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

By Caroline J. Stem, R. Margoluis, N. Salafsky, Marcia Brown. 2005

539 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecological Modeling, Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/77f650276b1da1c4518ca6ba3fd3221d62079204

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecological Modeling

In Ecology

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Insight, part of a Special Feature on Exploring Opportunities for Advancing Collaborative Adaptive Management (CAM): Integrating Experience and Practice Results Chains: a Tool for Conservation Action Design, Management, and Evaluation (2013, methodology): “In addition, related tools for testing assumptions, “theory of change” tools, have been used in various fields for over thirty years (Stem et al. 2005).”
Efforts going to the dogs? Evaluating attempts to re-introduce endangered wild dogs in South Africa (2007, background): “The absence of rigorous evaluations has been identified as a major obstacle in promoting conservation biology as a scientific discipline (Kleiman et al. 2000; Stem et al. 2005; Ferraro & Pattanayak 2006).”
Contemporary forest restoration: A review emphasizing function (2014, background): “Management decisions at scales relevant to restoration need to consider how actions either enhance or detract from a forest’s potential to adapt to changing climate (Stephens et al., 2010).”
Improving the effectiveness of interventions to balance conservation and development: a conceptual framework (2007, background): “Alternatively, one might test the social success of ICDPs using the new generation of happiness indices (e.g., Cummins et al. 2003); as recognised by Stem et al. (2005), ICDP monitoring and evaluation needs to learn a few lessons from the social sciences if it is to understand the processes leading…”
The ecological effectiveness of protected areas: the United Kingdom (2006, background): “The conservation community should continue to support collaborative initiatives to improve monitoring, to adhere to consistent methodologies and protocols ( Stem et al., 2005 ), and to report at appropriate spatial resolutions.”
Characterizing the distribution of an endangered salmonid using environmental DNA analysis (2015, background): “The ability to accurately monitor changes in distribution and to rapidly track responses to management strategies is important for assessing the status and effectiveness of conservation efforts and informs effective decision making (Hernandez et al., 2006; Stem et al., 2005).”
Protecting an ecosystem service: approaches to understanding and mitigating threats to wild insect pollinators (2016, background): “…and knowledge 1352 exchange to determine and recommend the best implementation methods are thus required 1353 (Arlettaz et al., 2010), but this must be followed up with close monitoring to determine 1354 whether such recommendations actually benefit target insect pollinators (Stem et al., 2005).”
Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines (2013, background): “This highlights the importance of monitoring in PA management and decision-making – without monitoring we cannot manage effectively (Stem et al., 2005).”
A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities (2011, methodology): “Monitoring activities include many different types of assessments of ecosystems: (1) status assessment (i.e., population monitoring), (2) impact assessment (i.e., affect of pollution), or (3) adaptive management (i.e., managing based on monitoring) (Stem et al. 2005).”