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

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


  • 52 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

Parks & Social Contexts

Katrina Brandon, CABS-CI


WCPA Evaluation Framework


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


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


CONTEXT FOR PA MANAGEMENT

Selected Results, Base Study

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


CONTEXT FOR PA MANAGEMENT

  • RAPIDLY CHANGING AREAS:

  • PAs Created to Stop Change

  • (road, mining, etc.)

  • Transformation due to forces outside


TWO TYPES OF PAs

  • CORE AREAS

    • most of area under protection

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


  • .

BIOSPHERE RESERVES

& MULTIPLE USE AREAS

Selected Results, Base Study

  • managed for multiple objectives

  • Residence and consumptive uses allowed

  • (IUCN Categories III, IV, V, VI)


  • .

  • 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!


    CONTEXT & MANAGEMENT COMPLEXITY

    STABLE CHANGING

    CORE 1 3

    MULTIPLE USE 24

    Ease of Action 1 easiest 4 hardest


    Immediate Actions At Core Areas

    Selected Results, Base Study


    Immediate Actions At Multiple Use Areas

    Selected Results, Base Study


    CONTEXT & MANAGEMENT COMPLEXITY

    STABLE CHANGING

    CORE 1 3

    MULTIPLE USE 24

    Ease of Action 1 easiest 4 hardest


    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


    • .

    • 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


    • .

    • 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


    • .

    • 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


    • .

    • 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


    • .

    • 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


    • .

    • 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.


    • .

    • 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