Literature DB >> 17181800

Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management.

Andrew S Pullin1, Gavin B Stewart.   

Abstract

An increasing number of applied disciplines are utilizing evidence-based frameworks to review and disseminate the effectiveness of management and policy interventions. The rationale is that increased accessibility of the best available evidence will provide a more efficient and less biased platform for decision making. We argue that there are significant benefits for conservation in using such a framework, but the scientific community needs to undertake and disseminate more systematic reviews before the full benefit can be realized. We devised a set of guidelines for undertaking formalized systematic review, based on a health services model. The guideline stages include planning and conducting a review, including protocol formation, search strategy, data inclusion, data extraction, and analysis. Review dissemination is addressed in terms of current developments and future plans for a Web-based open-access library. By the use of case studies we highlight critical modifications to guidelines for protocol formulation, data-quality assessment, data extraction, and data synthesis for conservation and environmental management. Ecological data presented significant but soluble challenges for the systematic review process, particularly in terms of the quantity, accessibility, and diverse quality of available data. In the field of conservation and environmental management there needs to be further engagement of scientists and practitioners to develop and take ownership of an evidence-based framework.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17181800     DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00485.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  58 in total

1.  Assessing the impacts of livestock production on biodiversity in rangeland ecosystems.

Authors:  Rob Alkemade; Robin S Reid; Maurits van den Berg; Jan de Leeuw; Michel Jeuken
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-01-23       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  The effectiveness of asulam for bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) control in the United Kingdom: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Gavin B Stewart; Andrew S Pullin; Claire Tyler
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2007-09-28       Impact factor: 3.266

Review 3.  Even-aged and uneven-aged forest management in boreal Fennoscandia: a review.

Authors:  Timo Kuuluvainen; Olli Tahvonen; Tuomas Aakala
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2012-05-12       Impact factor: 5.129

4.  Improving technical information use: what can be learnt from a manager's perspective?

Authors:  C Jacobson; A Lisle; R W Carter; M T Hockings
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2013-06-01       Impact factor: 3.266

5.  Rate dynamics of ectotherm responses to thermal stress.

Authors:  Aleksandra Kovacevic; Guillaume Latombe; Steven L Chown
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2019-05-15       Impact factor: 5.349

6.  Maximizing legacy and impact of primary research: a call for better reporting of results.

Authors:  Neal R Haddaway
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2014-05-29       Impact factor: 5.129

7.  High plant diversity and slow assembly of old-growth grasslands.

Authors:  Ashish N Nerlekar; Joseph W Veldman
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2020-07-16       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 8.  Searching for sustainability: are assessments of wildlife harvests behind the times?

Authors:  Karen Z Weinbaum; Justin S Brashares; Christopher D Golden; Wayne M Getz
Journal:  Ecol Lett       Date:  2012-10-15       Impact factor: 9.492

Review 9.  A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments.

Authors:  Diana E Bowler; Lisette M Buyung-Ali; Teri M Knight; Andrew S Pullin
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2010-08-04       Impact factor: 3.295

10.  Carbon pools recover more quickly than plant biodiversity in tropical secondary forests.

Authors:  Philip A Martin; Adrian C Newton; James M Bullock
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2013-11-06       Impact factor: 5.349

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.