Citation

Material Information

Title:
An evidence-based approach to improving the effectiveness of conservation and sustainable development (CSD) projects in Madre de Dios, Peru
Creator:
Romero Bautista, Tania ( author )
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 online resource (74 pages) : illustrations ;

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Sustainable Development Practice field practicum report, M.D.P
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
Peru is one of the Latin American countries with fastest economic growth during the past ten years. However, Peruvians living in rural areas, such as the Andes and Amazonia, have not benefitted as significantly from this growth. The Madre de Dios region in the Southern Peruvian Amazon is the "Capital of Peru's Biodiversity" and the home of several indigenous groups, including people living in voluntary isolation. Despite its cultural and environmental importance, this region faces serious problems such as poverty and deforestation. The various entities working to address these problems, however, have struggled to identify the most effective approach for making progress. This difficulty is compounded by the fact that, in many cases, the data that would be necessary to make these determinations is inadequate or lacking entirely. For this reason, the need for a more evidence-intensive approach to addressing these problems has increased. Effective Altruism (EA) as a framework elaborates on evidence and the need to identify the relevant measures of value. This research aims, first, to investigate what "effectiveness" means in the Conservation and Sustainable Development (CSD) context, and second, how this value may be measured and tracked through the course of a CSD project within the Peruvian context.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
General Note:
The MDP Program is administered jointly by the Center for Latin American Studies and the Center for African Studies.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Tania Romero Bautista.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
036257163 ( ALEPH )
Classification:
LD1780.1 2018 ( lcc )

UFDC Membership

Aggregations:
University of Florida Institutional Repository

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

AN EVIDENCE BASED APPROACH TO IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (CSD) PROJECTS IN MADRE DE DIOS, PERU By TANIA ROMERO BAUTISTA

PAGE 2

A FIELD PRACTICUM REPORT PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT PRACTICE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2018 2018 Tania Romero Bautista

PAGE 3

To my parents, the Madre de Dios region in Peru and everyone who enthusiastically collaborated on this research

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank the Puerto Lucerna community members, the Center for Latin American Studies the Master of Development Practice Program, the Tropical and Conservation Development Program, Alliance for Research and Conservation in the Amazon, Wild Forests and Fauna, the Fulbright Scholarship Program, and Patrick Campbell

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 8 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 10 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES ................................ ................................ ......... 13 Objective 1 (OBJ1) ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 13 Research Question 1 (RQ1): ................................ ................................ ............................ 13 Research Question 2 (RQ2 ): ................................ ................................ ............................ 13 Objective 2 (OBJ2) ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 13 Research Question 3 (RQ3) ................................ ................................ ............................. 13 Objective 3 (OBJ3): ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 13 Research Question 4 (RQ4) ................................ ................................ ............................. 14 Research Question 5 (RQ5) ................................ ................................ ............................. 14 METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 17 Objective 1 (OBJ1) ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 17 Objective 2 (OBJ2) ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 17 Analysis of the Peruvian Agency for International Cooperation (APCI) Project Database ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 18 Objective 3 (OBJ3): ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 20 Case Study in the Puerto Lucerna Community ................................ ............................... 21 Study site ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 21 Host organization and collaborators ................................ ................................ ......... 23 Lucerna socioeconomic questionnaire ................................ ................................ ..... 24 Workshops in the Puerto Lucerna community ................................ ......................... 24 Ignorance condition scenario workshop ................................ ................................ ... 24 Values survey ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 26 Knowledge condition scenario workshop ................................ ................................ 27 Discrete choice experiment ................................ ................................ ...................... 27 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 31 OBJECTIVE 1: ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 31 RESEARCH QUESTIO N 1: ................................ ................................ ........................... 31 RESEARCH QUESTION 2 ................................ ................................ ............................ 32 OBJECTIVE 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 33 RESEARCH QUESTIO N 3 ................................ ................................ ............................ 33 Examination of structure of APCI project database reporting system ..................... 35

PAGE 6

6 CSD Project Typology ................................ ................................ ............................. 37 Effectiv eness Scoring of CSD projects ................................ ................................ .... 38 OBJECTIVE 3 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 38 RESEARCH QUESTION 4: ................................ ................................ ........................... 38 Value su rvey ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 39 Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) ................................ ................................ ......... 39 RESEARCH QUESTION 5. ................................ ................................ ........................... 44 DISCUSSI ON ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 47 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 48 APPENDICES COMMUNITY QUESTIONNAIRE (SPANISH VERSION) ................................ ............... 49 IGNORANCE (NON EA) CONDITION SCENARIO WORKSHOP ................................ .. 59 VALUE SURVEY (SPANISH VERSION) ................................ ................................ ........... 63 PHOTOS OF PUERTO LUCERNA COMMUNITY ................................ ............................ 70 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 73

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1. Example attributes of set of project choices A and B in discrete choice experiment ............... 29 2. Hypotheses formulated for the discrete choice experiment the Puerto Lucerna community .... 30 3. CSD P roject Typology ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 37 4. Top 3 rated values from Value Survey in Puerto Lucerna community ................................ .... 39 5. Participant project choices in Discrete Choice Experiment ................................ ....................... 40 6. Rate of selection per attribute category and quality combination ................................ ............. 40 7. Correlation of attributes of choice ................................ ................................ ............................ 42 8. Profile of Puerto Lucerna community ................................ ................................ ....................... 44

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1. Role of EA in Project development and evaluation ................................ ................................ ... 12 2. Field Practicum Conceptual Framework ................................ ................................ .................. 15 3. Field Practicum Contextual Framework ................................ ................................ .................... 16 4. Diagram of methods for OBJ.3: Determine to what extent the mechanisms for measuring effectiveness influence the development decisions of local communities ......................... 21 5: Satellite image of the Lucerna community, Las Piedras District, 2017 ................................ .... 23 6. Roadmap of institutional infrastructure for measuring effectiveness in CSD projects ............ 35 7: Gaps in infrastructure for Measuring the Effectiveness of CSD Projects in Peru (with weaknesses and gaps highlighted with broken chains) ................................ ...................... 36 8. Ignorance condition versus Knowledge condition in the Lucerna community, 2017 ............... 41 9. Perceptions of Economic Activity in Puerto Lucerna Community ................................ ........... 45 10. Community Perceptions of Eff ectiveness Rating of Government ................................ ........... 45 11. Community members Occupations ................................ ................................ .......................... 46 12. Me arriving to the Puerto Lucerna community ................................ ................................ ........ 70 13. The president of agriculture in Puerto Lucerna and me participating in a icebreaker game ... 70 14. Community members from Puerto Lucerna participating in the Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 71 15. Community members presenting their ideas during the Ignorance Condition Scenario Workshop ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 71 16. All the participants from the Puerto Lucerna community in the Knowledge Condition Scenario Workshop ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 72 17. Me writing a formal invitation to the community members for the Knowledge Condition Scenario Workshop ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 72

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Field Practicum Report Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Flo rida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Sustainable Development Practice AN EVIDENCE BASED APPROACH TO IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CONSERVATION AND SUSTAINABL E DEVELOPMENT (CSD) PROJECTS IN MADRE DE DIOS, PERU By Tania Romero Bautista April 2018 Chair: Ang lica Almeyda Zambrano Member : Stephen Perz Member: Robert Walker Major: Liberal Arts and Science Peru is one of the Latin American countries with fastest economic growth during the past ten years. However, Peruvians living in rural areas, such as the Andes and Amazonia, have not benefitted as significantly from this growth. The Madre de Dios region in the Southern Peruvian including people living in voluntary isolation. Despite its cultural and environmental importance, this region faces serious problems such as poverty and deforestation. The various entities working t o address these problems, however, have struggled to identify the most effective approach for making progress. This difficulty is compounded by the fact that, in many cases, the data that would be necessary to make these determinations is inadequate or lac king entirely. For this reason, the need for a more evidence intensive approach to addressing these problems has increased. Effective Altruism (EA) as a framework elaborates on evidence and the need to identify the relevant measures of value. This research aims, first, to investigate what second, how this value may be measured and tracked through the course of a CSD project within the Peruvian context

PAGE 10

10 INTRODUCTION World leaders are increasingly recognizing the urgency and importance of conservation and development issues W ith more attention being given to the se subjects and more issues to be addressed, there are higher levels of scrutiny on how governmental resources are being allocated, requiring that those in charge be more rigorous in demonstrating their effectiveness (Pullin and Knight, 2008). Likewise, independent donors a nd policy makers are becoming more c ompelled to i nves t in projects that have been proven effective ( Ferraro and Pattanayak, 2006 ) Some development practitioners have answered this need by developing a more empirical, data driven approach. T he use of evidence based a pproaches in development and later in conservation started in other stakeholders when trying to influence government decisions (Davies, Nutley, & Smith, 2000) These organizations and institutions (Courtenay Botteril, 2017 ) ) According to the Oxford Research Encyclopedia Evidence Based Policy Making is a movement created specifically to rescue policy process f rom politics, meaning the use of research based evidence in policy choice (Courtenay Botteril, 2017) An example of an evidence based approach that has been gaining traction in the philanthropic arena is Effective Altruism. E ffective A ltruism (EA) is a philosophy and methodology for how to use empirical evidence and careful reasoning to achieve the most good possible ( MacAskill, 2015 ). William MacAskill, co founder and President of the Centre for Effective Altruism (CEA), expl ains,

PAGE 11

11 help others the most? Rather than just doing what feels right, we use evidence and careful analysis to find the very best causes to work on (Effective Altrui sm, 2017). The present research aims to apply the EA framework to improving the effectiveness of C onservation and S ustainable D evelopment (CSD) projects in Madre de Dios, Peru. In order to compile as much information as required and to obtain sufficient e vidence to satisfy the objective proposed, I conducted a literature review of the definition of effectiveness and the metrics used to measure effectiveness in the CSD context. The second part of this methodology included a case study in the community of Pu erto Lucerna in Madre de Dios to gather information about their development priorities and the process by which they make development decisions. Within the case study, I conducted two workshops designed to understand how community decision making changes a s a function of how much information (evidence) the community is provided with respect to the outcomes of their various options First, I used a Value Survey in order to gather a first perception of the values of the community members. The results from the Value survey were part of the design of a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE), a method well known in the economic field to determine customer preference. I used the DCE in this study to determine local community preferences regarding CSD projects. Finally, I used community questionnaire to determine the demographic and socioeconomic profile of the community. Figure 1 below illustrates how the EA framework should be used by project managers, donors, and organizations through the various stages of a project de velopment (i.e., after an appropriate cause and intervention have been identified). As the figure also illustrates, the activities encompassed by the Field Practicum component of this research focused most directly on the application of the EA framework to the initial planning and development stages of this process

PAGE 12

12 Fig ure 1. Role of EA in Project development and evaluation

PAGE 13

13 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES sustainable development (CSD) projects in Madre de Dios effective? In order to address this question as comprehensively as possible, the study was divided into three narrower objectives, each encompassing one or more component research questions. Objectiv e 1 (OBJ1) Determine what effectiveness means in the CSD context and how it is measured Research Question 1 (RQ1): What does effectiveness mean in the context of conservation and sustainable development? Research Question 2 (RQ2 ): How do you measure effe ctiveness in the context of conservation and sustainable development? Objective 2 (OBJ2) Conduct an assessment of the current mechanisms for measuring the effectiveness of CSD projects in Madre de Dios, Peru Research Question 3 (RQ3) What is the state of current institutional and policy mechanisms for measuring the effectiveness of CSD projects in Madre de Dios, Peru? Objective 3 (OBJ3): Determine to what extent the mechanisms for measuring effectiveness influence the development decisions of local communities

PAGE 14

14 Research Question 4 (RQ4) How do community members weigh different economic, social, and environmental factors when they consider alternative projects for implementation? Research Question 5 (RQ5) What other facto rs may be serving to influence how community members weigh these economic, social, and environmental factors when they consider alternative projects for implementation? Figure 2 shows the conceptual framework that served as base for this study C onsequentialist eth ics are described in orange and it i s the main source for Effective Altruism (EA) as a framework. C omponents included like high quality evidence, depth research, and careful reasoning are shared with the other theoretical paradigms and represented in the b ox in orange and turquoise Likewise, the ultimate goal: How to do the most good in the world is described at the end of the sequence in orange Conservation and d evelopment in the other sides of the figure are represented in green and blue. E vidence based policy plays a role as a common framework for conservation and development To represent this shared quality of evidence based policy the color used for it is turquoise which is a combin ation of colors blue and green. Consequently, the EA framework exemplifies a tool in conservation and development by having as essential components, high quality evidence, depth research, and careful reasoning. These

PAGE 15

15 components serve as pillars for effectiveness of CSD projects. Fig ure 2. Fiel d Practicum Conceptual Framework Figure 3 illustrates the contextual framework of this research. At the top in the light green ided into three specific objectives detailed as OBJ1, OBJ2, and OBJ3 guiding the need for using a n effectiveness framework, the same that it is the Effective Altruism framework. Base on the objectives and the framework, I applied the different methods (e.g OBJ1 > Literature review). Lastly, there is described most relevant information obtained from the use of the methods (e.g. Literature review > Definition of effectiveness according to EA)

PAGE 16

16 Fig ure 3. Field Practicum Contextual Framework

PAGE 17

17 METHODS In this section, I explain the methods employed for each of the three research objectives encompassed by this study. Objective 1 (OBJ1) Determine what effectiveness means in the CSD context and how it is measured To determine a definition of effectiveness and appropriate metrics for measuring effectiveness in the CSD context, I conducted a literature review that included the following guidelines: 1. Areas of research: Conservation, development, conservation developmen t, sustainable development 2. Search sites: Journal databases, Google Scholar, University of Florida library databases, National Peruvian reports, Peruvian government official documents 3. and 4. Articles inclusion criteria: Relevant to topic, peer reviewed, less than five years old articles preferable, quantitative, and qualitative articles accepted Objective 2 (OBJ2) Conduct an assessment of the current mechanisms for measuring the effectiveness of CSD projects in Madre de Dios, Peru In order to evaluate the state of policy and institutional mechanisms for measuring the effectiveness of CSD projects in Peru and also i n Madre de Dios I conducted an analysis of one of the mechanisms from the Peruvian government which has as one of its functions to evaluate and auditing all the projects in Peru that are financed by international cooperation funds. Th is mechanism was the Peruvian Agency for International Cooperation (APCI)

PAGE 18

18 Analysis of the Peruvian Agency for International Cooperation (APCI) Project Database The analysis of the Peruvian Agency for International Cooperation (APCI) project database involved two main goals: f irst, to examine the structure of the APCI reporting system and second, to guide the development of a project typology to facilitate the evaluation of the ef fectiveness of CSD projects in Madre de Dios. With respect to the first purpose, I focused on two sections of data in particular the Marco Lgico (Logical Framework) and the Evaluacin and Observacin (Evaluation and Observation) section. The Marco Lgico goals, targets, and indicators, which was very important for determining how projects measure their effectiveness and which indicators and metrics they use. The Evaluacin and Observacin section contained information about the monitoring tools used to evaluate the whole project, the duration of the monitoring process, and type of evaluation, if applicable (internal or external). This last section was valuable for determining if projects reported this infor mation to the APCI and if the tools used worked or not. Regarding the second purpose of this analysis, I first filtered the APCI project list for Madre de Dios (consisting of 120 projects) to include only those that fit the description of research. Due to limitations in time and resources, the project list was further filtered according to these additional criteria: 1. Project must be reasonably visible and readily search able ( i.e., either listed on public record or accessible by request ) 2. Project must be currently active or completed since 2016 3. Project has to satisfy a standard definition of a CSD project as reflected in contemporary literature

PAGE 19

19 4. Project has to explicitly ad dress a top priority Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) and ( Madre de Dios ) Once the APCI project list was filtered to include only the 73 projects that matched the criteria described above I then developed a working typology to facilitate the assessment of each what specific activities the project entailed, especially that data contained in the sections. This information was used to classify each project according to its primary activities (e.g., education, conservation of biodiversity, creation of legally protected areas, etc.), and then grouped with other projects of the same general profile. This informal classification provided with a general typology of CSD projects in Madre de Dios. Finally, the number of projects of each type was added together to determine their relative frequency. The APCI proj ect reporting template provides four distinct classification systems according to which organizations can report the impact of their projects: Clasificacion Temtica de Ayuda al Desarrollo (DAC code); Objetivos del Millennium (Millennium Development Goals) ; reas Prioritarias de la Poltica Nacional de la Cooperacin Tcnica Internacional (PNCTI); and Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenido (Sustainable Development Goals). For the purposes of this research, I focused on data reported in the section corresponding s ection was chosen because the SDGs are the most up to date and widely recognized standards ment context. The sustainable development goals are also the standards prescribed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which has an important role within the Peruvian development agenda ( APCI, 2017 ).

PAGE 20

20 I then developed a syste m for estimating the effectiveness of each of the 73 CSD projects in order to generate effectiveness profiles for each of our representative project types. First, I a report commission that seeks to establish priorities for advancing global welfare using methodologies based on the theory of welfare economics using cost benefit analysis ) to rank the various sustainable development targets the 73 projects aimed to address (as indicated in the SDG portion of the Marco Lgico section of their project report). I adopted the Co penhagen Unknown to estimate the cost effectiveness scores of each project. Scores were then calculated as follows: otal 1 pts. = total multiplier (not included in final calculation) Finally, the cumulative cost effectiveness score was calculated by adding each of the totals above. Objective 3 (OBJ3): Determine to what extent the mechanisms for measuring effectiveness influence the devel opment decisions of local communities The diagram of Figure 4 shows the sequence of the methods used for OBJ 3. First, the OBJ 3 included a case study in the community. The case study involved a Community Questionnaire, the Ignorance Condition Scenario Wor kshop, and the Knowledge Condition Scenario Workshop. The Community Questionnaire had as a main purpose to collect basic

PAGE 21

21 demographic and socioeconomic data. The Ignorance Condition Scenario Workshop had as main purpose to determine community priorities in the absence of specific knowledge of project outcomes and the Knowledge Condition Scenario Workshop had as main purpose to gather information about how community members make decisions for CSD projects when provided with evidence. Figure 4. Diagram of methods for OBJ.3: Determine to what extent the mechanisms for measuring effectiveness influence the development decisions of local communities Case Study in the Puerto Lucerna Community Study s ite As part of the efforts to compile information and evidence for the third objective of this research, a case study was conducted in the Puerto Lucerna community in the Las Piedras district of Madre de Dios Department in Peru Madre de Dios is a department of P eru in the Southern Amazon with a population of approximately 140, 508 habitants and it occupies 6.6 percent of the Peruvian territory (Oficina de OBJ.3: Determine to wh at extent the mechanisms for measuring effectiveness influence the development decisions of local communities Case study Community questionnaire Ignorance Condition Scenario Workshop Knowledge Condition Scenario Workshop Value Survey Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) Basic demographic and socioeconomic data C ommunity priorities in the absence of specific knowledge of project outcomes Gather information about how community members make decisions for CSD projects whe n provided with evidence

PAGE 22

22 Gestin de la Informacin y Estadstica, 2016) This region boasts the title of the biodiversity records include more than 600 species of birds, 400 species of reptiles and amphibians, and approximately 200 species of ma mmals (Swenson et al., 2011. Madre de Dios is also home to several indigenous cultures and vulnerable populations, including several that are living in situations of voluntary isolation or initial contact (PIACI) (Swenson, Carter, D omec, & Delgado, 2011) (Lawrence, et al., 2005) (Scullion, Vogt, Sienkiewicz, Gmur, & Trujillo, 2014) Madre de Dios has as main activities agriculture, mining, and tourism These activities a re distributed along its three provinces: Manu, Tahuamanu and Tambopata. The se provinces are divided in to 11 districts within the region ( Gobierno Regional de Madre de Dios, 2012) Scullion, J. J., Vogt, K. A., Sienkiewicz, A., Gmur, S. J., & Trujillo, C. influence of land cover change and conflicting land use authorizations on ecosystem Biological Conservation 247 258. Las Piedras is a district in the province of Tambopata in Madre de Dios and it has approximately a population of 8 904 habitants (Gobierno Regional de Madre de Dios, 2012) Las Piedras is still also a remote, little studied area, and home to several uncontacted tribes, including the Mashco Piro (ARCAmazon, 2015) The Puerto Lucerna community (see figure 5) is one of the oldest rural towns in the Maldona do. The community is connected to the Interoceanic Highway by a n unpaved road, which serves to transport products like Brazil nuts, cocoa, and plantains from the community to the city of Puerto Maldonado The road also serves for logging transportation fro m the community and surrounding areas where this activity has been increasing in the last years.

PAGE 23

23 Fig ure 5 : Satellite image of the Lucerna community, Las Piedras District, 2017 Host organization and collaborators The Alliance for Research and Conservatio n in the Amazon (ARCAmazon) served as the host organization for this research and field practicum. ARCAmazon is a Peruvian non conservation projects, and commun ity work, which support their ultimate goal of protecting the Las Piedras river basin and the natural resources in it (ARCAmazon, 2015). The ARCAmazon team has been working since their foundation at the Las Piedras Research Center (LPAC). This center, loc ated 17 km northwest of the Lucerna community (see Fig. 5) LPAC also receives a regular influx of students, volunteers, and researchers who assist in various capacitie T he support provided by

PAGE 24

24 ARCAmazon to me for the field research included room and board at LPAC for the duration of my field work. While conducting research in Las Piedras, I worked under the supervis ion of David Arbe Loli, provided additional support for varios activities within the field work within the Lucerna community along with several of the local staff at the center. Lucerna socioeconomic questionnaire Upon arrival in Lucerna, I conducted visits to the members of the community to administer individualized questionnaires to ga ther baseline demographic and socio economic data, to map how residents use land and resources, to assess the capacity of the community for various CSD projects, and to identify any background factors that might influence the g future investment in CSD projects (see appendix 1). The information compiled was intended to serve to answer the research question five (RQ5) of the research. These questionnaires were administered to all the members of the community that were present an d consented to participate in the study. Workshops in the Puerto Lucerna community I conducted the Ignorance Condition Scenario Workshop and Knowledge Condition Scenario Workshop in the Puerto Lucerna community These two workshops were designed to understand how community decision making changes as a function of how much information (evidence) the community is provided with respect to the outcomes of their various options Ignorance condition scenario w orkshop Th is first workshop was held 10 days after I arrival and introduction to the community, serving as an icebreaker between me and the members of the Puerto Lucerna community. It also provided the first opportunity to publicly explain the purpose and intended o utcomes of the

PAGE 25

25 research; why Puerto Lucerna community and Madre de Dios were chose for the case study; and most importantly, to gather the opinions and ideas from the members of the community as to what they consider the ideal characteristics and outcomes for projects to be implemented in their community. This last compilation of information was proposed to support the answer of research question four (RQ4) of this research. During the I gnorance C ondition S cenario W orkshop, I guided and facilitated the work shop by providing a flexible structure for the participants to explore their thoughts and ideas regarding conservation and sustainable development projects in their community. The structure that I provided consisted in suggesting three different scenarios (A,B, and C) where each scenario had the following scheme: How would you invest an imaginary amount of money for a conservation and sustainable development project in your community if these things were true: 1) condition in scenario A was that the projec t should include a conservation component to be considered CSD project; 2) condition in scenario B was that the money invested in the project should be spent it during three years; and 3) condition in scenario C was that the project community should think about a way to demonstrate their project is being effective. The sixteen members of the community which participated in this first workshop expressed their ideas and thoughts about how to approach the general question s and conditions in each scenario I pr ovided markers and posters flip sheet paper s so the community members could present their ideas to each other during the workshop. I proposed these three different conditions to encourage the members of the community and what values and outcomes are important for them as part of projects to be implemented in their community. After all the groups formed during the workshop expressed their opinions and proposal in sheet papers and discussed with the entire

PAGE 26

26 workshop grou p, I distributed a V alues S urvey to all the members of the community in the workshop, so they could provide more elaborated feedback about what are the most important values for them when thinking about projects outcomes for their community. The purpose of gathering the information from the V alue S urvey was to track the community members values divided in three different areas (economic, social, and environmental) for projects to be implemented in their community. Values survey At the end of the Ignorance Condition Scenario Workshop I provided to the members of the community with a three page survey (hereafter referred to as Values Survey) consisting of 11 potential values per each category (economic, social, and environmental) and asked the community memb ers to rank each outcome according to their preferences (5 to indicate that the outcome is most important to their decision, 1 to indicate that it is least important to their decision) for a hypothetical development project to be implemented in their commu nity (Appendix 3). The community members were encouraged to make any additional notes they felt may be important to justify their ratings. The values selected for this survey were adapted from the targets of the Preliminary Benefit Cost Assessment of the Final Open Working Group (OWG) on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Outcome document. These targets were ranked as the most effective for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by applying a cost benefit assessment. This document was extracted from th e Copenhagen Consensus report. The Copenhagen Consensus Center is a think tank which main activities involve research and publications of proposed solutions for the biggest world problems. Their information comes from an interdisciplinary effort of scient ists, researchers, recognized

PAGE 27

27 organizations and Novel Laureates so it can be used by policy makers and philanthropists (Copenhagen Consensus Center, 2018). Knowledge condition scenario w orkshop Th is second workshop engaged participants in an exercise desi gned to mimic a situation in which local decision makers were fully informed about the specific economic, social, and environmental impacts of hypothetical development projects. It was therefore designated as the s of this workshop implied gathering information about how members of the Puerto Lucerna community make decisions about the values (economic, social, and environmental outcomes) and which projects they prefer when provided with these data. It was also mean t to serve as a point of comparison with the ignorance scenario, so as to show the potential impact of certain improvements to the mechanisms of measuring effectiveness of CSD projects. Both purposes were intended to compile information and evidence to ans wer research question four (RQ4). Discrete choice experiment A Discrete C hoice E xperiment (DCE) is a type of stated preference method used to identify and evaluate the relative importance of different aspects of decision making for participants or stakeho lders related to specific outcomes (Johnson et al., 2013). While there are different types of stated preferences methods, discrete choice experiments (DCE) and conjoint analysis were the most common used within the economics and marketing fields In order to design a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) there are different considerations to make depending on the complexity of the study and the scrutiny of th e analysis that the researcher intend ed to do (statistical, descriptive, etc.) For the purpose of this study, I considered two important components: Choice setting and attribute selection.

PAGE 28

28 The choice setting of a discrete choice experiment follow ed these three main requirements: 1. The set of alternatives should be collectively exhaustive This means that the set designed includes all possible alternatives, so the participant has to necessarily choose an alternative from the set. 2. The alternatives in the set should be mutually exclusive This means that if a participant chooses an alternative then it means not choosing any other alternative. 3. The number of alternatives in a set should be finite. This is a character istic that differentiates DCE from other forms of regression analysis. For the attribute selection, a consideration applied was that the attributes used for the combination of choice sets should be the most critical from the participant, so this infers tha t this information had to be obtained from a preview survey or qualitative study before the experiment is conducted Based on th is last consideration of the attribute selection I used the answers collected from the Values Survey to design different combin ations of set of choices (projects A and B) for the community members to choose which choice of projects A or B they will prefer and what attributes (economic, social, and environmental values) seem to be more important for them when making their choices. I included project A and project B as the two discrete options available for all the members of the Puerto Lucerna community. The same that were mutually exclusive, so the community members can only choose one of the choices from each set. These attrib utes corresponded to a combination of 16 different sets. These sets of choices (project A and project B) resulted from combining the three top values that the community members ranked in the Value Survey and creating different combinations of choices, the same that had two different parts, the category of attribute (economic, social, and environmental) and the quality of the attributes (Good, moderate, and bad). The quality of attributes was also

PAGE 29

29 represented in the project choice codes as 123, 231, 321, etc where 1 is good, 2 is moderate, and 3 is bad. Nonetheless, since I used three top values (now called attributes) for setting up the choices, each content attribute was coded as X, Y, and Z, which corresponded to X= first ranked attribute, Y= Second rank ed attribute, and Z= third ranked attribute by each category (economic, social, l and Environmental) (See Table 1). For example, in Table 1, the set of attributes indicates that choice project A has as code choice 123 (good economic attribute, moderate social attribute, and bad environmental attribute) Table 1. Example attributes of set of project choices A and B in discrete choice experiment Task 2 Project A Project B 123 231 Cada ao un miembro de la comunidad asegura todas las hectreas de su terreno a travs titulacin y certificado de posesin Cada ao un miembro de la comunidad pierde una hectrea de su terreno y recibe compensacin por ello al precio del mercado Mejoramiento de la carretera, desage y agua potable en un 10% cada ao Mejora miento de la carretera, desage y agua potable en un 1% cada ao Cada 3 aos 50% de la propiedad e infraestructura de la comunidad se pierde a consecuencia de desastres naturales Cada 3 aos solo 10% de la propiedad e infraestructura se pierde a consecuen cia de desastres naturales In continuation of the discrete choice experiment design, I formulated three hypotheses to test as part of the experiment. These hypotheses were based in the combinations of the choices set (tasks) and potential relationship between the categories and qualities differences related to community member decision maki ng. These hypotheses are described in the table belong (See Table 2).

PAGE 30

30 Table 2. Hypotheses formulated for the discrete choice experiment the Puerto Lucerna community Variable Hypotheses Explanation Test Control for Attribute category E>S>G (i.e., 123>132>21 3>132>312> 321) All other things being equal, an attribute with an E value (economic) will be weighed more heavily than an attribute with a S value (social), which will be weighed more heavily than an attribute with a G value (environmental). Comp arison of two graphs: (1) a baseline graph in which selection is perfectly positively correlated with these expected values; and (2) a graph showing the actual correlation of these values, controlling for attribute content. Attribute content (all attribut es come from the same set, X, Y, or Z) Quality category pairing Content matters (content dependence) There exists at least one scenario (task) in which the effect of manipulating attribute content will overwhelm the effect of manipulating the balance of a ttribute quality. All of our trials were supplied with options from the same set, i.e., only X or Y or Z, so we did not test this hypothesis directly. However, we can compare different trials in which the category quality pairs were identical, e.g., a 123 vs. 321 trials from set x compared to a 123 vs. 321 trials from set Y. Attribute category Quality category pairing Content doesn't matter (content independenc e) There does not exist at least one scenario (task) in which the effect of manipulating attribute content will overwhelm the effect of manipulating the balance of attribute quality. Comparison of two graphs: (1) a graph showing expected correlations when selection is perfectly positively correlated with these expected values; and (2) a graph showing the actual correlation of these values, controlling for attribute content.

PAGE 31

31 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS OBJ ECTIVE 1: Determine what effectiveness means in the CSD context and how it is measured R ESEARCH Q UESTION 1 : What does effectiveness mean in the context of conservation and sustainable development? Through a review of the current literature that included a total of 2 3 sources of scientific articles and official reports I found that there was no single, standard definition of I found a variety of alternative definitions representing different theoretical frameworks. These definitions were mainly related to impact and goal achievement of the projects analyzed and evaluated. Some of these frameworks included based approa ( Pullin and Knight; 2008, Shutherland et al., 2004; Scullion et al.,2014; Ferraro and Hanauer, 2014; Ad ams and Sandbrook, 2012; Ferraro and Pattanayak, 2006 ) In many cases, the implementers of CSD projects (namely, CSD organizations and local government agencies) seemed to give minimal thought to the deeper theoretical basis for their projects, but instead relied on such considerations as the current priorities or expectations of the local population, which they served; the conditions from funding agencies or individual donors; and the collective experience of the staff within these organizations ( Ferraro an d Hanauer, 2014; Adams and Sandbrook, 2012; Ferraro and Pattanayak, 2006 Pullin and Knight; 2008 ) The E ffective Altruism (EA) prescribes different criteria which aims to address the need of having a standard definition of effectiveness and including a n evidence based approach as part

PAGE 32

32 of its core structure A ccording to EA, effectiveness is not just about being successful in producing an intended or desired result (which is the standard definition of effective), but also about choosing the right, or best, goals to pursue Furthermore, within EA, effectiveness is 1) an effective intervention (2) that addresses a high priority cause (Effective Altruism, 2017) R ESEARCH Q UESTION 2 How do you measure effectiveness in the context of conservation and sustainab le development? There have been different strategies to measure projects effectiveness. These measures and metrics were linked to the frameworks described in RQ1 as part of the findings for definition of effectiveness. These included: Systematic reviews Web based databases Place based conservation development policies Land use systems Cost effectiveness approaches Synopsis of evidence Impact evaluation ( Pullin and Knight; 2008, Shutherland et al., 2004; Scullion et al.,2014; Ferraro and Hanauer, 2014; Adams and Sandbrook, 2012; Ferraro and Pattanayak, 2006 ). Within the Effective Altruism framework, the definition of effectiveness involves two levels of analysis (prioritization of causes and evaluation of interventions), so the practice of measurin g effectiveness also involves two levels of evaluation: evaluation of causes by the I mportance T ractability and N eglectedness (ITN) criteria and the evaluation of interventions by cost benefit and cost effectiveness methods. EA prescribes using either a traditional cost benefit or cost effectiveness analysis, commonly used in economics and finance. In a cost benefit analysis, t he benefits of a potential action are summed, and then the costs associated with taking that action are subtracted leaving you wi th either a net gain or a net loss Cost effectiveness analysis, on the other hand, estimates the ratio between the cost and the impact of the intervention (e.g., years of healthy life gained, or

PAGE 33

33 additional years spent in school). While cost benefit analys is measures both cost and benefit in monetary terms cost effectiveness analysis assigns a monetary value to the measure of effect achieved by the intervention, typically some non monetary value (Effective Altruism, 2017). The last part of the EA criteria for measuring project effectiveness describes that projects aiming to be effective should procure to compile relevant data or evidence that can help present and future intervention and investments. OBJ ECTIVE 2 Conduct an assessment of the current mechani sms for measuring the effectiveness of CSD projects in Madre de Dios, Peru R ESEARCH Q UESTION 3 What is the state of current institutional and policy mechanisms for measuring the effectiveness of CSD projects in Madre de Dios, Peru? T he literature review and the analysis of APCI showed that these mechanisms were not operating in an effective way according to the EA definition of effectiveness and the ITN criteria. In order to expand more in a description of the main institutions and a ctors involved in measuring effectiveness of CSD projects in Madre de Dios, I used th e information found to create a roadmap of the main institutions involved in measuring and monitoring effectiveness of CSD projects in Peru. F igure 6 shows a roadmap of t he main institutions in charge of different functions that relates to measuring and monitoring effectiveness of CSD projects in Peru. These organizations included (from top to down): The United Nations Development Programme which is dedicated to establishi ng international agreements and facilitate world efforts such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Peruvian Government which is in charge to pursue the

PAGE 34

34 prosperity of the country as a whole while promoting more efficient and sustainable solution s for all the issues that Peru is facing, the Ministry of Environment (MINAM) and the Ministry of Development and Inclusion (MIDIS) that represent the two national entities after the Peruvian government which functions are to work in initiatives and polici es in favor of causes within different areas that correspond with their goals (e.g. Poverty, climate change). The following institutions in the figure corresponded to the National Center for Strategic Planning (CEPLAN) and the Peruvian Agency for Internati onal Cooperation (APCI). These two institutions are key for analyzing the state of the mechanisms for measuring and monitoring effectiveness of CSD projects in Peru because they serve two valuable functions, the strategic planning process which determine t he strategies and actions that Peru will take to achieve evaluating and auditing all the projects in Peru that have received international cooperation funds impact and the efficacy of how these projects have been using the resources invested from international cooperation. Other institution that it is part of this institutional infrastructure is the National Institute for Statistics and Information (INEI), this institut ion has the function of compile much of the qualitative and quantitative socio economic and demographic data from different categories through an extensive database, these data usually comes from national household surveys and specific studies. Finally, at tached to APCI, other important actors within this infrastructure are donors, international cooperation, nonprofits and local organizations. These actors are going to play an important role on this infrastructure because CSD projects development, monitorin g and evaluation processes are a combination of negotiations between the

PAGE 35

35 Figure 6. Roadmap of institutional infrastructure for measuring effectiveness in CSD projects Examination of structure of APCI project database reporting system The infrastructure that presently supports actions toward meeting these goals and targets falls short of certain criteria which some experts will believe are essential (see Fig ure 7). Examples of these criteria are listed below: Cost effectiveness Availability of evidence Neglectedness Tractability Specifically, there are weaknesses in areas such as cause prioritization and Auditing (APCI project data base). Nonetheless, a number of independent organizations and think tan ks have taken up the responsibilities of closing these gaps in some cases. One of these organizations is represented by the Copenhagen Consensus, which has taken responsibility for prioritizing the SDGs according to the criteria of cost effectiveness and i n more incipient way since 2009, the Agencia Peruana de Cooperacion Internacional (APCI) has been serving as part of its functions as auditor, helping to hold the recipients of international funding accountable for demonstrating their impact and effectiven ess relative to certain standards (MDGs, SDGs, etc.) (APCI, 2017)

PAGE 36

36 Fig ure 7 : Gaps in i nfrastructure for Measuring the Effectiveness of CSD Projects in Peru (with weaknesses and gaps highlighted with broken chains)

PAGE 37

37 CSD Project Typology Table 3 presents the typology that was developed for the 73 CSD projects extracted from the APCI project database and their relative frequency (represented in %). Table 3 CSD Project Typology Typology Conservation/ management of Natural Resources) Conservati on of Indigenou s Communit ies Developm ent of sustainabl e economies Strengthening capacities for adaptation to climate change Sustaina ble Agricult ure Educati on Touri sm REDD projects Fish farms / manage ment Brazil nuts Food securi ty Hydrolog ical resources and water quality Energy policy Handic rafts Reforest ation 48 25 23 10 7 7 6 6 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 66% 34% 32% 14% 10% 10% 8% 8% 4% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% As illustrated in Table 3 48 of the 73 total CSD projects (66%) in Madre de Dios were conservation and/or management of natural resources projec ts, 25 were Conservation of Indigenous Communities projects (34%), 23 were Development of Sustainable Economies projects (32%), 10 were Strengthening capacities for adaptation to climate change projects (14%), 7 were Sustainable Agriculture (10%), 7 were E ducation projects (10%), 6 were Tourism projects (8%), and 6 were REDD projects (8%) as well. The remaining 7 project types represented ( 4% ) or less of total projects implemented in Madre de Dios

PAGE 38

38 Effectiveness Scoring of CSD projects Of the 73 projects evaluated for effectiveness, the four that obtained the highest scores These four projects earned scores of 6, 5, 4, 4, respectively, while the remaining projects earned scores of 2 or lower. The organizations that implemented these projects were a local church (projects 63 and 85), an indigenous local federation (project 124), and the local tourism and commerce agenc y (project 122). OBJ ECTIVE 3 Determine to what extent the institutional and policy mechanisms for measuring effectiveness influence the development decisions of local communities In order to compile the information for this objective, I conducted two work shops with the community, the Ignorance Condition Scenario Workshop and the Knowledge Scenario Workshop. The first one had a total of 16 participants and a values survey was provided to all of the participants at the end of this workshop. During the second workshop, only 8 people participated and the whole workshop was framed as part of the Discrete Choice Experiment methodology. R ESEARCH Q UESTION 4: How do community members weigh these different social, economic, and environmental factors when they consid er alternative projects for implementation? To find the information to answer this question, the activities and evidence were found from two sources, the value survey which served to rank the top three values of community

PAGE 39

39 members in Puerto Lucerna within the three areas (economic, social, and environmental) and the number of choices made by community members during the second workshop. Value survey The value survey had as three top values ranked by member of the community in each area (economic, social, an d environmental) as it is described in table 4. Table 4 Top 3 rated values from Value Survey in Puerto Lucerna community Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) From the 45 tasks (15 tasks consisting of three variations each) generated for this experiment, I selected at random six tasks for analysis. The seven participants were first divided into two groups two and one of three. Each group was then given at random one of the six tasks and provided several minutes to discuss which option (A or B) they preferred. At the end of the allotted time, each group delivered their consensus to the rest of the participants along with the rationale for their selection. Afterwar ds, all participants were asked to vote which option they preferred, and totals were recorded on a master tally sheet ( Table 3 ). This procedure was repeated for each group in two separate rounds (two rounds x three tasks = six tasks), such that, by the end Areas Top 1 Top 2 Top 3 Economic Efecto en la seguridad de derechos de territorio y propiedad de terreno Fecundidad del proyecto, ej., conduce a mayores / ms grandes beneficios econmicos en el largo plazo (ej., a travs de avances en profesiones, etc.) Efecto en la calidad / acceso de servicios bsicos Social Efectos en infraestructura fsica y servicios pblicos, incluyendo carreteras, desage, transporte, etc. Efecto en disponibilidad y/o cantidad de capacitacin / oportunidades de educacin para la poblacin Efectos en los niveles de delincuencia local, incluyendo discriminacin Environmental Efecto en la proteccin de la comunidad en contra de desastres naturales Efecto en la flora y fauna local, especialmente especies en peligro de extincin y las amenazadas Efecto en la calidad del aire, agua y suelo local

PAGE 40

40 Table 5 Participant project choices in Discrete Choice Experiment Task Attributes Combinations Project alternatives A B 2y E1 S2 G3 vs. E2 S3 G1 0 7 2x E1 S2 G3 vs. E2 S3 G1 5 2 3y E1 S2 G3 vs. E2 S1 G3 1 6 4z E1 S2 G3 vs. E3 S1 G2 0 7 12z E2 S3 G1 vs. E3 S2 G1 7 0 14y E2 S1 G3 vs. E3 S2 G1 0 7 The results of the DCE were then analyzed to determine the influence that each attribute exerted on the final choice. This value was measured by calculating the ratio (% correlation) between the number of times the attribute was represented in a choice and the number of times the alternative in which it occurred was selected (Table 7 ). The resulting values were then further analyzed to determine how strength of influence correlates with attribute category (E, S, or G) and attribute quality (1, 2 or 3) exclusively, i.e., without consideration to attribute content (x, y, or z). This analys is revealed the strongest correlations (+4) between attributes containing good and moderate quality environmental outcomes (i.e., G1 and G2) (Table 6 ). Table 6 Rate of selection per attribute category and quality combination positiv e E with 100% correla tion positiv e E with 0% correla tion negati ve E with 100% correla tion negati ve E with 0% correla t ion E bala nce positiv e S with 100% correla tion positiv e S with 0% correla tion negati ve S with 100% correla tion negati ve S with 0% correla t ion S bala n ce positiv e G with 100% correla tion positiv e G with 0% correla tion negati ve G with 100% correla tion negati ve G with 0% correla t ion G bala nce 1 2 2 0 3 1 2 2 0 3 2 0 0 2 4 The results of this experiment were then compared with the results of the (Ignorance Condition Scenario) Figure 8 shows that the members of the Puerto Lucerna community expressed in the Ignorance C ondition Scenario chart, to have more preference for the economic values (50%) of

PAGE 41

41 CSD projects to be implemented in their community than the social and environmental values (see Figure 8 A) However, in the K nowledge C ondition Scenario chart (see Figure 8 B) the members of the Puerto Lucerna community expressed to have more preference for the environmental values (80%) more than the economic and social values. Furthermore, these differentiated results from both charts will imply that members of the Puerto Lucerna community can make di fferent decisions when provided with more evidence (data). Fig ure 8 Ignorance condition versus Knowledge condition in the Lucerna community, 2017 A B

PAGE 42

42 Table 7 Correlation of attributes of choice Knowledge Condition (Influence by attribute) Rank Attribute Attribute Category Quality Attribute code Choice code # of times represented in a task # of trials # of times represented in choice # of times represented in a winning choice Correlation 1 Cada ao un miembro de la comunidad pierde una hectrea de su terreno y recibe compensacin por ello al precio del mercado E 2 E2x 2xB 1 7 7 7 100% 1 Mejoramiento de la carretera, desage y agua potable en un 1% cada ao S 3 S3x 2xB 1 7 7 7 100% 1 Cada 3 aos solo 10% de la propiedad e infraestructura se pierde a consecuencia de desastres naturales G 1 G1x 2xB 1 7 7 7 100% 1 La seguridad ciudadana y disminucin de delincuencia mejora en un 40% cada 3 aos S 1 S1z 4zB 1 7 7 7 100% 1 La calidad del aire, el agua y el suelo mejora en un 10% cada 3 aos G 2 G2z 4zB 1 7 7 7 100% 1 La calidad y acceso de servicios bsicos incrementa en un 10% E 2 E2z 12zA 1 7 7 7 100% 1 Los niveles de delincuencia local y discriminacin incrementan en un 30% cada ao S 3 S3z 12zA 1 7 7 7 100%

PAGE 43

43 9 Cada ao un miembro de la comunidad asegura todas las hectreas de su terreno a travs titulacin y certificado de posesin E 1 E1x 2xA 1 7 7 0 0% 9 Mejoramiento de la carretera, desage y agua potable en un 10% cada ao S 2 S2x 2xA 1 7 7 0 0% 9 Cada 3 aos 50% de la propiedad e infraestructura de la comunidad se pierde a consecuencia de desastres naturales G 3 G3x 2xA 1 7 7 0 0% 9 La calidad y acceso de servicios bsicos incrementa en un 50% E 1 E1z 4zA 1 7 7 0 0% 9 La calidad y acceso a servicios bsicos empeora en un 30% cada 3 aos G 3 G3z 4zA 1 7 7 0 0% 9 La seguridad ciudadana y disminucin de delincuencia mejora en un 10% cada 3 aos S 2 S2z 4zA, 12zB 2 14 14 0 0% 1 La economa local crece en 5% cada 3 aos y beneficia diferentes reas y actividades en la comunidad E 3 E3y 14yB 1 7 7 7 100%

PAGE 44

44 R ESEARCH Q UESTION 5. What factors may be serving to influence how community members weigh these different values when they consider alternative projects for implementation? The profile of the Puerto Lucerna community has as main characteristics the following descriptions: Table 8 Profile of Puerto Lucerna community 2:1 ratio of men to women Average ages are 25 45 years Economy based on agriculture (62%) and local commerce (25%) Main crops are cocoa (77%), plantains (12%), and citrus (5%) Speak Quechua (43%), Spanish (51%), and Ashaninka (3%) Migrate from Cusco (35%), VRAEN (25%), Ayacucho (12%), Puerto Maldonado (7%) Figure 9 shows that more than 50% of the community members in Puerto Lucerna considered agriculture as the main activity. Other activities with representative percentages included small businesses and fishing and hunting.

PAGE 45

45 Figure 9 Perceptions of Economic Activity in Puerto Lucerna Community Figure 10 illust rates the perceptions of the community members about the effectivity of different levels of government. According to the results, the local government will be the most effective with 2 points of 4. This result would suggest that the community members consi dered the government performance as regular given the punctuation assigned. Figure 10 Community Perceptions of Effectiveness Rating of Government The numbers showed in figure 1 1 represented the percentage of community members which are working in the areas described. Similarly to figure 1, more than 60 percent of the

PAGE 46

46 community members confirmed that they were farmers, 12 percent were students and 10 percent were house wife. Figure 1 1 Community members Occupations

PAGE 47

47 DISCUSSION The literature review conducted to determine a definition of effectiveness showed that there was not a single definition accepted and used within the CSD context. However, there were a variety of frameworks that have been used mainly related to impact proj ect and goal achievement. Consequently, the effectiveness framework used for this study aims to fill out this need and also help to not only concentrate effort in impact project and goal achievement usually pertinent to interventions but also invest in mor e rigorous evidence based approaches to identify high priority causes in which invest resources. Nonetheless, Effective Altruism (EA) as a framework is not meant to exclude other ways to measure and monitoring effectiven ess of CSD projects in Peru and Madre de Dios. EA as a framework that it is based on evidence, it is constantly in change and improvement. The main challenge that arise from the EA framework applicability is that it tries to combine both, adequate and high quality data driven institutional and policy mechanisms while also procuring to invest in the most effective intervention in the ground. Much of the core conceptualizations of EA relies on doing the most good possible, meaning using the scarce resources e xisted in a wisely way. Nonetheless, d ifficulties such as lack of data, more consolidated information from past initiatives and frameworks, and deficiencies in governance are frequently identified as major obstacles to overcome.

PAGE 48

48 CONCLUSION The conservation and sustainable development field is not currently set up to support the E ffective A ltruism (EA) style assessments of effectiveness While the conservation and sustainable development fields have some pieces of the infrastructure and mechanisms needed to accomplish the task of being effective according to the EA prescription there are still holes that need to be filled in before follow ing the EA procedure from start (cause prioritization) to finish (evaluation of interventions) Furthermore, t here is no single, standard definition of effectiveness recognized by the entire CSD community and t he metrics for measuring and monitoring effectiveness in the CSD context do not follow a standard or unified proce ss. At the same time, there are gaps within the insti tutional infrastructure for measuring and monitoring effectiveness in CSD proje cts in Peru. Likewise, t he mechanisms for measuring and monitoring effectiveness do not have strong influence on how local communities like Puerto Lucerna make development decis ions Nonetheless, p roviding community members with more information influence how they make their development decisions The challenges encountered during th e field work included the limited time to try out the methods and to collect more data, an d the ap prehension of some members of the community to answer questions for the participatory mapping because of an overlapping legal conflict they were facing with a private company during the time of the field work. Therefore, the planned schedule for some activ ities need to be modified like the first meeting with the community which got cancelled Also, t he data compiled from the Discrete Choice Experiment was not enough to apply more statistical analysis. Furthermore, I was only able to make a descriptive analy sis and generate a conclusion only based on a subjective analysis and strong assumptions

PAGE 49

49 APPENDIX A COMMUNITY QUESTIONNAIRE (SPANISH VERSION ) ESTABLECIENDO PRIORIDADES Y MIDIENDO EL IMPACTO DE PROYECTOS DE CONSERVACI"N Y DESARROLLO SOSTENIBLE (CDS) Mi nombre es Tania Romero Bautista. Soy una investigadora local y una estudiante de postgrado de la Universidad de Florida. El objetivo de mi investigacin es estudiar las prioridades e impacto de proyectos de desarrollo sosteni ble en la comunidad de Lucerna. Esta encuesta busca explorar las caractersticas socioeconmicas de posibilidades de proyectos en el rea y las opiniones de los comuneros respecto al impacto de estos proyectos. Su contribucin nos ayudar a evaluar el pote ncial del impacto de estos proyectos y hacer recomendaciones informadas a la comunidad de Lucerna y ARCAmazon sobre posibles proyectos de conservacin y desarrollo sostenible en el futuro. Si tiene alguna pregunta acerca de esta investigacin, por favor co ntactarme al celular 982308305 o al correo tromerob@ufl.edu I. INFORMACI"N DEMOGRFICA 1.1. Nombre (opcional) _________________________________________ 1.2. Nmero de casa: ______________________________ 1.3. Fe cha: ___________________________ 1.4. Comunidad: Lucerna 1.5. Edad del entrevistado(a): _______________________________ 1.6. Nmero total de miembros de la familia ___________ 1.7. Sexo a) Femenino b) Masculino 1.8. Relacin con el jefe de familia

PAGE 50

50 a) j efe de familia b) Esposo(a) c) Hijo(a) d) Yerno/nuera e) Nieto(a) f) Padre g) Hermano/hermana h) Abuelo(a) i) Otros (especificar) ____ 1.9. Estado civil a) Soltero(a) b) Casado(a) c) Divorciado(a) d) Viudo(a) e) Separado(a) 1.10. Qu nivel de educacin tiene el miembro de familia? a) No termino primaria b) Termino primaria c) Termino secundaria d) Termin la Universidad u otra institucin superior e) No se sabe 1.11. Cules es su ocupacion? a) Agricultor b) Cria de gallinas y otras aves de corral c) Maderero d) Casta ero e) Artesano f) Profesor g) Enfermero / mdico h) Otro (por favor especificar ______________ ) 1.12. Para quin(es) trabaja Usted? a) Es su propio negocio b) Negocio de familia c) Peque a empresa (menos de 10 trabajadores) d) Mediana o empresa grande (ms de 10 trabajadores) e) El gobierno f) No aplica 1.13. Usted habla, entiende, y/o escribe en un lenguaje diferente del espaol ? a) Si (indicar que lenguaje) ____________________________ b) No 1.14. Por cunto tiempo ha vivido en la comunidad ? _______ A os 1.15. Ha usted vivido en otro lugar / comunidad / departamento por ms de tres meses? a) Si (por favor especificar donde) ____________________________ b) No 1.16. Por qu se mud a Luce rna?

PAGE 51

51 En busca de trabajo Para empezar un nuevo trabajo Para escapar de un desastre natural Para escapar de un problema familiar Otro (por favor especificar) ________________________ II. INFORMACI"N SOCIOECON"MICA 2.1. Cul es la principal fuente de ing resos en tu familia? (leer los valores de importancia al entrevistado: 1 importante, 2 menos importante, 3 el menos importante, 0 no es importante) 2.2. Cul es el ingreso anual promedio de su hogar? ______________________ 2.3. Como se considera? Importancia Salario Agricultura Madera Turismo/ ecoturismo Comercio local Trabajo con el gobierno Castanha Mineria Otro (especificar): __

PAGE 52

52 Muy pobre Pobre Clase media Con mucho dinero Millonario 2.4. Cul es el estado de sus ingresos, comparado con hace 5 aos atrs? a) Mejor b). El mismo c). Peor 2.5. Cul es la razn de esto? III. USO DE LA TIERRA Y AGRICULTURA 3.1. Usted o algn miembro de su familia hacen agricultura? a) Si b) No 3.2. Cuntas hectreas tiene su chacra? ________ ha 3.3. Cules son los cultivos principales en su chacra? Cuntas ha por cultivo? 3.4. Usted produce algn producto para subsistencia? Por favor indique el valor de esta produccin por ao. Producto Valo r (Soles) IV. EDUCACI"N 4.1. Usted tiene hijos ? a) Si (cuantos) _________ b) No 4.2. Sus hijos van a la escuela/ colegio ? a) Si b) No (indique cuantos no van a la escuela/ cuantos aos tienen) _____

PAGE 53

53 4.3. Por qu algunos de sus hijos no van a la escuela / colegio ? V. INFRAESTRUCTURA GENERAL 5.1. Cmo evaluara los siguientes servicios en Lucerna? (Excelente, Normal, Pobre, No se sabe) Exc Bueno Normal Pobre No se sabe a. Poder judicial 4 3 2 1 8 ___ b. Puesto de Salud 4 3 2 1 8 ___ c. Escuela 4 3 2 1 8 ___ d. Emergency medical service 4 3 2 1 8 ___ e. Servicio de transporte 4 3 2 1 8 ___ f. Servicio de basura 4 3 2 1 8 ___ g. Carretera/ calles 4 3 2 1 8 ___ h. Iluminacion publica 4 3 2 1 8 ___ i. Comunicaciones 4 3 2 1 8 ___ j. Agua potable 4 3 2 1 8 ___ k. Desage 4 3 2 1 8 ___ l. ___________________ 4 3 2 1 8 ___ m. __________________ 4 3 2 1 8 ___ 5.2. Cules son los problemas, si hay alguno, en su comunidad? Si No No se sabe a. La condicin de las casas 1 0 8 ___ b. Vandalismo 1 0 8 ___ c. Drogas 1 0 8 ___ d. Alcoholismo 1 0 8 ___

PAGE 54

54 e. Basura en las calles 1 0 8 ___ f. Jvenes embarazadas 1 0 8 ___ g. Otro (por favor indicar_______) 1 0 8 ___ 5.3. A continuacin, hay algunos servicios en los que normalmente el estado invierte. En su opinin cul cree que son las reas en las que se debera invertir ms? Si No No se sabe a. Para mejorar Poder judicial 1 0 8 ___ b. Para mejorar Puesto de Salud 1 0 8 ___ c. Para mejorar Escuela 1 0 8 ___ d. Para Mejorar desage 1 0 8 ___ e. Para mejorar Servicio de transporte 1 0 8 ___ f. Para mejorar Servicio de basura 1 0 8 ___ g. Para mejorar Carretera/ calles 1 0 8 ___ h. Para mejorar Iluminacion publica 1 0 8 ___ i. Para mejorar Comunicaciones 1 0 8 ___ j. P ara mejorar Agua potable 1 0 8 ___ k. Para mejorar Desage 1 0 8 ___ n. Otro (Indicar ________________) 1 0 8 ___ VI. GOBERNANZA LOCAL 6.1. Cmo mediria la efectividad de cada uno de los siguientes para satisfacer las necesidades de la comunidad de Lucerna? Exc Bueno Normal Pobre No se sabe a. Presidente de la comunidad 4 3 2 1 8 ___ b. Gobierno Municipal 4 3 2 1 8 ___

PAGE 55

55 c. Gobierno Regional 4 3 2 1 8 ___ 6.2. En los ltimos 12 meses, Cmo mediria su experiencia trabajando con los siguientes niveles de gobierno? Exc Bueno Normal Pobre a. Presidente de la comunidad 4 3 2 1 8 ___ b. Gobierno Municipal 4 3 2 1 8 ___ c. Gobierno Regional 4 3 2 1 8 ___ VII. CAPACIDAD PARA PROYECTOS CSD 7.1. Cules son las principales actividades econmicas en su comunidad? (Estimar el porcentaje por favor) >75% 50 75% 25 50% <25% No se sabe a. Agricultura 4 3 2 1 8 ___ b. Mineria 4 3 2 1 8 ___ c. Pesca / caza 4 3 2 1 8 ___ d. Madera 4 3 2 1 8 ___ e. Transporte 4 3 2 1 8 ___ f. Restaurante 4 3 2 1 8 ___ g. Pequenho negocio 4 3 2 1 8 ___ h. Otro (especificar: _____) 4 3 2 1 8 ___ 7.2. Cules son las 3 ms grandes prioridades de desarrollo para tu comunidad? Por favor proveer una breve explicaci n de las siguientes respuestas. _________________________

PAGE 56

56 7.3. En general, cmo describiras el nivel de efectividad de las presentes formas de uso de terreno en su comunidad? Muy efectivo Mayormenete efectivo Normal Mayormente no efectivo No se sabe 7.4. En su opinion, que se ha hecho para mejorar la efectividad del uso de terreno en su comunidad? 7.5. Para cules de los siguientes ejemplos de proyectos Usted cree que su comunidad tiene la capacidad para implementar ? Muy bueno Normal Pobre No sabe Conservacin /manejo de 4 3 2 1 8 ___ recursos naturales Conservacin de comunidades 4 3 2 1 8 ____ / Proteccin de territorio ances tral Desarrollo de economa sostenible 4 3 2 1 8 ____ basado en recursos naturales Reforzando capacidades 4 3 2 1 8 ____ para la adaptacin al cambio climtico Agricultura 4 3 2 1 8 ____ Educacin 4 3 2 1 8 ____ Ecoturismo 4 3 2 1 8 ____ REDD+ 4 3 2 1 8 ____

PAGE 57

57 Piscigranjas 4 3 2 1 8 _____ Recoleccion de castanhas 4 3 2 1 8 ____ Recursos hidrologicos 4 3 2 1 8 _____ y calidad de agua Artesanas 4 3 2 1 8 _____ Reforestacion 4 3 2 1 8 _____ 7.6. Cul es la racionalidad / evidencia en la que estn basadas estas estimaciones (evaluaciones formales, ancdotas, etc.)? 7.7. En general, cmo describiras el nivel de habilidades en su comunidad con respecto a las metas de desarrollo indicadas arriba? (capacidad en trminos de entrenamiento, experti se, etc.) Muy bueno Adecuado Regular Deficiente Pobre 8. OPORTUNIDADES PARA INCREMENTAR LA CAPACIDAD/ OBSTCULOS PARA EL DESARROLLO 8.1. Cules son los principales factores que estn en tu camino a alcanzar los objetivos de desarrollo mencionados arriba? Escasez de habilidades/ expertise Deficiencia de capacidades tcnicas/ capacitacin Escasez de financiamiento/ apoyo econmico (inversin del exterior,prestamos, apoyo tcnico, etc.),

PAGE 58

58 Deficiencias en infraestructura (carretera, transporte fluvial, etc .) Deficiencia en gobernanza Deficiencias en derechos de territorio Other: ______________________________

PAGE 59

59 APPENDIX B IGNORANCE (NON EA) CONDITION SCENARIO WORKSHOP Duration of activities: 1 hour Schedule: Introduction / explanation of activities and icebreaker game (5 minutes) Scenarios / group discussion (20 25 minutes) Group presentations (5 minutes per group / 15 minutes) Values Survey (15 minutes) Conclusion of activities (5 minutes) Instructions Break into 3 groups of roughly equal numbers. Distribute the 3 alternative scenarios (A, B, and C) amongst the 3 groups. For 20 25 minutes, groups should discuss their scenario and come to a collective decision, citing in as much detail as possible the rea sons/justification for their decision. After everyone has completed this activity, a along with their supporting justification. Each group will be given 5 minutes to pre sent their decision and justification for a total of 15 minutes. After presentations, groups will reconvene and given 15 minutes to complete a short Values Survey corresponding to the Scenario they were assigned (A, B, or C). Each participant will be given her/his own survey to complete. Surveys should be completed individually, without discussing or consulting with other participants. Conclude activities. Disclaimer: The following scenarios are completely fictitious and should not be taken to suggest any i ntention on the part of the primary investigator (Tania Romero

PAGE 60

60 Bautista), nor any other party that may be implicated in the current research, to provide assistance of any kind to the Lucerna community. Scenario A: An international development aid organiza tion has approached your community with an offer to provide $X to invest in community development project(s), on the sole condition that the project also serve to generate some value for the environment (preservation of habitat or biodiversity, carbon sequ estration, contribute to sustainable use of natural resources, etc.). How would you choose to invest this money? ended scenario. Scenario B: An international development aid organization has approached your community with an offer to provide $X to invest in community development project(s), on the sole condition that the project also serve to generate some value for the environment (preservation of habitat or biodiversity, carbon sequestration, contribute to sustainable use of natural resources, etc.) and the money should be invested within a 3 year time period. How would you choose to invest this money? Scenario C: An international development aid organization has approached your community with an offer to provide $X to inv est in community development project(s), on the sole condition that the project also serve to generate some value for the environment (preservation of habitat or biodiversity, carbon sequestration, contribute to sustainable use of natural resources, etc.), the money should be invested within a 3 year time period, and the community should establish a way to prove effectiveness of the project after the first year to receive money for the following years. How would you choose to invest this money? rategies: Invest everything in one project

PAGE 61

61 Divide money between multiple projects Invest in pilot program, or multiple pilot programs, then invest everything in most successful project Invest in pilot program, or multiple pilot programs, then alloc ate the money into multiple projects according to their relative success Split money equally between all community members to be used at their 15 20 minutes to discuss their strategy. 5 10 minutes to present decision to group (including justification for decision, i.e., considerations that informed their decision). and do a Revealed Preference analysis. At the end of this focus group, co mmunity values surveys are handed to the participants, so they can rank the values they care most in the categories of economic, proposed sustainable development goal ind icators which were adapted to the context of Lucerna community and to a more everyday language for better understanding. This information serves as the basis for Focus group 3. Focus Group 3: Evidence Condition Scenario Duration of Activities: 1 hour Sched ule Introduction / explanation of activity and game (10 minutes) Scenarios / group discussion (20 25 minutes in total) Group presentations (2 minutes per group / 12 minutes) Conclusion of activities (5 minutes)

PAGE 62

62 Methodology Choice Modeling using Conjoint A nalysis / Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) Instructions The activity starts with a game using map of Peru and asking the participant to introduce her/himself according to the region where she/he was born and marking the location on the map. After this, br eak the whole group into small groups of two people. For 10 minutes, each small group should discuss and analyze the two discrete choices for CSD projects that they were provided and make a decision based on the attributes of each project per set (A and B) The set of projects includes project A and project B which have specific combinations of attributes in the social, environmental, and economic areas. These attributes correspond to a combination of 16 different sets that were the result of combining the three top values that people in the first focus group ranked in the value survey. After everyone has completed their activity, a representative from each group justificatio n (allow 2 minutes per group for a total of 12 minutes for presentations). This activity is recorded by asking the participants for confirmation before the focus group starts. Conclude the activity with a general discussion and final comments from the comm unity members.

PAGE 63

63 APPENDIX C VALUE SURVEY (SPANISH VERSION) Encuesta de Valores Economicos Escenario #: ______ Instrucciones : Por cada factor / atributo siguiente, por favor indicar que tan importante ser a para un proyecto de desarrollo ficticio a implementar usando la escala de 1 5, donde 5 significa muy importante y 1 significa no es importante. Despus de esto, usando una escala de 1 a 10 y sin usar el mismo nmero dos veces, proveer un ranking general de cada factor / atri buto sobre su importancia relativa a las otras (1 indica el ms importante, 10 indica el menos importante). Factor/Atributo Importancia (1 5) Ranking General Costo inicial del proyecto, incluyendo la inversin inicial en capital (herramientas, equipos, etc.), expansin de infraestructura, y capacitacin de trabajadores Costo de mantenimiento del proyecto, incluyendo herramientas fsicas y equipos, locales, mantener a los trabajadores capacitados, etc.)

PAGE 64

64 Costo efectividad del proyecto (valor agregado por dlar gastado / retornos de inversin) Viabilidad del proyecto dada la capacidad existente de la comunidad, en ambas maneras, infraestructura y habilidades de los trabajadores Viabilidad y sostenibilidad econmica del proyecto a largo plazo (i.e ., resiliencia a fluctuaciones en mercados, etc.) Equidad (distribucin justa) de beneficios econmicos entre varios subgrupos en la comunidad (ej., mujeres, adultos mayores, pobres, deshabilitados, etc.) El tiempo hasta que el proyecto pueda dar ret ornos / rendimientos econmicos Fecundidad del proyecto, i.e., conducencia a mayores / ms grandes

PAGE 65

65 beneficios econmicos en el largo plazo (ej., a travs de avances en profesiones, etc.) Nmero de trabajos creados bien pagados Efecto en la calidad / acceso de servicios bsicos Efecto en la seguridad de derechos de territorio y propiedad de terreno Otro (por favor especificar) Encuesta de Valores Sociales Escenario #: ______ Instrucciones : Por cada factor / atributo siguiente, por favor indicar que tan importante ser a para un proyecto de desarrollo ficticio a implementar usando la escala de 1 5, donde 5 significa muy importante y 1 significa no es importante. Despus de esto, usando una escala de 1 a 10 y sin usar el mismo nm ero dos veces, proveer un ranking general de cada factor / atributo sobre su importancia relativa a las otras (1 indica el ms importante, 10 indica el menos importante).

PAGE 66

66 Factor/Atributo Importancia (1 5) Ranking general Efecto directo en la salud de la poblacin local, incluyendo trabajadores Efecto en la cobertura de servicios de salud bsicos, incluyendo seguro Efecto en disponibilidad y/o cantidad de capacitacin / oportunidades de educacin para la poblacin Efectos en tamao / composicin de la comunidad a travs de inmigraciones/ emigraciones de varios subgrupos (edad, genero, etc.) Cambio en las oportunidades profesionales para mujeres, discapacitados, y otras personas con discapacidad, incluyendo en in stituciones publicas tica del proyecto (conformidad con las normas sociales locales) Efectos en la cultura local / formas tradicionales de vivir

PAGE 67

67 Efectos en los niveles de delincuencia local, incluyendo discriminacin Efectos en infraestructura fsica y servicios pblicos, incluyendo carreteras, desage, transporte, etc. Cuanto tiempo hasta que el proyecto genera beneficios sociales Otro (por favor especificar) Escenario #: ______ Instrucciones : Por cada factor / atributo siguiente, por favor indicar que tan importante ser a para un proyecto de desarrollo ficticio a implementar usando la escala de 1 5, donde 5 significa muy importante y 1 significa no es importante. Despus de esto, usando una escala de 1 a 10 y sin usar el mismo nmero dos veces, proveer un ranking general de cada factor / atributo sobre su importancia relativa a las otras (1 indica el ms importante, 10 indica el menos importante). Factor/Atributo Importancia (1 5) Ranking general Canti dad de basura producida por el proyecto / deterioro de reas naturales cercanas

PAGE 68

68 Cantidad de basura producida por el proyecto / deterioro de reas naturales remotas (ej., bosque alrededor, ros, etc.) Efecto en la funcionalidad de ecosistemas incluyendo la provisin de servicios de los ecosistemas Efecto en la calidad del aire, agua y suelo local Efecto en la flora y fauna local, especialmente especies en peligro de extincin y las amenazadas Sostenibilidad del proyecto en el largo plazo en referencia a consume o uso de recursos naturales Cuanto tiempo hasta que el proyecto genere beneficios ambientales Efecto en la proteccin de la comunidad en contra de desastres naturales

PAGE 69

69 Efectos en la habilidad de la comunidad para adaptarse a los impactos adversos del cambio climtico Otro (por favor especificar)

PAGE 70

70 APPENDIX D PHOTOS OF PUERTO LUCERNA COMMUNITY Figure 12. Me arriving to the Puerto Lucerna community Figure 13. The president of agriculture in Puerto Lucerna and me participating in a icebreaker game

PAGE 71

71 Figure 14. Community members from Puerto Lucerna participating in the Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) Figure 15. Community members presenting their ideas during the Ignorance Condition Scenario Workshop

PAGE 72

72 Figure 16. All the participants from the Puerto Lucerna community in the Knowledge Condition Scenario Workshop Figure 17. Me writing a formal invitation to the community members for the Knowledge Condition Scenario Workshop

PAGE 73

73 LIST OF REFERENCE S APCI. (2017). APCI Participates in USAID Forum on Emerging Partnerships for Development. Lima: Agencia Peruana de Cooperacion International. APCI, A. P. (2017). Alianzas Multiactor de Cooperacion Internacional para el Desarrollo Sostenible. Lima: Agencia Peruana de Cooperacion Internacional Retrieved from http://www.apci.gob.pe/Novedades/Marco%20Conceptual%20Alianzas%20Multiactor31 032017.pdf ARCAmazon, A. (2015). "Alliance for Conservation and Research and Conservation in the Amazon" Retrieved from http://conservetheamazon.org/arcamazon/#m ission Benavides, M., Campana, S., Cueva, S., Leon, J., & Wagenman, A. (2016). "Measuring the Sustainable Development Agenda in Peru". Lima: GRADE. Courtenay Botteril, L. (2017, April). Oxford Research Encyclopedia. Retrieved from Oxford University Press: http://politics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore 9780190228637 e 177 Davies, H. T., Nutley, S. M., & Smith, P. C. (2000). What Works: Evidence Based Policy and Practice in Public Services. Porland: The Policy Press. Effect ive Altruism, E. (2017, September 15). Effective Altruism Retrieved from Effective Altruism: https://www.effectivealtruism.org/ Gobierno Regional de Madre de Dios, G. R. (2012). Programa Regional de Poblacion de la Region de Madre de Dios 2013 2017. Puer to Maldonado: Equipo Tecnico Multisectorial. Grace, K. (2014). United Kingdom: Givewell. Lawrence, A., Philips, o. L., R eategui I smodes A., L opez M., Rose, S., Wood, D., & Farfan, A. J. (2005). Local val / ues for harvested forest plants in Madre de Dios, Peru: towards a more contextualised interpretation of quantitative ethnobotanical data. Biodiversity and Conservation 45 79. MacAskill, W. (2015). "Doing Good Better: How Effective Altruism Can Help You Ma ke a Difference". New York: Avery. OECD. (2017, September 20). OECD Better policies for better life Retrieved from Financinf for Sustainable Development: http://www.oecd.org/dac/financing sustainable development/ Oficina de Gestin de la Informacin y Estadstica, O. d. (2016). Carpeta Georeferencial Region Madre de Dios Peru. Lima: Congreso de la Republica del Peru.

PAGE 74

74 infl uence of land cover change and conflicting land use authorizations on ecosystem Biological Conservation 247 258. Swenson, J. J., Carter, C. E., Domec, J. C., & Delgado, C. I. (2011). Gold Mining in the Peruvian Amazon: Global Prices, Deforestation, and Mercury Imports. PLOS one UNDP, P. U. (2017, September 19). United Nations Development Programme Retrieved from Sustainable Development Goals: http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable development goals.html United Nations, U. N. (2015). "The Millennium Development Goals Report". New York: United Nations.