Evaluating indices of conservation success: A comparative analysis of outcome- and output-based indices

Animal Conservation

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 217-226

  Howe, C ^a   Milner Gulland, E J ^a  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Darwin Initiative; Impact assessment; Index; Project success; Validation

Indexed keywords

ADOPTION BEHAVIOR; CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT; CONSERVATION STATUS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; MODEL VALIDATION;

UNITED KINGDOM;

ANIMALIA;

EID: 84862268629     PISSN: 13679430     EISSN: 14691795     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2011.00516.x     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Brooks, J., Franzen, M., Holmes, C., Grote, M. & Borgerhoff-Mulder, M. (2006). Testing hypotheses for the success of different conservation strategies. Conserv. Biol. 20, 1528-1538.
2. CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) (1992). The Convention on Biological Diversity. Montreal, Canada. Available from (accessed April 2009).
3. Crawley, M. (2007). The R book. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
4. DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (1996). Standard output measures. 13th round of funding. London: DEFRA.
5. DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (2009). Darwin Initiative. London, UK. Available from (accessed April 2009).
6. Dias, R., Mattos, C. & Balestieri, J. (2006). The limits of human development and the use of energy and natural resources. Energy Policy 34, 1026-1031.
7. Gardner, T., Caro, T., Fitzherbert, E., Banda, T. & Lalbhai, P. (2007). Conservation value of multiple-use areas in East Africa. Conserv. Biol. 21, 1516-1525.
8. IUCN-CMP (The International Union for Conservation of Nature and The Conservation Measures Partnership) (2006a). IUCN-CMP United classification of conservation actions. Bethesda, MD. Available from (accessed January 2009).
9. IUCN-CMP (The International Union for Conservation of Nature and The Conservation Measures Partnership) (2006b). IUCN-CMP United classification of direct threats. Bethesda, MD. Available from (accessed January 2009).
10. Jha, S. & Bawa, K. (2006). Population growth, human development and deforestation in biodiversity hotspots. Conserv. Biol. 20, 906-912.
11. Jones, J., Collen, B., Atkinson, G., Baxter, P., Bubb, P., Illian, J., Katzner, T., Keane, A., Loh, J., MacDonald-Maddon, E., Nicholson, E., Pereira, H., Possingham, H., Pullin, A., Rodrigues, A., Ruiz-Gutierrez, V., Sommerville, M. & Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2011). The 'why', 'what' and 'how' of global biodiversity indicators: looking beyond 2010. Conserv. Biol. 25, 450-457.
12. Kirk, R. (1995). Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioural Sciences. Brooks/Cole, CA, USA.
13. Mace, G., Balmford, A., Leader-Williams, N., Manica, A., Walter, O., West, C. & Zimmermann, A. (2007). Measuring conservation success: assessing zoos' contribution. In Zoos in the 21st century: catalysts for conservation?: 322-342. Zimmermann, A., Hatchwell, M., Dickie, L. & West, C. (Eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Martinez-Crego, B., Alcoverro, T. & Javier, R. (2010). Biotic indices for assessing the status of coastal waters: a review of strengths and weaknesses. J. Environ. Monit. 12, 1013-1028.
15. McGinn, T., Wyer, P., Newman, T., Keitz, S., Leipzig, R. & Guyatt, G. (2004). Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 3. Measures of observer variability (Kappa statistic). Can. Med. Assoc. J. 171, 1369-1373.
16. Newton, A.C. (2011). Implications of Goodhart's Law for monitoring global biodiversity loss. Conserv. Lett. 4, 264-268.
17. R: Foundation for Statistical Computing. (2007). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. Available from (accessed December 2007).
18. Roberge, J. & Angelstam, P. (2004). Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conserv. Biol. 18, 76-85.
19. Salafsky, N. & Margoluis, R. (1998). Measuring conservation project success: developing a standardised index for comparing and analysing Biological Conservation Network (BCN) funded projects. Biological Support Programme. Washington, DC.
20. Salafsky, N. & Margoluis, R. (1999). Threat reduction assessment: a practical and cost effective approach to evaluating conservation and development projects. Conserv. Biol. 13, 830-841.
21. Saterson, K., Christensen, N., Jackson, R., Kramer, R., Pimm, S., Smith, M. & Weiner, J. (2004). Disconnects in evaluating the relative effectiveness of conservation strategies. Conserv. Biol. 18, 597-599.
22. Sutherland, M., Pullin, A., Dolman, P. & Knight, T. (2004). The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 305-308.
23. Tunstall, D., Hammond, A. & Henniger, N. (1994). Developing environmental indicators. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.
24. UN (United Nations) (2008). United Nations Human Development Report 2007/2008. New York, NY. Available from (accessed February 2009).
25. Verissimo, D., MacMillan, D.C. & Smith, R.J. (2011). Towards a systematic approach for identifying conservation flagships. Conserv. Lett. 4, 1-8.
26. Viera, A. & Garrett, J. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: the Kappa statistic. Fam. Med. 37, 360-363.
27. Waylen, K., Fischer, A., McGowan, P., Thirgood, S. & Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2010). The effect of cultural context on the success of community-based conservation interventions. Conserv. Biol. 24, 1119-1129.
28. Yoccoz, N., Nichols, J. & Boulinier, T. (2001). Monitoring of biological diversity in space and time. Trends Ecol. Evol. 16, 446-453.