EVIDENCE ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION

IMPACTS

Assessing Theories, Approaches, and Outcomes from Community

Engagement and Tenure
March 2019
AIREONA B. RASCHKE1, MICHAEL I. BROWN2, SAMANTHA H. CHENG1
1Centerfor Biodiversity Outcomes, Julie Ann Wrigley Global Institute for Sustainability, Arizona State University,
Tempe, Arizona
2Chemonics International, Washington, D.C.

conservationsolutionslab@chemonics.com
CONTENTS
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................2
Introduction ................................................................................................................................3
The importance of context and governance ........................................................................3
Objective ..............................................................................................................................5
Methods......................................................................................................................................5
Search strategy and comprehensiveness ...........................................................................5
Article screening and study eligibility criteria .......................................................................5
Data coding strategy ............................................................................................................6
Analysis ...............................................................................................................................6
Results .......................................................................................................................................7
Characteristics of the peer-reviewed evidence base (terrestrial focus) ..............................8
Geography of cases examined ..........................................................................................10
Characteristics of conservation interventions studied .......................................................11
Dimensions of community engagement strategies............................................................12
Occurrence of governance types.......................................................................................14
Linkages between community engagement strategies and governance types .................14
Discussion ................................................................................................................................17
Primary findings .................................................................................................................17
Limitations..........................................................................................................................18
Implications for policy and management ...........................................................................18
Conclusions ..............................................................................................................................19
References ...............................................................................................................................20
Appendix 1. Boolean Search Query.........................................................................................26
Appendix 2. Comparison of Engagement Clusters ..................................................................27

EVIDENCE ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IMPACTS | 1

A. Abstract
Community engagement is widely assumed to facilitate and enhance the environmental and human
outcomes of conservation interventions. However, while community engagement is broadly applied,
empirical evidence of their impact remains unclear. We sought to examine the connections between the
dimensions of engagement, governance/land tenure, and outcomes via a systematic assessment of peer-
reviewed literature. Our study illustrated that the current evidence base is insufficient to carry out such an
analysis and uncovered clear deficiencies in research on this topic. Community engagement approaches
are not coherently defined to allow comparison and evaluation, research efforts generally focus on a few
regions and lack longevity and robustness, and there is an overall trend towards surface-level community
participation and continued state control of land. Our results suggest that increased cross-sector and
historical learning is required in order to test rigorously test current assumed pathways to impact.

Key Words: Biodiversity conservation, community engagement, land tenure, systematic map

EVIDENCE ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IMPACTS | 2

B. Introduction
Global initiatives increasingly emphasize the importance of community engagement in nature-based
conservation for achieving both natural and human well-being objectives (e.g., Sustainable Development
Goals 2014). Involving people in conservation through more inclusive, participatory approaches was in
part a response to decades of failed interventions (Berkes, 2004; Ghimire and Pimbert, 1997).
Motivations for engaging communities in conservation range from moral (e.g. equity, democracy,
development) to pragmatic (e.g., knowledge and efficiency). Rights-based and development arguments
for community engagement emphasize equity and empowerment objectives — for example, formalizing
and strengthening customary rights to land and resources (Robinson et al., 2018), providing pathways out
of poverty (Shyamsundar et al., 2018), and building and securing power to participate in decision-making
(Agrawal and Chhatre, 2006). Engaging communities in conservation also has practical arguments, such
as that participation by a broader body of stakeholders (including communities) leads to a greater
likelihood of adoption of practices and program compliance, especially around natural resource use
(Berkes, 2007). Increasingly, culture and local knowledge of communities are regarded as critical
components for designing effective conservation programs (Poe et al., 2013).

In response, a wide range of participatory approaches for engaging communities in conservation have
emerged over the years (Mace, 2014), predominantly aimed at achieving positive outcomes for both
natural ecosystems and poverty reduction (Reed, 2008; Roe et al., 2013). Community engagement
approaches span the range in terms of stakeholder involvement, from stakeholders as passive
beneficiaries to stakeholders as key players in the design, implementation, and management of
conservation programs (Sterling et al., 2017). While it is broadly assumed that community engagement
will enhance biodiversity outcomes, reduce poverty, and empower local communities (Adams & Hutton,
2007; Berkes, 2007; Mace, 2014; Decker et al., 2016), recent criticisms have emerged, citing community
engagement approaches’ failure to deliver (e.g., Robinson and Redford, 2001). In particular, more often
than not, the responsibilities given to local stakeholders as part of the engagement process are
unrealistic, as they lack commensurate authority or appropriate systems of financial or human capital to
provide structures that would support these strategies’ long-term success (Reed, 2008). In this sense,
understanding the governance context is key to determining who has the rights and abilities to participate
and exercise power in the decision-making process regarding natural resources.

Governance is a critical concept in multiple fields of inquiry, including political discourse, policymaking,
and human development (Smith et al., 2003; Grindle, 2004; Robinson et al., 2018). However, given its
multidisciplinary nature, governance is often vaguely defined. Here, we define governance as the formal
and informal institutions through which authority and power are organized and exercised (Larson and
Soto, 2008). Governance encompasses rules and structures as well as norms and processes whereby
access, use, and decision-making authority around natural resources are determined. As it causally links
community engagement in conservation to natural and human well-being outcomes, governance is an
important enabling condition to consider when identifying mechanisms for change. However, despite
decades of implementation and research, there remains a significant lack of clarity regarding whether and
which community engagement approaches lead to greater achievement of desired objectives. Thus,
understanding how the dynamics between different governance and community engagement approaches
affect conservation and poverty reduction outcomes is critical to effective program design.

B1. The importance of context and governance

For conservation practitioners, a wide diversity of community engagement approaches has evolved since
the early days of primarily exclusionary methods (Mace, 2014). While emergent approaches, such as
integrated conservation and development projects (Brown & Wyckoff-Baird, 1992), payments for
ecosystem services (Gaworecki, 2017), REDD+ (Brown, 2013), carbon finance (Ravikumar et al., 2017),
and ecotourism (Brandon, 1996), share common goals (mitigating threats to nature, Kappel, 2005; TNC,
2003), their characteristics and implementation vary from case to case, resulting in significant inter- and
intra-approach variation. Within these approaches, conservation can lead to improvements in human well-
being both directly and indirectly. Direct pathways tend to emphasize improvements to local conditions,
neutralizing or removing drivers for unsustainable resource use and environmental degradation (Brown &

EVIDENCE ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IMPACTS | 3

Wyckoff-Baird, 1992). Indirect pathways tend to prioritize improvements in natural resources and
environmental conditions that when achieved will provide sustained benefits for local communities (e.g.,
through ecosystem services and financial/material capital) (Atkins et al., 2011; Gaworecki, 2017).
Approaches to securing community participation and cooperation tend to fall into two broad categories:
(1) provision of employment and monetary incentives in conservation programs (Kiss, 2004; Pattanayak,
2010; DeCaro & Stokes, 2013) and (2) participation in planning, implementation, and monitoring of
interventions (DeCaro & Stokes, 2013; Oldekop et al., 2016). Practically, the second type of incentive is
thought to secure local buy-in (thus ensuring long-term sustainability) and result in more effective designs
that incorporate cultural context, foster local ownership, and build awareness and capacity (Danielsen et
al., 2009).

For community engagement to be effective, proper governance structures must be in place, as they
determine who can participate, engage, and make decisions in a conservation program. Good
governance (e.g., reduced corruption, sustainable resource use, increased representation and
prioritization of marginalized people) is widely seen as a critical driver for improved human well-being. For
example, representation of impoverished populations in decision-making processes can lead to poverty
reduction (Grindle, 2004) and improved conservation outcomes (Armitage et al., 2012; Decker et al.,
2016). Furthermore, improved tenure security of local people (establishing, enforcing, and adjudicating
rights to use and access natural resources) typically improves human well-being (Lawry et al., 2016).

Insecure tenure and weak governance are a major problem in many developing countries around the
world, often regions of prime conservation concern (Bruce et al., 2010). Legacies of conflict and
colonialism have resulted in complex, and often inequitable, systems of property rights and representation
that can impede conservation and development goals (Kelly and Peluso, 2015). More recently, efforts to
secure tenure have focused on decentralization and devolution of rights to customary structures and local
communities (Sunderlin, 2011). However, devolution of rights can also exacerbate local inequities if not
accompanied by broader cultural changes, widening the gap in existing power structures that often reflect
ethnic, socioeconomic, and gender discrimination (Craig & Porter, 2003; Platteau, 2004).

While early conservation operated under the assumptions of Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons (1968),
implementing state and private tenure over natural resources, modern practice recognizes the potential of
stable communal governance of shared resources (Ostrom, 1999) for effective conservation (Cox et al.,
2010). Increasingly, community-based (“bottom-up”) strategies are being implemented to build local
capacities and secure rights while accomplishing sustainable resource management (Roe, 2015; Biggs et
al., 2016; Berkes, 2007). While the importance of a secure tenure and governance context is well
understood within conservation, how tenure and governance lead to improvements to social-ecological
systems as a whole remains unclear (Robinson et al., 2017; Sunderlin et al., 2014). For example, while
there is strong evidence that improving and securing local communities’ tenure over natural resources
can improve natural resource quality (Gautam et al., 2006), it can also provide incentives to invest in
agricultural intensification (Brasselle et al., 2002) or fail to prevent overexploitation (Cinner, 2005). The
social-ecological systems within which poverty, land use, and biodiversity conservation are linked are
complex and adaptive, making the understanding of key contextual features, in this case governance,
essential to informed application of community engagement to conservation.

Several recent reviews have examined linkages between land governance (e.g., bundle of rights) and
environmental outcomes (Ojanen et al., 2017); the impact of community-based conservation on
ecological, economic, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes (Brooks et al., 2013); and linkages between
stakeholder engagement and biodiversity conservation outcomes (Sterling et al., 2017). While these
reviews are encouraging, they remain limited in scope, examining narrow dimensions of interventions
and/or outcomes. Additionally, these reviews highlight the lack of clarity regarding how community-
engagement approaches are designed. Moreover, despite increasing attention from both the conservation
practice and research arenas, it is unclear how specific community engagement approaches are best
suited for different contexts. This is particularly worrisome given widespread concerns that current
conservation and development practices are inadequate in the face of declining biodiversity and rising
global poverty. This suggests a disconnect between theory and real-world outcomes. Thus, to understand
how best to achieve win-win outcomes for conservation and poverty through natural resource

EVIDENCE ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IMPACTS | 4

management, we need greater clarity regarding how community-engagement approaches are designed
and how they interact with different governance/resource contexts.

B2. Objective
This paper’s objective is to use systematic synthesis methods to assess the state of the peer-reviewed
evidence base on community engagement interventions linked to terrestrial conservation projects.
Specifically, we aim to examine the relationships between different engagement approaches and land
tenure/governance structures. Systematic synthesis methods are a powerful approach for assessing the
state of current knowledge and identify critical knowledge gaps within a policy-relevant framework (Pullin
et al., 2004; Stewart et al., 2005). These methods are considered a “gold standard” for reviews, as they
employ a reproducible and transparent method that aims to minimize bias (Pullin & Knight, 2001).

C. Methods
We conducted a scoping review that employs a systematic strategy for searching for and mapping the
evidence base (Dicks et al., 2017) to explore characteristics of community engagement approaches and
understand their relationship to governance structures. This review was undertaken as part of a joint
initiative, the Conservation Solutions Lab, between Arizona State University and Chemonics International
Inc., which seeks to build knowledge and evidence-based approaches for more effective community
engagement in conservation. As the intention of this review is primarily exploratory, it is not meant to be
exhaustive, but rather a representative assessment of the body of knowledge concerning community
engagement in conservation.

C1. Search strategy and comprehensiveness

We searched multiple online publication databases to capture a comprehensive sample of the literature.
In total, we used two academic search engines (Scopus and CAB Abstracts) and one bibliography of a
systematic review (Sterling et al., 2017) in 2018. Given the diversity of disciplines around community
engagement research, substantial variation in terminology is likely. Thus, to be as comprehensive as
possible, the search string was iteratively designed and tested in Scopus, examining search results for
relevance (Appendix 1).

C2. Article screening and study eligibility criteria

After compiling results from the search strategy, recovered articles were screened according to an a priori
set of eligibility criteria:
a) The article must address a biodiversity conservation intervention
b) The article must discuss community engagement of some kind in conjunction with the
conservation intervention (e.g., community led initiatives, co-management, streaming of monetary
benefits to local people/communities)
c) The article must include studied outcomes of the community engagement as a component of
biodiversity conservation (further details in Exhibit 1)

Exhibit 1. Eligibility by study subjects, interventions, outcomes, and study types

Biodiversity conservation interventions (according to the IUCN Conservation Measures
Eligible subjects
Partnership typology of Conservation Direct Actions, Salafsky et al., 2008).

Community-engagement approaches carried out in conjunction with conservation intervention

Eligible
(community-led initiatives, co-management, flow of monetary benefits to local people, etc.).
interventions
Approaches can either be parallel to or embedded within the conservation intervention.

Measures of change to ecosystems (habitats, landscapes, species); human well-being

Eligible outcomes
(encompassing multidimensional poverty); and behavioral change.

Eligible study types All study types were considered.

EVIDENCE ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IMPACTS | 5

All articles were screened in Colandr (Cheng et al., 2018). An initial set of titles and abstracts (n=2186)
were screened by two reviewers (AR, SC) to ensure consistency in screening. All remaining titles and
abstracts were screened by one reviewer.

C3. Data coding strategy

For the purposes of this study, we distinguished between articles (an individual paper) and studies (an
individual case). An article could report on multiple case studies. Each study was coded with a
standardizing coding tool and codebook to extract relevant data. The coding tool was piloted on a set of
initial studies by two reviewers (AR, SC) to ensure consistency. Initial results were reviewed, and the
coding tool refined with a group of interdisciplinary researchers from the Conservation Solutions Lab.
Remaining articles were coded by one reviewer. The coding tool was deployed in Microsoft Excel.

The following categories of data were extracted from included studies:

 Biographical information
 Study attributes
 Characteristics of the conservation intervention
 Human well-being outcomes
 Theories of change utilized in the design of projects
 Tenure and related governance actions
 Characteristics of the community engagement

C4. Analysis
Information on community engagement approaches was coded for each study along with a set of key
dimensions based on participation, motivation, incentives, and rights to create a cross-comparative
classification scheme (Exhibit 2). This framework draws from established trans-disciplinary literature on
engagement including ladder of participation based on the stage of involvement, motivation/incentives,
and scale of participation (Arnstein, 1969; Mostert, 2003; Reed, 2008). We used a hierarchical clustering
approach to heuristically identify likely types of engagement approaches based on these six categorical
variables. We calculated a dissimilarity matrix using Gower’s distance using the package “cluster”
(Maechler et al., 2018) in R (R Core Team, 2018). Likely clusters were identified using agglomerative
clustering (“stats,” “dendextend” packages) (Galili 2018). Distribution of characteristics over each cluster
were mapped as percent of overall studies within a single cluster.

Exhibit 2. Key community engagement dimensions coded for during data extraction
Community Engagement Dimensions Characteristics
Motivations for involving the community Biodiversity benefits, community benefits, both

Scale Local, sub-national, national, regional, international

 External vs. internal

Project leadership
 Selection process

 General vs. specific

Community definition and focus
 Were particular interventions for particular subgroups of people?

 Yes/no
 Types of incentives
Incentives for involvement
 How were incentives selected?
 How often were incentives provided, and how many?

 When was engagement initiated in the project timeline?

Level of involvement of the community
 How did the community participate in the project at different stages?

EVIDENCE ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IMPACTS | 6

For this analysis, we interpret governance as the rules and institutions that determine access and
management of natural resources. We considered four primary types of governance: (1) state-owned
lands and resources, the rights to which primarily belong to and are controlled by the government; (2)
private lands whose legal ownership belongs to a single user, family, company, etc.; (3) communal lands
which may be administered by traditional authorities as common property of the community; (4) mixed,
within which there may be a mosaic of land types or shared control of resources. Governance actions
were also identified during the coding process as emergent themes (Creswell, 2012), and include (1)
devolved to local control, (2) legal ownership, (3) de facto/status quo control by the community, (4) co-
management/evolving negotiation, (5) state control, and (6) mixed.

D. Results
The initial dataset comprises 252 studies (204 articles). The following analysis focuses on a subset of 168
studies (137 articles) that focus on terrestrial ecosystems (including forests, grasslands, deserts,
wetlands, and urban environments).

D1. Characteristics of the peer-reviewed evidence base (terrestrial focus)

Exhibit 3. Frequency of first author affiliation types

EVIDENCE ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IMPACTS | 7

 Exhibit 4. Growth of publications over time

Most articles were led by authors at academic institutions (66 percent, Exhibit 3). Among these authors,
23 percent (n=31) were working directly with/in the organization implementing the community
engagement and biodiversity conservation intervention. The number of articles published increased over
time, with the most appearing in 2013 (Exhibit 4).

Exhibit 5. Frequency of study design type (unlabeled column includes studies lacking
information)

EVIDENCE ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IMPACTS | 8

 Exhibit 6. Frequency of (a) ecological, behavioral, and human well-being outcomes
examined in the evidence base and (b) frequency of domains of human well-being

Most articles used a non-experimental study design (Exhibit 5) to examine the impacts of community
engagement approaches on ecological, behavioral, and human well-being outcomes. Overall, a majority
of cases examined effects on human well-being (Exhibit 6A), focusing specifically on economic (n=46
cases) and material well-being (n=41 cases). Several also examined impacts on social capital, such as
change in conflict, community cohesion, and trust (n=29 cases). Comparatively, other elements of human
well-being, such as cultural and spiritual values, health, safety and security, and rights and participation,
were under-examined (Exhibit 6B). A considerable number of cases examined habitat-level impacts (e.g.,
forest/habitat cover) as well as changes in individual behavior (e.g., change in harvest practices, or
attitudes towards conservation). Many articles that claimed to measure ecological and human well-being
outcomes in fact measured some type of behavioral change, such as in management practice or
perceptions of conservation. While these are not true measures of either change in ecosystems or well-
being, they could represent intermediate outputs required to achieve those outcomes.

EVIDENCE ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IMPACTS | 9

D2. Geography of cases examined

Exhibit 7. Geographic distribution of study locations

Exhibit 8. Frequency of scale at which community engagement was examined within the
evidence base

Cases spanned a wide geographic range, with a higher concentration of study effort in Latin America;
eastern and southern Africa; and East, South, and Southeast Asia, and relatively less in northern Africa,

EVIDENCE ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IMPACTS | 10

Europe, and western Asia (Exhibit 7). A majority of studies occurred in forests (n=113, 67 percent) or
grasslands (n=15, 9 percent). Most cases examined the impacts of local-scale engagement (Exhibit 8).

D3. Characteristics of conservation interventions studied

Exhibit 9. Frequency of examined conservation intervention types, identified by the

primary actions taken; unlabeled column includes those studies lacking this information

The majority of studies examined community engagement within area protection and area management
interventions. Fewer studies examined interventions that proposed alternative natural resource protection
methods, raising awareness and communication, harnessing market forces, and habitat restoration
(Exhibit 9).

Exhibit 10. Frequency of the start dates for conservation interventions

EVIDENCE ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IMPACTS | 11

Most conservation interventions were first implemented after 1980, with the highest peaks in the late
1990s (Exhibit 10). Not shown are three very long-term interventions, one a sacred forest protected since
the fourth century, and the other two traditional indigenous interventions that lacked an inception date.

D4. Dimensions of community engagement strategies

Exhibit 11. Emergent types of community engagement approaches/clusters

Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

# cases (overall) 23 79 38 37 30 22 23

Goals (what are the

Shared
motivations for the Primarily Shared Primarily
(but more Shared
program: biodiversity, biodiversity (primarily biodiversity Shared Shared
community- (split)
community benefits, or (some shared) biodiversity) (some shared)
focused)
both?)

Primarily
Primarily local Primarily local
Scale (what scale was local (with Primarily local Local &
(with a few (with a few
the approach applied Local a few sub- (with a few National Sub-
sub-national to sub-national
to?) national & sub-national) national
international) & national)
national)
Leadership (is the
leadership for the Mostly shared
Shared External Internal Shared Shared Shared
approach internal to the (some external)
community?)
Community focus (are
specific groups Specific
General Mostly general Varies General General Varies
targeted by the demographics
approach?)
Incentives (are explicit
incentives offered for Yes Primarily yes Varies No Yes Varies Yes
engagement?)

Involvement (when are Mostly

communities first implementation Design or
Implementation Scoping Design Scoping Design
involved in the or as recipients implementation
conservation program?) of outcomes

The terms used to describe community engagement strategies were highly varied, including in definitions
and usage. When using a hierarchical clustering approach to identify emergent types of community
engagement approaches based on defining characteristics, agglomerative (via Ward’s method) and
divisive clustering both identified seven likely clusters based on minimizing within clusters and maximizing
distance between them (optimizing for maximum cluster distinctness). Agglomerative clustering resulted
in more balanced (even-sized) clusters, and was thus used to assign studies to cluster types.

Exhibit 11 describes the seven emergent types across six characteristics. Most approaches focused on
communities at large (Clusters 1, 2, and 4) while others emphasized approaches for both a broad
population and targeted demographic groups (Clusters 3 and 6). Meanwhile, Cluster 7 focused on
specific groups (e.g., women, indigenous peoples, and youth). Motivations for community engagement
were mixed, ranging from biodiversity-focused programs to ones with dual goals for nature and human
communities. Cluster 1 comprises 9 percent (n=23) of cases, defined by local-scale approaches, jointly
led by internal and external actors, that use explicit incentives to engage communities. Communities were
typically first engaged in programs’ implementation phase. Examples of approaches in this cluster include
ecotourism, community-based forestry, and payments for ecosystem services. Cluster 2 is the largest,

EVIDENCE ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IMPACTS | 12

comprising 31 percent (n=79) of cases. In contrast to all others, these approaches are externally led and
occur at all scales (though primarily locally). Communities are generally offered explicit incentives for
involvement and are typically first involved at programs’ implementation or recipient stage. Examples of
approaches in this cluster vary considerably, including community-based management, integrated
conservation and development, payments for ecosystem services, ecotourism, carbon swaps, and
REDD+. Cluster 3, comprising 15 percent (n=38) of cases, are primarily local approaches led by
communities with joint objectives for both biodiversity and people. These approaches were targeted to
overall communities as well as targeted groups. In contrast to Clusters 1 and 2, communities are typically
first engaged in programs’ scoping phase.

Cluster 4 comprises 15 percent (n=37) of cases, primarily local-scale approaches with shared leadership
(internal and external) of programs. Programs tend to be targeted to the general community and do not
employ explicit incentives for participation or compliance. The point of initial community involvement
varies, with most engaging during the design or implementation phases. In contrast, Cluster 5 (12
percent, n=30) cases are primarily national-scale approaches with shared leadership. These approaches
target the general population and generally offer an incentive for involvement. Communities are typically
first involved during the design phase. Cluster 6 (9 percent, n=22) approaches are primarily local efforts
with shared leadership that target both general and specific portions of the population. Use of incentives
is mixed, and communities are first involved in the scoping phase. Last, Cluster 7 (9 percent, n=23) cases
are primarily local-scale approaches with shared leadership that target specific demographic groups using
explicit incentives for involvement. Communities are typically involved during the design phase.

Exhibit 12. Counts of stated motivation types driving inclusion of communities in the
intervention grouped by outcomes types studied

EVIDENCE ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IMPACTS | 13

When comparing the stated motivation of implementing community engagement in biodiversity
conservation interventions to outcomes measured in the evidence base, there is an emphasis on human
well-being outcomes for all three motivation types. The secondary emphasis in research efforts has been
on ecological outcomes at a habitat level. Behavioral changes in residents were also examined with
relative regularity, particularly for interventions motivated by biodiversity outcomes and a combination of
community benefits and biodiversity benefits. Landscape- and species-level ecological impacts had the
least amount of research effort across motivation types (Exhibit 12).

D5. Occurrence of governance types

Exhibit 13. Counts of governance types as defined by land tenure types and leadership
actions taken

The majority of cases examined concerned lands owned and controlled by the state, followed by
communal lands (under continuous local management) and, lastly, private ownership. In the cases
examined, control was most often devolved to the local level in communal lands and in mosaics of mixed
tenure types (Exhibit 13).

D6. Examination of linkages between community engagement strategies and governance types

Exhibit 14. Land tenure types grouped by community engagement approach clusters

Several patterns emerged between linking different engagement types within different land tenure
contexts (Exhibit 14). Community engagement Cluster 2 has the most representation in the evidence

EVIDENCE ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IMPACTS | 14

base, but here it is evident that this type of engagement is not commonly applied in the context of
communal tenure. Cluster 5 approaches are also mostly used in communal and mixed-tenure contexts.
State tenure sees a wide application of types, but there has been a notable emphasis in the application of
Cluster 2 engagement types. Mixed tenure has seen a wide variety of engagement types and the most
varied applications. Overall, the most common combinations are state tenure and Cluster 2 engagement
types, mixed tenure and Cluster 2, and mixed tenure and Cluster 5.

For Cluster 2 engagement within state-tenured lands, the motivation for involving communities in the
conservation intervention was either biodiversity benefits or a mix of community and environmental
benefits; in only one case was engagement motivated by community benefits alone. The scale of these
projects was either local or subnational, and all cases were externally led. These external actors include
national government officials (primarily from protected area authorities), conservation NGOs, and tourism
operators. These community engagement interventions involve communities defined spatially by distance
from the protected area of interest; in no case was the community itself involved in defining itself. Explicit
incentives were provided in all but two cases, and these used tourism as an alternative livelihood to link
residents with monetary benefits from conservation activities. Monetary incentives are heavily
emphasized in these engagement types, often coupled with local infrastructure projects (funding the
building of schools, roads, etc.). Empowerment was not described as a benefit/incentive in these cases.
In all studies but one, communities were not involved in the intervention until the implementation phase or
as recipients of outcomes. The data shows that in some cases communities did not even have the option
not to participate; participation was assumed, particularly in the case of tourism (Wunder, 2000; Charnley,
2005). In the single Cluster 2/state tenure study that involved the community at the planning/design
phase, the implementing NGO undertook a consulting process and emphasized residents’ consent to
participate in the intervention. However, no capacity building was reported in this study, so it is unclear
whether informed participation in planning actually took place.

The two second-largest groups both arose in mixed-tenure contexts, involving Cluster 2 and 5
engagement strategies. Similar to the state tenure/Cluster 2 group, the mixed tenure/Cluster 2 group is
most often motivated by biodiversity to engage with local people, and has been implemented at all scales.
Leadership in these cases is always external, and mostly from NGOs and nonprofits, although three
cases had national-government leadership and one was led by private landowners. The community was
only defined spatially or not at all in these cases, and only one study considered an intervention with a
specific focus within the community, as farmers were the only targets of the project. All studies in this
group but one had explicit incentives for involvement; these incentives varied more than in the state
tenure/Cluster 2 group. While alternative livelihoods and direct payments were common, more than half of
the studied interventions also implemented capacity building via training, one empowered members of the
community to act as leaders, and several supported infrastructure development besides direct payments.
Despite the entirely external leadership in this group, four of the cases included the community at the
design/planning stage of the project; only two within this group involved residents exclusively as
recipients of outcomes.

In the Cluster 5/mixed tenure group, two of the cases listed community benefits as the primary motivation
for engaging with the community. None of these study interventions occur at the local level, and all but a
single case with internal leadership features a partnership, potentially stemming from the complex tenure
situation in those cases. These partnerships are between local communities (sometimes organized into
conservancies and committees) and the national government. All engagement cases here are general,
but the community was never defined. All studies involved explicit incentives for engagement; three cases
involved tourism (e.g., trophy hunting) as an alternative livelihood mechanism, and several involved
training and capacity building. Direct payments, infrastructural development, and community
empowerment via the partnerships described above were also used as incentives throughout these
cases, varying these strategies. Three of these studies did not describe what community involvement in
the intervention looked like; however, all but one of the remaining cases involved the community at the
design phase. Residents’ involvement continued into the implementation phase as the coupled leadership
structure necessitated community participation in ongoing decision-making.

EVIDENCE ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IMPACTS | 15

 Exhibit 15. Leadership actions grouped by community engagement approach clusters

Exhibit 15 shows how many cases coupled various government actions with various engagement types.
Cluster 2 approaches are most commonly applied in conjunction with continued state control; legal rights
and mixed actions also accompanied this engagement type in relatively high numbers. Among cases that
involved continued state control, all types of engagement approach were represented except for Cluster
5; Cluster 2 approaches were most common, followed by Clusters 1, 3, and 4. Mixed actions are
particularly clustered around Cluster 2 engagements, with very few applications of other engagement
types. There is a notable even spread of engagement types applied in cases of de facto/status quo local
control of land resources. For example, Cluster 2 approaches were primarily run under state-led control of
resource tenure. In contrast, Cluster 3 and 5 approaches predominantly involved devolution of tenure
rights to local actors and actions to maintain existing local control.

Among the largest group, Cluster 2 with state control, 10 of the 12 cases involved state ownership and
management of land. Biodiversity benefits are underscored as an incentive for engaging with local
communities. In this case, the scale of engagement ranged from local to national, but all cases were led
by the national government, NGOs, or tourism operators, and communities were spatially defined. Explicit
monetary incentives and tourism development were the most common ways to encourage public
participation.

In contrast, the two second-largest groups among actions taken involve devolution of power to the local
level. For Cluster 3 and devolution of power, there is a notable change in motivation emphasis from the
state control group described above, with most cases being either motivated by community benefits, or a
mix of biodiversity and community benefits, with only a single case having biodiversity benefits as a
primary motivation for involving local people. All these cases occur at either local or national scales (e.g.,
national movements to devolve natural resource rights and management responsibilities to local
communities). All leadership is internal and consists of either small local governments or committees
formed by the community to manage a specific area or resource. Communities were not explicitly defined
among these cases, but the case with a definition appears to be fitting: “Such a regime or unit should
comprise a defined group collectively managing and exploiting common property resources within a
defined jurisdiction” (Taylor, 2009). All cases have explicit incentives for involvement but three, and these
are more varied than the state control group, due to the coupling of increased empowerment with
monetary and development incentives. For these cases, communities were also involved at the scoping
stage in half the cases, and otherwise in the design phase. Often, community planning was supported by
NGOs, the government, or tourism companies.

For Cluster 5 approaches with devolution to local control, there was a wide variety of motivations for
involving the community, as well as three cases in which the motivation was unclear. All these projects
were carried out at a national level; most featured a partnership between internal and external leadership.
In this case, power is devolved to the community primarily through defined government means — for

EVIDENCE ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IMPACTS | 16

example, in which a community must register a conservancy committee with the government in order to
manage the resource. For the most part, communities were not defined among this group; however, the
one case of explicit definition used the government’s legal definition, which fits with the above note about
devolution of power via defined, legal means. All these cases but one had explicit incentives for
involvement in the intervention; tourism plays a role in three cases as a form of alternative livelihood,
cash payouts from the conservancies were present in five cases, and two cases included payments for
community development projects. Unsurprisingly, community empowerment was described as a benefit in
most cases here as well. In comparison to the above Cluster 3 group, it is noteworthy that there is a
smaller proportion of cases in which the community was involved at the scoping phase of the project (two
cases), but most were involved in the planning/design phase. This may indicate that the government has
identified a need for more of this group, and then reaches out to the community for planning once the
local committees have been formed and approved.

E. Discussion
E1. Primary findings
There are significant gaps in understanding of the mechanisms by which tenure and engagement interact
to improve human well-being. Overall, the evidence base was dominated by non-experimental studies,
focusing primarily on human well-being and habitat outcomes. In general, we found several gaps in
understanding of community engagement, including clarity and detail regarding who communities are and
how they are engaged. Our work shows that communities are almost never involved in biodiversity
conservation interventions until the implementation phase or as recipients of outcomes, with participation
either assumed or forced. This presents several challenges to better understanding of how different
engagement approaches succeed under different governance/land tenure regimes. With little
consideration of how engagement is elicited, there is understandably limited evidence that accounting for
tenure concerns is a priority either.

The evidence base is characterized by considerable gaps, which limit the extent to which we can
generalize these findings to other contexts. Geographically, there is little to no information on northern
Africa, the Middle East, Europe, and parts of Asia, while a few countries, like Mexico, Tanzania, and
Nepal, have seen unmatched levels of research effort. Most of the community engagement interventions
were not implemented until the 1990s or later, making long-term monitoring and evaluation of a good
proportion of these studies impossible. This is reflected in the short-term, non-experimental research
projects that comprise the majority of the evidence base; long-term, more robust examinations are
needed, as are systematic reviews. This will help address the dearth of information on the larger-scale
environmental impacts of these interventions.

Overall, articles rarely provided explicit definitions and details for the communities involved. Lack of detail
on the identity and composition of communities in question limit our ability to understand the
heterogeneity of impacts of conservation, much less intuit underlying cultural and contextual factors that
may be in play. Spatial definitions are the most common ways for outsiders to delineate who is included in
“communities,” and this can have implications for intervention design, implementation, and outcomes.
This method may entrench power disparities or create increased tensions and conflicts when it clashes
with local understandings of community composition (Berkes, 2007; Jones, 2008).

It is clear from our analysis that there are only a few dominant types of community engagement
strategies, despite the plethora of named “approaches” that exist. To evaluate and analyze approaches,
the conservation community must have a more transparent and shared language to describe community
engagement strategies. Our findings also show that despite assumptions that involving stakeholders in
decision-making can enhance conservation outcomes, the most commonly applied approach has external
leadership and only a minority of approaches emphasize community empowerment. Cases in which local
stakeholders have scoped and led implementation is even rarer, and only three studies out of the 203 in
our review examined traditional natural resource management schemes with beneficial conservation
outcomes (e.g., protected sacred forests). This indicates that local stakeholders are not engaged as often
as modern conservation rhetoric or even “bottom-up development” practitioners suggest (Ferse et al.,
2010; Joshi & Rao, 2017).

EVIDENCE ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IMPACTS | 17

The current state of the evidence base fails to provide the robust data needed to understand the
dynamics of the relationship between tenure and intervention outcomes. To identify which community
engagement approaches are most appropriate where, and to scale up successful strategies, will require
research to fill the knowledge gaps that we have found in evidence assessment. More rigorous study
designs and more detailed reporting are critical, as without clear articulation of the theories of change that
are in play (i.e., how and why community engagement is thought to lead to impacts), detailed
consideration of the influence of contextual factors, such as tenure, will not be feasible.

E2. Limitations
This study is not meant to be a comprehensive, but rather a representative, assessment of the evidence
base on links between community engagement and governance in conservation. In particular, a potential
bias of this study is that the primary source of data is derived from peer-reviewed literature, and
substantial relevant knowledge likely is contained in unpublished grey literature sources (Haddaway and
Bayliss, 2015). However, insight from peer-reviewed literature highlights key gaps in academic research
priorities. The occurrence of gaps also highlights areas that academic discourse has neglected, despite
its prevalence in practice.

E3. Implications for policy and management

In the field, when community engagement is included in conservation interventions, it tends only to
involve communities in the implementation stage, limiting the ability of local stakeholders to meaningfully
engage and make decisions in programs that often intimately affect their day-to-day lives (Brown, 2011).
De jure rights to land resources widely remain in the jurisdiction of the state throughout much of the
developing world, especially where it concerns rights over protected areas. Despite increasing
constitutional recognition of customary rights in many countries, the majority of forests are still controlled
by states, which rarely acknowledge the rights of indigenous peoples (Rights and Resources Initiative,
2015). And while there has been some growth in devolution of management responsibilities to local
control and acknowledgement of communal rights, overlapping claims of prerogatives, with states
overwhelmingly having the means to impose how lands will be used, arguably remain the norm. Thus,
while secure tenure is considered essential to increase community buy-in for the protection of land
resources, tenure security is often ambiguous, particularly in areas where biodiversity is rich and effective
community level power is limited (ibid.). Tenure insecurity also affects longer-term participation, which is
key to conservation success (Robinson et al., 2017). While there are fears that local participation could
lead to reduced emphasis on biodiversity conservation, or less effective strategies (Büscher & Whande,
2007), stronger partnerships with communities have the potential to enhance conservation outcomes by
developing interventions that better fit the context and local realities while potentially addressing land and
tenure insecurity linkages that exacerbate poverty (Miller et al., 2013; Robinson et al., 2018).

EVIDENCE ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IMPACTS | 18

F. Conclusions

We set out to analyze the outcomes of community engagement in biodiversity conservation interventions
as it relates to governance and tenure by systematically assessing the state of peer-reviewed literature on
the subject. Our analysis revealed that the current evidence base is lacking the robust data needed to
uncover the links between governance context, strategic interventions, and outcomes. This assessment
does show, however, a significant lack of coherence in the characterization of community engagement
approaches, which impedes robust evaluation of utility and impact. We conclude that although there is a
widely held assumption within the biodiversity conservation field that engaging communities in
interventions can improve environmental outcomes and human well-being, our analysis shows that there
is insufficient data to show when and how this might be effectively applied. Overall, community
participation has been limited, and tenure is marginally considered, with consultation and benefit sharing
being the most common methods of increasing community support for conservation efforts.

Community engagement is poorly defined in biodiversity conservation practice. This leads to the
conclusion that the way in which we currently engage communities is generally not well informed by
evidence nor theory, but potentially on supposition, conservation fads, and conventional wisdom. We
argue that this is not sufficient to address the highly complex situations practitioners must face along with
other key stakeholders.

Security of tenure is one factor that is frequently poorly understood and dealt with, in terms of how
conservation practitioners engage with communities, as Robinson et al.’s recent overview (2018) of
issues and recommendations clearly attests. In 2002, 21 percent of forests in developing countries were
owned or designated for use by indigenous peoples and communities; today, approximately 31 percent of
the forests in developing countries are. Nonetheless, very little is known about the mechanisms used by
states at the national level to recognize and allocate tenure rights to indigenous peoples and
communities, especially in developing countries (Rights and Resources Initiative, 2015). This means that
more often than not in developing country contexts, ambiguity over rights, and lack of clarity over which
stakeholders hold prerogatives where there are overlaps in claims, clearly affects communities’
willingness and ability to engage in conservation, though evidence to validate or invalidate this contention
is scarce. Understanding how rights are recognized and materialized is a key next step for conservation
and sustainable development practitioners.

As global biodiversity losses continue to mount, and while impoverished local communities dependent on
forest resources to support their livelihoods remain marginalized in planning and decision-making, new
approaches to community engagement are desperately needed that consider tenure as a starting point.
Here, explicit theories must be tested in different contexts and the evaluation of outcomes should be more
transparent and holistic than what our analysis has shown (e.g., Qiu et al. 2018). For conservation to
effectively address global sustainable development challenges, widespread and cohesive learning must
occur across sectors and become a basis for planning and implementation. Security of tenure as applied
to community engagement will need to become a key indicator and object of learning in years to come.

EVIDENCE ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IMPACTS | 19

G. References

Adams, W. M., & Hutton, J. (2007). People, parks and poverty: political ecology and biodiversity
conservation. Conservation and society, 5(2), 147-183.

Agrawal, A., & Chhatre, A. (2006). Explaining success on the commons: Community forest governance in
the Indian Himalaya. World Development, 34(1), 149-166.

Agrawal, A., & Gibson, C. C. (1999). Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural
resource conservation. World development, 27(4), 629-649.

Agrawal, A., & Redford, K. H. (2006). Poverty, development, and biodiversity conservation: Shooting in
the dark? (pp. 1530-4426). New York: Wildlife Conservation Society.

Alexander, S. M., Andrachuk, M., & Armitage, D. (2016). Navigating governance networks for community‐
based conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(3), 155-164.

Armitage, D., Berkes, F., & Doubleday, N. (Eds.). (2010). Adaptive co-management: collaboration,
learning, and multi-level governance. UBC Press.

Armitage, D., de Loë, R., & Plummer, R. (2012). Environmental governance and its implications for
conservation practice. Conservation Letters, 5(4), 245-255.

Armitage, D. R., Plummer, R., Berkes, F., Arthur, R. I., Charles, A. T., Davidson-Hunt, I. J., ... &
McConney, P. (2009). Adaptive co‐management for social–ecological complexity. Frontiers in Ecology
and the Environment, 7(2), 95-102.

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of planners,
35(4), 216-224.

Atkins, J. P., Burdon, D., Elliott, M., & Gregory, A. J. (2011). Management of the marine environment:
integrating ecosystem services and societal benefits with the DPSIR framework in a systems approach.
Marine pollution bulletin, 62(2), 215-226.

Berkes, F. (2004). Rethinking community‐based conservation. Conservation biology, 18(3), 621-630.

Berkes, F. (2007). Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15188-15193.

Biggs, D., Cooney, R., Roe, D., Dublin, H. T., Allan, J. R., Challender, D. W., & Skinner, D. (2017).
Developing a theory of change for a community‐based response to illegal wildlife trade. Conservation
Biology, 31(1), 5-12.

Brandon, K. (1996). Ecotourism and conservation: A review of key issues. The World Bank.

Brasselle, A. S., Gaspart, F., & Platteau, J. P. (2002). Land tenure security and investment incentives:
puzzling evidence from Burkina Faso. Journal of Development Economics, 67(2), 373-418.

Brooks, J., Waylen, K. A., & Mulder, M. B. (2013). Assessing community-based conservation projects: a
systematic review and multilevel analysis of attitudinal, behavioral, ecological, and economic outcomes.
Environmental Evidence, 2(1), 2.

Brown, M. I. (2013). Redeeming REDD: policies, incentives and social feasibility for avoided
deforestation. London: Routledge.

EVIDENCE ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IMPACTS | 20

Brown, M., & Wyckoff-Baird, B. (1992). Designing integrated conservation and development projects.
FAO.

Bruce, J., Wendland, K., & Naughton-Treves, L. (2010). Whom to pay? Key concepts and terms
regarding tenure and property rights in payment-based forest ecosystem conservation. Land Tenure
Center Policy Brief, 15.

Bruner, A. G., Gullison, R. E., Rice, R. E., & Da Fonseca, G. A. (2001). Effectiveness of parks in
protecting tropical biodiversity. Science, 291(5501), 125-128.

Büscher, B., & Whande, W. (2007). Whims of the winds of time? Emerging trends in biodiversity
conservation and protected area management. Conservation and Society, 5(1), 22-43.

Charnley, S. (2005). From nature tourism to ecotourism? The case of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area,
Tanzania. Human Organization, 64(1), 75-88.

Cheng, S. H., Ahlroth, S., Onder, S., Shyamsundar, P., Garside, R., Kristjanson, P., ... & Miller, D. C.
(2017). What is the evidence for the contribution of forests to poverty alleviation? A systematic map
protocol. Environmental Evidence, 6(1), 10.

Cheng, S.H., MacLeod, K., Ahlroth, S., Onder, S., Perge, E., Shyamsundar, P., Rana, P., Garside, R.,
Kristjason, P., McKinnon, M.C., & Miller, D.C. (2019). A systematic map of evidence on the contribution of
forests to poverty alleviation. Environmental Evidence, 8(3).

Cinner, J. (2005). Socioeconomic factors influencing customary marine tenure in the Indo-Pacific.
Ecology and society, 10(1).

Cox, M., Arnold, G., & Tomás, S. V. (2010). A review of design principles for community-based natural
resource management. Ecology and Society, 15(4).

Craig, D., & Porter, D. (2003). Poverty reduction strategy papers: a new convergence. World
development, 31(1), 53-69.

Creswell, J. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Danielsen, F., Burgess, N. D., Balmford, A., Donald, P. F., Funder, M., Jones, J. P., ... & Child, B. (2009).
Local participation in natural resource monitoring: a characterization of approaches. Conservation
Biology, 23(1), 31-42.

DeCaro, D. A., & Stokes, M. K. (2013). Public participation and institutional fit: a social–psychological
perspective. Ecology and Society, 18(4).

Decker, D., Smith, C., Forstchen, A., Hare, D., Pomeranz, E., Doyle‐Capitman, C., ... & Organ, J. (2016).
Governance principles for wildlife conservation in the 21st century. Conservation Letters, 9(4), 290-295.

Dicks L.V., Haddaway N., Hernández-Morcillo M., Mattsson B., Randall N., Failler P., Ferretti J., Livoreil
B., Saarikoski H., Santamaria L., Rodela R., Velizarova E., & Wittmer H. (2017). Knowledge synthesis for
environmental decisions: an evaluation of existing methods, and guidance for their selection, use and
development– a report from the EKLIPSE project.

Ferse, S. C., Costa, M. M., Manez, K. S., Adhuri, D. S., & Glaser, M. (2010). Allies, not aliens: increasing
the role of local communities in marine protected area implementation. Environmental Conservation,
37(1), 23-34.

EVIDENCE ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IMPACTS | 21

Galili, T. (2015). dendextend: an R package for visualizing, adjusting, and comparing trees of hierarchical
clustering. Bioinformatics. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv428

Gautam, Ambika P., Edward L. Webb, Ganesh P. Shivakoti, and Michael A. Zoebisch. 2003. Land use
dynamics and landscape change pattern in a mountain watershed in Nepal. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and
Environment 99: 83-96.

Gaworecki, M. (2017). Mongabay: Cash for conservation: Do payments for ecosystem services work?
Retrieved from https://news.mongabay.com/2017/10/cash-for-conservation-do-payments-for-ecosystem-
services-work/

Grindle, M. S. (2004). Good enough governance: poverty reduction and reform in developing countries.
Governance, 17(4), 525-548.

Haddaway, N.H., Bayliss, H.R. (2015). Shades of grey: Two forms of grey literature important for reviews
in conservation. Biological Conservation, 191, 827-829.

Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243-1248.

Heller, M. A. (1998). The tragedy of the anticommons: property in the transition from Marx to markets.
Harvard law review, 621-688.

Jones, M. A. (2008). Trying to Make Sense of it All: Dealing with the Complexities of Community Based
Natural Resource Management. In Beyond Proprietorship: Murphee’s Laws on Community-Based Natural
Resources Management in Southern Africa. Ottawa, Canada: IDRC.

Joshi, S., & Rao, V. (2017). Who should be at the top of bottom-up development? a case study of the
national rural livelihoods mission in Rajasthan, India. The World Bank.

Kappel, C. V. (2005). Losing pieces of the puzzle: threats to marine, estuarine, and diadromous species.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3(5), 275-282.

Kelly, A. B., & Peluso, N. L. (2015). Frontiers of commodification: State lands and their formalization.
Society & Natural Resources, 28(5), 473-495.

Kiss, A. (2004). Is community-based ecotourism a good use of biodiversity conservation funds?. Trends
in ecology & evolution, 19(5), 232-237.

Larson, A. M., & Soto, F. (2008). Decentralization of natural resource governance regimes. Annual review
of environment and resources, 33, 213-239.

Lawry, S., Samii, C., Hall, R., Leopold, A., Hornby, D., & Mtero, F. (2017). The impact of land property
rights interventions on investment and agricultural productivity in developing countries: a systematic
review. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 9(1), 61-81.

Mace, G. M. (2014). Whose conservation? Science, 345(6204), 1558-1560.

Maechler, M., Rousseeuw, P., Struyf, A., Hubert, M., Hornik, K.(2018). cluster: Cluster Analysis Basics
and Extensions. R package version 2.0.7-1.

Margoluis, R., Stem, C., Swaminathan, V., Brown, M., Johnson, A., Placci, G., ... & Tilders, I. (2013).
Results chains: a tool for conservation action design, management, and evaluation. Ecology and Society,
18(3).

Miller, D. C., Agrawal, A., & Roberts, J. T. (2013). Biodiversity, governance, and the allocation of
international aid for conservation. Conservation Letters, 6(1), 12-20.

EVIDENCE ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IMPACTS | 22

Minteer, B. A. (2006). The landscape of reform: Civic pragmatism and environmental thought in America.
MIT Press.

Mostert, E. (2003). The challenge of public participation. Water policy, 5(2), 179-197.

Ojanen, M., Zhou, W., Miller, D. C., Nieto, S. H., Mshale, B., & Petrokofsky, G. (2017). What are the
environmental impacts of property rights regimes in forests, fisheries and rangelands?. Environmental
Evidence, 6(1), 12.

Oldekop, J. A., Holmes, G., Harris, W. E., & Evans, K. L. (2016). A global assessment of the social and
conservation outcomes of protected areas. Conservation Biology, 30(1), 133-141.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E. (2009). Design principles of robust property-rights institutions: what have we learned. In
Property Rights and Land Policies. Ingram, K.G. & Hong, Y. (eds.). Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of
Land Policy.

Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C. B., Norgaard, R. B., & Policansky, D. (1999). Revisiting the commons:
local lessons, global challenges. Science, 284(5412), 278-282.

Pattanayak, S. K., Wunder, S., & Ferraro, P. J. (2010). Show me the money: do payments supply
environmental services in developing countries?. Review of environmental economics and policy, 4(2),
254-274.

Platteau, J. P. (2004). Monitoring elite capture in Community‐Driven development. Development and

change, 35(2), 223-246.

Poe, M. R., Norman, K. C., & Levin, P. S. (2014). Cultural dimensions of socioecological systems: key
connections and guiding principles for conservation in coastal environments. Conservation Letters, 7(3),
166-175.

Pullin, A., Frampton, G., Jongman, R., Kohl, C., Livoreil, B., Lux, A., ... & Santamaria, L. (2016). Selecting
appropriate methods of knowledge synthesis to inform biodiversity policy. Biodiversity and conservation,
25(7), 1285-1300.

Pullin, A. S., & Knight, T. M. (2001). Effectiveness in conservation practice: pointers from medicine and
public health. Conservation biology, 15(1), 50-54.

Pullin, A. S., Knight, T. M., Stone, D. A., & Charman, K. (2004). Do conservation managers use scientific
evidence to support their decision-making?. Biological conservation, 119(2), 245-252.

Qiu, J., Game, E.T., Tallis, H., Olander, L.P., Glew, L., Kagan, J.S., Kalies, E.L., Michanowicw, D.,
Phelan, J., Polasky, S., Reed, J., Sills, E.O., Urban, D., Weaver, S.K. (2018). Evidence-Based Causal
Chains for Linking Health, Development, and Conservation Actions. BioScience, 68(3): 182-193.

R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for
Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.

Ravikumar, A., Larjavaara, M., Larson, A., & Kanninen, M. (2017). Can conservation funding be left to
carbon finance? Evidence from participatory future land use scenarios in Peru, Indonesia, Tanzania, and
Mexico. Environmental Research Letters, 12(1), 014015.

EVIDENCE ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IMPACTS | 23

Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review.
Biological conservation, 141(10), 2417-2431.

Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI). 2015. Who Owns the World’s Land? A global baseline of formally
recognized indigenous and community land rights. Washington, DC: RRI.

Robinson, B. E., Masuda, Y. J., Kelly, A., Holland, M. B., Bedford, C., Childress, M., ... & Lawry, S.
(2018). Incorporating land tenure security into conservation. Conservation Letters, 11(2), e12383.

Robinson, J. G., & Redford, K. H. (2004). Jack of all trades, master of none: inherent contradictions
among ICD approaches. Getting biodiversity projects to work: Towards more effective conservation and
development, 10-34.

Roe, D. (Ed.). (2015). Conservation, crime and communities: case studies of efforts to engage local
communities in tackling illegal wildlife trade. IIED, London.

Roe, D., Elliott, J., Sandbrook, C., & Walpole, M. (Eds.). (2013). Biodiversity conservation and poverty
alleviation: exploring the evidence for a link. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Roth, R. J., & Dressler, W. (2012). Market-oriented conservation governance: the particularities of place.
Geoforum, 43(3), 363-366.

Salafsky, N., Salzar, D., Stattersfield, A.J., Hilton-Taylor, C., Neugarten, R., Butchart, S.H.M., Collen, B.,
Cox, N., Master, L.L., O’Connor, S., Wilkie, D. (2008). A Standard Lexicon for Biodiversity Conservation:
Unified Classifications of Threats and Actions. Conservation Biology, 22, 897-911.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2014). Global Biodiversity Outlook 4. Montréal.

Shyamsundar P, Ahlroth S, Kristjanson P, Onder S. Supporting pathways to prosperity in forest

landscapes—a PRIME approach. PROFOR. 2018.

Siurua, H. (2006). Nature above people: Rolston and "fortress" conservation in the South. Ethics and the
Environment 11(1), 71-96.

Smith, R. J., Muir, R. D., Walpole, M. J., Balmford, A., & Leader-Williams, N. (2003). Governance and the
loss of biodiversity. Nature, 426(6962), 67.

Sterling, E.J., Betley, E., Sigouin, A., Gomez, A., Toomey, A., Cullman, G., Malone, C., Pekor, A., Arengo,
F., Blair, M., Filardi, C., Landrigan, K., Porzecanski, A.L. (2017). Assessing the evidence for stakeholder
engagement in biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation, 209. 159-171.

Stewart, G. B., Coles, C. F., & Pullin, A. S. (2005). Applying evidence-based practice in conservation
management: lessons from the first systematic review and dissemination projects. Biological
Conservation, 126(2), 270-278.

Sunderlin, W. (2011). The global forest tenure transition: Background, substance, and prospects. Forest
and People: Property, Governance, and Human Rights; Sikor, T., Stahl, J., Eds, 19-32.

Sunderlin, W. D., Larson, A. M., Duchelle, A. E., Resosudarmo, I. A. P., Huynh, T. B., Awono, A., &
Dokken, T. (2014). How are REDD+ proponents addressing tenure problems? Evidence from Brazil,
Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, and Vietnam. World Development, 55, 37-52.

Taylor, R. (2009). Community based natural resource management in Zimbabwe: the experience of
CAMPFIRE. Biodiversity and conservation, 18(10), 2563-2583.

TNC (The Nature Conservancy). (2003). The F-S Framework for Site Conservation. Arlington, VA: TNC.

EVIDENCE ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IMPACTS | 24

Virapongse, A., Brooks, S., Metcalf, E. C., Zedalis, M., Gosz, J., Kliskey, A., & Alessa, L. (2016). A social-
ecological systems approach for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management,
178, 83-91.

Waddington, H., Masset, E., & Jimenez, E. (2018) What have we learned after ten years of systematic
reviews in international development? Journal of Development Effectiveness, 10 (1), 1-16.

White, A. T., & Green, S. (2003, March). Successful marine protected areas require broad support:
Philippine case. In Second International Tropical Marine Ecosystems Management Symposium
(ITMEMS), Manila, Philippines.

Wunder, S. (2000). Ecotourism and economic incentives—an empirical approach. Ecological economics,
32(3), 465-479.

WWF. 2018. Living Planet Report - 2018: Aiming Higher. Grooten, M. and Almond, R.E.A.(Eds). WWF,
Gland, Switzerland.

EVIDENCE ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IMPACTS | 25

H. Appendix 1. Boolean Search Query

Biodiversity Conservation Intervention Terms

("Biodiversity conservation" OR "conservation finance" OR "conservation payments" OR "easements" OR
"ecosystem restoration" OR "ecosystem services" OR "ex-situ conservation" OR "habitat protection" OR
"habitat restoration" OR "invasive species control" OR "market-based incentives" OR "protected area" OR
"resource protection" OR "species management" OR "species reintroduction" OR "species recovery" OR
"species stewardship" OR "species translocation" OR "water use zoning")

Community Member Terms

("Community" OR "stakeholder" OR "residents")

Community Engagement Approach Terms

("Engagement" OR "adaptive co-management" OR "agri-environmental scheme" OR "alternative
livelihood" OR "biocultural conservation" OR "biodiversity offsets" OR "biosphere reserves" OR "citizen
science" OR "COAIT" OR "collective action" OR "common pool resources" OR "common property" OR
"community based conservation" OR "community markets for conservation" OR "community based
resource management" OR "conservation concessions" OR "conservation tender program" OR
"cooperative network" OR "ecosystem services" OR "ecotourism" OR "enterprise based conservation" OR
"environmental education" OR "incentive payments" OR "integrated conservation development project"
OR "integrated landscape management" OR "local ecological knowledge" OR "participatory decision
making" OR "participatory government" OR "participatory modelling" OR "participatory scenario planning"
OR "payments for ecosystem services" OR "pro-poor conservation" OR "REDD+" OR "social capital" OR
"social marketing" OR "stakeholder decision making" OR "stakeholder planning" OR "traditional ecological
knowledge" OR "public participation")

Outcome Measurement Terms

("Outcome" OR "success" OR "failure" OR "impact" OR "progress")

EVIDENCE ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IMPACTS | 26

I. Appendix 2. Comparison of Engagement Clusters

EVIDENCE ON BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IMPACTS | 27