1932

Abstract

The world's forests provide valuable contributions to people but continue to be threatened by agricultural expansion and other land uses. Counterfactual-based methods are increasingly used to evaluate forest conservation initiatives. This review synthesizes recent studies quantifying the impacts of such policies and programs. Extending past reviews focused on instrument choice, design, and implementation, our theory of change explicitly acknowledges context. Screening over 60,000 abstracts yielded 136 comparable normalized effect sizes (Cohen's ). Comparing across instrument categories, evaluation methods, and contexts suggests not only a lack of “silver bullets” in the conservation toolbox, but that effectiveness is also moderate on average. Yet context is critical. Many interventions in our sample were implemented in “bullet-proof” contexts of low pressure on natural resources. This greatly limits their potential impacts and suggests the need to invest further not only in understanding but also in better aligning conservation with local and global development goals.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-110119-025703
2020-10-06
2024-06-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/resource/12/1/annurev-resource-110119-025703.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-110119-025703&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abman R. 2018. Rule of law and avoided deforestation from protected areas. Ecol. Econ. 146:282–89
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alix-Garcia JM, Sims KRE, Orozco-Olvera VH, Costica LE, Fernández Medina JD, Monroy SR 2018. Payments for environmental services supported social capital while increasing land management. PNAS 115:277016–21
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Ambec S, Cohen MA, Elgie S, Lanoie P 2013. The Porter hypothesis at 20: Can environmental regulation enhance innovation and competitiveness. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 7:12–22
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Andrews RNL. 2006. Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves: A History of American Environmental Policy New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press. , 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Angelsen A. 2010. Policies for reduced deforestation and their impact on agricultural production. PNAS 107:4619639–44
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Angelsen A, Kaimowitz D 2001. Agricultural Technologies and Tropical Deforestation Oxon, UK: CABI Int.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Arima EY, Barreto P, Araújo E, Soares-Filho B 2014. Public policies can reduce tropical deforestation: lessons and challenges from Brazil. Land Use Policy 41:465–73
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Arriagada RA, Sills EO, Pattanayak SK 2011. Payments for environmental services and their impact on forest transition in Costa Rica Work. Pap., Dep. Agric. Econ., Univ. Cátol Santiago:
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Baylis K, Honey‐Rosés J, Börner J, Corbera E, Ezzine‐de‐Blas D, Ferraro PJ et al. 2016. Mainstreaming impact evaluation in nature conservation. Conserv. Lett. 9:158–64
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Blackman A, Corral L, Lima ES, Asner GP 2017. Titling indigenous communities protects forests in the Peruvian Amazon. PNAS 114:164123–28
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Blackman A, Goff L, Rivera Planter M 2018. Does eco-certification stem tropical deforestation? Forest Stewardship Council certification in Mexico. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 89:306–33
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Börner J, Baylis K, Corbera E, Ezzine-de-Blas D, Ferraro PJ, Honey-Rosés J et al. 2016. Emerging evidence on the effectiveness of tropical forest conservation. PLOS ONE 11:11e0159152
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Börner J, Marinho E, Wunder S 2015. Mixing carrots and sticks to conserve forests in the Brazilian Amazon: a spatial probabilistic modeling approach. PLOS ONE 10:2e0116846
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Börner J, Vosti SA. 2013. Managing tropical forest ecosystem services: an overview of options. Governing the Provision of Ecosystem Services 4: R Muradian, L Rival 21–46 Dordrecht: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Börner J, Wunder S, Reimer F, Bakkegaard RK, Viana V et al. 2013. Promoting Forest Stewardship in the Bolsa Floresta Programme: Local Livelihood Strategies and Preliminary Impacts Rio de Janeiro: CIFOR https://www.cifor.org/library/4481/
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bowler DE, Buyung-Ali LM, Healey JR, Jones JPG, Knight TM, Pullin AS 2012. Does community forest management provide global environmental benefits and improve local welfare. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10:129–36
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Brockington D, Wilkie D. 2015. Protected areas and poverty. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 370:168120140271
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Burivalova Z, Miteva D, Salafsky N, Butler RA, Wilcove DS 2019. Evidence types and trends in tropical forest conservation literature. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34:7669–79
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Caplow S, Jagger P, Lawlor K, Sills E 2011. Evaluating land use and livelihood impacts of early forest carbon projects: lessons for learning about REDD+. Environ. Sci. Policy 14:2152–67
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Cashore B, Gale F, Meidinger E, Newsom D 2006. Forest certification in developing and transitioning countries: Part of a sustainable future. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 48:96–25
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Coad L, Leverington F, Knights K, Geldmann J, Eassom A et al. 2015. Measuring impact of protected area management interventions: current and future use of the Global Database of Protected Area Management Effectiveness. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 370:1681 https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0281
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  22. De Freitas FLM, Sparovek G, Mörtberg U, Silveira S, Klug I, Berndes G 2017. Offsetting legal deficits of native vegetation among Brazilian landholders: effects on nature protection and socioeconomic development. Land Use Policy 68:189–99
    [Google Scholar]
  23. De Sy V, Herold M, Achard F, Avitabile V, Baccini A et al. 2019. Tropical deforestation drivers and associated carbon emission factors derived from remote sensing data. Environ. Res. Lett. 14:994022
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Engel S. 2016. The devil in the detail: a practical guide on designing payments for environmental services. Int. Rev. Environ. Resour. Econ. 9:1–2131–77
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Ferraro PJ. 2009. Counterfactual thinking and impact evaluation in environmental policy. New Dir. Eval. 2009:12275–84
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Ferraro PJ, Kiss A. 2002. Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science 298:55991718–19
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Franco A, Malhotra N, Simonovits G 2014. Publication bias in the social sciences: unlocking the file drawer. Science 345:62031502–5
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Geldmann J, Barnes M, Coad L, Craigie ID, Hockings M, Burgess ND 2013. Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines. Biol. Conserv. 161:230–38
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Harahap F, Silveira S, Khatiwada D 2017. Land allocation to meet sectoral goals in Indonesia—an analysis of policy coherence. Land Use Policy 61:451–65
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Harris NL, Goldman E, Gabris C, Nordling J, Minnemeyer S, Ansari S et al. 2017. Using spatial statistics to identify emerging hot spots of forest loss. Environ. Res. Lett. 12:2024012
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Heltberg R. 2001. Determinants and impact of local institutions for common resource management. Envir. Dev. Econ. 6:2183–208
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Herrera D. 2015. Protected areas’ deforestation spillovers and two critical underlying mechanisms: an empirical exploration for the Brazilian Amazon PhD Thesis, Duke Univ Durham, NC:
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Herrera D, Pfaff A, Robalino J 2019. Impacts of protected areas vary with the level of government: comparing avoided deforestation across agencies in the Brazilian Amazon. PNAS 116:3014916–25
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Ibisch PL, Hoffmann MT, Kreft S, Pe'er G, Kati V et al. 2016. A global map of roadless areas and their conservation status. Science 354:63181423–27
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Jayachandran S, De Laat J, Lambin EF, Stanton CY, Audy R, Thomas NE 2017. Cash for carbon: a randomized trial of payments for ecosystem services to reduce deforestation. Science 357:6348267–73
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Joppa LN, Pfaff A. 2009. High and far: biases in the location of protected areas. PLOS ONE 4:12e8273
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Kaczan DJ. 2020. Can roads contribute to forest transitions. World Dev. 129:104898
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Kaimowitz D, Angelsen A. 1998. Economic Models of Tropical Deforestation: A Review Bogor, Indones.: CIFOR
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Lambin EF, Gibbs HK, Heilmayr R, Carlson KM, Fleck LC et al. 2018. The role of supply-chain initiatives in reducing deforestation. Nat. Clim. Change 8:2109–16
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Lambin EF, Turner BL, Geist HJ, Agbola SB, Angelsen A et al. 2001. The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths. Glob. Environ. Change 11:4261–69
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Leisher C, Temsah G, Booker F, Day M, Samberg L et al. 2016. Does the gender composition of forest and fishery management groups affect resource governance and conservation outcomes? A systematic map. Environ. Evid. 5:6
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Liscow ZD. 2013. Do property rights promote investment but cause deforestation? Quasi-experimental evidence from Nicaragua. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 65:2241–61
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Macura B, Secco L, Pullin AS 2015. What evidence exists on the impact of governance type on the conservation effectiveness of forest protected areas? Knowledge base and evidence gaps. Environ. Evid. 4:24
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Mahanty S, McDermott CL. 2013. How does ‘Free, Prior and Informed Consent' (FPIC) impact social equity? Lessons from mining and forestry and their implications for REDD+. Land Use Policy 35:406–16
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Manning CD, Raghavan P, Schütze H 2008. Introduction to Information Retrieval Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. , 4th ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Naidoo R, Gerkey D, Hole D, Pfaff A, Ellis AM et al. 2019. Evaluating the impacts of protected areas on human well-being across the developing world. Sci. Adv. 5:4eaav3006
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Nelson A, Chomitz KM. 2011. Effectiveness of strict versus multiple use protected areas in reducing tropical forest fires: a global analysis using matching methods. PLOS ONE 6:8e22722
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Nkonya E, Mirzabaev A, von Braun J 2016. Economics of Land Degradation and Improvement—A Global Assessment for Sustainable Development Cham, Switz.: Springer Open
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Ojanen M, Zhou W, Miller DC, Nieto SH, Mshale B, Petrokofsky G 2017. What are the environmental impacts of property rights regimes in forests, fisheries and rangelands. Environ. Evid. 6:12
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Oldekop JA, Holmes G, Harris WE, Evans KL 2016. A global assessment of the social and conservation outcomes of protected areas. Conserv. Biol. 30:1133–41
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Oya C, Schaefer F, Skalidou D 2018. The effectiveness of agricultural certification in developing countries: a systematic review. World Dev 112:282–312
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Paiva RJO, Brites RS, Machado RB 2015. The role of protected areas in the avoidance of anthropogenic conversion in a high pressure region: a matching method analysis in the core region of the Brazilian Cerrado. PLOS ONE 10:7e0132582
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Parks T. 2008. The rise and fall of donor funding for advocacy NGOs: understanding the impact. Dev. Pract. 18:2213–22
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B et al. 2011. Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12:2825–30
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Peinhardt C, Kim AA, Pavon-Harr V 2019. Deforestation and the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. Glob. Environ. Politics 19:153–76
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Petrosino A, Morgan C, Fronius TA, Tanner‐Smith EE, Boruch RF 2012. Interventions in developing nations for improving primary and secondary school enrollment of children: a systematic review. Campbell Syst. Rev. 8:1 https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2012.19
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  57. Pfaff A, Robalino J. 2017. Spillovers from conservation programs. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 9:299–315
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Pfaff A, Robalino J, Herrera D, Sandoval C 2015. Protected areas’ impacts on Brazilian Amazon deforestation: examining conservation-development interactions to inform planning. PLOS ONE 10:7e0129460
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Pfaff A, Robalino J, Sánchez-Azofeifa GA, Andam KS, Ferraro PJ 2009. Park location affects forest protection: land characteristics cause differences in park impacts across Costa Rica. BE J. Econ. Anal. Policy 9:2 https://doi.org/10.2202/1935-1682.1990
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  60. Pfaff ASP, Robalino J, Reis EJ, Walker R, Perz S, Laurance W et al. 2018. Roads & SDGs, tradeoffs and synergies: learning from Brazil's Amazon in distinguishing frontiers. Econ. Open-Access Open-Assess. E-J. 12:2018–111–26
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Pirard R, Wunder S, Duchelle AE, Puri J, Asfaw S et al. 2019. Effectiveness of forest conservation interventions: an evidence gap map IEU Learn. Pap. 02, Green Climate Fund Indep. Eval. Unit Incheon, Rep. Korea: https://efi.int/sites/default/files/files/efimed/resources/Pirard%20et%20al.%20EGM%20Cons%20IEU%202019.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Porter-Bolland L, Ellis EA, Guariguata MR, Ruiz-Mallén I, Negrete-Yankelevich S, Reyes-García V 2012. Community managed forests and forest protected areas: an assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. Forest Ecol. Manag. 268:6–17
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Rana P, Sills E. 2018. Does certification change the trajectory of tree cover in working forests in the tropics? An application of the synthetic control method of impact evaluation. Forests 9:398
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Robinson EJZ, Kumar AM, Albers HJ 2010. Protecting developing countries’ forests: enforcement in theory and practice. J. Nat. Resour. Policy Res. 2:125–38
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Roe D. 2008. The origins and evolution of the conservation-poverty debate: a review of key literature, events and policy processes. Oryx 42:4491–503
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Rudel TK. 2017. The dynamics of deforestation in the wet and dry tropics: a comparison with policy implications. Forests 8:4108
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Samii C, Lisiecki M, Kulkarni P, Paler L, Chavis L 2014a. Effects of decentralized forest management (DFM) on deforestation and poverty in low and middle income countries: a systematic review. Campbell Syst. Rev. 10: https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2014.10
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  68. Samii C, Lisiecki M, Kulkarni P, Paler L, Chavis L 2014b. Effects of payment for environmental services (PES) on deforestation and poverty in low and middle income countries: a systematic review. Campbell Syst. Rev. 10: https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2014.11
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  69. Sans GHC, Aguiar S, Vallejos M, Paruelo JM 2018. Assessing the effectiveness of a land zoning policy in the Dry Chaco. The case of Santiago del Estero, Argentina. Land Use Policy 70:313–21
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Sawilowsky SS. 2009. New effect size rules of thumb. J. Mod. Appl. Stat. Methods 8:226
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Scholes R, Montanarella L, Brainich E, Barger N, ten Brink B et al. 2018. Summary for policymakers of the assessment report on land degradation and restoration of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Rep., IPBES Secr Bonn, Ger:.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Sen B. 1987. NGO self-evaluation: issues of concern. World Dev 15:161–67
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Seymour F, Harris NL. 2019. Reducing tropical deforestation. Science 365:6455756–57
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Sills EO, Herrera D, Kirkpatrick AJ, Brandão A, Dickson R et al. 2015. Estimating the impacts of local policy innovation: the synthetic control method applied to tropical deforestation. PLOS ONE 10:7e0132590
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Sims KRE, Alix-Garcia JM. 2017. Parks versus PES: Evaluating direct and incentive-based land conservation in Mexico. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 86:8–28
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Snilsveit B, Stevenson J, Langer L, Polanin J, Shemilt I et al. 2019. Incentives for climate mitigation in the land use sector—the effects of payment for environmental services on environmental and socioeconomic outcomes in low- and middle‐income countries: a mixed‐methods systematic review. Campbell Syst. Rev. 15:3e1045
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Sunderlin WD, Hatcher J, Liddle M 2008. From Exclusion to Ownership? Challenges and Opportunities in Advancing Forest Tenure Reform Washington, DC: Rights Resour. Init https://www.cifor.org/library/5869/
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Tesfaw AT, Pfaff A, Kroner REG, Qin S, Medeiros R, Mascia MB 2018. Land-use and land-cover change shape the sustainability and impacts of protected areas. PNAS 115:92084–89
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Tilbury D. 1995. Environmental education for sustainability: defining the new focus of environmental education in the 1990s. Environ. Educ. Res. 1:2195–212
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Vatn A. 2005. Rationality, institutions and environmental policy. Ecol. Econ. 55:2203–17
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Vlek PLG, Khamzina A, Tamene L 2017. Land degradation and the Sustainable Development Goals: threats and potential remedies CIAT Publ. 440, Int. Cent. Trop. Agric Nairobi:
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Wahlén CB. 2014. Constructing conservation impact: understanding monitoring and evaluation in conservation NGOs. Conserv. Soc. 12:177–88
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Weiss CH. 1997. How can theory-based evaluation make greater headway. Eval. Rev. 21:4501–24
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Wiik ER, d'Annunzio R, Pynegar E, Crespo D, Asquith N, Jones JPG 2019. Experimental evaluation of the impact of a payment for environmental services program on deforestation. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 1:2e8
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Wittemyer G, Elsen P, Bean WT, Burton ACO, Brashares JS 2008. Accelerated human population growth at protected area edges. Science 321:5885123–26
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Wunder S. 2015. Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 117:234–43
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Wunder S, Börner J, Ezzine-de-Blas D, Feder S, Pagiola S 2020. Payments for environmental services: past performance and pending potentials. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 12:209–34
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Wunder S, Brouwer R, Engel S, Ezzine-de-Blas D, Muradian R, Pascual U, Pinto R 2018. From principles to practice in paying for nature's services. Nat. Sustain. 1:3145–50
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-110119-025703
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-110119-025703
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error