384 B. Karlsdóttir et al. Assessment of captive breeding programmes
We collected quantitative data on the organizational structure of programmes to explore the context of each programme and the commonalities and differences potentially influen- cing
outcomes.Managers identified the threemost important partners involved in their programme, and the resources they provided, irrespective of their effectiveness. These partners were grouped into types (with the exception of Amphibian Conservation Action Plan partners because of their focus on amphibian conservation) and tallied. We assessed the progress of programmes against five cri-
teria fromtheAmphibian Ark progress indicators (Amphib- ian Ark, 2019): (1) production of offspring, (2)production of viable second generation offspring, (3) reintroduction of captive-bred individuals into the wild, (4) if applicable, posi- tive impact of reintroduced individuals on the wild pop- ulation, and (5) monitoring of wild populations of captive- bred species (both reintroduced and native populations) by the programme or its partners. Because we analysed the pro- grammes at an institutional level, a criterion was considered achieved if at least one species qualified. Two programmes did not keep amphibians and were only included in the thematic analysis. Data on programme structure for three programmes was lost through faulty audio recordings, but information on programme progress and partners was retained for all.
Thematic analysis
We analysed qualitative data under the barriers and en- ablers, and partnerships themes following the framework method (Gale et al., 2013; Table 1, Supplementary Material 2). The analysis identified barriers and enablers of pro- grammes, and through examination of partnerships we as- sessed the drivers and constraints of these programmes. Barriers and enablers were defined as any material or non-
material infrastructure, equipment, activity, plan, skill or any other factor influencing the functioning of a project, and a partnership was defined as any relationship providing external support for the programme.We analysed interview transcripts using NVivo 11 Plus (QSR International, Doncast- er, Australia). Four audio recordings were faulty, leaving a written summary for analysis. Three additional e-mails from managers were included. The quality of the process was reported following Tong et al. (2007; Supplementary Material 3a). The emerging analytical framework highlighted com-
monalities in barriers and enablers but not their relative im- portance (Supplementary Table 1). The threemost important barriers for each programme were subjectively assessed by BK. Summarieswere e-mailed tomanagers to confirmthe in- terpretation.We categorized barriers according to the analyt- ical framework and tallied themto identify themost frequent critical barriers and enablers (SupplementaryMaterial 4).
Results
We had a 50% response rate to our interview requests and conducted interviews with 25 managers (20 men, five women). Of these, 23 were nationals of the programme country. Most had prior experience working with amphib- ians, although not necessarily in husbandry. Managers had backgrounds in various disciplines, including biology, zo- ology, taxonomy and veterinary science.
Assessment of programmes
Of the 23 programmes keeping amphibians, 10were based in zoos, seven established by private individuals and two each based in universities, museums and research institutions. Programmes had highly diverse organizational structures. The smallest programmes consisted of one staff member,
TABLE 1 Detailed analysis methodology using the framework method, following the seven steps described by Gale et al. (2013). Stage
Tasks 1. Transcription
2. Familiarization with interviews 3. Coding
4. Development of a working analytical framework
5. Application of the analytical framework
6. Charting of the data into the framework matrix
7. Interpretation of the data The interviews were recorded & transcribed verbatim. The main author listened to the recordings & read the interviews to get familiar with the data.
Passages were coded if they related to barriers & enablers, partnerships or failures. Open coding was used, labelling paragraphs with non-pre-determined categories. An initial subset of four interviews was coded by an external researcher (Gale et al., 2013).
Codes were agreed with the external researcher & used to develop a framework of topics & categories relating to barriers & enablers.
The interviews were re-coded using the framework.
A table of coded responses from each respondent, in each category, is usually summarized into a framework matrix. In this case, matrices were deemed unnecessary as there was just one analyst, familiar with all the data. Moreover, this stage is often used to compare groups, which were not used in this study.
An operational model was developed based on the information in the analytical framework to provide a synthetic interpretation of the results.
Oryx, 2021, 55(3), 382–392 © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605320000332
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164
