Developing a monitoring program for visitor management in protected areas can be daunting task. The widely adopted IUCN-WCPA framework for evaluating management effectiveness provides a useful, practical starting point. The framework has six main parts: context, planning, inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes. Managers are asked to monitor each of these parts to get a complete picture of where they are being effective and where more work is needed (see
Evaluating Effectiveness).
Source: Hockings, M., Stolton, S. & Dudley, N. (2004) Management
effectiveness: assessing management of protected areas? Journal of
Environmental Policy & Planning, 6(2), pp. 157–174.
Many monitoring programs focus only on outputs and outcomes. This management cycle approach (as shown above) emphasises the importance of looking at all stages of management as all are likely to influence the delivery of desired outcomes and hence achievement of an agency’s management objectives.
IUCN-WCPA Management Effectiveness Evaluation Framework (see Evaluating Effectiveness)
Development of this IUCN-WCPA framework was based on a worldwide review of evaluation systems already in use for protected areas, combined with an extensive consultation process. It provides a system and associated indicators for evaluating management effectiveness, building on the management cycle approach. In order to develop an effective monitoring system monitoring needs to occur for each of the six components.
This framework involves monitoring and evaluating components of the evaluation elements below:
- Context – not an analysis of management, but provides information that helps put management decisions into context, e.g. values, threats, opportunities, political environment;
- Planning – evaluation of appropriateness of policies, plans and design;
- Inputs – evaluation of adequacy of resources (staff, funds, facilities) employed for management
-
In the context of visitor use, this relates to inputs targeted at visitor management and servicing;
- Processes – evaluates adequacy and appropriate of management systems relative to management objectives;
- Outputs – evaluates products or services provided as a result of management, e.g. number of patrols run, restoration activities achieved – whether these have been delivered as planned and to some extent the quantities delivered; and
- Outcomes – evaluates whether objectives have been achieved.
From a synthesis of STCRC research the following steps guide the development of an integrated monitoring program for visitor management in protected areas.
Step 1. Selection and application of an evaluation framework
STCRC research recommends the IUCN-WCPA management effectiveness evaluation framework. The framework elements and evaluation subjects for visitor management given in the table below provide detailed guidance at the park level. They are derived from and closely relate to the elements and subjects widely used and applied through the IUCN-WCPA framework (see Evaluating Effectiveness). A similar table (see below) is available for the agency (corporate) level. The elements in these tables are also consistent with ecological monitoring allowing integration of results.
The approach relies heavily on the adoption of a values-based approach. Using key values to drive management has advantages. A reliance on values rather than threats is less time-bound and gives a more holistic perspective. Also, values have much greater political currency than threats as they let politicians and other key stakeholders know what is important and should be protected. Selecting key values also enables managers to and monitor and manage what is important.
Visitor related evaluation elements and subjects - park level
|
|
Visitor related 'evaluation subject'
|
Definition/ scope of visitor related evaluation subject
|
|
Context
|
|
|
|
Values and significance
|
Values
|
Identification of key visitor/tourism related values, including recreation opportunities
|
|
Priority
|
Priority rating or category with regard to visitor-related importance
|
|
Threats/issues/pressures
|
Threat identification
|
Identification of key visitor-related threats
|
|
Threat rating
|
Rating of visitor-related threat or impact level (may be existing and/or potential)
|
|
Threat trend
|
Trend in visitor-related threats
|
|
Stakeholder attitudes and relations
|
Visitor attitudes
|
Visitor or tourism industry attitudes, visitor reasons for visiting parks, relationship between visitors/ tourism industry and parks - collected as context for planning
|
|
Community attitudes
|
Community perceptions/attitudes regarding visitation to parks
|
|
Influence of external environment
|
External constraints
|
Availability of alternative recreational opportunities in region, marketing pressures etc
|
|
Planning
|
|
|
|
System design
|
Legal
|
Adequacy of legislation in relation visitor and commercial tourism management
|
|
Management planning
|
Design
|
Appropriateness of design in relation to visitor needs
|
|
Management planning
|
How well management planning addresses visitor issues
|
|
Inputs
|
|
|
|
Staff
|
Staff numbers/time
|
Adequacy of staff allocation for tourism, visitor management, interpretation (including time allocated by staff; i.e. staff hours)
|
|
Funding
|
Funding
|
Adequacy of funding allocation for tourism, visitor management, interpretation
|
|
Funding security
|
Funding security
|
Security of visitor-related funding allocation
|
|
Equipment and facilities
|
Infrastructure
|
Adequacy of visitor, tourism and interpretation infrastructure, equipment and facilities
|
|
Information
|
Information
|
Adequacy of visitor-related information, including monitoring programs (including of impacts etc.) and their utilisation for adaptive management
|
|
Process
|
|
|
|
Capacity
|
|
|
|
Governance, high-level management and leadership
|
Administration
|
Effectiveness of administration of visitor management and tour operator permit systems
|
|
Building and maintenance of infrastructure, facilities and equipment
|
Facility maintenance
|
Adequacy of maintenance of visitor facilities
|
|
Human resource management
|
Staff training
|
Adequacy of staff training in interpretation, visitor management, tour operator management
|
|
Staff skills
|
Adequacy of skill level in interpretation, visitor management, tour operator management
|
|
Relating to people
|
Law enforcement adequacy
|
Adequacy of law enforcement in relation to visitors and tour operators
|
|
Law enforcement
|
Law enforcement issues
|
Identification of visitor/ tour operator related law enforcement issue(s)
|
|
Community involvement and relationships
|
Relationship appropriateness
|
Appropriateness of relationships with visitors or tour operators
|
|
Communication, education and interpretation
|
Relationship description
|
Descriptive field for above programs
|
|
Interpretation
|
Adequacy or appropriateness of interpretation program(s)
|
|
Community development assistance
|
Communication
|
Adequacy of communication with visitors and tourism operators
|
|
Sustainable resource use - management and audit
|
Tourism/visitor involvement
|
Adequacy of involvement of tourism industry/ park visitors (not community in general) in planning and management
|
|
Visitor management
|
Recreation opportunities
|
Descriptive field for types of visitor opportunities/ character of facilities and services
|
|
Visitor services
|
Adequacy of visitor services in general or other than interpretation and communication
|
|
Impact management
|
Adequacy of management of visitor impacts
|
|
Visitor fee management
|
Adequacy of systems for collecting entrance fees etc.
|
|
Tourism management
|
Adequacy of systems for managing tour operators e.g. permitting, marketing etc.
|
|
Managing the resource
|
|
|
|
Research and values monitoring
|
Impact monitoring
|
Adequacy of monitoring of visitor threats/ impacts
|
|
Outputs
|
|
|
|
Achieving work program
|
Work program achieved
|
Achievement of work program relating to visitors/ tourism
|
|
Results/outputs
|
Services provided
|
Provision of specified visitor-related services (e.g. interpretation services).
|
|
Visitor use
|
Visitor numbers, seasonal/spatial distribution
|
|
Visitor characteristics
|
Visitor demographics and other characteristics e.g. income (excludes attitudes).
|
|
Operator use
|
Tourism operator numbers, distribution, characteristics
|
|
Revenue
|
$ from visitor-related fees
|
|
Outcomes
|
|
|
|
Achieve objectives
|
Achieving visitor objectives
|
Achievement of visitor use/ management objectives in general (not specific to any of next 6 rows)
|
|
Visitor satisfaction
|
Extent of visitor satisfaction/ meeting of expectations etc. (even if no explicit objectives in this document)
|
|
Visitor safety
|
Visitor safety/ incident levels (even if no explicit objectives in this document)
|
|
Visitor access
|
Extent to which appropriate/ equitable access to park by visitors/ tourism industry is provided (even if no explicit objectives in this document)
|
|
Visitor cognitive outcomes
|
Attitudes/perceptions of visitors to park/conservation/natural or cultural values or new knowledge gained in response to visiting park/ interpretation programs
|
|
Visitor compliance
|
Extent to which visitors comply with rules (esp. re impact management)
|
|
State of park
|
Presentation values trend
|
Trend - are the presentation/ recreational values improving or decreasing in quality?
|
|
Presentation values condition
|
Extent to which the recreational values have been maintained
|
|
Conservation values condition
|
Extent to which conservation values impacted by visitors have been maintained
|
|
Economic impacts
|
Economic impacts of park-related visitation on community
|
|
Social impacts
|
Social impacts (attitudes, perceptions, objective measures) of park-related visitation on community, including health
|
Source: Higginbottom et al., (2010). Current Practices in Monitoring and Reporting on Sustainability of Visitor Use of Protected Areas, STCRC.
Step 2. Develop indicators for relevant evaluation subjects
The STCRC has a number of research reports providing guidelines to help identify indicators for evaluating the effectiveness of visitor management in protected areas. These reports also explain how to collect, store, analyse and then use (in management) the information obtained from these indicators. Details follow.
Visitors
PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT: COLLECTION AND USE OF VISITOR DATA. Volume 1: Summary and recommendations
DESIGNING AND TESTING A PARK-BASED VISITOR SURVEY
Community
DEVELOPMENT OF A SCALE TO ASSESS THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF TOURISM WITHIN COMMUNITIES
Economic
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF TOURISM FOR NATURAL AREAS: development of a toolkit approach
Ecological
AN INTEGRATED FRAMEWORK FOR DEVELOPING ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS OF VISITOR USE OF PROTECTED AREAS
Ecological – Aquatic
GUIDELINES FOR DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF MONITORING PROGRAMS TO
ASSESS VISITOR IMPACTS IN AND AROUND AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS WITHIN
PROTECTED AREAS
Step 3. Set priorities for monitoring
Protected areas are managed in a resource-poor environment. As such, setting priorities for what will and won’t be monitored (and then managed in response to the findings from monitoring) is critical because there are never enough resources to do everything. First, monitoring should only be undertaken if it will improve protected area management. Second, the choice of what to monitor must be based on priority setting. Priorities are influenced by how monitoring can contribute to protected area management. Contributions are usually to one or more of the following (from Evaluating Effectiveness):
-
Better management under changing circumstances;
-
Effective resource allocation;
-
Accountability and transparency; and
-
Involving the community and promoting protected areas.
Priorities must also be based on:
- Whether the benefits of monitoring (e.g. to biodiversity, visitors, communities) and follow-up management exceed the costs; and
- The likelihood of:
- Monitoring being able to measure what matters.
- Management actions subsequent to monitoring being undertaken.
- Management actions subsequent to monitoring being successful in moving a protected area towards desired outcomes.
Such priority setting has received rapidly increasing attention in conservation management, where an analysis of the values at risk, biodiversity/community/visitor benefit, probability of success and cost is being used to guide resource allocation decisions. The term ‘triage’ (taken from emergency medicine) has been proposed to describe this process of prioritising the allocation of limited resources to maximise the benefits to conservation.
Elements of risk management are also evident in these priority setting processes, with the consequences of action (or inaction) and the likelihood of success (or otherwise) being used to decide where they allocate scarce resources. There are two tiers in considering the ‘risk’ associated with monitoring visitor management: the risks associated with monitoring itself and those associated with follow-up management. The ‘consequences x likelihood’ analysis needs to be applied to both.
Step 4. Implementing the monitoring program
Some tips for implementing a monitoring program:
Conduct of monitoring and evaluation
- Get baseline information as early as possible;
- Use pilot studies when developing new monitoring systems to ensure the system is suitable before instituting on a wide scale;
- Build flexibility into systems for collecting and storing data for monitoring and evaluation;
- Provide adequate training and support for on ground staff who will conduct monitoring;
- Repeat monitoring and evaluation at regular time intervals, with appropriate interval depending on what is being evaluated; and
- Agency staff conduct monitoring and evaluation, with review by external facilitators every 3 to 5 years.
The following tips relate to data collection and storage and their application in management:
Data collection
- Explore simple, innovative data collection techniques;
- Use an adequate, representative sample;
- Undertake systematic, regular collection of visitor data;
- Ensure data collected have spatial and temporal elements where possible;
- Use limited resources wisely;
- Use existing and secondary data;
- Regularly calibrate counters; and
- Aim for quality not quantity of data.
Data storage
- Verify data to ensure they are error-free before storage and use;
- Geo-reference data so they can be used in spatial databases and associated applications;
- Design and maintain databases that are user-friendly;
- Guarantee the confidentiality of data;
- Display and provide data outputs in ways that readily inform decision-making; and
- Transfer data efficiently and accurately to storage databases.
Data application in management
- Use the available visitor data for numerous applications;
- Collect data to enhance understanding of visitor perceptions, motivations and values; and
- Establish and maintain strong links between data collection and application.
Step 5. Adaptive management
Monitoring is the ‘check’ part of the adaptive management cycle (see the figure below). Adaptive management relies on collecting information (monitoring) to determine what has been achieved (outputs) and how this has contributed to desired outcomes (e.g. values protection).
Source: Susan A. Moore and Kate Rodger (2009) Recommendations: Reforming management planning for national parks, conservation parks and nature reserves in Western Australia – 2010 and onwards. Report prepared for the Conservation Commission of Western Australia, by Murdoch University.
Reduce