Cited by 542Evaluation and Performance AssessmentConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementConservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Monitoring and Evaluation in Conservation: a Review of Trends and Approaches

Abstract

Abstract: There is growing recognition among conservation practitioners and scholars that good project management is integrally linked to well‐designed monitoring and evaluation systems. Most conservation organizations have attempted to develop and implement monitoring and evaluation systems, often with mixed results. One problem seems to be that organizations are trying to build their systems from scratch, overlooking lessons learned from the many efforts to develop useful and practical monitoring and evaluation approaches. Thus, we undertook a review of monitoring and evaluation approaches in conservation and other fields including international development, public health, family planning, education, social services, and business. Here, we present our results for the field of conservation. We categorized the considerable variety of monitoring and evaluation approaches into four broad purposes: basic research; accounting and certification; status assessment; and effectiveness measurement. We focus here on status assessment and effectiveness measurement. Specific lessons that emerged follow: different monitoring and evaluation needs require different approaches; conceptual similarities are widespread among prevailing approaches; inconsistent language impedes communication; confusion among monitoring and evaluation components hinders practitioner ability to choose the appropriate component; and monitoring only quantitative biological variables is insufficient. We suggest that the conservation community continue support of collaborative initiatives to improve monitoring and evaluation, establish clear definitions of commonly used terms, clarify monitoring and evaluation system components, apply available approaches appropriately, and include qualitative and social variables in monitoring efforts.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00594.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. Bagri A., 1997, Draft discussion paper for SBSTTA3
  2. Banff National Park of Canada, 2003, Banff National Park of Canada: state of the park report
  3. Barrow C. J., 1997, Environmental and social impact assessment: an introduction
  4. Blann K., 2000, The path of last resort: adaptive environmental assessment and management (AEAM)
  5. Brooke C., 1998, Biodiversity and impact assessment. Prepared for the Conference on Impact Assessment in a Developing World
  6. Canadian International Development Agency, 1999, Results‐based management in CIDA: an introductory guide to the concepts and principles
  7. 10.4135/9781483348896 · DOI
  8. Clark T. W., 1995, Prototyping for successful conservation: the eastern barred bandicoot program, Endangered Species Update, 12, 5
  9. Conservation International, 2001, Rapid assessment program
  10. CMP (Conservation Measures Partnership), 2003, Conservation Measures Partnership—charter declaration
  11. CMP (Conservation Measures Partnership), 2003, Lexicon and Rosetta Stone of project management systems
  12. CMP (Conservation Measures Partnership), 2003, Open standards for the practice of conservation
  13. Council on Environmental Quality, 1993, Incorporating biodiversity considerations into environmental impact analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act
  14. Cracknell B. E., 2000, Evaluating development aid: issues, problems, and solutions
  15. Den Heyer M., 2001, Literature review from: the development of a temporal logic model
  16. Ervin J., 2002, Rapid assessment and prioritization of protected area management
  17. Hatry H. P., 1999, Performance measurement: getting results
  18. Herweg K., 1998, Sustainable land management: guidelines for impact monitoring
  19. 10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0823:SFATEO]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  20. Hockings M., 2001, The enhancing our heritage toolkit: evaluating effectiveness training manual
  21. Lee K. N., 1993, Compass and gyroscope: integrating science and politics for the environment
  22. Margoluis R., 1998, Measures of success: designing, managing, and monitoring conservation and development projects
  23. Margoluis R., 2001, Maximum yield? Sustainable agriculture as a tool for conservation
  24. Mark M. M., 2000, Evaluation: an integrated framework for understanding, guiding, and improving policies and programs
  25. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Secretariat, n.d. Millennium ecosystem assessment: ecosystems and human well‐being
  26. Organisation for Economic Co‐Operation and Development (OECD), 1993, OECD core set of indicators for environmental performance reviews, Environment monographs, 83
  27. Parks Canada, 1998, State of the parks 1997 report
  28. Patton M. Q., 1997, Utilization‐focused evaluation: the new century text
  29. Rigby D., 2000, Sustainability indicators for natural resource management and policy: a review of indicators of agricultural and rural livelihood sustainability
  30. Salafsky N., 2001, Adaptive management: a tool for conservation practitioners
  31. Sawhill J., 2001, Measuring what matters in nonprofits, The McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 98
  32. Sayre R., 2000, Nature in focus: rapid ecological assessment
  33. Stolton S., 2002, Reporting progress at protected area sites
  34. Swenson R., 2002, Auditing progress on conservation by design: Cosumnes River Project, Central Valley Ecoregion (California)
  35. TNC (The Nature Conservancy), 1999, Site consolidation scorecard manual
  36. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1999, Environmental outcome‐based management: using environmental goals and measures in the Chesapeake Bay Program
  37. Vayda A. P.1997.Managing forests and improving the livelihoods of forest‐dependent people: reflections on CIFOR's social science research in relation to its mandate for generalisable strategic research. Working paper # 20. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Bogor Indonesia . · DOI
  38. Woodhill J., 2000, Planning, monitoring and evaluating programmes and projects: introduction to key concepts, approaches and terms
  39. World Bank, 1997, Expanding the measure of wealth: Indicators of environmentally sustainable development
  40. Worldwatch Institute, 1984, State of the world 1984
  41. Worldwatch Institute, 2003, State of the world 2003
  42. WWF (World Wildlife Fund) Australia, 1997, Marine protected areas report card

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
STEM, C., MARGOLUIS, R., SALAFSKY, N., & BROWN, M.
Affiliations
Foundations of Success (US)
Corresponding author
STEM, CAROLINE
Venue
Conservation Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-04
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
295-309
ISSN
  • 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-1739
OpenAlex
W2161880071
Cited by
542
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 39 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 33 · 2012: 17
FWCI
28.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Conservation Biology (publishedVersion)
  • Issue Lab (Candid) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Nature Conservancy
  • Världsnaturfonden WWF
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Conservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education
Keywords
monitoring and evaluation, status assessment, effectiveness measurement, basic research, international development, family planning, social services, categorical variables, conservation organizations

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review