Research article
Management effectiveness evaluation in protected areas of southern Ecuador

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.12.043Get rights and content

Highlights

  • PANE areas and private reserves showed higher management effectiveness.

  • ABVP areas showed lower management effectiveness.

  • Resource availability is the key factor in management effectiveness.

  • Extension, age and location (province) are irrelevant.

Abstract

Protected areas are home to biodiversity, habitats and ecosystem as well as a critical component of human well-being and a generator of leisure-related revenues. However, management is sometimes unsatisfactory and requires new ways of evaluation.

Management effectiveness of 36 protected areas in southern Ecuador have been assessed. The protected areas belong to three categories: Heritage of Natural Areas of the Ecuadorian State (PANE), created and funded by the State, Areas of Forest and Protective Vegetation (ABVP), created but no funded by the State, and private reserves, declared and funded by private entities.

Management effectiveness was evaluated by answers of managers of the protected areas to questionnaires adapted to the socio-economic and environmental characteristics of the region. Questions were classified into six elements of evaluation: context, planning, inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes as recommended by IUCN. Results were classified into four levels: unsatisfactory, slightly satisfactory, satisfactory and very satisfactory.

The PANE areas and private reserves showed higher management effectiveness levels (satisfactory and very satisfactory) than ABVP areas, where slightly satisfactory and unsatisfactory levels prevailed. Resources availability was found as the main reason behind this difference. The extension, age and province of location were found irrelevant. Outputs, inputs and processes require main efforts to improve management effectiveness. Improving planning and input in the PANE areas and inputs and outcomes on ABVP areas is necessary to obtain a similar result in all areas.

Introduction

Protected areas are the cornerstone of biodiversity, habitats (Craigie et al., 2010, Pandit et al., 2015, Venter et al., 2014) and ecosystem services conservation (Coad et al., 2008, Geldmann et al., 2015, Klein et al., 2007, Naidoo et al., 2006, Rodrigues, 2006, Scharlemann et al., 2010). In 2012, a total of 130,709 protected areas of various types were established globally, covering 24,236,479 km2 of terrestrial (67%) and marine (33%) habitats (IUCN and UNEP-WCMC, 2012).

Protected areas are impacted by unprecedented global losses of biodiversity, habitats and ecosystem services mainly due to pressure from human activities (Craigie et al., 2010, Geldmann et al., 2014, Geldmann et al., 2013, Laurance et al., 2012, Zhang et al., 2016). Thus, management and effectiveness evaluation of protected areas are key factors for long-term sustainability (Joppa et al., 2013). Management effectiveness evaluation in protected areas is carried out in over 100 countries using over 50 different tools (e.g. approximately 5% of the world's protected areas have been evaluated so far) (Leverington et al., 2010). Evaluations have often been carried out because protected area founders (typically governments and non-government organizations) want to find out whether their investments in management have had the expected outcome.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has developed a framework for assessing management effectiveness. This allows to develop specific evaluation methodologies for a particular location with a global and consistent approach (Hockings, 2003, Hockings et al., 2006). In this framework, management effectiveness is evaluated by questionnaires answered by managers of protected areas. The questionnaires measure management inputs and outputs of protected areas to assess the strengths, weaknesses and management needs (Mascia et al., 2014).

The concept of protected area has evolved during the last decades. They are now considered not only important from an ecology point of view (Calado et al., 2016, Chape et al., 2005), but also as a critical component of human well-being (Bonet-García et al., 2015, Romagosa et al., 2015) and a generator of leisure-related revenues to sustain local economies (Ervin et al., 2010, Nyaupane and Poudel, 2011). Protected areas are the focus of increasing recreational and tourism interest and they are prime destinations for nature-based tourism due to their unique biological, natural and cultural features (Whitelaw et al., 2014). Protected areas constitute an important component of the global tourism industry (Nyaupane and Poudel, 2011). They were a key attraction for over 20% of the 990 million world tourists in 2011 (Buckley, 2009).

Developing countries in Southeast Asia, Africa and South America, have among their priorities the reduction of poverty and the supply of food and commodities to their citizens. Thus, in many cases, the conservation of protected areas is not a top priority for some governments (Satumanatpan et al., 2014). However, developing a tourism industry based on protected areas presents a golden opportunity for developing countries to grow their economy. For instance, Ecuador has excellent conditions to become an important tourist destination while protecting its ecosystems. It is one of the most biodiverse countries in the world and much of its territory makes up some of the 34 global hotspots (Myers et al., 2000).

This paper proposes a methodology to assess the management effectiveness of 36 protected areas in southern Ecuador. Also, it aims to identify protected area management strengths and weaknesses and test whether management effectiveness is impacted by the type of area, extension, age and location of the protected area. Thereby, this paper is intended to improve the management effectiveness of protected areas in southern Ecuador.

Section snippets

Study area

In this paper, 36 protected areas in southern Ecuador (Fig. 1) were studied. Six areas belong to the Heritage of Natural Areas of the Ecuadorian State (Patrimonio de Areas Naturales del Estado, PANE, in Spanish). 23 areas belong to Areas of Forest and Protective Vegetation (Áreas de Bosque y Vegetación Protectora, ABVP, in Spanish) and seven are private reserves. The PANE areas were declared so and owned by the State and are managed by a public entity that funds them. PANE areas belong to one

Management effectiveness scores by type of area

Fig. 2 shows the results in management effectiveness. The highest values (average ± standard deviation) in management effectiveness scores corresponds to private reserves (72.6% ± 6.9, satisfactory), followed by PANE (68.4% ± 9.7, satisfactory) and ABVP areas (40.7% ± 15.1 slightly satisfactory). However, there are only significant differences (p < 0.05) between the ABVP areas and the rest. Between private reserves and PANE areas there is no significant difference (p > 0.05).

Among private

Conclusions

The Heritage of Natural Areas of the Ecuadorian State (PANE, in Spanish) and private reserves have the same level of management effectiveness score, rated as satisfactory and very satisfactory.

The Forest and Protective Vegetation (ABVP, in Spanish) have lower management effectiveness score that PANE areas and private reserves, prevailing levels slightly satisfactory and unsatisfactory.

Higher management effectiveness scores are associated with the availability of resources. While all PANE areas

References (47)

  • R. Pandit et al.

    Valuing access to protected areas in Nepal: the case of Chitwan National Park

    Tour. Manag.

    (2015)
  • F. Romagosa et al.

    From the inside out to the outside in: exploring the role of parks and protected areas as providers of human health and well-being

    J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour.

    (2015)
  • S. Satumanatpan et al.

    Enhancing management effectiveness of environmental protected areas, Thailand

    Ocean. Coast. Manag.

    (2014)
  • Y. Zhang et al.

    Bridging the “gap” in systematic conservation planning

    J. Nat. Conserv.

    (2016)
  • Birdlife International

    Áreas Importantes para la Conservación de las Aves en los Andes Tropicales: sitios prioritarios para la conservación de la biodiversidad

    (2005)
  • R. Buckley

    Evaluating the net effects of ecotourism on the environment: a framework, first assessment and future research

    J. Sustain. Tour.

    (2009)
  • S. Chape et al.

    Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets

    Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci.

    (2005)
  • L. Coad et al.

    Progress Towards the Convention on Biological Diversity Terrestrial 2010 and Marine 2012 Targets for Protected Area Coverage

    (2008)
  • Ecuadorian Ministry of the Environment, 2016a. No Title [WWW Document], URL...
  • Ecuadorian Ministry of the Environment, 2016b. No Title [WWW Document], URL...
  • Ecuadorian Ministry of the Environment

    Evaluación de la Efectividad de manejo del Parque Nacional Machalilla

    (2007)
  • Ecuadorian Ministry of the Environment

    Evaluación de la Efectividad de Manejo de la Reserva Ecológica Cotacachi Cayapas

    (2007)
  • J. Ervin

    Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) Methodology

    (2003)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text