Ayambire Raphael A, Rytwinski Trina, Taylor Jessica J, Luizza Matthew W, Muir Matthew J, Cadet Cynthia, Armitage Derek, Bennett Nathan J, Brooks Jeremy, Cheng Samantha H, Martinez Jenny, Nagendran Meenakshi, Öckerman Siri, Rivera Shannon N, Savage Anne, Wilkie David S, Cooke Steven J, Bennett Joseph R
Department of City Planning, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Canadian Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Conserv Biol. 2025 Feb;39(1):e14392. doi: 10.1111/cobi.14392. Epub 2024 Oct 17.
Effective governance is crucial for the success of conservation projects aimed at protecting wildlife populations and supporting human well-being. However, few large-scale, comprehensive syntheses have been conducted on the effects of different environmental governance types on conservation outcomes (i.e., biological and ecological effectiveness or effects of conservation on human well-being), and clarity on the quantity and quality of evidence remains dispersed and ambiguous. We attempted a systematic map of the evidence on the effectiveness of different governance types to meet desired conservation outcomes in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. However, early in this effort, we observed a general lack of empirical research on the links between governance and conservation outcomes. To fill observed data gaps in the evidence base, we tried triangulating governance data from alternative sources (Protected Planet database) and pooling evidence from research conducted within the same conservation areas. Limited data were contained in the Protected Planet database, and governance types in conservation areas and landscapes were complex, making it difficult to use these approaches to assign governance types to conservation areas. To illustrate our observations from the failed systematic map attempt, we prepared a rapid evidence map that outlines a subset of the evidence base of articles linking governance types and governance principles with conservation outcomes. Only 3.2% (34 of 1067) of the articles we screened directly related conservation outcomes to governance type, and even fewer related governance principles to conservation outcomes. Based on our findings, we recommend improving the evidence base by supporting empirical research and increasing the availability and quality of governance data in freely accessible databases. These recommendations are critical for enhancing understanding of the role of governance in conservation projects and improving conservation outcomes.
有效的治理对于旨在保护野生动物种群和促进人类福祉的保护项目的成功至关重要。然而，很少有人对不同环境治理类型对保护成果（即生物和生态有效性或保护对人类福祉的影响）进行大规模、全面的综合研究，关于证据的数量和质量的清晰度仍然分散且模糊。我们试图对不同治理类型在非洲、亚洲和拉丁美洲实现预期保护成果的有效性证据进行系统梳理。然而，在这项工作的早期，我们发现普遍缺乏关于治理与保护成果之间联系的实证研究。为了填补证据库中观察到的数据空白，我们尝试从其他来源（保护地球数据库）对治理数据进行三角测量，并汇总来自同一保护区内开展的研究的证据。保护地球数据库中的数据有限，而且保护区和景观中的治理类型复杂，使得难以使用这些方法为保护区确定治理类型。为了说明我们在失败的系统梳理尝试中的观察结果，我们编制了一份快速证据图，概述了将治理类型和治理原则与保护成果联系起来的文章证据库的一个子集。我们筛选的文章中只有3.2%（1067篇中的34篇）直接将保护成果与治理类型相关联，将治理原则与保护成果相关联的文章更少。基于我们的研究结果，我们建议通过支持实证研究以及提高可免费获取数据库中治理数据的可用性和质量来改进证据库。这些建议对于增强对治理在保护项目中的作用的理解以及改善保护成果至关重要。
