Katherine Homewood

Guiding principles for evaluating the impacts of conservation interventions on human well-being.

Measures of socio-economic impacts of conservation interventions have largely been restricted to externally defined indicators focused on income, which do not reflect peoples priorities. Using a holistic, locally grounded conceptualization of human well-being instead provides a way to understand the multi-faceted impacts of conservation on aspects of peoples lives that they value. Conservationists are engaging with well-being for both pragmatic and ethical reasons, yet current guidance on how to operationalize the concept is limited. We present nine guiding principles based around a well-being framework incorporating material, relational and subjective components, and focused on gaining knowledge needed for decision-making. The principles relate to four key components of an impact evaluation: (i) defining well-being indicators, giving primacy to the perceptions of those most impacted by interventions through qualitative research, and considering subjective well-being, which can affect engagement with conservation; (ii) attributing impacts to interventions through quasi-experimental designs, or alternative methods such as theory-based, case study and participatory approaches, depending on the setting and evidence required; (iii) understanding the processes of change including evidence of causal linkages, and consideration of trajectories of change and institutional processes; and (iv) data collection with methods selected and applied with sensitivity to research context, consideration of heterogeneity of impacts along relevant societal divisions, and conducted by evaluators with local expertise and independence from the intervention.

Can the Tana Mangabey Survive

Found in only one small area in north-east Kenya, the Tana mangabey is both seriously depleted and highly endangered. Numbers are estimated at under 1500. The author, who spent two years on a field study in the Tana River area, shows how the combination of increased pressure from the growing human population and the long-term effects of new hydroelectric and irrigation schemes will affect especially the food supply of this monkey, which has adapted itself to a complicated river regime that may now be destroyed.

Monitoring local well-being in environmental interventions: a consideration of practical trade-offs

Within the field of environmental management and conservation, the concept of well-being is starting to gain traction in monitoring the socio-economic and cultural impact of interventions on local people. Here we consider the practical trade-offs policy makers and practitioners must navigate when utilizing the concept of well-being in environmental interventions. We first review current concepts of well-being before considering the need to balance the complexity and practical applicability of the definition used and to consider both positive and negative components of well-being. A key determinant of how well-being is operationalized is the identity of the organization wishing to monitor it. We describe the trade-offs around the external and internal validity of different approaches to measuring well-being and the relative contributions of qualitative and quantitative information to understanding well-being. We explore how these trade-offs may be decided as a result of a power struggle between stakeholders. Well-being is a complex, multi-dimensional, dynamic concept that cannot be easily defined and measured. Local perspectives are often missed during the project design process as a result of the more powerful voices of national governments and international NGOs, so for equity and local relevance it is important to ensure these perspectives are represented at a high level in project design and implementation.

A quasi-experimental study of impacts of Tanzania’s wildlife management areas on rural livelihoods and wealth

Since the 2000s, Tanzania’s natural resource management policy has emphasised Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs), designed to promote wildlife and biodiversity conservation, poverty alleviation and rural development. We carried out a quasi-experimental impact evaluation of social impacts of WMAs, collecting data from 24 villages participating in 6 different WMAs across two geographical regions, and 18 statistically matched control villages. Across these 42 villages, we collected participatory wealth ranking data for 13,578 households. Using this as our sampling frame, we conducted questionnaire surveys with a stratified sample of 1,924 household heads and 945 household heads’ wives. All data were collected in 2014/15, with a subset of questions devoted to respondents’ recall on conditions that existed in 2007, when first WMAs became operational. Questions addressed household demographics, land and livestock assets, resource use, income-generating activities and portfolios, participation in natural resource management decision-making, benefits and costs of conservation. Datasets permit research on livelihood and wealth trajectories, and social impacts, costs and benefits of conservation interventions in the context of community-based natural resource management.

Sharing data from the Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation programme

The 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment1 suggested that while there have been substantial gains in human wellbeing in recent decades, these have been achieved at the expense of high, often irreversible levels of ecosystem degradation. The linkages between ecosystem services and poverty alleviation, however, are complex and poorly understood. In many cases, gains in well-being have gone hand-in-hand with rising inequalities and increasing vulnerability of the more marginalised to environmental shocks and stresses. The Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation (ESPA, https://www.espa.ac.uk/) interdisciplinary research programme aimed to work towards the Sustainable Development Goals2 by giving decision-makers and natural resource users the evidence they need to address the challenges of combining sustainable ecosystem management with poverty reduction.

Rural protein insufficiency in a wildlife-depleted west African farm-forest landscape

Introduction Wildlife is an important source of protein for many people in developing countries. Yet wildlife depletion due to overexploitation is common throughout the humid tropics and its effect on protein security, especially for vulnerable households, is poorly understood. This is problematic for both sustainable rural development and conservation management. Methods This study investigates a key dimension of protein security in a cash-crop farming community living in a wildlife-depleted farm-forest landscape in SW Ghana, a region where protein–energy malnutrition persists. Specifically, we monitored protein sufficiency, defined as whether consumption met daily requirements, as benchmarked by recommended daily allowance (RDA). We focus on whether more vulnerable households were less likely to be able to meet their protein needs, where vulnerability was defined by wealth, agricultural season and gender of the household head. Our central hypothesis was: (a) vulnerable households are less likely to consume sufficient protein. In the context that most plant proteins were home-produced, so likely relatively accessible to all households, while most animal proteins were purchased, so likely less accessible to vulnerable households, we tested two further hypotheses: (b) vulnerable households depend more on plant protein to cover their protein needs; and (c) vulnerable households are less likely to earn sufficient cash income to meet their protein needs through purchased animal sources. Results Between 14% and 60% of households (depending on plant protein content assumptions) consumed less than the RDA for protein, but neither protein consumption nor protein sufficiency co-varied with household vulnerability. Fish, livestock and food crops comprised 85% of total protein intake and strongly affected protein sufficiency. However, bushmeat remained an important protein source (15% of total consumption), especially during the post-harvest season when it averaged 26% of total protein consumption. Across the year, 89% of households experienced at least one occasion when they had insufficient income to cover their protein needs through animal protein purchases. The extent of this income shortage was highest during the lean season and among poorer households. Conclusions These findings indicate that despite wildlife depletion, bushmeat continues to make a substantial contribution to protein consumption, especially during the agricultural lean season. Income shortages among farmers limit their ability to purchase bushmeat or its substitutes, suggesting that wildlife depletion may cause malnutrition.

Gender differentiated preferences for a community-based conservation initiative

Community-based conservation (CBC) aims to benefit local people as well as to achieve conservation goals, but has been criticised for taking a simplistic view of “community” and failing to recognise differences in the preferences and motivations of community members. We explore this heterogeneity in the context of Kenya’s conservancies, focussing on the livelihood preferences of men and women living adjacent to the Maasai Mara National Reserve. Using a discrete choice experiment we quantify the preferences of local community members for key components of their livelihoods and conservancy design, differentiating between men and women and existing conservancy members and non-members. While Maasai preference for pastoralism remains strong, non-livestock-based livelihood activities are also highly valued and there was substantial differentiation in preferences between individuals. Involvement with conservancies was generally perceived to be positive, but only if households were able to retain some land for other purposes. Women placed greater value on conservancy membership, but substantially less value on wage income, while existing conservancy members valued both conservancy membership and livestock more highly than did non-members. Our findings suggest that conservancies can make a positive contribution to livelihoods, but care must be taken to ensure that they do not unintentionally disadvantage any groups. We argue that conservation should pay greater attention to individual-level differences in preferences when designing interventions in order to achieve fairer and more sustainable outcomes for members of local communities.