Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Comment on ‘Evaluating indices of conservation success: a comparative analysis of outcome‐ and output‐based indices’

Comment on ‘Evaluating indices of conservation success: a comparative analysis of outcome‐ and... We welcome Howe and Milner‐Gulland's ( ) paper published in Animal Conservation . The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is keen to retain the Darwin Initiative's reputation in achieving real, measurable difference to conservation of biodiversity in developing countries. Papers such as this support the conservation community in learning how better to evaluate the success of biodiversity conservation initiatives. We believe papers such as this contribute to evaluating the success of programmes such as the Darwin Initiative through evaluating their component parts – the projects. However, the paper makes at least one critical assumption about how the Darwin Initiative evaluates its success, which is incorrect. The paper assumes that the ‘standard measures’ collected from every Darwin project are used as a measure of its effectiveness. In fact, as rightly pointed out by the authors, this is a list largely of inputs, activities and outputs. Few are outcome‐orientated indicators, and therefore cannot be used as indicators to evaluate the success of the Darwin Initiative. These standard measures have been collected from the Darwin Initiative projects since its inception in 1992. Therefore, these measures provide a 20‐year dataset of the types of activities, inputs and outputs generated by http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Animal Conservation Wiley

Comment on ‘Evaluating indices of conservation success: a comparative analysis of outcome‐ and output‐based indices’

Cunningham, S.; King, L.
Animal Conservation , Volume 16 (2) – Apr 1, 2013
Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/comment-on-evaluating-indices-of-conservation-success-a-comparative-sBD3Ly0KcF

References (3)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Animal Conservation © 2013 The Zoological Society of London
ISSN
1367-9430
eISSN
1469-1795
DOI
10.1111/acv.12020
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

We welcome Howe and Milner‐Gulland's ( ) paper published in Animal Conservation . The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is keen to retain the Darwin Initiative's reputation in achieving real, measurable difference to conservation of biodiversity in developing countries. Papers such as this support the conservation community in learning how better to evaluate the success of biodiversity conservation initiatives. We believe papers such as this contribute to evaluating the success of programmes such as the Darwin Initiative through evaluating their component parts – the projects. However, the paper makes at least one critical assumption about how the Darwin Initiative evaluates its success, which is incorrect. The paper assumes that the ‘standard measures’ collected from every Darwin project are used as a measure of its effectiveness. In fact, as rightly pointed out by the authors, this is a list largely of inputs, activities and outputs. Few are outcome‐orientated indicators, and therefore cannot be used as indicators to evaluate the success of the Darwin Initiative. These standard measures have been collected from the Darwin Initiative projects since its inception in 1992. Therefore, these measures provide a 20‐year dataset of the types of activities, inputs and outputs generated by

Journal

Animal Conservation – Wiley

Published: Apr 1, 2013

There are no references for this article.