The role of a decision support framework for protected area management effectiveness: A case study from the Western Cape, South Africa

Ethics Approval Ref. 201007894/10/2022

Since the early 1990’s there has been a concerted and focussed effort aimed at better understanding the effectiveness of protected areas (PA) in achieving conservation outcomes, the mechanisms to measure management effectiveness and ultimately, the drivers of effectiveness and conservation outcomes. PAs are the largest planned land use globally where land is set aside intentionally for nature conservation and managers need to account for the investment and state of biodiversity. Most tools to track and report protected area management effectiveness (PAME) are not designed for outcomes measurement, the results often oversimplifying complexity, potentially distorting management effectiveness indications and misinterpreting conservation outcomes. PAME requires sound planning to ensure that assumptions about the impact of actions and associated interventions achieve biodiversity representation and persistence, with due consideration for the social-ecological systems within which PAs exist. Decision support frameworks can help interpret PA context and clarify assumptions about management intervention impact. Without these frameworks, strategies may be misguided, and responses to perceived threats might be ad hoc.

This thesis examines changes in PAME assessment results for statutory PAs in a biodiversity hotspot in the Western Cape, South Africa before and after applying a decision support framework, the Conservation Standards for the Practice of Conservation, using Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT-SA) data. The thesis also investigates the use of evidence by practitioners for PA management planning and review, and the contribution of the Conservation Standards for PA management planning and review using a perception survey.

Findings show that METT-SA scores improved significantly after applying the framework, attributed to time between assessments, management plans, and input and output of PA management elements. Scores for outcome indicators however declined, suggesting that while overall scores can improve, they may mask limitations in implementation and/or misaligned PA objectives and strategy that fail to achieve positive conservation outcomes. The METT-SA highlights administrative and process gaps but does not drive a positive conservation outcome. Practitioners use multiple sources of evidence for management planning and review, relying on expert opinion and analysed data most frequently. The application of the Conservation Standards as a decision support framework for management panning introduced structure, the early integration of evidence, and stakeholder participation in planning. The METT-SA has limitations as a standalone measure of PAME. PAME assessment tools like METT-SA must be supplemented by site level monitoring and evaluation to accurately determine the condition and trend of the attributes that underpin the significance of PAs. Employing a decision support framework or adaptive management approach is likely to improve the quality of planning by introducing stakeholder engagement and scientific evidence.