Checklists, Boxes and Tables
Checklists
2.1 |
Checklist for assessing study quality. |
|
3.1 |
Checklists for evidence reviews and systematic maps. |
|
3.2 |
Checklist of quality criteria for meta-analyses. |
|
11.1 |
Checklist for assessing the extent of evidence use by organisations. |
|
12.1 |
Checklist of components of evidence-based decision making. |
|
12.2 |
Checklist of evidence use by organisations. |
|
12.3 |
Checklist of eight ‘easy wins’ for leaders to consider enacting |
|
12.4 |
Checklist for evidence use by knowledge brokers. |
|
12.5 |
Checklist for evidence use by practitioners and decision makers. |
|
12.6 |
Checklist for ensuring reports are evidence-based. |
|
12.7 |
Checklist for philanthropists and funders to encourage evidence use. |
|
12.8 |
Checklist for researchers and educators to support evidence use. |
Boxes
Box 1.1 |
Examples of large-scale weak delivery in policy and practice. |
|
Box 1.2 |
A brief history of evidence use. |
|
Box 1.3 |
Advantages of including evidence. |
|
Box 2.1 |
Examples of evidence with associated ISR scores. |
|
Box 4.1 |
General principles for presenting evidence. |
|
Box 4.2 |
Evidence sources for plant reintroduction argument map. |
|
Box 4.3 |
Evidence sources for mind map on snipe management. |
|
Box 4.4. |
A simple example of a Bayesian network. |
|
Box 5.1 |
The serious challenge of relying on experts: three examples. |
|
Box 5.2 |
Process for running a Delphi technique. |
|
Box 5.3 |
Process for running a Nominal Group technique. |
|
Box 5.4 |
Process for running an IDEA group. |
|
Box 5.5 |
Process for running a Prediction Market. |
|
Box 5.6 |
Process for running a Superforecasting group. |
|
Box 5.7 |
A simple process for judging the veracity of a statement. |
|
Box 5.8 |
A simple process for selecting options. |
|
Box 5.9 |
A simple process for estimating numeric values. |
|
Box 6.1 |
Principles and methods for working with local and Indigenous communities. |
|
Box 6.2 |
Stakeholder mapping and analysis. |
|
Box 6.3 |
Examples of community engagement. |
|
Box 7.1 |
Diagnosing declines: vultures on the Indian subcontinent. |
|
Box 7.2 |
A widely used approach for horizon scanning. |
|
Box 7.3 |
Typical process for scenario planning. |
|
Box 7.4 |
Typical process for solution scanning. |
|
Box 7.5 |
Creating a research agenda of questions for policy and practice. |
|
Box 7.6 |
Designing PICO (population, intervention, control, outcome) questions. |
|
Box 8.1 |
The decision-making process. |
|
Box 8.2 |
Clarifying objectives. |
|
Box 9.1 |
General principles for presenting evidence. |
|
Box 9.2 |
Creating a learning agenda. |
|
Box 9.3 |
Preparing an evidence-based plan. |
|
Box 9.4 |
Means by which funders ask applicants about the evidence underpinning the proposed actions. |
|
Box 10.1 |
Details to include in publications to enable data to be included in evidence collations. |
|
Box 11.1 |
Possible elements of an evidence-use plan. |
Tables
Table 1.1 |
Summary of studies looking at inefficiencies or potential gains in investment from using evidence. |
|
Table 1.2 |
How the components of decision making shown in Figure 1.4 become more precise as thinking moves around and inwards around the hexagon towards making a decision. |
|
Table 1.3 |
Suggested questions for determining the extent of good practice. |
|
Table 2.1 |
Some common distinguishing features that can be used to classify different types of evidence. |
|
Table 2.2 |
Some examples of evidence and their suggested classification based on Table 2.1. |
|
Table 2.3 |
Criteria for classifying evidence weight scores, as shown in Figure 2.1. |
|
Table 2.4 |
Types of financial costs and benefits of conservation interventions. |
|
Table 2.5 |
Comparison of the effectiveness of six experimental and quasi-experimental methods. |
|
Table 2.6 |
A classification, with examples, of the elements of most statements. |
|
Table 4.1. |
Suggested possible content, with examples, for presenting different means of searching for evidence. |
|
Table 4.2 |
The terms used to describe study designs in Conservation Evidence summaries. |
|
Table 4.3 |
Conversion of weights of single pieces of evidence (from multiplying three axes) into descriptions of evidence strengths. |
|
Table 4.4 |
Converting the combined evidence into statements of the strength of evidence. |
|
Table 4.5 |
The Strategic Evidence Assessment model. |
|
Table 4.6 |
Terms suggested by the IPCC (2005) for referring to probabilities. |
|
Table 4.7 |
Examples of ‘weasel’ terms whose likelihood is ambiguous. |
|
Table 4.8 |
The different main elements of summarising evidence described in this chapter with an illustrative sentence. |
|
Table 4.9 |
Example of tabular presentation of evidence for a proposed project that plans to introduce natural grazing with ponies to the montado habitat in Iberia to increase biodiversity. |
|
Table 4.10 |
Summary of current evidence for analytical questions relating to the theory of change shown in Figure 4.7. |
|
Table 4.11 |
A conditional probability table for the Sprinkler node given the three states of the Weather node. |
|
Table 5.1 |
Some of the most common sources of bias. |
|
Table 5.2 |
Summary of strategies for improving individual experts’ judgements. |
|
Table 5.3 |
Summary of strategies for improving group judgements. |
|
Table 6.1 |
Types of interactions with communities. |
|
Table 6.2 |
Groups that may be impacted by interventions and other key figures. |
|
Table 6.3. |
An example of a stakeholder analysis. |
|
Table 7.1 |
Potential actions concerning wide-scale and local changes. |
|
Table 7.2 |
Examples of diversity within environmental horizon scanning. |
|
Table 8.1 |
Summary of tools described in this chapter. |
|
Table 8.2. |
A list of fundamental questions that can be used to quickly sketch a decision. |
|
Table 8.3 |
A consequences table for seven different river management options (including no change with the river continuing to deteriorate) assessed under six criteria. Evidence is shown in relation to the current status. |
|
Table 8.4 |
As for Table 8.3 but with options C (expensive), F (flooding) and the tourism criterion (not important) all removed. |
|
Table 8.5 |
As for Table 8.4 but with dominated options B and E removed along with water quality (as no longer differs). |
|
Table 8.6 |
As for Table 8.5 but with D’s moderate gain in fish swapped for a 2% reduction in flood risk and G’s considerable benefits in fish swapped for a 5% reduction in flood risk. |
|
Table 8.7 |
As for Table 8.6 but with A’s increase in flood risk considered equivalent $5 cost, D’s reduction in flood risk considered equivalent to $290 savings and G’s equivalent to $75 savings. |
|
Table 8.8 |
The consequence table with the preferred option D but with a new option (H) added, which is now considered the overall preferred option. |
|
Table 8.9 |
Strategy table for an imaginary series of programmes. |
|
Table 9.1 |
Examples of wording to describe different evidence support when omitting evidence sources. |
|
Table 9.2 |
Evidence Use Capability Maturity Model. |
|
Table 9.3 |
Evidence used during different stages of creating agricultural schemes to benefit biodiversity including whether the necessary information is already collated and easily available (YES, PARTLY, NO) and how evidence gaps were filled. |
|
Table 9.4 |
Example text describing range of approaches for evidence checking. |
|
Table 10.1 |
The different stages of a project life cycle (see Figure 10.1) at which data can be collected, with examples of the type of data at each stage. |
|
Table 11.1 |
A taxonomy of reasons for project failure. |
|
Table 11.2 |
Summary of learning from failure methods. |
|
Table 11.3 |
Identifying significant species within Ingleby Farms using IUCN Red List, National lists and the status on farms. |
|
Table 11.4 |
The Whitley Fund for Nature evidence summary table used for shortlisted projects. |