In this chapter, a description of the nature of parks and why they are short of funds was presented. The need to make transparent and internally consistent decisions when allocating resources was also highlighted. The conservation finance literature focuses on ways to generate funding for national parks, but is lacking in guidance regarding how funds could or should be allocated amongst different conservation responsibilities. This problem exists at multiple spatial scales; funds must be allocated amongst projects at the local level, conservation units at the national level, and also at regional and international scales. The research presented here attempts to address the research gap by improving resource allocation at the national scale amongst the national parks managed by a government agency.
The suggested approach identified here is to overcome decisions based on intuition and heuristics, by helping decision-makers to understand the relative significance of different national parks in biological, economic, and social terms via a rational decision model. This approach is both reductionist and utilitarian. It proposes that the important aspects of national parks should and can be expressed for comparative purposes, and that this information can assist with transparent decision-making. The significance of a national park is greater than the sum of its parts, but decisions need to be made annually, and should be based on the best available knowledge in light of imperfect information. The approach also makes assumptions about the relationships between humans and nature, that protected areas are not just important because they protect nature. These assumptions are derived from the both the internationally recognised definition for national parks (IUCN, 1994), and the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992). The former recognises the role of national parks in both nature conservation and the provision of recreation (and other) opportunities. The latter recognises that natural areas provide important ecological, economic, and social benefits.
Table 2.11
Indicators Associated with National Parks in Accordance with the IUCN Guidelines
Site Level System Level
Objectives
Possible indicators Method of data
collection
Possible indicators Method of data
collection
Population estimates of key species Field survey Extent of ecosystem stresses Survey of managers and others with relevant expertise
To perpetuate, in as natural a state as possible, representative examples of physiographic regions, biotic communities, genetic resources, and species to provide ecological stability and diversity
Indicators selected to reflect key processes for the particular ecosystem involved
Field survey Population estimates of key species Collate data from site- based monitoring To protect natural and scenic areas of national and
international significance for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational or tourist purposes
Extent of use-related degradation or stress Field survey
To eliminate and thereafter prevent exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of designation
Extent of encroachment considered inimical to purposes of designation
Mapping of encroachment area
Evidence of system-wide pressures on protected areas from sources, e.g., unregulated tourism or mining
Site by site collection of information
Visitor experiences, satisfaction and understanding
Visitor surveys Visitor experiences and satisfaction levels Visitor surveys
Extent of visitor-related degradation or stress Field survey
Number of visitors Manager’s report
To manage visitor use for inspirational, educational, cultural and recreational purposes at a level that will maintain the area in a natural or near natural state
Number of participants in
educational/interpretive programmes
Manager’s report
Extent of visitor-related degradation or stress
Survey of managers and others with relevant expertise
To eliminate and thereafter prevent exploitation or occupation inimical to the purposes of designation
Extent of encroachment considered inimical to purposes of designation
Mapping of encroachment area
Population estimates of key species Collate data from site- based monitoring programmes Visitor/use understanding and satisfaction
levels
Visitor/user surveys Visitor/user understanding and satisfaction levels
Visitor/user surveys To an extent consistent with the foregoing
objectives, to provide opportunities for research, education, interpretation and public appreciation
Extent of use-related degradation or stress Field survey Extent of use-related degradation or stress Survey of managers and relevant experts
Source: Adapted from Hockings et al.(2000)
7
72
Parameters for the proposed model were identified. Accordingly, the model should:
Incorporate criteria for which data are readily available in order for the model to be practical for PAMAs to use;
Accommodate incommensurate and subjective data because the biological, economic, and social net benefits of parks are not expressed in the same units; and,
Involve a transparent procedure for weighting individual criteria because some criteria will have greater importance to decision-makers than other criteria.
A review of criteria that could be used in the ranking model is presented in Chapter Three. This is followed in Chapter Four by a review of decision-making frameworks in which the most appropriate framework for the ranking model is identified.
3 CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING NATIONAL PARKS
National parks provide a diverse range of values and benefits to society. Many of nature’s properties are intrinsic and can be observed and appreciated by people. The resulting benefits, values, and feelings associated with natural environments are dynamic social constructs. The attributes of a park can be said to have importance simply because they exist, but they do not necessarily have equal importance (Harmon, 2003; Putney, 2003). Endangered species and visually outstanding landscapes, for example, are typically considered more important than common species and landscapes (Eagles, 1993). Further, the characteristics of wilderness areas are appreciated differently from generation to generation. One of the premises of sustainability is the responsibility of the current generation to pass on natural and cultural heritage for the benefit of future generations. Any assessment of national park significance should be undertaken in the knowledge that future generations view attributes differently.
The purpose of this chapter is to explore appropriate criteria against which to compare and prioritise national parks. There are numerous ways that the benefits and values associated with national parks can be classified and described. Some benefits are difficult to express and/or are multifaceted and could belong to more than one classification category (Lockwood, 2006). The structure of this chapter is based on the biological, economic, and social pillars set out in the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. The biological category includes geological features, but because these are abiotic, this category has been called ‘natural heritage’. In the first section, natural heritage criteria are outlined followed by economic and social criteria in the second and third sections respectively. In the fourth and final section criteria with which to measure the presence and magnitude of processes that may threaten a park are reviewed. For each possible criterion identified in this chapter a brief discussion of its suitability is provided. The process for choosing the final set of criteria for the decision-making model is described in Chapter Five.
74