Forest floor temperature and greenness link significantly to canopy attributes in South Africa's fragmented coastal forests

A systems approach framework for evaluating tree restoration interventions for social and ecological outcomes in rural tropical landscapes

The science guiding design and evaluation of restoration interventions in tropical landscapes is dominated by ecological processes and outcomes and lacks indicators and methods that integrate human wellbeing into the restoration process. We apply a new systems approach framework for tree restoration in forest-agricultural landscapes to show how this shortcoming can be addressed. Demonstrating 'proof of concept', we tested statistical models underlying the framework pathways with data collected from a case study in Tanzania. Local community perceptions of nature's values were not affected by levels of self-reported wildlife-induced crop damage. But mapped predictions from the systems approach under a tree restoration scenario suggested differential outcomes for biodiversity indicators and altered spatial patterns of crop damage risk, expected to jeopardize human wellbeing. The predictions map anticipated trade-offs in costs and benefits of restoration scenarios, which we have started to explore with stakeholders to identify restoration opportunities that consider local knowledge, value systems and human wellbeing. We suggest that the framework be applied to other landscapes to identify commonalities and differences in forest landscape restoration outcomes under varying governance and land use systems. This should form a foundation for evidence-based implementation of the global drive for forest landscape restoration, at local scales. This article is part of the theme issue 'Understanding forest landscape restoration: reinforcing scientific foundations for the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration'.

Using big data for evaluating development outcomes: A systematic map

BACKGROUND

Policy makers need access to reliable data to monitor and evaluate the progress of development outcomes and targets such as sustainable development outcomes (SDGs). However, significant data and evidence gaps remain. Lack of resources, limited capacity within governments and logistical difficulties in collecting data are some of the reasons for the data gaps. Big data-that is digitally generated, passively produced and automatically collected-offers a great potential for answering some of the data needs. Satellite and sensors, mobile phone call detail records, online transactions and search data, and social media are some of the examples of big data. Integrating big data with the traditional household surveys and administrative data can complement data availability, quality, granularity, accuracy and frequency, and help measure development outcomes temporally and spatially in a number of new ways.The study maps different sources of big data onto development outcomes (based on SDGs) to identify current evidence base, use and the gaps. The map provides a visual overview of existing and ongoing studies. This study also discusses the risks, biases and ethical challenges in using big data for measuring and evaluating development outcomes. The study is a valuable resource for evaluators, researchers, funders, policymakers and practitioners in their effort to contributing to evidence informed policy making and in achieving the SDGs.

OBJECTIVES

Identify and appraise rigorous impact evaluations (IEs), systematic reviews and the studies that have innovatively used big data to measure any development outcomes with special reference to difficult contexts.

SEARCH METHODS

A number of general and specialised data bases and reporsitories of organisations were searched using keywords related to big data by an information specialist.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The studies were selected on basis of whether they used big data sources to measure or evaluate development outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data collection was conducted using a data extraction tool and all extracted data was entered into excel and then analysed using Stata. The data analysis involved looking at trends and descriptive statistics only.

MAIN RESULTS

The search yielded over 17,000 records, which we then screened down to 437 studies which became the foundation of our systematic map. We found that overall, there is a sizable and rapidly growing number of measurement studies using big data but a much smaller number of IEs. We also see that the bulk of the big data sources are machine-generated (mostly satellites) represented in the light blue. We find that satellite data was used in over 70% of the measurement studies and in over 80% of the IEs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This map gives us a sense that there is a lot of work being done to develop appropriate measures using big data which could subsequently be used in IEs. Information on costs, ethics, transparency is lacking in the studies and more work is needed in this area to understand the efficacies related to the use of big data. There are a number of outcomes which are not being studied using big data, either due to the lack to applicability such as education or due to lack of awareness about the new methods and data sources. The map points to a number of gaps as well as opportunities where future researchers can conduct research.

Can Habitat Quality Index Measured Using the InVEST Model Explain Variations in Bird Diversity in an Urban Area?

Biodiversity maintenance is a crucial ecosystem service. Due to time limits and data availability, assessing biodiversity using indicators or models has become a hot topic in recent decades. However, whether some proposed indicators can explain biodiversity well at the local scale is still unclear. This study attempted to test whether the habitat quality index (HQI) as measured using the integrated valuation of ecosystem services and trade-offs (InVEST) model could explain variations in bird diversity in New Jiangwan Town, a rapidly urbanized region of Shanghai, China. The relationships from 2002 to 2013 among HQI and the two diversity indices, species richness and species abundance, were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test and gray correlation analysis. No significant association was found. Habitat connectivity was then integrated to develop a new combined indicator of habitat quality and connectivity index (HQCI). The associations between HQCI and the two diversity indices were improved significantly. The results indicated that connectivity may be an important factor explaining the diversity of certain species at a local scale. More empirical studies should be conducted to provide scientific evidence relating habitat quality to biodiversity.