The catalogue contains study descriptions in various languages. The system searches with your search terms from study descriptions available in the language you have selected. The catalogue does not have ‘All languages’ option as due to linguistic differences this would give incomplete results. See the User Guide for more detailed information.
Linking Evidence and Policy for Managing Biodiversity in the Agricultural Landscape, 2011
Creator
Sutherland, W., University of Cambridge, School of the Biological Sciences, Department of Zoology
Study number / PID
7100 (UKDA)
10.5255/UKDA-SN-7100-1 (DOI)
Data access
Restricted
Series
Not available
Abstract
Abstract copyright UK Data Service and data collection copyright owner.The study is part of the Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU) programme.
This project developed and tested a new method for integrating scientific evidence into policy and practice, using wildlife conservation on farmland as a demonstration. The project compiled a list of 118 interventions to benefit wildlife on agricultural land, then reviewed and synthesized scientific evidence for each intervention. The project combined expert evaluation of the synthesized evidence with consultation of conservation practitioners and policymakers, to identify research priorities in important areas where evidence is weak or incomplete, and advocacy priorities in important areas where evidence of benefit is strong.
Fifty-four people involved in the policy and practice of farmland conservation scored how important each intervention is for farmland conservation, and answered more detailed questions about a subset of interventions, using an online survey. A team of ten experts in agricultural ecology, policy or rural social science evaluated the evidence for each intervention, based on the compiled synthesis. They assessed how much is known about each intervention (% certainty) and whether the evidence showed a benefit to wildlife. The expert evaluation process was based on a method of gathering expert judgement using iterative scoring rounds, called the Delphi technique.
Ten interventions that should be research priorities for farmland conservation were identified using a Research Priority Index, based on the geometric distance of each intervention from maximum importance, minimum certainty of knowledge about effectiveness. Ten interventions that could be considered advocacy priorities were identified by an Advocacy Priority Index, based on the geometric distance from maximum importance, maximum certainty of knowledge. The shorter the distance, the higher the priority in each case. Interventions were only...
Terminology used is generally based on DDI controlled vocabularies: Time Method, Analysis Unit, Sampling Procedure and Mode of Collection, available at CESSDA Vocabulary Service.
Methodology
Data collection period
01/01/2011 - 01/10/2011
Country
United Kingdom
Time dimension
Cross-sectional (one-time) study
Analysis unit
Individuals
National
Universe
54 UK farmland conservation practitioners, selected through purposive sampling; 10 experts in agricultural ecology, policy or rural social science.
Sampling procedure
Purposive selection/case studies
Kind of data
Text
Numeric
Data collection mode
Email survey
Funding information
Grant number
RES-240-25-0006
Access
Publisher
UK Data Service
Publication year
2012
Terms of data access
The Data Collection is available to UK Data Service registered users subject to the End User Licence Agreement.