Journal for Nature Conservation 26 (2015) 65–77 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal for Nature Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.de/jnc Co-defining program success: Identifying objectives and indicators for a livestock damage compensation scheme at Kruger National Park, South Africa Brandon P. Anthony a,* , Louise Swemmer b a Environmental Sciences & Policy Department, Central European University, Nádor utca 9, Budapest 1051, Hungary b Scientific Services: South African National Parks, Kruger National Park, Phalaborwa, South Africa a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 13 March 2015 Received in revised form 15 May 2015 Accepted 26 May 2015 Keywords: Adaptive management Compensation Evaluation Human–wildlife conflict Kruger National Park Monitoring a b s t r a c t Wildlife damage compensation schemes have been used worldwide as a mechanism to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts. These have had mixed success due to a number of factors, including a lack of shared understanding of the problem and how to monitor and evaluate effectiveness. The long history of damage-causing animals (DCAs) which exit the Kruger National Park (KNP), South Africa, inflicting damage on persons and property, increasing risk of disease transfer between wildlife and livestock, and seriously undermining the livelihoods of local communities, remains a contentious issue. As a par- tial response and within a strategic adaptive management framework, the park and its larger governing body, SANParks, have negotiated a wildlife damage compensation scheme with local communities, which entails financial retribution given to farmers who have previously lost livestock to DCAs originating from the park. A corollary scheme will see compensation paid to valid claims commencing from 2014. Here we present findings of a novel study undertaken with KNP staff, livestock farmers, and others to co- identify potential indicators of an objective-based participatory monitoring and evaluation program for the scheme. Based on a multi-method approach, a wide array of goals and objectives were articulated for the scheme. In addition, 88 program indicators were generated as potential measures to monitor change. This suite of indicators is both qualitative and quantitative in nature and, if adopted in whole or in part, would enlist the involvement of a broad range of stakeholders. The first step at consolidating these indicators are presented, and are based on information sources, methodological tools, and institutions responsible for monitoring. © 2015 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction 1.1. Strategic adaptive management (SAM) La vutisaka ndlela, a nga lahleki/‘The one who asks his way will not get lost’ As this local Tsonga proverb highlights, managing should be an iterative process by which regular feedback loops increase learning, allowing for more proactive (rather than reactionary) thinking and decision-making (Biggs & Rogers, 2003). Holling (1978) described adaptive management as an integrated, multidisciplinary and sys- tematic approach to improving management and accommodating change by learning from the outcomes of management policies and practices. Rooted in domains of experimental science and systems * Corresponding author. Tel.: +36 13273000x2007; fax: +36 13273031. E-mail addresses: anthonyb@ceu.hu (B.P. Anthony), louise.swemmer@sanparks.org (L. Swemmer). theory, but applied as a resource-management paradigm, adaptive management addresses the complexity of socio-ecological sys- tems through conceptually mapping the knowledge gaps and spots of uncertainty within the system through structured decision- making. Strategic adaptive management (SAM) has become a core part of the planning and decision-making within SANParks, the South African National Parks agency. It was conceived by recog- nizing the social-ecological system complexity and the existence of multiple and diverse stakeholders within which its parks are embedded (Freitag, Biggs, & Breen, 2014; Roux & Foxcroft, 2011; Venter, Naiman, Biggs, & Pienaar, 2008). One of the main pur- poses of SAM is to purposefully learn and strategically adapt over time. This learning, however, needs to take place throughout both the planning and implementation stages of a management cycle, involving multiple stakeholders and involve regular formal and informal feedback loops. Learning is backed by the continuous monitoring and evaluation of system responses to management actions (Linkov et al., 2006). Evaluation and reporting of the results at multiple scales contributes to the reassessment of the problem, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2015.05.004 1617-1381/© 2015 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.