The difference between the two states cannot be directly observed but can be inferred based on empirical evidence and some assumptions. It involves moving from the unit level to the group level, and identifying a treatment group and a control group (i.e. a valid counterfactual) that are statistically similar, on average, or at least follow the same trend, in the absence of the programme. With-without’ analyses implicitly assume that (i) the areas with and without the biodiversity policy are similar in terms of their expected outcomes in the absence of the biodiversity policy (i.e. similar in characteristics that affect outcomes, such as accessibility, suitability for agriculture, and proximity' to markets) and (ii) there are no spillover effects from the biodiversity policy to ‘unexposed’ areas. ' Before-after’ analyses assume that the outcome level (or its trend) before a policy is enacted would remain constant after the policy is enacted (Nagendra, 2008) and that there is no selection bias in targeting the policy (Miteva et al.,