Table 1. The number and percentage of priority questions that deal with each of the major categories examined in the projects.
These include: climate change; socio-political issues or policy; human demographic issues (population size etc.); human related systems (including agriculture, human settlements, human-dominated landscapes, infrastructure etc.); freshwater systems (e.g., freshwater, rivers, water market etc.); marine systems; ecosystem services; cross-boundary issues (political boundaries, neighboring countries etc.); descriptive questions: those that describe and study problem/threat; proactive questions: questions that deal with solutions and action to address problem. The table provides the number and percentage of questions in each category. A question can assigned to none, a single or more than one category.
| Israel questions1 | UK (2006) questions2 | UK (2010) questions3 | US (2011) questions4 | Canada (2011) questions5 | Global (2009) questions6 | Switzerland (2012) questions7 | US (2014) questions8 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Focus of project | Biodiversity conservation | Policy-relevant ecology Qs | Conservation policy | Conservation science and policy | Conservation and resource management policy | Biodiversity conservation | Action-oriented conservation science | Resource management policy |
| Total number of selected questions | 45 | 100 | 69 | 40 | 40 | 100 | 44 | 40 |
| Climate change | 2 (4.4%) | 11 (11%) | 14 (20.3%) | 11 (27.5%) | 3 (7.5%) | 20 (20%) | 3 (6.8%) | 12 (30%) |
| Socio-political issues | 11 (24.4%) | 6 (6%) | 15 (21.7%) | 9 (22.5%) | 16 (40%) | 26 (26%) | 5 (11.4%) | 5 (12.5%) |
| Human demography | 1 (2.2%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (5%) | 3 (7.5%) | 7 (7%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (5%) |
| Human related systems | 15 (33.3%) | 34 (34%) | 15 (21.7%) | 20 (50%) | 6 (15%) | 27 (27%) | 8 (18.2%) | 21 (52.5%) |
| Freshwater systems | 4 (8.9%) | 15 (15%) | 18 (26.1%) | 3 (7.5%) | 8 (20%) | 8 (8%) | 2 (2.3%) | 4 (10%) |
| Marine systems | 5 (11%) | 17 (17%) | 5 (7.2%) | 7 (17.5%) | 3 (7.5%) | 11 (11%) | 0 (0%) | 5 (12%) |
| Ecosystem services | 5 (11%) | 4 (4%) | 12 (17.4%) | 5 (12.5%) | 7 (17.5%) | 18 (18%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (10%) |
| Cross-boundary issues | 4 (8.9%) | 1 (1%) | 0 | 3 (7.5%) | 1 (2.5%) | 8 (8%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (2.5%) |
| Descriptive: describe and study problem/threat | 17 (37.8%) | 52 (52%) | 26 (37.7%) | 27 (67.5%) | 17 (42.5%) | 41 (41%) | 18 (40.9%) | 33 (82.5%) |
| Proactive: deal with solutions and action to address problem | 34 (75.6%) | 45 (45%) | 42 (60.9%) | 9 (22.5%) | 21 (52.5%) | 57 (57%) | 26 (59.1%) | 9 (22.5%) |
Sources (Table 1):
1. This paper.
2. Sutherland WJ, Armstrong-Brown S, Armsworth PR, Brereton T, Brickland J, Campbell CD, et al. (2006) The identification of 100 ecological questions of high policy relevance in the UK. J Appl Ecol 43: 617–627.
3. Sutherland WJ, Albon SD, Allison H, Armstrong-Brown S, Bailey MJ, et al. 2010. The identification of priority policy options for UK nature conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology 47: 955–965.
4. Fleishman E, Blockstein DE, Hall JA, Mascia MB, Rudd MA, Scott JM, et al. (2011) Top 40 priorities for science to inform US conservation and management policy. Bioscience 61: 290–300.
5. Rudd MA, Beazley KF, Cooke SJ, Fleishman E, Lane DE, Mascia MB, et al. (2011) Generation of priority research questions to inform conservation policy and management at a national level. Conserv Biol 25: 476–484.
6. Sutherland WJ, Adams WM, Aronson RB, Aveling R, Blackburn TM, Broad G, et al. (2009) One hundred questions of importance to the conservation of global biological diversity. Conserv Biol 23: 557–567.
7. Braunisch V, Home R, Pellet J, Arlettaz R. (2012) Conservation science relevant to action: A research agenda identified and prioritized by practitioners. Biological Conservation 153: 201–210.
8. Rudd MA, Fleishman E. (2014) Policymakers’ and scientists’ ranks of research priorities for resource-management policy. Bioscience 1–10.