Assessing the cost of global biodiversity and conservation knowledge

Knowledge products comprise assessments of authoritative information supported by standards, governance, quality control, data, tools, and capacity building mechanisms. Considerable resources are dedicated to developing and maintaining knowledge products for biodiversity conservation, and they are widely used to inform policy and advise decision makers and practitioners. However, the financial cost of delivering this information is largely undocumented. We evaluated the costs and funding sources for developing and maintaining four global biodiversity and conservation knowledge products: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems, Protected Planet, and the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas. These are secondary data sets, built on primary data collected by extensive networks of expert contributors worldwide. We estimate that US$160 million (range: US$116-204 million), plus 293 person-years of volunteer time (range: 278-308 person-years) valued at US$14 million (range US$12-16 million), were invested in these four knowledge products between 1979 and 2013. More than half of this financing was provided through philanthropy, and nearly three-quarters was spent on personnel costs. The estimated annual cost of maintaining data and platforms for three of these knowledge products (excluding the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems for which annual costs were not possible to estimate for 2013 ) is US$6.5 million in total (range: US$6.2-6.7 million). We estimated that an additional US$114 million will be needed to reach pre-defined baselines of data coverage for all the four knowledge products, and that once achieved, annual maintenance costs will be approximately US$12 million. These costs are much lower than those to maintain many other, similarly important, global knowledge products. Ensuring that biodiversity and conservation knowledge products are sufficiently up to date, comprehensive and accurate is fundamental to inform decision-making for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Thus, the development and implementation of plans for sustainable long-term financing for them is critical

Taxonomic and Geographic Bias in Conservation Biology Research: A Systematic Review of Wildfowl Demography Studies.

Demographic data are important to wildlife managers to gauge population health, to allow populations to be utilised sustainably, and to inform conservation efforts. We analysed published demographic data on the world's wildfowl to examine taxonomic and geographic biases in study, and to identify gaps in knowledge. Wildfowl (order: Anseriformes) are a comparatively well studied bird group which includes 169 species of duck, goose and swan. In all, 1,586 wildfowl research papers published between 1911 and 2010 were found using Web of Knowledge (WoK) and Google Scholar. Over half of the research output involved just 15 species from seven genera. Research output was strongly biased towards 'high income' countries, common wildfowl species, and measures of productivity, rather than survival and movement patterns. There were significantly fewer demographic data for the world's 31 threatened wildfowl species than for non-threatened species. Since 1994, the volume of demographic work on threatened species has increased more than for non-threatened species, but still makes up only 2.7% of total research output. As an aid to research prioritisation, a metric was created to reflect demographic knowledge gaps for each species related to research output for the species, its threat status, and availability of potentially useful surrogate data from congeneric species. According to the metric, the 25 highest priority species include thirteen threatened taxa and nine species each from Asia and South America, and six from Africa

Global protected area expansion is compromised by projected land-use and parochialism

Peer reviewe

Frail elderly patients’ experiences of information on medication. A qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Older patients generally have only poor knowledge about their medicines. Knowledge is important for good adherence and for participating in decisions about treatment. Patients are entitled to be informed on an individual and adequate level. The aim of the study was to explore frail elderly patients’ experiences of receiving information about their medications and their views on how the information should best be given.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study was qualitative in design and was carried out in 2011. Twelve frail elderly (aged 68–88) participants taking cardiovascular medications participated in semi-structured interviews covering issues related to receiving information about prescribed medicines. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and subjected to content analysis, in which the text was analysed in five steps, inspired by Graneheim and Lundman.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The results revealed that the experiences which the elderly participants had regarding the receiving of medical information fell into two main categories: “Comfortable with information” or “Insecure with information”. The elderly felt comfortable when they trusted their physician or their medication, when they received enough information from the prescriber or when they knew how to find out sufficient information by themselves. They felt insecure if they were anxious, if the availability of medical care was poor or if they did not receive enough information.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Factors that frequently caused insecurity about information and anxiety were too short consultations, lack of availability of someone to answer questions or of the opportunity to contact the physician if adverse effects are suspected. These factors could easily be dealt with and there must be improvements in the clinics if the patients´ feelings of security are to be increased.</p