Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30941815›Full record

ReviewConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2019

Relating characteristics of global biodiversity targets to reported progress.

Elizabeth J Green, Graeme M Buchanan, Stuart H M Butchart, Georgina M Chandler, Neil D Burgess, Samantha L L Hill, Richard D Gregory

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Defining performance thresholds for effective management of biodiversity within protected areas.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Perspectives on area-based conservation and its meaning for future biodiversity policy.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Elizabeth J GreenCentre for Conservation Science, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The Lodge, Potton Road, Sandy, SG19 2DL, U.K.ORCID 0000-0002-2458-0172
Graeme M BuchananCentre for Conservation Science, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The Lodge, Potton Road, Sandy, SG19 2DL, U.K.
Stuart H M ButchartBirdLife International, David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge, CB2 3QZ, U.K.ORCID 0000-0002-1140-4049
Georgina M ChandlerCentre for Conservation Science, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The Lodge, Potton Road, Sandy, SG19 2DL, U.K.
Neil D BurgessUN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 0DL, U.K.
Samantha L L HillUN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 0DL, U.K.
Richard D GregoryCentre for Conservation Science, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The Lodge, Potton Road, Sandy, SG19 2DL, U.K.ORCID 0000-0002-7419-5053

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Conservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemBiodiversityAichi Biodiversity TargetsConvenio sobre la Diversidad BiológicaConvention on Biological Diversityevaluación por expertosexpert assessmentmarco de trabajo SMARTObjetivos de Biodiversidad de AichiPlan Estratégico para la Biodiversidadpost-2020SMART frameworkStrategic Plan for Biodiversity

Identifiers

PMID30941815
PMCPMC6899758

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.