Are alternative livelihood projects effective at reducing local threats to specified elements of biodiversity and/or improving or maintaining the conservation status of those elements?

Abstract

Background: Alternative livelihood projects are used by a variety of organisations as a tool for achieving biodiversity conservation. However, despite characterising many conservation approaches, very little is known about what impacts (if any) alternative livelihood projects have had on biodiversity conservation, as well as what determines the relative success or failure of these interventions. Reflecting this concern, Motion 145 was passed at the Vth IUCN World Conservation Congress in 2012 calling for a critical review of alternative livelihood projects and their contribution to biodiversity conservation. This systematic map and review intends to contribute to this critical review and provide an overview for researchers, policy makers and practitioners of the current state of the evidence base. Methods:Following an a priori protocol, systematic searches for relevant studies were conducted using the bibliographic databases AGRICOLA, AGRIS, CAB Abstracts, Scopus, and Web of Knowledge, as well as internet searches of Google, Google Scholar, and subject specific and institutional websites. In addition, a call for literature was issued among relevant research networks. The titles, abstracts and full texts of the captured studies were assessed using inclusion criteria for the systematic map and the systematic review, respectively. An Excel spreadsheet was used to record data from each study and to provide a systematic map of the evidence for the effectiveness of alternative livelihood studies. The studies that met additional criteria to be included in the systematic review were described in more detail through a narrative synthesis. Results: Following full text screening, 97 studies were included in the systematic map covering 106 projects using alternative livelihood interventions. Just 22 of these projects met our additional criteria for inclusion in the systematic review, but one project was removed from the detailed narrative synthesis following critical appraisal. The 21 included projects included reports of positive, neutral and negative conservation outcomes. Conclusions:Our results show that there has been an extensive investment in alternative livelihood projects, yet the structure and results of most of these projects have not been documented in a way that they can be captured using standardised search processes. Either this is because there has been little reporting on the outcomes of these projects,

Developing a theory of change for a community‐based response to illegal wildlife trade

“…Such alternative‐livelihood interventions are focused on reducing livelihood dependency on wildlife (also known as decoupling) (Roe et al. ; Wright et al. ).…”

Precarious work or sustainable livelihoods? Aligning Prestea's Programme with the development dialogue on artisanal and small‐scale mining

“…The assumption usually underlying this method is that depletion of natural resources is mostly triggered by deprivation and limited choices (Weaver et al ., ). Alternatives are segmented into three categories: the group that offers an alternative livelihood to replace the one being exploited, for example by promoting skill‐training as an alternative to illegal artisanal mining operations; the group that offers an alternative occupation to decrease the necessity to extract natural resources for income (Roe et al ., ); and those who promote an alternative method of extracting a resource that has a lesser impact than the original method, for example by promoting environmentally‐friendly mining to minimize the need to pollute the environment (DeWan et al ., ), thus encouraging skills‐training and oil palm or cocoa farming as a substitute for expanding illegal artisanal mining (Morgan‐Brown et al ., ).…”

Gold, farms, and forests: Enforcement and alternative livelihoods are unlikely to disincentivize informal gold mining

“…Livelihood‐based approaches—also known as alternative livelihood (AL) projects—assume that providing alternative livelihood options will reduce natural resource exploitation (Brown, ). A systematic review of 106 AL projects found that only 22 met criteria for assessment, and only nine of these reported positive outcomes (Roe et al, ). Wright et al () argued that for AL interventions to succeed they need to provide a multifaceted substitute (e.g., in terms of labor inputs, cultural value, and economic rewards), to target the right users, and to scale to the wider region.…”