Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Cross-discipline evidence principles for sustainability policy

Nature Sustainability volume 1, pages 452–454 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

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

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

Acknowledgements

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Nature Conservancy, South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

    Edward T. Game

  2. University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia

    Edward T. Game

  3. The Nature Conservancy, Santa Cruz, CA, USA

    Heather Tallis

  4. Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA

    Lydia Olander

  5. National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, University of Maryland, Annapolis, MD, USA

    Steven M. Alexander

  6. Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

    Steven M. Alexander

  7. Environmental Change and Governance Group, Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada

    Steven M. Alexander

  8. Center for Global Development, Washington DC, USA

    Jonah Busch

  9. Philosophy Department, Durham University, Durham, DH1 3HN, UK

    Nancy Cartwright

  10. University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

    Nancy Cartwright

  11. The Nature Conservancy, Durham, NC, USA

    Elizabeth L. Kalies

  12. The Nature Conservancy, Seattle, WA, USA

    Yuta J. Masuda

  13. Department of Biometry and Environmental System Analysis, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

    Anne-Christine Mupepele

  14. Nature Conservation and Landscape Ecology, University of Freiburg, Tennenbacher Str. 4, 79106, Freiburg, Germany

    Anne-Christine Mupepele

  15. School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Fort Lauderdale Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Florida, FL, USA

    Jiangxiao Qiu

  16. Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA

    Andrew Rooney

  17. Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, NC State University, Raleigh, NC, USA

    Erin Sills

  18. Conservation Science Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    William J. Sutherland

Authors
  1. Edward T. Game
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heather Tallis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lydia Olander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Steven M. Alexander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jonah Busch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nancy Cartwright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Elizabeth L. Kalies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yuta J. Masuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Anne-Christine Mupepele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Jiangxiao Qiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Andrew Rooney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Erin Sills
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. William J. Sutherland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Edward T. Game.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. 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). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0141-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0141-x

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene