Environmental Impact Assessment Review 98 (2023) 106929

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Impact Assessment Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

Review of the approaches for assessing protected areas’ effectiveness

Haojie Chen a, *, Tong Zhang b, Robert Costanza c, Ida Kubiszewski c
a
Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
b
Centre for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing 100081, China
c
Institute for Global Prosperity, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Sustainable development requires improvement of both the quantity and quality of protected areas (PAs). This
Effectiveness assessment paper reviews the assessments of PAs’ effectiveness and provides further guidance of using the assessment ap­
Methodology proaches, including: (1) evaluation based on a theory of change that describes how and why an intervention is
Policy impact
supposed to work; (2) counterfactual evaluation using a random or constructed control group, or baseline of the
Counterfactual
Theory of change
treatment group as the counterfactual; (3) economic evaluation that assesses benefits and costs of interventions;
Cost-benefit-effectiveness analysis (4) consultation; (5) case studies; (6) rapid assessments based on readily available evaluation sheets (e.g.,
scorecards); and (7) approaches focusing on a specific aspect of PAs (e.g., ecological integrity, representativeness,
and threats). These approaches have different characteristics and suitability to different assessment purposes and
should be selected accordingly. For future research, we anticipate (1) an expanded PA effectiveness assessment
guidebook integrating detailed instructions of the approaches and potential indicators, (2) more practical
control-group-constructing techniques (3) more sophisticated and reliable techniques for valuing ecosystem
services and biodiversity, and (4) further work to clarify the features of different evaluation sheets for rapid
assessments. In terms of linkage with global initiatives, this review may help in the preparation of the National
Reports (that indicate information on PAs’ effectiveness) submitted to the Convention on Biological Diversity and
evaluation of actions taken to fulfill PA-related goals of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals,
Convention to Combat Desertification 2018–2030 Strategic Framework, Paris Agreement, and especially Post-
2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.

1. Introduction interventions of establishing and managing PAs contribute to expected

environmental or socioeconomic changes, and the relative costs of
A protected area (PA) denotes “a clearly defined geographical space, achieving the goals. Effectiveness assessment addresses how and why
recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective PAs and their relevant interventions are contributing to desired out­
means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated comes or targets, reflects upon the likely outcomes from alternative
ecosystem services (ESs) and cultural values” (IUCN, 2008). ESs are the policies, considers capacity of finance and staff, informs management
benefits humans receive from functioning ecosystems (Millennium adjustments, and considers improvement of the allocation of limited
Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). PAs currently cover approximately resources (GEF-6, 2014; Geldmann et al., 2018; Geldmann et al., 2019;
16.64% of global land and inland water ecosystems and 7.74% of coastal Pomeroy et al., 2004).
waters and the ocean (UNEP, 2021). While the number and area of PAs, However, assessments of PAs’ effectiveness remain challenging at
as well as recognition of PAs’ contributions to a sustainable future for all the global level (Bacon et al., 2019; Gannon et al., 2019), and have been
life on Earth, is growing (CBD, 2020a), PAs must also improve their undertaken across only 18.29% of the area covered by PAs worldwide,
effectiveness, rather than being “paper parks” existing in name only (Di well below the 60% target set by Parties to the CBD (UNEP-WCMC and
Minin and Toivonen, 2015). Being effective means affecting, being IUCN, 2021). This is partially because it can be difficult to identify
needed for, or having relatively low costs for, the achievement of suitable assessment approaches (Coad et al., 2015; Geldmann et al.,
planned targets or desired outcomes (UNEP, 2019). Hence, PAs’ effec­ 2021; UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2021), while some toolkits and guidance
tiveness can be considered as the extent to which the policies/ on effectiveness assessment have been developed (Table 1). Hence, there

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (H. Chen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106929
Received 7 June 2022; Received in revised form 19 September 2022; Accepted 20 September 2022
0195-9255/© 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
H. Chen et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 98 (2023) 106929

is a continued need for further guidance of using the assessment ap­ Table 2
proaches, including what the approaches are, how and when to use or Search terms.
improve the approaches, and what PA-related global targets the ap­ Terms Number of the total Number of the
proaches may be used to assess. Compared to each of the guiding doc­ search results articles selected for
uments in Table 1, this review not only covers more comprehensive displayed final review
categories of approaches, but also, more importantly, further compares (“protected area” OR “nature reserve” 2384 30
and explains how the approaches of different or the same categories OR “national park” OR
differ from, share similarities with, or work better than, each other in “conservation area”) AND

specific real-world assessments. Moreover, this review suggests future

“effectiveness”
(“protected area” OR “nature reserve” 10,752 15
research for improving the approaches’ applicability and outlines their OR “national park” OR
linkage with several major global PA-related initiatives. “conservation area”) AND
Notably, effectiveness assessment approaches in different disciplines (“evaluation” OR “evaluating” OR
“assessment” OR “assessing”)
(e.g., medicine, economics, environmental studies) may share the same
(“policy effectiveness”) AND 35 10
rationales and principles (e.g., assessing what changes are made) (“evaluation” OR “evaluating” OR
regardless of different assessment objects and indicators. We also “assessment” OR “assessing”) AND
acknowledge that interpretations of effectiveness may change in (“environment”)
different regional contexts and assessments with different scopes of (“impact evaluation” OR “evaluating 466 5
impact”) AND (“environment”)
applicability. Moreover, when being scaled, PAs may change effective­
ness in a nonlinear way.
check). We also scanned references of the literature selected to identify
2. Methods over 30 additional articles.
We collected effectiveness assessment approaches from the selected
We reviewed two groups of literature. The first was the CBD’s literature and added at least one empirical example to each specific
literature, including two guiding documents of effectiveness assessment, approach. We analysed the approaches qualitatively, including what the
the 5th National Reports of 193 Parties, the 6th National Reports of 189 approaches are, how and when to use or improve the approaches, and
Parties, and the latest versions of National Biodiversity Strategy and what PA-related global targets the approaches may be used to assess.
Action Plans of 196 Parties. These reports, especially the 6th National Thereafter, we removed approaches with low applicability, such as the
Reports, indicate the effectiveness of the Parties’ PAs and associated Management Analysis and Monitoring System controlled by the Brazil­
assessment approaches. Therefore, the CBD’s literature is a useful in­ ian government. Referring to existing guidance and our knowledge, we
formation source. categorised the remaining approaches based on their features. Specif­
The second group was literature external to the CBD, including books ically, theory-based evaluation, economic evaluation, case studies, and
and peer-reviewed papers in journals related to environmental studies, consultation are common categories in the previous guidance (Table 1)
as well as official literature from governments, environmental NGOs, and were adopted in this paper. Experimental, quasi-experimental, and
and inter-governmental international organisations. We reviewed the non-experimental designs are also common types, but we categorised
non-CBD guidance in Table 1 first, and then used Web of Science to these three types of designs into counterfactual evaluation because they
search specific terms (Table 2) in English language in the topic, title, all need a counterfactual. Rapid assessments based on readily available
abstract, or keywords from 1st January 2000 to 28th February 2022 to evaluation sheets and approaches focusing on a specific aspect are not
include more literature. Search results were automatically ranked by the categories used by the previous guidance (which only mentioned
relevance. We initially included the top 30 search results, and further specific approaches in these two categories). Instead, these two cate­
checked their relevance by reading the titles, abstracts, or executive gories were proposed by us, as they can summarise the features of the
summaries to select the final literature for review (namely, some of the approaches in section 3.6 and 3.7, respectively.
initial 30 results in each query were excluded after further relevance

Table 1
A subset of guidance/reviews of approaches for assessing effectiveness.
Documents Main categories of assessment approaches

Theory-based Counterfactual Economic Consultation Case Rapid assessment based on Approaches focusing on a
evaluation evaluation evaluation study evaluation sheets specific aspect of PAs

Hockings et al. X X
(2006)
Leverington et al. X X
(2008)
Nolte et al. (2010) X X
Stoll-Kleemann X
(2010)
Anthony (2014) X
Ferraro and Hanauer X
(2014)
Gertler et al. (2016) X X
CBD (2015) X X X X
CBD (2017) X X X X X
Karousakis (2018) X X X
UNEP (2019) X X
Karadeniz and X X
Yenilmez (2022)
UNEP-WCMC, IUCN X X
(2022)

Note: The approach categories will be explained in the Results section. “X” indicates that a category is included.

2
H. Chen et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 98 (2023) 106929

3. Results Counterfactual evaluation has the following subcategories.

The following categories of approaches are ordered based on the 3.2.1. Experimental designs
scope of their potential applicability (see more explanations of the Experimental designs (may also be termed as “randomisation” or
applicability in section 4.1). “random controlled trial”) use a randomly-assigned control group as the
counterfactual, and only give intervention to the treatment group (CBD,
3.1. Theory-based evaluation 2017). However, the objects of policy interventions are often complex
systems, hence it can be infeasible to identify a random control group.
Theory-based evaluation uses a theory of change throughout the Also, it may be unethical to deliberately withhold the benefits of an
causal chain of a policy (Jacob et al., 2019), and considers why and how intervention (Jacob et al., 2019).
an intervention did or did not work (GEF, 2019). A theory of change is “a An experimental design (Martin et al., 2014) compared the conser­
description of how an intervention is supposed to deliver the desired vation outcomes in the Nyungwe National Park in Rwanda with that in
results. It describes the causal logic of how and why a particular pro­ several randomly selected areas adjacent to the park, finding that pay­
gram, program modality, or design innovation will reach its intended ment for ESs improved the motives for conservation.
outcomes” (Gertler et al., 2016, p. 32). All effectiveness assessments
should be underpinned by theories of change and hence are theory- 3.2.2. Quasi-experimental designs
based evaluation (Gertler et al., 2016). Theories of change have also Quasi-experimental designs are widely used in situations where it is
been used as frameworks to guide planning and implementation of infeasible to conduct random experimental designs (e.g., due to
conservation (Balfour et al., 2019; Rice et al., 2020). endogenous problem) but still possible to identify a treatment group and
General steps of theory-based evaluation include (CBD, 2015; CBD, construct a control group through several techniques below (CBD, 2017;
2017): (1) developing a theory of change based on certain assumptions Wooldridge, 2015).
and rationales, which can be derived from literature or information
gathered through field work, interviews, and observation of policy­ 3.2.2.1. Traditional ordinary least squares regression. The traditional
making; (2) identifying which outputs, outcomes and causal links data ordinary least squares (OLS) regression estimates the relationship be­
should be collected, and (3) analysing and drawing conclusion about the tween two interval/ratio variables, if the observations, when displayed
logic between the interventions and expected outcomes. in a scatterplot, can be approximated by a straight line. A vector of
While developing a theory of change can be time-consuming or lack additional relevant variables is controlled to capture shocks from other
sufficient data, a less-detailed theory of change with less testing may be factors and to address potential omitted variable concern. Using OLS
used in low-risk or low-complexity programs where the tolerance for regression, Abman (2018) analysed the macro-level relationship be­
uncertainty in attribution is higher. If multiple theories of change tween rule of law and variation in avoided deforestation from PAs in 71
emerge, evaluators may need to analyse where the theories differ, countries between 2000 and 2012, indicating that PAs’ effectiveness
explore the reasons for, and implications of, the differences, and test was higher in countries with higher levels of corruption control, pro­
which theory best reflects the reality (Treasury Board of Canada tection of property rights, and democracy.
Secretariat, 2021). Notably, Salafsky et al. (2021) introduced a series
featuring conservation-related theories of change, such as how and why 3.2.2.2. Instrumental variable method. A major concern of measuring
community-led business affected conservation (Boshoven et al., 2022). continuous policy variable using traditional OLS regression is the po­
Theory-based evaluation may involve (1) realistic synthesis/review tential endogeneity challenge. For example, there may be a third factor
that interrogates the existing evidence and produces a causal narrative that affects both the independent and dependent variables simulta­
of the intervention, for example, which intermediate steps are required neously. Omitted control variables and reverse causality may also lead
to produce the outcomes, and how different contextual features may to endogeneity issues. To improve credibility of effectiveness assessment
affect the intervention (Busetti, 2019); (2) contribution analysis that when the exposure to an intervention is to a certain degree determined
verifies a theory of change (e.g., if a theory is plausible; if expected re­ by an external force, assessments can use the instrumental variable (IV)
sults have occurred) and considers other influencing factors to assess method that instruments the potential endogenous independent vari­
interventions’ contributions to observed results; (3) outcome harvesting ables (Karousakis, 2018). A good IV should be a significant contributor
that collects evidence of what has been achieved, and works backward to the instrumented variables and affect the dependent variables only
to determine whether and how interventions have contributed to through the instrumented variables rather than other mechanisms.
observed change (Wilson-Grau and Britt, 2012); and (4) a results chain Other channels should be controlled in the regression. The IV method
that uses a series of expected intermediate results to depict the assumed includes two-stage least square, three-stage least square, maximum
causal linkage between interventions and desired impacts (Margoluis likelihood, and generalised method of moments. With the IV method,
et al., 2013). Butsic et al. (2015) assessed how the conflicts between PAs and
endogenous variables (mining and warfare) affected PAs’ effectiveness
3.2. Counterfactual evaluation of reducing deforestation in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Counterfactual evaluation disentangles the effects attributable to an 3.2.2.3. Difference-in-difference. However, environmental policies may
intervention on an outcome variable (Ahmadia et al., 2015; Varian, be measured as dummy variables (e.g., happen or not), rather than
2016), measures what would have happened in the absence of the continuous variables. Therefore, difference-in-difference (DID) com­
intervention, and identifies what works and what doesn’t (Karousakis, pares the changes in outcomes by computing a double difference: one
2018). This approach compares the outcomes (1) before and after the over time (before-after) and one across subjects (between treated group
intervention, and (2) with and without the intervention. ‘Before–after’ and control group) (Donald and Lang, 2007). Simply observing the
analyses assume that the outcome level (or trend) of the treatment group before and after change in the treatment group is not sufficient as there
before the intervention would remain constant. ‘With–without’ analyses may be other factors influencing the outcome over time. Simply
assume that the control and treatment group have similar expected comparing the treatment and control group is also insufficient. DID as­
outcomes in the absence of the intervention, and there are no spill-over sumes that unobserved differences in the treatment group are linear and
effects from the treatment group to the control group (Karousakis, time-invariant, corresponding to the observed difference in the out­
2018). However, in practice, spill-over effects have been observed in comes of the control group before and after intervention (Karousakis,
some PA assessments (Black and Anthony, 2022; Fuller et al., 2019).

3
H. Chen et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 98 (2023) 106929

2018). DID sets a dummy variable of with or without an intervention in models to reduce observation bias, and conducting indicator-based
regression and can reduce endogenous problems (policies are typically monitoring on ecosystem conditions of reefs both outside and inside
exogenous). Generally, the validity check of the underlying assumption the PAs.
of equal trends will be assessed via a “placebo” test. The control group
will receive a placebo treatment, in which an additional DID estimation 3.2.3. Non-experimental designs
using a “fake” treatment group is performed. A fake group means a Non-experimental designs assume that any observed changes are the
group that you know was not affected by the intervention. result of the intervention taken and that the impacts and progress of the
Gertler et al. (2016) explained: provided that the outcomes of the intervention are observable at the time the evaluation is undertaken,
control group before and after policy intervention are 0.78 and 0.81 and hence it does not use a control group (CBD, 2017). Instead, it uses a
respectively, 0.03 (0.81–0.78) would be the observed change in the benchmark or baseline of the treatment group as the counterfactual and
control group, namely the unobserved change in the treatment group; compares current performance/condition with one or more bench­
provided that the outcomes of the treatment group before and after marks/baselines (Coglianese, 2012).
policy implementation are 0.74 and 0.60 respectively, the observed There are (1) before-and-after comparisons (or pre-test/post-test):
change in the treatment group would be 0.14 (0.74–0.60); in the conditions of the treatment group before and after an intervention are
treatment group, the unobserved difference should be removed from the compared (e.g., the CBD 6th National Report of Albania indicated its PA
observed differences to reflect the policy impact. Hence, the policy strategy was effective because its PA coverage has improved since
impact should be 0.11 (0.14–0.03). 2015); (2) actual-versus-planned comparison: the anticipated outcomes
Using DID, Shi et al. (2020) revealed the effects of constructing PAs of an intervention are compared with the outcomes actually achieved (e.
worldwide from 1994 to 2015 on global carbon sequestration capacity g., the CBD 6th National Report of Afghanistan indicated its PAs were
via separating the time effect and policy effect. partially effective for wildlife conservation, as the population of several
protected species increased but did not fully met the targeted popula­
3.2.2.4. Regression discontinuity design. A regression discontinuity tion); and (3) formative/developmental evaluation: this compares the
design (RDD) is used for programs that have a continuous eligibility differences between how a policy is designed and implemented without
index with a clearly defined eligibility threshold (cut-off score) to considering the policy outcomes (e.g., the CBD 6th National Report of
determine what is eligible and what is not. The index has to meet 4 Greece indicated its PA network expansion initiative was partially
criteria: (1) ranking people or units in a continuous way; (2) having a effective, as demarcation of PAs was completed but the development of
clearly defined cut-off score above or below which the assessment target specific management plan was incomplete) (CBD, 2017; CBD, 2022b).
is classified as eligible for the program; (3) the cut-off must be unique to There are more specific techniques developed to conduct actual-
the program of interest; and (4) the score of a particular individual or versus-planned comparison in PAs. Based on several indicators (e.g.,
unit cannot be manipulated by enumerators, potential beneficiaries, staff skills, quality of infrastructure and recreation), PA scenery matrix
program administrators, or politicians (Gertler et al., 2016). When compares an optimal PA scenario scored at 4 with the actual PA situation
strictly cut-off-based assignment to conditions is given, a RDD can scored from 0 to 4 (Leverington et al., 2008). Pauquet (2005) used the
alleviate the endogenous problem of parameter estimation (Kelava et al., PA consolidation index to assigns values to different management as­
2010). However, “it has lower statistical power, it is more dependent on pects (e.g., finance, administration) of desired and actual PA situations
statistical modelling assumptions, and its treatment effect estimates are in Bolivia.
limited to the narrow subpopulation of cases immediately around the
cut-off” (Wing and Cook, 2013, p. 853). 3.3. Economic evaluation
Bonilla-Mejía and Higuera-Mendieta (2019) undertook a spatial RDD
to assess how local institutions (natural resource consumption, prox­ Economic evaluation considers the outcomes and costs of an inter­
imity to markets, improved enforcement of conservation law) shape vention, how far objectives or outcomes have been achieved at what
PAs’ effectiveness in deforestation reduction in Colombia. cost, and which intervention works the best if there are multiple alter­
native interventions (Karousakis, 2018). Generally, it is more difficult to
3.2.2.5. Matching. Matching means “the control group is constructed to determine benefits than costs (CBD, 2017).
make it resemble as much as possible the treatment group, based on
observed characteristics. If resemblance is satisfactory, the outcome 3.3.1. Cost-benefit analysis
observed for the matched group approximates the counterfactual, and Cost-benefit analysis is typically quantitative and considers if the
the effect of the intervention is estimated as the difference between the intervention’s benefits outweigh the costs in monetary units (Rowe
average outcomes of the two groups” (Karousakis, 2018, p. 30). et al., 2012). When counting the costs, it should consider direct expen­
Matching method assumes: (1) the treatment received by one does not diture, transaction costs, overall social cost, and opportunity costs (CBD,
affect outcomes for another; (2) there are no unobserved characteristics; 2017; UNEP, 2019).
and (3) for each participant there exists at least one “twin” nonpartici­ Basic valuation techniques in monetary units consist of (1) revealed-
pant having the same observed characteristics (OECD, 2012). Matching preference approaches that infer preferences from observed choices in
can avoid selection bias caused by observables but cannot address bias reality, such as market price of ecosystem goods, and travel costs
caused by un-observables (Karousakis, 2018). (including direct travel expenses and opportunity costs of time) spent for
Matching can eliminate selective errors via seeking a control group interaction (e.g., recreation) with a natural site (Chen, 2020; United
which is the closest to the treated group to identify causal inference. It Nations et al., 2021); (2) cost-based approaches, including replacement
mainly includes covariant matching, coarsened exact matching, maha­ cost of using artificial alternatives to replace ESs, damage cost avoided
lanobis metric matching, propensity score matching, and entropy by the existence of ecosystems, restoration cost needed to restore
balancing matching (Stuart, 2010). However, matching requires a large degraded ecosystems, and economic loss resulted from ES degradation
dataset, because a small number of observations may reduce the accu­ (Chen et al., 2022; Farber et al., 2006); (3) stated-preference approach
racy of causal inference. that infers preferences by asking separate individuals hypothetical
Using matching, Ahmadia et al. (2015) assessed effectiveness of the questions, including contingent valuation that directly askes people’s
marine PAs in the Birds’ Head Seascape, Indonesia. They constructed a preferences (e.g. how much are you willing to pay for conserving this
control group through selecting outside reef areas similar to reefs in the forest?) and choice experiment that tests how people trade off different
PAs (non-matched ones were dropped from the sample), using statistical choices with alternative supply levels or characteristics of ESs and
biodiversity (Bateman et al., 2002); (4) deliberative valuation that asks

4
H. Chen et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 98 (2023) 106929

people to state preferences through deliberation, which aims to improve the group response provided to them. After multiple rounds of asking
credibility and fairness of value elicitation by enabling people to explain and responding questions, the experts may understand what the group
reasoning of preference expression, understand preferences of others, thinks as a whole and seek consensus. Mehnen et al. (2013) conducted
and improve knowledge of ESs (Kenter, 2016); (5) benefit transfer that delphi method to assess the advantages, disadvantages, and governance
estimates the value of ESs at a new site by transferring and adjusting performance of PAs of different IUCN categories (IUCN, 2008).
previous value estimates of the same ESs from one or multiple sites
(Kubiszewski et al., 2013); and (6) economic modelling (e.g., price of 3.5. Case study evaluation
raw materials elicited from computable equilibrium models) that
encompass information on environmental and economic variables Case study evaluation addresses “how and why a given measure has
(United Nations et al., 2021). worked or not by looking at a specific real-world situation” (CBD, 2017,
Using market price, replacement costs, avoided damage costs, and p. 4). It usually includes four steps (McCombes, 2020): (1) selecting a
travel costs, Chen (2021) valued a subset of ESs of China’s terrestrial PAs case that provides new or unexpected insights into the subject, chal­
to be $2.64 trillion/yr, corresponding to over 14 times the costs required lenges existing assumptions and theories, proposes practical actions to
to maintain the PAs. address an issue, or suggests future research; (2) building a theoretical
framework, including exemplifying how a theory explains the case
3.3.2. Cost-effectiveness analysis under investigation, expanding on a theory by integrating new ideas, or
Cost-effectiveness denotes the relative costs of achieving per unit of challenging a theory by exploring an outlier case that does not fit with
outcomes, and can be calculated by dividing the cost by the benefits established assumptions; (3) data collection; and (4) describing and
(UNEP, 2019). Cost-effectiveness analysis seeks the most economical analysing the case based on research type, purpose, and data availabil­
intervention (with the minimum relative resource use) through ity. According to Morra and Friedlander (1999), there are:
comparing the costs of multiple alternative interventions in reaching the
same objective or comparing the outcomes of multiple alternative in­ (1) explanatory case studies that (a) explain the relationships among
terventions with the same costs (CBD, 2017; Wätzold and Schwerdtner, program components; (b) investigate operations, often at several
2005). sites, and often with reference to a set of norms or standards
Cost-effectiveness analysis can be either quantitative or qualitative, about implementation processes; and (c) examine causality be­
and can express costs and benefits in both monetary and physical units, tween the program and observed outcomes.
such as tons of waste eliminated. Thus, cost-effectiveness analysis is (2) Descriptive case studies that (a) add realism and in-depth ex­
sometimes used in place of cost-benefit analysis when assessors are amples to other information about an intervention; (b) generate
unable or uncertain to monetise benefits or costs (UNEP, 2019). hypotheses for later investigation; and (c) examine a single
Wei et al. (2018) assessed the cost-effectiveness of several alternative instance of unique interest or serve as a critical test of an assertion
scenarios regarding managing the Giant Panda Nature Reserves in about the intervention.
China: (1) maintaining management of the reserves, (2) improving (3) Cumulative case studies that combine cases with different
management of the reserves by 15% through allocating more sufficient methodologies and findings to answer a question.
staff, (3) expanding the reserves by 15% and improving the management
by 15%, and (4) management degradation by 20% due to reduced As an example, the Great Barrier Reef Marine PA in Australia is a
funding, staff number, and forest area. The cost-effectiveness of these popular case for assessing effectiveness of controlling marine pollution
scenarios was 10.2, 10.7, 11, and 8.4, respectively, implying Scenario 3 caused by agriculture production (Eberhard et al., 2021; Rolfe et al.,
was the most cost-effective. 2018).

3.3.3. Input-output analysis 3.6. Rapid assessments

Input-output analysis identifies the drivers of economics activities,
calculates input into and environmental impacts (output) from eco­ Rapid assessments are typically built upon the IUCN’s World Com­
nomic activities, and compiles the inputs and outputs into a matrix or mission on Protected Areas (WCPA) Framework (Table 3) and use
table for analysis (UNEP, 2019). Input-output analysis may also assess readily available evaluation sheets, including scorecards, worksheets,
the interaction between financial investment (input) in PAs and finan­ questionnaires, and process diagrams (Table 4) (The Nature
cial profits (output) generated from economic activities in PAs. For
example, Beraldo-Souza et al. (2019) found that “each dollar Brazil Table 3
invested in the PA system produced $7 in economic benefits” (p. 735). Summary of the WCPA Framework.
Evaluation Explanations Criteria
3.4. Stakeholder and/or expert consultation elements

Context Where are we now? Assessment of Significance, threats,

Consulting stakeholders and experts via workshops, questionnaires, importance, threats, and policy vulnerability, context, and
or interviews can bring additional views, knowledge, experiences, or environment partners
skills to conduct, improve, or adjust effectiveness assessment. Consul­ Planning Where do we want to be? Legislation, policy design,
tation is relatively subjective but widely conducted, including the CBD Assessment of design and reserve design, and
planning management planning
6th National Reports of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Costa Rica, Cuba,
Inputs What do we need? Assessment of Resourcing of agency and
Dominica, Eritrea, Fiji, Germany, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Kyrgyzstan, resources needed site
Laos, Lesotho, Monaco, Niue, Solomon Islands, South Sudan, Timor- Processes How do we go about it? Suitability of management
Leste, Tonga, Vanuatu, Vietnam, Yemen, and Zimbabwe (CBD, Assessment of the ways in which process
2022b). Roux et al. (2021) engaged stakeholders into effectiveness management is conducted
Outputs What are the results? Assessment Results of management
assessment of the Garden Route National Park in South Africa. of delivery of products and actions, services, products
A well-known expert consultation method is the delphi method services
(Okoli and Pawlowski, 2004; Schmidt et al., 2001): Experts are asked Outcomes What did we achieve? Assessment Effects of management in
questions for several rounds, and anonymous responses are aggregated of the outcomes and the extent to relation to objectives
which objectives are achieved
and shared with the group after each round. The experts are allowed to
adjust their answers in subsequent rounds, based their interpretations of Source: (Stolton et al., 2007).

5
H. Chen et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 98 (2023) 106929

Table 4 Table 4 (continued )

Tools for rapid assessments. Tools Sources of instructions CBD assessment reports (if
Tools Sources of instructions CBD assessment reports (if and sample evaluation applicable) and other
and sample evaluation applicable) and other sheets assessments integrating the
sheets assessments integrating the approaches
approaches
Headline indicators (Leverington et al., 37 PAs in Krasnoyarsk Kray,
Marine Protected Area (National CTI CBD 6th National Report of 2010) Russia (Anthony and
Management Committee, 2011) Malaysia (CBD, 2022b) Shestackova, 2015)
Effectiveness
Assessment Tool
Micronesia Protected (Micronesia Islands CBD 5th National Report of Conservancy, 2018).
Areas Management Nature Alliance, 2017) Federated States of
Effectiveness tool Micronesia (CBD, 2022b)
Management (Stolton et al., 2007) CBD 6th National Reports of
3.7. Additional approaches
Effectiveness Tracking the Democratic Republic of
Tool the Democratic Republic of
Congo, Dominica, Equatoria 3.7.1. Spatial monitoring and reporting tool
Guinea, Jamaica, Laos, Based on the SMART1 software, a spatial monitoring and reporting
Papua New Guinea, Sierra tool helps streamline data collection, analysis, reporting, and trans­
Leone, and Thailand (CBD,
2022b)
ferring information obtained from the field to decision-makers. It is used
WWF Rapid Assessment (Ervin, 2003) CBD 6th National Reports of to assess effectiveness of enforcement of conservation/wildlife law,
and Prioritization of the Democratic Republic of patrol, and site-based conservation activities. Its instructions can be
Protected Area Congo and Papua New found in SMART (2021). The CBD 6th National Reports of Cambodia,
Management Guinea (CBD, 2022b)
Laos, and Pakistan have undertaken this tool to assess their PAs (CBD,
Methodology
Enhancing our Heritage (World Heritage The Keoladeo National 2022b).
Toolkit Centre, 2008) Park, India, and Sangay
National Park, Ecuador, and 3.7.2. Gap analysis
the Bwindi Impenetrable Gap analysis matches maps of vegetation and species distributions
National Park, Uganda
(World Heritage Centre,
with the maps of conservation areas to show how well vegetation alli­
2008) ances and species are represented in the existing conservation network.
World Heritage Outlook (IUCN, 2012, 2019) CBD 6th National Report of Those that are neither adapted to human-dominated environment nor
Assessment the Democratic Republic of adequately represented in PAs are identified as ‘gaps’ and become the
Congo (CBD, 2022b)
focus for further conservation work (Jennings, 2000; Weeks et al.,
Integrated Management (BIOPAMA, 2021; CBD 6th National Report of
Effectiveness Tool IUCN, 2020; Paolini the Democratic Republic of 2010). Weeks et al. (2010) assessed how well marine PAs in the
et al., 2015) Congo (CBD, 2022b) Philippines represented marine bioregions, conservation priority areas,
Financial Sustainability (Bovarnick, 2010) CBD 3rd National and marine corridors. Moreover, gap analysis can be integrated in sys­
Scorecard Biodiversity Strategies and tematic conservation planning, the process for selecting between,
Action Plan of Niger (CBD,
2022a)
locating, and implementing informed conservation actions (McIntosh
WWF-World Bank Marine (Gomei et al., 2019; The habitat et al., 2017). This includes reviewing existing conservation areas (e.g.,
Protected Area Score Leverington et al., representativity, replication to which extent targeted ecological representation has been achieved)
Card 2008; Staub and and connectivity of marine and selecting additional conservation areas (Margules and Pressey,
Hatziolos, 2004) PAs in Mediterranean
2000).
countries (Gomei et al.,
2019)
West Indian Ocean (Wells and Mangubhai, Kenya (Kisite/Mpunguti, 3.7.3. Ecological integrity framework
Workbook 2004) Mombasa, Malindi, and This framework sets conservation goals and measures success,
Watamu Marine National viability, or ecological integrity of focal biodiversity at multiple scales,
Parks and Reserves, and
Kiunga Marine National
and consists of the four components (The Nature Conservancy, 2003b):
Reserve), Tanzania (Mafia (1) identification of key ecological attributes that determine the
Island and Mnazi Bay- composition, structure, and function of focal biodiversity, including
Ruvuma Estuary Marine characteristics of biological composition and its spatial structure, biotic
Parks) and Seychelles
interactions, environmental regimes and constraints that shape habitat
(Cousin Island Special
Reserve) (Wells and conditions, and ecological connectivity that affects the ability of species
Mangubhai, 2004). to move and maintain diversity at genetic, species, and ecosystem levels;
Site Consolidation (The Nature The Parks in Peril program (2) identification of indicators to describe key attribute status; 3)
Scorecard Conservancy, 2003a). throughout Latin America determination of acceptable ranges of variation for key attributes based
and the Caribbean (The
Nature Conservancy,
on reference conditions, and establishment of minimum integrity
2003a) threshold criteria for conservation; 4) rating of key attribute status and
Park Watch (Park Watch, 2006) Management of biodiversity assessment and monitoring of overall integrity status based on status of
Questionnaire and ESs in Peru’s PAs (Park all key attributes. The US National Park Service has used this framework
Watch, 2006)
to assess effectiveness of managing ecological integrity in PAs (Unnasch
Mesoamerica Marine (Corrales, 2004) Marine PAs in Mesoamerica
Protected Areas (Corrales, 2004) et al., 2009).
Scorecard
How is your marine (Pomeroy et al., 2004) 24 marine PAs across the 3.7.4. Threat reduction methodology
protected area doing? world (Fox et al., 2014) This methodology uses on-site discussion groups comprising repre­
Important Bird Areas (BirdLife International, 30 important bird areas in
sentatives of community, PA staff, and other experts to list and rank (e.
2006) Uganda (Tushabe et al.,
2006)

1
https://smartconservationtools.org

6
H. Chen et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 98 (2023) 106929

g., from 1 to 5) threats to the PAs’ habitat integrity, quality, and Table 5
ecosystem functioning, and consider how fast and which area the threats Suitability of different approaches.
could harm the PAs. The groups then evaluate the extent (from 0% Approaches Conditions for use Strengths Weaknesses
-100%) to which the threats are being addressed (Leverington et al.,
Theory-based All effectiveness Developing, Developing theories
2008). This methodology is simple and low-cost but is difficult to assess evaluation assessments are integrating, of change can be
reduction of internal threats (e.g., overhunting or over-farming in PAs), theory-based explaining or challenging
especially when the threat-evaluating information comes from the ac­ evaluation. verifying a theory
tors responsible for the threats (Margoluis and Salafsky, 2001). Stand­ of change is
essential to
ardisation of threat types can promote comparison of temporal and understanding
spatial variation across sites and enhance cross-project learning (e.g., why an
transferring mitigation strategies) (Anthony, 2008). The IUCN Standard intervention
Lexicon of Threats (Salafsky et al., 2008) has been integrated in some works or not
(Gertler et al.,
cases, such as the Horsh Ehden Nature Reserve, Lebanon (Matar and
2016).
Anthony, 2010). Counterfactual Assessments Counterfactual Counterfactual
evaluation intend to evaluation evaluation does not
4. Discussion understand addresses whether consider whether
impacts from an intervention an intervention is
interventions. works or not. economical.
4.1. General suitability of different approaches Experimental and Notably, quasi- It may be infeasible
quasi- experimental to use random
In terms of potential applicability, (1) theory-based evaluation is experimental designs tend to be control groups for
integrated into all types of effectiveness assessments. (2) Counterfactual designs are more suitable experimental
applicable when than experimental designs in complex
evaluation is often used to assess changes caused by an intervention. (3)
random or designs (when it is systems.
Economic evaluation complements counterfactual evaluation with constructed impossible to use Assessors may lack
assessment of economic preference for an intervention. (4) Unlike the control groups random control skills or knowledge
previous three categories used for primary assessments, consultation are available, groups) and non- to construct control
uses second-hand knowledge. (5) Case studies are used when it is not respectively. experimental groups for quasi-
Non- designs (that lack experimental
feasible, necessary, or desirable to assess effectiveness nationwide or
experimental rigorousness and designs.
worldwide but in specific cases. (6) Rapid assessments based on readily designs do not credibility). Non-experimental
available evaluation sheets are specific to PAs, while the previous five need control designs require less
categories are also applicable to many other fields. (7) Applicability of groups but use a expertise and
baseline of the techniques and tend
approaches focusing on a specific aspect of PAs is narrower than the
treatment group to be easier than
previous six categories that potentially assess multiple aspects of PAs. as the experimental and
Table 5 summarises the conditions for use, strengths, and weaknesses of counterfactual. quasi-experimental
these seven categories of approaches. designs. However,
they simplify the
reality and are less
4.2. Implications for future research
rigorous to analyse
causal relationships
This review does not detail step-by-step instructions of the ap­ (Coglianese, 2012).
proaches or indicators. Indicators are standard units that express Hence, they are
normally used in
amount, size, level, or degree based on verifiable data (Biodiversity In­
grey literature (e.g.,
dicators Partnership, 2011), and are essential to effectiveness assess­ the CBD National
ment. However, sample indicators for PA’s effectiveness can be found Reports), rather
from Leverington et al. (2010) and CBD (2020b). We call for develop­ than peer-reviewed
ment of an expanded assessment guidebook integrating detailed in­ academic literature.
Economic Assessments Economic Critiques against ES
structions of the approaches and potential indicators that allow
evaluation intend to measure evaluation valuation include
aggregation of estimates of effectiveness at local, national, regional, and if an intervention considers potentially
global levels and promote understanding of PAs’ effectiveness at is economical. efficiency (cost- commercialising
different levels to facilitate policy intervention. benefit analysis), nature and being
economic anthropocentric
Since developing theories of change can be challenging, we antici­
preferences for (Schröter et al.,
pate the development of a “theory toolkit” containing comprehensive alternative 2014). Valuation
theories of changes that are commonly accepted and directly applicable interventions techniques also
to evaluation of PAs’ effectiveness. Moreover, assessors may lack the (cost-effectiveness have limitations:
knowledge to construct control groups for quasi-experimental designs, analysis), and (1) market price
environmental may be distorted,
although the existing literature already provides many references for
impacts, financial (2) deliberative
using different techniques (e.g., IV, DID) to construct control groups. outputs, and valuation can be
Therefore, we do not expect additional guidance of using the existing financial inputs of expensive and time-
techniques to construct control groups. Instead, we anticipate develop­ an intervention consuming; (3)
ment of new control-group-constructing techniques that are more (input-output preferences stated
analysis). by separate
practical but still scientifically sound. We also anticipate more sophis­ individuals may
ticated and reliable techniques valuing ESs and biodiversity to become ignore social
feasible to improve accuracy and credibility of PAs’ value estimates. welfare; (4) travel
Further research is also needed to distinguish the features (e.g., costs method
assumes the single
strengths, limitations) of different evaluation sheets for rapid
purpose of visiting a
assessments. natural site to be
(continued on next page)

7
H. Chen et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 98 (2023) 106929

Table 5 (continued ) winter bird counts) or subjective consideration (e.g., experts’ opinions).
Approaches Conditions for use Strengths Weaknesses Therefore, this review may be beneficial for the Parties to improve the
comprehensiveness of future effectiveness assessments.
interaction with
nature; and (5)
Moreover, PAs are already integrated into targets or goals (Table 6)
benefit transfer of several widely accepted global initiatives, including: (1) Sustainable
simplifies the Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by all United Nations member states
differences of (United Nations, 2022), (2) CBD Post-2020 GBF that attempts to miti­
ecological and
gate and reverse biodiversity loss (CBD, 2021), (3) United Nations
socioeconomic
contexts between Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) 2018–2030 Strategic
sites (Chen, 2020; Framework committed to avoid, minimise, and reverse land degradation
Costanza, 2020). and mitigate drought effects (UNCCD, 2017), and (4) Paris Agreement
Rapid There are readily Many types of Existing evaluation committed to strengthen the global response to climate change
assessment available evaluation sheets sheets are prone to
evaluation sheets have been interviewee bias,
(UNFCCC, 2015). Details of the PA-related targets or goals, as well as
developed to variation in potential approaches for assessing effectiveness of the actions taken to
provide assessors participants’ achieve them, are presented in Appendix 1.
with multiple opinions, disparity The Post-2020 GBF has particularly strong connection with PAs and
options for between the
highlights (1) improvement of ecosystem integrity, productivity, resil­
assessments that selection and
can be rapid and weights of ience, ecological representativeness, ESs, information, and financial,
convenient. indicators used and technical, and human resources; (2) reduction of human-wildlife con­
stated PA outcomes, flicts, incentives harming biodiversity, impacts from invasive species,
mutual exclusivity climate change, and pollution, and threats to health of humans and other
and inclusivity of
responses, and
species; (3) promotion of sustainability and fairness of access to, sharing,
differing operating and use of genetic resources and other benefits; and (4) effective
conditions/scales of participation in decision making. Effectiveness assessment may be
assessments conducted on these aspects.
(Anthony, 2014).
They also share
similarities but lack 5. Conclusion
features
demonstrating how This review presents a quick and basic overview of a comprehensive
each of them differs set of approaches, discusses their suitability to assist with selecting
from the others, in
them, suggests future research for improving their applicability, and
terms of data
requirement, outlines their linkage with some major global PA-related initiatives.
assessment Effectiveness assessments are crucial to understanding whether and why
objectives, PAs are working or not, whether or which alternative PA-related actions
strengths, and
are economically desirable, and how to improve PAs’ quality. Basic
limitations. This
makes it assessment approaches include (1) evaluation based on a theory of
challenging for change that explains how and why interventions are supposed to deliver
assessors to select anticipated results; (2) counterfactual evaluation that uses a random
the best suited control group, a control group constructed through several techniques,
option from
or a baseline of the treatment group as the counterfactual; (3) economic
multiple available
evaluation sheets. valuation that assesses benefits and costs of an intervention; (4)
Consultation Assessments need Consultation may Consultation is consultation; (5) case studies; (6) rapid assessments based on readily
knowledge and bring additional dependent on available evaluation sheets; and (7) approaches focusing on a specific
skills of views to subjective opinions
aspect, such as conservation enforcement, ecological integrity, species
consultants. assessments. and possibly biased
if some key
representativeness, and anthropogenic threats.
stakeholders are The approaches have different characteristics and should be selected
under-represented in accordance with assessment purposes, data availability, budgets, and
(Mehnen et al., assessors’ expertise. Theory-based evaluation is integral to all assess­
2013).
ments. Assessments involving comparison can apply counterfactual
Case studies It is not feasible, As per left Case studies per se
necessary, or cannot directly evaluation, especially quasi-experimental designs that are often more
desirable to assess assess effectiveness practical than experimental designs and more credible than non-
effectiveness but need to
nationwide or integrate other
worldwide but in categories of Table 6
specific cases approaches. PA-related goals/targets in global initiatives.
Approaches Assessors focus on As per left Theses approaches
focusing on a a specific aspect do not assess PAs’ Initiatives Goals or targets
specific aspect of PAs comprehensive SDGs Target 6.6 of Goal 6,
of PAs effectiveness. Targets 14.2 and 14.5 of Goal 14,
Targets 15.1, 15.4 and 15.a of Goal 15
CBD Post-2020 GBF Goals B and C
4.3. Linkage with global initiatives Targets 3, 4, and 10
UNCCD 2018–2030 Strategic Framework Target 4.1
The CBD’s national reports require the CBD Parties to indicate the Paris Agreement Article 5
effectiveness of their PAs and explain how they assesses the effective­ Source: (CBD, 2015; CBD, 2021a, Chen, 2021; UNCCD, 2017; UNFCCC, 2015;
ness. However, in the latest (sixth) national reports, many Parties tended United Nations, 2022).
to assess the effectiveness based on simple observations (e.g., changes in Note: While the other goals and targets may be linked with PAs in some ways,
this table only presents those explicitly related to PAs or nature conservation.

8
H. Chen et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 98 (2023) 106929

experimental designs. Economic valuation addresses if an intervention is Anthony, B.P., Shestackova, E., 2015. Do global indicators of protected area management
effectiveness make sense? A case study from Siberia. Environ. Manag. 56 (1),
economical. Consultation is based on second-hand knowledge. Case
176–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0495-z.
studies should be combined with other approaches. Evaluation sheets Bacon, E., Gannon, P., Stephen, S., Seyoum-Edjigu, E., Schmidt, M., Lang, B.,
for rapid assessments may be convenient but lack distinct features of Sandwith, T., Xin, J., Arora, S., Adham, K.N., 2019. Aichi biodiversity target 11 in
how they differ from each other. Approaches focusing on a specific the like-minded megadiverse countries. J. Nat. Conserv. 51, 125723 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jnc.2019.125723.
aspect cannot assess PAs’ comprehensive effectiveness. Balfour, D., Barichievy, C., Gordon, C., Brett, R., 2019. A theory of change to grow
For future research, we anticipate (1) an expanded assessment numbers of African rhino at a conservation site. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 1 (6), e40
guidebook integrating detailed instructions of the approaches, (2) new https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.40.
Bateman, I.J., Carson, R.T., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., Jones-Lee, M.,
control-group-constructing techniques that are more practical but still Loomes, G., Mourato, S., Pearce, D.W., Sugden, R., 2002. Economic Valuation with
scientifically sound, (3) more sophisticated and reliable ES valuation Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham.
techniques, and (4) further work to distinguish the features of different Beraldo-Souza, TdVS, Thapa, B., Rodrigues, CgdO, Imori, D., 2019. Economic impacts of
tourism in protected areas of Brazil. J. Sustain. Tour. 27 (6), 735–749. https://doi.
evaluation sheets for rapid assessments. This review also potentially org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1408633.
benefits preparation of the CBD Parties’ National Reports (that require Biodiversity Indicators Partnership, 2011. Guidance for National Biodiversity Indicator
information on PAs’ effectiveness) and evaluation of actions taken to Development and Use. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge,
UK.
fulfill PA-related goals or targets of global initiatives, including the BIOPAMA, 2021. IMET: the Integrated Management Effectiveness Tool. https://biopama.
SDGs, CBD Post-2020 GBF, UNCCD 2018–2030 SF, and Paris Agree­ org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Brochure-IMET-EN-ONLINE-1.pdf.
ment. PAs’ effectiveness assessment can pay particular attention to the BirdLife International, 2006. Monitoring Important Bird Areas: A Global Framework.
Version 1.2, Cambridge, UK.
Post-2020 GBF, which highlights a set of aspects of outcomes and
Black, B., Anthony, B.P., 2022. Counterfactual assessment of protected area avoided
management of PAs. deforestation in Cambodia: Trends in effectiveness, spillover effects and the
influence of establishment date. Global Ecol. Conserv. e02228. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.gecco.2022.e02228.
Author statement Bonilla-Mejía, L., Higuera-Mendieta, 2019. Protected areas under weak institutions:
evidence from Colombia. World Dev. 122, 585–596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Haojie Chen was the lead author, who designed, conducted, drafted, worlddev.2019.06.019.
Boshoven, J., Hill, M., Baker, A., 2022. Conservation enterprises: community-led
and revised the study. Tong Zhang added meaningful points into, and businesses that contribute to conservation outcomes. A generic theory of change, v
restructured, quasi-experimental design and input-output analysis, and 1.0. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 4 (1), e582 https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.582.
refined the rest of the paper. Robert Costanza and Ida Kubiszewski Bovarnick, A. (Ed.), 2010. Financial Sustainability Scorecard: For National Systems of
Protected Areas. UNDP, New York.
refined the paper and assisted with revision. All authors read and Busetti, S., 2019. A theory-based evaluation of food waste policy: evidence from Italy.
approved the manuscript. Food Policy 88 (101749), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.101749.
Butsic, V., Baumann, M., Shortland, A., Walker, S., Kuemmerle, T., 2015. Conservation
and conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo: the impacts of warfare, mining,
and protected areas on deforestation. Biol. Conserv. 191, 266–273. https://doi.org/
Declaration of Competing Interest 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.06.037.
CBD, 2015. Tools to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Policy Instruments for the
Implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, pp. 1–12.
We declare that we have no known competing financial interests or CBD, 2017. Tools to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Policy Instruments for the
personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work Implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020. Secretariat of the
reported in this paper. Convention on Biological Diversity, pp. 1–7.
CBD, 2020a. Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Diversity, Montreal, Canada.
Data availability CBD, 2020b. Proposed Indicators and Monitoring Approach for the Post-2020 Global
Biodiversity Framework Secretariat of Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal,
Canada, viewed 5 March 2022. https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/ddf4/06ce/f004
No data was used for the research described in the article. afa32d48740b6c21ab98/sbstta-24-03-add1-en.pdf>.
CBD, 2021. First Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, Secretariat of the
Convention on Biological Diversity, Montrea, Canada, viewed 6 March 2022. http
Acknowledgement
s://www.unep.org/resources/publication/1st-draft-post-2020-global-biodiversit
y-framework#:~:text=1st%20Draft%20of%20The%20Post-2020%20Global%
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding 20Biodiversity%20Framework,protect%20nature%20and%20its%20essential%20se
rvices%20to%20people.
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. We thank
CBD, 2022a. National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans, Convention on Biological
the Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat for constructive Diversity Secretariat. viewed 5 April 2022. https://www.cbd.int/nbsap/>.
suggestions. We also thank the journal editor and reviewers for valuable CBD, 2022b. National Reports, Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat. viewed 4
comments. April 2022. https://www.cbd.int/reports/>.
Chen, H., 2020. Land use trade-offs associated with protected areas in China: current
state, existing evaluation methods, and future application of ecosystem service
Appendix A. Supplementary data valuation. Sci. Total Environ. 711, 134688 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2019.134688.
Chen, H., 2021. The ecosystem service value of maintaining and expanding terrestrial
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. protected areas in China. Sci. Total Environ. 781, 146768. https://doi.org/10.1016/
org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106929. j.scitotenv.2021.146768.
Chen, H., Costanza, R., Kubiszewski, I., 2022. Land use trade-offs in China’s protected
areas from the perspective of accounting values of ecosystem services. J. Environ.
References Manag. 315, 115178 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115178.
Coad, L., Leverington, F., Knights, K., Geldmann, J., Eassom, A., Kapos, V., Kingston, N.,
de Lima, M., Zamora, C., Cuardros, I., 2015. Measuring impact of protected area
Abman, R., 2018. Rule of law and avoided deforestation from protected areas. Ecol.
management interventions: current and future use of the global database of
Econ. 146, 282–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.11.004.
protected area management effectiveness. Biol. Sci. 370 (1681), 20140281. https://
Ahmadia, G.N., Glew, L., Provost, M., Gill, D., Hidayat, N.I., Mangubhai, S., Purwanto,
doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0281.
Fox, H.E., 2015. Integrating impact evaluation in the design and implementation of
Coglianese, C., 2012. Measuring Regulatory Performance: Evaluating the Impact of
monitoring marine protected areas. Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. B. 370 (1681),
Regulation and Regulatory Policy. www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/1_cogliane
20140275. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0275.
se%20web.pdf>.
Anthony, B.P., 2008. Use of modified threat reduction assessments to estimate success of
Corrales, L., 2004. Manual for the Rapid Evaluation of Management Effectiveness in
conservation measures within and adjacent to Kruger National Park, South Africa.
Marine Protected Areas of Mesoamerica, PROARCA/APM, USAID, TNC. http://
Conserv. Biol. 22 (6), 1497–1505. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-
www.mbrs.doe.gov.bz/dbdocs/tech/Effective.pdf>.
1739.2008.01030.x.
Costanza, R., 2020. Valuing natural capital and ecosystem services toward the goals of
Anthony, B.P., 2014. Review of international protected area management effectiveness
efficiency, fairness, and sustainability. Ecosyst. Serv. 43, 101096 https://doi.org/
(PAME) experience. In: Technical report prepared for Association for Water and
10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101096.
Rural Development.

9
H. Chen et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 98 (2023) 106929

Di Minin, E., Toivonen, T., 2015. Global protected area expansion: creating more than Leverington, F., Hockings, M., Pavese, H., Costa, K.L., Courrau, J., 2008. Management
paper parks. Bioscience 65 (7), 637–638. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv064. Effectiveness Evaluation in Protected Areas – A Global Study. Supplementary Report
Donald, S.G., Lang, K., 2007. Inference with difference-in-differences and other panel no.1: Overview of Approaches and Methodologies., The University of Queensland,
data. Rev. Econ. Stat. 89 (2), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.89.2.221. Gatton, TNC, WWF, IUCN-WCPA. https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/import
Eberhard, R., Coggan, A., Jarvis, D., Hamman, E., Taylor, B., Baresi, U., Vella, K., /downloads/maangementeffectiveness2008.pdf>.
Dean, A.J., Deane, F., Helmstedt, K., 2021. Understanding the effectiveness of policy Leverington, F., Costa, K.L., Pavese, H., Lisle, A., Hockings, M., 2010. A global analysis of
instruments to encourage adoption of farming practices to improve water quality for protected area management effectiveness. Environ. Manag. 46 (5), 685–698.
the Great Barrier Reef. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 172, 112793 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Margoluis, R., Salafsky, N., 2001. Is our Project Succeeding? A guide to Threat Reduction
marpolbul.2021.112793. Assessment for conservation, Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, D.C.
Ervin, J., 2003. WWF: Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Margoluis, R., Stem, C., Swaminathan, V., Brown, M., Johnson, A., Placci, G.,
Management (RAPPAM) Methodology. https://wwfeu.awsassets.panda.org/d Salafsky, N., Tilders, I., 2013. Results chains: a tool for conservation action design,
ownloads/rappam.pdf. management, and evaluation. Ecol. Soc. 18 (3) https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05610-
Farber, S., Costanza, R., Childers, D.L., Erickson, J., Gross, K., Grove, M., Hopkinson, C. 180322.
S., Kahn, J., Pincetl, S., Troy, A., 2006. Linking ecology and economics for ecosystem Margules, C.R., Pressey, R.L., 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405
management. Bioscience 56 (2), 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568 (6783), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1038/35012251.
(2006)056[0121:LEAEFE]2.0.CO;2. Martin, A., Gross-Camp, N., Kebede, B., McGuire, S., 2014. Measuring effectiveness,
Ferraro, P.J., Hanauer, M.M., 2014. Advances in measuring the environmental and social efficiency and equity in an experimental payments for ecosystem services trial. Glob.
impacts of environmental programs. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39 (1), 495–517. Environ. Chang. 28, 216–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.003.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-101813-013230. Matar, D.A., Anthony, B.P., 2010. Application of modified threat reduction assessments
Fox, H.E., Holtzman, J.L., Haisfield, K.M., McNally, C.G., Cid, G.A., Mascia, M.B., in Lebanon. Conserv. Biol. 24 (5), 1174–1181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-
Parks, J.E., Pomeroy, R.S., 2014. How are our MPAs doing? Challenges in assessing 1739.2010.01575.x.
global patterns in marine protected area performance. Coast. Manag. 42 (3), McCombes, S., 2020. How to Do a Case Study. https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/c
207–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2014.904178. ase-study/#:~:text=How%20to%20do%20a%20case%20study%201%20Select,3%
Fuller, C., Ondei, S., Brook, B.W., Buettel, J.C., 2019. First, do no harm: a systematic 20Collect%20your%20data.%20…%20More%20items…%20.
review of deforestation spillovers from protected areas. Global Ecol. Conserv. 18, McIntosh, E.J., Pressey, R.L., Lloyd, S., Smith, R.J., Grenyer, R., 2017. The impact of
e00591 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00591. systematic conservation planning. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 42, 677–697.
Gannon, P., Dubois, G., Dudley, N., Ervin, J., Ferrier, S., Gidda, S., MacKinnon, K., https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-060902.
Richardson, K., Schmidt, M., Seyoum-Edjigu, E., 2019. Editorial essay: an update on Mehnen, N., Mose, I., Strijker, D., 2013. The Delphi method as a useful tool to study
progress towards Aichi biodiversity target 11. Parks 25, 7–18. governance and protected areas? Landsc. Res. 38 (5), 607–624. https://doi.org/
GEF, 2019. Theory of Change Primer. Global Environment Facility, Washington, DC. 10.1080/01426397.2012.690862.
GEF-6, 2014. The GEF-6 Biodiversity Strategy, Global Environment Facility. https Micronesia Islands Nature Alliance, 2017. Report on Evaluation of Conservation Benefits
://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/publications/GEF-6-BD-strategy.pdf. Tool. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/oceans/coris/library/NOAA/CRCP/NOS/O
Geldmann, J., Coad, L., Barnes, M.D., Craigie, I.D., Woodley, S., Balmford, A., Brooks, T. CM/Projects/198/MicronesiaIslandsNatureAlliance2017a_BenefitsTool.pdf.
M., Hockings, M., Knights, K., Mascia, M.B., 2018. A global analysis of management Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Current
capacity and ecological outcomes in terrestrial protected areas. Conserv. Lett. 11 (3), State and Trends. DC (USA) Island Press, Washington.
e12434. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12434. Morra, L.G., Friedlander, A.C., 1999. Case Study Evaluations. World Bank Washington,
Geldmann, J., Manica, A., Burgess, N.D., Coad, L., Balmford, A., 2019. A global-level DC. https://www.betterevaluation.org/sites/default/files/oed_wp1.pdf>.
assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas at resisting anthropogenic National CTI Committee, 2011. MPA MEAT. https://www.coraltriangleinitiative.org/s
pressures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 116 (46), 23209–23215. https://doi.org/10.1073/ ites/default/files/resources/MEAT%20e-form.pdf.
pnas.1908221116. Nolte, C., Leverington, F., Kettner, A., Marr, M., Nielsen, G., Bomhard, B., Stolton, S.,
Geldmann, J., Deguignet, M., Balmford, A., Burgess, N.D., Dudley, N., Hockings, M., Stoll-Kleemann, S., Hockins, M., 2010. Protected Area Management Effectiveness
Kingston, N., Klimmek, H., Lewis, A.H., Rahbek, C., 2021. Essential indicators for Assessments in Europe: A Review of Application, Methods and Results. Federal
measuring site-based conservation effectiveness in the post-2020 global biodiversity Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Bonn,
framework. Conserv. Lett. 14 (4), e12792. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12792. Germany.
Gertler, P.J., Martinez, S., Premand, P., Rawlings, L.B., Vermeersch, C.M., 2016. Impact OECD, 2012. Econometric methods for estimating the additional effects of agri-
Evaluation in Practice. The World Bank. DOI. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org environment schemes on farmers. In: practices’, in Evaluation of Agri-Environmental
/handle/10986/25030. Policies: Selected Methodological Issues and Case Studies. OECD Publishing, Paris,
Gomei, M., Abdulla, A., Schröder, C., Yadav, S., Sánchez, A., Rodríguez, D., Abdul, M.D., France.
2019. Towards 2020: How Mediterranean Coutries Are Performing to Protect their Okoli, C., Pawlowski, S.D., 2004. The Delphi method as a research tool: an example,
Sea. World Wildlife Fund. design considerations and applications. Inf. Manag. 42 (1), 15–29.
Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N., Courrau, J., 2006. Evaluating Paolini, C., Rakotobe, D., Djossi, D.J., 2015. Coach Observatory Mission Information
Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing Management Effectiveness of Protected Toolkit (COMIT): A toolkit to support coaching missions to improve protected area
Areas, 2nd edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. management and develop the information system of the Biodiversity and Protected
IUCN, 2008. Protected Areas, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Areas Management (BIOPAMA) Programme, IUCN. https://portals.iucn.org/library/
Natural Resources, viewed 8 August 2021. https://www.iucn.org/theme/pr sites/library/files/documents/2015-047-En.pdf.
otected-areas/about. Pauquet, S., 2005. ‘Field-testing of Conservation International’s management
IUCN, 2012. IUCN Conservation Outlook Assessments - Guidelines for their application effectiveness assessment questionnaire in seven protected areas in Bolivia.’,
to natural World Heritage Sites. https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/import/down ParksWatch.
loads/guidelines___iucn_conservation_outlook_assessments_08_12.pdf. Pomeroy, R.S., ParksJohn, J., Watson, P.M., 2004. How is your MPA doing?. In:
IUCN, 2019. IUCN Conservation Outlook Assessments - Worksheets. https://worldheri A Guidebook of Natural and Social Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected Area
tageoutlook.iucn.org/sites/default/files/files/publications/Worksheets%20-%20 Management Effectiveness, IUCN, WWF, Gland and US National Oceanic and
IUCN%20Conservation%20Outlook%20Assessments_Version%203%200.pdf. Atmospheric Administration https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.CH.2004.PAPS.1.en.
IUCN, 2020. Improve management effectiveness of protected areas – a way forward to Rice, W.S., Sowman, M.R., Bavinck, M., 2020. Using theory of change to improve post-
achieve conservation goals. https://www.iucn.org/news/eastern-and-southern-afri 2020 conservation: a proposed framework and recommendations for use. Conserv.
ca/202003/improve-management-effectiveness-protected-areas-a-way-forward-a Sci. Pract. 2 (12), e301 https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.301.
chieve-conservation-goals. Rolfe, J., Windle, J., McCosker, K., Northey, A., 2018. Assessing cost-effectiveness when
Jacob, K., King, P., Mangalagiu, D., Rodríguez-Lavajos, B., 2019. ‘Approach to environmental benefits are bundled: agricultural water management in great barrier
Assessment of Policy Effectiveness-Global Environment Outlook (GEO-6) Chapter reef catchments. Aust. J. Agricult. Res. Econ. 62 (3), 373–393. https://doi.org/
10’, in Healthy Planet, Healthy People. 10.1111/1467-8489.12259.
Jennings, M.D., 2000. Gap analysis: concepts, methods, and recent results. Landsc. Ecol. Roux, D.J., Nel, J.L., Freitag, S., Novellie, P., Rosenberg, E., 2021. Evaluating and
15, 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008184408300. reflecting on coproduction of protected area management plans. Conserv. Sci. Pract.
Karadeniz, N., Yenilmez, A.N., 2022. Guidelines for Assessing the Management 3 (11), e542. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.542.
Effectiveness of Protected Areas. FAO and MAF, Ankara. Rowe, E.-M., Björkehag, J., Jonsson, S., 2012. Cost-Benefit Analysis versus Cost-
Karousakis, K., 2018. Evaluating the effectiveness of policy instruments for biodiversity: Effectiveness Analysis. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275521348_Cost
impact evaluation, cost-effectiveness analysis and other approaches. In: OECD -Benefit_Analysis_versus_Cost-Effectiveness_Analysis.
Environment Working Papers No. 141, pp. 1–45. Salafsky, N., Salzer, D., Stattersfield, A.J., Hilton-Taylor, C., Neugarten, R., Butchart, S.
Kelava, A., Rohrmann, S., Hodapp, V., 2010. Regression discontinuity designs. In: H., Collen, B., Cox, N., Master, L.L., O’Conner, S., 2008. A standard lexicon for
International Encyclopedia of Education, Third edition, pp. 134–141. https://doi. biodiversity conservation: unified classifications of threats and actions, 22 (4),
org/10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.01696-1. 897–911. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00937.x.
Kenter, J.O., 2016. Integrating deliberative monetary valuation, systems modelling and Salafsky, N., Boshoven, J., Cook, C.N., Lee, A., Margoluis, R., Marvin, A., Schwartz, M.
participatory mapping to assess shared values of ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. W., Stem, C., 2021. Generic theories of change for conservation strategies: a new
21, 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.06.010. series supporting evidence-based conservation practice. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3 (6)
Kubiszewski, I., Costanza, R., Dorji, L., Thoennes, P., Kuenga, T., 2013. An initial https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.400.
estimate of the value of ecosystem services in Bhutan. Ecosyst. Serv. 3, e11–e21. Schmidt, R., Lyytinen, K., Keil, M., Cule, P., 2001. Identifying software project risks: An
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.11.004. international delphi study, 17 (4), 5–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/
07421222.2001.11045662.

10
H. Chen et al. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 98 (2023) 106929

Schröter, M., Van der Zanden, E.H., van Oudenhoven, A.P., Remme, R.P., Serna- UNEP-WCMC, IUCN, 2021. Protected Planet Report 2020, United Nations Environment
Chavez, H.M., De Groot, R.S., Opdam, P., 2014. Ecosystem services as a contested Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre & International Union for
concept: a synthesis of critique and counter-arguments. Conserv. Lett. 7 (6), Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Cambridge, UK. Gland, Switzerland.
514–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12091. UNEP-WCMC, IUCN, 2022. Protected Planet: Management Effectiveness, United Nations
Shi, H., Li, X., Liu, X., Wang, S., Liu, X., Zhang, H., Tang, D., Li, T., 2020. Global Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre & International
protected areas boost the carbon sequestration capacity: evidences from econometric Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Cambridge, UK, viewed 15
causal analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 715, 137001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j. August 2022. https://www.protectedplanet.net/en/thematic-areas/protected-areas-
scitotenv.2020.137001. management-effectiveness-pame?tab=Methodologies.
SMART, 2021. SMART: A Guide To Getting Started. https://smartconservationtools. UNFCCC, 2015. Paris Agreement, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/SMART_GettingStarted2017_English_sm.pdf>. Change Secretariat, viewed 6 April 2022. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/en
Staub, F., Hatziolos, M., 2004. Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management glish_paris_agreement.pdf.
Effectiveness Goals for Marine Protected Areas, World Bank https://documents1. United Nations, 2022. Sustainable Development Goals. https://sdgs.un.org/goals.
worldbank.org/curated/en/101301468135588216/pdf/ United Nations et al, 2021. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting—Ecosystem
32938a10ScoreC1rogress200401public1.pdf#:~:text=The%20Score%20Card%20is Accounting (SEEA EA). White cover publication. https://seea.un.org/ecosystem-a
%20aimed%20at%20helping%20managersreport,in%20by%20themanager%20or% ccounting.
20other%20relevant%20site%20staff. Unnasch, R.S., Braun, D.P., Comer, P.J., Eckert, G.E., 2009. The Ecological Integrity
Stoll-Kleemann, S., 2010. Evaluation of management effectiveness in protected areas: Assessment Framework: A Framework for Assessing the Ecological Integrity of
methodologies and results. Basic Appl. Ecol. 11 (5), 377–382. https://doi.org/ Biological and Ecological Resources of the National Park System. Report to the
10.1016/j.baae.2010.06.004. National Park Service.
Stolton, S., Hockings, M., Dudley, N., MacKinnon, K., Whitten, T., Leverington, F., 2007. Varian, H., 2016. Causal inference in economics and marketing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool: Reporting Progress at Protected Area 113 (27), 7310–7315. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510479113.
Sites. World Bank/WWF, Forest Alliance. Watch, Park, 2006. Strengthening parks to safeguard biodiversity, viewed 20 August
Stuart, E.A., 2010. Matching methods for causal inference: a review and a look forward. 2021. http://www.parkswatch.org/main.php.
Stat. Sci. 25 (1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1214/09-STS313. Wätzold, F., Schwerdtner, K., 2005. Why be wasteful when preserving a valuable
The Nature Conservancy, 2003a. Measuring Success: The Parks in Peril Site resource? A review article on the cost-effectiveness of European biodiversity
Consolidation Scorecard Manual. conservation policy. Biol. Conserv. 123 (3), 327–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
The Nature Conservancy, 2003b. Methods for Evaluating Ecosystem Integrity and biocon.2004.12.001.
Monitoring Ecosystem Response. https://www.cbd.int/doc/pa/tools/Methods% Weeks, R., Russ, G.R., Alcala, A.C., White, A.T., 2010. Effectiveness of marine protected
20for%20Evaluating%20Ecosystem%20Integrity%20and%20Monitoring%20Ec areas in the Philippines for biodiversity conservation. Conserv. Biol. 24 (2),
osystem%20Respons.pdf#:~:text=The%20Ecological%20Integrity%20Framework 531–540. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01340.x.
%20developed%20by%20The%20Nature,The%20framework%20consists%20of% Wei, F., Costanza, R., Dai, Q., Stoeckl, N., Gu, X., Farber, S., Nie, Y., Kubiszewski, I.,
20the%20following%20four%20components%3A. Hu, Y., Swaisgood, R., Yang, X., 2018. The value of ecosystem services from Giant
The Nature Conservancy, 2018. METT: Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool. htt panda reserves. Curr. Biol. 28, 2174–2180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ps://www.conservationgateway.org/ExternalLinks/Pages/mett-management-effect cub.2018.05.046.
ive.aspx. Wells, S., Mangubhai, S., 2004. A Workbook for Assessing Management Effectiveness of
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2021. Theory-Based Approaches to Evaluation: Marine Protected Areas in the Western Indian Ocean, IUCN Eastern African Regional
Concepts and Practices, viewed 18 August 2021. https://www.canada. Programme. https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/9969.
ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/audit-evaluation/evaluation-government Wilson-Grau, R., Britt, H., 2012. Outcome Harvesting. Ford Foundation. https://usaidlea
-canada/theory-based-approaches-evaluation-concepts-practices.html#toc4. rninglab.org/sites/default/files/resource/files/Outome%20Harvesting%20Brief%
Tushabe, H., Kalema, J., Byaruhanga, A., Asasira, J., Ssegawa, P., Balmford, A., 20FINAL%202012-05-2-1.pdf.
Davenport, T., Fjeldså, J., Friis, I., Pain, D., 2006. A nationwide assessment of the Wing, C., Cook, T.D., 2013. Strengthening the regression discontinuity design using
biodiversity value of Uganda’s important bird areas network. Conserv. Biol. 20 (1), additional design elements: a within-study comparison. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 32
85–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00318. (4), 853–877. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21721.
UNCCD, 2017. The Future Strategic Framework of the Convention. Wooldridge, J., 2015. Introductory econometrics: a modern approach. Cengage Learn.
UNEP, 2019. Guidelines for Conducting Integrated Environmental Assessments. United World Heritage Centre, 2008. Enhancing our Heritage Toolkit: Assessing management
Nations Environment Programme Nairobi, Kenya. effectiveness of natural World Heritage sites, UNESCO World Heritage Centre.
UNEP, 2021. World met target for protected area coverage on land, but quality must http://whc.unesco.org/en/series/23/.
improve, viewed 4 August 2021. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-r
elease/world-met-target-protected-area-coverage-land-quality-must-improve.

11