Lessons learned from 18 years of implementing the Management Effectiveness Tracking
            Tool (METT): A perspective from the METT developers and implementers

Stolton, Sue; Dudley, Nigel; Belokurov, A. A.; Deguignet, Marine; Burgess, Neil D.; Hockings, Marc; Leverington, Fiona; MacKinnon, Kathy; Young, Llewellyn

doi:10.2305/iucn.ch.2019.parks-25-2ss.en

Cited by 48 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Secondly, an understanding of the role of PAs in climate change adaptation processes has been steadily developing but there is much work to be done. For example, new questions to assess the effects of climate change on PAs have only recently been employed in Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) evaluations despite its long history and widespread use (Stolton & Dudley, 2016). Through investigation of change following an extreme event this study provides insights into similar considerations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protected area effectiveness for fish spawning habitat in relation to earthquake-induced landscape change

Orchard¹,

Hickford²

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Protected area effectiveness for fish spawning habitat in relation to earthquake-induced landscape change

Orchard¹,

Hickford²

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the full and interim evaluation have also shown that the quality set and the evaluation process need to be revised and further developed. In the following, the main reasons for this in terms of content and process are listed [21,22] (for comparison, see [24,25]).…”

Section: Strengths and Weaknesses Of The Evaluation Methods And Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Management Effectiveness of German National Parks—Experiences, Results, Lessons Learned and Future Prospects

Heiland

May²,

Scherfose

2020

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 2005 until today, experience has been gained in the preparation, implementation and impacts of the evaluation of the management effectiveness of German national parks. This process began with the development of a quality set containing fields of action, criteria, standards and a questionnaire to assess the state of national park management. This quality set was applied in the first voluntary full evaluation of German national parks, which took place from 2009 to 2012. An assessment of the full evaluation and the following interim evaluation (2015–2018) demonstrated the positive effects of the evaluation for the national parks, but also revealed some weaknesses of the quality set and the evaluation process. For this reason, work has been underway since 2019 to further improve the evaluation method; however, this has not yet been completed. The article provides an overview of the entire process. It concludes with considerations on the transferability of the evaluation method to other countries and gives some recommendations as to the most important aspects to be considered when evaluating the management effectiveness of national parks.

show abstract

“…Such approaches can be adapted to national requirements and contexts. Whilst not without their challenges (Cook and Hockings 2011;Mascia et al 2014) these methods have a long history and can, with training and support, be effective at capturing site-or PA network-level information (Fox et al 2014;Stolton et al 2019). While this information will often be most relevant at the site level, reporting might be more appropriate at the level of networks of sites or an entire country.…”

Section: Capturing Data On Effective Planning and Management To Cut Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

Essential Indicators for Measuring Area-Based Conservation Effectiveness in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

Geldmann¹,

Deguignet²,

Balmford³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Work has begun in earnest to formulate a post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework which will outline the vision and targets for the next decade of biodiversity conservation and beyond. However, the performance of the 2011-2020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity suggests that even a meaningful target can fail to deliver if not accompanied by fit-for-purpose indicators. Here we provide a review of how ‘protected area’ effectiveness was addressed in the 2011-2020 plan and based on this, provide recommendations for fit-for-purpose indicators that will measure how such efforts contribute to the conservation of biodiversity. Indicators need to be built on quantitative data from site-level biodiversity monitoring of species and ecosystems combined with measurements of the state of nature in near-time, informed by remote-sensed products and other technologies. Additionally, indicators need to capture whether the essential elements of good management are in place including the identification of ecological values, threats, and objectives, equitable governance, and sufficient management resources and capacity. These fit-for-purpose indicators will require multilateral collaboration to galvanize support for, and resources to develop, the necessary infrastructure to collate and store information from countries.

show abstract

Lessons learned from 18 years of implementing the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT): A perspective from the METT developers and implementers

Cited by 48 publications

References 17 publications

Protected area effectiveness for fish spawning habitat in relation to earthquake-induced landscape change

Protected area effectiveness for fish spawning habitat in relation to earthquake-induced landscape change

Evaluation of the Management Effectiveness of German National Parks—Experiences, Results, Lessons Learned and Future Prospects

Essential Indicators for Measuring Area-Based Conservation Effectiveness in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About