Seto_2016 - Carbon Lock-In: Types, Causes, and Policy Implications

Basic Article Info:

Article key Seto_2016
Title Carbon Lock-In: Types, Causes, and Policy Implications
Year 2016
Review type systematic review
Main topic Types and causes of carbon lock-in
Subjects area(s) Buildings, construction and facilities, Policy, administration and planning
Built environment scale Global / Country / Region
Application(s) Policy making, Practice, Human interactions and community engagement, Implementation
Geographically focused no
Prisma diagram used no
Study focus start not mentioned
Study focus end not mentioned
Search string not provided
No. of original sources not mentioned
Synthesis method qualitative
Quantitative map included no
Conflict of interest not declared specifically
Comments No details of methodology used

 

Details about searches

Search sources No search sources found
Keywords used in search

 

Authorship

Authors
Name Email Organisation Address Country
Karen C. Seto* Karen.seto@yale.edu Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511 United States of America
Steven J. Davis Department of Earth System Science University of California, Irvine, CA 92697 United States of America
Ronald B. Mitchell Department of Political Science University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403 United States of America
Eleanor C. Stokes Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511 United States of America
Gregory Unruh New Century College George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030 United States of America
Diana Ürge-Vorsatz Center for Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Policy Central European University, 1051 Budapest, Hungary Hungary

 

Funding

Funding sources No funding sources recorded


Article publication information:

Article type Journal article
Article category Text
Geographical scale
Language English
Chapter or part
Conference date
Conference venue
Published date 2016-11-14
Edition
Issue 1
Journal Annual Review of Environment and Resources
Pagination 425-452
Peer reviewed yes
Publication place
Publisher Review in advanced
School / department or centre
Series volume no.
Series title
Series sort no.
Volume 41
Website owner
Copyrights of article Annual reviews
Licences of article
Identifiers of article DOI: 10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085934, ISBN: 1543-5938, ISSN: 1543-5938


Quality assessment

Quality measure Details Score Comments
QA question 1 Are the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review clearly delineated? 1 = “Yes” = Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When described. general but concrete description of aims
QA question 2 Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? 0 = ”No” = research question and inclusion criteria not outlined in detail. not provided
QA question 3 Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? 0 =”No” = no explicit justification of the study designs/types included in the review. various types of studies for the scoping/mapping purpose
QA question 4 Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? 0 =”No” = no information on search strategy, or not fulfilling criteria for “Yes” and “Partially”. not provided
QA question 5 Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? 0 =”No” = only one reviewer involved in the study selection or no description how many reviewers participated in study selection. No description how many reviewers participated
QA question 6 Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? 0 =”No” = only one reviewer involved in the study selection or no description how many reviewers participated in data extraction. No description how many reviewers participated
QA question 7 Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? 0 =”No” = No list of studies excluded at a full-text stage. not provided
QA question 8 Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? 0 =”No” = no, or partial description of the included studies not provided
QA question 9 Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? 0 =”No” = no mention of RoB assessment of individual included studies. not provided
QA question 10 Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? 0 =”No” = no report of the sources of funding for individual studies included in the review. not provided
QA question 11 If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 12 If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 13 Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the review? 0 =”No” = no discussion of the potential impact of RoB in individual studies. not provided
QA question 14 Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? 1 = “Yes” = There was no significant heterogeneity in the results OR if heterogeneity was present the authors performed an investigation of sources of any heterogeneity in the results and discussed the impact of this on the results of the review. general discussion
QA question 15 If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 16 Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? 1 = “Yes” = The authors reported no competing interests OR the authors described their funding sources and how they managed potential conflicts of interest. both conflict of interests and funding statements provided
Quality index Overall rating (Quality Index) assigned to each SR, highlighting whether major concerns arose during quality assessment that may affect overall conclusions of a SR: A = Minimal flaws; B = Some flaws; C = Major flaws in many aspects of the review. C no protocol, search and selection strategy not well described, included studies not well described and quality assessed
Suggested review type Actual review type:systematic map, systematic review, rapid review, scoping review, narrative review, etc. scoping review N/A
Risk of bias level How likely are the main conclusions of the review to be biased? Basing on review type and quality index and quality_index_comment assign: high moderate or low risk? high no protocol, search and selection strategy not well described, included studies not well described and quality assessed