Baltazar Parra Policy Analysis

“It takes a village”: policy to shift community values
to promote sea turtle conservation in Nayarit
Francia Baltazar Parra
26 April 2021
Table of Contents
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Definition of the Problem ........................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Policy Client: Nayarit’s State Government’s Office of Tourism and Sustainable
Development ................................................................................................................................. 4
2. Evaluation Criteria ...................................................................................................................... 5
2.1. Technical feasibility ............................................................................................................... 5
2.2. Economic and financial possibility ........................................................................................ 6
2.3. Political viability .................................................................................................................... 6
2.4. Administrative operability ...................................................................................................... 6
3. Identification of Alternative Policies .......................................................................................... 6
3.1. Policy Variables ..................................................................................................................... 7
i. Variable 1: Expansion of conservation education program in local schools ....................... 7
ii. Variable 2: Awareness documentaries and Q&As ............................................................. 8
iii. Variable 3: Community workshop round tables ................................................................ 8
iv. Variable 4: Neighborhood involvement in sea turtle camps.............................................. 8
v. Variable 5: Fund-use transparency committees .................................................................. 9
3.2. Policy Variables Manipulations ............................................................................................. 9
3.3. Alternative policy sets .......................................................................................................... 10
Francia Baltazar Parra page i of 55

Political Science 836 Public Policy Analysis
4. Display and Distinguish among Alternative Policies ............................................................... 11
4.1. Qualitative assessment ......................................................................................................... 11
4.2. Binary assessment ................................................................................................................ 12
4.3. Pondered assessment ............................................................................................................ 12
4.4 Results of assessment approaches ......................................................................................... 14
5. Monitor and Evaluate Adopted Policy ...................................................................................... 14
5.1 Before-and-After Comparison ............................................................................................... 15
5.2 Cost-Benefit approach ........................................................................................................... 16
6. Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................................................... 17
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 19
Francia Baltazar Parra page ii of 55

List of tables and figures
Tables ............................................................................................................................................ 22
Table 1. Evaluation criteria for proposed policy alternatives, based on Patton et al.’s (2016, p.
194) Commonly Employed Evaluation Criteria .......................................................................... 22
Table 2: Possible Manipulations for Proposed Variables, based on May’s (1981, p. 227)
Feasible Manipulations Approach ............................................................................................... 26
Table 3: Alternative Policy Strategies, based on May’s (1981, p. 227) Feasible Manipulations
Approach ..................................................................................................................................... 32
Table 4. Goeller’s Scorecard of policy set alternatives and evaluation criteria, based on Patton et
al.’s (2016, p. 330) Matrix (Scorecard) Display Systems ........................................................... 34
Table 5. Brightman’s Alternative-Consequence Matrix, based on Goeller’s Scorecard
assessment*, based on Patton et al.’s (2016, p. 330) Matrix (Scorecard) Display Systems ....... 44
Table 6. Goals-Achievement Matrix (GAM), based on Goeller’s Scorecard assessment*, based
on Patton et al.’s (2016, p. 330) Matrix (Scorecard) Display Systems ....................................... 46
Table 7. Fact-base indicators and sources for baseline and ongoing measurements, based on
Patton et al.’s (2016) operationalization process for policy monitoring and evaluation ............. 47
Figures........................................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 1. Church-based Neighborhood Division for team projects in Lo de Marcos, Nayarit .. 51
Francia Baltazar Parra page iii of 55

Background
Up until recent years, people in Nayarit coastal towns had low levels of education, high
marginalization, and little access to secondary and tertiary economic sectors, relying primarily on
natural resources and related activities (INEGI 2017); only since the last three decades has the
region started to incorporate tourism as a main income source, and this generation is the first to
access higher education and shift away from agricultural and fishing practices for their
sustenance (INEGI 2017). Given their socioeconomic and cultural context, people in these towns
have been accustomed to using endangered natural resources with no legal restrictions or moral
concerns. These resources include sea turtle eggs.
When fishing and poaching bans were introduced in the early 2000s due to Mexican international
agreements and growing environmental awareness concerns (Micheli 2002), local communities,
having little understanding of the wider implications of ecological imbalances, perceived these
measures as harsh and unwarranted impositions and did not immediately or willingly comply.
Facing such response from the coastal communities, policies in Mexico have implemented
diverse approaches seeking to enforce the bans and to promote conservation over egg extraction.
These approaches have ranged from punitivism to marketing: punitive measures have included
legal punishments for infringing bans (up to nine years in prison plus fines) and use of drone
technology to identify poachers (PROFEPA 2019); government marketing has launched
ecological awareness campaigns such as the 2005 “Sexy” Campaign produced by the
Environmental Protection Federal Office in collaboration with Wildcoast Organization and
Pronatura Organization to dismantle the widespread myth about egg turtles having aphrodisiac
properties (Mendoza 2018), and government-enforced protections programs in new development
Francia Baltazar Parra page 1 of 55

projects, such as was required for the construction of the touristic Litibú Zone in the state of
Nayarit (Zavala 2017).
While these measures have succeeded in hindering trade and lowering poaching (PROCER 2016,
PROFEPA 2019), poaching and black markets of sea turtle eggs are still active (Ramírez 2018)
and sea turtles, although slightly recovering in population numbers, remain endangered. As of
2018, ecologists estimated that in spite of policy and law regulations prohibiting this trade, 40%
of sea turtle eggs end up in the market as a result of poaching practices (Ceballos 2018), while
other estimations say the percentage is as high as 70% (González-Padilla 2015). In either case,
the percentage represents dozens of thousands of eggs; it is estimated that an individual poacher
takes between 1000 and 2000 eggs, and confiscations of illegal transportation of sea turtle eggs
have reported up to 22,800 eggs per raid (Mendoza 2018). It is further calculated that due to
predators and artificial hazards for young turtles, only 1 in every 1000 hatchlings make it to
adulthood and get to reproduce (IAC 2012, WWF 2014); with these statistical odds, the high
rates of poaching pose a serious threat for this endangered species.
The present situation indicates a policy problem based on underperformance regarding turning
around the endangered status of the species and persistent practices in spite of their illegality.
One underlying cause of this issue is rooted in the role of the communities that are directed
affected by these policies. To this respect, Pacheco, Murillo, and Aguilar (2012, cited in Monroy
et al. 2020) use the example of Nayarit to describe how state development plans in Mexico tend
to consider communities and populations as mere recipients of government decisions, their
participation in such decisions being limited to voting and in rare cases presenting citizen

petitions, but not quite getting involved— or being taken into account— to provide input for
objectives, strategies, choices, and monitoring of resources. Hence, we have that the current state
of affairs has not contributed to strengthen community attachment to the goals of conservation
policies even when these communities in the state of Nayarit’s coastal towns are the most
immediately affected parties by the consequences of this issue.
1. Definition of the Problem
The policy problem at stake is that sea turtle eggs in Nayarit’s coastal towns are being
illegally poached (i.e. extracted from their nests to be sold for human consumption in violation of
official protection dispositions) at a rate such that aggravates the endangered status of sea turtles.
The aimed solution of policy is, thus, to increase the success of incentives for conservation
activities among these coastal communities by turning said communities into interested and
informed stakeholders. Drawing from Clemons and McBeth’s (2020) idea of the policy analyst
as a democratic facilitator contributing to provide access to data for stakeholders, empower the
public to understand analyses, and bringing political issues into serious public discussions (p.
211), the focus on community involvement adopted in this policy analysis offers the additional
value of upholding preservation efforts beyond the short term.
While there are precedents of sorts of successful community-based approaches to sea turtle
conservation adopted following sea turtle egg bans and ensuing local financial depletion, such as
in La Escobilla, Oaxaca (Oaxaca Mío 2016), these are usually citizen initiatives or privately

funded projects, not government policy interventions. In this sense, the policy problem at stake
highlights the lack of attention the issue has received at the formal policy level.
The policy problem reveals, furthermore, the present failure to incorporate policy goals into local
culture to ensure not only law compliance, but ongoing policy implementation; in this sense, it
can also be defined in terms of an ineffective punitive focus that absorbs resources that could be
better employed through a preventive and active-care focus.
1.1 Policy Client: Nayarit’s State Government’s Office of Tourism and Sustainable Development
The client to whom this policy analysis is addressed is Nayarit’s State Government. The client’s
legal duties and prerogatives include proposing and executing strategic development plans for
the state (Gobierno de Nayarit 2020). Since the issue of sea turtles’ eggs poaching directly
affects aspects of strategic development— including ecologic conservation, economic activities,
and touristic assets (PRODERETUS 2014)—, the policy analyzed in this document falls under
the responsibility of the client’s Office of Tourism and Sustainable Development (OTSD)
(Gobierno de Nayarit 2020).
Not only is Nayarit’s state-level OTSD particularly well suited to implement this policy in terms
of its functions, but it has also been identified the most effective government level to address egg
poaching issues and its implications: municipalities across Mexico lack effective administrative
devices to coordinate beyond the local scale for development projects, and the federal level is too
broad to effectively tackle the particular concerns of the specific region of interest (Monroy et al.
2020). In fact, a study by Virgen and Saldaña (2012, cited in Monroy et al. 2020) finds that

planification for touristic development in Mexico is most efficient when implemented by state-
level offices, slightly higher than nation-wide offices, and almost twice as effective as
municipality-level offices.
Nayarit’s state-level OTSD is therefore an adequate client in terms of responsibility for focalized
sustainability policy, as well as in terms of the financial resources and legal capacity to
implement such policy.
2. Evaluation Criteria
Following Patton et al. (2016), having defined the problem (see Section 1), evaluation
criteria are necessary to evaluate the potential policy alternatives and identify the most
convenient one to address the policy problem. Considering the objective is to increase the
interest of and information available to local communities in getting involved in sea turtle
sustainability practices and reject poaching both as egg clients and as poaching perpetrators—
and that the wider goal is to improve conservation rates for sea turtles across the state of
Nayarit—, the following relevant criteria were determined to evaluate policy alternatives; refer
to Table 1 for details on each criterion in relation to the policy problem, including proposed
indicators for measurement.
2.1. Technical feasibility
This criterion focuses on the effectiveness of the policy alternative to assess whether or not it
achieves improvements in sea turtle conservation in Nayarit coastal towns.

2.2. Economic and financial possibility
This criterion focuses on change in net worth to assess the impact on communities’ income
derived from improving its reputation as an ecologically-sustainable touristic destination.
2.3. Political viability
This criterion focuses on the acceptability of the policy alternatives from the perspective of
communities as the main affected stakeholders, assessing initial and ongoing support for the
policy from local population, considering whether the communities are receptive to the policy
implementation.
2.4. Administrative operability
This criterion considers two aspects: institutional commitment, looking at whether organizational
collaboration between Nayarit state staff in charge of policy implementation and communities
where the policy is implemented is sustained and efficient, and budget capability, assessing if
resources allocated, including human, financial, and technical resources are sufficient for optimal
policy implementation.
3. Identification of Alternative Policies
To propose policy alternatives to the identified policy problem (see Section 1 for
definition), I used May’s (1981, p. 227) Feasible Manipulations Approach to identify variables,
propose manipulations of those variables, and combine them into sets of policy strategies.

Using the Feasible Manipulations Approach to create policy alternatives offers the advantage of
orienting all strategies to what is actually practicable in the area and by the client, without
attempting too much at once (May 1981). On another hand, using the Feasible Manipulations
Approach to create policy alternatives poses the limitation of producing rather rigid sets of
strategies, giving policy design a solid structure at the expense of that structure not being very
flexible to incorporate creative adjustments “on the go”; this may result problematic, for
instance, if the Political Viability (see Section 2.3) is not optimal, if Technical feasibility (see
Section 2.1)
The variables and corresponding manipulations are presented next:
3.1. Policy Variables
Five variables were chosen for manipulation, considering the capability of the policy client—
Nayarit’s State Government’s OTSD (see Section 1.1). The five variables are described below:
i. Variable 1: Expansion of conservation education program in local schools
Variable 1 was chosen considering the potential of the Mexican Free Public Textbook system’s
feature of “La Entidad donde Vivo” (“the state where I live”). While these public schoolbooks
follow the same syllabus nation-wide, some subjects are adapted to every state’s resources and
heritage (CONALITEG 2021); the state of Nayarit can use this to incorporate a conservation
approach focused on sea turtles, educating new generations in ecologic conservation.

ii. Variable 2: Awareness documentaries and Q&As
Variable 2 draws from the reported effect of awareness documentaries on public perceptions of
environmental urgency and impact on action-oriented commitment (Psihoyos et al. 2015, David
2016, Roosen et al. 2017). This variable can facilitate understanding of sea turtle conservation
implications, foster interest in the issue and lead to higher practical involvement in policy
solutions.
iii. Variable 3: Community workshop round tables
Variable 3 is based on a more traditional approach to communication, basic teamwork
arrangements, and mostly providing a space for community members to directly discuss
problems, needs, and courses of action. This variable contributes to address policy problem by
incorporating horizontal input from affected community members, instead of devising a top-
down strategy that is most likely to fail; this is a relevant asset given the focus on community
involvement (see Section 1) as a means to promote medium and long-term continuation and
sustainability of the adopted policy alternative.
iv. Variable 4: Neighborhood involvement in sea turtle camps
Variable 4 seeks to make use of existing informal subdivisions within each town. Catholic
parishes across Nayarit’s coastal towns have established “barrios” (small neighborhoods) in
every town, which are used mainly to assign duties during the many religious holidays’
celebrations. These subdivisions have operated for decades (in the case of the town of Lo de
Marcos, for instance, since the late 1970s; see Figure 1 for an illustration of this town’s church-

neighborhoods) which has strengthened teamwork dynamics within the neighborhoods. Such
social knit and organization can serve as a starting point to facilitate the implementation of the
adopted policy alternative.
Variable 4 also seeks to collaborate with and build on the work of local non-profit organizations,
including for instance San Pancho Turtles, Project Tortuga, Grupo Ecológico de la Costa Verde,
and the Entre Amigos Non-Profit Community Center, that are already involved in sea turtle
rescue and preservation and hence have technical experience and camp infrastructure.
v. Variable 5: Fund-use transparency committees
Variable 5 addresses the concern of local citizens about mistrust in state institutions handling of
financial and material funds, given as corruption has been rampant regarding resources for
development projects in general, and regarding ecological conservation projects in particular
(Pacheco, Murillo & Aguilar 2012, cited in Monroy et al. 2020). This variable seeks to provide a
path to promote accountability and to restore willingness to participate in state-funded policy
activities among the Nayarit’s coastal communities.
3.2. Policy Variables Manipulations
Four distinct levels of manipulation were considered for each variable: “no intervention”,
“limited”, “moderate”, and “wide”. Table 2 details what each level of manipulation consists of
for each variable based on the categories described by May (1981).

3.3. Alternative policy sets
The proposed variables and their potential manipulation alternatives were combined into
competing sets of policy strategies to respond to the identified policy problem (see Section 1);
Table 3 summarizes these combinations. The following five sets of policy strategy alternatives
were produced:
1. The “Business almost as usual” policy set would not implement would keep only
conservation efforts that are already under way through non-governmental initiatives,
adding only minimal resources to boost meetings and bring the topic to public attention.
2. The “Small steps” policy set focuses on achieving any possible positive changes with as
little disruption to current activities and with as low investments as possible.
3. The “Attractive convenience” policy set prioritizes attractiveness for participants,
proposing high impact measures that are not perceived as overwhelming by communities.
4. The “Slow but steady” policy set focuses on long-term results and looks to impose only
minimal demands on communities.
5. The “High commitment catalyzers” policy set prioritizes ecologic conservation results
through intensive, very high impact measures aimed to produce prompt and long-lasting
changes.
Overall, these policy strategy sets were put together considering the ultimate objective of
incorporating sea turtle conservation policy goals into local culture. In this way, the policy
manipulations aim to ensure not only law compliance, but ongoing and robust policy
implementation through an active-care policy approach.

4. Display and Distinguish among Alternative Policies
Considering the client’s, Nayarit’s State Government’s Tourism and Sustainable
Development Office’s capacities and resources, five sets of policy strategy alternatives (see
Table 3) To distinguish among these alternative policy strategy sets, three approaches were
used— a qualitative assessment, a binary assessment, and a pondered assessment; these three
chosen approaches were selected to provide this analysis with a comparison of the desirability
and feasibility of each policy alternative from different, perspectives, in order to gives a more
realistic and useful decision-making tool for the client. The three approaches are detailed below:
4.1. Qualitative assessment
For the qualitative assessment, a Goeller scorecard (see Table 4) , based on Patton et al.’s
(2016, p. 330) Matrix (Scorecard) Display Systems, was used to display the policy alternatives,
assessed using four evaluation criteria (see Table 1): Technical feasibility, Economic and
financial possibility, Political viability, and Administrative operability. Each assessment is
indicated with one of five evaluation labels: Poor-Fair-Sufficient-Good-Excellent.
Goeller’s scorecard does not weigh criteria or establish a ranking of alternatives based on the
assessment, but offers a reasoned, orderly view of how each policy alternative responds to the
evaluation criteria (Patton et al. 2016). This approach allows the client’s work-team to apply
their own judgment based on the explanations provided by the policy analysis, and use it to seek
agreement among the client’s work team on how criteria should be weighted. The scorecard’s
main limitation is not providing a straightforward response to whether each alternative is useful

overall, which may be time-consuming and cumbersome if decision-makers need yes-or-no
answers rather than details.
4.2. Binary assessment
For the binary assessment, a Brightman’s alternative-consequence matrix (ACM) (see Table
5), based on Patton et al.’s (2016, p. 330) Matrix (Scorecard) Display Systems, was used to show
a simplified assessment of the policy alternatives, evaluating each set as passing or failing for
each criterion. Passing or failing grades were assigned based on the nuances from Goeller’s
scorecard (see Table 4).
Brightman’s ACM works is an absolutist approach that dismisses any alternative not meeting
fundamental criteria, even if that alternative poses other advantages; only those alternatives
adequately complying with all criteria are considered workable (Patton et al. 2016). While ACM
poses limitation regarding the amount of information conveyed compared to Goeller’s Scorecard,
an advantage of this approach is it simplifies the process of discarding worst alternatives,
directing focus to the most promising policy sets. The client can, ideally, use ACM and Goeller’s
Scorecard complementarily to obtain more details about ACM-approved alternatives.
4.3. Pondered assessment
For the pondered assessment, a Goals-Achievement Matrix (GAM) (see Table 6) , based on
Patton et al.’s (2016, p. 330) Matrix (Scorecard) Display Systems, was used to offer a ranking of
policy sets based on numeric evaluations of the alternatives, pondered by the relative importance
of each criteria to meet the policy goals. Based on Goeller’s Scorecard assessment (see Table 4),

scores were assigned to each alternative-criteria relation (see Table 6). Each criterion was
assigned a weight based over 1: 0.4 for “technical feasibility”, 0.3 for “administrative
operability”, 0.2 for “political viability”, and 0.1 for “economic and financial possibility”. The
weights were assigned considering the contribution of each evaluation criteria (see Table 1) to
the achievement of the general goal and specific objective of the policy (see Section 2), and
ranking them according to that contribution.
Multiplying criteria weight times ranking score, weighted scores were obtained for each
alternative-criteria relation; the weighted scores for each policy set were then added (see Table 6)
to obtain a total GAM score. The five policy alternatives were ranked using total GAM scores.
GAM presents the relative potential of each alternative policy set, calculated quantitatively using
common standards (Patton et al. 2016). The GAM approach strength is objectivity, to the extent
that GAM scores allow for numeric-based comparisons; however, quantifying some aspects of
the evaluation criteria can produce inappropriate indicators that complicate comparative
assessments of policy alternatives if the qualitative insight is not considered. Furthermore, Patton
et al. (2016) highlight numerical weights may not be readily agreed upon when multiple
decision-makers are involved; it must therefore be pointed out that, in the present analysis, GAM
has been manageable because only one policy analyst was in charge of assigning evaluation
criteria weights. On another hand, the criteria weights have the limitation of being based on the
analyst’s subjective estimations of the importance of each criterion.

4.4 Results of assessment approaches
These approaches offer the following results: Goeller’s Scorecard indicates the most suitable
alternative is the “High Commitment Catalyzers” policy set; which obtained “excellent” across
three of four evaluation criteria. GAM’s results confirm this, with the highest score among
alternatives for this set. Brightman’s ACM, instead, indicates “Attractive Convenience” as the
most suitable alternative, being the only set with passing grades for all four criteria. Using the
ACM approach, the “High Commitment Catalyzers” alternative obtains a failing grade for the
“Administrative operability” criteria.
The difference between both policy alternatives “frontrunners” (i.e. “High Commitment
Catalyzers” and “Attractive Convenience”) can be interpreted as minimal considering that on one
hand, the only failing grade for the “High Commitment Catalyzers” alternative happens for the
lowest-weighted criteria, and that on the other hand, the GAM score for “Attractive
Convenience” is very close (with a difference of only 0.2).
5. Monitor and Evaluate Adopted Policy
To evaluate the efficacy of the adopted policy alternative considering the policy problem
definition established in Section 1, two approaches1 based on Patton et al.’s (2016, p. 352) Six
1
Other types of evaluation approaches described in Patton et al.’s (2016, p. 352) Six Basic
Evaluation Processes, such as the experimental and the quasi-experimental mode, may in theory

Basic Evaluation Processes are proposed: the Before-and-After Comparison and the Cost-
oriented (specifically Cost-Benefit) approach.
In order to produce these evaluation processes, a fact-base must be collected to have baseline
measurements against which to compare ongoing progress measurements. Patton et al.’s (2016)
process to establish policy goals and operationalize them to track their success highlights the
importance of having as broad a fact base as possible. The required indicators for this purpose, as
well as their respective source and suggested frequency of data collection for both baseline
measurements and ongoing measurements, are indicated in Table 7.
The application of the Before-and-After Comparison and the Cost-oriented (specifically Cost-
Benefit) approach are discussed below:
5.1 Before-and-After Comparison
A strength of this approach that makes it suitable for the purposes of this policy analysis is it
allows for straightforward identification of whether or not the policy is effective, which is useful
bring useful insights to consider, especially in terms of identifying direct effects of the proposed
policy on the observed outcomes. However, they are not considered suitable to measure policy
effects in a community dynamic and a geographically-fluid natural resource topic, such as
concerns the policy alternatives presented in this analysis; this is mainly due to ethical and
practical considerations that arise when assigning populations to control and treatment groups.

in communicating results to relevant stakeholders including the general public. This, in turn, may
be key to determine future improvements to the policy measures (Patton et al. 2016).
On another hand, a weakness presented by the Before-and-After Comparison is that focusing
exclusively on the adopted policy’s outcomes may forget considerations preceding those
outcomes. In this sense, if this approach is used, it should consider it may minimize relevant
information, such as budgetary implications (for instance, source of funding and the fact that
other policies that may go underfunded as a result), factors of sociopolitical feasibility (for
example, difficulty in generating social responsiveness or support for the policy among the
policy’s target communities), and potential externalities (including unexpected outcomes and
backlash from stakeholders harmed the adopted policy, such as families whose main source of
income is sea turtle egg poaching).
5.2 Cost-Benefit approach
The “Economic and financial possibility” criteria (see Table 1) can be better addressed by a cost-
benefit approach given it must consider profitability. From the cost-oriented approaches, a cost-
benefit analysis is better suited to this case than a cost-effective analysis, because the objective of
the policy alternatives presented in this analysis is not to propose the ultimate utility
maximization based on available budget constraints;2 rather, the aim of the policy alternatives is
to promote financial benefits that outweigh the financial costs of policy implementation,
2
This may, however, be a relevant adjustment in assessing whether or not it is convenient to
continue the implementation of this policy in the medium-term and long-term.

consequently promoting the continuation of conservation policies among the participating
communities.
The main strength of this approach concerns the production of objective numbers to account for
the benefits— or losses— derived from implementing the chosen policy alternative.
Nevertheless, the cost-benefit evaluation approach does pose weaknesses, as Patton et al. (2016)
point out, in that it may underestimate the impact of important positive outcomes of the policy
measured by indicators of success that are not easily quantified in monetary terms— including,
in the context of this policy analysis, restorative ecologic progress, strengthening of community
networks and social capital, and shifts in public opinion.
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
Considering the analysis presented in this document, both policy alternatives frontrunners
(i.e. “High Commitment Catalyzers” and “Attractive Convenience”, see Section 4.4) are
expected to set adequate results into motion to address the identified policy problem (see Section
1). Therefore, based on this analysis, the client is recommended to base their decision on which
of these policy sets best suits their agenda by considering, at the moment of deciding which
alternative to adopt, its available resources, agreements with other stakeholders, and political
interests.
It is further recommended to engage actively in data collection to guarantee adequate baseline
measurements and ongoing evaluations for as many terms as the adopted policy continues to be

implemented. While ongoing measurements can be collected as part of the policy
implementation processes, a limitation that will likely be faced in this monitoring and evaluation
stage regarding baseline measurements (as indicated in Section 5) is the limited documentation
of these indicators in the geographical area at stake, i.e. Nayarit coastal towns.3 Obtaining
reliable estimations might require local field work including context assessments and interviews,
surveys, and extended census questionnaires. This data is crucial to develop a mapping strategy
to recognize potential causal explanations in policy results as defined by Stone (2012, Chapter
8); in this sense, these indicators are necessary to evaluate if policy solutions are in fact
producing improvements in terms of community involvement and, ultimately, favoring sea turtle
conservation. Therefore, in spite of the potential difficulty and additional expense, investing
resources to collect data for these estimations prior to policy implementation is highly
recommended.
3
A study by Pacheco, Murillo & Aguilar (2012, cited in Monroy et al. 2020) has noted how the
lack of legal and administrative control of state officers in Nayarit makes it currently impossible
to establish evaluation criteria for policy goals.

Bibliography
Amorocho, D. (2014). Tortugas Marinas, Guardianas del Océano, World Wildlife Fund
Colombia.
Ceballos, G. (2018). “La Guerra contra la Extinción”, in Boletín UNAM-DGCS, No. 447, 2:2018.
Ciudad Universitaria, Mexico.
Clemons, R. and M. McBeth. (2020). “Chapter 7. Problem definition, mixed methodologies, and
praxis” in Public Policy Praxis (Clemons and McBeth 2020), Fourth Edition. New York:
Routledge, Taylor and Francis.
CONALITEG. (2021). Comisión Nacional de Libros de Texto Gratuitos, SEP, Gobierno de
México.
David, S. (2016). Eco-Fiction: Bringing Climate Change into the Imagination, University of
Exeter: UK.
Dunn, W. 2018. “Chapter 3. Structuring policy problems” in Public Policy Analysis: An
Introduction (Dunn 2018), Sixth Edition. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.
Gobierno de Nayarit. (2020). Public Service Offices and Organization, Gobierno del Estado,
Nayarit, Mexico.
González-Padilla, A. (2015). "Se incrementa el saqueo de huevos de tortuga en México",
interview at Tortuguero de Morro Ayuta, Univision Noticias. Oaxaca, Mexico.
Grupo Ecológico de la Costa Verde. (2021). San Pancho Marine Project Newsletter Antology
1992-2021, Project Tortuga.

IAC. (2012). "Amenazas a las Tortugas Marinas y Posibles Soluciones", CIT-IAC, Inter-
American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles.
INEGI. (2017). “Anuario estadístico y geográfico de Nayarit 2017” , in Anuario Estadístico y
Geográfico de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Sistema Municipal de Bases de Datos
(SIMBAD), México en Cifras.
May, P. (1981). “Hints for Crafting Policy Alternatives.” Policy Analysis, 7:2:227-244.
Mendoza, G. (2018). "30 años después… ¡México no elimina el consumo de huevo de tortuga!",
La Opinión, 15-August-2018, Mexico.
Micheli, J. (2002). “Política ambiental en México y su dimensión regional” in Región y Sociedad,
Vol.14 No.23, 1: 2002, Hermosillo, Mexico.
Monroy, Y., F. Flores Vilchez, J. Bernal Amaral, and B. García Carmona. (2020). “Políticas
Públicas de Turismo y Desarrollo Sustentable en México” in Kikame Revista Digital de
Divulgación e Investigación Turística, Vol. 10 No. 10, 2:2020, Nayarit, Mexico.
Oaxaca Mío. (2016). “Playa Escobilla”, in Oaxaca Mío Magazine, Oaxaca, Mexico.
Parra Covarrubias, M. C. (2021). División Parroquial en Barrios 1980-2020, San Marcos Church
Historical Archive.
Patton, C., D. Sawicki, and J. Clark. (2016). Basic Methods of Policy Analysis and Planning, Third
Edition. Englewood Cliffs: Pearson, Taylor and Francis.
PROCER. (2016). Las tortugas marinas en México: Logros y perspectivas para su conservación.
Programa de Conservaciòn de Especies en Riesgo, CONANP Ed.

PRODERETUS. (2014). Programa de Desarrollo Regional Turístico Sustentable, Secretaría de
Turismo, Nayarit, Mexico.
PROFEPA. (2019). Protección de las tortugas marinas en México: Estrategia de la Profepa para
proteger a las tortugas marinas, Procuraduria Federal de Proteccion al Ambiente.
Psihoyos, L., O. Ahnemann, and F. Stevens. (2015). Racing Extinction, Oceanic Preservation
Society, Vulcan Productions.
Ramírez, P. (2018). La Preservación de Tortugas Marinas en Playa la Escobilla, Cooperativa
Escobilla. Oaxaca, Mexico.
Roosen, L., C. Klöckner, and J. Swim. (2017). “Visual art as a way to communicate climate
change: A psychological perspective on climate change related art”, in World Art,
doi:10.1080/21500894.2017.1375002
Stone, D. (2012). “Part III: Problems” in Policy Paradox (Stone 2012), Third Edition. New York:
W.W. Norton & Company.
SWOT Scientific Advisory Board. (2011). The State of the World’s Sea Turtles (SWOT) Minimum
Data Standards for Nesting Beach Monitoring, version 1.0. Handbook, 28 pp.
Zavala, A. (2017). Seguimiento al Programa de Protección de Tortugas Marinas Proyecto Litibú,
Nayarit, periodo 2017, CIIDIR-IPN. Ciudad de México, Mexico.

Tables
Table 1. Evaluation criteria for proposed policy alternatives, based on Patton et al.’s (2016, p.
194) Commonly Employed Evaluation Criteria
Sub-criterion and
application to Nayarit sea Indicators of interest as applied to
Evaluation criteria turtle conservation policy Nayarit sea turtle conservation
analysis justifying selection policy analysis
of evaluation criteria
Effectiveness
Estimation of changes (before and
Whether or not policy achieves
after policy implementation)
improvements in sea turtle
for the following indicators:
conservation in Nayarit coastal
towns Human and social indicators
• Number of people engaging in
Technical feasibility sea turtle eggs poaching and
trade
• Approval rates reported in
public opinion polls regarding
poaching
Turtle indicators

Sub-criterion and
• Rate of turtle return to local
beaches to spawn
• Sea turtle general population
estimates
• Count of sea turtle eggs laid in
Nayarit’s beaches
• Number of turtle hatchlings
released into the ocean
Change in net worth
Impact on communities’ • Changes in tourism revenue

Economic and
income derived from from demand of conservation
financial possibility
reputation as an ecologically- camps ad ecotourism activities
sustainable destination
Acceptability • Number of community
Political viability Initial and ongoing support for members regularly involved in
policy from local population, policy activities

Sub-criterion and
considering whether the policy
is acceptable to communities • Approval rates reported in
and if they are receptive to the public opinion polls regarding
policy implementation. the following:
- need and urgency of
ecologic preservation policy
- efficiency of policy
Institutional commitment
Sustained organizational • Initial and ongoing
collaboration between Nayarit communication between policy
state staff in charge of policy staff and participating
implementation and communities’ members,

Administrative
communities where the policy including potential appointed or
operability
is implemented emerging community leaderships
Budget capability • Whether state resources are
Sufficiency of resources sufficiently available to cover
allocated for policy policy implementation costs

Sub-criterion and
implementation, including
human, financial, and technical
resources

Table 2: Possible Manipulations for Proposed Variables, based on May’s (1981, p. 227)
Feasible Manipulations Approach
Range of Feasible Manipulations
Policy Variable Status quo Limited Moderate Wide
No new Financial Inclusion of one Incorporation of
education stimulus from new chapter only ecological
program in Nayarit OTSD in natural resilience and
local schools for volunteer- sciences public conservation
based non-profit textbooks, perspectives
Reliance on organizations for devoted to nature across public
current syllabus education conservation textbooks for all

Expansion of
and education activities with emphasis school subjects
conservation
activities by oriented to sea on local sea and grades, with
education
volunteers from turtle turtles emphasis on local
program in
non-profit conservation sea turtles
local schools
organizations,
with no Focus on
additional Focus on Focus on kindergarten,
financial kindergarten and kindergarten, elementary
stimulus elementary elementary school, middle
school school, and school, and high
middle school school

No presentation Annual Bi-annual Monthly
of documentary documentary documentaries
documentaries screening screening and conferences
followed by followed by followed by
Q&A with Q&A with Q&A with
experts and turtle experts and turtle experts and turtle
camp leaders camp leaders camp leaders
Implementation
No additional Incentivized Mandatory and
of awareness
incentives for attendance for incentivized
documentaries
attendance given community attendance for
and Q&As
to community members community
members members
Film-making
workshops for
locals and
funding for short
documentaries

Annual film
festival and prize
to promote local
documentaries
and awareness
No community Provision of Every three Monthly
workshop material by months, workshop round
round tables Nayarit’s OTSD workshop round tables to discuss
to hold tables to discuss conservation
workshop round conservation strategies and
Implementation tables to discuss strategies and workplans
of community conservation workplans
workshop strategies and
round tables No additional workplans in Incentivized Incentivized
(“mesas de incentives for regular town attendance given attendance given
trabajo”) attendance to meetings to community to community
current members members
community No additional
meetings incentives for Partial project Full project
attendance to funding by funding by
current Nayarits’s OTSD Nayarits’s OTSD

community
meetings
No organization Assignment of Assignment of Assignment of
of additional monthly duties weekly duties for daily duties for
projects related for neighborhoods neighborhoods
to sea turtle neighborhoods on a rotating on a rotating
conservation or on a rotating basis to assist basis to fully take
neighborhood basis to assist in state trained staff care with state
Implementation duty-division existing sea in a new state- trained staff
of turtle camps funded, town- orientation, of a
neighborhood range sea turtle new, state-
involvement in Reliance on Incentivized camp funded, town-
sea turtle current projects participation range sea turtle
camps by volunteers based on camp
from non-profit outcomes Incentivized
organizations participation Incentivized
(e.g. San Additional based on participation
Pancho Turtles, funding for aggregated based on
Project Tortuga, existing sea outcomes aggregated
Grupo turtle camps outcomes
Ecológico de la (e.g. San Pancho

Costa Verde, Turtles, Project Full project Full project
and the Entre Tortuga, Grupo funding by funding by
Amigos Non- Ecológico de la Nayarits’s OTSD Nayarits’s OTSD
Profit Costa Verde, and
Community the Entre
Center) Amigos Non-
Profit
Community
Center)
No Establishment of Establishment of Establishment of
establishment citizen citizen citizen
Transparency of citizen committees to committees to committees to
committees to committees to overlook and overlook and overlook and
monitor oversee and report on the report on the report on the
Nayarit’s report on the adequate adequate adequate
OTSD’s funds adequate allocation and allocation and allocation and
use allocation and use of funding use of funding use of funding
use of funding for sea turtle for sea turtle for sea turtle
for sea turtle

conservation conservation conservation conservation
incentives incentives incentives incentives
Reliance on Committee Committee Committee
current formed by 3 formed by one formed by one
transparency elected town elected town elected town
and members member per member per
accountability neighborhood neighborhood
practices and one and one
government link government link

Table 3: Alternative Policy Strategies, based on May’s (1981, p. 227) Feasible Manipulations
Approach
Alternative Possible Strategies
Business Attractive High

Small Slow but
Policy Variable almost as conve- commitment
steps steady
usual nience catalyzers
Expansion of
conservation No
Limited Wide Wide Moderate
education program intervention
in local schools
Implementation of
No
awareness No
interventi Wide Limited Moderate
documentaries and intervention
on
Q&As
Implementation of
community No
Limited
workshop round Limited interventi Moderate Wide
tables on
(“mesas de trabajo”)
Implementation of
neighborhood No
Limited Moderate Moderate Wide
involvement in sea intervention
turtle camps

Alternative Possible Strategies
Business Attractive High

Small Slow but
Policy Variable almost as conve- commitment
steps steady
usual nience catalyzers
Transparency
committees to No
Limited Moderate Wide Wide
monitor Nayarit’s intervention
OTSD’s funds use

Table 4. Goeller’s Scorecard of policy set alternatives and evaluation criteria, based on Patton
et al.’s (2016, p. 330) Matrix (Scorecard) Display Systems
Criteria Policy Alternatives
Business High
Evaluation Attractive Slow but
almost as Small steps commitment
criteria convenience steady
usual catalyzers
Poor: Fair: Good: Sufficient: Excellent:
likely to be limited likely to be may be would yield
detrimental to support from adequately moderately most
the policy Nayarit’s effective in effective and improvement
goal to OTSD to terms of adequate in in terms of
improve enhance the results for terms of effectiveness;
conservation performance policy goals. results for consequently,

Technical
rates for sea of current policy goals. it offers the
feasibility
turtles across conservation The emphasis most
the state of efforts may on time The promising
Nayarit yield arrangements minimally- scenario and
marginal to maximize disruptive may be able
No results that impact and timing of to attract the
improvement serve as minimize the organized most funding.
s are foundation need of efforts may
expected in constant result

Business High
usual catalyzers
terms of for later attendance attractive to The wide
effectiveness efforts. may result communities’ manipulation
for sea turtle attractive to members and of three out
conservation; Small communities’ facilitate of five
with no improvement members and ongoing variables can
additional s in number facilitate engagement. best promote
funding or differences ongoing long-term
organizationa are expected engagement. However, it changes in
l efforts, in terms of the expected the
conservation effectiveness; However, it improvement communities
is not small may not as in terms of by
expected to incentives are effective in ecological incorporating
be stimulated expected to terms of conservation conservation
further. increase results as a would be efforts to
interest and more minimal and everyday
involvement intensive tardy. routines;
marginally. alternative, however, this
and it may may be the
not attract as most

Business High
usual catalyzers
much funding disruptive
in alternative,
consequence. which could
compromise
its popularity.
Poor: Fair: Good: Fair: Excellent:
negative Limited implemen- Limited This is the
impacts for measures are tation scope measures are best
profitability expected to is expected to expected to alternative in
and financial yield limited. produce yield limited. terms of

Economic
investment in but tangible but economic and
and financial
local noticeable, environ- noticeable, financial
possibility
development profitability mental and profitability possibility, as
are expected across economic across it attracts the
from a economic benefits. economic most funding
business-as- sectors and sectors and and yields the
usual increase increase best results in
approach. attractiveness attractiveness terms of

Business High
usual catalyzers
for financial for financial ecological
Present investments. investments. improvement
measures are and tourism-
expected to sourced
deplete profits.
natural
resources, The
making constancy
recovery and and scope of
resiliency activities and
more costly the ensuing
overtime than restoration of
investing in natural
policy in the resources are
present, and expected to
negatively produce
impacting all tangible
local increases in
economic profitability

Business High
usual catalyzers
activities of touristic
based on activities and
tourism and entrepre-
primary neurship
sectors. opportunities
across local
economic
sectors.
Poor: Sufficient: Good: Sufficient: Excellent:
negative this This this This is the
affectations alternative alternative is alternative best
for equitable may likely to may alternative in

Political
development contribute to convey contribute to terms of
viability
and public public serious public political
acceptability perceptions commitment perceptions viability.
are expected of the state to sustainable of the state
with a fulfilling its development fulfilling its The
business-as- functions. functions. combination

Business High
usual catalyzers
usual from the of
approach. The limited, state. The limited, sustainability
but effective, but constant concerns,
Given shift toward The and ongoing, benefits
growing popular implemen- shift toward across
public disapproval tation scope popular economic
opinion of sea turtle is expected to disapproval sectors, state
concerns eggs produce of sea turtle commitment,
about poaching is tangible eggs and expected
environmenta likely to environ- poaching is transparency,
lism and the promote mental and likely to is likely to be
proactive role policy economic promote well-received
governments acceptability benefits, policy and foster
should have and respon- promoting acceptability ongoing
in siveness. approval. and respon- popular
sustainability, siveness. support and
this Limited participation.
alternative is operations Limited
likely to are expected operations

Business High
usual catalyzers
enhance to yield are expected
popular limited but to yield
discontent noticeable limited but
and pressure. benefits noticeable
across benefits
Current economic across
measures are sectors. economic
expected to sectors.
deplete
natural
resources,
negatively
impacting all
local
economic
activities
based on
tourism and

Business High
usual catalyzers
primary
sectors.
Sufficient: Excellent: Good: Good: Fair:
business-as- minimal costs limited limited the broad
usual does in terms of support to support to scope of this
not take any adminis- enhance the enhance the alternative is
additional trative performance performance expected to
toll on operability. of current of current require more
Adminis- institutional conservation conservation budget and
trative commitment, Limited efforts is efforts is staff
operability budget, or support to expected to expected to resources
staff enhance the facilitate facilitate than other
resources. performance budget budget alternatives,
of current allocation allocation making it less
However, conservation and staff and staff attractive and
with no efforts is capabilities. capabilities. less
organized expected to administra-
and extended facilitate

Business High
usual catalyzers
budget and budget As a more This tively
staff allocation extended— alternative feasible.
capabilities, and staff yet not may require
conservation capabilities, extensive— more As a
measures are while still approach, resources demanding
not expected advancing this other alternative, it
to be able to policy goals. alternative alternatives may
accommodate may require and be less complicate
growing Small more attractive or ongoing
interest and incentives are resources feasible, but institutional
demand in expected to other still doable, commitment
conservation present a alternatives from the and
efforts. more realistic and be less adminis- communi-
and attractive or trative angle cation among
convincing feasible, but while stakeholders.
case to obtain still doable, advancing,
support from the albeit
across all adminis- minimally
stakeholders, trative angle. and slowly,

Business High
usual catalyzers
particularly the policy
those in goal.
charge of
releasing
adminis-
trative
resources.
Evaluation labels hierarchy: Poor < Fair < Sufficient < Good < Excellent

Table 5. Brightman’s Alternative-Consequence Matrix, based on Goeller’s Scorecard
assessment*, based on Patton et al.’s (2016, p. 330) Matrix (Scorecard) Display Systems
Policy Alternatives
Business High
Evaluation Small Attractive Slow but
almost as commitment
criteria steps convenience steady
usual catalyzers
Technical
Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass
feasibility
Economic and
financial Fail Fail Pass Fail Pass
possibility
Political
Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass
viability
Administrative
Pass Pass Pass Pass Fail
operability
Overall grade Fail Fail Pass Fail Fail
*“Poor” and “Fair” scores in Goeller’s scorecard (see Table 4) are considered generally
insufficient and consequently graded as “Fail”; “Sufficient”, “Good”, and “Excellent” scores in
Goeller’s scorecard (see Table 4) are considered generally adequate to fulfill the policy objectives,
and are consequently graded as “Pass”. The overall grade is “Pass” only if the alternative obtains
“Pass” grades for all four criteria.


Table 6. Goals-Achievement Matrix (GAM), based on Goeller’s Scorecard assessment*, based
on Patton et al.’s (2016, p. 330) Matrix (Scorecard) Display Systems
Criteria Policy Alternatives Weighted Scores

Business High
Evaluation criteria Small Attractive Slow but
almost as commitment
criteria weight steps convenience steady
usual catalyzers
Technical (1 * 0.4) = (2 * 0.4) = (4 * 0.4) = (3 * 0.4) = (5 * 0.4) =

0.4
feasibility 0.4 0.8 1.6 1.2 2.0
Economic
and
(1 * 0.1) = (2 * 0.1) = (4 * 0.1) = (2 * 0.1) = (5 * 0.1) =
financial 0.1
0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.5
possibility
Political (1 * 0.2) = (3 * 0.2) = (4 * 0.2) = (3 * 0.2) = (5 * 0.2) =

0.2
viability 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.6 1.0
Adminis- (3 * 0.3) = (5 * 0.3) = (4 * 0.3) = (4 * 0.3) = (2 * 0.3) =

0.3
trative 0.9 1.5 1.2 1.2 0.6
operability
total
GAM 1.6 3.1 4.0 3.2 4.1
score
GAM
assessment
Policy
1st
alter- th th nd rd
5 best 4 best 2 best 3 best Best
native
alternative
rank
* Evaluation Ranking based on Goeller’s Scorecard assessment (see Table 4):
| Poor = 1, Fair = 2, Sufficient = 3, Good = 4, Excellent = 5 |
The total GAM score equals the sum of the corresponding column’s weighted scores.

Table 7. Fact-base indicators and sources for baseline and ongoing measurements,
based on Patton et al.’s (2016) operationalization process for policy monitoring and evaluation
Note: In this table, “Communities” refers to the population of those of Nayarit’s coastal towns to
be included in the implementation of the adopted policy.
Fact-base required measurements

Policy analyst’s suggested
Source
frequency of data collection
Baseline Ongoing Baseline Ongoing
Indicator
measurements measurements measurements measurements
Rate of turtle Design of counting On-site Monthly mean - Daily
return to local protocols based on tracking at and median tracking
beaches to spawn SWOT (2011) turtle camps prior to policy
guidelines implementation - Monthly
reports
Number of eggs Design of counting On-site Monthly mean - Daily
laid in Nayarit’s protocols based on tracking at and median tracking
beaches SWOT (2011) turtle camps prior to policy
reports
Number of eggs Design of counting On-site Monthly mean - Daily
hatched protocols based on and median tracking


Source
Indicator
SWOT (2011) tracking at prior to policy
guidelines turtle camps implementation - Monthly
reports
Number of Design of counting On-site Monthly mean - Daily
hatchlings protocols based on tracking at and median tracking
released into SWOT (2011) turtle camps prior to policy
ocean guidelines implementation - Monthly
reports
Estimations of Design of counting On-site Monthly mean - Daily
general sea turtle protocols based on tracking at and median tracking
populations SWOT (2011) turtle camps prior to policy
reports
Number of people INEGI (official Mexican data Data from Data from
in each institute) census count latest census latest census
community available at


Source
Indicator
employed in prior to policy time of data
conservation implementation collection
activities
Number of people INEGI (official Mexican data Data from Data from
in each institute) census count latest census latest census
community prior to policy available at
involved in town’s implementation time of data
conservation collection
activities
Communities’ Original survey designed and applied One month - Bi-monthly
trust in state- by client prior to tracking
implemented beginning
policy policy - Annual
implementation reports
Communities’ Original survey designed and applied One month - Bi-monthly
perception of by client prior to tracking


Source
Indicator
transparency in beginning
the use of policy - Annual
ecological implementation reports
conservation
funding
Communities’
public opinion Original survey designed and applied One month - Bi-monthly
regarding by client prior to tracking
acceptability of sea beginning
turtle eggs trade policy - Annual
implementation reports

Figures
Figure 1. Church-based Neighborhood Division for team projects in Lo de Marcos, Nayarit
Source: Parra Covarrubias (2021)

Baltazar Parra Policy Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Baltazar Parra Policy Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Baltazar Parra Policy Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“It takes a village”: policy to shift community values

to promote sea turtle conservation in Nayarit

Francia Baltazar Parra

1. Definition of the Problem ........................................................................................................... 3

2. Evaluation Criteria ...................................................................................................................... 5

2.1. Technical feasibility ............................................................................................................... 5

2.2. Economic and financial possibility ........................................................................................ 6

2.3. Political viability .................................................................................................................... 6

2.4. Administrative operability ...................................................................................................... 6

3. Identification of Alternative Policies .......................................................................................... 6

3.1. Policy Variables ..................................................................................................................... 7

i. Variable 1: Expansion of conservation education program in local schools ....................... 7

ii. Variable 2: Awareness documentaries and Q&As ............................................................. 8

iii. Variable 3: Community workshop round tables ................................................................ 8

iv. Variable 4: Neighborhood involvement in sea turtle camps.............................................. 8

v. Variable 5: Fund-use transparency committees .................................................................. 9

3.2. Policy Variables Manipulations ............................................................................................. 9

3.3. Alternative policy sets .......................................................................................................... 10

Francia Baltazar Parra page i of 55

4. Display and Distinguish among Alternative Policies ............................................................... 11

4.1. Qualitative assessment ......................................................................................................... 11

4.2. Binary assessment ................................................................................................................ 12

4.3. Pondered assessment ............................................................................................................ 12

4.4 Results of assessment approaches ......................................................................................... 14

5. Monitor and Evaluate Adopted Policy ...................................................................................... 14

5.1 Before-and-After Comparison ............................................................................................... 15

5.2 Cost-Benefit approach ........................................................................................................... 16

6. Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................................................... 17

Francia Baltazar Parra page ii of 55

List of tables and figures

194) Commonly Employed Evaluation Criteria .......................................................................... 22

Feasible Manipulations Approach ............................................................................................... 26

al.’s (2016, p. 330) Matrix (Scorecard) Display Systems ........................................................... 34

Table 5. Brightman’s Alternative-Consequence Matrix, based on Goeller’s Scorecard

Table 6. Goals-Achievement Matrix (GAM), based on Goeller’s Scorecard assessment*, based

on Patton et al.’s (2016, p. 330) Matrix (Scorecard) Display Systems ....................................... 46

Figure 1. Church-based Neighborhood Division for team projects in Lo de Marcos, Nayarit .. 51

Francia Baltazar Parra page iii of 55

concerns. These resources include sea turtle eggs.

technology to identify poachers (PROFEPA 2019); government marketing has launched

Environmental Protection Federal Office in collaboration with Wildcoast Organization and

properties (Mendoza 2018), and government-enforced protections programs in new development

Francia Baltazar Parra page 1 of 55

Nayarit (Zavala 2017).

rates of poaching pose a serious threat for this endangered species.

to consider communities and populations as mere recipients of government decisions, their

Francia Baltazar Parra page 2 of 55

immediately affected parties by the consequences of this issue.

1. Definition of the Problem

value of upholding preservation efforts beyond the short term.

Francia Baltazar Parra page 3 of 55

better employed through a preventive and active-care focus.

affects aspects of strategic development— including ecologic conservation, economic activities,

(Gobierno de Nayarit 2020).

Francia Baltazar Parra page 4 of 55

implement such policy.

indicators for measurement.

2.1. Technical feasibility

achieves improvements in sea turtle conservation in Nayarit coastal towns.