Case studies are a formal, rigorous method of assembling and analyzing the evidence of the impact of an intervention when the issues at question are too complex for sampling theory. This section offers a portal to:
-
Case studies of interventions intended to benefit people and nature, which are under development by several conservation organizations and foundations through the Conservation Measures Partnership
-
Teaching case studies developed to illustrate certain aspects of conservation planning, monitoring and evaluation
Formal case studies rigorously define a question(s) and replication logic, then thouroughly examine context and may highlight emergent properties from multiple situations. In contrast, meta-analysis focuses on quantifiable information and attempts to treat multiple independent interventions as equal or weighted analysis units to assess an intervention's effectiveness.
A synthetic review approach may seek to assemble all available evidence in peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed publications, as well as annecdotal information. Assembleges of evidence that do not attempt to judge the effectiveness of an intervention.
Evidence chains or maps are less rigorous lists of the best available data that attempt to give a first-cut assessment whether sufficient data is available on a given intervention to justify its continued application.
