Coding sheet describing the predictor and outcome variables

CODER NAME: ______

Author(s) and Year:

Paper Title:

  1. First author’s academic discipline
/ Social Scientist
Economist
Anthropologist
Geographer
Ecologist
Environmental Law
NGO staff member
Other:
Undefined / Notes:
  1. Project name

  1. Project location
(country)
  1. Year research was conducted

  1. Year paper was published

  1. Geographic location
/ Neartic
Oceanic
Neotropical
Antarctic
Afrotropical
Pelearctic
Indo-Malay
Australasia / Notes:
  1. Ecosystem Type
/
  • Tropical & Subtropical Moist Broadleaf Forests
  • Tropical & Subtropical Dry Broadleaf Forests
  • Tropical & Subtropical Coniferous Forests
  • Temperate Broadleaf & Mixed Forests
  • Temperate Conifer Forests
  • Boreal Forests/Taiga
  • Tropical & Subtropical Grasslands, Savannas & Shrublands
  • Temperate Grasslands, Savannas & Shrublands
  • Flooded Grasslands & Savannas
  • Montane Grasslands & Shrublands
  • Tundra
  • Mediterranean Forests
  • Marine
  • Other:
  • Undefined
/ Notes:
  1. Land/resource tenure
(tenure over land or primary resources targeted by the project) / 1. no community control
2. mixed community +other control (joint)
3. local but private land ownership
4. total communal or community control
5. undefined / Notes:
  1. Subsistence types
(e.g. hunters and gatherers, pastoralists, horticulturalists, agrarians, mixed, etc. – describe all that apply)
  1. Land use type - list all that apply
    (e.g. grazing, hunting, agriculture, fishing):

  1. Importance of resource/landto local people
/ 1. fundamental direct (positive benefits)
2. fundamental negative (pest sp)
3. non-essential (incidental)
4. value added income
5. value added other / Notes:
  1. Market integration
/ 1. low
2. moderate
3. high / Notes:
  1. Broader socio-political and economic conditions
(list any that apply):
  1. Environmental shocks
/ –environmental shocks:
–local environmental conditions/constraints:
  1. Population size

  1. Population dynamics
16a. Pop. Heterogeneity / Population Growing: YES / NO
Econ heterogeneity: high / low / undef Notes:
Ethnic heterogeneity: high / low / undef Notes:
  1. Supportiveness of broader governance structures
/ a. Presence of national policy transferring (or reaffirming or assuring) land and/or resource rights to local communities ( Y / N ):
Notes:
b. Are national-level land rights and/or CBNRM policies actually implemented – do they have the desired effect at the community level (or is it an empty policy)? ( Y / N ):
Notes:
  1. Effectiveness oflocal government institutions
/ 1. ineffective institutions, conflict
2. mixed or neutral institutional effectiveness
3. effectiveinstitutions / Notes:
  1. Supportiveness of local non-gov institutions and culture
/ 1. unsupportiveinstitutions
2. mixed support from culture/nongovinstits
3. supportive institutions / Notes:
  1. Threat 1
/ Type
Habitat destruction Habitat degradation Species mortality Species disturbance
Other:
Undefined / Source
Agric/aquaculture
Urban develop
Tourism
Industry
Transportation
War/unrest
Natural disasters
Biological resource use Energy production
Other:
Unknown / Severity
Minimal
Moderate
Large
Undefined / Motivation
Commercial
Subsistence
Mixed
Undefined / Mrkt threat YES
NO / Mrkt source
Local
Non-local
(global)
NA
  1. Threat 2
/ Type
Habitat destruction Habitat degradation Species mortality Species disturbance
Other:
Undefined / Source
Agric/aquaculture
Urban develop
Tourism
Industry
Transportation
War/unrest
Natural disasters
Biological resource use Energy production
Other:
Unknown / Severity
Minimal
Moderate
Large
Undefined / Motivation
Commercial
Subsistence
Mixed
Undefined / Mrkt threat YES
NO / Mrkt source
Local
Non-local
(global)
NA
  1. Threat 3
/ Type
Habitat destruction Habitat degradation Species mortality Species disturbance
Other:
Undefined / Source
Agric/aquaculture
Urban develop
Tourism
Industry
Transportation
War/unrest
Natural disasters
Biological resource use Energy production
Other:
Unknown / Severity
Minimal
Moderate
Large
Undefined / Motivation
Commercial
Subsistence
Mixed
Undefined / Mrkt threat YES
NO / Mrkt source
Local
Non-local
(global)
NA
  1. Project initiation/duration (years)

  1. Goals of project (list)

  1. Habitat/species focus
/ Habitat Notes:
Species
Both
DK
  1. Is there a protected area associated with the project
/ YES / NO
  1. Protected area name (if applicable)

  1. Protected area start date (predate project?)

  1. Did protected area predate the project?
/ YES / NO
  1. Protected area size (units)

  1. IUCN ranking
/ I. Strict Nature Reserve
II. National Park
III. National Monument
IV. Habitat/Species Management Area
V. Protected Landscape (incorporates anthropological reserve)
VI. Managed Resource Area (incorporates multiple use)
Undefined / Notes:
  1. Capacity building
/ Tech Skills: YES / NO
Notes:
Institution Build: YES / NO
Notes:
  1. Approach to govt. institutions
/ 1. conflict
2. neutral
3. active engagement
4. undefined / Notes:
  1. Approach to non-govt. institutions and shared values/culture
/ 1. conflict
2. neutral
3. active engagement
4. undefined / Notes:
  1. Interaction between broader governance structures and local institutions/contexts (national – local)
/ a. Is the national government involved in project decision making?
(Y/ N):
Notes:
b. If the national government is not involved, do they provide support for the community and/or project?
( Y / N ):
Notes:
c. Is there an NGO working locally that is involved/supportive of the project decision making?
- involved formally
- not involved but supportive
- not involved/conflicting
Notes:
f. Is there an aspect of local government (outside of the community, e.g. police, local courts) that is involved with or supportive of the project decision making?)
- involved formally
- not involved but supportive
- not involved/conflicting
Notes:
  1. Project impetus(initial idea/motivation for the project)
/ 1. nocommunity
2. a little community
3. joint or complete community / Notes:
  1. Project establishment
(involvement project design and development). / 1. no community
2. a little community
3. joint or complete community / Notes:
  1. Decision-making
(involvementin daily decision-making in the project). / 1. no community control
2. a little community control
3. joint or complete community / Notes:
  1. Charisma
(was there a charismatic leader or group of people present that affected the project): / YES / NO / Notes:
  1. Envt. Education
/ YES / NO / Notes:
  1. Economic Benefits
/ 1. Full Protection (no community use)(FP)
2. Protection with Education (FP)
3. Protection with Ecotourism (IC)
4. ICDP Emphasizing Compensation (FP)
5. ICDP Emphasizing Substitution (SC)
6. ICDP Emphasizing Enhancement (DC)
7. CBC emphasizing reduction in resource use (RC) AND/OR No protection or restriction on resource use (CBC with education) (DC) / Notes:
  1. Resource Use
(of resources targeted by the project) / -protected/prohibited
- regulated use
- unregulated use / Notes:
  1. Benefits target
/ International
National
Regional (state/province/district/locality)
Community
Household
Individual
No Benefits intended / Notes:
41a. Social capital/benefits
(what social (intangible) benefits did the community reap from the project) / Yes
No
Eroded/deteriorated / Notes:
41b. Elite capture / YES / NO / Notes:
  1. Benefit inequity
(or inequity created by intervention) / YES / NO / Notes:
  1. Attitudinal monitoring
/ Yes, Quantitative
Yes, Qualitative
Yes, Implied
No / Notes:
  1. Attitudinal outcomes
/ Success
Limited success
Failure
Undefined / Notes:
  1. Behavioral monitoring
/ Yes, Quantitative
Yes, Qualitative
Yes, Implied
No / Notes:
  1. Behavioral outcomes
/ Success
Limited success
Failure
Undefined / Notes:
  1. Ecological monitoring
/ Yes, Quantitative
Yes, Qualitative
Yes, Implied
No / Notes:
  1. Ecological outcomes
/ Success
Limited success
Failure
Undefined / Notes:
  1. Economic monitoring
/ Yes, Quantitative
Yes, Qualitative
Yes, Implied
No / Notes:
  1. Economic outcomes
/ Success
Limited success
Failure
Undefined / Notes:
Comments:

1