Browsing by Autor "Nigel Asquith"

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7

Attempts to determine the effects of forest cover on stream flow by direct hydrological measurements in Los Negros, Bolivia
(Elsevier BV, 2009) Valentin Le Tellier; Alex Carrasco; Nigel Asquith
Can Forest-protection carbon projects improve rural livelihoods? Analysis of the Noel Kempff Mercado climate action project, Bolivia
(Springer Science+Business Media, 2002) Nigel Asquith; Mariana Ríos; Joyotee Smith
Embedding local values in Payments for Ecosystem Services for transformative change
(Elsevier BV, 2023) Leah L. Bremer; Sara Nelson; Sue Jackson; Santiago Izquierdo‐Tort; David Lansing; Elizabeth Shapiro‐Garza; Marta Echavarría; Caroline Upton; Nigel Asquith; Usman Isyaku
In-kind conservation payments crowd in environmental values and increase support for government intervention: A randomized trial in Bolivia
(Elsevier BV, 2019) Tara Grillos; Patrick Bottazzi; David Crespo; Nigel Asquith; Julia P. G. Jones
Mechanisms and impacts of an incentive‐based conservation program with evidence from a randomized control trial
(Wiley, 2020) Emma Wiik; Julia P. G. Jones; Edwin Pynegar; Patrick Bottazzi; Nigel Asquith; James Gibbons; Andreas Kontoleon
Conservation science needs more high-quality impact evaluations, especially ones that explore mechanisms of success or failure. Randomized control trials (RCTs) provide particularly robust evidence of the effectiveness of interventions (although they have been criticized as reductionist and unable to provide insights into mechanisms), but there have been few such experiments investigating conservation at the landscape scale. We explored the impact of Watershared, an incentive-based conservation program in the Bolivian Andes, with one of the few RCTs of landscape-scale conservation in existence. There is strong interest in such incentive-based conservation approaches as some argue they can avoid negative social impacts sometimes associated with protected areas. We focused on social and environmental outcomes based on responses from a household survey in 129 communities randomly allocated to control or treatment (conducted both at the baseline in 2010 and repeated in 2015-2016). We controlled for incomplete program uptake by combining standard RCT analysis with matching methods and investigated mechanisms by exploring intermediate and ultimate outcomes according to the underlying theory of change. Previous analyses, focused on single biophysical outcomes, showed that over its first 5 years Watershared did not slow deforestation or improve water quality at the landscape scale. We found that Watershared influenced some outcomes measured using the survey, but the effects were complex, and some were unexpected. We thus demonstrated how RCTs can provide insights into the pathways of impact, as well as whether an intervention has impact. This paper, one of the first registered reports in conservation science, demonstrates how preregistration can help make complex research designs more transparent, avoid cherry picking, and reduce publication bias.
Selling two environmental services: In-kind payments for bird habitat and watershed protection in Los Negros, Bolivia
(Elsevier BV, 2008) Nigel Asquith; María Teresa Vargas; Sven Wunder
The researcher–practitioner symbiosis: Evolving mutualisms from parachutes
(Society for Conservation Biology, 2022) María Teresa Vargas; Máximo Garcia; Tito Vidaurre; Alex Carrasco; Natalia M. Araújo; Camille Medema; Nigel Asquith; Edwin Pynegar; Conrado Tobón; Yurani Manco
Abstract Researchers and practitioners often exist symbiotically, but this relationship does not always benefit both parties. We here discuss a mutualistic research symbiosis that our organizations have developed over the last decade, the challenges which we have experienced as part of this process, and how our experiences may help others intending to develop such mutualisms. The defining characteristic of our model is that conservation implementers, not investigators, lead the research. This power balance has promoted synergies between researchers and practitioners and has resulted in one of the first ever Randomized Control Trials of a conservation intervention. We have shortened the distance between basic research and field practices by ensuring that the people who will use the results of an investigation play a lead role in designing and implementing it. Local conservation practitioners have been trained in cutting edge scientific methodologies, while university researchers have had an unparalleled role in designing the conservation and development intervention. Our research model is not perfect, however. Although we have facilitated tight relationships between implementers and researchers, such partnerships take significant resources to develop. Moreover, shortening the traditional “arm's length” distance between implementers and investigators is a double‐edged sword: some donors are uncomfortable that our researchers and practitioners comprise a mutually dependent team. Nevertheless, we believe that our model's benefits outweigh its costs. When our researchers undertake their investigations, they do so in ways that do not simply meet their publication needs. Rather, the integration of partners into a mutualistic research team ensures that our investigations are both scientifically cutting edge and that they can improve our conservation initiatives on the ground in real time.