What are the impacts of activities undertaken in UNESCO biosphere reserves on socio-economic wellbeing in Southeast Asia? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: UNESCO biosphere reserves (BRs) have historically aimed to play a crucial role in contributing to sustainable development by bringing about win-win outcomes for both biodiversity and socio-economic development. However, recent studies show the need for a more thorough understanding of how conservation activities impact on and are affected by socio-economic development. METHOD: We built this systematic review on a systematic map by Eales et al. [14] adding studies from further academic database and grey literature searches specifically designed for this systematic review. Because studies were not sufficiently homogeneous in their outcomes to warrant a valid meta-analysis, we used narrative synthesis to explore the studies' findings. RESULTS: We assessed 10,053 titles and abstracts from database searches and Google Scholar. 343 articles were screened at full text and 16 studies were included in our review. Of the 16 studies, 3 were assessed as having overall high validity, 8 having moderate validity and 3 having low validity of evidence. 2 studies did not provide sufficient information for validity categorisation (unclear validity). Effects on economic living standards, reported in 11 studies, were in both desired and undesired directions, though most high validity studies reported no significant difference, and most others did not test for significance. Most studies reported that BR interventions were associated with positive impacts on material living standards. In general, studies reported good relations between local people and local enforcement/government following interventions in BRs. BR interventions may both reduce or cause social conflict, though the higher validity studies showed results in the desired direction. In one study, there was a positive impact on population family planning outcomes, when a reproductive health intervention was implemented with conservation efforts. There was no clear impact in either direction regarding education. Across two studies the overall message is positive for the subjective wellbeing of local people. CONCLUSIONS: With 727 BRs worldwide, the BR model has been accepted and developed as an approach to facilitate the implementation of the UN's SDGs. However, our work shows that interventions implemented in UNESCO BRs can bring about impacts in quite diverse ways: positive, negative, unchanged, and may often present both positive and negative impacts in the same situation. This reconfirms that the expected win-win outcomes of UNESCO BR model in terms of biodiversity and socio-economic development should be more carefully considered. We suggest some main points for consideration, particularly when developing management mechanisms for UNESCO biosphere reserves and/or managing activities in biosphere reserves. We also highlight the need for further research to explore the socio-economic impacts of the UNESCO biosphere reserves in Southeast Asia, especially on the domains of freedom of choice and action, security and safety, and culture and spirituality. Moreover, it is vital to have research projects that measure long-term impacts of biosphere reserves, which have been lacking in previous work. Finally, the potential impact of external factors should be considered in programme and monitoring design.

What evidence exists for the impact of climate change on the physiology and behaviour of important aquaculture marine crustacean species in Asia? A systematic map protocol.

BACKGROUND: Climate is one of the most important driving factors of future changes in terrestrial, coastal, and marine ecosystems. Any changes in these environments can significantly influence physiological and behavioural responses in aquatic animals, such as crustacea. Crustacea play an integral role as subsistence predators, prey, or debris feeders in complex food chains, and are often referred to as good indicators of polluted or stressed conditions. They also frequently have high production, consumption, and commercial significance. However, crustacean's responses to climate change are likely to vary by species, life-history stage, reproduction status and geographical distribution. This map is undertaken as part of the Long-Term Research Grant project which aims to identify any interactive effect on physiological compensation and behavioural strategy of how marine organisms, especially crustaceans, deal with stress from environmental change. Our proposed map will aim to outline the evidence currently existing for the impacts of climate change on the physiology and behaviour of important aquaculture crustacean species within Asia. METHODS: We will document peer-reviewed articles in English using published journal articles and grey literature. Two bibliographic databases (Scopus and Web of Science) and multiple organizational websites with Google scholars will be searched. The systematic map protocol will follow in accordance with the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Guidelines and Standards. Literature will be screened at the title, abstract, and full-text level using pre-defined inclusion criteria. The map will highlight marine crustacea physiological compensation and behavioural strategies to cope with climate change. It will also improve our knowledge of the available evidence and current gaps for future research recommendations.

What are the outcomes of marine site protection on poverty of coastal communities in Southeast Asia? A systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Many conservation management interventions have been set up to bring win-win outcomes for both biodiversity conservation and the well-being of the local communities. Nevertheless, the implementation process of marine protected areas (MPAs) can generate unexpected outcomes and fail to reach its objectives in addressing communities' challenges. Therefore, it is crucial to have a better understanding of how MPAs influence the socioeconomic aspects of the coastal communities. This paper describes the protocol to conduct a systematic review which aims to explore and review the evidence that reflects the outcomes of marine site protection on poverty reduction in terms of economic and material living standards among the coastal communities in Southeast Asia. The review question is "What are the outcomes of marine site protection implementation on poverty in terms of material and economic living standards of coastal communities in Southeast Asia?". METHODS: The systematic review uses rigorous search strategies and selection methods based on pre-defined eligibility criteria to identify and examine published journal articles and grey literature that are available on the review topic. Relevant studies and grey literature will be extracted from a recent systematic map of the evidence documenting the effect of marine or coastal nature conservation or natural resource management activities on human well-being in Southeast Asia. We will search online databases including Web of Science Core Collection, Ovid Medline®, Environmental Complete, Scopus, as well as Google Scholar and sources of grey literature for any additional literature available since the evidence map was created. For this review, the populations of interest are from coastal communities in the Southeast Asia region. Comparators to marine site protection will be no intervention and/or pre-MPA implementation. The economic and material living standards, which are the poverty domains, will be evaluated as outcomes. Once we have identified relevant literature, we will perform a critical appraisal, data extraction, and synthesis appropriate to the type of literature found, to investigate the effect of marine site protection on poverty reduction.

Standards of conduct and reporting in evidence syntheses that could inform environmental policy and management decisions.

Accurate, unbiased and concise synthesis of available evidence following clear methodology and transparent reporting is necessary to support effective environmental policy and management decisions. Without this, less reliable and/or less objective reviews of evidence could inform decision making, leading to ineffective, resource wasteful interventions with potential for unintended consequences. We evaluated the reliability of over 1000 evidence syntheses (reviews and overviews) published between 2018 and 2020 that provide evidence on the impacts of human activities or effectiveness of interventions relevant to environmental management. The syntheses are drawn from the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Database of Evidence Reviews (CEEDER), an online, freely available evidence service for evidence users that assesses the reliability of evidence syntheses using a series of published criteria. We found that the majority of syntheses have problems with transparency, replicability and potential for bias. Overall, our results suggest that most recently published evidence syntheses are of low reliability to inform decision making. Reviews that followed guidance and reporting standards for evidence synthesis had improved assessment ratings, but there remains substantial variation in the standard of reviews amongst even these. Furthermore, the term 'systematic review', which implies conformity with a methodological standard, was frequently misused. A major objective of the CEEDER project is to improve the reliability of the global body of environmental evidence reviews. To this end we outline freely available online resources to help improve review conduct and reporting. We call on authors, editors and peer reviewers to use these resources to ensure more reliable syntheses in the future.

Principles and framework for assessing the risk of bias for studies included in comparative quantitative environmental systematic reviews.

The internal validity of conclusions about effectiveness or impact in systematic reviews, and of decisions based on them, depends on risk of bias assessments being conducted appropriately. However, a random sample of 50 recently-published articles claiming to be quantitative environmental systematic reviews found 64% did not include any risk of bias assessment, whilst nearly all that did omitted key sources of bias. Other limitations included lack of transparency, conflation of quality constructs, and incomplete application of risk of bias assessments to the data synthesis. This paper addresses deficiencies in risk of bias assessments by highlighting core principles that are required for risk of bias assessments to be fit-for-purpose, and presenting a framework based on these principles to guide review teams on conducting risk of bias assessments appropriately and consistently. The core principles require that risk of bias assessments be Focused, Extensive, Applied and Transparent (FEAT). These principles support risk of bias assessments, appraisal of risk of bias tools, and the development of new tools. The framework follows a Plan-Conduct-Apply-Report approach covering all stages of risk of bias assessment. The scope of this paper is comparative quantitative environmental systematic reviews which address PICO or PECO-type questions including, but not limited to, topic areas such as environmental management, conservation, ecosystem restoration, and analyses of environmental interventions, exposures, impacts and risks.

What is the evidence documenting the effects of marine or coastal nature conservation or natural resource management activities on human well-being in South East Asia? A systematic map.

BACKGROUND: Conservation activities and natural resource management interventions have often aimed to tackle the dual challenge of improving nature conservation and human well-being. However, there is concern over the extent to which this dual goal has been achieved, and an increasing recognition of trade-offs and synergies within and between aspects of each of the goals. The amount and scope of the available evidence on the success of conservation and management interventions in both arenas has lacked documentation, for a number of reasons, including limited resources for monitoring and evaluation and the difficulty in bringing together a disparate evidence base. This systematic map focuses on the interaction between marine conservation management and the health and well-being of coastal communities in South East Asia. METHOD: We searched bibliographic databases to find published literature, and identified grey literature through institutional and organisational website searches and key stakeholders. Eligibility criteria were applied in two stages, title and abstract and full text, with consistency checks. We extracted meta-data on the design and characteristics of each study, from which we produced an interactive database and map, and a narrative summary. RESULTS: We assessed 42,894 records at title and abstract from the main searches. 1,331 articles were assessed at full text (30 articles were not retrievable). 287 articles (281 studies) were included in the systematic map. Most studies were peer-reviewed publications (90%), and from the Philippines and Indonesia (72%). 31% of studies were solely qualitative, 45% were solely quantitative and 24% included both qualitative and quantitative research. Only 24% (31/127) of quantitative studies included a comparator. We identified knowledge clusters where studies investigated the links between the marine conservation interventions: Site Protection, Economic or Livelihood Incentives or Alternatives, or Habitat Management, and the human health and well-being outcomes: Economic Living Standards, Governance and Empowerment, or Social Relations. In addition, qualitative research clusters were identified exploring the links between the intervention Habitat Management, and the outcome Governance and Empowerment, and between the intervention Economic or Livelihood Incentives or Alternatives, and the outcomes of Governance and Empowerment, and Social Relations. We identified major knowledge gaps in evidence for the effect of marine conservation interventions on the outcomes Freedom of Choice and Action, Security and Safety, Subjective Well-being, Health, and Culture and Spirituality. There was a lack of studies involving Education, Awareness and Activism interventions that reported any human health and well-being outcomes. CONCLUSION: We present the first updatable, interrogable and comprehensive evidence map on this topic for South East Asia. Our work supports further, detailed investigation of knowledge clusters using systematic review and also serves to identify understudied topic areas. The lack of comparative, quantitative studies suggests that future research should include counterfactuals to strengthen the robustness of evidence base. Users of this systematic map should recognise that much evidence may be national or locally specific, and that we did not undertake an assessment of study quality. Thus, when considering implications for policy and decision-making, users should carefully consider the heterogeneity of available evidence and refer to original research articles to gain a full depth of understanding and context.

Review of the evidence for oceans and human health relationships in Europe: A systematic map.

BACKGROUND: Globally, there is increasing scientific evidence of critical links between the oceans and human health, with research into issues such as pollution, harmful algal blooms and nutritional contributions. However, Oceans and Human Health (OHH) remains an emerging discipline. As such these links are poorly recognized in policy efforts such as the Sustainable Development Goals, with OHH not included in either marine (SDG14) or health (SDG3) goals. This is arguably short-sighted given recent development strategies such as the EU Blue Growth Agenda. OBJECTIVES: In this systematic map we aim to build on recent efforts to enhance OHH in Europe by setting a baseline of existing evidence, asking: What links have been researched between marine environments and the positive and negative impacts to human health and wellbeing? METHODS: We searched eight bibliographic databases and queried 57 organizations identified through stakeholder consultation. Results include primary research and systematic reviews which were screened double blind against pre-defined inclusion criteria as per a published protocol. Studies were limited to Europe, US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Data was extracted according to a stakeholder-defined code book. A narrative synthesis explores the current evidence for relationships between marine exposures and human health outcomes, trends in knowledge gaps and change over time in the OHH research landscape. The resulting database is available on the website of the Seas, Oceans and Public Health in Europe website (https://sophie2020.eu/). RESULTS: A total of 1,542 unique articles were included in the database, including those examined within 56 systematic reviews. Research was dominated by a US focus representing 50.1% of articles. A high number of articles were found to link: marine biotechnology and cardiovascular or immune conditions, consumption of seafood and cardiovascular health, chemical pollution and neurological conditions, microbial pollution and gastrointestinal or respiratory health, and oil industry occupations with mental health. A lack of evidence relates to direct impacts of plastic pollution and work within a number of industries identified as relevant by stakeholders. Research over time is dominated by marine biotechnology, though this is narrow in focus. Pollution, food and disease/injury research follow similar trajectories. Wellbeing and climate change have emerged more recently as key topics but lag behind other categories in volume of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base for OHH of relevance to European policy is growing but remains patchy and poorly co-ordinated. Considerable scope for future evidence synthesis exists to better inform policy-makers, though reviews need to better incorporate complex exposures. Priorities for future research include: proactive assessments of chemical pollutants, measurable impacts arising from climate change, effects of emerging marine industries, and regional and global assessments for OHH interactions. Understanding of synergistic effects across multiple exposures and outcomes using systems approaches is recommended to guide policies within the Blue Growth Strategy. Co-ordination of research across Europe and dedicated centres of research would be effective first steps.

The CEEDER database of evidence reviews: An open-access evidence service for researchers and decision-makers.

Evidence-informed decision-making aims to deliver effective actions informed by the best available evidence. Given the large quantity of primary literature, and time constraints faced by policy-makers and practitioners, well-conducted evidence reviews can provide a valuable resource to support decision-making. However, previous research suggests that some evidence reviews may not be sufficiently reliable to inform decisions in the environmental sector due to low standards of conduct and reporting. While some evidence reviews are of high reliability, there is currently no way for policy-makers and practitioners to quickly and easily find them among the many lower reliability ones. Alongside this lack of transparency, there is little incentive or support for review authors, editors and peer-reviewers to improve reliability. To address these issues, we introduce a new online, freely available and first-of-its-kind evidence service: the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Database of Evidence Reviews (CEEDER: www.environmentalevidence.org/ceeder). CEEDER aims to transform communication of evidence review reliability to researchers, policy-makers and practitioners through independent assessment of key aspects of the conduct, reporting and data limitations of available evidence reviews claiming to assess environmental impacts or the effectiveness of interventions relevant to policy and practice. At the same time, CEEDER will provide support to improve the standards of future evidence reviews and support evidence translation and knowledge mobilisation to help inform environmental decision-making.

The scale of the evidence base on the health effects of conventional yogurt consumption: findings of a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The health effects of conventional yogurt have been investigated for over a century; however, few systematic reviews have been conducted to assess the extent of the health benefits of yogurt. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this scoping review was to assess the volume of available evidence on the health effects of conventional yogurt. METHODS: The review was guided by a protocol agreed a priori and informed by an extensive literature search conducted in November 2013. Randomized controlled trials were selected and categorized according to the eligibility criteria established in the protocol. RESULTS: 213 studies were identified as relevant to the scoping question. The number of eligible studies identified for each outcome were: bone health (14 studies), weight management and nutrition related health outcomes (81 studies), metabolic health (6 studies); cardiovascular health (57 studies); gastrointestinal health (24 studies); cancer (39 studies); diabetes (13 studies), Parkinson's disease risk (3 studies), all-cause mortality (3 studies), skin complaints (3 studies), respiratory complaints (3 studies), joint pain/function (2 studies); the remaining 8 studies reported a variety of other outcomes. For studies of a similar design and which assessed the same outcomes in similar population groups, we report the potential for the combining of data across studies in systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review has revealed the extensive evidence base for many outcomes which could be the focus of systematic reviews exploring the health effects of conventional yogurt consumption.