Data credibility: What are the “right” data for evaluating management effectiveness of protected areas?

Evaluation of protected area management has received increased attention over the past decade, with many thousands of sites assessed. Many of the management effectiveness evaluation systems rely predominantly on expert knowledge and qualitative assessment, especially where the emphasis is on rapid assessment. Others use quantitative data or a mix of data types. We propose that decisions about the appropriateness of qualitative and quantitative data and methods for evaluating management effectiveness of protected areas can be informed by considering issues of (1) the subject matter of evaluation; (2) available resources and data; (3) scale, scope, and time frame of the evaluation; and (4) risks associated with management of the site. © Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[1]  A. Cropper.  Convention on Biological Diversity , 1993, Environmental Conservation.

[2]  Michael Quinn Patton,et al.  Utilization-Focused Evaluation , 1979 .

[3]  Philip Dearden,et al.  Protected areas in Canada: decade of change , 2004 .

[4]  Claus C. Rebien,et al.  Process Use of Evaluations , 2002 .

[5]  M. Attree,et al.  Evaluating healthcare education: Issues and methods. , 2006, Nurse education in practice.

[6]  M. Spalding,et al.  Measuring the extent and effectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversity targets , 2005, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[7]  Jennifer Caroline Greene,et al.  Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry , 2007 .

[8]  Thomas O. McShane,et al.  Getting biodiversity projects to work : towards more effective conservation and development , 2004 .

[9]  Douglas C. MacMillan,et al.  The Delphi process – an expert‐based approach to ecological modelling in data‐poor environments , 2006 .

[10]  Andrew S. Pullin,et al.  Assessing Conservation Management's Evidence Base: a Survey of Management‐Plan Compilers in the United Kingdom and Australia , 2005 .

[11]  Marc Hockings,et al.  Reporting progress in protected areas : a site-level management effectiveness tracking tool , 2003 .

[12]  Souraya Sidani,et al.  Quantitative and qualitative methods:: Is There an Alternative? , 1995 .

[13]  Sue Stolton,et al.  Evaluating effectiveness : a framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas, 2nd edition , 2006 .

[14]  Neil D. Burgess,et al.  Monitoring Matters: Examining the Potential of Locally-based Approaches , 2005, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[15]  Nigel Dudley,et al.  Management effectiveness evaluation of Finland's protected areas , 2005 .

[16]  Sue Stolton,et al.  The importance and vulnerability of the world's protected areas , 2000 .

[17]  Carol Weiss,et al.  The four I's of school reform : how interests, ideology, information, and institution affect teachers and principals , 1995 .

[18]  Robert Costanza,et al.  The 4P Approach to Dealing with Scientific Uncertainty , 1992 .

[19]  Michael J. Samways,et al.  Planning for biodiversity conservation based on the knowledge of biologists , 2000, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[20]  Robert J. Naiman,et al.  The Evolution of Conservation Management Philosophy: Science, Environmental Change and Social Adjustments in Kruger National Park , 2008, Ecosystems.

[21]  M. Patton,et al.  Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. , 1999, Health services research.

[22]  N. Dudley,et al.  Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas , 2006 .

[23]  Marc Hockings,et al.  Management effectiveness evaluation in protected areas : a global study : report for the project "Global study into management effectiveness evaluation of protected areas" , 2008 .

[24]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  Analyzing consistency of experts' judgments: Case of assessing forest biodiversity , 1998 .