Storytelling is a two-way interaction, written or oral, between someone telling a story and one or more listeners. It is a well-known and powerful means of communicating messages and engaging audiences. In this commentary paper, we present a framework for the integration of storytelling in systematic reviews and systematic maps at the stages where stakeholders are actively involved. Using storytelling to explain complex research has, in the past, not been considered a rigorous method of communicating science. But an increasing number of studies are showing how narratives can be useful for developing trust with an audience and increasing knowledge retention as well as the ability and willingness by audiences to learn and take action. Being easily digested by the human brain, stories help bridging between our logos and pathos; when an audience becomes emotionally receptive of facts, chances increase that they will respond and act on the knowledge. Here, we argue that storytelling holds potential as a tool in systematic reviews and systematic maps, serving mainly two purposes. First, collecting contextual narratives from stakeholders at the stages of question formulation and protocol writing can help to inform and generate relevant research questions and review designs. Here, we refer to contextual narratives as stories gathered from stakeholders to gain an understanding of their perspective. Second, creating a final story that faithfully presents the review results, while also relating to the contextual narratives, can contribute to effective communication of the results to stakeholders as well as to a broader audience. This approach can increase their engagement with the science and the implementation of evidence-based decisions. The paper concludes that storytelling holds untapped potential for communicating evidence from systematic reviews and maps for increased stakeholder engagement. It is time for researchers and research networks such as the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence to support and emphasize the importance of exploring new tools for effective science communication, such as storytelling.

Background: Agriculture is the main sector responsible for nutrient emissions in the Baltic Sea Region and there is a growing pressure to identify cost-effective solutions towards reducing nitrogen and phosphorus loads originating from farming activities. Recycling resources from agricultural waste is central to the idea of a circular economy, and has the potential to address the most urgent problems related to nutrients use in the food chain, such as depletion of natural phosphorus reserves, water pollution and waste management. This systematic map examined what evidence exists relating to the effectiveness of ecotechnologies in agriculture for the recovery and reuse of carbon and/or nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) in the Baltic Sea region and other comparable boreo-temperate systems. Methods: We searched for both academic and grey literature. English language searches were performed in 5 bibliographic databases and search platforms, and Google Scholar. Searches in 36 specialist websites were performed in English, Finnish, Polish and Swedish. The searches were restricted to the period 2013 to 2017. Eligibility screening was conducted at two levels: title and abstract (screened concurrently for efficiency) and full text. Meta-data was extracted from eligible studies including bibliographic details, study location, ecotechnology name and description, type of outcome (i.e. recovered or reused carbon and/or nutrients), type of ecotechnology in terms of recovery source, and type of reuse (in terms of the end-product). Findings are presented here narratively and in a searchable database, and are also visualised in a web-based evidence atlas (an interactive geographical information system). In addition, knowledge gaps and clusters have been identified in the evidence base and described in detail. Results: We found 173 articles studying the effectiveness of 177 ecotechnologies. The majority of eligible articles were in English, originated from bibliographic databases and were published in 2016. Most studies with reported locations, and given our boreo-temperate scope, were conducted in Europe and North America. The three most prevalent ecotechnologies in the evidence base (collectively 40.7%) were; soil amendments, anaerobic digestion and (vermi)composting. Manure was the principal waste source used for recovery of nutrients or carbon, making up 55.4% of the all studies in evidence base, followed by a combination of manure and crop residues (22%). There were 51 studies with 14 ecotechnologies that reported on recovery of carbon and nutrients together, predominantly via

The first international Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) conference took place in August 2016 at the Swedish Museum of Natural History in Stockholm with nearly 100 participants from 14 countries. This conference reflected and contributed to the growth of a global network of people interested in the production and use of evidence syntheses in environmental management. The conference also provided an opportunity to identify emerging themes and reflect on those ideas and perspectives to help direct future activities of the CEE and the broader community. An increasingly engaged community of practice was evident but there is uneven distribution of experience, resources, capacity, and commitment to evidence synthesis in different sectors and regions. There is much opportunity to bring academics, practitioners, and other partners together which will help to further demonstrate impact of evidence synthesis activities and enhance relevance. As the discipline evolves there is growing interest in rapid evidence synthesis but the benefits and risks of that approach remain unclear. There was also a recognition that improvements in empirical science will enhance the likelihood that more studies can be fully exploited as part of evidence synthesis. There are opportunities for capacity building, engaging the next generation (e.g., students), and enhancing connections within and beyond the CEE community to advance evidence-based environmental management. It is our desire that this paper will serve as a template for future CEE activities (i.e., where to invest resources) but also as an invitation to those that were unable to attend to participate in CEE and the evidence-based environmental management movement in whichever ways resonate with them.

No abstract