ReviewConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2019
Relating characteristics of global biodiversity targets to reported progress.
Review in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dietary species richness provides a comparable marker for better nutrition and health across contexts.Nature food · 2025Article
- Ambitions in national plans do not yet match bold international protection and restoration commitments.Nature ecology & evolution · 2025Article
- LIFE: A metric for mapping the impact of land-cover change on global extinctions.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025Article
- National commitments to Aichi Targets and their implications for monitoring the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.npj biodiversity · 2024Article
- The Present and Future of Insect Biodiversity Conservation in the Neotropics: Policy Gaps and Recommendations.Neotropical entomology · 2023Review
- Defining performance thresholds for effective management of biodiversity within protected areas.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2022Article
- Current trends suggest most Asian countries are unlikely to meet future biodiversity targets on protected areas.Communications biology · 2022Article
- Article
- Scientific foundations for an ecosystem goal, milestones and indicators for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.Nature ecology & evolution · 2021Review
- Random population fluctuations bias the Living Planet Index.Nature ecology & evolution · 2021Article
- Extinction Targets Are Not SMART (Specific, Measurable, Ambitious, Realistic, and Time Bound).Bioscience · 2021Article
- Perspectives on area-based conservation and its meaning for future biodiversity policy.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2021Review
- Action needed for the EU Common Agricultural Policy to address sustainability challenges.People and nature (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2020Article
- The Aichi Biodiversity Targets: achievements for marine conservation and priorities beyond 2020.PeerJ · 2020Article
- Integrating climate adaptation and biodiversity conservation in the global ocean.Science advances · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To inform governmental discussions on the nature of a revised Strategic Plan for Biodiversity of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), we reviewed the relevant literature and assessed the framing of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets in the current strategic plan. We asked international experts from nongovernmental organizations, academia, government agencies, international organizations, research institutes, and the CBD to score the Aichi Targets and their constituent elements against a set of specific, measurable, ambitious, realistic, unambiguous, scalable, and comprehensive criteria (SMART based, excluding time bound because all targets are bound to 2015 or 2020). We then investigated the relationship between these expert scores and reported progress toward the target elements by using the findings from 2 global progress assessments (Global Biodiversity Outlook and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services). We analyzed the data with ordinal logistic regressions. We found significant positive relationships (p < 0.05) between progress and the extent to which the target elements were perceived to be measurable, realistic, unambiguous, and scalable. There was some evidence of a relationship between progress and specificity of the target elements, but no relationship between progress and ambition. We are the first to show associations between progress and the extent to which the Aichi Targets meet certain SMART criteria. As negotiations around the post-2020 biodiversity framework proceed, decision makers should strive to ensure that new or revised targets are effectively structured and clearly worded to allow the translation of targets into actionable policies that can be successfully implemented nationally, regionally, and globally.
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.