Changing trends and persisting biases in three decades of conservation science

Moreno Di Marco, Sarah Chapman, Glen Althor, Stephen Kearney, Charles Besancon, Nathalie Butt, Joseph M. Maina, Hugh P. Possingham, Katharina Rogalla von Bieberstein, Oscar Venter, James E. M. Watson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Conservation science is a rapidly developing discipline, and the knowledge base it generates is relevant for practical applications. It is therefore crucial to monitor biases and trends in conservation literature, to track the progress of the discipline and re-align efforts where needed. We evaluated past and present trends in the focus of the conservation literature, and how they relate to conservation needs. We defined the focus of the past literature from 13 published reviews referring to 18,369 article classifications, and the focus of the current literature by analysing 2553 articles published between 2011–2015. We found that some of the historically under-studied biodiversity elements are receiving significantly more attention today, despite being still under-represented. The total proportion of articles on invertebrates, genetic diversity, or aquatic systems is 50%–60% higher today than it was before 2010. However, a disconnect between scientific focus and conservation needs is still present, with greater attention devoted to areas or taxa less rich in biodiversity and threatened biodiversity. In particular, a strong geographical bias persists, with 40% of studies carried out in USA, Australia or the UK, and only 10% and 6% respectively in Africa or South East Asia. Despite some changing trends, global conservation science is still poorly aligned with biodiversity distribution and conservation priorities, especially in relation to threatened species. To overcome the biases identified here, scientists, funding agencies and journals must prioritise research adaptively, based on biodiversity conservation needs. Conservation depends on policy makers and practitioners for success, and scientists should actively provide those who make decisions with the knowledge that best addresses their needs.

LanguageEnglish
Pages32-42
Number of pages11
JournalGlobal Ecology and Conservation
Volume10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2017

Fingerprint

biodiversity
threatened species
South East Asia
funding
invertebrates
trend
science
taxonomy
genetic variation
invertebrate
need

Bibliographical note

Copyright the Author(s) 2017. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

Keywords

  • Conservation bias
  • Convention on biological diversity
  • Freshwater
  • Genetic diversity
  • Invertebrates
  • Literature trends

Cite this

Di Marco, M., Chapman, S., Althor, G., Kearney, S., Besancon, C., Butt, N., ... Watson, J. E. M. (2017). Changing trends and persisting biases in three decades of conservation science. Global Ecology and Conservation, 10, 32-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2017.01.008
Di Marco, Moreno ; Chapman, Sarah ; Althor, Glen ; Kearney, Stephen ; Besancon, Charles ; Butt, Nathalie ; Maina, Joseph M. ; Possingham, Hugh P. ; Rogalla von Bieberstein, Katharina ; Venter, Oscar ; Watson, James E. M. / Changing trends and persisting biases in three decades of conservation science. In: Global Ecology and Conservation. 2017 ; Vol. 10. pp. 32-42.
@article{abb70dc7b4dc4135a838ee473b9963ce,
title = "Changing trends and persisting biases in three decades of conservation science",
abstract = "Conservation science is a rapidly developing discipline, and the knowledge base it generates is relevant for practical applications. It is therefore crucial to monitor biases and trends in conservation literature, to track the progress of the discipline and re-align efforts where needed. We evaluated past and present trends in the focus of the conservation literature, and how they relate to conservation needs. We defined the focus of the past literature from 13 published reviews referring to 18,369 article classifications, and the focus of the current literature by analysing 2553 articles published between 2011–2015. We found that some of the historically under-studied biodiversity elements are receiving significantly more attention today, despite being still under-represented. The total proportion of articles on invertebrates, genetic diversity, or aquatic systems is 50{\%}–60{\%} higher today than it was before 2010. However, a disconnect between scientific focus and conservation needs is still present, with greater attention devoted to areas or taxa less rich in biodiversity and threatened biodiversity. In particular, a strong geographical bias persists, with 40{\%} of studies carried out in USA, Australia or the UK, and only 10{\%} and 6{\%} respectively in Africa or South East Asia. Despite some changing trends, global conservation science is still poorly aligned with biodiversity distribution and conservation priorities, especially in relation to threatened species. To overcome the biases identified here, scientists, funding agencies and journals must prioritise research adaptively, based on biodiversity conservation needs. Conservation depends on policy makers and practitioners for success, and scientists should actively provide those who make decisions with the knowledge that best addresses their needs.",
keywords = "Conservation bias, Convention on biological diversity, Freshwater, Genetic diversity, Invertebrates, Literature trends",
author = "{Di Marco}, Moreno and Sarah Chapman and Glen Althor and Stephen Kearney and Charles Besancon and Nathalie Butt and Maina, {Joseph M.} and Possingham, {Hugh P.} and {Rogalla von Bieberstein}, Katharina and Oscar Venter and Watson, {James E. M.}",
note = "Copyright the Author(s) 2017. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.",
year = "2017",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1016/j.gecco.2017.01.008",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "32--42",
journal = "Global Ecology and Conservation",
issn = "2351-9894",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Di Marco, M, Chapman, S, Althor, G, Kearney, S, Besancon, C, Butt, N, Maina, JM, Possingham, HP, Rogalla von Bieberstein, K, Venter, O & Watson, JEM 2017, 'Changing trends and persisting biases in three decades of conservation science', Global Ecology and Conservation, vol. 10, pp. 32-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2017.01.008

Changing trends and persisting biases in three decades of conservation science. / Di Marco, Moreno; Chapman, Sarah; Althor, Glen; Kearney, Stephen; Besancon, Charles; Butt, Nathalie; Maina, Joseph M.; Possingham, Hugh P.; Rogalla von Bieberstein, Katharina; Venter, Oscar; Watson, James E. M.

In: Global Ecology and Conservation, Vol. 10, 04.2017, p. 32-42.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Changing trends and persisting biases in three decades of conservation science

AU - Di Marco, Moreno

AU - Chapman, Sarah

AU - Althor, Glen

AU - Kearney, Stephen

AU - Besancon, Charles

AU - Butt, Nathalie

AU - Maina, Joseph M.

AU - Possingham, Hugh P.

AU - Rogalla von Bieberstein, Katharina

AU - Venter, Oscar

AU - Watson, James E. M.

N1 - Copyright the Author(s) 2017. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

PY - 2017/4

Y1 - 2017/4

N2 - Conservation science is a rapidly developing discipline, and the knowledge base it generates is relevant for practical applications. It is therefore crucial to monitor biases and trends in conservation literature, to track the progress of the discipline and re-align efforts where needed. We evaluated past and present trends in the focus of the conservation literature, and how they relate to conservation needs. We defined the focus of the past literature from 13 published reviews referring to 18,369 article classifications, and the focus of the current literature by analysing 2553 articles published between 2011–2015. We found that some of the historically under-studied biodiversity elements are receiving significantly more attention today, despite being still under-represented. The total proportion of articles on invertebrates, genetic diversity, or aquatic systems is 50%–60% higher today than it was before 2010. However, a disconnect between scientific focus and conservation needs is still present, with greater attention devoted to areas or taxa less rich in biodiversity and threatened biodiversity. In particular, a strong geographical bias persists, with 40% of studies carried out in USA, Australia or the UK, and only 10% and 6% respectively in Africa or South East Asia. Despite some changing trends, global conservation science is still poorly aligned with biodiversity distribution and conservation priorities, especially in relation to threatened species. To overcome the biases identified here, scientists, funding agencies and journals must prioritise research adaptively, based on biodiversity conservation needs. Conservation depends on policy makers and practitioners for success, and scientists should actively provide those who make decisions with the knowledge that best addresses their needs.

AB - Conservation science is a rapidly developing discipline, and the knowledge base it generates is relevant for practical applications. It is therefore crucial to monitor biases and trends in conservation literature, to track the progress of the discipline and re-align efforts where needed. We evaluated past and present trends in the focus of the conservation literature, and how they relate to conservation needs. We defined the focus of the past literature from 13 published reviews referring to 18,369 article classifications, and the focus of the current literature by analysing 2553 articles published between 2011–2015. We found that some of the historically under-studied biodiversity elements are receiving significantly more attention today, despite being still under-represented. The total proportion of articles on invertebrates, genetic diversity, or aquatic systems is 50%–60% higher today than it was before 2010. However, a disconnect between scientific focus and conservation needs is still present, with greater attention devoted to areas or taxa less rich in biodiversity and threatened biodiversity. In particular, a strong geographical bias persists, with 40% of studies carried out in USA, Australia or the UK, and only 10% and 6% respectively in Africa or South East Asia. Despite some changing trends, global conservation science is still poorly aligned with biodiversity distribution and conservation priorities, especially in relation to threatened species. To overcome the biases identified here, scientists, funding agencies and journals must prioritise research adaptively, based on biodiversity conservation needs. Conservation depends on policy makers and practitioners for success, and scientists should actively provide those who make decisions with the knowledge that best addresses their needs.

KW - Conservation bias

KW - Convention on biological diversity

KW - Freshwater

KW - Genetic diversity

KW - Invertebrates

KW - Literature trends

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85012154585&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.gecco.2017.01.008

DO - 10.1016/j.gecco.2017.01.008

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - 32

EP - 42

JO - Global Ecology and Conservation

T2 - Global Ecology and Conservation

JF - Global Ecology and Conservation

SN - 2351-9894

ER -