2011; Rudd et al, 2011; Sutherland, Fleishman, Mascia, Pretty, & Rudd, 2011) Once identified, these questions are expected to become priorities for research funding and conservation investment (Kark et al, 2016; Sutherland et al, 2009). Biodiversity conservation (Kark et al, 2016) These views will be affected both by the perceived social values assigned to different topics and the real need for scientific information to tackle a given biodiversity threat. We found different perceptions on priority topics across regions and stakeholder types, and we have identified the more relevant questions within each topic based on their prevalence across regions and stakeholders
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
