Fine-Tuning of a Protected Area Effectiveness Evaluation Tool: Implementation on Two Emblematic Spanish National Parks
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. SIAPA Optimisation
2.2. Index and Indicator Valuation Comparison by PA Managers and Scientists
2.3. Optimised SIAPA Testing
3. Results
3.1. SIAPA Optimisation
3.2. Stakeholder Group Valuation of SIAPA’s Indicators and Indices
3.3. SIAPA Implementation Results
4. Discussion
4.1. SIAPA Optimisation
4.2. Stakeholder Group Valuation Comparison
4.3. Optimised SIAPA Testing: Effectiveness of Ordesa NP and Guadarrama NP
4.4. Study Limitations
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bhola, N.; Juffe-Bignoli, D.; Burguess, N.; Sandwith, T.; Kingston, N. Protected Planet Report 2016. How Protected Areas Contribute to Achieving Global Targets for Biodiversity; UNEP-WCMC: Cambridge, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Butchart, S.H.M.; Walpole, M.; Collen, B.; van Strien, A.; Schalermann, J.P.W.; Almond, R.E.; Baillie, J.E.; Bomhard, B.; Brown, C.; Bruno, J.; et al. Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines. Science 2010, 328, 1164–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Programme of Work on Protected Areas (CBD Programmes of Work); Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Aichi Biodiversity Targets. 2010. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/ (accessed on 24 July 2017).
- Hockings, M.; Stolton, S.; Dudley, N. Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing the Management of Protected Areas, 2nd ed.; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Leverington, F.; Lemos, K.; Courrau, J.; Pavese, H.; Nolte, C.; Marr, M.; Coad, L.; Burgess, N.; Bomhard, B.; Hockings, M. Management Effectiveness Evaluation in Protected Areas—A Global Study, 2nd ed.; University of Queensland: Brisbane, Australia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Nolte, C.; Leverington, F.; Kettner, A.; Marr, M.; Nielsen, G.; Bomhard, B.; Stolton, S.; Stoll-Kleemann, S.; Hockings, M. Protected Area Management Effectiveness Assessments in Europe. A Review of Application, Methods and Results. 2010. Available online: http://www.lepidat.de/fileadmin/MDB/documents/service/Skript_271a.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2017).
- Ervin, J. Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Areas Management (RAPPAM) Methodology; WWF: Gland, Switzerland, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Stolton, S.; Hockings, M.; Dudley, N.; MacKinnon, K.; Whitten, T.; Leverington, F. Reporting Progress in Protected Areas: A Site Level Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool, 2nd ed.; World Bank/WWF Forest Alliance and WWF: Gland, Switzerland, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Carranza, T.; Manica, A.; Kapos, V.; Balmford, A. Mismatches between conservation outcomes and management evaluation in protected areas: A case study in the Brazilian Cerrado. Biol. Conserv. 2014, 173, 10–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cook, C.N.; Carter, R.W.; Hockings, M. Measuring the accuracy of management effectiveness evaluations of protected areas. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 139, 164–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rodríguez-Rodríguez, D.; Martínez-Vega, J. Proposal of a system for the integrated and comparative assessment of protected areas. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 23, 566–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez-Rodríguez, D.; Martínez-Vega, J. Results of the implementation of the System for the Integrated Assessment of Protected Areas (SIAPA) to the protected areas of the Autonomous Region of Madrid (Spain). Ecol. Indic. 2013, 34, 210–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez-Rodríguez, D.; Martínez-Vega, J.; Tempesta, M.; Otero-Villanueva, M.M. Limited uptake of protected areas evaluation systems among managers and decision-makers in Spain and the Mediterranean Sea. Environ. Conserv. 2015, 42, 237–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez-Rodríguez, D.; Martínez-Vega, J. What should be evaluated from a manager’s perspective? Developing a salient protected area effectiveness evaluation system for managers and scientists in Spain. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 64, 289–296. [Google Scholar]
- Cash, D.W.; Clark, W.C.; Alcock, F.; Dickson, M.N.; Eckley, N.; Guston, D.H.; Jäger, J.; Mitchell, R.B. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 2003, 100, 8086–8091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Instituto de Economía, Geografía y Demografía (IEGD). DISESGLOB: Diseño de una Metodología de Seguimiento y Evaluación de la Sostenibilidad global de Parques Nacionales y de la Influencia de los Cambios de uso Previstos. 2017. Available online: http://iegd.csic.es/es/research-project/disesglob (accessed on 3 August 2017).
- Ten Brink, B. A Long-Term Biodiversity, Ecosystem and Awareness Research Network. Indicators as Communication Tools: An Evolution towards Composite Indicators. ALTER-Net, 2006. Available online: http://www.globio.info/downloads/79/Report++ten+Brink+%282006%29+Indicators+as+communication+tools-.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2017).
- Moldan, B.; Janoušková, S.; Hák, T. How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: Indicators and targets. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 17, 4–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coney, R.; Dickson, B. Biodiversity and the Precautionary Principle. Risk and Uncertainty in Conservation and Sustainable Use; Earthscan: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Spanish Government. Declaración del Parque Nacional del Parque Nacional del Valle de Ordesa. Boletin Oficial Estado Gaceta Madrid Spain 1918, 230, 495. [Google Scholar]
- Spanish Government. Ley 52/1982, de 13 de Julio, de reclasificación y ampliación del Parque Nacional de Ordesa y Monte Perdido. Boletin Oficial Estado 1982, 181, 20627–20629. [Google Scholar]
- European Environment Agency (EEA). Biogeographical Regions in Europe. 2017. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/biogeographical-regions-in-europe-2 (accessed on 26 July 2017).
- Spanish Government. Ley 30/2014, de 3 de diciembre, de Parques Nacionales. Boletin Oficial Estado 2014, 293, 99762–99792. [Google Scholar]
- Spanish Government. Ley 7/2013, de 25 de junio, de Declaración del Parque Nacional de la Sierra de Guadarrama. Boletin Oficial Estado 2013, 152, 47795–47852. [Google Scholar]
- Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente (MAPAMA). Memoria de la Red de Parques Nacionales. 2014. Available online: http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/red-parques-nacionales/la-red/gestion/memoria-2014_tcm7-454256.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2017).
- Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE). INEbase. Demografía y Población. Padrón. Población por Municipios. Cifras Oficiales de Población de los Municipios Españoles: Revisión del Padrón Municipal. Cifras Oficiales de Población Resultantes de la Revisión del Padrón Municipal a 1 de enero. 2017. Available online: http://www.ine.es/dynt3/inebase/index.htm?padre=525 (accessed on 3 August 2017).
- Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente (MAPAMA). Memoria de la Red de Parques Nacionales. 2015. Available online: http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/red-parques-nacionales/divulgacion/memoria-2015_tcm7-454259.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2017).
- Chape, S.; Spalding, M.; Jenkins, M. The World’s Protected Areas: Status, Values and Prospects in the 21st Century; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Lü, Y.; Chen, L.; Fu, B.; Liu, S. A framework for evaluating the effectiveness of protected areas: The case of Wolong Biosphere Reserve. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 63, 213–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Struhsaker, T.T.; Struhsaker, P.J.; Siex, K.S. Conserving Africa’s rain forests: problems in protected areas and possible solutions. Biol. Conserv. 2005, 123, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente (MAGRAMA). Primer Informe de Situación de la Red de Parques Nacionales a 1 de Enero de 2007. Tomo I. 2008. Available online: http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/red-parques-nacionales/divulgacion/tomo-1-informe-situacion-red_tcm7-459027.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2017).
- Institució Catalana d’Història Natural (ICHN). Avaluació del Sistema d’espais Naturals Protegits de Catalunya. Available online: http://ichn.iec.cat/Avaluacio_Espais.htm (accessed on 10 June 2017).
- Peckett, F.J.; Glegg, G.A.; Rodwell, L.D. Assessing the quality of data required to identify effective marine protected areas. Mar. Policy 2014, 45, 333–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knowles, J.E.; Doyle, E.; Schill, S.R.; Roth, L.M.; Milam, A.; Raber, G.T. Establishing a marine conservation baseline for the insular Caribbean. Mar. Policy 2015, 60, 84–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Copernicus Land Monitoring Services. Corine Land Cover. Pan-European, 2016. Available online: http://land.copernicus.eu/pan-european/corine-land-cover/ (accessed on 17 July 2017).
- Lasanta-Martínez, T.; Vicente-Serrano, S.M.; Cuadrats, J.M. Mountain Mediterranean landscape evolution caused by the abandonment of traditional primary activities: A study of the Spanish Central Pyrenees. Appl. Geogr. 2005, 25, 47–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gartzia, M.; Alados, C.L.; Pérez-Cabello, F. Assessment of the effects of biophysical and anthropogenic factors on woody plant encroachment in dense and sparse mountain grasslands based on remote sensing data. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2014, 38, 201–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Ruiz, J.M.; López-Moreno, J.I.; Lasanta, T.; Vicente-Serrano, S.M.; González-Sampériz, P.; Valero-Garcés, B.L.; Sanjuán, Y.; Beguería, S.; Nadal-Romero, E.; Lana-Renault, N.; et al. Los efectos geoecológicos del cambio global en el Pirineo Central español: Una revisión a distintas escalas espaciales y temporales. Pirineos 2015, 170, e012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gartzia, M.; Pérez-Cabello, F.; Bueno, C.B.; Alados, C.L. Physiognomic and physiologic changes in mountain grasslands in response to environmental and anthropogenic factors. Appl. Geogr. 2016, 66, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Araújo, M.B.; Alagador, D.; Cabeza, M.; Nogués-Bravo, D.; Thuiller, W. Climate change threatens European conservation areas. Ecol. Lett. 2011, 14, 484–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE). INEbase. Censos de Población y Viviendas 2011. Viviendas. Resultados Municipales. Principales Resultados. 2011. Available online: http://www.ine.es/jaxi/Tabla.htm?path=/t20/e244/viviendas/p06/l0/&file=10mun00.px&L=0 (accessed on 3 August 2017).
- Barrado Timón, D.A. Actividades de ocio y Recreativas en el Medio Natural de la Comunidad de Madrid; Comunidad de Madrid: Madrid, Spain, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- MolláRuiz-Gómez, M. La Junta Central de Parques Nacionales y la Sierra de Guadarrama. Ería 2007, 73–74, 161–177. [Google Scholar]
- Mollá Ruiz-Gómez, M. “El Grupo de los Alemanes” y el Paisaje de la Sierra de Guadarrama. Bol. AGE 2009, 51, 51–64. [Google Scholar]
- Atauri, J.A.; Bravo, M.A.; Ruiz, A. Visitors’ Landscape Preferences as a Tool for Management of Recreational Use in Natural Areas: A case study in Sierra de Guadarrama (Madrid, Spain). Landsc. Res. 2000, 25, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez-Rodríguez, D. Los Espacios Naturales Protegidos de la COMUNIDAD de Madrid. Principales Amenazas Para su Conservación; Editorial Complutense: Madrid, Spain, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Bianchi, R.V. The Contested Landscapes of World Heritage on a Tourist Island: The case of Garajonay National Park, La Gomera. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2002, 8, 81–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ecologistas en Acción. 1.200 Corredores en las Zonas más Sensibles del Parque Nacional de Guadarrama. 2014. Available online: http://www.ecologistasenaccion.org/article28246.html (accessed on 3 August 2017).
- Pickering, C.M.; Rossi, S. Mountain biking in peri-urban parks: Social factors influencing perceptions of conflicts in three popular National Parks in Australia. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2016, 15, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EUROPARC-España. Anuario 2013 del Estado de las Áreas Protegidas en España; Fundación Fernando González Bernáldez: Madrid, Spain, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Gaston, K.J.; Jackson, S.F.; Cantú-Salazar, L.; Cruz-Piñón, G. The ecological performance of protected areas. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2008, 39, 93–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas: Standard, Version 1.0. 2016. Available online: https://www.iucn.org/sites/dev/files/iucn_glpca_standard_version_1.0_september_2016_030217.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2017).
- Negro, M.; La Rocca, C.; Ronzani, S.; Rolando, A.; Palestrini, C. Management tradeoff between endangered species and biodiversity conservation: The case of Carabus olympiae (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and carabid diversity in north-western Italian Alps. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 157, 255–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tattoni, C.; Ianni, E.; Geneletti, D.; Zatelli, P.; Ciolli, M. Landscape changes, traditional ecological knowledge and future scenarios in the Alps: A holistic ecological approach. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 579, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cook, C.N.; Mascia, M.B.; Schwartz, M.W.; Possingham, H.P.; Fuller, R.A. Achieving Conservation Science that Bridges the Knowledge–Action Boundary. Conserv. Biol. 2013, 27, 669–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Centro Nacional de Información geográfica (CNIG). Centro de Descargas. SIOSE Sistema de Información sobre la Ocupación del Suelo de España 1:25,000. 2011. Available online: http://centrodedescargas.cnig.es/CentroDescargas/index.jsp# (accessed on 3 August 2017).
- Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente (MAPAMA). Mapa Forestal de España. 2015. Available online: http://www.mapama.gob.es/ide/metadatos/index.html?srv=metadata.show&uuid=ac11b891-6c6c-4458-b89c-2b73f593d019 (accessed on 3 August 2017).
- Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente (MAPAMA). Agricultura. Sistema de Información Geográfica de Parcelas Agrícolas (SIGPAC). 2017. Available online: http://www.mapama.gob.es/es/agricultura/temas/sistema-de-informacion-geografica-de-parcelas-agricolas-sigpac-/ (accessed on 3 August 2017).
- Nitsch, H.; Osterburg, B.; Roggendorf, W.; Laggner, B. Cross compliance and the protection of grassland. Illustrative analyses of land use transitions between permanent grassland and arable land in German regions. Land Use Policy 2012, 29, 440–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bastin, L.; Buchanan, G.; Beresford, A.; Pekel, J.F.; Dubois, G. Open-source mapping and services for Web-based land-cover validation. Ecol. Inform. 2013, 14, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Index | Number of Common Indicators | Calculation Formula | Value (Interpretation) |
---|---|---|---|
State of Conservation | 6 | where: wI = partial index xi = indicator value (0; 1; 2) ki = weighting factor (3.3 to 5.0) | wI ≥ 1.5 → 2 points (Adequate) 1 ≤ wI < 1.5 → 1 point (Moderate) wI < 1 → 0 points (Deficient) |
Planning | 3 | ||
Management | 4 | ||
Social and Economic Context | 2 | ||
Social Perception and Valuation | 2 | ||
Threats to Conservation (tI) | 5 | tI ≤ 0.5 → 0 points (Adequate) * 0.5 < tI < 1 → 1 point (Moderate) * tI ≥ 1 → 2 points (Deficient) * | |
Effectiveness (EI) | 22 | where: xi = index value (0; ±1; ±2) ki = weighting factor (2.8 to 4.7) | EI ≥ 1.2 → 2 points (Adequate) 0.8 ≤ EI < 1.2 → 1 point (Moderate) EI < 0.8 → 0 points (Deficient) |
SIAPA Indices | Managers (Mean ± sd) | Scientists (Mean ± sd) |
---|---|---|
State of conservation | 4.91 ± 0.30 | 4.29 ± 1.25 |
Planning | 4.00 ± 1.00 | 4.00 ± 1.00 |
Management | 4.27 ± 1.01 | 4.14 ± 0.90 |
Socioeconomic context | 2.91 ± 1.30 | 2.71 ± 1.25 |
Social perception and valuation | 3.45 ± 0.93 | 2.71 ± 1.11 |
Threats to conservation | 4.00 ± 1.10 | 4.14 ± 1.07 |
Ordesa National Park | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
NP Area (ha): 15,608 | PPZ 1 Area (ha): 19,679 | SIZ 2 Area (ha): 89,341 | ||
Designation Date: 1918 (1982 Re-Classified) | Evaluation Date: 2016–2017 | Evaluation: 1st | ||
Index/Indicator | Value | State | Trend | Evaluation Period |
STATE OF CONSERVATION | 0 | |||
Population trends of endangered species or sub-species | 2 | NA 3 | 2012–2015 | |
Changes in the extent of focal habitats | 0 | NA | 2013 | |
Changes in the features for which the PA was designated | 0 | NA | 2012–2015 | |
Visual impact | 1 | NA | 2010 | |
Surface water quality | 2 | ↔ | 2014–2015 | |
Health of vegetation 4 | 1 | ↓ | 2012; 2013; 2015 | |
PLANNING | 2 | |||
Appropriateness of protection regulation | 1 | NA | 2017 | |
Existence of updated management plan | 2 | NA | 2017 | |
Existence of updated socioeconomic plan | 2 | NA | 2017 | |
MANAGEMENT | 1 | |||
Degree of fulfilment of management objectives | ||||
Effectiveness of public participation bodies | 2 | ↔ | 2012–2015 | |
Existence of sufficient management staff | 1 | ↔ | 2014–2015 | |
Existence of environmental education and volunteering activities | 2 | ↔ | 2014–2015 | |
SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT | 0 | |||
Local population density | 0 | ↓ | 2015–2016 | |
Land use changes | 1 | NA | 2006; 2012 | |
SOCIAL PERCEPTION AND VALUATION | 2 | |||
Degree of knowledge of the PA | 2 | NA | 2016 | |
Personal importance | 2 | NA | 2016 | |
THREATS TO CONSERVATION | 0 | |||
Fragmentation | 0 | ↔ | 2006; 2012 | |
Density of alien invasive species | 0 | NA | 2016 | |
Density of visitors | 1 | ↓ | 2014–2015 | |
Activities performed by visitors | 0 | NA | 2016 | |
Climate change | 2 | NA | 1976–2016 | |
Pasture encroachment by woody vegetation 5 | 0 | NA | 2006; 2012 | |
EFFECTIVENESS | 1 |
Guadarrama National Park | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
NP Area (ha): 33,960 | PPZ Area (ha): 62,687 | SIZ Area (ha): 173,632 | ||
Designation Date: 2013 | Evaluation Date: 2016–2017 | Evaluation: 1st | ||
Index/Indicator | Value | State | Trend | Evaluation Period |
STATE OF CONSERVATION | 1 | |||
Population trends of endangered species or sub-species | ||||
Changes in the extent of focal habitats | ||||
Changes in the features for which the PA was designated | ||||
Visual impact | 0 | NA | 2010 | |
Surface water quality | 2 | ↔ | 2014–2015 | |
Health of vegetation 2 | 1 | ↑ | 2014–2015 | |
PLANNING | 1 | |||
Appropriateness of protection regulation | 2 | NA | 2017 | |
Existence of updated management plan | 0 | NA | 2017 | |
Existence of updated socioeconomic plan | 2 | NA | 2017 | |
MANAGEMENT | 1 | |||
Degree of fulfilment of management objectives | ||||
Effectiveness of public participation bodies | 1 | ↔ | 2015 | |
Existence of sufficient management staff | ||||
Existence of environmental education and volunteering activities | 2 | NA | 2014 | |
SOCIOECONOMIC CONTEXT | 2 | |||
Local population density | 2 | ↑ | 2015–2016 | |
Land use changes | ||||
SOCIAL PERCEPTION AND VALUATION | 2 | |||
Degree of knowledge of the PA | 2 | NA | 2016 | |
Personal importance | 2 | NA | 2016 | |
THREATS TO CONSERVATION | 2 | |||
Fragmentation | ||||
Density of alien invasive species | ||||
Density of visitors | 2 | ↓ | 2014–2015 | |
Activities performed by visitors | ||||
Climate change | ||||
EFFECTIVENESS | 0 |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Rodríguez-Rodríguez, D.; Ibarra, P.; Martínez-Vega, J.; Echeverría, M.; Echavarría, P. Fine-Tuning of a Protected Area Effectiveness Evaluation Tool: Implementation on Two Emblematic Spanish National Parks. Environments 2017, 4, 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments4040068
Rodríguez-Rodríguez D, Ibarra P, Martínez-Vega J, Echeverría M, Echavarría P. Fine-Tuning of a Protected Area Effectiveness Evaluation Tool: Implementation on Two Emblematic Spanish National Parks. Environments. 2017; 4(4):68. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments4040068
Chicago/Turabian StyleRodríguez-Rodríguez, David, Paloma Ibarra, Javier Martínez-Vega, Maite Echeverría, and Pilar Echavarría. 2017. "Fine-Tuning of a Protected Area Effectiveness Evaluation Tool: Implementation on Two Emblematic Spanish National Parks" Environments 4, no. 4: 68. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments4040068