Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39780599›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2025

The utility of the Living Planet Index as a policy tool and for measuring nature recovery.

Louise McRae, Richard Cornford, Valentina Marconi, Hannah Puleston, Sophie E H Ledger, Stefanie Deinet, Philippa Oppenheimer, Mike Hoffmann, Robin Freeman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The utility of the Living Planet Index as a policy tool and for measuring nature recovery.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  4. How should we bend the curve of biodiversity loss to build a just and sustainable future?Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    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

9 authors.

Louise McRaeInstitute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, London NW1 4RY, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1076-0874
Richard CornfordIIASA, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Biodiversity and Natural Resources Program, Laxenburg 2361, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-9963-3603
Valentina MarconiInstitute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, London NW1 4RY, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7443-0255
Hannah PulestonInstitute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, London NW1 4RY, UK.ORCID 0009-0007-2157-6964
Sophie E H LedgerInstitute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, London NW1 4RY, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0367-3273
Stefanie DeinetInstitute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, London NW1 4RY, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0710-1165
Philippa OppenheimerInstitute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, London NW1 4RY, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3644-1177
Mike HoffmannConservation and Policy, Zoological Society of London, London NW1 4RY, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4785-2254
Robin FreemanInstitute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, London NW1 4RY, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0560-8942

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Living Planet Index (LPI) is a leading global biodiversity indicator based on vertebrate population time series. Since it was first developed over 25 years ago, the LPI has been widely used to indicate trends in biodiversity globally, primarily reported every two years in the Living Planet Report. Based on relative abundance, a sensitive metric of biodiversity change, the LPI has also been applied as a tool for informing policy and used in assessments for several multilateral conventions and agreements, including the Convention on Biological Diversity 2010 Biodiversity Target and Aichi targets. Here, we outline all current and some potential uses of the LPI as a policy tool and explore the use of the LPI in policy documents to assess the reach of the LPI geographically and over time. We present limitations to the use of this indicator in policy, primarily relating to the development of the index at the national level, and suggest clear pathways to broaden the utility of the LPI and the underlying database for temporal and spatial predictions of biodiversity change. We also provide evidence that the LPI can detect recoveries in biodiversity and suggest its suitability for measuring progress towards the goal of biodiversity recovery by 2050.This article is part of the discussion meeting issue 'Bending the curve towards nature recovery: building on Georgina Mace's legacy for a biodiverse future'.

Indexed as

BiodiversityConservation of Natural ResourcesAnimalsEnvironmental PolicyVertebratesbiodiversity indicatorsbiodiversity policybiodiversity recoveryConvention on Biological DiversityLiving Planet Index

Identifiers

PMID39780599
PMCPMC11712285

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.