Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 47, Issue 4, pp 603–616 | Cite as

Stakeholder Opinions on the Assessment of MPA Effectiveness and Their Interests to Participate at Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, Canada

  • Nadine HeckEmail author
  • Philip Dearden
  • Adrian McDonald
  • Steve Carver
Article

Abstract

As the number of marine protected areas (MPAs) is globally increasing, information is needed on the effectiveness of existing sites. Many protected area agencies however have limited resources and are unable to evaluate MPA effectiveness. An evaluation conducted entirely by the managing agency may also lack credibility. Long-term monitoring and evaluation programs should ideally offer opportunities for participation of diverse groups in the selection of evaluation indicators and their assessment. A participatory approach has the potential to enhance evaluation capacity, to increase credibility and acceptance of results, to strengthen relationships between managers and local stakeholders, and to address more locally relevant information. Using a case study approach, this paper investigates diverse stakeholder groups’ opinions on the design of an evaluation and their interest to participate in an assessment. Respondents were most interested in the assessment of MPA achievements and outcome indicators. Most groups identified a range of government agencies and stakeholders that should participate in an assessment but only half of all respondents were interested to participate in monitoring activities. Most frequently mentioned limitations for more participation were a lack of time and money, but also governance shortcomings such as limited participation possibilities and not paying enough credit to stakeholders’ input. Participation interest was also influenced by occupation, place of residency, and familiarity with the marine environment. Differences exist among stakeholders about suitable evaluators and preferred monitoring partners, which could affect the credibility of evaluation results and affect monitoring activities.

Keywords

Marine protected area Evaluation Stakeholders Participatory monitoring Canada 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The study is part of a Ph.D. underway at the University of Leeds (UK) in collaboration with the University of Victoria (CA). Financial assistance was provided by the University of Leeds Research Scholarship, the Canadian Studies Centre, at the University of Leeds postgraduate award, the British Association for Canadian Studies travel award and fieldwork funding provided by the Ocean Management Research Network, Canada, through the MPA Working Group based at the University of Victoria.

References

  1. Almany G, Hamilton R, Williamson D, Evans R, Jones G, Matawai M, Potuku T, Rhodes K, Russ G, Sawynok B (2010) Research partnerships with local communities: two case studies from Papua New Guinea and Australia. Coral Reefs 29(3):567–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Assembly of First Nations Environmental Stewardship Unit (2009) Ethics in First Nations research. Assembly of First Nations, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailenson JN, Shum MS, Atran S, Medin DL, Coley JD (2002) A bird’s eye view: biological categorization and reasoning within and across cultures. Cognition 84(1):1–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brandon A, Spyreas G, Molano-Flores B, Carroll C, Ellis J (2003) Can volunteers provide reliable data for forest vegetation surveys? Natural Areas Journal 23(3):254–261Google Scholar
  5. Buckley R, Robinson J, Carmody J, King N (2008) Monitoring for management of conservation and recreation in Australian protected areas. Biodiversity and Conservation 17(14):3589–3606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burke L, Maidens J (2004) Reefs at risk in the Caribbean. World Resource Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. Burke L, Selig L, Spalding MD (2002) Reefs at risk in Southeast Asia. UNEP-WCMC, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell J, Salagrama V (2001) New approaches to participation in fisheries research. FAO fisheries circular 965. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  9. Christie P, White AT (2007) Best practice in governance and enforcement of marine protected areas: an overview. Expert workshop on marine protected areas and fisheries management: review of issues and considerations. FAO, Rome, pp 183–220Google Scholar
  10. Conrad C, Hilchey K (2010) A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 1–19Google Scholar
  11. Dahl-Tacconi N (2005) Investigating information requirements for evaluating effectiveness of marine protected areas—Indonesian case studies. Coastal Management 33:225–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Danielsen F, Burgess N, Balmford A (2005) Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Biodiversity and Conservation 14(11):2507–2542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Danielsen F, Burgess ND, Balmford A, Donald PF, Funder M, Jones J, Alviola P, Balete DS, Blomley T, Brashares J, Child B, Enghoff M, Fjeldså J, Holt S, Huebertz H, Jensen AE, Jensen PM, Massao J, Mendoza MM, Ngaga Y, Poulsen MK, Rueda R, Moses SAM, Skielboe T, Stuart-Hill G, Topp-Jørgensen E, Yonten D (2009) Local participation in natural resource monitoring: a characterization of approaches. Conservation Biology 23(1):31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Day J (2008) The need and practice of monitoring, evaluating and adapting marine planning and management—lessons from the Great Barrier Reef. Marine Policy 32(5):823–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Day JC, Hockings M, Jones G (2003a) Measuring effectiveness in marine protected areas? Principles and practice? In: World aquatic protected areas congress, Cairns. Australian Society of Fish Biology, CairnsGoogle Scholar
  16. Day JC, Hockings M, Jones G (2003b) Measuring effectiveness in marine protected areas? Principles and practice? In: Proceedings of the World aquatic protected areas congress, Cairns. Australian Society of Fish Biology, CairnsGoogle Scholar
  17. Dearden P (2009) Marine parks. In: Dearden P, Rollins R (eds) Parks and protected areas in Canada, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Dearden P, Bennett M, Johnston J (2005) Trends in global protected area governance 1992–2000. Environmental Management 36(1):89–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greenwood JJD (2003) The monitoring of British breeding birds: a success story for conservation science? The Science of the Total Environment 310(1–3):221–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Himes AH (2007a) Performance indicator importance in MPA management using multi-criteria approach. Coastal Management 43(5):601–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Himes AH (2007b) Performance indicators in MPA management: using questionnaires to analyze stakeholder preferences. Ocean & Coastal Management 50(5–6):329–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hockings M (2006) On defining MPA ‘success’ and choosing an evaluation method. MPA News 7(10):4Google Scholar
  23. Hockings M, Stolton S, Leverington F, Dudley N, Courrau J (2006) Evaluating effectiveness. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  24. Hockings M, Stolton S, Dudley N, James R (2009) Data credibility: what are the right data for evaluating management effectiveness of protected areas? New Directions for Evaluation 2009(122):53–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Janzen DH (2004) Setting up tropical biodiversity for conservation through non-damaging use: participation by parataxonomists. Journal of Applied Ecology 41(1):181–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jones G (2000) Outcome-based evaluation of management for protected areas—a methodology for incorporating evaluation into management plans. In: The design and management of forest protected areas. WWF, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  27. Kelleher G (1999a) Guidelines for marine protected areas. Best practice protected area guidelines series no. 3. IUCN, GlandGoogle Scholar
  28. Kelleher G (1999b) Guidelines for protected areas. IUCN, GlandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kleiman DG, Reading RP, Miller BJ, Clark TW, Scott JM, Robinson J, Wallace RL, Cabin RJ, Felleman F (2000) Improving the evaluation of conservation programs. Conservation Biology 14(2):356–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lindholm OG, Nordeide T (2000) Relevance of some criteria for sustainability in a project for disconnecting of storm runoff. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20(3):413–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Noss AJ, Oetting I, Cuéllar R (2005) Hunter self-monitoring by the Isoseño-Guaraní in the Bolivian Chaco. Biodiversity and Conservation 14(11):2679–2693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oakley P, Marsden D (1984) Approaches to participation in rural development. International Labour Office, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  33. Ojeda-Martínez C, Giménez Casalduero F, Bayle-Sempere JT, Barbera Cebrián C, Valle C, Luis Sanchez-Lizaso J, Forcada A, Sanchez-Jerez P, Martín-Sosa P, Falcón JM, Salas F, Graziano M, Chemello R, Stobart B, Cartagena P, Pérez-Ruzafa A, Vandeperre F, Rochel E, Planes S, Brito A (2009) A conceptual framework for the integral management of marine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management 52(2):89–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Okali C, Sumberg J, Farrington J (1994) Farmer participatory Research, rhetoric and reality. Intermediate Technology Publications on behalf of the Overseas Development Institute, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Owen JM, Rogers PJ (1999) Program evaluation: forms and approaches. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  36. Pajaro MG (2010) Indicators of effectiveness in community-based marine protected areas. PhD, University of British ColumbiaGoogle Scholar
  37. Pajaro MG, Mulrennan ME, Alder J, Vincent ACJ (2010) Developing MPA effectiveness indicators: comparison within and across stakeholder groups and communities. Coastal Management 38(2):122–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Paleczny DR, Russell S (2005) Participatory approaches in protected area assessment and reporting. In: Proceedings of the parks and protected research forum of Ontario. University of Guelph, GuelphGoogle Scholar
  39. Parks Canada (1994) Pacific Rim National Park Reserve management guidelines. Parks Canada, UclueletGoogle Scholar
  40. Parks Canada (2010) Pacific Rim National Park Reserve management plan. Parks Canada, UclueletGoogle Scholar
  41. Patton M (1997) Utilization-focused evaluation. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  42. Pollnac RB, Crawford BR, Gorospe MLG (2001) Discovering factors that influence the success of community-based marine protected areas in the Visayas, Philippines. Ocean and Coastal Management 44:683–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pomeroy RS, Parks JE, Watson LM (2004) How is your MPA doing? A guidebook for natural and social indicators for evaluating marine protected areas management effectiveness. IUCN, GlandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pomeroy RS, Watson LM, Parks JE, Cid GA (2005) How is your MPA doing? A methodology for evaluating the management effectiveness of marine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management 48(7–8):485–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pomeroy RS, Mascia MB, Pollnac RB (2007) Marine protected areas: the social dimension. Report and documentation of the expert workshop on marine protected areas and fisheries management: review of issues and considerations. FAO 149-82Google Scholar
  46. Rutherford RJ, Herbert GJ, Coffen-Smout SS (2005) Integrated ocean management and the collaborative planning process: the Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management (ESSIM) Initiative. Marine Policy 29(1):75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Spalding MD, Fish L, Wood LJ (2008) Toward representative protection of the world’s coasts and oceans—progress, gaps, and opportunities. Conservation Letters 1(5):217–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stem C, Margolius R, Salafsky N, Brown M (2005) Monitoring and evaluation in conservation: a review of trends and approaches. Conservation Biology 19(2):295–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Theberge M, Dearden P (2006) Detecting a decline in whale shark Rhincodon typus sightings in the Andaman Sea, Thailand, using ecotourist operator-collected data. Oryx 40(3):337–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Uychiaoco AJ, Arceo HO, Green SJ, De la Cruz MT, Gaite PA, Alino PM (2005) Monitoring and evaluation of reef protected areas by local fishers in the Philippines: tightening the adaptive management cycle. Biodiversity Conservation 14:2775–2794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vella P, Bowen RE, Frankic A (2009) An evolving protocol to identify key stakeholder-influenced indicators of coastal change: the case of marine protected areas. ICES Journal of Marine Science 66(1):203–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Watson L, Ehler C, Cid G, Parks J, Pomeroy R, Cripps S, Jorge M (2003) Testing indicators developed to measure the management effectiveness of marine protected areas. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on science and management of protected areas, 11–16, May 2003. SAMPAA, WolfvilleGoogle Scholar
  53. Webb EL, Maliao RJ, Siar SV (2004) Using local user perceptions to evaluate outcomes of protected area management in the Sagay Marine Reserve, Philippines. Environmental Conservation 31(2):138–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wells S, Mangubhai S (2005) A workbook for assessing management effectiveness of marine protected areas in the Western Indian Ocean. IUCN Eastern Africa Regional Programme, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  55. Yoccoz NG, Nichols JD, Boulinier T (2003) Monitoring of biological diversity; a response to Danielsen and others. Oryx 37(4):410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zanetell B, Knuth BA (2004) Participation rhetoric or community-based management reality? Influences on willingness to participate in a Venezuelan freshwater fishery. World Development 32(5):793–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nadine Heck
    • 1
    Email author
  • Philip Dearden
    • 2
  • Adrian McDonald
    • 1
  • Steve Carver
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  2. 2.School of GeographyUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations