Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework

There is a limited understanding of the conditions under which payments for ecosystem services (PES) programmes achieve improvements in ecosystem service (ES) flows, enhance natural resource sustainability or foster sustainable livelihoods. We used a capital asset framework to evaluate PES programmes in terms of their social, environmental, economic and institutional outcomes, focusing on efficiency, effectiveness and equity trade-offs. We found that PES schemes can provide positive conservation and development outcomes with respect to livelihoods, land-use change, household and community incomes, and governance. However, programmes differ with regards to contract agreements, payment modes, and compliance, and have diverse cross-sector institutional arrangements that remain primarily state-structured and external donor-financed. There is a consistent lack of focus on evaluating and fostering human, social and institutional capital. This reflects general inattention to how PES programmes consider the causal links between ES and outcomes. To enhance ES production and PES scheme accessibility and participation, we recommend strengthening the linkages between ES production and land-use practices, boosting private and voluntary sector involvement, encouraging property rights and tenure reform, improving financial viability, and adequately accounting for the distribution of programme costs and benefits among participants

Motivations and barriers in relation to community participation in biodiversity recording

Members of the public are involved increasingly in environmental and wildlife monitoring. This has clear environmental benefits in terms of the contribution to long-term datasets and monitoring, and it also yields social benefits, both to the participants concerned and to the wider community. However, there is concern that participation is not spread evenly across different social or ethnic groups in society, as is the case for other forms of volunteering. In this paper, we seek to develop a better understanding of the motivations and barriers affecting participation in wildlife monitoring, through a study of public participation in wildlife monitoring schemes in the UK. We integrate information from interviews with representatives of organisations running the schemes with the results of surveys of participants to identify organisational and personal perceptions of motivations and barriers, and quantify the socio-economic bias in participation. Our results show that people from socio-economically deprived areas are under-represented in recording schemes at both the national and local levels. Organisers of the schemes expressed a desire to change this, but felt unable to do so due to limitations of resources and the difficulty of attracting the necessary media coverage. The major motivating factors for current participants in wildlife recording schemes included the chance to make a positive contribution to conservation and personal benefits, which were clearly linked with health and wellbeing. Barriers to involvement include a lack of awareness of opportunities, a lack of motivation, a lack of accessibility of the schemes, both in terms of equipment or facilities and knowledge, and financial costs of participation. Although there are challenges associated with gathering ecological data through citizen science, including data reliability, our findings show that many recording schemes do indeed provide clear benefits to nature conservation and participants alike. However, biases in representation of participants persist, despite the efforts of many organisations to make their schemes more accessible. More work still needs to be done with groups currently under-represented in such schemes to understand and overcome the remaining barriers to participation, so that the personal and social benefits that arise from participation can be realised

Monitoring woodland deer populations in the UK: an imprecise science.

1. The need to assess population size and change is central to any population monitoring programme. A range of monitoring techniques is available for deer, but few studies have addressed the performance of these techniques in terms of their accuracy and their power to detect population changes reliably. This study compares the performance of three commonly used techniques to monitor woodland deer populations in terms of their accuracy, precision and statistical power using field data and simulation modelling. 2. Faecal Standing Crop (FSC) was found to provide the most accurate estimates at all deer densities studied, but was outperformed by distance sampling using thermal imaging in terms of precision and statistical power. Faecal Accumulation Rate (FAR) performed worst in terms of precision and statistical power, and was inferior in terms of accuracy to FSC. The accuracy of FAR and distance sampling using thermal imaging was similar. 3. Annual surveying is not the best use of resources, since 10% per annum increases or decreases in a population could not be detected by any of the techniques within a 3-year time period. Even with the best technique under the most favourable conditions of deer density simulated in this study, a population change could only be detected reliably once the population had increased by 33% or decreased by 27%. In the least favourable conditions, the respective figures were a 380% increase or extinction. 4. All the techniques studied are relatively poor at detecting population change, so their use in practical deer management needs to be treated with caution. The consequences of relying on similar techniques to detect population change for rare species could be severe

Factors affecting the success of an otter (Lutra lutra) reinforcement programme, as identified by post-translocation monitoring.

Monitoring is essential to evaluate the success of translocations, but is frequently neglected. One exception has been the reinforcement of the otter (Lutra lutra) population in the Derwent and Esk catchments in North East England, UK, between 1990 and 1993. Here, we use data on otter sprainting activity collected before, during and after translocations to identify relationships with vegetation, food resources and physical river characteristics. Sprainting activity increased significantly with trout density, stream order, and surrounding cover by woodland and semi-natural grassland vegetation, and decreased significantly with stream gradient. The form of these relationships was unimodal, sprainting activity peaking at intermediate levels of environmental variables. A logistic regression model including variables relating to fish density, the physical characteristics of the river and surrounding vegetation cover was able to predict the presence or absence of otter sprainting at different survey sites with an accuracy of 92%. Fish density and the physical characteristics of the river were the most important factors in the model. Models such as this are of practical use for assessing the likely success of future otter translocations, both in North East England and other regions of the UK and Europe

Selection of line-transect methods for estimating the density of group-living animals: Lessons from the primates

We review the four major contemporary methods for estimating density of group-living animals from line-transect sampling: perpendicular modelling of group centers, perpendicular modelling of center of measurable individuals, strip transects and animal-observer distance. The efficacy of each method is evaluated to produce a simple selection guide. We review the literature and use field data from the Udzungwa Mountains, Tanzania. The review is relevant to all group-living animals; however, examples are drawn from the primates. Perpendicular methods have better mathematical justification than non-perpendicular methods. For perpendicular methods using detection function models, it is preferable to measure group location using center of measurable individuals, as group centers are hard to estimate. The assumptions of detection function models are often broken in poor visibility habitats or with unhabituated animals. Alternatively strip transects may be used where there are reliable data on group spread and/or visibility. Strip transects are also the most practical, along with the animal-observer method; however, the latter lacks mathematical justification. We conclude that there are arguments for continued use of all four methods. In certain situations the use of raw encounter rates may also be considered. The appropriate method is determined by minimizing bias and considering time, resources and field conditions. © 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc

The current and future management of wild mammals hunted with dogs in England and Wales.

There is increasing concern about the use of lethal methods to control wild mammal populations, especially those methods that may have significant impacts on animal welfare. The continued use of dogs to hunt wild mammals in England and Wales, principally foxes (Vulpes vulpes), red deer (Cervus elaphus), brown hares (Lepus europaeus) and mink (Mustela vison), has become a focus for political debate and has been the subject of a recent UK government inquiry. This paper reports the results of a questionnaire study to quantify the use, effectiveness and acceptability of the different methods currently used to manage these four species, and future changes in management following a possible ban on hunting with dogs. There was no straightforward relationship between culling pressure and perceived pest status of the different species from the questionnaire data. For foxes and brown hares, the proportion of land managers (practitioners) carrying out lethal control was higher than that considering these species to be pests. However, the reverse was the case for mink. The most frequently used and effective control methods, which were most acceptable to practitioners and public alike, were various forms of shooting. The general public perceived hunting with dogs as one of the least acceptable means of control for all four species. Practitioners thought that hunting with dogs for red deer and the use of terriers against foxes were among the least acceptable forms of control, but considered hunting with dogs in other situations and for other species to be relatively acceptable. Most practitioners said a ban on hunting with dogs would make no difference to their management of the four species. A ban on hunting with dogs would have minimal impact on populations of foxes, red deer and mink, but it may be of conservation benefit to hares