What is the evidence documenting the effects of marine or coastal nature conservation or natural resource management activities on human well-being in South East Asia? A systematic map

• Main Authors: Jacqualyn Eales, Alison Bethel, James Fullam, Sandra Olmesdahl, Prawestari Wulandari, Ruth Garside
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier 2021-06-01
• Series: Environment International
• Subjects: Biodiversity conservation; Marine Reserve; Marine Protected Area; Poverty; Human development; Livelihood
• Online Access: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412021000210

Background: Conservation activities and natural resource management interventions have often aimed to tackle the dual challenge of improving nature conservation and human well-being. However, there is concern over the extent to which this dual goal has been achieved, and an increasing recognition of trade-offs and synergies within and between aspects of each of the goals. The amount and scope of the available evidence on the success of conservation and management interventions in both arenas has lacked documentation, for a number of reasons, including limited resources for monitoring and evaluation and the difficulty in bringing together a disparate evidence base. This systematic map focuses on the interaction between marine conservation management and the health and well-being of coastal communities in South East Asia. Method: We searched bibliographic databases to find published literature, and identified grey literature through institutional and organisational website searches and key stakeholders. Eligibility criteria were applied in two stages, title and abstract and full text, with consistency checks. We extracted meta-data on the design and characteristics of each study, from which we produced an interactive database and map, and a narrative summary. Results: We assessed 42,894 records at title and abstract from the main searches. 1,331 articles were assessed at full text (30 articles were not retrievable). 287 articles (281 studies) were included in the systematic map. Most studies were peer-reviewed publications (90%), and from the Philippines and Indonesia (72%). 31% of studies were solely qualitative, 45% were solely quantitative and 24% included both qualitative and quantitative research. Only 24% (31/127) of quantitative studies included a comparator.We identified knowledge clusters where studies investigated the links between the marine conservation interventions: Site Protection, Economic or Livelihood Incentives or Alternatives, or Habitat Management, and the human health and well-being outcomes: Economic Living Standards, Governance and Empowerment, or Social Relations. In addition, qualitative research clusters were identified exploring the links between the intervention Habitat Management, and the outcome Governance and Empowerment, and between the intervention Economic or Livelihood Incentives or Alternatives, and the outcomes of Governance and Empowerment, and Social Relations.We identified major knowledge gaps in evidence for the effect of marine conservation interventions on the outcomes Freedom of Choice and Action, Security and Safety, Subjective Well-being, Health, and Culture and Spirituality. There was a lack of studies involving Education, Awareness and Activism interventions that reported any human health and well-being outcomes. Conclusion: We present the first updatable, interrogable and comprehensive evidence map on this topic for South East Asia. Our work supports further, detailed investigation of knowledge clusters using systematic review and also serves to identify understudied topic areas. The lack of comparative, quantitative studies suggests that future research should include counterfactuals to strengthen the robustness of evidence base. Users of this systematic map should recognise that much evidence may be national or locally specific, and that we did not undertake an assessment of study quality. Thus, when considering implications for policy and decision-making, users should carefully consider the heterogeneity of available evidence and refer to original research articles to gain a full depth of understanding and context.