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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) are essential to adaptive management.
“Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) are essential to adaptive management (Stem et al., 2005).”
From Policy-driven monitoring and evaluation: Does it support adaptive management of socio-ecological systems? (2019) · cites this paper as Stem et al., 2005
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 42
- Bagri A., 1997, Draft discussion paper for SBSTTA3
- Banff National Park of Canada, 2003, Banff National Park of Canada: state of the park report
- Barrow C. J., 1997, Environmental and social impact assessment: an introduction
- Blann K., 2000, The path of last resort: adaptive environmental assessment and management (AEAM)
- Brooke C., 1998, Biodiversity and impact assessment. Prepared for the Conference on Impact Assessment in a Developing World
- Canadian International Development Agency, 1999, Results‐based management in CIDA: an introductory guide to the concepts and principles
- 10.4135/9781483348896 · DOI
- Clark T. W., 1995, Prototyping for successful conservation: the eastern barred bandicoot program, Endangered Species Update, 12, 5
- Conservation International, 2001, Rapid assessment program
- CMP (Conservation Measures Partnership), 2003, Conservation Measures Partnership—charter declaration
- CMP (Conservation Measures Partnership), 2003, Lexicon and Rosetta Stone of project management systems
- CMP (Conservation Measures Partnership), 2003, Open standards for the practice of conservation
- Council on Environmental Quality, 1993, Incorporating biodiversity considerations into environmental impact analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act
- Cracknell B. E., 2000, Evaluating development aid: issues, problems, and solutions
- Den Heyer M., 2001, Literature review from: the development of a temporal logic model
- Ervin J., 2002, Rapid assessment and prioritization of protected area management
- Hatry H. P., 1999, Performance measurement: getting results
- Herweg K., 1998, Sustainable land management: guidelines for impact monitoring
- 10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0823:SFATEO]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
- Hockings M., 2001, The enhancing our heritage toolkit: evaluating effectiveness training manual
- Lee K. N., 1993, Compass and gyroscope: integrating science and politics for the environment
- Margoluis R., 1998, Measures of success: designing, managing, and monitoring conservation and development projects
- Margoluis R., 2001, Maximum yield? Sustainable agriculture as a tool for conservation
- Mark M. M., 2000, Evaluation: an integrated framework for understanding, guiding, and improving policies and programs
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Secretariat, n.d. Millennium ecosystem assessment: ecosystems and human well‐being
- Organisation for Economic Co‐Operation and Development (OECD), 1993, OECD core set of indicators for environmental performance reviews, Environment monographs, 83
- Parks Canada, 1998, State of the parks 1997 report
- Patton M. Q., 1997, Utilization‐focused evaluation: the new century text
- Rigby D., 2000, Sustainability indicators for natural resource management and policy: a review of indicators of agricultural and rural livelihood sustainability
- Salafsky N., 2001, Adaptive management: a tool for conservation practitioners
- Sawhill J., 2001, Measuring what matters in nonprofits, The McKinsey Quarterly, 2, 98
- Sayre R., 2000, Nature in focus: rapid ecological assessment
- Stolton S., 2002, Reporting progress at protected area sites
- Swenson R., 2002, Auditing progress on conservation by design: Cosumnes River Project, Central Valley Ecoregion (California)
- TNC (The Nature Conservancy), 1999, Site consolidation scorecard manual
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1999, Environmental outcome‐based management: using environmental goals and measures in the Chesapeake Bay Program
- 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
- Woodhill J., 2000, Planning, monitoring and evaluating programmes and projects: introduction to key concepts, approaches and terms
- World Bank, 1997, Expanding the measure of wealth: Indicators of environmentally sustainable development
- Worldwatch Institute, 1984, State of the world 1984
- Worldwatch Institute, 2003, State of the world 2003
- WWF (World Wildlife Fund) Australia, 1997, Marine protected areas report card
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Using conceptual models as a planning and evaluation tool in conservation
Margoluis, R., Stem, C., Salafsky, N., & Brown, M. (2009) · Evaluation and Program Planning · doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.09.007 · Cited by 184
Self-citationWaylen, K. A., Blackstock, K. L., van Hulst, F. J., Damian, C., Horváth, F., Johnson, R. K., Kanka, R., Külvik, M., Macleod, C. J. A., Meissner, K., et al. (2019) · Science of the Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.462 · Cited by 83
“Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) are essential to adaptivemanagement (Stem et al., 2005).”
BackgroundA framework for monitoring social process and outcomes in environmental programs
Chapman, S. (2014) · Evaluation and Program Planning · doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.07.004 · Cited by 19
Metadata
- Authors
- STEM, C., MARGOLUIS, R., SALAFSKY, N., & BROWN, M.
- Affiliations
- Foundations of Success (US)
- Corresponding author
- STEM, CAROLINE
- ORCID
- SALAFSKY, NICK
- 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