Skip to main content

Table 1 Description, measurement and coding of predictors and outcomes

From: Assessing community-based conservation projects: A systematic review and multilevel analysis of attitudinal, behavioral, ecological, and economic outcomes

National context
H-NC1: National Political Context
NC-Governance i,ii World Bank scores for: voice in politics, government stability, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and corruption.
NC-Rights i,ii Values for political rights and civil liberties from the FreedomHouse database.
H-NC2: National Socio-economic context
NC-HDI i Human Development Index score from the UNDP trends dataset
NC-Gini Gini inequality coefficient. One value for each country from World Resources Institute country ranking of values from 2000-2007
Project Design
H-PD1: Participation/ Engagement
PD-Participation Combines PD-Impetus (whether impetus for project came from the community), PD-Establishment (level of community involvement in project establishment, and PD-Decision-making (level of community involvement in daily project decision-making. All coded as: no community=1, some community =2, joint or complete community involvement=3. Participation is sum of the three, three categories: low (3,4), moderate (5,6), high (7–9).
PD-Engagement Combines PD-Approach local culture (whether the project engaged with local cultural traditions and beliefs), and PD-Approach local institutions (whether the project engaged with local institutions and/or leaders). Variables coded: conflicted=1, mixed=2, engaged=3. Engagement is sum of both measures, three categories: low (2,3), moderate (4), high (5,6)
H-PD2: Access to and utilization of resources
PD-Protectionism iii IUCN ranking for protected area associated with the project two categories: Strict Nature Reserve/National Park, Other (national monument, habitat/species management area, protected landscape, managed resource area, no protected area)
PD-Resource use Constraints on resource use, three categories: protected, regulated, unregulated
H-PD3: Project benefits
PD-Economic benefits Economic/development benefits provided by project and type of resource useiv. Four categories: ecotourism (indirect use of targeted species/habitat), CBC (community efforts to minimize resource use), compensation/substitution (prohibition or minimized use of targeted resource but other benefits provided), enhancement (increasing marketable use of the targeted resource).
PD-Equity Combines PD-Equitable distribution (are benefits produced by the project equitably distributed), and PD-Elite capture (are benefits produced by the project captured by local elites). Coded as yes, no. Equity coded as good (no elite capture and equitable distribution), poor (elite capture, inequitable distribution, or both)
H-PD4: Human/social capital
PD-Capacity Combines PD-Capacity skills (did project build skills to aid development or conservation efforts), and PD-Capacity institutions (did project build or reinforce local institutions). Coded as yes, no. Capacity is: no (neither), yes (one or both).
PD-Social capital Whether the project produced non-economic benefits for the community or eroded community interactions or cultural beliefs, two categories: yes (benefits provided), no (no benefits or social capital eroded)
PD-Envt. education Whether environmental education was a component of the project: yes, no
Community characteristics
H-CC1: Market integration
CC-Market access The degree communities are market integrated including wage labor, selling and purchasing goods, and remoteness, three categories: low, moderate, high
CC-Threat Threats to local natural resources and/or the protected area (e.g. logging, hunting, land clearance, commercial development). Up to three noted for each project and coded by motivation (subsistence = 1, mixed = 2, commercial = 3). Sum of the three threats divided into three categories: low (1,2), moderate (3–5), high (6–9)
H-CC2: Supportive local context
CC-Local Institutions Combines CC-Supportive local culture (do local traditions and beliefs support conservation: unsupportive, mixed, supportive) and CC-Effective local government (quality of pre-existing local governance institutions: ineffective, mixed, effective). Local institutions is: low (both ineffect./ unsupp. or one ineffet./unsupp. and one mixed), moderate (one is ineffect./unsupp. and one is effect./ sup.), high (both effect./supp. or one effect./supp. and one mixed)
CC-Tenure Control or ownership over primary resources targeted by project, three categories: no community, mixed, total community (entity within community including private or communal ownership).
CC-Charisma Presence of charismatic individual/group of individuals facilitating project? yes, no
H-CC3: Local population
CC-Population size Size of human population, three categories: low (< 5000), moderate (5001 – 50000), high (>50001)
CC-Population heterogeneity Is targeted community ethnically or culturally diverse, two categories: low (one ethnic/cultural group present, or < 33% and > 67% of one ethnic group), high (multiple ethnic groups, >33% and <67% of community of one ethnic group and/or the author notes disharmony in community based on caste, class or ethnic divisions)v
CTR-Ecoregion status Status of ecoregion(s) in project area [107]. When multiple exist only lowest status value is coded, three categories: critically endangered, vulnerable, relatively stable
CTR- Author discipline Affiliation of first author, four categories: biological sciences, social sciences, interdisciplinary science or department, employed by an NGO
CTR- Years project running Number of years the project has been running. Year of project initiation was subtracted from the year research for the project was conductedvi.
Monitoring and Outcomes
Monitoring Type of monitoring and measurement for each outcome variable, three categories: quantitative, qualitative, author’s judgment (when author suggests outcomes without published data to support the claim).
Attitudinal Project outcomes with regard to local attitudes towards the project or conservation
Behavioral Project outcomes with regard to local resource use
Ecological Project outcomes with regard to condition of the habitat and/or key species
Economic Project outcomes with regard to economic or other development benefits All outcomes coded as: success (most indicators show improvement), limited success (some indicators show improvement), failure (majority of indicators show no change or decline).
Additional Variables vii
Rainfall Average annual rainfall for the community or communities involved in the project (mm)
Elevation Average elevation for the community of communities involved in the project (m)
Habitat types Habitat types in, or adjacent to, the community or communities involved in the project as listed in the article
Subsistence Subsistence type(s) exhibited by community members, including hunter-gatherers, fishers, pastoralists, horticulturalists, agrarians, mixed)
Resource importance Importance to the local people of the resource(s) that was targeted by the project, five categories: fundmental direct (positive benefits), fundamental negative (pest species), non-essential (incidental), value added income, value added other (cultural value
National policies Presence or absence of national policy transferring (or reaffirming) land and/or resource rights to local communities: yes, no
Policy implementation Whether supportive land/resource rights policies were actually implemented: yes, no
Government involvement Whether the national government is involved in project decision-making: yes, no
Government support Whether the national government financially supports the project: yes/no
External involvement Whether an NGO is involved in project decision-making or supports project decision-making, three categories: involved formally, not involved but supportive, not involved/conflicting
Economic Heterogeneity Is the targeted community economically heterogeneous (income, wealth, land ownership, or livestock ownership, three categories (low, moderate, high)
  1. Predictor variables grouped by hypothesis and general category.
  2. i. Scores taken from the year closest to the date of research.
  3. ii. Created a single value using the first factor score from a principal components analysis of the scores.
  4. iii. See Dudley [121] for a description of IUCN protected area rankings and criteria.
  5. iv. adapted from Abbott et al. [59].
  6. v. modified from Oldekop et al. [95].
  7. vi. When studies did not report the year that their research was initiated, this value was approximated. We calculated the mean value for the number of years between the initiation of research and the publication year for all studies in the sample and then subtracted this value from the year that study was published.
  8. vii these variables were not included in the analysis because there was a lack of information provided by the articles in our sample.
  9. The right-most column describes those variables that are conceptually similar and were combined for the multivariate analysis to reduce the number of predictors.