Collaborative Measurement of Performance of Jointly Managed Protected Areas in Northern Australia

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Responsibility for the management of many protected areas in the Northern Territory, Australia, is shared between the management agency and the aboriginal owners of that land. We describe (1) the creation and types of indicators developed by partners in a participatory process to measure management effectiveness, (2) the assessment method used to monitor progress, and (3) the results of the first cycle of evaluations in four jointly managed parks. Although each pilot park area has distinctive features, we were able to identify a set of twelve common indicators that were applied across the four park areas. The agreed indicators, which were scored using a color scale to indicate level of achievement, were primarily concerned with process rather than outcome, with particular emphasis on the strength of social relationships. Thus, there were indicators that assessed performance in governance and decision making, application and interpretation of cultural heritage and traditional ecological knowledge, expansion of social capital, human and financial resources, and visitors, with little emphasis on the biophysical outcomes of the management. The emphasis on the quality of the process of joint management was thought to indicate that the relationship between the joint management partners was relatively new, with trust only starting to develop. We discuss opportunities and difficulties for replication and adaptation of indicators to all jointly managed parks in the Northern Territory.

The persistence of subsistence: qualitative social-ecological modeling of indigenous aquatic hunting and gathering in tropical Australia

“…Griffiths, unpublished manuscript presented at the Third International Wildlife Management Congress, University of Christchurch, Christchurch, New Zealand). This incorporates: contemporary natural resource management activities (Phelan 2003, Walker 2010, Stacey et al 2013; customary activities with material effects such as burning regimes and water diversions (Altman 1983, Rose 1995, Russell-Smith et al 1997, Horstman and Wightman 2001, Laudine 2009, Gammage 2011, Barber and Jackson 2012; and customary activities that are influential on perceptions of health but without evident material effects such as conducting ceremonies and communicating with ancestral powers (Biernoff 1978, Keen 1994, Morphy 1995, Rose 2000. 11…”

Eye on the Taiga: Removing Global Policy Impediments to Safeguard the Boreal Forest

“…This will require the use of a wider variety of forest management and silvicultural options (Warkentin & Bradshaw 2012) and implies a shift away from the focus on stability and simplicity that is underlying the current management regime. A revised setting of priorities may necessitate the greater use of deliberative and collaborative management methods (e.g., Stacey et al 2013). More holistic policies could, for instance, incorporate carbon credits or habitat payment schemes (e.g., biodiversity banking), thereby encouraging partial or small-scale harvest operations that emulate natural disturbance regimes in many boreal regions (Bergeron et al 2002;Kneeshaw et al 2011;Kuuluvainen & Grenfell 2012).…”

Identifying and categorizing cobenefits in state-supported Australian indigenous environmental management programs: international research implications

“…Standards and measures of the benefits of natural resource management need to be context specific, collaborative, and relevant to policy making and public action (Hibbard and Lurie 2012). This has resulted in some work on ICNRM that incorporates participatory evaluation and is locally meaningful and transparent (Sithole et al 2008, Izurieta et al 2011, Prout 2012, Stacey et al 2013). However, standardized characterizations of the multiple benefits arising from ICNRM remain underdeveloped, and the metrics and frameworks for integrating values and benefits are not well developed.…”