ABOUT

Welcome to the Evidence for Nature and People Data Portal! This portal features data from a systematic map on the impacts of conservation on human well-being in non-OECD nations (Bottrill et al. 2014, McKinnon et al. 2015, 2016) drawn from 1,038 peer-reviewed and grey literature. Here, you can access the knowledge management tool and various analytic dashboards for slicing the data. As we progress in our different initiatives (see RESEARCH section), we will update this dashboard with beta versions of support tools and other analytics.


NEWS

May 5, 2017

Thanks to feedback from our users, we've refined how you can play with the data on the EXPLORE page.

May 1, 2017

New affiliated systematic map protocol on the contribution of forests to poverty alleviation out now! Read here


ONGOING

Systematic map on impact of forestry on poverty

Lead(s): World Bank Program on Forestry and Poverty (PROFOR), Conservation International, University of Illinois

Projected timeline: Present-September 2017

Systematic map on wildlife trade

Lead(s): Conservation International

Status: Finished, in press


HOW TO USE


This is an open access online knowledge management tool designed to help users explore the existing evidence on linkages between nature and people. The evidence collated in this tool is designed to help conservation and development policymakers, practitioners, and researchers identify relevant information for decision-making. To date, there are ~1,000 peer-reviewed articles, unpublished reports, and theses in the evidence base that were identified and included using a systematic mapping method. You can read more about the motivation behind this project, the data and methodology, and this group in the ABOUT tab above.


FAQs


I am looking for a specific action or outcome, how do I find out what category that falls into?

The glossary is the best place to figure out what types of actions or outcomes fall into which categories. Since we used either standardized typologies or synthesized frameworks, the definitions stem from those references. Below the definition, you find examples of what types of actions are included. The glossary can be found at the bottom of every page. Click the 'Show/Hide glossary' button to display the panel. You can also find the glossary in the ABOUT section, and then navigating to GLOSSARY.


Where do I filter data and explore it? Why are there so many different options?

This site is constantly in development and we are refining it to make searching for and exploring data as functional and intuitive as possible. As well, while Shiny is a fantastic method for visualizing data, it can be difficult to incorporate multiple elements that it is not designed for. Hence, there are different tabs for exploring data. We encourage you to watch the how-to video on how to explore, filter, and download data.

In general, options for exploration are located in the EXPLORE section. In the EVIDENCE MAP tab, you will find an interactive evidence map that highlights the number of articles that document a specific linkage between a type of intervention and a type of outcome. You can filter this map by region, major habitat type, and study type. You can also view the data table behind this map by clicking on the DATA TABLE tab.

The LINKAGE EXPLORER affords a different interaction with the map, allowing you dive into a specific linkage and view a bibliography of included articles.

The DASHBOARD tab allows for filtering by geographic region, habitat/ecoregion type, intervention type, and outcome type. Here you can view summaries of different variables, explore the full data, and visualize spatially on both choropleth and interactive maps.


Are there other efforts to expand from this evidence map or on other topics?

You can read more about ongoing work to build this evidence base and conduct in-depth syntheses on some of these linkages in the RESEARCH tab



FEEDBACK

We are constantly developing and honing features in order to tailor this tool for our end-users. Any feedback would be very much appreciated on functionality and utility. Please see the CONTACT tab to fill out a feedback form or you can directly email the postdoctoral fellow, Samantha Cheng at cheng@nceas.ucsb.edu .

For any questions or comments on the SNAPP Evidence-Based Conservation Group, please contact the project leads, Madeleine McKinnon and David Wilkie . For any questions or comments on this tool, please contact the postdoctoral fellow, Samantha Cheng .

ABOUT THE METHOD


Systematic mapping


Systematic maps and reviews are transparent, robust, and repeatable methods used to identify and synthesize relevant evidence within a policy-relevant framework. These maps and reviews (SMs and SRs) aim to synthesize large bodies of evidence while minimizing bias in order to provide reliable and comprehensive information for examining impacts and informing decision making. SMs and SRs are widely conducted and used within the medical and public health sector, providing critical syntheses informing best practices and treatment efficacy (Cochrane Collaboration). Systematic maps are particularly useful for assessing the current state of the evidence base, characterizing the research that has been conducted and where key knowledge gaps exist. Both SMs and SRs are increasingly being applied to conservation, environmental management, and development fields (Pullin & Stewart 2006).


In systematic mapping, the searching and inclusion processes are conducted with the same comprehensive method as for a full review, but the process does not extend to critical appraisal or data synthesis. Data are however extracted from included studies in order to describe important aspects of the studies using a standard template and defined keywords and coding. This approach is designed to capture information on generic variables, such as the country in which a study took place, the population focus, study design and the intervention being assessed. This standard and well-defined set of keywords and codes is essential whenever classifying and characterising studies in order for reviewers to pull out key aspects of each study in a systematic way. Once the research has been mapped in this way it is then possible to identify pools of research which may be used to identify more narrowly defined review questions.

Source: CIFOR Guidance on systematic maps


You can read more about our systematic mapping process and criteria in our protocol in Environmental Evidence ( Bottrill et al. 2014 ).

ABOUT THE DATA & TOOL


How the data was compiled


The data in this portal was generated using a peer-reviewed systematic map protocol ( Bottrill et al. 2014 ) and documented in McKinnon et al. 2016 . This systematic map consists of articles that measure some impact of a nature-based conservation intervention (as defined by the IUCN-Conservation Measures Partnership (IUCN-CMP) Unified Classification of Conservation Actions) on aspects of human well-being. This map is limited to studies that examined these impacts in non-OECD countries.

For more information on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria and parameters of this search, please refer to the systematic map protocol in Environmental Evidence ( Bottrill et al. 2014 ).

For metadata on data columns, please refer to the codebook from McKinnon et al. 2014 available here .

For more details on specific categorizations of intervention type, human well-being outcome, major habitat types, ecoregion/biome types, and study design types, please see the GLOSSARY tab.

For more information about the process of conducting systematic maps, please see the METHOD tab and detailed guidelines at the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence's website


HOW TO USE THIS TOOL


This is an open access online knowledge management tool designed to help users explore the existing evidence on linkages between nature and people. The evidence collated in this tool is designed to help conservation and development policymakers, practitioners, and researchers identify relevant information for decision-making. To date, there are ~1,000 peer-reviewed articles, unpublished reports, and theses in the evidence base that were identified and included using a systematic mapping method. You can read more about the motivation behind this project, the data and methodology, and this group in the ABOUT tab above.


FAQs


I am looking for a specific action or outcome, how do I find out what category that falls into?

The glossary is the best place to figure out what types of actions or outcomes fall into which categories. Since we used either standardized typologies or synthesized frameworks, the definitions stem from those references. Below the definition, you find examples of what types of actions are included. The glossary can be found at the bottom of every page. Click the 'Show/Hide glossary' button to display the panel. You can also find the glossary in the ABOUT section, and then navigating to GLOSSARY.


Where do I filter data and explore it? Why are there so many different options?

This site is constantly in development and we are refining it to make searching for and exploring data as functional and intuitive as possible. As well, while Shiny is a fantastic method for visualizing data, it can be difficult to incorporate multiple elements that it is not designed for. Hence, there are different tabs for exploring data. We encourage you to watch the how-to video on how to explore, filter, and download data.

In general, options for exploration are located in the EXPLORE section. In the EVIDENCE MAP tab, you will find an interactive evidence map that highlights the number of articles that document a specific linkage between a type of intervention and a type of outcome. You can filter this map by region, major habitat type, and study type. You can also view the data table behind this map by clicking on the DATA TABLE tab.

The LINKAGE EXPLORER affords a different interaction with the map, allowing you dive into a specific linkage and view a bibliography of included articles.

The DASHBOARD tab allows for filtering by geographic region, habitat/ecoregion type, intervention type, and outcome type. Here you can view summaries of different variables, explore the full data, and visualize spatially on both choropleth and interactive maps.


Are there other efforts to expand from this evidence map or on other topics?

You can read more about ongoing work to build this evidence base and conduct in-depth syntheses on some of these linkages in the RESEARCH tab



FEEDBACK

We are constantly developing and honing features in order to tailor this tool for our end-users. Any feedback would be very much appreciated on functionality and utility. Please see the CONTACT tab to fill out a feedback form or you can directly email the postdoctoral fellow, Samantha Cheng at cheng@nceas.ucsb.edu .

For any questions or comments on the SNAPP Evidence-Based Conservation Group, please contact the project leads, Madeleine McKinnon and David Wilkie . For any questions or comments on this tool, please contact the postdoctoral fellow, Samantha Cheng .


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The concept for the Evidence for Nature and People Data Portal was conceived by the Evidence-Based Conservation Working Group. This portal is supported by the Science for Nature and People Partnership consisting of , the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) , The Nature Conservancy , and the Wildlife Conservation Society . Without the technical expertise and computing support from the scientific computing team at NCEAS (Julien Brun, Nick Outin, Ian McCullough, Sarah McCutcheon, Justin Kroes, Mark Schildhauer, & Lauren Walker) this tool would not have been possible. This tool was developed and piloted with a number of potential end-users including scientists, researchers, and practitioners from multiple academic, conservation, and development institutions and agencies.


Look up definitions for intervention, outcome, biome, and study design types used to categorize this evidence map. (See ABOUT for more information)


Intervention types

We use the IUCN-Conservation Measures Partnership standardized typology for conservation actions/intervention types.

Definition:

Included Actions:

Human well-being outcomes

The outcome categories were synthesized from a number of sources including Leisher et al. 2013 , Wongbusarakum et al. 2014 , and Masuda et al. 2015

Definition:

Examples:

Major habitat type, biome and ecoregion types

We used the World Wildlife Fund ecoregion definitions

Definition:

Examples:

Study design types

Study design categories were adapted from Margoluis et al. 2009 .

Definition:

Examples:


ABOUT THE GROUP


We are the Science for Nature and People Partnership (SNAPP) Evidence-Based Conservation working group. We are an interdisciplinary group of scientists and practitioners from a diverse set of academic institutions, conservation and development organizations, and government agencies. Our aim is to document the state of current evidence on the impact of conservation on human well-being and provide tools and syntheses to improve evidence-based decision making in conservation. You can read more about our group and research at the SNAPP website .

WORKING GROUP MEMBERS



Madeleine McKinnon (Lead)

Conservation International


David Wilkie (Co-Lead)

Wildlife Conservation Society


Samantha Cheng (Postdoctoral Fellow)

National Center for Ecological Analysis & Synthesis (NCEAS)


Sofia Ahlroth

The World Bank


Glenn Althor

University of Queensland


Rebecca Butterfield

USAID


Chris Cooper

University of Exeter


Peter Darche

DataKind


David Gill

Conservation International

Lynn Dicks

University of Cambridge


Louise Glew

World Wildlife Fund-US


Ruth Garside

University of Exeter


Valerie Hickey

The World Bank


Kelly Jones

Colorado State University


Maggie Holland

University of Maryland – Baltimore County


Eliot Levine

Mercy Corps


Yuta Masuda

The Nature Conservancy


Alison Bethel

University of Exeter


Daniel Miller

University of Illinois


Andrew Pullin

University of Bangor, Wales


Dilys Roe

International Institute for Environment & Development


Birte Snilstveit

International Impact Initiative (3ie)


Bill Sutherland

University of Cambridge


Emily Woodhouse

University College London and Imperial College


Supin Wongbusarakum

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


Caitlin Augustin

DataKind



FILTERING OPTIONS

Additional viewing options:

DOWNLOAD OPTIONS

Please register to download data


TOTAL ARTICLES:

IMPACT EVALUATIONS:

OPEN ACCESS:



Evidence map of conservation-human well-being linkages


Numbers within the evidence map indicate how many unique articles document that nature-based intervention and human well-being outcome linkage. Filter the evidence map by desired region and biome on the left panel.

View associated data behind the filtered evidence map.


LINKAGE EXPLORER


This tool is designed to allow you to investigate specific linkages using an interactive heatmap.
Click on cells within the heatmap to display included literature for that linkage. This will open a new page with links to included literature and options to download specific bibliographies.
Click on the intervention or outcome labels to sort the heatmap based on your selection.

This interactive map tool was created by Ian McCullough with assistance from Julien Brun, Mark Schildhauer and Lauren Walker at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS).

EXPLORE THE EVIDENCE MAP


Choose filters to display custom summary tables, datasets, and interactive maps.

TOTAL ARTICLES:

IMPACT EVALS:

OPEN ACCESS:



GEOGRAPHIC FILTERS

Filter data by region, subregion, and country


HABITAT/ECOREGION FILTERS

Filter data by major habitat type and/or ecoregions




ACTION/OUTCOME FILTERS

Filter by interventions and outcomes



Type of conservation intervention


Types of outcome

Study types

Ecoregions



GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION OF EVIDENCE BASE


UPCOMING

RECENT NEWS



Systematic map published in Environmental Evidence

May 2, 2016

Madeleine McKinnon and colleagues detail insights and patterns in the evidence base on the impact of conservation on huan well-being, along with the full dataset and bibliography. The data from this article forms the basis of this data portal.

Read more

Conservation International/DataKind team featured on DataKind blog

April 15, 2016

DataCorps Team and their work on automating the search, screening and data extraction process in systematic mapping and reviewing for conservation decision making.

Read more

SNAPP team has a productive working group meeting in Santa Barbara

February 28, 2016

SNAPP working group has their first meeting in Santa Barbara to set the agenda for the next two years.

ONGOING RESEARCH, MAPS, REVIEWS


If you are interested in learning more about these ongoing projects, see associated links and/or contact the respective project lead.


SYSTEMATIC MAP:

Forests' contribution to poverty alleviation

Partners: World Bank-Program on Forests (PROFOR), Conservation International, University of Illinois

Project lead(s): Sofia Ahlroth (World Bank), Stefanie Sieber (World Bank)

Project team: Samantha Cheng (NCEAS), Kavita MacLeod

Contact: Sofia Ahlroth or Samantha Cheng

Status: Ongoing

Links: Systematic map protocol

World Bank Program on Forests (PROFOR) Partnership

SYSTEMATIC MAP:

Effectiveness of wildlife trade policies and programs

Partners: Conservation International (CI), International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

Project lead: Neil Cox (CI/IUCN), Madeleine McKinnon (CI), Samantha Cheng (NCEAS)

Project team: , Annette Olsen (CI), Duan Biggs (University of Queensland, Janine Robinson (University of Kent), Michael Mascia (CI)

Contact: Michael Mascia or Samantha Cheng

Status: Finished

Links:

Working paper in press

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW:

Role of social equity on human well-being outcomes in conservation

Partners: University of Queensland, Conservation International, National Center for Ecological Analysis & Synthesis

Project lead: Glenn Althor (University of Queensland)

Project team: Carissa Klein (Univ. Queensland), James Watson (Univ. Queensland), Samantha Cheng (NCEAS), Madeleine McKinnon (Conservation International)

Contact: Glenn Althor

Status: Ongoing

Links:

Systematic review protocol

DATA SCIENCE

Automating searching, identifying, and filtering relevant evidence

Partners: DataKind, Conservation International

Project lead: Madeleine McKinnon (Conservation International), Samantha Cheng (NCEAS), Peter Darche (DataKind), JeanCarlo Bonilla (DataKind)

Project team: Caitlin Augustin (Kaplan), Bob Minnich (Columbia University), Burton DeWilde (Chartbeat), Sam Anzaroot (Dataminr), Ray Shah

Contact: Caitlin Augustin or Samantha Cheng

Status: Ongoing

Links:

Datakind Blog

Machine learning enabled evidence synthesis tool: Colandr app

SYSTEMATIC MAP

Evidence for impact of ecosystem services on human health

Partners: University of Exeter, University of Illinous, NCEAS

Project lead: Ruth Garside (Conservation International), Daniel Miller (University of Illinois), Samantha Cheng (NCEAS)

Project team:

Contact:

Status: Prospective

Links:

Forthcoming

SYSTEMATIC MAP

Impact of marine ecosystem-based management on ecosystem and human well-being

Partners: NCEAS, Conservation International, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Project lead: Samantha Cheng (NCEAS)

Project team: Supin Wongbusarakum (NOAA), Louise Glew (WWF), Madeleine McKinnon (CI)

Contact:

Status: Prospective

Links:

Forthcoming

SYSTEMATIC MAP & REVIEWS

Evidence on community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) impacts

Partners: Conservation International, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)

Project lead: Madeleine McKinnon (CI), Michael Mascia (CI)

Project team: David Wilkie (WCS), Louise Glew (WWF), Samantha Cheng (NCEAS)

Contact:

Status: Ongoing/Prospective

Links:

Forthcoming

CONTACT US


For more information on this SNAPP working group, please visit our website .

If you are interested in submitting evidence relevant to this topic, please contact Madeleine McKinnon and Samantha Cheng .


FEEDBACK

USER REGISTRATION

In order to download datasets from this portal, we ask that users complete a registration agreeing to appropriately cite the source of the data as:

McKinnon MC, Cheng SH, Dupre S, Edmond J, Garside R, Glew L, Holland MB, Levine E, Masuda YJ, Miller DC, Oliveria I, Revenaz J, Roe D, Shamer S, Wilkie D, Wongbusarakum S, Woodhouse E. (2016) What are the effects of nature conservation on human well-being? A systematic map of empirical evidence from developing countries. Environmental Evidence 5:8.

The Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ) applies to the article and the data made available in this article and displayed in this data portal.








GLOSSARY

Look up definitions for intervention, outcome, biome, and study design types used to categorize this evidence map. Look up abbreviations used to code different variables in the data table. (See ABOUT for more information)

Type in code abbreviations from data tables to look up code values. E.g. 'sp_mgmt' can be typed in to return it's value, 'species management.'



          

Intervention types

We use the IUCN-Conservation Measures Partnership standardized typology for conservation actions/intervention types.

Definition:

Included Actions:

Human well-being outcomes

The outcome categories were synthesized from a number of sources including Leisher et al. 2013 , Wongbusarakum et al. 2014 , and Masuda et al. 2015

Definition:

Examples:

Major habitat type, biome and ecoregion types

We used the World Wildlife Fund ecoregion definitions

Definition:

Examples:

Study design types

Study design categories were adapted from Margoluis et al. 2009 .

Definition:

Examples: