Dataset Information

Making robust policy decisions using global biodiversity indicators.

ABSTRACT: In order to influence global policy effectively, conservation scientists need to be able to provide robust predictions of the impact of alternative policies on biodiversity and measure progress towards goals using reliable indicators. We present a framework for using biodiversity indicators predictively to inform policy choices at a global level. The approach is illustrated with two case studies in which we project forwards the impacts of feasible policies on trends in biodiversity and in relevant indicators. The policies are based on targets agreed at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) meeting in Nagoya in October 2010. The first case study compares protected area policies for African mammals, assessed using the Red List Index; the second example uses the Living Planet Index to assess the impact of a complete halt, versus a reduction, in bottom trawling. In the protected areas example, we find that the indicator can aid in decision-making because it is able to differentiate between the impacts of the different policies. In the bottom trawling example, the indicator exhibits some counter-intuitive behaviour, due to over-representation of some taxonomic and functional groups in the indicator, and contrasting impacts of the policies on different groups caused by trophic interactions. Our results support the need for further research on how to use predictive models and indicators to credibly track trends and inform policy. To be useful and relevant, scientists must make testable predictions about the impact of global policy on biodiversity to ensure that targets such as those set at Nagoya catalyse effective and measurable change.

SUBMITTER: Nicholson E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3399804 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Making robust policy decisions using global biodiversity indicators.

Nicholson Emily E Collen Ben B Barausse Alberto A Blanchard Julia L JL Costelloe Brendan T BT Sullivan Kathryn M E KM Underwood Fiona M FM Burn Robert W RW Fritz Steffen S Jones Julia P G JP McRae Louise L Possingham Hugh P HP Milner-Gulland E J EJ

PloS one 20120718 7

In order to influence global policy effectively, conservation scientists need to be able to provide robust predictions of the impact of alternative policies on biodiversity and measure progress towards goals using reliable indicators. We present a framework for using biodiversity indicators predictively to inform policy choices at a global level. The approach is illustrated with two case studies in which we project forwards the impacts of feasible policies on trends in biodiversity and in releva ...[more]

PMID: 22815938

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Ensuring health policies are informed by evidence still remains a challenge despite efforts devoted to this aim. Several tools and approaches aimed at fostering evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM) have been developed, yet there is a lack of availability of indicators specifically devoted to assess and support EIPM. The present study aims to overcome this by building a set of measurable indicators for EIPM intended to infer if and to what extent health-related policies are, or are expected to be, evidence-informed for the purposes of policy planning as well as formative and summative evaluations. METHODS:The indicators for EIPM were developed and validated at international level by means of a two-round internet-based Delphi study conducted within the European project 'REsearch into POlicy to enhance Physical Activity' (REPOPA). A total of 82 researchers and policy-makers from the six European countries (Denmark, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania, the United Kingdom) involved in the project and international organisations were asked to evaluate the relevance and feasibility of an initial set of 23 indicators developed by REPOPA researchers on the basis of literature and knowledge gathered from the previous phases of the project, and to propose new indicators. RESULTS:The first Delphi round led to the validation of 14 initial indicators and to the development of 8 additional indicators based on panellists' suggestions; the second round led to the validation of a further 11 indicators, including 6 proposed by panellists, and to the rejection of 6 indicators. A total of 25 indicators were validated, covering EIPM issues related to human resources, documentation, participation and monitoring, and stressing different levels of knowledge exchange and involvement of researchers and other stakeholders in policy development and evaluation. CONCLUSION:The study overcame the lack of availability of indicators to assess if and to what extent policies are realised in an evidence-informed manner thanks to the active contribution of researchers and policy-makers. These indicators are intended to become a shared resource usable by policy-makers, researchers and other stakeholders, with a crucial impact on fostering the development of policies informed by evidence.

Project description:BACKGROUND:There is increased interest in using narratives or storytelling to influence health policies. We aimed to systematically review the evidence on the use of narratives to impact the health policy-making process. METHODS:Eligible study designs included randomised studies, non-randomised studies, process evaluation studies, economic studies, qualitative studies, stakeholder analyses, policy analyses, and case studies. The MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), WHO Global Health Library, Communication and Mass Media Complete, and Google Scholar databases were searched. We followed standard systematic review methodology for study selection, data abstraction and risk of bias assessment. We synthesised the findings narratively and presented the results stratified according to the following stages of the policy cycle: (1) agenda-setting, (2) policy formulation, (3) policy adoption, (4) policy implementation and (5) policy evaluation. Additionally, we presented the knowledge gaps relevant to using narrative to impact health policy-making. RESULTS:Eighteen studies met the eligibility criteria, and included case studies (n?=?15), participatory action research (n?=?1), documentary analysis (n?=?1) and biographical method (n?=?1). The majority were of very low methodological quality. In addition, none of the studies formally evaluated the effectiveness of the narrative-based interventions. Findings suggest that narratives may have a positive influence when used as inspiration and empowerment tools to stimulate policy inquiries, as educational and awareness tools to initiate policy discussions and gain public support, and as advocacy and lobbying tools to formulate, adopt or implement policy. There is also evidence of undesirable effects of using narratives. In one case study, narrative use led to widespread insurance reimbursement of a therapy for breast cancer that was later proven to be ineffective. Another case study described how the use of narrative inappropriately exaggerated the perceived risk of a procedure, which led to limiting its use and preventing a large number of patients from its benefits. A third case study described how optimistic 'cure' or 'hope' stories of children with cancer were selectively used to raise money for cancer research that ignored the negative realities. The majority of included studies did not provide information on the definition or content of narratives, the theoretical framework underlying the narrative intervention or the possible predictors of the success of narrative interventions. CONCLUSION:The existing evidence base precludes any robust inferences about the impact of narrative interventions on health policy-making. We discuss the implications of the findings for research and policy. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The review protocol is registered in PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (ID?=? CRD42018085011 ).

Project description:IntroductionMedia interventions can potentially play a major role in influencing health policies. This integrative systematic review aimed to assess the effects of planned media interventions-including social media-on the health policy-making process.MethodsEligible study designs included randomized and non-randomized designs, economic studies, process evaluation studies, stakeholder analyses, qualitative methods, and case studies. We electronically searched Medline, EMBASE, Communication and Mass Media Complete, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the WHO Global Health Library. We followed standard systematic review methodology for study selection, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment.ResultsTwenty-one studies met our eligibility criteria: 10 evaluation studies using either quantitative (n = 7) or qualitative (n = 3) designs and 11 case studies. None of the evaluation studies were on social media. The findings of the evaluation studies suggest that media interventions may have a positive impact when used as accountability tools leading to prioritizing and initiating policy discussions, as tools to increase policymakers' awareness, as tools to influence policy formulation, as awareness tools leading to policy adoption, and as awareness tools to improve compliance with laws and regulations. In one study, media-generated attention had a negative effect on policy advocacy as it mobilized opponents who defeated the passage of the bills that the media intervention advocated for. We judged the confidence in the available evidence as limited due to the risk of bias in the included studies and the indirectness of the evidence.ConclusionThere is currently a lack of reliable evidence to guide decisions on the use of media interventions to influence health policy-making. Additional and better-designed, conducted, and reported primary research is needed to better understand the effects of media interventions, particularly social media, on health policy-making processes, and the circumstances under which media interventions are successful.Trial registrationPROSPERO 2015: CRD42015020243.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Pharmaceuticals have made an important contribution to global reductions in morbidity and mortality. To help save lives and improve health, it is important to be sure about equity to access to drugs, drug efficacy, quality and safety, and rational use of drugs, which are standardized National Drug Policy (NDP) objectives. NDP's indicators are useful to evaluate the pharmaceutical system performance in a country. Iran has adapted a National Drug List (NDL). Since management of drug supply in Iran takes place only for drugs that have been selected in NDL and this list is selected by the member of Iran Drug Selecting Committee (IDSC), thus evaluation of IDSC's decision making during last 5 years is an appropriate way to evaluate the implementation of drug supply system in the country. METHODS: To identify strengths and weaknesses of pharmaceutical policy formation and implementation in Iran, four standard questionnaires of the World Health Organization (WHO) were used. To assess the agreement between decisions of IDSC and standardized NDP indicators in the last 5 years (1998-2002), a weighted questionnaire by nominal group technique based on the questions that should be answered during discussion about one drug in IDSC was designed and used. RESULTS: There is a totally generics based NDP with 95% local production, that provides affordable access to drugs. The system, structures, and mechanisms were in place; however, they did not function properly in some topics. Assessment of 59 dossiers of approved drugs for adding to NDL during last 5 years showed that IDSC's members pay more attention to efficacy, safety, and rationality in use rather than accessibility and affordability. CONCLUSION: Revision of drug system in term of implementation of the processes to achieve NDP's objectives is necessary to save public health. Clarification of NDP's objectives and their impact for IDSC's members will result in improvement of the equity in access to pharmaceuticals.

Dataset Information

Making robust policy decisions using global biodiversity indicators.

Publications

Making robust policy decisions using global biodiversity indicators.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets