Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) is an open community of stakeholders working towards a sustainable global environment and the conservation of biodiversity. CEE seeks to promote and deliver evidence syntheses on issues of greatest concern to environmental policy and practice as a public service. At present there are six national CEE Centres, based in Australia, Canada, France, South Africa, Sweden and the UK, and one international CEE Centre (SEI). The CEE has a strong network with other seven collaborators from around the world to practice and promote evidence-based environmental management. Systematic review (SR) and evidence synthesis methodology is now in widespread use in sectors of society where science can inform decision making and has become a recognised standard for accessing, appraising and synthesising scientific information. This article will introduce the development and function of CEE and elaborate the guidelines for systematic review in environmental evidence.

1.  李昕,曹洪军. 习近平生态文明思想的核心构成及其时代特征[J]. 宏观经济研究, 2019(6): 5-15. DOI: 10.16304/j.cnki.11-3952/f.2019.06.002. [Li X, Cao HJ. The Core Composition of Xi Jinping's Thought of Ecological Civilization and Its Characteristics of the Times[J]. Scientific Management Research, 2019(6): 5-15.]

2. 林毅夫.经济发展与环境并非“牺牲”关系[J]. 山东经济战略研究, 2019(11):37-39. [Lin YF. Economic development and the environment are not a "sacrifice" relationship[J]. Shandong Economic Strategy Research, 2019(11): 37-39.]

3. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. CEE Centres: About Us[EB/OL]. [Access on 2019-12-10]. http://www.environmentalevidence.org/ cee-centres, 2019-02-19.

4. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. Guidelines and Standards for Evidence synthesis in Environmental Management Version 5.0[EB/OL]. (2018-01-07)[Access on 2019-12-10]. http://www.environmentalevidence.org/information-for-authors, 2018-01-07.

5. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. CEE: Launching of ROSES[EB/OL]. (2017-11)[Access on 2019-12-10]. http://www.environmentalevidence.org/news/launching-of-roses.

6. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6[EB/OL].(2019-08-01)[Access on 2019-12-10].  http://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

7. Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods[J]. Syst Rev. 2012, 1(1): 28. DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-28.

8. Gurevitch J, Koricheva J, Nakagawa S, et al. Meta-analysis and the science of researchsynthesis[J]. Nature, 2018, 555(7695): 175-182. DOI: 10.1038/nature25753.

9. 李秀霞, 韩雪梅, 杨克虎. 循证卫生政策的发展与展望[J]. 图书与情报, 2018(3): 43-49. DOI: 10.11968/tsyqb.1003-6938.2018043. [Li XX, Han XM, Yang KH. Evidence-based Health Policy: Development and Prospect[J]. Library and Information Service, 2018(3): 43-49.]

10.    杨克虎, 李秀霞, 拜争刚. 循证社会科学研究方法：系统评价与 Meta 分析[M]. 兰州: 兰州大学出版社. 2018. [Yang KH, Li XX, Bai ZG. Evidence-based social science research methods: systematic reviews and Meta analysis[M]. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University Press. 2018.]

11.     杨克虎. 循证社会科学的产生、发展与未来[J]. 图书与情报, 2018(3): 1-10. DOI: 10.11968/tsyqb.1003-6938.2018038. [Yang KH. Evidence-based Social Science: The Origin, Development and Prospects[J]. Library and Information Service, 2018(3): 1-10.]

12.    柳春艳, 李秀霞, 杨克虎.发展中的循证教育学:多元特征与研究前景[J].图书与情报, 2018(3): 35-42. DOI: 10.11968/tsyqb.1003-6938.2018042. [Liu CY, Li XX, Yang KH. Evidence-based Education in Development: Multivariate Characteristics and Re-search Prospects[J]. Library and Information Service, 2018(3): 35-42.]

13.    拜争刚,齐铱, 杨克虎, 等. 循证社会科学的起源、现状及展望[J].中国循证医学杂志, 2018, 18(10): 1118-1121. DOI: 10.7507/1672-2531.201807123. [Bai ZG, Chi Iris, Yang KH, et al. Evidence-based social science: origin, condition and prospect[J]. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2018, 18(10): 1118-1121.]

14.    Roberts P, Stewart G, Pullin A. Are review articles a reliable source of evidence to support conservation and environmental management? A comparison with medicine[J]. Biological Conservation, 2006, 132(4): 409-423. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.04.034.

15.    Pullin A, Bangpan M, Dalrymple S, et al. Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas?[J]. Environ Evid, 2013, 2(1): 19. DOI: 10.1186/2047-2382-2-19.

16.    Bussell J, Jones D, Healey J, et al. How do draining and re-wetting affect carbon stores and greenhouse gas fluxes in peatland soils?[EB/OL].(2010-09-25)[Access on 2019-12-10]. http://www.environmentalevidence.org/SR49.html.

17.    Bayliss H, Haddaway N, Eales J, et al. Updating and amending systematic reviews and systematic maps in environmental management[J]. Environ Evid, 2016, 5(1): 20. DOI: 10.1186/s13750-016-0073-8.

18.    Higgins J, Thomas J. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 6 Edition[M]. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons, 2019: 507–524.

19.    Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J. An introduction to systematic reviews[M]. London: Sage Publications Ltd, 2012: 304.

20.   James K, Randall N, Neal R. A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences[J]. Environ Evid, 2016, 5(1): 7. DOI: 10.1186/s13750-016-0059-6.

21.    Randall N, James K. The effectiveness of integrated farm management, organic farming and agri-environment schemes for conserving biodiversity intemperate Europe-A systematic map[J]. Environ Evid, 2012,1(1): 1-21. DOI: 10.1186/2047-2382-1-4.