Guiding principles for evaluating the impacts of conservation interventions on human well-being.
Guiding principles for evaluating the impacts of conservation interventions on human well-being.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1098/rstb.2015.0103
复制
发表时间：
2015-11-05
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Milner-Gulland EJ
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Woodhouse E;Homewood KM;Beauchamp E;Clements T;McCabe JT;Wilkie D;Milner-Gulland EJ
衡量养护干预措施的社会经济影响的措施基本上局限于外部界定的指标，这些指标侧重于收入，并不反映人们的优先事项。使用一个整体的，本地接地的人类福祉的概念，而不是提供了一种方法来理解保护的多方面的影响方面的人的生活，他们的价值。环保主义者出于务实和道德的原因参与福祉，但目前关于如何实施这一概念的指导是有限的。我们提出了九个指导原则，围绕一个幸福的框架，结合材料，关系和主观成分，并专注于获得决策所需的知识。这些原则涉及影响评估的四个关键组成部分：㈠界定福祉指标，通过定性研究，优先考虑受干预措施影响最大的人的看法，并考虑主观福祉，这可能影响参与保护工作; ㈡通过准实验设计或其他方法，如基于理论的方法、案例研究方法和参与性方法，将影响归因于干预措施，根据所需的背景和证据，（iii）了解变化过程，包括因果联系的证据，并考虑变化轨迹和体制过程;（iv）数据收集方法的选择和应用对研究背景敏感，考虑到影响的异质性，沿着相关社会分工，并由具有当地专门知识和独立于干预措施的评估人员进行。
Measures of socio-economic impacts of conservation interventions have largely been restricted to externally defined indicators focused on income, which do not reflect people's priorities. Using a holistic, locally grounded conceptualization of human well-being instead provides a way to understand the multi-faceted impacts of conservation on aspects of people's lives that they value. Conservationists are engaging with well-being for both pragmatic and ethical reasons, yet current guidance on how to operationalize the concept is limited. We present nine guiding principles based around a well-being framework incorporating material, relational and subjective components, and focused on gaining knowledge needed for decision-making. The principles relate to four key components of an impact evaluation: (i) defining well-being indicators, giving primacy to the perceptions of those most impacted by interventions through qualitative research, and considering subjective well-being, which can affect engagement with conservation; (ii) attributing impacts to interventions through quasi-experimental designs, or alternative methods such as theory-based, case study and participatory approaches, depending on the setting and evidence required; (iii) understanding the processes of change including evidence of causal linkages, and consideration of trajectories of change and institutional processes; and (iv) data collection with methods selected and applied with sensitivity to research context, consideration of heterogeneity of impacts along relevant societal divisions, and conducted by evaluators with local expertise and independence from the intervention.