Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Access
  • Open access
  • Print publication year: 2020
  • Online publication date: April 2020

Chapter Seven - Informing conservation decisions through evidence synthesis and communication

from Part I - Identifying priorities and collating the evidence
  • View HTML
    • Send chapter to Kindle

      To send this chapter to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Available formats
      ×

      Send chapter to Dropbox

      To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Available formats
      ×

      Send chapter to Google Drive

      To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Available formats
      ×

Summary

The volume of evidence from scientific research and wider observation is greater than ever before, but much is inconsistent and scattered in fragments over increasingly diverse sources, making it hard for decision-makers to find, access and interpret all the relevant information on a particular topic, resolve seemingly contradictory results or simply identify where there is a lack of evidence. Evidence synthesis is the process of searching for and summarising a body of research on a specific topic in order to inform decisions, but is often poorly conducted and susceptible to bias. In response to these problems, more rigorous methodologies have been developed and subsequently made available to the conservation and environmental management community by the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. We explain when and why these methods are appropriate, and how evidence can be synthesised, shared, used as a public good and benefit wider society. We discuss new developments with potential to address barriers to evidence synthesis and communication and how these practices might be mainstreamed in the process of decision-making in conservation.

Ananiadou, S. S., Rea, B. B., Okazaki, N. N., et al. 2009. Supporting systematic reviews using text mining. Social Science Computer Review, 27, 509523. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439309332293
Bayliss, H. R. & Beyer, F. R. 2015. Information retrieval for ecological syntheses. Research Synthesis Methods, 6, 136148.
Bowler, D., Buyung-Ali, L., Healey, J. R., et al. 2010. The Evidence Base for Community Forest Management as a Mechanism for Supplying Global Environmental Benefits and Improving Local Welfare: A STAP Advisory Document. Washington, DC: Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel. Global Environment Facility.
Boyack, K. W. & Klavans, R. 2014. Creation of a highly detailed, dynamic, global model and map of science. Journal of The Association for Information Science and Technology, 65, 670685. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22990
Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. 2018. Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management. Version 5.0. Available from www.environmentalevidence.org/information-for-authors (accessed 8 March 2018).
Cook, C. N., Mascia, M. B., Schwartz, M. W., et al. 2013. Achieving conservation science that bridges the knowledge–action boundary. Conservation Biology, 27, 669678. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12050
Cooke, S. J., Gallagher, A. J., Sopinka, N. M., et al. 2017. Considerations for effective science communication. FACETS, 2, 233248. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2016–0055
Dicks, L. V., Walsh, J. C. & Sutherland, W. J. 2014. Organising evidence for environmental management decisions: a ‘4S’ hierarchy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 29, 607613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.09.004
Elliott, J. H., Turner, T., Clavisi, O., et al. 2014. Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence–practice gap. PLoS Medicine, 11, 16. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001603
Frantzi, K., Ananiadou, S. & Mima, H. 2000. Automatic recognition of multi-word terms: the C-value/NC-value method. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 3, 115130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007999900023
Garritty, C., Tsertsvadze, A., Tricco, A. C., et al. 2010. Updating systematic reviews: an international survey. PLoS ONE, 5, e9914. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009914
Grubert, E. & Siders, A. 2016. Benefits and applications of interdisciplinary digital tools for environmental meta-reviews and analyses. Environmental Research Letters, 11, 093001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748–9326/11/9/093001
Haddaway, N. R., Land, M. & Macura, B. 2016. ‘A little learning is a dangerous thing’: a call for better understanding of the term ‘systematic review’. Environment International, 99, 356360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.12.020
Haddaway, N. R. 2017. Response to ‘Collating science-based evidence to inform public opinion on the environmental effects of marine drilling platforms in the Mediterranean Sea’. Journal of Environmental Management, 203, 612614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.03.043
Haddaway, N. R. & Crowe, S. 2018. Experiences and lessons in stakeholder engagement in environmental evidence synthesis: a truly special series. Environmental Evidence, 7, art11.
Higgins, J. & Green, S. 2011. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1. Cochrane Collaboration. Available from http://handbook-5–1.cochrane.org (accessed 8 March 2018).
Ioannidis, J. P. A. 2016. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The Milbank Quarterly, 94, 485514. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468–0009.12210
Joppa, L. N. 2015. Technology for nature conservation: an industry perspective. Ambio, 44, 522526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-015–0702-4
Kløcker Larsen, R. & Nilsson, A.E. 2017. Knowledge production and environmental conflict: managing systematic reviews and maps for constructive outcome. Environmental Evidence, 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-017–0095-x
Kohl, C., McIntosh, E. J., Unger, S., et al. 2018. Online tools supporting the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and systematic maps: a case study on CADIMA and review of existing tools. Environmental Evidence, 7(8). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-018–0115-5
Koricheva, J. & Gurevitch, J. 2014. Uses and misuses of meta-analysis in plant ecology. Journal of Ecology, 102, 828844. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365–2745.12224
Land, M., Macura, B., Bernes, C., et al. 2017. A five-step approach for stakeholder engagement in prioritisation and planning of environmental evidence syntheses. Environmental Evidence, 6(25). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-017–0104-0
Leisher, C., Temsah, G., Booker, F., et al. 2016. Does the gender composition of forest and fishery management groups affect resource governance and conservation outcomes? A systematic map. Environmental Evidence, 5(6). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-016–0057-8
Li, W. & Zhao, Y. 2015. Bibliometric analysis of global environmental assessment research in a 20-year period. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 50, 158166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2014.09.012
Lowndes, J. S. S., Best, B. D., Scarborough, C., et al. 2017. Our path to better science in less time using open data science tools. Nature Ecology and Evolution, 1, 160. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017–0160
McKinnon, M. C., Cheng, S. H., Dupre, S., et al. 2016. What are the effects of nature conservation on human well-being? A systematic map of empirical evidence from developing countries. Environmental Evidence, 5(8).
McKinnon, M. C., Cheng, S., Dicks, L., et al. 2018 Seek higher standards to honestly assess conservation effectiveness. Mongabay. Available online on 17 April 2018.
O’Leary, B. C., Kvist, K., Bayliss, H. R., et al. 2016. The reliability of evidence reviews in environmental science and conservation. Environmental Science Policy, 64, 7582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.06.012
O’Mara-Eves, A., Thomas, J., McNaught, J., et al. 2015. Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches. Systematic Reviews, 4(5). https://doi.org/10.1186/2046–4053-4–5
Ojanen, M., Zhou, W., Miller, D. C., et al. 2017. What are the environmental impacts of property rights regimes in forests, fisheries and rangelands? Environmental Evidence, 6(12). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-017–0090-2
Oliver, S. & Dickson, K. 2016. Policy-relevant systematic reviews to strengthen health systems: models and mechanisms to support their production. Evidence and Policy, 12(2), 235259. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426415X14399963605641
Owens, S. 2000. ‘Engaging the public’: information and deliberation in environmental policy. Environment and Planning A, 32, 11411148. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3330
Plume, A. & van Weijen, D. 2014. Publish or perish? The rise of the fractional author …. Research Trends, 38. www.researchtrends.com/issue-38-september-2014/publish-or-perish-the-rise-of-the-fractional-author/ (accessed 12 December 2019).
Pullin, A. S., Knight, T. M., Stone, D. A., et al. 2004. Do conservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making? Biological Conservation, 119, 245252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2003.11.007
Pullin, A. S. & Stewart, G. B. 2006. Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology, 20, 16471656. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523–1739.2006.00485.x
Pullin, A. S. & Knight, T. M. 2009. Doing more good than harm: building an evidence-base for conservation and environmental management. Biological Conservation, 142, 931934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.01.010
Pussegoda, K., Turner, L., Garritty, C., et al. 2017. Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality. Systematic Reviews, 6(131). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017–0527-2
Roll, U., Correia, R. A. & Berger-Tal, O. 2018. Using machine learning to disentangle homonyms in large text corpora. Conservation Biology, 32, 716724. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13044
Salafsky, N. & Redford, K. 2013. Defining the burden of proof in conservation. Biological Conservation, 166, 247253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.07.002
Shemilt, I., Khan, N., Park, S., et al. 2016. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis to compare the efficiency of study identification methods in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5, 140. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016–0315-4
Snilstviet, B., Stevenson, J., Villar, P. F., et al. 2016. Land-use change and forestry programmes: evidence on the effects on greenhouse gas emissions and food security. www.3ieimpact.org/media/filer_public/2016/11/17/egm3-landuse-forest.pdf (accessed 8 March 2018).
Sundin, A., Andersson, K. & Watt, R. 2018. Rethinking communication: integrating storytelling for increased stakeholder engagement in environmental evidence synthesis. Environmental Evidence, 7(6). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-018–0116-4
Walsh, J. C., Dicks, L. V. & Sutherland, W. J. 2014. The effect of scientific evidence on conservation practitioners’ management decisions. Conservation Biology, 29, 8898. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12370
Ware, M. & Mabe, M. 2015. An overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, www.stm-assoc.org/2015_02_20_STM_Report_2015.pdf (accessed 8 March 2018).
Westgate, M. J., Barton, P. S, Pierson, J. C., et al. 2015. Text analysis tools for identification of emerging topics and research gaps in conservation science. Conservation Biology, 29, 16061614. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12605
Westgate, M. J. & Lindenmayer, D. B. 2017. The difficulties of systematic reviews. Conservation Biology, 31, 10021007. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12890
Wilson, M. J., Ramey, T. L., Donaldson, M. R., et al. 2016. Communicating science: sending the right message to the right audience. FACETS, 1(1), 127137. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2016–0015
Woodcock, P., Pullin, A. S. & Kaiser, M. J. 2014. Evaluating and improving the reliability of evidence in conservation and environmental science: a methodology. Biological Conservation, 176, 5462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.04.020
Woodcock, P., O’Leary, B. C., Kaiser, M. J., et al. 2017. Your evidence or mine? Systematic evaluation of reviews of marine protected area effectiveness. Fish and Fisheries, 18, 668–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12196
Young, N., Corriveau, M., Nguyen, V. M., et al. 2016. How do potential knowledge users evaluate new claims about a contested resource? Problems of power and politics in knowledge exchange and mobilization. Journal of Environmental Management, 184, 380388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.10.006