Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

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)...

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.

Corresponding author
§UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 0DL, UK. E-mail
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.

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.

  • 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? *



Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 9
Total number of PDF views: 71 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 394 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 25th July 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.