Over-simplifying evidence synthesis? A response toCook et al., 2017

Biological Conservation

Volumn 218, Issue , 2018, Pages 289-290

  Haddaway, Neal R ^a   Dicks, Lynn V ^b  

^a STOCKHOLM ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85034591042     PISSN: 00063207     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.11.003     Document Type: Letter

References (11)

1. Cook, C.N., Nichols, S.J., Webb, J.A., Fuller, R.A., Richards, R.M., Simplifying the selection of evidence synthesis methods to inform environmental decisions: a guide for decision makers and scientists. Biol. Conserv. 213 (2017), 135–145.
2. Dicks, L.V., Wright, H.L., Ashpole, J.E., Hutchison, J., McCormack, C.G., Livoreil, B., Zulka, K.P., Sutherland, W.J., Wittmer, H., What works in conservation? Using expert assessment of summarised evidence to identify practices that enhance natural pest control in agriculture. Biodivers. Conserv. 25:7 (2016), 1383–1399.
3. Dicks, L.V., Haddaway, N.R., Hernández-Morcillo, M., Mattsson, B., Randall, N.P., Failler, P., Ferretti, J., Livoreil, B., Saarikoski, H., Santamaria, L., Rodela, R., Wittmer, H., Knowledge Synthesis for Environmental Decisions: An Evaluation of Existing Methods, and Guidance for Their Selection, Use and Development—A Report From the EKLIPSE Project. Eklipse D3.1, Version 1.0. 2017.
4. James, K.L., Randall, N.P., Haddaway, N.R., A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environ. Evid., 5(1), 2016, 7.
5. McKinnon, M.C., Cheng, S.H., Dupre, S., Edmond, J., Garside, R., Glew, L., Holland, M.B., Levine, E., Masuda, Y.J., Miller, D.C., Oliveira, I., What are the effects of nature conservation on human well-being? A systematic map of empirical evidence from developing countries. Environ. Evid., 5(1), 2016, 8.
6. O'Mara-Eves, A., Thomas, J., Ongoing developments in meta-analytic and quantitative synthesis methods: broadening the types of research questions that can be addressed. Rev. Educ. 4:1 (2016), 5–27.
7. Pullin, A., Frampton, G., Jongman, R., Kohl, C., Livoreil, B., Lux, A., Pataki, G., Petrokofsky, G., Podhora, A., Saarikoski, H., Santamaria, L., Wittmer, H., Selecting appropriate methods of knowledge synthesis to inform biodiversity policy. Biodivers. Conserv. 25:7 (2016), 1285–1300.
8. Raymond, C.M., et al. A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environ. Sci. Pol. 77:Supplement C (2017), 15–24.
9. Seers, K., What is a qualitative synthesis?. Evid Based Nurs, 15(4), 2012, 101.
10. Tengö, M., Brondizio, E.S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., Spierenburg, M., Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 43:5 (2014), 579–591.
11. Tricco, A.C., Antony, J., Zarin, W., Strifler, L., Ghassemi, M., Ivory, J., Perrier, L., Hutton, B., Moher, D., Straus, S.E., A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med., 13(1), 2015, 224.