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

Evaluating connections between personal well-being and adoption of landscape best management practices: An audience segmentation study

Integrated pest management and outdoor water conservation comprise key practices encouraged by nonformal educators who work with the public to address significant issues related to water quality and availability. Disconnects among diverse audiences and educational programs pose challenges in achieving the goals of these types of programs. To discern a potential nonformal educational programming strategy, we conducted audience segmentation research incorporating residential environmental landscape best management practices and compared resulting subgroups' characteristics. We explored this paradigm through the context of Extension education and used a nationally-distributed electronic survey instrument to measure well-being and landscape management perceptions and practices in the United States. We collected 2601 complete survey responses and employed cluster analysis to divide the respondents into homogenous subgroups, followed by analysis of variance and chi-square analyses to identify differences among the subgroups. The group that indicated the highest level of engagement with water conservation and IPM practices also had significantly higher well-being, demonstrating the potential to align IPM education with more commonly promoted conservation practices. Membership in the highest IPM and water conservation group was related to several socio-demographic characteristics, including age, homeownership, and homeowners' association membership. This group was also most likely to engage with educational programs. Understanding these indicators of engagement in landscape best management practices and nonformal education, along with higher well-being, may be useful in determining target audiences and potential engagement with nonformal education programs.

'It's not just about fish': Assessing the social impacts of marine protected areas on the wellbeing of coastal communities in New South Wales

Managing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) is about managing human behaviours, but decision-making processes have traditionally focussed on ecological aspects, treating social aspects as secondary. It is now becoming more evident that an equal focus on the ecological and social aspects is required. Without the collection of information about social aspect such as impacts and sharing this as well as ecological information with communities, MPAs are at higher risk of opposition and social acceptability problems. This paper explores the development of a wellbeing framework to understand the social aspects, including the impacts of MPAs on the wellbeing of local communities. This research investigates two case study MPAs: Cape Byron and Port Stephens-Great Lakes Marine Parks in New South Wales, Australia. The MPAs are multiple-use and were implemented in 2006 and 2007, respectively. The research began with a review of the literature, followed by fieldwork, including semi-structured qualitative interviews with community members. Through thematic coding of the interview transcripts in light of the literature on assessing the social impacts of MPAs, a community wellbeing framework of domains and associated attributes was developed to investigate social impacts. Our analysis shows; first, local perspectives are crucial to understanding social impacts. Second, understanding social impacts gives insight into the nature of trade-offs that occur in decision-making regarding MPAs. Third, the intangible social impacts experienced by local communities are just as significant as the tangible ones for understanding how MPAs operate. Fourth, governance impacts have been the most influential factor affecting the social acceptability of the case study parks. We argue that failure to address negative social impacts can undermine the legitimacy of MPAs. We propose that the framework will support policymakers to work towards more effective, equitable and socially sustainable MPAs by employing much-needed monitoring of human dimensions of conservation interventions at the community level to shape adaptive management.

Socioeconomic effects of protected areas in Spain across spatial scales and protection levels

Impacts of the legal designation of protected areas (PAs) may have contrasting implications for different stakeholders, and at different spatial scales. In this study, we analysed the organisational perception on the socioeconomic effects of PA designation from all sectors of activity in Spain, accounting for PAs' legal stringency. A semi-structured questionnaire was administered to 68 organisations at national, regional (Andalusia) and local scales (two municipalities in the Almeria province, Andalusia) through an online survey. Local stakeholders and the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors were most concerned about the social and economic impacts of PAs designation on their organisations. By contrast, organisations at the national or regional scales together with public institutions, the quaternary sector and other miscellaneous stakeholders perceived predominantly positive effects. Only national organisations perceived an increase in local social and economic effects from the designation of legally stringent PAs with regard to multiple-use PAs.

Incorporating basic needs to reconcile poverty and ecosystem services

Conservation managers frequently face the challenge of protecting and sustaining biodiversity without producing detrimental outcomes for (often poor) human populations that depend on ecosystem services for their well-being. However, mutually beneficial solutions are often elusive and can mask trade-offs and negative outcomes for people. To deal with such trade-offs, ecological and social thresholds need to be identified to determine the acceptable solution space for conservation. Although human well-being as a concept has recently gained prominence, conservationists still lack tools to evaluate how their actions affect it in a given context. We applied the theory of human needs to conservation by building on an extensive historical application of need approaches in international development. In an innovative participatory method that included focus groups and household surveys, we evaluated how human needs are met based on locally relevant thresholds. We then established connections between human needs and ecosystem services through key-informant focus groups. We applied our method in coastal East Africa to identify households that would not be able to meet their basic needs and to uncover the role of ecosystem services in meeting these. This enabled us to identify how benefits derived from the environment were contributing to meeting basic needs and to consider potential repercussions that could arise through changes to ecosystem service provision. We suggest our approach can help conservationists and planners balance poverty alleviation and biodiversity protection and ensure conservation measures do not, at the very least, cause serious harm to individuals. We further argue it can be used as a basis for monitoring the impacts of conservation on multidimensional poverty.

No net loss for people and biodiversity

Governments, businesses, and lenders worldwide are adopting an objective of no net loss (NNL) of biodiversity that is often partly achieved through biodiversity offsetting within a hierarchy of mitigation actions. Offsets aim to balance residual losses of biodiversity caused by development in one location with commensurate gains at another. Although ecological challenges to achieve NNL are debated, the associated gains and losses for local stakeholders have received less attention. International best practice calls for offsets to make people no worse off than before implementation of the project, but there is a lack of clarity concerning how to achieve this with regard to people's use and nonuse values for biodiversity, especially given the inevitable trade-offs when compensating biodiversity losses with gains elsewhere. This is particularly challenging for countries where poor people depend on natural resources. Badly planned offsets can exacerbate poverty, and development and offset impacts can vary across spatial-temporal scales and by location, gender, and livelihood. We conceptualize the no-worse-off principle in the context of NNL of biodiversity, by exploring for whom and how the principle can be achieved. Changes in the spatial and temporal distribution of biodiversity-related social impacts of a development and its associated offset can lead to social inequity and negatively impact people's well-being. The level of aggregation (regional, village, interest group, household, and individual) at which these social impacts are measured and balanced can again exacerbate inequity in a system. We propose that a determination that people are no worse off, and preferably better off, after a development and biodiversity offset project than they were before the project should be based on the perceptions of project-affected people (assessed at an appropriate level of aggregation); that their well-being associated with biodiversity losses and gains should be at least as good as it was before the project; and that this level of well-being should be maintained throughout the project life cycle. Employing this principle could help ensure people are no worse off as a result of interventions to achieve biodiversity NNL.