Relevant Indicators For Assessing
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 21

Relevant Indicators For Assessing Management Effectiveness In Different Types Of PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 47 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Relevant Indicators For Assessing Management Effectiveness In Different Types Of Parks & Social Contexts. Katrina Brandon, CABS-CI. WCPA Evaluation Framework. Key Social & Policy Themes. Park Establishment Process Land & Resource Tenure Resource Uses Organizational Roles

Download Presentation

Relevant Indicators For Assessing Management Effectiveness In Different Types Of

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Relevant indicators for assessing management effectiveness in different types of

Relevant Indicators For Assessing

Management Effectiveness

In Different Types Of

Parks & Social Contexts

Katrina Brandon, CABS-CI


Relevant indicators for assessing management effectiveness in different types of

WCPA Evaluation Framework


Relevant indicators for assessing management effectiveness in different types of

Key Social & Policy Themes

  • Park Establishment Process

  • Land & Resource Tenure

  • Resource Uses

  • Organizational Roles

  • Linkages between Parks & Buffer Areas

  • Conflict Management & Resolution

  • Large Scale Threats

  • National Policy Framework

  • Indigenous Peoples & Social Change

  • Transboundary Issues

  • Resettlement


Relevant indicators for assessing management effectiveness in different types of

PiP Case Study Sites

  • Ría Lagartos & Ría Celestún Special Biosphere Reserves

  • Guatemala: Sierra de las Minas Biosphere Reserve

  • Costa Rica: Corcovado National Park

  • Dominican Republic: Del Este National Park

  • Belize: Rio Bravo Conservation & Management Area

  • Ecuador: Machalilla National Park

  • Ecuador: Podocarpus National Park

  • Bolivia: Amboró National Park

  • Peru: Yanachaga-Chemillen National Park


Relevant indicators for assessing management effectiveness in different types of

CONTEXT FOR PA MANAGEMENT

Selected Results, Base Study

STABLE AREAS: Remote PAs orOpportunity PAs, watersheds, little pressure for agriculture


Relevant indicators for assessing management effectiveness in different types of

CONTEXT FOR PA MANAGEMENT

  • RAPIDLY CHANGING AREAS:

  • PAs Created to Stop Change

  • (road, mining, etc.)

  • Transformation due to forces outside


Relevant indicators for assessing management effectiveness in different types of

TWO TYPES OF PAs

  • CORE AREAS

    • most of area under protection

    • managed to limit consumptive or extractive activities (IUCN Categories Ia,Ib,II)


Relevant indicators for assessing management effectiveness in different types of

  • .

BIOSPHERE RESERVES

& MULTIPLE USE AREAS

Selected Results, Base Study

  • managed for multiple objectives

  • Residence and consumptive uses allowed

  • (IUCN Categories III, IV, V, VI)


Relevant indicators for assessing management effectiveness in different types of

  • .

  • E.g. 100 #1 sites + 50#2 sites + 10 #3 + 6#4

  • or 50 #1 sites + 20#2 sites + 15 #3 + 12#4

  • Selected Results, Base Study

  • CLASSIFY BY ACTUAL NOT LEGAL

    This is a National Park; IUCN Category II– but it can never be managed as a core – it must be managed as a multiple use area!


    Relevant indicators for assessing management effectiveness in different types of

    CONTEXT & MANAGEMENT COMPLEXITY

    STABLE CHANGING

    CORE 1 3

    MULTIPLE USE 24

    Ease of Action 1 easiest 4 hardest


    Relevant indicators for assessing management effectiveness in different types of

    Immediate Actions At Core Areas

    Selected Results, Base Study


    Relevant indicators for assessing management effectiveness in different types of

    Immediate Actions At Multiple Use Areas

    Selected Results, Base Study


    Relevant indicators for assessing management effectiveness in different types of

    CONTEXT & MANAGEMENT COMPLEXITY

    STABLE CHANGING

    CORE 1 3

    MULTIPLE USE 24

    Ease of Action 1 easiest 4 hardest


    Relevant indicators for assessing management effectiveness in different types of

    Scales For Context Asst.

    Selected Results, Base Study

    Site Scale: Helps inform better understanding of context

    PA System: Helps define strategy across sites

    Larger Scales/Donors: Costs, Financing, & Complexity


    Relevant indicators for assessing management effectiveness in different types of

    • .

    • E.g. 100 #1 sites + 50#2 sites + 10 #3 + 6#4

    • or 50 #1 sites + 20#2 sites + 15 #3 + 12#4

  • Selected Results, Base Study

  • Human Footprint & Last of the Wild

    WCS & CIESIN


    Relevant indicators for assessing management effectiveness in different types of

    • .

    • E.g. 100 #1 sites + 50#2 sites + 10 #3 + 6#4

    • or 50 #1 sites + 20#2 sites + 15 #3 + 12#4

  • Selected Results, Base Study

  • Numbers & % of Protected Areas

    & Human Footprint by Category


    Relevant indicators for assessing management effectiveness in different types of

    • .

    • E.g. 100 #1 sites + 50#2 sites + 10 #3 + 6#4

    • or 50 #1 sites + 20#2 sites + 15 #3 + 12#4

  • Selected Results, Base Study

  • Area of Protected Areas (pct)

    In Human Footprint


    Relevant indicators for assessing management effectiveness in different types of

    • .

    • E.g. 100 #1 sites + 50#2 sites + 10 #3 + 6#4

    • or 50 #1 sites + 20#2 sites + 15 #3 + 12#4

  • Selected Results, Base Study

  • Social Context of Protected Areas: Numbers

    1: Core PAs are IUCN categories I and II, Multiple Use PAs are IUCN categories III – VI

    2: Remote/Stable PAs are those lying at least partially beyond human footprint and with

    average annual population change < 3.5% between 1990 and 1995

    3: Changing PAs are those with average annual population change > 3.5% between 1990

    and 1995 or lying within the human footprint


    Relevant indicators for assessing management effectiveness in different types of

    • .

    • E.g. 100 #1 sites + 50#2 sites + 10 #3 + 6#4

    • or 50 #1 sites + 20#2 sites + 15 #3 + 12#4

  • Selected Results, Base Study

  • Social Context of Protected Areas

    By Area (ha) & Percent

    1: Core PAs are IUCN categories I and II, Multiple Use PAs are IUCN categories III – VI

    2: Remote/Stable PAs are those lying at least partially beyond human footprint and with average annual population change < 3.5% between 1990 and 1995

    3: Changing PAs are those with average annual population change > 3.5% between 1990 and 1995 or lying within the human footprint

    4: Figures are millions of ha


    Relevant indicators for assessing management effectiveness in different types of

    • .

    • E.g. 100 #1 sites + 50#2 sites + 10 #3 + 6#4

    • or 50 #1 sites + 20#2 sites + 15 #3 + 12#4

  • Selected Results, Base Study

  • Indicators of Social Change at Different Scales

    Site Level: ratio of park boundary subject to human pressure; level & rate of deforestation surrounding PA; infrastructure development; land use changes.

    National Level: above factors + social data (GIS) on poverty, landlessness, government expenditure

    Regional Level: above (if available) + human footprint data; little change data exists; use proxies.


    Relevant indicators for assessing management effectiveness in different types of

    • .

    • E.g. 100 #1 sites + 50#2 sites + 10 #3 + 6#4

    • or 50 #1 sites + 20#2 sites + 15 #3 + 12#4

    Scales For Context Asst.

    Selected Results, Base Study

    Within a system or broadscale, this can help, when used with other data(e.g. $ available) can clarify what is possible and nature of tradeoffs.

    Biological/Ecological Criteria First! Then

    Type of Site 12 3 4

    100 50 10 6

    or 50 20 15 12


  • Login