Literature DB >> 27755765

An evidence assessment tool for ecosystem services and conservation studies.

Anne-Christine Mupepele1, Jessica C Walsh2, William J Sutherland2, Carsten F Dormann1.   

Abstract

Reliability of scientific findings is important, especially if they directly impact decision making, such as in environmental management. In the 1990s, assessments of reliability in the medical field resulted in the development of evidence-based practice. Ten years later, evidence-based practice was translated into conservation, but so far no guidelines exist on how to assess the evidence of individual studies. Assessing the evidence of individual studies is essential to appropriately identify and synthesize the confidence in research findings. We develop a tool to assess the strength of evidence of ecosystem services and conservation studies. This tool consists of (1) a hierarchy of evidence, based on the experimental design of studies and (2) a critical-appraisal checklist that identifies the quality of research implementation. The application is illustrated with 13 examples and we suggest further steps to move towards more evidence-based environmental management.
© 2016 by the Ecological Society of America.

Keywords:  governance; quality checklist; quantification; rigour; valuation

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27755765     DOI: 10.1890/15-0595

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecol Appl        ISSN: 1051-0761            Impact factor:   4.657


  7 in total

1.  Reply to: "Research on agroforestry systems and biodiversity conservation: what can we conclude so far and what should we improve?" by Boinot et al. 2022.

Authors:  Anne-Christine Mupepele; Carsten F Dormann
Journal:  BMC Ecol Evol       Date:  2022-05-18

2.  Evidence-Based Causal Chains for Linking Health, Development, and Conservation Actions.

Authors:  Jiangxiao Qiu; Edward T Game; Heather Tallis; Lydia P Olander; Louise Glew; James S Kagan; Elizabeth L Kalies; Drew Michanowicz; Jennifer Phelan; Stephen Polasky; James Reed; Erin O Sills; Dean Urban; Sarah Kate Weaver
Journal:  Bioscience       Date:  2018-02-21       Impact factor: 8.589

Review 3.  Standards for distribution models in biodiversity assessments.

Authors:  Miguel B Araújo; Robert P Anderson; A Márcia Barbosa; Colin M Beale; Carsten F Dormann; Regan Early; Raquel A Garcia; Antoine Guisan; Luigi Maiorano; Babak Naimi; Robert B O'Hara; Niklaus E Zimmermann; Carsten Rahbek
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2019-01-16       Impact factor: 14.136

4.  Response of chlorophyll a to total nitrogen and total phosphorus concentrations in lotic ecosystems: a systematic review protocol.

Authors:  Micah G Bennett; Kate A Schofield; Sylvia S Lee; Susan B Norton
Journal:  Environ Evid       Date:  2017

5.  The Hierarchy-of-Hypotheses Approach: A Synthesis Method for Enhancing Theory Development in Ecology and Evolution.

Authors:  Tina Heger; Carlos A Aguilar-Trigueros; Isabelle Bartram; Raul Rennó Braga; Gregory P Dietl; Martin Enders; David J Gibson; Lorena Gómez-Aparicio; Pierre Gras; Kurt Jax; Sophie Lokatis; Christopher J Lortie; Anne-Christine Mupepele; Stefan Schindler; Jostein Starrfelt; Alexis D Synodinos; Jonathan M Jeschke
Journal:  Bioscience       Date:  2020-12-02       Impact factor: 8.589

Review 6.  European agroforestry has no unequivocal effect on biodiversity: a time-cumulative meta-analysis.

Authors:  Anne-Christine Mupepele; Matteo Keller; Carsten F Dormann
Journal:  BMC Ecol Evol       Date:  2021-10-23

Review 7.  Linking the nonmaterial dimensions of human-nature relations and human well-being through cultural ecosystem services.

Authors:  Lam Thi Mai Huynh; Alexandros Gasparatos; Jie Su; Rodolfo Dam Lam; Ezekiel I Grant; Kensuke Fukushi
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2022-08-05       Impact factor: 14.957

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.