ArticleAmbio2023
Barriers to evidence use for sustainability: Insights from pesticide policy and practice.
Article in Ambio, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Roles of researchers in inter- and transdisciplinary sustainability research: a reflection tool.Sustainability science · 2025Article
- A typology of interdisciplinary collaborations: insights from agri-food transformation research.Sustainability science · 2025Article
- Pesticide reduction amidst food and feed security concerns in Europe.Nature food · 2023Review
- Hemp: A Sustainable Plant with High Industrial Value in Food Processing.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Calls for supporting sustainability through more and better research rest on an incomplete understanding of scientific evidence use. We argue that a variety of barriers to a transformative impact of evidence arises from diverse actor motivations within different stages of evidence use. We abductively specify this variety in policy and practice arenas for three actor motivations (truth-seeking, sense-making, and utility-maximizing) and five stages (evidence production, uptake, influence on decisions, effects on sustainability outcomes, and feedback from outcome evaluations). Our interdisciplinary synthesis focuses on the sustainability challenge of reducing environmental and human health risks of agricultural pesticides. It identifies barriers resulting from (1) truth-seekers' desire to reduce uncertainty that is complicated by evidence gaps, (2) sense-makers' evidence needs that differ from the type of evidence available, and (3) utility-maximizers' interests that guide strategic evidence use. We outline context-specific research-policy-practice measures to increase evidence use for sustainable transformation in pesticides and beyond.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.