The State of Capacity Development Evaluation in Biodiversity Conservation and Natural Resource Management

Capacity development is critical to long-term conservation success, yet we lack a robust and rigorous understanding of how well its effects are being evaluated. A comprehensive summary of who is monitoring and evaluating capacity development interventions, what is being evaluated and how, would help in the development of evidence-based guidance to inform design and implementation decisions for future capacity development interventions and evaluations of their effectiveness. We built an evidence map by reviewing peer-reviewed and grey literature published since 2000, to identify case studies evaluating capacity development interventions in biodiversity conservation and natural resource management. We used inductive and deductive approaches to develop a coding strategy for studies that met our criteria, extracting data on the type of capacity development intervention, evaluation methods, data and analysis types, categories of outputs and outcomes assessed, and whether the study had a clear causal model and/or used a systems approach. We found that almost all studies assessed multiple outcome types: most frequent was change in knowledge, followed by behaviour, then attitude. Few studies evaluated conservation outcomes. Less than half included an explicit causal model linking interventions to expected outcomes. Half of the studies considered external factors that could influence the efficacy of the capacity development intervention, and few used an explicit systems approach. We used framework synthesis to situate our evidence map within the broader literature on capacity development evaluation. Our evidence map (including a visual heat map) highlights areas of low and high representation in investment in research on the evaluation of capacity development

Towards an equity competency model for sustainable food systems education programs

Addressing social inequities has been recognized as foundational to transforming food systems. Activists and scholars have critiqued food movements as lacking an orientation towards addressing issues of social justice. To address issues of inequity, sustainable food systems education (SFSE) programs will have to increase students’ equity-related capabilities. Our first objective in this paper is to determine the extent to which SFSE programs in the USA and Canada address equity. We identified 108 programs and reviewed their public facing documents for an explicit focus on equity. We found that roughly 80% of universities with SFSE programs do not provide evidence that they explicitly include equity in their curricula. Our second objective is to propose an equity competency model based on literature from multiple fields and perspectives. This entails dimensions related to knowledge of self; knowledge of others and one’s interactions with them; knowledge of systems of oppression and inequities; and the drive to embrace and create strategies and tactics for dismantling racism and other forms of inequity. Integrating our equity competency model into SFSE curricula can support the development of future professionals capable of dismantling inequity in the food system. We understand that to integrate an equity competency in our curricula will require commitment to build will and skill not only of our students, but our faculty, and entire university communities

The state of capacity development evaluation in biodiversity conservation and natural resource management

Capacity development is critical to long-term conservation success, yet we lack a robust and rigorous understanding of how well its effects are being evaluated. A comprehensive summary of who is monitoring and evaluating capacity development interventions, what is being evaluated and how, would help in the development of evidence-based guidance to inform design and implementation decisions for future capacity development interventions and evaluations of their effectiveness. We built an evidence map by reviewing peer-reviewed and grey literature published since 2000, to identify case studies evaluating capacity development interventions in biodiversity conservation and natural resource management. We used inductive and deductive approaches to develop a coding strategy for studies that met our criteria, extracting data on the type of capacity development intervention, evaluation methods, data and analysis types, categories of outputs and outcomes assessed, and whether the study had a clear causal model and/or used a systems approach. We found that almost all studies assessed multiple outcome types: most frequent was change in knowledge, followed by behaviour, then attitude. Few studies evaluated conservation outcomes. Less than half included an explicit causal model linking interventions to expected outcomes. Half of the studies considered external factors that could influence the efficacy of the capacity development intervention, and few used an explicit systems approach. We used framework synthesis to situate our evidence map within the broader literature on capacity development evaluation. Our evidence map (including a visual heat map) highlights areas of low and high representation in investment in research on the evaluation of capacity development

Exploring the relationship between plural values of nature, human well-being, and conservation and development intervention: Why it matters and how to do it?

1. Globally, land and seascapes across the bioculturally diverse tropics are in transition. Impacted by the demands of distant consumers, the processes of global environmental change and numerous interventions seeking climate, conservation and development goals, these transitions have the potential to impact the relationships and plurality of values held between people and place. 2. This paper is a Synthesis of seven empirical studies within the Special Feature (SF): ‘What is lost in transition? Capturing the impacts of conservation and development interventions on relational values and human wellbeing in the tropics’. Through two Open Forum workshops, and critical review, contributing authors explored emergent properties across the papers of the SF. Six core themes were identified and are subsumed within broad categories of: (i) the problem of reconciling scale and complexity, (ii) key challenges to be overcome for more plural understanding of social dimensions of landscape change and (iii) ways forward: the potential of an environmental justice framework, and a practical overview of methods available to do so. 3. The Synthesis interprets disparate fields and complex academic work on relational values, human well-being and de-colonial approaches in impact appraisal. It offers a practical and actionable catalogue of methods for plural valuation in the field, and reflects on their combinations, strengths and weaknesses. 4. The research contribution is policy relevant because it builds the case for why a more plural approach in intervention design and evaluation is essential for achieving more just and sustainable futures, and highlights some of the key actions points deemed necessary to achieve such a transition to conventional practice

Four-coordinate, 14-electron iron alkyl complexes supported by the tripodal phosphine ligand [PhB(CH_2PiPr_2)_3]^-

Recent work in our laboratories has focused on the use of tridentate, anionic phosphine ligands to promote novel reactivity of the late transition metals. The highly electron-releasing, sterically demanding tris(diisopropylphosphino)borate ligand, [PhBP^(iPr3)] ([PhBP^(iPr3)]=[PhB(CH_2PiPr_2)_3]^- has been shown to stabilize coordinatively unsaturated iron complexes with a variety of oxidation states. While 18-electron iron alkyl species are known, four-coordinate, low-electron-count iron alkyl complexes are relatively rare. It was of interest to synthesize monoalkyl complexes on the [PhBP^(ipr3)]Fe platform because of their potential use as carbene precursors. A series of four-coordinate, 14-electron iron(ll) alkyl complexes have been synthesized. The complexes have been characterized by a variety of spectroscopic and electrochemical methods as well as x-ray crystallography. The characterization and reactivity of the alkyl complexes will be described

Developing effective wellbeing indicators for people and nature: how biocultural approaches can facilitate sustainable management of social-ecological systems

Biocultural approaches-those built from local values and knowledges-can be used to better understand and manage social-ecological systems. A biocultural approach to indicator development begins with an understanding of the locally-grounded questions and institutions related to resource management. This approach leads to development of well-being indicators for people and nature that are deeply relevant to a local way of life, are easily integrated into existing structures and cultural practices, and are useful for local management1,2. We present results from a comprehensive literature review and ongoing collaborations, aiming to answer: who is using indicators developed with a biocultural approach, in what context, why, and how? Standardized database searches resulted in ~4,500 resources, from which we identified over 50 fully-formed indicator sets and frameworks that specifically relate to both: 1) social-ecological systems, with both biological and cultural elements, and 2) resilience, adaptive capacity, or well-being. We performed quantitative (e.g., number of indicators and categories, geographic scale) and qualitative (e.g., assessing methods of indicator development and application) analyses; we also held workshops and visioning exercises with communities in the Pacific to gain perspective on local values and management priorities. We explore case studies, in both European and non-European contexts, where a biocultural approach has been successfully implemented. For instance, one such framework developed in Melanesia assesses crucial aspects of the "traditional economy," such as resource access, cultural practice, and community vitality, which are foundational to Melanesian people's well-being. We also identify discrepancies between local management priorities and the systems currently in place from national and international frameworks; for example, indicator sets that emphasize incentives (e.g., subsidies) can encourage accumulation of goods and currency without previously considering or acknowledging alternative local communities' values and worldviews, and thus potentially undermine traditional practices and sustainable production. Lastly, we discuss some of the limitations and challenges in using a biocultural approach for indicator development (e.g., measuring intangible cultural elements of a system, crafting indicators that can assess feedbacks, prohibitory costs, meaningful and equitable collaboration), and suggest potential solutions. Sterling, E. J., C. Filardi, J. Newell, A. Toomey, A. Sigouin, E. Betley, N. Gazit, et al. (2017). Biocultural approaches to well-being and sustainability indicators across scales. Nature Ecology & Evolution. 1(12): 1798. Sterling, E. J., T. Ticktin, T. Morgan, G. Cullman, D. Alvira, P. Andrade, N. Bergamini, et al. 2017. Culturally grounded indicators of resilience in social-ecological systems. Environment and Society 8:63-95.peerReviewe

Centering Equity in Sustainable Food Systems Education

Sustainable food systems education (SFSE) is rapidly advancing to meet the need for developing future professionals who are capable of effective decision-making regarding agriculture, food, nutrition, consumption, and waste in a complex world. Equity, particularly racial equity and its intersectional links with other inequities, should play a central role in efforts to advance SFSE given the harmful social and environmental externalities of food systems and ongoing oppression and systemic inequities such as lack of food access faced by racialized and/or marginalized populations. However, few institutional and intra-disciplinary resources exist on how to engage students in discussion about equity and related topics in SFSE. We present perspectives based on our multi-institutional collaborations to develop and apply pedagogical materials that center equity while building students\u27 skills in systems thinking, critical reflection, and affective engagement. Examples are provided of how to develop undergraduate and graduate sustainable food systems curricula that embrace complexity and recognize the affective layers, or underlying experiences of feelings and emotions, when engaging with topics of equity, justice, oppression, and privilege

Assessing human well‐being constructs with environmental and equity aspects: A review of the landscape

International audienceDecades of theory and scholarship on the concept of human well-being have informed a proliferation of approaches to assess well-being and support public policy aimed at sustainability and improving quality of life.Human well-being is multidimensional, and well-being emerges when the dimensions and interrelationships interact as a system. In this paper, we illuminate two crucial components of well-being that are often excluded from policy because of their relative difficulty to measure and manage: equity and interrelationships between humans and the environment.We use a mixed-methods approach to review and summarize progress to date in developing well-being constructs (including frameworks and methods) that address these two components.Well-being frameworks that do not consider the environment, or interrelationships between people and their environment, are not truly measuring well-being in all its dimensions.Use of equity lenses to assess well-being frameworks aligns with increasing efforts to more holistically characterize well-being and to guide sustainability management in ethical and equitable ways.Based on the findings of our review, we identify several pathways forward for the development and implementation of well-being frameworks that can inform efforts to leverage well-being for public policy