Tapping into non-English-language science for the conservation of global biodiversity
Journal
PLOS Biology
Journal Volume
19
Journal Issue
10
Start Page
e3001296
ISSN
1545-7885
Date Issued
2021-10-07
Author(s)
Amano, Tatsuya
Berdejo-Espinola, Violeta
Christie, Alec P.
Willott, Kate
Akasaka, Munemitsu
Báldi, András
Berthinussen, Anna
Bertolino, Sandro
Bladon, Andrew J.
Chen, Min
Choi, Chang-Yong
Bou Dagher Kharrat, Magda
de Oliveira, Luis G.
Farhat, Perla
Golivets, Marina
Hidalgo Aranzamendi, Nataly
Jantke, Kerstin
Kajzer-Bonk, Joanna
Kemahlı Aytekin, M. Çisel
Khorozyan, Igor
Kito, Kensuke
Konno, Ko
Littlewood, Nick
Liu, Yang
Liu, Yifan
Loretto, Matthias-Claudio
Marconi, Valentina
Martin, Philip A.
Morgan, William H.
Narváez-Gómez, Juan P.
Negret, Pablo Jose
Nourani, Elham
Ochoa Quintero, Jose M.
Ockendon, Nancy
Oh, Rachel Rui Ying
Petrovan, Silviu O.
Piovezan-Borges, Ana C.
Pollet, Ingrid L.
Ramos, Danielle L.
Reboredo Segovia, Ana L.
Rivera-Villanueva, A. Nayelli
Rocha, Ricardo
Rouyer, Marie-Morgane
Sainsbury, Katherine A.
Schuster, Richard
Schwab, Dominik
Şekercioğlu, Çağan H.
Seo, Hae-Min
Shackelford, Gorm
Shinoda, Yushin
Smith, Rebecca K.
Tao, Shan-dar
Tsai, Ming-shan
Tyler, Elizabeth H. M.
Vajna, Flóra
Valdebenito, José Osvaldo
Vozykova, Svetlana
Waryszak, Paweł
Zamora-Gutierrez, Veronica
Zenni, Rafael D.
Zhou, Wenjun
Sutherland, William J.
Abstract
The widely held assumption that any important scientific information would be available in English underlies the underuse of non-English-language science across disciplines. However, non-English-language science is expected to bring unique and valuable scientific information, especially in disciplines where the evidence is patchy, and for emergent issues where synthesising available evidence is an urgent challenge. Yet such contribution of non- English-language science to scientific communities and the application of science is rarely quantified. Here, we show that non-English-language studies provide crucial evidence for informing global biodiversity conservation. By screening 419,679 peer-reviewed papers in 16 languages, we identified 1,234 non-English-language studies providing evidence on the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation interventions, compared to 4,412 English-language studies identified with the same criteria. Relevant non-English-language studies are being published at an increasing rate in 6 out of the 12 languages where there were a sufficient number of relevant studies. Incorporating non-English-language studies can expand the geographical coverage (i.e., the number of 2° × 2° grid cells with relevant studies) of English-language evidence by 12% to 25%, especially in biodiverse regions, and taxonomic coverage (i.e., the number of species covered by the relevant studies) by 5% to 32%, although they do tend to be based on less robust study designs. Our results show that synthesising non-English-language studies is key to overcoming the widespread lack of local, context-dependent evidence and facilitating evidence-based conservation globally. We urge wider disciplines to rigorously reassess the untapped potential of non-English-language science in informing decisions to address other global challenges.
SDGs
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Type
journal article