What is the evidence documenting the effects of marine or coastal nature conservation or natural resource management activities on human well-being in South East Asia? A systematic map

Eales, Jacqualyn; Bethel, Alison; Fullam, James; Olmesdahl, Sandra; Wulandari, Prawesti; Garside, Ruth

doi:10.1016/j.envint.2021.106397

Cited by 24 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The present study is limited to the poverty measurement on economic and material living standards as defined in Table 2. These two domains were chosen because both domains are commonly reported in the site protection literature, based on the recent systematic map that focused on the SEA region [7]. We acknowledge that a multidimensional poverty concept may reflect a better assessment of poverty level in a population as compared to the income-based measurement as suggested by the World Bank.…”

Section: Objectives Of the Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recent systematic map by Eales et al [7] identified 281 studies on the outcome of marine management and conservation interventions on human well-being in the developing countries of SEA. The systematic map gives a general overview on the available database of evidence for on-site protection interventions to human health and well-being.…”

Section: Identification Of Review Topicmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Part of the developed systematic map [7] yielded a library of studies that examined the interaction between marine site protection and poverty reduction in SEA. Specifically, the map compiled 129 documents that described the interactions across the topics of site protection to economic and material living standards of coastal communities in the SEA region.…”

Section: Studies Identified By the Systematic Mapmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Demand for these ecosystem services has increased, despite the acknowledgment of the marine environment deterioration caused by it. This has led to a global increase of systematic and integrative marine governance especially in Southeast Asian (SEA) countries, which consist of many low-and middle-income countries with richness and abundance of biodiversity owing to their tropical ecosystem [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

What are the outcomes of marine site protection on poverty of coastal communities in Southeast Asia? A systematic review protocol

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Many conservation management interventions have been set up to bring win–win outcomes for both biodiversity conservation and the well-being of the local communities. Nevertheless, the implementation process of marine protected areas (MPAs) can generate unexpected outcomes and fail to reach its objectives in addressing communities’ challenges. Therefore, it is crucial to have a better understanding of how MPAs influence the socioeconomic aspects of the coastal communities. This paper describes the protocol to conduct a systematic review which aims to explore and review the evidence that reflects the outcomes of marine site protection on poverty reduction in terms of economic and material living standards among the coastal communities in Southeast Asia. The review question is “What are the outcomes of marine site protection implementation on poverty in terms of material and economic living standards of coastal communities in Southeast Asia?”. Methods The systematic review uses rigorous search strategies and selection methods based on pre-defined eligibility criteria to identify and examine published journal articles and grey literature that are available on the review topic. Relevant studies and grey literature will be extracted from a recent systematic map of the evidence documenting the effect of marine or coastal nature conservation or natural resource management activities on human well-being in Southeast Asia. We will search online databases including Web of Science Core Collection, Ovid Medline®, Environmental Complete, Scopus, as well as Google Scholar and sources of grey literature for any additional literature available since the evidence map was created. For this review, the populations of interest are from coastal communities in the Southeast Asia region. Comparators to marine site protection will be no intervention and/or pre-MPA implementation. The economic and material living standards, which are the poverty domains, will be evaluated as outcomes. Once we have identified relevant literature, we will perform a critical appraisal, data extraction, and synthesis appropriate to the type of literature found, to investigate the effect of marine site protection on poverty reduction.

show abstract

Section: Objectives Of the Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Identification Of Review Topicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Studies Identified By the Systematic Mapmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

What are the outcomes of marine site protection on poverty of coastal communities in Southeast Asia? A systematic review protocol

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous efforts to describe and/or synthesize the evidence base on the effectiveness of interventions have primarily focused on other non‐CWC conservation actions (e.g., impacts of protected areas: Ban et al., 2019; Geldmann et al., 2013; Gill et al., 2019; Pullin et al., 2013, human well‐being impacts of in situ conservation interventions: Eales et al., 2021; McKinnon et al., 2016), alternative livelihood projects: Roe et al., 2015, community‐based conservation: Brooks et al., 2013; Galvin et al., 2018; Roe & Booker, 2019, and demand reduction initiatives: Verissimo & Wan, 2019). Comparatively, there have been limited evidence synthesis activities on evaluating the impacts of CWC interventions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the evidence that counter‐wildlife crime interventions are effective for conserving African, Asian and Latin American wildlife directly threatened by exploitation? A systematic map protocol

Rytwinski

Öckerman

Taylor

et al. 2021

Ecol Sol and Evidence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human activities are driving a global biodiversity crisis. In response, a broad range of conservation actions have been implemented. With finite resources available, and a rapidly narrowing window, the scientific and policy communities have acknowledged the need to better understand the effectiveness of interventions for conserving threatened species. Given the recent emphasis on the use of counter wildlife crime interventions (i.e. those that directly protect wildlife from illegal harvest, detect and sanction rule‐breakers, and interdict and control illegal wildlife commodities), there is a clear need to summarize the available evidence on biological and threat reduction outcomes of such actions to help make evidence‐informed management and funding decisions. Here, we present a protocol for a systematic map that will collate the existing body of literature addressing the effectiveness of counter‐wildlife crime interventions for protecting targeted species. Our focus will be on select species or species groups directly threatened by exploitation (i.e. illegal harming whether by harvest as a resource or for control/persecution) and native to Africa, Asia and Latin America, which are regions that have experienced significant wildlife populations declines. The systematic map will aim to capture available evidence found in commercially published and grey literature. We will search for the literature using four publication databases, Google Scholar, 36 specialist websites and databases and sources identified through a call for evidence among relevant networks. Eligibility screening will be conducted at two stages: (1) title and abstract and (2) full text. Relevant information from included papers will be extracted and entered into a searchable, coded database (MS‐Excel). Narrative synthesis and descriptive statistics will describe the key characteristics of the relevant evidence base (e.g. geographic location, species, interventions, direct threats, outcomes and study designs). Using visual heat maps, we will identify key knowledge gaps warranting further research and clusters of evidence that could serve as topics for future systematic reviews. The resulting map will guide further exploration on evaluating the effectiveness of counter‐wildlife crime interventions, and aid in building an evidence base that supports both management and funding decisions to ensure efficient use of limited resources and maximal conservation benefits.

show abstract

What are the methodological characteristics of evidence and gap maps? A systematic review and evidence and gap map

Fredlund,

Rogers,

Orr

et al. 2024

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionClarity on the characteristics of methods used to produce evidence and gap maps (EGMs) will highlight areas where method development is needed to ensure these increasingly produced tools are made following best practice to assure their quality and utility. This paper aims to describe the range, nature and variability of key methodological characteristics of studies publishing EGMs.MethodsWe followed a protocol, written a‐prior and informed by PRISMA and MECCIR guidelines for undertaking systematic reviews. We searched nine data bases, from 2010, for studies across any discipline that included details of their methods used to produce an EGM. Search results were screened by two reviewers independently and the subsequent data was extracted and managed according to predefined criteria. We mapped these together with the year of publication and the area of research as the two primary dimensions. We followed established methods for mapping the evidence, including the process of developing the map framework and the filters for our interactive map. We sought input and involvement from stakeholders during this process.ResultsWe found 145 studies from nine distinct research areas, with health research accounting for 67%. There were 11 map designs found, of these bubble plots were the most common design, before 2019, since then it has been a matrix map design. Stakeholders were involved in 47.7% of studies, 48.35% of studies stated finding gaps was an aim of their work, 42% reported publishing or registering a protocol and only 9.39% of studies mentioned a plan to update their evidence maps/EGMs.Discussion/ConclusionKey areas of methodological development relate to: the involvement of stakeholders, the conceptualization of gaps and the practices for updating maps. The issues of ambiguity in terminology, the flexibility of visualizations of the data and the lack of reporting detail were other aspects that needs further consideration in studies producing an EGM.

show abstract

What is the evidence documenting the effects of marine or coastal nature conservation or natural resource management activities on human well-being in South East Asia? A systematic map

Cited by 24 publications

References 51 publications

What are the outcomes of marine site protection on poverty of coastal communities in Southeast Asia? A systematic review protocol

What are the outcomes of marine site protection on poverty of coastal communities in Southeast Asia? A systematic review protocol

What is the evidence that counter‐wildlife crime interventions are effective for conserving African, Asian and Latin American wildlife directly threatened by exploitation? A systematic map protocol

What are the methodological characteristics of evidence and gap maps? A systematic review and evidence and gap map

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About