ArticlePloS one2016
Assessing the Cost of Global Biodiversity and Conservation Knowledge.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Extent, characteristics and policy applications of Key Biodiversity Areas.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026Review
- Narrowing farmland biodiversity knowledge gaps with Digital Agriculture.NPJ sustainable agriculture · 2026Review
- Article
- Balancing the supply and demand for taxonomy: An analysis of European taxonomic capacity and policy needs.PloS one · 2026Article
- Mammals on the Margins: Identifying the Drivers and Limitations of Range Expansion.Global change biology · 2025Article
- A comprehensive review: role of smokeless tobacco consumption as a risk factor for diabetes mellitus.Acta diabetologica · 2025Review
- Measuring trends in extinction risk: a review of two decades of development and application of the Red List Index.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Review
- Science and technical priorities for private sector action to address biodiversity loss.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Global Estimation and Mapping of the Conservation Status of Tree Species Using Artificial Intelligence.Frontiers in plant science · 2022Article
- Using the IUCN Red List to map threats to terrestrial vertebrates at global scale.Nature ecology & evolution · 2021Article
- Scientific foundations for an ecosystem goal, milestones and indicators for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.Nature ecology & evolution · 2021Review
- How much does it cost to save a species from extinction? Costs and rewards of conserving the Lear's macaw.Royal Society open science · 2019Article
- Conserving plants within and beyond protected areas - still problematic and future uncertain.Plant diversity · 2019Review
- Herbarium collection of the Rio de Janeiro Botanical Garden (RB), Brazil.Biodiversity data journal · 2018Article
- Plant conservation in the Anthropocene - Challenges and future prospects.Plant diversity · 2017Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
43 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Knowledge products comprise assessments of authoritative information supported by standards, governance, quality control, data, tools, and capacity building mechanisms. Considerable resources are dedicated to developing and maintaining knowledge products for biodiversity conservation, and they are widely used to inform policy and advise decision makers and practitioners. However, the financial cost of delivering this information is largely undocumented. We evaluated the costs and funding sources for developing and maintaining four global biodiversity and conservation knowledge products: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems, Protected Planet, and the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas. These are secondary data sets, built on primary data collected by extensive networks of expert contributors worldwide. We estimate that US$160 million (range: US$116-204 million), plus 293 person-years of volunteer time (range: 278-308 person-years) valued at US$ 14 million (range US$12-16 million), were invested in these four knowledge products between 1979 and 2013. More than half of this financing was provided through philanthropy, and nearly three-quarters was spent on personnel costs. The estimated annual cost of maintaining data and platforms for three of these knowledge products (excluding the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems for which annual costs were not possible to estimate for 2013) is US$6.5 million in total (range: US$6.2-6.7 million). We estimated that an additional US$114 million will be needed to reach pre-defined baselines of data coverage for all the four knowledge products, and that once achieved, annual maintenance costs will be approximately US$12 million. These costs are much lower than those to maintain many other, similarly important, global knowledge products. Ensuring that biodiversity and conservation knowledge products are sufficiently up to date, comprehensive and accurate is fundamental to inform decision-making for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Thus, the development and implementation of plans for sustainable long-term financing for them is critical.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.