Water utility engagement in wildfire mitigation in watersheds in the western United States.

Scaling up climate-adaptation in wildfire-prone watersheds requires innovative partnerships and funding. Water utilities are one stakeholder group that could play a role in these efforts. The overarching purpose of this study was to understand water utility engagement in wildfire mitigation efforts in the western United States. We conducted an online survey of water utilities in nine states and received 173 useable responses. While most (68%) respondents were concerned or very concerned about future wildfire events and the impact of wildfire on their operations, only 39% perceived their organization as responsible for mitigating wildfire risk. Federal land ownership decreased feeling responsible for wildfire mitigation, while concern for and information on wildfire increased feeling responsible for mitigation. The perception of response efficacy of mitigation actions for the 68 water utilities engaged in wildfire risk mitigation activities was very high, with most agreeing that mitigation actions are effective. Self-efficacy to implement mitigation actions, however, was mixed, with most utilities wanting more information on wildfire risk and impacts to watershed services. The most reported wildfire mitigation actions were forest thinning and stream restoration. Water utilities engaging in these actions typically partnered with government agencies or other water utilities to complete the work and funded these activities through water user fees and grants. Our findings suggest that water utility engagement in wildfire mitigation for water security could be increased through providing more assessments of wildfire risk to water utilities and through more outreach and engagement with water utilities operating on federal lands.

Identifying socioeconomic and biophysical factors driving forest loss in protected areas.

Protected areas (PAs) are a commonly used strategy to confront forest conversion and biodiversity loss. Although determining drivers of forest loss is central to conservation success, understanding of them is limited by conventional modeling assumptions. We used random forest regression to evaluate potential drivers of deforestation in PAs in Mexico, while accounting for nonlinear relationships and higher order interactions underlying deforestation processes. Socioeconomic drivers (e.g., road density, human population density) and underlying biophysical conditions (e.g., precipitation, distance to water, elevation, slope) were stronger predictors of forest loss than PA characteristics, such as age, type, and management effectiveness. Within PA characteristics, variables reflecting collaborative and equitable management and PA size were the strongest predictors of forest loss, albeit with less explanatory power than socioeconomic and biophysical variables. In contrast to previously used methods, which typically have been based on the assumption of linear relationships, we found that the associations between most predictors and forest loss are nonlinear. Our results can inform decisions on the allocation of PA resources by strengthening management in PAs with the highest risk of deforestation and help preemptively protect key biodiversity areas that may be vulnerable to deforestation in the future.

Identificación de los factores biofísicos y socioeconómicos que impulsan la pérdida de bosques en las áreas protegidas Resumen Las áreas protegidas son una estrategia de uso común para hacer frente a la conversión forestal y la pérdida de biodiversidad. Aunque determinar los factores que impulsan la pérdida de bosques es fundamental para el éxito de la conservación, su comprensión se ve limitada por los supuestos de modelación convencionales. Utilizamos la regresión de bosques aleatorios para evaluar los posibles impulsores de la deforestación en las áreas protegidas de México, considerando las relaciones no lineales y las interacciones de orden superior que subyacen a los procesos de deforestación. Los impulsores socioeconómicos (densidad de carreteras, densidad de población humana) y las condiciones biofísicas subyacentes (precipitaciones, distancia al agua, elevación, pendiente) fueron predictores más fuertes de la pérdida de bosques que las características de las áreas protegidas, como la edad, el tipo y la efectividad de la gestión. Dentro de las características de las áreas protegidas, las variables que reflejan una gestión colaborativa y equitativa y el tamaño del área protegida fueron los predictores más potentes de la pérdida de bosques, aunque con menor poder explicativo que las variables socioeconómicas y biofísicas. A diferencia de los métodos utilizados anteriormente, que suelen basarse en el supuesto de relaciones lineales, observamos que las asociaciones entre la mayoría de los predictores y la pérdida de bosques no son lineales. Nuestros resultados pueden servir de base para la toma de decisiones sobre la asignación de los recursos para las áreas protegidas, reforzando la gestión en las zonas protegidas con mayor riesgo de deforestación y ayudando a proteger de forma preventiva zonas clave para la biodiversidad que pueden ser vulnerables a la deforestación en el futuro.

What evidence exists on the links between natural climate solutions and climate change mitigation outcomes in subtropical and tropical terrestrial regions? A systematic map protocol.

Background: Natural climate solutions (NCS)-actions to conserve, restore, and modify natural and modified ecosystems to increase carbon storage or avoid greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions-are increasingly regarded as important pathways for climate change mitigation, while contributing to our global conservation efforts, overall planetary resilience, and sustainable development goals. Recently, projections posit that terrestrial-based NCS can potentially capture or avoid the emission of at least 11 Gt (gigatons) of carbon dioxide equivalent a year, or roughly encompassing one third of the emissions reductions needed to meet the Paris Climate Agreement goals by 2030. NCS interventions also purport to provide co-benefits such as improved productivity and livelihoods from sustainable natural resource management, protection of locally and culturally important natural areas, and downstream climate adaptation benefits. Attention on implementing NCS to address climate change across global and national agendas has grown-however, clear understanding of which types of NCS interventions have undergone substantial study versus those that require additional evidence is still lacking. This study aims to conduct a systematic map to collate and describe the current state, distribution, and methods used for evidence on the links between NCS interventions and climate change mitigation outcomes within tropical and sub-tropical terrestrial ecosystems. Results of this study can be used to inform program and policy design and highlight critical knowledge gaps where future evaluation, research, and syntheses are needed. Methods: To develop this systematic map, we will search two bibliographic databases (including 11 indices) and 67 organization websites, backward citation chase from 39 existing evidence syntheses, and solicit information from key informants. All searches will be conducted in English and encompass subtropical and tropical terrestrial ecosystems (forests, grasslands, mangroves, agricultural areas). Search results will be screened at title and abstract, and full text levels, recording both the number of excluded articles and reasons for exclusion. Key meta-data from included articles will be coded and reported in a narrative review that will summarize trends in the evidence base, assess gaps in knowledge, and provide insights for policy, practice, and research. The data from this systematic map will be made open access. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13750-022-00268-w.

What happens when the money runs out? Forest outcomes and equity concerns following Ecuador's suspension of conservation payments.

Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) are now a prominent policy instrument for conserving tropical forests. PES are voluntary, direct, and contractual: an ES buyer pays an ES steward for adopting conservation practices for a fixed term. A defining feature of PES is its 'quid pro quo' conditionality, e.g. stewards are paid only if they deliver contracted conservation outcomes. Most studies on PES effectiveness focus on the steward's compliance with contract conditions. By contrast, the buyer's compliance has received scant attention despite the fact that PES programs across the globe have delayed payments, suspended re-enrollment, or shut down altogether. 'Use-restricting' PES depend on the continued flow of funding to pay for conservation; however, institutional, political, and economic factors can disrupt or terminate PES funding. What happens when the PES money unexpectedly runs out? Do stewards continue to conserve or revert to their former practices? We use mixed methods to study equity concerns and forest outcomes of an unexpected, two-year interruption in conservation payments to 63 private landowners residing in Ecuador's Amazon and enrolled in the Socio Bosque program, compared to similar landowners who did not enroll. Using quasi-experimental methods, we found that during the payment suspension period enrolled properties did not maintain their conservation outcomes where deforestation pressures were high (e.g. close to roads). Where deforestation pressures were low, enrolled properties continued to conserve more, on average, than similar properties not enrolled. Findings from 40 interviews and 26 focus groups conducted before, during, and after the payment suspension exposed profound landowner uncertainty regarding their contract rights. Poor official communication and imbalanced PES contract terms reinforced power inequalities between the state and rural ES stewards. Our work highlights the need to plan for financial volatility and to protect participants' rights in PES contract design.

Strengthen causal models for better conservation outcomes for human well-being.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how the conservation of nature can lead to improvement in human conditions is a research area with significant growth and attention. Progress towards effective conservation requires understanding mechanisms for achieving impact within complex social-ecological systems. Causal models are useful tools for defining plausible pathways from conservation actions to impacts on nature and people. Evaluating the potential of different strategies for delivering co-benefits for nature and people will require the use and testing of clear causal models that explicitly define the logic and assumptions behind cause and effect relationships. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS: In this study, we outline criteria for credible causal models and systematically evaluated their use in a broad base of literature (~1,000 peer-reviewed and grey literature articles from a published systematic evidence map) on links between nature-based conservation actions and human well-being impacts. RESULTS: Out of 1,027 publications identified, only ~20% of articles used any type of causal models to guide their work, and only 14 total articles fulfilled all criteria for credibility. Articles rarely tested the validity of models with empirical data. IMPLICATIONS: Not using causal models risks poorly defined strategies, misunderstanding of potential mechanisms for affecting change, inefficient use of resources, and focusing on implausible efforts for achieving sustainability.

Stakeholder perceptions and scientific evidence linking wildfire mitigation treatments to societal outcomes.

A number of watershed partnerships have emerged in the western US to address the impacts of wildfire through investing in wildfire mitigation activities. To motivate collective action and design effective risk mitigation programs, these stakeholders draw on evidence linking wildfire mitigation to outcomes of interest. To advance knowledge in this area, we 1) assessed the strength of existing scientific evidence linking wildfire mitigation treatments with societal outcomes and 2) measured the importance of this evidence to watershed partnerships in the western US. To address objective one, we created a systematic evidence map to identify the most common wildfire mitigation treatment and societal outcome relationships reported. From the more than 100 studies examined, we found that the most commonly studied linkages were related to the impacts of thinning on infrastructure and timber. To answer objective two, we surveyed 38 professionals affiliated with organizations involved in eight watershed partnerships in the western US. We asked about the relative importance and strength of evidence linking wildfire treatments to societal outcomes for their watershed partnership, and used this information to create an importance-strength analysis and gap analysis. We found that most linkages were considered important to these organizations, and that the biggest gap identified was for evidence linking mulching to water quality or quantity outcomes. Forest and wildfire specialists perceived a larger need for additional evidence generation than other professional groups. Jointly, the results from this study point to areas of evidence generation important for watershed partnerships and other organizations involved in wildfire mitigation, and suggest a need to more thoroughly disseminate information about existing evidence to this new group of stakeholders investing in wildfire risk mitigation.

The impact of protected area governance and management capacity on ecosystem function in Central America.

Protected areas (PAs) are a prominent approach to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem services. A critical question for safeguarding these resources is how PA governance processes and management structures influence their effectiveness. We conduct an impact evaluation of 12 PAs in three Central American countries to assess how processes in management restrictions, management capacity, and decentralization affect the annual change in the satellite-derived Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI). NDVI varies with greenness that relates to plant production, biomass, and important ecosystem functions related to biodiversity and ecosystem services such as water quality and carbon storage. Any loss of vegetation cover in the form of deforestation or degradation would show up as a decrease in NDVI values over time and gains in vegetation cover and regeneration as an increase in NDVI values. Management restriction categories are based on international classifications of strict versus multiple-use PAs, and capacity and decentralization categories are based on key informant interviews of PA managers. We use matching to create a counterfactual of non-protected observations and a matching estimator and regression to estimate treatment effects of each sub-sample. On average, strict and multiple-use PAs have a significant and positive effect on NDVI compared to non-protected land uses. Both high and low decentralized PAs also positively affect NDVI. High capacity PAs have a positive and significant effect on NDVI, while low capacity PAs have a negative effect on NDVI. Our findings advance knowledge on how governance and management influence PA effectiveness and suggest that capacity may be more important than governance type or management restrictions in maintaining and enhancing NDVI. This paper also provides a guide for future studies to incorporate measures of PA governance and management into impact evaluations.

Evaluating the effectiveness of conservation and development investments in reducing deforestation and fires in Ankeniheny-Zahemena Corridor, Madagascar.

Forest conservation and REDD+ projects invest millions of dollars each year to reduce local communities' dependence on forests and prevent forest loss and degradation. However, to date, there is limited evidence on whether these investments are effective at delivering conservation outcomes. We explored the relationships between 600+ small-scale conservation and development investments that occurred from 2007 to 2014 and conservation outcomes (deforestation rates and fire detections) within Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor in Madagascar using linear fixed effects panel regressions. We derived annual changes in forest cover and fires from satellite remote sensing. We found a statistically significant correlation between presence of any investment and reduced deforestation rates in 2010 and 2011 -years with accelerated deforestation elsewhere in the study area. This result indicated investments abated deforestation rates during times of political instability and lack of governance following a 2009 coup in Madagascar. We also found a statistically significant relationship between presence of any investment and reduced fire detections in the study area, suggesting investments had an impact on reducing burning of forest for agriculture. For both outcomes (i.e., deforestation rates and fire detections), we found that more dollars invested led to greater conservation outcomes (i.e. fewer fires or less deforestation), particularly when funding was sustained for one to two years. Our findings suggest that conservation and development investments can reduce deforestation and fire incidence, but also highlight the many challenges and complexities in assessing relationships between investments and conservation outcomes in a dynamic landscape and a volatile political context.

Return on investment from fuel treatments to reduce severe wildfire and erosion in a watershed investment program in Colorado.

A small but growing number of watershed investment programs in the western United States focus on wildfire risk reduction to municipal water supplies. This paper used return on investment (ROI) analysis to quantify how the amounts and placement of fuel treatment interventions would reduce sediment loading to the Strontia Springs Reservoir in the Upper South Platte River watershed southwest of Denver, Colorado following an extreme fire event. We simulated various extents of fuel mitigation activities under two placement strategies: (a) a strategic treatment prioritization map and (b) accessibility. Potential fire behavior was modeled under each extent and scenario to determine the impact on fire severity, and this was used to estimate expected change in post-fire erosion due to treatments. We found a positive ROI after large storm events when fire mitigation treatments were placed in priority areas with diminishing marginal returns after treating >50-80% of the forested area. While our ROI results should not be used prescriptively they do show that, conditional on severe fire occurrence and precipitation, investments in the Upper South Platte could feasibly lead to positive financial returns based on the reduced costs of dredging sediment from the reservoir. While our analysis showed positive ROI focusing only on post-fire erosion mitigation, it is important to consider multiple benefits in future ROI calculations and increase monitoring and evaluation of these benefits of wildfire fuel reduction investments for different site conditions and climates.

Aldosterone Antagonists or Renin-Guided Therapy for Treatment-Resistant Hypertension: A Comparative Effectiveness Pilot Study in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Uncontrolled treatment-resistant hypertension (TRH), i.e., blood pressure (BP, mm Hg) ≥140/≥90mm Hg in and out of office on ≥3 different BP medications at optimal doses, is common and has a poor prognosis. Aldosterone antagonist (AA) and renin-guided therapy (RGT) are effective strategies for improving BP control in TRH but have not been compared. METHODS: A comparative effectiveness TRH pilot study of AA vs. RGT was conducted in 4 primary care clinics with 2 each randomized to AA or RGT. The primary outcome was change in clinic BP defined by means of 5 automated office BP values. Eighty-nine patients with apparent TRH were screened and 44 met criteria for true TRH. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of 20 patients in the AA (70% Black, 45% female, mean age: 57.4 years) and 24 patients in RGT (79% Black, 50% female, 57.8 years) arms were similar with baseline BP 162±5/90±3 vs. 153±3/84±3, respectively, P = 0.11/0.20. BP declined to 144±5/86±4 in AA vs. 132±4/75±3 in RGT, P = 0.07/0.01; BP was controlled to JNC7 (Seventh Joint National Committee Report) goal in 25% vs. 62.5%, respectively, P < 0.01. Although BP changes from baseline, the primary outcome, were not different (-17.6±5.1/-4.0±3.0 AA vs. -20.4±3.8/-9.7±2.0 RGT, P = 0.65/0.10.), more BP medications were added with AA than RGT (+0.9±0.1 vs. +0.4±0.1 per patient, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this TRH pilot study, AA and RGT lowered BP similarly, although fewer additional medications were required with RGT. A larger comparative effectiveness study could establish the utility of these treatment strategies for lowering BP of uncontrolled TRH patients in primary care.

Estimating the Counterfactual Impact of Conservation Programs on Land Cover Outcomes: The Role of Matching and Panel Regression Techniques.

Deforestation and conversion of native habitats continues to be the leading driver of biodiversity and ecosystem service loss. A number of conservation policies and programs are implemented--from protected areas to payments for ecosystem services (PES)--to deter these losses. Currently, empirical evidence on whether these approaches stop or slow land cover change is lacking, but there is increasing interest in conducting rigorous, counterfactual impact evaluations, especially for many new conservation approaches, such as PES and REDD, which emphasize additionality. In addition, several new, globally available and free high-resolution remote sensing datasets have increased the ease of carrying out an impact evaluation on land cover change outcomes. While the number of conservation evaluations utilizing 'matching' to construct a valid control group is increasing, the majority of these studies use simple differences in means or linear cross-sectional regression to estimate the impact of the conservation program using this matched sample, with relatively few utilizing fixed effects panel methods--an alternative estimation method that relies on temporal variation in the data. In this paper we compare the advantages and limitations of (1) matching to construct the control group combined with differences in means and cross-sectional regression, which control for observable forms of bias in program evaluation, to (2) fixed effects panel methods, which control for observable and time-invariant unobservable forms of bias, with and without matching to create the control group. We then use these four approaches to estimate forest cover outcomes for two conservation programs: a PES program in Northeastern Ecuador and strict protected areas in European Russia. In the Russia case we find statistically significant differences across estimators--due to the presence of unobservable bias--that lead to differences in conclusions about effectiveness. The Ecuador case illustrates that if time-invariant unobservables are not present, matching combined with differences in means or cross-sectional regression leads to similar estimates of program effectiveness as matching combined with fixed effects panel regression. These results highlight the importance of considering observable and unobservable forms of bias and the methodological assumptions across estimators when designing an impact evaluation of conservation programs.

Do patients on statins also need niacin?

Niacin has been used for years to treat hypercholesterolemia, but may not be as beneficial as thought for patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease. Until further research is done, niacin should be used only in patients who do not tolerate or respond to statin therapy, and never in patients who have achieved goal LDL cholesterol on a statin.

Medication risk must be balanced with benefit, not fear.

The passionate topic in pharmacotherapy belongs to medication safety. A basic premise in medicine is to first do no harm: primum non nocere. But can this ancient principle hold true concerning medications? Medication alerts from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are being transmitted through emails daily. Recently, an FDA advisory committee reviewed acetaminophen and the risk of acute liver injury. They made recommendations that could change the patient utilization and market dynamics of acetaminophen. This article is a reminder that safety is always at risk when progress and benefit are the outcomes of pharmacotherapy. Risk and benefit are mutually inclusive ideas and should never be separated. When risk dominates, fear is generated.