Towards Sustainable Environmental Quality: Priority Research Questions for the Australasian Region of Oceania

Gaw et al. (2019) full text summary PDF

For which topic were research priorities identified?

sustainable environmental quality

In which location was the research priority setting conducted?


Why was it conducted at all?

Environmental challenges persist across the world, including the Australasian region of Oceania, where biodiversity hotspots and unique ecosystems such as the Great Barrier Reef are common. These systems are routinely affected by multiple stressors from anthropogenic activities, and increasingly influenced by global megatrends (e.g., the food-energy-water nexus, demo graphic transitions to cities) and climate change.

What was the objective?

to identify, prioritize, and advance environmental quality research needs from an Australasian perspective, within a global context

What was the outcome?

a list of 20 research questions

How long did the research prioritization take?

No information provided.

Which methods were used to identify research priorities?

survey; workshop

How were the priorities for research identified exactly?

Step 1: survey: participants were asked to submit research questions which, in their view, were priority environmental quality research needs to address, criteria for submission: address important gaps in knowledge, be answerable through a realistic research design, have a factual answer that does not depend on value judgments, cover a spatial and temporal scale that could realistically be addressed by a research team, 78 questions submitted. Step 2: data processing: thematic analysis: 6 topics identified. Step 3: workshop: 20 priority research questions identified

Which stakeholders took part?

Academic, business, the indigenous community, and government sectors.

How were stakeholders recruited?

Members of SETAC and other scientists from Oceania were asked to participate.

Were stakeholders actively involved or did they just participate?

Stakeholders were mere participants of the research prioritization process; they were not actively involved in the process.