On the use of systematic reviews to inform environmental policies

Abstract

Environmental research varies in its methodological quality, degree of bias, and relevance to policy questions. Using this heterogeneous, and sometimes polarised, research to inform environmental policies can be challenging. Policy-making in the healthcare field sometimes uses systematic reviews (SRs) to tackle these issues and present a comprehensive, policy-neutral, transparent and reproducible synthesis of the evidence. However, there is less familiarity with SRs in the environmental field. The aim of this article is to: (1) summarise the process of conducting SRs, using best practice methods from the healthcare field as an example, (2) explain the rationale behind each stage of conducting a SR, and (3) examine the prospects and challenges of using SRs to inform environmental policy. We conclude that existing SR protocols from healthcare can be, and have been, applied successfully to environmental research but some adaptations could improve the process. The literature search stage could be expedited by standardising the reporting and indexing of environmental studies, equivalent to that in the healthcare field. The consistency of the study appraisal stage of SRs could be augmented by refining the existing quality assessment tools used in the healthcare field, enhancing their ability to discriminate quality and risk of bias in non-randomised studies. Ultimately, the strength of evidence within SRs on environmental topics could be improved through more widespread use of randomised controlled trials as a research method, owing to their inherently lower risk of bias when conducted according to best practice

The reliability of evidence review methodology in environmental science and conservation

“…By focusing on reviews whose findings are presented within a policy or practice decision-making context we ensured only those that are relevant for assessment using CEESAT were selected. The use of narrative syntheses within environmental policy and management has often been considered inappropriate due to their vulnerability to author bias and generally inadequate reporting of methodology (Bilotta et al, 2014;Lortie, 2014;Roberts et al, 2006). Such criticisms could be addressed if narrative syntheses clearly reported their search strategies and documented extracted data.…”

On the Necessity of an Integrated, Participative and Adaptive Approach to Sustainable Urban Environmental Quality Planning

“…A literature search was performed, using three consecutive strategies (Bilotta et al, 2014). The first was a general search on 'quality of life' and 'urban environmental quality'.…”

How to increase the potential policy impact of environmental science research

“…The scientific evidence-base on many environmental topics is large and continually growing [15]. Systematic reviews, such as those conducted by the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE; an open community of scientists and managers who, from their initial centres in Australia, Canada, South Africa, Sweden and the UK, prepare systematic reviews on environmental topics) can be extremely useful to policy-makers; providing a comprehensive, objective, reproducible and updateable synthesis of all the evidence on a given topic [16]. Policy-makers prefer systematic reviews to traditional narrative literature reviews as it is acknowledged that narrative literature reviews are more vulnerable to author bias which can occur when the review authors intentionally or unintentionally select or emphasise research according to their own opinions, prejudices or commercial interests.…”