Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37220478›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental evidence2023

Environmental evidence in action: on the science and practice of evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision-making.

Steven J Cooke, Carly N Cook, Vivian M Nguyen, Jessica C Walsh, Nathan Young, Christopher Cvitanovic, Matthew J Grainger, Nicola P Randall, Matt Muir, Andrew N Kadykalo and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental evidence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Steven J CookeCanadian Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6 Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-5407-0659
Carly N CookSchool of Biological Sciences, Monash University, 25 Rainforest Walk, Clayton, VIC 3800 Australia.
Vivian M NguyenCanadian Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6 Canada.
Jessica C WalshSchool of Biological Sciences, Monash University, 25 Rainforest Walk, Clayton, VIC 3800 Australia.
Nathan YoungSchool of Sociological and Anthropological Studies, University of Ottawa, 20 University Private, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5 Canada.
Christopher CvitanovicSchool of Business, University of New South Wales, Canberra, ACT 2612 Australia.
Matthew J GraingerNorwegian Institute for Nature Research-NINA, Torgarden, 5685, 7485 Trondheim, Norway.
Nicola P RandallCentre for Evidence Based Agriculture, Harper Adams University, Newport, Shropshire, TF10 8NB UK.
Matt MuirU.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 USA.
Andrew N KadykaloDepartment of Natural Resource Sciences, McGill University, 111 Lakeshore Blvd, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC H9X 3V9 Canada.
Kathryn A MonkDepartment of Biosciences, Swansea University, Swansea, SA2 8PP UK.
Andrew S PullinSchool of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, LL57 2DG UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In civil society we expect that policy and management decisions will be made using the best available evidence. Yet, it is widely known that there are many barriers that limit the extent to which that occurs. One way to overcome these barriers is via robust, comprehensive, transparent and repeatable evidence syntheses (such as systematic reviews) that attempt to minimize various forms of bias to present a summary of existing knowledge for decision-making purposes. Relative to other disciplines (e.g., health care, education), such evidence-based decision-making remains relatively nascent for environment management despite major threats to humanity, such as the climate, pollution and biodiversity crises demonstrating that human well-being is inextricably linked to the biophysical environment. Fortunately, there are a growing number of environmental evidence syntheses being produced that can be used by decision makers. It is therefore an opportune time to reflect on the science and practice of evidence-based decision-making in environment management to understand the extent to which evidence syntheses are embraced and applied in practice. Here we outline a number of key questions related to the use of environmental evidence that need to be explored in an effort to enhance evidence-based decision-making. There is an urgent need for research involving methods from social science, behavioural sciences, and public policy to understand the basis for patterns and trends in environmental evidence use (or misuse or ignorance). There is also a need for those who commission and produce evidence syntheses, as well as the end users of these syntheses to reflect on their experiences and share them with the broader evidence-based practice community to identify needs and opportunities for advancing the entire process of evidence-based practice. It is our hope that the ideas shared here will serve as a roadmap for additional scholarship that will collectively enhance evidence-based decision-making and ultimately benefit the environment and humanity.

Indexed as

EvidenceImplementation sciencePolicyPracticeSynthesis

Identifiers

PMID37220478
PMCPMC10191815

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.