ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025
A social network analysis of the European science-policy-society interface on biodiversity.
Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A social network analysis of the European science-policy-society interface on biodiversity.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
- Rethinking science-policy-practice interaction for transformative sustainability research and innovation in Europe.Open research Europe · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite the wealth of evidence on biodiversity status, trends, and policy options in Europe, knowledge often fails to inform policy makers and decision makers effectively. Implementing the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 will require the transformation of engagement and exchange between knowledge providers and policy and decision makers. This is one of the main goals of the forthcoming EU Science Service for Biodiversity. We sought to support this endeavor by mapping the landscape of actors at the biodiversity science-policy-society interface. We first compiled an extensive database of actors (n = 215) by combining existing databases, searching the web, and consulting experts. We then interviewed representatives of key organizations (n = 28) to elicit data about their network of relations with other organizations. Additional qualitative data were elicited from a subset of organizations (n = 17/28) focusing on the roles of different actors in knowledge cocreation and their potential contribution to the functioning of the Science Service for Biodiversity. The social network analysis mapped the interactions (and lack thereof) between 101 organized actors. Central to the network were EU organizations, other international and intergovernmental organizations, and one well-known public interest group. A more varied mix of organizations had the potential to act as bridges between unconnected actors, including private sector organizations, organizations dedicated to the management of ecological units, and science-based networks. The social network analysis also revealed 4 thematic communities emerging from the interactions among actors: biodiversity knowledge for EU policy-making; land ownership and management in agriculture and forestry; natural capital and sustainable development; and nature conservation and participation. Consistent with the results of the social network analysis, the qualitative data suggested that nonpolicy and nonscience actors have an important role to play in the dialogue and knowledge cocreation for biodiversity conservation and restoration. To strengthen the European science-policy-society interface on biodiversity, we recommend addressing gaps in themes and actor types, fostering cross-community dialogue, and supporting the further development of the network in terms of participants and potential intermediaries.
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.