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

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

A novel method to integrate intra-oral scan models with 3D facial images

Objectives: Three-dimensional (3D) imaging is becoming more mainstream with advances in digital technology and reduction in cost. Two-dimensional (2D) imaging has been the standard in orthodontics but it would be beneficial to examine virtual 3D patients for diagnosis, treatment planning, and assessment of growth and treatment outcomes with no use of ionizing radiation. This study aimed to validate the Bellus Arc7 3D facial scanner and test a novel method for integrating intraoral scans with 3D facial images to create a virtual patient. Methods: Part I entailed validation of Bellus Arc7 using the conventional reference standard, the 3dMDface system. Three subjects were selected, and for each 4 images were taken on two occasions one week apart. Images were uploaded, superimposed, and a 3D heat map was generated for comparison using Geomagic Control X processing software. Part II compared a novel merging technique from 14 participants recruited from UBC Graduate Orthodontic Program. For each subject, 5 images were captured (two images using Trios intraoral scanner, one facial scan with Bellus Arc7, and two with Artec Space Spider). The intra-oral scan of the upper dentition and the Arc7 3D facial scans were merged via the transferring of the perioral scan to develop a virtual patient. The reference 3D virtual image from the alignment of the dental scan and Artec Space Spider facial scans was used for comparison. The surface-to-surface root mean square and point-to-point deviation values between the two meshes were analysed. Results: Part I showed the root mean square for Bellus Arc7 as compared to the reference 3dMD to be 1.16 ± 0.41 mm for all three subjects, which is clinically acceptable for soft tissue measurements. Part II showed that relative to the merged Artec Space Spider scans, the root mean square difference of the merged Arc7 scans was 1.52 ± 0.54 mm. For the point-to-point deviations in the dentition there was a relatively wide range of mean differences. Conclusions: The results indicated that creating a 3D patient by merging the dental scan with 3D facial images acquired with Bellus Arc7 is adequate quality for most clinical applications, albeit very technique sensitive.Dentistry, Faculty ofGraduat

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

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

Assessing evidence on the impacts of nature-based interventions for climate change mitigation: a systematic map of primary and secondary research from subtropical and tropical terrestrial regions

Background Nature-based interventions (NbIs) for climate change mitigation include a diverse set of interventions aimed at conserving, restoring, and/or managing natural and modified ecosystems to improve their ability to store and sequester carbon and avoid greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Recent projections estimate that terrestrial NbIs can lead to more than one-third of the climate change mitigation necessary to meet the Paris Climate Agreement by 2030. Further, these interventions can provide co-benefits in the form of social and ecological outcomes. Despite growing recognition of the potential benefits, a clear characterization of the distribution and occurrence of evidence which supports linkages between different types of NbIs and outcomes for climate change mitigation, ecosystems, and people remains poorly understood. Methods This systematic map assesses the evidence base on the links between NbIs and climate change mitigation, social, and ecological outcomes in tropical and subtropical terrestrial regions. We searched three bibliographic databases, 65 organization websites, and conducted backward citation chasing within 39 existing evidence syntheses to identify relevant articles. Additionally, we reached out to key informants for additional sources of evidence. We then used machine learning to rank returned results by relevance at the title and abstract stage and manually screened for inclusion using predefined criteria at the title, abstract, and full text stages. We extracted relevant meta-data from included articles using an a priori coding scheme. Lastly, we conducted a targeted, complementary search to identify relevant review and synthesis articles to provide broader context for the findings of the systematic map. Review findings We included 948 articles in this systematic map. Most of the evidence base (56%) examined links between protection, natural resource management, and restoration interventions with changes to ‘proxy’ outcomes for climate change mitigation (changes to land condition, land cover, and/or land use). Other areas with high occurrence of articles included linkages between interventions within natural resource management and trees in croplands categories and changes to aboveground carbon storage and/or sequestration (17% of articles). A key knowledge gap was on measured changes in GHG emissions across all intervention types (6% of articles). Overall, articles in the evidence base did not often assess changes in co-benefits alongside direct or indirect changes for climate change mitigation (32%). In most cases, the evidence base contained studies which did not explicitly test for causal linkages using appropriate experimental or quasi-experimental designs. Conclusions The evidence base for NbIs is significant and growing; however, key gaps in knowledge hamper the ability to inform ongoing and future investment and implementation at scale. More comprehensive evidence is needed to support causal inference between NbIs and direct outcomes for climate change mitigation to better determine additionality, permanence, leakage, and other unintended consequences. Similarly, priorities emerging from this map include the need for coordinated and harmonized efforts to collect diverse data types to better understand whether and how other outcomes (e.g. social, ecological) of NbIs can be achieved synergistically with mitigation objectives. Understanding potential benefits and trade-offs of NbIs is particularly urgent to inform rapidly expanding carbon markets for nature

Creating a space for place and multidimensional well-being: lessons learned from localizing the SDGs

International audienceAchieving sustainable development globally requires multilevel and interdisciplinary efforts and perspectives. Global goals shape priorities and actions at multiple scales, creating cascading impacts realized at the local level through the direction of financial resources and implementation of programs intended to achieve progress towards these metrics. We explore ways to localize global goals to best support human well-being and environmental health by systematically comparing the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with regionally-derived well-being dimensions that encompass components of social-ecological resilience across the Pacific Islands. Our research shows that, in the context of the Pacific, there are overlaps but also significant gaps between regional conceptions of well-being and the globally-derived SDGs. Some dimensions , related to human health and access to infrastructure and finances, are well represented in the SDGs. Other dimensions of high importance when localizing perspectives of well-being, such as those regarding connections between and across people and place and Indigenous and local knowledge, are not. Furthermore, internationally generated indicators may result in trade-offs and measurement challenges in local contexts. Creating space for place-based values in global sustainability planning aligns with international calls for transformational changes needed to achieve global goals. We identify challenges in applying SDG indicators at the local level and provide lessons learned to foster equitable and holistic approaches and outcomes for sustainability

Biocultural approaches to well-being and sustainability indicators across scales

Monitoring and evaluation are central to ensuring that innovative, multi-scale, and interdisciplinary approaches to sustainability are effective. The development of relevant indicators for local sustainable management outcomes, and the ability to link these to broader national and international policy targets, are key challenges for resource managers, policymakers, and scientists. Sets of indicators that capture both ecological and social-cultural factors, and the feedbacks between them, can underpin cross-scale linkages that help bridge local and global scale initiatives to increase resilience of both humans and ecosystems. Here we argue that biocultural approaches, in combination with methods for synthesizing across evidence from multiple sources, are critical to developing metrics that facilitate linkages across scales and dimensions. Biocultural approaches explicitly start with and build on local cultural perspectives — encompassing values, knowledges, and needs — and recognize feedbacks between ecosystems and human well-being. Adoption of these approaches can encourage exchange between local and global actors, and facilitate identification of crucial problems and solutions that are missing from many regional and international framings of sustainability. Resource managers, scientists, and policymakers need to be thoughtful about not only what kinds of indicators are measured, but also how indicators are designed, implemented, measured, and ultimately combined to evaluate resource use and well-being. We conclude by providing suggestions for translating between local and global indicator efforts