What is the evidence that reports on the interactions between human resilience, human wellbeing and environmental sustainability in marine and coastal areas around the UK?

Download PDF Download attached files

Attached Files:
Additional file_eligibility criteria.docx
Additional file_references.docx
Additional file_search strategy.docx

Systematic Map Protocol

Title
What is the evidence that reports on the interactions between human resilience, human wellbeing and environmental sustainability in marine and coastal areas around the UK?

Citation:
Jacqualyn Eales , Tomas Chaigneau , Matt Fortnam , Louisa Evans , Stephen Simpson , Claire Szoztek , Rachel Turner , Susan Kay , Oceane Marcone , Matthew Witt , Ruth Thurstan , Ruth Garside. What is the evidence that reports on the interactions between human resilience, human wellbeing and environmental sustainability in marine and coastal areas around the UK?: a Systematic Map Protocol. PROCEED-22-00003 Available from:
https://www.proceedevidence.info/protocol/view-result?id=3
https://doi.org/10.57808/proceed.2022.1

Corresponding author’s email address
j.f.eales@exeter.ac.uk

Keywords
Marine management, Resilience, Sustainability, Livelihood, Human health, Wellbeing

Background
The UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021-2030) signifies a new level of policy and research attention on the ocean. Human uses of the ocean are accelerating and the ecological and climate crises are unfolding with significant and widespread impacts, leading to growing impetus to protect ocean health, promote sustainable use, and ensure the ocean’s proven contributions to human health and wellbeing. Building resilience has also emerged as a central policy response to escalating risk and uncertainty. In the UK, marine and coastal zones face a set of unprecedented challenges, linked to climate change, the UK’s exit from the European Union, and the Covid-19 pandemic. Resilience is a growing policy priority, alongside improvements in human health and wellbeing, and marine environmental health. Yet, globally and in the UK, the evidence base linking human resilience to human wellbeing and/or environmental sustainability is lacking. We aim to, for the first time, document the research undertaken in the UK that links the concepts of human resilience with human wellbeing and/or environmental sustainability. The relationships between these three concepts are not fully understood, so our work will help shape our understanding of the interactions between them, what trade-offs and synergies exist, and where we need to direct future research effort to better understand these interactions.

Theory of change or causal model
As outlined in trade-off research more generally, synergies and trade-offs among these key objectives of resilience, wellbeing and environmental sustainability can play out across spatial and temporal scales. For instance, negative impacts of a conservation intervention on human resilience may be temporary or short-term but become synergistic in the long-term as resources recover. Alternatively, the conservation intervention may adversely impact resource-users in one place but not another, or one group but not another (Daw et al., 2016, Davies et al., 2018). These spatial, temporal and disaggregated interactions are important to understand for their policy implications.

Stakeholder engagement
This evidence map will inform ongoing research undertaken by partners from institutions in the UK, for the ROCC (Sustainable Development and Resilience of Coastal Communities in the UK) project as part of the UKRI SMMR (Sustainable Management of UK Marine Resources) programme of research. The goal of the wider ROCC project is to systematically evaluate synergies and trade-offs between human resilience, wellbeing and environmental sustainability across scales and sectors, and to identify opportunities to improve these outcomes together (SMMR, 2021). Researchers for the project working in the South-West UK region and other stakeholders from the project team (bulleted below) were involved in the discussions that focused the scope of this evidence map. Stakeholders have been invited to suggest search terms for the search strategy and to provide comment on various other parts of the evidence map, as it progresses, for example, the appropriateness of the meta-data extraction spreadsheet

Objectives and review question
1. What is the extent of the available primary research that reports on both i) environmental sustainability and ii) human resilience of people, communities or businesses around the UK coast? 2. What is the extent of the available primary research that reports on both i) human resilience and ii) the wellbeing of people, communities or businesses around the UK coast? 3. What is the extent of the available evidence on the relationship between the following three facets: i) environmental sustainability ii) human resilience and iii) wellbeing of people, communities and businesses around the UK coast?

Definitions of the question components
Population: Individuals, households or communities, living or working within coastal areas in the UK Outcomes: Resilience: The ability of an individual, group or community to respond positively or neutrally to disturbance or change. Human Wellbeing: The ability of an individual, group or community to satisfy their human needs and achieve a state of being well, physically and mentally. Environmental Sustainability: Both the health or state of the environment, and the human actions that impact the health or state of the environment.

Search strategy
Because we expect to find a limited amount of evidence (research on human resilience interactions is relatively new, c. the past 20 years (Brown, 2014) and there are several key papers that we expect empirical research to cite, we will use a range of approaches alongside bibliographic database searching to capture the extent of the evidence on the topic. We aim to find both published and unpublished (grey) literature, to be as comprehensive as possible. The search strings were composed of combinations of up to 4 of 5 concepts, and we will search within title/abstract/keywords where possible, or as similar as possible (e.g. “topic”). For the UK concept, we will also search within the country of the authors’ affiliation, using the rationale that for this UK focused topic, it is highly likely that at least one of the authors is based in a UK institution. We designed two search strings, the first to find evidence for research question 1, and the second to find evidence for research question 2. For research question 3, where we are interested only in articles that report on all three concepts, we will obtain the evidence from the other strings and screen for studies that include the third concept. The two search strings are below: Research question 1: UK AND marine/coast AND human resilience AND environmental sustainability Research question 2: UK AND marine/coast AND human resilience AND human wellbeing Search string is provided in Additional file_search strategy

Bibliographic databases
• Web of Science Core Collections (WOSCC) • Scopus • Medline (via Ovid) • CAB abstracts • BIOSIS All will be searched using University of Exeter subscription, in English. Search string is provided in Additional file_search strategy

Web-based search engines
Search strings for these sources will be adapted from the database search string and will reflect the search capabilities of each website. We will search Google Scholar (www.scholar.google.co.uk), because previous work has shown it to identify additional grey literature in excess of that found by other supplementary search methods (Haddaway et al., 2015). The functionality of Google Scholar’s search, particularly using Boolean operators has increased since the most recent analysis of its utility for evidence syntheses (Haddaway et al., 2015). We will use a modified version of the database search strings and use the first 200 records retrieved by the search for title and abstract screening. These records will be integrated with those retrieved by the bibliographic database searches using the software Publish or Perish (Harzing, 2007). Search strings for these sources will be adapted from the database search string and will reflect the search capabilities of each website.

Organisational websites
We will maximise our coverage of the evidence base by extending our search to relevant organisational websites and topical catalogues for any additional literature. These were suggested by the research team and stakeholders as potentially useful sources of evidence, and the list may expand if further suggestions are made during the evidence mapping. Any additions to the list will be recorded and noted as later additions in the final report. Search strings for these sources will be adapted from the database search string and will reflect the search capabilities of each website. The websites are listed below. DEFRA Science and Research Projects portal http://randd.defra.gov.uk Marine Management Organisation Evidence Projects Register https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/evidence-and-the-marine-management-organisation-mmo/evidence-projects-register Marine Environmental Data and Information Network https://medin.org.uk Marine Ecosystem Services Partnership Database https://www.icriforum.org/members/marine-ecosystem-services-partnership/ National Ocean Economics Program https://www.oceaneconomics.org/ Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory https://www.evri.ca/ Eftec https://eftec.co.uk/ TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) http://teebweb.org/ We will search the thesis and technical/research report repositories listed below, chosen to reflect repositories where a UK themed topic would be most likely to be held. The search string from the database searches will be adapted to reflect the search functionality of each repository. • DART-Europe • Ethos dissertation repository • Proquest Dissertations and Theses Global • EBSCO Open Dissertations • Open Grey literature database (via the Easy platform)

Comprehensiveness of the search
Comprehensiveness of the search strategy for databases was tested with an initial set of 6 test "benchmark" articles. These articles were suggested as potentially relevant by the project research team, they consider the some of outcomes of interest to us, though some have an international scope, and some of them do not address two outcomes, only one. We are limited due to the lack of empirical evidence on this topic, and that several of the suggested articles are grey literature, thus would not appear in the database searches. We tested the search strategy with the 6 benchmark articles (excluding a term set with a UK geographical focus) in Web of Science Core Collections, and 4 were retrieved. One was not retrieved because it was not marine focused (Chaigneau et al 2021), and the other was not retrieved because it did not contain the resilience component (Crona et al 2021). This was determined by removing those components of the search string and re-running the search. We are therefore satisfied that our strategy is sensitive enough to retrieve key papers. We anticipate our search strategy to involve a large amount of pearl growing (back and forward citation chasing) because of the small size of the resilience research. We used the 6 articles, along with 4 grey literature benchmark articles to inform our development of search terms.

Search update
We do not plan to update the searches during the map because we anticipate publishing the map report within 12 months of the searches.

Screening strategy
Search results from the bibliographic databases, and from Google Scholar will be de-duplicated and each article will be assessed for relevance based on its title and abstract (the latter being used where articles cannot be excluded based on title alone). Reviewers will be inclusive wherever there is doubt as to the relevance of an article. Full texts of articles that pass the screening at title and abstract will be retrieved and screened based on the full text and supplementary material. Again, each article will be assessed by one of at least two trained reviewers. During screening, we will retain any reviews, commentaries or perspectives that are in the topic area for pearl-growing. The Additional file presents the eligibility criteria that will be used in this evidence map, noting that for each research question, only the concepts relevant to each question will be used as criteria.

Eligibility criteria
See Additional file_eligibility criteria

Consistency checking
Consistency checking will be undertaken at both screening stages, Title and Abstract, and Full text. Each article will be assessed by one of at least two trained reviewers, who will undertake a consistency check between them, using a subset of double-screened articles (minimum 10%) to maximise the consistency of applying the eligibility criteria. We will use Kappa tests and percentage agreements to assess inter-reviewer consistency of the subset of articles. Discrepancies will be discussed and clarifications in interpreting the eligibility criteria to maximise the consistency for remaining studies. A third reviewer will be consulted if a decision cannot be reached, and clarification on eligibility criteria will be added to aid further decision making. If the inter-reviewer consistency is low, the consistency checking will be repeated using a further subset of articles (minimum 10%), until a good inter-reviewer agreement is achieved (e.g. Kappa score of “Good agreement”), at which point, the rest of the articles will be screened independently, with spot checks to identify any decision drift. Borderline articles will be flagged to other reviewers for discussion.

Reporting screening outcomes
We will provide a list of articles excluded at full text with reasons for exclusion. Should an article authored by one of the reviewers require screening, the reviewer in question will not make inclusion decisions for any of their own work. We will report the outcomes of screening in a ROSES flow diagram, along with a list of eligible articles at full text.

Study validity assessment
To maximise the resource efficiency of this evidence map, we will not undertake a formal quality assessment for each study. Meta-data coding will include the recording of study design elements, such as the type of comparator and the assignment method for intervention and comparators. This information will be used to indicate the relative numbers of studies that fall into a typology of study design categories that are of different rigour, though such a classification does not in itself allow studies to be defined as a particular quality. The coding will take place as part of the meta-data extraction, and repeatability of the study design categorisation will be assessed during that process. The categorisation of study designs will be one of the elements of meta-data that will be included in the data portal (meta-data extraction tables and geographical map) that will be the outputs of this evidence map.

Consistency checking
n/a

Data coding strategy
Studies that pass the relevance assessment at full text will have data extracted into a spreadsheet by a trained reviewer and coded into meta-data where possible.

Meta-data to be coded
. The data we anticipate extracting will include (but is not limited to): • Citation • Geographical location (latitude and longitude) • Study design • Description of how each of the concepts are represented or analysed (e.g., perception of coastal pollution; quality of life; description of resilience), using both categories and free text description where useful • Description of the disturbance event/s in the study or an indication of the absence of an identified disturbance • Data collection method • Data analysis method • Temporal scale (length of intervention) • Data type (quantitative, qualitative, mixed) • Hyperlink to article For each article, we will also include a structured statement summarising the study design, setting and the intervention/outcomes present.

Consistency checking
A random subset of studies (minimum 10%) will be double checked by a second reviewer for consistency in the completion of the coding spreadsheet. Discrepancies will be discussed and clarifications in interpreting the coding documented to maximise the consistency in the coding for remaining studies. Should a study authored by one of the reviewers require meta-data extraction, the reviewer in question will not undertake this for their own work.

Type of mapping
A freely accessible online data portal will present the studies and the meta-data that accompanies them. The software used to create the data portal may use EviAtlas (https://github.com/ESHackathon/eviatlas), or a similar mapping software. The data portal will include a structured matrix, which provides a graphical illustration of the distribution of studies across the pairings of concepts. This will show which linkages have been studied, and to what extent. We will plot the geographical location of each study (along with meta-data associated with each study) using the available information (latitude and longitude), in an interactive map, providing another format by which a user can access the evidence base covered in this evidence map.

Narrative synthesis methods
We will provide a narrative summary of the evidence, comparing the extent of the evidence base for each concept pairing, and the three concepts together. The summary will describe the types of studies, their foci and we will summarise any information in graphs and tables wherever possible (e.g. duration of intervention, data type, data collection and analysis methods). This will be used to identify and prioritise key knowledge gaps and clusters.

Knowledge gap identification strategy
Information in graphs and tables (e.g. geographical location, outcomes addressed, types of population data type) will be used to identify knowledge gaps. We are expecting limited evidence throughout the map, but particularly limited for evidence reporting on all three outcomes together.

Demonstrating procedural independence
Should a study authored by one of the reviewers require screening or meta-data extraction, the reviewer in question will not undertake this for their own work.

Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding information
This evidence map is part of a research programme Sustainable Development and Resilience of UK Coastal Communities (ROCC), from the Sustainable Management of UK Marine Resources (SMMR) programme, UKRI and NERC/ESRC.

Author’s contributions
The protocol was drafted by JE and LE. All authors read and approved the final protocol.

Acknowledgements
none

References
Additional file_references

Authors and Affiliations

Name	Country	Affiliation
Jacqualyn Eales	United Kingdom	Environment and Sustainability Institute; European Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter
Tomas Chaigneau	United Kingdom	Environment and Sustainability Institute, University of Exeter
Matt Fortnam	United Kingdom	Environment and Sustainability Institute, University of Exeter
Louisa Evans	United Kingdom	Geography Department, University of Exeter
Stephen Simpson	United Kingdom	School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol
Claire Szoztek	United Kingdom	Environment and Sustainability Institute, University of Exeter
Rachel Turner	United Kingdom	Environment and Sustainability Institute, University of Exeter
Susan Kay	United Kingdom	Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth
Oceane Marcone	United Kingdom	Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth
Matthew Witt	United Kingdom	Environment and Sustainability Institute; College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter
Ruth Thurstan	United Kingdom	Centre for Ecology and Conservation, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter
Ruth Garside	United Kingdom	European Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter

Submitted: Apr 4, 2022 | Published: May 4, 2022

© The Author(s) 2022.
This is an Open Access document distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en .