Design alternatives for evaluating the impact of conservation projects

Margoluis, Richard; Stem, Caroline; Salafsky, Nick; Brown, Marcia

doi:10.1002/ev.298

Cited by 99 publications

(97 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…1). Given the post facto nature of this research, the design of the study is limited by the inability to use rigorous impact evaluation methods, such as comparing before-after change with counterfactual cases that did not undergo ES projects (36)(37)(38).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policy impacts of ecosystem services knowledge

Posner

McKenzie

Ricketts

2016

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

212

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research about ecosystem services (ES) often aims to generate knowledge that influences policies and institutions for conservation and human development. However, we have limited understanding of how decision-makers use ES knowledge or what factors facilitate use. Here we address this gap and report on, to our knowledge, the first quantitative analysis of the factors and conditions that explain the policy impact of ES knowledge. We analyze a global sample of cases where similar ES knowledge was generated and applied to decision-making. We first test whether attributes of ES knowledge themselves predict different measures of impact on decisions. We find that legitimacy of knowledge is more often associated with impact than either the credibility or salience of the knowledge. We also examine whether predictor variables related to the science-to-policy process and the contextual conditions of a case are significant in predicting impact. Our findings indicate that, although many factors are important, attributes of the knowledge and aspects of the science-to-policy process that enhance legitimacy best explain the impact of ES science on decision-making. Our results are consistent with both theory and previous qualitative assessments in suggesting that the attributes and perceptions of scientific knowledge and process within which knowledge is coproduced are important determinants of whether that knowledge leads to action. ecosystem services | science policy interface | conservation | knowledge systems | boundary organizations T he ongoing loss of biological diversity and persistence of poverty have sparked interest in policies that protect, restore, and enhance ecosystem services (ES). In response, there has been a growth in ES research that aims to inform policies, incentives, and institutions on a large scale (1-3). Despite this goal, scientific knowledge about ES continues to have limited impact on policy and decisions (1, 4-7).The fact that most land-and resource-use policy decisions still do not take ES into account stems in part from an ineffective interface between ES science and policy, a need for scientists to better understand decision-making processes, and challenges in clarifying conflicting stakeholder values (8-11). In some cases, the science-policy interface is an important aspect of decisionmaking, but often the ES research and policy communities are disconnected from one another, with limited interactions, infrequent exchanges of information, and different objectives that hinder coordinated science and policy processes (12). Many scientists conduct ES research without fully considering how the knowledge they are producing might be used (5). If we want ES information to be incorporated into decisions, then we need to understand how and why decision-makers use certain kinds of information. We define "information" as a tangible, factual output of scientific research produced through specific ES analyses; "knowledge" as a body of information learned and conveyed through scientific and policy processes; ...

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policy impacts of ecosystem services knowledge

Posner

McKenzie

Ricketts

2016

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

212

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Categories of design were adapted from Margoluis et al [27]. Each article was coded in the systematic map at full text using four criteria: (1) type of data (quantitative, qualitative, mixed); (2) random assignment of a treatment group; (3) occurrence of comparison group or site; and (4) occurrence of comparison over continuous or interrupted/punctuated time series.…”

Section: Study Coding Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

What are the effects of nature conservation on human well-being? A systematic map of empirical evidence from developing countries

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Global policy initiatives and international conservation organizations have sought to emphasize and strengthen the link between the conservation of natural ecosystems and human development. While many indices have been developed to measure various social outcomes to conservation interventions, the quantity and strength of evidence to support the effects, both positive and negative, of conservation on different dimensions of human wellbeing, remain unclear, dispersed and inconsistent. Methods:We searched 11 academic citation databases, two search engines and 30 organisational websites for relevant articles using search terms tested with a library of 20 relevant articles. Key informants were contacted with requests for articles and possible sources of evidence. Articles were screened for relevance against predefined inclusion criteria at title, abstract and full text levels according to a published protocol. Included articles were coded using a questionnaire. A critical appraisal of eight systematic reviews was conducted to assess the reliability of methods and confidence in study findings. A visual matrix of the occurrence and extent of existing evidence was also produced.Results: A total of 1043 articles were included in the systematic map database. Included articles measured effects across eight nature conservation-related intervention and ten human well-being related outcome categories. Linkages between interventions and outcomes with high occurrence of evidence include resource management interventions, such as fisheries and forestry, and economic and material outcomes. Over 25 % of included articles examined linkages between protected areas and aspects of economic well-being. Fewer than 2 % of articles evaluated human health outcomes. Robust study designs were limited with less than 9 % of articles using quantitative approaches to evaluate causal effects of interventions. Over 700 articles occurred in forest biomes with less than 50 articles in deserts or mangroves, combined. Conclusions:The evidence base is growing on conservation-human well-being linkages, but biases in the extent and robustness of articles on key linkages persist. Priorities for systematic review, include linkages between marine resource management and economic/material well-being outcomes; and protected areas and governance outcomes. Greater and more robust evidence is needed for many established interventions to better understand synergies and trade-offs between interventions, in particular those that are emerging or contested.

show abstract

“…Reporting of management performance (activity and outputs, sensu Mascia et al 2014) in agri-environment schemes has itself been patchy, but direct demonstrations of the impact of intervention, that is, the difference in change between intervention and non-intervention sites, are exceedingly rare (Margoluis et al 2009;Ferraro and Pattanayak 2006; but see Hale et al 2011;). As we discuss in this chapter, this so-called counterfactual evidence (derived from control sites without intervention) is fundamentally important for meaningful evaluation of agri-environmental investment schemes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%