Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 6 Details of included studies according to a standardised data extraction form (Additional file 2)

From: Absence of evidence for the conservation outcomes of systematic conservation planning around the globe: a systematic map

CategoryIncluded study  
General information
 Publication ID327329102795180727939613
 Source retrieved fromSubject expertGoogle Scholar; Web of Science; Scopus; CAB AbstractsCAB Abstracts
Bibliographic information
 Publication typeJournal articleJournal articleJournal article
 Author (s)Fisher, Jonathan R. B.; Dills, BenjaminÁlvarez‐Romero, Jorge G.; Pressey, Robert L.; Ban, Natalie C.; Torre-Cosío, Jorge; Aburto-Oropeza, OctavioLagabrielle, Erwann; Botta, Aurélie; Daré, Williams; David, Daniel; Aubert, Sigrid; Fabricius, Christo
 TitleDo private conservation activities match science-based conservation priorities?Marine conservation planning in practice: lessons learned from the Gulf of CaliforniaModelling with stakeholders to integrate biodiversity into land-use planning - Lessons learned in Réunion Island (Western Indian Ocean)
 Journal or Publication titlePLoS ONEAquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater EcosystemsEnvironmental Modelling & Software
 Publication year201220132010
 Volume/edition7 (9)2325
 PublisherPLoS ONEWiley Online LibraryElsevier
 Page numberse46429483–5051413–1427
Basic information about the conservation plan
 Primary region of assessmentNationalSub-nationalSub-national
 Country (s) of assessmentUnited States of AmericaMexicoFrance
 Location of study (region)United States of AmericaGulf of CaliforniaRéunion Island
 Location of study (GPS coordinates)37.0902400, − 95.712891027.4803504, − 112.0303160− 21.1203276, 55.5483399
 Name of resultant protected area network or similar (where relevant)NANANA
 Name of the planning processEcoregional AssessmentsEcological Regional Assessment (ERA)No name, parallel to the Schéma d’Aménagement Régional (SAR), a regional land use planning process
 Type of organisation leading the planning processNGONGONA
 Planning domain area (km2)Not provided361,3752512
 Type of biome(s)TerrestrialMarineTerrestrial
 Start of planning process (years)1990sUnclearUnclear
 Duration of planning process (years)20UnclearUnclear
 Type of plan (intervention category)Identify priority conservation actionsIdentify priority conservation actionsIdentify priority conservation actions
 Primary conservation status of area (IUCN category)Not providedNot reported/not applicableNot reported/not applicable
 Vision statement“The priority areas are developed with the intent of representing all relevant biodiversity features in the ecoregion by identifying many individual species, communities, and ecological systems to serve as the targets of planning efforts… The intent is that if protected, the priority areas should represent functional landscapes that ensure the persistence of the conservation targets…”From Álvarez‐Romero et al. [46] Appendix 1: “Biodiversity conservation and natural resource management: Promote a regional focus in marine coastal conservation and management; provide a detailed portfolio of priority areas that represent the diversity and distribution of species, natural communities, and ecological systems of the ecoregion. Also, contribute to the knowledge of biodiversity of marine and coastal environments, and facilitate the definition and implementation of conservation strategies”“In line with the current and future development challenges in Réunion Island, the operational objectives of this study were (i) to identify priority areas for conservation (ii) to provide guidelines for implementing conservation actions outside existing reserves while dealing with increasing pressuring factors in the lowlands; (iii) to “accompany” the conservation sector to negotiate land-use planning and decision-making, more particularly in relation to the new regional land-use plan and the management plan of the National Park, and (iv) to explore alternative scenarios for land-use and conservation planning”
 Broad objective(s) of the planning processBiodiversity; ecological processes; species persistenceBiodiversity; ecological processes; fishing; species persistenceAgriculture, aquaculture; biodiversity; ecological processes; economic sustainability; forestry; restoration priorities; species persistence; urban development
 Level of stakeholder participation in planningNot providedConsultedConsulted; negotiation
 Academic goalsNoPrioritizing/comparing actions; zoning/marine spatial planning/land/water use planning; scheduling; implementationIncorporating socioeconomic costs/objectives; incorporating social/cultural values; incorporating ecological processes; incorporating ecological connectivity; incorporating threats; prioritizing/comparing actions; zoning/marine spatial planning/land/water use planning; stakeholder identification/engagement
 Type of process/actions considered in planningLand/water protectionLand/water protection; external capacity buildingLand/water protection; livelihood, economic & other incentives
 Cost of the planning process (prior to implementation)Not providedNot providedNot provided
 Tool nameNot providedMarxanMarxan; CLUZ
Information on study design (evaluation)
 Methodology type (study design)Non-experimentalNon-experimentalQualitative
 Method of attributionCorrelationalCorrelationalResearcher inference
 Overview of the methodology“The lands acquired by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) were analysed using GIS to determine to what extent they were in areas defined as priorities for conservation”Seven plans conducted in the Gulf of California were compared and experts were asked to assess their outcomes based on a standardised questionnaire. “…The similarities and differences between planning exercises were examined in terms of data, methods and outputs, how identified priorities match the existing MPA system, and whether plans have guided conservation and management actions”The evaluation approach was largely reflexive, comparing planning sequences 2 (involving Marxan) and 3 (involving model co-creation with stakeholders), and based on “observations made by the participatory modelling investigators during and 12 months after the process”. The authors considered the “researcher’s posture in the participatory modelling process” and therefore attempted to recognise potential biases
Outcomes
 Reported outputsPolicy or planPolicy or plan; academic paper(s)Policy or plan; academic paper(s)
 Types of outcomes by capitalInstitutionalSocial; human; institutionalFinancial; social; human; institutional
 Reported outcomes of planning processInfluence on future decision making by organisation or partners; integration of priorities into policies, conventions or legislation; protected areas expandedCoordination between different actors; raised awareness of biodiversity or conservation; new knowledge of ecological or social values; learning applied in future plans; influence on future decision making by organisation or partners; role of implementing agency; protected areas expandedTransparency in conservation investments; coordination between different actors; trust in the planning process; sharing datasets between agencies; attitudes of stakeholders; raised awareness of biodiversity or conservation; new knowledge of ecological or social values; learning applied in future plans; influence on future decision making by organisation or partners; consideration of conservation issues in decision making by other sectors
 Direction of change of outcomeUnclearPositivePositive
 Did the project outcomes reflect achievement of the original plan vision statement?Not providedYesYes
 Context of study (evaluation)
 Location of lead author’s organisation (country)United States of AmericaAustraliaFrance
 Type of organisation leading the evaluationNGOUniversityUniversity
 Is the lead organisation the same as that which originally conducted the planning process?YesNoYes
 Purpose/rationale for the study (stated reasons for undertaking an evaluation)“The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and other large conservation organizations have invested substantial resources in developing conservation plans intended to guide their decisions about which land areas and bodies of water to conserve. However, despite the investment in developing a scientific method for prioritizing areas for conservation, the degree to which land acquisition actually follows these scientific priorities has not been investigated before now”“While theory in conservation planning is developing quickly, there has been no assessment of the influence of new ideas on applications of marine conservation”“…The overall goal was to test different approaches to bridge the scientific and operational communities by bringing multidisciplinary scientists and stakeholders to collaborate around the participatory development of spatial models for land-use and conservation planning”
 Hypotheses of evaluators“Our first hypothesis was that overall the acquisition of lands should be well aligned with priority areas on the assumption that TNC chapters base their acquisition decisions on the best available conservation science. We did not expect perfect alignment for several reasons noted in the discussion section. Second, we hypothesized that there would be improvement over time in the match between science-based priorities and land protected by TNC as assessments and planning methods were increasingly formalized and improved. Our third hypothesis was that outright fee simple acquisition of land would show greater alignment with the priority areas than procuring conservation easements”Not providedNot provided
Outcome pathways
 Theory of change or conceptual model (for how the plan was expected to lead to intended outcomes) included in the study?NoNoNo