A review and meta-analysis of collaborative research prioritization studies in ecology, biodiversity conservation and environmental science

Abstract

Collaborative research prioritization (CRP) studies have become increasingly popular during the last decade. By bringing together a diverse group of stakeholders, and using a democratic process to create a list of research priorities, these methods purport to identify research topics that will better meet the needs of science users. Here, we review 41 CRP studies in the fields of ecology, biodiversity conservation and environmental science that collectively identify 2031 research priorities. We demonstrate that climate change, ecosystem services and protected areas are common terms found in the research priorities of many CRP studies, and that identified research priorities have become less unique over time. In addition, we show that there is a considerable variation in the size and composition of the groups involved in CRP studies, and that at least one aspect of the identified research priorities (lexical diversity) is related to the size of the CRP group. Although some CRP studies have been highly cited, the evidence that CRP studies have directly motivated research is weak, perhaps because most CRP studies have not directly involved organizations that fund science. We suggest that the most important impact of CRP studies may lie in their ability to connect individuals across sectors and help to build diverse communities of practice around important issues at the science-policy interface.

A research agenda for the restoration of tropical and subtropical grasslands and savannas

“…1). Providing answers to these questions has the potential to advance theory, practice, and policy in TGB restoration (but see Dey et al 2020), ultimately resulting in long‐term benefits to people and nature in some of the most neglected ecosystems of our planet.…”

Steps to diversify priority‐setting research in conservation: reflections on de Gracia 2021

“…We agree entirely. This disparity is captured clearly in a recent meta-analysis by Dey et al (2020), who report that only around one-third of priority-setting exercises in ecology and conservation involve resource users, and almost none engage Indigenous organizations (although most do include participants from governmental and nongovernmental organizations outside academia). It is easy to see why de Gracia chose Jucker et al (2018) as a specific example of this broader issue.…”

Seascape ecology: identifying research priorities for an emerging ocean sustainability science

“…By 'transdisciplinary', we mean research that has both interactions across disciplines and participation from relevant non-academic sectors of society. Further collaborative research prioritisation efforts with greater dialogue between academic scientists and management practitioners are required to co-formulate research questions and codevelop projects that demonstrate the application of seascape ecology (Cvitanovic et al 2016, Dey et al 2020, Fisher et al 2020.…”

“…private voting). Delphi is an established structured information gathering and forecasting approach and has been used in a variety of research topics, including within ecology and biodiversity conservation, for consulting global expert opinion and judgements on the most important research questions and topics (Sutherland et al 2013, Yates et al 2018, Dey et al 2020.…”

“…Although many questions received same-tier agreement by both groups (26 of 55 questions) (Table 3), the diverging priorities represent an important difference in priority setting. This misalignment reflects the greater emphasis for practitioners on the need for science to support ad vances in monitoring and assessment, including metrics and indicators, and the need for a more holistic socioecological science that is better aligned with practice and policy (Dey et al 2020). In the theme of EBM, 8 of the 10 questions were selected by practitioners in their 10 most important questions compared with 3 selected by academic scientists.…”