IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/oxford/v28y2012i1p69-92.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Daniela A. Miteva
  • Subhrendu K. Pattanayak
  • Paul J. Ferraro

Abstract

We review and confirm the claim that credible evaluations of common conservation instruments continue to be rare. The limited set of rigorous studies suggests that protected areas cause modest reductions in deforestation; however, the evidence base for payments for ecosystem services, decentralization policies and other interventions is much weaker. Thus, we renew our urgent call for more evaluations from many more biodiversity-relevant locations. Specifically, we call for a programme of research— Conservation Evaluation 2.0 —that seeks to measure how programme impacts vary by socio-political and bio-physical context, to track economic and environmental impacts jointly, to identify spatial spillover effects to untargeted areas, and to use theories of change to characterize causal mechanisms that can guide the collection of data and the interpretation of results. Only then can we usefully contribute to the debate over how to protect biodiversity in developing countries. Copyright 2012, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniela A. Miteva & Subhrendu K. Pattanayak & Paul J. Ferraro, 2012. "Evaluation of biodiversity policy instruments: what works and what doesn’t?," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 69-92, Spring.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:oxford:v:28:y:2012:i:1:p:69-92
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/oxrep/grs009
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:oxford:v:28:y:2012:i:1:p:69-92. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/oxrep .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.