- home
- Advanced Search
- Energy Research
- Environmental Evidence
- Science and Innovation Policy Studi...
- Energy Research
- Environmental Evidence
- Science and Innovation Policy Studi...
description Publicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article , Journal 2016 France, United Kingdom, Australia, United Kingdom, France, United KingdomPublisher:Springer Science and Business Media LLC David Benz; Jessica P. R. Thorn; Gillian Petrokofsky; Rachel Friedman; Katherine J. Willis; Katherine J. Willis; Katherine J. Willis;handle: 10568/76448
AbstractBackgroundAn extensive body of evidence in the field of agro-ecology claims to show the positive effects that maintenance of ecosystem services can have on meeting future food demand by making farms more sustainable, productive and resilient, which then contributes to improved nutrition and livelihoods of farmers. However, inconsistent effects have commonly been reported, while empirical evidence to support assumed improvements is largely lacking. Overall, a coherent synthesis and review of the evidence of these claims is largely absent from the literature.MethodsSystematic searches of peer-reviewed research were conducted in bibliographic databases of Web of Science, SCOPUS, AGRICOLA, AGRIS databases and CAB abstracts, and grey literature from Google Scholar, and 32 subject-specific websites. Searches identified 21,147 articles. After screening, 746 studies were included in the final map.ResultsOf the 19 conservation land management practices considered, soil fertilisation (24 %), tillage (23 %), agroforestry (9 %), and water conservation (7 %) were most commonly studied. Ecosystem services most commonly studied were supporting (55 %) and regulating (33 %), particularly carbon sequestration/storage, nutrient cycling and soil/water regulation/supply. Key data gaps identified included the absence of long-term records (with datasets spanning >20 years), studies located in North and Central Africa, research that focuses on smallholder landscapes, and studies that span different scales (regional and landscape levels).ConclusionsThe study employs systematic mapping combined with an online interactive platform that geographically maps results, which allows users to interrogate different aspects of the evidence through a defined database field structure. While studies are not directly comparable, the database of 746 studies brings together a previously fragmented and multidisciplinary literature base, and collectively provides evidence concerning a wide range of conservation land management practices impacting key ecosystem services. The systematic map is easily updatable, and may be extended for additional coding, analysed to assess the quality of studies, or used to inform future systematic reviews.
CORE arrow_drop_down CGIAR CGSpace (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research)Article . 2016License: CC BYFull-Text: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/76448Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)Oxford University Research ArchiveArticle . 2016License: CC BYData sources: Oxford University Research ArchiveThe University of Queensland: UQ eSpaceArticle . 2016Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1186/s13750-016-0064-9&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.euAccess RoutesGreen gold 17 citations 17 popularity Top 10% influence Average impulse Top 10% Powered by BIP!
more_vert CORE arrow_drop_down CGIAR CGSpace (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research)Article . 2016License: CC BYFull-Text: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/76448Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)Oxford University Research ArchiveArticle . 2016License: CC BYData sources: Oxford University Research ArchiveThe University of Queensland: UQ eSpaceArticle . 2016Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1186/s13750-016-0064-9&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eudescription Publicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article , Journal 2016 France, United Kingdom, Australia, United Kingdom, France, United KingdomPublisher:Springer Science and Business Media LLC David Benz; Jessica P. R. Thorn; Gillian Petrokofsky; Rachel Friedman; Katherine J. Willis; Katherine J. Willis; Katherine J. Willis;handle: 10568/76448
AbstractBackgroundAn extensive body of evidence in the field of agro-ecology claims to show the positive effects that maintenance of ecosystem services can have on meeting future food demand by making farms more sustainable, productive and resilient, which then contributes to improved nutrition and livelihoods of farmers. However, inconsistent effects have commonly been reported, while empirical evidence to support assumed improvements is largely lacking. Overall, a coherent synthesis and review of the evidence of these claims is largely absent from the literature.MethodsSystematic searches of peer-reviewed research were conducted in bibliographic databases of Web of Science, SCOPUS, AGRICOLA, AGRIS databases and CAB abstracts, and grey literature from Google Scholar, and 32 subject-specific websites. Searches identified 21,147 articles. After screening, 746 studies were included in the final map.ResultsOf the 19 conservation land management practices considered, soil fertilisation (24 %), tillage (23 %), agroforestry (9 %), and water conservation (7 %) were most commonly studied. Ecosystem services most commonly studied were supporting (55 %) and regulating (33 %), particularly carbon sequestration/storage, nutrient cycling and soil/water regulation/supply. Key data gaps identified included the absence of long-term records (with datasets spanning >20 years), studies located in North and Central Africa, research that focuses on smallholder landscapes, and studies that span different scales (regional and landscape levels).ConclusionsThe study employs systematic mapping combined with an online interactive platform that geographically maps results, which allows users to interrogate different aspects of the evidence through a defined database field structure. While studies are not directly comparable, the database of 746 studies brings together a previously fragmented and multidisciplinary literature base, and collectively provides evidence concerning a wide range of conservation land management practices impacting key ecosystem services. The systematic map is easily updatable, and may be extended for additional coding, analysed to assess the quality of studies, or used to inform future systematic reviews.
CORE arrow_drop_down CGIAR CGSpace (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research)Article . 2016License: CC BYFull-Text: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/76448Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)Oxford University Research ArchiveArticle . 2016License: CC BYData sources: Oxford University Research ArchiveThe University of Queensland: UQ eSpaceArticle . 2016Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1186/s13750-016-0064-9&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.euAccess RoutesGreen gold 17 citations 17 popularity Top 10% influence Average impulse Top 10% Powered by BIP!
more_vert CORE arrow_drop_down CGIAR CGSpace (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research)Article . 2016License: CC BYFull-Text: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/76448Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)Oxford University Research ArchiveArticle . 2016License: CC BYData sources: Oxford University Research ArchiveThe University of Queensland: UQ eSpaceArticle . 2016Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1186/s13750-016-0064-9&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eudescription Publicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article , Other literature type , Journal 2016Embargo end date: 22 Jan 2025 United Kingdom, United Kingdom, AustraliaPublisher:Springer Science and Business Media LLC Yuta J. Masuda; Supin Wongbusarakum; Supin Wongbusarakum; Samuel I. Dupre; Isabella Oliveira; Justine Revenaz; Dilys Roe; Janet Edmond; Samantha H. Cheng; Samantha H. Cheng; Ruth Garside; Sierra Zaid Shamer; Madeleine C. McKinnon; Madeleine C. McKinnon; Emily Woodhouse; Daniel C. Miller; Louise Glew; Margaret B. Holland; David Wilkie; Eliot Levine;handle: 10871/25554
Abstract Background Global policy initiatives and international conservation organizations have sought to emphasize and strengthen the link between the conservation of natural ecosystems and human development. While many indices have been developed to measure various social outcomes to conservation interventions, the quantity and strength of evidence to support the effects, both positive and negative, of conservation on different dimensions of human well-being, remain unclear, dispersed and inconsistent. Methods We searched 11 academic citation databases, two search engines and 30 organisational websites for relevant articles using search terms tested with a library of 20 relevant articles. Key informants were contacted with requests for articles and possible sources of evidence. Articles were screened for relevance against predefined inclusion criteria at title, abstract and full text levels according to a published protocol. Included articles were coded using a questionnaire. A critical appraisal of eight systematic reviews was conducted to assess the reliability of methods and confidence in study findings. A visual matrix of the occurrence and extent of existing evidence was also produced. Results A total of 1043 articles were included in the systematic map database. Included articles measured effects across eight nature conservation-related intervention and ten human well-being related outcome categories. Linkages between interventions and outcomes with high occurrence of evidence include resource management interventions, such as fisheries and forestry, and economic and material outcomes. Over 25 % of included articles examined linkages between protected areas and aspects of economic well-being. Fewer than 2 % of articles evaluated human health outcomes. Robust study designs were limited with less than 9 % of articles using quantitative approaches to evaluate causal effects of interventions. Over 700 articles occurred in forest biomes with less than 50 articles in deserts or mangroves, combined. Conclusions The evidence base is growing on conservation-human well-being linkages, but biases in the extent and robustness of articles on key linkages persist. Priorities for systematic review, include linkages between marine resource management and economic/material well-being outcomes; and protected areas and governance outcomes. Greater and more robust evidence is needed for many established interventions to better understand synergies and trade-offs between interventions, in particular those that are emerging or contested. Registration CEE review 14-012
Open Research Exeter arrow_drop_down Open Research ExeterArticle . 2016Full-Text: http://hdl.handle.net/10871/25554Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)The University of Queensland: UQ eSpaceArticle . 2016Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1186/s13750-016-0058-7&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.euAccess RoutesGreen gold 177 citations 177 popularity Top 1% influence Top 10% impulse Top 1% Powered by BIP!
more_vert Open Research Exeter arrow_drop_down Open Research ExeterArticle . 2016Full-Text: http://hdl.handle.net/10871/25554Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)The University of Queensland: UQ eSpaceArticle . 2016Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1186/s13750-016-0058-7&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eudescription Publicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article , Other literature type , Journal 2016Embargo end date: 22 Jan 2025 United Kingdom, United Kingdom, AustraliaPublisher:Springer Science and Business Media LLC Yuta J. Masuda; Supin Wongbusarakum; Supin Wongbusarakum; Samuel I. Dupre; Isabella Oliveira; Justine Revenaz; Dilys Roe; Janet Edmond; Samantha H. Cheng; Samantha H. Cheng; Ruth Garside; Sierra Zaid Shamer; Madeleine C. McKinnon; Madeleine C. McKinnon; Emily Woodhouse; Daniel C. Miller; Louise Glew; Margaret B. Holland; David Wilkie; Eliot Levine;handle: 10871/25554
Abstract Background Global policy initiatives and international conservation organizations have sought to emphasize and strengthen the link between the conservation of natural ecosystems and human development. While many indices have been developed to measure various social outcomes to conservation interventions, the quantity and strength of evidence to support the effects, both positive and negative, of conservation on different dimensions of human well-being, remain unclear, dispersed and inconsistent. Methods We searched 11 academic citation databases, two search engines and 30 organisational websites for relevant articles using search terms tested with a library of 20 relevant articles. Key informants were contacted with requests for articles and possible sources of evidence. Articles were screened for relevance against predefined inclusion criteria at title, abstract and full text levels according to a published protocol. Included articles were coded using a questionnaire. A critical appraisal of eight systematic reviews was conducted to assess the reliability of methods and confidence in study findings. A visual matrix of the occurrence and extent of existing evidence was also produced. Results A total of 1043 articles were included in the systematic map database. Included articles measured effects across eight nature conservation-related intervention and ten human well-being related outcome categories. Linkages between interventions and outcomes with high occurrence of evidence include resource management interventions, such as fisheries and forestry, and economic and material outcomes. Over 25 % of included articles examined linkages between protected areas and aspects of economic well-being. Fewer than 2 % of articles evaluated human health outcomes. Robust study designs were limited with less than 9 % of articles using quantitative approaches to evaluate causal effects of interventions. Over 700 articles occurred in forest biomes with less than 50 articles in deserts or mangroves, combined. Conclusions The evidence base is growing on conservation-human well-being linkages, but biases in the extent and robustness of articles on key linkages persist. Priorities for systematic review, include linkages between marine resource management and economic/material well-being outcomes; and protected areas and governance outcomes. Greater and more robust evidence is needed for many established interventions to better understand synergies and trade-offs between interventions, in particular those that are emerging or contested. Registration CEE review 14-012
Open Research Exeter arrow_drop_down Open Research ExeterArticle . 2016Full-Text: http://hdl.handle.net/10871/25554Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)The University of Queensland: UQ eSpaceArticle . 2016Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1186/s13750-016-0058-7&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.euAccess RoutesGreen gold 177 citations 177 popularity Top 1% influence Top 10% impulse Top 1% Powered by BIP!
more_vert Open Research Exeter arrow_drop_down Open Research ExeterArticle . 2016Full-Text: http://hdl.handle.net/10871/25554Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)The University of Queensland: UQ eSpaceArticle . 2016Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1186/s13750-016-0058-7&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eu
description Publicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article , Journal 2016 France, United Kingdom, Australia, United Kingdom, France, United KingdomPublisher:Springer Science and Business Media LLC David Benz; Jessica P. R. Thorn; Gillian Petrokofsky; Rachel Friedman; Katherine J. Willis; Katherine J. Willis; Katherine J. Willis;handle: 10568/76448
AbstractBackgroundAn extensive body of evidence in the field of agro-ecology claims to show the positive effects that maintenance of ecosystem services can have on meeting future food demand by making farms more sustainable, productive and resilient, which then contributes to improved nutrition and livelihoods of farmers. However, inconsistent effects have commonly been reported, while empirical evidence to support assumed improvements is largely lacking. Overall, a coherent synthesis and review of the evidence of these claims is largely absent from the literature.MethodsSystematic searches of peer-reviewed research were conducted in bibliographic databases of Web of Science, SCOPUS, AGRICOLA, AGRIS databases and CAB abstracts, and grey literature from Google Scholar, and 32 subject-specific websites. Searches identified 21,147 articles. After screening, 746 studies were included in the final map.ResultsOf the 19 conservation land management practices considered, soil fertilisation (24 %), tillage (23 %), agroforestry (9 %), and water conservation (7 %) were most commonly studied. Ecosystem services most commonly studied were supporting (55 %) and regulating (33 %), particularly carbon sequestration/storage, nutrient cycling and soil/water regulation/supply. Key data gaps identified included the absence of long-term records (with datasets spanning >20 years), studies located in North and Central Africa, research that focuses on smallholder landscapes, and studies that span different scales (regional and landscape levels).ConclusionsThe study employs systematic mapping combined with an online interactive platform that geographically maps results, which allows users to interrogate different aspects of the evidence through a defined database field structure. While studies are not directly comparable, the database of 746 studies brings together a previously fragmented and multidisciplinary literature base, and collectively provides evidence concerning a wide range of conservation land management practices impacting key ecosystem services. The systematic map is easily updatable, and may be extended for additional coding, analysed to assess the quality of studies, or used to inform future systematic reviews.
CORE arrow_drop_down CGIAR CGSpace (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research)Article . 2016License: CC BYFull-Text: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/76448Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)Oxford University Research ArchiveArticle . 2016License: CC BYData sources: Oxford University Research ArchiveThe University of Queensland: UQ eSpaceArticle . 2016Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1186/s13750-016-0064-9&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.euAccess RoutesGreen gold 17 citations 17 popularity Top 10% influence Average impulse Top 10% Powered by BIP!
more_vert CORE arrow_drop_down CGIAR CGSpace (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research)Article . 2016License: CC BYFull-Text: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/76448Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)Oxford University Research ArchiveArticle . 2016License: CC BYData sources: Oxford University Research ArchiveThe University of Queensland: UQ eSpaceArticle . 2016Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1186/s13750-016-0064-9&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eudescription Publicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article , Journal 2016 France, United Kingdom, Australia, United Kingdom, France, United KingdomPublisher:Springer Science and Business Media LLC David Benz; Jessica P. R. Thorn; Gillian Petrokofsky; Rachel Friedman; Katherine J. Willis; Katherine J. Willis; Katherine J. Willis;handle: 10568/76448
AbstractBackgroundAn extensive body of evidence in the field of agro-ecology claims to show the positive effects that maintenance of ecosystem services can have on meeting future food demand by making farms more sustainable, productive and resilient, which then contributes to improved nutrition and livelihoods of farmers. However, inconsistent effects have commonly been reported, while empirical evidence to support assumed improvements is largely lacking. Overall, a coherent synthesis and review of the evidence of these claims is largely absent from the literature.MethodsSystematic searches of peer-reviewed research were conducted in bibliographic databases of Web of Science, SCOPUS, AGRICOLA, AGRIS databases and CAB abstracts, and grey literature from Google Scholar, and 32 subject-specific websites. Searches identified 21,147 articles. After screening, 746 studies were included in the final map.ResultsOf the 19 conservation land management practices considered, soil fertilisation (24 %), tillage (23 %), agroforestry (9 %), and water conservation (7 %) were most commonly studied. Ecosystem services most commonly studied were supporting (55 %) and regulating (33 %), particularly carbon sequestration/storage, nutrient cycling and soil/water regulation/supply. Key data gaps identified included the absence of long-term records (with datasets spanning >20 years), studies located in North and Central Africa, research that focuses on smallholder landscapes, and studies that span different scales (regional and landscape levels).ConclusionsThe study employs systematic mapping combined with an online interactive platform that geographically maps results, which allows users to interrogate different aspects of the evidence through a defined database field structure. While studies are not directly comparable, the database of 746 studies brings together a previously fragmented and multidisciplinary literature base, and collectively provides evidence concerning a wide range of conservation land management practices impacting key ecosystem services. The systematic map is easily updatable, and may be extended for additional coding, analysed to assess the quality of studies, or used to inform future systematic reviews.
CORE arrow_drop_down CGIAR CGSpace (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research)Article . 2016License: CC BYFull-Text: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/76448Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)Oxford University Research ArchiveArticle . 2016License: CC BYData sources: Oxford University Research ArchiveThe University of Queensland: UQ eSpaceArticle . 2016Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1186/s13750-016-0064-9&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.euAccess RoutesGreen gold 17 citations 17 popularity Top 10% influence Average impulse Top 10% Powered by BIP!
more_vert CORE arrow_drop_down CGIAR CGSpace (Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research)Article . 2016License: CC BYFull-Text: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/76448Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)Oxford University Research ArchiveArticle . 2016License: CC BYData sources: Oxford University Research ArchiveThe University of Queensland: UQ eSpaceArticle . 2016Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1186/s13750-016-0064-9&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eudescription Publicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article , Other literature type , Journal 2016Embargo end date: 22 Jan 2025 United Kingdom, United Kingdom, AustraliaPublisher:Springer Science and Business Media LLC Yuta J. Masuda; Supin Wongbusarakum; Supin Wongbusarakum; Samuel I. Dupre; Isabella Oliveira; Justine Revenaz; Dilys Roe; Janet Edmond; Samantha H. Cheng; Samantha H. Cheng; Ruth Garside; Sierra Zaid Shamer; Madeleine C. McKinnon; Madeleine C. McKinnon; Emily Woodhouse; Daniel C. Miller; Louise Glew; Margaret B. Holland; David Wilkie; Eliot Levine;handle: 10871/25554
Abstract Background Global policy initiatives and international conservation organizations have sought to emphasize and strengthen the link between the conservation of natural ecosystems and human development. While many indices have been developed to measure various social outcomes to conservation interventions, the quantity and strength of evidence to support the effects, both positive and negative, of conservation on different dimensions of human well-being, remain unclear, dispersed and inconsistent. Methods We searched 11 academic citation databases, two search engines and 30 organisational websites for relevant articles using search terms tested with a library of 20 relevant articles. Key informants were contacted with requests for articles and possible sources of evidence. Articles were screened for relevance against predefined inclusion criteria at title, abstract and full text levels according to a published protocol. Included articles were coded using a questionnaire. A critical appraisal of eight systematic reviews was conducted to assess the reliability of methods and confidence in study findings. A visual matrix of the occurrence and extent of existing evidence was also produced. Results A total of 1043 articles were included in the systematic map database. Included articles measured effects across eight nature conservation-related intervention and ten human well-being related outcome categories. Linkages between interventions and outcomes with high occurrence of evidence include resource management interventions, such as fisheries and forestry, and economic and material outcomes. Over 25 % of included articles examined linkages between protected areas and aspects of economic well-being. Fewer than 2 % of articles evaluated human health outcomes. Robust study designs were limited with less than 9 % of articles using quantitative approaches to evaluate causal effects of interventions. Over 700 articles occurred in forest biomes with less than 50 articles in deserts or mangroves, combined. Conclusions The evidence base is growing on conservation-human well-being linkages, but biases in the extent and robustness of articles on key linkages persist. Priorities for systematic review, include linkages between marine resource management and economic/material well-being outcomes; and protected areas and governance outcomes. Greater and more robust evidence is needed for many established interventions to better understand synergies and trade-offs between interventions, in particular those that are emerging or contested. Registration CEE review 14-012
Open Research Exeter arrow_drop_down Open Research ExeterArticle . 2016Full-Text: http://hdl.handle.net/10871/25554Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)The University of Queensland: UQ eSpaceArticle . 2016Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1186/s13750-016-0058-7&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.euAccess RoutesGreen gold 177 citations 177 popularity Top 1% influence Top 10% impulse Top 1% Powered by BIP!
more_vert Open Research Exeter arrow_drop_down Open Research ExeterArticle . 2016Full-Text: http://hdl.handle.net/10871/25554Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)The University of Queensland: UQ eSpaceArticle . 2016Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1186/s13750-016-0058-7&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eudescription Publicationkeyboard_double_arrow_right Article , Other literature type , Journal 2016Embargo end date: 22 Jan 2025 United Kingdom, United Kingdom, AustraliaPublisher:Springer Science and Business Media LLC Yuta J. Masuda; Supin Wongbusarakum; Supin Wongbusarakum; Samuel I. Dupre; Isabella Oliveira; Justine Revenaz; Dilys Roe; Janet Edmond; Samantha H. Cheng; Samantha H. Cheng; Ruth Garside; Sierra Zaid Shamer; Madeleine C. McKinnon; Madeleine C. McKinnon; Emily Woodhouse; Daniel C. Miller; Louise Glew; Margaret B. Holland; David Wilkie; Eliot Levine;handle: 10871/25554
Abstract Background Global policy initiatives and international conservation organizations have sought to emphasize and strengthen the link between the conservation of natural ecosystems and human development. While many indices have been developed to measure various social outcomes to conservation interventions, the quantity and strength of evidence to support the effects, both positive and negative, of conservation on different dimensions of human well-being, remain unclear, dispersed and inconsistent. Methods We searched 11 academic citation databases, two search engines and 30 organisational websites for relevant articles using search terms tested with a library of 20 relevant articles. Key informants were contacted with requests for articles and possible sources of evidence. Articles were screened for relevance against predefined inclusion criteria at title, abstract and full text levels according to a published protocol. Included articles were coded using a questionnaire. A critical appraisal of eight systematic reviews was conducted to assess the reliability of methods and confidence in study findings. A visual matrix of the occurrence and extent of existing evidence was also produced. Results A total of 1043 articles were included in the systematic map database. Included articles measured effects across eight nature conservation-related intervention and ten human well-being related outcome categories. Linkages between interventions and outcomes with high occurrence of evidence include resource management interventions, such as fisheries and forestry, and economic and material outcomes. Over 25 % of included articles examined linkages between protected areas and aspects of economic well-being. Fewer than 2 % of articles evaluated human health outcomes. Robust study designs were limited with less than 9 % of articles using quantitative approaches to evaluate causal effects of interventions. Over 700 articles occurred in forest biomes with less than 50 articles in deserts or mangroves, combined. Conclusions The evidence base is growing on conservation-human well-being linkages, but biases in the extent and robustness of articles on key linkages persist. Priorities for systematic review, include linkages between marine resource management and economic/material well-being outcomes; and protected areas and governance outcomes. Greater and more robust evidence is needed for many established interventions to better understand synergies and trade-offs between interventions, in particular those that are emerging or contested. Registration CEE review 14-012
Open Research Exeter arrow_drop_down Open Research ExeterArticle . 2016Full-Text: http://hdl.handle.net/10871/25554Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)The University of Queensland: UQ eSpaceArticle . 2016Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1186/s13750-016-0058-7&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.euAccess RoutesGreen gold 177 citations 177 popularity Top 1% influence Top 10% impulse Top 1% Powered by BIP!
more_vert Open Research Exeter arrow_drop_down Open Research ExeterArticle . 2016Full-Text: http://hdl.handle.net/10871/25554Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)The University of Queensland: UQ eSpaceArticle . 2016Data sources: Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)add ClaimPlease grant OpenAIRE to access and update your ORCID works.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.
You have already added works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.All Research productsarrow_drop_down <script type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<div id="oa_widget"></div>'); document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="https://beta.openaire.eu/index.php?option=com_openaire&view=widget&format=raw&projectId=10.1186/s13750-016-0058-7&type=result"></script>'); --> </script>
For further information contact us at helpdesk@openaire.eu