Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39294763›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental evidence2022

How is the ecosystem services concept used as a tool to foster collaborative ecosystem governance? A systematic map protocol.

Jennifer M Holzer, Imogen Hobbs, Julia Baird, Gordon Hickey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental evidence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jennifer M HolzerEnvironmental Sustainability Research Centre, Brock University, 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way, St. Catharines, ON, L2S 3A1, Canada.
Imogen HobbsDepartment of Natural Resource Sciences, McGill University, 21111 Lakeshore Road, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC, H9X 3V9, Canada.
Julia BairdEnvironmental Sustainability Research Centre, Brock University, 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way, St. Catharines, ON, L2S 3A1, Canada. jbaird@brocku.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2580-5361
Gordon HickeyDepartment of Natural Resource Sciences, McGill University, 21111 Lakeshore Road, Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC, H9X 3V9, Canada.

Funding

Canada Research Chairs NSERC NETGP 523374-18Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada NSERC NETGP 523374-18
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile the concept of ecosystem services has been widely adopted by scholars and increasingly used in policy and practice, there has been criticism of its usefulness to decision-makers. This systematic map will collect and analyse literature that frames ES as a collaboration tool, rather than as an ecosystem assessment tool, to answer the research question-how is the ecosystem services concept used as a tool to foster collaborative ecosystem governance and management?

methodsWe will search for publications using designated keywords in Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, grey literature and conservation practitioner databases and websites. The search strategy aims to locate all ecosystem services studies related to collaboration and joint activities. After removing duplicates, we will screen papers in two stages-first by reviewing titles and abstracts and then by reviewing full text. Both stages will screen papers according to the following inclusion criteria: (1) the study is situated in the context of or related to environmental governance or management; (2) the study focuses on ecosystem services being used as a tool for collaboration; (3) the study describes a process resulting from applying the ecosystem services concept as a tool or approach; and (4) the ecosystem services concept is used in the study in a collaboration or group process in a substantial manner. We will exclude papers that do not address the ES concept as a process tool or approach or that use the ecosystem services concept to directly influence specific decisions or policy. Eligible studies will be critically appraised to assess their reporting quality. Studies will then be reviewed to determine: (a) the type of tool or mechanism that is the primary focus or example of the paper, (b) the rationale for using the ES concept, (c) whether a tool or approach was empirically tested in the study, (d) what the study found regarding the usefulness of ES as a tool or approach, and (e) any challenges to their use, if mentioned explicitly. A standard coding spreadsheet will be used by reviewers. Relevant metadata will be extracted for each paper assessed and used to construct an open-access online database. Finally, a narrative synthesis of metadata will be reported based on eligible studies.

Indexed as

Boundary objectGovernanceManagementNatural capitalProcessStakeholder

Identifiers

PMID39294763
PMCPMC11378854

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.