Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Cross-discipline evidence principles for sustainability policy

  • Comment
  • Published:

From Nature Sustainability

View current issue Submit your manuscript

Evidence-based approaches to sustainability challenges must draw on knowledge from the environment, development and health communities. To be practicable, this requires an approach to evidence that is broader and less hierarchical than the standards often applied within disciplines.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1: The four principles that underpin a cross-disciplinary approach to evidence.

References

  1. Midgley, G., Nicholson, J. D. & Brennan, R. Ind. Market. Manag. 62, 150–159 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fazey, I. et al. Energy Res. Social Sci. 40, 54–70 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cornell, S. et al. Environ. Sci. Pol. 28, 60–70 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Tengö, M. et al. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26, 17–25 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cartwright, N. Philos. Sci. 73, 981–990 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Munafò, M. R. & Davey Smith, G. Nature 553, 399–401 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Guyatt, G. H. et al. Brit. Med. J. 336, 924 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Morgan, R. L. et al. Environ. Int. 92, 611–616 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Sackett, D. L. et al. Brit. Med. J. 312, 71 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Panhans, M. T. & Singleton, J. D. Hist. Polit. Econ. 49, 127–157 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sutherland, W. J. et al. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 305–308 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, Guidelines for Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management Version 4.2 (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, 2013).

  13. Voβ, J.-P. et al. J. Environ. Pol. Plan. 9, 193–212 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bennett, N. J. Conserv. Biol. 30, 582–592 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Khagram, S. & Thomas, C. W. Public Admin. Rev. 70, S100–S106 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cartwright, N., Goldfinch, A. & Howick, J. J. Child. Serv. 4, 6–14 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Norris, R. et al. Freshw. Sci. 31, 5–21 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rooney, A. A. et al. Environ. Health Persp. 122, 711 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Montibeller, G. & Von Winterfeldt, D. Risk Anal. 35, 1230–1251 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Clark, T. W. The Policy Process: A Practical Guide for Natural Resources Professionals. (Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank I. Fazey for extensive input that thoroughly improved the manuscript and Z. Burivalova for input on the design of Fig. 1. This collaboration was supported by a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation to H.T., E.T.G. and L.O. S.M.A. acknowledges support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center through NSF grant no. DBI-1052875. W.J.S. is funded by Arcadia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward T. Game.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Game, E.T., Tallis, H., Olander, L. et al. Cross-discipline evidence principles for sustainability policy. Nat Sustain 1, 452–454 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0141-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0141-x

  • Springer Nature Limited

This article is cited by

Navigation