Search

• The number of evidence reviews is increasing but their rigour and risks of bias vary. • Easier access to rigorous evidence reviews may support evidence-informed decision-making. • CEEDER collates published evidence reviews into a searchable open-access database. • CEEDER assesses evidence reviews for their reliability using the CEESAT appraisal tool. • CEEDER will be further developed through co-production with evidence user organisations. Evidence-informed decision-making aims to deliver effective actions informed by the best available evidence. Given the large quantity of primary literature, and time constraints faced by policy-makers and practitioners, well-conducted evidence reviews can provide a valuable resource to support decision-making. However, previous research suggests that some evidence reviews may not be sufficiently reliable to inform decisions in the environmental sector due to low standards of conduct and reporting. While some evidence reviews are of high reliability, there is currently no way for policy-makers and practitioners to quickly and easily find them among the many lower reliability ones. Alongside this lack of transparency, there is little incentive or support for review authors, editors and peer-reviewers to improve reliability. To address these issues, we introduce a new online, freely available and first-of-its-kind evidence service: the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Database of Evidence Reviews (CEEDER: www.environmentalevidence.org/ceeder). CEEDER aims to transform communication of evidence review reliability to researchers, policy-makers and practitioners through independent assessment of key aspects of the conduct, reporting and data limitations of available evidence reviews claiming to assess environmental impacts or the effectiveness of interventions relevant to policy and practice. At the same time, CEEDER will provide support to improve the standards of future evidence reviews and support evidence translation and knowledge mobilisation to help inform environmental decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Timely evidence syntheses for biodiversity conservation are challenged by increasingly time-consuming tasks, a broad evidence base, and persistent underfunding. Incorporating artificial intelligence (AI) into the synthesis process can lead to demonstrable benefits for evidence synthesis, but can also introduce challenges. Thoughtful, transparent, and responsible application of AI can overcome barriers that limit the update of evidence synthesis in conservation and can support timely, equitable, and inclusive, and efficient evidence-informed conservation decision-making. Yet, consensus on how such an application can be achieved requires scientists, practitioners, software developers, and other stakeholders to work together. We offer recommendations for conducting reviews using AI, encouraging appropriate scrutiny, transparency, and human-machine collaboration. Systematic evidence syntheses (systematic reviews and maps) summarize knowledge and are used to support decisions and policies in a variety of applied fields, from medicine and public health to biodiversity conservation. However, conducting these exercises in conservation is often expensive and slow, which can impede their use and hamper progress in addressing the current biodiversity crisis. With the explosive growth of large language models (LLMs) and other forms of artificial intelligence (AI), we discuss here the promise and perils associated with their use. We conclude that, when judiciously used, AI has the potential to speed up and hopefully improve the process of evidence synthesis, which can be particularly useful for underfunded applied fields, such as conservation science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systematic reviews are becoming a widely accepted gold standard in evidence synthesis for evidence-based and –informed policy and practice. Many organisations exist to coordinate the registration, conduct and publication of systematic reviews across a range of disciplines, including medicine, international development, and environmental management and biodiversity conservation. As the term ‘systematic review’ becomes more widely recognised, however, there is a risk that stakeholders may have only partial understanding of the rigorous methods required to produce a reliable systematic review. Here, we highlight one such example from the field of education and international development, where a World Bank report claimed to ‘systematically review’ six ‘systematic reviews’ that found divergent results. We critically appraise the six included reviews and the World Bank report itself using an a priori quality assessment tool. Our analysis shows that none of the six included reviews are classifiable as systematic reviews according to widely accepted criteria. We also find that the World Bank report failed to use true systematic review methods to synthesise the included reviews findings. Our study demonstrates the risks associated with partial understanding of the added value associated with systematic reviews and highlights a need for improved awareness of what systematic reviews are. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Phosphorus (P) is one of the essential elements needed for global food security. However, the phosphate life cycle is currently predominantly linear, from P-rock mining to fertiliser production, agriculture, and food consumption, with the P excess ending up in soil and runoff. Eutrophication coupled with limited global commercial phosphorus reserves call for increased efforts toward creating a circular economy for P in many populated drainage basins such as the Baltic Sea region. To identify barriers and opportunities for such a transition, we employ an analytical framework that merges an innovation systems perspective with elements from the socio-technical transitions literature. Combining a literature review with key informant interviews, we find that lack of appropriate policy steering and insufficient knowledge on the performance of technologies for reuse remain key obstacles for closing the P loop. There are, however, structural opportunities presented by the new EU Fertilising Products Regulation that are likely to level the playing field between conventional and waste-derived fertilisers and thereby improve the market opportunities for recovered P. However, the system currently appears to be moving towards a narrow focus on a few new technologies for P recovery and reuse which could lead to new lock-ins. Solutions need to address users' acceptability of the technologies and waste-derived products while the vision of a circular economy needs to be better articulated through government interventions to capture environmental externalities of phosphate mining. The paper further highlights knowledge gaps and proposes recommendations for policy and research related to the circular economy of P. • Barriers and opportunities for circular economy of phosphorus are found across the entire system. • Waste-derived products struggle to compete with the established system. • Recent policy and technology developments provide opportunities. • New policies may cause lock-in effects by favouring specific phosphorus-recovery technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]