Evidence Synthesis as the Basis for Decision Analysis: A Method of Selecting the Best Agricultural Practices for Multiple Ecosystem Services

被引:21
作者
Shackelford, Gorm E. [1 ,2 ]
Kelsey, Rodd [3 ]
Sutherland, William J. [1 ,2 ]
Kennedy, Christina M. [4 ]
Wood, Stephen A. [5 ,6 ]
Gennet, Sasha [7 ]
Karp, Daniel S. [8 ]
Kremen, Claire [9 ,10 ]
Seavy, Nathaniel E. [11 ]
Jedlicka, Julie A. [12 ]
Gravuer, Kelly [5 ,13 ]
Kross, Sara M. [14 ]
Bossio, Deborah A. [15 ]
Munoz-Saez, Andres [16 ]
LaHue, Deirdre G. [17 ]
Garbach, Kelly [11 ]
Ford, Lawrence D. [18 ]
Felice, Mark [19 ]
Reynolds, Mark D. [7 ]
Rao, Devii R. [20 ]
Boomer, Kathleen [21 ]
LeBuhn, Gretchen [22 ]
Dicks, Lynn V. [23 ]
机构
[1] Univ Cambridge, Dept Zool, Conservat Sci Grp, Cambridge, England
[2] St Catharines Coll, BioRISC Biosecur Res Initiat St Catharines, Cambridge, England
[3] Nature Conservancy, Sacramento, CA USA
[4] Nature Conservancy, Ft Collins, CO USA
[5] Nature Conservancy, 1815 N Lynn St, Arlington, VA USA
[6] Yale Sch Forestry & Environm Studies, New Haven, CT USA
[7] Nature Conservancy, San Francisco, CA USA
[8] Univ Calif Davis, Dept Wildlife Fish & Conservat Biol, Davis, CA 95616 USA
[9] Univ Calif Berkeley, Dept Environm Sci Policy & Management, Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
[10] Univ British Columbia, Inst Resources Environm & Sustainabil, Vancouver, CA USA
[11] Point Blue Conservat Sci, Petaluma, CA USA
[12] Missouri Western State Univ, St Joseph, MO USA
[13] Arizona State Univ, Ctr Biodivers Outcomes, Tempe, AZ USA
[14] Columbia Univ, Dept Ecol Evolut & Environm Biol, New York, NY USA
[15] Nature Conservancy, Santa Cruz, CA USA
[16] Pontificia Univ Catolica Chile, Ctr Appl Ecol & Sustainabil CAPES, Santiago, Chile
[17] Washington State Univ, Dept Crop & Soil Sci, Mt Vernon, WA USA
[18] LD Ford Rangeland Conservat Sci, Felton, CA USA
[19] Univ Calif Davis, Dept Land Air & Water Resources, Davis, CA 95616 USA
[20] Univ Calif Cooperat Extens, Hollister, CA USA
[21] Nature Conservancy, Bethesda, MD USA
[22] San Francisco State Univ, Dept Biol, San Francisco, CA 94132 USA
[23] Univ East Anglia, Sch Biol Sci, Norwich, Norfolk, England
基金
英国自然环境研究理事会; 英国生物技术与生命科学研究理事会;
关键词
conservation agriculture; ecological intensification; evidence-based decision making; multiple-criteria decision analysis; subject-wide evidence synthesis; sustainable agriculture; sustainable intensification; systematic reviews; ENVIRONMENTAL-MANAGEMENT; CONSERVATION; BIODIVERSITY; TRADEOFFS; SYSTEMS;
D O I
10.3389/fsufs.2019.00083
中图分类号
TS2 [食品工业];
学科分类号
0832 ;
摘要
Agricultural management practices have impacts not only on crops and livestock, but also on soil, water, wildlife, and ecosystem services. Agricultural research provides evidence about these impacts, but it is unclear how this evidence should be used to make decisions. Two methods are widely used in decision making: evidence synthesis and decision analysis. However, a system of evidence-based decision making that integrates these two methods has not yet been established. Moreover, the standard methods of evidence synthesis have a narrow focus (e.g., the effects of onemanagement practice), but the standard methods of decision analysis have a wide focus (e.g., the comparative effectiveness of multiple management practices). Thus, there is a mismatch between the outputs from evidence synthesis and the inputs that are needed for decision analysis. We show how evidence for a wide range of agricultural practices can be reviewed and summarized simultaneously ("subject-wide evidence synthesis"), and how this evidence can be assessed by experts and used for decision making ("multiple-criteria decision analysis"). We show how these methods could be used by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in California to select the best management practices for multiple ecosystem services in Mediterranean-type farmland and rangeland, based on a subject-wide evidence synthesis that was published by Conservation Evidence (www.conservationevidence.com). This method of "evidence-based decision analysis" could be used at different scales, from the local scale (farmers deciding which practices to adopt) to the national or international scale (policy makers deciding which practices to support through agricultural subsidies or other payments for ecosystem services). We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of this method, and we suggest some general principles for improving evidence synthesis as the basis for multi-criteria decision analysis.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 55 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2016, ENV QUAL INC PROGR E
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2005, Ecosystems and human wellbeing: synthesis, DOI DOI 10.1196/ANNALS.1439.003
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2009, Reaping the benefits: science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture
[4]   Landscape-moderated biodiversity effects of agri-environmental management: a meta-analysis [J].
Batary, Peter ;
Baldi, Andras ;
Kleijn, David ;
Tscharntke, Teja .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 2011, 278 (1713) :1894-1902
[6]  
Belton Valerie., 2002, Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach
[7]   Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services [J].
Bennett, Elena M. ;
Peterson, Garry D. ;
Gordon, Line J. .
ECOLOGY LETTERS, 2009, 12 (12) :1394-1404
[8]   Ecosystem services-current challenges and opportunities for ecological research [J].
Birkhofer, Klaus ;
Diehl, Eva ;
Andersson, Jesper ;
Ekroos, Johan ;
Frueh-Mueller, Andrea ;
Machnikowski, Franziska ;
Mader, Viktoria L. ;
Nilsson, Lovisa ;
Sasaki, Keiko ;
Rundlof, Maj ;
Wolters, Volkmar ;
Smith, Henrik G. .
FRONTIERS IN ECOLOGY AND EVOLUTION, 2015, 2
[9]   Ecological intensification: harnessing ecosystem services for food security [J].
Bommarco, Riccardo ;
Kleijn, David ;
Potts, Simon G. .
TRENDS IN ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION, 2013, 28 (04) :230-238
[10]  
Chang W., 2017, R PACKAG VERSION, DOI DOI 10.32614/CRAN.PACKAGE.SHINY