Ocean for Future

Ultima Clock Widget

  • :
  • :

che tempo che fa

Per sapere che tempo fa

Per sapere che tempo fa clicca sull'immagine
dati costantemente aggiornati

OCEAN4FUTURE

La conoscenza ti rende libero

su Amazon puoi trovare molti libri sulla storia del mare (ma non solo) e sulla sua cultura :) clicca sull'immagine ed entra in un nuovo mondo :)

i 100 libri da non perdere

NO PLASTIC AT SEA

NO PLASTIC AT SEA

Petizione OCEAN4FUTURE

Titolo : Impariamo a ridurre le plastiche in mare

Salve a tutti. Noi crediamo che l'educazione ambientale in tutte le scuole di ogni ordine e grado sia un processo irrinunciabile e che l'esempio valga più di mille parole. Siamo arrivati a oltre 4000 firme ma continuiamo a raccoglierle con la speranza che la classe politica al di là delle promesse comprenda realmente l'emergenza che viviamo, ed agisca,speriamo, con maggiore coscienza
seguite il LINK per firmare la petizione

Ultimi articoli

  Address: OCEAN4FUTURE

Assessing Marine Protected Areas Effectiveness – part II

Reading Time: 7 minutes

.

livello medio
.
ARGOMENTO: ECOLOGIA
PERIODO: XX SECOLO
AREA: OCEANO ATLANTICO
parole chiave: Marine protected area, aree marine protette
.

tobago-reef


Assessing Marine Protected Areas Effectiveness: A Case Study with the Tobago Cays Marine Park – part  I
by Alba Garcia Rodriguez, Lucia M. Fanning

FULL TEXT PDF

.

4. Results
4.1. 2016 TCMP Effectiveness Scores Using the Adapted Scorecard
Using available documentation on the TCMP and in person observations, all questions included in the adapted scorecard (Appendix 1) could be adequately addressed except for four of the Outcomes section questions due to lack of reliable, available information. Results showed that the TCMP scored a ranking equating to “fairly” effective in the Context, Inputs, and Outputs categories (61% – 62%) and a ranking of “limited” effectiveness in terms of the Process and Planning categories (33% – 36%). The scoring for the Park for indicators assessing Outcomes indicated its effectiveness for this category could be termed “deficient”, having received a score of only 22%. The overall assessment of TCMP effectiveness could be considered “limited”, based on a score 39% for the six categories included in the adapted scorecard (Table 1).

The urgent need for improvement in the performance of the TCMP, as identified using the modified scorecard is highlighted in Figure 4. While there is room for improvement in the Context, Inputs and Output categories, having all been assigned a ranking of “fair”, attention should be prioritized to address issues associated with Planning and Process which have been assigned a ranking of “deficient”. Given improvements in these categories, one can expect better scores for the expected Outcomes over time.

table 1

Table 1. Summary results of TCMP effectiveness in 2016 using the adapted scorecard.

*Qualitative assessment of the rankings equate to 0% – 29% as deficient; 30% – 49% as limited; 50% – 69% as fair; 70% – 79% as good and over 80% as excellent.

Figure 4. TCMP effectiveness by category in 2016 using the adapted scorecard.

4.2. Evaluating Effectiveness over the Period 2007 to 2016
This analysis examined the results obtained using the original scorecard for 2007 and the adapted scorecard for 2016 where additional questions were added to the Process category. To highlight the difference in the scoring for Process indicators using the different scorecards, the scoring for this category are shown using those questions asked in the original scorecard and the supplemental questions added to create the modified scorecard. When compared to the results of 2007, the assessment of effectiveness in 2016 relating to Context, Inputs, and Outputs showed considerable improvement (Figure 5). This was attributed to better control of human activities in the Park, the start of the process to include the TCMP into a larger coastal management plan, and the availability of more information to manage the area (Table 2). In addition, it seemed that the staff and budget had slightly improved in 2016 over 2007. However, stakeholder engagement and participation decreased in the ensuing decade. The assessment conducted in 2007 provided no information on measuring indicators addressing Outputs. In contrast, the 2016 Output scores were relatively high due to the improvement in the MPA legal status, management, enforcement, boundary demarcation, resource inventory, existence of moorings, existence of visitor facilities, fees that support the management of the MPA, etc. (Table 2).

Regarding the Planning category, even though there has been an agreement on the goals for the MPA and an increased level of implementation of the management plan since 2007, the scores assigned for both years were the same. For 2016, these higher scores were offset by the decrease in stakeholder participation and the inclusion of socioeconomic issues. However, as shown in Table 3, both assessments obtained similar scores for different reasons.

Figure 5. Scores obtained in 2007 and 2016 regarding TCMP effectiveness using the original scorecard for 2007 and the adapted scorecard for 2016.

table 3

Table 2. Summary results of TCMP effectiveness in 2016 using the adapted scorecard.

table 3

Table 3. 2007 and 2016 comparison of TCMP Planning scores.

With regard to the assessment of Outcome indicators in 2007, only one sub- question was addressed, specifying that resource conflict had been reduced. The 2016 scores for Outcomes, while higher than that obtained in 2007, scored only a 15% effectiveness ranking. This was due to management objectives and threats had not been fully addressed, overall resource conditions not improving, and lack of current information to score the community welfare, environmental awareness and stakeholder satisfaction with the outcomes of compliance and management of this MPA (Table 4).

Finally, in the Process category, the score for 2016 was lower than in 2007 when using the original scorecard only (Figure 5). This was the result of the apparent lack of communication between managers and stakeholders, and a reduction in stakeholder participation. Using the supplemental questions as a measure of effectiveness in 2016 in the adapted scorecard, the Process section obtained a higher score due to the evaluation of information available for specific monitoring indicators in the modified framework (Table 5).

4.3. Selecting Indicators to Assess Achievement of TCMP’s Goals
Based on the four goals identified for the TCMP and the indicators highlighted in the adapted framework, 20 indicators in total (five for each of the four goals) were identified as important for future assessment of progress towards achieving the goals. Of these indicators, 17 were part of the set proposed by Pomeroy et al. (2005) [23] , while three new ones (illegal activities rate; number of visitors; fees collected) were added by the authors in order to gain additional information regarding Goal 2, which focused on economic benefits (Table 6). In addition to their fit with the goals of the TCMP, criteria for selecting the indicators were based on availability of information (pre and post 2015) and feasibility to be monitored.

5

Table 4. 2007 and 2016 comparison of TCMP Outcome scores.

5a

Table 5. 2007 and 2016 comparison of TCMP Process scores.

As noted from the assessment of available information, only six of the indicators have available information and of those, only one has current information, i.e. post 2015. However, it is worth noting that at least one indicator per goal has been tracked, allowing for limited progress on each of the goals to be assessed. The challenge for the TCMP is to obtain monitoring data on at least these six indicators on an ongoing basis and to increase the level of monitoring to more than the existing six indicators. As such, measuring progress towards Park goals would require a concerted monitoring effort on the part of Park staff and/or their partners. However, given the importance of tracking the achievement of Park goals to determine the effectiveness of the TCMP, a plan to put in place the mechanisms needed should be undertaken and implemented.

6

Table 6. Recommended indicators and availability of information to evaluate progress towards TCMP’s conservation goals.

4.4. A Preliminary Assessment of TCMP Effect on Conch Abundance and Density
A total of 21 individuals were found during the surveys in 2016, 12 of them (57%) were juveniles, while 9 of them (43%) were adults. Conch density found in the study area was 36.4 individuals/ha in total, 20.8 juveniles/ha, and 15.6 adults/ha. Of the conch found, 16 individuals were encountered inside the TCMP (77%), while only 5 (24%) were encountered outside the TCMP. Interestingly, no adults were found outside the TCMP. Higher densities of conch were found in deeper areas (52.1 ind/ha in total), both for juveniles and adults. In shallow areas, the density was lower (20.8 ind/ha in total), and the proportion of adults and juveniles was equal (Table 7).

Multiple statistical tests were conducted to obtain further information regarding abundance in the study area. Results showed that in 2016 there was no significant difference between the total abundance of conch (Figure 6). Furthermore, the inclusion of the depth as a factor did not show any significant differences in regards to conch abundance in 2016.

7

Table 7. Abundance and density results for the 12 survey sites, in total and also by maturity level, protection level, and depth. Figure 6. Mean values of total conch abundance inside and outside the TCMP in 2016. Error bars show 95% confidence interval. Non parametric statistic analysis (Wilcoxon test) showed no significant difference between these groups. The TCMP bar includes conch abundance inside the MPA, while UNION refers to conch abundance outside the MPA.

Fine Parte II – continua

 

email: Alba.GarciaRodriguez@dal.ca – lucia.fanning@dal.ca
Copyright © 2017 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

 

PAGINA PRINCIPALE - HOME PAGE
.

PARTE I PARTE II

PARTE III

.

References

23. Pomeroy, R.S., Watson, L.M., Parks, J.E. and Cid, G.A. (2005) How Is Your MPA Doing? A Methodology for Evaluating the Management Effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas. Ocean & Coastal Management, 48, 485 502.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.05.004

24. Selig, E.R. and Bruno, J.F. (2010) A Global Analysis of the Effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas in Preventing Coral Loss. PLoS One, 5, Article ID: e9278. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009278

 

print
(Visited 25 times, 1 visits today)
Share

Lascia un commento

Il tuo indirizzo email non sarà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *

Legenda

Legenda

livello elementare articoli per tutti

livello medio articoli che richiedono conoscenze avanzate

livello difficile articoli specialistici

Traduzione

La traduzione dei testi è fornita da Google translator in 42 lingue diverse. Non si assumono responsabilità sulla qualità della traduzione

La riproduzione, anche parziale, a fini di lucro, e la pubblicazione per qualunque utilizzo degli articoli e delle immagini pubblicate è sempre soggetta ad autorizzazione da parte dell’autore degli stessi che può essere contattato tramite la seguente email: infoocean4future@gmail.com


If You Save the Ocean
You Save Your Future

OCEAN4FUTURE

Salve a tutti. Permettetemi di presentare in breve questo sito. OCEAN4FUTURE è un portale, non giornalistico, che pubblica articoli e post di professionisti e accademici che hanno aderito ad un progetto molto ambizioso: condividere la cultura del mare in tutte le sue forme per farne comprendere la sua importanza.

Affrontiamo ogni giorno tematiche diverse che vanno dalla storia alle scienze, dalla letteratura alle arti.
Gli articoli e post pubblicati rappresentano l’opinione dei nostri autori e autrici (non necessariamente quella della nostra redazione), sempre nel pieno rispetto della libertà di opinione di tutti.
La redazione, al momento della ricezione degli stessi, si riserva di NON pubblicare eventuale materiale ritenuto da un punto di vista qualitativo non adeguato e/o non in linea per gli scopi del portale. Grazie di continuare a seguirci e condividere i nostri articoli sulla rete.

Andrea Mucedola
Direttore OCEAN4FUTURE

Chi c'é online

32 visitatori online

Ricerca multipla

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Archeologia
Associazioni per la cultura del mare
Astronomia e Astrofisica
Biologia
Cartografia e nautica
Chi siamo
Climatologia
Conoscere il mare
Didattica
Didattica a distanza
disclaimer
Ecologia
Emergenze ambientali
Fotografia
Geologia
geopolitica
Gli uomini dei record
I protagonisti del mare
Il mondo della vela
L'immersione scientifica
La pesca
La pirateria
La subacquea ricreativa
Lavoro subacqueo - OTS
Le plastiche
Letteratura del mare
Malacologia
Marina mercantile
Marine militari
Materiali
Medicina
Medicina subacquea
Meteorologia e stato del mare
nautica e navigazione
Normative
Ocean for future
OCEANO
Oceanografia
per conoscerci
Personaggi
Pesca non compatibile
Programmi
Prove
Recensioni
Reportage
SAVE THE OCEAN BY OCEANDIVER campaign 4th edition
Scienze del mare
Sicurezza marittima
Storia della subacquea
Storia della Terra
Storia Navale
Storia navale del Medioevo (post 476 d.C. - 1492)
Storia Navale dell'età antica (3.000 a.C. - 476 d.C,)
Storia navale dell'età moderna (post 1492 - oggi)
Storia navale della prima guerra mondiale (1914-1918)
Storia navale della seconda guerra mondiale (1939 - 1945)
Storia navale Romana
Subacquea
Subacquei militari
Sviluppi della scienza
Sviluppo compatibile
Tecnica
Uomini di mare
Video
Wellness - Benessere

I più letti di oggi

 i nodi fondamentali

I nodi fanno parte della cultura dei marinai ... su Amazon puoi trovare molti libri sul mare e sulla sua cultura :) clicca sull'immagine ed entra in un nuovo mondo :)

Follow me on Twitter – Seguimi su Twitter

Tutela della privacy – Quello che dovete sapere

> Per contatti di collaborazione inviate la vostra richiesta a infoocean4future@gmail.com specificando la vostra area di interesse
Share
Translate »