CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 113Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsEnvironmental and Social Impact AssessmentsEvaluation and Performance Assessment

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
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Sound decision making in environmental research and management requires an understanding of causal relationships between stressors and ecological responses. However, demonstrating cause–effect relationships in natural systems is challenging because of difficulties with natural variability, performing experiments, lack of replication, and the presence of confounding influences. Thus, even the best-designed study may not establish causality. We describe a method that uses evidence available in the extensive published ecological literature to assess support for cause–effect hypotheses in environmental investigations. Our method, called Eco Evidence, is a form of causal criteria analysis—a technique developed by epidemiologists in the 1960s—who faced similar difficulties in attributing causation. The Eco Evidence method is an 8-step process in which the user conducts a systematic review of the evidence for one or more cause–effect hypotheses to assess the level of support for an overall question. In contrast to causal criteria analyses in epidemiology, users of Eco Evidence use a subset of criteria most relevant to environmental investigations and weight each piece of evidence according to its study design. Stronger studies contribute more to the assessment of causality, but weaker evidence is not discarded. This feature is important because environmental evidence is often scarce. The outputs of the analysis are a guide to the strength of evidence for or against the cause–effect…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1899/11-027.1

Cites

61 of 61 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?

  • The evidence evaluation used rules adapted from Norris et al. (2012) and Greet et al. (2011) and a four-element conclusion framework from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

    “To evaluate the results, we applied rules adapted from Norris et al. (2012) and Greet et al. (2011), and adapted the four-element conclusion framework developed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as follows:”

    From Evidence‐based evaluation of the cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration (2016) · cites this paper as Norris et al. (2012)

  • Studies associated with different disciplines had selected various subsets of Hill's criteria.

    “Studies associated with different disciplines had selected various subsets of Hill's criteria, (e.g., Norris et al. 2012).”

    From Evidence‐based evaluation of the cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration (2016) · cites this paper as Norris et al. 2012

  • Evidence-based assessment of literature allowed a much larger proportion of the body of evidence to be considered than would a quantitative meta-analysis.

    “Like others have reported (Greet et al. 2011, Norris et al. 2012, Webb et al. 2012), evidence-based assessment of literature allowed a much larger proportion of the body of evidence to be considered than would a quantitative meta-analysis.”

    From Evidence‐based evaluation of the cumulative effects of ecosystem restoration (2016) · cites this paper as Norris et al. 2012

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 63 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Norris, R. H., Webb, J. A., Nichols, S. J., Stewardson, M. J., & Harrison, E. T.
Affiliations
  • University of Canberra (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
  • Norris, R. H.
  • Webb, J. A.
  • Nichols, S. J.
  • Stewardson, M. J.
  • Harrison, E. T.
ORCID
Venue
Freshwater Science
Publisher
University of Chicago Press
Published
2012-03
Volume
31
Issue
1
Pages
5-21
ISSN
  • 2161-9549 (ISSN-L)
  • 2161-9565
DOI
10.1899/11-027.1
OpenAlex
W2127674064
Cited by
113
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 6
FWCI
12.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Freshwater Science (publishedVersion)
  • University of Canberra Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental and Social Impact Assessments
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Keywords
causal inference, causal relationship, evidence synthesis, systematic reviews, quality of evidence, knowledge gaps, environmental management decision-making, evidence-based decision making

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