Janssen MA, Schoon ML, Ke W, Börner K. Scholarly networks on resilience, vulnerability and adaptation within the human dimensions of global environmental change. Glob Environ Change. 2006;16(3):240–52.
Article
Google Scholar
Xu L, Kajikawa Y. An integrated framework for resilience research: a systematic review based on citation network analysis. Sustain Sci. 2018;13:235–54.
Article
Google Scholar
Haddaway NR, Pullin AS. The policy role of systematic reviews: past, present and future. Springer Science Rev. 2014;14:179–83.
Article
Google Scholar
Pullin AS, Knight TM. Doing more good than harm: building an evidence-base for conservation and environmental management. Biol Cons. 2009;142:931–4.
Article
Google Scholar
Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JAC. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343(oct18_2):d5928.
Article
Google Scholar
The Steering Group of the Campbell Collaboration: Campbell collaboration systematic reviews: policies and guidelines. Campbell systematic reviews, (supplement 1), p. 46; 2015.
Petticrew M, Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2006.
Book
Google Scholar
Hannes K, Booth A, Harris J, Noyes J. Celebrating methodological challenges and changes: reflecting on the emergence and importance of the role of qualitative evidence in Cochrane reviews. Syst Rev. 2013;2(1):84–84.
Article
Google Scholar
Mays N, Pope C, Popay J. Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(1_suppl):6–20.
Article
Google Scholar
Pullin AS, Stewart GB. Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conserv Biol. 2006;20:1647–56.
Article
Google Scholar
Roberts PD, Stewart GB, Pullin AS. Are review articles a reliable source of evidence to support conservation and environmental management? A comparison with medicine. Biol Conserv. 2006;132:409–23.
Article
Google Scholar
Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. Guidelines and standards for evidence synthesis in environmental management. Version 5.0; Eds. Pullin AS, Frampton GK, Livoreil B, Petrokofsky G. 2018. Available from: http://www.environmentalevidence.org/information-for-authors. Accessed 1 Oct 2018.
Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J. An introduction to systematic reviews. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2012.
Google Scholar
Sandelowski M, Voils CI, Leeman J, Crandell JL. Mapping the mixed methods-mixed research synthesis terrain. J Mixed Methods Res. 2012;6(4):317–31.
Article
Google Scholar
Dalton J, Booth A, Noyes J, Sowden AJ. Potential value of systematic reviews of qualitative evidence in informing user-centered health and social care: findings from a descriptive overview. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;88:37–46.
Article
Google Scholar
Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:59.
Article
Google Scholar
Heyvaert M, Hannes K, Onghena P. Using mixed methods research synthesis for literature reviews, vol. 4. London: Sage; 2017.
Book
Google Scholar
Adams WM, Sandbrook C. Conservation, evidence and policy. Oryx. 2013;47:329–33.
Article
Google Scholar
Sandelowski M. Reading, writing and systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2008;64(1):104–10.
Article
Google Scholar
Paterson BL, Dubouloz C-J, Chevrier J, Ashe B, King J, Moldoveanu M. Conducting qualitative metasynthesis research: insights from a metasynthesis project. Int J Qual Methods. 2009;8:22–33.
Article
Google Scholar
Game ET, Meijaard E, Sheil D, McDonald-Madden E. Conservation in a wicked complex world: challenges and solutions. Conserv Lett. 2014;7(3):271–7.
Article
Google Scholar
Dewulf A, Craps M, Bouwen R, Taillieu T, Pahl-Wostl C. Integrated management of natural resources: dealing with ambiguous issues, multiple actors and diverging frames. Water Sci Technol. 2005;52(6):115–24.
Article
CAS
Google Scholar
DeFries R, Nagendra H. Ecosystem management as a wicked problem. Science. 2017;356(April):265–70.
Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Dick M, Rous AM, Nguyen VM, Cooke SJ. Necessary but challenging: multiple disciplinary approaches to solving conservation problems. Facets. 2017;1(1):67–82.
Article
Google Scholar
Brugnach M, Ingram H. Ambiguity: the challenge of knowing and deciding together. Environ Sci Policy. 2012;15:60–71.
Article
Google Scholar
Van Den Hove S. Participatory approaches to environmental policy-making: the European Commission Climate Policy Process as a case study. Ecol Econ. 2000;33:457–72.
Article
Google Scholar
Schneider SH. Abrupt non-linear climate change, irreversibility and surprise. Glob Environ Change. 2004;14:245–58.
Article
Google Scholar
Steffen W, Grinevald J, Crutzen P, McNeill J. The anthropocene: conceptual and historical perspectives. Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci. 1938;2011(369):842–67.
Google Scholar
Cash DW, Adger WN, Berkes F, Garden P, Lebel L, Olsson P, Pritchard L, Young O. Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecol Soc. 2006;11:2.
Article
Google Scholar
Glaser M, Glaeser B. Towards a framework for cross-scale and multi-level analysis of coastal and marine social-ecological systems dynamics. Reg Environ Change. 2014;14:2039–52.
Article
Google Scholar
Wyborn C, Bixler RP. Collaboration and nested environmental governance: scale dependency, scale framing, and cross-scale interactions in collaborative conservation. J Environ Manage. 2013;123:58–67.
Article
Google Scholar
Kirschke S, Newig J. Addressing complexity in environmental management and governance. Sustain Sci. 2017;9:983.
Article
Google Scholar
Bennett NJ, Roth R, Klain SC, Chan K, Christie P, Clark DA, Cullman G, Curran D, Durbin TJ, Epstein G, et al. Conservation social science: understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biol Cons. 2017;205:93–108.
Article
Google Scholar
Hicks C. Interdisciplinarity in the environmental sciences: barriers and frontiers. Environ Conserv. 2010;37(4):464–77.
Article
Google Scholar
Mace GM. Whose conservation? Science. 2014;345:1558–60.
Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Rust NA, Abrams A, Challender DWS, Chapron G, Ghoddousi A, Glikman JA, Gowan CH, Hughes C, Rastogi A, Said A, et al. Quantity does not always mean quality: the importance of qualitative social science in conservation research. Soc Nat Resour. 2017;30(10):1304–10.
Article
Google Scholar
Schweizer VJ, Kriegler E. Improving environmental change research with systematic techniques for qualitative scenarios. Environ Res Lett. 2012;7(4):44011–44011.
Article
Google Scholar
Cook CN, Possingham HP, Fuller RA. Contribution of systematic reviews to management decisions. Conserv Biol. 2013;27(5):902–15.
Article
Google Scholar
Pluye P, Hong QN, Bush PL, Vedel I. Opening-up the definition of systematic literature review: the plurality of worldviews, methodologies and methods for reviews and syntheses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;73:2–5.
Article
Google Scholar
Petticrew M. Time to rethink the systematic review catechism? Moving from ‘what works’ to ‘what happens’. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1–6.
Article
Google Scholar
Jackson RL, Drummond DK, Camara S. What is qualitative research? Qual Res Rep Commun. 2007;8(1):21–8.
Article
Google Scholar
Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K, Gerhardus A, Wahlster P, Van Der Wilt GJ, Mozygemba K, Refolo P, Sacchini D, Tummers M, Rehfuess E. Guidance on choosing qualitative evidence synthesis methods for use in health technology assessments of complex interventions [Online]. 2016. Available from: http://www.integrate-hta.eu/downloads/. Accessed 1 Oct 2018.
Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Syst Rev. 2012;1(1):28–28.
Article
Google Scholar
Thomas J, O’Mara-Eves A, Harden A, Newman M. Chapter 8: Synthesis methods for combining and configuring textual or mixed methods data. In: Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J, editors. An Introduction to systematic reviews. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2017.
Google Scholar
Andrews T. What is social constructionism? Grounded Theory Rev. 2012;11:39–46.
Google Scholar
Hannes K, Harden A. Multi-context versus context-specific qualitative evidence syntheses: combining the best of both. Res Synth Methods. 2012;2(4):271–8.
Article
Google Scholar
Hannes K, Macaitis K. A move to more systematic and transparent approaches in qualitative evidence synthesis: update on a review of published papers. Qual Res. 2012;12(4):402–42.
Article
Google Scholar
Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(1):45–53.
Article
Google Scholar
Dixon-Woods M. Using framework-based synthesis for conducting reviews of qualitative studies. BMC Med. 2011;9:9–39.
Article
Google Scholar
Lorenc T, Brunton G, Oliver S, Oliver K, Oakley A. Attitudes to walking and cycling among children, young people and parents: a systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008;62:852–7.
Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Oliver S, Rees RW, Clarke-Jones L, Milne R, Oakley A, Gabbay J, Stein K, Buchanan P, Gyte G. A multidimensional conceptual framework for analyzing public involvement in health services research. Heal Expect. 2008;11:72–84.
Article
Google Scholar
Carroll C, Booth A, Cooper K. A worked example of ‘best fit’ framework synthesis: a systematic review of views concerning the taking of some potential chemopreventive agents. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:29–37.
Article
Google Scholar
Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Huberman AM, Miles MB, editors. The qualitative researcher’s companion. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2002.
Google Scholar
Carroll C, Booth A, Leaviss J, Rick J. “Best fit” framework synthesis: refining the method. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:37.
Article
Google Scholar
Belluco S, Gallocchio F, Losasso C, Ricci A. State of art of nanotechnology applications in the meat chain: a qualitative synthesis. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2017;3:1084–96.
Google Scholar
Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8(1):45–45.
Article
Google Scholar
Schirmer J, Berry H, O’Brien L. Healthier land, healthier farmers: considering the potential of natural resource management as a place-focused farmer health intervention. Health Place. 2013;24:97–109.
Article
Google Scholar
Haddaway N, McConville J, Piniewski M. How is the term ‘ecotechnology’ used in the research literature? A systematic review with thematic synthesis. Ecohydrol Hydrobiol. 2018;18:247–61.
Article
Google Scholar
Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies, vol. 11. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1988.
Book
Google Scholar
Britten N, Campbell R, Pope C, Donovan J, Morgan M, Pill R. Using meta ethnography to synthesise qualitative research: a worked example. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7:209–15.
Article
Google Scholar
Garside R, Britten N, Stein K. The experience of heavy menstrual bleeding: a systematic review and meta-ethnography of qualitative studies. J Adv Nurs. 2008;63:550–62.
Article
Google Scholar
Pound P, Britten N, Morgan M, Yardley L, Pope C, Daker-White G, Campbell R. Resisting medicines: a synthesis of qualitative studies of medicine taking. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61:133–55.
Article
Google Scholar
Head L, Gibson C, Gill N, Carr C, Waitt G. A meta-ethnography to synthesise household cultural research for climate change response. Local Environ. 2016;21:1467–81.
Article
Google Scholar
Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, Annandale E, Arthur A, Harvey J, Riley R. Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:35.
Article
Google Scholar
Eaves Y. A synthesis technique for grounded theory data analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2001;35:654–63.
Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Kearney M. Ready-to-wear: discovering grounded formal theory. Res Nurs Health. 1998;21:179–86.
Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Hannes K, Lockwood M, editors. Synthesizing qualitative research: Choosing the right approach. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012.
Google Scholar
Kangasniemi M, Kallio H, Pietilä A-M. Towards environmentally responsible nursing: a critical interpretive synthesis. J Adv Nurs. 2014;70:1465–78.
Article
Google Scholar
Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review: a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(Suppl 1):21–34.
Article
Google Scholar
McLain R, Lawry S, Ojanen M. Fisheries’ property regimes and environmental outcomes: a realist synthesis review. World Dev. 2018;102:213–27.
Article
Google Scholar
Nilsson D, Baxter G, Butler JRA, McAlpine CA. How do community-based conservation programs in developing countries change human behaviour? A realist synthesis. Biol Conserv. 2016;200:93–103.
Article
Google Scholar
Booth A. Chapter 15: qualitative evidence synthesis. In: Facey K, Ploug Hansen H, Single A, editors. Patient involvement in health technology assessment. Singapore: Springer Nature; 2017. p. 187–99.
Chapter
Google Scholar
Sandelowski M, Docherty S, Emden C. Qualitative metasynthesis: issues and techniques. Res Nurs Health. 1997;20:365–71.
Article
CAS
Google Scholar
Dixon-Woods M, Booth A, Sutton AJ. Synthesizing qualitative research: a review of published reports. Qual Res. 2007;7(3):375–422.
Article
Google Scholar
Carroll C, Booth A. Quality assessment of qualitative evidence for systematic review and synthesis: is it meaningful, and if so, how should it be performed? Res Synth Methods. 2015;6(2):149–54.
Article
Google Scholar
Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Sandy O, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:181.
Article
Google Scholar
Haddaway NR, Macura B, Whaley P, Pullin AS. ROSES RepOrting standards for systematic evidence syntheses: pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Environ Evid. 2018;7(1):7.
Article
Google Scholar
Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Med. 2013;11:21.
Article
Google Scholar
France EF, Cunningham M, Ring N, Uny I, Duncan EAS, Jepson RG, Maxwell M, Roberts RJ, Turley RL, Booth A, et al. Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: the eMERGe reporting guidance. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19:25.
Article
Google Scholar
Haddaway NR, Macura B. The role of reporting standards in producing robust literature reviews. Nat Clim Change. 2018;8:444–7.
Article
Google Scholar
Heyvaert M, Maes B, Onghena P. Mixed methods research synthesis: definition, framework, and potential. Qual Quant. 2013;47:659–76.
Article
Google Scholar
Jimenez E, Waddington H, Goel N, Prost A, Pullin AS, White H, Lahiri S, Narain A. Mixing and matching: using qualitative methods to improve quantitative impact evaluations (IEs) and systematic reviews (SRs) of development outcomes. J Dev Effect. 2018;10:400–21.
Article
Google Scholar
Sandelowski M, Voils CI, Barroso J. Defining and designing mixed research synthesis studies. Res Sch. 2006;13:29.
Google Scholar
Heath G, Brownson R, Kruger J, Miles R, Powell K, Ramsey L. Task Force on Community Preventive Services: the effectiveness of urban design and land use and transport policies and practices to increase physical activity: a systematic review. J Phys Activity Health. 2006;3:S55–76.
Article
Google Scholar
Oya C, Schaefer F, Skalidou D, McCosker C, Langer L. Effects of certification schemes for agricultural production on socio-economic outcomes in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2017;3:346. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2017.3.
Article
Google Scholar
Whear R, Thompson Coon J, Bethel A, Abbott R, Stein K, Garside R. What is the impact of using outdoor spaces such as gardens on the physical and mental well-being of those with dementia? A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence. J Post-Acute Long-Term Care Med. 2014;15:697–705.
Google Scholar
Pullin AS, Bangpan M, Dalrymple S, Dickson K, Haddaway NR, Healey JR, Hauari H, Hockley N, Jones JPG, Knight T, et al. Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas. Environ Evid. 2013;2(1):19.
Article
Google Scholar
Westgate MJ, Haddaway NR, Cheng SH, McIntosh EJ, Marshall C, Lindenmayer DB. Software support for environmental evidence synthesis. Nat Ecol Evol. 2018;2(4):588–90.
Article
Google Scholar
Garside R. A comparison of methods for the systematic review of qualitative research: two examples using meta-ethnography and meta-study. Doctoral dissertation. Exeter: Universities of Exeter and Plymouth; 2008.
Google Scholar
Brunton G, Oliver S, Oliver K, Lorenc T. A synthesis of research addressing children’s, young people’s and parents’ views of walking and cycling for transport. In. London, UK: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London; 2006.
Benoot C, Hannes K, Bilsen J. The use of purposeful sampling in a qualitative evidence synthesis: a worked example on sexual adjustment to a cancer trajectory. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:21.
Article
Google Scholar