Welcome to the data portal for International Wildlife Trade (a sub-portal of the Evidence for Nature and People Data Portal ). This sub-portal features data from a systematic map on the effectiveness of international wildlife trade practices and policies drawn from 42 peer-reviewed and grey literature sources ( Cheng et al. 2017 ). Here, you can access the knowledge management tool and various analytic dashboards for filtering and visualizing the data.


HOW TO USE


This is an open access online knowledge management tool designed to help users explore the existing evidence on linkages between nature and people. The evidence collated in this tool is designed to help conservation and development policymakers, practitioners, and researchers identify relevant information for decision-making. You can read more about the motivation behind this project, and the data and methodology, ABOUT tab above.


FAQs


I am looking for a specific action or outcome, how do I find out what category that falls into?

The glossary is the best place to figure out what types of actions or outcomes fall into which categories. Since we used either standardized typologies or synthesized frameworks, the definitions stem from those references. Below the definition, you find examples of what types of actions are included. The glossary can be found at the bottom of every page. Click the 'Show/Hide glossary' button to display the panel. You can also find the glossary in the ABOUT section, and then navigating to GLOSSARY.


Where do I filter data and explore it? Why are there so many different options?

This site is constantly in development and we are refining it to make searching for and exploring data as functional and intuitive as possible. As well, while Shiny is a fantastic method for visualizing data, it can be difficult to incorporate multiple elements that it is not designed for. Hence, there are different tabs for exploring data. We encourage you to watch the how-to video on how to explore, filter, and download data.

In general, options for exploration are located in the EXPLORE section. In the EVIDENCE MAP tab, you will find an interactive evidence map that highlights the number of articles that document a specific linkage between a type of intervention and a type of outcome. You can filter this map by region, major habitat type, and study type. You can also view the data table behind this map by clicking on the DATA TABLE tab.

The DASHBOARD tab allows for filtering by geographic region, habitat/ecoregion type, intervention type, and outcome type. Here you can view summaries of different variables, explore the full data, and visualize spatially on both choropleth and interactive maps.



FEEDBACK

We are constantly developing and honing features in order to tailor this tool for our end-users. Any feedback would be very much appreciated on functionality and utility. Please see the CONTACT tab to fill out a feedback form or you can directly email Samantha Cheng at cheng@nceas.ucsb.edu .

For any questions or comments on the wildlife trade evidence map, please contact the project leads, Samantha Cheng and Michael Mascia

ABOUT THE METHOD


Systematic mapping


Systematic maps and reviews are transparent, robust, and repeatable methods used to identify and synthesize relevant evidence within a policy-relevant framework. These maps and reviews (SMs and SRs) aim to synthesize large bodies of evidence while minimizing bias in order to provide reliable and comprehensive information for examining impacts and informing decision making. SMs and SRs are widely conducted and used within the medical and public health sector, providing critical syntheses informing best practices and treatment efficacy (Cochrane Collaboration). Systematic maps are particularly useful for assessing the current state of the evidence base, characterizing the research that has been conducted and where key knowledge gaps exist. Both SMs and SRs are increasingly being applied to conservation, environmental management, and development fields (Pullin & Stewart 2006).


In systematic mapping, the searching and inclusion processes are conducted with the same comprehensive method as for a full review, but the process does not extend to critical appraisal or data synthesis. Data are however extracted from included studies in order to describe important aspects of the studies using a standard template and defined keywords and coding. This approach is designed to capture information on generic variables, such as the country in which a study took place, the population focus, study design and the intervention being assessed. This standard and well-defined set of keywords and codes is essential whenever classifying and characterising studies in order for reviewers to pull out key aspects of each study in a systematic way. Once the research has been mapped in this way it is then possible to identify pools of research which may be used to identify more narrowly defined review questions.

Source: CIFOR Guidance on systematic maps


You can read more about our systematic mapping process and criteria in our working paper ( Cheng et al. 2017 ).

ABOUT THE DATA & TOOL


How the data was compiled


The data in this portal derives from a systematic map of evidence that measures the effectiveness of international wildlife trade actions on behavioral, biological and human well-being outcomes.

For more information on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria and parameters of this search, please refer to working paper ( Cheng et al. 2017 ).

For metadata on data columns, please refer to the codebook from Cheng et al. 2017 available here .

For more information about the process of conducting systematic maps, please see the METHOD tab and detailed guidelines at the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence's website


HOW TO USE THIS TOOL


This is an open access online knowledge management tool designed to help users explore the existing evidence on linkages between nature and people. The evidence collated in this tool is designed to help conservation and development policymakers, practitioners, and researchers identify relevant information for decision-making. To date, there are ~42 peer-reviewed articles, unpublished reports, and theses in the international wildlife trade evidence base that were identified and included using a systematic mapping method.


FAQs


I am looking for a specific action or outcome, how do I find out what category that falls into?

The glossary is the best place to figure out what types of actions or outcomes fall into which categories. Since we used either standardized typologies or synthesized frameworks, the definitions stem from those references. Below the definition, you find examples of what types of actions are included. The glossary can be found at the bottom of every page. Click the 'Show/Hide glossary' button to display the panel. You can also find the glossary in the ABOUT section, and then navigating to GLOSSARY.


Where do I filter data and explore it? Why are there so many different options?

This site is constantly in development and we are refining it to make searching for and exploring data as functional and intuitive as possible. As well, while Shiny is a fantastic method for visualizing data, it can be difficult to incorporate multiple elements that it is not designed for. Hence, there are different tabs for exploring data. We encourage you to watch the how-to video on how to explore, filter, and download data.

In general, options for exploration are located in the EXPLORE section. In the EVIDENCE MAP tab, you will find an interactive evidence map that highlights the number of articles that document a specific linkage between a type of intervention and a type of outcome. You can filter this map by region, major habitat type, and study type. You can also view the data table behind this map by clicking on the DATA TABLE tab.

The DASHBOARD tab allows for filtering by geographic region, habitat/ecoregion type, intervention type, and outcome type. Here you can view summaries of different variables, explore the full data, and visualize spatially on both choropleth and interactive maps.


Are there other efforts to expand from this evidence map or on other topics?

You can read more about ongoing work to build this evidence base and conduct in-depth syntheses on some of these linkages in the RESEARCH tab



FEEDBACK

We are constantly developing and honing features in order to tailor this tool for our end-users. Any feedback would be very much appreciated on functionality and utility. Please see the CONTACT tab to fill out a feedback form or you can directly email the postdoctoral fellow, Samantha Cheng at cheng@nceas.ucsb.edu .

For any questions or comments on the wildlife trade evidence sub-portal, please contact the project leads, Samantha Cheng and Michael Mascia


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The wildlife trade evidence map was funded by the Betty and Gordon Moore Foundation in a grant to Conservation International. This project benefitted from the collective expertise of wildlife experts from Conservation International and evidence synthesis experts from the Evidence-Based Conservation Working Group (part of the Science for Nature and People Partnership consisting of , the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) , The Nature Conservancy , and the Wildlife Conservation Society . This sub-portal for the wildlife trade evidence map is part of the Evidence for Nature and People Data Portal . This larger portal is grateful for technical expertise and computing support from the scientific computing team at NCEAS (Julien Brun, Nick Outin, Ian McCullough, Sarah McCutcheon, Justin Kroes, Mark Schildhauer, & Lauren Walker). This tool was developed and piloted with a number of potential end-users including scientists, researchers, and practitioners from multiple academic, conservation, and development institutions and agencies.


Look up definitions for intervention, outcome, biome, and study design types used to categorize this evidence map. (See ABOUT for more information)


Intervention types

This framework of programs and policies is derived from a synthesis of wildlife trade frameworks ( Cooney et al. 2015 and Biggs et al. 2017 ) and the IUCN-Conservation Measures Partnership standardized typology for conservation actions/intervention types.

Definition:

Included Actions:

Outcome types

Behavioural, biological, and human well-being outcomes are considered

Definition:

Examples:

Study design types

Study design categories were adapted from Margoluis et al. 2009 .

Definition:

Examples:


FILTERING OPTIONS

Additional viewing options:

DOWNLOAD OPTIONS

Please register to download data


TOTAL ARTICLES:

OPEN ACCESS:



Evidence map of international wildlife trade program and policy impacts


Numbers within the evidence map indicate how many unique articles document a linkage between a international wildlife trade program or policy type and behavioural, biological, or human well-being outcome tye. Articles can fall into more than one linkage cell. Filter the evidence map by desired region and part of the supply chain it examines on the left panel.

View associated data behind the filtered evidence map.


EXPLORE THE EVIDENCE MAP


Choose filters to display custom summary tables, datasets, and interactive maps.

TOTAL ARTICLES:

OPEN ACCESS:



GEOGRAPHIC FILTERS

Filter data by region, subregion, and country


HABITAT/ECOREGION FILTERS

Filter data by major habitat type and/or ecoregions




ACTION/OUTCOME FILTERS

Filter by interventions and outcomes



Type of conservation intervention


Types of outcome

Study designs

Supply chain action

Species targets

Uses



GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION OF EVIDENCE BASE


UPCOMING

RECENT NEWS



Evidence map published as first in Conservation International Working Paper Series

July 25, 2017

Evidence map details insights and patterns in the evidence base on the effectiveness of international wildlife trade practices and policies, along with the full dataset and bibliography. The data from this article forms the basis of this sub-portal.

Read more

CONTACT US


For more information on Conservation International, please visit our website .

If you are interested in submitting evidence relevant to this topic, please contact Samantha Cheng and Michael Mascia .


FEEDBACK

USER REGISTRATION

In order to download datasets from this portal, we ask that users complete a registration agreeing to appropriately cite the source of the data as:

Cheng SH, Robinson JE, Cox N, Biggs D, Olsson A, Mascia M, McKinnon MC. (2017) Mapping the evidence: effectiveness of international wildlife trade practices and policies. Conservation International Working Paper Series: 1.








GLOSSARY

Look up definitions for intervention, outcome, biome, and study design types used to categorize this evidence map. Look up abbreviations used to code different variables in the data table. (See ABOUT for more information)

Type in code abbreviations from data tables to look up code values. E.g. 'sp_mgmt' can be typed in to return it's value, 'species management.'



          

Intervention types

Categories and subcategories of programs and policies targeted at regulating internation wildlife trade with framework derived from a synthesis of wildlife trade frameworks (Cooney et al. 2015, Biggs et al. 2016) and the IUCN-CMP Conservation Actions Classifcation (version 2.0)

Definition:

Included Actions:

Outcomes

This evidence map examines impacts on behavioural (changes in conservation behaviour), biological (changes in populations or species of concern), and human well-being outcomes (changes in social and economic outcomes for human populations).

Definition:

Examples:

Major habitat type, biome and ecoregion types

We used the World Wildlife Fund ecoregion definitions

Definition:

Examples:

Study design types

Study design categories were adapted from Margoluis et al. 2009 .

Definition:

Examples: