Ten principles for generating accessible and useable COVID‐19 environmental science and a fit‐for‐purpose evidence base

Kadykalo, Andrew N.; Haddaway, Neal R.; Rytwinski, Trina; Cooke, Steven J.

doi:10.1002/2688-8319.12041

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of knowledge brokers (i.e., bridging agents, evidence bridges-see Kadykalo et al 2021b) embedded within agencies are (and were) recommended (see Cook et al 2013;Cvitanovic et al 2015;Roux et al 2019) as a means of mitigating several of the barriers identified in our study: limited access to journals/articles and information overload, as well as resource and time limitations. Other mitigations strategies to removing barriers to accessing WBS in NRM include furtherdeveloped hyperlinked 'controlled vocabularies', onepage scientific summaries translated for multidisciplinary audiences, and key visuals (Sutherland and Wordley 2018;Kadykalo et al 2021c). For example, I'm noticing the younger generation really relying on visuals, and not so much the journals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Natural Resource Managers Use and Value Western-Based Science, but Barriers to Access Persist

Piczak

Kadykalo

Cooke

et al. 2021

Environmental Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Natural resources management (NRM) is complex and relies on decisions supported by evidence, including Western-based science (WBS) and Indigenous and local knowledge. However, it has been shown that there is a disconnect between WBS and its application, whereby managers often draw on non-empirical sources of information (i.e., intuition or advice from colleagues). This article focuses on the role of WBS in decisions made in management of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the province of British Columbia, Canada. We conducted open-ended interviews with NRM branches of Indigenous and parliamentary governments, as well as with nongovernmental stakeholder groups, to examine (a) sources of WBS consulted in decision-making and (b) barriers to accessing WBS by managers. We found that respondents involved with NRM relied on a diverse set of sources for WBS, seldom relying exclusively on one source. However, respondents relied more on internal sources (government databases) compared to external ones (peer-reviewed journal articles). We also found that respondents described WBS as valuable and generally accessible, yet barriers were identified with respect to the interface and organization of government grey data and literature, paywalls associated with peer-reviewed journals and articles, and institutional capacity, time, and support. We recommend strategies and tools to facilitate accessibility of WBS in support of bridging the knowledge-action divide, including increased publishing of open access data/articles, systematic reviews, use of knowledge brokers, specialized WBS training, and knowledge co-production. It is our hope that identification of barriers and the implementation of improved access to WBS will result in more effective NRM by giving managers access to the tools and knowledge they need for evidence-based decision-making.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Natural Resource Managers Use and Value Western-Based Science, but Barriers to Access Persist

Piczak

Kadykalo

Cooke

et al. 2021

Environmental Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This emphasis is not unexpected given that early COVID-19 research has been largely opportunistic [34]. Indeed, many publications on the (ecological) impacts of COVID-19 were produced very rapidly early on in the pandemic [35], but when synthesized later, suggest truly mixed effects [32]. Moreover, as we emphasized, policy responses to the pandemic have focused singularly on human resilience and have been relatively reactive and unplanned.…”

Section: Social-ecological Impacts Of the Covid-19 Pandemicmentioning

confidence: 76%

Social–ecological systems approaches are essential for understanding and responding to the complex impacts of COVID-19 on people and the environment

Kadykalo

Beaudoin

Hackenburg

et al. 2022

PLOS Sustain Transform

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is dramatically impacting planetary and human societal systems that are inseparably linked. Zoonotic diseases like COVID-19 expose how human well-being is inextricably interconnected with the environment and to other converging (human driven) social–ecological crises, such as the dramatic losses of biodiversity, land use change, and climate change. We argue that COVID-19 is itself a social–ecological crisis, but responses so far have not been inclusive of ecological resiliency, in part because the “Anthropause” metaphor has created an unrealistic sense of comfort that excuses inaction. Anthropause narratives belie the fact that resource extraction has continued during the pandemic and that business-as-usual continues to cause widespread ecosystem degradation that requires immediate policy attention. In some cases, COVID-19 policy measures further contributed to the problem such as reducing environmental taxes or regulatory enforcement. While some social–ecological systems (SES) are experiencing reduced impacts, others are experiencing what we term an “Anthrocrush,” with more visitors and intensified use. The varied causes and impacts of the pandemic can be better understood with a social–ecological lens. Social–ecological insights are necessary to plan and build the resilience needed to tackle the pandemic and future social–ecological crises. If we as a society are serious about building back better from the pandemic, we must embrace a set of research and policy responses informed by SES thinking.

show abstract

“…Currently, there is no established CEE framework for this process; however, it is common in the healthcare field and guidance has been developed in that realm (Moher and Tsertsvadze, 2006;Garner et al, 2016; also see 3 Final remarks for suggestions for future work below). This has become particularly salient during the COVID-19 pandemic where vast amounts of new knowledge are being generated rapidly (Tricco et al, 2020), with lessons emerging that are relevant to environmental evidence synthesis (Kadykalo et al, 2021).…”

Section: What To Do When the Evidence Base Is Ambiguous?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Acting in the face of evidentiary ambiguity, bias, and absence arising from systematic reviews in applied environmental science

Rytwinski

Cooke

Taylor

et al. 2021

Science of The Total Environment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence-based decision-making often depends on some form of a synthesis of previous findings. There is growing recognition that systematic reviews, which incorporate a critical appraisal of evidence, are the gold standard synthesis method in applied environmental science. Yet, on a daily basis, environmental practitioners and decision-makers are forced to act even if the evidence base to guide them is insufficient. For example, it is not uncommon for a systematic review to conclude that an evidence base is large but of low reliability. There are also instances where the evidence base is sparse (e.g., one or two empirical studies on a particular taxa or intervention), and no additional evidence arises from a systematic review. In some cases, the systematic review highlights considerable variability in the outcomes of primary studies, which in turn generates ambiguity (e.g., potentially context specific). When the environmental evidence base is ambiguous, biased, or lacking of new information, practitioners must still make management decisions. Waiting for new, higher validity research to be conducted is often unrealistic as many decisions are urgent. Here, we identify the circumstances that can lead to ambiguity, bias, and the absence of additional evidence arising from systematic reviews and provide practical guidance to resolve or handle these scenarios when encountered. Our perspective attempts to highlight that, with evidence synthesis, there may be a need to balance the spirit of evidence-based decision-making and the practical reality that management and conservation decisions and action is often time sensitive.

show abstract

Ten principles for generating accessible and useable COVID‐19 environmental science and a fit‐for‐purpose evidence base

Cited by 10 publications

References 45 publications

Natural Resource Managers Use and Value Western-Based Science, but Barriers to Access Persist

Natural Resource Managers Use and Value Western-Based Science, but Barriers to Access Persist

Social–ecological systems approaches are essential for understanding and responding to the complex impacts of COVID-19 on people and the environment

Acting in the face of evidentiary ambiguity, bias, and absence arising from systematic reviews in applied environmental science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About