Ferraro, Paul J.Pattanayak, S. K.2016-04-192016-04-192006PLoS Biology 4(4): 482-4881544-91731545-78853367_Ferraro2006_Money_for_Nothing_Evaluating.pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/67469For far too long, conservation scientists and practitioners have depended on intuition and anecdote to guide the design of conservation investments. If we want to ensure that our limited resources make a difference, we must accept that testing hypotheses about what policies protect biological diversity requires the same scientific rigor and state-of-the-art methods that we invest in testing ecological hypotheses. Our understanding of the ecological aspects of ecosystem conservation rests, in part, on well-designed empirical studies. In contrast, our understanding of the way in which policies can prevent species loss and ecosystem degradation rests primarily on case-study narratives from field initiatives that are not designed to answer the question "Does the intervention work better than no intervention at all?"application/pdfen-USCopyright 2006 Ferraro and Pattanayak. This is an open-access article, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.Research planningPayments for environmental servicesProgram planningConservation strategyConservation planningConservationBiodiversity conservationProgram evaluationConservation investmentsConservation interventionsEmpirical analysisMonitoringCounterfactual outcomesArticle - Refereedhttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040105