Evaluation of biodiversity policy instruments: what works and what doesn't?

By D. Miteva, Subhrendu K. Pattanayak, Paul J. Ferraro. 2012

360 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/92e9dae9fd515f222740b92f96bdbc6c9a85af94

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Global and Planetary Change

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Citations in the corpus

Parks versus PES: Evaluating direct and incentive-based land conservation in Mexico (2017, neutral): “Growing literatures separately evaluate each type of policy (see reviews by Pattanayak et al. 2010, Miteva et al. 2012, Alix-Garcia and Wolff 2014 and further detail below).”
Mainstreaming Impact Evaluation in Nature Conservation (2016, background): “Several recent papers call for improving the quality of impact evaluation in nature conservation (Ferraro & Pattanayak 2006; Miteva et al. 2012; Pullin 2012; Fisher et al. 2014).”
Accounting for the Unaccountable: Biodiversity Reporting and Impression Management (2014, neutral): “Second, programs for biodiversity protection have been widely criticized for their lack of follow-up, transparency, and tangible results (Maestre Andrés et al. 2012; Miteva et al. 2012).”
More strictly protected areas are not necessarily more protective: evidence from Bolivia, Costa Rica, Indonesia, and Thailand (2013, background): “Yet probing the heterogeneity of conservation actions and the mechanisms through which they operate is a crucial step in building the evidence base in environmental policy, an effort that Miteva et al (2012) call Conservation Evaluation 2.0.”
A qualitative meta-synthesis of the benefits of eco-labeling in developing countries (2016, background): “8 This is what Miteva et al. (2012) define as ‘with-without’ and ‘before-and-after’ comparisons of outcomes with respect to the empirical assessment of conservation measures. intensity of this support over time (pre- and post-certification), and whether support to some firms encouraged other firms…”
What are the effects of nature conservation on human well-being? A systematic map of empirical evidence from developing countries (2016, background): “, protected areas or payment for environmental services [33, 55].”
When payments for environmental services will work for conservation (2013, background): “Yet, we should also have more PES programs build in vigorous impact evaluation mechanisms from the outset, so we can actively learn from them (Ferraro 2011), although the current chronic scarcity of conservation impact studies is by no means limited to PES (Miteva et al. 2012).”
Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management (2016, neutral): “…toward evidence-based conservation (Sutherland 2003; Sutherland et al. 2004; Mathevet & Mauchamp 2005; Ferraro & Pattanayak 2006; Segan et al. 2011; Miteva et al. 2012; Cook et al. 2013; Pullin et al. 2013), which is accompanied by bold claims that engaging a medical model of evaluation will cure…”