Biological Conservation - CyberLeninka

Biological Conservation 209 (2017) 159–171

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Biological Conservation

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /b ioc

Review

Assessing the evidence for stakeholder engagement inbiodiversity conservation

Eleanor J. Sterling a,⁎, Erin Betley a, Amanda Sigouin a, Andres Gomez b, Anne Toomey c, Georgina Cullman a,Cynthia Malone a, Adam Pekor d, Felicity Arengo a, Mary Blair a, Chris Filardi e,Kimberley Landrigan a, Ana Luz Porzecanski a

a Center for Biodiversity and Conservation, American Museum of Natural History, USAb ICF,USAc Pace University, USAd Columbia University, USAe Conservation International, USA

⁎ Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (E.J. Sterling).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.02.0080006-3207/© 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 28 May 2016Received in revised form 6 December 2016Accepted 6 February 2017Available online xxxx

Engaging local stakeholders is a central feature of many biodiversity conservation and natural resource manage-ment projects globally. Current literature on engagement predominantly focuses on individual case studies orspecific geographical contexts, making general conclusions regarding the effect of these efforts on conservationoutcomes difficult. We reviewed evidence from the peer-reviewed and grey literatures related to the role ofstakeholder engagement (both externally-driven and self-organized engagement) in biodiversity conservationat the local scale using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. We critically appraised and extracteddata using mixed methods for case studies (n = 82) and meta-analyses (n = 31) published from 2011 to2015. We conducted an inductive thematic analysis on background literature references published from 2000to 2016 (n = 283). The quantitative analysis assessed multiple variables, and yielded no significant results, butsuggested a possible relationship between success in producing attitudinal change towards conservation andfour engagement factors. Our qualitative analysis identified six dimensions of engagement processes that are crit-ical for successful outcomes when a project is externally-driven, and suggests that understanding of governanceand social-cultural context plays an important role in all types of stakeholder engagement efforts. Finally, we re-flect on the effectiveness of relying primarily on evidence available from published literature to understand linksbetween conservation and stakeholder engagement, in particular with regard to self-organized engagement.

© 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords:Stakeholder engagementBiodiversity conservationEvidence-basedEvidence-informedParticipatory methods

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1601.1. Stakeholder engagement across disciplines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

2. Methods and analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1602.1. Search strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1612.2. Inclusion/exclusion process and reference categorization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1612.3. Additional relevance assessment and critical analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1612.4. Data collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

3. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1623.1. Analysis of quantitative evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

3.1.1. Descriptive statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1623.1.2. Bivariate analysis of case studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

3.2. Analysis of qualitative evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1633.2.1. Externally-driven stakeholder engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1633.2.2. Self-organized stakeholder action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1653.2.3. Dimensions relevant to both externally-driven engagement and self-organized action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.biocon.2017.02.008&domain=pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.02.008

mailto:[email protected]

Journal logo


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/

www.elsevier.com/locate/bioc

160 E.J. Sterling et al. / Biological Conservation 209 (2017) 159–171

4. Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1664.1. The nature of the evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168Appendix A. Supplementary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169

1. Introduction

Despite at least four decades of calls for increased local stakeholderparticipation in biodiversity conservation, evidence on the efficacy ofthese efforts is only beginning to emerge (Reed, 2008, Brooks et al.,2013). Work to date has focused on how the process of engagement,such as group dynamics, communication styles, or transparency, is im-portant to stakeholder engagement (Renn et al., 1995, Rowe andFrewer, 2000, Beierle, 2002). Less attention has focused on how stake-holder engagement impacts outcomes, in part because this can be diffi-cult to evaluate, whether in terms of shifts in individual attitudes andbehaviors or ecological effects.

Given continued and even increasing reliance on participatory ap-proaches, the nature of the linkages between methods of engagementand conservation outcomes is a critical area in need of evidence(Danielsen et al., 2009). In order to help address this gap, we compiled,reviewed, and analyzed documented evidence from externally-drivenand self-organized efforts around theworld over thepast 16 years to en-gage stakeholders at the local scale regarding biodiversity conservationgoals. Our objective was to illuminate factors affecting the efficacy ofstakeholder engagement for biodiversity conservation goals in orderto inform both future research and practice.

1.1. Stakeholder engagement across disciplines

The literature on participation and local stakeholder engagement indecision-making processes spans fields such as business management,international development, community psychology, and natural re-sources management (Cooke and Kothari, 2001, Berkes, 2004, Hickeyand Mohan, 2004, Miles, 2015). Here, we define stakeholders as thepeople and organizations who affect or are affected by a decision;stakeholders can be directly or indirectly involved in an endeavor(Freeman, 1984, Annan, 2008). In our analysis we distinguish betweenexternally-driven engagement efforts and those that are self-organized.Externally-driven initiatives are those led by individuals or institutionalstakeholders (such as regional or national government, national or in-ternational non-governmental organizations or researchers) who areorganizing local stakeholders. Local stakeholders are individuals orgroups (generally place-based) who directly rely on or impact thespecific targets of resourcemanagement or conservation action (e.g. in-digenous landholders, farmers, fishers, local non-governmental organi-zations, or local researchers). Self-organized efforts are led by localgroups that have active control over resources and their management,such as indigenous leadership councils and citizen action groups. Self-organized indigenous peoples and local communities are importantleaders in biodiversity conservation efforts, overseeing a significant pro-portion of the world's biodiversity and carbon stocks (Kothari, 2013,Walker et al., 2014, WHRC and EDF, 2015). Therefore it is critical to un-derstand how and why indigenous peoples and local communities en-gage with biodiversity conservation efforts (Ruiz-Mallén et al., 2015).

In the environmental and development sectors, themain argumentsfor the importance of local stakeholder engagement center ondemocratic and equity aims, such as: 1) reducing marginalization ofthose underrepresented in decision-making, 2) increasing stakeholdertrust in and ability to act on decisions, 3) accounting for diversity ofvalues across stakeholders, and 4) promoting social learning where

stakeholders learn from each other and build new knowledgewhile de-veloping new relationships (Reed, 2008, Fritsch and Newig, 2012,Young et al., 2013a, Birnbaum et al., 2015). Pragmatic arguments forstakeholder engagement include 1) the possibility that increased diver-sity in decision-making bodies may lead to higher quality decisions bet-ter adapted to the local social-cultural and environmental contexts, 2)development of common ground, trust, and reduction of conflict be-tween stakeholders, 3) stakeholder ownership may increase supportand successful implementation, and 4) the potential for reduced imple-mentation costs (Richards et al., 2004, National Audubon Society, 2011).Yet there is a gap in the literature regarding evidence for which engage-ment approaches are most effective and under what circumstances(Webler, 1999, Beierle, 2002, Blackstock et al., 2012).

“Evidence-based” conservation, which emphasizes the importanceof unbiased data gathered through systematic review protocols, is in-creasingly important in conservation decision-making (Pullin andKnight, 2001, Sutherland et al., 2004). Evidence-based analyses canhelp to shift conservation practice from often-unqualified assumptionsto systematic collection and appraisal of a range of evidence(Haddaway and Pullin, 2013). These approaches in conservation are de-rived from the more established evidence-based medicine movement,where systematic reviews were developed as a rigorousmethod for ag-gregatingfindings fromquantitative randomized control trial studies. Inthe field of medicine, evidence-based approaches have evolved to rec-ognize the importance of non-quantitative evidence such as clinical ex-pertise and patient preferences (Satterfield et al., 2009). Robust mixedmethods and qualitative synthesis approaches allow for non-quantifiedevidence to inform policy and practice; synthesizing different types ofevidence is particularly relevant when addressing complex questions(Dixon-Woods et al., 2005, Noyes and Popay, 2007).

In the case of conservation, since natural systems are connected to somany social-cultural domains, it is important for stakeholder engage-ment efforts to consider the social dimensions of conservation projects(Billgren and Holmén, 2008, Colvin et al., 2016). Given the integratednature of conservation practice, in this paper we used a mixedmethodsapproach to assess evidence from the published literature over the past16 years regarding the contribution of local stakeholder engagement tooutcomes in biodiversity conservation initiatives. We developed asearch and review protocol to identify relevant, high-quality papersfrom the primary and grey literature. For a subset of these papers, weextracted information on multiple initiative variables and assessed thesuccess of stakeholder engagement across four outcome domains (suc-cess in producing behavioral change, in producing attitudinal change, inconserving biodiversity, and in economic outcomes) drawn from the lit-erature on participatory conservation (Reed, 2008, Brooks et al., 2013,Roe et al., 2015). Our choice of multiple variables reflects the design ofmany stakeholder engagement biodiversity conservation projects, inthat they often use varying methods to achieve multiple goals (Bayliset al., 2016). The selected outcome domains are those commonlyfocused on by conservation organizations when seeking to assess theimpact of a given participatory project (USAID, 2015).

2. Methods and analysis

This review followed an protocol adapted from the “Guidelines forSystematic Reviews in Environmental Management” developed by the

161E.J. Sterling et al. / Biological Conservation 209 (2017) 159–171

Centre for Evidence Based Conservation at Bangor University(Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, 2013). Our search methodand analysis approach consisted of the following elements.

2.1. Search strategy

We determined search terms based on expert review and a scopingprocess and focused on peer-reviewed and grey literature spanning theprevious 16 years. We carried out a pilot search and scoping exerciseprior to the actual review in order to refine the search strategy. Searcheswere conducted between February 20 andMarch 13, 2015 and betweenSeptember 26 and October 5, 2016 in five primary literature databasesand six grey literature portals; for further detail see Appendix A. Dueto the volume of literature available, and the changing landscape of en-gagement approaches and terminology in recent decades, the searchwas restricted to English language work published since 2000.

2.2. Inclusion/exclusion process and reference categorization

Inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) related to biodiversity conser-vation, 2) related to stakeholder engagement actions initiated by out-side groups or by self-organized groups, and 3) interventionsundertaken since 2000 at the local scale. References that did not meetthese criteria based on title and abstract were excluded, and thosethat did were sorted into three categories: case studies, meta-analyses,and potential background literature that contained important contextu-al information or definitions. This process was based on a sequential as-sessment, with two authors reviewing each reference. A Kappa analysisof the level of agreement resulted in a score of 0.6, above the 0.5 thresh-old recommended by the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence(CEE) guidelines (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, 2013). Incases of uncertainty, three reviewers (EJS, ALP, EB) discussed and thenresolved all conflicts. Where the same case study or meta-analysis wasdescribed in two or more papers, the most recent reference was select-ed. One reviewer (EJS) assessed the potential background literatureusing the above inclusion/exclusion criteria.

2.3. Additional relevance assessment and critical analysis

We conducted an additional relevance assessment of included liter-ature based on the presence of conclusive evidence relevant to the aimof this review. Specifically, reviewers determined whether the casestudy contained evidence (quantitative or qualitative) to evaluatechange, or lack of change, in the four outcome domains (behavioralchange, attitudinal change, conservation of biodiversity, and economicoutcomes), in the context of a stakeholder engagement effort. Upon re-view of the full text during this stage, reviewers could re-assign refer-ences to case study, meta-analysis, background reading, or exclude.

For included literature, we applied a critical appraisal frameworkthat assessed the following four principles of quality (Appendix A): con-ceptual framing (i.e. Does the study clarify why this intervention is im-portant? Does the study build upon prior work?); validity of studydesign (i.e. How defensible is the research design? How adequatelyhas the research process been documented? Are the methods used toassess the effectiveness of the intervention appropriate/replicable?Does the study employ triangulation of methods to evaluate the inter-vention?); quality of data sources (i.e. Does the study describe the pro-cess by which data are assessed for quality? Are the methods used toevaluate the data defensible? Does the study provide the raw data?);and quality of analysis (i.e. How clear are links between data, interpreta-tion, and conclusions? To what extent does the author consider thestudy's limitations and/or possible alternative interpretations of theanalysis? Are confounding factors taken into account?). Case studiesthat did not rank highly in these four principles of quality were notcoded.

2.4. Data collection

In line with CEE guidelines, we used qualitative research techniquesin parallel with quantitative analysis to construct a more complete viewof the evidence. Data analysis consisted of two processes: a mixedmethods approach to assess evidence from case study and meta-analy-sis references published from 2011 to 2015 and a qualitative thematicreview (Thomas and Harden, 2008) of 16 years of background litera-ture. We collected data from 82 case studies and 31 meta-analyses.We extracted and tabulated 44 separate pieces of information for thecase studies, including four outcome domains: success in producing be-havioral change, in producing attitudinal change, in conserving biodi-versity, and in economic outcomes (overall economic outcome successwas determined by project success for at least one of the variables foreconomic benefit outcomes, specifically those with livelihood, directpayment, education, food security, and infrastructure benefits, includinginfrastructure investments for health and freshwater); for further de-tails seeAppendix A - Table A.2. Formeta-analyses,we extracted 18 sep-arate pieces of information, including three outcome domains: successin producing behavioral change, in producing attitudinal change, andin conserving biodiversity (economic outcomes were not assessed asthe meta-analyses extraction did not include detail on the type of ben-efit outcomes; see Appendix A - Table A.3 for more information). Wecoded the outcome variables as successful (most or all evidence showsimprovement as result of action/engagement),mixed success (some ev-idence shows improvement as a result of action/engagement), no suc-cess (no evidence for improvement); or no data available. For thequalitative review of both case studies and meta-analyses, we differen-tiated externally-driven stakeholder engagement from self-organizedstakeholder action by how action/intervention was implemented(coded as: externally-driven throughout, self-organized throughout,co-created throughout). For the qualitative review of background refer-ences published from 2000 to 2016, we assessed success based onauthor's self-description of success and extracted information via the-matic analysis. Reviewers developed a suite of keywords based on re-current themes and used these keywords to extract qualitativeinformation facilitating the identification of similarities and differencesacross the studies and defining key concepts. Throughout the process,the list of keywords was adapted as new themes emerged.

After data extraction, two reviewers (EB, AS) reviewed all casestudies and meta-analyses in the final dataset using a thematicanalysis driven by grounded theory (Doolittle, 2010), usinginductive logic to identify patterns arising from the evidence anddistilling this into key themes captured in brief summaries. Thesummaries were then assessed by a second set of reviewers and tri-angulated with thematic analysis of background literature (EJS, ALP).The analysis focused on dimensions related to success or failure of anengagement project. In order to cross reference qualitative andquantitative results, reviewers noted whenever a case study ormeta-analysis linked a specific engagement dimension with aparticular outcome domain (e.g. success in producing behavioralchange, in producing attitudinal change, in conserving biodiversity,or in economic outcomes).

We calculated descriptive statistics on case studies and meta-analyses; for case studies, we conducted bivariate analysis.Specifically, we performed the log likelihood ratio (G-test) test ofindependence with Williams' correction (to account for smallsample size) in order to assess any significant relationships betweenthe case study properties with nominal variables (Table 1) and thefour outcome domains. For ordinal categorical data, we performedthe Goodman-Kruskal's gamma test to determine any relationshipbetween the measured project factors and the outcome domains.To account for multiple statistical tests, a Bonferroni correction wasapplied that considered an adjusted alpha of 0.003 per test. Allanalyses were conducted using R statistical computing (R CoreTeam, 2015).

Table 1Key project factors that were assessed quantitatively, grouped by category.

Category Key factors

Context and controlfactors

Who initiated the action/interventiona

Who implemented the actiona

Presence of a charismatic leadera

Process-relatedfactors

Type of action/intervention of engagementMethod of engagementTime frame of engagementTime frame of studya

If the project and related decision-making weretransparentIf trust between stakeholders and planners was increasedIf efforts were made to build social capitalEquitable distribution of benefitsa

Type of benefit outcomea

Whether or not there was conflict and if it was resolvedStakeholderinclusion factors

If stakeholder knowledge and values were synthesized intodecision-makinga

Level of stakeholder input throughout the projectLevel of stakeholder involvement at start of projectTrend in stakeholder involvement in decision making fromstart to end of project

a Key project factors drawn from the methodology of Brooks et al., 2013. All other fac-tors emerged from other dataset and background readings.


3. Results

The volume of search returns was extensive, with total hits of over150,000; sorting and relevance assessments reduced the total to 2954references, which was reduced to 2520 upon removal of duplicatesand spurious hits. Following the inclusion and exclusion decisions

Fig. 1. Systematic map of the search and inclusion process (note for each step, excluded refeassignment into groups see Methods and analysis and Appendix A.

based on title and abstract-level reviews, the dataset included 276case studies, 70meta-analyses, and 453 background references. Follow-ing full text review, the final dataset included 82 case studies, 31 meta-analyses, and 283 background readings (Fig. 1).

3.1. Analysis of quantitative evidence

3.1.1. Descriptive statisticsWe coded 82 case studies for the purposes of this study. The case

studies spanned 52 countries with geographic distribution predomi-nantly in Africa (33%) and Asia (23%); followed by the Americas with13% of cases from North America and 10% from South America. Allother geographic regions comprised fewer than 10% of the cases ana-lyzed. The number of case studies covered in a meta-analysis rangedfrom 2 to 146. For an overview of all descriptive statistics performedon the case studies and meta-analyses, see Appendix B.

3.1.2. Bivariate analysis of case studiesWe performed bivariate statistical analyses on the codeable case

studies (n=82) to assess the relationship between 17 evaluated factors(Table 1) and four project outcome domains (success in producing be-havioral change, in producing attitudinal change, in conserving biodi-versity, and in economic outcomes). When a Bonferroni correctionwas applied to account for multiple statistical tests (p b 0.003), no sta-tistically significant results were found. However, some have arguedagainst running such a correction, as it reduces statistical power andcan limit the generation of novel hypotheses (Nakagawa, 2004). If weapply this thinking and use an unadjusted p-value of 0.05, the analysissuggests a relationship between attitudinal change and the below fourresults (see Appendix C for further detail):

rence totals are not shown). For details on the criteria used for inclusion, exclusion, and


• Synthesizing stakeholder knowledge and values into decision-mak-ing, i.e. projects that synthesized stakeholder values and knowledgeinto decision-makingwere associated with attitudinal change (Good-man-Kruskal's gamma test, p-value = 0.004).

• Stakeholder input, i.e. projects in which stakeholders had inputthroughout the project were associated with attitudinal change(Goodman-Kruskal's gamma test, p-value = 0.004).

• Transparent decision-making, i.e. projects in which the actions anddecision-making process were transparent were associated with atti-tudinal change (Goodman-Kruskal's gamma test, p-value = 0.011).

• Trust between stakeholders and planners, i.e. projects in which trustincreased between stakeholders and planners were associated withattitudinal change (Goodman-Kruskal's gamma test, p-value =0.012).

3.2. Analysis of qualitative evidence

For the synthesis of extracted information from case studies (n =82) and meta-analyses (n = 31) mapped against themes developedfrom the background literature, we identified dimensions associatedwith success and failure relating to externally-driven stakeholder en-gagement, to self-organized stakeholder action, and to both self-orga-nized and externally-driven engagement (Table 2). Below we providesummaries of each dimension illustrated by case examples.

3.2.1. Externally-driven stakeholder engagement

3.2.1.1. Identifying stakeholders. In externally-driven engagement, resultsshow that engaging too large a group candilute outcomes. Büscher anddeBeer (2011) noted that striving for all-inclusiveness forced the discussiontowards broad, conceptual, and vague terms that fostered consensus butdid not provide good guidance for action. Gray et al. (2012) modeled in-tegration of knowledge across stakeholders and found that diversesources of knowledge increased structural understanding of the systemand increased the amount of recognized complexity. However, this higherlevel of recognized complexity potentially made it difficult for decisionmakers to choose between different proposed decisions.

Stakeholder involvement requires resources and time and can causesocial conflict if poorly executed (Mbaiwa and Stronza, 2011,Mulrennan et al., 2012, Suich, 2013). Frequently outsiders try to engage“communities”without effectively understanding how and with whomthose individuals interact, manage resources, or make decisions(Cullman, 2015). Communities are constantly shifting and define them-selves differently depending on the context (Zulu, 2012, Curtis et al.,2014). Consequently, Reed (2008) and de Vente et al. (2016) emphasizethe importance of developing a stakeholder engagement strategy early

Table 2Dimensions associated with success and failure by engagement type.

Engagement type Engagement and action dimension

Externally-driven stakeholderengagement

Identifying stakeholdersTiming and degree of stakeholderengagementRecognizing and respectingstakeholder values and institutionsStakeholder motivation forengagementEffective leadershipEffective partnerships

Self-organized stakeholder action Autonomous governance andrecognized rightsRetaining sovereignty whileobtaining access to outside resources

Both externally-driven stakeholderengagement and self-organized action

Local and traditional ecologicalknowledgeSocial, cultural, and political contextsManagement strategies

on that defines and sets priorities for actors and actions and determineswhom to involve when.

3.2.1.2. Timing and degree of stakeholder engagement. Early engagementcan lead to success, but it is also necessary to strategize when andhow to engage stakeholders across the stages of a givenprogramor con-servation initiative (Reid et al., 2009; see Discussion). Strong initial en-gagement followed by unilateral decision-making can frustratestakeholders and undermine their support (Gaymer et al., 2014). De-gree of participation matters, and some studies found that more collab-orative, participatory processes led to better results (Beierle, 2002, Reed,2008, Brooks et al., 2013), while reliance on predominantly low-qualityparticipation (e.g. passive listening) rather thanactive involvementmayreduce effectiveness (Pollini and Lassoie, 2011, Minter et al., 2014).Stakeholders often reject the legitimacy of a system if they have notbeen part of negotiating objectives and parameters, or if they do not un-derstand how theywill be affected (Petursson et al., 2011, Gaymer et al.,2014). Less recognized barriers to participation (such as power ineq-uities, inadequate funds to support participation, and language barriers)also inhibit a true collaborative process (Minter et al., 2014). “Engage-ment fatigue” can hinder projects, particularly those where individualsare not actively involved in decision-making but are brought in for con-sultation or opinions (Curtis et al., 2014). de Vente et al. (2016) foundthat fatigue can bemitigatedwith regular feedback on progress towardsoutputs and outcomes and careful consideration of selective engage-ment with stakeholders across a project.

3.2.1.3. Recognizing and respecting stakeholder values and institutions.There aremultiple dimensions to consider in order to successfully addressstakeholder values, such as acknowledging both inter- and intra-groupvariation, as well as respecting existing structures and institutions. Inter-ventions framed around the perceptions of one stakeholder group maynot appeal to all groups and could lead to disengagement, making it im-portant to consider a diversity of stakeholder values. For example,women and men in Namibia had different human-wildlife conflict riskperceptions, suggesting mediation framed in terms of male-orientedviewpoints could lower participation by women (Gore and Kahler,2012). We also noted multiple examples of value disconnects betweenproject planners and local stakeholder groups across the literature,which can erode communication and trust if unaddressed (Ruiz-Mallénand Corbera, 2013, Curtis et al., 2014, Rist et al., 2016). For instance, a re-viewof engagement efforts inMexico and Jamaica found that low-incomelocal communities and their advocates possess amuch broader definitionof biodiversity and its purpose than policymakers andmanagers in state-led development initiatives based on economic logic (Fuentes-George,2013). Further, a case study inUganda noted the importance of empathiz-ing and relating with local community perspectives; planners who didnot caused negative attitudes towards conservation efforts (Karki,2013). Awareness and respect for differing worldviews could help man-agers design more appropriate projects.

Outside efforts towards participation and engagement may un-knowingly undercut existing organizational and decision-making struc-tures in a given community, which in turn can affect outcomes. Forexample, creation of community based conservation areas in northernKenya led to intra-community conflict over changes in land tenurethat had essentially overturned prior informal regulation by communityelders (Greiner, 2012). When working with existing institutions, facili-tators should carefully consider which power dynamics and decision-making structures they are endorsing (Mahanty and Russell, 2002).

3.2.1.4. Stakeholder motivation for engagement. The effectiveness of pro-jects can be enhanced by identifying significant predictors ormotivatorsfor participation (Hobbs, 2012, Greiner, 2015). In many studies withpositive outcomes, economic and/or social factors were major motiva-tions or disincentives for participation (Gonzalez and Jentoft, 2011,Mbaiwa and Stronza, 2011, Elliott and Sumba, 2012). Designing


programs to appropriately address different stakeholder incentivesmaylead to increased levels of participation (Moon and Cocklin, 2011). Ini-tiatives should also consider community-level contextual factors (suchas population size), as motivating factors do not operate solely on theindividual scale (Gurney et al., 2016).

Economic benefits, such as direct payments in revenue sharing pro-grams or other mechanisms, are one type of motivator (and when effec-tive, can be an indicator of project success). Economic, market-basedprograms such as those focused on sustainable harvesting can help to en-gage stakeholders, support conservation, and increase livelihoods. Pay-ment for ecosystem services (PES) is a type of economic incentivestructure inwhich stakeholders are compensated formanaging resourcesin order to provide an ecological service; this approach often entails notusing or harvesting a resource. While such programs can yield positiveoutcomes (e.g. reduced lion killings due to a livestock compensationscheme), drawbacks can range across physical, socio-economic, and nor-mative factors (Wegner, 2016) and can include creating a cycle of depen-dency and privileging resource owners, potentially exacerbatinginequality (Anyango-Van Zwieten et al., 2015). Market-based programscan also lead to increased pressure on target resources (Solomon et al.,2012), and negative impacts such as decreased dietary diversity andfood security and loss of environmental knowledge (Ibarra et al., 2011).Ingram et al. (2014) note that the demand-driven nature of market-based programs makes them vulnerable to external economic forces;for instance, a successful turkey hunting program in Guatemala saw a sig-nificant decrease in demand after the 2008 global financial crisis. Further,PES approaches often fail to resolve larger systemic issues, such ashuman-wildlife conflict and its related drivers (Anyango-Van Zwieten etal., 2015).

Economic benefits are most effective when reliable and sustained(Pilgrim et al., 2011, MacKenzie, 2012, Rambe and Johnsen, 2013). Incen-tives must be appropriate and sufficient to maintain stakeholder partici-pation over themedium- to long-term(Suich, 2013). In an analysis of twocommunity-based natural resourcemanagement (CBNRM)1 initiatives inplace for over 10 years in southern Africa, Suich (2013) found that bene-fits were generally insufficient, reaching too few people, or not substan-tial enough to make a meaningful difference to local people's lives, thusdiscouraging participation. Even minor oscillations in benefits can causestakeholders to drop out of collaborations (Layzer, 2008). Provisioningof economic benefits should adequately consider program feedbacks aswell; for example, in some cases local people suffer negative impactsfrom successful conservation outcomes, such as higher wildlife popula-tions that increase human-wildlife conflict (Suich, 2013).

Timing of economic benefits can also be a key issue. A meta-analysisof 31 case studies found that when income from sustainable harvestingprograms was received during the lean time of the year, and thereforeprovided a safety net, local communities were more likely to participatein and benefit from the program (Elliott and Sumba, 2012). Similarly,the inability to deliver funds at the appropriate time (Ekpe et al., 2014)and/or to sustain funds (Anyango-Van Zwieten et al., 2015) could reduceincentives for local participation. Inclusion of both short-termand longer-term benefits, so that a project's benefits become visible early and aremaintained over time, can also sustain motivation to participate(Fabricius andKoch, 2004, DeVente et al., 2016). This is important as con-sequences of conservation action may seem predominantly negative inthe short term, whereas benefits of a restored ecosystem are often on alonger time frame (Birch et al., 2014).

Economic based approaches have not proven effective in protectingspecies of low economic value (Elliott and Sumba, 2012) and can under-mine non-economic valuations of nature (Fuentes-George, 2013). How-ever, theymay promote trust and collaboration. In ameta-analysis of 39

1 Given the nuances between projects described as community-based conservation(CBC), community-based resource management (CBRM), and community-based naturalresource management (CBNRM), we were consistent in using the term chosen by the au-thors to describe a particular project.

community-based projects in Africa, Salafsky et al. (2001) found a sig-nificant association between non-cash benefits stemming from a com-munity-based enterprise, such as enhanced community confidence,and conservation increases, but no associationwith the amount, timing,or breadth of distribution of cash benefits, nor with the strength of link-age between a given enterprise and local biodiversity or natural re-sources. They hypothesize that even when not directly linked to localnatural resources, community-based enterprises may produce conser-vation gains by fostering trust and partnerships between local stake-holders and conservation agents, which in turn can increasemotivation, receptiveness to outreach, and behavioral change.

Non-economic benefits are another important motivating factor.Some researchers have found that stakeholders, especially when self-selected, were most motivated by non-financial or intangible benefitsincluding social factors such as personal well-being (Hobbs, 2012), con-servation for future generations (Blackmore and Doole, 2013), or byproviding a public environmental good (Blackstock et al., 2012). For ex-ample, interviews with participants from a range of wildlife monitoringprograms in the UK found the most commonly listed benefits includedlearning, personal enjoyment and/or giving self-purpose, as well ashealth and wellbeing (Hobbs, 2012) while other studies discussed ben-efits such as increased self-esteem gained by working together (Bhatt,2003). A study of 35 instances of participatory governance in NorthAmerica and Europe over the past 30 years found that the most impor-tant factor for achieving environmental outcomes was the interests andgoals of the involved actors (Fritsch and Newig, 2012). In some cases,stakeholders were unmotivated to participate because of previous neg-ative experience with conservation or government agencies (Gonzalezand Jentoft, 2011).

Psychological strategies for self-awareness fostered sustained moti-vation over time in some cases. For instance, Asah and Blahna (2012)found that helping volunteers to consciously reflect on why they arevolunteering, and reinforcing those ideas throughout a project, notonly positively affected recruitment to volunteer activities but also re-tention through time. Moreover, they found that volunteers weremore motivated to participate by personal and social benefits than byenvironmental factors and were more likely to volunteer at their favor-ite stewardship organization for social reasons — to spend time withfriends, meet new people with similar interests, etc. Peer pressure andsocial norms are important factors in stakeholder engagement and be-havior change (Gurney et al., 2016). This is particularly true if peersare initially skeptical of an initiative and then decide to engage (Cookeet al., 2012). Finally, lowering the barriers to action can facilitate thetranslation of motivation into concrete behavior — for instance provid-ing farmers with practical training in biodiversity management prac-tices that are feasible and low cost (Lentijo and Hostetler, 2013).

3.2.1.5. Effective leadership. Effective leadership, charismatic leadership,and local champions are often hallmarks of success in conservation ini-tiatives (MacKenzie, 2012, Young et al., 2012, Brooks et al., 2013, Suttonand Rudd, 2015). A review of natural resource management projects inIndonesia found a strong linkbetween active community leaders and ef-fective project implementation (Rambe and Johnsen, 2013). Basurtoand Jimenez-Perez (2013) found that the presence of charismatic expe-rienced leaderswith long-term local ties (even if theywere not from theregion) and contacts in international arenas can be key to developingand supporting conservation action. These individuals were able touse their outside networks to secure stable sources of fundingwhile de-veloping capacity and vision at the local level. Interestingly, there maybe a gap in reporting on leadership. Brooks et al. (2013), comparing re-sults from published reports on community-based conservation projectoutcomes to subsequent targeted questionnaires for corresponding au-thors, found that the presence of a charismatic individual or group facil-itating a project was underreported.

Fostering leadership is complicated, however, as in some communi-ty-based conservation efforts, traditional stakeholder leadership


institutions can be undermined by parallel resource governance sys-tems, new regulations, pressure from outside market forces, and con-flicts over management (Ruiz-Mallén and Corbera, 2013). In addition,charismatic individuals and local elite concerns could skew groups, de-creasing their representativeness (Mahanty and Russell, 2002). Also,attracting and retaining effective local leaders can be difficult in part be-cause of overwork on the part of talented leaders or competing de-mands for time (Curtis and Sample, 2010, Curtis et al., 2014).

3.2.1.6. Effective partnerships. Successful collaborative projects wereoften those that developed out of sustained long-term relationshipsand social capital built over decadeswith strong two-way commitmentsto maintain relationships (Mbaiwa and Stronza, 2011, Mulrennan et al.,2012, Richard and Ratsirarson, 2013). A key finding in an analysis of a37-year conservation partnership in southwest Madagascar was theimportance of building long-term relationships and trust betweenlocal people and facilitators, despite the fact that this effort can betime-consuming (Richard and Ratsirarson, 2013). Importantly, socialoutcomes from stakeholder engagement, such as trust building, led togreater than expected conservation outcomes (Young et al., 2013b).Financial transparency is a critically important part of building trust(MacKenzie, 2012).

Effective communication and attention to perceptions and attitudesof local stakeholders build trust and enhance participation (Mbaiwa andStronza, 2011, Lyons, 2013, Young et al., 2013a). In a local governmentinitiative (in Florida, U.S.A.) to modify the state's endangered speciesact, articulation of why a particular stakeholder's opinion was notadopted increased transparency and allowed stakeholders to feelmore invested in the process (Haubold, 2012). This reflects Hurlbertand Gupta's (2015) argument that trust building results from earlycommunication of uncertainties, joint knowledge production andshared responsibilities, and transparency in information sources anddecision-making.

3.2.2. Self-organized stakeholder actionOur protocol returned a limited number of high-quality references

representing self-organized resource management action: one meta-analysis that included self-organized projects (Ruiz-Mallén andCorbera, 2013) and four case studies (Lin and Chang, 2011, Shwartz etal., 2012, Sakata and Prideaux, 2013, Kaiser-Bunbury et al., 2014). Weidentified several themes across these references. Autonomous gover-nance, rights, power, control, and decision-making by stakeholders ap-peared to support positive outcomes. A key success factor of a smallcommunity-led ecotourism project in Papua New Guinea was thecommunity's strong agency over the project, with local control over im-plementation and minimal leakage of economic benefits (Sakata andPrideaux, 2013). Successful self-organized groups make strategic deci-sions about when to solve problems internally and when to reach outto external actors, for technical, financial, or other resources, for exam-ple. External experts can provide benefits for self-organized groups in-cluding capacity development, new scientific knowledge, andincreased trust as a result of working with cross-institutional arrange-ments (Ruiz-Mallén and Corbera, 2013). Support can also be providedby external scientists in translating the results of their research intopractice and management at the community level (Kaiser-Bunbury etal., 2014).

3.2.3. Dimensions relevant to both externally-driven engagement and self-organized action

3.2.3.1. Local and traditional ecological knowledge. Local and traditionalknowledge has a fundamental role in achieving biodiversity conserva-tion goals (Ruiz-Mallén and Corbera, 2013). In three case studiesbased in Canada's Arctic, Armitage et al. (2011) note how knowledgeco-production between indigenous groups, external scientists, andmanagers allowed for more effective adaptive management of fisheries.

In a coastal British Columbia conservation areamanaged by theHeiltsukFirst Nation, a research agenda in accordance with Heiltsuk customarylaw allowed for more effective grizzly bear management (Housty etal., 2014). In addition, traditional taboos, informal sanctions, and ritualsand ceremonies can enforce behavior that supports natural resourcemanagement and conservation goals (Ruiz-Mallén and Corbera, 2013).In Indonesia, PapuaNewGuinea, and other areas in the Indo-Pacific, tra-ditional ecological knowledge determined appropriate timing of inter-mittent reef closures and their subsequent re-opening, which led topositive biodiversity outcomes (Ruiz-Mallén and Corbera, 2013,Jupiter et al., 2014a).

3.2.3.2. Social, cultural, and political contexts. Contextual conditions varyacross scales, from local to international levels; at the local level, stake-holder engagement is both embedded in and affected by broader scaledynamics (Sutton and Rudd 2015, Ekroos et al., 2016, Gurney et al.,2016, Ojha et al., 2016). Local and national governance regimes can im-pact the level of stakeholder engagement and ultimate success of a pro-ject (Bixler et al., 2015). For example, in Nepal, community-basedconservation programs were heavily affected by the Mao insurgency, anational political conflict (Baral and Stern, 2011). However, Brooks etal. (2013) found that a well-designed engagement strategy can over-come unfavorable features of the local and national socio-political andeconomic context. Their multivariate analysis found that when socio-economic and governance variables were considered together, nationalcontext did not play an important predictive role in project outcomes,suggesting that conservation projects can succeed in challengingsocio-economic and political circumstances. Brooks (2016) expandson this analysis to show that some key aspects of project design (capac-ity building, local participation, environmental education, and projectage) can result in “win-win” outcomes,with alignment between successacross social, economic, and/or ecological outcomes. The notion that achallenging context can be overcome with design is further supportedby de Vente et al.'s (2016) robust study that analyzed empirical datafrom participatory projects across two different scenarios; one scenarioincluded 11 projects with minor variation in local context but very dif-ferent designwhile the other scenario included a range of social-culturalcontexts across 13 similarly designed projects. The results of both sce-narios showed that process design principles (including true represen-tation of participants, professional facilitation, and dissemination ofinformation to all participants) were more important than a project'scontext for successful outcomes.

Elite capture of resources and power undermines key project ele-ments of transparency, trust, and equity (Ahebwa et al. 2012, Karki,2013). Ruiz-Mallén and Corbera (2013) describe how corruption of alocal leader damaged social trust and consequently the sasi (a local ma-rine tenure system) was disputed, contributing to overfishing in Indo-nesia. Pollini and Lassoie (2011) found that a law designed to transferrights to communities actually led to the transfer of these rights froma community that was the de facto manager of the resources to a sepa-rate group willing to implement state-designed management rules. So-cial equity, depending on type and context, can have a varying influenceon conservation success; research suggests that the best conservationoutcome often occurs in instances without perfect equity (Klein et al.,2015). The history of natural resource governance and use in a commu-nity offers important context, knowledge of which can help lead to bet-ter policy design and effectiveness (Walters et al., 2015).

3.2.3.3. Management strategies. Successful engagement is associatedwith adaptive management, and organizational and policy flexibilityand coordination at all levels (Armitage et al., 2011, Curtis et al., 2014,Jupiter et al., 2014b). An analysis of 22 instances of adaptive manage-ment implementation (Fabricius and Cundill, 2014) found that moststudies reporting successful conservation outcomes also reported hav-ing combined single-loop learning (improving existing practices) anddouble-loop learning (promoting reflection, evaluation, and innovative


approaches). Young et al. (2012, 2013a) noted that evaluation is criticalto making management adaptive and engagement effective.

Scenario development, increasingly used in stakeholder engage-ment, may be an effective tool to foster communication, set commongoals, and address conflict (Solomon et al., 2012, Waylen et al., 2015).As an example, Tsouvalis and Waterton (2012) describe how farmersworked together to research lake management issues; they realizedthat water quality was not just a physical measure with a linear, techni-cal solution but a complex problemwhose solution involved addressingsystem change and the simultaneous creation of viable farming scenar-ios and a healthy lake. Allowing for collaborative exploration of valuesand future scenarios can overcome the problem that arises when pre-set environmental outcomes reduce emphasis on dialogue and the de-velopment of social norms (Curtis and Lefroy, 2010).

Investing in capacity development can result in attitudinal and be-havioral outcomes (Brooks et al., 2013, Mountjoy et al., 2013). A studyexploring the link between capacity and natural resource managementplan implementation success as reported by practitioners amongCBNRM groups in the United States, found that higher levels of groupcapacity led to greater perceived implementation success, which wasviewed as a proxy for conservation outcomes (Mountjoy et al., 2013).Networking and sharing of knowledge and ideas across communitiescan be an effective way to achieve landscape-level natural resourcemanagement by building social capital and facilitating social learning(Ruiz-Mallén and Corbera, 2013, Curtis et al., 2014). Importantly, capac-ity development should transcend individual training. Investment in ca-pacity development at both individual and institutional levels wasdirectly linked to behavioral success in some studies (Green et al.,2011, Brooks et al., 2013).

Engagement efforts should have sufficient and sustained support(Green et al., 2011, Pilgrim et al., 2011, Richard and Ratsirarson, 2013).Lack of funding can often lead to failure of a program (Pilgrim et al.,2011, Lyons, 2013). In some instances, the formation of local trusts(Mbaiwa and Stronza, 2011) or community agreements (Filardi andPikacha, 2007, Price et al., 2009) to manage resources that rely onendowed funds were effective strategies for biodiversity conservation.

Qualitative, dialogue-based understandings of environmental prob-lems and potential solutions can improve facilitation. For example, ina cross-method comparison of community-basedmonitoring programs,Danielsen et al. (2005) found that group discussion techniques were ef-fective in improving collaboration and participation among stake-holders in resource-use regulation. Effective facilitation is importantfor self-organized and externally-driven projects, given differing opin-ions, values, and motivations of individuals and subgroups (Reed,2008, Waylen et al., 2015, De Vente et al., 2016).

4. Discussion

Our mixed methods approach included quantitative and qualitativeanalysis, which can provide more in-depth explanation and interpreta-tion of complex phenomena associated with stakeholder engagementand project outcomes.

Overall, our quantitative results found no significant relationshipsafter applying a Bonferroni correction. However, ifwe used anunadjust-ed p-value, we detected a relationship between attitudinal changetowards conservation and four factors: synthesis of stakeholder knowl-edge and values in decision-making, the inclusion of stakeholder inputthroughout a project, transparent decision-making and increased trustbetween stakeholders and planners. Given the lack of significance weare hesitant to draw conclusions from this analysis. Perhaps similar fu-ture studies that draw from a larger sample size would be able to over-come this limitation.

Our qualitative analysis led to the identification of engagement di-mensions important for different types of stakeholder projects. For ex-ternally-driven projects, we found that identifying the right balanceand timing of stakeholder engagement is a critical first step. In

particular, a focus on “key” (defined by focal stakeholders themselvesas well as external organizers) stakeholders is important. In terms oftiming, successful programs engage key stakeholders as early as possi-ble and plan for an adequate period of engagement, while simulta-neously considering the costs of engagement for local stakeholders.

There aremanydifferent levels, qualities, and degrees of stakeholderengagement, and the success of an approach will depend greatly on thecontext in which it is applied (Arnstein, 1969, Wilcox, 1994, Shirk et al.,2012, Bixler et al., 2015). Engagement approaches range from commu-nication strategies where stakeholders passively receive important in-formation (e.g. public information campaigns), to fully collaborativepartnerships between different groups where knowledge is co-created(e.g., participatory action research projects). Arnstein's (1969) ladderof participation conceptualizes multiple levels of citizen engagementin decision-making processes, ranging from “citizen control” (as thehighest form of participation) to “manipulation” (a form of engagementthat is in essence “non-participatory,” where select stakeholders serveas figurehead representatives but have no power to influence decisionsor actions).

While such linear conceptual models have tended to framemore in-teractive types of participation as better, critics have pointed out thatdifferent methods may be appropriate in different settings and duringdifferent project stages (Richards et al., 2004, Tippett et al., 2007). It iscommon for project initiators to identify and rank stakeholders inrelation to their power and interest (Colvin et al., 2016), which canhelp to determine who, when, and how to engage. Literature on stake-holder analysis notes that the practice of characterizing and classifyingstakeholders can result in cognitive and institutional blind spots thatlead to recurrent inclusion (and possible professionalization) of ‘usualsuspects’ and under-representation of marginalized or less visiblegroups (Reed et al., 2009, Colvin et al., 2016). Reed (2008) suggestswe need to replace the traditional “toolkit” approach, which impliesthere is a right tool to foster participation in each situation, with anapproach that recognizes participation as a process of continualnegotiation and decision-making.We conceptualize these engagementsas iterative and non-linear, with different groups of stakeholdersengaging in dynamic ways through various stages of a program oractivity (see Fig. 2).

Understanding and recognizing diverse and multiple value systemsis critical to engaging stakeholders at the right time and place andwith the right methods. Successful engagement efforts are built fromthe value base and local context of stakeholders and involve context-ap-propriate decisions provided by or co-created with stakeholders. It isimportant to recognize that stakeholders have different motivationsfor participating in a program. Trust, reciprocity, exchange, and respectare critical variables in collaborations, and are dependent upon effectivecommunication, transparency, outreach, explicit links between partici-pation and benefits, and co-learning throughout the collaboration.

Strong leaders can also be important for program success, andleadership development can build capacity for effective engagement.However, we have found, in our own practice, that when leadershipfalls mainly on a few people, local leaders often face challenges inbalancing attention to local activities with requests for engagementat national and international levels to share lessons learned andfacilitate fundraising. Thus, effective stakeholder engagement mayneed to actively manage and mitigate conflicting pressures on localleadership and build leadership depth beyond a single leader or two.

For self-organized stakeholder action, social-ecological conditionsrelating to rights and governance play an important role in success.Self-organized stakeholder action also benefits from access to externalsupport, resources, and strategic guidance, but this has to be balancedwith the ability to retain control of the process and retain autonomy.Networking can be an effective way to scale across communities andbuild social capital and support social learning.

In both self-organized and collaborative community-based conser-vation initiatives, the consideration of multiple sources of knowledge

Fig. 2. Intensity of engagement for different stakeholder groups varies across the different phases of a project or program. Phases are depicted around the circle, starting at the upper right.The strength or degree of engagement increases as stakeholders move towards the center. The central square represents stakeholders and organizers who provide project framing andguidance that is central to decision-making throughout the cycle. Other shapes represent diverse stakeholder groups who are engaged at different times and degrees of intensity. Theentire process can be iterative with different core decision makers and stakeholders over time. In the above hypothetical example, the square could be a local elder who co-leads theproject, the circle could represent a women's civic engagement group, the heptagon could represent a researcher, and the triangle a neighboring community.


in natural resource decision-making was a key factor contributing tosuccessful conservation. The central role of traditional and local ecolog-ical knowledge in decision-making systems contributed to the resil-ience of broader social-ecological systems. Socio-economic andpolitical contexts affect engagement success, but challenges can beovercome with well-designed strategies, in which flexibility, adaptivemanagement, scenario development, and evaluation are key compo-nents. Highly skilled facilitation is a crucial part of effective communica-tion that can help to set common goals and reduce conflict.

Given insufficient evidence,wewere not able to systematically com-pare the engagement dimensions from our qualitative analysis with theoutcome domains assessed quantitatively. The heterogeneous nature ofthe case studies, which covered a range of engagement actions, initia-tive goals, and assessed outcomes, made systematic comparison usingpredefined factors such as in the quantitative analysis inappropriate.However, when considering our qualitative results in light of the fourspecific outcome domains, certain engagement dimensions appearmore closely associated with particular outcomes than others. For in-stance, capacity development (e.g. through activities such as trainingand educational programs)was associatedwith achieving both attitudi-nal and behavioral change. Another engagement dimension importantfor attitudinal and behavioral change was understanding stakeholdermotivations, as projects that consciously integrated stakeholdermotiva-tors into project design weremore likely to see positive outcomes in at-titude and behavior. We also found the engagement dimension ofstrong local leadership seemed to be important for achieving conserva-tion success, potentially reflecting better compliance with projectguidelines.

4.1. The nature of the evidence

A key challenge for biodiversity conservation projects with a stake-holder engagement dimension is the emphasis on multiple outcomes,which makes data collection and evaluation of evidence complex(Baylis et al., 2016). A lack of ecological monitoring in many engage-ment projects contributes to our limited understanding of how theycontribute to biodiversity outcomes (Young et al., 2013a). The abun-dance of confounding factors that affect outcomes over time may pre-clude before and after comparisons (or paired controls). Success maymanifest itself at different spatiotemporal scales and results may varyacross project goals and stakeholder perceptions. Evidence gaps mayalso exist because project outcomes have not been reported or due toa lack of post-project monitoring (Roe et al., 2015). Our search returns

lacked long-term robustly designed evaluations, reflecting patternsPullin (2015) noted in recent systematic reviews.

The perspective of authors presenting evidence, drawing conclu-sions, and writing reports and articles frames outcomes (Barbour andSchlesinger, 2012), and the perception of success or failure of an en-deavor can greatly vary depending on who is doing the evaluation(Nadasdy, 2003). Project facilitators often hold significant power andresponsibility, and are under pressure to deliver and report on goalsthat may not align with those of local stakeholders. As several authorshave noted, failure in conservation is under-documented in the litera-ture (Redford and Taber, 2000, Knight, 2006).

While it is impossible to eliminate or even identify all biases, it is im-portant to be cognizant of potential sources of bias and their impacts.With an exclusive focus on published sources, our Tier 1 search stringsmay have limited the resulting literature to certain disciplines and per-spectives. For example, the term “stakeholder” is contested in many ofthe critical social science literatures (Friedman and Miles, 2006),where it is less likely to be used as a keyword than for studies publishedin conservation journals. Similarly, limiting the search to English lan-guage publications likely excludes findings from certain countries.

Self-organized engagement perspectiveswere difficult to capture forthis review, as these efforts are generally under-represented in writtenliterature for several reasons. First, self-organized approaches are ofteninseparable from the social-cultural dynamics of a community (i.e. cul-tural norms that regulate hunting practices) and are not necessarilyframed as “conservation efforts” by those engaged. Second, lessonslearned from such approaches are communicated inways not often rec-ognized in the conservation literature, such as through knowledge-practice-belief complexes passed down from generation to generation(Berkes, 1999). Finally, even when participants in such systems recog-nize the value of sharing their experiences to academic or professionalaudiences, they may not have the time, resources, capacities, or accessto write and publish their work.

This being the case, for topics such as the effectiveness of stakehold-er engagement, there is a need to find additional ways to access the per-spectives, stories, and knowledges not typically represented inconservation literature.We believe that engagingwith varied academic,professional, and lay perspectives and seeking to learn from other typesof knowledges will help us to better understand what works and whatcould be improved in stakeholder engagement in biodiversity conserva-tion. Thus, while we present evidence from a subset of the peer-reviewed literature, which we believe provides important insights intothe issue, we recommend that other types of evidence be synthesizedin future assessments (see Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. Different types of evidence bring different lenses to bear on decision-making. Primary and grey literatures are the main sources for “evidence-based” decision making. Evidence-informed decision-making can foster the inclusion of other kinds of evidence, validated internally to the knowledge systems in which they were generated.


For multifaceted, human attitude, and behavior-related topics suchas the subject of this review, conservation planners may want to take“evidence-informed” approaches, sensu Adams and Sandbrook(2013), in order to ensure the inclusion of voices and perspectives notcurrently found in the literature. These approaches draw from a broadevidence base that includes the peer and grey literatures but also vari-ous forms of expert local knowledge and other sources of validated ev-idence, where validation stems from systems internal to the relevantknowledge system, reflecting the reality that conservation is embeddedin complex, multi-scale social contexts where policy and power can in-fluence decision-making (Ekroos et al., 2016). These approaches canalso account for data that require subjective interpretation amidst com-plex and difficult-to-understand patterns of causality (Nilsson et al.,2016).

Better documentation of both successes and failures in engagingstakeholders in biodiversity conservation will also undoubtedly aid un-derstanding of which approaches are likely to be effective or not effec-tive in a variety of contexts. More investments should be made tolearn how to synthesize across knowledge systems, ensuring that thebest available, appropriately validated evidence is brought to the deci-sion-making process (Tengö et al., 2014). Similarly, strengthening “evi-dence informed” reviews and the ability to synthesize across data typesinvolves establishing and communicating effective quality assessmentcriteria for inclusion or exclusion of qualitative and quantitative re-search. For example, much high quality qualitative research relies onsample sizes that would be unacceptable for quantitative research(Drury et al., 2011). In this study we developed a system for assessingquality by four criteria (Appendix A), but future work could expand orrefine our method.

5. Conclusion

Many aspects of the role of stakeholder engagement in biodiver-sity conservation outcomes remain poorly understood. This may bein part because it is such a complex, multidimensional, and multi-scalar endeavor. More work needs to be done to gather robust evi-dence on outcomes, as well as on effective project design andmethods for engaging stakeholders. This is an important time for

conservation practice. The conservation community is examiningfundamental assumptions about how conservation should be carriedout, and how it should be integrated with other spheres of humanendeavor. The value of systematic reviews is in their ability to syn-thesize across case studies and develop recommendations based onmultiple strands of evidence. We advocate for expanding the typesof evidence assessed in reviews of complex topics to more fully andrigorously integrate qualitative research. In our case, this approachhas led to a set of richer, more multifaceted findings than the quan-titative approach alone. We believe implementing an evidence-in-formed approach, which can incorporate knowledges from sourcesother than the published literature, in future reviews will bring thefield another step forward towards developing strategies that are ef-fective and responsive to the diverse and dynamic local conditions inwhich biodiversity conservation operates.

Acknowledgements

This work was made possible by the generous support of theAmerican people through the United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID) under the terms of its requisition number REQ-EGAT-12-000014 (Measuring Impact) implemented by EnvironmentalIncentives, LLC; Foundations of Success; and ICF International. Measur-ing Impact has been issued under contract number AID-OAA-C-12-00078 and supports the same program objectives as described in RFPnumber SOL-OAA-000050. The Measuring Impact initiative is fundedand managed by the USAID Office of Forestry and Biodiversity/Bureaufor Economic Growth, Education and the Environment. The authors'views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the viewsof theUnited States Agency for International Development or theUnitedStates Government. Portions of earlier analyses of thiswork are summa-rized in a USAID Brief, Stakeholder Engagement for Biodiversity Conser-vation Goals: Assessing the Status of the Evidence (http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00M2M6.pdf). We are grateful to Joe McCarter forcomments and input, Nadav Gazit for graphic design, and TrishaGopalakrishna and Kelley Roberts for contributions to data collectionand analysis. Two anonymous reviewers provided comments that im-proved an earlier version of this manuscript.

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00M2M6.pdf

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00M2M6.pdf


Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.02.008.

References

Adams, W.M., Sandbrook, C., 2013. Conservation, evidence and policy. Oryx 47, 329.Ahebwa, W.M., van der Duim, R., Sandbrook, C., 2012. Tourism revenue sharing policy at

Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda: a policy arrangements approach.J. Sustain. Tour. 20, 377–394.

Annan, K., 2008. CEPA Toolkit: How to Engage Stakeholders and Mainstream Biodiversityin IUCN Commission on Education and Communication for the Secretariat of the Con-vention on Biological Diversity.

Anyango-Van Zwieten, N., van Der Duim, R., Visseren-Hamakers, I.J., 2015. Compensatingfor livestock killed by lions: payment for environmental services as a policy arrange-ment. Environ. Conserv. 42, 363–372.

Armitage, D., Berkes, F., Dale, A., Kocho-Schellenberg, E., Patton, E., 2011. Co-managementand the co-production of knowledge: learning to adapt in Canada's Arctic. Glob. En-viron. Chang. 21, 995–1004.

Arnstein, S., 1969. A ladder of citizenship participation. J. Am. Inst. Plann. 26, 216–233.Asah, S.T., Blahna, D.J., 2012. Motivational functionalism and urban conservation steward-

ship: implications for volunteer involvement. Conserv. Lett. 5, 470–477.Baral, N., Stern, M.J., 2011. A comparative study of two community-based conservation

models in Nepal. Biodivers. Conserv. 20, 2407–2426.Barbour, W., Schlesinger, C., 2012. Who's the boss? Post-colonialism, ecological research

and conservation management on Australian Indigenous lands. Ecol. Manag. Restor.13, 36–41.

Basurto, X., Jimenez-Perez, I., 2013. The emergence of collective-action with adaptive ca-pacity for biodiversity conservation in protected areas in Costa Rica. J. Lat. Am. Geogr.12, 111.

Baylis, K., Honey-Rosés, J., Börner, J., Corbera, E., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Ferraro, P.J., Lapeyre,R., Persson, U.M., Pfaff, A., Wunder, S., 2016. Mainstreaming impact evaluation in na-ture conservation. Conserv. Lett. 9, 58–64.

Beierle, T.C., 2002. The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk Anal. 22, 739–749.Berkes, F., 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Management Sys-

tems. Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia.Berkes, F., 2004. Rethinking community-based conservation. Conserv. Biol. 18,

621–630.Bhatt, S., 2003. Linking livelihoods with conservation - an enterprise-based approach to

biosphere reserve management. J. Natl. Sci. Found. 31, 147–158.Billgren, C., Holmén, H., 2008. Approaching reality: comparing stakeholder analysis and

cultural theory in the context of natural resource management. Land Use Policy 25,550–562.

Birch, J.C., Thapa, I., Balmford, A., Bradbury, R.B., Brown, C., Butchart, S.H.M., Gurung, H.,Hughes, F.M.R., Mulligan, M., Pandeya, B., Peh, K.S.-H., Stattersfield, A.J., Walpole, M.,Thomas, D.H.L., 2014. What benefits do community forests provide, and to whom?a rapid assessment of ecosystem services from a Himalayan forest, Nepal. Ecosyst.Serv. 8, 118–127.

Birnbaum, S., Bodin, O., Sandstrom, A., 2015. Tracing the sources of legitimacy: the impactof deliberation in participatory natural resource management. Policy. Sci. 48,443–461.

Bixler, R.P., Dell'Angelo, J., Mfune, O., Roba, H., 2015. The political ecology of participatoryconservation: institutions and discourse. J. Pol. Ecol. 22, 164–182.

Blackmore, L., Doole, G.J., 2013. Drivers of landholder participation in tender programs forAustralian biodiversity conservation. Environ. Sci. Pol. 33, 143–153.

Blackstock, K.L., Waylen, K.A., Dunglinson, J., Marshall, K.M., 2012. Linking process tooutcomes—internal and external criteria for a stakeholder involvement in riverbasin management planning. Ecol. Econ. 77, 113–122.

Brooks, J.S., 2016. Design features and project age contribute to joint success in social, eco-logical, and economic outcomes of community-based conservation projects. Conserv.Lett. 0, 1–10.

Brooks, J., Waylen, K., Mulder, M., 2013. Assessing community-based conservation pro-jects: a systematic review and multilevel analysis of attitudinal, behavioral, ecologi-cal, and economic outcomes. Environ. Evid. 2, 2.

Büscher, B., de Beer, E., 2011. The contemporary paradox of long-term planning for social-ecological change and its effects on the discourse-practice divide: evidence fromSouthern Africa. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 54, 301–318.

Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, 2013. Guidelines for Systematic Review andEvidence Synthesis in Environmental Management. Version 4.2. Centre for EvidenceBased Conservation, Bangor University, UK.

Colvin, R.M., Witt, G.B., Lacey, J., 2016. Approaches to identifying stakeholders in environ-mental management: insights from practitioners to go beyond the ‘usual suspects’.Land Use Policy 52, 266–276.

Cooke, B., Kothari, U., 2001. Participation: The New Tyranny? Zed BooksCooke, B., Langford, W.T., Gordon, A., Bekessy, S., 2012. Social context and the role of col-

laborative policy making for private land conservation. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 55,469–485.

Cullman, G., 2015. Community forest management as virtualism in NortheasternMadagascar. Hum. Ecol. 43, 29–41.

Curtis, A., Lefroy, T., 2010. Beyond threat and asset-based approaches to natural resourcemanagement in Australia. Australas. J. Environ. Manag. 17, 6–13.

Curtis, A., Ross, H., Marshall, G.R., Baldwin, C., Cavaye, J., Freeman, C., Carr, A., Syme, G.J.,2014. The great experiment with devolved NRM governance: lessons from

community engagement in Australia and New Zealand since the 1980s. Australas.J. Environ. Manag. 21, 175–199.

Curtis, A., Sample, R., 2010. CBNRM in Victoria: Contributing to Dialogue, Learning and Ac-tion. Institute for Land, Water and Society, Charles Sturt University, Albury, NSW,Australia.

Danielsen, F., Burgess, N.D., Balmford, A., 2005. Monitoringmatters: examining the poten-tial of locally-based approaches. Biodivers. Conserv. 14, 2507–2542.

Danielsen, F., Burgess, N.D., Balmford, A., Donald, P.F., Funder, M., Jones, J.P.G., Alviola, P.,Balete, D.S., Blomley, T., Brashares, J., Child, B., Enghoff, M., Fjeldsa, J., Holt, S.,Hubertz, H., Jensen, A.E., Jensen, P.M., Massao, J., Mendoza, M.M., Ngaga, Y., Poulsen,M.K., Rueda, R., Sam, M., Skeilboe, T., Stuart-Hill, G., Topp-Jorgensen, E., Yonten, D.,2009. Local participation in natural resource monitoring: a characterization of ap-proaches. Conserv. Biol. 23, 31–42.

De Vente, J., Reed, M.S., Stringer, L.C., Valente, S., Newig, J., 2016. How does thecontext and design of participatory decision-making processes affect theiroutcomes? evidence from sustainable land management in global drylands.Ecol. Soc. 2, 24.

Dixon-Woods, M., Agarwal, S., Jones, D., Young, B., Sutton, A., 2005. Synthesising qualita-tive and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J. Health Serv. Res. Pol-icy 10, 45–53.

Doolittle, A.A., 2010. Stories and maps, images and archives: multimethod approach tothe political ecology of native property rights and natural resource management inSabah, Malaysia. Environ. Manag. 45, 67–81.

Drury, R., Homewood, K., Randall, S., 2011. Less is more: the potential of qualitative ap-proaches in conservation research. Anim. Conserv. 14, 18–24.

Ekpe, E.K., Hinkle, C.R., Quigley, M.F., Owusu, E.H., 2014. Natural resource and biodiversityconservation in Ghana: the use of livelihoods support activities to achieve conserva-tion objectives. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 10, 253–261.

Ekroos, J., Leventon, J., Fischer, J., Newig, J., Smith, H.G., 2016. Embedding evidence on con-servation interventions within a context of multilevel governance. Conserv. Lett. 0,1–7.

Elliott, J., Sumba, D., 2012. Conservation enterprise: what works, where and for whom?In: Roe, D., Elliott, J., Sandbrook, C., Walpole, M. (Eds.), Biodiversity Conservationand Poverty Alleviation: Exploring the Evidence for a Link. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.,Chichester, UK

Fabricius, C., Cundill, G., 2014. Learning in adaptive management: insights from publishedpractice. Ecol. Soc. 19 (1), 29.

Fabricius, C., Koch, E., 2004. Rights, Resources and Rural Development: Community-basedNatural Resource Management in Southern Africa. Earthscan, London, UK.

Filardi, C., Pikacha, P., 2007. A role for conservation concessions in Melanesia: customaryland tenure and community conservation agreements in the Solomon Islands. Mela-nesian Geo 5, 18–23.

Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman, Boston.Friedman, A.L., Miles, S., 2006. Stakeholders: Theory and Practice. Oxford University Press

on Demand.Fritsch, O., Newig, J., 2012. Participatory governance and sustainability: findings of a

meta-analysis of stakeholder involvement in environmental decision making. In:Eric Brousseau, T.D., Siebenhüner, Bernd (Eds.), Reflexive Governance for Global Pub-lic Goods. The MIT Press, p. 382.

Fuentes-George, K., 2013. Neoliberalism, environmental justice, and the convention on bi-ological diversity: how problematizing the commodification of nature affects regimeeffectiveness. Glob. Environ. Politics 13, 144–163.

Gaymer, C.F., Stadel, A.V., Ban, N.C., Cárcamo, P.F., Ierna, J., Lieberknecht, L.M., 2014.Merging top-down and bottom-up approaches in marine protected areasplanning: experiences from around the globe. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshwat.Ecosyst. 24, 128–144.

Gonzalez, C., Jentoft, S., 2011. MPA in labor: securing the Pearl Cays of Nicaragua. Environ.Manag. 47, 617–629.

Gore, M.L., Kahler, J.S., 2012. Gendered risk perceptions associated with human-wildlifeconflict: implications for participatory conservation. PLoS ONE 7.

Gray, S., Chan, A., Clark, D., Jordan, R., 2012. Modeling the integration of stakeholderknowledge in social-ecological decision-making: benefits and limitations to knowl-edge diversity. Ecol. Model. 229, 88–96.

Green, S.J., Claussen, J.D., White, A.T., Christie, P., Kilarski, S., Meneses, A.B.T., Samonte-Tan,G., Karrer, L.B., Fox, H., Campbell, S., 2011. Emerging marine protected area networksin the coral triangle: lessons and way forward. Conserv. Soc. 9, 173–188.

Greiner, C., 2012. Unexpected consequences: wildlife conservation and territorial conflictin Northern Kenya. Hum. Ecol. 40, 415–425.

Greiner, R., 2015. Factors influencing farmers' participation in contractual biodiversityconservation: a choice experiment with northern Australian pastoralists. Aust.J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 58, 1–21.

Gurney, G.G., Cinner, J.E., Sartin, J., Pressey, R.L., Ban, N.C., Marshall, N.A., Prabuning, D.,2016. Participation in devolved commons management: multiscale socioeconomicfactors related to individuals' participation in community-based management of ma-rine protected areas in Indonesia. Environ. Sci. Pol. 61, 212–220.

Haddaway, N., Pullin, A.S., 2013. Evidence-based conservation and evidence-informedpolicy: a response to Adams & Sandbrook. Oryx 47, 336–338.

Haubold, E.M., 2012. Using adaptive leadership principles in collaborative conservationwith stakeholders to tackle a wicked problem: imperiled species management inFlorida. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 17, 344–356.

Hickey, S., Mohan, G., 2004. Participation–From Tyranny to Transformation?: ExploringNew Approaches to Participation in Development. Zed books.

Hobbs, S., 2012. Community Participation in Biodiversity Monitoring. University of York.Housty, W.G., Noson, A., Scoville, G.W., Boulanger, J., Jeo, R.M., Darimont, C.T., Filardi, C.E.,

2014. Grizzly bear monitoring by the Heiltsuk people as a crucible for first nation con-servation practice. Ecol. Soc. 19, 70.



http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0006-3207(17)30206-9/rf0005
























































































































































Hurlbert, M., Gupta, J., 2015. The split ladder of participation: a diagnostic, strategic, andevaluation tool to assess when participation is necessary. Environ. Sci. Pol. 50,100–113.

Ibarra, J.T., Barreau, A., Del Campo, C., Camacho, C.I., Martin, G.J., McCandless, S.R., 2011.When formal and market-based conservation mechanisms disrupt food sovereignty:impacts of community conservation and payments for environmental services on anindigenous community of Oaxaca, Mexico. Int. For. Rev. 13, 318–337.

Ingram, J.C., Wilkie, D., Clements, T., McNab, R.B., Nelson, F., Baur, E.H., Sachedina, H.T.,Peterson, D.D., Foley, C.A.H., 2014. Evidence of payments for ecosystem services asa mechanism for supporting biodiversity conservation and rural livelihoods. Ecosyst.Serv. 7, 10–21.

Jupiter, S.D., Cohen, P.J., Weeks, R., Tawake, A., Govan, H., 2014a. Locally-managed marineareas: multiple objectives and diverse strategies. Pac. Conserv. Biol. 20, 165–179.

Jupiter, S.D., Jenkins, A.P., Long, W.J.L., Maxwell, S.L., Carruthers, T.J.B., Hodge, K.B., Govan,H., Tamelander, J., Watson, J.E.M., 2014b. Principles for integrated islandmanagementin the tropical Pacific. Pac. Conserv. Biol. 20, 193–205.

Kaiser-Bunbury, C.N., Fleischer-Dogley, F., Dogley, D., Bunbury, N., 2014. Scientists' re-sponsibilities towards evidence-based conservation in a Small Island DevelopingState. J. Appl. Ecol. 52, 7–11.

Karki, S.T., 2013. Community-based conservation: an institutional approach to assessingbiodiversity conservation efforts at Bardia National Park in Nepal. In: Smith, J.B.(Ed.), National Parks: Sustainable Development, Conservation Strategies and Envi-ronmental Impacts. Nova Science Publishers, Inc., pp. 105–128.

Klein, C., et al., 2015. Social equity and the probability of success of biodiversity conserva-tion. Glob. Environ. Chang. 35, 299–306.

Knight, A.T., 2006. Failing but learning: writing the wrongs after Redford and Taber.Conserv. Biol. 20, 1312–1314.

Kothari, A., 2013. Communities, conservation and development. Biodiversity 14,223–226.

Layzer, J.A., 2008. Natural Experiments: Ecosystem-Based Management and the Environ-ment. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Lentijo, G.M., Hostetler, M.E., 2013. Effects of a participatory bird census project on knowl-edge, attitudes and behaviors of coffee farmers in Colombia. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 15,199–223.

Lin, P.S., Chang, C.Y., 2011. Towards sustainable community-based natural resource man-agement in the indigenous Meqmegi community in Taiwan: rethinking impacts oflocal participation. Nat. Res. Forum 35, 134–144.

Lyons, A., 2013. The rise and fall of a second-generation CBNRM project in Zambia: in-sights from a project perspective. Environ. Manag. 51, 365–378.

MacKenzie, C.A., 2012. Trenches like fences make good neighbours: revenue sharingaround Kibale National Park, Uganda. J. Nat. Conserv. 20, 92–100.

Mahanty, S., Russell, D., 2002. High stakes: lessons from stakeholder groups in the biodi-versity conservation network. Soc. Nat. Resour. 15, 179–188.

Mbaiwa, J.E., Stronza, A.L., 2011. Changes in resident attitudes towards tourism develop-ment and conservation in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. J. Environ. Manag. 92,1950–1959.

Miles, S., 2015. Stakeholder theory classification: a theoretical and empirical evaluation ofdefinitions. J. Bus. Ethics 1–23.

Minter, T., van der Ploeg, J., Pedrablanca, M., Sunderland, T., Persoon, G.A., 2014. Limits toindigenous participation: the Agta and the Northern Sierra Madre Natural Park, thePhilippines. Hum. Ecol. 42, 769–778.

Moon, K., Cocklin, C., 2011. Participation in biodiversity conservation: motivations andbarriers of Australian landholders. J. Rural. Stud. 27, 331–342.

Mountjoy, N.J., Seekamp, E., Davenport, M.A.,Whiles, M.R., 2013. The best laid plans: com-munity-based natural resource management (CBNRM) group capacity and planningsuccess. Environ. Manag. 52, 1547–1561.

Mulrennan, M.E., Mark, R., Scott, C.H., 2012. Revamping community-based conservationthrough participatory research. Can. Geogr. 56, 243–259.

Nakagawa, S., 2004. A farewell to Bonferroni: the problems of low statistical power andpublication bias. Behav. Ecol. 15 (6), 1044–1045.

Nadasdy, P., 2003. Reevaluating the co-management success story. Arctic 367–380.National Audubon Society, 2011. Tools of Engagement: A Toolkit for Engaging People in

Conservation. National Audubon Society; U.S. Fish andWildlife Service; Environmen-tal Education and Training Partnership; TogetherGreen.

Nilsson, D., Baxter, G., Butler, J.R.A., McAlpine, C.A., 2016. How do community-based con-servation programs in developing countries change human behaviour? A realist syn-thesis. Biol. Conserv. 200, 93–103.

Noyes, J., Popay, J., 2007. Directly observed therapy and tuberculosis: how can a system-atic review of qualitative research contribute to improving services? A qualitativemeta-synthesis. J. Adv. Nurs. 57, 227–243.

Ojha, H.R., Ford, R., Keenan, R.J., Race, D., Carias Vega, D., Baral, H., Sapkota, P., 2016.Delocalizing communities: changing forms of community engagement in natural re-sources governance. World Dev. 87, 274–290.

Petursson, J.G., Vedeld, P., Kaboggoza, J., 2011. Transboundary biodiversity management:institutions, local stakeholders, and protected areas: a case study from Mt. Elgon,Uganda and Kenya. Soc. Nat. Resour. 24, 1304–1321.

Pilgrim, J.D., Eberhardt, K., Eames, J.C., Vorsak, B., Pham Tuan, A., 2011. A review oflessons learned from a local conservation group approach in Indochina. Oryx45, 381–390.

Pollini, J., Lassoie, J.P., 2011. Trapping farmer communities within global environmentalregimes: the case of the GELOSE legislation in Madagascar. Soc. Nat. Resour. 24,814–830.

Price, K., Roburn, A., MacKinnon, A., 2009. Ecosystem-based management in the GreatBear Rainforest. For. Ecol. Manag. 258, 495–503.

Pullin, A.S., Knight, T.M., 2001. Effectiveness in conservation practice: pointers frommed-icine and public health. Conserv. Biol. 15, 50–54.

Pullin, A.S., 2015. Why is the evidence base for effectiveness of win–win interventions tobenefit humans and biodiversity so poor? Environ. Evid. 4, 1–3.

R Core Team, 2015. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Founda-tion for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

Rambe, V., Johnsen, S., 2013. Indonesia Sustainable Natural Resources ManagementThrough PNPM Green Investments. World Bank, Jakarta.

Redford, K.H., Taber, A., 2000. Writing the wrongs: developing a safe-fail culture in con-servation. Conserv. Biol. 14, 1567–1568.

Reed, M., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C., Quinn, C.,Stringer, L., 2009. Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder-analysis methodsfor natural resource managements. J. Environ. Manag. 90, 1933–1949.

Reed, M.S., 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literaturereview. Biol. Conserv. 141, 2417–2431.

Reid, R.S., Nkedianye, D., Said, M.Y., Kaelo, D., Neselle, M., Makui, O., Onetu, L., Kiruswa, S.,Kamuaro, N.O., Kristjanson, P., Ogutu, J., BurnSilver, S.B., Goldman, M.J., Boone, R.B.,Galvin, K.A., Dickson, N.M., Clark, W.C., 2009. Evolution of models to support commu-nity and policy action with science: balancing pastoral livelihoods and wildlife con-servation in savannas of East Africa. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 4579–4584.

Renn, O., Webler, T., Wiedemann, P. (Eds.), 1995. Fairness and Competence in CitizenParticipation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Kluwer AcademicPublishers, Dordrecht.

Richard, A.F., Ratsirarson, J., 2013. Partnership in practice: making conservation work atBezà Mahafaly, southwest Madagascar. Madagascar Conserv. Dev. 8, 12–20.

Richards, C., Blackstock, K.L., Carter, C.E., 2004. Practical Approaches to Participation SERGPolicy Brief No. 1. Macauley Land Use Research Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland.

Rist, L., Shackleton, C., Gadamus, L., Chapin, F.S., Gowda, C.M., Setty, S., Kannan, R.,Shaanker, R.U., 2016. Ecological knowledge among communities, managers and sci-entists: bridging divergent perspectives to improve forest management outcomes.Environ. Manag. 57, 798–813.

Roe, D., Booker, F., Day, M., Zhou, W., Allebone-Webb, S., Hill, N.A.O., Kumpel, N.,Petrokofsky, G., Redford, K., Russell, D., Shepherd, G., Wright, J., Sunderland, T.C.H.,2015. Are alternative livelihood projects effective at reducing local threats to speci-fied elements of biodiversity and/or improving or maintaining the conservation sta-tus of those elements? Environ. Evid. 4, 1–22.

Rowe, G., Frewer, L.J., 2000. Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci.Technol. Hum. Values 25, 3–29.

Ruiz-Mallén, I., Schunko, C., Corbera, E., Ros, M., Reyes-Garcia, V., 2015. Meanings, drivers,and motivations for community-based conservation in Latin America. Ecol. Soc. 20(3), 33.

Ruiz-Mallén, I., Corbera, E., 2013. Community-based conservation and traditional ecolog-ical knowledge: implications for social-ecological resilience. Ecol. Soc. 18, 12.

Sakata, H., Prideaux, B., 2013. An alternative approach to community-based ecotourism: abottom-up locally initiated non-monetised project in Papua New Guinea. J. Sustain.Tour. 21, 880–899.

Salafsky, N., Cauley, H., Balachander, G., Cordes, B., Parks, J., Margoluis, C., Bhatt, S.,Encarnacion, C., Russell, D., Margoluis, R., 2001. A systematic test of an enterprisestrategy for community-based biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Biol. 15,1585–1595.

Satterfield, J.M., Spring, B., Brownson, R.C., Mullen, E.J., Newhouse, R.P., Walker, B.B.,Whitlock, E.P., 2009. Toward a transdisciplinary model of evidence-based practice.Milbank Q. 87, 368–390.

Shirk, J.L., Ballard, H.L., Wilderman, C.C., Phillips, T., Wiggins, A., Jordan, R., McCallie, E.,Minarchek, M., Lewenstein, B.V., Krasny, M.E., 2012. Public participation in scientificresearch: a framework for deliberate design. Ecol. Soc. 17, 29.

Shwartz, A., Cosquer, A., Jaillon, A., Piron, A., Julliard, R., Raymond, R., Simon, L., Prévot-Julliard, A.-C., 2012. Urban biodiversity, city-dwellers and conservation: how doesan outdoor activity day affect the human-nature relationship? PLoS ONE 7, e38642.

Solomon, J., Jacobson, S.K., Liu, I., 2012. Fishing for a solution: can collaborative resourcemanagement reduce poverty and support conservation? Environ. Conserv. 39, 51–61.

Suich, H., 2013. The effectiveness of economic incentives for sustaining community basednatural resource management. Land Use Policy 31, 441–449.

Sutherland, W.J., Pullin, A.S., Dolman, P.M., Knight, T.M., 2004. The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 305–308.

Sutton, A.M., Rudd, M.A., 2015. The effect of leadership and other contextual conditionson the ecological and socio-economic success of small-scale fisheries in SoutheastAsia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 114, 102–115.

Tengö, M., Brondizio, E.S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., Spierenburg, M., 2014. Connecting di-verse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evi-dence base approach. Ambio 43, 579–591.

Thomas, J., Harden, A., 2008. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research insystematic reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 8, 1.

Tippett, J., Handley, J.F., Ravetz, J., 2007. Meeting the challenges of sustainabledevelopment—a conceptual appraisal of a newmethodology for participatory ecolog-ical planning. Prog. Plan. 67, 9–98.

Tsouvalis, J., Waterton, C., 2012. Building ‘participation’ upon critique: the LoweswaterCare Project, Cumbria, UK. Environ. Model. Softw. 36, 111–121.

USAID, 2015. Biodiversity and Development Handbook. U.S. Agency for International De-velopment, Washington DC.

Walker, W., Baccini, A., Schwartzman, S., Ríos, S., Oliveira-Miranda, M.A., Augusto, C., Ruiz,M.R., Arrasco, C.S., Ricardo, B., Smith, R., 2014. Forest carbon in Amazonia: the unrec-ognized contribution of indigenous territories and protected natural areas. CarbonManag. 5, 479–485.

Walters, G., Schleicher, J., Hymas, O., Coad, L., 2015. Evolving hunting practices in Gabon:lessons for community-based conservation interventions. Ecol. Soc. 20 (4), 31.

Waylen, K.A., Martin-Ortega, J., Blackstock, K.L., Brown, I., Avendaño Uribe, B.E., BasurtoHernández, S., Bertoni, M.B., Bustos, M.L., Cruz Bayer, A.X., Escalante Semerena, R.I.,





























































































































































Farah Quijano, M.A., Ferrelli, F., Fidalgo, G.L., Hernández López, I., HuamantincoCisneros, M.A., London, S., Maya Vélez, D.L., Ocampo-Díaz, P.N., Ortiz Guerrero, C.E.,Pascale, J.C., Perillo, G.M.E., Piccolo, M.C., Pinzón Martínez, L.N., Rojas, M.L., Scordo,F., Vitale, V., Zilio, M., 2015. Can scenario-planning support community - based natu-ral resource management? experiences from three countries in Latin America. Ecol.Soc. 20 (4), 28.

Webler, T., 1999. The craft and theory of public participation: a dialectical process. J. RiskRes. 2, 55–71.

Wegner, G.I., 2016. Payments for ecosystem services (PES): a flexible, participatory, andintegrated approach for improved conservation and equity outcomes. Environ. Dev.Sustain. 18, 617–644.

Wilcox, D., 1994. The Guide to Effective Participation. Partnership Brighton, UK.Woods Hole Research Center (WHRC), and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), 2015n.

Tropical Forest Carbon in Indigenous Territories: A Global Analysis.

Young, J.C., Butler, J.R.A., Jordan, A., Watt, A.D., 2012. Less government intervention in bio-diversity management: risks and opportunities. Biodivers. Conserv. 21, 1095–1100.

Young, J.C., Jordan, A., Searle, K.R., Butler, A., Chapman, D.S., Simmons, P., Watt, A.D.,2013a. Does stakeholder involvement really benefit biodiversity conservation? Biol.Conserv. 158, 359–370.

Young, J.C., Jordan, A., Searle, K.R., Butler, A., Simmons, P., Watt, A.D., 2013b. Framing scalein participatory biodiversity management may contribute to more sustainable solu-tions. Conserv. Lett. 6, 333–340.

Zulu, L.C., 2012. Neoliberalization, decentralization and community-based natural re-sources management in Malawi: the first sixteen years and looking ahead. Prog.Dev. Stud. 12, 193–212.





















Biological Conservation - CyberLeninka

Documents

Transcript of Biological Conservation - CyberLeninka