Evidence-Based Causal Chains for Linking Health, Development, and Conservation Actions

Qiu, Jiangxiao; Game, Edward T.; Tallis, Heather; Olander, Lydia; Glew, Louise; Kagan, James S.; Kalies, Elizabeth L.; Michanowicz, Drew R.; Phelan, Jennifer; Polasky, Stephen; Reed, J. Michael; Sills, Erin O.; Urban, Dean L.; Weaver, Sarah Kate

doi:10.1093/biosci/bix167

Cited by 54 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Qiu et al (2018) demonstrate the value of evidence-based causal chains for collaboration across sectors: Systems maps can play a similar role. Qiu et al (2018) demonstrate the value of evidence-based causal chains for collaboration across sectors: Systems maps can play a similar role.…”

Section: Systems Maps For Integrating Evidence Into Conservation Dementioning

confidence: 91%

“…The process of systems mapping can also address evidence gaps in conservation. Qiu et al (2018) demonstrate the value of evidence-based causal chains for collaboration across sectors: Systems maps can play a similar role. Collaborative mapping processes that convene diverse stakeholders can lead to knowledge sharing and identifying gaps, while computational modeling can uncover patterns and trends in complex system behavior, contributing new knowledge on system behavior, and uncovering where knowledge may be missing or insufficient (Bosch et al, 2007).…”

Section: Systems Maps For Integrating Evidence Into Conservation Dementioning

confidence: 91%

“…Systems maps can be useful tools that can help open discussions with, for example, academics who study systems, potential partners with similar goals, or funders looking to support conservation action. As practitioners in different sectors gravitate toward systems mapping (Rutter et al, 2017;The Omidyar Group, 2017), opportunities to understand tradeoffs and synergies across sectors could emerge and lead to more honest collaborations (Qiu et al, 2018).…”

Section: Systems Mapping To Support the Planning Of Conservation Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Systems thinking for planning and evaluating conservation interventions

Mahajan

Glew

Rieder

et al. 2019

Conservat Sci and Prac

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As conservation shifts to meet the challenges of our globalized world, approaches for planning and evaluating interventions must evolve to account for the increasing complexity of conservation problems and the dynamic, multiscalar relationships between humans and the environment. Systems thinking offers approaches that could help conservation be more adaptive, transparent, and evidence-based. Using case studies and the literature, we trace the evolution of systems thinking and demonstrate how systems mapping could support the process of planning and evaluating interventions. Systems mapping helps disentangle the context of conservation and encourage collaborative planning that integrates diverse views. It can also change the way interventions are characterized and communicated by emphasizing the systems targeted for change as opposed to actions. Last, it can encourage evidence-based decision-making by identifying indicators attune to complexity, prompting discussion on knowledge gaps, and filling gaps through qualitative mapping or computational modeling. Integrating systems thinking in practice will help practitioners foster the capacity for learning and adaptation required for conservation to deliver global results.

show abstract

Section: Systems Maps For Integrating Evidence Into Conservation Dementioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Systems Maps For Integrating Evidence Into Conservation Dementioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Systems Mapping To Support the Planning Of Conservation Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Systems thinking for planning and evaluating conservation interventions

Mahajan

Glew

Rieder

et al. 2019

Conservat Sci and Prac

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the majority of studies did not employ any type of causal model or conceptual framework about how actions were thought to lead to outcomes, to either justify nor test hypotheses, or frame study design nor analyses (n = 25). In order to understand what types of actions will deliver poverty alleviation outcomes, we need welldesigned studies that allow for confidence in testing and validating causal linkages between actions and outcomes [53]. The lack of use of explicit causal thinking is particularly concerning as it implies that we are continuing to 'shoot in the dark' when it comes to understanding what works [54].…”

Section: Implications For Policy/managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic map of evidence on the contribution of forests to poverty alleviation

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Forests provide an essential resource to the livelihoods of an estimated 20% of the global population. The contribution of forest ecosystems and forest-based resources to poverty reduction is increasingly emphasized in international policy discourse and conservation and development investments. However, evidence measuring the effect of forest-based activities on poverty outcomes remains scattered and unclear. Lack of systematic understanding of forest-poverty relationships, in turn, inhibits research, policymaking, and efficient financial resource allocation. Methods:To identify relevant studies for inclusion in this systematic map we searched six bibliographic databases, 15 organizational websites, eight systematic evidence syntheses (reviews and maps), and solicited information from key informants. Search results 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 predefined framework. Trends in the evidence, knowledge gaps and relatively well-researched sub-topics are reported in a narrative synthesis. Occurrence and extent of existing evidence about links between interventions and outcomes are presented in a visual heatmap. Data are available through the open access Evidence for Nature and People Data Portal (http://www.natur eandp eople evide nce.org). Results:A total of 242 articles were included in the systematic map database. Included articles measured effects of 14 forest-based intervention types on 11 poverty dimensions. The majority of the evidence base (72%) examined links between productivity-enhancement strategies (e.g. forest management, agroforestry, and habitat management) and monetary income and/or social capital outcomes. Other areas with high occurrence of articles include linkages between interventions involving governance, individual rights/empowerment or linked enterprises/livelihood alternatives with impacts on monetary income from direct sale of goods. A key knowledge gap was on the impacts of investment-based interventions (i.e. enhancing produced, human, and social capitals). Another was the impacts of forest-based interventions on financial capital (savings, debt), non-monetary benefits, and health. Conclusions:The evidence base on forest-based productive activities and poverty alleviation is growing but displays a number of biases in the distribution of articles on key linkages. Priorities for future systematic reviews and evaluations include in-depth examinations into the impacts of rights-based activities (e.g. governance, empowerment) on poverty dimensions; and productivity-enhancing activities on social capital. More comprehensive and robust evidence is needed to better understand the synergies and trade-offs among the different objectives of forest conservation and management and variation in outcomes for different social groups in different social-ecological contexts.

show abstract

“…In normal science, risk is determined by reducing complex issues to tractable subproblems (Colloff et al, 2017;Ravetz, 2006). These subproblems can then be tackled in logical steps using cross-disciplinary evidence and causal chains Qiu et al, 2018). However, risk is indeterminate for many conservation problems because of emergent uncertainties, incomplete controllability, and multiple legitimate perspectives in socioecological systems (Colloff et al, 2017;Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Post‐normal conservation science fills the space between research, policy, and implementation

Buschke

Botts

Sinclair

2019

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The view that conservation is a linear exchange of knowledge between scientists and practitioners has led to the conceptualization of a "research-implementation gap". However, conservation is not only about translating science into action but also includes the interplay of values, cultural norms, social interactions, and political consequences. In response, an alternative conceptualization is one where research and implementation exist in a "space", where conservation partners interact. Here, we argue that post-normal science (PNS) can fill this space. PNS is used when information is incomplete, values are pluralistic, stakes are high, and decisions are urgent. It relies on an extended community of practice that aims to produce knowledge fit for end-users, without the constraints of settled scientific paradigms. We advocate for the wider use of PNS in conservation by showing how aspects of PNS have been useful in mainstreaming conservation planning in South Africa. By following an approach typical of PNS, South Africa has made considerable progress in creating an implementation space for conserving biodiversity despite its limited resources, cultural heterogeneity, and controversial history. We outline the interventions used in South Africa to facilitate PNS and, based on this, propose an operating model that can be applied elsewhere. K E Y W O R D Sconservation planning, extended peer community, post-normal science, research-implementation gap, scientific paradigms, South Africa, transdisciplinary

show abstract

Evidence-Based Causal Chains for Linking Health, Development, and Conservation Actions

Cited by 54 publications

References 78 publications

Systems thinking for planning and evaluating conservation interventions

Systems thinking for planning and evaluating conservation interventions

A systematic map of evidence on the contribution of forests to poverty alleviation

Post‐normal conservation science fills the space between research, policy, and implementation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About