Cited by 104Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsEvaluation and Performance AssessmentEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments

Linking reductionist science and holistic policy using systematic reviews: unpacking environmental policy questions to construct an evidence‐based framework

Pullin, Andrew S., Knight, Teri M., Watkinson, Andrew R.·2009·Journal of Applied Ecology

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

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01704.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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