Egestabase - An online evidence platform to discover and explore options to recover plant nutrients from human excreta and domestic wastewater for reuse in agriculture.

Restoring nutrient circularity across scales is important for ecosystem integrity as well as nutrient and food security. As such, research and development of technologies to recover plant nutrients from various organic residues has intensified. Yet, this emerging field is diverse and difficult to navigate, especially for newcomers. As an increasing number of actors search for circular solutions to nutrient management, there is a need to simplify access to the latest knowledge. Since the majority of nutrients entering urban areas end up in human excreta, we have chosen to focus on human excreta and domestic wastewater. Through systematic mapping with stakeholder engagement, we compiled and consolidated available evidence from research and practice. In this paper, we present 'Egestabase' - a carefully curated open-access online evidence platform that presents this evidence base in a systematic and accessible manner. We hope that this online evidence platform helps a variety of actors to navigate evidence on circular nutrient solutions for human excreta and domestic wastewater with ease and keep track of new findings.

Leveraging AI to improve evidence synthesis in conservation.

Systematic evidence syntheses (systematic reviews and maps) summarize knowledge and are used to support decisions and policies in a variety of applied fields, from medicine and public health to biodiversity conservation. However, conducting these exercises in conservation is often expensive and slow, which can impede their use and hamper progress in addressing the current biodiversity crisis. With the explosive growth of large language models (LLMs) and other forms of artificial intelligence (AI), we discuss here the promise and perils associated with their use. We conclude that, when judiciously used, AI has the potential to speed up and hopefully improve the process of evidence synthesis, which can be particularly useful for underfunded applied fields, such as conservation science.

Systematic mapping of gender equality and social inclusion in WASH interventions: knowledge clusters and gaps.

INTRODUCTION: Poor access to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) services threatens population health and contributes to gender and social inequalities, especially in low-resource settings. Despite awareness in the WASH sector of the importance of promoting gender equality and social inclusion (GESI) to address these inequalities, evaluations of interventions focus largely on health outcomes, while gender equality and other social outcomes are rarely included. This review aimed to collate and describe available research evidence of GESI outcomes evaluated in WASH intervention studies. METHODS: We applied a systematic mapping methodology and searched for both academic and grey literature published between 2010 and 2020 in 16 bibliographic databases and 53 specialist websites. Eligibility screening (with consistency checking) was conducted according to predetermined criteria, followed by metadata coding and narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Our evidence base comprises 463 intervention studies. Only 42% of studies measured transformative GESI outcomes of WASH interventions, referring to those that seek to transform gender relations and power imbalances to promote equality. A majority of studies disaggregated outcome data by sex, but other forms of data disaggregation were limited. Most included studies (78%) lacked a specific GESI mainstreaming component in their intervention design. Of the interventions with GESI mainstreaming, the majority targeted women and girls, with very few focused on other social groups or intersectional considerations. CONCLUSION: The review points to various areas for future primary and secondary research. Given the potential contribution of WASH to GESI, GESI considerations should be incorporated into the evaluation of WASH interventions. Regular collection of data and monitoring of GESI outcomes is needed as well as developing new and testing existing methods for monitoring and evaluation of such data.

Author Correction: Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them.

Traditional approaches to reviewing literature may be susceptible to bias and result in incorrect decisions. This is of particular concern when reviews address policy- and practice-relevant questions. Systematic reviews have been introduced as a more rigorous approach to synthesizing evidence across studies; they rely on a suite of evidence-based methods aimed at maximizing rigour and minimizing susceptibility to bias. Despite the increasing popularity of systematic reviews in the environmental field, evidence synthesis methods continue to be poorly applied in practice, resulting in the publication of syntheses that are highly susceptible to bias. Recognizing the constraints that researchers can sometimes feel when attempting to plan, conduct and publish rigorous and comprehensive evidence syntheses, we aim here to identify major pitfalls in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews, making use of recent examples from across the field. Adopting a 'critical friend' role in supporting would-be systematic reviews and avoiding individual responses to police use of the 'systematic review' label, we go on to identify methodological solutions to mitigate these pitfalls. We then highlight existing support available to avoid these issues and call on the entire community, including systematic review specialists, to work towards better evidence syntheses for better evidence and better decisions.

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.

Identifying barriers and opportunities for a circular phosphorus economy in the Baltic Sea region.

Phosphorus (P) is one of the essential elements needed for global food security. However, the phosphate life cycle is currently predominantly linear, from P-rock mining to fertiliser production, agriculture, and food consumption, with the P excess ending up in soil and runoff. Eutrophication coupled with limited global commercial phosphorus reserves call for increased efforts toward creating a circular economy for P in many populated drainage basins such as the Baltic Sea region. To identify barriers and opportunities for such a transition, we employ an analytical framework that merges an innovation systems perspective with elements from the socio-technical transitions literature. Combining a literature review with key informant interviews, we find that lack of appropriate policy steering and insufficient knowledge on the performance of technologies for reuse remain key obstacles for closing the P loop. There are, however, structural opportunities presented by the new EU Fertilising Products Regulation that are likely to level the playing field between conventional and waste-derived fertilisers and thereby improve the market opportunities for recovered P. However, the system currently appears to be moving towards a narrow focus on a few new technologies for P recovery and reuse which could lead to new lock-ins. Solutions need to address users' acceptability of the technologies and waste-derived products while the vision of a circular economy needs to be better articulated through government interventions to capture environmental externalities of phosphate mining. The paper further highlights knowledge gaps and proposes recommendations for policy and research related to the circular economy of P.

"A little learning is a dangerous thing": A call for better understanding of the term 'systematic review'.

Systematic reviews are becoming a widely accepted gold standard in evidence synthesis for evidence-based and -informed policy and practice. Many organisations exist to coordinate the registration, conduct and publication of systematic reviews across a range of disciplines, including medicine, international development, and environmental management and biodiversity conservation. As the term 'systematic review' becomes more widely recognised, however, there is a risk that stakeholders may have only partial understanding of the rigorous methods required to produce a reliable systematic review. Here, we highlight one such example from the field of education and international development, where a World Bank report claimed to 'systematically review' six 'systematic reviews' that found divergent results. We critically appraise the six included reviews and the World Bank report itself using an a priori quality assessment tool. Our analysis shows that none of the six included reviews are classifiable as systematic reviews according to widely accepted criteria. We also find that the World Bank report failed to use true systematic review methods to synthesise the included reviews findings. Our study demonstrates the risks associated with partial understanding of the added value associated with systematic reviews and highlights a need for improved awareness of what systematic reviews are.