Strengthen causal models for better conservation outcomes for human well-being.

dc.contributor.author

Cheng, Samantha H

dc.contributor.author

McKinnon, Madeleine C

dc.contributor.author

Masuda, Yuta J

dc.contributor.author

Garside, Ruth

dc.contributor.author

Jones, Kelly W

dc.contributor.author

Miller, Daniel C

dc.contributor.author

Pullin, Andrew S

dc.contributor.author

Sutherland, William J

dc.contributor.author

Augustin, Caitlin

dc.contributor.author

Gill, David A

dc.contributor.author

Wongbusarakum, Supin

dc.contributor.author

Wilkie, David

dc.contributor.editor

Vincenot, Christian

dc.date.accessioned

2020-04-30T18:46:09Z

dc.date.available

2020-04-30T18:46:09Z

dc.date.issued

2020-01

dc.date.updated

2020-04-30T18:46:08Z

dc.description.abstract

BACKGROUND:Understanding how the conservation of nature can lead to improvement in human conditions is a research area with significant growth and attention. Progress towards effective conservation requires understanding mechanisms for achieving impact within complex social-ecological systems. Causal models are useful tools for defining plausible pathways from conservation actions to impacts on nature and people. Evaluating the potential of different strategies for delivering co-benefits for nature and people will require the use and testing of clear causal models that explicitly define the logic and assumptions behind cause and effect relationships. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS:In this study, we outline criteria for credible causal models and systematically evaluated their use in a broad base of literature (~1,000 peer-reviewed and grey literature articles from a published systematic evidence map) on links between nature-based conservation actions and human well-being impacts. RESULTS:Out of 1,027 publications identified, only ~20% of articles used any type of causal models to guide their work, and only 14 total articles fulfilled all criteria for credibility. Articles rarely tested the validity of models with empirical data. IMPLICATIONS:Not using causal models risks poorly defined strategies, misunderstanding of potential mechanisms for affecting change, inefficient use of resources, and focusing on implausible efforts for achieving sustainability.

dc.identifier

PONE-D-19-07321

dc.identifier.issn

1932-6203

dc.identifier.issn

1932-6203

dc.identifier.uri

https://hdl.handle.net/10161/20569

dc.language

eng

dc.publisher

Public Library of Science (PLoS)

dc.relation.ispartof

PloS one

dc.relation.isversionof

10.1371/journal.pone.0230495

dc.title

Strengthen causal models for better conservation outcomes for human well-being.

dc.type

Journal article

duke.contributor.orcid

Gill, David A|0000-0002-7550-1761

pubs.begin-page

e0230495

pubs.issue

3

pubs.organisational-group

Nicholas School of the Environment

pubs.organisational-group

Marine Science and Conservation

pubs.organisational-group

Duke

pubs.publication-status

Published

pubs.volume

15

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Strengthen causal models for better conservation outcomes for human well-being.pdf
Size:
991.49 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format