Management effectiveness evaluation in protected areas of southern Ecuador

Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla https://idus.us.es/ This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Elsevier in Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 190 on April 2017, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.12.043 © 2016 Elsevier. En idUS Licencia Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Management effectiveness evaluation in protected areas of southern Ecuador Fausto López-Rodríguez1, Daniel Rosado2-3* 1 Department of Natural Sciences, Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja, 11 01 608 Loja, Ecuador 2 Department of Chemistry, Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja, 11 01 608 Loja, Ecuador 3 Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Universidad de Sevilla, 41092 Sevilla, Spain 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. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: * Department of Chemistry, Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja, San Cayetano Alto s/n, 11 01 608 Loja, Ecuador. Tel.: 00 593 73 70 14 44; E-mail address: djro[email protected], danro[email protected], [email protected]m (Daniel Jesús Rosado Alcarria). *Manuscript Click here to view linked References 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 2 Abstract 1 Protected areas are home to biodiversity, habitats and ecosystem as well as a critical 2 component of human well-being and a generator of leisure-related revenues. However, 3 management is sometimes unsatisfactory and requires new ways of evaluation. 4 Management effectiveness of 36 protected areas in southern Ecuador have been 5 assessed. The protected areas belong to three categories: Heritage of Natural Areas of 6 the Ecuadorian State (PANE), created and funded by the State, Areas of Forest and 7 Protective Vegetation (ABVP), created but no funded by the State, and private reserves, 8 declared and funded by private entities. 9 Management effectiveness was evaluated by answers of managers of the protected areas 10 to questionnaires adapted to the socio-economic and environmental characteristics of 11 the region. Questions were classified into six elements of evaluation: context, planning, 12 inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes as recommended by IUCN. Results were 13 classified into four levels: unsatisfactory, slightly satisfactory, satisfactory and very 14 satisfactory. 15 The PANE areas and private reserves showed higher management effectiveness levels 16 (satisfactory and very satisfactory) than ABVP areas, where slightly satisfactory and 17 unsatisfactory levels prevailed. Resources availability was found as the main reason 18 behind this difference. The extension, age and province of location were found 19 irrelevant. Outputs, inputs and processes require main efforts to improve management 20 effectiveness. Improving planning and input in the PANE areas and inputs and 21 outcomes on ABVP areas is necessary to obtain a similar result in all areas. 22 Keywords 23 Management effectiveness; protected areas; National park; Tourism; Sustainable 24 development; Economic growth; Southern Ecuador 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 3 1 Introduction 1 Protected areas are the cornerstone of biodiversity, habitats (Craigie et al., 2010; Pandit 2 et al., 2015; Venter et al., 2014) and ecosystem services conservation (Coad et al., 2008; 3 Geldmann et al., 2015; Klein et al., 2007; Naidoo et al., 2006; Rodrigues, 2006; 4 Scharlemann et al., 2010). In 2012, a total of 130,709 protected areas of various types 5 were established globally, covering 24,236,479 km2 of terrestrial (67%) and marine 6 (33%) habitats (IUCN and UNEP-WCMC, 2012). 7 Protected areas are impacted by unprecedented global losses of biodiversity, habitats 8 and ecosystem services mainly due to pressure from human activities (Craigie et al., 9 2010; Geldmann et al., 2014, 2013; Laurance et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2016). Thus, 10 management and effectiveness evaluation of protected areas are key factors for long- 11 term sustainability (Joppa et al., 2013). Management effectiveness evaluation in 12 protected areas is carried out in over 100 countries using over 50 different tools (e.g. 13 approximately 5% of the world's protected areas have been evaluated so far) 14 (Leverington et al., 2010). Evaluations have often been carried out because protected 15 area founders (typically governments and non-government organizations) want to find 16 out whether their investments in management have had the expected outcome. 17 The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has developed a framework 18 for assessing management effectiveness. This allows to develop specific evaluation 19 methodologies for a particular location with a global and consistent approach 20 (Hockings, 2003; Hockings et al., 2006). In this framework, management effectiveness 21 is evaluated by questionnaires answered by managers of protected areas. The 22 questionnaires measure management inputs and outputs of protected areas to assess the 23 strengths, weaknesses and management needs (Mascia et al., 2014). 24 The concept of protected area has evolved during the last decades. They are now 25 considered not only important from an ecology point of view (Calado et al., 2016; 26 Chape et al., 2005), but also as a critical component of human well-being (Bonet-García 27 et al., 2015; Romagosa et al., 2015) and a generator of leisure-related revenues to 28 sustain local economies (Ervin et al., 2010; Nyaupane and Poudel, 2011). Protected 29 areas are the focus of increasing recreational and tourism interest and they are prime 30 destinations for nature-based tourism due to their unique biological, natural and cultural 31 features (Whitelaw et al., 2014). Protected areas constitute an important component of 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 4 the global tourism industry (Nyaupane and Poudel, 2011). They were a key attraction 1 for over 20% of the 990 million world tourists in 2011 (Buckley, 2009). 2 Developing countries in Southeast Asia, Africa and South America, have among their 3 priorities the reduction of poverty and the supply of food and commodities to their 4 citizens. Thus, in many cases, the conservation of protected areas is not a top priority 5 for some governments (Satumanatpan et al., 2014). However, developing a tourism 6 industry based on protected areas presents a golden opportunity for developing 7 countries to grow their economy. For instance, Ecuador has excellent conditions to 8 become an important tourist destination while protecting its ecosystems. It is one of the 9 most biodiverse countries in the world and much of its territory makes up some of the 10 34 global hotspots (Myers et al., 2000). 11 This paper proposes a methodology to assess the management effectiveness of 36 12 protected areas in southern Ecuador. Also, it aims to identify protected area 13 management strengths and weaknesses and test whether management effectiveness is 14 impacted by the type of area, extension, age and location of the protected area. Thereby, 15 this paper is intended to improve the management effectiveness of protected areas in 16 southern Ecuador. 17 2 Materials and methods 18 2.1 Study area 19 In this paper, 36 protected areas in southern Ecuador (Figure 1) were studied. Six areas 20 belong to the Heritage of Natural Areas of the Ecuadorian State (Patrimonio de Areas 21 Naturales del Estado, PANE, in Spanish). 23 areas belong to Areas of Forest and 22 Protective Vegetation (Áreas de Bosque y Vegetación Protectora, ABVP, in Spanish) 23 and seven are private reserves. The PANE areas were declared so and owned by the 24 State and are managed by a public entity that funds them. PANE areas belong to one of 25 the four subsystems of the National System of Protected Areas, run by the Ecuadorian 26 State. The ABVP areas are created by the State but may have different owners: public, 27 private or public-private entities and communities. Most belong to private owners and 28 do not have a public entity that manages and funds them. Private reserves are declared 29 and owned by private agencies that fund their management. 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 5 The southern region of Ecuador has an extension of 27,113 km2 and 1,144,471 1 inhabitants. From west to east, the provinces of El Oro (coast), Loja (Andes) and 2 Zamora Chinchipe (Amazon) are located within this region. Loja is the largest with an 3 area of 11,100 km2 (400-3000 masl), followed by Zamora Chinchipe (10,454 km², 4 1000-3000 masl), and El Oro (5,792 km², 0-3600 masl). The population density differs 5 in each province. El Oro has the highest density (90.77 inhab./km²; 600,659 6 inhabitants), followed by Loja (38.26 inhab./km²; 448,966 inhabitants) and Zamora 7 Chinchipe (7.3 inhab./km²; 91,376 inhabitants). 8 The southern Ecuador holds diverse ecosystems: island and marine-coastal areas, 9 mangroves, dry forests, rainforests (pacific, montane and amazonic), moors, sandstone 10 plateaus and semi-natural ecosystems, such as traditional policrops. It also overlaps two 11 world biodiversity hotspots: Tumbes-Chocó-Magdalena and Tropical Andes 12 (Mittermeier et al., 2005; Myers et al., 2000) and is home to 22 Important Bird Areas 13 (IBA) (Birdlife International, 2005). 14 15 Figure 1. Protected areas studied in southern Ecuador. (Heritage of Natural Areas of the 16 Ecuadorian State (PANE), green; Areas of Forest and Protective Vegetation (ABVP), orange; 17 Private reserves, red). 18 2.2 Methodology 19 The methodology used to evaluate management effectiveness in the three types of 20 protected areas (PANE, ABVP and private reserves) was based on those proposed by 21 the IUCN (Hockings et al., 2000), Stolton et al. (2003) and Ervin (2003). A modified 22 version of the questionnaire proposed by Stolton et al. (2003) was used. This 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 6 questionnaire was adapted to the socio-economic and environmental characteristics of 1 the region. The questionnaire (Table 1) included 38 multiple choice questions classified 2 into six elements of evaluation: context (14), planning (8), inputs (4), processes (5), 3 outputs (5), and outcomes (2). Each question had four possible answers. The 4 interviewee was only allowed to choose one answer and each answer was assigned a 5 score from 0 to 3. A score of 0 represented the worst management effectiveness and 3, 6 optimal effectiveness. Six management effectiveness evaluation indices were calculated 7 as a percentage of the maximum possible score. The management effectiveness score 8 was calculated as the average of the six evaluation management effectiveness indices, 9 following Hockings et al. (2000), Stolton et al. (2003) and Ervin (2003). Senior staff, 10 usually high level managers, of 36 protected areas were interviewed from January to 11 March 2012. Usually, these senior staff had degrees in forestry. 12 Table 1. Elements of evaluation, themes and topics included in the questionnaire for 13 management effectiveness evaluation. 14 Elements of evaluation Themes Topic of question Context Threats Agriculture Cattle raising Civil construction Deforestation Tourism Mining Forest fires Flora and fauna Invasive species Socioeconomics Economic development Socio-environmental conflicts Politics Government support Support from other Entities Local communities Planning Protected area design Shape Connectivity Zoning Boundaries Objectives Objectives Legal Protected area creation Management and exploitation of natural resources regulations Regulations enforcement Inputs Staff Full-time employees Additional staff Funding Budget Logistics Equipment and infrastructure Processes Planning Local development plan Management plan Annual operative plan Research and monitoring Research and monitoring Activities Environmental education and communication Outputs Planning results Achievement of objectives of management Penalties to users and employees Training Employees Facilities Visitors infrastructure Control mechanisms Access to Protected Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 7 1 The six management effectiveness evaluation indices and the management effectiveness 2 scores were interpreted according to the scale suggested by Ulloa and Tamayo (2012). 3 This interpretation classifies the results into four categories based on the percentage of 4 the maximum possible score: <25%, unsatisfactory; 25-50%, slightly satisfactory; 50- 5 75%, satisfactory; 75-100%, very satisfactory. Unsatisfactory indicates that the 6 protected area has no guaranty of long-term permanence. Slightly satisfactory means 7 that the protected area is highly vulnerable to the confluence of external factors and its 8 permanence is not guaranteed in the long-term. Satisfactory indicates that the protected 9 area has deficiencies which prevent an effective management, but the management 10 objectives are partially met. Very satisfactory indicates that the permanence of the 11 protected area is guaranteed and management objectives are fully meet. 12 2.3 Statistical analysis 13 SPSS version 20 software was used to calculate the coefficient of determination (R2) 14 among extension, age, province of location and management effectiveness scores. SPSS 15 was also used to carry out ANOVA tests. The latter determines whether there are 16 significant differences between groups and allows drawing conclusions about 17 management effectiveness. 18 3 Results and discussion 19 3.1 Management effectiveness scores by type of area 20 Figure 2 shows the results in management effectiveness. The highest values (average ± 21 standard deviation) in management effectiveness scores corresponds to private reserves 22 (72.6%±6.9, satisfactory), followed by PANE (68.4%±9.7, satisfactory) and ABVP 23 areas (40.7%±15.1 slightly satisfactory). However, there are only significant differences 24 (p<0.05) between the ABVP areas and the rest. Between private reserves and PANE 25 areas there is no significant difference (p>0.05). 26 Among private reserves, the highest management effectiveness score corresponds to 27 San Francisco (78.8%, very satisfactory) and the lowest to El Madrigal (61.7%, 28 satisfactory). In PANE areas, values range from 83.5% (very satisfactory) for Yacuri, a 29 Outcomes Tourism Surrounding communities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 8 National Park, to 55.26% (satisfactory) for Arenillas. Among ABVP areas, the highest 1 value is for Dr. Servio (65.0%, satisfactory), followed by Petrificado Puyango (62.8%, 2 satisfactory) and El Bosque (62.2%, satisfactory). For this kind of protected area, 3 Susuco (18.2%, unsatisfactory) shows the lowest value. 4 5 Figure 2. Management effectiveness scores (%) and element of evaluation (%) by type of 6 protected area: Heritage of Natural Areas of the Ecuadorian State (PANE), Areas of Forest and 7 Protective Vegetation (ABVP) and private reserves. 8 Table 2 lists the results of management effectiveness scores. Private reserves dominate 9 the top positions for management effectiveness. However, the protected area with the 10 highest management effectiveness score corresponds to a PANE area, Yacuri (83.5%, 11 very satisfactory), followed by three private reserves: San Francisco (78.8%, very 12 satisfactory), Jorupe (77.5%, very satisfactory) and Utuana (77.1%, very satisfactory). 13 The ABVP areas occupy the last places. The lowest management effectiveness score 14 corresponds to Susuco (18.2%, unsatisfactory), followed by Ingenio Santa Rosa (19.5%, 15 unsatisfactory) and El Guabo (20.3%, unsatisfactory). 16 Regarding the categories of the protected areas, all private reserves achieve a very 17 satisfactory (n=4) and satisfactory (n=3) management effectiveness. The same occurs in 18 PANE areas, with 1 very satisfactory area and 5 satisfactory areas. Results differ in the 19 ABVP areas, where management in 35% of the areas (n=8) is satisfactory, 43% is 20 slightly satisfactory (n=10) and 22% is unsatisfactory (n=5). 21 These results can be explained by the difference in resources in each kind of protected 22 area. While private reserves and PANE areas have private and/or public resources, they 23 are scarce in most of the ABVP areas. Within private reserves, San Francisco receives 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 15 satisfactory), followed by El Oro (53.8%±12.8, satisfactory) and Loja (50.2±21.5%, 1 satisfactory). Thus, the variables associated with the province described in materials and 2 methods section, such as population density, can not be considered significant. 3 3.4 Methodology discussion 4 Hockings et al. (2000) and Stolton et al. (2003, 2007) discuss the difficulties and 5 possibilities for distortion of integrating the scores obtained in the questions. Each 6 evaluation index is composed of different number of questions. Thus, calculating the 7 management effectiveness score as the arithmetic mean of the six evaluation indices, some 8 questions are valued more than others. For example, questions being part of outcomes (2) 9 will have seven times more relevance to the management effectiveness scores than those 10 belonging to context (14). Thus, in this work weights have been assigned indirectly to each 11 of the questions based on the grouping for the calculation of the management effectiveness 12 evaluation indices. 13 Weights could have being also added directly to each of the questions for calculating the 14 management effectiveness evaluation indices or to the management effectiveness 15 evaluation indices for calculating the management effectiveness scores. In these cases, 16 weights can be added according to the number of questions, the expert criteria (for 17 example, with the Delphi method) or statistical methods, such as the principal component 18 analysis (PCA) (Böhringer and Jochem, 2007). 19 Figure 4 compares the management effectiveness scores by the type of area as it is 20 calculated in this work and as the arithmetic mean of all the questions, without the 21 intermediate step of the management effectiveness evaluation indices. I.e., giving equal 22 weight to all questions. Management effectiveness score increases in all three types of 23 areas when all questions are weighted equally. This indicates that the questions with 24 greater weight, such as those of inputs (4) and outcomes (2), decrease the arithmetic mean. 25 Despite this, order in management effectiveness score remains equal: private areas 26 maintain the highest management effectiveness score, followed very closely by the PANE 27 areas and, lastly, ABVP areas. 28 Standard deviations have decreased in all three types of protected areas, facilitating to find 29 significant differences in management effectiveness. However, there are no significant 30 differences between the management effectiveness score in the areas according to the 31 weighting method used (p>0.05). 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 16 1 Figure 4. Management effectiveness scores calculated by both arithmetic and geometric means and 2 weighting (calculating management effectiveness evaluation indices as a previous step) and not 3 weighting (calculating means over questions). 4 It is also necessary to discuss whether it is convenient to integrate the scores of questions 5 using the arithmetic mean. This method allows total compensability between questions 6 (OECD, 2008). However, protecting an area requires achieving relatively good scores in 7 all questions. Low scores on some questions could make the protection of the area and its 8 long-term survival unviable, although other questions achieve high scores. 9 Using the geometric mean instead of the arithmetic would reduce compensability. Lower 10 results would reduce the management effectiveness score significantly (Ebert and Welsch, 11 2004). In addition, the generalized implementation of the geometric mean would 12 encourage to balance all aspects of protection and prevent from excel only in some, 13 ignoring others. Figure 4 shows the management effectiveness score by the type of area 14 calculated using the geometric mean for both management effectiveness evaluation indices 15 and management effectiveness score. Nonetheless, geometric mean implies a higher 16 dispersion of data, increasing standard deviation and making it more difficult to find 17 significant differences. In this paper, the questions answered with 0 have been replaced by 18 0.01. Otherwise, it would not be possible to obtain a geometric mean. 19 Low scores on some questions could mean a serious threat for long-term survival of the 20 protected area. Focusing on reducing compensability, this answers to the questions could 21 be considered red flags. This would be a way of implementing a harder compensatory 22 system, such as the non-compensatory multi-criteria approach (MEC) (OECD, 2008). Red 23 flags could be also used as threshold scores for each management effectiveness evaluation 24 index. Thresholds would be set by experts according to their relevance. 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 17 These results prove that it is important to justify the methodology used to aggregate and to 1 weight the results. If a random approach is used, the conclusions of the indexes can lead to 2 error. 3 4 Conclusions 4 The Heritage of Natural Areas of the Ecuadorian State (PANE, in Spanish) and private 5 reserves have the same level of management effectiveness score, rated as satisfactory and 6 very satisfactory. 7 The Forest and Protective Vegetation (ABVP, in Spanish) have lower management 8 effectiveness score that PANE areas and private reserves, prevailing levels slightly 9 satisfactory and unsatisfactory. 10 Higher management effectiveness scores are associated with the availability of resources. 11 While all PANE areas and private reserves have resources available, they are only 12 available in a few of the ABVP areas (those with better management effectivenesses). 13 Improving management effectiveness evaluation indices on the outputs, inputs and 14 processes is necessary to enhance management effectiveness score. Improving planning 15 and input evaluation effectivenesses in the PANE areas and inputs and outcomes on ABVP 16 areas is required to achieve a similar management effectiveness in all types of protected 17 areas. 18 The extension, age and province of location are not determining factors in the management 19 effectiveness score of the protected areas. 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 18 References 1 Birdlife International, 2005. Áreas Importantes para la Conservación de las Aves en los 2 Andes Tropicales: sitios prioritarios para la conservación de la biodiversidad. 3 BirdLife International (Serie de Conservación de BirdLife No. 14), Quito, Ecuador. 4 Böhringer, C., Jochem, P.E.P., 2007. Measuring the immeasurable — A survey of 5 sustainability indices. Ecol. Econ. 63, 1–8. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.03.008 6 Bonet-García, F.J., Pérez-Luque, A.J., Moreno-Llorca, R.A., Pérez-Pérez, R., Puerta- 7 Piñero, C., Zamora, R., 2015. Protected areas as elicitors of human well-being in a 8 developed region: A new synthetic (socioeconomic) approach. Biol. Conserv. 187, 9 221–229. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2015.04.027 10 Buckley, R., 2009. Evaluating the net effects of ecotourism on the environment: a 11 framework, first assessment and future research. J. Sustain. Tour. 17, 643–672. 12 doi:10.1080/09669580902999188 13 Calado, H., Bragagnolo, C., Silva, S., Vergílio, M., 2016. Adapting environmental function 14 analysis for management of protected areas in small islands - case of Pico Island (the 15 Azores). J. Environ. Manage. 171, 231–42. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.02.015 16 Chape, S., Harrison, J., Spalding, M., Lysenko, I., 2005. Measuring the extent and 17 effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets. 18 Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 360, 443–55. doi:10.1098/rstb.2004.1592 19 Coad, L., Burgess, N., Fish, L., Ravilious, C., Corrigan, C., Pavese, H., Granziera, A., 20 Besancon, C., 2008. Progress Towards the Convention on Biological Diversity 21 Terrestrial 2010 and Marine 2012 Targets for Protected Area Coverage. Nature 22 Bureau, UK, Gland, Switzerland. 23 Craigie, I.D., Baillie, J.E.M., Balmford, A., Carbone, C., Collen, B., Green, R.E., Hutton, 24 J.M., 2010. Large mammal population declines in Africa’s protected areas. Biol. 25 Conserv. 143, 2221–2228. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.06.007 26 Ebert, U., Welsch, H., 2004. Meaningful environmental indices: a social choice approach. 27 J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 47, 270–283. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2003.09.001 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 19 Ecuadorian Ministry of the Environment, 2016a. No Title [WWW Document]. URL 1 http://www.ambiente.gob.ec/los-emprendimientos-de-6000-familias-que-trabajan-en- 2 areas-protegidas-de-ecuador-se-presentaran-en-el-congreso-mundial-de-la-naturaleza/ 3 (accessed 9.21.16). 4 Ecuadorian Ministry of the Environment, 2016b. No Title [WWW Document]. URL 5 http://www.ambiente.gob.ec/mas-de-100-000-turistas-visitaron-las-areas-protegidas/ 6 (accessed 9.23.16). 7 Ecuadorian Ministry of the Environment, 2007a. Evaluación de la Efectividad de manejo 8 del Parque Nacional Machalilla, Quito, Ecuador. [WWW Document]. URL 9 http://www.ambiente.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/07/Parque- 10 Nacional-Machalilla.pdf (accessed 3.31.16). 11 Ecuadorian Ministry of the Environment, 2007b. Evaluación de la Efectividad de Manejo 12 de la Reserva Ecológica Cotacachi Cayapas, Quito, Ecuador. [WWW Document]. 13 URL http://www.ambiente.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/07/Reserva- 14 Ecolo•gica-Cotacachi-Cayas.pdf (accessed 3.31.16). 15 Ervin, J., 2003. Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management 16 (RAPPAM) Methodology. WWF, Gland, Switzerland. 17 Ervin, J., Sekhran, N., Dinu, A., Gidda, S., Vergeichik, M., Mee, J., 2010. Protected Areas 18 for the 21st Century: Lessons from UNDP/GEF’s Portfolio. United Nations 19 Development Programme and Montreal: Convention on Biological Diversity, New 20 York. 21 FAO, 2016. State of the World’s Forests 2016. Forests and agriculture: land-use challenges 22 and opportunities. Rome. 23 Ganzenmüller, A., Cuesta-Camacho, F., Riofrío, M.G., Baquero, F., González, C., 2010. 24 Caracterización ecosistémica y evaluación de efectividad de manejo de los bosques 25 protectores y bloques del Patrimonio Forestal ubicados en el sector ecuatoriano del 26 Corredor de Conservación Chocó-Manabí. Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador, 27 EcoCiencia y Conservación Internacional., Quito, Ecuador. 28 Geldmann, J., Barnes, M., Coad, L., Craigie, I.D., Hockings, M., Burgess, N.D., 2013. 29 Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 20 declines. Biol. Conserv. 161, 230–238. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.02.018 1 Geldmann, J., Coad, L., Barnes, M., Craigie, I.D., Hockings, M., Knights, K., Leverington, 2 F., Cuadros, I.C., Zamora, C., Woodley, S., Burgess, N.D., 2015. Changes in 3 protected area management effectiveness over time: A global analysis. Biol. Conserv. 4 191, 692–699. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2015.08.029 5 Geldmann, J., Joppa, L.N., Burgess, N.D., 2014. Mapping change in human pressure 6 globally on land and within protected areas. Conserv. Biol. 28, 1604–16. 7 doi:10.1111/cobi.12332 8 Hockings, M., 2003. Systems for Assessing the Effectiveness of Management in Protected 9 Areas. Bioscience 53, 823. doi:10.1641/0006- 10 3568(2003)053[0823:SFATEO]2.0.CO;2 11 Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Dudley, N., 2000. Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for 12 Assessing the Management of Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and 13 Cambridge, UK. 14 Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N., Courrau, J., Valentine, P., Editor, 15 S., 2006. Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing Management 16 Effectiveness of Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland. 17 IUCN, UNEP-WCMC, 2012. The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). 18 Joppa, L.N., Visconti, P., Jenkins, C.N., Pimm, S.L., 2013. Achieving the convention on 19 biological diversity’s goals for plant conservation. Science 341, 1100–3. 20 doi:10.1126/science.1241706 21 Klein, A.-M., Vaissière, B.E., Cane, J.H., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Cunningham, S.A., 22 Kremen, C., Tscharntke, T., 2007. Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes 23 for world crops. Proc. Biol. Sci. 274, 303–13. doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3721 24 Kolahi, M., Sakai, T., Moriya, K., Makhdoum, M.F., Koyama, L., 2013. Assessment of the 25 effectiveness of protected areas management in Iran: Case study in Khojir National 26 Park. Environ. Manage. 52, 514–530. doi:10.1007/s00267-013-0061-5 27 Laurance, W.F., Useche, D.C., Rendeiro, J., et al., 2012. Averting biodiversity collapse in 28 tropical forest protected areas. Nature 489, 290–4. doi:10.1038/nature11318 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 21 Leverington, F., Costa, K.L., Pavese, H., Lisle, A., Hockings, M., 2010. A global analysis 1 of protected area management effectiveness. Environ. Manage. 46, 685–98. 2 doi:10.1007/s00267-010-9564-5 3 Mascia, M.B., Pailler, S., Thieme, M.L., Rowe, A., Bottrill, M.C., Danielsen, F., 4 Geldmann, J., Naidoo, R., Pullin, A.S., Burgess, N.D., 2014. Commonalities and 5 complementarities among approaches to conservation monitoring and evaluation. 6 Biol. Conserv. 169, 258–267. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.017 7 Mayorquín, A., Valenzuela, S., Rangel, J.O., 2010. Assessing management effectiveness in 8 Natural Reserves of Civil Society: a methodological proposal. Caldasia 32, 381–397. 9 Mittermeier, R.A.A., Gil, P.R., Hoffman, M., Pilgrim, J., Brooks, T., Mittermeier, C.G.G., 10 Lamoreux, J., Da Fonseca, G.A.B.A.B., Robles Gil, P., 2005. Hotspots Revisited : 11 Earth’s biologically richest and most endangered ecoregions, Sierra. 12 doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00530.x 13 Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A., Kent, J., 2000. 14 Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403, 853–8. 15 doi:10.1038/35002501 16 Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Ferraro, P.J., Polasky, S., Ricketts, T.H., Rouget, M., 2006. 17 Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 681–7. 18 doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.10.003 19 Nyaupane, G.P., Poudel, S., 2011. Linkages among biodiversity, livelihood, and tourism. 20 Ann. Tour. Res. 38, 1344–1366. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2011.03.006 21 OECD, 2008. Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators [WWW Document]. URL 22 http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/handbookonconstructingcompositeindicatorsmethodolog 23 yanduserguide.htm (accessed 11.28.16). 24 Pandit, R., Dhakal, M., Polyakov, M., 2015. Valuing access to protected areas in Nepal: 25 The case of Chitwan National Park. Tour. Manag. 50, 1–12. 26 doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2014.12.017 27 Rodrigues, A.S.L., 2006. Ecology. Are global conservation efforts successful? Science 28 313, 1051–2. doi:10.1126/science.1131302 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 22 Romagosa, F., Eagles, P.F.J., Lemieux, C.J., 2015. From the inside out to the outside in: 1 Exploring the role of parks and protected areas as providers of human health and well- 2 being. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 10, 70–77. doi:10.1016/j.jort.2015.06.009 3 Satumanatpan, S., Senawongse, P., Thansuporn, W., Kirkman, H., 2014. Enhancing 4 management effectiveness of environmental protected areas, Thailand. Ocean Coast. 5 Manag. 89, 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.12.001 6 Scharlemann, J.P.W., Kapos, V., Campbell, A., Lysenko, I., Burgess, N.D., Hansen, M.C., 7 Gibbs, H.K., Dickson, B., Miles, L., 2010. Securing tropical forest carbon: the 8 contribution of protected areas to REDD. Oryx 44, 352–357. 9 doi:10.1017/S0030605310000542 10 Stolton, S., Hockings, M., Dudley, N., MacKinnon, K., Whitten, T., 2003. Reporting 11 Progress in Protected Areas: A Site-Level Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool. 12 World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use. 13 Stolton, S., Hockings, M., Dudley, N., MacKinnon, K., Whitten, T., Leverington, F., 2007. 14 Management effectiveness tracking tool. Reporting progress at protected area sites, 15 second. ed. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland. 16 Ulloa, R., Tamayo, D., 2012. Evaluación de efectividad de manejo de cinco áreas 17 protegidas marinas y costeras del ecuador continental: Parque Nacional Machalilla, 18 Reserva Marina Galera-San Francisco, Refugio de Vida Silvestre Manglares El 19 Morro, Refugio de Vida Silvestre Marino Coste. Ministerio del Ambiente del Ecuador 20 y Conservación Internacional Ecuador, Guayaquil, Ecuador. URL 21 http://conservation.org.ec/evaluacion-de-efectividad-de-manejo-de-cinco-areas- 22 protegidas-marinas-y-costeras-del-ecuador-continental/ (accessed 12.9.16). 23 Venter, O., Fuller, R.A., Segan, D.B., Carwardine, J., Brooks, T., Butchart, S.H.M., Di 24 Marco, M., Iwamura, T., Joseph, L., O’Grady, D., Possingham, H.P., Rondinini, C., 25 Smith, R.J., Venter, M., Watson, J.E.M., 2014. Targeting global protected area 26 expansion for imperiled biodiversity. PLoS Biol. 12, e1001891. 27 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001891 28 Whitelaw, P.A., King, B.E.M., Tolkach, D., 2014. Protected areas, conservation and 29 tourism – financing the sustainable dream. J. Sustain. Tour. 22, 584–603. 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 23 doi:10.1080/09669582.2013.873445 1 Zhang, Y., Liu, Y., Fu, J., Phillips, N., Zhang, M., Zhang, F., 2016. Bridging the “gap” in 2 systematic conservation planning. J. Nat. Conserv. 31, 43–50. 3 doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2016.03.003 4 5 Evaluation item Title Topic of question Answers and scores 0 1 2 3 Context Threats Agriculture Intense within the protected area and its buffer zone In the buffer zones of the protected area and moving inward Only in the buffer zone and in a sustainable manner Non-existent within the protected area or its buffer zone Cattle raising Intense within the protected area and its buffer zone In the buffer zones of the protected area and moving inward Only in the buffer zone and in a sustainable manner Non-existent within the protected area or its buffer zone Civil construction Civil works within the protected area Infrastructure already built within the protected area Works planned in the protected area and / or in the buffer zone No civil works or planned in the protected area and the buffer zone Deforestation Intense within the protected area and its buffer zone Minimum within the protected area but intense in the buffer zone Inexistent in the protected area and not intensive in the buffer zone Inexistent within the protected area and its buffer zone Tourism Carried out without any planning Carried out illegally Planned by a central authority but unfulfilled Planned by a central authority and coordinated with the environmental authority Mining Illegal mining in the protected area Exploration or exploitation concessions are in operation in the protected area Prospecting concessions are in operation in the protected area No prospecting, exploration or exploitation concessions in the protected area Forest fires Frequent and large scale within the protected area Present within the protected area but it has a contingency plan Present in the buffer zone but are quickly controlled Non-existent in the area or in the buffer zone Flora and fauna Present in the entire protected area With large number of endemic and threatened species Species trade and poaching is fairly controlled Species trade and poaching is fully controlled Invasive species Affect most of the protected area Affect only part of the protected area and are difficult to control Its effects are not recognized as harmful and are focused and controlled Not present in the area Socioeconomics Economic development The protected area reduced the options for local economic development The protected area did not affect the local economy The protected area brought economic benefits to the local economy The protected area brought significant economic benefits to the local economy such as employment, development of local businesses, etc Socio-environmental conflicts Affect the entire protected area Affect most of the protected area Present but can be controlled Non-existent Politics Government support Non-existent Not significant Significant but sporadic Significant, continuous and efficient Support from other Entities Non-existent Not significant Significant but sporadic Significant, continuous and efficient Local communities Without access to decisionmaking on protected area management With access to decisionmaking on the management of the protected area but its suggestion are not taken into account Involved in making some decisions about protected area management Involved in decision-making about protected area management Table Click here to download Table: Supplementary material.pdf