Improving credibility and transparency of conservation impact evaluations through the partial identification approach

The fundamental challenge of evaluating the impact of conservation interventions is that researchers must estimate the difference between the outcome after an intervention occurred and what the outcome would have been without it (counterfactual). Because the counterfactual is unobservable, researchers must make an untestable assumption that some units (e.g., organisms or sites) that were not exposed to the intervention can be used as a surrogate for the counterfactual (control). The conventional approach is to make a point estimate (i.e., single number along with a confidence interval) of impact, using, for example, regression. Point estimates provide powerful conclusions, but in nonexperimental contexts they depend on strong assumptions about the counterfactual that often lack transparency and credibility. An alternative approach, called partial identification (PI), is to first estimate what the counterfactual bounds would be if the weakest possible assumptions were made. Then, one narrows the bounds by using stronger but credible assumptions based on an understanding of why units were selected for the intervention and how they might respond to it. We applied this approach and compared it with conventional approaches by estimating the impact of a conservation program that removed invasive trees in part of the Cape Floristic Region. Even when we used our largest PI impact estimate, the program's control costs were 1.4 times higher than previously estimated. PI holds promise for applications in conservation science because it encourages researchers to better understand and account for treatment selection biases; can offer insights into the plausibility of conventional point-estimate approaches; could reduce the problem of advocacy in science; might be easier for stakeholders to agree on a bounded estimate than a point estimate where impacts are contentious; and requires only basic arithmetic skills.

[1]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  Contrasting approaches to statistical regression in ecology and economics , 2009 .

[2]  A. Wannenburgh,et al.  Restoration of water resources (natural capital) through the clearing of invasive alien plants from riparian areas in South Africa — Costs and water benefits , 2008 .

[3]  Annette Boaz,et al.  Real-world approaches to assessing the impact of environmental research on policy , 2011 .

[4]  S. Dolrenry,et al.  Efficacy of Two Lion Conservation Programs in Maasailand, Kenya , 2014, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[5]  Jasjeet S. Sekhon,et al.  Multivariate and Propensity Score Matching Software with Automated Balance Optimization: The Matching Package for R , 2008 .

[6]  Gary King,et al.  Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference , 2007, Political Analysis.

[7]  C. Weiss The many meanings of research utilization. , 1979 .

[8]  Paul J. Ferraro,et al.  Evaluation of biodiversity policy instruments: what works and what doesn't? , 2012 .

[9]  J. Sekhon,et al.  Genetic Matching for Estimating Causal Effects: A General Multivariate Matching Method for Achieving Balance in Observational Studies , 2006, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[10]  Paul J. Ferraro,et al.  Show Me the Money: Do Payments Supply Environmental Services in Developing Countries? , 2010, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy.

[11]  Charles F. Manski,et al.  Identification for Prediction and Decision , 2008 .

[12]  Paul J. Ferraro,et al.  The performance of non-experimental designs in the evaluation of environmental programs: A design-replication study using a large-scale randomized experiment as a benchmark , 2014 .

[13]  S. Higgins,et al.  Validation of a spatial simulation model of a spreading alien plant population , 2001 .

[14]  Subhrendu K. Pattanayak,et al.  Do Payments for Environmental Services Affect Forest Cover? A Farm-Level Evaluation from Costa Rica , 2012, Land Economics.

[15]  R. Cowling,et al.  The Challenges of Alleviating Poverty through Ecological Restoration: Insights from South Africa's “Working for Water” Program , 2013 .

[16]  Daniel S. Nagin,et al.  3. Bounding Disagreements about Treatment Effects: A Case Study of Sentencing and Recidivism , 1998 .

[17]  R. Cowling,et al.  Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of invasive alien plant clearing: A case study from South Africa , 2012 .

[18]  Robert Koenig,et al.  Unleashing an army to repair alien-ravaged ecosystems. , 2009, Science.

[19]  Paul J. Ferraro,et al.  Advances in Measuring the Environmental and Social Impacts of Environmental Programs , 2014 .

[20]  C. Manski,et al.  Monotone Instrumental Variables with an Application to the Returns to Schooling , 1998 .

[21]  Mathieu Rouget,et al.  Current patterns of habitat transformation and future threats to biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems of the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa , 2003 .

[22]  D. Richardson,et al.  Guidelines for improved management of riparian zones invaded by alien plants in South Africa , 2008 .

[23]  D. Maitre,et al.  Invasive plants and water resources in the Western Cape Province, South Africa: modelling the consequences of a lack of management. , 1996 .

[24]  Gary King,et al.  The Dangers of Extreme Counterfactuals , 2006, Political Analysis.

[25]  C. Manski Policy Analysis with Incredible Certitude , 2010 .

[26]  W. Foden,et al.  Red list of South African plants 2009. , 2009 .

[27]  Jasjeet S. Sekhon,et al.  Genetic Optimization Using Derivatives , 2011, Political Analysis.

[28]  D. Richardson,et al.  Estimating the effect of plantations on pine invasions in protected areas: a case study from South Africa , 2015 .

[29]  Steven I. Higgins,et al.  USING A DYNAMIC LANDSCAPE MODEL FOR PLANNING THE MANAGEMENT OF ALIEN PLANT INVASIONS , 2000 .

[30]  R. Cowling,et al.  Ecosystem services, efficiency, sustainability and equity: South Africa's Working for Water programme. , 1998, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[31]  Charles F. Manski,et al.  Confidence Intervals for Partially Identified Parameters , 2003 .

[32]  C. Manski Monotone Treatment Response , 2009, Identification for Prediction and Decision.

[33]  Jordi Honey-Rosés,et al.  Mainstreaming Impact Evaluation in Nature Conservation , 2016 .

[34]  Paul J. Ferraro,et al.  Counterfactual thinking and impact evaluation in environmental policy , 2009 .