Like many mission-driven newsrooms, Mongabay is deeply concerned with whether our journalism makes a difference. We measure success not by the size of our audience but by what our stories enable—better governance, empowered communities, more resilient ecosystems, and the spread of innovations. Tracking those ripples has been a priority since Mongabay’s founding, and today it is the backbone of our impact strategy.

At the heart of this approach lies an evaluation framework that combines quantitative and qualitative indicators. Numbers tell one part of the story: the reach of our reporting, the scale of engagement, and the distribution of content across regions and platforms. But it is the qualitative layer that reveals whether a story has sparked change, informed governance, or empowered communities to defend their rights. Taken together, these metrics allow us to capture both the breadth and depth of journalism’s influence.

The quantitative view Our quantitative indicators resemble those of most media organizations: how many stories or videos we produce, how widely they are read or watched, the geography of our audience, and how often other outlets republish or rebroadcast our work. But because our benchmark is impact rather than ad revenue, we have invested heavily in tools to make these numbers more meaningful.

A custom-built impact tracking system aggregates data from multiple sources. Website analytics reveal where audiences are located and how they engage. APIs from social media platforms provide further context. Proprietary scripts add layers of analysis, such as identifying which users share our content and measuring the influence of those shares. This allows us to see not only that a story reached, say, 100,000 people but also that it was circulated by policymakers, scientists, or activists with the ability to turn information into action.

This system helps us avoid being misled by raw traffic. A spike in pageviews may matter less than a single download of an investigation by a congressional office or a republished story in a regional newspaper read by communities at the forest frontier. For Mongabay, the audience that matters most is the one that can use our reporting to shift outcomes on the ground.

Beyond the numbers Yet we have always known that impact cannot be reduced to analytics dashboards. Real-world change requires context. That is why Mongabay systematically documents qualitative outcomes such as policy shifts, law enforcement actions, funding for grassroots groups, new protected areas, or the suspension of damaging projects. These data points come from our network of contributors and editors, who revisit stories months and even years after publication. The process often surfaces not only evidence of impact but also new leads for future reporting.

Consider our investigation into United Cacao’s deforestation in Peru. The numbers captured the reach—millions of readers and widespread republication—but the qualitative tracking told the deeper story: permits revoked, the company delisted from the London Stock Exchange, and the destruction of nearly 100,000 hectares of Amazon rainforest averted. Or take the exposure of fraudulent carbon schemes in Latin America. Here, the most meaningful metric was not the clicks but the fact that Indigenous communities withdrew from exploitative contracts, protecting their rights across millions of hectares of rainforest.

Qualitative tracking also documents subtler forms of influence. A series on shark finning, for instance, did not merely generate headlines. It contributed to sanctions by the U.S. Treasury, changes in regional fisheries rules, and expanded investigations into global trafficking. Each of these outcomes was logged in our system, ensuring they were not lost in the news cycle but recognized as part of journalism’s contribution to accountability.

Why tracking matters Some may ask why a newsroom invests so much in evaluation. The answer is twofold. First, because transparency matters. As a nonprofit supported by philanthropy, Mongabay must show how donor dollars translate into outcomes. But more importantly, impact tracking sharpens our journalism itself. By studying which stories catalyze change and why, we learn how to design future reporting for maximum effect.

Patterns emerge. Stories that combine hard evidence with strong local voices tend to resonate with both policymakers and communities. Investigations that align with moments of political debate often travel further and faster. Data-driven exposés frequently become resources for NGOs and prosecutors, extending their influence beyond the news page. These insights feed back into editorial planning, allowing us to pursue topics most likely to shift practices or policies.

A living archive of change The result is a living archive of journalism’s consequences, accessible not only for annual reports or donor briefings but also for our own accountability. It reminds us that impact is not always immediate or dramatic. Sometimes it unfolds quietly, in the adoption of best practices by land managers, in the decisions of investors to withdraw from risky ventures, or in the empowerment of local communities to defend their rights. Each of these ripples is logged, valued, and connected to the reporting that helped set it in motion.

For Mongabay, impact tracking is not a side project. It is central to how we define success. In an era of shrinking newsrooms and rising disinformation, it underscores the conviction that journalism still matters—not because it fills screens with words but because it equips people with knowledge that shapes the future of the planet.