Building the evidence base for REDD+: Study design and methods for evaluating the impacts of conservation interventions on local well-being

Erin O. Sills, Claudio de Sassi, Pamela Jagger, Kathleen Lawlor, Daniela A. Miteva, Subhrendu K. Pattanayak, William D. Sunderlin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  • 19 Citations

Abstract

Climate change mitigation in developing countries is increasingly expected to generate co-benefits that help meet sustainable development goals. This has been an expectation and a hotly contested issue in REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) since its inception. While the core purpose of REDD+ is to reduce carbon emissions, its legitimacy and success also depend on its impacts on local well-being. To effectively safeguard against negative impacts, we need to know whether and which well-being outcomes can be attributed to REDD+. Yet, distinguishing the effects of choosing particular locations for REDD+ from the effects of the interventions themselves remains a challenge. The Global Comparative Study (GCS) on REDD+ employed a quasi-experimental before-after-control-intervention (BACI) study design to address this challenge and evaluate the impacts of 16 REDD+ pilots across the tropics. We find that the GCS approach allows identification of control groups that represent the counterfactual, thereby permitting attribution of outcomes to REDD+. The GCS experience belies many of the common critiques of the BACI design, especially concerns about collecting baseline data on control groups. Our findings encourage and validate the early planning and up-front investments required to evaluate the local impacts of global climate change mitigation efforts with confidence. The stakes are high, both for the global environment and for local populations directly affected by those efforts. The standards for evidence should be concomitantly high.

LanguageEnglish (US)
Pages148-160
Number of pages13
JournalGlobal Environmental Change
Volume43
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2017

Fingerprint

comparative study
conservation
well-being
evidence
climate change
carbon emission
deforestation
global climate
tropics
sustainable development
local population
developing world
attribution
legitimacy
Group
confidence
developing country
planning
method
experience

Keywords

  • Climate change mitigation
  • Conservation and development
  • Impact evaluation
  • REDD+
  • Well-being

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Global and Planetary Change
  • Geography, Planning and Development
  • Ecology
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Cite this

Building the evidence base for REDD+ : Study design and methods for evaluating the impacts of conservation interventions on local well-being. / Sills, Erin O.; de Sassi, Claudio; Jagger, Pamela; Lawlor, Kathleen; Miteva, Daniela A.; Pattanayak, Subhrendu K.; Sunderlin, William D.

In: Global Environmental Change, Vol. 43, 01.03.2017, p. 148-160.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sills, Erin O. ; de Sassi, Claudio ; Jagger, Pamela ; Lawlor, Kathleen ; Miteva, Daniela A. ; Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. ; Sunderlin, William D./ Building the evidence base for REDD+ : Study design and methods for evaluating the impacts of conservation interventions on local well-being. In: Global Environmental Change. 2017 ; Vol. 43. pp. 148-160
@article{520dcb0ce1ed4aebbe417da89bde6904,
title = "Building the evidence base for REDD+: Study design and methods for evaluating the impacts of conservation interventions on local well-being",
abstract = "Climate change mitigation in developing countries is increasingly expected to generate co-benefits that help meet sustainable development goals. This has been an expectation and a hotly contested issue in REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) since its inception. While the core purpose of REDD+ is to reduce carbon emissions, its legitimacy and success also depend on its impacts on local well-being. To effectively safeguard against negative impacts, we need to know whether and which well-being outcomes can be attributed to REDD+. Yet, distinguishing the effects of choosing particular locations for REDD+ from the effects of the interventions themselves remains a challenge. The Global Comparative Study (GCS) on REDD+ employed a quasi-experimental before-after-control-intervention (BACI) study design to address this challenge and evaluate the impacts of 16 REDD+ pilots across the tropics. We find that the GCS approach allows identification of control groups that represent the counterfactual, thereby permitting attribution of outcomes to REDD+. The GCS experience belies many of the common critiques of the BACI design, especially concerns about collecting baseline data on control groups. Our findings encourage and validate the early planning and up-front investments required to evaluate the local impacts of global climate change mitigation efforts with confidence. The stakes are high, both for the global environment and for local populations directly affected by those efforts. The standards for evidence should be concomitantly high.",
keywords = "Climate change mitigation, Conservation and development, Impact evaluation, REDD+, Well-being",
author = "Sills, {Erin O.} and {de Sassi}, Claudio and Pamela Jagger and Kathleen Lawlor and Miteva, {Daniela A.} and Pattanayak, {Subhrendu K.} and Sunderlin, {William D.}",
year = "2017",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.02.002",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "43",
pages = "148--160",
journal = "Global Environmental Change",
issn = "0959-3780",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Building the evidence base for REDD+

T2 - Global Environmental Change

AU - Sills,Erin O.

AU - de Sassi,Claudio

AU - Jagger,Pamela

AU - Lawlor,Kathleen

AU - Miteva,Daniela A.

AU - Pattanayak,Subhrendu K.

AU - Sunderlin,William D.

PY - 2017/3/1

Y1 - 2017/3/1

N2 - Climate change mitigation in developing countries is increasingly expected to generate co-benefits that help meet sustainable development goals. This has been an expectation and a hotly contested issue in REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) since its inception. While the core purpose of REDD+ is to reduce carbon emissions, its legitimacy and success also depend on its impacts on local well-being. To effectively safeguard against negative impacts, we need to know whether and which well-being outcomes can be attributed to REDD+. Yet, distinguishing the effects of choosing particular locations for REDD+ from the effects of the interventions themselves remains a challenge. The Global Comparative Study (GCS) on REDD+ employed a quasi-experimental before-after-control-intervention (BACI) study design to address this challenge and evaluate the impacts of 16 REDD+ pilots across the tropics. We find that the GCS approach allows identification of control groups that represent the counterfactual, thereby permitting attribution of outcomes to REDD+. The GCS experience belies many of the common critiques of the BACI design, especially concerns about collecting baseline data on control groups. Our findings encourage and validate the early planning and up-front investments required to evaluate the local impacts of global climate change mitigation efforts with confidence. The stakes are high, both for the global environment and for local populations directly affected by those efforts. The standards for evidence should be concomitantly high.

AB - Climate change mitigation in developing countries is increasingly expected to generate co-benefits that help meet sustainable development goals. This has been an expectation and a hotly contested issue in REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) since its inception. While the core purpose of REDD+ is to reduce carbon emissions, its legitimacy and success also depend on its impacts on local well-being. To effectively safeguard against negative impacts, we need to know whether and which well-being outcomes can be attributed to REDD+. Yet, distinguishing the effects of choosing particular locations for REDD+ from the effects of the interventions themselves remains a challenge. The Global Comparative Study (GCS) on REDD+ employed a quasi-experimental before-after-control-intervention (BACI) study design to address this challenge and evaluate the impacts of 16 REDD+ pilots across the tropics. We find that the GCS approach allows identification of control groups that represent the counterfactual, thereby permitting attribution of outcomes to REDD+. The GCS experience belies many of the common critiques of the BACI design, especially concerns about collecting baseline data on control groups. Our findings encourage and validate the early planning and up-front investments required to evaluate the local impacts of global climate change mitigation efforts with confidence. The stakes are high, both for the global environment and for local populations directly affected by those efforts. The standards for evidence should be concomitantly high.

KW - Climate change mitigation

KW - Conservation and development

KW - Impact evaluation

KW - REDD+

KW - Well-being

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85014311481&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85014311481&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.02.002

DO - 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.02.002

M3 - Article

VL - 43

SP - 148

EP - 160

JO - Global Environmental Change

JF - Global Environmental Change

SN - 0959-3780

ER -