Exploring mechanisms and impacts of an incentive-based conservation program with evidence from a Randomized Control Trial
Exploring mechanisms and impacts of an incentive-based conservation program with evidence from a Randomized Control Trial
复制标题
利用随机对照试验的证据探索基于激励的保护计划的机制和影响
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
A. Kontoleon
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
E. Wiik;Julia P. G. Jones;Edwin L. Pynegar;P. Bottazzi;N. Asquith;J. Gibbons;A. Kontoleon
保护科学需要更多高质量的影响评估，特别是那些探索成功或失败的机制。随机对照试验（RCTs）提供了特别有力的证据干预措施的有效性（虽然他们一直被批评为简化，无法提供深入的机制），但很少有这样的实验调查保护景观规模。我们探讨了水共享的影响，在玻利维亚安第斯山脉，激励为基础的保护计划，使用现有的少数随机对照试验的规模保护之一。人们对这种以奖励为基础的养护办法有着浓厚的兴趣，因为有些人认为，这种办法可以避免有时与保护区有关的负面社会影响。我们专注于社会和环境结果，使用随机分配到控制或治疗的129个社区的家庭调查结果。我们控制不完整的程序摄取结合标准随机对照试验分析与匹配的方法，并探讨机制，探索中间和最终的结果，根据变化的基本理论。以前的分析，侧重于单一的生物物理结果，表明在其头五年，水共享并没有减缓森林砍伐或改善水质的景观规模。在这里，我们表明，它影响了一些中间结果（包括有针对性的生产系统和森林状况的看法），而对其他结果没有影响或意外的影响。通过将这项研究作为注册报告发表，我们为保护研究带来了不同寻常的透明度。我们建议，预登记的分析，理想情况下与同行评议相结合，是特别有益的复杂的分析，涉及多个结果，因为它避免了樱桃采摘的诱惑，并减少对负面结果的出版偏见。本文还展示了随机对照试验如何深入了解影响的途径，以及干预措施是否具有影响。保护生物学
Conservation science needs more high-quality impact evaluations, especially ones which explore the mechanisms for success or failure. Randomized Control Trials (RCTs) provide particularly robust evidence of the effectiveness of interventions (although they have been criticized as reductionist and unable to provide insights into mechanisms) but there have been very few such experiments investigating conservation at the landscape scale. We explored the impact of Watershared, an incentivebased conservation program in the Bolivian Andes, using one of the few RCTs of landscape-scale conservation in existence. There is strong interest in such incentive-based conservation approaches as some argue that they can avoid the negative social impacts sometimes associated with protected areas. We focused on social and environmental outcomes, using responses from a household survey in 129 communities randomly allocated to control or treatment. We controlled for incomplete program uptake by combining standard RCT analysis with matching methods, and investigated mechanisms by exploring intermediate and ultimate outcomes according to the underlying theory of change. Previous analyses, focusing on single biophysical outcomes, showed that over its first five years Watershared did not slow deforestation or improve water quality at the landscape scale. Here we show that it has influenced some intermediate outcomes (including targeted production systems and perceptions of the condition of forest), while having no impact or unexpected impact on other outcomes. By publishing this study as a Registered Report we bring an unusual degree of transparency in conservation research. We suggest that pre-registration of analysis, ideally combined with peer review, is particularly beneficial with complex analyses involving multiple outcomes as it avoids the temptation for cherry picking and reduces publication bias against negative results. This paper also demonstrates how Randomized Control Trials can give insights into the pathways of impact, as well as whether an intervention has impact. Conservation Biology
影响因子：
4.1
作者：
Daw, Tim M.;Hicks, Christina C.;McClanahan, Tim R.
通讯作者：
McClanahan, Tim R.