Search

The conservation community needs to improve the quality and quantity of evidence to address urgent and complex environmental challenges. The growth of Upstream Conservation Initiatives (UCIs) such as those designed to eliminate deforestation by shifting consumer or corporate behavior, exemplify the tension between the urgency to act and the need to build evidence to enable progressive improvements in implementation. These initiatives—often led by non-governmental organizations (NGOs)—are rarely evaluated rigorously in terms of their causal effect on intended outcomes, contributing to the evidence deficit. Impact evaluations have been useful tools to analyze effectiveness and build evidence in other fields. However, they are seldom used in the conservation field broadly or in UCIs specifically. To help practitioners involved in UCIs make better use of these tools, we introduce the field of impact evaluation, its core concepts, and how it contrasts with and complements traditional performance measurement approaches. Using these concepts, we propose a guidance process which can be used by practitioners at the project design phase to weigh tradeoffs and consider the most appropriate impact evaluation methodologies. We then use this guidance process to analyze two UCIs implemented by an NGO in Indonesia. Through these case studies we show how impact evaluation concepts could have been employed in project design to improve implementation and promote progressive learning, even if actual impact evaluations were infeasible. We conclude by proposing recommendations on how implementers, donors, and academia can build off these ideas to improve learning and strengthen the evidence base. • Impact evaluation is underutilized in the conservation field, limiting evidence. • Upstream Conservation Initiatives (UCIs) can benefit from impact evaluation. • Evaluations of UCIs must balance feasibility, rigor, and relevance. • Concepts from impact evaluation strengthen standard performance measurement. • Implementing organizations can apply principles at low cost to improve evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]