Contributed Paper

Use of Modified Threat Reduction Assessments to

Estimate Success of Conservation Measures within
and Adjacent to Kruger National Park, South Africa
BRANDON P. ANTHONY
Environmental Sciences & Policy Department, Central European University, Nádor u. 9, Budapest 1051, Hungary,
email anthonyb@ceu.hu

Abstract: The importance of biodiversity as natural capital for economic development and sustaining human
welfare is well documented. Nevertheless, resource degradation rates and persistent deterioration of human
welfare in developing countries is increasingly worrisome. Developing effective monitoring and evaluation
schemes and measuring biodiversity loss continue to pose unique challenges, particularly when there is a
paucity of historical data. Threat reduction assessment (TRA) has been proposed as a method to measure
conservation success and as a proxy measurement of conservation impact, monitoring threats to resources
rather than changes to biological parameters themselves. This tool is considered a quick, practical alternative
to more cost- and time-intensive approaches, but has inherent weaknesses. I conducted TRAs to evaluate the
effectiveness of Kruger National Park (KNP) and Limpopo Province, South Africa, in mitigating threats to
biodiversity from 1994 to 2004 in 4 geographical areas. I calculated TRA index values in these TRAs by using
the original scoring developed by Margoluis and Salafsky (2001) and a modified scoring system that assigned
negative mitigation values to incorporate new or worsening threats. Threats were standardized to allow
comparisons across the sites. Modified TRA index values were significantly lower than values derived from the
original scoring exercise. Five of the 11 standardized threats were present in all 4 assessment areas, 2 were
restricted to KNP, 2 to Limpopo Province, and 2 only to Malamulele municipality. These results indicate, first,
the need to integrate negative mitigation values into TRA scoring. By including negative values, investigators
will be afforded a more accurate picture of biodiversity threats and of temporal and spatial trends across sites.
Where the original TRA scoring was used to measure conservation success, reevaluation of these cases with the
modified scoring is recommended. Second, practitioners must carefully consider the need and consequences
of generalizing threats into generic categories for comparative assessments. Finally, continued refinement of
the methodology and its extension to facilitate the transfer of successful conservation strategies is needed.

Keywords: biodiversity threats, conservation success, Kruger National Park, Limpopo Province, threat reduction
assessment

Uso de Evaluaciones de Reducción de Amenaza Modificadas para Estimar el Éxito de Medidas de Conservación
Dentro de y Alrededor del Parque Nacional Kruger, África del Sur
Resumen: La importancia de la biodiversidad como capital natural para el desarrollo económico y sostén
del bienestar humano está bien documentada. Sin embargo, las tasas de degradación de los recursos y el
persistente deterioro del bienestar humano en los paı́ses en desarrollo es cada vez más preocupante. El
desarrollo de esquemas efectivos de monitoreo y evaluación y la cuantificación de la pérdida de biodiversidad
continúan presentando retos únicos, particularmente cuando existe escasez de datos históricos. La evaluación
de la reducción de riesgos (ERR) ha sido propuesta como un método para medir el éxito de la conservación
y como una medida del impacto de la conservación, que monitorea las amenazas a los recursos en lugar de
los cambios en los parámetros biológicos mismos. Esta herramienta es considerada una alternativa rápida
y práctica a métodos más costosos y tardados, pero tiene debilidades inherentes. Realice ERR para evaluar

Paper submitted September 24, 2007; revised manuscript accepted April 28, 2008.
1497
Conservation Biology, Volume 22, No. 6, 1497–1505

C 2008 Society for Conservation Biology
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01030.x
1498 Threat Reduction Assessment

la efectividad del Parque Nacional Kruger (PNK) y la Provincia Limpopo, África del Sur, en la mitigación de
las amenazas a la biodiversidad de 1994 a 2004 en cuatro áreas geográficas. Calculé los valores del ı́ndice
de ERR en estas ERR mediante la clasificación desarrollada por Margoluis & Salafsky (2001) y un sistema
de clasificación modificado que asignó valores de mitigación negativos para incorporar nuevas amenazas o
empeorándolas. Las amenazas fueron estandarizadas para permitir comparaciones entre todos los sitios. Los
valores del ı́ndice de ERR modificados fueron significativamente menores que los valores derivados del ejerci-
cio de clasificación original. Cinco de las 11 amenazas estuvieron presentes en todas las áreas de evaluación,
dos estuvieron restringidas a PNK, dos a la Provincia Limpopo y solo dos a la municipalidad de Malamulele.
Estos resultados indican, primero, la necesidad de integrar valores de mitigación negativos a las ERR. Con
la inclusión de los valores negativos, los investigadores tendrán una imagen más precisa de las amenazas
a la biodiversidad y de las tendencias temporales y espaciales de los sitios. Se recomienda que los sitios
medidos con la clasificación de ERR original sean reevaluados con la clasificación modificada. Segundo, los
practicantes deben considerar cuidadosamente la necesidad y las consecuencias de generalizar las amenazas
en categorı́as genéricas para evaluaciones comparativas. Finalmente, se requiere el refinamiento continuo
de la metodologı́a y su extensión para facilitar la transferencia de estrategias de conservación exitosas.

Palabras Clave: amenazas a la biodiversidad, evaluación de reducción de amenazas, éxito de conservación,

Parque Nacional Kruger Provincia Limpopo

Introduction Threat reduction assessment (TRA) has been proposed

The importance of biological diversity as natural resource
capital for economic development and sustaining human
welfare has been well documented (Ehrlich & Ehrlich
1992; Costanza et al. 1997; Reaka-Kudla et al. 1997). Nev-
ertheless, the rate at which natural resources continue to
be degraded and the persistent deterioration of human
welfare in developing countries have caused concern at
local, national, and international levels (MEA 2005). This,
in part, has led to greater scrutiny and development of
effective monitoring and evaluation systems (Noss 1990;
Margoluis & Salafsky 1998; Teder et al. 2007).
Nevertheless, monitoring the state of biodiversity is
often costly, arduous, and time-consuming and has led
to the development of a range of conservation perfor-
mance assessments by various institutions that focus on
threats to biodiversity. These include the World Com-
mission on Protected Areas (WCPA) Framework for As-
sessing the Management of Protected Areas (Hockings et
al. 2000), The Nature Conservancy’s (TNC) 5-S Frame-
work (TNC 2000, 2003), Wildlife Conservation Society’s
(WCS) Living Landscapes Program (WCS 2002), World
Wide Fund for Nature’s (WWF) Rapid Assessment and
Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM)
(Ervin 2003a, 2003b), and conservation audits with the
Conservation Measures Partnership’s (CMP) Open Stan-
dards (CMP 2004). Each of these conservation perfor-
mance assessments has strengths and weaknesses on the
basis of their feasibility, accuracy, and ease of utility (e.g.,
Stem et al. 2005; Tucker 2005). Despite these tools, how-
ever, measuring biodiversity and its loss continues to pose
unique challenges across scales, particularly where there
is a paucity of long-term data (Purvis & Hector 2000;
Stedman-Edwards 2000; The Royal Society 2003; Wolman
2006).
as an alternative evaluation tool to assess the success
of conservation interventions, especially where baseline
studies on biodiversity threats are absent (Salafsky &
Margoluis 1999; Margoluis & Salafsky 2001). Threat re-
duction assessments have been used to assess projects
in Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Madagascar (Salafsky
& Margoluis 1999), Mexico (Hastings & Fischer 2001),
Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda (Persha 2001; Mugisha &
Jacobson 2004), and are considered a quick, low-cost,
practical alternative to more cost- and time-intensive ap-
proaches. Rather than monitoring changes to biological
parameters themselves, TRA monitors threats to the re-
sources as a proxy measurement of conservation impact.
It is sensitive to changes over short periods of time and
throughout a project site, allowing gross comparisons of
performance among projects at different sites (Margoluis
& Salafsky 2001). The key principle of TRA as an evalu-
ation tool is that if threats to an area are mitigated, then
the management will have succeeded. Conversely, if the
threats are not mitigated, the management approach will
have failed.
Nevertheless, the TRA approach is not immune to bias.
Its category “percent threat reduced” is probably the
biggest pitfall in this respect because, in addition to po-
tential subjectivity on behalf of the participants (Salafsky
& Margoluis 1999; Mugisha & Jacobson 2004), TRAs in-
corporate no scoring mechanism to allow for threats that
had either arisen or worsened during the assessment pe-
riod. In the TRA scoring (see Salafsky & Margoluis 1999),
if a threat had not been addressed at all, management
would score zero. Where management had fully miti-
gated a threat, the score would be 100%. Thus, according
to this scoring, threats to biodiversity could only either
remain as they were or have positive mitigation. My jus-
tification for modifying the TRA was that the original

Conservation Biology
Volume 22, No. 6, 2008
Anthony
assessment design provides an oversimplistic and
potentially overoptimistic view of agencies’ abilities to
mitigate threats.
A second identified limitation concerns the standard-
ization of threat types (Salafsky & Margoluis 1999). A
number of attempts have been made to produce generic
threat categories, with some overlap (EPA 1998; TNC
2000; Ervin 2003a; Salafsky et al. 2002; Sanderson et al.
2002). These attempts have been more formalized within
the now widely used “unified classification of direct
threats” (IUCN-CMP 2006), where direct threats are de-
fined as “[t]he proximate (human) activities or processes
that have caused, are causing or may cause the destruc-
tion, degradation and/or impairment of biodiversity and
natural processes.” For practitioners working with scarce
resources, standardization of threat types enhances cross-
project learning and allows for greater application in the
comparison of temporal and spatial variation across sites
or even regions experiencing similar threats. Standardiz-
ing threat types can also facilitate transfer of successful
mitigation strategies between sites.
Case Study
South Africa is endowed with diverse natural resources
and is ranked as the third-most biodiverse country in
the world (DEAT 1998). Despite this richness, however,
South Africa’s biodiversity is under threat due to habi-
tat loss, overexploitation, alien invasive species, and the
challenge of resolving conflicts between protected areas
and local people (DEAT 1998; Perrings 2000; Steenkamp
& Urh 2000; Anthony 2007).
Through provincial legislation and necessary coordi-
nating structures, environment and conservation depart-
ments in each province play an important role in devel-
oping collaborations with other departments responsible
for activities concerning the conservation and use of bio-
diversity within the province. In Limpopo Province En-
vironmental Affairs is a branch within the Department
of Finance and Economic Development (DFED-EA). This
branch is operationally subdivided into municipal dis-
tricts, which provide conservation extension services and
regulate and monitor the use of natural resources. The
DFED-EA’s activities are largely governed by the Limpopo
Environmental Management Act (LEMA) Number 7 of
2003, which is aligned with national legislation. An addi-
tional function of DFED-EA is to promote sustainable de-
velopment outside protected areas through the forging of
appropriate partnerships with communities, NGOs, the
private sector, and other government departments.
Many authors have posited that conserving habitat in
areas surrounding protected areas supports wildlife pop-
ulations within it (Taylor 1982; Western & Gichohi 1993;
Homewood et al. 2001), and this is one of the reasons
driving efforts to maintain biodiversity outside Kruger
National Park (KNP) (Pollard et al. 2003). Recently, as-
1499
sessments of river-corridor health in South Africa show
that human activities outside protected areas can signifi-
cantly affect the status of these ecosystems in protected
areas downstream (Foxcroft et al. 2007; Nel et al. 2007).
South Africa’s dramatic policy changes in 1994 affected
management of biodiversity within and outside protected
areas (Cock & Fig 2000; Mabunda et al. 2003). In spite of
this benchmark year, no comprehensive baseline studies
were conducted at that time to assess threats to biodiver-
sity in my study area, and there have been no subsequent
attempts to evaluate the effectiveness of policy changes
collectively within KNP and DFED-EA administrations in
mitigating threats to biodiversity. To address this I used
TRAs with both the original and modified scoring meth-
ods to assess the effectiveness of KNP and DFED-EA man-
agement in mitigating threats to biodiversity along KNP’s
western border over a 10-year period, commencing in
1994. I chose TRA methodology because it allows for
comparison across sites (and institutions) and because
it is a useful tool when little or no baseline data exist.
Furthermore, an attempt was made to standardize identi-
fied threats into the IUCN-CMP classification to allow for
spatial and institutional comparison.
Study Area
The western border of KNP, from the Punda Maria gate
south to the Klein Letaba River (Fig. 1), has 3 of the 16
ecozones that exist within the KNP: Mopane/Bushwillow
Woodlands, Sandveld, and Riverine (Jacana Education
2000). Kruger National Park has 8 main river catchments,
including the Shingwedzi and Letaba in the study area.
Annual precipitation ranges from 500 to 700 mm in the
area (Jacana Education 2000).
Land use adjacent to the western border of the KNP
is characterized by slightly undulating plains containing
villages surrounded by areas for subsistence farming. In
addition, there remain relatively sizeable vacant, bush-
land areas, especially between the Shingwedzi and Klein
Letaba rivers (DWAF et al. 2001). Adjacent areas are de-
marcated from the KNP with a boundary fence origi-
nally intended to control the spread of foot-and-mouth
disease.
Methods
I conducted 2 TRAs by organizing group discussions in
August 2004 with KNP representatives from the man-
agement and law enforcement departments from each
of the primary KNP ranger sections in the study area
(Punda Maria, Shangoni). I conducted 2 additional TRAs
with DFED-EA staff from the Greater Giyani and Mala-
mulele municipality offices. Participants either held po-
sitions within the study area at the time of the TRA or
had worked in the area for at least 10 years and were fa-
miliar with local biodiversity and its threats. To avoid
Conservation Biology
Volume 22, No. 6, 2008
1500
redundancy during discussions, I secondarily selected
participants so the group would be diverse but would
be able to communicate in the same language (Krueger
1994).
First, I asked KNP and DFED-EA staff to identify, in their
own words, all threats to biodiversity, concentrating their
assessment on the period specified and area within their
jurisdiction. Jurisdictions were Punda Maria (KNP border
to 5 km inside park, from Luvuvhu River to the south
end of ranger section); Shangoni (KNP border to 5 km
inside park, along entire western edge of ranger section);
Malamulele (KNP border fence to 15 km outside park,
between the Luvuvhu and Shingwedzi rivers); and Giyani
(KNP border fence to 15 km outside park, between the
Shingwedzi and Klein Letaba rivers).
Threats were defined as any human-related phenom-
ena that negatively affect biodiversity of the area in ques-
tion (Margoluis & Salafsky 2001). Natural phenomena,
such as natural fires, were not considered threats, al-
though illegally lit fires were.
Second, to help participants focus their thinking about
species richness, habitat condition and area, and ecosys-
tem functioning, they were asked to rank threats accord-
ing to their relative importance to one another. They con-
sidered the portion of habitat(s) in the site that the threat
affects; the impact or severity of destruction caused by
the threat; and the urgency or immediacy of addressing
the threat. A total sum score was computed after all the
threats were ranked.
Third, a consensus building exercise was used with the
groups to assess the extent to which the KNP or DFED-EA
Conservation Biology
Volume 22, No. 6, 2008
Threat Reduction Assessment
Figure 1. (a) Location of Kruger
National Park (KNP) in South
Africa and study area and (b)
areas for threat reduction
assessment (TRAs) (dotted lines)
and KNP border (bold line).
management had mitigated each threat. All participants
were given approximately 5 min to think about each
threat and independently evaluate the extent to which
management approaches had addressed a specific threat.
Scores were assigned on a percentage basis. In contrast
to the original TRA scoring, the option for a negative
mitigation score was added for cases in which threats
had worsened, and a score of –100% was assigned to the
threat if it arose after 1994 and had not been mitigated. Af-
ter the scoring and ranking exercise, total ranking scores
for each threat were multiplied by the percentage of the
threat met to get a raw score for that threat. The threat
reduction index (TRA-I) value was derived by dividing
the sum of the raw scores for each threat by the total
possible rankings of all the threats and multiplying by
100: (TRA-I =  total raw scores /  total rankings ×
100) (Margoluis & Salafsky 2001). Where participants in-
dicated either a new or worsening threat, I inserted their
estimate of the degree to which the threat had worsened
into the TRA worksheet alongside the value (0) accord-
ing to the original TRA scoring design. This procedure
was carried out for the 2 ranger sections and 2 munici-
palities so a meaningful comparison of the indices inside
and outside the park and throughout the study area could
be made. I compared original and modified TRA-I values
for the 4 areas with a paired t test, which allows compar-
isons of means between paired data (Wheater & Cook
2000). Threat definitions and what would constitute
100% mitigation for each threat across all assessment ar-
eas are indicated in the TRA worksheets (see Supporting
Information).
Anthony 1501

Finally, an attempt was made to standardize threat Results

types by combining all threats for the 4 assessment areas
into general categories on the basis of IUCN-CMP classifi-
cation (IUCN-CMP 2006). The standardized threats were
then prioritized on the basis of their presence or absence
in the 4 assessed areas.
The TRA-I values according to the original scoring ranged
from 16.6 (Punda Maria) to 50.0 (Shangoni), whereas val-
ues incorporating the modified scoring ranged from −5.4
(Punda Maria) to 31.7 (Giyani) (Table 1 & Fig. 2). Modified

Table 1. Modified threat reduction assessment (TRA) results for Malamulele, Punda Maria, Giyani, and Shangoni assessment areas in South Africa.

Assessment Total Percent threat Raw

area Threat a Area Intensity Urgency rank reduced b scoreb

Malamulele illegal commercial harvesting of trees 10 7 10 27 −50 (0) −13.5 (0)

agricultural expansion 6 9 8 23 −40 (0) −9.2 (0)
illegal harvesting of trees for subsistence 7 6 9 22 −10 (0) −2.2 (0)
subsistence poaching 9 8 4 21 30 6.3
mining sand 2 10 5 17 40 6.8
illegal fire 4 5 7 16 60 9.6
residential expansion 5 4 6 15 −20 (0) −3 (0)
commercial poaching 8 2 3 13 40 5.2
road construction/maintenance 3 3 2 8 60 4.8
disease transfer 1 1 1 3 50 1.5
total 55 55 55 165 6.3 (34.2)
TRA index 3.8 (20.7)
Punda Maria poaching with dogs and/or snares 11 5 10 26 −15 (0) −3.9 (0)
poaching fish 5 11 8 24 −30 (0) −7.2 (0)
alien species 10 7 6 23 70 16.1
illegal harvesting of trees for medicine 2 10 11 23 −60 (0) −13.8 (0)
illegal fire 9 8 5 22 0 0
poaching with firearms 6 4 9 19 80 15.2
illegal harvesting of live 3 9 4 16 0 0
trees and/or dry wood
increasing elephant population 8 6 1 15 −60 (0) −9 (0)
highly infectious alien diseases 7 2 3 12 −80 (0) −9.6 (0)
commercial hunting–luring lions 1 3 7 11 5 0.55
endemic disease transfer 4 1 2 7 15 1.05
total 66 66 66 198 −10.6 (32.9)
TRA index −5.4 (16.6)
Giyani illegal harvesting of trees for subsistence 7 4 8 19 60 11.4
illegal fire 4 8 6 18 30 5.4
illegal commercial harvesting of trees 5 5 7 17 20 3.4
subsistence poaching 8 2 4 14 50 7
mining sand 2 7 5 14 −50 (0) −7 (0)
commercial poaching 6 3 3 12 40 4.8
road construction/maintenance 1 6 2 9 50 4.5
disease transfer 3 1 1 5 95 4.75
total 36 36 36 108 34.25 (41.25)
TRA index 31.7 (38.2)
Shangoni poaching wild animals 8 4 8 20 90 18
poaching fish 1 8 7 16 50 8
illegal fires 5 7 4 16 70 11.2
poaching grass/trees 7 2 5 14 50 7
commercial hunting 3 5 6 14 −100 (0) −14 (0)
increasing elephant population 4 6 2 12 −50 (0) −6 (0)
disease transfer 6 3 1 10 50 5
alien plant species 2 1 3 6 80 4.8
total 36 36 36 108 34 (54)
TRA index 31.5 (50.0)
a Detailed description of threats available (see Supporting Information).
b Values in parentheses incorporate original TRA scoring (see Methods).

Conservation Biology
Volume 22, No. 6, 2008
1502 Threat Reduction Assessment

Particularly problematic threats included the illegal har-

vesting of trees, some for medicinal purposes; alien in-
fectious diseases; agricultural expansion; poaching fish;
and an increasing KNP elephant population. Threat mit-
igation in southern assessment areas (Giyani, Shangoni)
was better, with TRA-I values of 31.7 and 31.5, respec-
tively, although participants in the Shangoni assessment
remarked that threats were more acute north of Shing-
wedzi River. Nevertheless, with 100 being an optimum
score, threats, such as illegal removal of sand, illegal com-
mercial hunting, and an increasing elephant population,
were getting worse.

Figure 2. Comparison of threat reduction assessment
(TRA) index values for assessment areas with original
and modified scoring.
TRA-I values were significantly lower than values incor-
porating the original TRA scoring (t = 4.793, df = 3, p <
0.01).
Five of the 11 IUCN-CMP categorical threats were
present in all 4 assessment areas, 2 were restricted to
KNP, 2 were restricted to DFED-EA jurisdictions, and 2
were present only in Malamulele municipality (Table 2).
Efforts in the northern sections of the study area (Mala-
mulele, Punda Maria) were less successful in mitigating
threats since 1994, with 11 of the 21 identified threats
in these areas showing no improvement with mitigation.
Discussion
From a methodological standpoint, the results raise a
number of noteworthy considerations. There is a need
to integrate negative values into the “% threat reduced”
category of the original assessment design. By including
negative values, where appropriate, investigators can get
a more accurate picture of biodiversity threats and trends
temporally within assessment areas and spatially across
sites. In this study the TRA-I values of the original and
modified versions were significantly different. In assess-
ments with TRAs, incorporating negative scores may also
lead to marked differences in terms of prioritizing threats
because new or worsening threats can be evaluated on
the basis of their degree of mitigation. Better prioritiza-
tion of threats could lead to alternate policy choices in
response to identified threats.
The interpretation of 100% threat mitigation also
presents a problem that is not easily rectified. If one as-
sumes 100% threat mitigation means some acceptable
level of threat, one is faced with a potentially awkward

Table 2. Combined prioritized ranking of standardized threats to biodiversity determined on the basis of presence or absence in assessment areas
(see IUCN-CMP 2006 for classifications).∗

Assessment area
DFED-EA KNP
IUCN-CMP
no. Threat (IUCN-CMP classification) Malamulele Giyani Punda Maria Shangoni Total

5.1 hunting & collecting terrestrial animals X X X X 4

5.3 logging & wood harvesting X X X X 4
5.4 fishing & harvesting aquatic resources X X X X 4
7.1 fire & fire suppression X X X X 4
8.1 invasive non-native/alien species X X X X 4
5.2 gathering terrestrial plants X X 2
8.2 problematic native species (elephants) X X 2
3.2 mining & quarrying X X 2
4.1 roads & railroads X X 2
1.1 housing & urban areas X 1
2.1 annual & perennial nontimber crops X 1
total 9 7 7 7
∗ Abbreviations:
IUCN-CMP, World Conservation Union–Conservation Measures Partnership; DFED-EA, Department of Finance and Economic
Development–Environmental Affairs; KNP, Kruger National Park.

Conservation Biology
Volume 22, No. 6, 2008
Anthony
use of percentage values. To illustrate, if one assumes
100% mitigation means alien species are reduced from
30% cover to 10% cover in an assessment area, then miti-
gation is successful by a TRA score of 50% if alien species
cover is reduced by half (20% of the assessment area).
Nevertheless, if the threat worsens over the assessment
period to an extent that alien species spread to 70% of the
area, then according to this scale, mitigation receives a
score of −200%, which is an awkward use of percentages.
To avoid overcomplicated scoring, I propose that practi-
tioners define 100% mitigation as the complete eradica-
tion of a threat, irrespective of what initial condition or
pressure the threat posed. Thus, in the above case, 100%
mitigation of the alien species threat means 0% cover in
the assessment area. In this way, there can be no ambigu-
ity about what 100% mitigation means and, at the same
time, practitioners can still decide whether they are will-
ing to live with a certain percentage of threat. Moreover,
many demographic and socioeconomic indicators are re-
ported in absolute percentage values >100 (e.g., Baumert
et al. 2005; Parsley & Halabisky 2008), especially when
making comparisons with a reference. Thus, it makes
sense to adopt this terminology (rather than instituting a
cap of –100% mitigation) when calculating the degree to
which a threat has worsened over an assessment period.
If original TRA values have been used to measure con-
servation success, reevaluation of these cases may be
valuable. This should be done if TRAs have been used
to develop strategies for resource management (Hast-
ings & Fischer 2001) or when comparing effectiveness
of conservation approaches (Mugisha & Jacobson 2004).
In such cases, results are likely to be less optimistic, with
TRA-I values remaining where they are in best-case sce-
narios, but in all likelihood decreasing when incorporat-
ing any new or worsening threats.
The standardization of threats continues to challenge
TRAs. I attempted to align categories with the IUCN-CMP
direct threat classification on the basis of the nature of the
threat, akin to content coding in qualitative data analysis
(Taylor & Bogdan 1984; Weisberg et al. 1996). On one
hand, this categorization has helped KNP and DFED-EA
staff conceptualize local threats to biodiversity and may
lead to more focused action and appropriate response.
On the other hand, generalizing threats, similar to cod-
ing qualitative data, may inevitably result in a loss of rich-
ness of the threat description, leading to responses that
may not necessarily address the locally identified threat.
For example, subsistence poaching, poaching with dogs
or snares, poaching with firearms, and luring of lions
for illegal commercial hunting are all combined into the
“hunting & collecting terrestrial animals” (IUCN-CMP no.
5.1) categorical threat in this study. Nevertheless, strate-
gies to combat each of these threats may require quite
discrete policies and actions, drawing on different legis-
lation and institutions. Careful attention must be taken
to understand the reasons for threat standardization and
1503
where potential ineffective and counter-productive re-
sponses may be made as a result of such generalizations.
For example, if the goal of the assessment is to prior-
itize proximate threats and thus to choose appropriate
conservation strategies, developing subcategories within
broader threat classifications may be warranted. In do-
ing so, more detailed threat descriptions can be retained.
Alternatively, assessments could be conducted in a step-
wise fashion considering scale (i.e., local or site, regional
or national, and international), with codes at each level
allowing threats to be summarized, depending on the
scale being investigated. In this way, detailed informa-
tion is not lost, but can be generalized when necessary
to understand larger-scale threats and trends.
Finally, although I propose modifications to TRA that
should lead to a more accurate assessment of threats to
biodiversity, continued refinement of the approach is
needed. The following are particular avenues for con-
tinuing efforts that would improve the usefulness of this
tool.
• Identify techniques to incorporate threat magnitude.
For example, if illegal mining of sand affected 1 river in
an assessment site and this threat increased to 3 rivers
over the assessment period, then the threat would have
increased by 200%, and mitigation would be given a
TRA score of −200%. In such cases in which threats
have more than doubled, the original TRA scoring has
an inherent weakness in that it cannot accurately mea-
sure such changes. I propose defining 100% mitiga-
tion as the complete elimination of a threat, but do
not suggest an upper limit to how bad a threat can
potentially become (allowing for threats to increase
>100%). Because TRAs use relative rather than abso-
lute values, how to standardize this aspect of threat
magnitudes will need further development if cross-site
comparisons are to be made.
• To improve application of the technique, TRAs should
be conducted at the onset and over multiple time pe-
riods of a conservation intervention to identify trends
in specified threats. In my study, no such baseline as-
sessment was made, and results would have benefited
from previously conducted TRAs. Longitudinal studies
utilizing TRAs would improve the adaptive manage-
ment utility of the approach and allow practitioners
to estimate probable time frames for reaching 100%
abatement.
• Finally, compiling a database of successful strategies
to combat specific threats, which can be easily ac-
cessed by managers, practitioners, and researchers,
would be a useful secondary outcome of the TRA
methodology. This may be integrated into ongoing ini-
tiatives including the IUCN and CMP’s Classification of
Conservation Actions [http://www.iucn.org/themes/
ssc/sis/classification.htm] or Conservation Evidence
[http://www.conservationevidence.com/].
Conservation Biology
Volume 22, No. 6, 2008
1504
Acknowledgments
I thank the CEU Doctoral Research Support Program for
funding, staff from Conservation Services and People &
Conservation (KNP), and Mopani and Vhembe districts
(DFED-EA) for support. I also thank 3 anonymous review-
ers and the assigning editor for constructive comments
on an earlier version of this manuscript.
Supporting Information
The TRA worksheets for Malamulele (Appendix S1),
Punda Maria (Appendix S2), Giyani (Appendix S3), and
Shangoni (Appendix S4) are available as part of the on-
line article. The author is responsible for the content
and functionality of these materials. Queries (other than
absence of the material) should be directed to the corre-
sponding author.
Literature Cited
Anthony, B. 2007. The dual nature of parks: attitudes of neighbouring
communities towards Kruger National Park, South Africa. Environ-
mental Conservation 34:236–245.
Baumert, K. A., T. Herzog, and J. Pershing. 2005. Navigating the num-
bers: greenhouse gas data and international climate policy. World
Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.
CMP (Conservation Measures Partnership). 2004. Open standards for
the practice of conservation. Version 1. Conservation Measures Part-
nership, Washington, D.C.
Cock, J., and D. Fig. 2000. From colonial to community based conser-
vation: environmental justice and the national parks in South Africa.
Society in Transition 31:22–35.
Costanza, R., et al. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services
and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260.
DEAT (Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism). 1998. Con-
vention on biological diversity: South African national report to the
Fourth Conference of the Parties. Department of Environmental Af-
fairs and Tourism, Pretoria.
DWAF (Department of Water Affairs and Forestry), DEAT (Depart-
ment of Environmental Affairs and Tourism), and WRC (Water
Research Commission). 2001. State of the rivers report: Letaba
and Luvuvhu River systems. WRC report TT 165/01. Water Re-
search Commission, Pretoria. Available from http://www.csir.co.za/
rhp/state_of_rivers/letluv_01_toc.html (accessed June 2007).
Ehrlich, P. R., and A. H. Ehrlich. 1992. The value of biodiversity. Ambio
21:219–226.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 1998. Guidelines for ecologi-
cal risk assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C.
Ervin, J. 2003a. WWF: rapid assessment and prioritization of protected
area management (RAPPAM) methodology. World Wide Fund for
Nature, Gland, Switzerland.
Ervin, J. 2003b. Rapid assessment of protected area manage-
ment effectiveness in four countries. BioScience 53:833–
841.
Foxcroft, L. C., M. Rouget, and D. M. Richardson. 2007. Risk assess-
ment of riparian plant invasions into protected areas. Conservation
Biology 21:412–421.
Hastings, R. M., and D. W. Fischer. 2001. Management priorities for Mag-
dalena Bay, Baja California, Mexico. Journal of Coastal Development
7:193–202.
Conservation Biology
Volume 22, No. 6, 2008
Threat Reduction Assessment
Hockings, M., S. Stolton, and N. Dudley. 2000. Evaluating effective-
ness: a framework for assessing the management of protected areas.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Homewood, K., E. F. Lambin, E. Coast, A. Kariuki, I. Kikula, J. Kivelia,
M. Said, S. Serneels, and M. Thompson. 2001. Long-term changes in
Serengeti–Mara wildebeest and land cover: pastoralism, population
or policies? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America 98:12544–12549.
IUCN-CMP (International Union for the Conservation of Nature-
Conservation Measures Partnership). 2006. Unified classifica-
tion of direct threats. Version 1.0. Available from http://www.
iucn.org/themes/ssc/sis/classification.htm (accessed April 2008).
Jacana Education. 2000. Kruger National Park ecozone map. Jacana
Education, Johannesburg.
Krueger, R. A. 1994. Focus groups: a practical guide for ap-
plied research. 2nd edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks,
California.
Mabunda, D., D. J. Pienaar, and J. Verhoef. 2003. The Kruger National
Park: a century of management and research. Pages 3–21 in J. T. du
Toit, K. H. Rogers, and H. Biggs, editors. The Kruger experience:
ecology and management of savanna heterogeneity. Island Press,
Washington, D.C.
Margoluis, R., and N. Salafsky. 1998. Measures of success: designing,
managing, and monitoring conservation and development projects.
Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Margoluis, R., and N. Salafsky. 2001. Is our project succeeding? A guide
to threat reduction assessment for conservation. Biodiversity Sup-
port Program, Washington, D.C.
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and hu-
man well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute,
Washington, D.C.
Mugisha, A. R., and S. K. Jacobson. 2004. Threat reduction assessment
of conventional and community-based conservation approaches to
managing protected areas in Uganda. Environmental Conservation
31:233–241.
Nel, J. L., D. J. Roux, G. Maree, C. J. Kleynhans, J. Moolman, B. Reyers, M.
Rouget, and R. M. Cowling. 2007. Rivers in peril inside and outside
protected areas: a systematic approach to conservation assessment
of river ecosystems. Diversity and Distributions 13:341–352.
Noss, R. F. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical
approach. Conservation Biology 4:355–364.
Parsley, C., and D. Halabisky. 2008. Profile of growth firms: a
summary of Industry Canada research. Industry Canada, Ot-
tawa. Available from http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/sbrp-rppe.nsf/
en/h_rd01200e.html (accessed April 2008).
Perrings, C. 2000. The biodiversity convention and biodiversity loss in
Sub-Saharan Africa. Pages 1–43 in C. Perrings, editor. The economics
of biodiversity conservation in Sub-Saharan Africa: mending the Ark.
Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, United Kingdom.
Persha, L. 2001. Threat reduction assessment (TRA) notes and method-
ology changes. UNDP-GEF East Africa Cross Borders Biodiversity
Project, Arusha, Tanzania.
Pollard, S., C. M. Shackleton, and J. Carruthers. 2003. Beyond the fence:
people and the lowveld landscape. Pages 422–446 in J. T. du Toit,
K. H. Rogers, and H. C. Biggs, editors. The Kruger experience:
ecology and management of savanna heterogeneity. Island Press,
Washington, D.C.
Purvis, A., and A. Hector. 2000. Getting the measure of biodiversity.
Nature 405:212–219.
Reaka-Kudla, M. L., D. E. Wilson, and E. O. Wilson, editors. 1997. Bio-
diversity II: understanding and protecting our biological resources.
Joseph Henry Press, Washington, D.C.
Salafsky, N., and R. Margoluis. 1999. Threat reduction assessment: a
practical and cost-effective approach to evaluating conservation and
development projects. Conservation Biology 13:830–841.
Salafsky, N., R. Margoluis, K. H. Redford, and J. G. Robinson. 2002. Im-
proving the practice of conservation: a conceptual framework and
Anthony
research agenda for conservation. Conservation Biology 16:1469–
1479.
Sanderson, E. W., K. H. Redford, A. Vedder, P. B. Coppolillo, and S. E.
Ward. 2002. A conceptual model for conservation planning based
on landscape species requirements. Landscape and Urban Planning
58:41–56.
Stedman-Edwards, P. 2000. A framework for analyzing biodiversity loss.
Pages 11–35 in A. Wood, P. Stedman-Edwards, and J. Mang, editors.
The root causes of biodiversity loss. Earthscan, London.
Steenkamp, C., and J. Urh. 2000. Discovering power relations in a South
African CBNRM case study: the Makuleke community of the North-
ern Province. Pages 126–155 in S. Shackleton and B. Campbell, ed-
itors. Empowering communities to manage natural resources: case
studies from Southern Africa. CSIR, Pretoria, South Africa.
Stem, C., R. Margoluis, N. Salafsky, and M. Brown. 2005. Monitoring
and evaluation in conservation: a review of trends and approaches.
Conservation Biology 19:295–309.
Taylor, R. D. 1982. Buffer zones: resolving conflict between human and
wildlife interests in the Sebungwe region. Zimbabwe Agricultural
Journal 79:179–184.
Taylor, S. J., and R. Bogdan. 1984. Introduction to qualitative research
methods: the search for meanings. Wiley, New York.
Teder, T., M. Moora, E. Roosaluste, K. Zobel, M. Partel, U. Koljalg, and M.
Zobel. 2007. Monitoring of biological diversity: a common-ground
approach. Conservation Biology 21:313–317.
1505
The Royal Society. 2003. Measuring biodiversity for conservation. Doc-
ument 11/03. The Royal Society, London.
TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 2000. The five-S framework for site
conservation: a practitioner’s handbook for site conservation plan-
ning and measuring conservation success. The Nature Conservancy,
Arlington, Virginia.
TNC (The Nature Conservancy). 2003. The enhanced five-S project
management process: an overview of proposed standards for de-
veloping strategies, taking action, and measuring effectiveness
and status at any scale. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington,
Virginia.
Tucker, G. 2005. A review of biodiversity conservation performance
measures. Earthwatch Institute, Oxford, United Kingdom.
WCS (Wildlife Conservation Society). 2002. Using conceptual models
to set conservation priorities. Living Landscapes Bulletin 5:1–4.
Weisberg, H. F., J. A. Krosnick, and B. D. Bowen. 1996. An introduc-
tion to survey research, polling, and data analysis. 3rd edition. Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
Western, D., and H. Gichohi. 1993. Segregation effects and the impov-
erishment of savanna parks: the case for ecosystem viability analysis.
African Journal of Ecology 31:268–271.
Wheater, C. P., and P. A. Cook. 2000. Using statistics to understand the
environment. Routledge, New York.
Wolman, A. G. 2006. Measurement and meaningfulness in conservation
science. Conservation Biology 20:1626–1634.
Conservation Biology
Volume 22, No. 6, 2008