Download PDF Download attached files

Attached Files:
A1 - ROSES for Systematic Map Protocol.xlsx
A3 - Benchmarking articles.docx
A2 - Search string scoping.xlsx
A4 - Coding Strategy.docx


Systematic Map Protocol

Title
What is the evidence of delivery of key ecosystem services in community-based urban agriculture systems? A Systematic Map Protocol.

Citation:
Claire Griffiths, Laura Vickers, Jonathan Cooper, Nicola Randall. What is the evidence of delivery of key ecosystem services in community-based urban agriculture systems? A Systematic Map Protocol.: a Systematic Map Protocol. PROCEED-24-00228 Available from:
https://proceedevidence.info/protocol/view-result?id=228
https://doi.org/10.57808/proceed.2024.15

Corresponding author’s email address
clgriffiths@live.harper.ac.uk

Keywords
Urban horticulture, allotment, pollinators, biodiversity

Background
It is estimated that over half of the world’s population live in towns and cities with predictions that this will reach 80% by 2050 (1). Urban agriculture is also expanding, driven by increased demand for fresh, affordable, and accessible agricultural produce as well as its ability to deliver multiple ecosystem service benefits (2). Human well-being is facilitated by ecosystem services, these are those processes occurring in, and products or services provided by, ecosystems which are beneficial, whether directly, or indirectly, to humans (3). They are a means for documenting the value to humans of ecosystems and evaluating those benefits which are derived from natural resources (4) (5) (6). Provision of these services in urban environments will help support human and environmental health, sustainability, and resilience (7). Community-based urban agriculture (CBUA) could have considerable benefits to contribute towards this natural capital (8) although no synthesis of related research has been undertaken. Studies of urban agriculture are often restricted to one or two of the ecosystem services, cultural (9) (10), regulating (11), provisioning (12) and supporting (13), and there are few related systematic reviews. One such review (7), compares delivery of all ecosystem services in urban green spaces and concludes that these require further study and there is a need for more systematic data collection. This systematic map aims to gather, describe, and catalogue scientific literature that has examined the ability of CBUA to deliver key ecosystem services, something that is of increasing interest in traditional farm systems, but little investigated in CBUA. Mapping will demonstrate the extent of the current evidence for delivery of key ecosystem services, identify knowledge clusters and gaps, indicating to stakeholders and policy makers where important ecosystem service benefits are seen, where reparations may be necessary, as well as signpost where further research may be required.

Theory of change or causal model
The most significant forms of CBUA in the UK are community allotments, these are land parcels grouped together of around 250m2, rented by individuals from local Councils (14). Differing management practices could influence the ability of CBUA to deliver ecosystem services in all four categories. For example, monocropping is known to reduce biodiversity (15), and increased abundance of non-native flora is a causal factor of insect declines (16). Conversely, complementarities may exist with, for instance, provisioning services also providing cultural benefits such as active recreation and increased contact with nature (17).

Stakeholder engagement
The research question was proposed by the first author after discussions with collaborating authors who have all gained extensive experience in this field of research. To gather data and gain an improved understanding of the subject, the author will liaise with agricultural and horticultural community groups and clubs which are based in urban locations.

Objectives and review question
This systematic map will contain all available research up to date into CBUA and the current understanding of its ability to deliver key ecosystem services. The Primary question will be: What evidence is there of delivery of key ecosystem services in CBUA systems? Secondary questions will be: What variations are shown in the literature between different types of CBUA? Which ecosystem services have been investigated in CBUA? What services/disservices, trade off’s/complementarities are reported relating to any of the four categories of ecosystem services which are the subject of research into CBUA? Are there regional variations in the ecosystem services studied?

Definitions of the question components
The research questions will consider elements using PICO criteria with the key elements being: Population – Populations from any of the four categories of ecosystem services for example, invertebrates as pollinators or natural enemies (regulatory), food products (provisioning), people (cultural), non-crop invertebrates and flora (supporting). Intervention – Community-based urban agriculture systems and practices. Comparator – Alternative community-based urban agriculture systems, alternative management regimes or practices within community-based urban agriculture systems, no community-based urban agriculture, or alternative land-use. Outcome – Change to measured ecosystem system services, for example, pollination services, natural pest control, community impacts such as productivity, or changes to biodiversity.

Search strategy
A database will be produced using methods based upon the mapping protocols of James, Randall, and Haddaway, (2016) (18), using guidelines as described by the Collaboration of Environmental Evidence Guidelines (19) and in line with ROSES Reporting Standards (20) (Supplementary file A1). The following Boolean search string as based upon the PICO criteria listed and identified during scoping using Web of Science and Scopus (Supplementary file A2) will be used to search bibliographic, web-based, and organisational databases: ((urban* AND horticultur*) OR (urban* AND allotment*) OR (city* AND allotment*) OR ("urban* horticultur*") OR ("urban* allotment*") OR ("urban* agricultur*") OR (communit* AND allotment*) OR (allotment*)). Results will be uploaded to EndNote 21, a citation and reference management software, to track references and will include any date of publication/research up to 2024 published in English language.

Bibliographic databases
Searches for relevant literature will be conducted applying Boolean search strings identified during scoping (Supplementary file A2) using the following three bibliographic search platforms: 1) Web of Science (WOS) accessed using the Harper Adams University subscription. 2) Index to Theses Online (https://oatd.org). 3) Directory of Open Access Journals (https://DOAJ.org).

Web-based search engines
Google Scholar will be searched using Boolean search strings identified during scoping (Supplementary file A2) or simplified relevant search terms the first 50 relevant hits will be reviewed.

Organisational websites
The following websites will be trawled for relevant literature, where possible Boolean search terms will be used, however, if the database does not support this search method, simplified subsets of key search terms will be used: National Allotment Society (www.nsalg.org.uk), My Harvest (www.myharvest.org.uk), Social Farms and Gardens (www.farmgarden.org.uk), Urban Agriculture Consortium (www.urbanagriculture.org.uk), Incredible Edible (www.IncredibleEdible.org.uk), European Commission (https://op.europoa.eu/), Food and Agriculture Organisation (www.fao.org), World Bank (www.worldbank.org), CORDIS (europa.eu), and United States of America Department of Agriculture (www.USDA.gov), UK Government websites (www.gov.uk) including: – Office for National Statistics, Public Health England, Department for Environment and Rural Affairs, and Natural England.

Comprehensiveness of the search
An initial scoping study was conducted using 10 key peer reviewed scientific journal articles (Supplementary file A3) as benchmark literature known to be relevant which matched the stated inclusion criteria. Search terms were tested between January-March 2024 for specificity and sensitivity using Scopus (Haper Adams library time-limited subscription) and Web of Science (Harper Adams Library subscription) indicating the volume and most productive strings containing all 10 articles. If articles were missing from a particular search string, this was reviewed and additional search terms added, until final search strings yielded 6413 articles including all 10 benchmark papers. Searching will also involve citation reviewing with forward and backward searches of relevant papers and browsing of links in related journals and articles. Grey literature, which may be found using web-based search engines and organisational websites, will be screened to highlight any articled missed initially and added to the database if eligible.

Search update
N/A

Screening strategy
Articles returned will be imported into EndNote 21 where duplicates will be removed (the quantity of duplicates will be noted). Remaining articles will then be imported into EPPI reviewer (https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk) and screened by the author applying the inclusion criteria considering both title and abstract. The number of articles not meeting the inclusion criteria will be noted. Full texts of articles passing the inclusion criteria will be accessed for second stage screening. Where full text is not available, but title and abstract indicate sufficient information to satisfy inclusion criteria, these will be included for mapping. If there are secondary research articles, such as literature reviews or where meta-analyses have been conducted, these will be included in a separate file as an additional source for primary research. Where these satisfy the inclusion criteria these will be included in the systematic map. Where there are time limitations or large volumes of literature, inclusion criteria will be reduced to include those specifically related to community-based urban allotments, for example, peri-urban and other forms of CBUA will be excluded.

Eligibility criteria
Study eligibility will be research that has investigated any effects of CBUA on a population of key ecosystem service. These eligibilities are detailed through the following PICO analysis with examples of relevant inclusion and exclusion criteria given: Populations included will be ecosystem services, for example: Regulatory (invertebrates as pollinators/natural enemies), Supporting (non-crop invertebrates and plants), Provisioning (food products), Cultural (people). Excluded articles will be relevance related and research and where no ecosystem services are investigated/found. Interventions included will be community-based urban agriculture or horticulture, urban community allotments with excluded articles including commercial (for-profit) urban agriculture/horticulture, market gardens, rural agriculture, and urban community decorative or prescriptive gardening. Comparators will include, alternative community-based urban agriculture systems, management styles/regimes/practices, alternative land use, or no community-based urban agriculture (vacant lots). Outcomes included will be those showing evidence of delivery of ecosystem service(s), changes to measured ecosystem services, trade-off’s (where delivery of an ecosystem services compromises delivery of another service), complementarities (where delivery of an ecosystem service enhances delivery of another service). Excluded outcomes will be those where there is no evidence of delivery of any ecosystem service.

Consistency checking
A subset of articles will be randomly selected from search results, and these will be used to ensure there is consistency in the screening process. Although timeframe will be considered when selecting the number of the subset, it is intended that 5% of the search results which matched the inclusion criteria will be checked for consistency. A second researcher will review the subset and decision making will be considered using Cohen’s Kappa coefficient to determine consistency of decision making and a value of >0.6 will indicate acceptable agreement.

Reporting screening outcomes
A ROSES flow diagram will visually demonstrate the selection processes and the number of studies returned through Boolean searches. It will detail the number of duplicates removed, the number which met, or did not meet, the inclusion criteria during title and abstract review, and those studies which met, or did not, meet the same criteria at full text review.

Study validity assessment
As this is a systematic map a critical appraisal will not be carried out however, to facilitate future systematic reviews details such as study type and design will be recorded. Contradictions or discrepancies in publications will be noted as evidence of the need for further research.

Consistency checking
N/A

Data coding strategy
Studies meeting the inclusion criteria will be coded using the metadata coding strategy shown in Supplementary file A4. Quantity of articles and timeframe will be considered, and coding will be in 2 stages, initially title and abstract will be coded followed by coding of full text if practical.

Meta-data to be coded
All coded studies will have meta-data recorded, (Supplementary file A4), such as bibliographic information, study background and location. PICO elements will include particular ecosystem service(s), form of CBUA as well as comparator (such as species mix) and outcomes (effects on ecosystem services).

Consistency checking
After completion of coding by the first author, a random set of 5% of the papers will be separately coded by a second author for quality assurance. If a disagreement in coding between authors is found, the coding criteria will be reviewed and a further subset of 5% of studies will be rechecked for consistency to ensure similarity.

Type of mapping
Results and methods used to produce the systematic map will be given in a full report which will accompany the searchable systematic map database. The database will be published as a supporting file to accompany the report and produced in a searchable Microsoft Excel file and include all studies and details obtained during the coding process. Additionally, a Microsoft Excel file will contain date of search and number of articles found at inclusion and exclusion stages. As search results are expected to be highly diverse when considering ecosystem services, synthesis of studies will be narrative in line with the mapping protocols of James, Randall, and Haddaway (2016) (18).

Narrative synthesis methods
The quantity and nature of research will be shown using descriptive statistics and charts which will be produced to characterise the systematic map. A table and searchable database will be included giving a narrative synthesis of included studies. Heat maps will be produced showing the global distribution as well as trends and knowledge clusters and/or gaps in current literature. Additionally, bubble maps will be produced showing quantity of studies investigating specifically; regulatory, supporting, provisioning or cultural ecosystem services.

Knowledge gap identification strategy
The final report will include knowledge gaps or clusters visually demonstrated by heat and bubble maps. Conclusions and implications as well as the shortcomings of current evidence base in terms of unrepresented or underrepresented subtopics that warrant further primary research will be provided if justified by the review outcomes. This will guide recommendations for future research where relevant.

Demonstrating procedural independence
Claire Griffiths has no prior publications and will be conducting the research.

Competing interests
None.

Funding information
N/A

Author’s contributions
Claire Griffiths performed the scoping study and produced the final manuscript. Dr. Nicola Randall, as the subject expert proposed the systematic map, defined the PICO terms, discussed, guided, and reviewed the study design and methodology. Dr. Jonathan Cooper and Dr. Laura Vickers advised, read, and checked for consistency.

Acknowledgements
N/A

References
1. Venditti, B. World Economic Forum. [Online] 2022. [Cited: 27 February 2024.] www.weforum.org. 2. Facilitating resilient rural-to-urban sustainable agriculture and rural communities. Smith,G.,Nandwani,D., and Kankarla,V. 6, 2017, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, Vol. 24, pp. 485-501. 3. Building the basis for sustainable land use–concepts and strategies for implementation in Germany and Japan. Hotes,S.,Sasaki,K.,Hotes,C.M.,Eigner,A., Fruh-Muller,A.,Machnikowski,F.,Breuer,L.,Nuppenau,E-A.,Wolters,V., and Jopp,F. 2015, ResearchGate, pp. 1-34. 4. The value of the World's Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Costanza,R., d'Arge,R., deGroot,R., Farber,S., Grasso,M., Hannon,B., Limburg,K., Naeem,S., O'Neil,R.V., Paruelo,J., Raskin,R.G., Sutton,P and van-den-Blet,M. 1997, Nature, Vol. 387, pp. 253-260. 5. An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services. Chee,Y.E. 2004, Biological Conservation, Vol. 120, pp. 459-565. 6. United Nations. 2005 Millennium Assessment. [Online] 2005. https://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/About.html#2. 7. Ecosystem service delivery by urban agriculture and green infrastructure-a systematic review. Evans,D.L.,Falagán,N.,Hardman,C.A.,Kourmpetli,S.,Liu,L.,Mead,B.R., and Davies,J.A.C. 2022, Ecosystems, Vol. 54, pp. 1-12. 8. The Role of Allotments and Community Gardens and the Challenges Facing Their Development in Urban Environments-A Literature Review. Kwartnik-Pruc,A., and Droj,G. 325, 2023, Land, Vol. 12, pp. 1-26. 9. Embodied and sensory experiences of therapeutic space: Refugee place-making within an urban allotment. Biglin, J. 2020, Health and Place, Vol. 62, pp. 1-8. 10. The influence of emotional and conditional motivations on gardeners' participation in community (allotment) gardens. Lee,J.H. and Matarrita-Cascante,D. 2019, Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, Vol. 42, pp. 21-20. 11. Companion planting to attract pollinators increases the yield and quality of strawberry fruit in gardens and allotments. Griffiths-Lee,J.,Nicholls,E., and Gofulson,D. 2020, Ecological Entomology, Vol. 45, pp. 1025-1034. 12. Feeding a city - Leicester as a case study of the importance of allotments for horticultural production in the UK. Edmondson,J.L., Childs,D.Z.,Dobson,M.C.,Gaston,K.J.,Warren,P.H., and Leake,J.R. 2019, Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 705, pp. 1-11. 13. A systematic review of the relationship between urban agriculture and biodiversity. Clucas,B.,Parker,I.D., and Feldpausch-Parker,A.M. 2018, Urban Ecosystems, Vol. 21, pp. 635-643. 14. Assessing the Direct Resource Requirements of Urban Horticulture in the United Kingdom: A Citizen Science Approach. Dobson,M.C.,Warren,P.H., and Edmondson,J.L. 2628, 2021, Sustainability, Vol. 13, pp. 1-13. 15. A Horizon Scan of Emerging Global Biological Conservation Issues for 2020. Sutherland,W.J., Dias,M.P.,Dicks,L.V.,Doran,H.,Entwistle,A.,Fleishman,E.,Gibbons,D.W., Hails,R.,Hughes,A., Hughes,J.,Kelman,R., Roux,X.,Lickorish,F., Maggs,L.,Pearce-Higgins,J.,Peck,L.,Pretty,J., Spalding,M., ...Thornton,A. 1, 2020, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 35, pp. 81-90. 16. Do non-native plants contribute to insect declines? Tallamy,D.W.,Narango,D.L. and Mitchell,A.B. 2021, Ecological Entomology, Vol. 46, pp. 729-742. 17. The Rich Diversity of Urban Allotment Gardens in Europe: Contemporary Trends in the Context of Historical, Socio-Economic and Legal Conditions. Ponizy,L.,Latkowska,M.J.,Breuste,J., Hurstehouse,A., Joimel,S., Kulvik M.,Leitao,T.E.,Mizgajski,A.,Voigt,A.,Kacprzak,E., Mackiewicz B., and Szczepanska,M. 2021, Sustainability, Vol. 13, pp. 1-19. 18. A methodology for systematic mapping. James,K.I., Randall,N.P., and Haddaway,N.R. 2, 2016, Environmental Evidence, Vol. 25, pp. 1-13. 19. Pullin,A.S., Frampton,G.K., Livoreil,B., and Petrokofsky,G.(Eds.). Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. [Online] 5.1, 2022. [Cited: 20 January 2024.] https://environmentalevidence.org/information-for-authors. 20. Haddaway,N.R., Macura,B., Whaley,P., and Pullin,A.S. ROSES for Systematic Map Protocol. 2017.


Authors and Affiliations
Name Country Affiliation
Claire Griffiths United Kingdom Harper Adams University
Laura Vickers United Kingdom Harper Adams University
Jonathan Cooper United Kingdom Harper Adams University
Nicola Randall United Kingdom Harper Adams University


Submitted: Apr 29, 2024 | Published: Jun 20, 2024

© The Author(s) 2024.
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 .