A novel framework for analyzing conservation impacts: evaluation, theory, and marine protected areas

Abstract

Environmental conservation initiatives, including marine protected areas (MPAs), have proliferated in recent decades. Designed to conserve marine biodiversity, many MPAs also seek to foster sustainable development. As is the case for many other environmental policies and programs, the impacts of MPAs are poorly understood. Social-ecological systems, impact evaluation, and common-pool resource governance are three complementary scientific frameworks for documenting and explaining the ecological and social impacts of conservation interventions. We review key components of these three frameworks and their implications for the study of conservation policy, program, and project outcomes. Using MPAs as an illustrative example, we then draw upon these three frameworks to describe an integrated approach for rigorous empirical documentation and causal explanation of conservation impacts. This integrated three-framework approach for impact evaluation of governance in social-ecological systems (3FIGS) accounts for alternative explanations, builds upon and advances social theory, and provides novel policy insights in ways that no single approach affords. Despite the inherent complexity of social-ecological systems and the difficulty of causal inference, the 3FIGS approach can dramatically advance our understanding of, and the evidentiary basis for, effective MPAs and other conservation initiatives.

Using an integrated social-ecological analysis to detect effects of household herding practices on indicators of rangeland resilience in Mongolia

“…While the matching approach has been used within the conservation field for impact assessments of protected areas and community forest management (e.g. [72][73][74]), here we apply the approach to assess individual herding management strategies. We are able to control for multiple potentially confounding social and ecological factors, and isolate the effects of practices on ecological outcomes.…”

“…In Kenya, where a growing movement of community conservancies [77] parallels the growth of CBRM in Mongolia [49], our methods could be adapted to identify robust synthetic indicators and evaluate the effectiveness of conservancies in maintaining rangeland and pastoral resilience. As the conservation movement adopts more rigorous standards of evidence-based practice [73,78], the methods applied here, when adapted for other contexts, provide encouraging avenues for evaluating conservation effectiveness in rangelands globally.…”

Adaptive social impact management for conservation and environmental management

“…Alternatively, a system of national parks may benefit more from the use of standardized surveys followed by focus group discussions at the site level to explore implications. Although all sites can benefit from rigorous experimental designs and sound causal evaluations (Ferraro & Hanauer 2014;Ferraro & Pressey 2015;Mascia et al 2017), quantitative methods and objective measures are not the only accepted approach. Qualitative evidence and subjective perceptions of the social impacts of conservation and environmental management initiatives can provide insights that will be equally important for adapting management and improving social outcomes (Bennett 2016).…”

Preventing perverse outcomes from global protected area policy. Shifting the focus from quantity to quality to avoid perverse outcomes.

“…Funding shortfalls of ~US $50 billion per annum are at least an order of magnitude greater than existing PA budgets 8 . Poor attention to equity and PA governance also commonly undermine conservation outcomes 9 .…”