Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A review and meta-analysis of collaborative research prioritization studies in ecology, biodiversity conservation and environmental science.
Dey, Cody J; Rego, Adam I; Midwood, Jonathan D; Koops, Marten A.
Afiliación
  • Dey CJ; Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 867 Lakeshore Road, Burlington, Ontario, Canada L7S 1A1.
  • Rego AI; Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 867 Lakeshore Road, Burlington, Ontario, Canada L7S 1A1.
  • Midwood JD; Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 867 Lakeshore Road, Burlington, Ontario, Canada L7S 1A1.
  • Koops MA; Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 867 Lakeshore Road, Burlington, Ontario, Canada L7S 1A1.
Proc Biol Sci ; 287(1923): 20200012, 2020 03 25.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32183628
Collaborative research prioritization (CRP) studies have become increasingly popular during the last decade. By bringing together a diverse group of stakeholders, and using a democratic process to create a list of research priorities, these methods purport to identify research topics that will better meet the needs of science users. Here, we review 41 CRP studies in the fields of ecology, biodiversity conservation and environmental science that collectively identify 2031 research priorities. We demonstrate that climate change, ecosystem services and protected areas are common terms found in the research priorities of many CRP studies, and that identified research priorities have become less unique over time. In addition, we show that there is a considerable variation in the size and composition of the groups involved in CRP studies, and that at least one aspect of the identified research priorities (lexical diversity) is related to the size of the CRP group. Although some CRP studies have been highly cited, the evidence that CRP studies have directly motivated research is weak, perhaps because most CRP studies have not directly involved organizations that fund science. We suggest that the most important impact of CRP studies may lie in their ability to connect individuals across sectors and help to build diverse communities of practice around important issues at the science-policy interface.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Conservación de los Recursos Naturales / Biodiversidad / Ecología / Ciencia Ambiental Tipo de estudio: Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: Proc Biol Sci Asunto de la revista: BIOLOGIA Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Conservación de los Recursos Naturales / Biodiversidad / Ecología / Ciencia Ambiental Tipo de estudio: Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: Proc Biol Sci Asunto de la revista: BIOLOGIA Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Reino Unido