Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 34
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Post, Gerald and Pandav, Bivash 2013. Comparative evaluation of tiger reserves in India. Biodiversity and Conservation, Vol. 22, Issue. 12, p. 2785.


    Pullin, Andrew S. Sutherland, William Gardner, Toby Kapos, Valerie and Fa, John E. 2013. Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2.


    Kari, Susanna and Korhonen-Kurki, Kaisa 2013. Framing local outcomes of biodiversity conservation through ecosystem services: A case study from Ranomafana, Madagascar. Ecosystem Services, Vol. 3, p. e32.


    STOKES, Emma J. 2010. Improving effectiveness of protection efforts in tiger source sites: Developing a framework for law enforcement monitoring using MIST. Integrative Zoology, Vol. 5, Issue. 4, p. 363.


    Pressey, Robert L. and Bottrill, Madeleine C. 2009. Approaches to landscape- and seascape-scale conservation planning: convergence, contrasts and challenges. Oryx, Vol. 43, Issue. 04, p. 464.


    Washington, Harriet Baillie, Jonathan Waterman, Carly and Milner-Gulland, E.J. 2015. A framework for evaluating the effectiveness of conservation attention at the species level. Oryx, Vol. 49, Issue. 03, p. 481.


    Sodhi, Navjot S. Butler, Rhett Laurance, William F. and Gibson, Luke 2011. Conservation successes at micro-, meso- and macroscales. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 26, Issue. 11, p. 585.


    Ntshotsho, Phumza Esler, Karen and Reyers, Belinda 2015. Identifying Challenges to Building an Evidence Base for Restoration Practice. Sustainability, Vol. 7, Issue. 12, p. 15871.


    Cook, Carly N. (Bill) Carter, R.W. and Hockings, Marc 2014. Measuring the accuracy of management effectiveness evaluations of protected areas. Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 139, p. 164.


    GUSSET, M. and DICK, G. 2010. ‘Building a Future for Wildlife’? Evaluating the contribution of the world zoo and aquarium community to in situ conservation. International Zoo Yearbook, Vol. 44, Issue. 1, p. 183.


    Bottrill, Madeleine C. and Pressey, Robert L. 2012. The effectiveness and evaluation of conservation planning. Conservation Letters, Vol. 5, Issue. 6, p. 407.


    Stebbings, Emily Copsey, Jamieson Tatayah, Vikash Black, Simon A. Zuël, Nicolas and Ferriere, Christelle 2016. Applying Systems Thinking and Logic Models to Evaluate Effectiveness in Wildlife Conservation. Open Journal of Leadership, Vol. 05, Issue. 03, p. 70.


    Patterson, Tamatha A. and Grundel, Ralph 2014. Conservation Action Planning: Lessons learned from the St. Marys River watershed biodiversity conservation planning process. Journal of Great Lakes Research, Vol. 40, p. 7.


    Cigliano, John A. Meyer, Ryan Ballard, Heidi L. Freitag, Amy Phillips, Tina B. and Wasser, Ann 2015. Making marine and coastal citizen science matter. Ocean & Coastal Management, Vol. 115, p. 77.


    Bejder, Michelle Johnston, David W. Smith, Joshua Friedlaender, Ari and Bejder, Lars 2016. Embracing conservation success of recovering humpback whale populations: Evaluating the case for downlisting their conservation status in Australia. Marine Policy, Vol. 66, p. 137.


    Wong-Pérez, Karen Jossuely and Lasch Thaler, Cristina 2012. Measuring the success of the Management Capacity Building Program for Marine Protected Areas in the Gulf of California. Knowledge Management for Development Journal, Vol. 8, Issue. 1, p. 93.


    WAYLEN, KERRY A. FISCHER, ANKE MCGOWAN, PHILIP J. K. THIRGOOD, SIMON J. and MILNER-GULLAND, E. J. 2010. Effect of Local Cultural Context on the Success of Community-Based Conservation Interventions. Conservation Biology, Vol. 24, Issue. 4, p. 1119.


    Finn, J.A. and Ó hUallacháin, D. 2012. A review of evidence on the environmental impact of Ireland's Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS). Biology & Environment: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol. 112, Issue. 1, p. 1.


    Walsh, J. C. Wilson, K. A. Benshemesh, J. Possingham, H. P. Katzner, Todd and Rondeau, Daniel 2012. Unexpected outcomes of invasive predator control: the importance of evaluating conservation management actions. Animal Conservation, Vol. 15, Issue. 4, p. 319.


    Pressey, Robert L. Mills, Morena Weeks, Rebecca and Day, Jon C. 2013. The plan of the day: Managing the dynamic transition from regional conservation designs to local conservation actions. Biological Conservation, Vol. 166, p. 155.


    ×

Outcomes, not implementation, predict conservation success

  • Valerie Kapos (a1), Andrew Balmford (a2), Rosalind Aveling (a3), Philip Bubb (a1), Peter Carey (a4), Abigail Entwistle (a3), John Hopkins (a5), Teresa Mulliken (a6), Roger Safford (a7), Alison Stattersfield (a7), Matt Walpole (a3) and Andrea Manica (a2)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0030605309990275
  • Published online: 01 July 2009
Abstract
Abstract

To use more effectively the limited resources available for conservation there is an urgent need to identify which conservation approaches are most likely to succeed. However, measuring conservation success is often difficult, as it is achieved outside the project time frame. Measures of implementation are often reported to donors to demonstrate achievement but it is unclear whether they really predict conservation success. We applied a conceptual framework and score-card developed by the Cambridge Conservation Forum (CCF) to a sample of 60 conservation activities to determine the predictive power of implementation measures versus measures of key outcomes (later steps in the models defined in the CCF tools). We show that assessing key outcomes is often more difficult than quantifying the degree of implementation of a project but that, while implementation is a poor predictor of success, key outcomes provide a feasible and much more reliable proxy for whether a project will deliver real conservation benefits. The CCF framework and evaluation tool provide a powerful basis for synthesizing past experience and, with wider application, will help to identify factors that affect the success of conservation activities.

Copyright
Corresponding author
§UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 0DL, UK. E-mail val.kapos@unep-wcmc.org
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

P.D. Carey , S.J. Manchester & L.G Firbank . (2005) Performance of two agri-environment schemes in England: a comparison of ecological and multi-disciplinary evaluations. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment, 108, 178188.

P.D. Carey , S. Short , C. Morris , J. Hunt , A. Priscott , M. Davis (2003) The multi-disciplinary evaluation of a national agri-environment scheme. Journal of Environmental Management, 69, 7191.

P.J. Ferraro & S.K Pattanayak . (2006) Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biology, 4, e105.

V. Kapos , A. Balmford , R. Aveling , P. Bubb , P. Carey , A. Entwistle (2008) Calibrating conservation: new tools for measuring success. Conservation Letters, 1, 155164.

A.S. Pullin & G.B Stewart . (2006) Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology, 20, 16471656.

N. Salafsky & R Margoluis . (1999) Threat reduction assessment: a practical and cost-effective approach to evaluating conservation and development projects. Conservation Biology, 13, 830841.

N. Salafsky , R. Margoluis , K.H. Redford & J.G Robinson . (2002) Improving the practice of conservation: a conceptual framework and research agenda for conservation science. Conservation Biology, 16, 14691479.

N. Salafsky , D. Salzer , A.J. Stattersfield , C. Hilton-Taylor , R. Neugarten , S.H.M. Butchart (2008) A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified classifications of threats and actions. Conservation Biology, 22, 897911.

W.J. Sutherland , A.S. Pullin , P.M. Dolman & T.M Knight . (2004) The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19, 305308.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Oryx
  • ISSN: 0030-6053
  • EISSN: 1365-3008
  • URL: /core/journals/oryx
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords: