Are alternative livelihood projects effective at reducing local threats to specified elements of biodiversity and/or improving or maintaining the conservation status of those elements?: a systematic review protocol

Environmental Evidence

Gillian Petrokofsky³  Kent Redford⁷  Terry CH Sunderland²  Niki Rust¹  Juliet Wright⁵  Nicholas A O Hill⁸  Noëlle Kümpel⁶  Sophie Allebone-Webb⁶  Wen Zhou²  Francesca Booker²  Mike Day²  Dilys Roe⁴ 

[1] Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NZ, UK;Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Jalan CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindang Barang, Bogor 16115, Indonesia;Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, The Tinbergen Building, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK;International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), 80-86 Grays Inn Road, London, WC1X 8NH, UK;Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Silwood Park Campus, Buckhurst Road, Ascot SL5 7PY, UK;Zoological Society of London (ZSL), Regent’s Park, London NW1 4RY, UK;Archipelago Consulting, P.O. Box 4750, Portland, Maine 04112-4750, USA;Conservation Science Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK

关键词: Community attitudes and conservation threats;    Conservation;    Biodiversity;    Alternative livelihoods;   

Others  :  800893
DOI  :  10.1186/2047-2382-3-6

 received in 2013-12-09, accepted in 2014-03-11,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Alternative livelihood projects are used by a variety of organisations as a tool for achieving conservation results. Yet these interventions, including their objectives, vary a great deal, and there is no single accepted definition of what constitutes an alternative livelihood project. In addition, very little is known about what impacts, if any, alternative livelihoods projects have had on biodiversity conservation, as well as what determines the success or failure of these interventions. Reflecting this concern, a resolution was passed at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in 2012 calling for a critical review of the benefits to biodiversity of alternative livelihood projects. This systematic review is intended to contribute to this resolution.

Methods/Design

This protocol details the methodology for exploring the research question: Are alternative livelihood projects effective at reducing local threats to specifiedelements of biodiversity and/or improving or maintaining the conservation status ofthose elements? The aim of this proposed systematic review is to provide an overview for researchers, policy makers and practitioners of the current state of the evidence base. To undertake this, the systematic review will explore peer-reviewed research from the bibliographic databases SCOPUS, Web of Science, CAB Abstracts, AGRIS and AGRICOLA using search terms and Boolean search operators. The systematic review will also explore grey literature sources by conducting searches on Google, subject specific websites and institutional websites. Additionally, the review will use calls for papers and snowballing techniques to further identify literature. In order to identify relevant evidence, inclusion criteria will be used to screen the titles and abstracts of the captured literature. Data will be extracted from the final list of relevant documents by using a questionnaire established through literature review and a stakeholder workshop. The key output of this review will be a report on the state of the evidence, and, if the data permits, an estimate of the effectiveness of alternative livelihood interventions.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Roe et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD): Livelihood alternatives for the unsustainable use of bushmeat. In Report prepared for the CBD Bushmeat Liaison Group. Technical Series No. 60. Montreal: SCBD; 2011:46.
• [2]Triet R: Combining biodiversity conservation with poverty alleviation - a case study in the Mekong Delta Vietnam. Aquatic Ecosystem Health Manage 2010, 13:41-46.
• [3]Munthali S, Mughogho D: Economic incentives for conservation: beekeeping and saturniidae caterpillar utilization by rural communities. Biodivers Conserv 1992, 1:142-154.
• [4]Gordan I, Ayiemba W: Harnessing butterfly biodiversity for improving livelihoods and forest conservation: The Kipepeo Project. J Environ Dev 2003, 12:82-98.
• [5]Sievanen L, Crawford B, Pollnac R, Lowe C: Weeding through assumptions of livelihood approaches in ICM: seaweed farming in the Philippines and Indonesia. Ocean Coast Manag 2005, 48:297-313.
• [6]Hill N, Rowcliffe M, Koldewy H, Milner-Gulland EJ: The Interaction between Seaweed Farming as an Alternative Occupation and Fisher Numbers in the Central Philippines. Conserv Biol 2011, 2:324-334.
• [7]DeWan A, Green K, Li X, Hayden D: Using social marketing tools to increase fuel-efficient adoption for conservation of the golden snub-nosed monkey, Gansu Province, China. Conserv Evid 2013, 10:32-36.
• [8]Lui M, Sadovy de Mitcheson Y: Profile of a fishery collapse: why mariculture failed to save the large yellow croaker. Fish Fish 2008, 2008:219-242.
• [9]Mansfield D, Pain A: Alternative Livelihoods: substance or Slogan? Kabul, Afghanistan: Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit (AREA) Briefing Paper; 2005. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/14650/1/bp05ma01.pdf webcite
• [10]Hilson G, Banchirigah SM: Are alternative livelihood projects alleviating in poverty in mining communities? Experiences from Ghana. J Dev Stud 2009, 45:172-196.
• [11]U.S. Agency for International Development (US AID)/Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE): Regional Development Cooperation Strategy 2012–2020. 1-38. [http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/CARPE_RDCS_0.pdf webcite]
• [12]Carney D: Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What contribution can we make? In Department for International Development's Natural Advisers' Conference, July 1998. London: Department for International Development (DfID); 1998.
• [13]Department for International Development (DFID): Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets numbers 1–8. 1999a, 2000d, 2001. [http://www.livelihoods.org webcite]
• [14]Department for International Development (DFID): Sustainable Livelihoods and Poverty Elimination. London: Department for International Development (DfID); 1999b.
• [15]Brown K: Three challenges for a real people-centred conservation. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 2003, 12:89-92.
• [16]International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN): Motion 145. World Conservation Congress, 6-15th September 2012; Jeju, Korea 2012. Access online: [https://portals.iucn.org/docs/2012congress/motions/en/M-145-2012-EN.pdf webcite]
• [17]Scopus [http://www.scopus.com/ webcite]
• [18]Web of knowledge [http://wok.mimas.ac.uk/ webcite]
• [19]Cab abstracts [http://www.cabi.org/ webcite]
• [20]OvidSP [https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ webcite]
• [21]Google scholar [http://scholar.google.co.uk/ webcite]
• [22]Cab thesaurus [http://www.cabi.org/cabthesaurus/ webcite]
• [23]AGROVOC [http://aims.fao.org/standards/agrovoc/ webcite]
• [24]NAL thesaurus [http://agclass.nal.usda.gov/ webcite]
• [25]AGRIS [http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/index.do webcite]
• [26]AGRICOLA [http://agricola.nal.usda.gov/ webcite]
• [27]Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) [http://www.doaj.org/ webcite]
• [28]International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications (INASP) [http://www.inasp.info/ webcite]
• [29]African Journals Online (AJOL) [http://www.ajol.info/ webcite]
• [30]Asian Journals Online [http://ajouronline.com/ webcite]
• [31]Poverty and Conservation Learning Group (PCLG) [http://povertyandconservation.info/ webcite]
• [32]Google [https://www.google.com/ webcite]
• [33]British Library Electronic Theses Online Service (EThOS) [http://ethos.bl.uk/Home.do webcite]
• [34]DART Europe E- thesis Portal [http://www.dart-europe.eu/basic-search.php webcite]
• [35]National ETD Portal of South Africa [http://www.netd.ac.za/ webcite]
• [36]Open Access Theses and Dissertations [http://oatd.org/ webcite]
• [37]ProQuest [http://www.proquest.co.uk/en-UK/ webcite]
• [38]Biodiversity-L Listserve [http://www.iisd.ca/email/biodiversity-L.htm webcite]
• [39]Day M: Are ‘alternative livelihoods’ projects effective? 2014. [http://www.iied.org/are-alternative-livelihoods-projects-effective webcite]
• [40]Hagen-Zanker J, Mallet R: How to do a rigorous, evidence-focused literature review in international development, A Guidance Note. Overseas Development Institute; 2013. [http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8572.pdf webcite]
• [41]Cohen J: A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960, 20:37-46.
• [42]Edwards P, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Roberts I, Wentz R: Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening records. Stat Med 2002, 21:1635-1640.
• [43]Isasi-Catalá E: Is translocation of problematic jaguars (Panthera onca) an effective strategy to resolve human-predator conflicts? 2009. CEE protocol 08–018 (SR55). Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. http://www.environmentalevidence.org/Documents/Final_protocols/Protocol55.pdf webcite
• [44]Pullin A, Knight T: Effectiveness in conservation practice: pointers from Medicine and Public Health. Conserv Biol 2001, 15:50-54.
• [45]Zotero [http://www.zotero.org/ webcite]
• [46]Microsoft Excel [http://office.microsoft.com/en-gb/excel/ webcite]