Evaluation of a natural resource management program: an Australian case study

References

• Arksey, H & Knight, P 1999, Interviewing for social scientists, Sage Publications, London.
   Google Scholar
• Auditor General 1997, Report, commonwealth natural resource management and environment programs, Australian National Audit Office, Canberra.
   Google Scholar
• Auditor General 1998, Preliminary inquiries into the Natural Heritage Trust, Australian National Audit Office, Canberra.
   Google Scholar
• Australian Government Land and Coasts 2011, Caring for our country review: The story so far. Consultation summary report, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.
   Google Scholar
• ANAO (Australian National Audit Office) 2001, Performance information for Commonwealth financial assistance under the Natural Heritage Trust, Australian National Audit Office, Canberra.
   Google Scholar
• ANAO (Australian National Audit Office) 2008, Summary: Regional delivery model for the natural heritage trust and the national action plan for salinity and water quality, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts; Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra, viewed 25 October 2016, <https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/regional-delivery-model-natural-heritage-trust-and-national-action-plan>.
   Google Scholar
• AWT (Australian Water Technologies) 1999, Mid-term review of the Natural Heritage Trust – a review of the National River Health Program, AWT, Cooranbong.
   Google Scholar
• Bellamy, JA, Walker, DH, McDonald, GT & Syme, GJ 2001, ‘A systems approach to the evaluation of natural resource management initiatives’, Journal of Environmental management, vol. 63, pp. 407–423. doi:10.1006/jema.2001.0493.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhullar L 2013, REDD+ and the clean development mechanism: A comparative perspective. International Journal of Rural Law and Policy, Special Edition (REDD+ and the legal regime of mangroves, peatlands and other wetlands: ASEAN and the world).
   Google Scholar
• Brugha, R & Varvasovsky, Z 2000, ‘Stakeholder analysis: a review’, Health Policy and Planning, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 239–246. doi: 10.1093/heapol/15.3.239
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caring for our Country Review Team 2012, Report on the review of the caring for our country initiative, Australian Government Land and Coasts, Canberra.
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth of Australia 2008, Caring for our country outcomes 2008–2013, Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.
   Google Scholar
• Commonwealth of Australia 2011, Caring for our country monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement (MERI) strategy, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts and Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Canberra.
   Google Scholar
• Contandriopoulos, D & Brousselle, A 2012, ‘Evaluation models and evaluation use’, Evaluation, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 61–77. doi:10.1177/1356389011430371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, TD 1985, ‘Post positivist critical multiplism’, in L Shotland & MM Mark (eds.), Social science and social policy, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 21–62.
   Google Scholar
• Crabbe, A & Leroy, P 2008, The handbook of environmental policy evaluation, Cromwell Press for Earthscan, Trowbridge.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, JW & Clark, VLP (2006), Designing and conducting mixed methods research, Wiley, Thousand Oaks.
   Google Scholar
• Curtis, A 2003, Assessing and managing burnout in Landcare members, leaders and coordinators, research project number CSU23, Social and Institutional Research Program, Land & Water Australia, Canberra.
   Google Scholar
• Frey, J & Fontana, A 1991, ‘The group interview in social research’, The Social Science Journal, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 175–187. doi: 10.1016/0362-3319(91)90003-M
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Global Environment Facility 2014, What is the GEF, viewed 22 May 2014 <http://www.thegef.org/gef/whatisgef >.
   Google Scholar
• Gong, W, Sinden, J, Braysher, M & Jones, R 2008, The economic impacts of vertebrate pests in Australia, Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, JC, Caracelli, VJ & Graham, WF 1989, ‘Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs’, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 11, pp. 255–274. doi: 10.3102/01623737011003255
   Google Scholar
• Grimble, R & Wellard, K 1997, ‘Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities’, Agricultural Systems, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 173–193. doi:10.1016/S0308-521X(97)00006-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayward, C, Simpson, L & Wood, L 2004, ‘Still left out in the cold: problematising participatory research and development’, Sociologia Ruralis, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 95–108. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9523.2004.00264.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassall and Associates Pty Ltd 2005, Natural heritage trust final evaluation, a report prepared for the department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Australian Government, Canberra.
   Google Scholar
• HC Coombs Policy Forum 2011, NRM literature review: document II, HC Coombs Policy Forum-Fenner School of Environment and Society NRM initiative, Australian National University.
   Google Scholar
• Inovact Consulting 2011, Community skills, knowledge and engagement in regional natural resource management: national staff and stakeholder survey report, Inovact Consulting Pty Ltd, Canberra.
   Google Scholar
• Lefroy, T, Curtis, A, Jakeman, A & McKee, J 2012, Landscape logic, CSIRO, Clayton.
   Google Scholar
• Majchrzak, A 1984, Methods for policy research, Sage, California.
   Google Scholar
• Markwell Consulting 2011, Workshop summary report: caring for our country review indigenous forum, National Botanic Gardens, 4 May, Canberra.
   Google Scholar
• Marquart, JM 1990, ‘A pattern matching approach to match program theory and evaluation’, New Directions for Program Evaluation, vol. 47, no. Fall, pp. 93–107. doi: 10.1002/ev.1557
   Google Scholar
• Martin, P & Verbeek, M 2013, Measuring the impact of managing invasive species. Report, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities; and Invasive Animals Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Mathison, S 1988, ‘Why triangulate’, Educational Researcher, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 13–17. doi: 10.3102/0013189X017002013
   Google Scholar
• Mayne, J & Stern, E 2013, ‘Impact evaluation of natural resource management research programs: a broader view’, ACIR Impact Assessment Series, Canberra.
   Google Scholar
• McInnis, T & Wicks, S 2011, Enhanced reporting on industry specific land management practices, Canberra, viewed 22 May 2014 <http://nrmonline.nrm.gov.au/catalog/mql:2247> .
   Google Scholar
• Mickwitz, P 2003, ‘A framework for evaluating environmental policy instruments: context and key concepts’, Evaluation, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 415–436. doi:10.1177/1356389003094004.
   Google Scholar
• Moorman, RH & Podsakoff, PM 1992, ‘A meta-analytic review and empirical test of the potential confounding effects of social desirability response sets in organizational behavior research’, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 131–149. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1992.tb00490.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Natural Resource Management (NNRM) Task Force 1999, Managing NR in rural Australia for a sustainable future: a discussion paper for developing a national policy, DAFF, Canberra.
   Google Scholar
• Olsen, W 2004, ‘Triangulation in social research: qualitative and quantitative methods can really be mixed’, Developments in Sociology, vol. 20, pp. 103–118.
   Google Scholar
• Parks and Wildlife Service 2014, Macquarie Island Pest Eradication Report. Evaluation Report. Hobart, Tasmania.
   Google Scholar
• Parliament of Australia Senate 2010a, NRM and conservation challenges – Public Inquiry, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
   Google Scholar
• Parliament of Australia Senate 2010b, Inquiry into natural resource management and conservation challenges, Report, Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, viewed 20 May 2014 <http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/natural_resource/report/index.htm> .
   Google Scholar
• Podsakoff, PM & Organ, DW 1986, ‘Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects’, Journal of Management, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 531–544. doi:10-1177/014920638601200408.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Regional Implementation Working Group 2005, Regional delivery of natural resource management – moving forward summary paper’, Australian Government, Canberra.
   Google Scholar
• SCARM 1997, Evaluation report on the decade of Landcare plan – national overview, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Resource Management, Canberra.
   Google Scholar
• Smyth, D 2011, Review of working on country and indigenous protected areas programs through telephone interviews, Smyth and Bahrdt Consultants, viewed 20 May 2014 <https://www.environment.gov.au/indigenous/workingoncountry/publications/woc-interviews.html>.
   Google Scholar
• St John, FAV, Keane, AM, Jones, JPG & Milner-Gulland, EJ 2014, ‘Robust study design is as important on the social as it is on the ecological side of applied ecological research’, Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1479. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12352
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tashakkori, A & Teddlie, C (eds) 2003, Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, Sage publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, DR 2006, ‘A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data’, American Journal of Evaluation, vol. 27, pp. 237–246. doi: 10.1177/1098214005283748
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US Environmental Protection Agency 2014, Linking assistance agreements to environmental results, viewed 22 May 2014 <http://www.epa.gov/ogd/grants/assistance.htm> .
   Google Scholar
• Weber, M, Driessen, PJ and Runhaar, HAC 2013, ‘Evaluating environmental policy instruments mixes: a methodology illustrated by noise policy in the Netherlands’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. doi:10.1080/09640568.2013.808609
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wildlife Conservation Society 2014, The conservation leadership programme, viewed 10 December 2014 <http://www.conservationleadershipprogramme.org/UserDataWEB/OtherFundingOptions/FundingforConservation&Development_3.doc > .
   Google Scholar