Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Expanding Staff Voice in Protected Area Management Effectiveness Assessments within Kenya’s Maasai Mara National Reserve

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The concept of protected areas (PA) is one of the most widely used policy tools for biodiversity conservation including habitat and wildlife protection. Despite the importance and emphasis placed on protected area management, biodiversity is still in decline and more species are in danger of extinction. Some analyses have indicated that more than 40% of protected areas are poorly managed. To improve management effectiveness, the inclusion of diverse stakeholder information in articulating management strategies has been strongly encouraged; however, stakeholder involvement is often poorly integrated, and an opportunity granted only to select stakeholder groups, with PA staff, especially at lower organizational levels, minimally involved. Further, protected area management effectiveness (PAME) assessments are most frequently used as an aggregated outcome measure of effectiveness but these data should also inform management practice. Thus, for PA managers to obtain a greater understanding of issues impacting their effectiveness, they would benefit from including the voices of staff at all working levels. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to survey 135 wardens and rangers at all organizational levels from the two administrative sectors of Maasai Mara National Reserve to determine their perceptions of management effectiveness and to determine if significant differences existed across staff levels and administrative sectors. Significant differences were found to exist across staff levels and administrative authorities supporting the need for expanded staff voice in establishing effective PA management plans.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anthony, B (2014) Review of international protected area management effectiveness (PAME) experience. Association for Water and Rural Development, Budapest, Hungary. (USAID/RESLIM/ AID-674-A-13-00008)

  • Coad L, Leverington F, Knights K, Geldmann J, Eassom A, Kapos V, Kingston N, de Lima M, Zamora C, Curadros I, Nolte C, Burgess ND, Hockings M (2015) Measuring impact of protected area management interventions: Current and future use of the global database of protected area management effectiveness. Philos Trans R Soc B 370:20140281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook CN, Hockings M (2011) Opportunities for improving the rigor of management effectiveness evaluations in protected areas. Conserv Lett 4:372–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eklund J, Cabeza M (2017) Quality of governance and effectiveness of protected areas: Crucial concepts for conservation planning. Ann New Y Acad Sci 1399:27–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erwin J (2003) WWF: Rapid assessment and prioritization of protected areas management (RAPPAM) methodology. WWF, Gland, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • Francoso RD, Brandao R, Nogueira CC, Salmona YB, Bomfim Machado R, Colli GR (2015) Habitat loss and the effectiveness of protected areas in the Cerrado Biodiversity Hotspot. Nat & Conserv 13:35–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geldmann J, Coad L, Barnes M, Craigie ID, Hockings M, Knights K, Leverington F, Cuadros IC, Zamora C, Woodley S, Burgess ND (2015) Changes in protected area management effectiveness over time: A global analysis. Biol Conserv 191:692–699

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gitau JW (ed.) (2012) Payment for wildlife conservation in the Maasai Mara Ecosystem. ABCD Series Policy Brief 2. Association for the Strengthening of Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa, Entebbe, Uganda

    Google Scholar 

  • Hockings M, Stolton S, Leverington F, Dudley N, Courrau J (2006) Evaluating effectiveness: A framework for assessing the management of protected areas, 2nd Edition. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN (n.d.)) Protected area categories. http://www.iucn.org/theme/protected-areas/about/protected-area-categories

  • International Union for Conservation of Nature and United Nations Environment Program - World Conservation Monitoring Centre (IUCN & UNEP-WCMC (2015). The World Database on Protected Areas. UNEP-WCMC, November 2015. http://www.protectedplanet.net

  • Jones N, McGinlay J, Dimitrakopoulos PG (2017) Improving social impact assessment of protected areas: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Environ Impact Assess Rev 64:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leverington F, Hockings M, Pavese H, Lemos Costa K, Courrau J (2008) Management effectiveness evaluation in protected areas—a global study. Supplementary report No. 1: Overview of approaches and methodologies. The University of Queensland, Gatton, TNC, WWF, IUCN-WCPA, Austraila

  • Leverington F, Lemos Costa K, Pavese H, Lisle A, Hockings M (2010) A global analysis of protected area management effectiveness. Environ Manag 46:685–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood M (2010) Good governance for terrestrial protected areas: A framework, principles, and performance outcomes. J Environ Manag 91:754–766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Løvschal M, Bøcher PK, Pilgaard J, Amoke I, Odingo A, Thuo A, Svemmomg. J-C (2017) Fencing bodes a rapid collapse of the unique Greater Mara ecosystem. Sci Rep 7:41450. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep41450

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Luyet V, Schlaepfer R, Parlane MB, Buttler A (2012) A framework to implement stakeholder participation in environmental projects. J Environ Manag 111:213–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petursson JG, Vedeld P, Vatn A (2013) Going transboundary? An institutional analysis of transboundary protected areas management challenges at Mt. Elgon, East Africa. Ecol Soc 18(4):28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141(10):417–2431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Postumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell C, Quinn DH, Stringer LC (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manag 90:1933–1949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stringer L, Dougill A, Fraser E, Hubacek K, Prell C, Reed MS (2006) Unpacking “participation” in the adaptive management of social–ecological systems: a critical review. Ecol Soc 11(2):39, http://www.ecologyandsoceity.org/vol11/iss2/art39/

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. (2010) The African Great Rift Valley - The Maasai Mara. http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/5512/

  • Watson D (2014) Masai Mara: The Mara Triangle official guide. Photoprint, Scotland

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson EM, Dudley N, Segan DB, Hockings M (2014) The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515:67–73

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Western D, Russell SC, Cuthill I (2009) The status of wildlife in protected areas compared to non-protected areas of Kenya PLoS ONE 4(7):e6140

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Narok County Government, Kenya for its financial support and technical assistance in making this project possible. We also want to thank Clemson University Institute for Parks for its financial support and the International Conservation Caucus Foundation for its assistance in organizing this project. Further, we want to thank the Chief Warden, Narok sector of the Maasai Mara National Reserve and the Chief Executive for the Mara Conservancy, for their support in conducting the surveys of the rangers and officers in their respective sectors of the Maasai Mara National Reserve. Finally, we also want to acknowledge that a Kenyan Government research permit was obtained from the National Commission for Science, Technology, and Innovation (NACOSTI). We thank NACOSTI for its assistance and support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clemson University Institute for Parks, Clemson, SC, 29634, USA

    Lawrence Allen

  2. University of North Carolina-Wilmington, Wilmington, NC, 28403, USA

    Katie Krafte Holland & Hunter Holland

  3. Maasai Mara University, Narok, Kenya

    Salaton Tome’, Moriaso Nabaala, Simon Seno & James Nampushi

Authors
  1. Lawrence Allen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katie Krafte Holland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hunter Holland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Salaton Tome’
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Moriaso Nabaala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Simon Seno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. James Nampushi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lawrence Allen.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Appendix A

RAPPAM Management Practices and Actions (Erwin 2003 )

MMNR Management Objectives

  1. 1.

    Mara objectives provide for the protection and maintenance of biodiversity.

  2. 2.

    Specific biodiversity-related objectives are clearly stated in the management plan.

  3. 3.

    Management policies and plans are consistent with the Mara objectives.

  4. 4.

    Mara employees and administrators understand the Mara objectives and policies.

  5. 5.

    Local communities support the overall objectives of the Mara.

MMNR Legal Security Issues

  1. 1.

    The Mara has long-term legally binding protection.

  2. 2.

    There are no unsettled disputes regarding land tenure or use rights.

  3. 3.

    Boundary demarcation is adequate to meet the Mara objectives.

  4. 4.

    Staff and financial resources are adequate to conduct critical law enforcement activities.

  5. 5.

    Conflicts with the local community are resolved fairly and effectively.

MMNR Staffing Issues

  1. 1.

    The level of staffing is sufficient to effectively manage the area.

  2. 2.

    Staff members have adequate skills to conduct critical management activities.

  3. 3.

    Training and development opportunities are appropriate to the needs of the staff.

  4. 4.

    Staff performance and progress on targets are periodically reviewed

  5. 5.

    Staff employment conditions are sufficient to retain high-quality staff.

MMNR Siting Design and Planning Issues

  1. 1.

    The siting of the Mara is consistent with the Mara objectives.

  2. 2.

    The layout and configuration of the Mara optimizes the conservation of biodiversity.

  3. 3.

    The Mara zoning system is adequate to achieve the Mara objectives.

  4. 4.

    The land use in the surrounding area enables effective Mara management.

  5. 5.

    The Mara is linked to another area of conserved or protected land.

MMNR Communication and Information Issues

  1. 1.

    There are adequate means of communication between field and office staff.

  2. 2.

    Existing ecological and socio-economic data are adequate for management planning.

  3. 3.

    There are adequate means of collecting new data.

  4. 4.

    There are adequate systems for processing and analyzing data.

  5. 5.

    There is effective communication with local communities.

MMNR Infrastructure Issues

  1. 1.

    Transportation infrastructure is adequate to perform critical management activities.

  2. 2.

    Field equipment is adequate to perform critical management activities.

  3. 3.

    Staff facilities are adequate to perform critical management activities.

  4. 4.

    Maintenance and care of equipment is adequate to ensure long-term use.

  5. 5.

    Visitor facilities are appropriate to the level of visitor use.

MMNR Financial Issues

  1. 1.

    Funding in the Mara the past 5 years has been adequate to conduct critical management activities.

  2. 2.

    Funding for the next 5 years is adequate to conduct critical management activities.

  3. 3.

    Financial management practices enable efficient and effective Mara management.

  4. 4.

    The allocation of expenditures is appropriate to Mara Priorities and objectives.

  5. 5.

    The long-term financial outlook for the Mara is stable.

MMNR Management Planning Issues

  1. 1.

    There is a comprehensive, relatively recent written management plan.

  2. 2.

    There is a comprehensive inventory of natural and cultural resources.

  3. 3.

    There is analysis of, and strategy for addressing Mara threats and pressures.

  4. 4.

    A detailed work plan identified specific targets for achieving management objectives.

  5. 5.

    The results of research and monitoring are routinely incorporated into planning.

MMNR Decision-Making Issues

  1. 1.

    There is a clear internal organization.

  2. 2.

    Management decision-making is transparent

  3. 3.

    Mara staff regularly collaborate with partners, local communities and other organizations.

  4. 4.

    Local communities participate in decisions that affect them.

  5. 5.

    There is effective communication between all levels of Mara staff and administration.

MMNR Research, Evaluation, and Monitoring Issues

  1. 1.

    The impact of legal and illegal uses of the Mara area accurately monitored and recorded.

  2. 2.

    Research on key ecological issues is consistent with the needs of the Mara.

  3. 3.

    Research on key social issues is consistent with the needs of the Mara.

  4. 4.

    Mara staff members have regular access to recent scientific research and advice.

  5. 5.

    Critical research and monitoring needs are identified and prioritized.

MMNR Management Outputs

  1. 1.

    Threat prevention, detection and law enforcement.

  2. 2.

    Site restoration and mitigation efforts

  3. 3.

    Wildlife or habitat management.

  4. 4.

    Community outreach and education efforts.

  5. 5.

    Visitor and tourist management.

  6. 6.

    Infrastructure development.

  7. 7.

    Management planning and inventorying.

  8. 8.

    Staff monitoring, supervision, and evaluation.

  9. 9.

    Staff training and development.

  10. 10.

    Research and monitoring outputs.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Allen, L., Holland, K.K., Holland, H. et al. Expanding Staff Voice in Protected Area Management Effectiveness Assessments within Kenya’s Maasai Mara National Reserve. Environmental Management 63, 46–59 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1122-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1122-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation