nature conservation research impact factor

Nature Conservation Research

Subject Area and Category

• Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous)
• Earth and Planetary Sciences (miscellaneous)
• Nature and Landscape Conservation

Fund for Support and Development of Protected Areas

Publication type

Information.

How to publish in this journal

[email protected]

The set of journals have been ranked according to their SJR and divided into four equal groups, four quartiles. Q1 (green) comprises the quarter of the journals with the highest values, Q2 (yellow) the second highest values, Q3 (orange) the third highest values and Q4 (red) the lowest values.

The SJR is a size-independent prestige indicator that ranks journals by their 'average prestige per article'. It is based on the idea that 'all citations are not created equal'. SJR is a measure of scientific influence of journals that accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of the journals where such citations come from It measures the scientific influence of the average article in a journal, it expresses how central to the global scientific discussion an average article of the journal is.

Evolution of the number of published documents. All types of documents are considered, including citable and non citable documents.

This indicator counts the number of citations received by documents from a journal and divides them by the total number of documents published in that journal. The chart shows the evolution of the average number of times documents published in a journal in the past two, three and four years have been cited in the current year. The two years line is equivalent to journal impact factor ™ (Thomson Reuters) metric.

Evolution of the total number of citations and journal's self-citations received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. Journal Self-citation is defined as the number of citation from a journal citing article to articles published by the same journal.

Evolution of the number of total citation per document and external citation per document (i.e. journal self-citations removed) received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. External citations are calculated by subtracting the number of self-citations from the total number of citations received by the journal’s documents.

International Collaboration accounts for the articles that have been produced by researchers from several countries. The chart shows the ratio of a journal's documents signed by researchers from more than one country; that is including more than one country address.

Not every article in a journal is considered primary research and therefore "citable", this chart shows the ratio of a journal's articles including substantial research (research articles, conference papers and reviews) in three year windows vs. those documents other than research articles, reviews and conference papers.

Ratio of a journal's items, grouped in three years windows, that have been cited at least once vs. those not cited during the following year.

Evolution of the percentage of female authors.

Evolution of the number of documents cited by public policy documents according to Overton database.

Evoution of the number of documents related to Sustainable Development Goals defined by United Nations. Available from 2018 onwards.

Leave a comment

Name * Required

Email (will not be published) * Required

* Required Cancel

The users of Scimago Journal & Country Rank have the possibility to dialogue through comments linked to a specific journal. The purpose is to have a forum in which general doubts about the processes of publication in the journal, experiences and other issues derived from the publication of papers are resolved. For topics on particular articles, maintain the dialogue through the usual channels with your editor.

Follow us on @ScimagoJR Scimago Lab , Copyright 2007-2024. Data Source: Scopus®

Cookie settings

Cookie Policy

Legal Notice

Privacy Policy

• Editorial Board
• Author guidelines
• For Reviewers
• Publication Ethics

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Special Collections
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Reasons to submit
• About BioScience
• Journals Career Network
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Potentially Offensive Content
• Terms and Conditions
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Challenges for measuring impact in conservation, overview of techniques used to quantify impact, identifying indicators, impact indicators for biodiversity conservation, conclusions, acknowledgments, references cited.

• < Previous

Impact Indicators for Biodiversity Conservation Research: Measuring Influence within and beyond Academia

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Tyrone H Lavery, Rachel Morgain, James A Fitzsimons, Jennie Fluin, Nicholas A Macgregor, Natasha M Robinson, Ben C Scheele, Katherine E Selwood, Rebecca Spindler, Holly Vuong, Simon West, Brendan A Wintle, David B Lindenmayer, Impact Indicators for Biodiversity Conservation Research: Measuring Influence within and beyond Academia, BioScience , Volume 71, Issue 4, April 2021, Pages 383–395, https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa159

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Measuring, reporting, and forecasting research impact beyond academia has become increasingly important to demonstrate and understand real-world benefits. This is arguably most important in crisis disciplines such as medicine, environmental sustainability and biodiversity conservation, where application of new knowledge is urgently needed to improve health and environmental outcomes. Increasing focus on impact has prompted the development of theoretical guidance and practical tools tailored to a range of disciplines, but commensurate development of tools for conservation is still needed. In the present article, we review available tools for evaluating research impact applicable to conservation research. From these, and via a survey of conservation professionals, we compiled and ranked a list of 96 impact indicators useful for conservation science. Our indicators apply to a logic chain of inputs, processes, outputs, outcomes, and impacts. We suggest the list can act as a clear guide to realize and measure potential impacts from conservation research within and beyond academia.

There is growing focus on measuring and demonstrating the impacts of scientific research across academic disciplines (Kuruvilla et al. 2006 , Ovseiko et al. 2012 , Wilsdon et al. 2015 , Deeming et al. 2017 , Australian Research Council 2019a , REF 2019 , Mervis 2020 ). Among many scientists, this is driven by a desire to understand how research can best benefit humanity but also stems from increasing competition for funding, mounting public pressure to justify research, a decline in research investment, and the short-term nature of funding cycles (Weiss 2007 , Wilsdon et al. 2015 , Hourihan and Parkes 2019 ). Also important has been acknowledgment of a frequent lack of connection between research and action and of time lags to adoption of new research into practice (Morris et al. 2011 , Lemos et al. 2012 , O'Brien 2012 ), although exceptions certainly exist (e.g., Johnson and Williams 1999 , Lindenmayer et al. 2013 ).

Traditionally, measures of academic impact have dominated research impact assessment. These include peer-reviewed publications, journal impact factors, article citation counts, and obtaining research funding (Radicchia et al. 2008 , Scharnhorst and Garfield 2010 , Vieira and Gomes 2010 , Penfield et al. 2014 , Australian Research Council 2019a ). These parameters remain critical to assessing the quality and significance of research, but they more closely reflect intellectual contributions within academic fields and reach across research communities, rather than impact beyond networks of researchers and research institutions (Penfield et al. 2014 ). Increasingly, research impact is being assessed more holistically and seeks to measure how effectively research translates across diverse social, environmental, and economic contexts and institutions to generate tangible practical benefits (REF 2011 , Penfield et al. 2014 , Reale et al. 2017 , Australian Research Council 2019a ).

Academics are often tasked with forecasting and documenting the positive real-world outcomes of their research and communicating impacts to administrators and funding agencies (Kuruvilla et al. 2006 ). Of all scientific disciplines, medicine has perhaps the longest enduring focus on measuring impact (Ovseiko et al. 2012 ). As a crisis discipline, the need for rapid uptake of medical research findings in practice to reduce human deaths and improve quality of life is clear (Weiss 2007 ). The extended focus on theory and practice underpinning measurement of medical research impact has generated an extensive body of literature, literature reviews, and dedicated translational research (Weiss 2007 , Woolf 2007 , Deeming et al. 2017 , Heyeres et al. 2019 ). Tools such as research impact assessment frameworks provide prompts to guide systematic responses to a range of specific and verifiable impacts (Kuruvilla et al. 2006 , Dembe et al. 2013 , Bernard Becker Medical Library 2014 , Deeming et al. 2017 ).

Scientific disciplines focused on the natural environment and environmental sustainability are also crisis disciplines that demand a focus on impact (Soulé 1985 , Pullin and Knight 2001 ). Biodiversity conservation, in particular, represents an urgent priority given an estimated one million plant and animal species are already facing extinction (IPBES 2019 ). Increased focus on measuring impact can ensure questions are prioritized for attention and that research is inclusive in design, communicated broadly, translated effectively, and has long-term benefits in practice (e.g., Gibbons et al. 2008 ). In the present article, we focus on conservation research and consider research impact as encompassing both academic and broader socioeconomic and environmental impacts (see box 1 for definitions).

Conservation research. The application of natural and social sciences to conservation problems. Goals are to provide the principles and tools to preserve biodiversity by focusing on the biology of species, communities and ecosystems, and human dimensions of environmental management (Soulé 1985 , Bennett et al. 2017 ).

Impact assessment framework. A systematic set of prompts and descriptive categories of research impacts to guide their identification and verification (Kuruvilla et al. 2006 ).

Impact indicators. Measures (both quantitative and qualitative) of the extent to which desired research impacts have been achieved as a result of a research project.

Logic model. A depiction of the relationships between research inputs, processes, outputs, outcomes, and impact. A logic model illustrates a theory of change for how and why an initiative has intended effects (Weiss 1995 , Funnell and Rogers 2011 ).

Research impact. An effect on, change or benefit to academia or the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment, or quality of life (REF 2011 ).

Research reach. The size and composition (e.g., institutional setting and role, research discipline, geographical distribution, cultural and language diversity) of the audiences that become aware of research findings or outputs. Reach does not necessarily equate to impact, but it can aid in achieving impact and can provide some indication of implied or potential impact.

Recent attention on measuring impact in related disciplines (climate science, environmental sustainability, natural resource management, and ecosystem services) has produced a range of useful resources for conservation research (e.g., Posner et al. 2016 , Wall et al. 2017 , Pitt et al. 2018 , Edwards and Meagher 2020 ). However, readily available practical tools specific to conservation are still lacking. This can lead conservation scientists to apply more ad hoc approaches or to focus on impacts within rather than beyond academia (Kuruvilla et al. 2006 ). Clearer, more consistent measures are needed, particularly to compare research projects and ascertain how researchers can most rapidly and effectively stem further losses of biodiversity (Kapos et al. 2008 ).

In the present article, we seek to advance the measurement of conservation research impact by developing a comprehensive list of impact indicators (box 1 ) drawn from an extensive literature review and a survey of conservation researchers and practitioners. We conducted a narrative review (Onwuegbuzie 2016 ) to identify existing frameworks and guides that are available for this purpose. Our search was focused on practical tools available for measuring conservation research impact and not the richer theoretical literature addressing science impact (e.g., O'Connor et al. 2019 ). We considered impacts through program theory that is commonly embedded in conservation impact planning (Carr et al. 2017 ) via procedures such as the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (box 2 ; CMP 2020). From the identified literature, we extracted a list of potential impact indicators (Ovseiko et al. 2012 , Dembe et al. 2013 , Bernard Becker Medical Library 2014 ) relevant to conservation science. We evaluated the adequacy of this initial candidate list by surveying a network of 65 conservation researchers and practitioners. Ultimately, we aimed to provide a new set of standardized, qualitative and quantitative prompts as a practically useful tool to help measure the impact of conservation research.

Program theory (or theory of change) has emerged as a common approach for framing impact (Connell and Kubisch 1998 , Addor et al. 2006 , Margoluis et al. 2013 ). It seeks to guide understanding of how an action (including research) contributes to a logic model chain of consequences (Weiss 1995 , Funnell and Rogers 2011 ). Terminology varies, but core stages are typically formed around inputs, processes, outputs, outcomes, and impacts (figure  1 ; Barnett and Gregorowski 2013 ). Inputs and processes represent the resources available and work planned. Outputs, outcomes, and impacts show the intended products, how they are anticipated to influence the model, and the contribution this will make to the longer-term aim for impact (e.g., recovery of a threatened species; Barnett and Gregorowski 2013 ).

A logic model for conservation research, with example considerations for each stage. Progress between steps is iterative, and with progress along the logic model, control decreases and impacts (and the difficulties associated with measuring them) increase. Adapted from CSIRO ( 2015 ) and Penfield and colleagues (2014).

This approach is not without criticism. It is simplistic, and attribution of causality is rarely as straightforward as was indicated in logic models ( Edwards and Meagher 2020 ). However, measuring impacts by using program theory can help articulate how a research program is expected to work and what steps are needed to achieve its aims. It can also help to distinguish between implementation failure (not done correctly) and theory failure (done correctly but did not work; Funnell and Rogers 2011 ). Impact evaluation is mostly concerned with the outcome and impact ( figure 1 ). However, these are also the most difficult to measure, and direct links with a specific research program can be hard to substantiate ( CSIRO 2015 ). Although they are less informative, measurements of inputs, processes, and outputs are crucial precursors for understanding outcomes and impacts ( figure 1 ; Salafsky et al. 2002 , Kapos et al. 2008 ).

An important starting point when attempting to measure impact is to acknowledge that definitions of impact itself can vary greatly within and between the many different groups with a role in conservation. Across this spectrum, there can be vastly different philosophical perspectives and worldviews, each with their own means of understanding what constitutes impact (Raymond et al. 2010 ). Even among researchers sharing similar philosophical positions, those situated locally may focus on details specific to the study context, whereas those situated remotely may emphasize broader generalities (Lebel and McLean 2018 ).

Conservation is complex

Conservation must navigate changes in ecology, human behavior and public priorities, levels of exploitation and land use, trade and biosecurity, climate patterns, and many other factors outside of the control of practitioners, researchers, and partners (Koontz et al. 2019 ). This can compound difficulties in identifying direct links to impact (Andrews 2012 ). It is also heavily contextualized, and many social, political, organizational, and environmental factors beyond the quality of research and engagement can affect whether research is adopted or effective (Fitzsimons 2012 ).

Conservation objectives must frequently incorporate an array of compromises and trade-offs. For example, different species (or other conservation targets) are commonly prioritized over one another (Thirgood et al. 2000 ). Necessary management objectives for conservation also can conflict with other social and economic priorities. For example, fire management regimes suitable to maintain biodiversity may be unacceptable because of perceived risks to people or property (Driscoll et al. 2010 ).

Conservation research that is coconstructed by researchers and practitioners can be an effective means to combine knowledge and resources to identify and fill knowledge gaps and to identify clear pathways to implementation (Fisher et al. 2020 ). Effective collaborations between researchers and practitioners (e.g., Indigenous landowners, governments, nongovernment organizations (NGOs), private enterprises, and community organizations) are often pivotal to successfully integrating research findings into conservation policy and practice, often through nonlinear and unpredictable pathways (Koontz and Newig 2014 ). Collaboration, coproduction and a sense of coownership can effectively reduce the time lags that often exist between research findings, on-the-ground action and ultimate impacts, by identifying common goals and facilitating implementation (Knight et al. 2006 ).

Even when research findings inform management actions, achievement of conservation benefits can depend on complex biological and social interactions. For example, early scientific evidence for declines in large blue ( Maculinea arion ) butterflies in England prompted the creation of nature reserves, protection of larval food plants, and exclusion of normal agricultural practices (Thomas et al. 2009 ). However, initially the decline of this species continued unabated because subtle increases in vegetation height from reduced grazing led to an integral ant symbiont being replaced by another ant species (Thomas et al. 2009 ).

Comparisons between treatment interventions and controls (the counterfactual) are often promoted as a definitive means for measuring the impact of research (Ferraro and Pattanayak 2006 , Pattanayak 2009 , Caplow et al. 2011 ). However, in unfolding real-world situations, it is simply not possible to determine what would have happened in the absence of research (Pattanayak 2009 ). Biophysical, socioeconomic, and political differences within a study system greatly influence the uptake of conservation research and ultimate outcomes (Caplow et al. 2011 ). Conservation research also can generate impacts in unpredictable and unexpected ways (e.g., purely via the relationships formed in research), making it difficult to isolate causal factors (Caplow et al. 2011 ). As an alternative to counterfactuals, theory-based approaches that map out chains of cause and effect under given circumstances are likely to prove more fruitful (White 2009 ).

Impact time lags

Difficulties in attributing any given impact to a particular research initiative often increase with time since completion of the project. Research outputs such as reports, and peer-reviewed journal articles can be generated quickly and are easy to quantify. But desired outcomes and ultimate impacts may not occur for years or decades after the research and can therefore be difficult to tie to these short-term outputs. Multiple interlinking projects aiming for similar outcomes can also make it difficult to attribute impacts to individual projects (figure  1 ; Penfield et al. 2014 , CSIRO 2015 ). Difficulties in connecting research and outcomes are compounded by time lags that mean impacts may become apparent only toward the end of the research's life or beyond. Time lags make it difficult to pinpoint influential variables and decrease the likelihood that such impacts will be tracked, assessed, or understood (Barnett and Gregorowski 2013 ).

In conservation as in other disciplines, delays between research and impact can be compounded by intended users lacking the incentive to adopt findings, by vested interests (e.g., commercial interests) actively dissuading adoption, and by political or economic barriers (Scheele et al. 2018 , Thamo et al. 2018 ). But even in less conflicted contexts in the ordinary course of research, institutional and other barriers appear to slow the adoption of new findings into practice. In medicine, estimates suggest that the time between an applicable research finding and clinical impact is on average 17 years (Grant et al. 2003 , Morris et al. 2011 ). In agricultural sciences, this is estimated at more than 20 years (Alston et al. 2010 ). Furthermore, primary research (e.g., on the biology, ecology, life history, and behavior of species or on particular ecosystems) is often an essential precursor to applied conservation research. Such fundamental research in itself can require years of data collection and interpretation before becoming available (Scheele et al. 2018 ). Moreover, in the context of conservation research, desired impacts (such as increases in the extent or quality of habitat) occur over extended ecological timescales. For example, the recovery of hollow-dependent mammals such as Leadbeater's possum ( Gymnobelideus leadbeateri ) has been shown to rely on increases in hollow bearing trees that take 120–150 years to develop (Lindenmayer et al. 2015 ). Even if research was to directly prompt forest replanting, the desired impacts on tree hollow supply might not be achieved for over a century. The intended conservation effects therefore often only become measurable well past the completion of research cycles (Kapos et al. 2008 ).

The paucity of literature on assessing research impact in conservation can leave researchers and practitioners uncertain about available and appropriate techniques for measuring research impact. In fact, there is a range of interdisciplinary methods that generate quantitative, qualitative and combined data that are suitable for conservation research.

Quantitative metrics

Quantitative metrics are numerical indicators tailored to measuring academic, societal, environmental and economic impacts (SAGE Publishing 2019 ). They are relatively transparent, enable direct comparison between projects, and can produce longitudinal data to track results (Guthrie et al. 2013 ). However, it is difficult to build context, nuance and perspective into simple number-based systems and they inherently become reductive and focused on what is quantifiable, sometimes at the expense of what is important (Wilsdon et al. 2015 , Smith 2018 ). Moreover, there is tension between expanding metrics to incorporate a greater amount and complexity of information while keeping them simple enough to be readily applied by researchers. For example, Pannell and colleagues (2018) used economic theory to quantify benefits from environmental research intended to inform policy but highlighted that uncomplicated, easy-to-use tools will be most appropriate for wide use by researchers, organizations, and collaborators. One of the more popular metrics to consider the wider traction of scientific publications has been Altmetrics , which compiles data on uptake by media outlets, social media posts and shares, and blogs, to index a publication's digital footprint (Priem et al. 2010 , although see limitations reviewed in Xu 2018 ).

Wilsdon and colleagues (2015) proposed the notion of responsible metrics to inform the development of appropriate quantitative indicators of research impact. Responsible metrics should incorporate the following dimensions: They should be robust and verifiable; they should use the best and most accurate data; they should support and not replace qualitative measures; they should be open and transparent; they should account for variations between fields; and they should recognize, anticipate, and respond to any potential systemic effects caused by the indicators themselves (e.g., gaming the assessment system). The principles of responsible metrics acknowledge that the assessment of research impact is evolving, can be open to misunderstanding, and can foster negative behaviors and effects, as well as generating benefits for research (Wilsdon et al. 2015 ).

Qualitative narratives

Impact case studies and narratives have become popular approaches to provide a fuller picture of results in particular contexts (e.g., REF 2019 , Australian Research Council 2019b , and see Heyeres et al. 2019 for a review of applications to health research). Case studies enable the contextualization of research projects through the telling of stories rooted in direct personal and empirical experience of research processes and impacts. They do not require quantitative data (but also can incorporate these if available), and they can capture differences in perspective between the range of stakeholders and partners involved in a research project (Penfield et al. 2014 ). In particular, they can draw attention to the cultural specificity of ideas about research impact (La France et al. 2012 ).

Case study approaches are well placed to capture the complexities of conservation research impact—such as nonlinear causality and unpredictable outcomes—as they unfold in unique, real-world situations. But although they can add significant depth to impact reporting, they also have limitations. For example, the focus on individual contexts can make it more difficult to draw comparisons between projects (Guthrie et al. 2013 , Wilsdon et al. 2015 ). They can encourage a focus on successful research and those with strong narratives, at the expense of instances where there has been no noticeable impact, partial impact, or negative impact (Guthrie et al. 2013 , Wilsdon et al. 2015 ). They can be time consuming to both prepare and assess, risking skewing assessments to better-resourced institutions and researchers (Penfield et al. 2014 ). And there can be biases in how case studies are chosen to be showcased (e.g., the most well-known projects or those led by high profile academics may be chosen over lesser known work or academics; see EDAP 2015 and Davies et al. 2019 for examples).

Combined approaches

Proponents of methods for research impact are increasingly emphasizing that a combination of both qualitative and quantitative measures is needed to allow rigorous comparisons and build a richer picture of impacts (Penfield et al. 2014 , Smith 2018 ). Many government-endorsed frameworks such as the United Kingdom's Research Excellence Framework (REF 2019 ) and the Australian Research Council's Excellence in Research for Australia (Australian Research Council 2019a ) incorporate both quantitative and qualitative measures. These include counts of research outputs relative to staff numbers and case studies that outline examples of the impacts achieved. However, more work is needed to develop systems that are both comprehensive and efficient for integrating narrative and metric approaches, including adopting a wider and more comprehensive approach to integrating qualitative approaches that go beyond individual impact case studies.

Efforts to combine quantitative and qualitative approaches for biomedical research (Dembe et al. 2013 , Bernard Becker Medical Library 2014 ) and climate science (Wall et al. 2017 ) have been made through the identification of impact or evaluation indicators. Impact indicator scales aim to provide a systematic approach to assess research by outlining a set of suitable impact indicators that consider the overall impact of research activities. They are intended to be used for both short-term and long-term impacts, to systematically identify and document achievements, and consistently measure trends over time and between projects. Impact indicators can incorporate both qualitative narratives and quantitative measures. They can also apply to all stages from inception to impacts, and indicators can be formulated around the wide array of outcomes and impacts that are sought in conservation research (e.g., policy influence, changes to public opinion).

A standardized list of impact indicators would provide a useful approach for assessing overall impacts of conservation research. As no such resource is currently available in the literature, we embarked on a literature review and solicitation of conservation academics and professionals to develop such a list incorporating both quantitative and qualitative measures.

We completed a narrative literature review (Onwuegbuzie 2016 ) to identify available tools such as impact assessment frameworks and conceptual diagrams aimed specifically at measuring impacts in conservation research. We focused exclusively on guides or methods for assessing research impact, and did not attempt to identify, understand, or elucidate the logic model pathways that lead to impact. We constructed search terms applicable to the topic ( “impact” AND “framework” AND “environment” OR “conservation” ) and used Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Google to identify relevant resources. We then searched reference lists of primary sources, and viewed materials citing primary and secondary sources. The results were filtered to articles published as peer-reviewed papers, books, and reports from government agencies and research institutions.

We looked for key concepts presented in impact assessment frameworks and conceptual diagrams and extracted these as a list of potential impact indicators for conservation research. We categorized this initial list into domains corresponding to a logic model framework (inputs, processes, outputs, outcomes, and impacts; figure  1 ). Each domain was subdivided into subdomains corresponding to common themes we identified in the list. For each impact indicator, we prescribe the most appropriate type of data for assessment (i.e., qualitative or quantitative) and provide additional practical examples for how each could be reported.

Impact indicators expert opinion

We assessed the relevance and comprehensiveness of our list of potential impact indicators via a survey of 65 conservation researchers and practitioners who work closely at the interface of research and practice, including people involved in policy and on-the-ground management activities. Given our desire to consider a broad definition of conservation research impact, we sought international input from diverse sources capable of producing a useful and thought-provoking set of impact indicators that form a solid basis to be tailored toward specific research contexts and projects. Our aim was to conduct a targeted survey of participants with considerable experience in achieving, planning for and assessing conservation research impact. Within this group, we sought diversity of responses across sectors, including research, NGOs, government, and Indigenous organizations, asking the respondents to select which of these best described their professional role (the participants had the option to choose more than one role). In addition to sector diversity, we aimed to survey people across a range of demographic variables (gender, age, country of residence, Indigenous or non-Indigenous).

The respondents were selected following a qualitative sampling approach (Luborsky and Rubinstein 1995 ). Initial candidates were drawn from international networks maintained by the Society for Conservation Biology, from the collaborative researcher–practitioner networks formed by the Australian Government's National Environmental Science Program and from connections of the authors to networks, agencies, and individuals whose professional and research roles operate at the interface of conservation research, policy, or practice. We extended an invitation for initial respondents to further recruit suitable participants from their own professional networks.

Our structured survey was divided into two phases. We first asked participants to respond to the question How important is it to measure each of these items to understand the impacts of conservation research? The respondents were then given the opportunity to respond against our initial impact indicators using a four-measure Likert scale with no midpoint (1, irrelevant ; 2, not important ; 3, important ; 4, very important ). We also asked participants to respond to the open-ended question Are there any other items not included in the current list that are important for measuring the impact of conservation research? We achieved 45 responses during phase 1, and collated the list of suggested additional indicators, screened for duplicates and incorporated novel suggestions that were absent from our original list. In the second phase of the present study, we sought expert opinion from an additional 20 respondents on the total compiled list of impact indicators. The integrated data sets therefore incorporate the views of 65 conservation professionals.

We identified 76 potential research impact indicators from our literature review (supplemental table S1). A further 20 indicators were recommended by questionnaire participants. In our final results, we therefore recognized a list of 96 impact indicators across 5 domains and 11 subdomains (supplemental table S1).

Literature review

We identified 12 publications that presented assessment frameworks or conceptual diagrams tailored toward measuring impacts from conservation research, or conservation management projects (i.e., Salafsky et al. 2002 , Addor et al. 2006 , Kapos et al. 2008 , Margoluis et al. 2009 , Pattanayak 2009 , Bottrill and Pressey 2012 , Margoluis et al. 2013 , Pannell et al. 2018 , Koontz et al. 2019 , O'Connor et al. 2019 , Salafsky and Margoluis 2020 ). Most resources were targeted toward explicit aspects of conservation rather than the spectrum of research inputs, processes, outputs, outcomes, and impacts. For example, Pannell and colleagues (2018) examined the links between environmental research and policy, without reflecting on the ultimate environmental impacts that may stem from policy changes. Bottrill and Pressey ( 2012 ) provided an overview of approaches to evaluating conservation planning that did not require reflection on preceding research phases. The majority of conservation-orientated tools were similarly weighted toward the assessment of management implementation (supplemental table S2, figure  2 ).

Summary of literature that present research impact assessment frameworks or conceptual diagrams useful for assessing conservation research. Included are general frameworks.

Through our literature review and discussions with research impact assessment specialists, we identified an additional eight generic impact assessment frameworks aimed for use across all scientific disciplines and 12 resources tailored to measuring impact in conservation related disciplines (e.g., sustainability research, climate science, knowledge coproduction, transdisciplinary research, forestry, agriculture). Generic frameworks (mostly derived from government agencies or national funding bodies; supplemental table S3, figure  2 ) were useful for outlining the broader concepts of research impact; they provided an overview for conceptualizing how research might lead to impact and prompted contemplation of a wide range of variables to measure at different stages of the process (e.g., Andrews 2012 , Barnett and Gregorowski 2013 , CSIRO 2015 , REF 2019 , Australian Research Council 2019b ). However, these broad frameworks lacked detail specific to conservation or the environment and provided little to prompt researchers to consider the full spectrum of impacts specific to their research. In contrast, the 12 resources specific to other disciplines (e.g., Fazey et al. 2014 , Davila et al. 2016 , Posner et al. 2016 , Hansson and Polk 2018 , Fryirs et al. 2019 , Edwards and Meagher 2020 ) provided a diverse range of perspectives that proved highly useful when considering impacts in conservation research (supplemental table S4, figure  2 ).

Conservation practitioner survey

We received responses to our online questionnaire from 65 international conservation professionals (figure  3 a). The respondents were active in a broad range of roles related to conservation research. Most of the respondents selected one or more of four categories of conservation practitioners available in the questionnaire (figure  3 b). However, seven respondents selected the option other only. These respondents identified their other role as working in research support or research engagement, environmental consultancy, or communications (figure  3 b).

(a) Estimated geographic locations for 61 of 65 respondents at the time they completed the online questionnaire (each pink circle represents a single respondent) and (b) a Euler diagram representing counts of responses from questionnaire participants to the question Which category best describes your role in the field of conservation research? Overlaps represent instances in which the respondents selected multiple categories (e.g., they perform a research role within a government department). The respondents identified as a researcher only perform research within a university institution.

Overall, the questionnaire respondents consistently identified indicators in domain 5 (research environmental impacts) as being of high importance in assessing research impact (supplemental table S1). The impact indicators in subdomain 3.1 (academic outputs) were ranked by the respondents as being of comparatively less importance as research impact indicators (supplemental table S1).

Questionnaire responses enabled us to add to and refine our comprehensive list of indicators and to identify a list of the most highly rated impact indicators from each of the 12 domains and subdomains (a total of 12 impact indicators; table  1 ).

Subset of the top 12 impact indicators for conservation research (extracted from supplemental table S1). Impact indicators presented in the present article are those ranked as most highly in each domain and subdomain by 65 questionnaire respondents. The domains correspond to the five stages of the logic model presented in figure  1 ; the subdomains are categories collating common threads of impact. The colored bars represent the responses of the 65 questionnaire participants to the question How important do you think this impact indicator is for conservation?

The impact indicators rated lowest by the respondents were RDR11, research equipment and facilities improved or already excellent (inputs); RMC26, research team members abilities and opportunities to participate in other forums, contexts and roles, including organizational boards, societies, and across research, policy, and practice, developed or improved (processes); AO36, an increased number of grant submissions by research team (outputs); and CSE68, emails, phone calls, social media messages enquiring about research outputs (outcomes; supplemental table S1).

We consider our list of impact indicators (supplemental table S1) to be a useful set of standardized prompts that can assist with planning, assessing, comparing, and articulating research impact in conservation. We do not suggest that all of these impact indicators should be addressed in each and every assessment, some may not be relevant to every conservation research project, and important aspects of some projects may not be captured by these indicators. Rather, we hope the list can represent a template of variables to consider, as a step toward building a shared understanding of the range of factors to consider in assessing conservation research impact, similar to efforts toward standardizing assessments of costs in conservation (Iacona et al. 2018 ).

Expert elicitation indicated that among our categories of impact indicators, those within domain 5 (research environmental impacts) were consistently considered important, while those within subdomain 3.1 (academic outputs) were ranked as indicators of relatively lower importance. This result reflects both variation in perception among the respondents, and a lower overall weighting given to the importance of academically focused outputs. This is not to suggest that high quality publications or citations are not essential components of impactful research, but rather highlights that these do not in themselves reveal reach beyond research networks or impact on policy, practice, or biodiversity.

Linking broad environmental impacts (such as those outlined in domain 5) directly to research outputs can be incredibly challenging in practice. Only a subset of the respondents (academics who have witnessed their outputs resulting in tangible environmental benefits) might understand the importance of academic indicators. In contrast, all of the respondents undoubtedly recognized the value of environmental gains that constitute the foundational aims for most conservation research. It is therefore useful to examine a range of indicators that may be more measurable in practice, and to consider which of these have been rated as potentially the most valuable for assessing research impact. For example, many of our impact indicators under subdomain 4.1 (increased awareness and responses) and subdomain 4.4 (on-the-ground action) were given relatively high ratings.

A significant cobenefit of developing explicit, standardized measures for impact assessment is the opportunity to use these measures as a guide to effective project establishment, implementation and communication to ensure impact is achieved as well as measured. This guide should augment other, well accepted guidelines that facilitate effective collaborative work such as the Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP 2018 ).

Most importantly, because conservation researchers increasingly seek to build equitable and effective collaborative partnerships with others (e.g., Garnett et al. 2018 ), it is vital to recognize that approaches to assessing the value, progress, and impact of research will vary between cultures, knowledge systems, and worldviews. Furthermore, when claiming or attributing impact, it is also vital to ensure that the integral roles or contributions of others are not erased in the process (e.g., Loring and Moola 2020 ). Alternative views on what impact is and how it should be measured must always be considered, centered where appropriate, supported, and further developed wherever possible. For example, most of our impact indicators have been developed primarily through Western, positivistic approaches to conservation science and management, and we acknowledge the logics embedded within them may not be shared by all parties who engage with, or participate in, conservation research (e.g., citizen groups, Indigenous groups, NGOs). Nevertheless, through careful and collaborative intercultural work, different logics may sometimes be bridged to achieve shared purposes (Austin et al., 2017 , 2018 ). For instance, First Nations people of North America and Australia have increasingly engaged with frameworks such as the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (including the identification of impact indicators) to strategically pursue their own visions for their lands and families (e.g., Carr et al. 2017 , Ban et al. 2019 ).

Conservation research is a crisis discipline that urgently needs tailored tools to assess and measure impact. From the resources identified in our literature review, and with the input of 65 professionals, we have compiled a detailed list of impact indicators for conservation research. We suggest the list can act as a clear guide to realize and measure the potential impacts from conservation research within and beyond academia.

In recognition of the complexities of measuring impacts, and iterative nature of progress in research, our indicators span the breadth of the logic chain of inputs, processes, outputs, outcomes, and impacts. Many of our measures constitute intermediate impact indicators in earlier stages of the chain (e.g., policy change, threat reduction, citizen science uptake). These intermediate outcomes aim to identify more versus less successful approaches over shorter time scales so that interventions can be managed and adjusted during the life of the research (Salafsky et al. 2002 , Salafsky and Margoluis 2020 ).

We recognize the tension in providing a detailed list of indicators, while ensuring it does not become unwieldy and impractical. Inevitably, there will be indicators others deem as important that have not been included in the present article. Furthermore, we are aware that the perceived importance of indicators will vary significantly with the perspectives and aims of people involved in various stages of the chain from research to impact and between individual projects.

We therefore recommend indicators be collaboratively reviewed and refined at the beginning of research, to ensure expectations from different stakeholders are met, and aid the collation of evidence for impact as the research proceeds. This tenet of collaboration can often be neglected or rushed because the importance of getting these measures right as a means of enabling research impact are not fully appreciated. Equally important to codefining indicators is seeking diversity in their assessment, because the opinions of academics, research partners, and end users will all vary substantially. Ultimately, we hope this approach will stimulate discussion and advancement of methods to measure conservation research impact and facilitate conservation gains.

This research was supported by the National Environmental Science Program through the Threatened Species Recovery Hub. We thank Carina Wyborn for detailed critiques of impact indicators and the manuscript and for a range of useful suggestions. We thank the questionnaire respondents who provided feedback on the relative importance of each impact indicator for measuring the impact of conservation research. The surveys were completed in accordance with human ethics approval from The Australian National University (protocol no. 2019/895).

Author Biographical

Tyrone Lavery, David Lindenmayer, Rachel Morgain, Natasha Robinson, Ben Scheele, and Holly Vuong are associated with the National Environmental Science Program through the Threatened Species Recovery Hub at the Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, in Canberra, in the Australian Capital Territory of Australia. Brendan Wintle is associated with the Threatened Species Recovery Hub, at the School of Biosciences, University of Melbourne, in Melbourne, Victoria, in Australia. James Fitzsimons is affiliated with The Nature Conservancy and the School of Life and Environmental Sciences at Deakin University, in Melbourne, Victoria, in Australia. Jennie Fluin is affiliated with the Government of South Australia, Department for Environment and Water, in Adelaide, South Australia, in Australia. Nicholas Macgregor is affiliated with Parks Australia, located in Canberra, in the Australian Capital Territory of Australia and the Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology at the University of Kent, in Canterbury, in the United Kingdom. Katherine Selwood is affiliated with Zoos Victoria, in Melbourne, Victoria, in Australia. Rebecca Spindler is affiliated with Bush Heritage Australia, in Melbourne, Victoria, in Australia. Simon West is affiliated with the Stockholm Resilience Centre, at Stockholm University, in Stockholm, Sweden.

Addor ML , Cobb TD , Dukes EF , Ellerbrock M , Smutko LS. 2006 . Linking theory to practice: A theory of change model of the Natural Resources Leadership Institute . Conflict Resolution Quarterly 23 : 203 – 223 .

Google Scholar

Alston J , Andersen M , James J , Pardy P . 2010 . Persistence Pays: U.S. Agricultural Productivity Growth and the Benefits from Public R&D Spending . Springer .

Google Preview

Andrews K. 2012 . Knowledge for Purpose: Managing Research for Uptake: A Guide to a Knowledge and Adoption Program . Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities .

Austin BJ , Vigilante T , Cowell S , Dutton IM , Djanghara D , Mangolomara S , Puermora B , Bundamurra A , Clement Z. 2017 . The uunguu monitoring and evaluation committee: Intercultural governance of a land and sea management programme in the kimberley, Australia . Ecological Management and Restoration 18 : 124 – 133 .

Austin B et al.  2018 . Integrated measures of Indigenous land and sea management effectiveness: Challenges and opportunities for improved conservation partnerships in Australia . Conservation and Society 16 : 372 – 384 .

Australian ResearchCouncil . 2019a . Engagement and Impact Assessment 2018–19 National Report . Australian Research Council .

Australian Research Council . 2019b . Engagement and Impact Assessment 2018–19: Impact Studies . Australian Research Council . https://dataportal.arc.gov.au/EI/NationalReport/2018 .

Ban NC , Wilson E , Neasloss D. 2019 . Historical and contemporary Indigenous marine conservation strategies in the North Pacific . Conservation Biology 34 : 5 – 14 .

Barnett C , Gregorowski R. 2013 . Learning about theories of change for the monitoring and evaluation of research uptake. Institute of Development Studies . www.ids.ac.uk/publications/learning-about-theories-of-change-for-the-monitoring-and-evaluation-of-research-uptake .

Bennett NJ et al.  2017 . Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation . Biological Conservation 205 : 93 – 108 .

Bernard Becker Medical Library WUSoM . 2014 . The Becker List: Impact Indicators. Bernard Becker Medical Library WUSoM . https://becker.wustl.edu/impact-assessment .

Bottrill M , Pressey RL. 2012 . The effectiveness and evaluation of conservation planning . Conservation Letters 5 : 407 – 420 .

Caplow S , Jagger P , Lawlor K , Sills E. 2011 . Evaluating land use and livelihood impacts of early forest carbon projects: Lessons for learning about REDD+ . Environmental Science and Policy 14 : 152 – 167 .

Carr B et al.  2017 . CAPitalising on conservation knowledge: Using conservation action planning, healthy country planning, and the open standards in Australia . Ecological Management and Restoration 18 : 176 – 189 .

Connell JP , Kubisch AC. 1998 . Applying a Theory of Change Approach to the Evaluation of Comprehensive Community Initiatives: Progress, Prospects, and Problems . The Aspen Institute .

[CMP]Conservation Measures Partnership . 2018 . CMP Conservation Actions Classification v 2.0 . CMP . https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1i25GTaEA80HwMversusTiYkdOoXRPWiVPZ5l6KioWx9g2zM/editno.gid=874211847 .

CSIRO . 2015 . Impact evaluation guide . The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation .

Davies J , Yarrow E , Syed J. 2019 . The curious under-representation of women impact case leaders: Can we disengender inequality regimes? Gender, Work, and Organization 27 : 129 – 148 .

Davila F , Sloan T , van Kerkhoff L. 2016 . Knowledge Systems and RAPID Framework for Impact Assessments . Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research .

Deeming S , Searles A , Reeves P , Nilsson M. 2017 . Measuring research impact in Australia's medical research institutes: A scoping literature review of the objectives for and an assessment of the capabilities of research impact assessment frameworks . Health Research Policy and Systems 15 : 22 .

Dembe AE , Lynch MS , Gugiu PC , Jackson RD. 2013 . The Translational Research Impact Scale . Evaluation and the Health Professions 37 : 50 – 70 .

Driscoll DA et al.  2010 . Resolving conflicts in fire management using decision theory: Asset-protection versus biodiversity conservation . Conservation Letters 3 : 215 – 223 .

Edwards DM , Meagher LR. 2020 . A framework to evaluate the impacts of research on policy and practice: A forestry pilot study . Forest Policy and Economics 114 : 101975 .

[EDAP]Equality and Diversity Advisory Panel . 2015 . Equality and Diversity in the 2014 Research Excellence Framework . Research Excellence Framework . www.ref.ac.uk/2014/equality/edapreport .

Fazey I , Bunse L , Msika J , Pinke M , Preedy K , Evely AC , Lambert E , Hastings E , Morris S , Reed MS. 2014 . Evaluating knowledge exchange in interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholder research . Global Environmental Change 25 : 204 – 220 .

Ferraro PJ , Pattanayak SK. 2006 . Money for Nothing? A Call for Empirical Evaluation of Biodiversity Conservation Investments . PLOS Biology 4 : e105 .

Fisher JRB , Wood SA , Bradford MA , Kelsey TR. 2020 . Improving scientific impact: How to practice science that influences environmental policy and management . Conservation Science and Practice 2 : e210 .

Fitzsimons J. 2012 . Cows, cockies, and atlases: Use and abuse of biodiversity monitoring in environmental decision making . Pages 91 – 99 in Lindenmayer D , Gibbons P , eds. Biodiversity Monitoring in Australia . CSIRO .

Fryirs KA , Brierley GJ , Dixon T. 2019 . Engaging with research impact assessment for an environmental science case study . Nature Communications 10 : 4542 .

Funnell C , Rogers P. 2011 . Purposeful Program Theory: Effective use of Theories of Change and Logic Models . Wiley .

Garnett ST et al.  2018 . A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation . Nature Sustainability 1 : 369 – 374 .

Gibbons P et al.  2008 . Some practical suggestions for improving engagement between researchers and policy-makers in natural resource management . Ecological Management and Restoration 9 : 182 – 186 .

Grant J , Green L , Mason B. 2003 . Basic research and health: A reassessment of the scientific basis for the support of biomedical science . Research Evaluation 12 : 217 – 224 .

Guthrie S , Wamae W , Diepeveen S , Wooding S , Grant J. 2013 . Measuring Research: A Guide to Research Evaluation Frameworks and Tools . RAND Corporation .

Hansson S , Polk M. 2018 . Assessing the impact of transdisciplinary research: The usefulness of relevance, credibility, and legitimacy for understanding the link between process and impact . Research Evaluation 27 : 132 – 144 .

Heyeres M , Tsey K , Yang Y , Yan L , Jiang H. 2019 . The characteristics and reporting quality of research impact case studies: A systematic review . Evaluation and Program Planning 73 : 10 – 23 .

Hourihan M , Parkes D. 2019 . Federal R&D Budget Trends: A Short Summary . American Association for the Advancement of Science .

Iacona GD et al.  2018 . Standardized reporting of the costs of management interventions for biodiversity conservation . Conservation Biology 32 : 979 – 988 .

[IPBES]Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services . 2019 . Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services . IPBES .

Johnson F , Williams K. 1999 . Protocol and practice in the adaptive management of waterfowl harvests . Conservation Ecology 3 : 8 .

Kapos V et al.  2008 . Calibrating conservation: New tools for measuring success . Conservation Letters 1 : 155 – 164 .

Knight AT , Cowling RM , Campbell BM. 2006 . An operational model for implementing conservation action . Conservation Biology 20 : 408 – 419 .

Koontz TM , Jager NW , Newig J. 2019 . Assessing collaborative conservation: A case survey of output, outcome, and impact measures used in the empirical literature . Society and Natural Resources 442 – 461 .

Koontz TM , Newig J. 2014 . From planning to implementation: Top-down and bottom-up approaches for collaborative watershed management . Policy Studies Journal 42 : 416 – 442 .

Kuruvilla S , Mays N , Pleasant A , Walt G. 2006 . Describing the impact of health research: A Research Impact Framework . BMC Health Services Research 6 : 134 .

LaFrance J , Nichols R , Kirkhart KE. 2012 . Culture writes the script: On the centrality of context in indigenous evaluation . New Directions for Evaluation 2012 : 59 – 74 .

Lebel J , McLean R. 2018 . A better measure of research from the global south . Nature 559 : 23 – 26 .

Lemos MC , Kirchhoff CJ , Ramprasad V. 2012 . Narrowing the climate information usability gap . Nature Climate Change 2 : 789 .

Lindenmayer D , Blair D , McBurney L , Banks S. 2015 . Mountain Ash: Fire, Logging and the Future of Victoria's Giant Forests . CSIRO .

Lindenmayer DB , MacGregor C , Dexter N , Fortescue M , Cochrane P. 2013 . Booderee national park management: Connecting science and management . Ecological Management and Restoration 14 : 2 – 10 .

Loring PA , Moola F. Erasure of Indigenous Peoples risks perpetuating conservation's colonial harms and undermining its future effectiveness . Conservation Letters 2020 : e12782 . https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12782 .

Luborsky MR , Rubinstein RL. 1995 . Sampling in qualitative research: Rationale, issues, and methods . Research on Aging 17 : 89 – 113 .

Maag S , Alexander TJ , Kase R , Hoffmann S. 2018 . Indicators for measuring the contributions of individual knowledge brokers . Environmental Science and Policy 89 : 1 – 9 .

Margoluis R , Stem C , Salafsky N , Brown M. 2009 . Using conceptual models as a planning and evaluation tool in conservation . Evaluation and Program Planning 32 : 138 – 147 .

Margoluis R , Stem C , Swaminathan V , Brown M , Johnson A , Placci G , Salafsky N , Tilders I. 2013 . Results chains: A tool for conservation action design, management, and evaluation . Ecology and Society 18 : 22 .

Mervis J. 2020 . NSF rolls out huge makeover of science statistics . Science 367 : 352 – 353 .

Morris ZS , Wooding S , Grant J. 2011 . The answer is 17 years, what is the question: Understanding time lags in translational research . Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 104 : 510 – 520 .

Norström AV et al.  2020 . Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research . Nature Sustainability 3 : 182 – 190 .

O'Brien K. 2012 . Global environmental change III . Progress in Human Geography 37 : 587 – 596 .

O'Connor RA , Nel JL , Roux DJ , Lim-Camacho L , van Kerkhoff L , Leach J. 2019 . Principles for evaluating knowledge co-production in natural resource management: Incorporating decision-maker values . Journal of Environmental Management 249 : 109392 .

Onwuegbuzie AJ. 2016 . 7 Steps to a Comprehensive Literature Review: A Multimodal and Cultural Approach . SAGE .

Ovseiko PV , Oancea A , Buchan AM. 2012 . Assessing research impact in academic clinical medicine: A study using research excellence framework pilot impact indicators . BMC Health Services Research 12 : 478 .

Pannell DJ , Alston JM , Jeffrey S , Buckley YM , Vesk P , Rhodes JR , McDonald-Madden E , Nally S , Goucher G , Thamo T. 2018 . Policy-oriented environmental research: What is it worth? Environmental Science and Policy 86 : 64 – 71 .

Pattanayak SK. 2009 . Rough Guide to Impact Evaluation of Environmental and Development Programs . South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics .

Penfield T , Baker MJ , Scoble R , Wykes MC. 2014 . Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review . Research Evaluation 23 : 21 – 32 .

Pitt R , Wyborn C , Page G , Hutton J , Sawmy MV , Ryan M , Gallagher L. 2018 . Wrestling with the complexity of evaluation for organizations at the boundary of science, policy, and practice . Conservation Biology 32 : 998 – 1006 .

Posner SM , McKenzie E , Ricketts TH. 2016 . Policy impacts of ecosystem services knowledge . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 : 1760 – 1765 .

Priem J , Taraborelli D , Groth P , Neylon C. 2010 . Altmetrics: A manifesto . Altmetrics . http://altmetrics.org/manifesto .

Pullin AS , Knight TM. 2001 . Effectiveness in conservation practice: Pointers from medicine and public health . Conservation Biology 15 : 50 – 54 .

Radicchia F , Fortunatoa S , Castellano C. 2008 . Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 : 17268 – 17272 .

Raymond CM , Fazey I , Reed MS , Stringer LC , Robinson GM , Evely AC. 2010 . Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management . Journal of Environmental Management 91 : 1766 – 1777 .

Reale E et al.  2017 . A review of literature on evaluating the scientific, social and political impact of social sciences and humanities research . Research Evaluation 27 : 298 – 308 .

[REF]Research Excellence Framework . 2011 . Decisions on Assessing Research Impact . REF . www.ref.ac.uk/2014/media/ref/content/pub/decisionsonassessingresearchimpact/01_11.pdf .

[REF]Research Excellence Framework . 2019 . Guidance on submissions . REF . www.ref.ac.uk/publications/guidance-on-submissions-201901/ .

SAGE Publishing . 2019 . The Latest Thinking about Metrics for Research Impact in the Social Sciences . SAGE .

Salafsky N , Margoluis R. 2020 . Threat reduction assessment: A practical and cost-effective approach to evaluating conservation . Conservation Biology 13 : 830 – 841 .

Salafsky N , Margoluis R , Redford KH , Robinson JG. 2002 . Improving the practice of conservation: A conceptual framework and research agenda for conservation science . Conservation Biology 16 : 1469 – 1479 .

Scharnhorst A , Garfield E. 2010 . Tracing scientific influence . Dynamics of Socio-Economic Systems 2 : 1 – 33 .

Scheele BC , Legge S , Armstrong DP , Copley P , Robinson N , Southwell D , Westgate MJ , Lindenmayer DB. 2018 . How to improve threatened species management: An Australian perspective . Journal of Environmental Management 223 : 668 – 675 .

Smith R. 2018 . Measuring research impact: All the rage but hard to get right . BMJ Opinion ( 30 July 2018 ). https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2018/07/30/richard-smith-measuring-research-impact-rage-hard-get-right .

Soulé ME. 1985 . What is conservation biology? BioScience 35 : 727 – 734 .

Thamo T , Harold T , Polyakov M , Pannell D. 2018 . Assessment of engagement and impact for the ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions . ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions .

Thirgood S , Redpath S , Newton I , Hudson P . 2000 . Raptors and red grouse: Conservation conflicts and management solutions . Conservation Biology 14 : 95 – 104 .

Thomas JA , Simcox DJ , Clarke RT. 2009 . Successful conservation of a threatened Maculinea butterfly . Science 325 : 80 – 83 .

Vieira ES , Gomes JANF. 2010 . A research impact indicator for institutions . Journal of Informetrics 4 : 581 – 590 .

Wall TU , Meadow AM , Horganic A. 2017 . Developing evaluation indicators to improve the Process of coproducing usable climate science . Weather, Climate, and Society 9 : 95 – 107 .

Weiss AP. 2007 . Measuring the impact of medical research: Moving from outputs to outcomes . American Journal of Psychiatry 164 : 206 – 214 .

Weiss C. 1995 . Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families Pages 65 – 92 in Connell J , Kubisch AC , Schorr L , Weiss C , eds. New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods, and Contexts . Aspen Institute .

White H. 2009 . Theory-based impact evaluation: Principles and practice . Journal of Development Effectiveness 1 : 271 – 284 .

Wilsdon J , Allen L , Belfiore E , Campbell P , Johnson B. 2015 . The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management . Higher Education Funding Council for England . https://responsiblemetrics.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2015_metrictide.pdf .

Woolf SH. 2007 . The meaning of translational research and why it matters . JAMA 299 : 211 – 213 .

Xu S. 2018 . Issues in the interpretation of “Altmetrics” digital traces: A review . Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics 3 : 29 .

Supplementary data

Email alerts, citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1525-3244
• Copyright © 2024 American Institute of Biological Sciences
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Nature Conservation Research - Impact Score, Ranking, SJR, h-index, Citescore, Rating, Publisher, ISSN, and Other Important Details

Published By: Fund for Support and Development of Protected Areas

Abbreviation: Nat. Conserv. Res.

Impact Score The impact Score or journal impact score (JIS) is equivalent to Impact Factor. The impact factor (IF) or journal impact factor (JIF) of an academic journal is a scientometric index calculated by Clarivate that reflects the yearly mean number of citations of articles published in the last two years in a given journal, as indexed by Clarivate's Web of Science. On the other hand, Impact Score is based on Scopus data.

Important details, about nature conservation research.

Nature Conservation Research is a journal published by Fund for Support and Development of Protected Areas . This journal covers the area[s] related to Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous), Earth and Planetary Sciences (miscellaneous), Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation, etc . The coverage history of this journal is as follows: 2016-2022. The rank of this journal is 11805 . This journal's impact score, h-index, and SJR are 2.03, 14, and 0.431, respectively. The ISSN of this journal is/are as follows: 2500008X . The best quartile of Nature Conservation Research is Q2 . This journal has received a total of 309 citations during the last three years (Preceding 2022).

Nature Conservation Research Impact Score 2022-2023

The impact score (IS), also denoted as the Journal impact score (JIS), of an academic journal is a measure of the yearly average number of citations to recent articles published in that journal. It is based on Scopus data.

Prediction of Nature Conservation Research Impact Score 2023

Impact Score 2022 of Nature Conservation Research is 2.03 . If a similar downward trend continues, IS may decrease in 2023 as well.

Impact Score Graph

Check below the impact score trends of nature conservation research. this is based on scopus data., nature conservation research h-index.

The h-index of Nature Conservation Research is 14 . By definition of the h-index, this journal has at least 14 published articles with more than 14 citations.

What is h-index?

The h-index (also known as the Hirsch index or Hirsh index) is a scientometric parameter used to evaluate the scientific impact of the publications and journals. It is defined as the maximum value of h such that the given Journal has published at least h papers and each has at least h citations.

Nature Conservation Research ISSN

The International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) of Nature Conservation Research is/are as follows: 2500008X .

The ISSN is a unique 8-digit identifier for a specific publication like Magazine or Journal. The ISSN is used in the postal system and in the publishing world to identify the articles that are published in journals, magazines, newsletters, etc. This is the number assigned to your article by the publisher, and it is the one you will use to reference your article within the library catalogues.

ISSN code (also called as "ISSN structure" or "ISSN syntax") can be expressed as follows: NNNN-NNNC Here, N is in the set {0,1,2,3...,9}, a digit character, and C is in {0,1,2,3,...,9,X}

Nature Conservation Research Ranking and SCImago Journal Rank (SJR)

SCImago Journal Rank is an indicator, which measures the scientific influence of journals. It considers the number of citations received by a journal and the importance of the journals from where these citations come.

Nature Conservation Research Publisher

The publisher of Nature Conservation Research is Fund for Support and Development of Protected Areas . The publishing house of this journal is located in the Russian Federation . Its coverage history is as follows: 2016-2022 .

Call For Papers (CFPs)

Please check the official website of this journal to find out the complete details and Call For Papers (CFPs).

Abbreviation

The International Organization for Standardization 4 (ISO 4) abbreviation of Nature Conservation Research is Nat. Conserv. Res. . ISO 4 is an international standard which defines a uniform and consistent system for the abbreviation of serial publication titles, which are published regularly. The primary use of ISO 4 is to abbreviate or shorten the names of scientific journals using the technique of List of Title Word Abbreviations (LTWA).

As ISO 4 is an international standard, the abbreviation ('Nat. Conserv. Res.') can be used for citing, indexing, abstraction, and referencing purposes.

How to publish in Nature Conservation Research

If your area of research or discipline is related to Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous), Earth and Planetary Sciences (miscellaneous), Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation, etc. , please check the journal's official website to understand the complete publication process.

Acceptance Rate

• Interest/demand of researchers/scientists for publishing in a specific journal/conference.
• The complexity of the peer review process and timeline.
• Time taken from draft submission to final publication.
• Number of submissions received and acceptance slots
• And Many More.

The simplest way to find out the acceptance rate or rejection rate of a Journal/Conference is to check with the journal's/conference's editorial team through emails or through the official website.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What is the impact score of nature conservation research.

The latest impact score of Nature Conservation Research is 2.03. It is computed in the year 2023.

What is the h-index of Nature Conservation Research?

The latest h-index of Nature Conservation Research is 14. It is evaluated in the year 2023.

What is the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) of Nature Conservation Research?

The latest SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) of Nature Conservation Research is 0.431. It is calculated in the year 2023.

What is the ranking of Nature Conservation Research?

The latest ranking of Nature Conservation Research is 11805. This ranking is among 27955 Journals, Conferences, and Book Series. It is computed in the year 2023.

Who is the publisher of Nature Conservation Research?

Nature Conservation Research is published by Fund for Support and Development of Protected Areas. The publication country of this journal is Russian Federation.

What is the abbreviation of Nature Conservation Research?

This standard abbreviation of Nature Conservation Research is Nat. Conserv. Res..

Is "Nature Conservation Research" a Journal, Conference or Book Series?

Nature Conservation Research is a journal published by Fund for Support and Development of Protected Areas.

What is the scope of Nature Conservation Research?

• Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous)
• Earth and Planetary Sciences (miscellaneous)
• Nature and Landscape Conservation

For detailed scope of Nature Conservation Research, check the official website of this journal.

What is the ISSN of Nature Conservation Research?

The International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) of Nature Conservation Research is/are as follows: 2500008X.

What is the best quartile for Nature Conservation Research?

The best quartile for Nature Conservation Research is Q2.

What is the coverage history of Nature Conservation Research?

The coverage history of Nature Conservation Research is as follows 2016-2022.

Credits and Sources

• Scimago Journal & Country Rank (SJR), https://www.scimagojr.com/
• Journal Impact Factor, https://clarivate.com/
• Issn.org, https://www.issn.org/
• Scopus, https://www.scopus.com/

Note: The impact score shown here is equivalent to the average number of times documents published in a journal/conference in the past two years have been cited in the current year (i.e., Cites / Doc. (2 years)). It is based on Scopus data and can be a little higher or different compared to the impact factor (IF) produced by Journal Citation Report. Please refer to the Web of Science data source to check the exact journal impact factor ™ (Thomson Reuters) metric.

Impact Score, SJR, h-Index, and Other Important metrics of These Journals, Conferences, and Book Series

Check complete list

Nature Conservation Research Impact Score (IS) Trend

Top journals/conferences in agricultural and biological sciences (miscellaneous), top journals/conferences in earth and planetary sciences (miscellaneous), top journals/conferences in ecology, top journals/conferences in nature and landscape conservation.

Nature Conservation Research Impact Factor & Key Scientometrics

Nature conservation research overview, impact factor.

I. Basic Journal Info

Journal ISSN: 2500008X

Publisher: fund for support and development of protected areas, history: 2016-2021, journal hompage: link, how to get published:, research categories, scope/description:.

--------------------------------

Best Academic Tools

• Academic Writing Tools
• Proofreading Tools
• Academic Search Engines
• Project Management Tools
• Survey Tools for Research
• Transcription Tools
• Reference Management Software
• AI-Based Summary Generators
• Academic Social Network Sites
• Plagiarism Checkers
• Science Communication Tools
• Jasper AI Review

II. Science Citation Report (SCR)

Nature conservation research scr impact factor, nature conservation research scr journal ranking, nature conservation research scimago sjr rank.

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR indicator) is a measure of scientific influence of scholarly journals that accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of the journals where such citations come from.

Nature Conservation Research Scopus 2-Year Impact Factor Trend

Nature conservation research scopus 3-year impact factor trend, nature conservation research scopus 4-year impact factor trend, nature conservation research impact factor history.

• 2022 Impact Factor 2.028 1.776 1.605
• 2021 Impact Factor 2.302 1.882 1.683
• 2020 Impact Factor 1.261 1.236 1.111
• 2019 Impact Factor 0.881 0.863 0.863
• 2018 Impact Factor 0.549 0.549 0.549
• 2017 Impact Factor 0.471 0.471 0.471
• 2016 Impact Factor 0 0 0
• 2015 Impact Factor NA NA NA
• 2014 Impact Factor NA NA NA
• 2013 Impact Factor NA NA NA
• 2012 Impact Factor NA NA NA
• 2011 Impact Factor NA NA NA
• 2010 Impact Factor NA NA NA
• 2009 Impact Factor NA NA NA
• 2008 Impact Factor NA NA NA
• 2007 Impact Factor NA NA NA
• 2006 Impact Factor NA NA NA
• 2005 Impact Factor NA NA NA
• 2004 Impact Factor NA NA NA
• 2003 Impact Factor NA NA NA
• 2002 Impact Factor NA NA NA
• 2001 Impact Factor NA NA NA
• 2000 Impact Factor NA NA NA

See what other people are reading

HIGHEST PAID JOBS

• Highest Paying Nursing Jobs
• Highest Paying Non-Physician Jobs
• Highest Paying Immunology Jobs
• Highest Paying Microbiology Jobs

LATEX TUTORIALS

• LaTeX Installation Guide – Easy to Follow Steps to Install LaTeX
• 6 Easy Steps to Create Your First LaTeX Document
• How to Use LaTeX Paragraphs and Sections
• How to Use LaTeX Packages with Examples

MUST-READ BOOKS

• Multidisciplinary
• Health Science

Impact factor (IF) is a scientometric factor based on the yearly average number of citations on articles published by a particular journal in the last two years. A journal impact factor is frequently used as a proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field. Find out more: What is a good impact factor?

III. Other Science Influence Indicators

Any impact factor or scientometric indicator alone will not give you the full picture of a science journal. There are also other factors such as H-Index, Self-Citation Ratio, SJR, SNIP, etc. Researchers may also consider the practical aspect of a journal such as publication fees, acceptance rate, review speed. ( Learn More )

Nature Conservation Research H-Index

The h-index is an author-level metric that attempts to measure both the productivity and citation impact of the publications of a scientist or scholar. The index is based on the set of the scientist's most cited papers and the number of citations that they have received in other publications

Nature Conservation Research H-Index History

scijournal.org is a platform dedicated to making the search and use of impact factors of science journals easier.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts

Journal Metrics

This page provides information on peer review performance and citation metrics for Nature . Our quick reference guide to journal metrics is also available for download.

2023 Peer Review Metrics

Submission to first editorial decision: the median time (in days) from when a submission is received to when a first editorial decision about whether the paper was sent out for formal review or not is sent to the authors.

Submission to Accept: the median time (in days) from the submission date to the final editorial acceptance date.

Submission to first editorial decision - 13

Submission to Accept - 268

2022 Journal Metrics

On this page you will find a suite of citation-based metrics for Nature . Brief definitions for each of the metrics used to measure the influence of our journals are included below the journal metrics. Data has been produced by Clarivate Analytics.

While the metrics presented here are not intended to be a definitive list, we hope that they will prove to be informative. The page is updated on an annual basis.

2-year Impact Factor - 64.8

5-year Impact Factor - 60.9

Immediacy index - 13.7

Eigenfactor® score - 1.10309

Article Influence Score - 26.4

2023 Usage Metrics

Article-level metrics are also available on each article page, allowing readers to track the reach of individual papers.

152,606,039 Downloads

1,253,174 Altmetric mentions

Definitions

2-year impact factor.

The Journal Impact Factor is defined as all citations to the journal in the current JCR year to items published in the previous two years, divided by the total number of scholarly items (these comprise articles, reviews, and proceedings papers) published in the journal in the previous two years. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics )

5-year Impact Factor

The 5-year journal Impact Factor, available from 2007 onward, is the average number of times articles from the journal published in the past five years have been cited in the JCR year. It is calculated by dividing the number of citations in the JCR year by the total number of articles published in the five previous years. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics )

Immediacy index

The Immediacy Index is the average number of times an article is cited in the year it is published. The journal Immediacy Index indicates how quickly articles in a journal are cited. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics )

Eigenfactor® Score

The Eigenfactor Score calculation is based on the number of times articles from the journal published in the past five years have been cited in the JCR year, but it also considers which journals have contributed these citations so that highly cited journals will influence the network more than lesser cited journals. References from one article in a journal to another article from the same journal are removed, so that Eigenfactor Scores are not influenced by journal self-citation. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics )

Article Influence Score

The Article Influence Score determines the average influence of a journal's articles over the first five years after publication. It is calculated by multiplying the Eigenfactor Score by 0.01 and dividing by the number of articles in the journal, normalized as a fraction of all articles in all publications. This measure is roughly analogous to the 5-Year Journal Impact Factor in that it is a ratio of a journal's citation influence to the size of the journal's article contribution over a period of five years. (Courtesy of Clarivate Analytics )

Downloads reflect the number of times full text or PDF versions of articles are accessed directly from the journal website. Downloads are defined as HTML, LookInside, PDF and Epub clicks. Please note that this does not include article downloads from mirror databases such as PubMed Central.

Altmetric mentions

Total number of mentions (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Blogs, News articles, Policy documents and Faculty of 1000 reviews) for articles published in the specified timeframe, as provided by Altmetric .

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Special Issues
• Topical collections
• Author Guidelines
• Editorial Team

The 9 th Student Conference on Conservation Science Europe will be held in Balatonvilágos, Hungary from the 11 th to 14 th  September 2024.

Organised by the HUN-REN Centre for Ecological Research , the conference offers young conservationists, students and early career researchers the opportunity to m ...

Gianmarco Tavilla is the latest addition to the editorial board of Nature Conservation . He is a researcher at the  Institute on Atmospheric Pollution of the CNR , Bari (Italy).

His demonstrated experience covers the topics of plant and habitat conservation and biological invasions.

"I am honored ...

Nature Conservation is a peer-reviewed, open access, rapidly published online journal covering all aspects of nature conservation. The journal publishes papers across all disciplines interested in basic and applied conservation ecology and nature conservation in general at various spatial, temporal and evolutionary scales, from populations to ecosystems and from microorganisms and fungi to higher plants and animals. The journal focuses on ecological, evolutionary, economic, social and other consequences of biodiversity and ecosystem management and the mitigations of negative impacts on them.  Nature Conservation  also strongly encourages papers on ethical, social, socio-economic, legal and policy issues related to the management and use of biodiversity and ecosystems.

Research Papers, Review Papers, Forum Papers, Data Papers, Software Descriptions, Editorials, Correspondences, Corrigenda, Monographs, Applied Ecology, Conservation in Practice, Short Communications, Letters to the Editor

This website uses cookies in order to improve your web experience. Read our Cookies Policy

Nature Conservation Research impact factor, indexing, ranking (2024)

Aim and Scope

The Nature Conservation Research is a research journal that publishes research related to Agricultural and Biological Sciences; Earth and Planetary Sciences; Environmental Science . This journal is published by the Fund for Support and Development of Protected Areas. The ISSN of this journal is 2500008X . Based on the Scopus data, the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) of nature conservation research is 0.431 .

Nature Conservation Research Ranking

The Impact Factor of Nature Conservation Research is N/A.

The impact factor (IF) is a measure of the frequency with which the average article in a journal has been cited in a particular year. It is used to measure the importance or rank of a journal by calculating the times its articles are cited.

The impact factor was devised by Eugene Garfield, the founder of the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) in Philadelphia. Impact factors began to be calculated yearly starting from 1975 for journals listed in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). ISI was acquired by Thomson Scientific & Healthcare in 1992, and became known as Thomson ISI. In 2018, Thomson-Reuters spun off and sold ISI to Onex Corporation and Baring Private Equity Asia. They founded a new corporation, Clarivate , which is now the publisher of the JCR.

Important Metrics

Nature conservation research indexing.

The nature conservation research is indexed in:

• Web of Science (ESCI)

An indexed journal means that the journal has gone through and passed a review process of certain requirements done by a journal indexer.

The Web of Science Core Collection includes the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Arts & Humanities Citation Index (AHCI), and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI).

Note: ESCI journals donot come with an impact factor. However, ESCI journals are evaluated every year and those who qualified are transferred to SCIE.

Nature Conservation Research Impact Factor 2024

The latest impact factor of nature conservation research is N/A .

The impact factor (IF) is a measure of the frequency with which the average article in a journal has been cited in a particular year. It is used to measure the importance or rank of a journal by calculating the times it's articles are cited.

Note: Every year, The Clarivate releases the Journal Citation Report (JCR). The JCR provides information about academic journals including impact factor. The latest JCR was released in June, 2023. The JCR 2024 will be released in the June 2024.

Nature Conservation Research Quartile

The latest Quartile of nature conservation research is Q2 .

Each subject category of journals is divided into four quartiles: Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4. Q1 is occupied by the top 25% of journals in the list; Q2 is occupied by journals in the 25 to 50% group; Q3 is occupied by journals in the 50 to 75% group and Q4 is occupied by journals in the 75 to 100% group.

Journal Publication Time

The publication time may vary depending on factors such as the complexity of the research and the current workload of the editorial team. Journals typically request reviewers to submit their reviews within 3-4 weeks. However, some journals lack mechanisms to enforce this deadline, making it difficult to predict the duration of the peer review process.

The review time also depends upon the quality of the research paper.

Call for Papers

Visit to the official website of the journal/ conference to check the details about call for papers.

How to publish in Nature Conservation Research?

If your research is related to Agricultural and Biological Sciences; Earth and Planetary Sciences; Environmental Science, then visit the official website of nature conservation research and send your manuscript.

Tips for publishing in Nature Conservation Research:

• Selection of research problem.
• Presenting a solution.
• Designing the paper.
• Make your manuscript publication worthy.
• Write an effective results section.
• Mind your references.

Acceptance Rate

Final summary.

• The impact factor of nature conservation research is N/A.
• The nature conservation research is a reputed research journal.
• It is published by Fund for Support and Development of Protected Areas .
• The journal is indexed in UGC CARE, Scopus, ESCI .
• The (SJR) SCImago Journal Rank is 0.431 .

SIMILIAR JOURNALS

EVOLUTION AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR

ADAPTIVE HUMAN BEHAVIOR AND PHYSIOLOGY

CUADERNOS DE NEUROPSICOLOGIA-PANAMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEUROPSYCHOLOGY

NEUROSCIENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS

REVISTA CHILENA DE NEUROPSICOLOGIA

BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES

BEHAVIOURAL PROCESSES

BIOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGY

EXPERIMENTAL AND CLINICAL PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY

INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE

TOP RESEARCH JOURNALS

• Agricultural & Biological Sciences
• Arts & Humanities
• Business, Management and Accounting
• Computer Science
• Engineering
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences

Factors determining water stress: do environmental distress, energy consumption and industrialization matter?

• Published: 08 May 2024

Cite this article

• Muhammad Azam Khan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7417-3981 1 , 2 ,
• Ijaz Uddin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7231-109X 2 &
• Nor Salwati Othman   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5976-5484 1 , 3  

34 Accesses

Explore all metrics

This study is directly aligned with UN Sustainable Development Goal 06, which aims to “Ensure access to water and sanitation for all.” The primary objective of our research is to empirically assess the factors that contribute to water stress, with a particular emphasis on the role of environmental degradation/distress, such as CO 2 emissions and ecological footprint, as well as energy consumption (both renewable and non-renewable) and industrialization in Pakistan (1975–2020). To ensure the accuracy of our findings and avoid any potential misspecification of the empirical model, we have included additional key regressors. Furthermore, we have adopted a comprehensive empirical strategy that takes into account the time-series nature of the data, employing various techniques such as unit root tests, autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL), Fully Modified Ordinary Least Squares, Dynamic OLS, and Granger causality analysis. The ARDL analysis reveals that environmental degradation (CO 2 emissions and ecological footprint), non-renewable energy use, and industrialization, positively contribute to water stress. Conversely, renewable energy use, rainfall, forest area, and temperature have a negative impact on water stress. These findings suggest that the government of Pakistan should implement effective regulatory policies to control environmental degradation, develop robust water infrastructure, and promote water conservation awareness to address the water stress issue in the country.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

An exploration of the interaction between socio-economic productivity and water withdrawal.

The relationship between air pollution, fossil fuel energy consumption, and water resources in the panel of selected Asia-Pacific countries

Analysis of asymmetries in air pollution with water resources, and energy consumption in iran, data availability.

Data used in this study for empirical examination have been obtained from the World Development Indicators ( 2023 ), the World Bank database, Pakistan Bureau of Statistics (PBS), and Economic Survey of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance Islamabad, Pakistan.

The terms “water scarcity” and “water stress” are often used interchangeably, but they have distinct technical definitions. Water scarcity refers to the volumetric abundance or lack of water supply, while water stress refers to the ability or lack thereof to meet human and ecological demand for water (see Schulte, 2023 ).

Abughlelesha, S. M., & Lateh, H. B. (2013). A review and analysis of the impact of population growth on water resources in Libya. World Applied Sciences Journal, 23 (7), 965–971.

Google Scholar  

Ahmad, S., Zahra, J., & Ali, m., Ali, S., Iqbal, S., Kamal, S., Tahir, M., & Aborode, A. T. (2022). Impact of water insecurity amidst endemic and pandemic in Pakistan: Two tales unsolved. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 81 (2022), 104350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2022.104350

Article   Google Scholar  

Alcamo, J., Flörke, M., & Märker, M. (2007). Future long-term changes in global water resources driven by socio-economic and climatic changes. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 52 (2), 247–275.

Arnell, N. W. (2004). Climate change and global water resources: SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios. Global Environmental Change, 14 (1), 31–52.

Azam, M., Uddin, I., & Saqib, N. (2023). The determinants of life expectancy and environmental degradation in Pakistan: Evidence from ARDL bounds test approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30 (1), 2233–2246.

Bates, B., Kundzewicz, Z., & Wu, S. (2008). Climate change and water. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Secretariat. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/publication/climate-change-and-water-2/

Boulding, K.E. (1980). The implications of improved water allocation policy. In M. Duncan, ed. Western water resources: coming problems and policy alternatives. Boulder, Colorado, Westview. Retrieved from https://www.kansascityfed.org/documents/1564/1980-Western%20Water%20Resources:%20Coming%20Problems%20and%20the%20Policy%20Alternatives.pdf

Brown, L. R. (2001). Eco-economy: building an economy for the Earth. Chapter 2. signs of stress: Climate & water: Facing water scarcity. Retrieved from https://www.earth-policy.org/books/eco/eech2_ss4

Chathuranika, I., Khaniya, B., Neupane, K., Rustamjonovich, K. M., & Rathnayake, U. (2022). Implementation of water-saving agro-technologies and irrigation methods in agriculture of Uzbekistan on a large scale as an urgent issue. Sustainable Water Resources Management, 8 (5), 155.

Concern Worldwide (2023). 10 countries with water stress and scarcity—and how we’re helping. https://www.concernusa.org/story/countries-with-water-stress-and-scarcity/

Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74 (366a), 427–431.

Doeffinger, T., & Hall, J. W. (2020). Water stress and productivity: an empirical analysis of trends and drivers. Water Resources Research, 56 (3), e2019WR025925. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR025925

Dolan, F., Lamontagne, J., Link, R., Hejazi, M., Reed, P., & Edmonds, J. (2021). Evaluating the economic impact of water scarcity in a changing world Flannery. Nature Communications, 12 , 1915. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22194-0

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Economic Survey of Pakistan (2023). Ministray of finance Islamabad, government of Pakistan. Retrieved from: https://www.finance.gov.pk/

European Environment Agency (2023). water stress—European Environment Agency. https://www.eea.europa.eu/help/glossary/eea-glossary/water-stress

European Environmental Agency (2016). Water stress—Environment in the European union at the turn of the century (Chapter 3.5). Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/92-9157-202-0/page305.html

(FAO Agriculture Series, no 26). https://www.fao.org/3/t0800e/t0800e00.htm#Contents

FAO (1993). The state of food and agriculture 1993: II. Water Resources: Economics and Policy—The social, physical and economic nature of water. Food and agriculture organization of the united nations Rome, 1993. FAO, Rome (Italy) The state of food and agriculture 1993.

Global Risks Forum, W. E. (2015). Global Risk- 10th edition. World Economic Forum Cologny/Geneva Switzerland. Retrieved from https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_2015_Report15.pdf

Gao, X., Schlosser, A., Fant, C., & Strzepek, K. (2018). The impact of climate change policy on the risk of water stress in southern and eastern Asia. Environmental Research Letters, 13 (6), 064039. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaca9e

Gautam, M. (2006). Managing drought in sub-Saharan Africa: Policy perspectives (No. 1004–2016–78563).

Granger, C. W. J. (1969). Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica, 37 (3), 424–438.

Hamza, A., (2023). From ‘water stressed’ to ‘water starved’ Pakistan. The Nations Nawaiwaqt Group. Retrieved from https://www.nation.com.pk/11-Mar-2023/from-water-stressed-to-water-starved-pakistan

IEA (2016). International Energy Agency (2016). Energy and Water. Accessed on April 21, 2023, from https://www.iea.org/reports/water-energy-nexus

ING (2015). Too little, too much—Industrialisation is putting the world’s water resources under huge pressure. Retrieved from: https://www.ing.com/Newsroom/News/Industrialisation-is-putting-the-worlds-water-resources-under-huge-pressure.htm#:~:text=Rising%20demand%20for%20fresh%20water,an%20estimated%2038%25%20in%202040 .

Ishaque, W., Tanvir, R., & Mukhtar, M. (2022). Climate change and water crises in Pakistan: Implications on water quality and health risks. Journal of Environmental and Public Health, 22 , 5484561. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5484561

Jiang, L., Wu, F., Liu, Y., & Deng, X. (2014). Modeling the impacts of urbanization and industrial transformation on water resources in China: An integrated hydro economic CGE analysis. Sustainability, 6 (11), 7586–7600.

Johansen, S., & Juselius, K. (1990). Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration—with applications to the demand for money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52 (2), 169–210.

Jones, B., (2022). How melting glaciers fueled Pakistan’s fatal floods. Vox Media. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2022/8/30/23327341/pakistan-flooding-monsoon-melting-glaciers-climate-change

Kao, C., & Chiang, M. H. (2001). On the estimation and inference of a cointegrated regression in panel data. In Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration, and dynamic panels (Vol. 15, pp. 179–222). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Retrieved from ISBN: 978–0–76230–688–6, eISBN: 978–1–84950–065–4

Khan, K., & Khan, A. A. (2022). Understanding water scarcity risks of Pakistan: A spatio-temporal view. Pakistan Geographical Review, 77 (2), 234–260.

Khaniya, B., Gunathilake, M. B., & Rathnayake, U. (2021). Ecosystem-based adaptation for the impact of climate change and variation in the water management sector of Sri Lanka. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2021 , 1–10.

Khaniya, B., Jayanayaka, I., Jayasanka, P., & Rathnayake, U. (2019). Rainfall trend analysis in Uma Oya basin, Sri Lanka, and future water scarcity problems in perspective of climate variability. Advances in Meteorology , 2019.

Kipkorir, E. C. (2002). Analysis of rainfall climate on the Njemps flats, Baringo District Kenya. Journal of Arid Environments, 50 (3), 445–458.

Klobucista, C., & Robinson, K., (2023). Water stress: A global problem that’s getting worse. Council on foreign relations. Retrieved from https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/water-stress-global-problem-thats-getting-worse

Mahdavi, S., & Sohrabian, A. (1993). The exchange value of the dollar and the US trade balance: An empirical investigation based on cointegration and Granger causality tests. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 33 (4), 343–358.

Maqbool, N. (2022). Water Crisis in Pakistan: Manifestation, Causes and the Way Forward (No. 2022: 60). Pakistan Institute of Development Economics. PIDE Knowledge Brief No. 60:2022. Available at https://pide.org.pk/research/water-crisis-in-pakistan-manifestation-causes-and-the-way-forward/

Menzel, L., Flörke, M., Matovelle, A., & Alcamo, J. (2007, November). Impact of socio-economic development and climate change on water resources and water stress. In  Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Adaptative and Integrative Water Management (CAIWA 2007), Basel, Switzerland  (pp. 12-15). Retrieved from https://www.newater.uni-osnabrueck.de/caiwa/data/papers%20session/F2/caiwa_fulltext_menzel_etal.pdf

Nchofoung, T. N., Nkemgha, G., & Z., Fokam, D. D. T., & Kengdo, A. A. N. (2023). Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals Through Water and Sanitation: Do Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) Matter for Africa? Journal of the Knowledge Economy . https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01361-2

Nkiaka, E. (2022). Exploring the socioeconomic determinants of water security in developing regions. Water Policy, 24 (4), 608–625.

Otto, F. E. L., Zachariah, M., Saeed, F., Siddiqi, A., Kamil, S., Mushtaq, H., et al. (2023). Climate change increased extreme monsoon rainfall, flooding highly vulnerable communities in Pakistan. Environmental Research Climate, 2 (2), 025001. https://doi.org/10.1088/2752-5295/acbfd5

PBS (2023). Pakistan Bauru of statistics. Retrieved from: https://www.pbs.gov.pk/

Pech S, & Sunada K. (2008). Population growth and natural resources pressures in the Mekong River Basin. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 37(3): 219–241

Pedroni, P. (2001). Fully modified OLS for heterogeneous cointegrated panels. In Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration, and dynamic panels (pp. 93–130). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/S0731-9053(00)15004-2

Pesaran, H. H., & Shin, Y. (1998). Generalized impulse response analysis in linear multivariate models. Economics Letters, 58 (1), 17–29.

Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16 (3), 289–326.

Phillips, P. C. (1995). Fully modified least squares and vector autoregression. Econometrica, 63 (5), 1023–1078.

Salman A. (2021). Pakistan's looming water crisis. 2021.  https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2021/11/13/pakistans-looming-water-crisis/

Schulte, P., (2023). Defining water scarcity, water stress, and water risk. Reimagining water for a changing world. Pacific institute, Oakland, CA 94612

Singh, S. K., Srivastava, P. K., Singh, D., Han, D., Gautam, S. K., & Pandey, A. C. (2015). Modeling groundwater quality over a humid subtropical region using numerical indices, earth observation datasets, and X-ray diffraction technique: A case study of Allahabad district, India. Environmental Geochemistry and Health, 37 , 157–180.

Singh, V.P., Mishra, A.K., Chowdhary, H., &Khedun, C.P. (2014). Climate change and its impact on water resources. In Wang, L., Yang, C. (Eds) Modern Water Resources Engineering. Handbook of Environmental Engineering, vol 15. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-595-8_11

SIWI (2005). Making water a part of economic development: The economic benefits of improved water management and services. Stockholm international water institute, Linnégatan Stockholm, Sweden. https://siwi.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/waterandmacroecon.pdf

Strzepek, K. M., & McCluskey, A. (2007).  The impacts of climate change on regional water resources and agriculture in Africa  (Vol. 4290). World Bank Publications.

Tian, H., Mei, G., Jiang, G. S., & Qin, Y. (2017). High-temperature influence on mechanical properties of diorite. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering, 50 , 1661–1666.

Uddin, I., & Rahman, K. U. (2023). Impact of corruption, unemployment and inflation on economic growth evidence from developing countries. Quality & Quantity, 57 (3), 2759–2779.

UNICEF (2023). Retrieved from: https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/water?gclid=CjwKCAjwoIqhBhAGEiwArXT7KyfPhQ1NXrpqomoPk3YGcqjvcGKx_M-hCq4ohNY6CsNSFmf5VUPfJxoCN6MQAvD_BwE

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (1992). Human development report 1992: Global dimensions of human development . Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Water Science School (2019). How much water is there on Earth? Retrieved from https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/how-much-water-there-earth#:~:text=About%2071%20percent%20of%20the,percent%20of%20all%20Earth's%20water

Webb, P & Iskandarani, M., (1998). Water Insecurity and the Poor: issues and research needs (October 1998). ZEF—Discussion papers on development policy no. 2, Available at SSRN:  https://ssrn.com/abstract=3316741 or  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3316741

Word Development Indicators (WDI) (2023). The World Bank.

WRI (2023). Retrieved from: https://www.wri.org/insights/3-surprising-ways-water-depends-healthyforests#:~:text=Forests%20help%20control%20the%20water,down%20the%20flow%20of%20runoff

Yang, J., Ding, Y., & Chen, R., (2003). The Chinese water resources: managing increasing demand and natural variations. Water resources systems. International symposium (Sapporo 2003-06-30). IAHS-AISH publication. pp 341-348. IAHS Press, Wallingford, United Kingdom

Yevjevich, V. (1992). Water and Civilization. Water International, 17 (4), 163–171.

Youde, J., (2023). Pakistan’s floods highlight the climate-health nexus. East Asia forum. Retrieved from https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2023/02/17/pakistans-floods-highlight-the-climate-health-nexus/

Yusuf H. (2020). The biggest problem.  DAWN.  2020  https://www.dawn.com/news/1593187

Zulfiqar M. (2020). Water crisis in Pakistan: facts and solutions.  The Nation.  2020. Available from: https://nation.com.pk/07-Aug-2020/water-crisis-in-pakistan-facts-and-solutions

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute for Energy Policy and Research (IEPRe), Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Jalan IKRAM-UNITEN, 43000, Kajang, Selangor, Malaysia

Muhammad Azam Khan & Nor Salwati Othman

Department of Economics, Faculty of Business & Economics, Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan, Mardan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

Muhammad Azam Khan & Ijaz Uddin

Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Malaysia. College of Business Management and Accounting, UNITEN Business School, Kajang, Malaysia

Nor Salwati Othman

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muhammad Azam Khan .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest:.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval:

No any fund/grant taken from any agency by any author.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Khan, M.A., Uddin, I. & Othman, N.S. Factors determining water stress: do environmental distress, energy consumption and industrialization matter?. Environ Dev Sustain (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04653-y

Download citation

Received : 08 July 2023

Accepted : 16 February 2024

Published : 08 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04653-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Water stress
• Environmental degradation
• Industrialization

JEL Classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research