Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34904294›Full record

ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2022

A global community-sourced assessment of the state of conservation technology.

Talia Speaker, Stephanie O'Donnell, George Wittemyer, Brett Bruyere, Colby Loucks, Anthony Dancer, Marianne Carter, Eric Fegraus, Jonathan Palmer, Ellie Warren and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Navigating scale and interdisciplinary dynamics in conservation social science.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Combining environmental DNA and remote sensing for efficient, fine-scale mapping of arthropod biodiversity.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2024
    Article
  6. Review
  7. A global community-sourced assessment of the state of conservation technology.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Talia SpeakerHuman Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1274-2330
Stephanie O'DonnellFauna & Flora International, Cambridge, UK.
George WittemyerDepartment of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1640-5355
Brett BruyereHuman Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Colby LoucksWorld Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C., USA.
Anthony DancerZoological Society of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3322-2502
Marianne CarterFauna & Flora International, Cambridge, UK.
Eric FegrausConservation International, Arlington, Virginia, USA.
Jonathan PalmerWildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York, USA.
Ellie WarrenWorld Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C., USA.
Jennifer SolomonHuman Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conservation technology holds the potential to vastly increase conservationists' ability to understand and address critical environmental challenges, but systemic constraints appear to hamper its development and adoption. Understanding of these constraints and opportunities for advancement remains limited. We conducted a global online survey of 248 conservation technology users and developers to identify perceptions of existing tools' current performance and potential impact, user and developer constraints, and key opportunities for growth. We also conducted focus groups with 45 leading experts to triangulate findings. The technologies with the highest perceived potential were machine learning and computer vision, eDNA and genomics, and networked sensors. A total of 95%, 94%, and 92% respondents, respectively, rated them as very helpful or game changers. The most pressing challenges affecting the field as a whole were competition for limited funding, duplication of efforts, and inadequate capacity building. A total of 76%, 67%, and 55% respondents, respectively, identified these as primary concerns. The key opportunities for growth identified in focus groups were increasing collaboration and information sharing, improving the interoperability of tools, and enhancing capacity for data analyses at scale. Some constraints appeared to disproportionately affect marginalized groups. Respondents in countries with developing economies were more likely to report being constrained by upfront costs, maintenance costs, and development funding (p = 0.048, odds ratio [OR] = 2.78; p = 0.005, OR = 4.23; p = 0.024, OR = 4.26), and female respondents were more likely to report being constrained by development funding and perceived technical skills (p = 0.027, OR = 3.98; p = 0.048, OR = 2.33). To our knowledge, this is the first attempt to formally capture the perspectives and needs of the global conservation technology community, providing foundational data that can serve as a benchmark to measure progress. We see tremendous potential for this community to further the vision they define, in which collaboration trumps competition; solutions are open, accessible, and interoperable; and user-friendly processing tools empower the rapid translation of data into conservation action. Article impact statement: Addressing financing, coordination, and capacity-building constraints is critical to the development and adoption of conservation technology.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesTechnologyFemaleHumansMalebiodiversity conservationcapacity buildingcolaboracióncollaborationconservación de la biodiversidaddesarrollo de capacidadencuesta mundialfinanciamientofundingglobal surveyinnovacióninnovationmonitoreo de faunatechnologytecnologíawildlife monitoring

Identifiers

PMID34904294
PMCPMC9303432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.