ArticleJournal of the Royal Society of New Zealand2025
Quantifying a different way of doing research in the Our Land and Water National Science Challenge.
Article in Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Our Land and Water National Science Challenge (OLW) had the gazetted objective of enhancing primary sector production and productivity while maintaining and improving land and water quality for future generations. OLW employed a co-innovation approach, integrating a wide range of disciplines and stakeholders in the co-design, co-development, and co-production of research. Empirical data from OLW's eight-year implementation indicated that this approach increased the adoption of innovations (from a baseline of 20% to 53%, on average) and reduced the complexity for farmers in evaluating agri-environmental benefits, leading to significant improvements in both environmental and economic outcomes. Despite a lower volume of traditional publications, the high level of stakeholder engagement and co-authorship suggests that the research is well-integrated and impactful. These findings support the hypothesis that co-innovation yielded quicker impacts than traditional research approaches for the same level of investment.
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.