By Sue Wells and Nancy Dahl-Tacconi

Many methods are being developed and tested for evaluating MPA management effectiveness. This is good: different situations and needs of MPAs require different methods of evaluation. Bear in mind that the various methods are not mutually exclusive. There is potential for combining parts of them, as well as others developed for terrestrial protected areas or more general coastal management initiatives, to create evaluations that cater to specific needs.

The following table gives examples of three general types of evaluation methods: broad-scale, fine-scale, and scorecards. Broad-scale methods (1 and 2) include measures and descriptions of a wide range of management elements. They provide a strong basis for understanding and improving management as well as reporting on progress and promoting good practice. Fine-scale methods (3 and 4) provide a more detailed analysis of the conservation and socio-economic impact of a MPA, using more specific indicators. Scorecards (5 and 6) offer shortcuts to evaluation – providing a general picture of how management is progressing, thus helping to identify areas that need immediate attention.


Methodology: World Heritage Management Effectiveness Workbook

Characteristics

  • Broad-scale
  • Contains worksheets on context, planning, inputs, processes, and outcomes
  • Qualitative and semi-quantitative

Strengths

  • Incorporates a wide range of views from internal and external participants on all elements of management

Issues to Consider

  • Designed for World Heritage sites, so some adaptation may be needed for other protected areas
  • Funding is necessary for workshops, and possibly for a consultant if MPA managers are not available
  • Pilot assessments have taken 6-12 months on average to conduct

Methodology: Workbook for the Western Indian Ocean

Characteristics

  • Based on World Heritage method
  • Broad-scale, but with simpler worksheets than World Heritage method
  • Qualitative and semi-quantitative

Strengths

  • Incorporates a wide range of views from internal and external participants on all elements of management

Issues to Consider

  • Funding is necessary for workshops, and possibly for a consultant if MPA managers are not available
  • Requires 2-3 months to conduct and the capacity to facilitate workshops and surveys

Methodology: How Is Your MPA Doing?

Characteristics

  • Fine-scale
  • Focuses on individual indicators, selectable from a generic list
  • Offers a variety of methods for data collection and analyses of a wide range of indicators
  • Qualitative and quantitative

Strengths

  • Provides guidance on linking objectives with indicators
  • Offers good coverage of biophysical and socioeconomic outcomes
  • Gives detailed instructions for collecting and processing data

Issues to Consider

  • Most useful for mature management arrangements (manual advises that it be used for MPAs in existence for 2 years, with a management plan in place)
  • May be time-consuming, and technically and financially demanding
  • Requires clear management objectives as basis for selecting indicators

Methodology: The Nature Conservancy 5-S framework

Characteristics

  • Fine scale
  • Provides criteria, questions, and scoring systems to assess status and changes in threats and ecological integrity
  • Qualitative

Strengths

  • Focuses on threat reduction, with direct relevance to immediate management decisions
  • Supports strategic planning by gauging ecological integrity
  • Can be used to compare sites and strategies

Issues to Consider

  • Focuses on outcomes only
  • Provides indications for overall systems, not specifics for each species or threat
  • Designed for small-scale and short-term conservation initiatives

Methodology: World Bank Scorecard to Assess Progress

Characteristics

  • Scorecard initially aimed at MPAs supported by Global Environment Facility projects
  • Questionnaire addresses context, planning, inputs, processes, outputs, and outcomes
  • Qualitative and semi-quantitative

Strengths

  • Is quick, simple, and inexpensive
  • Allows comparisons across sites if used consistently
  • Incorporates some site-specific objectives and challenges into scoring

Issues to Consider

  • Quality and relevance of results are based entirely on knowledge and perspectives of respondent(s) at one point in time
  • Method designed primarily for self-assessment by MPA staff (does not involve other stakeholders)

Methodology: MPA Report Guide and Rating System

Characteristics

  • Contains a survey developed for use as part of a national rating system for Philippine MPAs
  • Survey addresses mostly context, processes, and outputs
  • Qualitative and semi-quantitative

Strengths

  • Is quick and simple
  • Allows comparisons across sites if used consistently

Issues to Consider

  • May need to be adapted for use by MPAs elsewhere