Introduction
These pages present data drawn from a systematic evidence review of the factors influencing UK land managers’ willingness and ability to create woodland. The review was conducted in early 2022 and identified 226 relevant studies. Each study was coded according to a range of factors, including land manager type, objectives, drivers, contexts, and type of woodland. There were no restrictions on the publication date. Note that studies may appear in multiple categories – for example if a study refers to both private and public sector landowners, it will appear in both categories.
In these pages, we have selected five key comparisons. The plots allow you to quickly see the number of sources of evidence relating to different groups of land managers and different contexts. The accompanying tables list the references identified for each context.
The full dataset allows us to explore the evidence review in more detail (for instance, to identify evidence sources relating specifically to local authorities, or to tax and grants, or from a given year, and to combine these filters).
In 2023, we aim to update the dashboard to allow users to explore the evidence map more fully. For now, if you have questions that the evidence map may be able to help with, please get in touch.
We outline the methodological approach in the Methods Statement.
If you have any feedback on this platform, please get in touch with Stephen McConnachie (stephen.mcconnachie@forestresearch.gov.uk)
Accurate as of March 2022.
How to use this resource
Overall navigation
Use the ‘burger’ button (three horizontal lines) at the top right to navigate to different comparisons.
Navigating within a comparison
Within each comparison, the first tab plots at each intersection all the references in the review which are coded to the variables on the x and y axes.
You can zoom in on a given area of the plot by left-clicking and dragging a box across the plot. If this does not work, select the ‘Zoom’ icon to the top-right of the plot.
Hovering over a ‘dot’ displays the reference details. Dots closer to the centre are older.
Clicking on a dot will take you either to the site where the reference is hosted, or to a Google search.
The icons to the top-right of the plot provide additional navigation options. Use the ‘home’ icon to reset the plot.
References
The other tabs within a comparison provide tables listing the references for each intersecting point on the plot.
These are ordered by the most recent first.
Evidence Review
The evidence review was produced in early 2022 by Forest Research in collaboration with William J. Harvey\(^{1,2}\), Gabriel Hemery\(^{3}\), Gillian Petrokofsky\(^{2,3,4}\), and Leo Petrokofsky\(^{2}\). It will be updated by Forest Research annually.
Systematic evidence evaluations and synthesis methodologies are now widely used across many disciplines and have become a recognised standard for accessing, appraising, and synthesising scientific information. The need for rigour, objectivity, and transparency in drawing conclusions from a body of scientific information is evident in many areas of policy and practise, including environmental issues.
This evidence map followed good practice guidance for systematic maps established by the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE, 2018), 3iE (Snilstveit et al., 2017), and the Campbell Collaboration (Littell & White, 2018).
Bibliographic databases and aggregators were searched for academic journal articles. Grey literature was assembled from citations in CAB Abstracts, searches of organisational websites, by contacting relevant organisations and individuals, and snowballing from relevant reviews.
Articles were only included if they met the following inclusion criteria:
land managers or owners who have considered or implemented woodland creation and/or extension of existing woodland within the UK; and
drivers and/or barriers to woodland creation, or intention to create, are reported.
Articles that failed to meet the inclusion criteria were excluded from the review. Records that presented only syntheses, reviews, remote sensing data, or models were also included. There was no limitation of date regarding the publication of articles.
Simultaneous title and abstract screening using Rayyan software was followed by full-text screening. The coding sheet covered:
Around half of the publications were journal articles while the remainder included book chapters, conference papers, reports, and theses.
This platform
The data presented here draws on the systematic review. It uses R to visualise where there is an abundance or lack of published literature on a particular cross section of the factors (e.g., studies that have explored the potential drivers of woodland creation for different land manager types). It uses a jitter plot approach such that each point represents one study.
References
CEE (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence). Guidelines and standards for evidence synthesis in environmental management; Pullin, A.S., Frampton, G.K., Livoreil, B., Petrokofsky, G., Eds.; Version 5.0; 2018. Available online: https://www.environmentalevidence.org/information-for-authors [Accessed 23/3/22].
Littell, J. H., White, H., 2018. The Campbell Collaboration: Providing better evidence for a better world. Research on Social Work Practice, 28(1), 6-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731517703748
Snilstveit, B., Bhatia, R., Rankin, K., Leach, B., 2017. 3ie evidence gap maps: a starting point for strategic evidence production and use. 3ie Working Paper 28. https://www.3ieimpact.org/sites/default/files/2019-01/wp28-egm.pdf [Accessed 20/3/2022].
Collaborator affiliations
\(^1\) School of Archaeology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 2PG, UK
\(^2\) Oxford Systematic Reviews LLP, Oxford OX2 7DL, UK
\(^3\) Sylva Foundation, OX14 4QT, UK
\(^4\) Long-Term Ecology Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 3SZ, UK