Cross-discipline evidence principles for sustainability policy

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.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

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


  1. 1.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

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

  13. 13.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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


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



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward T. Game.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

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).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter for a daily update on COVID-19 science.
Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing