Mistra EviEM Approach to Evidence Synthesis. Science Advisory Mechanism Brussels 18 th May 2017 Sif Johansson and Neal Haddaway

Transcription

1 Mistra EviEM Approach to Evidence Synthesis Science Advisory Mechanism Brussels 18 th May 2017 Sif Johansson and Neal Haddaway

2 Overview Who we are and what we do (Sif Johansson) Our work with decision-makers (Sif Johansson) The Knowledge Project (Sif Johansson) Our review methods (Neal Haddaway) Systematic reviews Systematic maps Networks (Neal Haddaway)

3 We aim for environmental management to be placed on a scientific foundation. Through systematic reviews and maps of various environmental issues, we aim to improve the basis for decisions in environmental policy. Financed by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research Financially and politically independent Executive committee Swedish CEE-centre since 2013 Hosted by Stockholm Environment Institute since 2016

4

5 Example of a question to review Can biomanipulation improve water quality in eutrophicated lakes? EU Water Framework Directive

6

7 Communication Publication of protocol and review in Environmental Evidence Publication of review, summary, fact sheet, and video on the EviEM web site Wetland Day arranged with the Swedish Board of Agriculture, Swedish Agricultural Society and the Wetland Research Center at Halmstad University Presentations at Annual Water Forum Articles in popular and daily press

8 EviEM Comments Brief summary and comments on published systematic reiews of relevance for Swedish environmental Management EviEM Evidence Overview Survey of avaiable knowledge at a specific topic.

9 The Knowledge Project - a report on knowledge gaps in the work towards Sweden's environmental objectives What new knowledge or research is needed to reach national and international environmental goals? - Letters and interviews => about 300 questions - Grouped after the Swedish Environmental Objectives - A workshop with stakeholders, social researcher and scientists - Prioritation of the top ten before the workshop by each ws participant - Additional prioritation during the workshop

10

11 Stakeholders How should we handle conflicts between environmental objectives and between environmental objectives and other goals in society? Social scientists Which urban planning measures and instruments can be used to influence peoples behavior related to transport? How can people get engaged in environmental work? Science researcher What is the future of environmental pollution? Which green (blue) infrastructure is essential for the conservation of species / functions?

12 I. How is the environment affected by combinations of toxic substances? How II. is What the is environment the significance of affected groundwater by as combinations a carrier for pollution? of toxic substances? III. What effects does recycling have on the spreading of environmental pollutants in the environment? IV. How should the forest be managed to combine effective forestry and conservation of the forest landscape's biodiversity and genetic diversity? V. How does large-scale climate change affect ecosystem biodiversity and production, directly or in combination with other changes such as landscape changes and environmental pollution, and what impact does interrelationship between trophy levels have on ecosystem stability and resilience? and VI. environmental How does urban environment commitment? affect people's well-being, health and environmental commitment? VII. How does the use of marine resources affect the aquatic food webs? VIII. How should monitoring and risk analysis of invasive species be designed? IX. How can we handle conflicts between different societal goals? X. How can we develop effective instruments? XI. How does market practice affect development towards sustainable production and consumption? XII. How can we increase commitments to environmental and natural topics? How does urban environment affect people's well-being, health How should monitoring and risk analysis of invasive species be designed?

13 SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS

14 Why do we write reviews?

15 Traditional Reviews Selection bias Lack of comprehensiveness Publication bias No transparency Vote-counting/quality bias Discussion bias Evidence Base Haddaway, N. R., Woodcock, P., Macura, B., and Collins, A. (2015) Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews. Conservation Biology, DOI: /cobi

16 Systematic Review Initially developed in medicine in 1980s Now routinely used to summarise evidence Typically regarded as gold standard Translated into conservation in 2006 Widely used in other disciplines

17 Systematic Reviews Exhaustive searching Comprehensiveness Grey literature Transparent methods Weight studies Synthesis of all relevant studies Evidence Base

18 Question Formulation Protocol (peer-reviewed and published) Searching Article Screening Data Extraction Critical Appraisal Transparency Repeatability Objectivity Synthesis Final Review (peer-reviewed and published) Communication

19 What can be systematically reviewed? Quantitative GHG emissions from soils under different farming management Qualitative Effects of land protection on human wellbeing Both (mixed methods) Effectiveness of international development projects to improve alternative livelihoods

20 Commissioned by GEF Qualitative (elicited views) and quantitative (measured impacts) 13,248 search results (8 databases, 2 search engines, 33 organisational websites) 1,683 abstracts 210 full texts 79 included studies Population Global human population w/i or near PA Intervention/Eff ect Terrestrial PAs Comparator No PA (before PA or far from PA) Outcome Human wellbeing (access to markets, wildlife conflict )

21 Findings - poor evidence base poor quality variable, incomparable studies some high quality evidence of benefits qualitative findings not studied quantitatively Implications identified evidence gaps improvements to study design need for support in M&E

22

23 le SR Can biomanipulation improve water quality in eutrophicated lakes? 28,329 search results 14,552 articles 1,946 (after title screening) 551 (after abstract screening) 22 not found 231 (after full text screening) 29 studies excluded at CA 128 manipulations, 123 lakes

24 EviEM systematic reviews SR1. How is mountain vegetation affected by reindeer grazing? (Swedish EPA) SR2. How effective are wetlands for nitrogen and phosphorus removal? (Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management) SR3.Can biomanipulation improve water quality in eutrophicated lakes? (Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management) SR5. Have the phase-outs of PFASs affected concentrations in the environment? (Swedish Chemicals Agency) SR7 R7 How is fish recruitment affected by human disturbances in coastal areas? (Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management)

25 SYSTEMATIC MAPS

26 Systematic Maps Broader questions Aim to catalogue evidence What has been done and where? Do not estimate effect sizes Often iterative interventions/outcomes No full synthesis May involve some basic critical appraisal Interactive database

27 Example SM What are the effects of agricultural management on SOC? amendments (286) crop rotations (238) fertilisers (307) tillage (306) multiple (55)

28 What are the effects of agricultural management on SOC?

29 SR4. How do different farming methods affect the organic carbon content of arable soils? A systematic map. (Swedish Board of Agriculture) SR10 How does tillage intensity affect soil organic carbon (SOC)? SR11 Which agricultural management interventions are most influential on soil organic carbon (using time series data)? SR16 How do selected crop rotations affect soil organic carbon? SR6 How is biodiversity influenced by the management of forest set-asides? A systematic map. (Swedish Forest Agency) SR12 How does manipulation of dead wood affect forest biodiversity? SR13 How does grazing and browsing affect forest plants and invertebrates? SR15 How does prescribed burning in temperate and boreal forests affect biodiversity? sidfot 32

30 OUR NETWORKS

31 EviEM Network

32 The Collaboration for Environmental Evidence SRs developed in the Environmental Sciences Goal of CEE: to support the synthesis of evidence on issues of greatest concern to environmental policy and practice Coordinate registration, peer-review and publishing of SRs Sets standards (Guidelines) Coordinates training

33 CEE Centres 6 centres globally: UK, Sweden, South Africa, Australia, Canada, France Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation (CEBC), Bangor University ( Centre for Anthropological Research, University of Johannesburg ( Mistra Council for Evidence-Based Environmental Management (EviEM), Stockholm ( The Centre for Evidence Informed Policy and Practice (CEIPP), Australia ( Centre in Evidence-Based Conservation and Environmental Management, Carleton University ( Fondation pour la Recherche sur la Biodiversité (FRB), Paris (

34 ESS / Nordic Node ESS

35 ESI / GESI Our mission is to connect and support both the organizations and people that produce evidence syntheses around the world GESI aims to build capacity in evidence synthesis in Low & Middle-Income Countries (LMICs)

36 EKLIPSE

37 Thank you!