Theory of Change

From Data to Decisions: A Theory of Change for Conservation Science

Conservation science is often judged by its outputs—papers published, datasets generated, tools released. But conservation outcomes are not produced by academic activity alone. They emerge from a longer causal chain of events that connect research with real-world decisions about how we engage with the natural world.
​
This post outlines how we think about this chain of events: how conservation-minded biological research can translate, over time, into meaningful conservation impacts.

Kartzinel Lab Postdoc Ezequiel Vanderhoeven, DVM, Ph.D. (left), works with a non-profit to facilitate a jaguar capture / translocation in Argentina. Photo: Proyecto Yaguareté

The problem: decisions are shaped by easy-to-find data; not always the right kinds of data

In our work with government agencies and the non-profit sector, we hear a recurring concern: “We need to better understand what the species we are responsible for protecting actually eat.” This is because diets shape animal survival, reproduction, movements, and the risk of conflict with local people. Yet for many species—including a surprising number of our best-known and most-loved species—reliable dietary data are scarce.

At the same time, managers face a practical constraint. Fundraising and allocations for conservation often favor actions that are highly visible and immediately tangible. Today's GPS tracking programs are a prime example. They generate compelling maps, clear narratives, and a strong sense of technological progress. As a result, managers are often able to fund collars and tracking campaigns.

But after the animals are collared and their movements are mapped, a key question remains: what are those animals actually eating in the places that they go? Maps are extremely informative, but not complete.

A similar dynamic plays out the links we find between conservation policies that require managers to collect genetic information.

Both the IUCN Red List and the U.S. Endangered Species Act recognize genetic diversity as a core component of species viability. In practice, however, this recognition often translates into efforts to collect static, coarse-grained summaries of genetic variation—average heterozygosity and population connectivity estimated for entire species. It caters to national and international policies rather than ensuring effective conservation measures can be implemented locally.

For conservation managers on the ground, this is rarely sufficient. The questions they face are more specific: How connected is my population to others? Which roads, fences, or land-use changes are most limiting gene flow? Where would restoration or protection most effectively improve connectivity?

Answering these questions requires fine-grained, population-specific data, analyzed at spatial and temporal scales that are better aligned with management decisions. Yet funding structures shaped by broad conservation mandates often channel resources toward assessments that satisfy reporting requirements, rather than the places where people are most actively engaged in solving the problems we face.

The result is a familiar pattern: conservation frameworks correctly identify what matters, but inadvertently constrain the supply of actionable data at the scales where it could do the most good.

Our role: filling critical information gaps at the pace of decision-making

We work to fill critical gaps by developing and deploying cutting-edge genomic tools that can interface fluidly with ecological understanding at right scales for conservation-relevant decisions.

In the case of animal diets, this means generating accurate, noninvasive dietary data that can be integrated directly with existing monitoring efforts, including GPS tracking. The data provide critical biological context makes the needs of wildlife more interpretable and apparent.

In the case of population genomics, this means moving beyond static summaries of genetic diversity to analyses that reveal contemporary patterns of connectivity, isolation, and selection at the level of specific populations across the landscape. The emphasis is on information that can inform concrete actions: where to prioritize movement corridors, which barriers are the most problematic, and how populations are likely to respond to ongoing change.

And these insights are mutually informative. Not infrequently, the best migration corridors and the words barriers to dispersal are a direct reflection of where animals can find the foods they need to sustain themselves. The goal is not simply to produce more data, but to align what we learn with the questions conservation leaders actually need to answer.

See how we have combined GPS-tracking with dietary DNA: it all began with endangered zebras; it has since touched on conservation issues involving Yellowstone wildlife, pregnant elephants, giant armadillos, woodland caribou... and more!

A GPS-collared pronghorn antelope is tracked to simultaneously study her migration and dietary variation.

The causal pathway: from support to impact

We pursue impact as a chain of events that causally link inputs with outputs:

Inputs
Support enables field sampling, genomic sequencing, computational analysis, and—critically—the training of students and collaborators who are placed in an optimal position to carry these approaches forward.

Outputs
These inputs produce time-tested protocols, open-source data, and novel analytical tools that lead to peer-reviewed publications and directly inform fine-grained ecological and evolutionary inferences.

Outcomes
Practitioners integrate dietary and genomic information with existing conservation-based and policy-relevant frameworks as they benefit from a better ability to interpret animal behaviors, habitat use, and population trends.
​
Impact
Over time, these connections support better-informed decisions: protecting key resources, restoring connectivity, and planning in ways that account for how populations actually function in nature.

A structural limitation—and why partnerships matter

As an academic lab, the efforts we allocate to supporting conservation are often seen as above and beyond the basic research that we are formally expected to do. While it is both appropriate and essential for us to partner with governmental agencies and nonprofit organizations to advance our externally funded research—much of it supported by the tax-payers who trust scientists to act in the public's interest—traditional funding structures place real constraints on how research dollars can be used.

In most cases, research funding is not intended for conservation. Instead, it supports fundamental knowledge-generation so people—managers, agencies, and organizations operating under different mandates—can choose to use in the future. This division of labor is not necessarily a flaw, but it means conservation research programs are often ill-equipped to deliver information at the pace decision-makers require. Initiating the chain of events that lead directly to impact thus depends on other opportunities to spark collaborations, align goals, and sustain engagement beyond the finite lifespan of a single grant.

Kartzinel Lab together with the Sloth Conservation Foundation and The Osa Conservation Foundation at La Selva Biological Station in Costa Rica, 2025. Photo: Ian Rock.

Grappling with this limitation is central to our theory of change. Our goal is to expand what is possible—to provide information that was previously unavailable or unusable—while working with a passionate array of partners who are empowered to act on it.

Leverage that works best

Both foraging ecology and population genomics are actively developing areas of research. Technological innovation is driving both fields forward at lightening speed. Progress, like learning, requires repetition on: refining tools based on realities in the field, collaborating with managers to understand the evolving set of challenges and opportunities they face, and improving the impacts that arise from what we do over time.

We find that people are the conduits for change. Data do not change conservation outcomes on their own. People do. Students trained in these methods move into agencies and NGOs. And we see time and again that the leaders of NGOs and government agencies are inspired and motivated by the students they meet. They discover new approaches and become more adaptable. Engaged training and mentorship opportunities are therefore the drivers of change both now and over the long-term. They are central, not ancillary, to to impact.

Innovation in partnership

Our theory of change does not romanticize technology or overpromise change. Instead, it is transparent about how persistent information gaps concerning the most basic biology of what animals eat, and how populations are connected must be overcome to strengthen conservation decision-making.