Management effectiveness evaluation in

protected areas – a global study

Second edition – 2010
Fiona Leverington, Katia Lemos Costa, Jose Courrau, Helena Pavese, Christoph Nolte,
Melitta Marr, Lauren Coad, Neil Burgess, Bastian Bomhard, Marc Hockings
“ The goal of parks and protected areas
is to contribute as much as possible
to the range of choices available to
the children of the future. They cannot
choose the impossible or dream the
unimaginable’.
(Hales, 1989)
”

Citation
Fiona Leverington, Katia Lemos Costa,
Jose Courrau, Helena Pavese, Christoph Nolte,
Melitta Marr, Lauren Coad, Neil Burgess,
Bastian Bomhard, Marc Hockings (2010)

Management effectiveness evaluation in protected

areas – a global study. Second edition 2010.

The University of Queensland

Brisbane AUSTRALIA

The 2010 Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (www.twentyten.net)

is a global GEF funded initiative to provide the best information on
biodiversity trends and assess progress towards the CBD 2010 Target.
The Management effectiveness evaluation in protected areas –
a global study – second edition 2010 forms part of the 2010
Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (www.twentyten.net), a global
initiative to communicate trends in biodiversity and assess progress
towards the CBD 2010 target.
The 2010 Biodiversity Indicators Partnership (www.twentyten.net) is
a CBD-mandated initiative bringing together a suite of biodiversity
indicators, allowing for a more comprehensive and consistent
monitoring and assessment of global biodiversity, with a view to
measuring progress towards the CBD's target to reduce the rate of
biodiversity loss by 2010.
Management effectiveness evaluation in
protected areas – a global study
Second edition 2010

Fiona Leverington, Katia Lemos Costa, Jose Courrau,

Helena Pavese, Christoph Nolte, Melitta Marr, Lauren Coad,
Neil Burgess, Bastian Bomhard, Marc Hockings

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study

 Preface by Nikita (Nik) Lopoukhine, Chair,
IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas
Protected areas on land and sea are the cornerstones of international efforts to conserve
biodiversity. These areas, including national parks, protected landscapes and countless other
reserve types, are increasingly recognised for the numerous benefits they bring to
communities. As I travel around the globe in my role as Chair of the World Commission on
Protected Areas (WCPA), I am continually impressed at the efforts of protected area staff
and supporters in all countries – from richest to poorest – to ensure that these areas can
deliver benefits for conservation, and to local communities, to visitors from near and far, and
to the broader society.

As the world faces some of its greatest challenges through climate change, protected areas’
values are ascending. They help to mitigate the extent of climate change by storing carbon in
forests and grasslands, soils and marine areas that would otherwise be emitted into or stored
in the atmosphere. Protected areas also assist in adaptation to climate change: they are a
source of fresh water and other environmental goods and services while also buffering the
effects of natural disasters.

We are aware that these important roles can be compromised by inadequate management.
The extreme is where protected areas are nothing more than ‘paper parks’ – existing on
maps and country lists but no more protected from threats than surrounding areas. The
community of protected area specialists, conservation groups, international agencies have
responding to these concerns, and have striven to ensure that management is continually
improving. As part of this effort, assessments of Protected Area Management Effectiveness
(PAME) have now been conducted in more than 140 countries. These assessments have been
included in the Protected Areas Program of Work and the associated targets developed by
the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD). They are conducted in many different ways
and by many different groups, but have the common ultimate aim of improving protected
area management and accountability.

Information from these assessments is vital as part of a cycle of management and of

continuous improvement. Globally, this information provides an understanding of the state
of protected areas, the major threats they face, and the priorities for action and to guide
investments accordingly.

The Global Study of Management Effectiveness was initiated and supported by the WCPA,
along with NGO and academic partners, to bring together the numerous and diverse sets of
information collected at local level and to interpret the information to assist us at
international level. This has been a big undertaking and has only been delivered with the
cooperation of countless people from across the global protected area network.

The team that has put together this Study need to be recognized for their contribution to
protected area management around the world. The findings of this study will assist me, the
WCPA and our partners to determine future priorities to improve protected area
management. I know that it will also help protected area managers and others working at
local level to find and share information about management effectiveness.

Nik Lopoukhine
Chair, IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | i

Contents
Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................iv
Executive summary .................................................................................................................vi
Chapter 1 The Global Study into management effectiveness evaluation........................1
1.1 Why the Global Study into management effectiveness evaluation was undertaken..............1
1.2 Partners and relationships.......................................................................................................1
1.3 Why we need management effectiveness evaluation .............................................................3
1.4 Current approaches to assessing effectiveness: PAME and other evaluation studies...........5
1.5 Development of PAME ..........................................................................................................7
1.6 The Global Study approach and study methods.....................................................................9
Chapter 2 Progress in evaluating management effectiveness .......................................10
2.1 What studies have been undertaken? ...................................................................................10
2.2 What is evaluated: fields, aspects and indicators .................................................................14
Chapter 3 Analyzing diverse information common reporting format, minimum data
fields and common threat framework ...................................................................................18
3.1 Analysis across methodologies ............................................................................................18
3.2 Transforming data into the common reporting format.........................................................24
3.3 Analysis of data ....................................................................................................................26
3.4 Cautions and constraints.......................................................................................................28
3.5 What do the headline indicator and overall average scores represent?................................29
Chapter 4 Trends in protected area management ..........................................................30
4.1 How effective is protected area management?.....................................................................30
4.2 Which aspects of management are most effective? .............................................................31
4.3 Which factors are most strongly linked to effective management? ....................................36
4.4 Is management improving over time? ..................................................................................38
4.5 Which are the most common threats to protected areas? .....................................................40
Chapter 5 Conclusions and recommendations: what can we learn? ...........................46
5.1 Progress in PAME ................................................................................................................46
5.2 Conclusions and recommendations about protected area management ..............................46
5.3 Conclusions and recommendations about evaluating management effectiveness ..............49
5.4 Principles for methodologies in PAME ...............................................................................50
References ..............................................................................................................................52
Appendix One: List of methodologies reviewed in the Global Study .................................67
Appendix Two: Summary of regional patterns .....................................................................70
Appendix Three: Checklist for good evaluation methodologies ..........................................83

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | ii

Table of Figures
Figure 1: Growth of the world's protected areas .............................................................................3
Figure 2: The management cycle and evaluation of protected area management (from Hockings et
al., 2006).................................................................................................................................8
Figure 3: Proportion (by number) of the protected areas of each country where assessments have
been recorded ...................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 4: Proportion (by area) of protected areas of each country where assessments have been
recorded............................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 5: Application of PAME methodologies in different regions (data entered by October
2010) ................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 6: Representation of the proportion of indicators coded according to the IUCN‐WCPA
Framework elements for a sample of methodologies. (see also the European report for
analysis of European methodologies) ................................................................................... 15
Figure 7: Representation of the proportion of indicators coded according to dimensions of
management for a sample of methodologies........................................................................ 16
Figure 8: Numbers of indicators mapped onto matrix considering both the elements and the
dimensions of management ................................................................................................. 16
Figure 9: From many to a few: the process of developing a common reporting format and summary
data set. ............................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 10: Meaning of the PAME scores ........................................................................................ 29
Figure 11: Distribution of average scores for 'most recent' assessments........................................ 30
Figure 12: Average scores for headline indicators from 'most recent' studies ................................ 32
Figure 13: Trends for repeat assessments showing methodologies................................................ 38
Figure 14: Average scores for headline indicators in repeat studies from Latin America, showing
changes from first to most recent assessments (in descending order of change magnitude .. 39
Figure 15: Frequency with which 'level one' threats are mentioned in 227 PAME studies.............. 40
Figure 16: PAME assessments by country in Africa (UN region) recorded on the Global Studies
database............................................................................................................................... 71
Figure 17: Overall average scores for African assessments ............................................................ 71
Figure 18: PAME assessments by country in Asia (UN region) recorded on the Global Studies
database (note data has been analysed for only some of these) ........................................... 73
Figure 19: Overall average scores for Asian PAME assessments..................................................... 73
Figure 20: PAME assessments by country in Europe (UN region) recorded on the Global Studies
database (note data has been analysed for only some of these) ........................................... 76
Figure 21: Overall average scores for European assessments ........................................................ 77
Figure 22: PAME assessments by country in LAC (UN region) recorded on the Global Studies
database (note data has been analysed for only some of these) ........................................... 79
Figure 23: Overall average scores for LAC assessments.................................................................. 80
Figure 24: PAME assessments by country in Oceania (UN region) recorded on the Global Studies
database (note data has been analysed for only some of these) ........................................... 81
Figure 25: Overall average scores for assessments in Oceania ....................................................... 81
Figure 26: Number of assessments recorded in North America ..................................................... 82

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | iii

Acknowledgements
This report has been compiled with the use of information and assistance given freely and
generously by many sources, including country agencies, conservation organisations and
individuals.
Financial support for the Global Study from 2005 -2008 was generously provided by WWF
International, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the University of Queensland. From
2008-2010 financial support was given through the Biodiversity Indicator Partnership funded
by the Global Environment Facility. Assistance and cooperation from IUCN World
Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA), UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre
(WCMC) and the World Bank has been greatly appreciated.
Support from the InterAmerican Biodiversity Information Network (IABIN) enabled us to
focus efforts on the more complicated management effectiveness evaluation scene in Latin
America.
The German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety
through BfN helped to fund a study of European management effectiveness which was
conducted jointly with the University of Griefswald and yielded much valuable information
for that region.

Individual supporters of management effectiveness initiatives and the Global Study have
included Jamie Ervin, Jason Spensley and Jef Parrish (TNC), Sue Stolton and Nigel Dudley
(Equilibrium) Leonardo Lacerda (formerly WWF), Alexander Belokurov and Liza Higgins-
Zogib (WWF), Geoffroy Mauvais (IUCN), Stuart Butchart (Birdlife International), Kathy
MacKinnon and Tony Whitten (both formerly of the World Bank), Josep-Maria Mallarach
and Charles Besancon (UNEP-WCMC). In the European study, there was major support
from Suzanne Stoll-Kleeman (University of Griefswald) and Gisela Stolpe, among others .

Allan Lisle from University of Queensland has been responsible for the ‘translation tool’
and assistance in statistical analysis: his help has been very valuable.

For comparative information about methodologies, acknowledgement is given to:

 Marc Stern – for his comparative study of marine management effectiveness systems
(2006)
 Stéphane Pauquet – comparative analysis of three methodologies applied in Bolivia
(Pauquet 2005)
 Sue Stolton, for compiling a number of case studies presented in the revised version of
the IUCN WCPA guidelines on management effectiveness (Hockings et al. 2006)
 PowerPoint presentations from the regional workshop on management effectiveness in
the Andes (Cracco 2006) and all authors of the report comparing existing tools in the
region (Cracco et al. 2006).
 Participants in workshops on management effectiveness held in Melbourne, Australia in
February 2002, and in Durban at the Vth World Parks Congress, 2003.
 Anne Kettner for compilation of information on European methodologies.

Special thanks for input, assistance and review of individual methodologies and for provision
of data and information about assessments are given to Jamie Ervin, Alexander Belokurov,
Sue Stolton, Dan Salzer, Stéphane Pauquet, Sandra Valenzuela, Angela Martin, Helder de
Faria, Maria Padovan, Arturo Ignacio Izurieta, Juan Chang, Bernard Pfleger, Dan Paleczny,
Kathy Rettie, ‘Wildtracks’ of Belize, Ronaldo Weigand Jr, Vinod Mathur. Mark Zimsky,
Kathy MacKinnon, Surin Suksuwan, Carmen María López, Hag Young Heo, Adriana Dinu,
Alexia Wolodarsky, Jonathon Smith, Chris Dickenson, Rita Mabunda, Thomas Barano,
Chris Mitchell, Peter Stathis, NSW Dept of Environment and Conservation, Natalia Flores,
Hildegard Meyer Cristian-Remus Papp, David Butterworth, Dave Chambers, Mervi
Heinonen, Gabriele Niclas, Nicole Schrader, Rauno Väisänen. Carlo Franzosini, Genti

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | iv

Kromidha, Jill Matthews, Lucia Naviglio, Françoise Bauer, Gordana Beltram, Ian Burfield,
Ramona Cherascu, Ioli Christopoulou, Lina Daugeliene, Abdulla Diku, Olivia Favre,
Claudine Fenouillet, Lincoln Fishpool, Carlo Franzosini, Pierluca Gaglioppa, Laura García
de la Fuente, Victor Manuel García Díaz, Ivana Grujicic, Viktoria Hasler, Mervi Heinonen,
Erik Hellberg, Roelof Heringa, Andrea Hoffmann, Joëlle Huysecom, Jana Kus Veenvliet,
Gilles Landrieu, , Mike McCabe, Hildegard Meyer, Marta Mugica de la Guerra, Charmaine
Muscat, Bo Nilsson, Cliona O'Brien, Olaf Ostermann, Cristian-Remus Papp, Nevena
Piscevic, Howard Platt, Martina Porzelt, Zeljka Rajkovic, Johan Rova, Christian Schlatter,
Melle Schol, Nicole Schrader, Jesus Serrada, Andrej Sovinc, Daniela Talamo, Anabela
Trindadi, Bart van Tooren, Katharina Vuksic and Andreas Weissen.
At the University of Queensland, international interns Sophie Vonk, Erika Díaz Pascacio and
Greta Nielsen (also University of Griefswald) gave very valuable assistance especially in the
analysis of reports. We are also grateful to UNEP-WCMC’s Protected Area Programme,
especially Charles Besançon, and Arianna Granziera, for assisting with matching of
assessments with the WDPA.
All photos are by the authors unless otherwise acknowledged.

This study would not be possible without the people around the world who work to record
management effectiveness in the field and kindly share their information.

Above: Recording protected area values, Expedition National Park, Australia

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | v

Executive summary
The Global Study into management effectiveness evaluation was conducted between late
2005 and 2010. In cooperation with many people across the world, we aimed to strengthen
the management of protected areas by compiling the existing work on management
effectiveness evaluation, reviewing methodologies, finding patterns and common themes in
evaluation results, and investigating the most important factors leading to effective
management. The project was supported by WWF International, the Nature Conservancy and
the University of Queensland, and worked under the auspices of IUCN World Commission
on Protected Areas. Objectives and findings of the Global Study included the following:

Objective 1: Record, collect and collate available information from assessment systems,
individual park assessments and other evaluations of management effectiveness that
have been undertaken in protected areas. Develop a system for integration of available
management effectiveness information into the World Database on Protected Areas
(WDPA).

The Global Study has recorded over 9000 assessments of protected area management
effectiveness evaluation (PAME) from 140 countries. Original data was obtained and
analysed for about half of these assessments, and in addition over 50 evaluation reports have
been reviewed. We developed a database which is being linked to the WDPA. A website to
enable viewing of the methodologies and study locations has been developed by the World
Conservation Monitoring Centre in partnership with the Global Study.

While we are sure that there are some assessments that we did not locate and include in the
Global Study database, we are reasonably confident that we have included the majority of
assessments that have been completed and in the public arena. Given this, the gap between
completed assessments and the 2010 target under the Convention on Biological Diversity
Programme of Work on Protected Areas of assessing 30% of the world’s protected areas is
substantial. Assessments recorded in the Global Study represent just 6% of the more than
100,000 protected areas included in the WDPA although 35 countries have achieved at least
the 30% target and 63 countries have assessed more than 15% of their protected areas. On an
area basis, progress is even more impressive with 67 countries meeting the 30% target and
99 countries assessing more than 15% of the area under protection. This represents
significant progress over the position of just a few years previously and there is evidence of
many more countries commencing ambitious programs of evaluation of management
effectiveness of their protected area systems in all regions of the world.

Objective 2: Gain an understanding of most appropriate methodologies for different

situations and protected area systems.
Over 70PAME methodologies have been reviewed, and these are summarised in a
supplementary report to the original version of this document (Leverington et al. 2008) and
an overlapping report for Europe (Leverington et al. 2010a). The most widely used
methodologies across the world are RAPPAM and the Tracking Tool, while other
methodologies, including the Parks in Peril Site Consolidation Scorecard, PROARCA and
ParksWatch Parks Profiles, have been applied extensively in Latin America and the
Caribbean. Depending on the purpose, assessments are conducted at different scales and
levels, from detailed site-level studies such as those using the Enhancing our Heritage
methodology, to broad system-level assessments such as the study of Finnish protected
areas. Guidelines and a checklist for choosing and adapting methodologies are presented in
this report. People undertaking assessments are encouraged to use or modify existing
published methodologies where possible, and to maintain maximum consistency over time.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | vi

Objective 3: Gain as wide a picture as possible of status of protected areas, key threats,
factors influencing effectiveness of management and necessary changes to management
strategies and approaches.
Protected areas have been assessed using many different methodologies. In order to gain an
overall picture, we developed a ‘common reporting format’, defining headline indicators
which represent the major themes and elements of the thousands of indicators used in the
various assessment systems. Data was then ‘translated’ into the common reporting format,
combined into one database and analysed.

Though the available data does not represent a random or representative sample of protected
areas, and the method for translating the data inevitably loses some richness of information,
interesting patterns can be seen. The average score of 4151 assessments (representing the
most recent in each protected area using each methodology), was 0.53 on a zero to one scale.
This indicates that management leaves much to be desired, with 13% of the assessed
protected areas ‘clearly inadequate’ (scoring less than 0.33) 62% scoring between 0.33 and
0.67 – in the range we defined as ‘basic management’ and 24% in the ‘sound management’
range (over 0.67).

The average was seen to vary significantly according to the Human Development Index
(HDI), with protected areas from the low-HDI countries scoring on average one-third lower
than those from high HDI countries.

Scores for the overall average and for individual headline indicators increased over time for
those protected areas where repeat assessments were conducted. This pattern was
particularly clear where assessments were linked to programs to consolidate and strengthen
protected area management, as in the Parks in Peril program.

There were clear patterns in the strengths and weaknesses of management, and these patterns
were consistent across most methodologies and regions Many protected areas lack basic
requirements to operate effectively, and do not have an effective management presence.

Self-assessed outcome indicators, relating to achievement of objectives, values conservation

and effect on the community, also scored relatively well, indicating that even where ‘inputs’
and many ‘processes’ are weak, protected areas were still performing a valuable function for
conservation and in the community. Where possible, these assessments need to be further
verified with incorporation of other objective measures, backed by targeted monitoring, to
increase their rigour.

Threats to protected areas are still numerous and serious. Threats discussed in assessment
reports were classified according to the system developed by the Conservation Measures
Partnership. The most commonly nominated threats in most regions are hunting, killing and
collecting animals; logging and wood harvesting; gathering non-timber forest products;
recreational activities; and the management of adjacent lands. These show some consistency
across regions, though differences are seen in countries like Australia, where invasive
species and fire management are more serious threats.

Objective 4: Analyse most useful and commonly used indicators for assessing
management effectiveness of protected areas (i.e. what indicators are most reliable
predictors of overall effectiveness).
We analysed the correlations between individual headline indicators and the average mean
(with corrected item-total correlations). Overall management effectiveness was most
strongly linked to adequate infrastructure, equipment and information; good administration;
communication, adequacy of information, staff training and good management planning.

There was low correlation with the highest-scoring indicators (park gazettal and tenure
security) and with outcome measures of both values and community impacts.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | vii

We also correlated all indicators with outcome measures. The condition of protected area
resources were most strongly correlated with the support and constraint of the external
environment (a measure of context), and with inputs and processes including research and
monitoring, staff numbers and training, effectiveness of administration, natural resource
management and communication. The effect of the protected area on the community was
most strongly linked with communication, involvement of communities and programs of
community benefits

The study shows that though an

overall measure of effectiveness
could be estimated quite
successfully from just ten headline
indicators, this measure would not
be highly correlated with outcomes,
which need to be assessed
separately.

We have drawn upon these findings

to recommend that:
Above: Hat Noppharat Thara - Mu Ko Phi Phi
• Management agencies, partners National Park , Thailand.
and funders continue to cooperate
to help protected areas achieve minimum basic standards. Protected areas in low HDI
countries are most in need of assistance to improve management effectiveness.
• Provision and maintenance of adequate facilities, equipment and infrastructure needs to
be improved, as these factors score poorly and are very strongly liked to effective
management.
• Protected area establishment and design – the first building blocks of the systems – are
relatively effective in most places, with serious problems recorded in a few. However, it
is essential that national governments provide better policy support for tenure resolution
where this remains an issue, and for appropriate development planning and control
around protected areas across all regions.
• A greater effort should be put into communication, community involvement and
programs of community benefit, as these factors show very strong links to effective
management and outcomes.
• A boost to the specific program areas of resource management and research and
monitoring is also required, especially to achieve conservation of protected area values.
• Visitor management stands out as another area of management which needs to be
improved for those areas where tourism is a significant function of protected areas, as it
scores poorly in most.
• Managers need to build better pro-active management capacity, linking management
planning, actions, research and monitoring, and evaluation. All these factors scored
poorly, are correlated with effective management overall, and were regularly mentioned
in reports as needing attention.

The international cooperation and the sharing of information and experiences throughout this
project have been greatly appreciated and it is hoped that this spirit will continue to
contribute to better management and evaluation in the future

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | viii

Chapter 1 The Global Study into management
effectiveness evaluation
1.1 Why the Global Study into management effectiveness
evaluation was undertaken
The aim of the Global Study into protected area management effectiveness was to strengthen
management of protected areas by pulling together the good work on this subject, helping the
conservation community to share experiences and to find common themes in the study
results. With the cooperation of numerous partners, we listed, and where possible assembled
and analysed, all studies of management effectiveness that we could locate around the world,
drawing on information from the conservation community, NGOs and park management
agencies.

This aimed to help us understand more about what factors are essential to good management,
and to recommend ways to maximize the benefits obtained from conducting evaluations of
management. Sharing of experiences and lessons learned makes good sense. There can be
much wasted effort if organisations start from the beginning in developing evaluation
methodologies, ignoring the “lessons learned from a long history of efforts to develop useful
and practical methods of monitoring and evaluation approaches in conservation and other
fields” (Stem et al. 2005).

The stated objectives of the Global Study were to:

1. Record, collect and collate available information from assessment systems, individual
park assessments and other evaluations of management effectiveness that have been
undertaken in protected areas.
2. Gain an understanding of most appropriate methodologies for different situations and
protected area systems.
3. Gain as wide a picture as possible of status of parks, key threats, factors influencing
effectiveness of management and necessary changes to management strategies and
approaches.
4. Analyse most useful and commonly used indicators for assessing management
effectiveness of protected areas (i.e. what indicators are most reliable predictors of overall
effectiveness).
5. Develop a system for integration of available management effectiveness information into
the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA).

1.2 Partners and relationships

The Global Study was co-funded by the University of Queensland, The Nature Conservancy
(TNC) and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), under the auspices of the IUCN World
Commission for Protected Areas (WCPA), and worked in close cooperation with other
organisations including the World Bank, Global Environment Facility (GEF) and United
Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC).
The second phase of the project, conducted with UNEP-WCMC, was part of the
Biodiversity Indicator Partnership and funded by the Global Environment Facility.
Additional information from Europe was obtained through a study funded by the German
Government (BfN) and conducted in partnership with the University of Greifswald (Nolte et
al. 2010)

The Global Study was developed in response to the World Parks Congress Recommendation
5.18; Durban Action Plan Targets 5-7; and the specific goals and activities outlined in the
CBD Protected Areas Programme of Work.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 1

PAME is a requirement of the CBD Program of Work on Protected Areas
In 2004, the CBD Conference of the Parties ‘COP7’ (Convention on Biological Diversity
2004) adopted a Programme of Work on Protected Areas in recognition of the fact that
“… existing systems of protected areas are neither representative of the world’s
ecosystems, nor do they adequately address conservation of critical habitat types, biomes
and threatened species… and (that) … insufficient financial sustainability and support,
poor governance, ineffective management and insufficient participation pose fundamental
barriers to achieving the protected areas objectives of the Convention on Biological
Diversity.”

The Programme established a specific goal (4.2) and related activities relating to PAME:

Goal 4.2 - To evaluate and improve the effectiveness of protected areas management

Target: By 2010, frameworks for monitoring, evaluating and reporting protected areas management
effectiveness at sites, national and regional systems, and transboundary protected area levels adopted
and implemented by Parties.

Suggested activities of the Parties

4.2.1 Develop and adopt, by 2006, appropriate methods, standards, criteria and indicators for
evaluating the effectiveness of protected area management and governance, and set up a related
database, taking into account the IUCN-WCPA Framework for evaluating management effectiveness,
and other relevant methodologies, which should be adapted to local conditions.

4.2.2 Implement management effectiveness evaluations of at least 30 percent of each Party’s

protected areas by 2010 and of national protected area systems and, as appropriate, ecological
networks.

4.2.3 Include information resulting from evaluation of protected areas management effectiveness in
national reports under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

4.2.4 Implement key recommendations arising from site- and system-level management effectiveness
evaluations, as an integral part of adaptive management strategies

These are ambitious targets, and many countries are now striving to establish or increase
their capacity to evaluate management effectiveness
throughout their protected area systems. International
initiatives, such as IABIN, are assisting in this effort by
providing coordination and helping to share experiences
and techniques across jurisdictions.

2010 Biodiversity Indicator Partnership includes PAME

The 2010 Biodiversity Indicator Partnership (2010BIP)
is a global initiative to track progress towards the
United Nations 2010 biodiversity target to significantly
reduce the rate of biodiversity loss. Twenty-nine
indicators have been selected to assess progress towards
this target. Management effectiveness is one of three
indicators relating to protected areas.

The PAME Global Study provides the mechanism for

the 2010BIP to populate this indicator, and the data
arising from this project has been incorporated into the
United Nations Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 (GBO3)
Report (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological
Diversity 2010) (for details of the indicators see
http://gbo3.cbd.int/)

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 2

1.3 Why we need management effectiveness evaluation
Since the second half of last century, protected areas across the world have increased
dramatically in area and size (see Figure 1) as most countries have developed protected area
systems as a core strategy to protect biodiversity and environment. The many values of
protected areas for biodiversity conservation, protection of cultural heritage, maintenance of
vital ‘ecosystem services’ and provision of a range of socio-economic benefits have been
well recognised , and the roles of protected areas in mitigating and adapting to climate
change are increasingly important (Dudley et al. 2010).

Cumulative growth in total area protected * Excludes 52,932 protected areas with no
year of establishment
Cumulative growth in number of protected
areas
18

Total area protected (millions of square kilometres )

70,000
16

60,000
14

50,000 12
Total number of protected areas

10
40,000

8
30,000
6
20,000
4

10,000
2

0 0
1872 1891 1901 1911 1921 1931 1941 1951 1961 1971 1981 1991 2001
Year of establishment © UNEP-
WCMC,
Source: World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), a joint project between UNEP and IUCN, managed and hosted by 2009
UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), 31st January 2009.
Please contact protectedareas@unep-wcmc.org for more information.

Figure 1: Growth of the world's protected areas

However, using protected areas as a key strategy for biodiversity conservation is reliant on
the assumption that they can protect their values for the foreseeable future. Society is making
investments of money, land, and human effort into protected area acquisition and
management and into specific intervention projects. The community, people investing in
protected areas, and protected area managers need to know if these investments are sound.
Questions include:
• Are protected areas effectively conserving the values for which they exist?
• Is management of these areas effective and how can it be improved?
• Are specific projects, interventions and management activities achieving their
objectives, and how can they be improved? (Leverington and Hockings 2004)

The need to evaluate protected area management effectiveness has become increasingly well
recognised internationally over the past ten years, as we have seen in both developed and
developing countries that declaration of protected areas does not always result in adequate
protection (Ervin 2003a; Hockings and Phillips 1999; Hockings et al. 2000). As the total
number of protected areas continues to increase, so too do calls for proper accountability,
good business practices and transparency in reporting (Hockings et al. 2006). In addition, as
other strategies for ‘off-park’ conservation and multi-use reserves have developed, and as
concern for rural poor and Indigenous rights has increased, there has been more questioning
about the role and effectiveness of protected areas (for example, see the records of the IVth

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 3

and Vth World Parks Congresses). This has led to a greater need to be able to demonstrate
the usefulness of protected areas and the extent to which they contribute to or detract from
community well-being (Southworth et al. 2006; Timko and Satterfield 2008).

This need for protected area effectiveness evaluation echoes calls to measure, evaluate and
communicate the effectiveness of conservation strategies more generally (Saterson et al.
2004; Sutherland et al. 2004) (Ferraro and Pattanayak 2006) ). It has been brought into a
sharper focus by the increasing threats to protected areas through climate change, and debate
about whether protected areas remain relevant in periods of rapid biophysical and social
change (Dunlop and Brown 2008; Hannah et al. 2007; Shadie and Epps 2008).

Evaluation is also critical for adaptive management. We live in a world where we experience
and can expect dramatic changes – in the biophysical world, the community, the economy
and the way we govern ourselves. As global change accelerates, we need to be able to show
to what extent protected areas are functioning as an effective strategy for conservation.
Managers need to understand what works and what does not, so they can build on the best
ideas and practices. Evaluation of management effectiveness is a vital component of this
responsive, pro-active style of protected area management. Through evaluation, both positive
and negative experiences can be used as opportunities for learning, and continual
improvement can be combined with anticipation of future threats and opportunities.

Staff frequently do not find the time to reflect on management practices under the pressure of day to
day operations. Management effectiveness evaluation workshops provide the opportunity for this
information sharing and discussion and yield rapid improvements in management practices.

Above: Discussing management at Bwindi National Park, Uganda

As discussed above, there are many reasons why countries, non-government organisations,
protected area managers, donors and others want to assess management effectiveness. These
different purposes may require different assessment systems and varying degrees of detail.
Broadly speaking, management effectiveness evaluation can:
• enable and support an adaptive approach to management of protected areas;
• assist in effective resource allocation between and within sites;
• promote accountability and transparency by reporting on effectiveness of
management to interested stakeholders and the public;
• help involve the community, build constituency and promote protected area values.
(Hockings et al. 2006; Leverington and Hockings 2004).

Assessments might contribute to all of these, but an evaluation that is useful for one purpose
(e.g. accountability to a donor or treasury) may not be useful for another (e.g. on-ground
management).

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 4

1.4 Current approaches to assessing effectiveness:
PAME and other evaluation studies
Effectiveness of protected areas can be considered at four different, complementary levels.

First level: coverage of protected areas

At the first level, many studies have been conducted to evaluate the coverage of protected
area systems (Chape S et al. 2005; Jenkins and Joppa 2009) and the extent to which
biodiversity is represented within these systems (see, for example Rodrigues et al. (2004)).
National and international targets for protected areas often relate to the proportion of land
and sea within protected areas, and most countries track their progress towards such targets,
but this does not consider how effective such coverage is in achieving conservation.

Second level: broadscale outcomes

At the second level, a number of meta-studies in recent years have investigated relationships
between protected areas and large-scale environmental impacts such as forest clearing,
primarily using remote sensing data on forest cover changes over time (Joppa et al. 2008;
Nagendra 2008; Nagendra et al. 2004). Protected areas are considered to be an effective
conservation strategy if there are no gross ecological changes or destruction of habitat, or if
these changes are less in protected areas than in comparison sites.

These studies provide essential and objective information about conservation success at a
broad level, but have significant limitations. They rely on a limited suite of indicators and
may not detect other important changes, such as the loss of animal populations which lead to
the “half-empty forest” syndrome (Redford and Feinsinger 2003; Stoner et al. 2007)
Measuring gross changes through remote sensing is more difficult in non-forest
environments such as grasslands or marine parks. Level two studies raise a number of
questions: would the protected areas be likely candidates for clearing anyway? If forests are
not cleared, to what extent is this due to good management? Has the protection of some areas
led to more clearing in other places (Andam et al. 2008; Ewers and Rodrigues 2008)?

While this second level of assessment is important in countries where major large-scale
threats operate, it is not particularly relevant in many more developed countries where it is
unlikely that gross alienation or developments will take place within a protected area.

Third level: protected area management effectiveness assessments (PAME)

The third level, using a quite different approach, comprises the many thousands of
assessments of protected area management effectiveness (often known as PAME) conducted
by protected area agencies or conservation non-government organizations since the 1990s
(Cifuentes et al. 2000; Hockings 2003; Rivero Blanco and Gabaldon 1992). These studies
are directed to one or more of four basic purposes: improving protected area management,
increasing accountability,
communicating with the public, and
assisting in prioritization of resourcing Management effectiveness evaluation (PAME)
is defined as
(Leverington and Hockings 2004). Over “the assessment of how well the protected
the past ten years, many countries have area is being managed – primarily the extent to
made significant efforts to develop and which it is protecting values and achieving
apply PAME methodologies to assess goals and objectives. The term management
the effectiveness of their protected area effectiveness reflects three main themes:
sites and systems. Funding agencies • design issues relating to both individual
including the World Bank, Global sites and protected area systems;
Environment Facility and Worldwide • adequacy and appropriateness of
Fund for Nature (WWF) now require management systems and processes; and
such evaluations for all project • delivery of protected area objectives
including conservation of values.”
interventions that involve protected (Hockings et al. 2006).
areas (Belokurov et al. 2009).

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 5

PAME approaches and methodologies are discussed further below. They usually consist of a
combination of measures including assessments of resourcing, planning, management
processes and output. Outcome measures are often also included in these assessments, but
they are often qualitative estimates by staff or other experts, and are sometimes challenged as
subjective and lacking in evidence.

The information in this report is mostly derived from PAME (third level) studies.

Fourth level: detailed monitoring

The fourth level of assessment consists of detailed monitoring and reporting on the condition
and trend of specific protected area values such as animal populations, forest condition,
cultural values and socioeconomic impacts. Methodologies for directing, undertaking and
reporting on such detailed studies in a systematic way to support adaptive management have
been developed by groups such as the Nature Conservancy (Parrish et al. 2003) and park
management agencies in Canada and South Africa (Timko and Innes 2009).

Where it is available, detailed

monitoring gives more
confidence to judgments about
outcomes that are made in
management effectiveness
assessments.

Left: Recording birds in Virua

National Park, Brazil

Ideally, such detailed information should underlie judgments about outcomes that are made
in third-level PAME assessments. However, in many cases the information is not available
and, expert opinion from protected area staff, local people or scientists is often used.
Unfortunately, many monitoring and research projects on protected areas are not
incorporated into adaptive management and do not provide useful feedback loops into
management. Combining targeted fourth level (monitoring) studies with third level
(management effectiveness) information is an efficient way to overcome this issue.

This paper primarily draws information from third level PAME assessments, which in some
cases draw on detailed monitoring data. We used raw data and reports from a range of
different methodologies to investigate some questions of concern to the conservation
community: the extent to which PAME evaluations have been undertaken, the level of
management effectiveness in places which have been assessed, and factors which appear to
be most highly correlated with effective management.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 6

1.5 Development of PAME
The importance of evaluation in effective management and project cycles has been
progressively recognised in many fields of endeavour, including health and international
development as well as conservation over the past fifteen to twenty years. New
methodologies and approaches have developed in a number of fields, with many common
issues and some productive exchange of ideas across the sectors (Foundations of Success et
al. 2003). Protected area management involves biophysical, cultural, socio-economic and
managerial factors as well as numerous stakeholders, so monitoring and evaluation must
draw on tools from a wide range of disciplines. Approaches such as participatory rural
appraisal and project cycle management have offered many useful ideas.

The need to develop ‘tools and guidelines’ to ‘evaluate the ecological and managerial quality
of existing protected areas was recognised in the Bali Action Plan adopted at the end of the
Third World Congress on National Parks (the Bali Congress) in 1982. The IVth World Parks
Congress in 1992 identified effective management as one of the four major protected area
issues of global concern and called for IUCN to further develop a system for monitoring
management effectiveness of protected areas. Following these congresses, the issue of
management effectiveness of protected areas began to appear in international literature and
particularly within the work and deliberations of WCPA.

The development and application of PAME since that time has been strengthened by an
interaction of theoretical and practical interests:
• Academic study, including indicator and scoring development, methods of analysis,
field trailing of different systems, and validation of field studies;
• Work by conservation organizations (NGOs) attempting to evaluate programs, create
greater awareness, and strengthen management; and
• Work by government protected area management agencies to conduct internal
evaluations.

Latin America has been particularly rich in terms of debate and development of PAME.
Progress in that region was reviewed by Cifuentes et al. (2000), and since then there has
been further development of methodologies and extensive application of some systems. The
history of some of the countries and methodologies is discussed in Cracco et al. (2006).

The earliest known published material on PAME included an assessment in Venezuela

(Rivero Blanco and Gabaldon 1992) and an academic work on indicator selection and
scoring (de Faria 1993). In 1996 a Task Force was formed within the IUCN WCPA and in
2000 it published a Framework and guidelines for assessing the management of protected
areas (Hockings et al. 2000). At the same time as the Task Force was preparing these
guidelines, a number of other groups and individuals around the world were addressing the
same issue. By 2000, several methodologies existed and were being applied around the
world.

A second, substantially revised edition of the IUCN-WCPA Framework was released in

2006 (Hockings et al. 2006). The Framework is not, in itself, a specific methodology for
assessing effectiveness of management but a framework for developing assessment systems
and guidance for the practice of evaluation. It is based on the idea that protected area
management follows a process with six distinct stages, or elements (Figure 1):
• it begins with reviewing context and establishing a vision for site management (within
the context of existing status and pressures),
• progresses through planning and
• allocation of resources (inputs), and
• as a result of management actions (process),
• eventually produces goods and services (outputs),
• that result in impacts or outcomes.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 7

 Figure 2: The management cycle and evaluation of protected area
management (from Hockings et al., 2006)

Evaluation that assesses each of the elements of Figure 2 (and the links between them)
should provide a relatively comprehensive picture of management effectiveness. The
Framework can be used to develop rapid evaluation systems, assessing management of an
entire system of protected areas, rapid assessments of individual sites or detailed on-going
assessments of management of a site based on extensive monitoring programs. One benefit
of using the Framework approach is that all these assessments can be conceptually linked,
using a common set of broad criteria and a similar approach to evaluation.

Within the four major purposes for evaluation outlined in Section 1.1, assessments differ in
methodology, geographic, topical scope and level of detail. The scope of the assessment can
vary from a specific topic, such as community relations, to all aspects of management. The
level of detail can vary from rapid assessments to detailed evaluation.

In addition, every protected area system has individual circumstances and needs, and
assessment exercises are often tailored to suit these. Often, especially in earlier years, people
had undertaken a number of assessments before they became aware of other approaches, and
there was a natural reluctance to abandon methods which had been applied and accepted in
the field. For all these reasons, the community of practice involved with management
effectiveness evaluation has been reluctant to adopt or recommend a single methodology,
preferring to work within the general IUCN-WCPA Framework.

Since the first publication of a draft of this Framework in 1997, it has been used to develop
specific management effectiveness evaluation systems which are being applied around the
world. They include broad, system-wide assessments such as the WWF RAPPAM system
(Ervin 2003b) and systems developed in Finland (Gilligan et al. 2005), Catalonia in Spain
(Mallarach and Varga 2004), New South Wales in Australia (NSW Department of
Environment and Conservation 2005) and Korea (Korean National Parks Service and IUCN
2009) rapid, site-level systems built around questionnaires or scoring aimed at being applied
in multiple sites, such as the World Bank/WWF Tracking Tool (Stolton et al. 2007 ) and a
related version developed for marine protected areas (Staub and Hatziolos 2004); and
detailed, site level monitoring and assessment programs (Hockings et al. 2007; Paleczny et
al. 2007).

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 8

1.6 The Global Study approach and study methods
We followed the following steps in the Global Study, with additional information and
analysis being obtained through the regional studies for Latin America and the Caribbean
and Europe.

Review of methodologies and development of principles

• Collection and review of all known management effectiveness methodologies through
literature research, information networks, and appeals for information;
• Correspondence with developers and users of methodologies where possible;
• Review of documents which discuss, analyse and compare methodologies;
• Review of evaluation literature and of recorded experiences from expert workshops and
discussions.

List of assessments
• Compilation and data entry of all known assessment sites with any available metadata
and methodology;
• Cross-checking against World Database on Protected Areas or reports for metadata.

Development of common reporting format and minimum data set

• Analysis of different layers and terminologies of headings, subheadings and indicators
used in the various methodologies, according to the IUCN-WCPA Framework and other
dimensions;
• Development of a ‘classification grid’ showing indicators: topics were defined by
reviewing questions and indicators used in over 40 different methodologies, and by
looking at a logical division of management responsibilities;
• Distillation of possible combinations to commonly reported ‘headline indicators’ which
represent the range of indicators used;
• Discussion and workshop with colleagues; development of proposed set of indicators
for ‘minimum data set’; and
• Coding of indicators according to closest match with common reporting format.

Entry and translation of raw data 1

• Compilation of raw data where possible: this is in a range of different formats.
• Development of a method and a ‘translation tool’ in Excel to distil results from many
different methodologies into common reporting format headline indicators.

Analysis of results
• Calculation of means, standard deviations and item-corrected correlations for headline
indicators for all results.

Collection and analysis of studies

• Collection and review of reports of evaluation studies from around the world;
• Analysis of observations and conclusions for common patterns, including strengths and
weaknesses of management and common threats.

This report has drawn on analysis of both raw data and studies to define patterns and
correlations of protected area management.

1
More details of this methodology are discussed in Section 3.2.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 9

Chapter 2 Progress in evaluating management
effectiveness
2.1 What studies have been undertaken?
To date we have identified 9250 specific PAME assessments from 6720 protected areas,
derived from 54 different methodologies. Figure 3 and Figure 4 indicate the approximate
proportion of protected areas in each country where PAME assessments have been recorded
to date. These maps have been derived by comparing our records with protected areas on the
World Database on Protected Areas.

Figure 3: Proportion (by number) of the protected areas of each country where assessments
have been recorded

While we are sure that there are some assessments that we did not locate and include in the
Global Study database, and others where we were not able to obtain spatially accurate data,
we are reasonably confident that we have included the majority of assessments that have
been completed and in the public arena. Given this, the gap between completed assessments
and the 2010 target under the Convention on Biological Diversity Programme of Work on
Protected Areas of assessment of 30% of the world’s protected areas is substantial.

Assessments recorded in the Global Study represent just 6% of the more than 100,000
protected areas included in the WDPA. However, 35 countries have achieved at least the
30% target and 63 countries have assessed more than 15% of their protected areas. On an
area basis, progress is even more impressive with 67 countries meeting the 30% target and
99 countries assessing more than 15% of the area under protection. This represents
significant progress over the position of just a few years ago. There is also evidence of many
more countries commencing ambitious programs of evaluation of management effectiveness
of their protected area systems in all regions of the world.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 10

Figure 4: Proportion (by area) of protected areas of each country where assessments have been
recorded

The Biodiversity Indicator Partnership is compiling information about the global extent and accuracy of
a range of indicators, including protected area coverage and management effectiveness, and is
attempting to understand some of the linkages between them. The overall picture is of declining
biodiversity, but some indicators of interventions are encouraging (Butchart et al. 2010; Hoffmann et al.
2010).

Above: BIP global partnership meeting 2010

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 11

Figure 5 shows the application of PAME methodologies across different regions. A list of
these methodologies, including their full names and references where available, is included
in Appendix One.

Oceania
Northern America
La4n America and the Caribbean
Europe
Asia
Africa

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Total number of assessments recorded
AEMAPPS Africa rainforest study Asturias INDESPAR
Belize MEE Birdlife IBA Brazil 1999
Catalonia MEE Central African Republic CI tracking tool
Ecuador MEE Enhancing our Heritage European diploma
European SCS French Na4onal Parks Galápagos MEE
GBRMPA outlook report German Nature Parks GOBI survey
India Tiger Reserve Assessment Italy quality park project Korea MEE
Korea METT Marine tracking tool MARIPA‐G
MEE Indian MEMS METT‐RAPPAM crossover
MPA MEE Netherlands quality test NPAPA England
NSW SOP PA Consolida4on index Padovan 2002
PANPARKS Parks Canada Parks profiles
PIP Site consolida4on PROARCA/CAPAS Qld Rapid Assessment
RAPPAM Scenery matrix Schrader German BR
Scotland LNR SIMEC Stockholm BR Survey
Tasmanian WHA Tracking tool USA SOP
Valdiviana Venezuela Vision Victorian SOP
West Indian Ocean MPA Wetland tracking tool WWF/CATIE

(numbers represent each assessment in individual protected areas for each methodology – where
there are multiple studies for one site these are counted also)
Figure 5: Application of PAME methodologies in different regions (data entered by
October 2010)

The most commonly applied methodologies we recorded were:

• RAPPAM (Ervin 2003b) which measures effectiveness across a group of protected areas
in a region or country and has assessed over 1600 protected areas in 53 countries
• The Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (Stolton et al. 2007 ) which has been
applied more than 1300 times across over 1100 reserves in 87 countries and is a
requirement for all Global Environment Facility projects on protected areas
• ProArca/CAPAS scorecard evaluation (Corrales 2004b) which has been applied in 156
protected areas in six Central American countries and ( over 675 assessments overall)
• Assessments of Important Bird Areas (BirdLife International 2006) : 546 assessments
over 364 IBAs in 114 countries (only those IBAs with more than 80% represented in
protected areas were recorded in our database)
• Parks in Peril Site Consolidated Scorecard (The Nature Conservancy Parks in Peril
Program 2004) which was applied in 56 protected areas over 15 Latin American
countries (325 assessments) as part of the Parks in Peril aid program.
• New South Wales State of Parks evaluations (NSW Department of Environment and
Conservation 2005) which have assessed all reserves (650+) in one Australian state three
times.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 12

PAME story: Management effectiveness assessment in West Africa
Geoffroy Mauvais, IUCN-Papaco

Management effectiveness of protected areas is becoming an increasing concern to the

world of conservation. IUCN-Protected Areas program (IUCN-Papaco) based in IUCN
regional Office in West and Central Africa (IUCN-Paco) has developed a project on this
topic, with the support of French Global Environment Facility. This project aims at improving
management of protected areas in the region and their capacity to fulfil their missions and,
consequently their results. It covers 17 countries of sub-Saharan West Africa, from Chad to
Cap Verde, a subregion where most protected areas do not achieve yet their goals of
conservation and/or development. The project will end in October 2010.

Systems or site level assessments are based on the global methodology developed under
the coordination of the World Commission on protected areas of IUCN (WCPA). The project
adapted this framework to the subregional context, then trained a team of West African
evaluators, and carried out multiple pilot evaluations. To date, nine country systems have
been evaluated, as well as three networks of sites (marine protected areas, RAMSAR sites
and World Heritage sites) concerning around 120 sites using methodologies such as
RAPPAM, PAMET or EoH. These evaluations have allowed IUCN-Papaco to bring targeted
technical support on duly selected sites after assessments and to develop targeted training
courses to respond to the main issues identified. The project also gives particular attention to
capitalization and a synthesis of all assessments is currently under construction.

The project management is ensured by the Regional office of IUCN, based in Ouagadougou
and a scientific and technical Committee (STC), composed of WCPA members and other
relevant experts, has been created at the beginning of the project. Protected areas manager
are committing voluntary to a “quality” approach. In the long term, this should allow the
identification of best practices, examples to be followed, and the recognition of good
management (certification) and would thus ensure the continuity of the project (already
supported by new donors).

More information on www.papaco.org).

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 13

2.2 What is evaluated: fields, aspects and indicators
As discussed earlier, some PAME methodologies have been designed or adapted using the
IUCN-WCPA Framework (such as RAPPAM and the Tracking Tool), while others, such as
the Site Consolidation Scorecard, predate it but refer to it in more recent analyses (Martin
and Rieger 2003).

Where methodologies specifically use the IUCN-WCPA Framework, the primary basis for
organising indicators is the cycle of management. By working with the Framework elements,
methods pay systematic attention to all parts of the management cycle, including context
issues (values, threats and external influences on management), outputs (achievement of
work programs, products and services) and outcomes (achievement of objectives, changes in
values, and effects on the community). Some of these elements can be under-represented in
methodologies which focus on ‘input’ and ‘process’ indicators.

Where methodologies have been designed using different organisational frameworks, the
IUCN-WCPA Framework can still be applied, by considering how the methodology relates
to the IUCN-WCPA Framework and ‘coding’ the questions and indicators appropriately. For
example, a recent assessment in Belize used a different system, but the analysis included
reporting according to the Framework elements.

Perhaps the most useful approach, used in several recent methodologies, organises indicators
according to both the Framework elements and the more commonly nominated fields of
management. Results can easily be analysed either way.

A grid matrix represents a convenient way

to map indicators from a variety of PAME
systems. As we have seen above, the
elements in the IUCN-WCPA Framework
(the rows in this grid) make sense but when
we review the evaluation instruments that
have been applied, the series of questions
often cut another way. For example, they
look at biodiversity conservation, weed
management or recreation management, or
at a capacity issue like staffing, and follow
that thread down the columns from context
and planning through input, process and
output to outcome. We refer to this as the
dimensions of management, and these form
Though questions are framed differently, many
methodologies have some indicators relating to the columns in the indicator grid. The row
the protection of threatened species. and column headings are listed in Table 1and
a small portion of the matrix is shown in
Above: Hyacinth macaw, Brazil Table 2.

This matrix provides a way of understanding the diversity and similarities of indicators more
easily, by ranging the elements and criteria of the IUCN-WCPA Framework against
dimensions of park management. Most questions/ indicators can be fairly easily mapped into
a cell on the grid, though sometimes a question covers two or more cells. In many cases,
multiple questions will be asked about one cell – for example, the ‘biodiversity value’ cell.

This matrix can be used to map or to generate indicators for studies at any level from very
general to very detailed. During the process of the Global Study, over 2000 indicators were
mapped to understand the most common questions asked in evaluations. This analysis was
then used to help generate a ‘common reporting format’, which will be described in the next
section.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 14

Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the results of mapping indicators according to the
matrix.

Figure 6: Representation of the proportion of indicators coded according to the IUCN-WCPA

Framework elements for a sample of methodologies. (see also the European report for analysis
of European methodologies)

Sharing experiences in
management and in evaluation
has been critical in developing
and improving PAME
methodologies and
approaches. Non-government
organisations have played a
key role in training and in
facilitating the exchange of
information across protected
areas and countries.

Left: Asia-PNG Workshop on

the Management
Effectiveness Tracking Tool
held in Bali

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 15

Figure 7: Representation of the proportion of indicators coded according to dimensions of
management for a sample of methodologies.

Figure 8: Numbers of indicators mapped onto matrix considering both the elements and the
dimensions of management

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 16

Table 1: Headings for the indicator matrix

ELEMENTS AND CRITERIA DIMENSIONS OF MANAGEMENT

(ROWS in the grid) ( COLUMNS in the grid)
Context conserving natural integrity
values and significance biodiversity
threats/issues/pressures ecosystem function
stakeholder attitudes and relations landscape and geology
influence of external environment
Planning conserving cultural/ spiritual and aesthetic
legal status/ gazettal cultural (material)
tenure issues cultural (other)
Adequacy of legislation spiritual
system design aesthetic/ scenic
site design
management planning socio-economic, community engagement and
recreation
Inputs recreation
staff sustainable resource use
funding economic
equipment and facilities science and educational use
information community
Process human health and well-being
capacity
governance, high-level management and leadership capacity to manage/ governance
policy development staff capacity
administration, work programming and internal
organisation information availability
evaluation governance and administration
maintenance of infrastructure, facilities, equipment legal framework
staff training equipment and facilities
human resource management enabling policies
relating to people budget capacity
law enforcement enabling social, legal and civil environment
community involvement
communication, education and interpretation
community development assistance
sustainable resource use - management and audit
visitor management
managing the resource
restoration and rehabilitation
resource protection and threat reduction
research and monitoring
Outputs
achieving work program
results/outputs
Outcomes
achieve objectives
condition of defined values
trend of defined values
effect of protected area on community

Table 2: Section of the indicator matrix showing where indicators might lie
spiritual and aesthetic
landscape and geology

conserving cultural/

ELEMENTS AND
conserving natural

ecosystem function

CRITERIA
cultural (material)

cultural (other)
biodiversity

DIMENSIONS OF
integrity

MANAGEMENT
spiritual

Context
values and significance X
threats/issues/pressures
stakeholder attitudes and relations X
influence of external environment X
Inputs
staff X X
funding X

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 17

Chapter 3 Analyzing diverse information common
reporting format, minimum data fields and
common threat framework
3.1 Analysis across methodologies
The previous sections have shown the diversity of methodologies and indicators applied
across the world. Though this diversity has many advantages, it means that it is difficult to
look across the different studies to find out common patterns and issues for management in
the region. The need to undertake broader-scale analysis has been increasing in recent years,
with information particularly required by international funding and policy organisations as
they wish to answer questions such as:
• What are the major strengths and weaknesses of management in a region or across a
particular resource type or designation (e.g. World Heritage areas)?
• What major threats at protected area and system level need attention?
• Which are the priority areas (both spatially and in terms of scope or topic) requiring
additional funding or technical assistance?

One aim of the Global Study was to find a mechanism to enable cross-analysis of data from
methodologies using a variety of different indicators.This mechanism has two components:
‘matching’ the topic of each indicator to a common ‘headline indicator’; and establishing a
‘translation’ system so that the different scoring systems are incorporated in a consistent
way. It is hoped that the mechanism used in the Global Study provides a meaningful way to
meet these requirements.

A particular challenge in cross-

analysing data is
understanding and evaluating
the condition of diverse
environments across the world.

Left: Mangrove ecosystem

Protected area level common reporting format

For the purpose of cross-analysis, a ‘common reporting format’ has been developed. This
is a ‘bottom-up’ compilation of ‘headline indicators’, which was derived from reviewing
over 2000 questions and indicators from more than 40 different protected area management
effectiveness evaluation (PAME) methodologies. The ‘headline indicators’ were selected by
reviewing the matrix headings listed in Table 1. The aim was to include as many as possible
of the topics covered by the different methodologies in a logical list.

The common reporting format is intended to:

 represent most indicators found in any PAME methodology;
 provide a platform for cross-analysis of results from PAME studies using different
methodologies, while maintaining as much information as possible;
 be flexible, with the potential to add more ‘headline indicators’ in the future.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 18

It should be noted that the common reporting format is NOT intended to represent a required
set of information (see the minimum data set below), nor to be a questionnaire to be filled
out by park managers or agencies. It is merely a list of topics included in the range of
evaluation methodologies, used so that analyses can be undertaken.

A simple translation tool’ mechanism (using Excel) for converting data from diverse
methodologies and scoring systems into the common reporting format and into the minimum
data set has been developed by the Global Study. Indicators in the principal methodologies
have been allocated to appropriate ‘headline indicators’, and this has enabled cross-analysis
of all data available to date. This tool can if desired be built into spreadsheets or databases
generated by individual studies, so that only information rolled up into the common
reporting format needs to be forwarded to coordinating agencies. Other reporting and
analysis can continue through individual methodologies in the usual manner.

A number of international meetings on PAME also proposed that a smaller summary

indicator set should be defined. This would be a set of information which all countries or
protected area systems are encouraged to collect to fulfil obligations such as CBD reporting.
As with the common reporting format, it should be noted that the minimum data set is
merely a list of topics included in the range of evaluation methodologies, used so that
analyses can be undertaken. It is not intended to be a new methodology or questionnaire to
be filled out by park managers or agencies, but methodologies may be altered to ensure that
they include assessment of the fields mentioned.

For convenience and to maximise the ability to utilise information already being collected,
the team associated with the Global Study and the WCPA have worked to develop a
summary indicator set which meets the needs of international agencies but also would be
able to be derived from the common reporting format.

As shown in Figure 9, a two-stage process enables e global reporting on a set of 45 indicators or a

summary set of 14 indicators, using data collected from the variety of existing methodologies. The
common report headline indicators at these two levels are shown in Table 3.

Diverse evaluation systems Thousands of indicators

Classification and grouping of Translation of indicators

indicators

‘Headline indicators’ of 45 indicators

common reporting format

Summary indicator set (used 14 indicators

for WDPA and BIP reporting)

Mean score

Figure 9: From many to a few: the process of developing a common reporting format and
summary data set.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 19

Table 3: Common reporting framework headline indicators. Starred indicators are qualitative
Common reporting format headline
Element Summary indicator set
indicators
Context Value and significance Level of significance
Five important values*
Threats and constraints Level of extent and severity of threats
Trend of threats
Five important threats*
Constraint or support by external political and
civil environment
Planning Site design and establishment Park gazettal
Tenure security and issues
Appropriateness of design
Marking and security/ fencing of park boundaries
Adequacy of p.a. legislation and other legal
controls
Management planning Management planning
Input Management resources Adequacy of current funding
Security/ reliability of funding
Adequacy of infrastructure, equipment and
facilities
Adequacy of staff numbers
Information base Adequacy of relevant, available information for
management
Process Internal management systems Staff morale
and processes Effectiveness of governance and leadership
Model of governance*
Effectiveness of administration including financial
management
Management effectiveness evaluation
undertaken
Adequacy of building and maintenance systems
Staff/ other management partners skill level
Adequacy of staff training
Adequacy of hr policies and procedures
Visitor management Character of visitor facilities and services*
Visitors catered for and impacts managed
appropriately
Level of visitor use
Natural and cultural resource Threat monitoring
management systems Natural resource and cultural protection activities
undertaken
Sustainable resource use - management and
audit
Research and monitoring of natural/ cultural
management
Stakeholder relations Communication program
Involvement of communities and stakeholders
Appropriate program of community benefit/
assistance
List community benefit/ assistance program*
Law enforcement Adequacy of law enforcement capacity
List (up to) five main issues for law enforcement*
Output Achievement of work program Achievement of set work program
Results and outputs have been produced
Outcome Conservation outcomes Proportion of stated objectives achieved
Conservation of nominated values -condition
Conservation of nominated values - trend
Community outcomes Effect of park management on local community

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 20

As an example, some indicators relating to natural and cultural resource management are
listed in Table 4.
Table 4: Example of indicators relating to natural and cultural resource management processes
Methodology Indicator examples
AEMAPPS Percentage of the area protected with management of some competent
authority
Catalonia MEE Fire prevention plan and management
EOH Cultural/ historical resource management: Are the site’s cultural
resources adequately managed?
Korea METT Historic and cultural resources management
Parks profiles Are there any active conservation projects?
Scenery matrix Physical barriers for fire prevention
Scenery matrix Protection Programme
Tracking Tool Is access/resource use sufficiently controlled?
Tracking Tool Is the protected area adequately managed (e.g. for fire, invasive
species, poaching)?
Tracking Tool There are active programmes for restoration of degraded areas within
the protected area and/or the protected area buffer zone

These indicators would be grouped under the common reporting format headline indicator
(one of 45): ‘Natural resource and cultural protection activities undertaken’ and in the
summary data set indicator (one of 14): ‘Natural and cultural resource management systems’.

System-wide assessment common reporting format

As well as compiling information about site-level assessments, there is also a need to
evaluate how well entire systems of protected areas are being managed. Under the CBD
requirements, countries have committed themselves to develop frameworks for reporting on
management effectiveness at national and regional level as well as at site level.

Robust and effective management is needed at system level where critical financial
disbursement and management, protected area acquisition, wide-scale community
engagement, and overall planning and policy initiatives usually occur. For national or
regional agencies, these important activities are often concentrated at central office or district
headquarter level. Support for site-level management from these centres is also vital. PAME
systems which consider these indicators as well as those concerned with individual protected
area management will gain a better measure of progress in protected area management on a
country and system-wide scale.

Some methodologies, notably RAPPAM (Ervin 2003b), are intended to assess protected
areas over an entire protected area system, and include a number of questions which relate to
the design and management of the system as a whole. Such a study was undertaken in Brazil
in 2006, where RAPPAM was applied at a system level, assessing a total of 246 federal
protected areas (Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis
and WWF-Brasil 2007). A valuable study conducted in Finland (Gilligan et al. 2005;
Heinonen 2006) was aimed at the system level, and while the assessors visited a number of
parks and considered information relating to individual protected areas, all the indicators are
at system level (this was combined with a RAPPAM study to look at site-level indicators).
Other assessments of protected area systems include a similar study in Lithuania (Ahokumpu
et al. no date) and an extensive assessment under way in India (Vinod Mathur pers. comm.).
System level assessments have recently been conducted or are underway in Korea, Colombia
and Thailand and it is likely that more studies at this scale will be conducted in the future.

In other studies, data is gathered at the protected area level, but reports available to the
public ‘roll up’ the data and present results at the system or group of protected areas level. In
this way, the evaluation is presented as an evaluation of the system as a whole rather than of

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 21

individual areas. Sometimes agencies are reluctant to publicly discuss evaluation results at
protected area site level and are more likely to share and transparently report on results at
system level.

Evaluation of a protected area system usually consist of two types of indicators:

 Indicators aimed at protected area level, reported at system level; and
 Indicators aimed at system/ agency level.

Management planning is an indicator used in almost all PAME methodologies and is one of the
‘headline indicators’ of the common reporting format. It can be reported at both protected area level
(existence and quality of management plans) and at system level (planning systems and policies,
manuals, and the system-wide proportion of protected areas with management plans).

Above: PAME workshop discussing management planning indicators, Colombia

Table 3 lists common indicators that have been used for reporting at the system level.
Additional indicators ‘rolled-up’ or analysed from protected area level reporting can be
added, but this Table outlines the minimum recommended fields.

Table 5: Common Reporting Format at system level (note: other indicators can also be ‘built up’
by summarising site-level results). Shaded fields are most easily obtained from combining site-level
data
Element 'Headline indicators' Comment
International cooperation and support Includes commitment to international
treaties, international aid, participation in
regional/ cross-boundary initiatives
Supportive national government policies, laws Includes policies for cooperative
and mechanisms for protected are management conservation management

CONTEXT Extent of integration of protected area policy with

other sectoral policies
Overall level and trend of threats to protected Build up from PA results
area system
Most common threats to protected area system Build up from PA results
Level of community support for protected area
system

PLANNING A systematic and clearly articulated design/ Principles for reserve selection, gap
vision for establishment of a representative analysis conducted
protected area system

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 22

 Element 'Headline indicators' Comment
Adequacy of current protected area system to
protect diversity of ecosystems, biodiversity and
natural processes across the landscape
Adequacy of current legislation Evaluation of system-wide legislative basis.
Could also include complementary
legislation if relevant
Use of appropriate range of IUCN PA categories
and governance types to achieve conservation
and community well-being goals
Proportion of parks with management plans Build up from PA results
Extent to which protected areas in the system
are linked by sympathetic land use/ remnant
habitats on other lands
Adequacy of system-wide management vision/
strategic plan
Sufficient financial resources for management of
the PA system; stability of funding

INPUT Sufficient human resources for PA system Staff numbers and training/ capacity,
including support staff and system
managers
Adequate information and information systems Includes overall system-wide knowledge of
to manage the PA system biodiversity, cultural issues
Effective system of governance, leadership and Unlikely to be measured by internal audit
administration at system-wide level
Monitoring and research programs for threats
and values of PA system
Participation/ involvement of stakeholders at System-wide advisory committee;
system level transparency of agency dealings etc
Management effectiveness evaluation e.g. Regular state of parks assessments

PROCESS Training and capacity-building program for staff Planned system-wide training initiatives and
support for staff
Effective enforcement of protected area laws at e.g. existence of support staff for
all levels enforcement
System-wide program of communication,
education and stakeholder relations
Adequacy of system-wide policies, standards
and guidelines for PA management
Areas of greatest strength and weakness in From analysis of PA results
management
Extent to which system plan has been achieved
OUTPUT
over previous period
Protection of cultural heritage
Protection of natural integrity/ biodiversity
OUTCOME Expectations of visitors generally met or May be linked with question below
exceeded
Overall impact of/ perception of protected area e.g. As shown by national/ regional
system on communities community attitude surveys in relation to
their opinions and experiences with PAs

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 23

3.2 Transforming data into the common reporting format
Information in this section is extracted from Leverington et al. (2010b)

‘Matching’ the indicators

In order to combine and analyse information from studies using different methodologies, the
first step is to ‘match’ indicators from each methodology with the ‘headline indicators’ listed
in the common reporting format. In the Global Study database, the indicators for each system
are coded according to their logical matching with one (or in some cases two) of the headline
indicators from the common reporting format. This matching has to be done individually for
each methodology and variation in indicators. Some subjectivity is inevitable in this
matching so the work has all been done or checked by one person to maximize the
consistency. Once the indicators are matched with the common reporting format headline
indicators, scores from different systems can also be ‘translated’.

Where there is more than one indicator matching to a headline indicator, the scores are
divided by the number of applicable questions in order to derive a score for the headline
indicator. However, in some cases one indicator is clearly more important than another.. For
this reason, each of the n individual indicators (Sj) was allocated a weight (Wj) between zero
and one in terms of its contribution to a headline indicator (I) such that the sum of weights
was equal to 1.

For example, in the Tracking Tool there are five questions matching the headline indicator
‘management plan’. The question ‘Is there a management plan and is it being implemented’
is a key question here and is therefore weighted more heavily than the other, supplementary
questions. An sample of questions from the Tracking Tool is shown in Table 6.

Table 6: An example of the matching and weighting process for some indicators from the
Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (Stolton and others, 2007) across to the headline
indicators
Question Headline indicator Weight
Park gazettal (legal
Does the protected area have legal status? establishment) 1
Are inappropriate land uses and activities (e.g. Adequacy of law enforcement
poaching) controlled? capacity 0.5
Adequacy of law enforcement
Can staff enforce protected area rules well enough? capacity 0.5
Is there a management plan and is it being
implemented? Management plan 0.5
Have objectives been agreed? Management plan 0.125
The planning process allows adequate opportunity for
key stakeholders to influence the management plan Management plan 0.125
There is an established schedule and process for
periodic review and updating of the management plan Management plan 0.125
The results of monitoring, research and evaluation are
routinely incorporated into planning Management plan 0.125

In most cases, the allocation of weightings was very simple due to the low numbers of
indicators relating to the common reporting format in each methodology. In more
complicated cases, allocating the weightings has been undertaken through a very simplified
version of an Analytical Hierarchy Process, with collaborative decision-making (Saaty
1995).

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 24

Note that for some headline indicators there are no contributing indicators, so they are left
out. Where a question has not been answered, the weightings are recalculated so they still
add up to one.

The nature of the data and converting it to a common scale

The next challenge in cross-analysis is posed by the fact that a range of different rating and
scoring systems are used in PAME methodologies. However, most are variations on the
theme of defining the ideal situation for each indicator and measuring the progress towards
achieving that ideal. Thus the lowest score represents no progress, negligible progress or a
very poor situation, and the highest represents the ideal (or in some methodologies the
achievable) situation. This best practice or optimum situation may be defined broadly for the
country or in the system methodology, or may be defined for individual protected areas
during the evaluation process.

Some data is quantitative (though often ‘best estimate) interval or ‘ratio’ data, for example
where people estimate the amount of funding needed for a protected area and then estimate
what proportion of this funding they have.

Most of the data set could be regarded as ‘ordinal’, where the ratings are in order from
lowest to highest. The gaps between the different scores are not entirely even and consistent,
and are sometimes difficult to quantify (for example, the quality of a management plan or
how ‘good’ a protected area design is). However, the data is much richer than a purely
ordinal data set might be: a purely ordinal data set would just order responses from the best
to the worst. All PAME methodologies have attempted to develop ratings that reflect steps
towards ideal management that are as even as possible, and there is extensive discussion on
these points during methodology development and in evaluation processes. That is, though
we cannot definitively say that a score of four is twice as good as a score of two, this is as
close to the truth as possible. These scores are in many ways analogous to the Likert scales
commonly used in much sociological research (Likert 1932), and there is much debate in the
literature about the nature of data derived from such questionnaires.

Some methodologies, including most of those adopted in Latin American countries, use a
five-point scale, as proposed by Cifuentes et al. (2000), based on the recommendations of
ISO 1004. Most of these systems work on the concept of what percentage of the optimum (or
the optimum desirable/achievable) state currently exists.

Other methodologies follow the scoring system used by the Tracking Tool (McKinnon
2003), which uses a four-point scale to avoid the issue of most responses clustering to a mid-
point. RAPPAM (Ervin 2003b) uses a variation of the four-point scale. The four-point scale
also corresponds well with the ecological evaluation work being undertaken by TNC, which
proposes that a scale of ‘poor’, ‘fair’, ‘good’ and ‘very good’ has scientific merit (Parrish et
al. 2003).

The variation of scoring systems poses the question of how best to use the different data
types and how to ‘translate’ systems using different scales without losing statistical validity.
It was recommended by a University of Queensland statistician (Allan Lisle pers. comm.)
that the most valid way to undertake this is to map all ratings onto a zero to one scale, where
zero represents the lowest measurement and one the optimum situation. This approach has
minimised the loss of information and enables averages to be calculated. The scoring
systems of some of the major PAME methodologies are shown in Table 7, with the
‘translation’ to a zero to one scale in the bottom row for each system.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 25

Table 7: Scoring systems with translations to a zero to one scale
Methodology Ratings
lowest mid best
Original response no Mostly no n/a Mostly yes yes
Rappam
Score 0 1 n/a 3 5
translation 0 0.33 n/a 0.67 1.00
Original response 0 1 n/a 2 3
Very good
No
General meaning Work Quite good – ideal
progress n/a
of responses begun progress situation
in the topic
achieved
Tracking Tool translation 0.00 0.33 n/a 0.67 1.00
Original response 1 2 3 4 5
Score 0% ideal 25% 50% 75% 100%
PROARCA
translation 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Original response 0 1 n/a 2 3
MPA
scorecard translation 0.00 0.33 n/a 0.67 1.00
Original response 1 2 3 4 5
Score very low low medium high excellent
AEMAPPS
translation 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Original response 1 2 3 4 5
TNC site
consolidation translation 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

It was intended to always maintain the integrity of the original scoring system, by keeping
the gaps between the rescaled scores the same. However, analysis of preliminary results
showed that this was creating false differences in results among different methodologies, so
a more consistent conversion was applied2.

Above: Chamois in Picos de Europa Nature Park, Spain

3.3 Analysis of data

Raw data was available for 5878 assessments of individual protected areas recorded in this
study. About a quarter of these were repeat studies applying the same methodology at the
same protected area over time, so studies were separated into older iterations and ‘most
recent’ assessments. Many of the analyses were conducted on the ‘most recent’ data only and
all summary statistics reflect this.

After the raw data was transformed into the common reporting format ‘headline indicators’
and data from all studies combined, the resulting figures were analysed to obtain averages

2
The RAPPAM methodology used a 0,1,3,5 scale and this is now converted to 1, 1/3, 2/3, 1 (with
consistent gaps between scores) so it is more compatible with other methodologies.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 26

and standard deviations for total overall management effectiveness and for each headline
indicator. As mentioned above, this data was sorted according to whether the study was the
first or most recent using a particular methodology in a protected area, so the averages
presented in this report do not contain repeated studies. None of the methodologies ask
questions relevant to all the ‘headline indicators’, so the number of records vary for each
indicator. Where the number of records is very small or from only one localized study, the
results are interpreted with additional caution or excluded from analysis.

Though the data may not be regarded as true parametric interval data, we considered that,
given the very large sample size, data patterns which approach normal distribution and the
thoughtful nature of the indicators, it was valid to use averages and standard deviations to
develop the general pictures of strengths and weaknesses presented here. Further statistical
work will be undertaken in the future.

Overall averages are comprised of whichever ‘headline indicators’ are available from the
information at hand, and therefore vary widely in their composition depending on the
methodology used. To confirm whether the arithmetic averages would be significantly
biased according to the fields used to calculate it, a comparison was made between the ‘least
square means’ (which take into account which indicators are missing) and the overall
arithmetic averages. The results showed clearly that there was very little difference between
the two methods of calculation and it was concluded that the simple approach of calculating
the average of available indicators appears to be sound (Allan Lisle pers. comm.). Numbers
of ‘most recent’ assessments used in analyses for the Global Study are shown in.
Table 8

Table 8: Assessments with available ‘most recent’ data

N.
Africa Asia Europe LAC America Oceania Total
AEMAPPS 18 18
Birdlife IBA 86 94 59 19 1 67 326
Central African Republic 16 16
GOBI survey 39 21 76 51 33 5 225
Korea MEE 39 39
MEE Indian 30 30
MEMS 23 23
METT-RAPPAM
crossover 8 8
NSW SOP 682 682
Parks profiles 62 62
PIP Site consolidation 53 53
PROARCA/CAPAS 146 146
Qld Rapid Assessment 308 308
RAPPAM 221 253 351 386 45 1256
Stockholm BR Survey 104 104
Tracking tool 314 203 212 134 3 866
Victorian SOP 102 102
Total 676 640 802 900 34 1212 4264

** Some assessments contribute to less than six headline indicators (e.g. most of the ‘Park Profile’’
studies), so valid means could not be calculated for these results.

Correlations between headline indicators and averages: To investigate which factors of

management appear to be most closely linked to each other and to overall effectiveness, we

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 27

analyzed the data using Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient3. For this analysis, we used all data
including earlier assessments where there were repeat studies. We tested the strength of the
correlations between these individual headline indicators and the overall average score for
management effectiveness. We used corrected item-total correlation calculations, where the
score for the individual item is not included in the average against which it is correlated
(Guilford 1954). Correlations with outcome indicators (the current status of values and the
effect of the protected area on the community) were also calculated.

Changes over time: In addition, for 272 repeat studies – where two or more assessments
have been conducted over time in the same protected area using the same methodology – we
compared mean scores for the first and last assessments to investigate the extent to which
protected area management changed over time.

3.4 Cautions and constraints

When considering the results presented in this report, the reader should be aware of the
following constraints:
• We have considered only information that is available from studies already conducted.
There is no reason to believe that the protected areas evaluated are a ‘representative
sample’ of the protected areas across the world. Many of the studies have been
undertaken by non-government conservation organizations because the protected areas
concerned were considered to be particularly vulnerable. In other cases, government
agencies have evaluated all or a sample of their protected areas. There has been no
attempt to moderate these results: they reflect the picture of the available assessments.

• As discussed above, most of the information in this report is derived from qualitative
assessments, and scoring may vary depending on the point of view and knowledge of the
evaluators. Parametric analyses have been conducted on the basis of the data being
robust and the belief that such analyses are ‘meaningful’ (Knapp 1990), but these results
should be interpreted with caution and are only intended to reveal general patterns.

• Statistical analysis is conducted only on the assessments for which we have been
provided with usable raw data, which is about 50% of the known assessments.

• Translation of raw data into the common reporting format enables cross-analysis but
inevitably leads to a loss of the ‘richness’ in data, especially information obtained from
more detailed studies. People interested in more detail should consult the original
reports.

• The information content of the headline indicators varies widely: some methods ask
numerous questions about one broad topic such as community involvement, which are
then combined into only one headline indicator, while other methods have only asked
one question relating to this topic. This also means that the original weighting systems of
the methodologies are often not reflected in our analysis.

3 Correlation measures the strength and direction of a relationship between two sets of variables (such
as two different indicators). That is, the more strongly they are positively correlated, the more you will
expect that as one increases, the other one will increase too. If the two indicators are completely
independent, the correlation will approach zero. If they always vary in exactly the same way, the
correlation will be one. (If they vary in the opposite way, the correlation will approach -1).
If the correlation is significant at p<.0001, this means that there is a very low probability (less than
one in 10,000) that the observed correlation arose simply by chance. A positive correlation does not
necessarily mean that there is a ‘causal’ relationship: there might be some other factor (such as
resourcing) that influences both variables.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 28

• The methodology for combining and cross-analyzing data is the best available to look
across the diversity of methodologies, but we recognize the imperfections, and the fact
that data collected by different methodologies may not always paint the same picture of a
protected area.

PAME can be applied in private as well as public protected areas and is often required for
accountability of such reserves.

Above: Private protected area on the Rio Negro, Brazil

3.5 What do the headline indicator and overall average

scores represent?
As the mean scores are based on headline indicators rated between zero and one, they reflect
a continuum from no management at all to high management standards. As shown in Error!
Reference source not found., the lowest third of this continuum (below 0.33) means that
overall protected area management is clearly inadequate. Scores between 0.33 and 0.67
indicate that while basic management is in place, considerable improvement is still needed.
As most scores fall in this category, we further split this into those between 0.33 and 0.5
(basic but with major deficiencies) and those between 0.5 and 0.67. Generally a “sound”
level of management would begin at a score of around two-thirds (0.67). Scores above this
mean that the area is being managed relatively well. These cut-off points accord with the
meaning of the most common assessment systems that provided the data for this analysis.

0: no management is in place 0.53: overall average 1: management reaches

highest standards

Lowest third Middle third Top third

management clearly basic management management ‘sound’
inadequate
significant
deficiencies

Figure 10: Meaning of the PAME scores

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 29

Chapter 4 Trends in protected area management
4.1 How effective is protected area management?
Protected area management on average is just reaching a basic standard.
The overall mean score is 0.53 out of a maximum of one for the 4151 ‘most recent’
assessments for which averages could be obtained (some studies with few indicators were
excluded). The distribution of the average scores is shown in Figure 11.

Scores for individual protected areas measured vary from zero to very high. Only 13% are in
the ‘clearly inadequate’ range. Most protected areas are clustered in the middle third (basic
management), with 27% of the total in this range but below 0.5 (basic but with major
deficiencies) and 35% above 0.5. Nearly a quarter (24%) are in the ‘sound’ range.

Figure 11: Distribution of average scores for 'most recent' assessments

Scores vary according to the regional context and the economic environment of
management.
Statistically, the average scores vary significantly according to the UN region (see Table 9),
but these differences are not considered to be particularly meaningful. These regions
encompass huge variation in the standard of protected areas and the assessments considered
do not attempt to sample this variation: for example the assessments in Oceania include a
small number in Papua New Guinea and a large number in Australia, with none from the
Pacific Island Nations. The European data set is biased towards protected areas in eastern
Europe and Russia.

However, some patterns can be observed. All regions – including the developed nations –
include a proportion of well managed and some poorly managed protected areas.
Proportionally more of the African protected areas evaluated have little effective
management and are in great need of assistance, though many of these are newly created.
Protected areas in Latin America tend to score mostly in the ‘basic’ range.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 30

 Table 9: Overall averages from most recent data (North America omitted due to lack of
comparable data)

Africa Asia Europe LAC Oceania

Number of assessments 644 634 794 853 1193
Overall mean 0.49 0.53 0.57 0.51 0.56
Management level Proportion of assessments in each level
‘Clearly inadequate’ (<.33) 22% 16% 8% 13% 11%
‘Basic but with major deficiencies’ (.33 - .5) 31% 25% 23% 33% 25%
‘Basic’ (.5 - .67) 31% 34% 39% 37% 35%
‘Sound’ (>.67) 17% 26% 29% 16% 29%

An analysis per country is not presented as this study has committed to avoid making
comparisons which could be interpreted as criticisms of individual agencies. Contextual
information is needed to interpret results at this finer scale.
However, an analysis of results according to the Human Development Index (HDI) – which
is applied per country - shows highly significant differences which may be more meaningful.
As expected, the scores are much higher in those countries with high and medium HDI
ratings (Table 8).

Table 10: Average scores (most recent) analysed according to HDI with Kruskall-Wallis test

HDI N Median Ave Rank Z

High 1888 0.5834 2317.5 11.86
Medium 1842 0.5229 1940.3 -6.52
Low 388 0.4104 1470.3 -10.46
no entry 33 0.687 2953.5 4.22
Overall 4151 2076.0
H = 217.08 DF = 3 P = 0.000

4.2 Which aspects of management are most effective?

There are clear patterns in the strengths and weaknesses of different aspects of
management , and most of these are consistent across regions and methodologies.
Average scores for individual headline indicators vary from 0.38 (very low) to 0.82 (high) on
a zero to one scale.

Of the five management aspects assessed as strongest overall (scoring over 0.6) four are
from the ‘planning’ element of the IUCN-WCPA Framework: gazettal and legal status,
marking of protected area boundaries, tenure issues, and design of protected areas.
(However, the ‘management planning’ indicator scores much lower). The ‘process’ indicator
relating to governance and leadership also scores highly.

The six aspects of management on average assessed as most unsatisfactory (below 0.45 on a
zero to one scale) include inputs (funding adequacy, funding security and staff numbers) and
the process indicators relating to community assistance programs, management effectiveness
evaluation, and building and maintenance.

Figure 12 shows average scores from the most recent assessments for each ‘headline
indicator’ in descending order4. Shading indicates for each indicator which element it

4
Headline indicators with 500 or fewer records have been omitted from this figure but are included in
the table. None of the methodologies include indicators relevant to all headline indicators, so the
number of records for each varies. In addition, some records are blank.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 31

matches from the IUCN-WCPA Framework explained in Section 1.5 (Hockings et al. 2006).
For more details, see Table 13, which presents average scores for each indicator including
the number of assessments and standard deviation. Averages for each region are also shown
in Table 13 . Overall, one headline indicator is rated as ‘sound’, 22 are ‘basic’ and 12 ‘basic
with significant deficiencies’.

When the strengths and weaknesses are examined across the UN regions, there is a
remarkable similarity in the patterns of the headline indicator scores. The exception is
Oceania, where the ten highest scoring factors include visitor management and building and
maintenance programs (which are low in other regions). This reflects a greater emphasis and
capacity in this regard in the Australian protected areas assessed. Management planning is
also stronger there, where a concerted effort to increase the coverage of management plans
has been made in recent years.

Figure 12: Average scores for headline indicators from 'most recent' studies
Notes: Where there have been multiple studies at a site using a methodology, only the most recent data has been
used. While data from 4264 assessments was analysed, most headline indicators have fewer entries (see Table 11)
Headline indicators with less than 500 entries have been deleted from this figure. Colours used to indicate the
element of the IUCN-WCPA Framework: Black indicates ‘context’ factors, aqua ‘planning’ , red ‘inputs’, brown
‘process’ ,yellow ‘ outputs’, and green ‘outcome’

Planning is the strongest of the elements overall, but management planning itself is weak.
Aspects of management relating to the establishment of protected areas are relatively strong
and the data possibly underestimates the real picture. For example, large dataset from
Australia does not include indicators about gazettal or tenure issues as all protected areas in
the states concerned are legally gazetted before they are included in a protected area system,
so this would score a uniform ‘1’. However, in some areas tenure issues and boundary

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 32

marking remain major constraints on management (note the higher standard deviation
relating to these scores).

Though tenure rates well overall in all regions, it seems that where tenure issues still exist,
they tend to be serious: for example these are noted to be of concern in a number of eastern
European countries which have undergone major political changes (Nolte et al. 2010), and
there are also problems with establishment of protected areas and community rights in some
countries in Latin America and Asia.

Management planning scores at only just the basic level (0.53), and inadequate management
planning is often mentioned as a major issue in reports. The figure for Africa is particularly
low, but again this is mentioned as a problem in workshops and reports from all over the
world. Even where plans exist, they are often inadequate, out of date, or not well integrated
into management.

Table 11: Mean average scores for each headline indicator. Shading key same as above.
St
Headline Indicator N Mean Dev
Constraint or support by external political and civil environment CC 1893 0.53 0.23
Park gazettal P 2559 0.85 0.28
Tenure security and issues P 1106 0.61 0.38
Marking and security/ fencing of park boundaries P 2794 0.63 0.34
Appropriateness of design P 2340 0.65 0.26
Adequacy of p.a. legislation and other legal controls P 364 0.56 0.29
Management planning P 4039 0.54 0.31
Adequacy of staff numbers I 2504 0.41 0.29
Adequacy of current funding I 2642 0.38 0.28
Security/ reliability of funding I 2032 0.37 0.32
Adequacy of infrastructure, equipment and facilities I 2702 0.45 0.28
Adequacy of relevant, available information for management I 3869 0.55 0.27
Effectiveness of governance and leadership PR 519 0.62 0.33
Effectiveness of administration including financial management PR 3339 0.58 0.31
Management effectiveness evaluation undertaken PR 1493 0.42 0.29
Adequacy of building and maintenance systems PR 2985 0.50 0.34
Adequacy of staff training PR 2319 0.49 0.28
Staff/ other management partners skill level PR 1589 0.53 0.30
Adequacy of hr policies and procedures PR 2369 0.51 0.26
Staff morale PR 503 0.47 0.29
Adequacy of law enforcement capacity PR 3054 0.52 0.29
Involvement of communities and stakeholders PR 3094 0.52 0.27
Communication program PR 3361 0.50 0.29
Appropriate program of community benefit/ assistance PR 1091 0.38 0.39
Sustainable resource use - management and audit PR 328 0.48 0.36
Visitors catered for and impacts managed appropriately PR 3356 0.46 0.32
Natural resource and cultural protection activities PR 3580 0.50 0.26
Research and monitoring of natural/ cultural management PR 2881 0.47 0.27
Threat monitoring PR 959 0.57 0.28
Achievement of set work program OP 918 0.56 0.25
Results and outputs have been produced OP 761 0.52 0.26
Proportion of stated objectives achieved OC 150 0.58 0.24
Conservation of nominated values -condition OC 2229 0.57 0.28
Conservation of nominated values - trend OC 593 0.50 0.21
Effect of park management on local community OC 2421 0.57 0.28

Input indicators score at below an acceptable level, especially those relating to budget
adequacy and reliability, staffing and infrastructure and equipment. It appears that the basic
resources for protected area management are missing in many cases, and that where it is
present, there is often little security for the future. Information availability scores better than
other input indicators.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 33

Processes range from very weak to acceptable, but most need improvement on a global
scale. Those processes particularly correlated with management outcomes estimates (see
section 4.3) such as communication and community relations; and natural and cultural
resource management score relatively poorly and may need special attention.

Outputs are rated as just acceptable, though these are measured in only half the assessments
(notably RAPPAM and the NSW State of Parks, but not the Tracking Tool).

Outcomes of management are generally scored relatively highly. While these are often
subjective estimates, there is no reason why these indicators would be scored more highly
than others. In Australia there is some evidence that protected area staff in workshops are
quite accurate in their assessment when compared with objective data, and tend to err on the
more pessimistic side (Cook pers comm.).

Patterns in this study confirm many of the observations made in relation to scoring of
questions in the Tracking Tool (Dudley et al. 2007 ) as shown in Table 12. Here also, design
and legal status were the highest scoring factors, with low ratings for funding, visitor
management and community relations.

Table 12: Highest and lowest scored questions from an analysis of Tracking Tool data from 331
forest protected areas (Dudley et al. 2007 )

Ten highest scored questions (in descending Ten lowest scored questions (in descending
order) order)
 Legal status  Education and awareness
 Protected area demarcation  Current budget
 Protected area design  Security of budget
 Biodiversity condition assessment  Fees
 Protected area objectives  Management plan
 Resource inventory  Monitoring and evaluation
 Regular work plan  Indigenous peoples
 Protected area regulations  Local communities
 Resource management  Visitor facilities
 Economic benefits assessment  Commercial tourism

Visitor management and facilities are concerns for management across the world, and often score
poorly in assessments. Overcrowding and loss of natural character are significant threats to iconic
areas
Above: Visitors at Dunes of Pyla protected area, France

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 34

Table 13: Regional means for each headline indicator (<100 assessments grey, ‘sound’ range green, ‘basic’ blue (>0.5 dark; .33-.5 light), ‘clearly inadequate’ pink.
Africa Asia Europe LAC N. America Oceania
Indicator N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean
Constraint / support by external political and civil environment C 255 0.50 344 0.46 591 0.57 620 0.53 33 0.64 50 0.58
Park gazettal P 605 0.84 544 0.90 617 0.90 684 0.81 0 109 0.64
Tenure security and issues P 217 0.59 253 0.51 351 0.69 240 0.58 0 45 0.69
Marking and security/ fencing of park boundaries P 568 0.67 474 0.58 635 0.70 723 0.55 33 0.70 361 0.66
Appropriateness of design P 563 0.59 500 0.64 618 0.73 594 0.63 15 0.63 50 0.53
Adequacy of PA legislation P 41 0.43 178 0.51 145 0.67 0 0
Management planning P 642 0.43 634 0.50 687 0.54 851 0.51 32 0.67 1193 0.64
Adequacy of staff numbers I 529 0.44 483 0.41 665 0.47 780 0.33 0 47 0.35
Adequacy of current funding I 568 0.31 500 0.41 734 0.44 756 0.38 32 0.35 52 0.14
Security/ reliability of funding I 435 0.26 450 0.44 361 0.50 741 0.35 0 45 0.27
Adequacy of infrastructure, equipment and facilities I 567 0.38 497 0.44 724 0.50 829 0.46 30 0.74 55 0.22
Adequacy of relevant, available information for management I 601 0.50 607 0.57 697 0.58 780 0.52 0 1184 0.57
Effectiveness of governance and leadership PR 37 0.59 98 0.58 123 0.72 228 0.56 25 0.88 8 0.96
Effectiveness of administration/ financial management PR 530 0.44 484 0.54 561 0.60 730 0.52 0 1034 0.69
Management effectiveness evaluation undertaken PR 335 0.35 197 0.46 149 0.51 127 0.31 0 685 0.44
Adequacy of building and maintenance systems PR 524 0.34 518 0.46 552 0.56 698 0.45 0 693 0.66
Adequacy of staff training PR 565 0.49 466 0.46 424 0.58 785 0.48 27 0.66 52 0.17
Staff/ other management partners skill level PR 217 0.54 252 0.48 351 0.55 416 0.45 0 353 0.63
Adequacy of hr policies and procedures PR 563 0.50 456 0.49 547 0.52 725 0.52 28 0.73 50 0.27
Adequacy of law enforcement capacity PR 530 0.53 484 0.53 561 0.63 692 0.54 0 787 0.40
Involvement of communities and stakeholders PR 437 0.43 489 0.53 320 0.61 762 0.53 0 1086 0.51
Communication program PR 568 0.44 507 0.53 738 0.54 793 0.51 33 0.53 722 0.47
Appropriate program of community benefit/ assistance PR 379 0.29 236 0.44 220 0.44 222 0.39 27 0.53 7 0.45
Sustainable resource PR 34 0.56 19 0.52 60 0.61 106 0.50 15 0.62 94 0.31
Visitors catered for and impacts managed appropriately PR 524 0.33 516 0.38 559 0.48 657 0.41 0 1100 0.57
Natural resource and cultural protection activities PR 603 0.46 611 0.49 523 0.54 675 0.45 0 1168 0.52
Research and monitoring of natural/ cultural management PR 567 0.40 474 0.48 644 0.53 805 0.47 30 0.53 361 0.41
Threat monitoring PR 133 0.55 121 0.57 161 0.58 483 0.56 0 61 0.56
Achievement of set work program OP 118 0.54 39 0.70 0 1 0.75 0 760 0.56
Results and outputs have been produced OP 108 0.54 152 0.50 160 0.57 280 0.52 0 61 0.49
Proportion of stated objectives achieved OC 0 30 0.42 104 0.62 16 0.63 0 0
Conservation of nominated values -condition OC 389 0.55 345 0.60 224 0.56 256 0.55 0 1015 0.58
Conservation of nominated values -trend OC 39 0.60 45 0.52 64 0.51 101 0.53 32 0.47 312 0.49
Effect of park management on local community OC 559 0.57 453 0.61 664 0.54 681 0.57 11 0.37 53 0.50
Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study 35
4.3 Which factors are most strongly linked to
effective management?
To investigate which factors of management appear to be most closely linked to overall
effectiveness, we analysed all data (including earlier assessments) using Pearson’s
Correlation. We calculated corrected item-total correlations between individual headline
indicators and the overall mean management effectiveness score, so the score for each
individual item is not included in the average against which it is correlated (Guilford 1954).
Correlations of individual headline indicators with two outcome indicators (the current status
of values and the effect of the protected area on the community) were also calculated.

Table 14: Item-corrected correlation of headline indicators with mean (corrected to exclude
each relevant item) (all are significant at p=.000)
Indicator Correlation with mean
Adequacy of infrastructure, equipment and facilities I 0.693
Effectiveness of administration including financial management PR 0.674
Communication program PR 0.633
Adequacy of relevant, available information for management I 0.587
Adequacy of staff training PR 0.58
Management planning PL 0.577
Adequacy of hr policies and procedures PR 0.577
Research and monitoring of natural/ cultural management PR 0.576
Achievement of set work program OP 0.576
Adequacy of building and maintenance systems PR 0.574
Visitors catered for and impacts managed appropriately PR 0.57
Security/ reliability of funding I 0.568
Management effectiveness evaluation undertaken PR 0.553
Adequacy of current funding I 0.548
Appropriate program of community benefit/ assistance PR 0.539
Adequacy of law enforcement capacity PR 0.538
Effectiveness of governance and leadership PR 0.531
Staff morale PR 0.528
Adequacy of staff numbers I 0.505
Constraint or support by external political and civil environment C 0.499
Involvement of communities and stakeholders PR 0.498
Adequacy of PA legislation PL 0.498
Results and outputs have been produced OP 0.464
Threat monitoring PR 0.397
Sustainable resource management PR 0.395
Appropriateness of design PL 0.388
Marking and security/ fencing of park boundaries PL 0.387
Proportion of stated objectives achieved OC 0.387
Staff/ other management partners skill level PR 0.382
Conservation of nominated values -condition OC 0.372
Natural resource and cultural protection activities PR 0.36
Conservation of nominated values - trend OC 0.31
Effect of park management on local community OC 0.306
Park gazettal PL 0.288
Tenure security and issues PL 0.271

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 36

That these correlations do not necessarily mean a causative link, but show a picture where
the most effectively managed protected areas are characterized by certain factors.

Overall management effectiveness was most strongly linked to adequate infrastructure,

equipment and information; good administration; communication, adequacy of information,
staff training and good management planning (Table 14).
There was low correlation with the highest-scoring indicators (park gazettal and tenure
security) and with outcome measures of both values and community impacts.

We also correlated all indicators with outcome measures. The condition of protected area
resources were most strongly correlated with the support and constraint of the external
environment (a measure of context), and with inputs and processes including research and
monitoring, staff numbers and training, effectiveness of administration, natural resource
management and communication (Table 15).

Table 15: Correlations of headline indicators with estimated condition of values (all are
significant at p=.000)

Correlation with
Indicator (top 12 shown) condition of values
Constraint or support by external political and civil environment C 0.42
Research and monitoring of natural/ cultural management PR 0.35
Appropriateness of design PL 0.334
Adequacy of relevant, available information for management I 0.332
Effectiveness of administration including financial management PR 0.322
Adequacy of staff numbers I 0.309
Natural resource and cultural protection activities PR 0.306
Communication program PR 0.303
Adequacy of infrastructure, equipment and facilities I 0.3
Adequacy of staff training PR 0.296
Adequacy of law enforcement capacity PR 0.295
Adequacy of PA legislation PL 0.294

Effect of the protected area on the community was most strongly linked with
communication, involvement of communities, and community benefits programs (Table 16).

Table 16: Correlation of headline indicators with estimated effect on community (all are
significant at p=.000)
Correlation with effect on
Indicator (top 12 shown)
community
Communication program PR 0.335
Involvement of communities and stakeholders PR 0.318
Appropriate program of community benefit/ assistance PR 0.312
Management effectiveness evaluation undertaken PR 0.296
Adequacy of PA legislation PL 0.279
Natural resource and cultural protection activities PR 0.247
Visitors catered for and impacts managed appropriately PR 0.234
Management planning PL 0.23
Adequacy of staff training PR 0.223
Effectiveness of governance and leadership PR 0.218
Research and monitoring of natural/ cultural management PR 0.215
Appropriateness of design PL 0.205

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 37

There is low correlation between measures of protected area values condition and impact on
communities. These correlation measures show that when assessing management
effectiveness it is essential to include outcome measures (both of protected area values and
of communities) and other parts of the management cycle to gain a true picture – we cannot
use measures of inputs and processes to fully predict outcomes.

4.4 Is management improving over time?

As further management effectiveness studies are conducted, there will be more evidence
about how the standard of protected area management can be improved. Early analysis
shows that a targeted program of protected area ‘consolidation’, accompanied by additional
inputs and by management effectiveness studies, can show good and often dramatic results.
Perhaps the most comprehensive program documented in this regard is the Parks in Peril
program (Martin and Rieger 2003)

In this study, we have looked at 272 repeat studies – where two or more assessments (up to
seven) have been conducted over time in the same protected area using the same
methodology. The vast majority (207) showed that effectiveness improved (Table 15), with
the ‘most recent’ score improving by an average of 0.24 (158% increase) on their original
score. Six protected areas stayed the same, while 60 showed a decrease in score averaging
0.14 (2% of their original score). Figure 13 shows trends over time.

Table 17: Average improvement in PAME scores for repeated assessments

Number of repeats N average improvement

2 117 0.030
3 30 0.164
4 36 0.084
5 25 0.268
6 16 0.348
7 48 0.303

Figure 13: Trends for repeat assessments showing methodologies

In Latin America, repeat assessments for 207 protected areas5 (a subset of the 272 shown
above) were analysed for a study commissioned by IABIN in association with the Global

5
Repeat study results for Latin America were available for protected areas assessed by AEMAPPS in
Colombia (this methodology changed somewhat between the two assessments), Parks in Peril across
17 countries, PROARCA in Guatemala and Panama and a very small number of studies using the

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 38

Study (Leverington et al. 2007a). In this study, we measured trends for each headline
indicator. Changes over time for those areas are presented in Figure 14.

Clearly improved management was seen in most of the assessed topics and sites. Headline
indicator scores in the first studies varied from 0.17 to 0.68, while in the most recent studies
the variation was from 0.41 to 0.79, so the poorest aspects of management had been greatly
boosted. This trend data mostly represented protected areas where there have been specific
intervention programs, such as the Parks in Peril program and PROARCA, and appears to
indicate the success of such programs in improving these aspects of management.

The most dramatic improvements shown between the first and last assessments are in the
management and auditing of sustainable resource use, and the level of land tenure issues.
Strong improvement is also seen in the involvement of communities and stakeholders and in
the availability and security of funding, all of which remain below 0.5, but are significantly
less negative than in the earlier assessments.

Marking or fencing of protected area boundaries, measured only by PROARCA in the repeat
studies, showed no improvement over time. Other factors which exhibited little positive
change include processes of staff morale, adequacy of human resource policies and
procedures, effectiveness of governance and leadership, and building and maintenance. None
of these factors were measured by the Parks in Peril Site Consolidation Scorecard, and all are
complicated processes which require considerable and consistent effort to improve.

Figure 14: Average scores for headline indicators in repeat studies from Latin America,
showing changes from first to most recent assessments (in descending order of change
magnitude

Tracking Tool. These total 207 protected areas, but a lesser number of assessments are available for
most of the headline indicators, due to variable questions asked in each methodology. Only those
indicators with more than 50 records have been included.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 39

4.5 Which are the most common threats to protected areas?
Most management effectiveness assessments evaluate, to some extent, the types and level of
threats to protected area values and management. Some methodologies, such as ParksWatch
and RAPPAM, provide detailed analyses of threats and potential threats in individual
protected areas. As threat data has been collected in many different ways, there are
challenges in combining the information obtained in the Global Study. To cross-analyse the
kinds of threats listed, reports and data were reviewed and the threats and pressures coded
according to their best fit with the standard classification of threats developed by the
Conservation Measures Partnership (IUCN and Conservation Measures Partnership 2006;
Salafsky et al. 2008) and adapted slightly to describe protected area threats. This
classification lists several ‘layers’ or levels of threats from general to specific. We have
reported on first and second level threats though in some cases it was impossible to
distinguish between threats at the second level of detail (for example, some assessments do
not distinguish between invasive plants and invasive animals or between different types of
pollution).

The other complication is that some methodologies list, rate and discuss a variable number
of significant threats (e.g. RAPPAM), while others list only the top two threats to each
protected area (the Tracking Tool). For this reason, we have only presented information
about the frequency of each threat, by calculating the number of ‘studies’ (that is, the
application of a methodology in a country) within each region where the threat has been
nominated in any report.

Further analysis of available information relating to the severity of threats is needed to better
understand the situation, but at this stage severity ratings have been calculated only for
European protected areas (Nolte et al. 2010). However, we hope that this preliminary
analysis will be useful in providing an initial global picture.

This study considered threats nominated in 227 PAME reports covering 125 countries and
6125 individual protected area assessments. The data was drawn from 17 methodologies
including RAPPAM, Tracking tool, IBA, Parkswatch, NSW State of Parks, Indian Tiger
Reserves and Finland MEE. First level threats across the 227 studies are shown in
Figure 15. Second level threats to protected areas regarded as most frequent and serious in
the reports of management effectiveness across five UN regions are shown in Table 18. The
shaded cells represent the ten most frequently recorded threats across the whole study and in
each region.

Figure 15: Frequency with which 'level one' threats are mentioned in 227 PAME studies

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 40

Biological resource use
At level one, the most common threat, discussed in 87% of the studies analysed, relates to
different kinds of use of biological resources within the protected area. At level two, by far
the most frequently nominated threat relates to hunting and deliberate killing of animals in
protected areas. Fishing is also regarded as a threat in more than 40% of studies and is often
reported together with hunting. In a few countries, hunting is not regarded as a major threat,
but it is common across most countries in all regions of the world. In many areas, hunting of
wild meat still provides an important protein source for local people, but there are serious
concerns about its sustainability. Overhunting is thought to be causing significant extinctions
and declining populations in the humid tropics (Milner-Gullanda et al. 2003). The issue of
‘bushmeat’ hunting in protected areas is discussed further in the box following Table 18.

In other areas, such as many protected areas in Europe, there is a long tradition of hunting
and fishing though they are now more commonly undertaken for sport rather than essential
sustenance. There are concerns about increased hunting in eastern Europe : due to past
isolation and strict protection, some species remain abundant there while extinct in the
western countries, and increase hunting could have serious impacts (Council of Europe
Parliamentary Assembly 2004).

Logging and wood harvesting are also very frequently recorded as major threats, and
comprise the second most frequently mentioned level two threat overall.

Agriculture and acquaculture

At level one, land use for primary production in some form is mentioned in 75% of studies.
At level two, livestock grazing is mentioned in over half the studies overall and in 86% of
studies in Asia and 90% in Europe. Cropping is also discussed in nearly half the studies,
with other reports recording wood plantations, farming generally or aquaculture.

As well as farming with protected areas, activities on adjacent lands in cases where
agriculture and grazing are not conducted sustainably are major issues for protected area
managers in all areas

Human intrusions and disturbance

This group of threats is discussed in 57% of reports overall, with 25% recording unspecified
disturbance. Recreational activities are mentioned in nearly half the studies, and this is the
most commonly mentioned threat in Europe, where it is also regarded as the most serious
threat (Nolte et al. 2010). Where tourism industries are new or very rapidly expanding, such
as in parts of Eastern Europe, there are major challenges for the capacity of protected area
management to cope with anticipated increases in numbers (Nolte et al. 2010; Pullin et al.
2009). The threat classification separates the impact of recreation and tourism from the issue
of construction of tourism infrastructure, which is reported in 25% of studies. However,
these two issues are obviously closely related.

Natural system modifications

The level one threat relating to modification of natural systems was recorded in 72% of
studies. In this group, fire regimes – either undesirable fires or the suppression or lack of
desirable fires – are a very serious concern in many countries. Where this threat already
occurs, it is likely to exacerbated when compounded by climate change (Steffen et al. 2009).
Other modifications frequently mentioned include dams and water management and
unspecified habitat changes.

Development on protected areas

Just over half the studies nominate the level one threat relating to residential or commercial
development. Within this group, housing and settlement on protected areas on protected
areas are most commonly discussed, and this issue is closely related to the threats of resource
use and hunting outlined above. The threat appears to be most frequent in Latin America,

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 41

where it is mentioned in two-thirds of studies. Solutions to these issues while considering
human well-being are very complex. These issues are discussed at length in many of the
PAME reports, and in other literature concerning protected areas and their relationships with
local communities (Naughton-Treves et al. 2005).

Other major threats

Other very frequently mentioned level one threats include
• mining, quarrying and oil drilling (47%)
• pollution of various kinds (47%)
• invasive species (45%)
• fragmentation caused by roads and other utility lines (40%)
• severe weather and climate change (30%).

Threats in this overview have been recorded and classified as individual issues. However, for
managers they are often interacting and intertwined. For example, threats associated with
recreation and tourism to protected areas can include development of infrastructure,
fragmentation through roads and powerlines, pollution, increased risk of wildfire, hunting
and fishing, and increased populations in adjacent areas. Both evaluation and planning for
better management need to understand the inter-relationships between the threats, and to
identify their root causes, if effective and sustainable solutions are to be devised and
implemented.

Above: While fire is a natural process in many protected areas, potentially destructive wildfires
are a threat to visitor safety and local communities, as well as to the survival of wildlife in
fragmented and isolated areas.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 42

Table 18: Frequency of threats(level 2) recorded in each UN region. Figures represent the number of PAME studies where the threat is recorded. See above for data
constraints. The most frequent threats overall and each country are signified by colour: see ‘rank’ for key.
% of total total Africa Asia Europe LAC Oceania
Threat Rank
studies n=227 n=81 n=65 n=41 n=31 n=9
5.1 Hunting, killing & collecting terrestrial animals on protected area 1 79% 179 62 56 29 25 7
5.3 Logging & wood harvesting 2 61% 139 45 41 25 23 5
2.3 Livestock farming & grazing within protected area 3 57% 130 32 48 26 21 3
6.1 Recreational activities 4 47% 108 22 31 30 22 3
2.1 Annual & perennial non-timber crops within protected area 5 45% 103 40 24 15 19 5
7.1 Fire & Fire Suppression 6 44% 100 35 21 17 23 4
5.4 Fishing, killing & harvesting aquatic resources 7 43% 98 34 29 16 17 2
1.1 Housing & settlement within protected area 8 43% 96 21 28 20 24 3
9
5.2 Gathering terrestrial plants or plant products (non-timber) 42% 95 28 34 12 19 2
3.2 Mining & quarrying 10 40% 92 27 22 18 21 4
7.2 Dams & Water Management/Use 11 38% 87 21 26 25 13 2
4.1 Roads & Railroads 12 36% 82 20 24 17 18 3
7.3 Other Ecosystem Modifications 13 31% 70 20 19 12 17 2
6. Human impacts unspecified 14 25% 58 19 20 11 6 2
8. Invasives unspecified 14 25% 56 15 16 15 5 5
1.3 Tourism & recreation infrastructure within protected area 16 25% 56 8 17 22 7 2
9.3 Agricultural & forestry effluents 17 20% 46 17 13 6 8 2
9.4 Garbage & solid waste 18 20% 45 9 15 9 12 0
9.1 Household sewage & urban waste water 19 18% 42 12 14 5 10 1
9.2 Industrial & military effluents 20 18% 41 13 12 7 7 2
2.2 Wood & pulp plantations within protected area 17% 39 10 8 12 6 3
1.2 Commercial & Industrial Areas within protected area 16% 36 11 9 10 3 2
8.1 Invasive Non-Native/Alien Plants 16% 36 7 8 7 12 2
8.1a Invasive Non-Native/Alien Animals 15% 34 2 8 7 13 4
3.1 Oil & gas drilling 14% 33 10 4 7 11 1
11.4 Storms & flooding 14% 32 11 8 4 7 2
4.2 Utility & Service Lines 14% 32 8 8 9 7 0

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 43

 % of total total Africa Asia Europe LAC Oceania
Threat Rank
studies n=227 n=81 n=65 n=41 n=31 n=9
11.2 Droughts 14% 31 10 12 4 3 2
6.2 War, civil unrest & military exercises 14% 31 12 6 7 4 1
13.2 Human activities in the buffer zone (migration, colonization, settlements,
agriculture, livestock farming and grazing, population growth) 13% 30 6 3 5 13 3
9. Pollution unspecified 13% 29 3 6 14 5 1
3.3 Renewable Energy 12% 28 8 5 10 4 1
8.2 Problematic Native Species 12% 28 11 4 10 2 1
11.1 Habitat shifting & alteration 12% 27 8 6 5 6 2
2. Agriculture and grazing unspecified 11% 25 8 7 5 5 0
2.4 Marine & freshwater aquaculture within protected area 11% 25 5 7 6 6 1
7. Natural system modifications unspecified 10% 23 4 10 7 2 0
9.5 Air-borne pollutants 9% 20 4 6 5 4 1
14. Other 8% 19 2 7 5 4 1
7.3a Fragmentation within protected area 8% 19 2 8 2 7 0
11.3 Temperature extremes 8% 18 5 6 3 3 1
8.3 Introduced Genetic Material 8% 18 7 3 4 2 1
4.4 Flight Paths 7% 15 6 2 5 2 0
11. Climate change and severe weather unspecified 6% 14 3 1 7 2 1
4.3 Shipping Lanes 6% 14 3 3 4 3 1
10.3 Avalanches/ Landslides 6% 13 4 3 2 4 0
13.1 Change in tenure/coversion of land use/unresolved property rights 5% 12 1 1 10 0 0
9.1b Noise pollution 5% 12 5 3 1 3 0
10.4 Erosion and siltation/ deposition 4% 10 1 3 2 4 0
7.3b Increased isolation of protected area from other natural habitat 4% 10 1 2 2 4 1
7.3c Other ‘edge effects’ on park values 4% 10 1 6 2 0 1

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 44

Bushmeat – the threat of hunting in protected areas
Lauren Coad, University of Oxford

The term ‘bushmeat’ is commonly used to describe ‘the meat of any wild animal hunted for
food’ (Bowen-Jones et al. 2002) and refers to a wide range of species. Although the term
originates from Africa, where the forest is often referred to as the ‘bush’, the subsistence and
commercial use of wildlife is worldwide.

Hunting is a crucial issue for both wildlife conservation and human well-being. Bushmeat
provides an important protein and income source for many rural communities for which few
other options are available (Coad et al. 2010; DFID 2002) - estimates for the Congo Basin
suggest that in rural communities 30–80% of protein and almost all animal protein come from
bushmeat (Blaney 2008). The main protein alternatives to bushmeat are fish and livestock,
which are often more expensive and less available than bushmeat in rural areas (Wilkie et al.
2005) However, increases in human population density, commercial trade in bushmeat, and
access to forests through logging concessions have led to bushmeat hunting becoming the
most significant immediate threat to wildlife in many African and Asian countries (Bennett et
al. 2007; Milner-Gullanda et al. 2003).

Protected areas provide refuges for wildlife from the threats of habitat loss and hunting;
paradoxically this also makes them attractive hunting grounds, and the benefits which
protected areas can provide to local communities may put protected areas under pressure
from increased population growth on their borders (Wittemyer et al. 2008).

To reduce hunting pressure in protected areas a number of different, often synergistic

management options, have been suggested, including increased enforcement of hunting
laws (increased patrolling, enforcing fines, and confiscating illegal catches), reducing local
demand for bushmeat through the provision of alternative and affordable protein sources
(e.g. cane rat farming, livestock rearing; (Adu et al. 1999), and reducing urban demand for
bushmeat through environmental education programmes and enforcement of wildlife trade
laws in towns. Protected areas have also been suggested as a tool for increasing village
hunting sustainability, acting as sources of animals for the hunted sites, preventing the
collapse of prey populations (Novaro et al. 2000).

To understand the outcomes and effectiveness of these management options, ecological

and socio-economic monitoring within and around protected areas is crucial. Line transects,
camera trapping and poaching patrol encounter rates (such as the MIST (Management
Information System) programme currently employed by the Wildlife Conservation Society
Asia programme) can all be used to estimate hunting pressure and prey populations;
similarly hunter Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) in surrounding villages may provide an indirect
measure of hunting effort and prey population depletion (Rist et al. 2010). The impacts of
increased protected area enforcement on local livelihoods in surrounding villages (potentially
limiting forest access and reducing hunting off-takes) should also be closely monitored, and
Schreckenberg et al. (2010) provide a synthesis of suitable indicators for assessing the
impact of protected area management on local livelihoods

Left: Young boys from

Dibouka village, Central
Gabon, showing off a cane-rat
(Thryonomys swinderianus)
caught in the village
plantations

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 45

Chapter 5 Conclusions and recommendations:
what can we learn?
5.1 Progress in PAME
The rapid progress that has been made in implementing management effectiveness
evaluations around the world reflects, in part, a commitment to implement the CBD Program
of Work for Protected areas goal and targets in this area. It also reflects a growing realisation
of the benefits that evaluation can bring to improving management of protected areas.

We would like to see protected area managers develop enduring programs of assessment and
improvement, which use evaluation processes and data not only for accountability and
reporting but also for adaptive management. Increasing use of system level assessments, for
example in Finland, South Korea, Colombia and Thailand, as well as institutionalisation of
PAME processes more broadly around the world, all indicate a commitment to this more
integrated type of evaluation. Over the next few years, examples of the integration of
management effectiveness assessments into routine planning and decision-making processes
for protected areas, such as is being developed in NSW in Australia, should further
demonstrate the benefits of this approach.

5.2 Conclusions and recommendations about

protected area management
Results of the assessments overall show that protected area management leaves much
to be desired, with management effectiveness in most cases just meeting or missing
acceptable minimum standards. While some protected areas are being well managed, about
one in three is still in an ‘establishment’ phase where significant deficiencies are obvious,
and another one in seven shows clearly inadequate management, where basic needs are not
being met. This study includes many poorer protected areas which are targeted for
development aid programs, but even in protected areas from more developed (high HDI)
countries it is clear that management effectiveness could be substantially improved.

Assessments consider that protected areas are conserving their values and contributing
to their communities. In spite of lack of inputs and adequate management processes, the
‘outcome’ factors of meeting objectives, conserving values and affecting the community all
achieved positive and relatively high ratings. It is true that most assessments contributing to
this study have used only qualitative ‘self-rating’ judgments, but there is no reason to believe
that these indicators would be rated any more leniently than others. Studies looking at
empirical evidence also suggest that on a larger scale protected areas are reducing the rate of
deforestation, even where there is lack of funding and weak institutions (Naughton-Treves et
al. 2005).

Above: In some countries, deforestation still occurs in protected areas, but several studies
have shown that is significantly less within protected areas than in surrounding lands.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 46

Numerous and serious threats to protected areas require attention if their values are to
be conserved. Many of these threats relate to the interface between conservation and human
welfare, so are extremely challenging to resolve. Deforestation or intensified landuse up to
the protected area boundary is in many cases leading to increased pressure and ‘edge
effects’. This is an issue in some more developed countries, such as Australia, as well as in
tropical countries with rapidly increasing populations and changing economies.

As discussed above, protected areas do appear to be performing important conservation

functions and protecting biodiversity, especially from wholesale destruction. However, the
frequency of threats recorded in this study from hunting, adjacent land use, farming and
grazing, and settlements within protected areas across most of the world confirms the
concern that protected areas which seem to be maintaining their values may in fact be
experiencing more subtle declines as we see ‘half-empty forests’ with loss of biodiversity
(Peres and Palacios 2007).

Protected areas have a vital role to play in mitigating the effects of climate change across the
world (Dudley et al. 2010): to play this role effectively threats must be controlled and
minimised. A primary defence against the impacts of climate change is to control pre-
existing threats, as their impacts are likely to be compounded in the future (Dunlop and
Brown 2008; Hannah et al. 2007).

Some protected areas still lack the basic requirements to operate effectively, and
threats are aggravated by the lack of a clear management presence. Very low scores for
security of funding in many assessments are a concern. There is a very strong link between
adequate ‘inputs’ and overall effective management, with the most important individual
indicators being equipment, infrastructure and information. Adequate equipment and
infrastructure is very highly correlated with effective management but is one of the weakest
indicators in almost all regions, so this factor deserves some serious attention.

Reports consistently mention the need for more staff, but the difficulty of attracting and
maintaining good technical staff often appears to be the problem (sometimes related to
human resource policies and wage levels), and the need for better training in a range of
technical areas is also mentioned. Even among the best funding protected area systems in
the world, staffing is regarded as ‘lean’, especially given the increased responsibilities in
both scope of duties and areas to manage (Gilligan et al. 2005).

It is recommended that management agencies, partners and funders continue to

cooperate to help protected areas achieve minimum basic standards. The concept of
protected areas becoming ‘consolidated’ through defining and working towards minimum
standards of management across a number of factors makes intuitive sense and has been
applied in a number of methodologies. Where this approach is linked with additional
funding, regular evaluations and a concerted effort towards improving the fundamentals,
marked improvement can be seen over time. This is clearly evidenced by the Parks in Peril
data and to a lesser extent by experience from the PROARCA program and use of the
Tracking Tool. This process takes time, so long-term commitments to protected area
improvement are essential (Martin and Rieger 2003), as are efforts to build sustainability
into all externally-funded programs.

It is essential that national governments provide better policy support for tenure
resolution in some cases, and for appropriate development planning and control
around protected areas. The consistent nomination of adjacent land use or ‘buffer zone
management’ as a major threat emphasizes the need to consider protected areas in the wider
landscape, especially as they are faced with additional pressures from climate change.

Government policy, institutional coordination and integration of protected areas into

the landscape all need to be improved. Better communication and collaboration among

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 47

government organizations and public institutions, including the need for better landuse
planning, was a priority recommendation in numerous PAME studies. Frequently, protected
area management is undermined by the activities of other government agencies such as those
responsible for water infrastructure, roads, urban development, agricultural policy and
tourism. Integration of protected areas into wider landscape planning is frequently
recommended. For example, in Europe the need to overcome problems of fragmentation and
isolation of protected areas is vital for biodiversity conservation and is made more urgent by
climate change (Gaston et al. 2008)

Protected area establishment and design are relatively effective, so the basics of
protected area systems are in place in most places. Gazettal of protected areas, resolution
of tenure issues, boundary marking, and sound design of protected areas have generally
scored among the strongest management factors. Reports and data indicate that there are
some areas where these vital factors still need attention, but in most cases these first steps
towards effective management have been achieved to an acceptable level.

A greater effort should be to be put into communication, community involvement and

programs of community benefit. In all regions, these factors scored poorly but were
strongly correlated with both overall effectiveness and good management outcomes. The
data analysed here shows that positive impacts on communities are most strongly linked with
specific communication, participation and
community benefit programs (rather than with
good funding, staffing or overall management
processes). This finding, combined with the lack
of awareness of protected areas reported in many
assessments, argues for a specific effort to boost
community relations. Many reports mention that
staff capacity for this role is lacking.

A related recommendation is the need for better

understanding and presentation of the benefits of
protected areas.

A boost to the specific program area of ‘values

conservation’ through resource management,
research and monitoring is also justified.
Positive outcomes for protected area values
conservation – primarily biodiversity
conservation – are strongly correlated with
Working with local communities to
ensure that protected areas benefit
specific resource management activities,
those most in need, and then measuring monitoring and research and threat monitoring. It
and clearly communicating the benefits, appears that if we wish to conserve the values of
are recommendations of evaluation protected areas, a focus is needed on specific
reports across all parts of the world.
activities to manage and monitor the values:
Above: Local community members at general improvement to overall management is
Wasur National Park, West Papua.
Photo: Huw Davie not sufficient.

Visitor management stands out as an area of management which needs to be improved,

given its poor rating in most regions, the strong links with overall effectiveness and the
prevalence of uncontrolled visitation and tourism being nominated as a serious threat. Needs
expressed in the evaluations include better communication with visitors, more appropriate
infrastructure, facilities and waste disposal in some cases, and control of impacts which
occur through unregulated use.

Managers need to build better pro-active management capacity. Management planning,

monitoring and research and management effectiveness evaluation scored as comparatively
weak, but all are strongly linked with good overall effectiveness. A key factor mentioned

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 48

repeatedly is the need to improve the application and use of planning, evaluation and
management tools to deliver good and consistent management on the ground. In reports and
workshops, many protected area staff stress the need for management plans which are
meaningful and useful in a rapidly changing world.

5.3 Conclusions and recommendations about

evaluating management effectiveness
The Global Study has given us the opportunity to analyse and learn from numerous studies
of management effectiveness across the world, and to talk to many people who have learned
from experiences in the field. Some of the findings have been incorporated into the IUCN-
WCPA Guidelines on management effectiveness (Hockings et al. 2006), and others are
presented below in Section 5.4, and in the Checklist in Appendix Three.

It has been emphasized that management effectiveness evaluation can be conducted for a
range of different purposes. At the scale of this study, the contribution to on-ground adaptive
management of protected areas is limited, but it is hoped that the recommendations in the
previous section will be helpful. The definition of some key management factors might also
be of interest to managers, and provides some basis for thought about the most critical issues
to address at regional scales.

For the purposes of prioritisation and reporting across many protected areas, there are
occasions where a very simple assessment tool with only a few indicators might be
appropriate. This study has shown that a group of ten ‘headline indicators’ correlates very
strongly with an overall average obtained from many more factors, but does not correlate so
well with management outcomes. Therefore a minimum set of questions would need to relate
to the ‘top ten’ headline indicators plus at least two outcome indicators, to separately address
the conservation of values and the effect on the community. This small set of questions is
not, however, recommended for general evaluation purposes, as it would not enable
managers to understand enough about the protected area management to undertake necessary
improvements and would not provide a learning experience for staff.

This study has shown that the range of methodologies in use often paint a remarkably similar
picture of management strengths and weaknesses. Most importantly, the assessment process
provides the opportunity for managers and partners to learn from each other and to raise the
standard of their protected area management. This is a particularly successful technique
when it is coupled with a concerted effort to apply the findings of the evaluation and to
strengthen management to acceptable levels.

General guidelines for conducting management effectiveness are included in a number of

reports (Ervin 2007; Hockings et al. 2006). A recent study of the state of PAME in Europe
(Nolte et al. 2010) compiled recommendations for further progress in that region that also
have application across the world. In summary, we recommend the following:

Start evaluating, recognising that evaluation is a vital component of governance. Obstacles

to evaluation are diverse and are often associated with lack of political will. Emphasis needs
to be on continual improvement rather than on judgment, and evaluations need to ensure that
benefits accrue to all the participants.

Institutionalise to ensure that the results are used to improve management. Implementation
of necessary changes often rests on the capacity of the evaluating organisations to influence
funding and policy. Management at all levels and funding organisations need regular
information which is relevant to their needs, their particular governance systems, and to the
questions they need answered. A particular recommendation is that information systems
must be built to make data available to mangers in an easily accessible form linked to their
decision-making systems.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 49

Keep it cost-effective, in balance with other aspects of management. Keeping PAME studies
small and simple in early assessment cycles may be a good guiding principle. Potential for
cost-saving through cooperation between agencies and reporting systems should be explored.

Make it transparent to the greatest possible extent so that data can be shared and collated
and learning better applied.

Improve data quality – diversifying information sources and involving external experts in
interpreting results can make assessments more useful and more credible. Questionnaires
should be properly designed and trailed. While quantitative data is often regarded as more
credible than qualitative information this is not always the case. The type of data collected
should be matched to the issue being examined and the capacity of the agency or
organisation to collect data in a rigorous manner (Hockings et al. 2009). Qualitative data
collected using appropriate processes can be as reliable as quantitative data – it is most
important that the data used is matched to the issue being examined. Targeted monitoring of
the status of key values and threats should be undertaken and reported on, to provide more
credible outcome assessments.

Move beyond site-level assessments – much important information is relevant to system-

level assessments and these are becoming more frequent. The combination of site and system
level assessments can provide a solid basis for improvement of an entire protected area
network in a country.

See it as a learning process – though consistency is useful for comparisons over time,
adaptation and revision of methodologies are valuable steps in a learning process. Where
indicators are changed or added, efforts to maintain comparability should be made. Learning
and discussions should be encouraged among people developing and practicing PAME.

5.4 Principles for methodologies in PAME

As well as experiences from the Global Study, we have drawn on some of the extensive
literature on evaluation which has developed, especially over the last ten years, with
excellent publications and websites to assist in designing and conducting evaluations. The
work by Patton (1997), for example, introduces the concept and practices of ‘utilisation-
focused evaluation’ which is particularly appropriate to protected area managers. In various
areas of evaluation, primarily those connected with international development agencies,
guidelines and sets of principles have been defined by groups of practitioners to encourage
evaluations which are both effective and ethical (Conservation Measures Partnership 2004;
DAC Evaluation Network 2006; Kusek and Rist 2004).

In the protected area context, a number of writers have listed characteristics of ‘good’
management effectiveness evaluations. Basic principles were defined by Courrau (1999) and
recommended in the PROARCA manual (Corrales 2004b). A set of guiding principles were
derived from a meeting in Melbourne in 2003, where a number of international practitioners
shared the ‘lessons learned’: these were incorporated into a book on global change
(Leverington and Hockings 2004) and the revised version of the IUCN-WCPA Guidelines
on management effectiveness (Hockings et al. 2006). An excellent synthesis of guidelines
was also presented in the report on strengthening PAME in the Andes region (Cracco et al.
2006).

The background into the methodology applied in Belize (Young et al. 2005) also provides a
good summary, while the ‘How is Your Marine Protected Area Doing’ guidebook (Pomeroy
et al. 2004) simply writes that evaluation should be
• Useful to managers and stakeholders;
• Practical in use and cost;
• Balanced to seek and include both scientific input and stakeholder participation;
• Flexible for use in different sites and in varying conditions; and
• Holistic through a focus on both natural and human perspectives’.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 50

Even the best methodology will be ineffective or have negative impacts if it is applied in a
punitive manner, if there is no follow-through to result in improved management, or if the
process of evaluation causes serious friction and loss of trust between the parties. Where
evaluations show negative trends, sensitive handling of the situation is essential. Evaluation
teams should discuss in advance how to deal with cases where assessments uncover real
incompetence, or in the worst scenario, deliberate misuse of power or resources.

Before an evaluation is begun, a methodology needs to be selected and adapted as necessary,

and then implementation planned carefully. Adaptation and implementation planning are
vital stages in the use of any methodology.

It should be kept in mind that while these are general principles, some characteristic of a
‘good’ evaluation will be determined by its purpose, scope and level. For example, while
participation and transparency are good in principle, in some cases a less inclusive and open
approach is necessary. Many of the principles described apply to more in-depth assessments
(levels 2 and 3), and will be difficult to achieve in rapid, simple (level 1) exercises.

In summary, methodologies for evaluating management effectiveness of protected areas

should be:
• Useful and relevant in improving protected area management; yielding
explanations and showing patterns; and in improving communication,
relationships and awareness;
• Logical and systematic: working in a logical and accepted framework with
balanced approach;
• Based on good indicators, which are holistic, balanced, and useful;
• Accurate: providing true, objective, consistent and up-to-date information;
• Practical to implement within available resources, giving a good balance
between measuring, reporting and managing;
• Part of an effective management cycle: linked to defined values, objectives and
policies and part of strategic planning, park planning and business and financial
cycles;
• Cooperative: with good communication, teamwork and participation of
protected area managers and stakeholders throughout all stages of the project
wherever possible; and
• Focussed on positive and timely communication and application of results.

Above: Discussions contributing to development of PAME methodology for Brazil

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 51

References

Note: Some of the findings of this report have also been published in Leverington et
al.(2010b) and Butchart et al. (2010).

Adu, EK, WS Alhassan and FS Nelson (1999) Smallholder farming of the greater cane rat
Thryonomys swinderianus, Temminck, in Southern Ghana: a baseline survey of management
practices. Tropical Animal Health and Production 31, 223 - 232.

Ahokumpu, A, J Brueggemann, Z Gullbiinas and T Kotiimäkii (no date) Management

effectiveness of Lithuanian Protected Areas. Ministry of Environment, Lithuania,Savcor
Indufor, Metsahallitus, COWI SA, Lithuanian University of Agriculture Consortium.

Alder, J, D Zeller, T Pitcher and R Sumaila (2002) A method for evaluating marine protected
area management. Coastal Management 30(2), 121-131.

Andam, KS, PJ Ferraro, A Pfaff, GA Sanchez-Azofeifa and JA Robalino (2008) Measuring

the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105(42), 16089-16094.

Anonymous (2004) Indonesia: Management Effectiveness Assessment of Protected Areas

using WWF's RAPPAM Methodology (draft).

Anonymous (no date) Technical report for Lao PDR assessment of protected area
management effectiveness. unpublished draft.

ARCHELON, Hellenic Ornithological Society, Hellenic Society for the Protection of Nature,
Hellenic Society for the Protection of the Environment & Cultural Heritage, Mediterranean
S.O.S. Network, MOM – Hellenic Society for the Study and Protection of the Monk Seal and
WWF Greece (2005) Report on the status of the protected areas system in Greece.

Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente, Dirección Nacional de Áreas Protegidas y Vida Silvestre
and Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas Panama (2006) Programa de Monitoreo de la
Efectividad del Manejo de las Áreas Protegidas: Informe 2001-2005. Panama.

Belokurov, A, C Besançon, et al. (2009) New resources for assessing the effectiveness of
management in protected areas. Oryx 43, 14.

Bennett, EL, E Blencowe, et al. (2007) Hunting for consensus: Reconciling bushmeat
harvest, conservation and development policy in West and Central Africa. Conservation
Biology 21, 884 - 887.

Blaney, S (2008) Contribution des ressources naturelles a la securite alimentaire et a l’etat

nutritionnel d’une population rurale d’une aire prot egee du Gabon. PhD thesis. Universite
Laval, Quebec.

Blom, A, J Yamindou and HHT Prins (2004) Status of the protected areas of the Central
African Republic. Biological Conservation 118(4), 479-487.

Bowen-Jones, E, D Brown and EJZ Robinson (2002) Assessment of the solution orientated
research needed to promote a more sustainable bushmeat trade. DEFRA, London. Available
online: http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlifecountryside/ resprog/findings/bushmeat.pdf.

Butchart, SHM, M Walpole, et al. (2010) Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines.
Science 328(5982), 1164-1168.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 52

Butterworth, D (2008) Management Effectiveness in England: the Experience of the
Yorkshire Dales National Parks. In 'Assessment of Management Effectiveness in European
Protected Areas.' Ed. S Stolton). (BfN: Bonn, Germany)

Chape S, Harrison J, Spalding M and I Lysenko (2005) Measuring the extent and
effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 360(1454), 443-455.

Cifuentes, M, A Izurieta and H de Faria (2000) 'Measuring protected area management

effectiveness.' (WWF,GTZ,IUCN)

Coad, L, K Abernethy, A Balmford, A Manica, L Airey and EJ Milner-Gulland (2010)

Distribution and Use of Income from Bushmeat in a Rural Village, Central Gabon.
Conservation Biology 24, 1510-1518.

CONAP (2006) Evaluación de Gestión del Sistema Guatemalteco de Áreas Protegidas-

SIGAP- 2005. Consejo Nacional de Áreas Protegidas, Guatemala.

Congo Basin Forest Partnership (2005) The Forests of the Congo Basin: A preliminary
assessment Congo Basin Forest Partnership.

Conservation Measures Partnership (2004) Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation.
http://conservationmeasures.org/CMP/Library/CMP_Open_Standards_v1.0.pdf.

Convention on Biological Diversity (2004) Decisions adopted by the Conference of the

Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its Seventh Meeting
UNEP/CBD/COP/7/21. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity Montreal.

Corrales, L (2004a) Manual for the Rapid Evaluation of Management Effectiveness in

Marine Protected Areas of Mesoamerica. PROARCA/APM, USAID, TNC, Guatemala City,
Guatemala.

Corrales, L (2004b) Midiendo el éxito de las acciones en las áreas protegidas de

Centroamérica: Medición de la Efectividad de Manejo. PROARCA/APM, Guatemala de la
Asunción, Guatemala.

Corrales, L, JC Godoy and H Márquez (2006) Estado del Monitoreo y Resultados sobre la
Efectividad de Manejo de las Áreas Protegidas en Centroamérica, 2000-2006. PROARCA -
SICA, CCAD, USAID, TNC.

Council of Europe (2009) The European Diploma of Protected Areas. In. ' (Council of
Europe: Strasbourg, France. Online available at:
http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/nature/diploma/default_en.asp (accessed
12.12.2009))

Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (2004) Recommendation 1689. Hunting and

Europe’s environmental balance. Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Website.
(http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/AdoptedText/ta04/EREC1689.htm Strasborg.

Courrau, J (2005) Monitoring and Assessment with Relevant Indicators of Protected Areas
of the The Guianas MARIPA -G. Guianas Forests & Environmental Conservation Project
WWF-GUIANAS.

Cracco, M (Ed.) (2006) 'Fortalecimiento de la Efectividad de Manejo en los Andes.

Memorias del Taller Regional, 5 al 7 de Septiembre. UICN. Quito, Ecuador.'

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 53

Cracco, M, J Calvopiña, J Courrau, MM Medina, I Novo, I Oetting, J Surkin, R Ulloa and P
Vásquez (2006) Fortalecimiento de la Efectividad de Manejo en los Andes. Análisis
comparativo de herramientas existentes. UICN, Quito, Ecuador.

DAC Evaluation Network (2006) DAC Evaluation Quality Standards (for test phase
application). OECD.

David Henry, Anne Landry, Tom Elliot, Laura Gorecki, Michael Gates and C Chow (2008)
State of the Park Report: Kluane National Park and Reserve of Canada. Parks Canada.

de Faria, HH (1998) Avaliação da eficácia de gestão das unidades de conservação do

Instituto Florestal. Uma metodologia e resultados preliminares. Reunião Técnica da Divisão
de Florestas e Estações Experimentais. Instituto Florestal. Parque Estadual do Morro do
Diabo, Palestra.

de Faria, HH (2004) Eficácia de Gestão de Unidades de Conservação Gerenciadas pelo

Instituto Florestal de São Paulo, Brasil. Tese de doutoramento Depto. Geografia. UNESP.
Presidente Prudente, SP.

Department of Forests and Wildlife Sikkim and WWF India (2003) Rapid Assessment of the
management effectiveness of the protected areas of Eastern Himalaya (Sikkim). Department
of Forests and WIldlife Sikkim, WWF-India.

Department of Nature Conservation - State Forestry Administration and Research Center for
Eco-environmental Sciences - the Chinese Academy of Sciences (2006) Effectiveness
assessment on the management of nature reserves in China: Research report. Department of
Nature Conservation - State Forestry Administration, Research Center for Eco-
environmental Sciences - the Chinese Academy of Sciences, World Bank, WWF.

DFID (2002) Wildlife and Poverty Study. P. 89. Department for International Development,
United Kingdom. Available online: http://www.iwmc.org/IWMC
Forum/Articles/WildlifePovertyStudy.pdf.

Diku, A, K Genti and D Nihat (2008) Final Report: Implementation of the Rapid Assessment
and Prioritization of Protected Areas Management methodology for assessing protected areas
system in Albania. WWF.

Diqiang, L, Z Jianhua, D Ke, W Bo and Z Chunquan (2003) China: Management

Effectiveness Assessment of Protected Areas in the upper Yangtze Ecoregion using WWF's
RAPPAM Methodology WWF.

Dudley, N, S Stolton, A Belokurov, L Krueger, N Lopoukhine, K MacKinnon, T Sandwith

and N Sekhran (Eds) (2010) 'Natural Solutions: Protected areas helping people cope with
climate change.' ( IUCNWCPA,
TNC, UNDP, WCS, The World Bank and WWF,: Gland, Switzerland, Washington DC and
New York, USA)

Duguman, J (2006) Papua New Guineau: Management Effectiveness Assessment of Papua

New Guineau's protected areas using WWF's RAPPAM Methodology WWF and partners.

Dunlop, M and PR Brown (2008) Implications of Climate Change for Australia's National
Reserve System - A Preliminary Assessment. Report to the Department of Climate Change,
February 2008. Department of Climate Change, Canberra, Australia.

English National Park Authorities Association (2009) National Park Authorities: valuing,
safeguarding and enhancing biodiversity: unpublished report

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 54

Ervin, J (2003a) Protected area assessments in perspective. Bioscience 53(9), 819-822.

Ervin, J (2003b) WWF: Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management
(RAPPAM) Methodology. WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

Ervin, J (2004a) Preliminary results of RAPPAM implementation in Slovakia. unpublished

draft.

Ervin, J (2004b) Preliminary results of RAPPAM implementation in the Czech republic.

unpublished draft.

Ervin, J (2007) Assessing protected area management effectiveness: a quick guide for
protected area practitioners. The Nature Conservancy
http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/patools/resources/pame/pameresources/pamedocs/pam
equickguide/view.html, Arlington, VA.

Estrada, N (2006) Resultados del Monitoreo de la Efectividad de Manejo del Sistema

Nacional de Áreas Protegidas de Honduras 2000-2006. Administración Forestal del Estado,
Departamento de Áreas Protegidas y Vida Silvestre, Unidad de Monitoreo, Honduras.

EUROPARC España (2008) Anuario EUROPARC España del estado de los espacios
naturales protegidos 2007. Fundación Fernando González Bernáldez, Madrid, Spain.

EUROPARC Germany (2008) Quality criteria and standards for German national parks.
Developing a procedure to evaluate management effectiveness. EUROPARC Germany,
Berlin, Germany.

European Council (1992) Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural

habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22 July 1992). European Council, Brussels.

Ewers, RM and ASL Rodrigues (2008) Estimates of reserve effectiveness are confounded by
leakage. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23(3), 113-116.

Ferraro, P and S Pattanayak (2006) Money for Nothing? A Call for Empirical Evaluation of
Biodiversity Conservation Investments. PLoS Biol 4(4), e105.
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040105.

Fouda, M, J Grainger, W Salama, S Baha El Din, D Paleczny, S Zalat and F Gilbert (2006)
Management Effectiveness Evaluation Of Egypt’s Protected Area System - Draft. Nature
Conservation Sector, Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency, Ministry of State for
Environmental Affairs.

FPNR (2001) Suivi et évaluation des chartes des parcs naturels régionaux. Guide technique.
Féderation des Parcs Naturels Régionaux de France, Paris, France.

Franzosini, C (2009) Management effectiveness in five marine protected areas in Italy -

report for the Vilm meeting on management effectiveness in Europe, November 2009.

FUDENA/INPARQUES (2001) Visión 2001: Situación Actual del Sistema de Parques

Nacionales de Venezuela. FUDENA/INPARQUES, Caracas.

Gambino, R, D Talamo and F Thomasset (2008) 'Parchi d' Europa - Verso una politica
europea per le aree protette.' (Edizioni ETS: Pisa, Italy)

García, V (2008) Management Effectiveness and Quality Criteria for Protected Areas in
Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain. In 'Assessment of Management Effectiveness in European
Protected Areas.' Ed. S Stolton). (BfN: Bonn, Germany)

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 55

Gaston, KJ, SF Jackson, A Nagy, L Cantú-Salazar and M Johnson (2008) Protected Areas in
Europe: Principle and Practice. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1134, 97-119.

German MAB Committee (2007) Kriterien für die Anerkennung und Überprüfung von
Biosphärenreservaten der UNESCO in Deutschland. German MAB Committee, UNESCO
Germany, Bonn, Germany.

Gilligan, B, N Dudley, A Fernandez de Tejada and H Toivonen (2005) Management

Effectiveness Evaluation of Finland’s Protected Areas. Nature Protection Publications of
Metsähallitus. Series A 147.

Goodman, PS (2003) Assessing management effectiveness and setting priorities in protected

areas in KwaZulu-Natal. BioScience 53(9), 843-848.

Guachalla, MCZOP and JA Zegada (2001) Metodología medición de la efectividad del

manejo del SNAP (MEMS). Ministerio de Desarrollo Sostenible, Servicio Nacional de Áreas
Protegidas de Bolivia (SERNAP), La Paz, Bolivia.

Gubbay, S (2005) Evaluating the management effectiveness of marine protected areas: Using
UK sites and the UK MPA programme to illustrate different approaches. WWF.

Hannah, L, G Midgley, S Andelman, M Araújo, G Hughes, E Martinez-Meyer, R Pearson

and P Williams (2007) Protected area needs in a changing climate. Frontiers in Ecology and
Environment 5(3), 131-138.

Haut Commissariat aux Eaux et Forêts et à la Lutte contre la Désertification (HCEFLCD)

(2008) Résultats de la première évaluation de la gestion des aires protégées au Maroc à
travers la méthodologie RAPPAM.

Heinonen, M (2006) Case Study V: Management effectiveness evaluation of Finland’s

protected areas. In 'Evaluating effectiveness: a framework for assessing the management of
protected areas second edition.' (Eds M Hockings, S Stolton, N Dudley, F Leverington and J
Courrau). (IUCN Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series: Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK)

Heinonen, M (Ed.) (2007) 'State of the Parks in Finland. Finnish Protected Areas from 2000 to 2005.'
Nature Protection Publications of Metsähallitus. Series A 170 (Metsähallitus, Natural Heritage
Services)

Hockings, M (2003) Systems for assessing the effectiveness of management in protected

areas. Bioscience 53(9), 823(10).

Hockings, M and A Phillips (1999) How well are we doing? – some thoughts on the
effectiveness of protected areas. Parks 9(2), 5-14.

Hockings, M, S Stolton, J Courrau, N Dudley, J Parrish, R James, V Mathur and J Makombo

(2007) The World Heritage Management Effectiveness Workbook: 2007 Edition. UNESCO,
IUCN, University of Queensland, The Nature Conservancy.

Hockings, M, S Stolton and N Dudley (2000) 'Evaluating effectiveness: a framework for

assessing the management of protected areas.' (IUCN, Cardiff University: Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK)

Hockings, M, S Stolton, N Dudley and R James (2009) Data Credibility: What are the "right"
data for evaluating management effectiveness of protected areas? In 'Environmental Program

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 56

and Policy Evaluation: Addressing methodological challenges. Vol. 122.' (Eds M Birnbaum
and P Mickwitz). (New Directions for Evaluation)

Hockings, M, S Stolton, N Dudley, F Leverington and J Courrau (2006) 'Evaluating

effectiveness: a framework for assessing the management of protected areas. Second edition.'
(IUCN: Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK)

Hoffmann, M, C Hilton-Taylor, et al. (2010) The Impact of Conservation on the Status of the
World’s Vertebrates. Science 330(6010), 1503-1509.

INDUROT (2009) The System of Sustainable Development Indicators for the Natural Parks of
Asturias - Spain (INDESPAR).Methodological summary. Special report for the Vilm meeting, adapted
from the original projects developed for the Regional Ministry of Environment of Asturias (Spain) in
the Natural Parks and Biosphere Reserves of Somiedo (2006) and Redes (2007).

INRENA Hoja de hechos Monitoreo Y Evaluación- part of the PlanDirector system (Peru).
INRENA Hoja de hechos Monitoreo Y Evaluación
http://www.plandirectoranp.com/documentos/Hoja_de_Hechos_M&E_2812.pdf.

Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis and WWF-Brasil
(2007) Efetividade de Gestão das Unidades de Conservação Federais do Brasil:
Implementação do Método Rappam – Avaliação Rápida e Priorização da Gestão de
Unidades de Conservação. IBAMA, WWF-Brasil, http://www.wwf.org.br/index.cfm,
Brasilia.

IUCN, EARP, UNEP and ICRAN (2004) Assessment of Management Effectiveness in

Selected Marine Protected Areas in the Western Indian Ocean.

Jackson, SF and KJ Gaston (2008) The unpredictability of favourability: condition

assessment and protected areas in England. Biodiversity Conservation 17(749-764).

Jenkins, CN and L Joppa (2009) Expansion of the global terrestrial protected area system.
Biological Conservation 142(10), 2166-2174.

Joppa, LN, SR Loarie and SL Pimm (2008) On the protection of "protected areas".
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105(18),
6673-6678.

K. Alexander, P.M. Bartier, et al. (2007) Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve and Haida
Heritage Site: 2007 State of the Protected Area Report. Parks Canada.

Knapp, T (1990) Treating ordinal scales as interval scales: an attempt to resolve the
controversy. Nursing Research 39(2), 121-123.

Korean National Parks Service and IUCN (2009) Korea’s Protected Areas: Evaluating the
effectiveness of South Korea’s protected areas system. KNPS and IUCN, Seoul, Korea.

Köster, U, T Wilken, S Brittner and T Bauch (2006) Nature Parks Quality Campaign.
Verband Deutscher Naturparke e.V., Bonn, Germany.

Kus Veenvliet, J and A. Sovinc (2009) Protected area management effectiveness in Slovenia.
Final report of the RAPPAM analysis. Commissioned by the Ministry of the Environment
and Spatial Planning of the Republic of Slovenia, Ljubljana.

Kusek, JZ and RC Rist (2004) Ten steps to a results-based monitoring and evaluation system
: a handbook for development practitioners. The World Bank, Washington DC.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 57

Lacerda, L, K Schmitt, P Cutter and S Meas (2004) Cambodia: Management Effectiveness
Assessment of the System of Protected Areas in Cambodia using WWF’s RAPPAM
Methodology. Ministry of Environment, Biodiversity and Protected Areas Management
Project., Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Land Use Consultants (2006) Evaluation of Local Nature Reserves. Scottish Natural
Heritage.

Lemos de Sá, RM, LV Ferreira, R Buschbacher, G Batmanian, NR Bensusan and KL Costa

(1999) Protected Areas or Endangered Spaces? WWF Report on the Degree of
Implementation and the Vulnerability of Brazilian Federal Conservation Areas. WWF
Brazil.

Leverington, F, Anne Kettner, Christoph Nolte, Melitta Marr, Sue Stolton, H Pavese, S Stoll-
Kleeman and Marc Hockings (2010a) Protected Area Management Effectiveness
Assessments in Europe: Overview of European methodologies. BfN- Scripten 271b. BfN,
Vilm, Germany.

Leverington, F, KL Costa, H Pavese, A Lisle and M Hockings (2010b) Management

effectiveness evaluation in protected areas -a global study. Journal of Environmental
Management 46(5), 685-698.

Leverington, F and M Hockings (2004) Evaluating the effectiveness of protected area

management: the challenge of change. In 'Securing protected areas and ecosystem services in
the face of global change.' (Eds C.V. Barber, KRM and and M Boness) pp. 169-214. (IUCN,
WCPA, WRI: Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge)

Leverington, F, M Hockings, H Pavese, KL Costa and J Courrau (2008) Management

effectiveness evaluation in protected areas - a Global Study. Supplementary report No.1:
Overview of approaches and methodologies. University of Queensland, TNC, WWF, IUCN-
WCPA, Gatton, Australia.

Leverington, F, H Pavese and KL Costa (2007a) Management effectiveness evaluation in

Latin America and the Caribbean. Part A: Overview and recommendations. Final report to
OAS InterAmerican Biodiversity Information Network for the project ‘Identify available
Protected Area Management Effectiveness data, Methods and Results in Latin America and
Caribbean to Support the Protected Areas Thematic Network’. InterAmerican Biodiversity
Information Network, Brisbane, Australia.

Leverington, F, H Pavese, M Hockings, J Courrau and KL Costa (2007b) Estudio Global de

la Efectividad del Manejo de Áreas Protegidas: Una Perspectiva Latinoamericana. In 'Latin
American Congress of Protected Areas. ' Bariloche, Argentina)

Likert, R (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology
5, 228-238.

Lloyd, K, B Hayes, P Tiplady, P Forrester and C FRance (2005) Yorkshire Dales National
Park Authority - Performance Assessment Report October 2005.

Mallarach, JM (2006) Case Study III: Evaluation of the Protected Areas System of
Catalonia, Spain. In 'Evaluating effectiveness: a framework for assessing the management of
protected areas second edition.' (Eds M Hockings, S Stolton, N Dudley, F Leverington and J
Courrau). (IUCN Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series: Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK)

Mallarach, JM and JV Varga (Eds) (2004) 'EI PEIN deu anys després: balanç I perspectives.'
Diversitas: 50 pp 29-40 (Universitat de Girona: Girona)

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 58

Marco Robles, Jaime Camacho and Jorge Campaña (2005) Programa Parques En
Peligro:Biorreserva Del Cóndor. Evaluación de la gestión de 5 areas protegidas ubicadas en
la Biorreserva Del Cóndor Aplicando los indicadores de Consolidación del Sitio. Ecocentia.

Margoluis, R and N Salafsky (1998) 'Measures of success: designing, managing and

monitoring conservation and development projects.' (Island Press: Washington DC)

Martin, AS and JF Rieger (2003) The Parks in Peril Site Consolidation Scorecard: Lessons
from Protected Areas in Latin American and the Caribbean. The Nature Conservancy,
Arlington, VA, USA.

Milner-Gullanda, EJ, E Bennett and SCB 2002 Annual Meeting Wild Meat Group (2003)
Wild meat: the bigger picture. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18(7), 351-357.

MINEF Department of Wildlife and Protected Areas and WWF Cameroon Programme
Office (2002) Analyses Evaluation of management effectiveness Cameroon Protected Area
system.

Ministerio De Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales El Salvador and Ministerio ye Medio

Ambiente y Recursos Naturales El Salvador (2006) Informe Nacional Monitoreo de la
Eficiencia del Manejo de las Áreas Naturales Protegidas de El Salvador.

Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment (2006) Management Effectiveness of

National and State Parks in Malaysia. Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment,
Putrajaya, Malaysia.

Mugisha, AR and SK Jacobson (2004) Threat reduction assessment of conventional and

community-based conservation approaches to managing protected areas in Uganda.
Environmental Conservation 31(3), 233-241.

Nagendra, H (2008) Do parks work? Impact of protected areas on land cover clearing. Ambio
37(5), 330-337.

Nagendra, H, C Tucker, L Carlson, J Southworth, M Karmacharya and B Karna (2004)

Monitoring parks through remote sensing: studies in Nepal and Honduras. Environmental
Management 34(5), 748-760.

National Parks Conservation Association State of the Parks Program (no date) State of the
Parks: Natural Resources Assessment and Ratings Methodology. National Parks
Conservation Association, downloaded from
http://www.npca.org/stateoftheparks/methodology1.pdf

Naturvårdsverket (2005) Riktlinjer för utvärdering av förvaltning av skyddade områden.

Naturvårdsverket, Stockholm, Sweden.

Natuurmonumenten (2007) Handleiding Kwaliteitstoets 2008. Vereniging

Natuurmonumenten, ’s-Graveland, Netherlands.

Naughton-Treves, L, MB Holland and K Brandon (2005) The role of protected areas in

conserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. Annual Review of Environment and
Resources 30, 219-252.

Naviglio, L and D Talamo (2009) Italian protected areas and management effectiveness.
ENEA / Federparchi, Unpublished draft.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 59

Nemekhjargal, B and A Belokurov (2005) Management Effectiveness Assessment of the
Mongolian Protected Areas using WWF's RAPPAM Methodology WWF

Nepali, SC (2006) Nepal: Management Effectiveness Assessment of Protected Areas using

WWF's RAPPAM Methodology WWF Nepal Program.

Nolte, C, F Leverington, A Kettner, M Marr, G Nielsen, B Bomhard, S Stolton, S Stoll-

Kleeman and M Hockings (2010) Protected Area Management Effectiveness Assessments in
Europe: A review of applications, methods and results. BfN- Scripten 271a. BfN, Vilm,
Germany.

Novaro, AJ, KH Redford and RE Bodmer (2000) Effect of hunting in sourcesink systems in
the neotropics. Conservation Biology 14, 713 - 721.

NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (2005) State of the Parks 2004. DEC,
Sydney.

OAPN (2007) Primer informe de situación de la Red de Parques Nacionales a 1 de enero de

2007. Organismo Autónomo Parques Nacionales, Ministerio de Medio aMbiente y Medio
Rural y Marino, Gobierno de España, Madrid, Spain.

Olivas, JC and PGV Ruesta (2006) Aplicación de la Metodología de Evaluación Rápida y

Priorización del Manejo de Áreas Protegidas (RAPPAM) al Sistema Nacional de Áreas
Naturales Protegidas por el Estado (SINANPE) Peru. Intendencia de Áreas Naturales por el
Estado – Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales World Wildlife Fund – Oficina del
Programa Perú; Centro de datos para la Conservación – Universidad Nacional Agraria La
Molina, Lima.

Padovan, M (2004) Proposta de sistema de monitoramento para as unidades de conservação

do Estado Do Espírito Santo (Brazil). Instituto de Pesquisas da Mata Atlantica (IPEMA),
Projeto Conservação Da Biodiversidade Da Mata Atlântica No Estado Do Espírito Santo.

Padovan, MP Parâmetros e procedimento para a certificação de unidades de conservação. In

'III Congresso Brasileiro de Unidades de Conservação', 2002, Anais, pp. Pp 33-43.

Paleczny, D (2007) Management Effectiveness Evaluations of Egypt National Parks -

summary report. IUCN, Egyptian-Italian Environmental Cooperation Programme, Nature
Conservation Sector Capacity Building Project; Nature Conservation Sector, Egyptian
Environmental Affairs Agency; UNDP, Cairo.

Paleczny, D, Khalid Allam and M Talaat (2007) The State of Wadi El-Rayan Protected Area
and Valley of the Whales World Heritage Site, An Evaluation of Management Effectiveness.
Egyptian-Italian Environmental Cooperation Programme, Nature Conservation Sector
Capacity Building Project. Nature Conservation Sector, Egyptian Environmental Affairs
Agency, Cairo.

Paleczny, DR and S Russell (2005) Participatory Approaches in Protected Area Assessment

and Reporting. Proceedings of the Parks Research Forum of Ontario, University of Guelph,
Canada.

PAN Parks (2008) PAN Parks Verification Manual. PAN Parks Foundation, Györ, Hungary.

Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania (2004) State of the Tasmanian Wilderness World
Heritage Area - an evlaaution of management effectiveness, Report no 1. Department of
Tourism PArks Heritage and the Arts, Hobart, Tasmania.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 60

Parks Canada (2007) Grasslands National Park Of Canada: State of the Park Report. Parks
Canada.

Parks Canada (2008a) Banff National Park Of Canada: State of the Park Report. Parks
Canada.

Parks Canada (2008b) Jasper National Park Of Canada: State of the Park Report. Parks
Canada.

Parks Canada (2008c) Kootenay National Park Of Canada: State of the Park Report. Parks
Canada.

Parks Canada (2008d) Mount Revelstoke National Park Of Canada and Glacier National
Park Of Canada: State Of The Parks Report. Parks Canada.

Parks Canada (2008e) Waterton Lakes National Park of Canada: State of the Park Report.
Parks Canada.

Parks Canada (2008f) Yoho National Park of Canada: State of the Park Report. Parks
Canada.

Parks Canada Agency (2005) Monitoring and Reporting Ecological Integrity in Canada’s
National Parks Volume 1: Guiding Principles. Parks Canada Agency Ottawa.

ParksWatch (2007) Park Profiles http://www.parkswatch.org.

Parrish, J, DP Braun and RS Unnasch (2003) Are we conserving what we say we are:
measuring ecological integrity within protected areas. Bioscience 53(9), 851-860.

Patton, MQ (1997) 'Utilization-focused evaluation: The new Century Text. 3rd ed.' (Sage
Publications: Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi) 431 pp.

Pauquet, S (2005) Field-testing of Conservation International’s management effectiveness

assessment questionnaire in seven protected areas in Bolivia. Parkswatch.

Pavese, H, F Leverington and M Hockings (2007) Global study of protected area

management effectiveness: the Brazilian perspective. The Brazilian Journal of Nature
Conservation 5(1), 152-162.

Peres, CA and E Palacios (2007) Basin-wide effects of game harvest on vertebrate

population densities in Amazonian forests: Implications for animal-mediated seed dispersal.
Biotropica 39, 304-315.

Pfleger, B (2007a) European Site Consolidation Scorecard - Measuring the Management

Effectiveness of European Protected Areas. Klagenfurt, Austria.

Pfleger, B (2007b) Evaluation of the management effectiveness of Central European

protected areas - A critical revision of the Parks in Peril Site Consolidation Scorecard.
Master Thesis. University of Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria

Pfleger, B (2007c) Evaluation of the management effectiveness of central European

protected areas – a critical revision of the Parks in Peril Site Consolidation Scorecard.
Master's thesis Thesis, University of Klagenfurt,

Pfleger, B, M Jungmeier, V Hasler and V Zacherl-Draxler (2009) Leitfaden zur Evaluierung

des Nationalparkmanagements in Österreich. Unpublished document on behalf of the
Austrian Ministry of Life. E.C.O. Institut für Ökologie, Klagenfurt.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 61

Piscevic, N and V Orlovic-Lovren (2009) Rapid assessment and prioritization of protected
area management (RAPPAM) in Serbia. Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning of
Republic of Serbia and Mediterranean Programme WWF.

Pomeroy, R, J Parks and L Watson (2004) 'How is your MPA doing? A Guidebook of
Natural and Social Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected Area Management
Effectiveness.' (IUCN, WWF, Gland and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA): Gland and Cambridge)

Porej, D and Ž Rajković (2009) Effectiveness of Protected Area Management in Croatia:

Results of the First Evaluation of Protected Area Management in Croatia Using the
RAPPAM Methodology, . Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Croatia.

Project Tiger Directorate Ministry of Environment & Forests, GoI (2006) Evaluation Reports
of Tiger Reserves in India. Project Tiger Directorate Ministry of Environment & Forests,
Government of India, New Delhi.

Pullin, AS, A BÁLdi, et al. (2009) Conservation Focus on Europe: Major conservation
policy Issues that need to be informed by conservation science. Conservation Biology 23(4),
818-824.

Ravovska, K and A Belokurov (2008) Management Effectiveness Assessment of National

and Nature Parks in Bulgaria, Romania and Georgia. In 'Assessment of Management
Effectiveness in European Protected Areas: Sharing Experience and Promoting Good
Management. .' Ed. S Stolton) pp. 49-52. (BfN (German Federal Agency for Nature
Conservation): Bonn)

Redford, KH and P Feinsinger (2003) The half-empty forest: Sustainable use and the
ecology of interactions. In 'Conservation of exploited species.' (Eds J. Reynolds, G. Mace, K.
H.Redford and JG Robinson) pp. 370-399. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK)

Republic of Ghana Ministry of Lands Forestry and Mines (Wildlife Division of The Forestry
Commission) (2001) National Workshop on the Assessment of Protected Area Management
Effectiveness - Workshop Report.

Republic of Mozambique (2006) Rapid and Participatory Assessment of the Conservation

Areas in Mozambique. Ministry of Coordination of Environmental Action (National
Directorate of Environmental Management), Ministry of Tourism (National Directorate of
PA), Ministry of Agriculture (National Directorate of Land and Forest), .

Rist, J, E Milner-Gulland, G Cowlishaw and J Rowcliffe (2010) Hunter reporting of catch

per unit effort as a monitoring tool in a bushmeat harvesting system. Conservation Biology
24, 489-499.

Rivero Blanco, C (2005) Venezuela vision: the state of national parks and national
monuments in Venezuela.

Rivero Blanco, C and M Gabaldon (1992) The evaluation of natural protected area systems:
a numeric method. Parks 3(1), 11-13.

Rodrigues, A, S Andelman, et al. (2004) Effectiveness of the Global Protected Area Network
in Representing Species Diversity. Nature 428, 640-643.

Rusch, V (2002) Estado y situación de las areas protegidas de la porción Argentina de la

ecoregión Valdiviana

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 62

Saterson, KA, NL Christensen, RB Jackson, RA Kramer, SL Pimm, MD Smith and JB
Wiener (2004) Disconnects in Evaluating the Relative Effectiveness of Conservation
Strategies. Conservation Biology 18(3 ), 597-599.

Schliep, R, M Bertzky, M Hirschnitz and S Stoll-Kleemann (2008) Changing Climate in

Protected Areas? Risk Perception of Climate Change by Biosphere Reserve Managers. GAIA
17(S1), 116-124.

Schrader, N (2006) Die deutschen Biosphärenreservate auf dem Prüfstand! PhD Thesis.
Universität Trier, Trier, Germany

Schreckenberg, K, I Camargo, K Withnall, C Corrigan, P Franks, D Roe, LM Scherl and V

Richardson (2010) Social Assessment of Conservation Initiatives: A review of rapid
methodologies. IIED, London.

Schultz, L, A Duit and C Folke (in review) Participation, adaptive co-management and
management performance in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. World
Development.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) Global Biodiversity Outlook 3.

Montréal.

Shadie, P and M Epps (Eds) (2008) 'Securing Protected Areas in the Face of Global Change:
Key lessons learned from case studies and field learning sites in protected areas ' (IUCN Asia
Regional Office: Bangkok, Thailand)

Simoes, LL and LRC Numa de Oliveria (2003) Implementation of the Rapid Assessment and
Prioritization of Protected Area Management by the Forestry Institute and the Forestry
Foundation of Sao Paulo. WWF, Forestry Institute and the Forestry Foundation of Sao
Paulo.

Smith, J (2004a) North Eastern Parks NAMETT Mission Report (unpublished report).

Smith, J (2004b) Southern Parks NAMETT Mission Report (unpublished report).

Smith, J (2004c) Use of the WB/WWF Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT)
for Zambia’s protected areas (unpublished report).

Soffietti, E (2008) Management Effectiveness in Italian National Parks. In 'Assessment of

Management Effectiveness in European Protected Areas.' Ed. S Stolton). (BfN: Bonn,
Germany)

Solace Enterprises (2006) The English National Park Authorities: Report of Performance
Assessments undertaken during 2005/2006.

Southworth, J, H Nasendra and DK Munroe (2006) Introduction to the special issue: Are
parks working? Exploring human-environment tradeoffs in protected area conservation.
Applied Geography 26(2), 87-95.

Stanciu, E and G Steindlegger (2006) RAPPAM (Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of

Protected Area Management) Methodology implementation in Romania:Key findings and
results. WWF.

Stanišić, N (20009) Results of the initial evaluation of Protected Area Management in

Montenegro using RAPPAM Methodology. Ministry of Tourism and Environment of
Montenegro and WWF Mediterranean Programme

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 63

Staub, F and ME Hatziolos (2004) Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management
Effectiveness Goals for Marine Protected Areas. World Bank.

Steffen, W, A Burbidge, L Hughes, R Kitchener, D Lindenmayer, W Musgrave, M Stafford

Smith and P Werner (2009) 'Australia's biodiversity and climate change. A strategic
assessment of the vulnerability of Australia's biodiversity to climate change. A report to the
Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council commissioned by the Australian
Government.' (CSIRO Publishing)

Steindlegger, G and S Kalem (2005) RAPPAM (Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of

Protected Area Management) Methodology implementation in Turkey:Key findings and
results. WWF.

Stem, C, R Margoluis, N Salafsky and M Brown (2005) Monitoring and evaluation in

conservation: a review of trends and approaches. Conservation Biology 19(2), 295-309.

Stern, MJ (2006) Measuring conservation effectiveness in the marine environment: A review

of evaluation techniques & recommendations for moving forward. Report for TNC.

Stolton, S, N Dudley and R Crofts (2009) Performance and management effectiveness of

National Nature Reserves in Scotland - Developing the Method (available with authors).

Stolton, S, N Dudley and E Hakizumwami (2001) Assessing Protected Area Management

Effectiveness in the Congo Basin IUCN/WWF Forest Innovations

Stolton, S, M Hockings, N Dudley, K MacKinnon, T Whitten and F Leverington (2007 )

Reporting Progress in Protected Areas A Site-Level Management Effectiveness Tracking
Tool: second edition. World Bank/WWF Forest Alliance published by WWF, Gland,
Switzerland.

Stoner, KE, K Vulinec, SJ Wright and CA Peres (2007) Hunting and Plant Community
Dynamics in Tropical Forests: A Synthesis and Future Directions. Biotropica 39(3 %R
doi:10.1111/j.1744-7429.2007.00291.x), 385-392.

Struhsaker, TT, PJ Struhsaker and KS Siex (2005) Conserving Africa's rain forests:
Problems in protected areas and possible solutions. Biological Conservation 123(1), 45-54.

Sutherland, WJ, AS Pullin, PM Dolman and TM Knight (2004) The need for evidence-based
conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19(6), 305-308.

Tacón, A, U Fernández, A Wolodarsky-Franke and E Núñez ( 2005) Evaluación Rápida de

la Efectividad de manejo en las Áreas Silvestres Protegidas de la Ecorregión Valdiviana,
Chile. . CONAF/WWF, Chile. .

The Nature Conservancy (2007) Conservation Action Planning: Developing Strategies,

Taking Action, and Measuring Success at Any Scale. Overview of Basic Practices Version:
February 2007.

The Nature Conservancy (no date) Parks in Peril Program: The Success of Site
Consolidation. http://parksinperil.org/files/pip_siteconsolidation_1003.pdf.

The Nature Conservancy Parks in Peril Program (2004) Measuring success:The Parks in
Peril Site Consolidation Scorecard Manual (Updated May 10, 2004).

Timko, J and J Innes (2009) Evaluating ecological integrity in national parks: Case studies
from Canada and South Africa. Biological Conservation 142(3), 676-688.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 64

Timko, J and T Satterfield (2008) Criteria and indicators for evaluating social equity and
ecological integrity in national parks and protected areas. Natural Areas Journal 28(3), 307-
319.

Togridou, A, T Hovardas and JD Pantis (2006) Factors shaping implementation of protected

area management decisions: a case study of the Zakynthos National Marine Park.
Environmental Conservation 33(3), 233-243.

Tshering, K (2003) Bhutan: Management Effectiveness Assessment of Four Protected Areas

using WWF’s RAPPAM Methodology. WWF, Soh Koon Chng, Gland, Switzerland.

Tyrlyshkin, V, A Blagovidov and A Belokurov (2003) Russia Case Study: Management

Effectiveness Assessment of Protected Areas using WWF’s RAPPAM Methodology. WWF,
Gland, Switzerland.

UICN/BRAO (2008) Evaluation de l’efficacité de la gestion des aires protégées : parcs et

réserves de Côte d’Ivoire.

UICN/PACO (2008a) Evaluation de l’efficacite des aires protegees. Aires protégées de la

République de Guinée.

UICN/PACO (2008b) Evaluation de l’efficacite des aires protegees. Parcs de Guinée Bissau.

UICN/PACO (2008c) Evaluation de l’efficacite des aires protegees. Parcs et reserves de

Mali.

UICN/PACO (2008d) Evaluation de l’efficacite des aires protegees. Parcs et reserves de

Mauritanie.

UICN/PACO (2008e) Evaluation de l’efficacite des aires protegees. Parcs et reserves de

Togo.

UICN/PACO (2008f) Evaluation de l’efficacite des aires protegees. Parcs et reserves du

Tchad.

UICN/PACO (2009) Evaluation de l’efficacité de gestion d’un échantillon de sites

RAMSAR en Afrique de l’Ouest. UICN/PACO.

Valarezo, V, R Andrade, R Díaz, Y Célleri and J Gómez (1999) Evaluación de la Eficiencia

de manejo del Sistema Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas del Ecuador INEFAN
(Instituto Ecuatoriano Forestal y de Áreas Naturales y Vida Silvestre. Dirección Nacional de
Áreas Naturales y Vida Silvestre/Proyecto de Protección de la Biodiversidad. Unidad
Técnica de Planificación para Áreas Naturales Protegidas), Quito, Ecuador.

Velásquez, M, P Guerrero and T Villegas (2004) Parque Nacional Galápagos. Evaluación de

la Efectividad del Manejo (1996-2004). Ministerio del Ambiente, Parque Nacional
Galápagos.

Weigand Jr, R, TB Pereira and D de Oliveira e Silva (2007) Ferramenta de avaliação de

unidades de consevação (fauc):Registro da adaptação da ferramenta Tracking Tool para o
Programa Áreas Protegidas da Amazônia (ARPA). [Preliminar]. Ministério Do Meio
Ambiente, Brasil, Brasília.

Wells, S (2006) Case Study I: Evaluation of marine protected areas in the Western Indian
Ocean. In 'Evaluating effectiveness: a framework for assessing the management of protected
areas second edition.' (Eds M Hockings, S Stolton, N Dudley, F Leverington and J Courrau).

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 65

(IUCN Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series: Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,
UK)

Wells, S and S Mangubhai (2004) A Workbook for Assessing Management Effectiveness of

Marine Protected Areas in the Western Indian Ocean. IUCN Eastern African Regional
Programme., Nairobi, Kenya.

Wildlife Institute of India (2007a) UNESCO- IUCN Enhancing Our Heritage Project:
Monitoring and Managing for Success in Natural World Heritage Sites: Final Management
Effectiveness Evaluation Report, Chitwan National Park, Nepal. October 2007. Wildlife
Institute of India, Dehra Dun, India.

Wildlife Institute of India (2007b) UNESCO- IUCN Enhancing Our Heritage Project:
Monitoring and Managing for Success in Natural World Heritage Sites: Final Management
Effectiveness Evaluation Report, Kasiranga National Park, Assam, India. November 2007.
Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Dun, India.

Wildlife Institute of India (2007c) UNESCO- IUCN Enhancing Our Heritage Project:
Monitoring and Managing for Success in Natural World Heritage Sites: Final Management
Effectiveness Evaluation Report, Keoladeo National Park, Bharatpur, India. October 2007.
Wildlife Institute of India, Dehra Dun, India.

Wildtracks (2006) National report on management effectiveness: management effectiveness

in Forestry Department administered protected areas in Belize.

Wilkie, DS, M Starkey, K Abernethy, E Effa, P Telfer and R Godoy (2005) Role of prices
and wealth in consumer demand for bushmeat in Gabon, Central Africa. Conservation
Biology 19, 268 - 274.

Wittemyer, G, JS Brashares, P Elsen, WT Bean and ACO Burton (2008) Accelerated human
population growth at protected area edges. Science 321, 123-126.

WWF (2004) Bulgaria Management Effectiveness Assessment of national and nature parks
using WWF’s RAPPAM Methodology

WWF (2006) Report on the Management Effectiveness Of Protected Areas in Malawi Using
WWF’s RAPPAM Methodology (draft).

WWF India (2006) Report of the Rapid Assessment and Prioritisation of Protected Area
Management for the PAs of the state of Kerala. Forest Conservation Programme, WWF-
India.

Young, H (2005) Tracking Tool - Korea: Survey on Protected Area Management Status.

Young, R, L Wolfe and V Mc.Farlane (2005) Monitoring Management Effectiveness in

Belize’s Protected Areas System. Report prepared for the National Protected Areas Policy &
System Plan Task Force (NPAPSP). University Research and Evaluation and Galiano
Institute for Environmental and Social Research.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 66

 Appendix One: List of methodologies reviewed
in the Global Study
Table 19: List of PAME methodologies in the Global Studies database
6 Organisation/ Affiliation and/or
Abbreviation Methodology name
reference
International
Rapid Assessment and Prioritisation of
RAPPAM WWF (Ervin 2003b)
Protected Area Management
World Bank/WWF Alliance
Tracking Tool Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool
(Stolton et al. 2007 )
EOH Enhancing our Heritage UNESCO (Hockings et al. 2007)
NOAA/National Ocean
How is Your MPA Doing? How is Your MPA Doing? Service/IUCNWCPA Marine,
WWF (Pomeroy et al. 2004)
TNC (The Nature Conservancy
TNC CAP Conservation Action Planning
2007)
WWF-World Bank (Staub and
Marine Tracking Tool WWF-World Bank MPA score card
Hatziolos 2004)
Conservation International Management
CI METT Conservation International
Effectiveness Tracking Tool
Birdlife IBA Important Bird Area Monitoring (www.birdlife.org)
GOBI Governance of Biodiversity Survey University of Greifswald (e.g.
Greifswald Schliep et al. 2008)
Stockholm University (Schultz et
Stockholm Biosphere Reserves Survey
Stockholm BR Survey al. in review)
Africa
Academic/ WCS (Struhsaker et al.
Africa rainforest study Africa rainforest study
2005)
West Indian Ocean Marine
West Indian Ocean MPA West Indian Ocean MPA toolkit Science Association (Wells and
Mangubhai 2004)
Central African Republic Central African Republic academic/WWF (Blom et al. 2004)
Assessing protected area management
Congo MEE (Stolton et al. 2001)
effectiveness in the Congo Basin
Uganda threat
Threat reduction assessment in Uganda (Mugisha and Jacobson 2004)
assessment
Egyptian Site Level Site level assessment of World Heritage
(Paleczny et al. 2007)
Assessment Areas
Asia
Korea METT Korean tracking tool Korea Parks service (Young 2005)
Korea survey on protected area (Korean National Parks Service
Korea MEE
management status and IUCN 2009)
Ministry of Environment and
Evaluation of Management effectiveness Forests (MoEF ) Government of
MEE Indian
of Indian Protected Areas India and the Wildlife Institute of
India
Indian Tiger Reserves Management Effectiveness Evaluation of (Project Tiger Directorate Ministry
Assessment Indian Tiger Reserves of Environment & Forests 2006)
Alder Marine Protected Area Evaluation Academic (Alder et al. 2002)
Europe
European Diploma European Diploma of Protected Areas Council of Eurooe (Council of
Europe 2009)

PAN Parks Protected Area Network Parks PAN Parks Foundation (PAN
Parks 2008)
EUROPARC Transb. EUROPARC Transboundary Parks EUROPARC Federation
Certification (www.europarc.org/what-we-
do/transboundary-parks)

6
These abbreviations are for convenience and are used in following graphs and tables: they are not
always formally used in the method itself.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 67

 6 Organisation/ Affiliation and/or
Abbreviation Methodology name
reference
EUROPARC ECST EUROPARC European Charter for EUROPARC Federation
Sustainable Tourism (www.european-charter.org)
CPAMETT Carpathian Management Tracking Tool WWF Danube Carpathian
Program (cpamemt.ueuo.com)
European SCS European Site Consolidation Scorecard Academic (Pfleger 2007a)
Management Effectiveness Study –
Finland MEE Metsahallitus (Gilligan et al. 2005)
Finland
Management effectiveness of Lithuanian Lithuanian government
Lithuania
protected areas (Ahokumpu et al. no date)
State of the Park SOP Finland Metsahallitus (Heinonen 2007)
Assessment Finland
French RNP Evaluation of French Regional Nature (FPNR 2001)
Parks
French NP (CdO) Contrat d'Objectifs (French National (pers. comm.)
Parks
German Nature Parks Nature Park Quality Campaign, Germany Association of German Nature
Parks (Verband Deutscher
Naturparke - VDN)
(Köster et al. 2006)
German National Parks Quality Criteria and Standards of German EUROPARC Federation
National Parks (EUROPARC Germany 2008)
German BRs (EABR Evaluation of German BRs German MAB Committee
(German MAB Committee 2007)
German BRs (Schrader) Evaluation of German BRs) Academic (Schrader 2006)
NPAPA England National Park Authority Performance National Park Authorities (NPAs)
Assessment, England supported by the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (DEFRA)
(e.g. Butterworth 2008)
LNR Scotland Evaluation of Local Nature Reserves, Scottish Natural Heritage (Land
Scotland Use Consultants 2006)

NNR MEE Scotland Performance and management Scottish Natural Heritage (Stolton
effectiveness of national nature reserves, et al. 2009)
Scotland
NNR Wales Countryside management system Countryside Council for Wales
(National Nature Reserves, Wales) (pers. comm.)
Italian Quality Parks Quality Park Project Italy ENEA, Italian National Agency for
New Technologies, Energy and
the Environment
(Naviglio and Talamo 2009)
MEVAP Italy Monitoring and Evaluation of Protected C.U.E.I.M., University Consortium
Areas, Italy for Industrial and Managerial
Economics on behalf of the Italian
Ministry of the Environment and
Territory
(Soffietti 2008)
Natuurmonumenten Test Natuurmonumenten Quality Test Vereniging Natuurmonumenten
(Natuurmonumenten 2007)
Situation of National Park Spanish National Parks (OAPN 2007)
Network
Institució Catalana d’Història
Evaluation of the system of protected
Catalonia MEE Natural (Mallarach and Varga
areas of Catalonia, Spain
2004)
Tenerife MEE Management Effectiveness Evaluation The Island Government of
Tenerife Tererife, Canary Islands(García
2008)
EUROPARC Spain EUROPARC Spain DB (EUROPARC España 2008)
Database
INDES-PAR (Asturias) INDES-PAR Asturias University of Oviedo (Northern
Spain)(INDUROT 2009)
Evaluation of Swedish MEE Swedish Counties Naturvårdsverket (Swedish
County Administrative Environmental Protection Agency)
Boards (Naturvårdsverket 2005)
SkötselDOS (Protection SkötselDOS Swedish Environmental Protection
GIS System) Agency (SEPA)
(pers. comm.)

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 68

 6 Organisation/ Affiliation and/or
Abbreviation Methodology name
reference
Latin America and the Caribbean
TNC/USAID (The Nature
TNC Parks in Peril Site Consolidation
PIP Site consolidation Conservancy Parks in Peril
Scorecard
Program 2004)
PROARCA/CAPAS (Corrales
PROARCA/CAPAS PROARCA/CAPAS scorecard evaluation
2004b)
Parks profiles Parks profiles Parkswatch (ParksWatch 2007)
WWF/CATIE Measuring protected area WWF/CATIE (Cifuentes et al.
WWF/CATIE
management effectiveness 2000)
Rapid Evaluation of Management
MBRS/PROARCA/CAPAS
Mesoamerica MPA Effectiveness in Marine Protected Areas
(Corrales 2004a)
of Mesoamerica.
Degree of Implementation and the
WWF Brazil with IBAMA (Lemos
Brazil 1999 Vulnerability of Brazilian Federal
de Sá et al. 1999)
Conservation Areas
AEMAPPS: MEE with Social Participation Parques Nacionales Naturales de
AEMAPPS
- Colombia Colombia/WWF Colombia
Ecuador MEE: Indicadores para el
Ministry of Environment (Valarezo
Ecuador MEE Monitoreo y Evaluación del Manejo de las
et al. 1999)
Áreas Naturales Protegidas del Ecuador
Manual para la evaluación de la Eficiencia
Galápagos MEE de Manejo del Parque Nacional SPNG (Velásquez et al. 2004)
Galápagos. SPNG
Monitoring and Assessment with Relevant
MARIPA-G Indicators of Protected Areas of the WWF Guianas (Courrau 2005)
Guianas (MARIPA-G)
Belize National Report on Management Forest Department Belize (Young
Belize MEE
Effectiveness et al. 2005)
Metodología de Evaluación de Efectividad SERNAP (Guachalla and Zegada
MEMS
de Manejo (MEMS) del SNAP de Bolivia 2001)
Padovan 2002 Padovan 2002 IPEMA (Padovan 2002)
Forestry institute (IF-SP) (de Faria
Scenery matrix Scenery matrix
2004)
PA Consolidation index PA Consolidation index Conservation International
Valdiviana Valdiviana Ecoregion Argentina WWF (Rusch 2002)
DGSPN – INPARQUES (Rivero
Venezuela Vision Venezuela Vision
Blanco 2005)
Peru MEE Peru MEE INRENA (INRENA)
Sistema de Información, monitoreo y
SIMEC Mexico
evaluación para la conservación
Oceania
Tasmanian PWS (Parks and
Tasmanian WHA Tasmanian World Heritage MEE
Wildlife Service Tasmania 2004)
NSW DEC (NSW Department of
New South Wales State of Parks
NSW SOP Environment and Conservation
(Australia)
2005)
Victorian SOP Victorian State of Parks (Australia) Parks Victoria
Queensland Rapid Assessment Queensland Parks and Wildlife
Qld Rapid Assessment
(Australia) Service
Fraser Island World Heritage Area
Fraser Island WHA Hockings
(Australia)
Queensland Park Integrity assessment( Queensland Parks and Wildlife
Qld Park Integrity
Australia) Service
North America
NPCA (National Parks
USA SOP USA State of Parks Conservation Association State of
the Parks Program no date)
Monitoring and reporting ecological
Parks Canada (Parks Canada Agency 2005)
integrity in Canada’s parks.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 69

Appendix Two: Summary of regional patterns

Africa
Management effectiveness assessments in Africa have included a number of innovative
projects aimed at improving management, and have resulted in some informative studies
published in recent years. In addition there have been many Tracking Tool assessments,
some associated with World Bank, WWF and/or GEF funded projects and others as country
initiatives. Several in-depth studies of World Heritage Areas have also been conducted, and
an assessment of marine areas is also available. Studies recorded in the Global Study include
the following (note that most Tracking Tool assessments do not include an overall report –
raw data has been used):

• Extensive and comprehensive studies conducted by IUCN West Africa Protected Area
Program (PAPACO) using RAPPAM, EOH and the Tracking Tool. Reports are
available on some individual protected areas and on the West African countries of Cote
d’Ivoire (UICN/BRAO 2008) Togo (UICN/PACO 2008e), Chad (UICN/PACO 2008f),
Mauritania (UICN/PACO 2008d), Mali (UICN/PACO 2008c) Guinea (UICN/PACO
2008a) , Guinea-Bissau (UICN/PACO 2008b), as well as regional evaluations of
RAMSAR sites (UICN/PACO 2009)and World Heritage Sites. A draft report has also
been prepared following a RAPPAM study in Morocco (Haut Commissariat aux Eaux et
Forêts et à la Lutte contre la Désertification (HCEFLCD) 2008).
• Older RAPPAM studies have been conducted in South Africa (Goodman 2003), Malawi
(WWF 2006) Cameroon (MINEF Department of Wildlife and Protected Areas and
WWF Cameroon Programme Office 2002), Ghana (Republic of Ghana Ministry of
Lands Forestry and Mines (Wildlife Division of The Forestry Commission) 2001),
Mozambique (Republic of Mozambique 2006)
• African rainforest study (Struhsaker et al. 2005)
• Central African Republic (Blom et al. 2004)
• Paper on the threat reduction assessment methodology in Uganda (Mugisha and
Jacobson 2004)
• Tracking Tool applications in Namibia and Zambia (Smith 2004a; Smith 2004b; Smith
2004c)
• In Egypt, a RAPPM system-wide study (Fouda et al. 2006) was complemented by site-
level assessments (Paleczny 2007)and in-depth evaluations of World Heritage Areas
(Paleczny et al. 2007)
• Assessment of management effectiveness in selected marine PA in the Western Indian
Ocean (IUCN et al. 2004; Wells 2006).
• The forests of the Congo Basin – a preliminary assessment (Congo Basin Forest
Partnership 2005).

A total of just over 960 assessments (846 ‘most recent’) from Africa have been recorded on
the Global Studies database, as shown in
Figure 16. Of these, data was analysed for 644 most recent assessments. The overall mean is
0.49, as shown in Figure 17. This is below the world mean and is lower than any other
region. This may be partly explained by the inclusion of a large dataset of Tracking Tools
from new protected areas which have not yet established management structures and
practices. Some 22% of the assessments scored in the bottom third of the scale (clearly
unacceptable), while only 17% scored in the top third (sound management).

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 70

 Algeria
Benin
Botswana
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cameroon
Central Africa Republic
Chad
Congo, Dem. Rep.
Congo, Rep.
Cote d'Ivoire
Egypt
Equatorial Guinea
Ethiopia
Gabon
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea‐Bissau
Kenya
Lesotho
Liberia
Madagascar
Malawi
Mali
Mauritania
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Niger
Nigeria
Rwanda
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
South Africa
Sudan
Tanzania
Togo
Tunisia
Uganda
Zambia
Zimbabwe
0 50 100 150 200
Total number of assessments recorded
Africa rainforest study Birdlife IBA Central African Republic
Enhancing our Heritage GOBI survey Marine tracking tool
MPA MEE RAPPAM Tracking tool
West Indian Ocean MPA Wetland tracking tool

Figure 16: PAME assessments by country in Africa (UN region) recorded on the Global Studies
database.

.
Figure 17: Overall average scores for African assessments

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 71

Asia
In the Asian region, most countries which have undertaken PAME assessments have used
either the Tracking Tool or RAPPAM, and in many cases both, usually with the involvement
of NGO organizations, particularly WWF, or the World Bank/GEF. The exceptions include
studies in India and Korea. Studies in Asian countries are summarized in Figure 18.

Management effectiveness assessments in the Asian region used in this study include:
• Rappam studies in India (Department of Forests and Wildlife Sikkim and WWF
India 2003; WWF India 2006) , Cambodia (Lacerda et al. 2004), Nepal (Nepali
2006), Bhutan (Tshering 2003) , Laos (Anonymous no date), Malaysia (Ministry of
Natural Resources and the Environment 2006), Indonesia (Anonymous 2004) ,
Georgia (no report published), Turkey (Steindlegger and Kalem 2005), Vietnam and
Mongolia (Nemekhjargal and Belokurov 2005) and the Yangzte Ecoregion of China
(Diqiang et al. 2003) .
• Studies of tiger reserves in India (Project Tiger Directorate Ministry of Environment
& Forests 2006)
• Application of a modified Tracking Tool in nature reserves in China (Department of
Nature Conservation - State Forestry Administration and Research Center for Eco-
environmental Sciences - the Chinese Academy of Sciences 2006)
• Enhancing our Heritage studies in Nepal and India (Wildlife Institute of India 2007a;
Wildlife Institute of India 2007b; Wildlife Institute of India 2007c)
• A system-wide evaluation of protected areas in Korea (Korean National Parks
Service and IUCN 2009)
• Indian program of rolling national, state and site level management effectiveness
assessments (V. Mathur, pers. comm.; no report published)

Above: Village children listen in while conservation programs are evaluated. Kerinci National Park,
Indonesia`

The overall mean score for Asia is consistent with the world average at 0.53 (see Figure 19).
It is possible that culturally, the process of self-assessment in this region may lead to slightly
higher scores, but many of the protected areas evaluated in this region are well-established
and have very high remaining values in spite of severe threats to their integrity.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 72

Figure 18: PAME assessments by country in Asia (UN region) recorded on the Global Studies
database (note data has been analysed for only some of these)

Figure 19: Overall average scores for Asian PAME assessments

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 73

Europe
The first edition of this report in 2007 included very little data on management effectiveness
in Europe. A specific study on European management effectiveness was conducted to
address this issue and the fact that protected area governance on the European continent has
characteristic features which justified a separate analysis of methodologies, threats and
success factors.
The European survey was conducted in conjunction with the Global Study and was led by
the University of Greifswald (Germany) and the University of Queensland with support from
UNEP-WCMC, EUROPARC Federation and the German Agency for the Conservation of
Nature (BfN). The report (Nolte et al. 2010) is available from the BfN website. Note that the
countries included in the European study include all those in the UN European region but
also several which are included in Asia in this report (Turkey, Azerbijan, Georgia and
Armenia).

The European Study found that the overwhelming majority of countries in Europe have assessed
at least some of their protected areas within the last decade: about one third can be expected to
achieve the CBD PoWPA target for management effectiveness by area (assessing PAME of 30%
of terrestrial sites by 2010). Our database recorded a total of 1786 single-site assessments, of
which 240 are repeat assessments. In addition, a number of countries had conducted system-
level assessments or evaluated habitat types. We recorded very few assessments for marine
protected areas. Only a handful of countries have institutionalized management effectiveness
evaluation by scheduling regular re-assessments, and making sure results are firmly integrated
into governance and management processes.
Forty different assessment methodologies have been applied in Europe; 31 of which are not used
elsewhere. Evaluations have been led by a variety of entities: overseeing agencies, NGOs/policy
advisors, protected area management bodies, certifiers, donors or research teams. The purpose
of evaluation and the way results feed back into management are closely related to the type of
leading agency. Intensity and frequency of assessments vary widely, as do the type of generated
data and access to it.
Most frequently used indicators in Europe are those looking at management plans, park gazettal
and tenure security, involvement of communities and stakeholders, communication programs and
adequacy of funding and staffing. In comparison with international methodologies, European
evaluators tend to look more closely at the ecological significance of sites, visitor management
issues and specific activities in the field of resource use and management; comparatively less
attention is paid to the general capacity of individual sites to cope with threats (adequacy of
enforcement, human resource policies, training and infrastructure).
(Nolte et al. 2010), p. ii adjusted for regional differences

Studies in Europe have included significant assessments of protected area systems and
protected areas in Catalonia, Spain (Mallarach 2006; Mallarach and Varga 2004); across
Finland, combining RAPPAM and a new system assessment tool (Gilligan et al. 2005;
Heinonen 2006); and in Lithuania (Ahokumpu et al. no date).

In Central and Eastern European countries, national-level assessments are usually based on
the RAPPAM methodology, often as a component of WWF’s regional programmes (Dinaric
Arc and Danube-Carpathian regions). RAPPAM reports have also been prepared for Russia
(Tyrlyshkin et al. 2003), which was an early trial site and used a slightly different version of
the tool, and more recently for many eastern European countries including the Czech
Republic (Ervin 2004b), Bulgaria (WWF 2004), Slovakia (Ervin 2004a), Romania (Stanciu
and Steindlegger 2006), Serbia (Piscevic and Orlovic-Lovren 2009), Albania (Diku et al.
2008), Croatia (Porej and Rajković 2009) , Montenegro (Stanišić 20009), Slovenia (Kus
Veenvliet and A. Sovinc 2009) and Georgia (Ravovska and Belokurov 2008) .

Tracking Tools have been applied especially in Eastern Europe where they are linked to GEF
and World Bank project funding.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 74

Looking at individual countries, it is encouraging to note that most European nations have
had some experiences in evaluating the management of their protected areas. Roughly half
have implemented assessments at the national or, as in Spain and the UK, at the sub-national
level. Several Northern and Western European countries have developed their own
evaluation systems; these tend to be institutionalized in the sense that they require regular re-
assessments and are often tailor-made for different types or categories of protected areas.
Few of these assessments have produced publicly available reports.

● Reports for nature reserve systems in Scotland (Land Use Consultants 2006) and
national parks in England (English National Park Authorities Association 2009; Lloyd et
al. 2005; Solace Enterprises 2006) and other individual park reports.
● System and site-level studies were conducted by NGOs in Greece (ARCHELON et al.
2005).
● A summary report has been produced from a detailed assessment of five marine
protected areas in Italy (Franzosini 2009) and a report looking at marine protected area
effectiveness in the UK (Gubbay 2005) is also available.
Academic studies in Europe include a discussion about management effectiveness in marine
protected areas in Greece (Togridou et al. 2006), England (Jackson and Gaston 2008) and
more generally about Europe (Gambino et al. 2008; Gaston et al. 2008). A study of three
protected areas in Austria and Germany using the modified Site Consolidation Scorecard
methodology (Pfleger 2007b; Pfleger et al. 2009).
Europe also features several regional certification systems – the European Diploma for
Protected Areas, PAN Parks, the European Charter for Sustainable Tourism and
EUROPARC’s Transboundary Parks Programme – which involve regular re-assessments of
designated sites. Two global research surveys on biosphere reserve management (GoBi
Survey and Stockholm Survey) add to the picture. Finally, an important dataset has been
generated by Birdlife International in the course of its monitoring of Important Bird Areas
(IBAs).

A study comparing methodologies for marine protected area assessment was carried out in
the UK (Gubbay 2005). A trial adapting the Parks in Peril Site Consolidation Scorecard for
use in Europe was conducted in two protected areas in Austria and Germany (Pfleger 2007c).

All 27 EU member states adhere to Natura 2000 legislation and have committed to maintain
or achieve “favourable conservation status” for all habitats and species of Community
interest. In order to track progress towards this target, Article 17 of the Habitats Directive
stipulates that member states have to continually assess, monitor and report conservation
status of critical habitats and species (European Council 1992). While at present not all
Natura 2000 sites are recognised as protected areas, the evaluation of these sites overlaps
with protected area assessments and it is hoped they will be better integrated in the future.

The number of known ‘most recent’ studies in the European region are shown in
Figure 20.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 75

Figure 20: PAME assessments by country in Europe (UN region) recorded on the Global Studies
database (note data has been analysed for only some of these)

The distribution of scores from the European data is shown in Figure 21. The mean average
score for European assessments is well over the world average, at 0.57. Only 8% of the 794
protected areas assessed scored in the bottom third (clearly unacceptable), while 29% scored
in the top third (sound management). An analysis of strengths and weaknesses of
management and of the major issues can be found in the European Study report.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 76

Figure 21: Overall average scores for European assessments

Above: Self-assessment in Berchtesgaden National Park using the Site Consolidation Scorecard
Photo: B. Pfleger)

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 77

Latin America and the Caribbean
There has been extensive development and application of management effectiveness
methodologies in LAC over the past 20 years with a wide range of methodologies developed,
trialed and implemented in the region. For example, PROARCA has been adapted and
implemented throughout Central America (Corrales et al. 2006). History of some of the
countries and methodologies is discussed in Cracco et al. (2006).

More detailed study of management effectiveness in the region was produced in 2007
(Leverington et al. 2007a; Leverington et al. 2007b; Pavese et al. 2007).

Initiatives in the region are continuing, including further work currently being conducted in
Brazil and a system-wide assessment in Colombia.

Reports relating to PAME in the region include:

• Reports from ParksWatch covering 87 protected areas (ParksWatch 2007);
• RAPPAM reports and/or data sheets from Brazil, Chile, Peru, Jamaica and Bolivia
(Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis and
WWF-Brasil 2007; Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment 2006;
Olivas and Ruesta 2006; Simoes and Numa de Oliveria 2003; Tacón et al. 2005);
• PROARCA reports from Central American countries (Autoridad Nacional del
Ambiente et al. 2006; CONAP 2006; Corrales et al. 2006; Estrada 2006; Ministerio
De Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales El Salvador and Ministerio ye Medio
Ambiente y Recursos Naturales El Salvador 2006);
• A number of reports from the ‘Parks in Peril’ project presenting the results of the site
consolidation scorecard (Marco Robles et al. 2005; Martin and Rieger 2003; The
Nature Conservancy no date): other reports are also available on the TNC website;
• The ‘Venezuela Vision’ report (FUDENA/INPARQUES 2001);
• Analysis of protected areas of the Valdiviana ecoregion, Argentina (Rusch 2002);
• A report on management effectiveness in Belize (Wildtracks 2006);
• Study of protected areas in Brazil in 1999 (Lemos de Sá et al. 1999) ;
• Reports on adaptation of the Tracking Tool in the Brazilian Amazon (Weigand Jr et
al. 2007);
• Reports from the Enhancing our Heritage project (see
http://www.enhancingheritage.net/docs_public.asp)
• Academic and cooperative studies trialling methodologies eg (de Faria 1998; de
Faria 2004; Padovan 2004)

The known ‘most recent’ assessments in LAC are shown in Figure 22.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 78

Figure 22: PAME assessments by country in LAC (UN region) recorded on the Global Studies
database (note data has been analysed for only some of these)

The overall average score for the 853 most recent assessments analysed in the region is 0.51,
which is slightly below the worldwide average (Figure 23). This region has more repeat
studies that any other, and as discussed earlier, there has been dramatic improvement over
time in those areas assessed more than once, especially where intensive management
improvement programs have also been undertaken. In particular, many of the very low
scores were lifted. There are still 13% of the ‘most recent’ assessments score in the bottom
third (rated clearly unacceptable) while only 16% are in the ‘sound’ range.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 79

Figure 23: Overall average scores for LAC assessments

Above: Community discussion about protected area impacts, Ecuador

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 80

Oceania
Management effectiveness studies have so far been recorded and collected from only a few
countries in the Oceania region, as shown in Figure 24. A RAPPAM study was conducted in
Papua New Guinea (Duguman 2006), and a small number of Tracking Tool assessments
have also been carried out in that country. A number of large-scale assessments have been
undertaken in Australian parks services: State of Parks reporting in New South Wales (NSW
Department of Environment and Conservation 2005) and unpublished work in Victoria and
Queensland, with more planned or underway. An in-depth study of World Heritage areas has
also been undertaken in Tasmania, Australia (Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania 2004)

Figure 24: PAME assessments by country in Oceania (UN region) recorded on the Global
Studies database (note data has been analysed for only some of these)

Data for analysis was available only from the RAPPAM study, a few Tracking Tools and
results of assessments in three Australian states. The overall average score for Oceania is
0.56, above the world average. Though the Australian protected areas scored comparatively
well, the overall effectiveness of that system was also constrained by factors including the
large number of small protected areas where there is limited management presence.

Figure 25: Overall average scores for assessments in Oceania

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 81

North America
Little information has been so far gathered on what management effectiveness evaluation has
been conducted in the United States. Excellent reports have been produced by the National
Parks Conservation Association detailing the results of in-depth studies using a standard
methodology (State of Parks) on many of the most important protected areas across the
country. These are available on the NPCA website http://www.npca.org/ and include
assessments of both terrestrial and marine reserves. Comparative data has not been included
in the data analysis for this project.

In Canada, Parks Canada has also developed detailed State of Parks assessments for a
number of its reserves, with a focus on ecological and cultural integrity – for example see the
following (David Henry et al. 2008; K. Alexander et al. 2007; Parks Canada 2007; Parks
Canada 2008a; Parks Canada 2008b; Parks Canada 2008c; Parks Canada 2008d; Parks
Canada 2008e; Parks Canada 2008f).

In addition, assessments have been conducted of biosphere reserves and of Important Bird
Areas.

Figure 26: Number of assessments recorded in North America

Above: Joshua Tree National Park, USA Photo: Joe MacAlister

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 82

Appendix Three: Checklist for good evaluation methodologies
The discussion below presents a more detailed criteria ‘checklist’ for each of the principles
outlined in Section 5.4. This can be used to consider the applicability of any methodology for
evaluation and to conduct a ‘quality check’ of an adapted methodology before it is
implemented. Note that this is designed as a checklist for choosing or adapting a
methodology: more complete guidelines for conducting assessments are contained in the
IUCN-WCPA Guidelines (Hockings et al. 2006).

Principle 1: The methodology is useful and relevant in improving protected area

management; yielding explanations and showing patterns; improving communication,
relationships and awareness

All protected area management assessments should in some way improve protected area
management, either directly through on-the-ground adaptive management; or less directly
through improvement of national or international conservation approaches and funding.
Evaluations which do not appear to have any useful outcomes can be worse than useless, as
those involved – especially at protected area level – are often less willing to be involved in
other evaluations in the future.

 ‘Checklist’ of criteria
It is clear that using the methodology can achieve one or more of the four types of purposes
outlined in Section 1.1.
a) It is a useful tool for improving management/ for adaptive management or to aid
understanding;
b) It assists in effective resource allocation and prioritisation;
c) It promotes accountability and transparency; and/or
d) It helps involve the community, build constituency and promote protected area values.
It helps understand whether protected area management is achieving its goals or making
progress.
The questions asked are relevant to the protected area and the management needs, or can
be adapted or others added so they are relevant.
It will allow useful comparisons across time to show progress and if desired will also allow
comparison or priority setting across protected areas.
Even simple analyses will show patterns and trends and allow for explanations and
7
conclusions about protected area management and how it might be improved.

Principle 2: The methodology is logical and systematic: working in a logical and

accepted Framework with balanced approach.

A consistent and accepted approach such as the IUCN-WCPA Framework provides a solid
theoretical and practical basis for assessment, and enhances the capacity to harmonise
information across different systems. Evaluation exercises that assess each of the six
elements in the Framework and the links between them build up a relatively comprehensive
picture of management effectiveness and have greater ‘explanatory power’.

Many systems use a hierarchical structure which contains different layers of indicators or
questions assessing a particular element or dimension. Layers of questions should proceed
logically and link from very general level (e.g. biodiversity) to more specific and measurable
level (e.g. the population of one animal species recorded at one time in one place; the
opinions of stakeholders about a particular issue.

7
Protected area management is very complex and clear explanations are difficult, but evaluations
should enable at least ‘reasonable estimations of the likelihood that particular activities have
contributed in concrete ways to observed effects’.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 83

  ‘Checklist’ of criteria
The methodology is based on a systematic framework, preferably presented in a manual or
other document which can be reviewed.
All six elements of the IUCN MEE Framework are measured, balancing the need to assess
8
the context, inputs, planning, process, outputs and outcomes of management.
There is also a balance between the different themes or dimensions of management –e.g..
governance and administration, natural integrity, cultural integrity, social, political and
9
economic aspects.
It provides a hierarchical, nested structure so that information can be ‘rolled up’ or de-
segregated easily to answer different needs and reporting requirements.
Assumptions behind the indicators, and linking different levels of indicators, are clearly
specified.

Principle 3: The methodology is based on good indicators, which are holistic,

balanced, and useful. The indicators and the scoring systems are designed to enable
robust analysis.

Development or adoption of sound indicators is a key step in management effectiveness

evaluation. Careful design of the scoring and rating system is also critical, with thorough
consideration given to later analysis. If any parametric statistical analyses are to be
conducted (such as calculation of means, standard deviations and correlations), it is
important that the differences between answers or ratings are described so they are in steps
approximating even or measurable scores. That is, an answer scoring 4 should indicate twice
as much progress towards a standard as an answer scoring 2.

 ‘Checklist’ of criteria
Indicators are relevant and appropriate (see principle 1) or more indicators can be added
within the structure. There is clear guidance on how to measure and score the indicators.
Indicators have some explanatory power, or able to link with other indicators to explain
causes and effects.
Characteristics of good indicators defined by (Margoluis and Salafsky 1998) are:
• Measurable: able to be recorded and analysed in qualitative or quantitative terms;
• Precise: defined in the same way by all people;
• Consistent: not changing over time so that it always measures the same thing; and
• Sensitive: Changing proportionately in response to actual changes in the condition or
item being measured
Questions should be carefully worded and trialed. They should be kept simple and clear,
asking about only one aspect of management. Confusing two-or-three part questions
should be avoided as they result in unreliable analysis.
The design supports analysis by providing a consistent and logical scoring and rating
system (where scoring and rating is used) and clear directions for weightings and
comparisons.

Principle 4: The methodology is accurate: providing true, objective, consistent and

up-to-date information

Results of evaluations can have far-reaching implications and must be genuine and able to
withstand careful examination.

Data gathered needs to be as accurate as possible to ensure credibility. In most protected

areas there are significant constraints on the quality of certain kinds of information,
particularly those that are useful for the measurement of outcomes and the status of park
values. Often, evaluation must make the most of what information is available. However,
evaluation of management effectiveness is enhanced if it is backed up by information
obtained from robust, long-term monitoring of the status of key values and of trends in such
indicators as natural resources use and visitor patterns. Such monitoring systems should be
designed to efficiently provide information for evaluation, so that information can be
collected and processed without duplication of effort.

8
This depends on the purpose – for a general/ overall evaluation, strive for balance, but some
assessments might need a more specific emphasis
9
As above

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 84

Both qualitative and quantitative information can be accurate, as long as it is collected with
good techniques and preferably verified. We need to be sure that inferences drawn can be
substantiated

For all except special-purpose single-event evaluations, it is desirable to repeat similar

measures at intervals. Standardised reporting allows comparisons across sites (where
appropriate) and to meet multiple reporting requirements. The system should be capable of
showing changes through time.

 ‘Checklist’ of criteria
The methodology is structured and explained to be likely to yield accurate results.
Techniques for implementing the methodology are clearly spelt out e.g. with guidance on
how questionnaires should be filled out; how workshops should be conducted; or how the
population status of a species should be estimated.
Well-recognised and accepted – or other new but defensible – data collection techniques
are used, so the assessment will be able to withstand scrutiny.
It will be replicable – that is, easy to apply consistently across different protected areas or
regions, and over time, so questions are answered in the same way and patterns are real.
Results of monitoring can be incorporated into meaningful measures
More detailed and accurate information can be added at a later iteration when available, and
the methodology will help to develop a relevant monitoring program.
Cultural issues are considered, so that people are likely to provide accurate answers without
10
fear, bias or intimidation .
Some ‘triangulation’, cross-checking or quality control is built in or can be added. The results
will be honest, credible and non-corrupt.
Opinions of a cross-section of people (stakeholders, landowners, protected area staff from
different levels, technical experts) should be included wherever possible.
The evaluation can be conducted quickly enough to provide up-to-date information.
A record of data sources and levels of certainty is kept.

Qualitative evaluation systems are based on the exercise of expert judgement to assess
management performance. Considerable attention needs to be paid to promoting consistency
in assessment across sites and evaluators. Consistency can be enhanced by:
• care in choice of language in the assessment instrument to minimise potential differences
in interpretation;
• provision of detailed guidance and examples in supporting documentation;
• staff training in preparation for the assessment;
• requiring supporting information such as justification for the assessment rating given and
sources of information used in making the assessment;
• trialing and checking across assessments to identify clear inconsistencies or application
of different standards of assessment; and
• use of a process of correction where clear inconsistencies are evident (while ensuring
that bias is not introduced in this process).

Principle 5: The methodology is practical to implement, giving a good balance

between measuring, reporting and managing
Evaluation is important but should not absorb too many of the resources needed for
management. Methodologies which are too expensive and time-consuming will not be
repeated, and are less acceptable to staff and stakeholders. Ability to make the most of
existing information (e.g. from pre-existing monitoring and research) is important. As
monitoring systems become attuned to providing information for evaluation, data gathered
will become richer and more accurate without increasing demands on financial resources and
staffing time.

Cooperation of participants is vital to ensure an accurate and easily implemented assessment,

so methodologies must be designed to appeal to people in the field.

10
This applies to protected area staff as well as to stakeholders

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 85

  ‘Checklist’ of criteria
It is possible to implement the methodology with a reasonable allocation of resources.
It allows the use of existing information and processes wherever possible.
All steps in the process are clear and unambiguous.
It is comprehensible and acceptable to staff and stakeholders Language in questionnaires
or presentations is simple and relevant to the local situation, and carefully chosen not to
give offence to any gender, ethnic or cultural group.
The design encourages positive interaction and discussion and immediate improvements
in management practices.
Simple and useable tools for data entry, analysis and reporting are provided.
The methodology allows for a level of cooperation, rather than competition, with other
evaluation exercises in the same area.

Principle 6: The methodology is part of an effective management cycle: linked to

defined values, objectives and policies.
Evaluations that are integrated into the managing agency’s culture and processes are more
successful and effective in improving management performance in the long term.

To link evaluations with other aspects of management, it is critical that the key values,
management goals and objectives for the protected area have been spelt out clearly.
Standards against which inputs, processes and outputs can be judged are also important. As
monitoring programs develop and mature, monitoring, reporting and evaluation should
become one integrated efficient process.

 ‘Checklist’ of criteria
It is possible to make a commitment to repeated evaluations using this methodology.
It will meet and be part of the core business cycle and reporting requirements of the
agency.
It ties in with protected area planning, monitoring, research and annual work programs.
It relates to expressed values, goals and objectives of the protected area or agency and
measures the extent to which these are met and policies implemented.
Senior executives or politicians will be likely to accept the results, act on recommendations
and disseminate the reports.

Principle 7: The methodology is cooperative: with good communication, teamwork

and participation of protected area managers and stakeholders throughout all stages of the
project wherever possible;

Gaining approval, trust and cooperation of stakeholders, especially the managers of the
protected areas to be evaluated, is critical and must be ensured throughout the assessment. A
wide survey of protected area assessments has found that broad participation improves
accuracy, completeness, acceptance and usefulness of evaluation results (Paleczny and
Russell 2005). Assessment systems should be established with a non-threatening stance to
overcome mutual suspicion. Evaluation findings, wherever possible, should be positive,
identifying challenges rather than apportioning blame. If the evaluation is perceived to be
likely to ‘punish’ participants or to reduce their resources, they are unlikely to be helpful to
the process.

However, as discussed earlier, there are occasions when negative repercussions may be
inevitable and these cases need careful handling.
 Checklist’ of criteria
Different viewpoints are actively sought, including perspectives of community and field
staff.
The methodology encourages or allows good cooperation and communication between all
the evaluation partners.
An adequate but serviceable level of participation by staff and community is included in
both the design and implementation.
The implementation of this methodology will contribute to a higher level of trust, better
relationships and cooperation between protected area staff at all levels and community.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 86

Principle 8: The methodology promotes positive and timely communication and use of
results. Short-term benefits of evaluation should be demonstrated clearly wherever possible.

Findings and recommendations of evaluation need to feed back into management systems to
influence future plans, resource allocations and management actions.

 Checklist’ of criteria
The methodology includes discussion of how results should be communicated and used.
Reports will be clear and specific enough to improve conservation practices realistic, addressing
priority topics and feasible solutions.
Benefits and results from the evaluation will be clearly visible in the short term.
Feedback to evaluation participants can be given quickly.
Results will influence future plans and actions in protected area management.

Steps in developing methodologies

Most methodologies for MEE have some common origins, and share the following, logical
steps in their development:

1. Essential characteristics of ‘good’ management are defined: such as the features of a

‘consolidated site’ in the Parks in Peril program (Martin and Rieger 2003). Most of the
methodologies firstly define the broad fields, ‘ambits’ or themes needed for effective
management, and these form the first level (or two levels) of organisation of the
indicators.

The terminology and the approach for defining these fields varies from method to
method. Often the fields include some combination of the following: administration,
social, political, management of natural and cultural resources, community participation,
and legal aspects. Some more recent methodologies specifically use the elements of the
IUCN-WCPA Framework. In some cases, a combination of ‘fields’ and WCPA
‘elements’ is used.

2. The next, more specific level of features that are important to good management are
listed and standards and expectations set. Common factors identified at this level
include: good systems of financial administration, adequate staffing and funding,
communication with stakeholders, environmental education programs, management
planning, law enforcement and boundary marking.

3. Specific indicators for each of these aspects are then chosen and described. (Different
methods vary as to the number of levels and as to which factors are considered first,
second or third level indicators).

4. A scoring system is defined. While some methodologies, notably RAPPAM and the
Tracking Tool, use a four-point scale, most of the methodologies in Latin America use a
five-point scale: many of them have based this approach on the recommendation of de
Faria (1993) and subsequent publications and adaptations of this scheme.

Most systems either carefully define what each of these levels are (i.e. define precise
criteria for each score level), or set guidelines for the individual park or system to define
these standards. In some cases, quite detailed instructions or sub-indicators are included
to ensure that an objective and quantitative method is used, especially for calculating the
‘optimum’ staff, finances, or equipment needed.

5. Analyses are then recommended. In most cases, scores for individual indicators are
combined or ‘rolled up’ into the level or levels above, to provide overall scores for the
aspects and the fields. The indicators at each level may be weighted to reflect relative
importance and contribution to the field.

Management effectiveness in protected areas – a Global Study Page | 87

Contact details
School of Geography, Planning
and Environmental Management
The University of Queensland
Brisbane Queensland 4072
AUSTRALIA

Phone: +61 (7) 3346 7845

Fax: +61 (7) 3365 6899
Email: m.hockings@uq.edu.au
Internet: www.gpem.uq.edu.au/

02-SCIgpem March 2011 CRICOS Provider Number 00025B