Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40165705›Full record

ReviewConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025

Navigating data challenges in socioeconomic impact assessments of conservation regimes.

Reem Hajjar, Johan A Oldekop, Roberto Toto, Lucas Alencar, Samuel D Bell, Katie Devenish, Duong T Khuu, Mariana Hernandez-Montilla, Suhyun Jung, Sandy Nofyanza and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Navigating data challenges in socioeconomic impact assessments of conservation regimes.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Reem HajjarDepartment of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0219-7313
Johan A OldekopGlobal Development Institute, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0565-812X
Roberto TotoDepartment of Applied Economics, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.ORCID 0009-0009-7858-1128
Lucas AlencarGlobal Development Institute, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5021-8348
Samuel D BellDepartment of Applied Economics, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6091-6104
Katie DevenishGlobal Development Institute, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4278-8513
Duong T KhuuGlobal Development Institute, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1668-9741
Mariana Hernandez-MontillaGlobal Development Institute, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9233-9030
Suhyun JungDepartment of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8686-2055
Sandy NofyanzaGlobal Development Institute, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8671-6418
Lok Mani SapkotaDepartment of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.

Funding

British Academy VF2\100601Economic and Social Research Council ES/Y0026601/1National Science Foundation NSF-DISES 2108354UK Research and Innovation EP/X023222/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scholars are increasingly assessing the impact of conservation interventions at national and regional scales with robust causal inference methods designed to emulate randomized control trials (quasi-experimental methods). Although spatial and temporal data to measure habitat loss and gain with remote sensing tools are increasingly available, data to measure spatially explicit poverty and human well-being at a high resolution are far less available. Bridging this data gap is essential to assess the social outcomes of conservation actions at scale and improve understanding of socioenvironmental synergies and trade-offs. We reviewed the kinds of socioeconomic data that are publicly available to measure the effects of conservation interventions on poverty and well-being, including national census data, representative household surveys funded by international organizations, surveys collected for individual research programs, and high-resolution gridded poverty and well-being data sets. We considered 4 challenges in the use of these data sets: consistency and availability of indicators and metrics across regions and countries, availability of data at appropriate temporal and spatial resolutions, and technical considerations associated with data available in different formats. Potential workarounds to these challenges include analytical methods to help resolve data mismatches and the use of emerging data products.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesSocioeconomic FactorsEcosystemHumansPoverty30×30accesibilidad a datosdata availability and accessibilitydiseños de investigación cuasiexperimentaldisponibilidad de datosGlobal Biodiversity Frameworkindicadores de bienestarindicadores de pobrezaMarco Global de Biodiversidadpoverty and well‐being indicatorsquasi‐experimental research designsresolución espacial y temporaltemporal and spatial resolution

Identifiers

PMID40165705
PMCPMC11959336

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.