landscape research

Landscape Research Group

Enabling funding supporting advancing research into all aspects of landscape.

What is Landscape?

Landscape Exchange

landscape.research

An international, independent and not-for-profit organisation

A global community of interest since 1967.

The Landscape Research Group (LRG) is an international, independent and not-for-profit organisation working to advance interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary landscape research through dissemination, communication and exchange across global communities of interest.

A diverse community working in areas associated with the field of landscape

Join our global network.

Discover more about being a part of the Landscape Research Group community, including benefits, discounts and events

The Landscape Research Exchange (LEX)

Meet the Trustees

Become a member.

What is landscape?

"any landscape is composed not only of what lies before our eyes but what lies within our heads.".

[email protected]

Our Strategy

Funded Projects

Privacy Policy

2024 Landscape Research Group • Charitable Incorporated Organisation (CIO)

Your Subscription

Edit Profile

Update Billing Card

Members' Area

Privacy overview, c o o k i e s .

There was a problem reporting this post.

Block Member?

Please confirm you want to block this member.

You will no longer be able to:

• See blocked member's posts
• Mention this member in posts
• Invite this member to groups
• Message this member
• Add this member as a connection

Please note: This action will also remove this member from your connections and send a report to the site admin. Please allow a few minutes for this process to complete.

Join our list

Sign up to our mailing list to receive latest news and updates from the Landscape Research Group.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Journal Menu

• Aims & Scope
• Editorial Board
• Reviewer Board
• Topical Advisory Panel
• Instructions for Authors
• Special Issues
• Sections & Collections
• Article Processing Charge
• Indexing & Archiving
• Editor’s Choice Articles
• Most Cited & Viewed
• Journal Statistics
• Journal History
• Journal Awards
• Society Collaborations
• Conferences
• Editorial Office

Journal Browser

• arrow_forward_ios Forthcoming issue arrow_forward_ios Current issue
• Vol. 13 (2024)
• Vol. 12 (2023)
• Vol. 11 (2022)
• Vol. 10 (2021)
• Vol. 9 (2020)
• Vol. 8 (2019)
• Vol. 7 (2018)
• Vol. 6 (2017)
• Vol. 5 (2016)
• Vol. 4 (2015)
• Vol. 3 (2014)
• Vol. 2 (2013)
• Vol. 1 (2012)

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

Evolving Landscape Research: From Renewable Energy Landscapes to Future Frontiers

• Print Special Issue Flyer

Special Issue Editors

Special issue information.

• Published Papers

A special issue of Land (ISSN 2073-445X). This special issue belongs to the section " Land Planning and Landscape Architecture ".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 30 November 2024 | Viewed by 2906

Share This Special Issue

Dear Colleagues,

(1) Introduction.

The last two decades have seen a remarkable proliferation of research in matters of landscapes. This can largely be attributed to the challenges that have emerged during the effort to integrate renewable energy infrastructure into landscapes.

The areas in which research has flourished include landscape planning and policy, landscape assessment, spatial planning, participatory planning processes and various other areas of landscape-related research.

There is now a need to organize this knowledge, highlight its state-of-the-art aspects and elevate relevant research to new levels. Furthermore, our time presents a great opportunity to also expand the frontiers of landscape research to other contemporary issues of landscapes, beyond the scope of the renewable energy expansion.

(2) Aim of the Special Issue.

The goal of this Special Issue is to collect papers to carry out the following goals:

(a) Advance research on renewable energy landscapes, including planning, landscape design, policy, impact assessment and participatory processes .

(b) Collect, analyse and review existing knowledge and state of the art from the last two decades, identifying weaknesses and highlighting important conclusions with future significance.

(c) Expand the knowledge that has been generated through the contemporary focus of landscape research on renewable energy, to other landscape issues and other fields of landscape research.

(3) Suggested themes.

This Special Issue will welcome manuscripts on the following themes:

• Landscape analysis, planning and protection;
• Integration of renewable energy and other infrastructure into landscapes;
• Public participation in planning processes and landscape assessment;
• Investigation of the social acceptance of infrastructure;
• Landscape and architectural design in infrastructure works;
• Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and visibility analysis;
• Landscape in the context of multicriteria and optimization studies;
• Economic aspects of landscape impacts;
• Heritage and renewable energy;
• Landscape and planning policies.

We look forward to receiving your original research articles and reviews.

Dr. Romanos Ioannidis Dr. Nikos Mamassis Dr. Julia Nerantzia Tzortzi Dr. Konstantinos Moraitis Dr. Aspaso-Aspassia Kouzoupi Guest Editors

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website . Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form . Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Land is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

• spatial planning
• renewable energy
• landscape impacts
• participatory processes
• cultural heritage
• landscape design
• visibility analysis
• architecture
• public perception
• social acceptance

Published Papers (2 papers)

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Landscape Research

Subject Area and Category

• Environmental Science (miscellaneous)
• Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
• Nature and Landscape Conservation
• Geography, Planning and Development

Publication type

01426397, 14699710

1970, 1972-2023

Information

How to publish in this journal

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

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
• NEWS AND VIEWS
• 11 June 2024

Physics is more than a collection of laws — it is a living craft

50 years ago

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01590-8

This article features text from Nature ’s archive. By its historical nature, the archive includes some images, articles and language that by twenty-first-century standards are offensive and harmful. Find out more .

Reprints and permissions

The time between Palaeolithic hearths

Article 05 JUN 24

Problem-solving PhD students are prepared for careers in industry

News & Views 04 JUN 24

Pollen problems: May brings dismay to a hay-fever sufferer in 1874

News & Views 28 MAY 24

CERN’s $17-billion supercollider in question as top funder criticizes cost

News 06 JUN 24

China’s big-science bet

Nature Index 05 JUN 24

Injectable ultrasonic sensor for wireless monitoring of intracranial signals

Molecular and physiologic changes in the SpaceX Inspiration4 civilian crew

Article 11 JUN 24

Nuclei facing the tissue surface get fuel for development

News & Views 05 JUN 24

Father’s diet influences son’s metabolic health through sperm RNA

Post-doctoral Fellow

Funded investigator has an immediate opening for a post-doctoral fellow to develop therapies for genetic diseases.

Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, East Baltimore Campus

Johns Hopkins University Department of Medicine

Postdoctoral Fellow PhD

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Unlock Your Potential with a PhD at Scuola Superiore Meridionale

Nestled in the vibrant city of Naples, Italy, SSM is a prestigious institution of higher learning and research

Naples (IT)

Scuola Superiore Meridionale

Faculty Positions at City University of Hong Kong (Dongguan)

CityU (Dongguan) warmly invites individuals from diverse backgrounds to apply for various faculty positions available at the levels of Professor...

Dongguan, Guangdong, China

City University of Hong Kong (Dongguan)

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

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

AI image misinformation has surged, Google researchers find

Fake images generated by artificial intelligence have proliferated so quickly that they’re now nearly as common as those manipulated by text or traditional editing tools like Photoshop, according to researchers at Google and several fact-checking organizations.

The findings offer an indication of just how quickly the technology has been embraced by people seeking to spread false information. But researchers warned that AI is still just one way in which pictures are used to mislead the public — the most common continues to be real images taken out of context.

In a paper released online this month but not yet peer-reviewed, the researchers tracked misinformation trends by analyzing nearly 136,000 fact-checks dating back to 1995, with the majority of them published after 2016 and ending in November 2023. They found that AI accounted for very little image-based misinformation until spring of 2023, right around when fake photos of Pope Francis in a puffer coat went viral.

“The sudden prominence of AI-generated content in fact checked misinformation claims suggests a rapidly changing landscape,” the researchers wrote.

The lead researchers and representatives for Google did not comment in time for publication.

Alexios Mantzarlis, who first flagged and reviewed the latest research in his newsletter, Faked Up , said the democratization of generative AI tools has made it easy for almost anyone to spread false information online.

“We go through waves of technological advancements that shock us in their capacity to manipulate and alter reality, and we are going through one now,” said Mantzarlis, who is the director of the Security, Trust, and Safety Initiative at Cornell Tech, Cornell University’s graduate campus in New York City. “The question is, how quickly can we adapt? And then, what safeguards can we put in place to avoid their harms?”

We go through waves of technological advancements that shock us in their capacity to manipulate and alter reality, and we are going through one now.

-Alexios Mantzarlis, director of the Security, Trust, and Safety Initiative at Cornell Tech

The researchers found that about 80% of fact-checked misinformation claims involve media such as images and video, with video increasingly dominating those claims since 2022.

Even with AI, the study found that real images paired with false claims about what they depict or imply continue to spread without the need for AI or even photo-editing. 

“While AI-generated images did not cause content manipulations to overtake context manipulations, our data collection ended in late 2023 and this may have changed since,” the researchers wrote. “Regardless, generative-AI images are now a sizable fraction of all misinformation-associated images.”

Text is also a component in about 80% of all image-based misinformation, most commonly seen in screenshots.

“We were surprised to note that such cases comprise the majority of context manipulations,” the paper stated. “These images are highly shareable on social media platforms, as they don’t require that the individual sharing them replicate the false context claim themselves: they’re embedded in the image.”

Cayce Myers, a public relations professor and graduate studies director at Virginia Tech’s School of Communication, said context manipulations can be even harder to detect than AI-generated images because they already look authentic.

“In that sense, that’s a much more insidious problem,” Myers, who reviewed the recent findings prior to being interviewed, said. “Because if you have, let’s say, a totally AI-generated image that someone can look at and say, ‘That doesn’t look quite right,’ that’s a lot different than seeing an actual image that is captioned in a way that is misrepresenting what the image is of.”

Even AI-based misinformation, however, is quickly growing harder to detect as technology advances. Myers said traditional hallmarks of an AI-generated image — abnormalities such as misshapen hands, garbled text or a dog with five legs — have diminished “tremendously” since these tools first became widespread.

Earlier this month, during the Met Gala, two viral AI-generated images of Katy Perry (who wasn’t at the event) looked so realistic at first glance that even her mom mistakenly thought the singer was in attendance.

And while the study stated AI models aren’t typically trained to generate images like screenshots and memes, it’s possible they will quickly learn to reliably produce those types of images as new iterations of advanced language models continue to roll out.

To reliably distinguish misinformation as AI tools grow more sophisticated, Mantzarlis said people will have to learn to question the content’s source or distributor rather than the visuals themselves.

“The content alone is no longer going to be sufficient for us to make an assessment of truthfulness of trustworthiness veracity,” Mantzarlis said. “I think you need to have the full context: Who shared it with you? How was it shared? How do you know it was them?”

But the study noted that relying solely on fact-checked claims doesn’t capture the whole scope of misinformation out there, as it’s often the images that go viral that end up being fact checked. It also relied only on misinformation claims made in English. This leaves out many lesser-viewed or non-English pieces of misinformation that float unchecked in the wild.

Still, Mantzarlis said he believes the study reflects a “good sample” of English-language misinformation cases online, particularly those that have reached a substantial enough audience for fact-checkers to take notice.

For Myers, the bigger limitation affecting any study on disinformation — especially in the age of AI — will be the fast-changing nature of the disinformation itself.

“The problem for people who are looking at how to get a handle on disinformation is that it’s an evolving technological reality,” Myers said. “And capturing that is difficult, because what you study in May of 2024 may already be a very different reality in June of 2024.”

Angela Yang is a culture and trends reporter for NBC News.

McKinsey Technology Trends Outlook 2023

After a tumultuous 2022 for technology investment and talent, the first half of 2023 has seen a resurgence of enthusiasm about technology’s potential to catalyze progress in business and society. Generative AI deserves much of the credit for ushering in this revival, but it stands as just one of many advances on the horizon that could drive sustainable, inclusive growth and solve complex global challenges.

To help executives track the latest developments, the McKinsey Technology Council  has once again identified and interpreted the most significant technology trends unfolding today. While many trends are in the early stages of adoption and scale, executives can use this research to plan ahead by developing an understanding of potential use cases and pinpointing the critical skills needed as they hire or upskill talent to bring these opportunities to fruition.

Our analysis examines quantitative measures of interest, innovation, and investment to gauge the momentum of each trend. Recognizing the long-term nature and interdependence of these trends, we also delve into underlying technologies, uncertainties, and questions surrounding each trend. This year, we added an important new dimension for analysis—talent. We provide data on talent supply-and-demand dynamics for the roles of most relevance to each trend. (For more, please see the sidebar, “Research methodology.”)

New and notable

All of last year’s 14 trends remain on our list, though some experienced accelerating momentum and investment, while others saw a downshift. One new trend, generative AI, made a loud entrance and has already shown potential for transformative business impact.

Research methodology

To assess the development of each technology trend, our team collected data on five tangible measures of activity: search engine queries, news publications, patents, research publications, and investment. For each measure, we used a defined set of data sources to find occurrences of keywords associated with each of the 15 trends, screened those occurrences for valid mentions of activity, and indexed the resulting numbers of mentions on a 0–1 scoring scale that is relative to the trends studied. The innovation score combines the patents and research scores; the interest score combines the news and search scores. (While we recognize that an interest score can be inflated by deliberate efforts to stimulate news and search activity, we believe that each score fairly reflects the extent of discussion and debate about a given trend.) Investment measures the flows of funding from the capital markets into companies linked with the trend. Data sources for the scores include the following:

• Patents. Data on patent filings are sourced from Google Patents.
• Research. Data on research publications are sourced from the Lens (www.lens.org).
• News. Data on news publications are sourced from Factiva.
• Searches. Data on search engine queries are sourced from Google Trends.
• Investment. Data on private-market and public-market capital raises are sourced from PitchBook.
• Talent demand. Number of job postings is sourced from McKinsey’s proprietary Organizational Data Platform, which stores licensed, de-identified data on professional profiles and job postings. Data is drawn primarily from English-speaking countries.

In addition, we updated the selection and definition of trends from last year’s study to reflect the evolution of technology trends:

• The generative-AI trend was added since last year’s study.
• We adjusted the definitions of electrification and renewables (previously called future of clean energy) and climate technologies beyond electrification and renewables (previously called future of sustainable consumption).
• Data sources were updated. This year, we included only closed deals in PitchBook data, which revised downward the investment numbers for 2018–22. For future of space technologies investments, we used research from McKinsey’s Aerospace & Defense Practice.

This new entrant represents the next frontier of AI. Building upon existing technologies such as applied AI and industrializing machine learning, generative AI has high potential and applicability across most industries. Interest in the topic (as gauged by news and internet searches) increased threefold from 2021 to 2022. As we recently wrote, generative AI and other foundational models  change the AI game by taking assistive technology to a new level, reducing application development time, and bringing powerful capabilities to nontechnical users. Generative AI is poised to add as much as $4.4 trillion in economic value from a combination of specific use cases and more diffuse uses—such as assisting with email drafts—that increase productivity. Still, while generative AI can unlock significant value, firms should not underestimate the economic significance and the growth potential that underlying AI technologies and industrializing machine learning can bring to various industries.

Investment in most tech trends tightened year over year, but the potential for future growth remains high, as further indicated by the recent rebound in tech valuations. Indeed, absolute investments remained strong in 2022, at more than $1 trillion combined, indicating great faith in the value potential of these trends. Trust architectures and digital identity grew the most out of last year’s 14 trends, increasing by nearly 50 percent as security, privacy, and resilience become increasingly critical across industries. Investment in other trends—such as applied AI, advanced connectivity, and cloud and edge computing—declined, but that is likely due, at least in part, to their maturity. More mature technologies can be more sensitive to short-term budget dynamics than more nascent technologies with longer investment time horizons, such as climate and mobility technologies. Also, as some technologies become more profitable, they can often scale further with lower marginal investment. Given that these technologies have applications in most industries, we have little doubt that mainstream adoption will continue to grow.

Organizations shouldn’t focus too heavily on the trends that are garnering the most attention. By focusing on only the most hyped trends, they may miss out on the significant value potential of other technologies and hinder the chance for purposeful capability building. Instead, companies seeking longer-term growth should focus on a portfolio-oriented investment across the tech trends most important to their business. Technologies such as cloud and edge computing and the future of bioengineering have shown steady increases in innovation and continue to have expanded use cases across industries. In fact, more than 400 edge use cases across various industries have been identified, and edge computing is projected to win double-digit growth globally over the next five years. Additionally, nascent technologies, such as quantum, continue to evolve and show significant potential for value creation. Our updated analysis for 2023 shows that the four industries likely to see the earliest economic impact from quantum computing—automotive, chemicals, financial services, and life sciences—stand to potentially gain up to $1.3 trillion in value by 2035. By carefully assessing the evolving landscape and considering a balanced approach, businesses can capitalize on both established and emerging technologies to propel innovation and achieve sustainable growth.

Tech talent dynamics

We can’t overstate the importance of talent as a key source in developing a competitive edge. A lack of talent is a top issue constraining growth. There’s a wide gap between the demand for people with the skills needed to capture value from the tech trends and available talent: our survey of 3.5 million job postings in these tech trends found that many of the skills in greatest demand have less than half as many qualified practitioners per posting as the global average. Companies should be on top of the talent market, ready to respond to notable shifts and to deliver a strong value proposition to the technologists they hope to hire and retain. For instance, recent layoffs in the tech sector may present a silver lining for other industries that have struggled to win the attention of attractive candidates and retain senior tech talent. In addition, some of these technologies will accelerate the pace of workforce transformation. In the coming decade, 20 to 30 percent of the time that workers spend on the job could be transformed by automation technologies, leading to significant shifts in the skills required to be successful. And companies should continue to look at how they can adjust roles or upskill individuals to meet their tailored job requirements. Job postings in fields related to tech trends grew at a very healthy 15 percent between 2021 and 2022, even though global job postings overall decreased by 13 percent. Applied AI and next-generation software development together posted nearly one million jobs between 2018 and 2022. Next-generation software development saw the most significant growth in number of jobs (exhibit).

Image description:

Small multiples of 15 slope charts show the number of job postings in different fields related to tech trends from 2021 to 2022. Overall growth of all fields combined was about 400,000 jobs, with applied AI having the most job postings in 2022 and experiencing a 6% increase from 2021. Next-generation software development had the second-highest number of job postings in 2022 and had 29% growth from 2021. Other categories shown, from most job postings to least in 2022, are as follows: cloud and edge computing, trust architecture and digital identity, future of mobility, electrification and renewables, climate tech beyond electrification and renewables, advanced connectivity, immersive-reality technologies, industrializing machine learning, Web3, future of bioengineering, future of space technologies, generative AI, and quantum technologies.

End of image description.

This bright outlook for practitioners in most fields highlights the challenge facing employers who are struggling to find enough talent to keep up with their demands. The shortage of qualified talent has been a persistent limiting factor in the growth of many high-tech fields, including AI, quantum technologies, space technologies, and electrification and renewables. The talent crunch is particularly pronounced for trends such as cloud computing and industrializing machine learning, which are required across most industries. It’s also a major challenge in areas that employ highly specialized professionals, such as the future of mobility and quantum computing (see interactive).

Michael Chui is a McKinsey Global Institute partner in McKinsey’s Bay Area office, where Mena Issler is an associate partner, Roger Roberts  is a partner, and Lareina Yee  is a senior partner.

The authors wish to thank the following McKinsey colleagues for their contributions to this research: Bharat Bahl, Soumya Banerjee, Arjita Bhan, Tanmay Bhatnagar, Jim Boehm, Andreas Breiter, Tom Brennan, Ryan Brukardt, Kevin Buehler, Zina Cole, Santiago Comella-Dorda, Brian Constantine, Daniela Cuneo, Wendy Cyffka, Chris Daehnick, Ian De Bode, Andrea Del Miglio, Jonathan DePrizio, Ivan Dyakonov, Torgyn Erland, Robin Giesbrecht, Carlo Giovine, Liz Grennan, Ferry Grijpink, Harsh Gupta, Martin Harrysson, David Harvey, Kersten Heineke, Matt Higginson, Alharith Hussin, Tore Johnston, Philipp Kampshoff, Hamza Khan, Nayur Khan, Naomi Kim, Jesse Klempner, Kelly Kochanski, Matej Macak, Stephanie Madner, Aishwarya Mohapatra, Timo Möller, Matt Mrozek, Evan Nazareth, Peter Noteboom, Anna Orthofer, Katherine Ottenbreit, Eric Parsonnet, Mark Patel, Bruce Philp, Fabian Queder, Robin Riedel, Tanya Rodchenko, Lucy Shenton, Henning Soller, Naveen Srikakulam, Shivam Srivastava, Bhargs Srivathsan, Erika Stanzl, Brooke Stokes, Malin Strandell-Jansson, Daniel Wallance, Allen Weinberg, Olivia White, Martin Wrulich, Perez Yeptho, Matija Zesko, Felix Ziegler, and Delphine Zurkiya.

They also wish to thank the external members of the McKinsey Technology Council.

This interactive was designed, developed, and edited by McKinsey Global Publishing’s Nayomi Chibana, Victor Cuevas, Richard Johnson, Stephanie Jones, Stephen Landau, LaShon Malone, Kanika Punwani, Katie Shearer, Rick Tetzeli, Sneha Vats, and Jessica Wang.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

McKinsey Technology Trends Outlook 2022

Value creation in the metaverse

Quantum computing funding remains strong, but talent gap raises concern

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

The Evolving Landscape of Antibody-Drug Conjugates: In Depth Analysis of Recent Research Progress

Affiliations.

• 1 CAS, A Division of the American Chemical Society, Columbus, Ohio 43210, United States.
• 2 ACS International India Pvt. Ltd., Pune 411044, India.
• PMID: 37821099
• PMCID: PMC10655051
• DOI: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.3c00374

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are targeted immunoconjugate constructs that integrate the potency of cytotoxic drugs with the selectivity of monoclonal antibodies, minimizing damage to healthy cells and reducing systemic toxicity. Their design allows for higher doses of the cytotoxic drug to be administered, potentially increasing efficacy. They are currently among the most promising drug classes in oncology, with efforts to expand their application for nononcological indications and in combination therapies. Here we provide a detailed overview of the recent advances in ADC research and consider future directions and challenges in promoting this promising platform to widespread therapeutic use. We examine data from the CAS Content Collection, the largest human-curated collection of published scientific information, and analyze the publication landscape of recent research to reveal the exploration trends in published documents and to provide insights into the scientific advances in the area. We also discuss the evolution of the key concepts in the field, the major technologies, and their development pipelines with company research focuses, disease targets, development stages, and publication and investment trends. A comprehensive concept map has been created based on the documents in the CAS Content Collection. We hope that this report can serve as a useful resource for understanding the current state of knowledge in the field of ADCs and the remaining challenges to fulfill their potential.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Structure and mechanism of action…

Structure and mechanism of action of ADCs. (A) Scheme of antibody structure including…

Timeline of key events and…

Timeline of key events and discoveries in the antibody–drug conjugate research and development.…

Yearly growth of the number…

Yearly growth of the number of documents (journal articles and patents) in the…

Exemplary ADC linkers: (A) acid…

Exemplary ADC linkers: (A) acid labile hydrazone linker; (B) enzyme cleavable Val-Cit linker;…

Top countries with respect to…

Top countries with respect to the number of ADC-related journal articles (blue) and…

(A) Top organizations publishing ADC-related…

(A) Top organizations publishing ADC-related journal articles. Top patent assignees of ADC-related patents…

Top scientific journals with respect…

Top scientific journals with respect to the number of ADC-related (A) articles published…

(A) Top patent offices receiving…

(A) Top patent offices receiving ADC-related patent applications. (B) Flow of ADC-related patent…

Diseases explored in ADC-related publications:…

Diseases explored in ADC-related publications: (A) cancers (Inset: Annual growth of the number…

Therapies explored in the ADC-related…

Therapies explored in the ADC-related publications.

Drug delivery systems explored in…

Drug delivery systems explored in the ADC-related publications.

ADC payloads explored in the…

ADC payloads explored in the scientific publications: (A) Number of publications exploring ADC…

ADC target antigens explored in…

ADC target antigens explored in the scientific publications for solid tumors and hematological…

ADC antibodies explored in the…

ADC antibodies explored in the scientific publications: (A) Number of publications exploring ADC…

Antibody-payload linker types explored in…

Antibody-payload linker types explored in scientific publications.

Correlations between different concept pairings…

Correlations between different concept pairings are shown as heat maps. ADC target antigens…

(A) A word cloud of…

(A) A word cloud of the most widely used ADC-related concepts in the…

ADC Concept Map. Size of…

ADC Concept Map. Size of the dot at each concept/topic corresponds to the…

Capital invested by global region…

Capital invested by global region for the period 2012–2022 in the antibody–drug conjugate…

Organizations conducting preclinical ADC research…

Organizations conducting preclinical ADC research with the number of ADC candidates in their…

Number of ADC clinical trials…

Number of ADC clinical trials by year.

(A) ADC clinical trial indications;…

(A) ADC clinical trial indications; (B) Percentage of ADC clinical trials in various…

Percentage of ADC clinical trials…

Percentage of ADC clinical trials in various phases for the treatment of specific…

Percentage of ADC clinical trials in various statuses for the treatment of specific…

Similar articles

• Investigational antibody drug conjugates for solid tumors. Sapra P, Hooper AT, O'Donnell CJ, Gerber HP. Sapra P, et al. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2011 Aug;20(8):1131-49. doi: 10.1517/13543784.2011.582866. Epub 2011 May 23. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2011. PMID: 21599617 Review.
• Antibody drug conjugates: Progress, pitfalls, and promises. Mukherjee A, Waters AK, Babic I, Nurmemmedov E, Glassy MC, Kesari S, Yenugonda VM. Mukherjee A, et al. Hum Antibodies. 2019;27(1):53-62. doi: 10.3233/HAB-180348. Hum Antibodies. 2019. PMID: 30223393 Review.
• Picking the optimal target for antibody-drug conjugates. Mathur R, Weiner GJ. Mathur R, et al. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2013. doi: 10.14694/EdBook_AM.2013.33.e103. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2013. PMID: 23714470 Review.
• Antibody-drug conjugates in cancer therapy: innovations, challenges, and future directions. Kumari S, Raj S, Babu MA, Bhatti GK, Bhatti JS. Kumari S, et al. Arch Pharm Res. 2024 Jan;47(1):40-65. doi: 10.1007/s12272-023-01479-6. Epub 2023 Dec 28. Arch Pharm Res. 2024. PMID: 38153656 Review.
• Antibody-drug conjugates come of age in oncology. Dumontet C, Reichert JM, Senter PD, Lambert JM, Beck A. Dumontet C, et al. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2023 Aug;22(8):641-661. doi: 10.1038/s41573-023-00709-2. Epub 2023 Jun 12. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2023. PMID: 37308581 Review.
• Transcytosis-Driven Treatment of Neurodegenerative Disorders by mRNA-Expressed Antibody-Transferrin Conjugates. Niazi SK, Magoola M. Niazi SK, et al. Biomedicines. 2024 Apr 12;12(4):851. doi: 10.3390/biomedicines12040851. Biomedicines. 2024. PMID: 38672205 Free PMC article. Review.
• Cathepsin B Processing Is Required for the In Vivo Efficacy of Albumin-Drug Conjugates. Bernardim B, Conde J, Hakala T, Becher JB, Canzano M, Vasco AV, Knowles TPJ, Cameron J, Bernardes GJL. Bernardim B, et al. Bioconjug Chem. 2024 Feb 21;35(2):132-139. doi: 10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.3c00478. Epub 2024 Feb 12. Bioconjug Chem. 2024. PMID: 38345213 Free PMC article.
• Introduction of Carbonyl Groups into Antibodies. Gulyak EL, Alferova VA, Korshun VA, Sapozhnikova KA. Gulyak EL, et al. Molecules. 2023 Dec 1;28(23):7890. doi: 10.3390/molecules28237890. Molecules. 2023. PMID: 38067618 Free PMC article. Review.
• Marei H. E.; Cenciarelli C.; Hasan A. Potential of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) for cancer therapy. Cancer Cell Int. 2022, 22, 255.10.1186/s12935-022-02679-8. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
• Gholap A. D.; Gupta J. S.; Kamandar P. A.; Banchhod G. V.; Hatvate N. T.. Antibody-drug conjugates for cancer therapy: An up-to-date review on the chemistry and pharmacology. In Comprehensive Analytical Chemistry; Elsevier, 2023.
• Fuentes-Antrás J.; Genta S.; Vijenthira A.; Siu L. L. Antibody-drug conjugates: in search of partners of choice. Trends in Cancer 2023, 9, 339–354. 10.1016/j.trecan.2023.01.003. - DOI - PubMed
• Hafeez U.; Parakh S.; Gan H. K.; Scott A. M. Antibody–Drug Conjugates for Cancer Therapy. Molecules 2020, 25, 4764.10.3390/molecules25204764. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
• Siegel R. L.; Miller K. D.; Fuchs H. E.; Jemal A. Cancer statistics. 2022. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2022, 72, 7–33. 10.3322/caac.21708. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

Related information

Linkout - more resources, full text sources.

• American Chemical Society
• Europe PubMed Central
• PubMed Central

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Gap analysis: concepts, methods, and recent results*

• Published: January 2000
• Volume 15 , pages 5–20, ( 2000 )

Cite this article

• Michael D. Jennings 1  

8199 Accesses

252 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Rapid progress is being made in the conceptual, technical, and organizational requirements for generating synoptic multi-scale views of the earth's surface and its biological content. Using the spatially comprehensive data that are now available, researchers, land managers, and land-use planners can, for the first time, quantitatively place landscape units – from general categories such as ‘Forests’ or ‘Cold-Deciduous Shrubland Formation’ to more categories such as ‘Picea glauca-Abies balsamea-Populus spp. Forest Alliance’ – in their large-area contexts. The National Gap Analysis Program (GAP) has developed the technical and organizational capabilities necessary for the regular production and analysis of such information. This paper provides a brief overview of concepts and methods as well as some recent results from the GAP projects. Clearly, new frameworks for biogeographic information and organizational cooperation are needed if we are to have any hope of documenting the full range of species occurrences and ecological processes in ways meaningful to their management. The GAP experience provides one model for achieving these new frameworks.

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

Tools for Landscape Science: Theory, Models and Data

Evaluating post-hurricane impacts in co-management areas: a framework for expert consensus

Introduction

Allen, C.R., Pearlstine, L. and Wojcik, D.P. 1998. Spatial modeling of ant diversity. In Gap Analysis Bulletin 7. Edited by E. Brackney and M. Jennings. U.S. Geological Survey, National Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

Google Scholar  

Allen, T.F. and Starr, T.B. 1982. Hierarchy: perspectives for ecological theory. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 310 pp.

Austin, M.P. 1991. Vegetation: data collection and analysis. In Nature conservation: cost effective biological surveys and data analysis. pp. 37–41. Edited by C.R. Margules and M.P. Austin. CSIRO, East Melbourne, Australia.

Bailey, R.G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. 2nd rev. and expanded ed. with separate map at 1:7,500,000. Misc. Publ. No. 1391, USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. 108 pp.

Bourgeron, P.S. and Engelking, L.D., editors. 1994. A preliminary vegetation classification of the Western United States. A report prepared by theWestern Heritage Task Force and The Nature Conservancy for the University of Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. The Nature Conservancy Western Regional Office, Boulder, CO.

Burley, F.W. 1988. Monitoring biological diversity for setting priorities in conservation. In Biodiversity. pp. 227–230. Edited by E.O. Wilson. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 521 pp.

Caicco, S.L., Scott, J.M., Butterfield, B. and Csuti, B. 1995. A gap analysis of the management status of the vegetation of Idaho (U.S.A.). Cons. Biol. 9: 498–511.

Congalton, R.G. 1991. A review of assessing the accuracy of classification of remotely sensed data. Remote Sensing Env. 37: 35–46.

Cooperrider, A.Y., Boyd, R.J. and Stuart, H.R. (eds). 1986. Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management Service Center, Denver, CO.

Crist, P.J., Edwards, T.C., Homer, C.G., Bassett, S.D., Thompson, B.C. and Brackney, E. 1998. Mapping and categorizing land stewardship. In A handbook for conducting gap analysis. http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/gap/AboutGAP/Handbook/SMC.htm. U.S. Geological Survey, National Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

Crist, P. and Deitner, R. 1998. Assessing land cover map accuracy. In A handbook for conducting gap analysis. http://www.gap.uidaho.edulgap/AboutGAP/Handbook/LCA. U.S. Geological Survey, National Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

Crist, P. and Csuti, B. 1997. The assessment of the representation of biotic elements relative to land stewardship. In A handbook for conducting gap analysis. http://www.gap.uidaho.edulgap/handbook/analysis/Index.htm. U.S. Geological Survey, National Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

Csuti, B., Polasky, S., Williams, P.H., Pressey, R.L., Camm, J.D., Kershaw, M., Kiester, A.R., Downs, B., Hamilton, R., Huso, M. and Sahr, K. 1997. A comparison of reserve selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon. Biol. Cons. 80: 83–97.

Csuti, B. and Kiester, R. 1996. Hierarchical gap analysis for identifying priority areas for biodiversity. In Gap analysis: a landscape approach to biodiversity planning. Edited by J.M. Scott, T.H. Tear and F. Davis. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda, MD. 320 pp.

Csuti, B. and Crist, P. 1998a. Methods for developing terrestrial vertebrate distribution maps for gap analysis. In A handbook for conducting gap analysis. http://www.gap.uidaho.edulgap/AboutGAP/Handbook/VDM.htm. U.S. Geological Survey, National Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

Csuti, B. and Crist, P. 1998b. Methods for assessing accuracy of animal distribution maps. In A handbook for conducting gap analysis. http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/gap/handbook/VDA/Index.htm. U.S. Geological Survey, National Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

Davis, F.W., Stoms, D.M., Estes, J.E., Seepan, J. and Scott, J.M. 1990. An information systems approach to the preservation of biological diversity. Int. J. Geog. Inf. Syst. 4 (1): 55–78.

Davis, F.W., Estes, J.E., Csuti, B.C., Scott, J.M., Stoms, D., Painho, M.P., Stine, P., Hollander, A., Walker, R., Bueno, M., Cogan, C. and Gray, V. 1991. Geographic information systems analysis of biodiversity in California. Report. Department of Geography, University of California, Santa Barbara.

Drake, J. and Faber-Langendoen, D. 1997. An alliance-level classification of the vegetation of the Midwestern United States. A report prepared by The Nature Conservancy Midwest Conservation Science Department for the University of Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. The Nature Conservancy Midwest Regional Office, Minneapolis, MN.

Duever, L.C. and Noss, R.F. 1990. A computerized method of priority ranking for natural areas. In Ecosystem management: Rare Species and Significant Habitats. pp. 22–33. Edited by R.S. Mitchell, C.J. Sheviak and D.J. Leopold. Bulletin No. 471, New York State Museum, Albany.

ESA Vegetation Panel. Unpublished. An initiative for a standardized classification of vegetation of the United States. Ecological Society of America, Sustainable Biosphere Initiative, Washington, DC.

Eve, M. and Merchant, J. 1998. GAP land cover mapping protocols. http://www.calmit.unl.edu/gapmap. U.S. Geological Survey, National Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

Fenner, F., editor. 1975. A national system of ecological reserves in Australia. Report of the Australian Academy of Science, No. 19. Canberra.

Fertig, W., Reiners, W.A. and Hartman, R.L. 1998. Selecting plant species for Gap Analysis in Wyoming. In Gap Analysis Bulletin 7. Edited by E. Brackney and M. Jennings. U.S. Geological Survey, National Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

FGDC. 1997. Vegetation information and classification standard. Federal Geographic Data Committee, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

Forman, R.T.T. and Godron, M. 1986. Landscape ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 619 pp.

Franklin, J.F. 1993. Preserving biodiversity: species, ecosystems, or landscapes? Ecol. Appl. 3 (2): 202–205.

Gap Analysis Program. 1998. A handbook for conducting gap analysis. http://www.gap.uidaho.edulgap/AboutGAP/Handbook/Index.htm. U.S. Geological Survey, National Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

Gibbons, J.W., Burke, V.J., Lovich, J.E., Semlitch, R.D., Tuberville, T.D., Bodie, J.R., Greene, J.L., Niewiarowski, P.H., Whiteman, H.H., Scott, D.E., Pechmann, J.H.K., Harrison, C.R., Bennett, S.H., Krenz, J.D., Mills, M.S., Buhlmann, K.A., Lee, J.R., Seigel, R.A., Tucker, A.D., Mills, T.M., Lamb, T., Dorcas, M.E., Congdon, J.D., Smith, M.H., Nelson, D.H., Dietsch, M.B., Hanlin, H.G., Ott, J.A. and Karapatakis, D.J. 1997. Perceptions of species abundance, distribution, and diversity: lessons from four decades of sampling on a government-managed reserve. Env. Manag. 21 (2): 259–268.

Grossman, D.H., Faber-Langendoen, D., Weakley, A.S., Anderson, M., Bourgeron, P., Crawford, R., Goodin, K., Landaal, S., Metzler, K., Patterson, K., Pyne, M., Reid, M. and Sneddon, L. 1998. International classification of ecological communities: terrestrial vegetation of the United States. Volume 1. The national vegetation classification system: development, status, and applications. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.

Halbert, S., Jennings, M.D., Cogan, C., Quisenberry, S. and Johnson, J.B. 1995. Potential use of suction trap collections of aphids as indicators of plant biodiversity. In Insects in a changing environment. pp. 499–504. Edited by N. Stark and R. Harrington. Academic Press, London. 535 pp.

Integrated Taxonomic Information System. 1998. http://www.itis.usda.gov/itis.

Jennings, M.D. 1993. Natural terrestrial cover classification: Assumptions and definitions. Gap Analysis Technical Bulletin 2. USGS National Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

Jennings, M.D. 1995. Gap analysis today: a confluence of biology, ecology, and geography for management of biological resources. Wildlife Soc. Bull. 23: 658–662.

Jennings, M.D. 1996a. Mapping units: their classification and nomenclature for gap analysis land cover data. In Gap Analysis: a landscape approach to biodiversity planning. pp. 7l–78. Edited by J.M. Scott, T.H. Tear and F.W. Davis. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda, MD. 320 pp.

Jennings, M.D. 1996b. The Ecological Society of America's Vegetation Classification Panel. In Gap Analysis Bulletin 5. Edited by E. Brackney and M. Jennings. U.S. Geological Survey, National Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

Jennings, M.D., Brackney, E., Crist, P. and Sorbel, R. 1996. Gap Analysis Program 1995 and 1996 status report. USGS Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

Jennings, M.D. 1997. Progressing toward a standardized classification of vegetation for the USA. In Gap Analysis Bulletin 6. Edited by E. Brackney and M. Jennings. U.S. Geological Survey, National Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

Kareiva, P. 1993. No shortcuts in new maps. Nature 365: 292–293.

Keys, Jr., J., Carpenter, C., Hooks, S., Koenig, F., MC W.H., Russell, W. and Smith, M.L. 1995. Ecological units of the Eastern United States: first approximation. USDA Forest Service, Atlanta, GA.

Lawton, J.H. and May, R.M. (eds). 1995. Extinction rates. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 233 pp.

Lillesand, T.M. and Kiefer, R.W. 1987. Remote sensing and image interpretation.John Wiley & Sons, New York. 721 pp.

Loucks, O.L. 1995. Special committee on vegetation classification annual report. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 76: 221–223.

Loucks, O.L. 1996. 100 years after Cowles: a national classification for vegetation. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am. 77: 75–76.

Lugo, A.E. 1988. Estimating reductions in the diversity of tropical forest species. In Biodiversity. pp. 58–70. Edited by E.O. Wilson. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 521 pp.

Mann, C.C. and Plummer, M.L. 1995. Noah's choice: the future of endangered species. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. 302 pp.

Margules, C.R. and Austin, M.P. (eds). 1991. Nature conservation: cost effective biological surveys and data analysis. CSIRO, East Melbourne, Australia. 207 pp.

McNab, W.H. and Avers, P.E. 1994. Ecological subregions of the United States: section descriptions. Administrative Publication WO-WSA-5. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service. Washington, DC.

Merrill, E.H., Kohley, T.W., Herdendorf, M.E., Reiners, W.A., Driese, IK.L., Marrs, R.W. and Anderson, S.H. 1996. The Wyoming Gap Analysis Project final report. http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/gap. USGS National Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

Merrill, T., Wright, R.G. and Scott, J.M. 1995. Using ecological criteria to evaluate wilderness planning options in Idaho. Env. Manag. 19: 815–825.

Noss, R.F. 1987. From plant communities to landscapes in conservation inventories: a look at The Nature Conservancy (USA). Biol. Cons. 41: 11–37.

Noss, R.F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Cons. Biol. 4: 355–364.

Noss, R.F. 1991. Protecting habitats and biological diversity: design of regional reserve systems. National Audubon Society, New York.

Noss, R.F. 1991. Report to the Fund for Animals, Washington, DC.

Noss, R.F. and Cooperrider, A.Y. 1994. Saving nature's legacy. Island Press, Washington, DC. 416 pp.

Noss, R.F., LaRoe, E.T. and Scott, J.M. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United States: a preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. Biological Report 28. National Biological Service, Washington, DC.

O'Neill, R.V., DeAngelis, D.L., Waide, J.B. and Allen, T.F.H. 1986. A hierarchical concept of ecosystems. Monographs in Population Biology No. @3. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 253 pp.

O'Neill, R.V. 1996. Recent developments in ecological theory: hierarchy and scale. In Gap Analysis: a landscape approach to biodiversity planning. pp. 7–14. Edited by J.M. Scott, T.H. Tear and F.W. Davis. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda, MD. 320 pp.

Pimm, S.L., Russell, G.J., Bittleman, J.L. and Brooks, T.M. 1995. The future of biodiversity. Science 269: 347–350.

Prendergast, J.R., Quinn, R.M., Lawton, J.H., Eversham, B.C. and Gibbons, D.W. 1993. Rare species, the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategies. Nature 365: 335–337.

Pressey, R.L., Humphries, C.J., Margules, C.R., Vane-Wright, R.I. and Williams, P.H. 1993. Beyond opportunism: key principles for systematic, reserve selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 8: 124–128.

Reid, M., and others. Unpublished. A classification and description of terrestrial community alliances in The Nature Conservancy's Western region: first approximation. A report in preparation by The Nature Conservancy Western Regional Office for the USGS National Gap Analysis Program. The Nature Conservancy Western Regional Office, Boulder, CO.

Reid, W.V. 1998. Biodiversity hotspots. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13: 275–279.

Scott, J.M., Csuti, B., Jacobi, J.D. and Estes, J.E. 1987. Species richness: a geographical approach to protecting biodiversity. BioScience 37: 782–788.

Scott, J.M., Davis, F., Csuti, B., Noss, R.F., Butterfield, B., Groves, C., Anderson, H., Caicco, S., D'Erchia, F., Edwards, T.C., Jr., Ulliman, J. and Wright, G. 1993. Gap analysis: a geographic approach to protection of biological diversity.Wildlife Monographs No. 123.

Scott, J.M. and Jennings, M.D. 1998. Large-area mapping of biodiversity. Ann. Missouri Bot. Garden 85: 34–47.

Slaymaker, D.M., Jones, K.M.L., Griffin, C.R. and J.T. Finn. 1996. Mapping deciduous forests in southern New England using aerial videography and hyperclustered multi-temporal Landsat TM imagery. In Gap Analysis: a landscape approach to biodiversity planning. pp. 87–101. Edited by J.M. Scott, T.H. Tear and F.W. Davis. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Bethesda, MD. 320 pp.

Smith, E.L. 1996. Two decades of change. Endangered Species Bull. 21(4): 8–9. http://www.fws.gov/r9endspplesb/96/chief.html.

Smith, K.G., Dzur, R.S., Catanzaro, D.G., Gamer, M.E., and Limp, W.F. 1998. State-wide biodiversity mapping for Arkansas: the Arkansas Gap Analysis Project final report. Center for Advanced Spatial Technologies, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Also see http://www.cast.uark.edulcast/projects/gap/finalrptlindex.html.

Sneddon, L., Anderson, M. and Metzler, K. 1994. A classification and description of terrestrial community alliances in The Nature Conservancy's eastern region: first approximation. A report prepared by The Nature Conservancy Eastern Regional Office for the University of Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. The Nature Conservancy Eastern Regional Office, Boston, Massachusetts.

Sowa, S.P. 1998. A strategy for implementing gap analysis in riverine environments. In Gap Analysis Bulletin 7. Edited by E. Brackney and M. Jennings. U.S. Geological Survey, National Gap Analysis Program, Moscow, ID.

Specht, R.L., Roe, E.M. and Boughlon, V.H. 1974. Conservation of major plant communities in Australia and Papua New Guinea. Australian J. Bot. Suppl. Series No. 7.

Stoms, D.M. 1994. Actual vegetation layer. In A handbook for gap analysis. pp. 1.1–1.6. Edited by J.M. Scott and M.D. Jennings. Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.

Stoms, D.M., Davis, F.W., Driese, K.L., Cassidy, K.M. and Murray, M.P. 1998. Gap analysis of the vegetation of the Intermountain Semi-Desert Ecoregion. Great Basin Nat. 58: 199–216.

Tear, T.H., Scott, J.M., Hayward, P. and Griffith, B. 1993. Status and prospects for success of the Endangered Species Act: a look at recovery plans. Science 262: 976–977.

Terborgh, J. 1989. Where have all the birds gone? Princeton University Press. 207 pp.

The Nature Conservancy. 1996. 1996 annual report card for U.S. plant and animal species. Arlington, VA.

The Nature Conservancy. 1998. Selected Nature Conservancy scientific data: zoological data from the United States. Arlington, VA. Also see http://www.consci.tnc.orglsrc/zoodata.htrn.

Thompson, B.C., Crist, P.J., Prior-Magee, J.S., Deitner, R.A., Garber, D.L. and M.A. Hughes. 1996. Gap analysis of biodiversity conservation in New Mexico using geographic information systems. New Mexico Cooperative Fish andWildlife Research Unit, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces.

Weakley, A.S., Patterson, K., Landaal, S. and Gallyoun, M. 1997. An alliance-level classification of the vegetation of the southeastern United States. A report prepared for the University of Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit by The Nature Conservancy Southeastern Regional Office, Chapel Hill, NC.

Whittaker, R.H. 1973. Dominance-types. In Handbook of vegetation science, Part V: Ordination and classification of communities. pp. 387–402. Edited by R.H. Whittaker. W. Junk, The Hague, Netherlands.

Wright, R.G., MacCracken, J.G. and Hall, J. 1994. An ecological evaluation of proposed new conservation areas in Idaho: evaluating proposed Idaho national parks. Cons. Biol. 8(1): 207–216.

Wright, R.G., Scott, J.M., Mann, S. and Murray, M.P. Unpublished. Identifying unprotected and at risk plant communities in the western USA. Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

National Gap Analysis Program, U.S. Geological Survey, 530 S. Asbury St., Suite 1, Moscow, Idaho, 83843, USA

Michael D. Jennings

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Jennings, M.D. Gap analysis: concepts, methods, and recent results*. Landscape Ecology 15 , 5–20 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008184408300

Download citation

Issue Date : January 2000

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008184408300

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

• biodiversity
• conservation
• large-area mapping
• gap analysis
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Americans’ Dismal Views of the Nation’s Politics

1. the biggest problems and greatest strengths of the u.s. political system, table of contents.

• The impact of partisan polarization
• Persistent concerns over money in politics
• Views of the parties and possible changes to the two-party system
• Other important findings
• Explore chapters of this report
• In their own words: Americans on the political system’s biggest problems
• In their own words: Americans on the political system’s biggest strengths
• Are there clear solutions to the nation’s problems?
• Evaluations of the political system
• Trust in the federal government
• Feelings toward the federal government
• The relationship between the federal and state governments
• Americans’ ratings of their House member, governor and local officials
• Party favorability ratings
• Most characterize their party positively
• Quality of the parties’ ideas
• Influence in congressional decision-making
• Views on limiting the role of money in politics
• Views on what kinds of activities can change the country for the better
• How much can voting affect the future direction of the country?
• Views of members of Congress
• In their own words: Americans’ views of the major problems with today’s elected officials
• How much do elected officials care about people like me?
• What motivates people to run for office?
• Quality of recent political candidates
• In elections, is there usually at least one candidate who shares your views?
• What the public sees as most important in political candidates
• Impressions of the people who will be running for president in 2024
• Views about presidential campaigns
• How much of an impact does who is president have on your life?
• Whose priorities should the president focus on?
• How different are the Republican and Democratic parties?
• Views of how well the parties represent people’s interests
• What if there were more political parties?
• Would more parties make solving problems easier or harder?
• How likely is it that an independent candidate will become president?
• Americans who feel unrepresented by the parties have highly negative views of the political system
• Views of the Electoral College
• Should the size of the U.S. House of Representatives change?
• Senate seats and population size
• Younger adults more supportive of structural changes
• Politics in a single word or phrase: An outpouring of negative sentiments
• Negative emotions prevail when Americans think about politics
• Americans say the tone of political debate in the country has worsened
• Which political topics get too much – and too little – attention?
• Majority of Americans find it stressful to talk politics with people they disagree with
• Acknowledgments

The public sees a number of specific problems with American politics. Partisan fighting, the high cost of political campaigns, and the outsize influence of special interests and lobbyists are each seen as characteristic of the U.S. political system by at least 84% of Americans.

Yet 63% also say that “ordinary Americans care about making the political system work well” is a good description of U.S. politics today. Still, when asked to describe a strength of the political system in their own words, more than half either say “nothing” (22%) or decline to give an answer (34%).

Americans view negative statements as better descriptions of the political system than positive ones

More than eight-in-ten adults say that each of the following is at least a somewhat good description of the U.S. political system today:

• Republicans and Democrats are more focused on fighting each other than on solving problems (86%);
• The cost of political campaigns makes it hard for good people to run for office (85%);
• Special interest groups and lobbyists have too much say in what happens in politics (84%).

About six-in-ten (63%) think ordinary Americans want to make the political system work well. This is the rare positive sentiment that a majority views as a good descriptor of the political system.

Fewer than half of adults hold the view that the government deserves more credit than it gets: Majorities say that “the federal government does more for ordinary Americans than people give it credit for” (59%) and “Congress accomplishes more than people give it credit for” (65%) are both bad descriptions of the political system.

Nearly seven-in-ten adults express frustration with the availability of unbiased information about politics: 68% say the statement “it is easy to find unbiased information about what is happening in politics” is not a good description of the political system.

And just 22% of Americans say that political leaders facing consequences for acting unethically is a good description of the political system. They are more than three times as likely to say that this is a bad description (76% say this).

Many critiques of the political system are bipartisan

Partisans have similar views of many of the descriptions of the political system included in the survey.

Overwhelming majorities in both parties think there is too much partisan fighting, campaigns cost too much, and lobbyists and special interests have too much say in politics. And just 24% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents and 20% of Republicans and Republican leaners say that political leaders face consequences if they act unethically.

The widest partisan gap is over a description of the federal government. Democrats are roughly twice as likely as Republicans to say “the federal government does more for ordinary Americans than people give it credit for” (54% vs. 26%).

There is a narrower gap in views of Congress’ accomplishments: 37% of Democrats and 28% of Republicans say it accomplishes more than people give it credit for.

Democrats are also more likely to say, “It is easy to find unbiased information about what is happening in politics” (36% of Democrats and 25% of Republicans say this is a good description of the political system today), while Republicans are slightly more likely than Democrats to view ordinary Americans as wanting to make the political system work well (67% of Republicans and 61% of Democrats say this is a good description).

When asked to describe in their own words the biggest problem with the political system in the U.S. today, Americans point to a wide range of factors.

Negative characteristics attributed to politicians and political leaders are a common complaint: 31% of U.S. adults say politicians are the biggest problem with the system, including 15% who point to greed or corruption and 7% who cite dishonesty or a lack of trustworthiness.

The biggest problem, according to one woman in her 50s, is that politicians are “hiding the truth and fulfilling their own agendas.” Similarly, a man in his 30s says, “They don’t work for the people. They are too corrupt and busy filling their pockets.”

Explore more voices: The political system’s biggest problems

What do you see as the biggest problem with the political system in the U.S. today?

“An almost total lack of credibility and trust. Coupled with a media that’s so biased, that they’ve lost all objectivity.” –Man, 70s

“Lying about intentions or not following through with what elected officials said they would do.” –Woman, 20s

“Blind faith in political figures.” –Woman, 50s

“Our elected officials would rather play political games than serve the needs of their constituents.” –Woman, 50s

“Same politicians in office too long.” –Woman, 30s

“Extremism on both sides exploited by the mainstream media for ratings. It is making it impossible for both parties to work together.” –Man, 30s

“It has become too polarized. No one is willing to compromise or be moderate.” –Woman, 40s

“Too much money in politics coming from large corporations and special interest.” –Man, 30s

“The people have no say in important matters, we have NO representation at all. Our lawmakers are isolated and could care less what we want.” –Man, 60s

About two-in-ten adults cite deep divisions between the parties as the biggest problem with the U.S. political system, with respondents describing a lack of cooperation between the parties or among elected leaders in Washington.

“Both of the political parties are so busy trying to stop the other party, they are wasting their opportunities to solve the problems faced by our nation,” in the view of one man in his 70s.

Even as some blame polarization, others (10% of respondents) identify the other party as the system’s biggest problem. Some Republicans say that the biggest problem is “Democrats” while some Democrats simply say “Republicans.”

Smaller but substantial shares of adults name the media and political discourse (9%), the influence of money in politics (7%), government’s perceived failures (6%), specific policy areas and issues (6%) or problems with elections and voting (4%) as the biggest problem with the political system today.

Far fewer adults name a specific strength of the political system today when asked to describe the system’s biggest strength in their own words. More than half either say that the system lacks a biggest strength (22%) or decline to answer (34%). As one woman in her 60s writes, “I’m not seeing any strengths!”

Among those who do identify strengths of the U.S. political system, the structure of political institutions and the principles that define the constitutional order are named most frequently (by 12% of respondents). Many respondents specifically point to the Constitution itself or refer to the separation of powers or the checks and balances created by the Constitution.

A man in his 20s believes that the “separation of powers and federalism work pretty well,” while one in his 30s writes that the system’s greatest strength is “the checks and balances to make sure that monumental changes aren’t made unilaterally.”

Explore more voices: The political system’s biggest strengths

What do you see as the biggest strength of the U.S. political system today?

“Everyone getting a say; democracy.” –Woman, 40s

“The right to have your opinions heard.” –Man, 60s

“In spite of our differences, we are still a democracy, and I believe there are people within our government who still care and are interested in the betterment of our country.” –Woman, 50s

“The freedom of speech and religion” –Woman, 50s

“If we have fair, honest elections we can vote out the corruption and/or incompetent politicians.” –Man, 70s

“The Constitution.” –Man, 50s

“The checks and balances to control the power of any office. The voice of the people and the options to remove an official from office.” –Man, 60s

“New, younger voices in government.” –Woman, 40s

“If we can’t get more bipartisanship we’ll become weaker. Our biggest strength is our working together.” –Woman, 60s

“The way that every two years the people get to make their voice heard.” –Man, 30s

About one-in-ten (9%) refer to individual freedoms and related democratic values, while a similar share (8%) discuss the right to vote and the existence of free elections. A woman in her 70s echoes many similar comments when she points to “the possibility of change in upcoming elections.”

However, even some of the descriptions of positive characteristics of the system are couched in respondents’ doubts about the way the system is working today. One woman in her 50s adds a qualification to what she views as the system’s biggest strength, saying, “Theoretically every voter has a say.”

Smaller shares of the public point to the positive characteristics of some politicians (4%) or the positive characteristics of the American people (4%) as reasons for optimism.

The public remains roughly evenly split over whether there are clear solutions to the biggest issues facing the country. Half of Americans today say there are clear solutions to most of the big issues facing the country, while about as many (48%) say most big issues don’t have clear solutions.

There are relatively modest demographic and political differences in perceptions of whether the solutions to the nations’ problems are clear or not.

While both men and women are relatively divided on this question, women are 6 percentage points more likely to think the big issues facing the country don’t have clear solutions.

Race and ethnicity

While 43% of Hispanic adults and about half of Black (50%) and White (48%) adults say there aren’t clear solutions for most big issues, that rises to 62% among Asian adults.

Age differences on this question are modest, but those under 30 are slightly more likely than those 30 and older to say most big issues have clear solutions.

Partisanship and political engagement

Both Republicans and Democrats are relatively split on this question, though Republicans are slightly more likely to say there are clear solutions to most big issues.

Those with higher levels of political engagement are more likely to say there are clear solutions to most big issues facing the country.

About six-in-ten adults with high levels of political engagement (61%) say there are clear solutions to big issues today, compared with half of those with medium levels of engagement and 41% of those with lower engagement.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Election 2024
• Election System & Voting Process
• Federal Government
• National Conditions
• Political Animosity
• Political Discourse
• Political Parties
• Political Polarization
• State & Local Government
• Trust in Government
• Trust, Facts & Democracy

In GOP Contest, Trump Supporters Stand Out for Dislike of Compromise

What americans know about their government, congress has long struggled to pass spending bills on time, how the gop won the turnout battle and a narrow victory in last year’s midterms, narrow majorities in u.s. house have become more common but haven’t always led to gridlock, most popular, report materials.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

The independent source for health policy research, polling, and news.

Addressing the Opioid Crisis: A Look at the Evolving Landscape of Federal OUD Treatment Policies

Heather Saunders and Nirmita Panchal Published: Jul 11, 2023

Opioid overdose deaths, primarily driven by fentanyl, have surged during the pandemic, exposing significant gaps in access to and availability of treatment. From 2016 to 2021, opioid overdose deaths nearly doubled, from 42,249 to 80,411 . By 2021, these deaths accounted for 75% of all fatal drug overdoses, up from 66% in 2016. Rises in overdose deaths have been particularly sharp among people of color and young people . Policy efforts have focused on enhancing access to medications for Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) treatment, which can substantially reduce overdose and mortality rates. Yet, approximately 75% of people with OUD do not receive the recommended treatment, and treatment rates are generally lower among people of color and adolescents .

Currently, three medications are approved for OUD treatment : methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone. Buprenorphine and methadone, both controlled substances, have unique administration requirements. Buprenorphine can be prescribed and picked up from a pharmacy, while methadone must be dispensed through licensed opioid treatment programs.

Federal policies governing substance use disorder treatment have undergone rapid changes during the pandemic; however, the extent to which these changes can address the surge in opioid overdose deaths is unclear. Some of these policy adjustments are permanent, while others could revert to pre-pandemic regulations. In this brief, we examine the following 5 key federal policies and implications for access and treatment for OUD:

• Access to buprenorphine medication via telehealth
• Changes to dispensing methadone
• Changes to provider regulations for the prescribing of buprenorphine
• Changes in access to opioid overdose prevention and reversal methods
• Guidance to leverage Medicaid for pre- and post-release from prison access to OUD treatment services

1. Access to Buprenorphine Medication via Telehealth

In response to the pandemic, it became possible to initiate buprenorphine treatment via telehealth without the necessity of an in-person visit, resulting in a shift in access. This modification was largely due to the temporary relaxation of provisions within the Ryan Haight Act of 2008 . Ordinarily, this act mandates an in-person visit prior to the prescription of controlled substances, although exceptions are permitted during a Public Health Emergency (PHE). Given the PHE declaration, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was able to suspend in-person visit requirements, thereby improving treatment accessibility to prescriptions for controlled substances like buprenorphine over telehealth.

The DEA temporarily extended pandemic-era telehealth flexibility in response to public feedback and concerns over OUD treatment access. Initially, the DEA proposed two rules which would reinstate many aspects of the pre-pandemic telehealth regulations, including generally requiring an initial in-person visit for some controlled substance prescriptions, with some exceptions. One of the proposals included a modification for buprenorphine, requiring an in-person consultation with a provider within 30 days of prescription. However, the proposed rules were met with resistance , including concerns about potential disruptions in treatment access. In response, the DEA and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) opted to temporarily continue the flexible telehealth policies established during the pandemic, an interim decision that allows the DEA time to balance the potential effects of the proposed regulations on healthcare accessibility against its concerns about diversion.

In 2022, buprenorphine dispensing grew by 24% compared to pre-pandemic levels in 2019 but it is unclear whether steps to improve access to buprenorphine are reaching people of color (Figure 1). This upward trend, already in motion before the pandemic due to various policies and/or increases in underlying treatment demand, continued through the pandemic, despite other pandemic-related barriers that resulted in declining health care utilization. Preliminary studies show that telehealth boosted access and retention in care without raising the risk of buprenorphine-related overdoses . Despite these access improvements, it is unclear whether buprenorphine access has improved among communities of color. Prior to the pandemic, research found that compared to White people, Black and Hispanic people have limited access to buprenorphine . The uptake of medication-assisted treatment services has also remained low among American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) people . AIAN and Black communities experienced the highest rates of opioid overdose deaths in 2021 ( 38.7 and 33.5 per 100,000 , respectively) compared to all other racial and ethnic groups. Separately, although telehealth may improve treatment accessibility, barriers remain for many individuals, including limited access to broadband, digital literacy issues, and affordability.

2. Changes to Dispensing Methadone

Methadone dispensing for opioid use disorder treatment is tightly regulated and can only occur through federally and state regulated facilities known as Opioid Treatment Programs ( OTPs ). However, only 5% of zip code tabulation areas have an OTP, potentially limiting their reach. Further, traditionally, methadone was dispensed on-site at OTPs, requiring patients to make daily clinic visits that posed challenges for their work and childcare responsibilities. Consequently, individuals who live far from an OTP or faced other obstacles may be unable to access this treatment option, despite the potential benefits of methadone treatment .

During the pandemic, a temporary policy allowed OTPs to provide some patients with up to 28 days of take-home doses of methadone, a change that may become permanent under a proposed rule. Research suggests this shift eased the burden for patients and may have increased access to treatment for those living farther from OTPs. Though there were increases in methadone-related overdoses during the pandemic, they coincided with overall increases in overdoses, making it unclear whether pandemic-era policy changes contributed to this trend. A recent study found that methadone-related overdose deaths have decreased among Black and Hispanic men since 2020, suggesting that the policy shift has benefited certain populations. SAMHSA has proposed a rule to make these extended take-home flexibilities permanent. While SAMHSA considers feedback and evaluates the pros and cons, the COVID-era policies will remain in effect until a year after the public health emergency concludes or the final rule is published.

A DEA rule finalized in 2021 authorizes OTPs to add mobile components to expand their reach—but so far uptake has been limited. These mobile units operate as extensions of accredited OTPs and are designed to provide methadone treatments to areas where it’s needed most. Despite the potential benefits, the adoption of this initiative has been somewhat limited with 27 mobile treatment programs registered across 13 states. These mobile treatment components aim to mitigate transportation or other logistical challenges by bringing the treatment directly to those in need. They can travel to rural regions or areas experiencing high rates of overdoses to administer methadone, buprenorphine, or other treatments for opioid use disorders. DEA regulations require these mobile units to return to their associated OTP at the end of each day. Although these mobile components are not required to undergo a separate DEA registration process, they must secure approval from the DEA before commencing operations. OTP decisions about whether to expand through mobile components may also be influenced by implementation costs or state regulations . For example, some states place strict requirements on dosing or require that all patients have a government ID to access OTP treatment.

3. Changes to Provider Regulations for the Prescribing of Buprenorphine

Recent legislation vastly increases the potential OUD workforce by allowing providers with a DEA registration to prescribe buprenorphine, a key medication used to treat OUD. Previously, providers had to navigate numerous administrative steps and training to obtain an X-waiver, which granted them authorization to prescribe buprenorphine to treat OUD. However, through a series of legislative efforts, these requirements have gradually been reduced over time. Most recently, legislation passed as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA) completely eliminated the X-waiver requirement in response to calls for policy change and the ongoing opioid epidemic. As a result, all prescribers with a current DEA registration that includes Schedule III authority can now prescribe buprenorphine for an OUD treatment, in accordance with state laws.

While the removal of the X-waiver increases the number of providers allowed to prescribe buprenorphine without additional administrative steps, it is unclear how many will use the new authority and whether populations with high needs – including communities of color – will be reached. Along with increasing the number of providers authorized to prescribe buprenorphine (figure 3), the removal of the X-waiver also eliminates limits on the number of patients providers were able to treat. However, even among providers who obtained an X-waiver, a substantial share may only prescribe to a handful of patients, if any. There are many reasons behind this, including skepticism about using medication for opioid use disorder treatment, lack of time , insufficient reimbursement rates, perceived scarcity of professional or mental health support , and apprehension over medication diversion or amplified DEA monitoring . While buprenorphine treatment capacity has grown over time, research suggests that even as restrictions for buprenorphine prescribing were relaxed during the pandemic, growth in obtaining X-waivers slowed, particularly among physicians. In recent years, advanced practice nurses have largely contributed to growth in buprenorphine treatment capacity; however, in many states they are restricted by required physician oversight. It may not be possible to increase the number of providers who can prescribe buprenorphine without addressing these issues and other systemic issues, such as inconsistent access to buprenorphine in pharmacies . Research also suggests that increasing OUD treatment prescribers has not addressed longstanding issues of inequitable buprenorphine distribution across racial and ethnic groups. The lack of a diverse mental health care workforce and culturally informed care may further contribute to treatment barriers among communities of color.

A one-time eight-hour training on SUD treatment and management is required for most DEA-registered providers, which may increase provider knowledge or willingness to treat OUD. Prior research has shown that most providers have received limited training in SUD treatment, which may contribute to hesitation in treating OUD. A study examining state policies related to buprenorphine prescribing found that states with additional training requirements for providers have higher rates of buprenorphine prescribing, suggesting that provider training and education may be linked to increased access to buprenorphine treatment. The CAA included legislation mandating this SUD training for all DEA-registered providers , exempting some with qualifying prior SUD training. This increase in providers who will have SUD training is parallel to the number of prescribers who are newly eligible to prescribe buprenorphine following the elimination of the X-waiver requirement.

4. Changes in Access to Opioid Overdose Prevention and Reversal Methods

Illicit fentanyl, known for its higher potency and increased risk of overdose, has become pervasive in various drug supplies. The primary driver of fatalities is illegally produced fentanyl, which can be lethal to both those who intend to use it and those who consume fentanyl-contaminated products unknowingly. This trend extends to those seeking illicitly manufactured pain pills or drugs like cocaine, putting them at risk of fentanyl-induced overdoses. Consequently, the demand for harm reduction measures such as fentanyl test strips and naloxone has risen. Fentanyl test strips allow people who use drugs to identify trace amounts of fentanyl and naloxone can reverse an opioid overdose. However, these resources can be expensive and challenging to obtain.

The FDA’s recent approval of over-the-counter naloxone –a nasal spray to reverse opioid overdose–allows purchase of this life-saving drug without a prescription. Naloxone is recommended for individuals with opioid use disorder or at increased risk of overdose, including people prescribed high doses of opioids for pain, and their friends/family . Soon, over-the-counter naloxone will be available. However, its roughly $50 price may be unaffordable for many, particularly if insurers do not cover these costs or if the process to receive reimbursement is too complex. Even when naloxone is covered by insurance, out of pocket costs can be a financial barrier that prevents access. Further, some research suggests that compared to White people, Black people have limited access to naloxone.

Federal funds under certain grant programs can now pay for fentanyl test strips , which can help determine if drugs have been mixed with fentanyl and provide users with crucial risk information. However, the accessibility of these test strips remains limited. They can sometimes be obtained from social service organizations and health departments . Yet, challenges around ease of access likely remain, especially if the limited organizations distributing fentanyl test strips enforce quantity limits. Additionally, the legality of fentanyl test strips varies across states. As of April 2022, possession of these test strips is illegal in 25 states due to laws considering them drug paraphernalia . However, some states are working to change these laws.

5. Guidance to Leverage Medicaid for Pre- and Post-Release from Prison Access to OUD Treatment Services

After being released from prison, the risk of overdose and death is notably higher, with opioid overdose being a primary cause of mortality. According to a study conducted in Oregon , the risk of opioid overdose after release is 10 times higher compared to the general public. Further, it is estimated that 65% of inmates have a SUD, which is considerably higher than the general prevalence of 18% . In states that expanded Medicaid, most individuals recently released from prison meet income and eligibility requirements for Medicaid coverage. However, there may be delays in enrollment or difficulty connecting to health services. This can lead to gaps in medication or health care, increased ED utilization , and a worsening of existing health conditions. Federal Medicaid law prohibits federal dollars from paying for health care services of inmates in most cases due to a policy known as the Medicaid Inmate Exclusion Policy .

Recent demonstration opportunities under section 1115 allow Medicaid programs to cover pre-release services–including SUD treatment–and transitional supports. States that submit a waiver request for this opportunity must cover medication-assisted treatment, but it is not required to include all three FDA-approved medications for treating OUD —buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone. In January 2023, CMS  approved  California’s Section 1115 request to cover a package of reentry services for certain groups of incarcerated individuals 90 days prior to release, marking the first approval of a partial waiver of the Medicaid inmate exclusion policy .

As of June 2023, 14 states have submitted section 1115 waivers seeking exemption from the inmate exclusion policy (Figure 4). These pending waivers differ in eligibility requirements, duration of pre-release services, and comprehensiveness of benefits. Given that states submitted these waivers prior to the guidance it is expected that there may be changes prior to approval to come into compliance with the requirements outlined in the guidance.

Looking Ahead

As federal policies evolve, so does the opioid crisis. Illegally produced fentanyl is now responsible for most overdose deaths, and emerging threats like Xylazine —an veterinary tranquilizer—mixed with fentanyl, further complicates the response to the epidemic and escalates the risk of fatal overdoses. Preliminary data from 2022 finds that opioid overdose deaths remain elevated in the U.S., signaling that there are still significant gaps in access to care. While some recent federal policy changes are permanent, others are subject to change as federal rules are finalized. Though new and proposed federal policies have the potential to increase access to care, ongoing challenges, such as behavioral health workforce shortages , low prescribing of buprenorphine by providers, and treatment gaps by race/ethnicity , could limit the effectiveness of new federal strategies.

The impact of federal efforts may be hampered by resource limitations or state laws. For instance, while OTPs could expand their reach through mobile units, the upfront resource demands might be too burdensome for some programs. Similarly, despite federal funding allowed for fentanyl test strips for some grantees – a potential overdose reduction measure – their accessibility remains limited or illegal in many states due to their classification as drug paraphernalia.

Federal lawmakers are considering the extension or introduction of new strategies to combat the opioid epidemic. Discussions are ongoing regarding whether to extend or permanently classify fentanyl analogs as top-tier controlled substances, affecting penalties for illegal possession and distribution. Congress is engaged in discussions to reauthorize the 2018 SUPPORT Act , addressing the opioid crisis, including funding extensions and proposals for new provisions. Further, federal directives for a public education campaign seek to heighten and spread awareness of the more potent illicit fentanyl which has spread in various drug supplies across the U.S.

States are simultaneously addressing the opioid epidemic through innovative strategies and are debating the best use of recent opioid settlement funds . State Medicaid programs – which have improved access to behavioral health services in recent years through increasing coverage of SUD services , SUD-focused section 1115 waivers , telehealth expansions , and efforts to expand workforce – are now interpreting new federal guidance on justice re-entry focused 1115 waivers . These waivers can allow states to facilitate the provision of OUD services prior to release from incarceration. Yet, the recent resumption of Medicaid renewals following a three-year pandemic halt—termed ‘Medicaid unwinding’ — has already led to many individuals losing coverage, primarily due to procedural rather than eligibility reasons. Coverage loss could disrupt OUD treatment, heightening overdose risks, especially during the fentanyl crisis . As awareness and focus on the changing opioid epidemic increases, our understanding of the most effective policies and remaining gaps in access to care and overdose prevention will continue to evolve.

• Mental Health

news release

• New KFF Analysis Examines Rapidly Evolving Federal Policies For Substance Use Disorder Treatment for the Opioid Epidemic  

Also of Interest

• State Approaches to Addressing the Opioid Epidemic: Findings from a Survey of State Medicaid Programs
• A Look at Changes in Opioid Prescribing Patterns in Medicaid from 2016 to 2019
• SUD Treatment in Medicaid: Variation by Service Type, Demographics, States and Spending