What evidence exists on the impact of governance type on the conservation effectiveness of forest protected areas? Knowledge base and evidence gaps

Abstract

Background: Governance processes and structures that steer social-ecological systems and in situ forest conservation strategies such as protected areas (PAs) can be crucial for effective management and improvement of the conservation outcomes. Nevertheless, knowledge synthesis on how types of local governance and decision-making modes may influence conservation outcomes of forest protected areas is lacking. This is mainly because the evidence on the joint relationships between governance regimes and ecological or social outcomes is generally missing and the knowledge comes from case studies. The research on this topic that use quasi-experimental designs aimed at inferring strong causal relationships is still methodologically in a development phase and the causal effects are hard to isolate. This map describes and maps the available qualitative and quantitative evidence from a large number and variety of sources, both peer-reviewed and grey literature, to answer the following question: What evidence exists on the impact of governance type on the conservation effectiveness of forest protected areas? This across-case systematic map reveals knowledge gaps, methodological limitations of the primary research and generates a list of specific research questions for future research.Methods: Evidence was collated from multiple sources, academic and grey literature. Using predefined inclusion criteria generated in a published protocol, we identified and screened articles for relevance at title, abstract and full text. Evidence was collated using English language search terms and applying no geographical limitations. Identified studies were critically appraised for internal validity (appropriateness of comparator, study design, objectiveness of measured outcomes) and mapped using a predefined coding scheme. We mapped studies according to geographical region, protected area characteristics, governance type, ecological and attitudinal outcomes, and comparator type. Results:The evidence base is limited in terms of size, quality and geographical area. We identified 57 relevant studies across 66 articles. The evidence base is geographically confined to Latin America and South Asia. Included studies are mostly of medium level of methodological detail, but frequently lack baseline, appropriate comparator or counterfactual to establish strong causal relationships between forest PAs with a particular governance type and a specific outcome. Moreover, most of the studies assess only one, primarily ecological, outcome and there were no studies measuring spill-over effects. Conclusions:The presented results call attention to the research gaps in the field of conservation governance, provide methodological guidelines and generate specific questions for future primary research. While conducting analysis of conservation intervention effects, research has to account for and report governance variables (e.g. how

A methodology for systematic mapping in environmental sciences

“…Systematic maps may be of potential interest to a wide range of stakeholders, including policy makers, practitioners, non-governmental organisations, levy boards, scientists and research funding bodies e.g. [26,[45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52].…”

Understanding local‐scale drivers of biodiversity outcomes in terrestrial protected areas

“…Historically, the importance of social factors has been underestimated in favor of a focus on more direct factors, such as unauthorized extraction, but more recently it has become clear that success is highly reliant on social context . At the scale of nations and institutions, good, equitable, transparent, and accountable governance of PAs appears to be one of the most pivotal elements of PA success, but there is limited empirical evidence to support this . We examine three emergent themes herein: (1) costs and benefits of the PA for local people; (2) corruption, conflict, and political stability; and (3) the legislative and policy framework in which a PA is embedded.…”

“…Governance for PAs has been defined as the “interactions amongst structures, processes and traditions that determine how power and responsibilities are exercised, how decisions are taken and how stakeholders have their say”––in short, who has the legitimate authority to govern a site and how. At the scale of institutions, good, equitable, transparent, and accountable governance of PAs appears to be one of the most pivotal elements of PA success, although the empirical evidence to support this is limited …”

Impact of Local Empowerment on Conservation Practices in a Highly Developed Country

“…The conservation impact of protected areas depends on their governance, but the effect of different governance regimes on conservation remains uncertain (Macura et al . ). Exclusionary conservation where power is held with national authorities and enforced through strict legal regulations is, on the one hand, thought to favor conservation through use‐limitation (Bruner et al .…”