Abstract

Systematic mapping was developed in social sciences in response to a lack of empirical data when answering questions using systematic review methods, and a need for a method to describe the literature across a broad subject of interest. Systematic mapping does not attempt to answer a specific question as do systematic reviews, but instead collates, describes and catalogues available evidence (e.g. primary, secondary, theoretical, economic) relating to a topic or question of interest. The included studies can be used to identify evidence for policy-relevant questions, knowledge gaps (to help direct future primary research) and knowledge clusters (sub-sets of evidence that may be suitable for secondary research, for example systematic review). Evidence synthesis in environmental sciences faces similar challenges to those found in social sciences. Here we describe the translation of systematic mapping methodology from social sciences for use in environmental sciences. We provide the first process-based methodology for systematic maps, describing the stages involved: establishing the review team and engaging stakeholders; setting the scope and question; setting inclusion criteria for studies; scoping stage; protocol development and publication; searching for evidence; screening evidence; coding; production of a systematic map database; critical appraisal (optional); describing and visualising the findings; report production and supporting information. We discuss the similarities and differences in methodology between systematic review and systematic mapping and provide guidance for those choosing which type of synthesis is most suitable for their requirements. Furthermore, we discuss the merits and uses of systematic mapping and make recommendations for improving this evolving methodology in environmental sciences.

Highlights

  • The last decade saw increasing concerns that scientific research was not being used to underpin policy and practice in the fields of conservation and environmental science [1,2,3,4,5,6,7], with decisions generally being experiencebased rather than evidence-based [2, 8]

  • The included studies can be used to develop a greater understanding of concepts, identify evidence for policy-relevant questions, knowledge gaps, and knowledge clusters [10, 11, 30,31,32]

  • The extension of a subtopic into a separate systematic review would involve: drafting of a systematic review protocol; selection of relevant studies from the systematic map; updating searches to capture research published since the original search; collection of full text articles; full critical appraisal for study internal and external validity extraction of quantitative or qualitative data; synthesis of results using appropriate quantitative or qualitative methodology where possible; and drafting of a systematic review report

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The last decade saw increasing concerns that scientific research was not being used to underpin policy and practice in the fields of conservation and environmental science [1,2,3,4,5,6,7], with decisions generally being experiencebased rather than evidence-based [2, 8].

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call