Dataset Information

Estimating the Counterfactual Impact of Conservation Programs on Land Cover Outcomes: The Role of Matching and Panel Regression Techniques.

ABSTRACT: Deforestation and conversion of native habitats continues to be the leading driver of biodiversity and ecosystem service loss. A number of conservation policies and programs are implemented--from protected areas to payments for ecosystem services (PES)--to deter these losses. Currently, empirical evidence on whether these approaches stop or slow land cover change is lacking, but there is increasing interest in conducting rigorous, counterfactual impact evaluations, especially for many new conservation approaches, such as PES and REDD, which emphasize additionality. In addition, several new, globally available and free high-resolution remote sensing datasets have increased the ease of carrying out an impact evaluation on land cover change outcomes. While the number of conservation evaluations utilizing 'matching' to construct a valid control group is increasing, the majority of these studies use simple differences in means or linear cross-sectional regression to estimate the impact of the conservation program using this matched sample, with relatively few utilizing fixed effects panel methods--an alternative estimation method that relies on temporal variation in the data. In this paper we compare the advantages and limitations of (1) matching to construct the control group combined with differences in means and cross-sectional regression, which control for observable forms of bias in program evaluation, to (2) fixed effects panel methods, which control for observable and time-invariant unobservable forms of bias, with and without matching to create the control group. We then use these four approaches to estimate forest cover outcomes for two conservation programs: a PES program in Northeastern Ecuador and strict protected areas in European Russia. In the Russia case we find statistically significant differences across estimators--due to the presence of unobservable bias--that lead to differences in conclusions about effectiveness. The Ecuador case illustrates that if time-invariant unobservables are not present, matching combined with differences in means or cross-sectional regression leads to similar estimates of program effectiveness as matching combined with fixed effects panel regression. These results highlight the importance of considering observable and unobservable forms of bias and the methodological assumptions across estimators when designing an impact evaluation of conservation programs.

SUBMITTER: Jones KW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4621053 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Estimating the Counterfactual Impact of Conservation Programs on Land Cover Outcomes: The Role of Matching and Panel Regression Techniques.

Jones Kelly W KW Lewis David J DJ

PloS one 20151026 10

Deforestation and conversion of native habitats continues to be the leading driver of biodiversity and ecosystem service loss. A number of conservation policies and programs are implemented--from protected areas to payments for ecosystem services (PES)--to deter these losses. Currently, empirical evidence on whether these approaches stop or slow land cover change is lacking, but there is increasing interest in conducting rigorous, counterfactual impact evaluations, especially for many new conser ...[more]

PMID: 26501964

Similar Datasets

Project description:Malaria is a mosquito-borne parasitic disease that causes severe mortality and morbidity, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa. As the vectors predominantly bite between dusk and dawn, risk of infection is determined by the abundance of P. falciparum infected mosquitoes in the surroundings of the households. Remote sensing is commonly employed to detect associations between land use/land cover (LULC) and mosquito-borne diseases. Due to challenges in LULC identification and the fact that LULC merely functions as a proxy for mosquito abundance, assuming spatially homogenous relationships may lead to overgeneralized conclusions.Data on incidence of P. falciparum parasitaemia were recorded by active and passive follow-up over two years. Nine LULC types were identified through remote sensing and ground-truthing. Spatial associations of LULC and P. falciparum parasitaemia rate were described in a semi-parametric geographically weighted Poisson regression model.Complete data were available for 878 individuals, with an annual P. falciparum rate of 3.2 infections per person-year at risk. The influences of built-up areas (median incidence rate ratio (IRR): 0.94, IQR: 0.46), forest (median IRR: 0.9, IQR: 0.51), swampy areas (median IRR: 1.15, IQR: 0.88), as well as banana (median IRR: 1.02, IQR: 0.25), cacao (median IRR: 1.33, IQR: 0.97) and orange plantations (median IRR: 1.11, IQR: 0.68) on P. falciparum rate show strong spatial variations within the study area. Incorporating spatial variability of LULC variables increased model performance compared to the spatially homogenous model.The observed spatial variability of LULC influence in parasitaemia would have been masked by traditional Poisson regression analysis assuming a spatially constant influence of all variables. We conclude that the spatially varying effects of LULC on P. falciparum parasitaemia may in fact be associated with co-factors not captured by remote sensing, and suggest that future studies assess small-scale spatial variation of vegetation to circumvent generalised assumptions on ecological associations that may in fact be artificial.

Dataset Information

Estimating the Counterfactual Impact of Conservation Programs on Land Cover Outcomes: The Role of Matching and Panel Regression Techniques.

Publications

Estimating the Counterfactual Impact of Conservation Programs on Land Cover Outcomes: The Role of Matching and Panel Regression Techniques.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets