TY - JOUR
T1 - The state of capacity development evaluation in biodiversity conservation and natural resource management
AU - Sterling, Eleanor J.
AU - Sigouin, Amanda
AU - Betley, Erin
AU - Zavaleta Cheek, Jennifer
AU - Solomon, Jennifer N.
AU - Landrigan, Kimberley
AU - Porzecanski, Ana L.
AU - Bynum, Nora
AU - Cadena, Bailey
AU - Cheng, Samantha H.
AU - Clements, Kaylin R.
AU - Finchum, Ryan
AU - Geresy, Mallory
AU - Gomez, Andrés
AU - Groom, Martha
AU - Loffeld, Thirza A.C.
AU - Miller, Daniel C.
AU - Rakotobe, Domoina
AU - Rao, Madhu
AU - Roberts, Ryan
AU - Shinbrot, Xoco Anna
AU - Willigan, Erin
AU - Jones, Megan S.
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank Sarah Trabue and Kathryn Powlen for help coding, compiling and sorting relevant data; Audrey Ek for performing initial scoping searches and participating in early coding that helped develop the codebook; Nikolas Merten for assisting with coding of conservation outcomes; and Nadav Gazit for graphic design expertise and assistance with figures. We gratefully acknowledge support from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation for this research (JZC; DCM).
Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International.
PY - 2022/9/21
Y1 - 2022/9/21
N2 - Capacity development is critical to long-term conservation success, yet we lack a robust and rigorous understanding of how well its effects are being evaluated. A comprehensive summary of who is monitoring and evaluating capacity development interventions, what is being evaluated and how, would help in the development of evidence-based guidance to inform design and implementation decisions for future capacity development interventions and evaluations of their effectiveness. We built an evidence map by reviewing peer-reviewed and grey literature published since 2000, to identify case studies evaluating capacity development interventions in biodiversity conservation and natural resource management. We used inductive and deductive approaches to develop a coding strategy for studies that met our criteria, extracting data on the type of capacity development intervention, evaluation methods, data and analysis types, categories of outputs and outcomes assessed, and whether the study had a clear causal model and/or used a systems approach. We found that almost all studies assessed multiple outcome types: most frequent was change in knowledge, followed by behaviour, then attitude. Few studies evaluated conservation outcomes. Less than half included an explicit causal model linking interventions to expected outcomes. Half of the studies considered external factors that could influence the efficacy of the capacity development intervention, and few used an explicit systems approach. We used framework synthesis to situate our evidence map within the broader literature on capacity development evaluation. Our evidence map (including a visual heat map) highlights areas of low and high representation in investment in research on the evaluation of capacity development.
AB - Capacity development is critical to long-term conservation success, yet we lack a robust and rigorous understanding of how well its effects are being evaluated. A comprehensive summary of who is monitoring and evaluating capacity development interventions, what is being evaluated and how, would help in the development of evidence-based guidance to inform design and implementation decisions for future capacity development interventions and evaluations of their effectiveness. We built an evidence map by reviewing peer-reviewed and grey literature published since 2000, to identify case studies evaluating capacity development interventions in biodiversity conservation and natural resource management. We used inductive and deductive approaches to develop a coding strategy for studies that met our criteria, extracting data on the type of capacity development intervention, evaluation methods, data and analysis types, categories of outputs and outcomes assessed, and whether the study had a clear causal model and/or used a systems approach. We found that almost all studies assessed multiple outcome types: most frequent was change in knowledge, followed by behaviour, then attitude. Few studies evaluated conservation outcomes. Less than half included an explicit causal model linking interventions to expected outcomes. Half of the studies considered external factors that could influence the efficacy of the capacity development intervention, and few used an explicit systems approach. We used framework synthesis to situate our evidence map within the broader literature on capacity development evaluation. Our evidence map (including a visual heat map) highlights areas of low and high representation in investment in research on the evaluation of capacity development.
KW - Biodiversity conservation
KW - capacity development
KW - conservation outcomes
KW - evaluation
KW - evidence map
KW - literature review
KW - systematic map
KW - systems approach
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85121685497&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85121685497&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1017/S0030605321000570
DO - 10.1017/S0030605321000570
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85121685497
SN - 0030-6053
VL - 56
SP - 728
EP - 739
JO - Oryx
JF - Oryx
IS - 5
ER -