Proposal of a system for the integrated and comparative assessment of protected areas

Abstract

Abstract:Protected areas' overall goal is to achieve the long-term conservation of natural and associated cultural goods and services. However, effective long-term conservation of natural and associated cultural resources cannot always be guaranteed by a protection regime or even by effective management, as it is usually assumed. The ultimate goal of assessing protected areas is therefore concerned less with management effectiveness than with their overall long-term effectiveness. This paper describes the methodology underpinning the System for the Integrated Assessment of Protected Areas (SIAPA). The aim of SIAPA is to make the concept of 'effectiveness' operational when applied to protected areas. It is an innovative, horizontal site-level assessment system for evaluating integrally and comparably the effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas, as the assessment is based on the same parameters. Indicators are the basic assessment units. They were weighted by an expert panel and integrated into six categories (indexes) defining the effectiveness of protected areas: state of conservation, planning, management, social and economic context, social perception and valuation, and threats to conservation. These indexes were subsequently integrated into a single super-index: an effectiveness index for the protected area. Two alternative models of the SIAPA were developed: the complete model, containing 43 indicators, in order to maximize the amount of information on each protected area; and the simplified model, containing 28 indicators, in order to maximize the cost-effectiveness of the assessment.

Fine-Tuning of a Protected Area Effectiveness Evaluation Tool: Implementation on Two Emblematic Spanish National Parks

“…All the three fundamental criteria to facilitate bridging the science-implementation gap [16] have been substantially improved since the SIAPA's original version [12] by increasing key stakeholder participation. Different PA assessment tools are available in the country [12,15,32,33].…”

“…All the three fundamental criteria to facilitate bridging the science-implementation gap [16] have been substantially improved since the SIAPA's original version [12] by increasing key stakeholder participation. Different PA assessment tools are available in the country [12,15,32,33]. Nevertheless, the fact that PA evaluation is not considered a legal obligation in Spain, with the exception of NPs, and that other more pressuring managerial priorities exist, such as the drafting of management plans for Natura 2000 sites, are likely to still limit the salience of this and any other PA assessment tool [14].…”

“…Eleven of the seventeen regional governments' representatives and the two representatives of the national bodies with some competencies on PAs participated on the managers' side, whereas seven different scientific institutions also provided input. The optimised SIAPA includes all the eight priority indicators from its improved version [15] and 15 of the 28 indicators of the original SIAPA's simplified model, aimed at increasing evaluation efficiency [12]. Fifteen of the 22 indicators of the optimised SIAPA can be currently evaluated using secondary data external to PA administrations in Spain, although some key indicators, such as species', habitats' or other focal features' status cannot.…”

Results of the implementation of the System for the Integrated Assessment of Protected Areas (SIAPA) to the protected areas of the Autonomous Region of Madrid (Spain)

“…However, once one model is chosen for a PA or group of PAs, the same model should be used repeatedly in future assessments, as aggregated results (indexes) from both models are not directly comparable (Rodríguez-Rodríguez and Martínez-Vega, 2012). The statistical techniques used to assess the degree of relatedness among indicators and between these and the indexes did not prove useful to simplify the SIAPA.…”

“…Its integrated nature makes it useful for PA managers and scientists, whereas its comparability provides an added value especially for PA network managers and policymakers. It can potentially be used and adapted to a wide range of PAs and contexts (Rodríguez-Rodríguez and Martínez-Vega, 2012), as long as a minimum amount of resources and enough basic information are provided. It needs, however, institutional support to be fully effective.…”