Did we achieve what we aimed for? Assessing the outcomes of a human–carnivore conflict mitigation and coexistence project in Europe

Monitoring and evaluation practices, demanded by nature conservation project donors, often focus on practical outputs, leaving the assessment of intended short and medium‐term outcomes and long‐term impacts challenging. This study employs a merger of the conflict intervention triangle model (CITM) and its three dimensions relationship, substance, and process, together with the logical framework approach (LFA) within the context of a human–wildlife conflict and coexistence (HWCC) project (LIFE EuroLargeCarnivores) in order to assess project correlated outcomes on stakeholder level over time. Two stakeholder surveys were conducted across 14 project partner countries, capturing baseline perceptions in 2018 and assessing changes in 2021. To assess the actual influence of the project with its focus on conflict mitigation, we applied an ex post counterfactual analysis. Results indicate positive developments in all dimensions of the CITM. The influence of the project is demonstrated by statistically significant differences in response behavior between participants and non‐participants of project interventions. The overall outcome regarding beliefs in satisfactory future management of increasing large carnivore populations, is more intricate. Significant differences are observed among three selected main stakeholder categories over the project's timeframe. While nature conservationists maintain high confidence levels, confidence of hunters and livestock raisers declined. However, results for participants of project interventions depict a significantly lower decline in confidence compared to non‐participants. Based on our findings, we provide insights how to efficiently evaluate outcomes of HWCC projects, offering recommendations for wildlife conservation practitioners. We conclude that HWCC projects are important also and especially in times of unfavorable frame conditions. Rigorous evaluation methods are essential to ensure efficient use of resources in order to maximize the outcomes of HWCC projects. The study highlights the need for long‐term evaluation to assess broader impacts at country, regional, and sector levels.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Wildlife Biology
Published
2024-08-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/wlb3.01270
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.29

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Did we achieve what we aimed for? Assessing the outcomes of a human–carnivore conflict mitigation and coexistence project in Europe

László Patkó, Carol M. Grossmann
5 citations
Wildlife Biology
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
2.29
article

Did we achieve what we aimed for? Assessing the outcomes of a human–carnivore conflict mitigation and coexistence project in Europe

László Patkó, Carol M. Grossmann
article en
5 citations

Abstract

Monitoring and evaluation practices, demanded by nature conservation project donors, often focus on practical outputs, leaving the assessment of intended short and medium‐term outcomes and long‐term impacts challenging. This study employs a merger of the conflict intervention triangle model (CITM) and its three dimensions relationship, substance, and process, together with the logical framework approach (LFA) within the context of a human–wildlife conflict and coexistence (HWCC) project (LIFE EuroLargeCarnivores) in order to assess project correlated outcomes on stakeholder level over time. Two stakeholder surveys were conducted across 14 project partner countries, capturing baseline perceptions in 2018 and assessing changes in 2021. To assess the actual influence of the project with its focus on conflict mitigation, we applied an ex post counterfactual analysis. Results indicate positive developments in all dimensions of the CITM. The influence of the project is demonstrated by statistically significant differences in response behavior between participants and non‐participants of project interventions. The overall outcome regarding beliefs in satisfactory future management of increasing large carnivore populations, is more intricate. Significant differences are observed among three selected main stakeholder categories over the project's timeframe. While nature conservationists maintain high confidence levels, confidence of hunters and livestock raisers declined. However, results for participants of project interventions depict a significantly lower decline in confidence compared to non‐participants. Based on our findings, we provide insights how to efficiently evaluate outcomes of HWCC projects, offering recommendations for wildlife conservation practitioners. We conclude that HWCC projects are important also and especially in times of unfavorable frame conditions. Rigorous evaluation methods are essential to ensure efficient use of resources in order to maximize the outcomes of HWCC projects. The study highlights the need for long‐term evaluation to assess broader impacts at country, regional, and sector levels.

Wildlife BiologyVol. 2024(6)
Royal Commission Medical Center (SA), WWF Hungary, University of Sopron (HU)
European Commission
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
2.29
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.