Lessons lost: Lack of requirements for post-project evaluation and reporting is hindering evidence-based conservation

IF 2.8 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION Conservation Science and Practice Pub Date : 2024-11-24 DOI:10.1111/csp2.13260
Alex Caruana, Matthew Muir, Thomas B. White, Julia P. G. Jones
{"title":"Lessons lost: Lack of requirements for post-project evaluation and reporting is hindering evidence-based conservation","authors":"Alex Caruana,&nbsp;Matthew Muir,&nbsp;Thomas B. White,&nbsp;Julia P. G. Jones","doi":"10.1111/csp2.13260","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>For conservation to be based on evidence, the outcomes of conservation actions need to be shared. The European Union (EU) is a major funder of conservation action in Europe through the well-studied LIFE program. Less well-known, but also funding substantial conservation action, is the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). Through a systematic review of conservation projects funded by LIFE and ERDF, we identify substantial expenditure on biodiversity conservation (€1300 M and €760 M between 2014 and 2024 respectively). We explore the extent to which LIFE and ERDF contribute to building an evidence base about the effectiveness of conservation actions. There were differences between LIFE and ERDF in the extent to which documentation about the project was publicly available (89% and 26% respectively), and large differences in whether any form of project evaluation was available (63% and 5% respectively). A possible explanation for these results is differing funder requirements regarding the monitoring and reporting of project implementation and outcomes. We explore funder requirements across a sample of other conservation funders and suggest how changes could incentivize higher quality sharing of project outcomes. This would expand the evidence base needed to improve the effectiveness of conservation actions.</p>","PeriodicalId":51337,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Science and Practice","volume":"6 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/csp2.13260","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Science and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.13260","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

For conservation to be based on evidence, the outcomes of conservation actions need to be shared. The European Union (EU) is a major funder of conservation action in Europe through the well-studied LIFE program. Less well-known, but also funding substantial conservation action, is the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). Through a systematic review of conservation projects funded by LIFE and ERDF, we identify substantial expenditure on biodiversity conservation (€1300 M and €760 M between 2014 and 2024 respectively). We explore the extent to which LIFE and ERDF contribute to building an evidence base about the effectiveness of conservation actions. There were differences between LIFE and ERDF in the extent to which documentation about the project was publicly available (89% and 26% respectively), and large differences in whether any form of project evaluation was available (63% and 5% respectively). A possible explanation for these results is differing funder requirements regarding the monitoring and reporting of project implementation and outcomes. We explore funder requirements across a sample of other conservation funders and suggest how changes could incentivize higher quality sharing of project outcomes. This would expand the evidence base needed to improve the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
失去的经验教训:缺乏项目后评估和报告的要求阻碍了以证据为基础的保护
为了使保护以证据为基础,保护行动的成果需要共享。欧洲联盟(EU)是欧洲保护行动的主要资助者,通过研究充分的生命计划。欧洲地区发展基金(ERDF)不太为人所知,但也资助了大量的保护行动。通过对LIFE和ERDF资助的保护项目的系统审查,我们确定了生物多样性保护的大量支出(2014年至2024年分别为13亿欧元和7.6亿欧元)。我们探讨了LIFE和ERDF在多大程度上有助于建立保护行动有效性的证据基础。LIFE和ERDF在项目文档公开的程度上存在差异(分别为89%和26%),并且在是否有任何形式的项目评估可用方面存在很大差异(分别为63%和5%)。对这些结果的一个可能解释是,在监测和报告项目执行情况和结果方面的供资要求不同。我们在其他保护资助者的样本中探讨了资助者的要求,并建议如何改变可以激励更高质量的项目成果共享。这将扩大提高保护行动有效性所需的证据基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Conservation Science and Practice
Conservation Science and Practice BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
6.50%
发文量
240
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Sources of uncertainty in estimation of climate velocity and their implications for ecological and conservation applications Sown wildflower fields and hedgerows synergistically promote insectivorous bats Exposure, sensitivity, or adaptive capacity? Reviewing assessments that use only two of three elements of climate change vulnerability Plant–pollinator interactions in apple orchards from a production and conservation perspective
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1