Guiding principles for evaluating the impacts of conservation interventions on human well-being

Emily Woodhouse, Katherine M Homewood, Emilie Beauchamp, Tom Clements, J Terrence McCabe, David Wilkie, E J Milner-Gulland, Emily Woodhouse, Katherine M Homewood, Emilie Beauchamp, Tom Clements, J Terrence McCabe, David Wilkie, E J Milner-Gulland

Abstract

Measures of socio-economic impacts of conservation interventions have largely been restricted to externally defined indicators focused on income, which do not reflect people's priorities. Using a holistic, locally grounded conceptualization of human well-being instead provides a way to understand the multi-faceted impacts of conservation on aspects of people's lives that they value. Conservationists are engaging with well-being for both pragmatic and ethical reasons, yet current guidance on how to operationalize the concept is limited. We present nine guiding principles based around a well-being framework incorporating material, relational and subjective components, and focused on gaining knowledge needed for decision-making. The principles relate to four key components of an impact evaluation: (i) defining well-being indicators, giving primacy to the perceptions of those most impacted by interventions through qualitative research, and considering subjective well-being, which can affect engagement with conservation; (ii) attributing impacts to interventions through quasi-experimental designs, or alternative methods such as theory-based, case study and participatory approaches, depending on the setting and evidence required; (iii) understanding the processes of change including evidence of causal linkages, and consideration of trajectories of change and institutional processes; and (iv) data collection with methods selected and applied with sensitivity to research context, consideration of heterogeneity of impacts along relevant societal divisions, and conducted by evaluators with local expertise and independence from the intervention.

Keywords: development; impact evaluation; livelihoods; poverty; social impact; well-being.

© 2015 The Authors.

References

    1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
    1. West P, Igoe J, Brockington D. 2006. Parks and peoples: the social impact of protected areas. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 35, 251–277. (10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123308)
    1. Coad L, Campbell A, Miles L, Humphries K. 2008. The costs and benefits of protected areas for local livelihoods: a review of the current literature. Cambridge, UK: UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre.
    1. Coulthard S, Johnson D, McGregor JA. 2011. Poverty, sustainability and human wellbeing: A social wellbeing approach to the global fisheries crisis. Glob. Environ. Chang. 21, 453–463. (10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.003)
    1. Stiglitz J, Sen A, Fitoussi J. 2009. Final report of the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Paris, France: ()
    1. Ferraro PJ, Pattanayak SK. 2006. Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biol. 4, e105 (10.1371/journal.pbio.0040105)
    1. Leisher C, Sanjayan M, Blockhus J, Larsen SN, Kontoleon A. 2012. Does conserving biodiversity work to reduce poverty? A state of knowledge review. In Biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation: exploring the evidence for a link (eds Roe D, Elliot J, Sandbrook C, Walpole MJ), pp. 143–159. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
    1. OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2011. How's life? Measuring well-being. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
    1. Summers JK, Smith LM, Case JL, Linthurst RA. 2012. A review of the elements of human well-being with an emphasis on the contribution of ecosystem services. Ambio 41, 327–340. (10.1007/s13280-012-0256-7)
    1. Roe D, Oviedo G, Pabon L, Painter M, Redford K, Siegele L, Springer J, Thomas D, Walker Painemilla K. 2010. Conservation and human rights: the need for international standards. London, UK: IIED.
    1. World Parks Congress. 2003. The Durban Accord. See .
    1. Deci EL, Ryan RM. 2010. The ‘what‘ and ‘why‘ of goal pursuits: human needs and the self- determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 11, 227–268. (10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01)
    1. Andam KS, Ferraro PJ, Sims KRE, Healy A, Holland MB. 2010. Protected areas reduced poverty in Costa Rica and Thailand. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 9996–10 001. (10.1073/pnas.0914177107)
    1. Naughton-Treves L, Alix-Garcia J, Chapman CA. 2011. Lessons about parks and poverty from a decade of forest loss and economic growth around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 13 919–13 924. (10.1073/pnas.1013332108)
    1. Canavire-Bacarreza G, Hanauer MM. 2013. Estimating the impacts of Bolivia's protected areas on poverty. World Dev. 41, 265–285. (10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.06.011)
    1. Pullin AS, et al. 2013. Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas. Environ. Evid. 2, 19 (10.1186/2047-2382-2-19)
    1. Gurney GG, Cinner J, Ban NC, Pressey RL, Pollnac R, Campbell SJ, Tasidjawa S, Setiawan F. 2014. Poverty and protected areas: an evaluation of a marine integrated conservation and development project in Indonesia. Glob. Environ. Chang. 26, 98–107. (10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.003)
    1. Ferraro PJ, Hanauer MM. 2014. Quantifying causal mechanisms to determine how protected areas affect poverty through changes in ecosystem services and infrastructure. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 11, 4332–4337. (10.1073/pnas.1307712111)
    1. Stern E, Stame N, Mayne J, Forss K, Davies R, Befani B. 2012. Broadening the range of designs and methods in impact evaluation. Working Paper 38 London, UK: DFID (Department for International Development).
    1. Agarwala M, Atkinson G, Palmer Fry B, Homewood KM, Mourato S, Rowcliffe JM, Wallace G, Milner-Gulland EJ. 2014. Assessing the relationship between human wellbeing and ecosystem services: a review of frameworks. Conserv. Soc. 4, 437–449. (10.4103/0972-4923.155592)
    1. Conservation Measures Partnership. 2012. Addressing social results and human wellbeing targets in conservation projects. Draft Guidance. See .
    1. Stephanson SL, Mascia MB. 2014. Putting people on the map through an approach that integrates social data in conservation planning. Conserv. Biol. 28, 1236–1248. (10.1111/cobi.12357)
    1. Greene JC, Benjamin L, Goodyear L. 2001. The merits of mixing methods in evaluation. Evaluation 7, 25–44. (10.1177/13563890122209504)
    1. Ferraro PJ. 2009. Counterfactual thinking and impact evaluation in environmental policy. New Dir. Eval. 122, 75–84. (10.1002/ev.297)
    1. Leeuw F, Vaessen J. 2009. Impact evaluations and development: NONIE guidance on impact evaluation. Washington, DC: NONIE (The Network of Networks on Impact Evaluation).
    1. Gertler PJ, Martinez S, Premand P, Rawlings LB, Vermeersch CMJ. 2011. Impact evaluation in practice. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
    1. Baylis K, et al. 2015. Mainstreaming impact evaluation in nature conservation. Conserv. Lett. (10.1111/conl.12180)
    1. Boarini R, Kolev A, McGregor JA. 2014 Measuring wellbeing and progress in countries at different stages of development: towards a more universal conceptual framework. OECD Working Paper No. 325: OECD.
    1. Sen A. 1999. Development as freedom. New York: Knopf Press.
    1. University of Bath. 2002. Wellbeing in Developing Countries (WeD) ESRC Research Group [Online]. See .
    1. McGregor A, Sumner A. 2010. Beyond business as usual: what might 3-D wellbeing contribute to MDG momentum? IDS Bull. 41, 104–112. (10.1111/j.1759-5436.2010.00111.x)
    1. Deneulin S, McGregor JA. 2010. The capability approach and the politics of a social conception of wellbeing. Eur. J. Soc. Theory 13, 501–519. (10.1177/1368431010382762)
    1. White S, Ellison M. 2007. Wellbeing, livelihoods and resources in social practice. In Wellbeing in developing countries: from theory to research (eds Gough I, McGregor JA), pp. 157–175. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    1. Narayan D, Chambers R, Shah MK, Petesch P. 2000. Voices of the poor: crying out for change. New York, NY: Oxford University Press for the World Bank.
    1. Abunge C, Coulthard S, Daw TM. 2013. Connecting marine ecosystem services to human well-being: insights from participatory well-being assessment in Kenya. Ambio 42, 1010–1021. (10.1007/s13280-013-0456-9)
    1. Camfield L, Crivello G, Woodhead M. 2009. Wellbeing research in developing countries: reviewing the role of qualitative methods. Soc. Indic. Res. 90, 5–31. (10.1007/s11205-008-9310-z)
    1. White H. 2009. Theory-based impact evaluation: principles and practice. J. Dev. Effect. 1, 271–284. (10.1080/19439340903114628)
    1. Devereux S, Roelen K, Béné C, Chopra D, Leavy J, McGregor JA. 2013. Evaluating outside the box: an alternative framework for analysing social protection programmes. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies.
    1. Britton E, Coulthard S. 2014. Assessing the social wellbeing of Northern Ireland's fishing society using a three-dimensional approach. Mar. Policy 37, 28–36. (10.1016/j.marpol.2012.04.011)
    1. Agrawal A, Benson CS. 2011. Common property theory and resource governance institutions: strengthening explanations of multiple outcomes. Environ. Conserv. 38, 199–210. (10.1017/S0376892910000925)
    1. Wood G. 2007. Using security to indicate wellbeing. In Wellbeing in developing countries: from theory to research (eds Gough I, McGregor JA), pp. 109–132. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    1. Clements T, Milner-Gulland EJ. 2015. The impact of payments for environmental services and protected areas on local livelihoods and forest conservation in Northern Cambodia. Conserv. Biol. 29, 78–87. (10.1111/cobi.12423)
    1. Papworth SK, Rist J, Coad L, Milner-Gulland EJ. 2009. Evidence for shifting baseline syndrome in conservation. Conserv. Lett. 2, 93–100. (10.1111/j.1755-263X.2009.00049.x)
    1. Byrne D, Ragin C. 2009. The SAGE handbook of case-based methods. London, UK: Sage.
    1. Catley A, Burns J, Abebe D, Suji O. 2008. Participatory impact assessment: a guide for practitioners. Medford, MA: Feinstein International Center.
    1. Rogers PJ. 2009. Matching impact evaluation design to the nature of the intervention and the purpose of the evaluation. J. Dev. Effect. 1, 217–226. (10.1080/19439340903114636)
    1. Woolcock M. 2009. Towards a plurality of methods in project evaluation: a contextualized approach to understanding impact trajectories and efficacy. J. Dev. Effect. 1, 1–14. (10.1080/19439340902727719)
    1. Milner-Gulland EJ, et al. 2014. Accounting for the impact of conservation on human well-being. Conserv. Biol. 28, 1160–1166. (10.1111/cobi.12277)
    1. Petitt J. 2013. Power analysis: a practical guide. Stockholm, Sweden: SIDA (Swedish International Development Cooperation).
    1. Messer N, Tomsley P. 2003. Local institutions and livelihoods: guidelines for analysis. Rome, Italy: FAO.
    1. Schreckenberg K, Camargo I, Withnall K, Corrigan C, Franks P, Roe D, Scherl LM, Richardson V. 2010. Social assessment of conservation initiatives: a review of rapid methodologies. London, UK: IIED.
    1. Mayoux L, Chambers R. 2005. Reversing the paradigm: quantification, participatory methods and pro-poor impact assessment. J. Int. Dev. 17, 271–298. (10.1002/jid.1214)
    1. Daw T, Brown K, Rosendo S, Pomeroy R. 2011. Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environ. Conserv. 38, 370–379. (10.1017/S0376892911000506)
    1. Clements T, Suon S, Wilkie DS, Milner-Gulland EJ. 2014. Impacts of protected areas on local livelihoods in Cambodia. World Dev. 64, S125–S134. (10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.008)
    1. Hirsch PD, Adams WM, Brosius JP, Zia A, Bariola N, Dammert JL. 2011. Acknowledging conservation trade-offs and embracing complexity. Conserv. Biol. 25, 259–264. (10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01608.x)
    1. Baird TD, Leslie PW, McCabe JT. 2009. The effect of wildlife conservation on local perceptions of risk and behavioral response. Hum. Ecol. 37, 463–474. (10.1007/s10745-009-9264-z)
    1. Neef A, Touch S, Chiengthong J. 2013. The politics and ethics of land concessions in rural Cambodia. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics. 26, 1085–1103. (10.1007/s10806-013-9446-y)
    1. Sainsbury K, Burgess ND, Sabuni F, Howe C, Puis E, Killenga R, Milner-Gulland EJ. 2015. Exploring stakeholder perceptions of conservation outcomes from alternative income generating activities in Tanzanian villages adjacent to Eastern Arc Mountain forests. Biol. Conserv. 191, 20–29. (10.1016/j.biocon.2015.06.001)
    1. Bamberger M. 2010. Reconstructing baseline data for impact evaluation and results measurement. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
    1. Franks P, Roe D, Small R, Schneider H. 2014. Social assessment of protected areas: early experiences and results of a participatory, rapid approach. London, UK: IIED.
    1. Roe D, Grieg-Gran M, Mohammed E. 2013. Assessing the social impacts of conservation policies: rigour versus practicality. Briefing October 2013. London, UK: IIED.
    1. Bamberger M, Rao V, Woolcock M. 2010. Using mixed methods for monitoring and evaluation: experiences from international development. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
    1. McGregor JA. 2007. Researching wellbeing: from concepts to methodology. In Wellbeing in developing countries: from theory to research (eds Gough I, McGregor JA), pp. 316–350. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    1. Copestake J, Guillen-Royo M, Chou W-J, Hinks T, Velazco J. 2009. The relationship between economic and subjective wellbeing indicators in Peru. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 4, 155–177. (10.1007/s11482-009-9070-1)
    1. Butler CD, Oluoch-Kosura W. 2006. Linking future ecosystem services and future human well-being. Ecol. Soc. 11, 30.
    1. Ribot JC. 2006. Choose democracy: environmentalists’ socio-political responsibility. Glob. Environ. Chang. 16, 115–119. (10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.01.004)
    1. Goldman MJ, de Pinho JR, Perry J. 2013. Beyond ritual and economics: Maasai lion hunting and conservation politics. Oryx 47, 490–500. (10.1017/S0030605312000907)
    1. Brown D, Schreckenberg K, Shepherd G, Wells A. 2002. Forestry as an entry point for governance reform. London, UK: Overseas Development Institute Policy Briefing No. 1.
    1. Cahyat A, Gönner C, Haug M. 2007. Assessing household poverty and wellbeing – a manual with examples from Kutai Barat, Indonesia. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
    1. Davies R, Smith W. 1998. The basic necessities survey: the experience of ActionAid Vietnam. Hanoi, Vietnam: ActionAid.
    1. Blaikie P. 2006. Is small really beautiful? Community-based natural resource management in Malawi and Botswana. World Dev. 34, 1942–1957. (10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.11.023)
    1. Ravallion M. 2009. Should the randomistas rule? Econ. Voice. 6, 1–5 (10.2202/1553-3832.1368).
    1. Homewood K, Coast E, Thompson M. 2004. In-migrants and exclusion in East African rangelands: access, tenure and conflict. Africa 74, 567–610. (10.3366/afr.2004.74.4.567)
    1. Bedelian C. 2014. Conservation, tourism and pastoral livelihoods: wildlife conservancies in the Maasai Mara, Kenya. PhD thesis, University College London.
    1. Corbera E, Brown K, Adger NW. 2007. The equity and legitimacy of markets for ecosystem services. Dev. Change 38, 587–613. (10.1111/j.1467-7660.2007.00425.x)
    1. White S, Petitt J. 2004. Participatory methods and the measurement of wellbeing. Particip. Learn. Action 50, 88–96.
    1. Adams VM, Pressey RL, Stoeckl N. 2014. Navigating trade-offs in land-use planning: integrating human well-being into objective setting. Ecol. Soc. 19, 53 (10.5751/ES-07168-190453)
    1. White H. 2002. Combining quantitative and qualitative approaches in poverty analysis. World Dev. 30, 511–522. (10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00114-0)
    1. Brooks J, Waylen K, Mulder M. 2013. Assessing community-based conservation projects: a systematic review and multilevel analysis of attitudinal, behavioral, ecological, and economic outcomes. Environ. Evid. 2, 2 (10.1186/2047-2382-2-2)
    1. McShane TO, et al. 2010. Hard choices: making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biol. Conserv. 144, 966–972. (10.1016/j.biocon.2010.04.038)

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe