This article provides a frame for evaluation of natural resource interventions, which necessarily involves both human and natural systems. Two-system evaluands require us to adapt evaluation methods for comparison and attribution and to address differences in time and space occurring across the systems as well as potentially very different values among stakeholders. While two-system evaluands can be challenging, it does not follow that evaluation in these settings is necessarily more difficult than evaluations located solely in human systems settings. This article suggests that if we are concerned about use and influence, then our responses to challenging evaluation settings should not automatically favor additional rigor; they should prioritize salience and legitimacy through joint knowledge production processes with decision makers and stakeholders.
BowenW. D.LidgardD. (2011). Vertebrate predator control: Effects on prey populations in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Maritimes Region: Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat.
3.
ClarkW. C.MitchellR. B.CashD. W. (2006). Evaluating the influence of global environmental assessments. In MitchellR. B.ClarkW. C.CashD. W.DicksonN. M. (Eds.), Global environmental assessments (pp. 1–28). Cambridge: MIT Press.
FerraroP.McIntoshC.OspinaM. (2007). The effectiveness of the US endangered species act: An econometric analysis using matching methods. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 54245–261.
GEF Evaluation Office & Foundations of Success. (2007). GEF impact evaluation: Final report on a proposed approach to GEF impact evaluation. Washington, DC: Evaluation Office Global Environment Facility.
8.
GhazoulG.SheilD. (2010). Tropical rain forest ecology, diversity, and conservation. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
9.
Government Accountability Office. (2009). Program evaluation: A variety of rigourous methods can help identify effective interventions. Washington, DC: United States Government Accountability Office.
10.
HindJ. (2010). Additionality: A useful way to construct the counterfactual qualitatively?Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 10, 28–35.
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland. (2008). Sacred dimensions: Understanding the cultural and spiritual values of protected areas. Author.
13.
Kelli JohnsonL. O. (2009). Research on evaluation use: A review of the emperical literature from 1986 to 2005. American Journal of Evaluation, 30, 377–410.
14.
KirchhoffS.ColbyB. G.LaFranceJ. T. (1997). Evaluating the performance of benefit transfer: An empirical inquiry. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 33, 75–93.
15.
KirkhartK. (2010). The usefullness of utilization-focused evaluation (fourth edition) by Michael Quinn Patton. American Journal of Evaluation, 31, 588–596.
16.
LeeK. (1993). Compass and gyroscope: Integrating science and politics for the environment. Washington, DC: Island Press.
17.
LeeK.RoweA. (2012). Linking knowledge with action: An approach to philanthropic funding of science for conservation.
18.
LiuJ.DietzT.CarpenterS. R.FolkeC.AlbertiM.RedmanC. L.SchneiderS. (2007). Coupled human and natural systems. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 36, 639–649.
19.
MarkM. T.HenryG. T. (2004). The Mechanisms and outcomes of evaluation influence. Evaluation, 10, 35–57.
20.
MitchellR. B.ClarkW. C.CashD. W.DicksonN. M. (2006). Global Environmental Assessments: Information and influence. Cambridge: MIT Press.
21.
PaillerS.ThiemeM.RoweA.PullinA.BurgessM.DanielsenF.. (2012). Measuring success in conservation. Manuscript submitted for publication. Conservation Biology.
RoweA. (2009). Environmental and Economic Effects of ORV Rules at Cape Cod and Fire Island National Seashores. (Unpublished report). Department of the Interior, U.S. Government.
24.
RoweA. (2011). Getting past the stale RCT debate: A new approach for impact evaluation. Retrieved September 10, 2011, from SAMEA Virtual Conference: http://wpeg.wits.ac.za
25.
RoweA.ColbyB.NiemeyerM.HallW. (2004). Evaluating environmental and economic effects of collaborative decisions. (Unpublished report). Hewlett Foundation, Menlo Park, CA.
26.
SalafskyN.MargoluisR. (1999). Threat reduction assessment; A practical and cost-effective approach to evaluating conservation and development projects. Conservation Biology, 13, 830–841.
27.
TansleyA. (1935). The use and abuse of vegetational concepts and terms. Ecology, 16, 284–307.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). GE/Housatonic River Site in New England. Retrieved September 20, 2011, fromhttp://www.epa.gov/region1/ge/index.html
30.
YarbouroughD.ShulhaL.HopkinsR.CaruthersF. (2011). The program evaluation standards: A guide for evaluators and evaluation users (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
