How to increase the potential policy impact of environmental science research

Gary S. Bilotta · Alice M. Milner · Ian L. Boyd

22 citations0/0 files storedEnvironmental Sciences Europe

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Research, Science, and Academia Academic Publishing and Open Access Social Science and Policy Research

Abstract

This article highlights eight common issues that limit the policy impact of environmental science research. The article also discusses what environmental scientists can do to resolve these issues, including (1) optimising the directness of their study so that it examines similar processes/populations/environments/ecosystems to that of policy interest; (2) using the most powerful study design possible, to increase confidence in the identified causal mechanisms; (3) selecting a sufficient sample size, to reduce the chance of false positives/negatives and increase policy-makers’ confidence in extrapolation of the findings; (4) minimizing the risk of bias through randomization of study units to treatment and control groups (reducing the risk of selection bias), blinding of study units and investigators (reducing the risk of performance and detection bias), following-up study units from enrolment to study completion (reducing the risk of attrition bias) and prospectively registering the study on a publically-available platform (reducing the risk of reporting and publication bias); (5) proving that statistical analyses meet test assumptions by reporting the results of statistical assumption checks, ideally publishing full datasets online in an open-access format; (6) publishing the research whether statistically significant or not, policy-makers are just as interested in the negative or insignificant results as they are in the positive results; (7) making the study easy to find and use, the title and abstract of an article are of high importance in determining whether articles are examined in detail or not and used to inform policy; (8) contributing towards systematic reviews on environmental topics, to provide policy-makers with comprehensive, reproducible and updateable syntheses of all the evidence on a given topic.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 22 citations exist upstream.

References

2011The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials 2010Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases 2010The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index 2006Bias in Clinical Intervention Research 2010Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network 1993The Design and Analysis of Research Studies.1990The Importance of Reporting Statistical Power: The Forest Decline and Acidic Deposition Example 2014On the use of systematic reviews to inform environmental policies

Cited by

2020Analisis Kebijakan Penanganan Wabah Covid-19: Pengalaman Indonesia 2020Prepare Scientists to Engage in Science‐Policy 2021Acting in the face of evidentiary ambiguity, bias, and absence arising from systematic reviews in applied environmental science

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.