Evaluating past and future contributions of conservation programs to species recovery

Impact evaluation of conservation actions is a crucial step in global efforts to curb the biodiversity crisis. Through robust impact evaluation, practitioners can assess the effectiveness of conservation strategies and optimize the use of limited resources. Despite a proliferation of methods and tools for evaluating conservation impact, no standardized method exists to assess and compare the impact, and global contribution, of species recovery programs. To address this gap, we devised an evaluation framework, based on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Green Status of Species (GSS), a global standard for measuring species recovery. We sought to provide a way for conservation program delivery partners to evaluate the effectiveness of their programs in contributing to global species recovery. We adapted 2 scenarios used in GSS assessments to estimate the impact of worldwide conservation actions on a species (the counterfactual current scenario and the future without conservation scenario), in order to propose a new assessment: the program GSS, a method allowing conservation practitioners to estimate the past and potential future impacts of a conservation program relative to the global impact. To identify the strengths and limitations of applying the GSS method at the program level and to gather proof of concept for our adaptation, we tested the proposed method on 16 species recovery programs. The program GSS approach identified past or future impacts of program actions on species status in 9 of the programs assessed. The detectability of program impact and the relative impact of the program compared with global impact were influenced by time since program establishment and program scope (i.e., proportion of a species' population or distribution included in the program). Our framework for program GSS assessments can provide practitioners with a standard, straightforward, and cost-effective way to communicate conservation successes and expected future impacts. Results from our program GSS framework can be compared with the global recovery of a species (conservation legacy and conservation impact) and thus indicate a program's contribution to the recovery of the entire species.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Conservation Biology
Published
2025-11-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.70183
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Environmental Conservation and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.42
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluating past and future contributions of conservation programs to species recovery

Michael A. Hudson, Michael Hoffmann, Molly K. Grace, Kelsey Neam et al.
1 citations
Conservation Biology
Environmental Conservation and Management
2.42
article

Evaluating past and future contributions of conservation programs to species recovery

Michael A. Hudson, Michael Hoffmann, Molly K. Grace, Kelsey Neam, H. Reşi̇t Akçakaya, Rebecca Young, Thalassa McMurdo Hamilton, Barney Long, Richard P. Young, Megan A. Owen, Elizabeth L. Bennett
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Impact evaluation of conservation actions is a crucial step in global efforts to curb the biodiversity crisis. Through robust impact evaluation, practitioners can assess the effectiveness of conservation strategies and optimize the use of limited resources. Despite a proliferation of methods and tools for evaluating conservation impact, no standardized method exists to assess and compare the impact, and global contribution, of species recovery programs. To address this gap, we devised an evaluation framework, based on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Green Status of Species (GSS), a global standard for measuring species recovery. We sought to provide a way for conservation program delivery partners to evaluate the effectiveness of their programs in contributing to global species recovery. We adapted 2 scenarios used in GSS assessments to estimate the impact of worldwide conservation actions on a species (the counterfactual current scenario and the future without conservation scenario), in order to propose a new assessment: the program GSS, a method allowing conservation practitioners to estimate the past and potential future impacts of a conservation program relative to the global impact. To identify the strengths and limitations of applying the GSS method at the program level and to gather proof of concept for our adaptation, we tested the proposed method on 16 species recovery programs. The program GSS approach identified past or future impacts of program actions on species status in 9 of the programs assessed. The detectability of program impact and the relative impact of the program compared with global impact were influenced by time since program establishment and program scope (i.e., proportion of a species' population or distribution included in the program). Our framework for program GSS assessments can provide practitioners with a standard, straightforward, and cost-effective way to communicate conservation successes and expected future impacts. Results from our program GSS framework can be compared with the global recovery of a species (conservation legacy and conservation impact) and thus indicate a program's contribution to the recovery of the entire species.

Conservation Biology
Zoological Society of London (GB), Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust (JE), Zoological Society of San Diego (US), Wildlife Conservation Society (US), Wildlands Network (US), University of Oxford (GB), Wildlife Information Liaison Development (IN), Bath Institute for Rheumatic Diseases (GB), Stony Brook University (US), Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Environmental Conservation and Management
2.42
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.