|
SCB Impact Evaluation Working Group
Research Briefing
|
|
First
Edition
Dear
Counterfactual Enthusiasts,
Welcome
to the first edition of the bi-annual SCB IEWG Research Briefings,
where we explore the latest insights in conservation impact evaluation. Our
featured papers highlight both the promise and the challenges of applying
robust counterfactual impact evaluation approaches to conservation policy and
practice.
This
edition has been timed to arrive shortly before ICCB 2025, with the aim of
sparking reflection and dialogue ahead of the conference. We hope it
encourages you to engage with these ideas - and with each other - as we
collectively advance the science and practice of conservation evaluation.
Enjoy!
|
|
Aerial view of a national
park. (U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service/Public domain)
|
|
Protected Areas: Mixed
Results, Global Lessons
Mixed effectiveness of global
protected areas in resisting habitat loss uses cutting-edge causal inference to
show that protected areas have varied effects - and that context matters. The
paper highlights that one-size-fits-all solutions may fall short in the face
of diverse land-use dynamics.
|
|
Rethinking Responsibility
for Impact
An impact evaluation of conservation
investments targeting long-distance migratory species shifts the lens from evaluating conservation actions to
assessing conservation investments - using synthetic controls to
measure the impact of funding on shorebird populations across the Pacific
Americas Flyway. This is a rare large-scale evaluation of migratory species -
and a call for smarter funding strategies and better monitoring.
|
|
When Bans Backfire
Banning Wildlife Trade Can Boost the
Unregulated Trade of Threatened Species applies synthetic difference-in-differences to explore
the unintended effects of wildlife trade bans. The key message? Policy design
must account for behavioral spillovers and incentive shifts to avoid shifting
problems elsewhere.
|
|
Logging Without Loss?
Forest concessions and
eco-certifications in the Peruvian Amazon challenges expectations: while
eco-certification showed no significant effect, logging concessions may have
reduced forest loss. A compelling case for local context and nuanced
analysis.
|
|
|
|
DIGGING
INTO COUNTERFACTUAL METHODS
|
|
|
|
Causal Inference Made
Accessible
Foundations and Future Directions for Causal Inference in
Ecological Research
provides a rare bridge between technical precision and usability. With clear
visuals, workflows and decision trees, this guide is a must for ecologists
aiming to use causal methods effectively.
|
|
Matching Methods, Misplaced
Claims?
Causal claims, causal assumptions and
protected area impact
critiques a high-profile Nature study, highlighting how weak causal
assumptions and inadequate control for time-varying factors can inflate
claims of success. A sharp reminder to scrutinize methodological robustness.
|
|
|
|
🌟 Spotlight: SCB IEWG Special Issue
|
|
Featuring
contributions from our community, this trio of papers offers new directions
for rigorous and inclusive impact evaluation.
|
|
Experimentation in Practice
Lessons learned from 10 years of
embedding experimentation in agri-environmental programs in the U.S. offers insights from
inside government programs. It shows the organizational and political
barriers to embedding rigorous evaluation—and the trade-offs between learning
and showing success.
|
|
Designing RCTs for
Conservation
RCTs in the wild presents a helpful typology for
randomized trials in ecological settings, combining behavioral and
environmental considerations. For those designing field trials, it’s a
practical and thoughtful resource.
|
|
Inclusive Conservation in
Namibia
Pathways to more inclusive and
effective black rhino conservation draws on a decade of experience using process tracing
and adaptive management to align anti-poaching efforts with local values. A
model of socially grounded, evidence-informed conservation.
|
|
|
|
📚 Final Word
Taken together, these articles underscore the progress and ongoing challenges
of applying counterfactual thinking in conservation impact evaluation. They
show that while the methods are advancing, their interpretation and
application demand both rigor and caution. Let’s continue challenging
ourselves and our assumptions to advance evidence-based biodiversity
conservation that really benefits both people and nature.
|
|
Until next time,
The SCB Impact Evaluation Working Group (IEWG)
With a contribution from Diogo Verissimo
|
|
If you have any comments or suggestions
about this newsletter, please email: teamcount...@gmail.com
Do you know someone who would like to
receive this newsletter? Please ask them to sign up to the SCB IEWG listserv.
Want to contribute to the newsletter?
Watch for calls for input, or email us at teamcount...@gmail.com with
your ideas. To suggest a recent paper, include the title, DOI, and - most
importantly - a two-sentence summary of what you find compelling about it.
|
