Improving the Evaluation of Conservation Programs

Abstract

The evaluation of conservation programs is rare but increasingly important in improving their effectiveness. Regular evaluations of conservation programs and the implementation of recommendations resulting from such assessments are infrequent because of resistance by participants and lack of funding. Evaluations may be internal or external, depending on the purpose of the review and how broadly it is focused. We strongly recommend external peer review of long‐term complex conservation programs every 5 years, supported by more frequent (annual) internal reviews. Criteria for success must encompass both biological and social measures and include learning and the application of new knowledge to management. Evaluations must also go beyond monitoring to assess the value of the program. We emphasize the need to include the organization and function of a conservation program (the process) in any evaluation in addition to substantive criteria for success, which usually involve biological measures (numbers). A dysfunctional program organization and process can as effectively cripple a conservation effort as can a major biological catastrophe. We provide examples of different types of conservation program evaluations, including moderated workshops and case‐study analysis, and provide advice on the logistics and organization of the review, emphasizing the importance of the evaluation process itself to a successful outcome. One important aspect of an evaluation is having an individual with leadership ability and considerable expertise to organize the format and oversee the review process itself. Second, it is essential at the outset to ensure agreement among the program participants and the review committee on the goals and objectives of the conservation program, what is to be evaluated, and the criteria for defining success. Finally, the best evaluations are inclusive and involve all participants and stakeholders.

Shared visions: can community conservation projects’ outcomes inform on their likely contributions to national biodiversity goals?

“…No programme can be evaluated effectively unless the criteria for its success are defined at its initiation (Kleiman et al 2000;Galbraith et al 2016). The first step in programme design should be to define the programme's objectives clearly so that managers, stakeholders and funders have something against which to measure delivery and performance (Possingham et al 2001;Murdoch et al 2007;Day 2008).…”

“…These problems may be alleviated if funded community programmes are encouraged and supported to demonstrate explicitly that their aims (their local conservation project objectives) align with high-level (national or regional) outcomes for natural resource management and demonstrate contributions to achieving those outcomes. As with any environmental conservation initiative, assessment of value from investment requires an estimate of the effectiveness of the programme in achieving its goals, specifically in terms of outcomes for the environmental asset or wider community (Kleiman et al 2000;Ferraro & Pattanayak 2006). This assessment is arguably best achieved using programme performance measurement (PPM), whereby intended levels of achievement for all stages of a project are defined at its initiation and used thereafter to define 'success' (Margoluis et al 2009;Biddle & Koontz 2014;Mascia et al 2014).…”

“…For example, Biddle and Koontz (2014) found that setting clear, outcomedriven goals may be a useful proxy measure of performance for collaborative resource management programmes. Furthermore, the setting of, and agreement of all partners on, programme outcomes as success criteria is an essential component of effective programme design (Kleiman et al 2000;Kapos et al 2009;Galbraith et al 2016).…”

Practical Considerations for the Reintroduction of Large, Terrestrial,Mammalian Predators Based on Reintroductions to South Africa's Eastern Cape Province

“…It is widely recommended that the results of reintroductions be published and peer-reviewed at frequent intervals to allow other reintroduction attempts to benefit from past experiences [1,10]. This should be part of a continuous feedback loop with the results of the documented evaluation leading to alterations to the existing reintroduction programme via an adaptive management strategy [10].…”

“…This should be part of a continuous feedback loop with the results of the documented evaluation leading to alterations to the existing reintroduction programme via an adaptive management strategy [10]. We selected a five-yearly reporting regime, based on expert recommendations [10], but this short-time period for the initial assessment enforced limitations in our ability to measure the success of the reintroductions [9]. Based on the only assess- [9].…”