Does the social equitability of community and incentive based conservation interventions in non-OECD countries, affect human well-being? A systematic review protocol

被引:3
作者
Althor G. [1 ]
McKinnon M. [2 ]
Cheng S.H. [3 ]
Klein C. [1 ]
Watson J. [1 ,4 ]
机构
[1] School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, University of Queensland, Brisbane, 4072, QLD
[2] Conservation International, 2011 Crystal Drive, Arlington, 22202, VA
[3] National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS), University of California-Santa Barbara, 735 State St. #300, Santa Barbara, 93101, CA
[4] Wildlife Conservation Society, Global Conservation Program, 2300 Southern Boulevard, Bronx, 10460-1068, NY
基金
澳大利亚研究理事会;
关键词
Conservation planning; Human well-being; Incentives; Input equity; Nature conservation; Outcome equity; Social equity;
D O I
10.1186/s13750-016-0078-3
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background: An increasing number of conservation interventions aim to reduce their negative impacts on vulnerable people and to provide incentives aimed at improving overall human well-being. Community and incentive based conservation interventions have had variable rates of success in producing well-being outcomes, yet it is unclear why. Researchers have hypothesised that socially equitable conservation interventions will improve their likelihood of success. However, for community and incentive based interventions, there is a lack of evidence synthesis for the effect that social equity has on human well-being outcomes. Using this protocol, we will undertake a systematic review of relevant literature with the aim of using existing knowledge to address this gap. Methods: This protocol outlines the methodology we will use to examine the research question: Does the social equitability of community and incentive based conservation interventions in non-OECD countries, affect human well-being? We will conduct a systematic review of available studies, using articles that measure the effect of social equity, defined as the absence of avoidable and unfair, cost and benefit distributions between socially stratifying factors. To make this process efficient, and in order to prevent replication, we will utilize and update a literature search, and sub-set of data, collected in a previous systematic map that assessed the quantity and strength of evidence to support the effects conservation interventions have on human wellbeing. We will critically appraise each study we identify and capture the degree to which interventions integrated social equity within project participation and outcomes. Where integrated, we will determine if studies record or describe the effect that social equity had on human well-being. We have developed a conceptual framework that describes the expected effect of social equity, in order to capture and understand these effects. To understand the strength of relationships in our framework, and where data availability allows, we will undertake and combine a series of qualitative and quantitative data syntheses. By undertaking this study, we intend to understand how social equity considerations, specifically within community and incentive based conservation interventions, can affect human well-being. A better understanding of these features will inform conservation practitioners and researchers on the extent to which they ought to incorporate social equity into interventions in order to promote human well-being. © 2016 The Author(s).
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 68 条
[1]  
Morrison S.A., A framework for conservation in a human-dominated world, Conserv Biol, 29, pp. 960-964, (2015)
[2]  
Pretty J., Smith D., Social capital in biodiversity conservation and management, Conserv Biol, 18, pp. 631-638, (2004)
[3]  
Naughton-Treves L., Margaret Buck H., Brandon K., The role of protected areas in conserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods, Annu Rev Environ Resour, 30, pp. 219-252, (2005)
[4]  
Shoreman-Ouimet E., Kopnina H., Reconciling ecological and social justice to promote biodiversity conservation, Biol Conserv, 184, pp. 320-326, (2015)
[5]  
McShane T.O., Hard choices: Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being, Biol Conserv, 144, pp. 966-972, (2011)
[6]  
Kareiva P., New conservation: Setting the record straight and finding common ground, Conserv Biol, 28, pp. 634-636, (2014)
[7]  
Watson J.E.M., Dudley N., Segan D.B., Hockings M., The performance and potential of protected areas, Nature, 515, pp. 67-73, (2014)
[8]  
Bottrill M., Cheng S., Garside R., Wongbusarakum S., Roe D., Holland M.B., Edmond J., Turner W.R., What are the impacts of nature conservation interventions on human well-being: A systematic map protocol, Environ Evid, 3, pp. 1-11, (2014)
[9]  
Woodhouse E., Homewood K.M., Beauchamp E., Clements T., McCabe J.T., Wilkie D., Milner-Gulland E.J., Guiding principles for evaluating the impacts of conservation interventions on human well-being, Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 370, (2015)
[10]  
Scherrer Y.M., Environmental conservation NGOs and the concept of sustainable development: A research into the value systems of greenpeace international, WWF international and IUCN international, J Bus Ethics, 85, pp. 555-571, (2009)