ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2026
Evaluating past and future contributions of conservation programs to species recovery.
Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating past and future contributions of conservation programs to species recovery.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
- A global indicator of species recovery.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Impact evaluation of conservation actions is a crucial step in global efforts to curb the biodiversity crisis. Through robust impact evaluation, practitioners can assess the effectiveness of conservation strategies and optimize the use of limited resources. Despite a proliferation of methods and tools for evaluating conservation impact, no standardized method exists to assess and compare the impact, and global contribution, of species recovery programs. To address this gap, we devised an evaluation framework, based on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Green Status of Species (GSS), a global standard for measuring species recovery. We sought to provide a way for conservation program delivery partners to evaluate the effectiveness of their programs in contributing to global species recovery. We adapted 2 scenarios used in GSS assessments to estimate the impact of worldwide conservation actions on a species (the counterfactual current scenario and the future without conservation scenario), in order to propose a new assessment: the program GSS, a method allowing conservation practitioners to estimate the past and potential future impacts of a conservation program relative to the global impact. To identify the strengths and limitations of applying the GSS method at the program level and to gather proof of concept for our adaptation, we tested the proposed method on 16 species recovery programs. The program GSS approach identified past or future impacts of program actions on species status in 9 of the programs assessed. The detectability of program impact and the relative impact of the program compared with global impact were influenced by time since program establishment and program scope (i.e., proportion of a species' population or distribution included in the program). Our framework for program GSS assessments can provide practitioners with a standard, straightforward, and cost-effective way to communicate conservation successes and expected future impacts. Results from our program GSS framework can be compared with the global recovery of a species (conservation legacy and conservation impact) and thus indicate a program's contribution to the recovery of the entire species.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.