Map and quantify expected changes in status of conservation and human well-being goals with each strategy.

Com­bine the infor­ma­tion com­piled in the pre­vi­ous steps on assump­tions about the impacts of the strat­e­gy on the same min­i­mum goal met­rics mapped in the “no strat­e­gy” (base­line, busi­ness as usu­al) maps. The pre­vi­ous step estab­lished where each strat­e­gy could touch down. This step cal­cu­lates how much impact the strat­e­gy will have if enact­ed in those places. The time­frame used here for esti­mat­ing change must be the same as that used for the busi­ness as usual/no strat­e­gy maps cre­at­ed previously.

Cre­at­ing these maps can be a sim­ple over­lay process where you ask how much the strat­e­gy extent maps (mapped in the pre­vi­ous step) over­lap with con­ser­va­tion goals (e.g. habi­tat to be pro­tect­ed) and peo­ple we intend to ben­e­fit. Alter­na­tive­ly, this can be as com­pli­cat­ed as mod­el­ing non-lin­ear respons­es of con­ser­va­tion tar­gets to dri­vers, mod­el­ing mul­ti­ple con­ser­va­tion, ecosys­tem ser­vice and social ben­e­fit flows, or explor­ing mul­ti­ple cli­mate sce­nar­ios to clear­ly reflect the range of pos­si­ble ben­e­fits from the strat­e­gy for both nature and people.

Poten­tial neg­a­tive impacts of each strat­e­gy should also be esti­mat­ed at this stage. If the results chains iden­ti­fied unin­ten­tion­al neg­a­tive out­comes for oth­er con­ser­va­tion ele­ments or for peo­ple, these impacts should be quan­ti­fied so strate­gies can be com­pared both on their strengths and their weaknesses.

Con­sid­er again two of our three exam­ples of min­i­mum goal state­ments from above, now with the rel­e­vant ele­ments that might be includ­ed to cre­ate strat­e­gy impact maps for each strategy.