What is the extent and distribution of evidence on effectiveness of systematic conservation planning around the globe? A systematic map protocol

Background: Systematic conservation planning involves the prioritisation of conservation actions to optimise biodiversity conservation outcomes whilst considering implementation challenges such as minimising costs. Thousands of systematic conservation plans have been developed around the globe (a popular software package, 'Marxan', has over 4200 active users from more than 180 countries). However, the effects of systematic approaches on conservation actions and outcomes are not generally known, nor are the factors which distinguish effective from ineffective plans. Previous reviews of conservation planning outcomes have been limited in scope and to narrow time intervals, and have revealed very few formal evaluations of plans. Given systematic approaches are widely perceived to offer the best chance to rapidly and efficiently achieve biodiversity protection targets, a thorough, up-to-date synthesis of the evidence is required. Methods: This protocol outlines the methodology for a systematic mapping exercise to identify retrospective studies measuring the effects of systematic conservation planning on biodiversity conservation at regional, national and subnational scales. Our primary research question is: what is the extent and distribution of evidence on the conservation outcomes of systematic conservation planning? Outcomes will be categorised according to types of capital: natural, financial, social, human and institutional, given the range of potential direct and indirect effects of systematic conservation planning on conservation outcomes. A comprehensive and repeatable search strategy will be undertaken, utilising a wide range of sources including grey literature sources and targeted searches of organisational websites and databases. Sources will be restricted to English language publications between 1983 and 2016. The resultant studies will be screened using standardised inclusion and exclusion criteria and data from included studies will be categorised according to a standardised data extraction form. Information about the study design of relevant articles will be recorded to determine study robustness. A searchable database of studies will be made publicly accessible and available for updating in future. The results will be published in this journal and also presented as an interactive online resource to aid conservation planners in identifying impacts and outcomes of conservation plans

The mismeasure of conservation

One of the basic purposes of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation interventions is to achieve conservation impact, the sum of avoided biodiversity loss and promoted recovery relative to outcomes without protection. In the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity's negotiations on the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, we find that targets for area-based interventions are framed overwhelmingly with measures that fail to inform decision-makers about impact and that risk diverting limited resources away from achieving it. We show that predicting impact in space and time is feasible and can provide the basis for global guidance for jurisdictions to develop targets for conservation impact and shift investment priorities to areas where impact can be most effectively achieved

Strengthen causal models for better conservation outcomes for human well-being.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how the conservation of nature can lead to improvement in human conditions is a research area with significant growth and attention. Progress towards effective conservation requires understanding mechanisms for achieving impact within complex social-ecological systems. Causal models are useful tools for defining plausible pathways from conservation actions to impacts on nature and people. Evaluating the potential of different strategies for delivering co-benefits for nature and people will require the use and testing of clear causal models that explicitly define the logic and assumptions behind cause and effect relationships. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: In this study, we outline criteria for credible causal models and systematically evaluated their use in a broad base of literature (~1,000 peer-reviewed and grey literature articles from a published systematic evidence map) on links between nature-based conservation actions and human well-being impacts. RESULTS: Out of 1,027 publications identified, only ~20% of articles used any type of causal models to guide their work, and only 14 total articles fulfilled all criteria for credibility. Articles rarely tested the validity of models with empirical data. IMPLICATIONS: Not using causal models risks poorly defined strategies, misunderstanding of potential mechanisms for affecting change, inefficient use of resources, and focusing on implausible efforts for achieving sustainability

A theory-based framework for understanding the establishment, persistence, and diffusion of community-based conservation

Over decades, biodiversity conservation researchers and practitioners have developed theories and conceptual frameworks to inform the planning, implementation, and evaluation of community-based conservation (CBC). While a diversity of mechanisms for understanding and supporting CBC has helped tailor approaches to local needs and conditions, the absence of a unified lens to understand CBC has limited the capacity for integrating foundational theory into practice more systemically, and for learning across different projects, stakeholders, and institutions. We introduce a theory-based framework called “the CBC framework” that draws upon three foundational theories from sociology, economics, and political science to understand the establishment, persistence, and diffusion of CBC. Experience applying aspects of the framework within different conservation organizations demonstrates how this integrative approach can provide a gateway for practitioners to engage with social science theory to understand the status and context of CBC interventions and efforts. For practitioners, scientists, evaluators, and strategists, the framework can guide the design of CBC interventions and monitoring and evaluation systems to facilitate theory-based learning and enable evidence-informed decision-making. Approaches like the CBC framework that facilitate collaborative planning, evaluation, and research can help better integrate social science theory in conservation practice while increasing the capacity for conservation scientists, practitioners, and stakeholders to learn together and adaptively manage CBC to deliver positive results for both people and nature

Appendix A. Map of Cambodia.

Map of Cambodia

Appendix C. Tables showing internal consistency and reliability test for HWB dimension of basic material for good life, dimension of security, dimension of health, dimension of good social relations, and for dimension of freedom of choice and action.

Tables showing internal consistency and reliability test for HWB dimension of basic material for good life, dimension of security, dimension of health, dimension of good social relations, and for dimension of freedom of choice and action

Appendix B. Conceptual framework of the index system of human well-being (HWB).

Conceptual framework of the index system of human well-being (HWB)

Appendix D. A table showing standardized coefficients of the structural equation model for HWB indices.

A table showing standardized coefficients of the structural equation model for HWB indices

Social equity and the probability of success of biodiversity conservation

Conservation actions generally benefit some groups more than others, and this inequity is thought to affect the probability of achieving conservation objectives. This has led to the common assumption that triple bottom line solutions - those that are effective, efficient, and equitable - are best and most likely to achieve each individual objective. Although this may be true, it has been little tested, and importantly lacks a conceptual foundation for understanding, predicting and evaluating how equity affects conservation outcomes. We describe types of equity relevant to conservation and explore how they may affect the probability of successfully achieving conservation outcomes. Depending on the equity type and context, the relationship between equity and conservation success varies. We find that the best conservation outcome is often achieved without perfect equity; highlighting the risk of ignoring the relationship between equity and success. We offer a conceptual foundation for better addressing this important issue in future research and application