We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
This journal utilises an Online Peer Review Service (OPRS) for submissions. By clicking "Continue" you will be taken to our partner site
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/oryx.
Please be aware that your Cambridge account is not valid for this OPRS and registration is required. We strongly advise you to read all "Author instructions" in the "Journal information" area prior to submitting.
To save this undefined to your undefined account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your undefined account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Meeting the complex demands of conservation requires a multi-skilled workforce operating in a sector that is respected and supported. Although professionalization of conservation is widely seen as desirable, there is no consistent understanding of what that entails. Here, we review whether and how eight elements of professionalization observed in other sectors are applicable to conservation: (1) a defined and respected occupation; (2) official recognition; (3) knowledge, learning, competences and standards; (4) paid employment; (5) codes of conduct and ethics; (6) individual commitment; (7) organizational capacity; and (8) professional associations. Despite significant achievements in many of these areas, overall progress is patchy, and conventional concepts of professionalization are not always a good fit for conservation. Reasons for this include the multidisciplinary nature of conservation work, the disproportionate influence of elite groups on the development and direction of the profession, and under-representation of field practitioners and of Indigenous peoples and local communities with professional-equivalent skills. We propose a more inclusive approach to professionalization that reflects the full range of practitioners in the sector and the need for increased recognition in countries and regions of high biodiversity. We offer a new definition that characterizes conservation professionals as practitioners who act as essential links between conservation action and conservation knowledge and policy, and provide seven recommendations for building a more effective, inclusive and representative profession.
Conservation challenges occur in complex social-ecological systems that require scientists and practitioners to recognize and embrace that humans are active agents within these systems. This interdependence of the social and ecological components of systems necessitates effective leadership to address and solve conservation problems successfully. Although conservation practitioners increasingly recognize leadership as critical to achieve conservation goals, clarity about the term leadership remains elusive in terms of specific strategies and behaviours. Our objective in this review of conservation leadership scholarship was to build on prior literature to conceptualize and define the behavioural leadership strategies that lead to successful conservation outcomes. Following an initial review of more than 1,200 peer-reviewed publications, we conducted a systematic review of 59 articles utilizing an inductive analysis approach and identified a set of five leadership domains that contribute to positive conservation outcomes: (1) stakeholder engagement, (2) trust, (3) vision, (4) individual champion, and (5) excellence in internal attributes. Each domain is defined by 2–4 behaviours that we consider leadership practices. To sustain meaningful progress toward global conservation of biodiversity, conservation scientists and practitioners must embrace and invest in leadership as an integral component of solving our collective conservation challenges.
Capacity development is increasingly recognized as central to conservation goals. Efforts to develop individual, organizational and societal capacity underpin direct investments in biodiversity conservation and natural resource management, and sustain their impact over time. In the face of urgent needs and increasingly complex contexts for conservation the sector not only needs more capacity development, it needs new approaches to capacity development. The sector is embracing the dynamic relationships between the ecological, political, social and economic dimensions of conservation. Capacity development practitioners should ensure that individuals, organizations and communities are prepared to work effectively in these complex environments of constant change to transform the systems that drive biodiversity loss and unsustainable, unequitable resource use. Here we advocate for a systems view of capacity development. We propose a conceptual framework that aligns capacity development components with all stages of conservation efforts, fosters attention to context, and coordinates with parallel efforts to engage across practitioners and sectors for more systemic impact. Furthermore, we highlight a need for practitioners to target, measure and support vital elements of capacity that have traditionally received less attention, such as values and motivation, leadership and organizational culture, and governance and participation by using approaches from psychology, the social sciences and systems thinking. Drawing from conservation and other sectors, we highlight examples of approaches that can support reflective practice, so capacity development practitioners can better understand the factors that favour or hinder effectiveness of interventions and influence system-wide change.
Conservation professionals face cognitively and emotionally demanding tasks and a wide range of working conditions, including high levels of uncertainty (e.g. the socio-political contexts in which they must function, possible long hours and isolation from friends and family). Resilience (i.e. positive adaptation to professional challenges) can help individuals thrive in their roles. We interviewed 22 conservationists with professional experience working in low-income countries with high biodiversity and explored what helped and what hindered them in their work. We used thematic analysis to identify factors related to positive and negative psychological states and strategies to promote resilience at work. The results revealed factors that were associated with positive psychological states, including achievements and recognition for work. Organizational policies and administration, especially perceived unfairness regarding salaries, recruitment policies and promotion, were associated with negative psychological states, as were other factors related to the job context. Respondents shared their professional resilience strategies such as aligning work with one's values, and personal reflection and goal setting. We recommend that organizations support their employees in the process of building resilience by addressing basic needs and motivational factors.
Contemporary conservation professionals are part of a workforce focused on overcoming complex challenges under great time pressure. The characteristics of conservation work, and in particular the evolving demands placed on the workforce, mean that to remain effective these professionals need to enhance their skills and abilities continually. Currently, there are no sector-wide guidelines to promote systematic professional development that addresses both individual and organizational learning. This study builds upon existing knowledge from other sectors by examining professional development in conservation through an in-depth qualitative thematic analysis of interviews with 22 conservation professionals, resulting in an effectiveness framework for professional development in the conservation sector. Our findings indicate how individuals’ motivation to learn, proactivity, open-mindedness towards alternative information and views were considered preconditions for effective professional development. A balance between organizational goals and career ambitions was found essential to maintain this motivation to learn and vital for staff retention and preservation of institutional knowledge. Professional development plans may help distinguish between individual career aspirations and organizational objectives and aid a discussion between staff and management on how to balance the two. Leaders have the opportunity to remove barriers to effective professional development. We discuss solutions to overcome specific barriers, to promote an inclusive approach for diverse learners through provision of opportunities, effective learning design, and resource distribution for professional development. This effectiveness framework can be used by conservationists and conservation organizations to plan and decide on professional development.
Biodiversity loss is one of the greatest global challenges and requires substantial investment in building the capacity of conservation professionals to design and implement robust conservation plans. In this study, we surveyed 155 past participants of training in facilitating species conservation planning processes given by the Conservation Planning Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission. Based on a recently developed theory of change for the training, we examined how and to what extent the training contributed to the desired outcome of increasing trainees’ capacity for leading the design and facilitation of species conservation planning processes. Our results indicate that recall of training content, self-efficacy (an individual's belief they can complete a specific task or behaviour successfully) and peer network participation had significant impacts on the outcome of applying training content in the workplace. Furthermore, our results suggest that self-efficacy played a highly influential role in trainees' participation in species conservation planning post-training. The implications of this research point to designing conservation training that considers not only the skills and knowledge to be gained by learners but also the strategies that enhance trainees' self-efficacy in applying new skills and knowledge and in establishing peer networks to support trainees in turning training objectives into realities.
Conservation lacks sufficient well-trained leaders who are empowered to catalyse positive change for the natural world. Addressing this need, the University of Cambridge launched a Masters in Conservation Leadership in 2010. The degree includes several features designed to enhance its impact. Firstly, it recruits international, gender-balanced cohorts of mid-career professionals, building leadership capacity in the Global South and providing a rich environment for peer learning. Secondly, teaching includes applied leadership training in topics such as fundraising, leading people and networking, as well as interdisciplinary academic topics. Thirdly, the degree is delivered through the Cambridge Conservation Initiative, a partnership of international NGOs and networks, facilitating extensive practitioner-led and experiential learning. We present details of programme design and evaluate the impact of the Masters after 10 years, using data from course records, student and alumni perspectives, and interviews with key stakeholders. The course has broadly succeeded in its design and recruitment objectives. Self-assessed leadership capabilities, career responsibilities and the overall impact of alumni increased significantly 5 years after graduation. However, specific impacts of alumni in certain areas, such as on their professional colleagues, have been less clear. We conclude by outlining future plans for the Masters in light of growing demands on conservation leaders and the changing landscape of leadership capacity development. These include reforms to course structure and assessment, long-term support to the alumni network and developing a conservation leadership community of practice.
Training plays a central role in the pursuit of conservation goals, and it is vital to know if it is having the desired effect. However, evaluating the difference it makes is notoriously challenging. Here, we present a practitioner's perspective on overcoming these challenges and developing a framework for ongoing evaluation of a conservation training programme. To do this, we first created a theory of change, describing the pathway of change we expect from training delivery to conservation impact. This provided the clarity and structure needed to identify indicators of change in the short, medium and long term. For data collection, we utilized both quantitative and qualitative methods to provide a more complete understanding of the change expected and capture any that might be unexpected. However, the more time that passes since a training event, the more difficult it becomes to attribute results; in response, we shifted predominantly to the use of qualitative methods to understand the long-term results achieved. After 3 years of implementation, this framework has enabled us to measure the difference our training makes to individuals and their work, and to provide evidence for the contribution it makes to achieving conservation impact. We believe that the lessons learnt can be used to improve the evaluation of training activities across the conservation sector and maximize the impact they achieve.
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.
Global perspectives on the pathways for developing capacity for conservation remain limited. Hindering the robustness of solutions is a dearth of opportunities to foster discussion and dialogue among capacity development practitioners, academics, partners, beneficiaries and donors. Additionally, little is known about donor perspectives on capacity development, and about pathways to developing a more sustainable investment in capacity development for conservation. The 2019 Capacity Building for Conservation Conference in London, UK, provided a unique opportunity to convene more than 150 capacity development practitioners from the global conservation community. The Conference included structured opportunities to hear donor perspectives on strengthening capacity development. Session leaders took detailed notes to document donor perspectives and the discussions around them. A thematic analysis of this empirical evidence resulted in the identification of four key themes with corresponding recommendations, consisting of (1) collaborative design of capacity development initiatives, (2) monitoring and evaluation, (3) longer-term and flexible investments, and (4) building strong relationships between donors and grantees. Given the Convention on Biological Diversity is currently drafting the long-term strategic framework for capacity development post-2020, and global calls to protect significant portions of our land- and seascapes, our recommendations are timely and may inform a way forward.
As threats facing wildlife and protected areas across Africa increase, demand for innovative and transformational leadership to tackle the challenges remains high. Traditional academic training programmes are playing a critical role in meeting capacity development needs, yet opportunities for strengthening leadership capabilities are limited. This was the rationale behind Mentoring for ENvironmental Training in Outreach and Resource conservation (MENTOR), initiated in 2007 by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service through a collaborative effort with various partners to support conservation leadership and capacity development across sub-Saharan Africa. Five independent programmes were implemented over a decade, each designed to combine rigorous academic and field-based training with mentoring and experiential learning for teams of 8–9 fellows selected through a competitive process. It was envisioned that this approach to leadership and capacity development would strengthen the resolve, capabilities and competences of the fellows and position them as conservation leaders. Using data from interviews and online surveys, we assessed three key aspects of the programmes: strategic relevance and design; progress, effectiveness and impact; and sustainability. Overall, we found that all five programmes successfully delivered the objective of strengthening leadership for conservation in Africa, with the cadre of professionals acquiring new skills and expertise to advance their careers, and developing life-long relationships and networks. We discuss the potential of this approach for developing African conservation leaders.
As global environmental pressures grow, the need for delivering relevant and sustainable capacity building in conservation has never been greater. Individuals, organizations and communities need the skills, knowledge and information that allow them to address environmental issues at a variety of spatial scales and in diverse contexts. Capacity is currently built through a range of activities, including tertiary education, training courses, online learning, mentoring and continuing professional development. However, a significant proportion of the current capacity-building provision is non-strategic, project-based and reactive. The conservation sector still lacks a coordinated approach to capacity building linked to broader conservation goals. Without an assessment of current capacity-building provision and future capacity needs, the delivery of capacity building in conservation will remain fundamentally ad hoc. The need for strategic conservation capacity building in sub-Saharan Africa has been identified and here we report on the first collation of online material to assess current conservation capacity provision in Kenya (the country with the greatest online capacity-building presence). We reviewed a total of 177 capacity-building initiatives delivered during 2014–2019 and recorded 55 separate metrics for each initiative. We present: (1) a broad overview of the data collation methods developed, (2) examples of data that will support strategic capacity-building strategies, and (3) the lessons learnt from this assessment.
South-east Asia is home to exceptional biodiversity, but threats to vertebrate species are disproportionately high in this region. The IUCN Species Survival Commission Asian Species Action Partnership aims to avert species extinctions. Strengthening individual and organizational capacity is key to achieving long-term, sustainable conservation impact, and is a core strategic intervention for the Partnership. To look at the needs and opportunities for developing capacity for species conservation in South-east Asia, we undertook a needs assessment with organizations implementing species conservation within this region. We conducted a review of available training opportunities, mapping them against a list of identified competences needed for species conservation to determine gaps in current training. Our assessments revealed an imbalance in the focus of training opportunities vs the actual competences needed for effective species conservation, and that training opportunities within South-east Asia are limited in number and highly competitive. These findings corroborate other similar reviews, particularly on capacity gaps in the Global South. We discuss the implications of our review and use the findings to generate recommendations.
Capacity development is essential for the effective management of protected areas and for achieving successful biodiversity conservation. European Natura 2000 sites form an extensive network of protected areas and developing the capacity of staff at all levels is a priority that will positively influence the appropriate implementation of conservation actions. In this study we identify the main challenges and potential solutions to developing the skills, knowledge and tools required for effective Natura 2000 site management. Our findings are based on a case study of the European project LIFE e-Natura2000.edu, which focuses on capacity development in practical biodiversity conservation and management through integrated and blended learning experiences (i.e. a combination of face-to-face and virtual teaching). We illustrate the main elements for successfully building capacity within a variety of knowledge and experience backgrounds and operating levels related to the management of Natura 2000 sites. Multifaceted, blended learning approaches are key to tackling the various needs of Natura 2000 managers in terms of skills, knowledge and tools.