Browsing by Author "Sutherland, William J."

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Evidence Synthesis as the Basis for Decision Analysis: A Method of Selecting the Best Agricultural Practices for Multiple Ecosystem Services
    (2019) Shackelford, Gorm E.; Kelsey, Rodd; Sutherland, William J.; Kennedy, Christina M.; Wood, Stephen A.; Gennet, Sasha; Karp, Daniel S.; Kremen, Claire; Seavy, Nathaniel E.; Jedlicka, Julie A.; Gravuer, Kelly; Kross, Sara M.; Bossio, Deborah A.; Munoz-Saez, Andres; LaHue, Deirdre G.; Garbach, Kelly; Ford, Lawrence D.; Felice, Mark; Reynolds, Mark D.; Rao, Devii R.; Boomer, Kathleen; LeBuhn, Gretchen; Dicks, Lynn V.
    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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Training future generations to deliver evidence-based conservation and ecosystem management
    (WILEY, 2021) Downey, Harriet; Amano, Tatsuya; Cadotte, Marc; Cook, Carly N.; Cooke, Steven J.; Haddaway, Neal R.; Jones, Julia P. G.; Littlewood, Nick; Walsh, Jessica C.; Abrahams, Mark, I; Adum, Gilbert; Akasaka, Munemitsu; Alves, Jose A.; Antwis, Rachael E.; Arellano, Eduardo C.; Axmacher, Jan; Barclay, Holly; Batty, Lesley; Benitez-Lopez, Ana; Bennett, Joseph R.; Berg, Maureen J.; Bertolino, Sandro; Biggs, Duan; Bolam, Friederike C.; Bray, Tim; Brook, Barry W.; Bull, Joseph W.; Burivalova, Zuzana; Cabeza, Mar; Chauvenet, Alienor L. M.; Christie, Alec P.; Cole, Lorna; Cotton, Alison J.; Cotton, Sam; Cousins, Sara A. O.; Craven, Dylan; Cresswell, Will; Cusack, Jeremy J.; Dalrymple, Sarah E.; Davies, Zoe G.; Diaz, Anita; Dodd, Jennifer A.; Felton, Adam; Fleishman, Erica; Gardner, Charlie J.; Garside, Ruth; Ghoddousi, Arash; Gilroy, James J.; Gill, David A.; Gill, Jennifer A.; Glew, Louise; Grainger, Matthew J.; Grass, Amelia A.; Greshon, Stephanie; Gundry, Jamie; Hart, Tom; Hopkins, Charlotte R.; Howe, Caroline; Johnson, Arlyne; Jones, Kelly W.; Jordan, Neil R.; Kadoya, Taku; Kerhoas, Daphne; Koricheva, Julia; Lee, Tien Ming; Lengyel, Szabolcs; Livingstone, Stuart W.; Lyons, Ashley; McCabe, Grainne; Millett, Jonathan; Strevens, Chloe Montes; Moolna, Adam; Mossman, Hannah L.; Mukherjee, Nibedita; Munoz-Saez, Andres; Negroes, Nuno; Norfolk, Olivia; Osawa, Takeshi; Papworth, Sarah; Park, Kirsty J.; Pellet, Jerome; Phillott, Andrea D.; Plotnik, Joshua M.; Priatna, Dolly; Ramos, Alejandra G.; Randall, Nicola; Richards, Rob M.; Ritchie, Euan G.; Roberts, David L.; Rocha, Ricardo; Rodriguez, Jon Paul; Sanderson, Roy; Sasaki, Takehiro; Savilaakso, Sini; Sayer, Carl; Sekercioglu, Cagan; Senzaki, Masayuki; Smith, Grania; Smith, Robert J.; Soga, Masashi; Soulsbury, Carl D.; Steer, Mark D.; Stewart, Gavin; Strange, E. F.; Suggitt, Andrew J.; Thompson, Ralph R. J.; Thompson, Stewart; Thornhill, Ian; Trevelyan, R. J.; Usieta, Hope O.; Venter, Oscar; Webber, Amanda D.; White, Rachel L.; Whittingham, Mark J.; Wilby, Andrew; Yarnell, Richard W.; Zamora, Veronica; Sutherland, William J.
    1. To be effective, the next generation of conservation practitioners and managers need to be critical thinkers with a deep understanding of how to make evidence-based decisions and of the value of evidence synthesis. 2. If, as educators, we do not make these priorities a core part of what we teach, we are failing to prepare our students to make an effective contribution to conservation practice. 3. To help overcome this problem we have created open access online teaching materials in multiple languages that are stored in Applied Ecology Resources. So far, 117 educators from 23 countries have acknowledged the importance of this and are already teaching or about to teach skills in appraising or using evidence in conservation decision-making. This includes 145 undergraduate, postgraduate or professional development courses. 4. We call for wider teaching of the tools and skills that facilitate evidence-based conservation and also suggest that providing online teaching materials in multiple languages could be beneficial for improving global understanding of other subject areas.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Why Shade Coffee Does Not Guarantee Biodiversity Conservation
    (RESILIENCE ALLIANCE, 2010) Tejeda Cruz, Cesar; Silva Rivera, Evodia; Barton, Jonathan R.; Sutherland, William J.
    Over the past decade, various strategies have emerged to address critical habitat losses through agricultural expansion. The promotion of shade-grown, premium-priced coffee has been highlighted as one alternative. Our research, based on interviews with farmers in Chiapas, disputes some of the assumptions made by shade coffee campaigners. Results revealed a predisposition to converting forest to shade coffee production due to the socioeconomic challenges farmers face and the potential for increasing incomes. To ensure that their well-being is improved at the same time as reducing environmental impacts, there is clearly a need to provide more detailed information on who is responsible for enforcing certification criteria and how this should take place.