Environmental Management (2012) 50:106–122 DOI 10.1007/s00267-012-9863-0
A Proposed Methodology to Assess the Quality of Public Use Management in Protected Areas Maria Mun˜oz-Santos • Javier Benayas
Received: 9 April 2011 / Accepted: 29 March 2012 / Published online: 5 May 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012
Abstract In recent years, the goal of nature preservation has faced, almost worldwide, an increase in the number of visitors who are interested in experiencing protected areas resources, landscapes and stories. Spain is a good example of this process. The rapidly increasing numbers of visitors have prompted administrations and managers to offer and develop a broad network of facilities and programs in order to provide these visitors with information, knowledge and recreation. But, are we doing it the best way? This research focuses on developing and applying a new instrument for evaluating the quality of visitor management in parks. Different areas are analyzed with this instrument (78 semiquantitative indicators): planning and management capacity (planning, funding, human resources), monitoring, reception, information, interpretation, environmental education, training, participation and volunteer’s programs. Thus, we attempt to gain a general impression of the development of the existing management model, detecting strengths and weaknesses. Although Spain’s National Parks constituted the specific context within which to develop the evaluation instrument, the design thereof is intended to provide a valid, robust and flexible method for application to any system, network or set of protected areas in other countries. This paper presents the instrument developed, some results obtained following its application to Spanish
M. Mun˜oz-Santos (&) Universidad Auto´noma de Madrid, Fundacio´n F.G.Bernaldez, Mo´dulo 08. Edificio de Ciencias Dcho. 504.5, 28049 Madrid, Spain e-mail:
[email protected] J. Benayas Department of Ecology, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
123
National parks, along with a discussion on the limits and validity thereof. Keywords Quality assessment Visitors management National Parks Evaluation
Introduction Natural areas have long been used for recreation (hunting, fishing, hiking, etc.). Current levels of demand, however, based upon a process that started halfway through the XX century (Newsome and others 2002; Eagles and others 2002; Monz and others 2010), are unprecedented. More than ever before, these natural areas have become important places for leisure and enjoyment, a fact that appears to reveal a new way in which the population relates to nature, rather than just a passing fashion (Archer and Wearing 2003; Eagles 2004). Protected areas therefore provide currently recognized and valuable recreational, cultural and educational services (Manning and others 1999; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003). Nevertheless, these places can only benefit us and fulfill conservation objectives if they are well managed (Dudley and others 1999). Thus, correct management of public use plays a vital role with regard to optimizing the enjoyment of these services and conserving the ecosystems that provide them. In recent years, the evaluation of planning and management of protected areas has become one of the relevant and intensely debated aspects in national and international forums dealing with nature conservation and management (e.g., evaluation of management effectiveness has been included in the Work Program in protected areas adopted by the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2004) (Leverington and others 2010). There is an increasing need
Environmental Management (2012) 50:106–122
to convey the results obtained both to society and to senior staff and government ministries (Moore and others 2003). A recent study conducted by Leverington and others (2010) shows that at international level there are now over 8,000 evaluations of effectiveness of protected area management, in 100 countries, and over 50 methodologies employed. Within the scope of visitor management, there is an important body of study dealing with monitoring and evaluation. Over the last 50 years numerous studies have developed the field of Recreation Ecology (see the review essay by Monz and others 2010), as well as different models of visitor impact monitoring, in which the information provided by different indicators enables management measures to be adopted (Newsome and others 2002; Manning and Lawson 2002; Moore and others 2003). There is also a related stream of research about the determination of standards of quality. As a result, these standards are being included in different outdoor recreation planning and management frameworks (e.g., Limit of Acceptable Change, Visitor Experience and Resource Protection) (Manning and Freymund 2004). With regard to the evaluation of communication and environmental education programs in parks, there is a growing body of literature, although this is as yet limited (see the review essays by Absher and Bright 2004 and Marion and Reid 2007). As for experiences in evaluation of the quality of services and facilities offered, there is an increasing number of quality control systems, among these, the evaluation program Visitor Services Project of the National Park Service, USA (Le and others 2004, 2005). In Spain, protected areas occupy 12.1 % of the land and, as occurs at the international level, these areas are attracting an increasing number of visitors. The 2 million visits to these areas in 1982 have now risen to at least 26 million (EUROPARC-Espan˜a 2009). The different administrations and managers have reacted to the progressive increase in the number of visits since the 1980s by means of big investments and the development of a wide network of facilities, activities and services intended to facilitate awareness and enjoyment of the area by these visitors. Likewise, there has been an increase in the amount of private companies offering complementary nature-related activities (Blanco 2006). The challenge facing the managers of Spain’s protected areas is a truly complex one. They have to guarantee the conservation of these areas, promoting visitor satisfaction and providing benefits to the local population (39 % of Spain’s population is concentrated in the municipalities containing protected areas). And these challenges must all be met within a scenario of rapid increase, both in the number of protected areas declared and in the amount of visits (in 1987 only 1.7 % of the country was protected, in 2009 12.1 %) (EUROPARCEspan˜a 2009).
107
Following the growth and consolidation phase, steps are being taken toward a new stage characterized by the greater attention paid to quality processes in management and to the contribution of protected areas to ecosystem services (EUROPARC-Espan˜a 2009). In recent years, different initiatives have arisen relating to evaluation of protected area management and to the improvement of monitoring systems aimed at providing rigorous evaluation information (Mallarach and others 2004; EUROPARC-Espan˜a 2010). With regard to evaluating visitor management, despite the existence of some partial studies on the evaluation of certain facilities and services (e.g., Benayas and others 2000; Sureda and others 2002; EUROPARC-Espan˜a 2006), specific evaluations of visitor management in Spanish parks are practically non-existent. Most of them consist of a series of quantitative indicators integrated within the general evaluation programs. In this context, there is a general call for systematic evaluation programs of visitor management to be initiated in order for it to be more effective with regard to fulfillment of objectives.
Objectives The objective of the research involves developing and applying an instrument for evaluating the quality of visitor management in parks making up the Spanish National Park System (NPS). And thus, attempt to gain a general impression of the development of the existing model, detecting strengths and weaknesses. Although Spain’s National Parks constituted the specific context within which to develop the evaluation instrument, the design thereof is intended to provide a valid, robust and flexible method for application to any system, network or set of protected areas in other countries (provided that our methodology needs to be tailored to each specific national or regional context).
Study Area: The Spanish National Park System In Spain, the National Park status offers the highest degree of protection to a natural area and also enjoys the greatest recognition and prestige. A total of 347,081.66 ha of the 50,488,490 comprising the national territory have been declared National Parks (14 in total, 13 at the time of the study), the first of these in August 1918 (Fig. 1). Spain constitutes an important tourist destination at the international level (3rd most visited country in 2009 and 4th in 2010) (UNWTO 2010). Tourism in the National Parks has developed gradually over the past 20 years and in 2007 the NPS reported 10.8 million visits. The National
123
108
Environmental Management (2012) 50:106–122
Fig. 1 Study area. Spanish National Parks Network
Park attracting most visitors (Teide National Park) reports 3.5 million visits annually, a figure that surpasses the number of international visits to countries such as Costa Rica (UNWTO 2010) Fig. 2. The NPS total budget was 223 million euros in 2009 (OAPN 2010), an average of 642.8 €/ha protected, 100 % public funds. Abundant resources are destined for management, compared with the rest of the country’s protected areas (e.g., the average budget for natural parks in Spain is 34.80 €/ha) (EUROPARC-Espan˜a 2009). Up to 2006, management was shared by the National and Regional governments. Currently, the Regional Governments are responsible for managing the National Parks, and the National Government for coordinating the System. At the time this study was conducted, the NPS availed only of some partial, non systematical, visitor studies and not in all the parks. No study had been undertaken to comprehensively and comparatively analyze the efforts on visitor management that are made by the National Parks.
Methods: The Evaluation Instrument Many of the traditional methods for evaluation of visitor management tend to be based upon the perception of
123
users, generally by means of satisfaction questionnaires. This is partly due to the difficulty involved in identifying indicators and standards (Moore and Polley 2007). Visitor surveys can provide meaningful and useful information, greatly contributing to the management system. But it can also present associated problems and biases (Stewart and Cole 2003; Laven and others 2005; Moore and Polley 2007). According to these authors, if the results thereof are generalized to the absolute, the risk arises of basing decisions on the perception of one single kind of actors involved (visitors), whose appraisal, albeit relevant, does not necessarily reflect all the aspects of the problem. The objectives and scope of work presented herein require a global view. Thus, the evaluation proposal was founded upon different methodological proposals, based in turn on systematic selection of indicators and objective data for management evaluation. The utility of this kind of methodologies for evaluation based on objective indicators has been proved in different studies worldwide (De Faria 1993; Cayot and Cruz 1998; Cifuentes and others 2000; Hockings and others 2000; Sureda and others 2002; Ervin 2003; Stolton and others 2003; Mallarach and others 2004; Velasquez and others 2004; TNC 2004, and more recently Stolton and others 2007).
Environmental Management (2012) 50:106–122
109
Formulation of objectives: QUALITY ASSESSMENT Design of the evaluation instrument Panel of experts Selection of categories and sub-categories, indicators and criteria for evaluation
Application of the evaluation instrument to the National Parks network 3 external evaluators
Proposal for information gathering instruments and techniques
Synthesis of information gathered Visits to each national park
Gathering information in 2 Parks and review of the methodological proposal Individual appraisal of the indicators EVALUATION INSTRUMENT 78 semi-quantitative indicators (values 1-4) Nine programmes: - Planning and management capacity - Monitoring - Reception facilities - Information - Interpretation - Environmental education - Participation - Volunteers
METHODOLOGY FOR GATHERING INFORMATION - Written documents - Structured and semistructured interviews - Semi-structured and unstructured interviews - Closed and regulated questionnaires for appraisal of facilities and services - Participant observation - Field notes - Photographic records
Results sharing and collective appraisal Calculation of categories and sub-categories CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT
Fig. 2 Methodology
Our methodology was developed by people with expertise in visitor management (academics, recreation professionals and managers) and was adapted to the organizational structure and management needs of the Spanish National Parks System and to the information available or that could be compiled at the time of the study. Due to the lack of available information to assess the efficiency or the effectiveness, it was decided that the object of evaluation should be Quality. There is much literature about the concepts of ‘‘quality’’ and ‘‘satisfaction’’ in the leisure, tourism and business literature (e.g., Mackay and Crompton 1990; Tian-Cole and others 2002). For purposes of this research we understood quality according to the definition proposed by EUROPARC (the European Federation of National and Natural Parks): ‘‘intrinsic conditions and qualities necessarily inherent in resources, facilities and services of a protected natural area in order for public use activities to unfold in a satisfactory manner for visitors and for the Park Agency, always within the social and conservation objectives assigned to public use’’ (EUROPARC-Espan˜a 2006). Much discussion has occurred regarding the operational definition of satisfaction, as it is a multi-dimensional concept (Manning 1999), influenced by situational variables including resource, social and management settings, being these influences mediated by the subjective evaluations of individuals (Whisman and Hollenhorst 1998). For the purposes
of this study ‘‘satisfactory manner’’ means to enhance both acceptable levels of resource and experiential conditions (Laven and others 2005). Our methodological proposal is therefore specifically designed for systems of protected areas, which enables results to be expressed, both in relative terms of comparison (this park is better than that one because…) or in absolute terms (this study area scored highly because it responds to a determined standard with which to make the comparison). It was designed and applied during 2006–2008. Design of the Evaluation Instrument The evaluation instrument was designed by a panel of 5 experts, both academic (2 university lecturers, 1 graduate student) and professionals (1 consultant, 1 protected area manager). They all had previous experience in evaluation of visitor management in protected areas in the last 5 years and possessed knowledge of the National Parks network. It was applied by way of a pilot experience to two National Parks. Selection of Analysis Categories and Sub-Categories Firstly, based upon different documents of the Spanish NPS dealing with visitor management policy,
123
110
Environmental Management (2012) 50:106–122
organizational structure and legislation, park management effectiveness literature and reference documents as Eagles and others (2002) (document that later served as a basis for Hyslop and Eagles (2007) ‘ideal’ visitors policy framework checklist) the members of the panel established the most important components to be evaluated (categories and subcategories). These categories were established according to the management needs of the Spanish NPS. Therefore other possible categories, relevant in other Park Systems, were not given a category status but included within other broader categories. See discussion below for further analysis on the categories. The nine categories considered to be vital with regard to obtaining a global view of public use quality for the NPS were the following: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. 8.
9.
Planning and management capacity: analyses aspects making the management possible (planning, human resources, financial resources). Monitoring and control: includes the capacity of the managers to conduct a monitoring of activities of visitors and companies and of impact control. Reception facilities program: analyses aspects related with the capacity and quality of the infrastructures available for visitor management. Information program: analyses the quality of the information means and resources offered by the parks (both personal and non-personal). Interpretation program: performs in-depth analysis of the quality of the interpretation resources and services provided by the parks as management tools (both personal and non-personal). Environmental education program: analyses the formal quality of educational programs for the local population. Training programs: analyses training programs for park and external staff. Participation program: analyses the formal suitability of the mechanisms for participation of society in park management. Volunteer program: analyses the quality of the volunteer programs offered.
Different sub-categories and indicators were established for each of them (see Table 1). Selection of Indicators Indicators are the most commonly used instruments for developing evaluation methodologies, as they enable large amounts of information to be synthesized in a small number of relevant indexes, which serves to simplify the analyses at different scales or levels (MacCool and Stankey 2004). They also favor both the identification of key
123
elements of pressure upon our scope of management, enabling us to prioritize interventions therein, to evaluate tendencies according to the objectives established and to redefine these if this were to be necessary. The set of interrelated indicators used in an evaluation method is known as the indicator system. These should be coherent, respond to common objectives, be subjected to the same selection criteria and should also serve for decision-taking, sharing the same structure. As a reference document for the establishment of the indicators and the quality standards, we used the Management Plan for the Spanish National Parks System (Royal Decree 1803/199, 1999) which establishes specific public use guidelines and goals for the System. We also reviewed general literature concerning protected areas evaluation based on indicators (e.g., De Faria 1993; Cayot and Cruz 1998; Cifuentes and others 2000; Hockings and others 2000; Sureda and others 2002; Mallarach and others 2004; Velasquez and others 2004; TNC 2004), reference literature regarding visitor management (e.g., Hendee and others 1990; Hammit and Cole 1998; Hornback and Eagles 1999; Benayas 2000; Manning and Lime 2000; Eagles and others 2002; Newsome and others 2002) and specific literature regarding facilities, communication, interpretation and education in protected areas (e.g., Ham 1992; Stokking and others 1999; Weiler and Ham 2001; Sureda and others 2002; Knapp and Benton 2004; Hamu and others 2004; Spanish Ministry of Environment 2005; Hesselink and others 2007). For each of the indicators we constructed a set of quality conditions or criteria for the evaluation, in which the optimum conditions is awarded the maximum value (4) and the one furthest from optimum is given the minimum one (1). Furthermore, within each category we assigned a weighting to each indicator, according to the degree of importance assigned thereto by the panel of experts. Four point scale was preferred so the evaluators had to make a definite choice rather than choose neutral or intermediate positions. These scales demand much more from respondents, but avoid the non-commital responses. The panel first worked with a large amount of indicators (120) which were successively subjected to analyses and refining processes until the final list was established. For each of the indicators representativeness, ease of collection of the information and objectivity in its application were discussed and appraised by the team of experts in a plenary session. Likewise, the appraisal criteria for each one of them were established by means of agreement. In the selection of the indicators, future reviews and/or extensions of the methodology proposed were considered. Following this process, 100 indicators were selected, and subsequently tested in two pilot parks. Once the pilot tests were conducted, indicators presenting low levels of agreement
Environmental Management (2012) 50:106–122
111
Table 1 Categories, sub-categories, indicators and weighting Category
Sub-category
Planning and management capacity
1. Planning
Indicators (weighting) 1.1. Level of development of basic planning (3) 1.2. Level of development of planning of the visitor management area (3) 1.3. Level of development of other complementary planning tools (tourism certifications, quality certifications) (1) 1.4. Level of development of the research program associated with visitor management (2) 1.5 Level of coordination with other tourism institutions (1)
2. Financial resources
2.1. Budget stability of the visitor management area (2) 2.2. Suitability of the budget to the needs of the visitor management area (2) 2.3. Capacity for self-financing of activities (1)
3. Human resources
3.1. Availability of staff with technical VM functions (2) 3.2. Availability of staff for visitor attention (guides) (2) 3.3. Availability of staff for law enforcement (1) 3.4. Availability of staff with VM administration functions (1) 3.5. Consolidation of the VM team (1) 3.6. Labor-related stability of the team (1) 3.7. Degree of development of internal communication procedures (1) 3.8. Level of training of the VM team (1)
Monitoring and control
4. Monitoring and control
4.1. Availability of updated information on visitor typology (1) 4.2. Availability of updated information on number of visitors (1) 4.3. Availability of updated information on satisfaction with the visit (1) 4.4. Presence of effective visitor regulation mechanisms (1) 4.5. Visitor impact control and monitoring (1) 4.6. Level of quality control of contracts (1)
Reception facilities program
5. Facilities
5.1. Suitability of number and distribution of facilities (2) 5.2. Degree of accessibility for handicapped people to the facilities provided (1) 5.3. Existence of environmental management measures in facilities (1) 5.4. Adaptation to needs of timetables and opening schedules (1) 5.5. Level of maintenance of facilities (1) 5.6. Fulfillment of basic needs (1) 5.7. Coordination with other facilities provided by other organisms (1)
6. Network of trails
6.1. Diversity of itineraries according to park characteristics (1) 6.2. Level of impact (1)
Information program
7. Signs
7.1 Signs of accesses (1) 7.2. Signs of limits (1) 7.3. Signs of facilities and services (1) 7.4. Signs in trails (1) 7.5 Signs of regulations and safety (1) 7.6. State of conservation of signs (1) 7.7. Intrusion of signs and visual impact (1) 7.8. Image of the Network (0,5)
8. Personal information
8.1. Suitability of number and distribution of information points (1) 8.2. Extent (% visitors informed by park staff in relation to total) (1) 8.3. Attention to different languages (1) 8.4. Adaptation to needs of the park and visitors: type of information offered (1)
9. Non-personal information
9.1. Diversity of publications offered (1) 9.2. Availability of publications (1) 9.3. Languages of publications (1) 9.4. Suitability of information offered in publications in relation to park and visitor characteristics (1) 9.5. Suitability of information offered through the web in relation to park and visitor characteristics (1)
123
112
Environmental Management (2012) 50:106–122
Table 1 continued Category
Sub-category
Interpretation program
10. Personal interpretation
Indicators (weighting) 10.1. Percentage of visitors in relation to total (1) 10.2. Total diversity of guided visits offered (1) 10.3. Mechanisms of promotion, marketing and reserves (direct management) 10.4. Adaptation of visits to park and visitor characteristics (direct management) (1) 10.5. Knowledge of interpretation techniques (direct management) (2) 10.6. Quality of message transmitted (direct management) (2) 10.7. Mechanisms of promotion, marketing and reserves (contracts) (1) 10.8 Adaptation of visits to park and visitor characteristics (contracts) (1) 10.9. Knowledge of interpretation techniques (contracts) (2) 10.10. Quality of message transmitted (contracts) (2)
11. Visitor centers and museums
11.1. Suitability of number and distribution of VC and museums(1) 11.2. Percentage of visitors in relation to total (1) 11.3. Functionality and design of facilities (1) 11.4. Quality of exhibition design (1) 11.5. Quality of message transmitted (1) 11.6. Functioning. Adaptation of timetables and opening schedules to needs (1)
12. Outdoor exhibitions
12.1. Suitability of number and distribution of panels, viewpoints, etc. (1) 12.2. Design (1)
Environmental education program
13. EE program
13.1. Diversity of sub-programs (1) 13.2. Diversity of target groups (1) 13.4. Diversity of techniques employed (1) 13.5. Degree of innovation of educational actions (1) 13.6. Evaluation of educational actions (1) 13.7. Degree of development of school programs (1)
Training program
14. Internal training
14.1. Degree of development of internal training program (1)
15. External training
15.1. Degree of development of external training program (1)
Participation program
16. Participation program
16.1. Degree of development of participation program (1)
Volunteer program
17. Volunteer program
17.1. Availability of resources and infrastructures (1) 17.2. Continuity of actions (1) 17.3. Level of relationship with management (1)
Table 2 Example of scoring system for indicator 1.2 Ind. 1.2. Degree of development of public use planning Definition The indicator refers to the existence of specific planning for the visitor management area Criteria 1. There is no specific public use planning 2. There is a planning draft in its early stages, or guidelines and/or independently approved specific programs 3. There is an advanced planning draft 4. Complete public use planning is in force and available Source of information and calculation Documents, interviews
among evaluators (more than one point of difference) were detected and reformulated in a more objective way. Others were eliminated due to lack of information or interest for management (feedback was received from the managers).
123
Subsequent to application to pilot parks, indicators were reduced to 78 (see Table 1): Planning and management capacity (16), Monitoring and control (6), Reception facilities program (9), Information program (17),
Environmental Management (2012) 50:106–122
113
Table 3 Example of scoring system for indicator 10.4 Ind. 10.4. Knowledge of interpretation techniques (park rangers) Definition The indicator refers to the knowledge of interpretation techniques by the guides in charge of the service Criteria 1. The guides are generally unaware of the interpretation techniques (mean value from 1.0 to 1.5 points) 2. The guides show a medium-low level of knowledge of the interpretation techniques (mean value from 1.6 to 2.5 points) 3. The guides show a medium-high level of knowledge of the interpretation techniques (mean value from 2.6 to 3.5 points) 4. The guides show a high level of knowledge of the interpretation techniques (mean value from 3.6 to 4.0 points) Source of information and calculation In this case, it is a complex calculation indicator. The evaluators: 1st They make at least three guided visits offered by the staff of the National Park 2nd They complete, individually for each visitor, an ‘‘evaluation of the guided visit’’ questionnaire at the Likert 1–4 scale. In the case of ‘‘interpretation techniques’’ the questionnaire contains the following criteria (Ham 1992): The guide … Looked at the group while he talked
Availed of support material (guides, binoculars, photos, notebook,…)
Spoke to the group in a sufficiently loud voice
Used vocabulary suitable to the level of the group
Adapted to the languages of the group members
Used suitable anecdotes and examples
Spoke to the whole group and ensured that they could all see and hear
Used metaphors and analogies
Spoke clearly
Used his hands to attract attention
Was humorous in his explanations
Repeated important comments by the visitors
Related the information to the life and personality of the group
The playfulness factor is of vital importance
Paid attention to possible eventualities
Used languages, expressions or local accent
Stimulated participation with questions
Used materials in his explanations (stones, feathers, …)
Stimulated the use of two or more senses
Was creative and original in his communication method
Managed to involve the people 3rd Share the results. In the case of divergence in an answer scoring over 1 point among the judges, an interjudges agreement must be reached 4th The mean value is calculated and the indicator is completed
Table 4 Information collection sources and techniques Technique
Description
Semi-structured interviews with managers
In-depth interviews with the manager in charge of visitor management in each park. The contents and procedures are organized in advance (58 questions, 9 categories, duration of approximately 2 hours). They were conducted in person by 2 of the evaluators and the answers were recorded and transcripted.
Semi-structured interviews with public use staff
Interviews with guides, educators, informing subjects, guards, etc. These were semi-structured, enabling greater flexibility and freedom. The interviewer was in charge of the contents, sequence and formulation. They were conducted in person by 2 evaluators.
Participant observation and regulated evaluation questionnaires
Information on the quality of the interpretation programs (exhibitions, panels and guided visits) was obtained by means of participant observation in all the activities and resources of each of the parks. In order to conduct this observation in a structured fashion, specific regulated questions were prepared with quality criteria for the different facilities and services provided. These questionnaires were designed by adapting them to the requirements of the study and were based upon the existing literature. They were completed by 3 evaluators.
Analysis of documentation
All the parks’ annual reports, monitoring reports, technical reports, files, plans, programs, etc., were requested and analyzed by one evaluator.
Others
Filed notes, individual reports and photographs.
123
114
Interpretation program (17), Environmental education program (6), Training program (2), Participation program (1), Volunteer program (3). Two examples of indicators are included (Tables 2, 3). The first one is the most frequently used. The second type is used to evaluate the interpretation services and facilities and requires regulated checking-lists for information gathering (questionnaires, 1–4 Likert scales).
Information Collection: The Evaluation Team Information was gathered by three external evaluators with experience in similar evaluation studies on visitor management in protected areas (two within the university context and one as a consultant). To gather the information, an evaluation visit was made, lasting at least one week, to each of the parks, and as many possible sources of information were used, along with information collection techniques (Table 4). In order to minimize the disadvantages associated with the use of external evaluators, the variables that required greater internal knowledge of the institution (for example, the indicator referring to the Sufficiency of funds) are included as direct questions in the interview with the manager of each park. Data Processing and Interpretation of Results Information Synthesis During the visits to the parks, interviews, questionnaires, participant observation, etc. were done and documents with data on visitor use levels, budgets, etc. were collected. Following these visits, a descriptive file was created by one of the judges which contained fundamental information thereon (existing programs, available resources and facilities, budgets, etc.). This file was delivered to the other judges.
Environmental Management (2012) 50:106–122
mean of the appraisals was used. If exceptionally the divergence exceeded more than one point the evaluators should comment the reasons for the divergence to confirm they were using the same decision rules, and, if the difference was due to a problem with the interpretation of the indicator, then the decision rules were jointly reviewed again by the experts so as to reach an acceptable level of agreement. Once this procedure was implemented no differences higher than one point remained. As indicators presenting low levels of interjudges agreement were detected in the pilot tests and were reformulated or eliminated, this happened less than 10 times, all regarding the interpretation programs (further discussion below). Calculation of Categories and Sub-categories For the calculation of the sub-categories, we employed the weighted averages of each of the indicators they comprise (see Table 1).
Results Study Case: Application of the Evaluation Model to the Spanish National Park System The evaluation presented attempted to establish a broad perspective of visitor management in National Parks. The results obtained provide information on the health of the institution, detecting problems to which possible operational solutions are to be found and identifying good and bad management practices. The information obtained is of great value and has provided us with interesting management conclusions. Results were delivered to the National Parks managers both as a report and in several discussion forums. Some of the main results are now described: Quality of the Visitor Management Model
Individual Appraisal of the Indicators Three evaluators were instructed in the purpose and use of the tool. Training in the use of the tool included developing consistent agreement on decision rules for assessing the indicators. Each evaluator used the descriptive file independently, together with their own annotations and questionnaires.
The results of the study show a good level of average quality (70 % of the optimum) of visitor management in the National Parks. None of the categories analyzed present values close to the maxima or minima of the range of possible scores (Table 5). The results obtained reveal differences among Parks. The scope of variation of global appraisal ranges from 83 % for the best appraisal to 58 % for the worst one.
Results Sharing and Collective Appraisal Financial Resources vs Planning Once the individual work had been done, the appraisal for each indicator was shared with the other evaluators. In the event of divergences in the appraisal of an indicator the
123
–
The category obtaining the lowest results for the whole System is planning (mean = 2.36, r = 0.81). The high
3.50
3.25 4.00
3.50
3.70
3.67
3.20
3.63
3.50
4.00
2.50
2.17
2.82
3.00
3.90
3.31
Trails
Personal info. Training (external)
Reception
Human resources
Volunteer prog.
Non personal information
Personal interpretation
Monitoring
Training (internal)
Non pers interpretation
Environmental education
Visitor centers
Participation
Planning
Mean 75.18
3.01
2.90
3.00
2.08
3.17
2.00
3.00
2.67
2.88
3.00
3.67
3.30
2.63
3.25 3.00
3.50
3.47
3.60
SNEV
74.57
2.98
2.30
3.00
2.88
3.83
3.50
3.00
2.33
2.00
3.00
3.00
2.70
3.00
3.00 3.00
3.50
3.87
2.80
GAR
74.15
2.97
2.40
3.00
2.94
3.33
3.50
2.00
2.83
2.81
2.40
3.00
3.00
3.38
3.50 3.00
3.00
2.93
3.40
˜ DON
73.47
2.94
3.30
3.00
2.50
1.83
4.00
3.00
3.00
1.00
2.40
2.33
3.00
3.13
3.50 3.00
3.50
3.87
3.60
ORD
73.18
2.93
3.20
2.00
2.31
3.17
4.00
2.00
2.00
3.50
2.40
2.67
2.70
2.88
2.50 4.00
3.50
3.73
3.20
TEI
67.66
2.71
1.50
2.00
2.59
1.83
3.00
2.00
2.33
2.63
2.80
2.00
3.10
3.13
3.50 3.00
3.00
4.00
3.60
TABL
67.53
2.70
2.30
2.00
2.57
3.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.88
2.80
2.67
2.80
3.13
3.00 3.00
3.50
3.07
3.20
PIC
66.99
2.68
2.30
2.00
2.92
2.83
2.00
2.00
2.67
3.00
2.60
3.00
2.80
2.75
2.75 2.00
3.50
3.23
3.20
ACA
66.44
2.66
2.00
2.00
1.52
2.33
3.00
3.00
2.17
1.50
3.20
3.00
2.90
2.88
3.25 2.00
3.50
3.73
3.20
CAL
62.31
2.49
1.30
2.00
2.54
1.17
1.00
3.00
2.83
2.71
2.40
3.00
3.00
3.25
3.00 2.00
2.50
3.07
3.60
CAB
62.28
2.49
2.20
2.00
2.39
2.50
1.00
2.00
3.00
2.86
2.60
1.00
1.90
3.13
3.00 4.00
2.50
3.07
3.20
TIM
57.60
2.30
1.10
2.00
1.49
1.33
1.00
2.00
2.33
3.38
2.20
3.00
3.00
2.00
2.50 3.00
3.50
2.54
2.80
IAG
69.55
2.78
2.36
2.38
2.43
2.50
2.50
2.54
2.59
2.68
2.69
2.77
2.92
2.98
3.08 3.00
3.27
3.30
3.31
Mean NPS
-
-
0.81
0.51
0.48
0.81
1.10
0.66
0.44
0.76
0.33
0.70
0.41
0.38
0.34 0.71
0.39
0.53
0.29
SD
The columns show the different NPs and the rows the different sub-categories analyzed. In order to emphasize the main differences, they are organized decreasingly from left to right and top to bottom
82.75
2.33
Percentage (%)
3.60
Signs
AIG
Park name
Financial resources
Sub-category
Table 5 Main results of the application of the evaluation model to the Spanish National Park System
Environmental Management (2012) 50:106–122 115
123
116
–
Environmental Management (2012) 50:106–122
number of visits to these areas make this situation especially serious. Although managers are becoming increasingly aware of the advantages of good planning, it appears that the urgent matters left no time for the important ones and in most cases greater priority has been given to the inflow of visitors and the problems they cause than to planning. The category obtaining the highest score is financial resources (mean = 3.31, r = 0.29). In objective terms, the budgets available for management in national parks are much higher than the average for other protected areas in Spain. Notwithstanding this overall sufficiency of funding, managers pointed out that budget items were not always properly balanced. In particular, they reported some problems due to underfunding of human resources.
Do We Know What We are Doing? –
–
The mean for the category of monitoring and control is 2.59 (r = 0.44). In recent years, good systems have been developed for quantifying visits and for typifying them. There are, however, practically no visitor studies (satisfactions, disappointments, suggestions …) (mean ind. 4.3 = 1.69, r = 0.95). Even though the method here used is based on external appraisal and not in visitors’ inputs, as justified above, visitor studies are also necessary for managers to have a permanent feedback. Problems were identified relating to quality control of the services provided by contracted companies (mean ind. 4.6 = 2.08, r = 0.64).
On the Facilities Provided –
–
–
The System’s reception facilities program presents a good level of quality for the sub-category trails (mean = 3.27, r = 0.39) which is somewhat lower for the rest of the facilities (mean = 2.98, r = 0.38). No serious problems were detected relating to impacts on trails (mean ind. 6.2 = 3.23, r = 0.44). In very few cases, episodes were identified that required urgent restoration measures; in other cases, these had been adopted, with frequent use of buffering facilities. The general facilities are good (mean ind. 5.1 = 3.00, r = 0.58), with problems only in the two recently created Parks. Problems were detected which related only to accessibility for handicapped people, thus reflecting the lower priority given to these aspects in the Parks (and in Spanish society as a whole) until the last decade.
123
–
Problems were detected in relation to the coordination of the supply of facilities with those of other administrations (mean ind. 5.7 = 1.92, r = 0.95). On occasions, we detected overabundance of facilities in a given territory, with duplicated functions.
Communication and Environmental Education As a whole, the results obtained exhibit high quality values for the signs, and personal information programs, lower ones for the volunteer, information training and non-personal information programs and low values for the programs relating to environmental education, participation and interpretation through non-personal media. Information –
The high values for the personal information (mean = 3.08, r = 0.34) and signs (mean = 3.30, r = 0.53) programs, reflect the large effort invested in these themes in recent years. The data show, however, that the role of the System web page is still underused for these purposes (mean ind. 9.5 =2.00, r=0). Likewise, other places or facilities next to the Parks but not depending upon the National Parks Administration (but other parks or tourism administrations) remain unused; if coordinated and supervised, these could provide useful information services to National Parks’ visitors.
Interpretation –
–
–
On average, personal interpretation is valued for the System higher than any other means of non-personal interpretation (mean = 2.68, r = 0.76). Although the visitor centers greatly fulfill their reception facilities and information functions, they present problems in relation to communication of interpretation messages (mean = 2.43, r = 0.36). The quality of the facilities (location, design, safety, etc.) and functioning (timetables, maintenance, environmental management, etc.) of these centers show high values; nonetheless, the aspects relating to the functionality thereof (support for management, interpretation, fulfillment of basic needs, etc.) exhibit lower values. With regard to the personal interpretation, our results show clear differences between the quality of services managed directly by the Parks or of those managed by enterprises. Knowledge of interpretation techniques (ind. 10.5, 10.9) and quality of contents and delivery of the message (ind. 10.6 and 10.10) score higher in all cases relating to services provided by Park guides. On the contrary, results show that contracted companies
Environmental Management (2012) 50:106–122
avail of better marketing systems and reserves of the services they provide (ind. 10.3 and 10.7).
Environmental Education –
Our results show a mean value for the category of the whole of the System of 2.5 (r = 0.81), thus revealing great variability among Parks. Five parks have very basic environmental education programs aimed at schoolchildren only. Other parks have made an effort to diversify their programs and broaden their target groups.
Participation and volunteers –
All 13 parks avail of constituted public participation organs, but public participation, however, plays a scant role in management (mean = 2.38, r = 0.51). The parks generally have infrastructures and staff to deal with the needs of the volunteer programs (mean = 2.77, r = 0.70), although these occasionally involve an extra workload. Only in one park are these activities not conducted due to a lack of sufficient human resources.
Discussion There is a growing body of literature available on program evaluation beginning with Theobald’s seminal text on evaluation of Recreation and Park Programs (Theobald 1979). Many authors have reviewed evaluative concepts, and have discussed the importance of evaluation (see for example Sanders 1994; Hockings and others 2000; Weiler and Ham 2001; Ervin 2003). There are many reasons for evaluation and they vary for each situation. Evaluating management of a protected area is not only a way of identifying problems, but also informs us whether the programs and strategies chosen work (Hockings 2000). The literature is growing and there is general agreement between the scholars that evaluation is a key aspect in the pursuit of more effective administration. As a result, assessments are increasingly being conducted by government agencies (Leverington and others 2010). But, despite all, the fact is not all parks evaluate systematically their policies, programs or resources. That is the case of the Spanish National Park System. In a country with little tradition in the evaluation of the results of public policies, evaluation of management of protected areas in general, and of visitor management in particular, remains an issue to be addressed. In this context, the present study and the
117
results obtained provide a great amount of information which enables us to address quality evaluation of the public use of the system studied and provides a useful instrument for the management thereof. Therefore, the objective of this paper does not only involve analyzing the results of the management of public use of the parks studied, but also to check the validity and potentiality of the evaluation instrument applied. In this context, further discussion of some key aspects follows. Method Selection The evaluation model used in this research is a standard approach based on indicators, using independent evaluators. It is based on available management literature, both in the selection of the categories and indicators. It differs from other similar methodologies (such as Cayot and Cruz 1998; Ervin 2003; TNC 2004) in that it has been specifically tailored to address public use issues in depth, and, as discussed above, in its using of independent evaluators instead of park managers opinions or visitors opinions. The use of the instrument developed presents big advantages: a)
It enables large amounts of information to be summarized in a small number of relevant indexes which serves to simplify the analyses at different scales or levels. b) Facilitates comparison among different parks. c) Enables good practices or opportunities for improvement to be detected. d) Periodic application thereof can provide information on the evolution of visitor management over time, showing achievements and advances, as well as the tendencies followed. e) Although the design of the methodology was adjusted for application to a specific parks system, it can easily be adapted and employed in other protected areas. Despite the big advantages offered by this kind of semiquantitative evaluation instruments, however, they also involve a series of limitations that should be considered on interpreting the results obtained. Firstly, the design of the whole instrument is conditioned by two factors: its necessary application to a heterogeneous set of parks, and the possibility of obtaining the information in a reasonably easy manner. This involves difficulties mainly within the scope of participation, volunteer and environmental education programs where, in order to establish the real quality thereof, one must avail of in-depth evaluations. In the case of environmental education programs, one example is the need for an evaluation that would entail attending the interventions and conducting prior and subsequent evaluations. The evaluation instrument designed can only make
123
118
a formal appraisal of these programs and their results and must therefore be interpreted bearing this in mind (for example, changes in program users’ behavior are not monitored). Likewise, the evaluation instrument lacks indicators of the effect of the visitor management model on the sustainable development of the parks. The use of independent evaluators provides greater neutrality, but causes problems inherent to information access, particularly due to the high number of indicators used. For purposes of this research, and in order to state the reliability of the instrument, a panel of evaluators was used, which is an expensive approach. The cost could be minimized using a more participatory approach, including park staff in its application (see below). Selection of the Categories and Indicators Throughout the evaluation process, the method and evaluation team chosen, along with the criteria for selecting the indicators, will have a great impact upon the result obtained (MacCool and Stankey 2004). Overall goals and general policies for visitation in Spanish National Parks (e.g., to provide visitors with information and education, not to charge fees for entrance or for basic information services) are stated in the Management Plan for the Spanish National Parks System (Royal Decree 1803/199, 1999) and redefined in each park’s management plan. But we found big differences among parks. Some of the parks had well developed management plans but others did not have any. Therefore the general goals stated by the Management Plan for the Spanish National Parks System (which has a legal status, and must be met by all the parks) were used as a basis for the selection of the categories and indicators. Quality of visitor management has been assessed for: Planning and management capacity (planning, funding, human resources); monitoring, reception, information, interpretation, environmental education, training, participation and volunteer’s programs. As said above these categories were selected and adapted specifically for the Spanish National Park System. Hyslop and Eagles (2007) listed 30 different categories of visitor management policy in an ideal framework for visitors management. Table 6 shows the comparison between the categories listed by these authors and the categories used in this study. Twenty four of the thirty categories used by Hyslop and Eagles can be referred to our categories. Some of them were included not as a category, but in the form of indicators. As an example, there is no category for ‘Fees’ or ‘Marketing and Competition for Visitation’ as in the Spanish NPS fees are not as important as in other systems. There is a general policy stating that park access should be free and that basic services (information, interpretation,…)
123
Environmental Management (2012) 50:106–122
should have no cost for visitors and that complementary services, as food and accommodation, should be provided outside the parks. Therefore we decided not to establish a whole category but an indicator (indicator 2.3. analyzes the capacity for self-financing of the activities). Yet there are six categories not considered by us, some do not fit with the attributions of the individual Spanish National Parks (e.g. use of an established visitor management framework), others were not deemed relevant for visitor management in the Spanish context when the study was conducted (e.g., backcountry trips) but could be included in further studies. Identifying Current Key Issues for the Spanish National Parks We have presented some results obtained following the application of the method to Spanish National Parks. The instrument has proved itself as a good tool to identify management key issues, detecting weaknesses and strengths: –
–
–
Overall quality: the results shows how, although there is room for improvement, the general situation can be considered acceptable. The four parks with best general appraisal also avail of certification systems and of formal mechanisms for integration in the tourism dynamics of the area. It could be that these certification systems do raise the overall quality of visitor management, or that parks with good level of management are less resistant to the use of externally monitoring certification systems. Planning models: Planning exhibits deficiencies despite availing of appreciable financial resources; what guarantee is there that these resources are being invested in the best way possible? Not planning means that many decisions are taken due to urgent needs by management or for political reasons. This vicious circle has been criticized before (Blanco 2001; Corraliza and others 2002; Rosabal 2005): the lack of planning and the high number of visits at determined times of the year mean that resources and budget funds increase in the months with most visits (when daily needs prevent planning) and staff are not re-hired at times of fewer visits, rather than being used for these planning tasks. Efforts have been attempted in recent years aimed at mitigating these tendencies, with specific funds and resources for planning, but it could be that the current planning models are not able to function in a period of rapid change. Planning takes too long and is too expensive. Based on the results, an in deep reflexion about the planning approach should be made. Control systems: The results show how there is hardly any control of fulfillment of the conditions set out in
Environmental Management (2012) 50:106–122
119
Table 6 Comparison between Hyslop and Eagles (2007) ideal topics addressed through policy in an ideal framework for visitor management and the categories, sub-categories and indicators used in the Spanish NPS evaluation Category
Sub category
Indicator
1. Goals or objectives of visitation
*
2. Visitor use plan
*
3. Use of an established visitor management framework
*
4. Permitted/encouraged visitor levels and uses
*
5. Conflict management
*
6. Methods of transportation
*
7. Trails and markings 8. Noise restrictions
* *
9. Restricted items
*
10. Zoning and temporary area restrictions
*
11. Accessibility (for the disabled)
*
12. System of reservation
*
13. Dates and hours of operation
*
14. Length of stay
*
15. Fees and pricing 16. Visitor education and interpretation
* *
17. Risk management
*
18. Emergency response
*
19. Backcountry trips
*
20. Enforcement of rules and laws 21. Facilities
* *
22. Accommodation 23. Waste management
* *
24. Retail services and concessions
*
25. Human resources required for visitation
*
26. Marketing and competition for visitation
*
27. Measurement of economic impacts of visitation
*
28. Visitor use monitoring (numbers and activities
*
29. Assessment of visitor satisfaction 30. Assessment of attainment of objectives
–
Not included
administration contracts, and this becomes a particular problem in relation to interpretation services. Our results show that the increased quality of these programs requires greater control of the contracted companies. There is a need for monitoring processes of these companies in order to check the functioning of the service, but also for design of systems in order for the administration to evaluate the services provided and to redirect these whenever they are unsatisfactory or, in extreme cases, not to renew the contract. Communication and education. A management instrument to be discovered: Despite the advances made in this respect, most agencies responsible for the management of protected areas do not avail of their own Communication, Education and Public Awareness strategy (Carabias and others 2003). This is the case of the National Parks System. The inexistence of a
* *
shared strategy has given rise to a high degree of heterogeneity in the quality of the programs of the different parks. The results show that environmental education is still not used by managers as a management instrument integrated in planning, but as a complementary set of activities not always related with management priorities. This situation has been denounced in previous studies, documents and conclusions of seminars and workshops (Sureda and others 2002; VVAA 2004; Spanish Ministry of Environment 2005; EUROPARC-Espan˜a 2006). On average, personal interpretation is valued higher than any other non-personal interpretation media. This situation is common to the studies for evaluating the quality of interpretation conducted annually by the USA National Park Service (NPS 2005; Le and others 2004, 2005). Despite these results, big investments in facilities are
123
120
Environmental Management (2012) 50:106–122
still prioritized. The high levels of investment in recent years in visitors centers (up to 11 million euros per center) do not correspond with the quality of the interpretation exhibitions, or the changes these cause in the visitors. Again, a deep reflection on the model that is being followed should be made. On the Reliability and Validity of the Instrument As already said, the use of an expert panel to evaluate a program based on a standard set of criteria is an appropriate, but expensive approach. Given that a new instrument was developed, to assess its reliability, all three evaluators were used not only in the selection and initial validation of the indicators but through all the process. Pilot tests were undertaken, to assess the feasibility considerations surrounding data gathering and the internal validity of the instrument (as discussed in the methodology section great care was taken to ensure the rigor of the procedure). All indicators presenting low inter-rater reliability in this phase of the study were detected and reformulated in a more objective way in order to minimize the divergences. This process was done twice. Therefore the final instrument was build as robust as possible (even if the problems for some of the categories cited above remained). During the subsequent application of the instrument to all the National Parks no divergences occurred between the judges but with the criteria for evaluating the interpretation programs. Due to the special characteristics of these programs, and the in-depth evaluations that were conducted (assessing aspects regarding communication, knowledge of techniques, message, etc.) the indicators used for this category were more complicated and information demanding. In further studies a review of this category should be made, in order to simplify the indicators. Nevertheless, the fact that, in a consistent way, variations in measurements when taken by different evaluators proved to be low also in this category supports the overall inter–rater reliability of the instrument. The validity of the instrument is also supported by the results discussed above: – –
–
–
The parks with best general appraisal also avail of certification systems. The lowest rated park is the ‘‘youngest’’ one, created only two years prior to the study, and with an incipient management system. The heterogeneous results between the parks are consistent with the lack of a detailed visitor’s management policy for the whole System. Several of the problems and key issues detected, were pointed out by several authors previously in other partial studies.
123
–
Regarding face validity it may be pointed out, that the park managers and staff generally agree with the study (when explained what is measured and what is not measured by the indicators)
Therefore we argue that the developed instrument fulfills its objective of assessing the management of public use of the system studied. Overall, content validity is deemed satisfactory, considering the broad range of categories and indicators used. Regarding to its external validity we think the method, with few modifications, could be used in other parks and systems, therefore presenting a good level of transferability. Even though it is a methodological proposal specifically designed for systems or networks of protected areas, it could be also used in individual parks. As pointed out above, an evaluation panel formed only by external experts is an expensive approach, and a more reasonable way to gain the information the researchers are attempting to obtain could be the participation of the managers and staff of the parks, using it as a formative tool. By means of participation of the key public use actors, evaluation can become a critical exercise of reflection upon the models created.
Concluding Remarks This paper proposes a tool for defining reliable quality standards and indicators, to be used in the different public use models and for the design of systematic evaluation strategies. This is a difficult task which cannot be successfully addressed exclusively within the academic scope; it should be shared by as many of the stakeholders involved as possible. Therefore, although the instrument has proven to constitute a useful and valuable evaluation tool, it presents certain shortcomings derived from the characteristics of the study, which was external and limited by time and funds. There is a need to gradually address this problem, in each case adapting the indicators to more objective criteria through the participation of the managers involved and by incorporating new economic and social indicators. There is also a need for greater participation by park staff in their application, for training purposes. By means of participation of the key public use actors, evaluation can become a critical exercise of reflection upon the models created. Acknowledgments The present paper is part of the research project ‘‘Evaluation and funding of public use in protected natural areas. The case of the Spanish Network of National Parks’’, conducted at the Dept. of Ecology of Madrid’s Auto´noma University and financed by the Spanish Ministry of the Environment’s Organismo Auto´nomo de Parques Nacionales, project 102/2002. The authors are grateful for the funding and would like to thank all the staff of the protected areas for their help. Thanks are also due to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions to improve this manuscript.
Environmental Management (2012) 50:106–122
References Absher JD, Bright AD (2004) Communication research in outdoor recreation and natural resources management. In: Manfredo MJ, Vaske JJ, Bruyere BL, Field DR, Brown PJ (eds) Society and natural resources: a summary of knowledge. Missouri, Jefferson, pp 117–126 Archer D, Wearing S (2003) Self, space, and interpretive experience. Journal of Interpretation Research 8(1):7–23 Benayas J, Blanco R, Gutie´rrez J (2000) Evaluacio´n de la calidad de las visitas guiadas a espacios naturales protegidos. To´picos en Educacio´n Ambiental 2(5):69–78 Benayas J (Coord.) (2000) Manual de buenas pra´cticas del monitor de Naturaleza: espacios naturales protegidos de Andalucı´a. Junta de Andalucı´a. Sevilla, Spain, p 250 Blanco R (2001) La Situacio´n de Partida del uso Pu´blico en la red de Parques Nacionales. Un diagno´stico para mejorar la gestio´n. Proceedings II jornadas te´cnicas sobre uso pu´blico en la Red de Parques Nacionales. Almagro 12–14 de noviembre de 2001 Blanco R (2006) El turismo de naturaleza en Espan˜a y su plan de impulso. Estudios Turı´sticos 169–170:7–38 Carabias J, De La Maza J, Cadena R (Coord.) (2003) Capacidades necesarias para el manejo de a´reas protegidas. Ame´rica Latina y el Caribe. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia Cayot L, Cruz F (1998) Manual para la evaluacio´n de la eficiencia de Manejo del Parque Nacional Gala´pagos. Servicio Parque Nacional ´ reas Naturales y Gala´pagos. Instituto Ecuatoriano Forestal y de A Vida Silvestre, Puerto Ayora, Islas Gala´pagos, Ecuador Cifuentes M, Izurieta A, de Faria H (2000) Measuring protected area management effectiveness. WWF, GTZ, IUCN, Costa Rica Corraliza JA, Garcı´a J, Valero E (2002) Los Parques Naturales en Espan˜a: conservacio´n y disfrute. Mundiprensa, Madrid De Faria H (1993) Elaboracio´n de un procedimiento para medir la efectividad del manejo de a´reas silvestre protegidas y su aplicacio´n en dos a´reas protegidas de Costa Rica. Thesis Magister Scientiae. CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica Dudley N, Hockings M, Solton S (1999) Measuring the effectiveness of protected areas management. In: Dudley N, Solton S (eds) Partnerships for protection. Earthscan, London Eagles PFJ (2004) Trends affecting tourism in Protected Areas. In: Working papers of the Finnish Forest researching Institute. Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 2, 18–26 Eagles PFJ, McCool SF, Haynes CDA (2002) Sustainable tourism in protected areas: guidelines for planning and management. IUCN Gland, Cambridge, p 183 Ervin J (2003) WWF: rapid assessment and prioritization of protected area management (RAPPAM) methodology. WWF Gland, Switzerland EUROPARC-Espan˜a (2006) Evaluacio´n del papel que cumplen los equipamientos de uso pu´blico en los espacios naturales protegidos. Fundacio´n Fernando Gonza´lez Berna´ldez, Madrid, p 96 EUROPARC-Espan˜a (2009) Anuario EUROPARC-Espan˜a del estado de los espacios naturales protegidos. Fundacio´n Fernando Gonza´lez Berna´ldez, Madrid, p 160 EUROPARC-Espan˜a (2010) Herramientas para la evaluacio´n de las a´reas protegidas: modelo de memoria de gestio´n. Fundacio´n Fernando Gonza´lez Berna´ldez, Madrid, p 121 Ham S (1992) Environmental interpretation: a practical guide for people with big ideas and small budgets. Fulcrum Pub, Colorado, p 431 Hammit WE, Cole DN (1998) Wildland recreation: ecology and management, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York, p 341 Hamu D, Auchincloss E, Goldstein W (eds) (2004) Communicating protected areas, commission on education and communication. IUCN, Gland, p 312
121 Hendee JC, Stanley GH, Lucas RC (1990) Wilderness management. North American Press, Fulcrum publishing, Golden Colorado, p 540 Hesselink F, Goldstein W, Paul P; Garnett T, Dela J, Alm A (2007) Communication, education and public awareness, a toolkit for the convention on biological convention. Montreal, p 331 Hockings M (2000) Evaluating protected area management. a review of systems for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas. School of natural and Rural Systems Management, Queensland Hockings M, Stolton S, Dudley N, Phillips A (Eds) (2000) Evaluating effectiveness—a framework for assessing the management of protected areas. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 6. IUCN, Gland, p 121 Hornback KE, Eagles PFJ (1999) Guidelines for public use measurement and reporting at parks and protected areas. IUCN, Gland, p 90 Hyslop KE, Eagles PFJ (2007) Visitor management policy of protected areas in Canada and the United States. Leisure/Loisir 31(2):475–499 Knapp D, Benton MS (2004) Elements to successful interpretation: a multiple case study of five national parks. Journal of Interpretation Research 9(2):9–26 Laven DN, Manning RE, Krymkowski DH (2005) The relationship between visitor-based standards of quality and existing conditions in parks and outdoor recreation. Leisure Sciences 27(157–173):2005 Le Y, Littlejohn M, Hoger J, Hollenhorst S (2004) Serving the visitor 2003. Report on visitors to the National Park System. National Park Service Visitor Services Project. University of Idaho Park Studies Unit, Moscow, p 30 Le Y, Littlejohn M, Hoger J, Hollenhorst S (2005) Serving the visitor 2004. Report on visitors to the National Park System. National Park Service Visitor Services Project. University of Idaho Park Studies Unit, Moscow, p 32 Leverington F, Lemos Costa K, Pavese H, Lisle A, Hockings M (2010) A global analysis of protected a´rea management effectiveness. Environmental Management 46:685–698 MacCool SF, Stankey GH (2004) Indicators of sustainability: challenges and opportunities at the interface of science and policy. Environmental Management 33(3):294–305 MacKay KJ, Crompton JL (1990) Measuring the quality of recreation services. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 8(3):47–56 Mallarach JM, Vila J, Varga D (Eds) (2004) El PEIN deu anys despre´s: balanc¸ i perspectives. Diversitas 50:29–4. Ca`tedra de Geografia i Pensament Territorial, University Girona, Girona Manning RE (1999) Studies in outdoor recreation: search and research for satisfaction, 2nd edn. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, p 374 Manning RE, Freymund WA (2004) Visual research methods to measure standards of quality for parks and outdoor recreation. Journal of leisure research 36(4):557–579 Manning RE, Lawson SR (2002) Carrying capacity as informed judgment: the values of science and the science of values. Environmental Management 30:157–168 Manning RE, Lime DW (2000) Defining and managing the quality of wilderness recreation experiences. In: McCool SF, Cole DN, Borrie WT, O’Loughlin J (compilers) Wilderness science in a time of change conference. Proceedings of USDA, Forest Service, May 23–27, 1999 Missoula, Montana, Ogden Manning RE, Valliere W, Minteer B (1999) Values, ethics, and attitudes toward National forest management. Society and natural resources 12(5):421–436 Marion JL, Reid SE (2007) Minimising visitor impacts to protected areas: the efficacy of low impact education programs. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 15(1):5–27
123
122 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC, p 245 Ministerio Medio de Ambiente Espan˜a de (Spanish Ministry of Environment) (2005) Orientaciones para planes de CECoP (Comunicacio´n, Educacio´n, Concienciacio´n y Participacio´n) en humedales espan˜oles. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Madrid, p 96 Monz CA, Cole DN, Leung Y, Marion JL (2010) Sustaining visitor use in protected areas: future opportunities in recreation ecology research based on the USA experience. Environmental Management 45:551–562 Moore SA, Polley A (2007) Defining indicators and standards for tourism impacts in protected areas: cape range National Park, Australia. Environmental Management 39:291–300 Moore SA, Dmithe AJ, Newsome DN (2003) Environmental performance reporting for natural areas tourism: contributions by visitor impact management frameworks and their indicators. Journal of sustainable tourism 11(4):348–375 Newsome D, Moore S, Dowling RK (2002) Natural area tourism ecology. Impacts and management. Channel View Publications, Clevedon OAPN (2010). Annual Report 2010. Organismo Auto´nomo de Parques Nacionales. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Madrid Rosabal P (2005) >Co´mo es nuestra gestio´n? La evaluacio´n de efectividad de la gestio´n en a´reas protegidas como mecanismo para mejorar nuestras acciones. Proceedings X Congreso EUROPARC-Espan˜a. Fundacio´n Fernando Gonza´lez Berna´ldez. Madrid, p 104 Royal Decree 1803/199 (1999) Management Plan for the Spanish National Parks System Sanders JR (1994) The program evaluation standards: how to assess evaluations of educational programs 2nd Ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks Stewart WP, Cole DN (2003) On the prescriptive utility of visitor survey research: a rejoinder to manning. Journal of Leisure Research 35:119–127
123
Environmental Management (2012) 50:106–122 Stokking K, van Aert L, Meijberg W, Kaskens A (1999) Evaluating environmental education. IUCN, Gland, p 134 Stolton S, Hockings M, Dudley N, MacKinnon K, Whitten T (2003) Reporting progress in protected areas: a site-level management effectiveness tracking tool. World Bank/WWF Alliance for Forest Conservation and Sustainable Use Stolton S, Hockings M, Dudley N, MacKinnon K, Whitten T, Leverington F (2007) The management effectiveness tracking tool (METT) reporting progress at protected. Area Sites: Second Edition. WWF International, Gland Sureda Negre J, Oliver Trobat MF, Castells Valdivielso M (2002) Avaluacio´ dels equipaments d’educacio´ i d’interpretacio´ ambiental a les Illes Balears. Palma. Ed, Sintes, p 210 The Nature Conservancy (2004) Measuring success: the parks in Peril site consolidation scorecard manual. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, p 56 Theobald WF (1979) Evaluation of recreation and park programs. Wiley, New York, p 204 Tian-Cole S, Crompton JL, Wilson VL (2002) An empirical investigation of the relationships between service quality, satisfaction and behavioural intentions among visitors to a wildlife refuge. Journal of Leisure Research 34(1):1–24 UNWTO (2010) Tourism Highlights 2010. UNWTO World Tourism Barometer. http://www.unwto.org Accessed Dec 2010 Various Authors (2004) Proceedings I Encuentro Nacional de Guı´as Interpretadores del Patrimonio de Parques Nacionales. Parque Nacional del Teide. Octubre de 2004, p 33 (unpublished) Velasquez M, Guerrero P, Villegas T (2004) Parque Nacional Gala´pagos. Evaluacio´n de la Efectividad del Manejo (1996–2004). Ministerio del Ambiente, Parque Nacional Gala´pagos, Ecuador, p 74 Weiler B, Ham SH (2001) Tour guides and interpretation in ecotourism. Chapter 35 in Weaver D (ed) The encyclopedia of ecotourism. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp 549–563 Whisman S, Hollenhorst S (1998) A path model of whitewater boating satisfaction on the Cheat River of West Virginia. Environmental Management 22:109–117