Linking reductionist science and holistic policy using systematic reviews: unpacking environmental policy questions to construct an evidence‐based framework
Abstract
1. There is a mismatch between broad holistic questions typically posed in policy formation and narrow reductionist questions that are susceptible to scientific method. This inhibits the two-way flow of information at the science-policy interface and weakens the impact of applied ecology on environmental policy. 2. We investigate the approaches to building policy in the health services as a model to help establish a framework in applied ecology and environmental management by which reductionist science can underpin decision making at the policy level. 3. A comparison of policy documents in the health and environmental sectors reveals many similarities in identifying approaches and specific interventions that might achieve policy objectives. The difference is that in the health services, information on the effectiveness of potential interventions is far more readily available through the collaborative process of systematic review. 4.Synthesis and applications. Decision makers are increasingly looking to produce policies that are shaped by evidence through evidence-based policy making. The approach that we outline here provides a framework for structuring systematic reviews to deliver the evidence on key policy issues in a way that will see a faster return and provide better use of the systematic review methodology in environmental management.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There is a burgeoning effort to bring systematic, evidence-based reviews of the literature to the environmental sciences to support policy making.
“There is a burgeoning effort to bring systematic, evidence-based reviews of the literature to the environmental sciences to support policy making (Pullin et al. 2009).”
From Evidence‐based evaluation of the cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration (2016) · cites this paper as Pullin et al. 2009
Cites
Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change
Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R. A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., Tokgoz, S., Hayes, D., & Yu, T.-H. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1151861 · Cited by 4,888 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The top 100 questions of importance to the future of global agriculture
Pretty, J., Sutherland, W. J., Ashby, J., Auburn, J., Baulcombe, D., Bell, M., Bentley, J., Bickersteth, S., Brown, K., Burke, J., et al. (2010) · International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability · doi:10.3763/ijas.2010.0534 · Cited by 539 · see citing works
Analyzing cause and effect in environmental assessments: using weighted evidence from the literature
Norris, R. H., Webb, J. A., Nichols, S. J., Stewardson, M. J., & Harrison, E. T. (2012) · Freshwater Science · doi:10.1899/11-027.1 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
What are the impacts of sugarcane production on ecosystem services and human well-being? A review
El Chami, D., Daccache, A., & El Moujabber, M. (2020) · Annals of Agricultural Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.aoas.2020.10.001 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Evidence‐based evaluation of the cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration
Diefenderfer, H. L., Johnson, G. E., Thom, R. M., Buenau, K. E., Weitkamp, L. A., Woodley, C. M., Borde, A. B., & Kropp, R. K. (2016) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1002/ecs2.1242 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
- Authors
- Pullin, A. S., Knight, T. M., & Watkinson, A. R.
- Affiliations
- Bangor University (GB)
- University of East Anglia (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Pullin, Andrew S.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-10
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 970-975
- ISSN
- 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2664
- OpenAlex
- W2099984717
- Cited by
- 104
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 0.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Applied Ecology (publishedVersion)
- UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- United Nations Development Programme
- Natural England
- Natural Environment Research Council (NE/G000204/1)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental and Social Impact Assessments
- Keywords
- science-policy interface, evidence-based policy, environmental policy, applied ecology, systematic reviews, health services policy, environmental management, policy effectiveness
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review