DOI: 10.5255/ukda-sn-7100-1
title: Linking Evidence and Policy for Managing Biodiversity in the Agricultural Landscape, 2011

description: &lt;p&gt;The study is part of the Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU) programme.&lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;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.&lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;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.&lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;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 identified as advocacy priorities if they had unanimous agreement among experts of a benefit to wildlife.&lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;Source material for the project included: &lt;a href="http://www.environmentalevidence.org/SR35.html" title="The effectiveness of integrated farm management, organic farming and agri-environment schemes as interventions for conserving biodiversity in temperate Europe"&gt;The effectiveness of integrated farm management, organic farming and agri-environment schemes as interventions for conserving biodiversity in temperate Europe&lt;/a&gt;. Permission to use an initial list of references compiled for this review was granted by the lead reviewer, Nicola Randall.&lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;Further information for this study may be found through the &lt;a href="https://www.researchcatalogue.esrc.ac.uk/grants/RES-240-25-0006/read" target="_blank"&gt;ESRC Research Catalogue webpage: Testing a novel method for integrating research, policy and practice to identify solutions and research priorities.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="https://www.researchcatalogue.esrc.ac.uk/grants/RES-240-25-0006/read" target="_blank" style=""&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http://relu.data-archive.ac.uk/explore-data/search-browse/Project/?ID=RES-240-25-0006" title="RELU Knowledge Portal: Linking Evidence and Policy for Managing Biodiversity in the Agricultural Landscape"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt;The &lt;a href="www.conservationevidence.com" title="Conservation Evidence"&gt;Conservation Evidence&lt;/a&gt; website also contains information about the project.&lt;br&gt; &lt;/p&gt;