Towards quantitative condition assessment of biodiversity outcomes: Insights from Australian marine protected areas

Carly N. Cook,Prue F.E. Addison,Louisa B. Flander

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.04.054

Abstract

Protected area management effectiveness (PAME) evaluation is increasingly undertaken to evaluate governance, assess conservation outcomes and inform evidence-based management of protected areas (PAs). Within PAME, quantitative approaches to assess biodiversity outcomes are now emerging, where biological monitoring data are directly assessed against quantitative (numerically defined) condition categories (termed quantitative condition assessments). However, more commonly qualitative condition assessments are employed in PAME, which use descriptive condition categories and are evaluated largely with expert judgement that can be subject to a range of biases, such as linguistic uncertainty and overconfidence. Despite the benefits of increased transparency and repeatability of evaluations, quantitative condition assessments are rarely used in PAME. To understand why, we interviewed practitioners from all Australian marine protected area (MPA) networks, which have access to long-term biological monitoring data and are developing or conducting PAME evaluations. Our research revealed that there is a desire within management agencies to implement quantitative condition assessment of biodiversity outcomes in Australian MPAs. However, practitioners report many challenges in transitioning from undertaking qualitative to quantitative condition assessments of biodiversity outcomes, which are hampering progress. Challenges include a lack of agency capacity (staff numbers and money), knowledge gaps, and diminishing public and political support for PAs. We point to opportunities to target strategies that will assist agencies overcome these challenges, including new decision support tools, approaches to better finance conservation efforts, and to promote more management relevant science. While a single solution is unlikely to achieve full evidence-based conservation, we suggest ways for agencies to target strategies and advance PAME evaluations toward best practice.

Highlights

As the establishment of protected areas (PA) continues to grow to meet international targets (CBD, 2011), conservation management agencies are tasked with evaluating their management effectiveness to ensure they achieve the best conservation outcomes (Coad et al, 2015)
We focus our study on marine protected areas (MPAs), where guidance on Protected area management effectiveness (PAME) of MPAs has long been established (Pomeroy et al, 2005), yet a recent global review cited a critical need to improve the use of monitoring information in marine PAME evaluation and evidencebased management (Fox et al, 2014)
Five Australian MPA networks were included in this study, which capture the complete set of Australian MPAs where PAME evaluation and reporting was in place or under development, and where long-term (12e27 years) biological monitoring of subtidal coral and rocky reefs exists (Table 1; Supporting Information 1 and 2)

Summary

Introduction

As the establishment of protected areas (PA) continues to grow to meet international targets (CBD, 2011), conservation management agencies are tasked with evaluating their management effectiveness to ensure they achieve the best conservation outcomes (Coad et al, 2015). To assist conservation practitioners in doing this, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) recommended a six-step process to evaluate protected area management effectiveness (PAME; Hockings et al, 2006). By routinely assessing the entire management process, PAME evaluation promotes evidence-based conservation management of PAs, and the public reporting of PAME results helps provide transparency for reporting progress towards conservation objectives (Hockings et al, 2006; Leverington et al, 2010).

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion