Comparative analysis of four international methodologies used to evaluate protected area management effectiveness : a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Environmental Management at Massey University, New Zealand
Loading...
Date
2016
DOI
Open Access Location
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Massey University
Rights
The Author
Abstract
Around the world, protected areas have been created with the objective of
conserving natural and cultural heritage. To monitor how effectively this
objective is being achieved, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its
Programme of Work on Protected Areas (PoWPA) proposed that periodical
evaluations of the management of protected areas should be conducted. These
evaluations have the objective of monitoring improvements or deteriorations of
the management of the PAs and their conservation outputs and outcomes. They
can be carried out using different methodologies, widely referred to as protected
area management effectiveness evaluations (PAMEs). In 2000, the International
Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) established a framework to guide the
creation of PAME methodologies. Based on this framework several
methodologies have been developed around the world. However, they all focus
on evaluating different aspects of management, producing different types of
results. Previous studies describing these methodologies have been conducted,
but an in depth comparative analysis has not yet been published.
This thesis seeks to conduct a comprehensive analysis to compare the
fundamental characteristics of four of the most commonly used PAME
methodologies: the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT), the Rapid
Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM), the
Enhancing our Heritage Toolkit (EoH), and the Site Consolidation Scorecard
(SCS). Content analysis was used to compare and contrast these four PAME
methodologies. Categories based on the IUCN´s framework for the creation of
PAMEs were used to organise and compare the indicators used by each
methodology. The quantities and characteristics of the indicators were assessed
to identify their viability, similarities and differences. The aim was to build upon
the current literature to inform potential users about the different approaches
these methodologies take, and to help them make an informed decision about
which one to use.
It was found that the four methodologies evaluate different themes,
elements and criteria thereby generating different types of information regarding
protected area management. They also use different levels of detail in their
indicators and need different sources of information to be completed. It was also
found that all four methodologies are weak in assessing the delivery of protected
area objectives, they predominately use ordinal approaches to assess indicators,
and lack comprehensive weighted scoring systems. It is argued that these shared
shortcomings provide scope for potential improvements in future versions of
these methodologies or new PAMEs. These results add new information to
existing knowledge about the similarities and differences between
methodologies and their individual strengths and weaknesses. It is argued that
developing a better understanding of the unique characteristics of individual
PAMEs may contribute to a better realisation of their full potential.
Description
Keywords
Protected areas, Management, Evaluation