Guidelines for managers of protected areas are an important component of conservation policies, on a par with large-scale frameworks and vehicles for conservation funding. In line with the recent literature proposing evaluations of conservation actions or political strategies to improve them, here we use an innovative, hybrid methodology, based both on an interpretative approach anchored in social sciences and a quantitative literature review, to identify available frameworks for evaluating conservation guidelines. The main result of this analysis is that the relevant literature in conservation is sparse and heterogeneous, but a relevant encompassing framework is provided by the literature in decision sciences based on the policy analytics framework. This evaluation framework consists of three criteria: scientific credibility, operationality and legitimacy. We then implement a pilot application by evaluating guidelines currently used in France to support all of the actors involved in protected areas management. The study concludes that these guidelines are plagued by significant weaknesses that could be overcome by implementing relevant participatory processes.
