Experimental evaluation of the impact of a payment for environmental services program on deforestation

Wiik, Emma; d’Annunzio, Rémi; Pynegar, Edwin; Crespo, David; Asquith, Nigel; Jones, Julia P. G.

doi:10.1002/csp2.8

Cited by 25 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(51 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, the scale of conservation interventions and sampling units may be too large to allow for sufficient replication (Margoluis et al 2009;Baylis et al 2016;Wiik et al 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A counterfactual approach to measure the impact of wet grassland conservation on U.K. breeding bird populations

Jellesmark

Ausden

Blackburn

et al. 2021

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wet grassland populations of wading birds in the United Kingdom have declined severely since 1990. To help mitigate these declines, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has restored and managed lowland wet grassland nature reserves to benefit these and other species. However, the impact of these reserves on bird population trends has not been evaluated experimentally due to a lack of control populations. We compared population trends from 1994 to 2018 among 5 bird species of conservation concern that breed on these nature reserves with counterfactual trends created from matched breeding bird survey observations. We compared reserve trends with 3 different counterfactuals based on different scenarios of how reserve populations could have developed in the absence of conservation. Effects of conservation interventions were positive for all 4 targeted wading bird species: Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), Redshank (Tringa totanus), Curlew (Numenius arquata), and Snipe (Gallinago gallinago). There was no positive effect of conservation interventions on reserves for the passerine, Yellow Wagtail (Motacilla flava). Our approach using monitoring data to produce valid counterfactual controls is a broadly applicable method allowing large‐scale evaluation of conservation impact.

show abstract

“…In addition, the scale of conservation interventions and sampling units may be too large to allow for sufficient replication (Margoluis et al 2009;Baylis et al 2016;Wiik et al 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A counterfactual approach to measure the impact of wet grassland conservation on U.K. breeding bird populations

Jellesmark

Ausden

Blackburn

et al. 2021

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Strict experiments in applied ecology (Box 1) are generally conducted at small spatial scales (although there are some notable exceptions, e.g. Krebs, Boutin, & Boonstra, ; Wiik et al, ). This contrasts with the fact that many ecological and policy processes operate at far larger scales (Estes et al, ).…”

Section: Rigorous Science In Applied Ecologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploratory and confirmatory research in the open science era

Nilsen

Bowler

Linnell

2020

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Applied ecological research is increasingly inspired by the open science movement. However, new challenges about how we define our science when biodiversity data are being shared and re‐used are not solved. Among these challenges is the risk associated with blurring the distinction between research that mainly seeks to explore patterns with no a‐priori articulated hypotheses (exploratory research), and research that explicitly tests a‐priori formulated hypotheses (confirmatory research). A rapid screening of a random selection of the peer‐reviewed literature suggests that neither experimental protocols nor hypothesis‐testing sensu stricto are common in applied ecological research. In addition, most experiments are carried out on small spatial scales, which contrast with current global policy needs and research trends towards addressing large spatial and temporal scales. This latter trend makes it unfeasible for policy to rely mainly on insights gained from experimental research. To solve fundamental local, regional and global societal challenges, we need both exploratory and confirmatory research. However, the fundamental roles that confirmatory research testing a‐priori hypothesis play in establishing causal relationships need to be revaluated in applied ecological research. A clearer distinction between exploratory and confirmatory research is currently needed, and could be facilitated by allocating journal sections to different types of research; by embracing new tools offered by the open science era, such as pre‐registration of hypothesis; by establishing new systems where post‐hoc hypotheses emerging through exploration can also be registered for later testing; and by more broad adoption of causal inference methods that foster more structured testing of hypotheses about causal mechanisms from observational biodiversity data. Synthesis and applications. To gain the full benefits of the open science era, researchers, funding bodies and journal editors should explicitly consider approaches and incentives that encourage openness about methods and approaches, as well as value the plurality of scientific approaches needed to address questions in applied ecology and conservation science.

show abstract

“…Natura is currently undertaking two complementary RCTs of the intervention in other parts of Bolivia. Researchers used a combination of both qualitative and quantitative methods at the end of the evaluation period to understand in more depth participant motivation and processes of change within treatment communities (Bottazzi et al, 2018) and to compare outcomes in control and treatment communities (Pynegar et al, 2018; Wiik et al, 2019).…”

Section: Under What Circumstances Could An Rct Evaluation Be Useful?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, despite this substantial experience developing the intervention, there were challenges with its implementation in the context of the RCT, which in retrospect affected both the programme's effectiveness and the evaluation's usefulness. For example, uptake of the agreements was low (Wiik et al, 2019), and little of the most important land from a water quality perspective was enrolled in Watershared agreements. Given this low uptake, the lack of an observed effect of the programme on water quality at the landscape scale could have been predicted without the RCT (Pynegar et al, 2018).…”

Section: Under What Circumstances Could An Rct Evaluation Be Useful?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We illustrate these points with the RCT evaluating the Watershared incentive-based conservation programme in the Bolivian Andes. This programme, implemented by the NGO Fundación Natura Bolivia (Natura), aims to reduce deforestation, conserve biodiversity, and provide socio-economic and water quality benefits to local communities (Bottazzi et al, 2018; Pynegar et al, 2018; Wiik et al, 2019).

Fig.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What role should randomized control trials play in providing the evidence base for conservation?

Pynegar

Asquith

Jones

2019

Oryx

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effectiveness of many widely used conservation interventions is poorly understood because of a lack of high-quality impact evaluations. Randomized control trials (RCTs), in which experimental units are randomly allocated to treatment or control groups, offer an intuitive way to calculate the impact of an intervention by establishing a reliable counterfactual scenario. As many conservation interventions depend on changing people's behaviour, conservation impact evaluation can learn a great deal from RCTs in fields such as development economics, where RCTs have become widely used but are controversial. We build on relevant literature from other fields to discuss how RCTs, despite their potential, are just one of a number of ways to evaluate impact, are not feasible in all circumstances, and how factors such as spillover between units and behavioural effects must be considered in their design. We offer guidance and a set of criteria for deciding when RCTs may be an appropriate approach for evaluating conservation interventions, and factors to consider to ensure an RCT is of high quality. We illustrate this with examples from one of the few concluded RCTs of a large-scale conservation intervention: an incentive-based conservation programme in the Bolivian Andes. We argue that conservation should aim to avoid a rerun of the polarized debate surrounding the use of RCTs in other fields. Randomized control trials will not be feasible or appropriate in many circumstances, but if used carefully they can be useful and could become a more widely used tool for the evaluation of conservation impact.

show abstract

Experimental evaluation of the impact of a payment for environmental services program on deforestation

Cited by 25 publications

References 43 publications

A counterfactual approach to measure the impact of wet grassland conservation on U.K. breeding bird populations

A counterfactual approach to measure the impact of wet grassland conservation on U.K. breeding bird populations

Exploratory and confirmatory research in the open science era

What role should randomized control trials play in providing the evidence base for conservation?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About