Using conceptual models as a planning and evaluation tool in conservation Richard Margoluis 1 , Caroline Stem 1, *, Nick Salafsky 1 , Marcia Brown 1 Foundations of Success, 4109 Maryland Ave., Bethesda, MD 20816, USA 1. Challenges to evaluating conservation success Conservation projects 2 employ dynamic interventions to preserve, conserve, or manage ecosystems, habitats, and/or species. They take place in complex situations that usually involve an intricate interaction of social, political, economic, cultural, and environmental factors (Brechin et al., 2002; Hannah et al., 2002). At the same time, they are constantly changing over time and space as managers learn more about and adjust to the context within which their projects take place (Possingham et al., 2001; Meir et al., 2004). There are two main types of complexity that conservation project mangers must address: detail complexity and dynamic complexity. Detail complexity refers to the large number of variables in a system (Senge, 1990), while dynamic complexity refers to the unpredictable ways in which variables interact with one another (Salafsky, Margoluis, Redford, & Robinson 2002). Since conservation involves addressing natural ecosystems in the context of human societies, conservation managers and evaluators work in systems that are inherently complex both in detail and in dynamic. Thus, evaluating conservation projects requires under- standing these types of complexity. At the same time, the conservation community does not have a long history of documenting project impact and the evidence to unambiguously demonstrate success (Pullin & Knight, 2001; Stem, Margoluis, Salafsky, & Brown, 2005). Only recently has it developed effective monitoring and evaluation systems and approaches that bolster statements of success with real evidence (Ferraro & Pattanayak, 2006). Historically, many conservation organizations have embraced a very simplistic formula for conducting evalua- tions: define indicators, collect data, analyze data, and write up results. While on the surface this seems like a reasonable process, it begs the question: Which indicators are required in order to truly evaluate impact? At best, conservation managers have used biological indicators to demonstrate the extent to which a project has been successful, but they have rarely analyzed these measurements in the context of project interventions or the intermediate results they intended to achieve (Stem, Margoluis, Salafsky, & Brown, 2005). In effect, they are merely reporting on the status of the biodiversity of concern with little or no consideration about how project interventions have affected that biodiversity. To say that a project has succeeded or failed under this scenario is problematic at best. In order for conservation managers and evaluation professionals to measure project success, they simultaneously need to embrace and deconstruct contextual complexity. This holds true for all impact Evaluation and Program Planning 32 (2009) 138–147 ARTICLE INFO Article history: Received 28 February 2008 Received in revised form 17 September 2008 Accepted 18 September 2008 Keywords: Conceptual model Conservation project Planning Evaluation Monitoring Impact Adaptive management Theory of change Management ABSTRACT Conservation projects are dynamic interventions that occur in complex contexts involving intricate interactions of social, political, economic, cultural, and environmental factors. These factors are constantly changing over time and space as managers learn more about the context within which they work. This complex context poses challenges for planning and evaluating conservation project. In order for conservation managers and evaluation professionals to design good interventions and measure project success, they simultaneously need to embrace and deconstruct contextual complexity. In this article, we describe conceptual models—a tool that helps articulate and make explicit assumptions about a project’s context and what a project team hopes to achieve. We provide real-world examples of conceptual models, discuss the relationship between conceptual models and other evaluation tools, and describe various ways that conceptual models serve as a key planning and evaluation tool. These include, for example, that they document assumptions about a project site and they provide a basis for analyzing theories of change. It is impractical to believe that we can completely eliminate detail or dynamic complexity in projects. Nevertheless, conceptual models can help reduce the effects of this complexity by helping us understand it. ß 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 518 581 0762; fax: +1 703 764 0179. E-mail address: caroline@fosonline.org (C. Stem). 1 Tel.: +1 703 764 8572; fax: +1 703 764 0179; e-mail: info@FOSonline.org; web: www.FOSonline.org. Marcia Brown Foundations. 2 See Box 1 for definition of ‘‘project’’. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Evaluation and Program Planning journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan 0149-7189/$ – see front matter ß 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.09.007