The state of capacity development evaluation in biodiversity conservation and natural resource management

Capacity development is critical to long-term conservation success, yet we lack a robust and rigorous understanding of how well its effects are being evaluated. A comprehensive summary of who is monitoring and evaluating capacity development interventions, what is being evaluated and how, would help in the development of evidence-based guidance to inform design and implementation decisions for future capacity development interventions and evaluations of their effectiveness. We built an evidence map by reviewing peer-reviewed and grey literature published since 2000, to identify case studies evaluating capacity development interventions in biodiversity conservation and natural resource management. We used inductive and deductive approaches to develop a coding strategy for studies that met our criteria, extracting data on the type of capacity development intervention, evaluation methods, data and analysis types, categories of outputs and outcomes assessed, and whether the study had a clear causal model and/or used a systems approach. We found that almost all studies assessed multiple outcome types: most frequent was change in knowledge, followed by behaviour, then attitude. Few studies evaluated conservation outcomes. Less than half included an explicit causal model linking interventions to expected outcomes. Half of the studies considered external factors that could influence the efficacy of the capacity development intervention, and few used an explicit systems approach. We used framework synthesis to situate our evidence map within the broader literature on capacity development evaluation. Our evidence map (including a visual heat map) highlights areas of low and high representation in investment in research on the evaluation of capacity development

The Role of Citizen Science in the Research and Management of Invasive Lionfish across the Western Atlantic

Managing invasive Indo-Pacific lionfish (Pterois volitans and P. miles) in the Western Atlantic Ocean is beyond the capacity of natural resource organizations alone. In response, organizations have mobilized members of the public and citizen scientists to help. We used a structured survey to assess the activities and perceptions of 71 organizations that engage the public and citizen scientists in lionfish research and management throughout the invaded range of the Western Atlantic. Five case studies were also conducted that exemplified varied and multi-pronged approaches to engagement of the public and citizen scientists in lionfish control, monitoring, and knowledge-sharing. The public has been engaged to some extent in every approach, but organizations most frequently indicated engaging members of the public in raising awareness, promoting consumption, organized culling/removal, tournaments, and data collection. Sixty-five percent of organizations surveyed engaged the public in data collection, and data collection was ranked as the scientific research activity in which the public is most often involved. Most organizations indicated their data has contributed to scientific publications, management, and government agency research and/or policy. Collectively these findings demonstrate the conservation value of citizen scientists to assist organizational efforts to control, manage, and study a large-scale marine invasion

Lessons From the Western Atlantic Lionfish Invasion to Inform Management in the Mediterranean

Major invasions of Indo-Pacific lionfish (Pterois volitansandP. miles) areunderway in the Western Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. While the establishment of lionfish in the Western Atlantic is perhaps the most well-studied marine fish invasion to date, the rapidly expanding invasion in the Mediterranean is more recent and has received less attention. Here we review and synthesize successes and failures from two decades of lionfish management in the Western Atlantic to give policy recommendations for their management in the Mediterranean. Two failed approaches that were attempted multiple times in the Western Atlantic and that we advise against are (1) feeding lionfish to native fish to promote predation and (2) implementing bounty programs to incentivize lionfish harvest. Broadly, the most important management lessons that we recommend include (1) conducting routine removals by spearfishing with scuba, which can effectively suppress local abundances of lionfish; (2) encouraging the development of recreational and commercial lionfish fisheries, which can promote long-term, sustainable lionfish population control; and, (3) engaging local communities and resource users (e.g., with lionfish removal tournaments), whichcan concurrently achieve multiple objectives of promoting lionfish removals, market-development, research, and public education. Managers in the Western Atlantic often needed to adapt current conservation policies to enable lionfish removals in areas where spearfishing with scuba was otherwise prohibited for conservation purposes. The risk of abusing these policies was mitigated through the use of gear restrictions, diver trainings, and through participatory approaches that integrated scuba divers and stakeholder organizations in lionfish research and management. Our review of policies and practices in the Mediterranean Sea found that many of our recommended lionfish management approaches are not being done and indicate potential opportunities to implement these. We expect and fully recommend that work continues towards multinational cooperation to facilitate regional coordination of research, control, and management efforts with respect to the Mediterranean lionfish invasion. As with other major biological invasions, lionfish are unconstrained by political borders and their control will require rapid and strategic management approaches with broad cooperation among and between governments and stakeholders