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.

A basic tenet of ecotourism is to enhance conservation. However, few studies have assessed its effectiveness in meeting conservation goals and whether the type of tourism activity affects outcomes. This study examines whether working in ecotourism changes the perceptions of and attitudes and behaviours of local people towards the focal species and its habitat and, if so, if tourism type affects those outcomes. We interviewed 114 respondents at four whale shark Rhincodon typus tourism sites in the Philippines to compare changes in perceptions of and attitudes and behaviours towards whale sharks and the wider marine environment. We found that the smaller scale tourism sites had greater social conservation outcomes than the mass or failed tourism sites, including changes in conservation ethics and perceptions of and attitudes and behaviours towards whale sharks and the ocean. Furthermore, of the three active tourism sites, the smallest site, with the lowest economic returns and the highest negative impacts on whale sharks prior to tourism activities, had the largest proportion of respondents who reported a positive change in perceptions of and attitudes and behaviours towards whale sharks and the ocean. Our results suggest that tourism type, and the associated incentives, can have a significant effect on conservation outcomes and ultimately on the ecological status of an Endangered species and its habitat.

To use more effectively the limited resources available for conservation there is an urgent need to identify which conservation approaches are most likely to succeed. However, measuring conservation success is often difficult, as it is achieved outside the project time frame. Measures of implementation are often reported to donors to demonstrate achievement but it is unclear whether they really predict conservation success. We applied a conceptual framework and score-card developed by the Cambridge Conservation Forum (CCF) to a sample of 60 conservation activities to determine the predictive power of implementation measures versus measures of key outcomes (later steps in the models defined in the CCF tools). We show that assessing key outcomes is often more difficult than quantifying the degree of implementation of a project but that, while implementation is a poor predictor of success, key outcomes provide a feasible and much more reliable proxy for whether a project will deliver real conservation benefits. The CCF framework and evaluation tool provide a powerful basis for synthesizing past experience and, with wider application, will help to identify factors that affect the success of conservation activities.