School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia.
Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia.
J Environ Manage. 2015 Feb 1;149:148-56. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.10.023. Epub 2014 Nov 7.
Protected area management agencies are increasingly using management effectiveness evaluation (MEE) to better understand, learn from and improve conservation efforts around the globe. Outcome assessment is the final stage of MEE, where conservation outcomes are measured to determine whether management objectives are being achieved. When quantitative monitoring data are available, best-practice examples of outcome assessments demonstrate that data should be assessed against quantitative condition categories. Such assessments enable more transparent and repeatable integration of monitoring data into MEE, which can promote evidence-based management and improve public accountability and reporting. We interviewed key informants from marine protected area (MPA) management agencies to investigate how scientific data sources, especially long-term biological monitoring data, are currently informing conservation management. Our study revealed that even when long-term monitoring results are available, management agencies are not using them for quantitative condition assessment in MEE. Instead, many agencies conduct qualitative condition assessments, where monitoring results are interpreted using expert judgment only. Whilst we found substantial evidence for the use of long-term monitoring data in the evidence-based management of MPAs, MEE is rarely the sole mechanism that facilitates the knowledge transfer of scientific evidence to management action. This suggests that the first goal of MEE (to enable environmental accountability and reporting) is being achieved, but the second and arguably more important goal of facilitating evidence-based management is not. Given that many MEE approaches are in their infancy, recommendations are made to assist management agencies realize the full potential of long-term quantitative monitoring data for protected area evaluation and evidence-based management.
保护区管理机构越来越多地使用管理效能评估（MEE）来更好地了解、学习和改进全球的保护工作。成果评估是 MEE 的最后阶段，在这个阶段，通过衡量保护成果来确定管理目标是否得到实现。当有定量监测数据时，成果评估的最佳实践范例表明，应该根据定量状况类别来评估数据。这种评估使监测数据更透明、更可重复地纳入 MEE，从而促进基于证据的管理，并提高公众问责制和报告。我们采访了海洋保护区（MPA）管理机构的主要知情人，以调查科学数据来源，特别是长期生物监测数据，如何为保护管理提供信息。我们的研究表明，即使有长期监测结果，管理机构也没有将其用于 MEE 中的定量状况评估。相反，许多机构进行定性状况评估，仅使用专家判断来解释监测结果。虽然我们发现了大量证据表明长期监测数据在 MPA 的循证管理中得到了应用，但 MEE 很少是促进科学证据向管理行动转移的唯一机制。这表明 MEE 的第一个目标（实现环境问责制和报告）已经实现，但第二个也是更重要的目标，即促进循证管理，尚未实现。鉴于许多 MEE 方法仍处于起步阶段，我们提出了一些建议，以帮助管理机构充分发挥长期定量监测数据在保护区评估和循证管理方面的潜力。
