Evidence Synthesis as the Basis for Decision Analysis: A Method of Selecting the Best Agricultural Practices for Multiple Ecosystem Services
Evidence Synthesis as the Basis for Decision Analysis: A Method of Selecting the Best Agricultural Practices for Multiple Ecosystem Services
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fsufs.2019.00083
复制
发表时间：
2019-10
影响因子：
4.7
通讯作者：
Gorm E. Shackelford;R. Kelsey;W. Sutherland;C. Kennedy;S. Wood;Sasha Gennet;D. Karp;C. Kremen;N. Seavy;Julie A. Jedlicka;Kelly Gravuer;Sara M. Kross;D. Bossio;Andrés Muñoz‐Sáez;Deirdre G. LaHue;K. Garbach;L. Ford;Mark L. Felice;M. Reynolds;Devii R. Rao;K. Boomer;G. LeBuhn;L. Dicks
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gorm E. Shackelford;R. Kelsey;W. Sutherland;C. Kennedy;S. Wood;Sasha Gennet;D. Karp;C. Kremen;N. Seavy;Julie A. Jedlicka;Kelly Gravuer;Sara M. Kross;D. Bossio;Andrés Muñoz‐Sáez;Deirdre G. LaHue;K. Garbach;L. Ford;Mark L. Felice;M. Reynolds;Devii R. Rao;K. Boomer;G. LeBuhn;L. Dicks
农业管理实践不仅对农作物和牲畜产生影响，而且对土壤、水、野生动物和生态系统服务产生影响。农业研究提供了有关这些影响的证据，但尚不清楚如何使用这些证据来做出决策。决策中广泛使用两种方法：证据综合和决策分析。然而，整合这两种方法的循证决策体系尚未建立。此外，证据合成的标准方法关注范围较窄（例如，一种管理实践的效果），而决策分析的标准方法则关注范围较广（例如，多种管理实践的比较有效性）。因此，证据合成的输出与决策分析所需的输入之间存在不匹配。我们展示了如何同时审查和总结各种农业实践的证据（“全学科证据综合”），以及如何由专家评估这些证据并用于决策（“多标准决策分析”）。我们展示了加州大自然保护协会 (TNC) 如何根据 Conservation Evidence (www.conservationevidence.com) 发布的全主题证据综合，使用这些方法为地中海型农田和牧场的多种生态系统服务选择最佳管理实践。这种“基于证据的决策分析”方法可以在不同的规模上使用，从地方规模（农民决定采用哪些做法）到国家或国际规模（政策制定者决定通过农业补贴或其他生态系统服务付费来支持哪些做法）。我们讨论了这种方法的优点和缺点，并提出了一些改进证据合成的一般原则，作为多标准决策分析的基础。
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 one management 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.