Abstract
BackgroundThis systematic map protocol responds to an urgent policy need to evaluate key environmental benefits of new compulsory greening measures in the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), with the aim of building a policy better linked to environmental performance. The systematic map will focus on Ecological Focus Areas (EFAs), in which larger arable farmers must dedicate 5% of their arable land to ecologically beneficial habitats, landscape features and land uses. The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre has used a software tool called the ‘EFA calculator’ to inform the European Commission about environmental benefits of EFA implementation. However, there are gaps in the EFA calculator’s coverage of ecosystem services, especially ‘global climate regulation’, and an opportunity to use systematic mapping methods to enhance its capture of evidence, in advance of forthcoming CAP reforms. We describe a method for assembling a database of relevant, peer-reviewed research conducted in all agricultural landscapes in Europe and neighbouring countries with similar biogeography, addressing the primary question: what are the impacts of selected EFA features in agricultural land on two policy-relevant ecosystem service outcomes—global climate regulation and pollination? The method is streamlined to allow results in good time for the current, time-limited opportunity to influence reforms of the CAP greening measures at European and Member State level.MethodsWe will search four bibliographic databases in English, using a predefined and tested search string that focuses on a subset of EFA options and ecosystem service outcomes. The options and outcomes are selected as those with particular policy relevance and traction. Only articles in English will be included. We will screen search results at title, abstract and full text levels, recording the number of studies deemed non-relevant (with reasons at full text). A systematic map database that displays the meta-data (i.e. descriptive summary information about settings and methods) of relevant studies will be produced following full text assessment. The systematic map database will be published as a MS-Excel database. The nature and extent of the evidence base will be discussed, and the applicability of methods to convert the available evidence into EFA calculator scores will be assessed.
Highlights
This systematic map protocol responds to an urgent policy need to evaluate key environmental ben‐ efits of new compulsory greening measures in the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), with the aim of building a policy better linked to environmental performance
The role of agriculture in global climate regulation was highlighted in the Paris climate agreement at the 21st Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP21) in 2015 [4]
Quantifying the environmental benefits of Ecological Focus Areas to inform policy To facilitate the uptake of EFA choices that deliver higher levels of biodiversity and ecosystem service, the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre fostered development of a software tool called the ‘EFA calculator’ [26, 27]
Summary
Searches Bibliographic databases The following academic citation databases will be searched for studies: Primary question What are the impacts of selected EFA features in agricultural land on pollination and/or climate regulation services?. Since the objective of this systematic map is to enable the commissioning organisation (JRC) to update and adjust the impact scores in the EFA calculator [27] and identify knowledge gaps with greater transparency and rigour, a final section of the systematic map report will consider and assess the available methods to convert elements of the systematic map into impact and weighting scores This will include identifying EFA feature-impact combinations that are sufficiently covered by existing quantitative studies to allow full systematic review (including critical appraisal and meta-analysis); identifying EFA feature-impact combinations where the evidence includes quantitative models that could be used to generate scores directly; and describing a trial of the ‘summary and expert assessment of evidence approach’ demonstrated by Dicks et al [41], in which concise, plain English summaries of each paper (summaries and synopses method; [30, 31]) are reviewed by a multi-expert panel, following a modified Delphi process to generate scores [30].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
