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

被引:20
|
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 14 条
  • [1] Targeting best agricultural practices to enhance ecosystem services in mountains
    Bernues, A.
    Tenza-Peral, A.
    Gomez-Baggethun, E.
    Clemetsen, M.
    Eik, L. O.
    Martin-Collado, D.
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2022, 316
  • [2] Valuing Ecosystem Services for Agricultural TFP: A Review of Best Practices, Challenges, and Recommendations
    Bostian, Moriah
    Lundgren, Tommy
    SUSTAINABILITY, 2022, 14 (05)
  • [3] Do attitudes toward ecosystem services determine agricultural land use practices? An analysis of farmers' decision-making in a South Korean watershed
    Poppenborg, Patrick
    Koellner, Thomas
    LAND USE POLICY, 2013, 31 : 422 - 429
  • [4] Assessing the Impact of Farm-Management Practices on Ecosystem Services in European Agricultural Systems: A Rapid Evidence Assessment
    Van Ruymbeke, Kato
    Ferreira, Joana G.
    Gkisakis, Vasileios D.
    Kantelhardt, Jochen
    Manevska-Tasevska, Gordana
    Matthews, Peter
    Niedermayr, Andreas
    Schaller, Lena
    Bankowska, Katarzyna
    Mertens, Kewan
    Vranken, Liesbet
    SUSTAINABILITY, 2023, 15 (17)
  • [5] The PROMETHEE-GAIA: A multi-criteria decision-making method for identifying best conservation agricultural practices
    Biswas, Tufleuddin
    Ishizaka, Alessio
    Majumder, Anurup
    Mandal, Biswapati
    Dey, Shamik
    Mukherjee, Siddhartha
    Baishya, Aniket
    Kanthal, Sahely
    Ghosh, Samrat
    Mandal, Anwesha
    Chatterjee, Riti
    Ray, Soumik
    Bhunia, Snehasish
    Duary, Swarnali
    Bhattacharjee, Suvendu
    Mishra, Pradeep
    Acharya, Sankar Kr
    SOIL & TILLAGE RESEARCH, 2025, 245
  • [6] How to choose the best category for a protected area? A multicriteria analysis method based on ecosystem services conservation
    Figueiroa, Apoena Calixto
    de Lima, Andre de Souza
    Garcia Scherer, Marinez Eymael
    Bonetti, Jarbas
    ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT, 2020, 192 (07)
  • [7] How to choose the best category for a protected area? A multicriteria analysis method based on ecosystem services conservation
    Apoena Calixto Figueiroa
    Andre de Souza de Lima
    Marinez Eymael Garcia Scherer
    Jarbas Bonetti
    Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2020, 192
  • [8] Application of risk-based multiple criteria decision analysis for selection of the best agricultural scenario for effective watershed management
    Sabbaghian, Reza Javidi
    Zarghami, Mahdi
    Nejadhashemi, A. Pouyan
    Sharifi, Mohammad Bagher
    Herman, Matthew R.
    Daneshvar, Fariborz
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2016, 168 : 260 - 272
  • [9] Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis under uncertainty in sustainable construction: a neutrosophic modified best-worst method
    Scherz, M.
    Vafadarnikjoo, A.
    SUSTAINABLE BUILT ENVIRONMENT D-A-CH CONFERENCE 2019 (SBE19 GRAZ), 2019, 323
  • [10] The PROMETHEE multiple criteria decision making analysis for selecting the best membrane prepared from sulfonated poly(ether ketone)s and poly(ether sulfone)s for proton exchange membrane fuel cell
    Nikouei, Mohammad Ali
    Oroujzadeh, Maryam
    Mehdipour-Ataei, Shahram
    ENERGY, 2017, 119 : 77 - 85