Wrestling with the complexity of evaluation for organizations at the boundary of science,policy, and practice

Boundary organizations are situated between science, policy, and practice and have a goal of supporting communication and collaboration among these sectors. They have been promoted as a way to improve the effectiveness of conservation efforts by building stronger relationships between scientists, policy makers, industry, and practitioners (Cook et al. 2013). Although their promise has been discussed in theory, the work of and expectations for boundary organizations are less defined in practice. Biodiversity conservation is characterized by complexity, uncertainty, dissent, and tight budgets, so boundary organizations face the challenging task of demonstrating their value to diverse stakeholders. We examined the challenges boundary organizations face when seeking to evaluate their work and thus aimed to encourage more productive conversations about evaluation of boundary organizations and their projects. Although no off‐the‐shelf solution is available for a given boundary organization, we identified 4 principles that will support effective evaluation for boundary organizations: engage diverse stakeholders, support learning and reflection, assess contribution to change, and align evaluation with assumption and values.     

Managing conflicts between economic activities and threatened migratory marine species toward creating a multiobjective blue economy

Harnessing the economic potential of the oceans is key to combating poverty, enhancing food security, and strengthening economies. But the concomitant risk of intensified resource extraction to migratory species is worrying given these species contribute to important ecological processes, often underpin alternative livelihoods, and are mostly already threatened. We thus sought to quantify the potential conflict between key economic activities (5 fisheries and hydrocarbon exploitation) and sea turtle migration corridors in a region with rapid economic development: southern and eastern Africa. We satellite tracked the movement of 20 loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and 14 leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) turtles during their postnesting migrations. We used movement‐based kernel density estimation to identify migration corridors for each species. We overlaid these corridors on maps of the distribution and intensity of economic activities, quantified the extent of overlap and threat posed by each activity on each species, and compared the effects of activities. These results were compared with annual bycatch rates in the respective fisheries. Both species’ 3 corridors overlapped most with longline fishing, but the effect was worse for leatherbacks: their bycatch rates of approximately 1500/year were substantial relative to the regional population size of <100 nesting females/annum. This bycatch rate is likely slowing population growth. Artisanal fisheries may be of greater concern for loggerheads than for leatherbacks, but the population appears to be withstanding the high bycatch rates because it is increasing exponentially. The hydrocarbon industry currently has a moderately low impact on both species, but mining in key areas (e.g., Southern Mozambique) may undermine >50 years of conservation, potentially affecting >80% of loggerheads, 33% of the (critically endangered) leatherbacks, and their nesting beaches. We support establishing blue economies (i.e., generating wealth from the ocean), but oceans need to be carefully zoned and responsibly managed in both space and time to achieve economic (resource extraction), ecological (conservation, maintenance of processes), and social (maintenance of alternative livelihood opportunities, alleviate poverty) objectives.     

Black swans,cognition, and the power of learning from failure

Failure carries undeniable stigma and is difficult to confront for individuals, teams, and organizations. Disciplines such as commercial and military aviation, medicine, and business have long histories of grappling with it, beginning with the recognition that failure is inevitable in every human endeavor. Although conservation may arguably be more complex, conservation professionals can draw on the research and experience of these other disciplines to institutionalize activities and attitudes that foster learning from failure, whether they are minor setbacks or major disasters. Understanding the role of individual cognitive biases, team psychological safety, and organizational willingness to support critical self‐examination all contribute to creating a cultural shift in conservation to one that is open to the learning opportunity that failure provides. This new approach to managing failure is a necessary next step in the evolution of conservation effectiveness.     

Linkages between measures of biodiversity and community resilience in Pacific Island agroforests

Designing agroecosystems that are compatible with the conservation of biodiversity is a top conservation priority. However, the social variables that drive native biodiversity conservation in these systems are poorly understood. We devised a new approach to identify social–ecological linkages that affect conservation outcomes in agroecosystems and in social‐ecological systems more broadly. We focused on coastal agroforests in Fiji, which, like agroforests across other small Pacific Islands, are critical to food security, contain much of the country's remaining lowland forests, and have rapidly declining levels of native biodiversity. We tested the relationships among social variables and native tree species richness in agroforests with structural equation models. The models were built with data from ecological and social surveys in 100 agroforests and associated households. The agroforests hosted 95 native tree species of which almost one‐third were endemic. Fifty‐eight percent of farms had at least one species considered threatened at the national or international level. The best‐fit structural equation model (R² = 47.8%) showed that social variables important for community resilience—local ecological knowledge, social network connectivity, and livelihood diversity—had direct and indirect positive effects on native tree species richness. Cash‐crop intensification, a driver of biodiversity loss elsewhere, did not negatively affect native tree richness within parcels. Joining efforts to build community resilience, specifically by increasing livelihood diversity, local ecological knowledge, and social network connectivity, may help conservation agencies conserve the rapidly declining biodiversity in the region.     

An experimental test of alternative population augmentation scenarios

Human land use is fragmenting habitats worldwide and inhibiting dispersal among previously connected populations of organisms, often leading to inbreeding depression and reduced evolutionary potential in the face of rapid environmental change. To combat this augmentation of isolated populations with immigrants is sometimes used to facilitate demographic and genetic rescue. Augmentation with immigrants that are genetically and adaptively similar to the target population effectively increases population fitness, but if immigrants are very genetically or adaptively divergent, augmentation can lead to outbreeding depression. Despite well‐cited guidelines for the best practice selection of immigrant sources, often only highly divergent populations remain, and experimental tests of these riskier augmentation scenarios are essentially nonexistent. We conducted a mesocosm experiment with Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata) to test the multigenerational demographic and genetic effects of augmenting 2 target populations with 3 types of divergent immigrants. We found no evidence of demographic rescue, but we did observe genetic rescue in one population. Divergent immigrant treatments tended to maintain greater genetic diversity, abundance, and hybrid fitness than controls that received immigrants from the source used to seed the mesocosms. In the second population, divergent immigrants had a slightly negative effect in one treatment, and the benefits of augmentation were less apparent overall, likely because this population started with higher genetic diversity and a lower reproductive rate that limited genetic admixture. Our results add to a growing consensus that gene flow can increase population fitness even when immigrants are more highly divergent and may help reduce uncertainty about the use of augmentation in conservation.     

Limits of monetization in protecting ecosystem services

The monetary valuation of ecosystem services is gaining traction in policy and business communities. Several tools and decision‐making processes have been proposed, including criteria to assess the appropriateness of using monetary valuation for biodiversity conservation outcomes. These criteria include measures such as scale, uniqueness, and threat. We used case studies of monetization projects for which the outcomes were measured to explore the limitations and application of these criteria. There was limited evidence of the effectiveness of such schemes. The majority of the schemes were established in areas where the criteria specifically excluded their use in isolation. Thus, although some aspects of monetization may be beneficial for biodiversity conservation, these schemes were not being used appropriately and require some quantitative minimum (or maximum) measurements to be applied through additional policy or governance measures to ensure biodiversity conservation outcomes.     

Assessment of the Conservation Measures Partnership's effort to improve conservation outcomes through adaptive management

Conservation practice has demonstrated an increasing desire for accountability of actions, particularly with respect to effectiveness, efficiency, and impact to clearly identified objectives. This has been accompanied by increased attention to achieving adaptive management. In 2002, practitioners representing several prominent conservation nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) launched a community of practice called the Conservation Measures Partnership (CMP). The partnership CMP has worked to establish standards of conservation practice to improve accountability of conservation actions through adaptive management. The focal organizing framework for CMP has been the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (OS). We evaluated, through an online survey and personal interviews, the first decade of CMP and the OS. The CMP has garnered a positive reputation among agencies, NGOs, and funders and has succeeded in developing a large user base of the OS. However, CMP has not fully achieved its goal of making the OS standard operating procedure for the largest NGOs (e.g., The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund), despite it being widely used within these organizations. This lack of institutionalization is attributable to multiple causes, including an increase in the number of partially overlapping decision‐support frameworks and challenges achieving full‐cycle adaptive management. Users strongly believed the OS fosters better conservation practice and highly valued the OS for improving their practice. A primary objective of the OS is to assist practitioners to achieve full‐cycle adaptive management to better integrate learning into improving the effectiveness and efficiency of actions. However, most practitioners had not yet achieved cycle completion for their projects. To improve the effectiveness of CMP, OS, and conservation practice in general, we recommend collaborative efforts among the proponents of multiple decision‐support frameworks to foster strong institutional adoption of a common set of adaptive‐management standards for conservation accountability.     

Standardized reporting of the costs of management interventions for biodiversity conservation

Effective conservation management interventions must combat threats and deliver benefits at costs that can be achieved within limited budgets. Considerable effort has focused on measuring the potential benefits of conservation interventions, but explicit quantification of the financial costs of implementation is rare. Even when costs have been quantified, haphazard and inconsistent reporting means published values are difficult to interpret. This reporting deficiency hinders progress toward a collective understanding of the financial costs of management interventions across projects and thus limits the ability to identify efficient solutions to conservation problems or attract adequate funding. We devised a standardized approach to describing financial costs reported for conservation interventions. The standards call for researchers and practitioners to describe the objective and outcome, context and methods, and scale of costed interventions, and to state which categories of costs are included and the currency and date for reported costs. These standards aim to provide enough contextual information that readers and future users can interpret the cost data appropriately. We suggest these standards be adopted by major conservation organizations, conservation science institutions, and journals so that cost reporting is comparable among studies. This would support shared learning and enhance the ability to identify and perform cost‐effective conservation.     

Addressing transboundary conservation challenges through marine spatial prioritization

The Adriatic and Ionian Region is an important area for both strategic maritime development and biodiversity conservation in the European Union (EU). However, given that both EU and non‐EU countries border the sea, multiple legal and regulatory frameworks operate at different scales, which can hinder the coordinated long‐term sustainable development of the region. Transboundary marine spatial planning can help overcome these challenges by building consensus on planning objectives and making the trade‐offs between biodiversity conservation and its influence on economically important sectors more explicit. We address this challenge by developing and testing 4 spatial prioritization strategies with the decision‐support tool Marxan, which meets targets for biodiversity conservation while minimizing impacts to users. We evaluated these strategies in terms of how priority areas shift under different scales of target setting (e.g., regional vs. country level). We also examined the trade‐off between cost‐efficiency and how equally solutions represent countries and maritime industries (n = 14) operating in the region with the protection‐equality metric. We found negligible differences in where priority conservation areas were located when we set targets for biodiversity at the regional versus country scale. Conversely, the prospective impacts on industries, when considered as costs to be minimized, were highly divergent across scenarios and biased the placement of protection toward industries located in isolation or where there were few other industries. We recommend underpinning future marine spatial planning efforts in the region through identification of areas of national significance, transboundary areas requiring cooperation between countries, and areas where impacts on maritime industries require careful consideration of the trade‐off between biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic objectives.     

Exposing ecological and economic costs of the research‐implementation gap and compromises in decision making

The frequently discussed gap between conservation science and practice is manifest in the gap between spatial conservation prioritization plans and their implementation. We analyzed the research‐implementation gap of one zoning case by comparing results of a spatial prioritization analysis aimed at avoiding ecological impact of peat mining in a regional zoning process with the final zoning plan. We examined the relatively complex planning process to determine the gaps among research, zoning, and decision making. We quantified the ecological costs of the differing trade‐offs between ecological and socioeconomic factors included in the different zoning suggestions by comparing the landscape‐level loss of ecological features (species occurrences, habitat area, etc.) between the different solutions for spatial allocation of peat mining. We also discussed with the scientists and planners the reasons for differing zoning suggestions. The implemented plan differed from the scientists suggestion in that its focus was individual ecological features rather than all the ecological features for which there were data; planners and decision makers considered effects of peat mining on areas not included in the prioritization analysis; zoning was not truly seen as a resource‐allocation process and not emphasized in general minimizing ecological losses while satisfying economic needs (peat‐mining potential); and decision makers based their prioritization of sites on site‐level information showing high ecological value and on single legislative factors instead of finding a cost‐effective landscape‐level solution. We believe that if the zoning and decision‐making processes are very complex, then the usefulness of science‐based prioritization tools is likely to be reduced. Nevertheless, we found that high‐end tools were useful in clearly exposing trade‐offs between conservation and resource utilization.