HomePublications

Evidence synthesis as the basis for decision analysis: a method of selecting the best agricultural practices for multiple ecosystem services

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Open Access permissions

Open

Documents

DOI

Authors

  • Gorm E. Shackelford (Lead Author)
  • Rodd Kelsey
  • William J. Sutherland
  • Christina M. Kennedy
  • Stephen A. Wood
  • Sasha Gennet
  • Daniel S. Karp
  • Claire Kremen
  • Nathaniel E. Seavy
  • Julie A. Jedlicka
  • Kelly Gravuer
  • Sara M. Kross
  • Deborah A. Bossio
  • Andres Muñoz-Sáez
  • Deirdre G. LaHue
  • Kelly Garbach
  • Lawrence D. Ford
  • Mark Felice
  • Mark D. Reynolds
  • Devii R. Rao
  • Kathleen Boomer
  • Gretchen LeBuhn

Organisational units

Abstract

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 one management 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.

Details

Original languageEnglish
Article number83
JournalFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
Volume3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 11 Oct 2019
Peer-reviewedYes

Downloads statistics

No data available

View graph of relations

ID: 164932660

Related by author
  1. Enhancing road verges to aid pollinator conservation: A review

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  2. Estimating the risk of species interaction loss in mutualistic communities

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  3. Delivering Integrated Pest and Pollinator Management (IPPM)

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  4. A Horizon Scan of Emerging Global Biological Conservation Issues for 2020

    Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Related by journal
  1. Agriculture 4.0: responsible innovation in an era of smart farming

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle