Literature syntheses to inform marine ecosystem management: lessons learned from stakeholder participation

References

• Andersen JH, Carstensen J, Conley DJ, Dromph K, Fleming-Lehtinen V, Gustafsson BG, Josefson AB, Norkko A, Villnäs A, Murray C. 2017. Long-term temporal and spatial trends in eutrophication status of the Baltic Sea. Biol Rev. 92(1):135–16. doi:10.1111/brv.12221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnett A, Doubleday Z. 2020. The growth of acronyms in the scientific literature. eLife. 9:e60080. doi:10.7554/eLife.60080.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bastian H. 1994. The power of sharing knowledge: consumer participation in the cochrane collaboration. Oxford (UK): UK Cochrane Centre.
   Google Scholar
• BONUS. 2017. Call 2017: synthesis. Briefing Number 28.
   Google Scholar
• BONUS ROSEMARIE. 2020. Finding evidence for smart decisions: for the well-being of people and the Baltic Sea. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd2Sp7SE3go&list=PLqbGx2iTj0UAzombEHizK7s0-gjVX6yFL.
   Google Scholar
• Buschke FT, Botts EA, Sinclair SP. 2019. Post-normal conservation science fills the space between research, policy, and implementation. Conserv Sci Pract. 1(8). doi:10.1111/csp2.73.
   Google Scholar
• Caplan N. 1979. The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. Am Behav Sci. 22(3):459–470. doi:10.1177/000276427902200308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [CEE] Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. 2018. Guidelines and standards for evidence synthesis in environmental management. Version 5.0. www.environmentalevidence.org/information-for-authors.
   Google Scholar
• Choi B, Pak A. 2006. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clin Invest Med. 29(6):351–364.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins AM, Coughlin D, Randall N. 2019. Engaging environmental policy-makers with systematic reviews: challenges, solutions and lessons learned. Environ Evid. 8(2). doi:10.1186/s13750-018-0144-0.
   Google Scholar
• Cooke SJ, Gallagher AJ, Sopinka NM, Nguyen VM, Skubel RA, Hammerschlag N, Boon S, Young N, Danylchuk AJ, Metcalf V. 2017. Considerations for effective science communication. FACETS. 2(1):233–248. doi:10.1139/facets-2016-0055.
   Google Scholar
• Cottrell E, Whitlock E, Kato E, Uhl S, Belinson S, Chang C, Hoomans T, Meltzer D, Noorani H, Robinson K, et al. 2014. Defining the benefits of stakeholder engagement in systematic reviews. Research White Paper. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
   Google Scholar
• Cvitanovic C, McDonald J, Hobda A. 2016. From science to action: principles for undertaking environmental research that enables knowledge exchange and evidence-based decision-making. J Environ Manage. 183(3):864–874. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.038.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dankel DJ, Aps R, Padda G, Röckmann C, van der Sluijs JP, Wilson DC, Degnbol P. 2012. Advice under uncertainty in the marine system. ICES J Mar Sci. 69(1):3–7. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsr179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dicks L, Haddaway N, Hernández-Morcillo M, Mattsson B, Randall N, Failler P, Ferretti J, Livoreil B, Saarikoski H, Santamaria L. 2017. Knowledge synthesis for environmental decisions: an evaluation of existing methods, and guidance for their selection, use and development: a report from the EKLIPSE project.
   Google Scholar
• Durham E, Baker H, Smith M, Moore E, Morgan V, editors. 2014. The BiodivERsA stakeholder engagement handbook. Paris: BiodivERsA.
   Google Scholar
• Eales J, Haddaway NR, Webb JA. 2017. Much at stake: the importance of training and capacity building for stakeholder engagement in evidence synthesis. Environ Evid. 6(22). doi:10.1186/s13750-017-0101-3.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• European Commission. 2020. Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions: EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Brussels, Belgium: Bringing nature back into our lives.
   Google Scholar
• Fazey I, Evely AC, Reed MS, Stringer LC, Kruijsen J, White PCL, Newsham A, Lixian J, Cortazzi M, Phillipson J, et al. 2012. Knowledge exchange: a review and research agenda for environmental management. Environ Conserv. 40(1):19–36. doi:10.1017/S037689291200029X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR. 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures. 25(7):739–755. doi:10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Görg C, Spangenberg JH, Tekken V, Burkhard B, Thanh Truong D, Escalada M, Luen Heong K, Arida G, Marquez LV, Victor Bustamante J, et al. 2014. Engaging local knowledge in biodiversity research: experiences from large inter- and transdisciplinary projects. Interdiscip Sci Rev. 39(4):323–341. doi:10.1179/0308018814Z.00000000095.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J 2013. Learning from research: systematic reviews for informing policy decisions: a quick guide. A paper for the Alliance for Useful Evidence.
   Google Scholar
• Gusenbauer M, Haddaway NR. 2020. Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of google scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Res Synth Methods. 11(2):181–217. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1378.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guston DH. 2001. Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Human Values. 26(4):399–408. doi:10.1177/016224390102600401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haddaway NR. 2017. Response to “Collating science-based evidence to inform public opinion on the environmental effects of marine drilling platforms in the Mediterranean Sea”. J Environ Manage. 203:612–614. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.03.043.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haddaway NR, Crowe S. 2018b. Experiences and lessons in stakeholder engagement in environmental evidence synthesis: a truly special series. Environ Evid. 7(11). doi:10.1186/s13750-018-0123-5.
   Google Scholar
• Haddaway NR, Kohl C, da Silva NR, Schiemann J, Spök A, Stewart R, Sweet JB, Wilhelm R. 2017. A framework for stakeholder engagement during systematic reviews and maps in environmental management. Environ Evid. 6(11):1–14. doi:10.1186/s13750-016-0079-2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Haddaway NR, Westgate MJ. 2019. Predicting the time needed for environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Conserv Biol. 33(2):434–443. doi:10.1111/cobi.13231.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haines-Young R, Potschin-Young M. 2018. Revision of the Common International Classification for Ecosystem Services (CICES V5.1): a policy brief. One Ecosyst. 3:e27108. doi:10.3897/oneeco.3.e27108.
   Google Scholar
• Håkansson C, Isacs L, Vikström S, Oinonen S. 2020. Scientific evidence on the use of non-monetary and monetary valuation methods in the Baltic Sea management. Policy Brief. https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/316225.
   Google Scholar
• Hanlon J. 1998. Grabbing attention. In: Thomas A, Chataway J, and Wuyts M, editors. Research skills for policy and development: how to find out fast. London: SAGE; p. 74–94.
   Google Scholar
• Harris J, Croot L, Thompson J, Springett J. 2016. How stakeholder participation can contribute to systematic reviews of complex interventions. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 70(2):207–214. doi:10.1136/jech-2015-205701.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs S, Burkhard B. 2017. Applying expert knowledge for ecosystem services-quantification. In: Burkhard B, Maes J, editors. Mapping ecosystem services. Sofia: Pensoft Publishers; p. 142–146.
   Google Scholar
• James KL, Randall NP, Haddaway NR. 2016. A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences. Environ Evid. 5(1). doi:10.1186/s13750-016-0059-6.
   Google Scholar
• Jax K, Furman E, Saarikoski H, Barton DN, Delbaere B, Dick J, Duke G, Görg C, Gómez-Baggethun E, Harrison PA, et al. 2018. Handling a messy world: lessons learned when trying to make the ecosystem services concept operational. Ecosyst Serv. 29(Part C):415–427. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.001.
   Google Scholar
• Jentoft S, Chuenpagdee R, Bundy A, Mahon R. 2010. Pyramids and roses: alternative images for the governance of fisheries systems. Mar Policy. 34(6):1315–1321. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.06.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaner S, Lind L, Toldi C, Fisk S, Berger D, editors. 2014. Facilitator’s guide to participatory decision-making. San Francisco (CA): Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Keown K, Van Eerd D, Irvin E. 2008. Stakeholder engagement opportunities in systematic reviews: knowledge transfer for policy and practice. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 28(2). doi:10.1002/chp.159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn T, Oinonen S, Trentlage J, Riikonen S, Vikström S, Burkhard B. 2021. Participatory systematic mapping as a tool to identify gaps in ecosystem services research: insights from a Baltic Sea case study. Ecosyst Serv. 48:101237. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn T, Vikström S, Burkhard B, Oinonen S. 2020. Scientific evidence on marine and coastal ecosystem services in the Baltic Sea. Policy Brief. https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/316227.
   Google Scholar
• Land M, Macura B, Bernes C, Johansson S. 2017. A five-step approach for stakeholder engagement in prioritisation and planning of environmental evidence syntheses. Environ Evid. 6(25). doi:10.1186/s13750-017-0104-0.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Leventon J, Fleskens L, Claringbould H, Schwilch G, Hessel R. 2016. An applied methodology for stakeholder identification in transdisciplinary research. Sustain Sci. 11(5):763–775. doi:10.1007/s11625-016-0385-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Livoreil B, Glanville J, Haddaway NR, Bayliss H, Bethel A, de Lachapelle FF, Robalino S, Savilaakso S, Zhou W, Petrokofsky G, et al. 2017. Systematic searching for environmental evidence using multiple tools and sources. Environ Evid. 6(1):23. doi:10.1186/s13750-017-0099-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisbet EK, Zelenski JM, Murphy SA. 2011. Happiness is in our nature: exploring nature relatedness as a contributor to subjective well-being. J Happiness Stud. 12(2):303–322. doi:10.1007/s10902-010-9197-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haddaway NR, Crowe S, editors. 2018a. Stakeholder engagement in environmental evidence synthesis. Stockholm: Mistra Council for Evidence-Based Environmental Management (EviEM).
   Google Scholar
• Oliver S, Liabo K, Stewart R, Rees R. 2015. Public involvement in research: making sense of the diversity. J Health Serv Res Policy. 20(1):45–51. doi:10.1177/1355819614551848.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Morris J, Watts C, Morley R. 2018. Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a scoping review. Syst Rev. 7(208). doi:10.1186/s13643-018-0852-0.
   Google Scholar
• Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Morris J, Watts C, Morley R. 2019. Development of the ACTIVE framework to describe stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews. J Health Serv Res Policy. 24(4):245–255. doi:10.1177/1355819619841647.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potschin MB, Haines-Young RH. 2011. Ecosystem services: exploring a geographical perspective. Prog Phys Geogr. 35(5):575–594. doi:10.1177/0309133311423172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pullin AS, Cheng SH, Cooke SJ, Haddaway NR, Macura B, McKinnon MC, Taylor JJ. 2020. Informing conservation decisions through evidence synthesis and communication. In: Vickery J, Ockendon N Pettorelli N, editors. Conservation research, policy and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; p. 114–128.
   Google Scholar
• Pullin AS, Knight TM. 2001. Effectiveness in conservation practice: pointers from medicine and public health. Conserv Biol. 15(1):50–54. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2001.99499.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pullin AS, Knight TM, Stone DA, Charman K. 2004. Do conservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making? Biol Conserv. 119(2):245–252. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2003.11.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pullin AS, Stewart GB. 2006. Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conserv Biol. 20(6):1647–1656. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00485.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reed MS. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv. 141(10):2417–2431. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC. 2009. Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manage. 90(5):1933–1949. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reed MS, Vella S, Challies E, De Vente J, Frewer L, Hohenwallner‐ries D, Huber T, Neumann RK, Oughton EA, Sidoli Del Ceno J, et al. 2018. A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work? Restor Ecol. 26(21):S7–S17. doi:10.1111/rec.12541.
   Google Scholar
• Rees R, Oliver S. 2017. Stakeholder perspectives and participation in reviews. In: Gough D, Oliver S, and Thomas J, editors. An introduction to systematic reviews. London: SAGE; p. 17–34.
   Google Scholar
• Reusch TBH, Dierking J, Andersson HC, Bonsdorff E, Carstensen J, Casini M, Czajkowski M, Hasler B, Hinsby K, Hyytiäinen K, et al. 2018. The Baltic Sea as a time machine for the future coastal ocean. Sci Adv. 4(5). doi:10.1126/sciadv.aar8195.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuman S, editor. 2006. Creating a culture of collaboration: the international association of facilitators handbook. San Francisco (CA): Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Spangenberg JH, Görg C, Settele J. 2015. Stakeholder involvement in ESS research and governance: between conceptual ambition and practical experiences – risks, challenges and tested tools. Ecosyst Serv. 16:201–211. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storie J, Suškevičs M, Külvik M, Lehtoranta V, Vikström S, Riikonen S, Kuosa H, Kuhn T, Oinonen S. 2020. What evidence exists for the impact of Baltic Sea ecosystems on human health and well-being? A systematic map protocol. Environ Evid. 9(1):5. doi:10.1186/s13750-020-00189-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storie J, Suškevičs M, Külvik M, Saikkonen L, Vikström S, Oinonen S. 2020. What evidence exists for the impact of the Baltic Sea ecosystems on human health and well-being? Policy Brief. https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/316226.
   Google Scholar
• Storie J, Suškevičs M, Nevzati F, Külvik M, Kuhn T, Burkhard B, Vikström S, Lehtoranta V, Riikonen S, Oinonen S. 2021. Evidence on the impact of Baltic Sea ecosystems on human health and well-being: a systematic map. Environ Evid. 10(1). doi:10.1186/s13750-021-00244-w.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutherland WJ, Pullin AS, Dolman PM, Knight TM. 2004. The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol Evol. 19(6):305–308. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2004.03.018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor JJ, Rytwinski T, Bennett JR, Cooke SJ. 2017. Lessons for introducing stakeholders to environmental evidence synthesis. Environ Evid. 6(26):1–4. doi:10.1186/s13750-017-0105-z.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thomas‐Walters L, Nyboer EA, Taylor JJ, Rytwinski T, Lane JF, Young N, Bennett JR, Nguyen VM, Harron N, Aitken SM. 2021. An optimistic outlook on the use of evidence syntheses to inform environmental decision‐making. Conserv Sci Pract. 3(6):e426. doi:10.1111/csp2.426.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas J, Noel-Storr A, Marshall I, Wallace B, McDonald S, Mavergames C, Glasziou P, Shemilt I, Synnot A, Turner T, on behalf of the Living Systematic Review Network, et al. 2017. Living systematic reviews: 2. Combining human and machine effort. J Clin Epidemiol. 91:31–37. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varjopuro R, Andrulewicz E, Blenckner T, Dolch T, Heiskanen AS, Pihlajamäki M, Brandt US, Valman M, Gee K, Potts T, et al. 2014. Coping with persistent environmental problems: systemic delays in reducing eutrophication of the Baltic Sea. Ecol Soc. 19(4). doi:10.5751/ES-06938-190448.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ward V, House A, Hamer S. 2009. Knowledge brokering: the missing link in the evidence to action chain? Evid Policy. 5(3):267–279. doi:10.1332/174426409X463811.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Westgate MJ, Haddaway NR, Cheng SH, McIntosh EJ, Marshall C, Lindenmayer DB. 2018. Software support for environmental evidence synthesis. Nat Ecol Evol. 2(4):588–590. doi:10.1038/s41559-018-0502-x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson MJ, Ramey TL, Donaldson MR, Germain RR, Perkin EK, Heard S. 2017. Communicating science: sending the right message to the right audience. FACETS. 1:127–137. doi:10.1139/facets-2016-0015.
   Google Scholar