Location of Repository

A decision support system-based procedure for evaluation and monitoring of protected areas sustainability for the Mediterranean region

By K Pediaditi, F Buono, F Pompigna, C Bogliotti, E Nurlu, G Ladisa and George Petropoulos

Abstract

Despite common acknowledgement of the value of protected areas as instruments in ensuring sustainability, and their promotion for the achievement of policies on halting the loss of biodiversity, there is no common approach today for monitoring and evaluating them. This paper presents a novel integrated nature conservation management procedure developed to monitor and evaluate the sustainability of Mediterranean protected areas. This procedure was successfully implemented and formally evaluated by protected area managers in six Mediterranean countries, results of which are presented here together with an overview of the web-based Decision Support System (DSS) developed to facilitate its wide adoption. The DSS and procedure has been designed and evaluated by managers as a useful tool, which facilitates and provides needed procedural guidance for protected area monitoring whilst minimizing input requirements to do so. The procedure and DSS were developed following a review of existing protected area assessment tools and a detailed primary investigation of the needs and capacity of its intended users. Essentially, the procedure and DSS guides provide the facilities for protected area managers, in following a participatory approach to develop a context-specific sustainability monitoring strategy, for their protected area. Consequently, the procedure is, by design, participatory, context specific, holistic and relevant to protected area management and institutional procedures. The procedure was piloted and formally evaluated in Greece, Italy, Turkey, Egypt, Malta and Cyprus. Feedback collected from the pilot evaluations is also summarised herein.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Topics: Assessment management, participation indicators decision support systems, protected area management
Year: 2011
DOI identifier: 10.1007/s12040-011-0120-3
OAI identifier: oai:cadair.aber.ac.uk:2160/11412
Journal:

Suggested articles

Preview

Citations

  1. (2004). A and Oviedo G
  2. (2006). A conceptual model to frame goals of sustainable development; doi
  3. (2005). and Comeau A
  4. (1997). Assessing Sustainable Development: Principles in Practice;
  5. (2006). Beyond expertise: Ecological science and the making of robust restoration strategies; doi
  6. (1996). Collaborative management of Protected Areas: Tailoring the approach to the context ; IUCN Social Policy Group,
  7. (2000). Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning ; doi
  8. (2009). Conservation efficiency of geopolitical coordination in the EU; doi
  9. (2002). Dialogue for sustainability: Facilitation skills and principles; Environmental Council C1/V1,
  10. (1997). Do the indicators of sustainable development produced by the UK government and indicators developed within various local agenda 21 initiatives have common characteristics from which core indicators can be developed?,
  11. (1982). DSS-based procedure for assessing PA sustainability 961
  12. (2006). European policy review – assessing policy impacts on biodiversity; doi
  13. (2006). Evaluating effectiveness: A framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas; 2nd edn, IUCN, doi
  14. (2007). Evaluating the sustainability of Brownfield redevelopment projects; In: Sustainable Brownfield Regeneration, livable places from problem spaces (eds) doi
  15. (2005). Evaluation methodology basics, the nuts and bolts of sound evaluation; doi
  16. (2007). Evaluation theory, models and applications; doi
  17. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus; 4th edn, doi
  18. (2003). Guidelines for Management Planning of Protected Areas; IUCN Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge,
  19. (1994). Guidelines for Protected Areas Management Categories; IUCN, doi
  20. (2003). Incorporating sustainable development concerns into an urban regeneration project: How politics can defeat procedures; doi
  21. (2002). Land and limits: Interpreting sustainability in the planning process; doi
  22. (2004). Management effectiveness: Assessing management of protected areas? doi
  23. (2003). Measuring Sustainability, Learning from Doing; doi
  24. (2009). Multi-level discrepancies with sharing data on protected areas: What we have and what we need for the global village; doi
  25. (2002). of Environmental Management and Assessment doi
  26. (2001). Outcome-based Evaluation; 2nd edn,
  27. (2001). Participatory valuation of sustainable development; doi
  28. (2008). Planning and Sustainable Management of Coastal Zones and High Environmental Value Areas.
  29. (1996). Problems and fundamentals of sustainable development indicators; doi
  30. (2010). revised 29 doi
  31. (2003). Systems for assessing the effectiveness of management in protected areas; doi
  32. (1998). The Global 200: A representation approach to conserving the Earth’s most biologically valuable ecoregions; doi
  33. (2006). The identification of one hundred ecological questions of high policy relevance in the UK; doi
  34. (2004). The need for evidence-based conservation; doi
  35. (1997). Utilization-Focused Evaluation: The New Century Text ; 3rd edn, Thousand Oaks, doi
  36. (2003). WWF: Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) Methodology ; WWF,

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.