Management Effectiveness Assessment for Ecuador’s National Parks

Abstract

Ecuador belongs to the group of 17 megadiverse countries on the planet, and the Ecuadorian national system of protected areas covers around 20% of the country’s territory. Despite some initiatives for protected areas management effectiveness evaluation, the information on this matter is scarce and a general overview is missing. In this context, this study aims at investigating problems faced by National Parks in Ecuador and developing a base level management effectiveness evaluation for possible comparative assessments in the future. Focusing on all 12 legally established National Parks, this study used the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT), an internationally consecrated methodology based on a scorecard questionnaire that includes six elements of management cycle: context, planning, inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes. The questionnaire was applied to Ecuadorian National Parks management teams through face-to-face interviews. The resulted overall management effectiveness indices are between 40.6% and 99.0%. The general condition of biodiversity value was considered as good in line with the legal status and National Parks design but topics related to budget allocation, tourism arrangements, communities and indigenous people received lower scores. The low enforcement emphasis is not necessarily the best way to improve management effectiveness; the identified issues should be addressed by including communities and indigenous people in the decision making and benefits sharing as well as strategic allocation of budgetary resources, with proper adaptation to Natural Parks’ specific conditions.

Galápagos and the plastic problem

“…Consequently, most non-urban areas of Galápagos maintain conditions before human presence. In other words, 97% has remained well-managed and restored (Izurieta et al, 2014;Negru et al, 2020). Despite its isolation, the islands are safeguarded; therefore, we may observe almost the same environment as Darwin observed nearly 200 years ago.…”

Beyond Protected Areas: Assessing Management Effectiveness of a Ramsar Site in Nepal

“…Management effectiveness is often associated with the management status of the protected area, such as whether it has its own management authority [35]. However, a higher overall management effectiveness score does not necessarily mean an indication of absence of any issues, nor does a lower level of management effectiveness indicate a lack of any management strengths of protected areas or protected area systems [45]. Protected wetland areas may not receive as high attention as other PA types, which is why wetlands are poor performers in general in this regard [43].…”

“…It may be common to have a varying degree of management effectiveness of protected areas even if the management responsibility or management authority is made clear. For example, in Ecuador, management effectiveness ranged from 12.5% to 99% despite clear jurisdiction [45]. However, management effectiveness can be influenced by several factors, such as availability of budget and other required resources, such as labour, societal relations, communication and reliable inventories of those resources [46].…”

“…This may, however, be based on the perception of the workshop participants and not reflect the actual ecological surveys and/or monitoring. It is no surprise that the context, planning and outcome elements of the assessment had the highest average score, whereas input, process and output elements had the lowest average score [45,47].…”

Impact of Ecological Conservation Policy of Landscape Resources on the Behavior Intention of Stakeholders in Shennongjia National Park

“…In the process of the formation and development of national parks, developed countries have been paying close attention to the impact of resource protection and development on indigenous people. The research mainly focuses on aborigines' perception of various national park policies, such as the impact of recreation resources on aborigines and tourists [4], or aborigines' satisfaction with landscape resource development activities, and focuses on the resource allocation and well-being realization of relevant interest groups in the process of landscape resource protection and development [5][6][7], makes full use of local traditional materials, and explores sustainable development methods that adapt to various resources [8,9], such as research on how to balance the relationship between ecological protection, ecotourism and sustainable development, and how to reconcile human-land conflicts through cooperation, and on biodiversity protection, demands and well-being of relevant interest groups [10,11]; In the conservation of national park resources, advocating intergenerational equity and promote environmental harmony by increasing intergenerational interaction [12]; With the impact of global climate change, the role of national parks in improving the ecological environment has become increasingly prominent. More and more studies have begun to explore the views of local communities in national parks on landscape change, ecosystem services, climate change and livelihoods [13];…”