Table 6 Details of included studies according to a standardised data extraction form (Additional file 2)
Category | Included study | ||
|---|---|---|---|
General information | |||
Publication ID | 32732910 | 27951807 | 27939613 |
Source retrieved from | Subject expert | Google Scholar; Web of Science; Scopus; CAB Abstracts | CAB Abstracts |
Bibliographic information | |||
Publication type | Journal article | Journal article | Journal article |
Author (s) | Fisher, Jonathan R. B.; Dills, Benjamin | Álvarez‐Romero, Jorge G.; Pressey, Robert L.; Ban, Natalie C.; Torre-Cosío, Jorge; Aburto-Oropeza, Octavio | Lagabrielle, Erwann; Botta, Aurélie; Daré, Williams; David, Daniel; Aubert, Sigrid; Fabricius, Christo |
Title | Do private conservation activities match science-based conservation priorities? | Marine conservation planning in practice: lessons learned from the Gulf of California | Modelling with stakeholders to integrate biodiversity into land-use planning - Lessons learned in Réunion Island (Western Indian Ocean) |
Journal or Publication title | PLoS ONE | Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems | Environmental Modelling & Software |
Publication year | 2012 | 2013 | 2010 |
Volume/edition | 7 (9) | 23 | 25 |
Publisher | PLoS ONE | Wiley Online Library | Elsevier |
Page numbers | e46429 | 483–505 | 1413–1427 |
Basic information about the conservation plan | |||
Primary region of assessment | National | Sub-national | Sub-national |
Country (s) of assessment | United States of America | Mexico | France |
Location of study (region) | United States of America | Gulf of California | Réunion Island |
Location of study (GPS coordinates) | 37.0902400, − 95.7128910 | 27.4803504, − 112.0303160 | − 21.1203276, 55.5483399 |
Name of resultant protected area network or similar (where relevant) | NA | NA | NA |
Name of the planning process | Ecoregional Assessments | Ecological 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 process | NGO | NGO | NA |
Planning domain area (km2) | Not provided | 361,375 | 2512 |
Type of biome(s) | Terrestrial | Marine | Terrestrial |
Start of planning process (years) | 1990s | Unclear | Unclear |
Duration of planning process (years) | 20 | Unclear | Unclear |
Type of plan (intervention category) | Identify priority conservation actions | Identify priority conservation actions | Identify priority conservation actions |
Primary conservation status of area (IUCN category) | Not provided | Not reported/not applicable | Not 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 process | Biodiversity; ecological processes; species persistence | Biodiversity; ecological processes; fishing; species persistence | Agriculture, aquaculture; biodiversity; ecological processes; economic sustainability; forestry; restoration priorities; species persistence; urban development |
Level of stakeholder participation in planning | Not provided | Consulted | Consulted; negotiation |
Academic goals | No | Prioritizing/comparing actions; zoning/marine spatial planning/land/water use planning; scheduling; implementation | Incorporating 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 planning | Land/water protection | Land/water protection; external capacity building | Land/water protection; livelihood, economic & other incentives |
Cost of the planning process (prior to implementation) | Not provided | Not provided | Not provided |
Tool name | Not provided | Marxan | Marxan; CLUZ |
Information on study design (evaluation) | |||
Methodology type (study design) | Non-experimental | Non-experimental | Qualitative |
Method of attribution | Correlational | Correlational | Researcher 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 outputs | Policy or plan | Policy or plan; academic paper(s) | Policy or plan; academic paper(s) |
Types of outcomes by capital | Institutional | Social; human; institutional | Financial; social; human; institutional |
Reported outcomes of planning process | Influence on future decision making by organisation or partners; integration of priorities into policies, conventions or legislation; protected areas expanded | Coordination 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 expanded | Transparency 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 outcome | Unclear | Positive | Positive |
Did the project outcomes reflect achievement of the original plan vision statement? | Not provided | Yes | Yes |
Context of study (evaluation) | |||
Location of lead author’s organisation (country) | United States of America | Australia | France |
Type of organisation leading the evaluation | NGO | University | University |
Is the lead organisation the same as that which originally conducted the planning process? | Yes | No | Yes |
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 provided | Not provided |
Outcome pathways | |||
Theory of change or conceptual model (for how the plan was expected to lead to intended outcomes) included in the study? | No | No | No |