Systematic reviews and maps as tools for applying behavioral ecology to management and policy

Oded Berger-Tal, Alison Greggor, Biljana Macura, Carrie Ann Adams, Arden Blumenthal, Amos Bouskila, Ulrika Candolin, Carolina Doran, Kiyoko Gotanda, Catherine Price, Brenna Putman, Michal Segoli, Lysanne Snijders, Bob Bern Ming Wong, Daniel T. Blumstein

Forskningsoutput: TidskriftsbidragArtikelVetenskapligPeer review

Sammanfattning

We describe the utility of conducting formal systematic reviews and maps to synthesize behavioral evidence in a way that enhances its utility to managers, policy makers, and other stakeholders. Similar to the evidence-based revolution in medicine, the application of formal systematic review processes has the potential to invigorate the field of behavioral ecology and accelerate the uptake of behavioral evidence in policy and management.

Abstract Although examples of successful applications of behavioral ecology research to policy and management exist, knowledge generated from such research is in many cases under-utilized by managers and policy makers. On their own, empirical studies and traditional reviews do not offer the robust syntheses that managers and policy makers require to make evidence-based decisions and evidence-informed policy. Similar to the evidence-based revolution in medicine, the application of formal systematic review processes has the potential to invigorate the field of behavioral ecology and accelerate the uptake of behavioral evidence in policy and management. Systematic reviews differ from traditional reviews and meta-analyses in that their methods are peer reviewed and prepublished for maximum transparency, the evidence base is widened to cover work published outside of academic journals, and review findings are formally communicated with stakeholders. This approach can be valuable even when the systematic literature search fails to yield sufficient evidence for a full review or meta-analysis; preparing systematic maps of the existing evidence can highlight deficiencies in the evidence base, thereby directing future research efforts. To standardize the use of systematic evidence syntheses in the field of environmental science, the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) created a workflow process to certify the comprehensiveness and repeatability of systematic reviews and maps, and to maximize their objectivity. We argue that the application of CEE guidelines to reviews of applied behavioral interventions will make robust behavioral evidence easily accessible to managers and policy makers to support their decision-making, as well as improve the quality of basic research in behavioral ecology.

Originalspråkengelska
TidskriftBehavioral Ecology
Volym30
Utgåva1
Sidor (från-till)1-8
Antal sidor8
ISSN1045-2249
DOI
StatusPublicerad - 4 mar 2019
MoE-publikationstypA1 Tidskriftsartikel-refererad

Vetenskapsgrenar

  • 1181 Ekologi, evolutionsbiologi

Citera det här

Berger-Tal, O., Greggor, A., Macura, B., Adams, C. A., Blumenthal, A., Bouskila, A., ... Blumstein, D. T. (2019). Systematic reviews and maps as tools for applying behavioral ecology to management and policy. Behavioral Ecology, 30(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ary130
Berger-Tal, Oded ; Greggor, Alison ; Macura, Biljana ; Adams, Carrie Ann ; Blumenthal, Arden ; Bouskila, Amos ; Candolin, Ulrika ; Doran, Carolina ; Gotanda, Kiyoko ; Price, Catherine ; Putman, Brenna ; Segoli, Michal ; Snijders, Lysanne ; Wong, Bob Bern Ming ; Blumstein, Daniel T. / Systematic reviews and maps as tools for applying behavioral ecology to management and policy. I: Behavioral Ecology. 2019 ; Vol. 30, Nr. 1. s. 1-8.
@article{3329eca2fc9b4a9bbf34321af517164a,
title = "Systematic reviews and maps as tools for applying behavioral ecology to management and policy",
abstract = "We describe the utility of conducting formal systematic reviews and maps to synthesize behavioral evidence in a way that enhances its utility to managers, policy makers, and other stakeholders. Similar to the evidence-based revolution in medicine, the application of formal systematic review processes has the potential to invigorate the field of behavioral ecology and accelerate the uptake of behavioral evidence in policy and management.Abstract Although examples of successful applications of behavioral ecology research to policy and management exist, knowledge generated from such research is in many cases under-utilized by managers and policy makers. On their own, empirical studies and traditional reviews do not offer the robust syntheses that managers and policy makers require to make evidence-based decisions and evidence-informed policy. Similar to the evidence-based revolution in medicine, the application of formal systematic review processes has the potential to invigorate the field of behavioral ecology and accelerate the uptake of behavioral evidence in policy and management. Systematic reviews differ from traditional reviews and meta-analyses in that their methods are peer reviewed and prepublished for maximum transparency, the evidence base is widened to cover work published outside of academic journals, and review findings are formally communicated with stakeholders. This approach can be valuable even when the systematic literature search fails to yield sufficient evidence for a full review or meta-analysis; preparing systematic maps of the existing evidence can highlight deficiencies in the evidence base, thereby directing future research efforts. To standardize the use of systematic evidence syntheses in the field of environmental science, the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) created a workflow process to certify the comprehensiveness and repeatability of systematic reviews and maps, and to maximize their objectivity. We argue that the application of CEE guidelines to reviews of applied behavioral interventions will make robust behavioral evidence easily accessible to managers and policy makers to support their decision-making, as well as improve the quality of basic research in behavioral ecology.",
keywords = "ANIMAL BEHAVIOR, BENEFITS, BIOLOGY, CONSERVATION, GREY, INCLUSION, METAANALYSIS, PUBLICATION BIAS, SCIENCE, applied animal behavior, conservation behavior, evidence-based management, literature review, meta-analysis, policy impact, systematic maps, 1181 Ecology, evolutionary biology",
author = "Oded Berger-Tal and Alison Greggor and Biljana Macura and Adams, {Carrie Ann} and Arden Blumenthal and Amos Bouskila and Ulrika Candolin and Carolina Doran and Kiyoko Gotanda and Catherine Price and Brenna Putman and Michal Segoli and Lysanne Snijders and Wong, {Bob Bern Ming} and Blumstein, {Daniel T.}",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
day = "4",
doi = "10.1093/beheco/ary130",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "1--8",
journal = "Behavioral Ecology",
issn = "1045-2249",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "1",

}

Berger-Tal, O, Greggor, A, Macura, B, Adams, CA, Blumenthal, A, Bouskila, A, Candolin, U, Doran, C, Gotanda, K, Price, C, Putman, B, Segoli, M, Snijders, L, Wong, BBM & Blumstein, DT 2019, 'Systematic reviews and maps as tools for applying behavioral ecology to management and policy', Behavioral Ecology, vol. 30, nr. 1, s. 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ary130

Systematic reviews and maps as tools for applying behavioral ecology to management and policy. / Berger-Tal, Oded; Greggor, Alison; Macura, Biljana; Adams, Carrie Ann; Blumenthal, Arden; Bouskila, Amos; Candolin, Ulrika; Doran, Carolina; Gotanda, Kiyoko; Price, Catherine; Putman, Brenna; Segoli, Michal; Snijders, Lysanne; Wong, Bob Bern Ming; Blumstein, Daniel T.

I: Behavioral Ecology, Vol. 30, Nr. 1, 04.03.2019, s. 1-8.

Forskningsoutput: TidskriftsbidragArtikelVetenskapligPeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Systematic reviews and maps as tools for applying behavioral ecology to management and policy

AU - Berger-Tal, Oded

AU - Greggor, Alison

AU - Macura, Biljana

AU - Adams, Carrie Ann

AU - Blumenthal, Arden

AU - Bouskila, Amos

AU - Candolin, Ulrika

AU - Doran, Carolina

AU - Gotanda, Kiyoko

AU - Price, Catherine

AU - Putman, Brenna

AU - Segoli, Michal

AU - Snijders, Lysanne

AU - Wong, Bob Bern Ming

AU - Blumstein, Daniel T.

PY - 2019/3/4

Y1 - 2019/3/4

N2 - We describe the utility of conducting formal systematic reviews and maps to synthesize behavioral evidence in a way that enhances its utility to managers, policy makers, and other stakeholders. Similar to the evidence-based revolution in medicine, the application of formal systematic review processes has the potential to invigorate the field of behavioral ecology and accelerate the uptake of behavioral evidence in policy and management.Abstract Although examples of successful applications of behavioral ecology research to policy and management exist, knowledge generated from such research is in many cases under-utilized by managers and policy makers. On their own, empirical studies and traditional reviews do not offer the robust syntheses that managers and policy makers require to make evidence-based decisions and evidence-informed policy. Similar to the evidence-based revolution in medicine, the application of formal systematic review processes has the potential to invigorate the field of behavioral ecology and accelerate the uptake of behavioral evidence in policy and management. Systematic reviews differ from traditional reviews and meta-analyses in that their methods are peer reviewed and prepublished for maximum transparency, the evidence base is widened to cover work published outside of academic journals, and review findings are formally communicated with stakeholders. This approach can be valuable even when the systematic literature search fails to yield sufficient evidence for a full review or meta-analysis; preparing systematic maps of the existing evidence can highlight deficiencies in the evidence base, thereby directing future research efforts. To standardize the use of systematic evidence syntheses in the field of environmental science, the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) created a workflow process to certify the comprehensiveness and repeatability of systematic reviews and maps, and to maximize their objectivity. We argue that the application of CEE guidelines to reviews of applied behavioral interventions will make robust behavioral evidence easily accessible to managers and policy makers to support their decision-making, as well as improve the quality of basic research in behavioral ecology.

AB - We describe the utility of conducting formal systematic reviews and maps to synthesize behavioral evidence in a way that enhances its utility to managers, policy makers, and other stakeholders. Similar to the evidence-based revolution in medicine, the application of formal systematic review processes has the potential to invigorate the field of behavioral ecology and accelerate the uptake of behavioral evidence in policy and management.Abstract Although examples of successful applications of behavioral ecology research to policy and management exist, knowledge generated from such research is in many cases under-utilized by managers and policy makers. On their own, empirical studies and traditional reviews do not offer the robust syntheses that managers and policy makers require to make evidence-based decisions and evidence-informed policy. Similar to the evidence-based revolution in medicine, the application of formal systematic review processes has the potential to invigorate the field of behavioral ecology and accelerate the uptake of behavioral evidence in policy and management. Systematic reviews differ from traditional reviews and meta-analyses in that their methods are peer reviewed and prepublished for maximum transparency, the evidence base is widened to cover work published outside of academic journals, and review findings are formally communicated with stakeholders. This approach can be valuable even when the systematic literature search fails to yield sufficient evidence for a full review or meta-analysis; preparing systematic maps of the existing evidence can highlight deficiencies in the evidence base, thereby directing future research efforts. To standardize the use of systematic evidence syntheses in the field of environmental science, the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) created a workflow process to certify the comprehensiveness and repeatability of systematic reviews and maps, and to maximize their objectivity. We argue that the application of CEE guidelines to reviews of applied behavioral interventions will make robust behavioral evidence easily accessible to managers and policy makers to support their decision-making, as well as improve the quality of basic research in behavioral ecology.

KW - ANIMAL BEHAVIOR

KW - BENEFITS

KW - BIOLOGY

KW - CONSERVATION

KW - GREY

KW - INCLUSION

KW - METAANALYSIS

KW - PUBLICATION BIAS

KW - SCIENCE

KW - applied animal behavior

KW - conservation behavior

KW - evidence-based management

KW - literature review

KW - meta-analysis

KW - policy impact

KW - systematic maps

KW - 1181 Ecology, evolutionary biology

U2 - 10.1093/beheco/ary130

DO - 10.1093/beheco/ary130

M3 - Article

VL - 30

SP - 1

EP - 8

JO - Behavioral Ecology

JF - Behavioral Ecology

SN - 1045-2249

IS - 1

ER -

Berger-Tal O, Greggor A, Macura B, Adams CA, Blumenthal A, Bouskila A et al. Systematic reviews and maps as tools for applying behavioral ecology to management and policy. Behavioral Ecology. 2019 mar 4;30(1):1-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ary130