Enabling multi-faceted measures of success for protected area management in Trinidad and Tobago

Evaluation and Program Planning 34 (2011) 185–195

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Evaluation and Program Planning journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan

Enabling multi-faceted measures of success for protected area management in Trinidad and Tobago Ainka A. Granderson * Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies, 120 Science Hall, 800 Langdon Street, Madison, WI 53706, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Received 4 February 2010 Received in revised form 8 January 2011 Accepted 13 February 2011 Available online 18 February 2011

A key challenge has been to define and measure ‘‘success’’ in managing protected areas. A case study was conducted of efforts to evaluate the new protected area management system in Trinidad and Tobago using a participatory approach. The aim of the case study was to (1) examine whether stakeholder involvement better captures the multi-faceted nature of success and (2) identify the role and influence of various stakeholder groups in this process. An holistic and systematic framework was developed with stakeholder input that facilitated the integration of expert and lay knowledge, a broad emphasis on ecological, socio-economic, and institutional aspects, and the use of both quantitative and qualitative data allowing the evaluation to capture the multi-faceted nature and impacts of protected area management. Input from primary stakeholders, such as local communities, was critical as they have a high stake in protected area outcomes. Secondary and external stakeholders, including government agencies, non-governmental organizations, academia and the private sector, were also important in providing valuable technical assistance and serving as mediators. However, a lack of consensus over priorities, politics, and limited stakeholder capacity and data access pose significant barriers to engaging stakeholders to effectively measure the management success of protected areas. ß 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Stakeholder participation Evaluation Success Protected area Conservation Sustainable development Trinidad and Tobago Caribbean

1. Introduction Amid fundamental debates over how best to manage protected areas, evaluations of management effectiveness have increasingly received attention in the literature (Hockings, 2003; Stem, Margoluis, Salafsky, & Brown, 2005). Over 40 methodologies have been developed and applied to a range of sites worldwide since the 1990s (Leverington, Hockings, & Lemos Costa, 2008). They have helped to refine the concept of management effectiveness, establish evaluation criteria and associated indicators, and set guidelines on credible data and implementation (e.g., Cifuentes, Izurieta, & de Faria, 2000; Ervin, 2003; Hockings et al., 2008; Hockings, Stolton, & Dudley, 2006; Pomeroy, Parks, & Watson, 2004; TNC, 2006). The Convention on Biological Diversity’s Programme of Work on Protected Areas has even set a target for the inclusion of management effectiveness evaluation in 30% of the world’s protected areas by the end of 2010 (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2004). The World Conservation Union’s World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN-WCPA) Framework (Hockings et al.,

* Correspondence address: c/o Caribbean Natural Resources Institute, Fernandes Industrial Centre, Eastern Main Road, Laventille, Trinidad, West Indies. Tel.: +1 201 658 7283. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0149-7189/$ – see front matter ß 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.02.010

2006) was consequently developed to evaluate the management effectiveness of protected areas worldwide. Under this framework, management effectiveness is understood to encompass these key themes—design of both individual sites and the protected area system, the appropriateness of the management system and processes, and delivery of management objectives. It focuses on six elements of the management cycle within these themes including (1) context—the existing conditions shaping a protected area; (2) planning—the establishment of a management vision and plan to conserve the area while reducing threats; (3) inputs—the allocation of resources to achieve objectives; (4) process—the administrative procedures and social interactions that facilitate implementation; (5) outputs—the goods and services produced by management actions; and (6) outcomes—the tangible or intangible impacts on the ecological, socio-economic and institutional aspects of a protected area (Hockings et al., 2006). However, as the framework is meant to provide evaluation guidelines, it does not include a detailed methodology. There is an explicit recognition that any protected area evaluation must be tailored to the specific context. Determining how exactly to adapt the IUCN-WCPA framework to measure effectiveness or ‘‘success’’ in managing protected areas remains a key challenge at the site or country levels. Protected areas both shape and impact an array of stakeholders from local communities, government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and private industry with multiple, overlapping, and

186

A.A. Granderson / Evaluation and Program Planning 34 (2011) 185–195

contradictory needs and interests. These diverse stakeholders are likely to assess a given protected area differently. As Axford, Hockings, and Carter (2008) highlight in a recent study in the Pacific Islands, community stakeholders were more interested in the practical workings of the protected area and how these impact local people while external stakeholders, such as international NGOs and funder agencies, were focused on the issue of sustainability. These powerful external agents often shape protected area evaluation especially in developing countries. The result is an evaluation that frames success solely in terms of ecological integrity or sustainability rather than measuring progress towards stakeholders’ diverse objectives (Axford et al., 2008; Danielson et al., 2009; Murray, 2005). This paper builds on work such as Murray (2005, p. 890), who argues that ‘‘any established protected area represents a socially constructed compromise between stakeholders. . . It therefore makes sense to characterize these objectives during or shortly after that area’s creation, and to assume that stakeholders will measure ‘‘success’’ by the degree to which the form and function of that protected area address or fulfill their objectives in creating it in the first place.’’ Protected areas cannot, and should not, be characterized simply as successes or failures based on a narrow set of interests. Such an approach can be to the detriment of future management that depends on buy-in from all key stakeholders. Multi-faceted measures of success are needed that take into account the range of interests of stakeholders as well as the ecological, social, cultural, and economic impacts of protected areas. This paper explores how the complex and contestable process of measuring management success can be facilitated through participatory approaches. 2. A role for participatory evaluation Participatory evaluation (also known as collaborative evaluation, stakeholder evaluation, interactive evaluation, democratic evaluation, etc.) is an overarching term for any approach that actively involves program staff and other stakeholders in the planning, decision making, and implementation of evaluation activities (see Daigneault & Jacob, 2009; King, 2005; Mathie & Green, 1997; Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2004). While there remains significant conceptual ambiguity within the literature, three main rationales exist for engaging multiple stakeholders in evaluation: pragmatic, political, and epistemological (Weaver & Cousins, 2004). The pragmatic strand focuses on stakeholder participation in order to enhance the relevance and responsiveness of an evaluation to user needs and, therefore, ownership and use (e.g., Huberman & Cox, 1990; Leviton & Hughes, 1981). Organizational learning is also of interest. The political strand is more explicitly focused on social justice, empowerment, and the democratization of public policy (e.g., Chambers, 1997; Estrella & Gaventa, 1998) while validity and knowledge integration are key within the epistemological strand (e.g., Huberman, 1994). No matter the rationale, participatory evaluation may prove valuable in facilitating multi-faceted measures of success for protected areas through its engagement of multiple stakeholders. It can create a forum and ongoing dialogue that promotes shared learning and buy-in among multiple stakeholders. The integration of different knowledges and value systems to define and measure ‘‘success’’ in all its forms is therefore possible. Additionally, there is increased accountability and transparency related to the management goals, activities and outcomes within protected areas (Parkinson, 2009; Rowe & Frewer, 2000). However, participatory evaluation poses several challenges. Objectivity, which is considered a key principle in evaluation, is difficult to define and operationalize with pluralistic values and knowledge systems. There can be significant bias depending on

which stakeholders are involved in the process (Brisolara, 1998; DeGroff & Cargo, 2009; Rowe & Frewer, 2000). The role of the evaluators, and the balance of power, is also open to debate. The various stakeholders bring different assets and values to the process but one or a few parties need to take leadership and have ultimate authority (Conley & Moote, 2003; Cousins & Whitmore, 1998; Parkinson, 2009). The technical quality of participatory evaluation can be questioned as community stakeholders often lack the expertise or skills to undertake complex data analysis and assessments (Chambers, 1997; Danielson et al., 2009; Estrella & Gaventa, 1998). Furthermore, participatory approaches are often seen as time-consuming and costly to implement (Daigneault & Jacob, 2009). This paper presents the findings of efforts to evaluate the new protected area management system in Trinidad and Tobago using a multi-stakeholder approach and to gauge the potential of participatory evaluation in facilitating multi-faceted measures of success. The goals of the research were twofold: (1) build an evaluation framework with stakeholder involvement and examine whether it facilitates multi-faceted measures of success for protected area management and (2) identify the role and influence of various stakeholder groups in developing such an evaluation framework. 3. Study area Trinidad and Tobago offers a useful test case with a national effort underway to revamp its protected area system and promote participatory management as poverty, limited space, and high population density demand multiple uses of its remaining natural areas. Covering a mere 5123 km2, this twin island nation is the most biodiverse in the Caribbean archipelago (Barr, 1981). It supports a significant subset of South American flora and fauna due to its fairly recent separation from the mainland (Barr, 1981). However, Trinidad and Tobago is also the most rapidly industrializing country in the Caribbean and its biodiversity faces considerable threats (Esty, Levy, Srebotnjak, & de Sherbinin, 2005). New legislation was introduced in 2001 to facilitate the development of a comprehensive protected area system and institutionalize a participatory approach to management (ESA Rules, 2001). This participatory approach is due to the recognition that the government lacks the capacity to manage independently and that the local communities’ needs must be taken into account (Fairhead & Leach, 2003; Tompkins, Adger, & Brown, 2002). The Matura National Park, Nariva Swamp Managed Resource Protected Area and the Aripo Savannas Strict Nature Reserve (see Fig. 1) were then established from 2004 to 2007 with multi-stakeholder management committees comprising representatives from government, local communities, NGOs, and academia. The three protected areas represent distinct and important ecosystems. Matura National Park, which covers 82 km2 in Trinidad’s northeastern mountains, is dominated by seasonal evergreen forest species (e.g., Mora excelsa) and provides a refuge for threatened species, including the endemic Pawi sub-species (Pipile pipile), Ocelot (Felis pardalis), and relict South American fish species (CFCA, 1998). The Nariva Swamp Managed Resource Protected Area, which is situated on 70 km2 along Trinidad’s east coast, provides critical freshwater wetland habitat for resident and migratory waterfowl and is the only remaining site with known populations of the Anaconda (Eunectes murinus), West Indian Manatee (Trichecus manatus manatus), and White-fronted Capuchin monkey (Cebus albifrons trinitatus) (IMA, 1999). Covering 17.9 km2 in North Central Trinidad, the Aripo Savannas Strict Nature Reserve is the largest remaining natural savanna in the country and boasts an unusual flora that has adapted to the nutrient-poor, old alluvial soil (Homer, 2005). Of the 457 identified

A.A. Granderson / Evaluation and Program Planning 34 (2011) 185–195

187

Fig. 1. Map of current and proposed protected areas in Trinidad and Tobago.

floral species, 31 are restricted to Aripo and 15 are considered endemic (Homer, 2005). Management of this trio, and other proposed areas, functions within a complex socio-political landscape and faces significant challenges in integrating stakeholders’ multiple interests. A number of government agencies are responsible for natural resource management in these protected areas, including the Environmental Management Authority (EMA), Forestry Division, Fisheries Division, and Town and Country Planning Division. Although the EMA has spearheaded the establishment of the new protected area system, it is reliant on other agencies for implementation. EMA does not have sufficient staff or funding to support the management system or its monitoring and evaluation (M&E). Community-based organizations, including local conservation groups and tour guiding associations such as the Matura to Matelot (M2M) Network, Villagers Organisation In Conservation of the Environment (VOICE), and Sun Dew Tours, are actively involved in the protected areas. They promote nature tourism as an increasingly key and sustainable activity within these poor, rural communities that have traditionally engaged in small-scale agriculture and fishing. However, the areas’ remoteness, political marginalization, and limited investment and infrastructure serve as barriers to development, and illegal activities such as marijuana cultivation and poaching continue to flourish (Fairhead & Leach, 2003). Uncertain land tenure presents an additional challenge in Matura and Aripo where several of the communities within, and surrounding, the protected areas are squatter settlements. Largescale oil and gas development and quarrying also compete for use of these areas (Tompkins et al., 2002). 4. Research methods Research was undertaken, with technical support from the Caribbean Natural Resources Institute, from May 2006 to April

2007 in Trinidad and Tobago. Stakeholders were engaged from a range of organizations that currently participate in the multistakeholder committees for the three established protected areas as well as those who are involved in the proposed areas under the new ESA Rules (2001) legislation. The following techniques were used to assess the participatory evaluation process and stakeholder perceptions of developing the evaluation framework on protected area management’s effectiveness, its suitability, and their respective roles, capacity and influence:  The author facilitated a workshop1 with 23 representatives from 18 stakeholder groups involved in protected area management in Trinidad and Tobago (Table 1) in July 2006 where they provided input into the planning and design of an evaluation framework for management effectiveness.  Participant observation2 involving direct observation and detailed description of the M&E activities undertaken by park staff and buffer communities of the recently established protected areas, Matura National Park, Nariva Swamp Managed Resource Protected Area, and Aripo Savannas Strict Nature Reserve.  The author facilitated a focus group3 with a subset of 14 selfselected representatives of 8 stakeholder groups from the initial workshop in December 2006 to review the draft evaluation framework. The framework was also tested by applying it to the longest established protected area, the Matura National Park, to examine its applicability at the site-level, the ease of implementation, and the availability of data for evaluation.

1 As described in/used by Henwood and Lang (2003) and Pound, Snapp, McDougall, and Braun (2003). 2 As described in/used by Spradley (1980) and Moote, McClaran, and Chickering (1997). 3 As described in Barbour and Kitzinger (1999) and Litoselliti (2003).

A.A. Granderson / Evaluation and Program Planning 34 (2011) 185–195

188

Table 1 Stakeholders involved in case study to evaluate management effectiveness of protected areas in Trinidad and Tobago. Stakeholder type

Participant groups

Interest in protected areas

Primary stakeholders

Community-based groups: Matura to Matelot Network, Villagers Organisation In Conservation of the Environment

Conserving flagship species, e.g. marine turtles, blue and gold macaw; ecosystem services; nature tourism Nature tourism Effective management Effective land use planning and decision making; poverty reduction

Secondary stakeholders

External stakeholders

Local tour operators: Sun Dew Tours Park staff Municipal and national government agencies: Department of Marine Resources & Fisheries (Tobago House of Assembly), Environmental Management Authority, Forestry Division, Institute of Marine Affairs, Ministry of Social Development, Tourism Development Company, (Ministry of Tourism), Town & Country Planning Division NGOs: Caribbean Forest Conservation Association, Caribbean Natural Resources Institute, Council of Presidents for Environment, Cropper Foundation, Environment Tobago, Trust for Sustainable Livelihoods University of the West Indies Asa Wright Nature Center

All workshop, participant observation, and focus group data were recorded on paper or digital audio in the field and then transcribed to facilitate analysis. Analysis involved categorization and coding of participants’ responses to facilitate interpretation of their perceptions of the evaluation process and framework as well as the role and influence of various stakeholder groups. To investigate differences among stakeholders, data were analysed in general terms (all participants) and according to the type of stakeholder group (e.g., primary, secondary, and external stakeholders) and stakeholder interests (e.g., biodiversity conservation, socio-economic development, and institutional effectiveness). The findings from the workshop and focus group were compiled into reports (Granderson, 2007a, 2007b) and all participating stakeholders were invited to review them before final distribution. An extensive review and analysis of published and unpublished documents, including protected area project reports, management plans, and management meeting minutes, supplemented the primary data acquired through the workshop, participant observation, and focus group. 5. Results Participants developed a broad, integrative, and systematic framework to measure the success of protected area management in Trinidad and Tobago. They focused on three key questions to measure management success: does management fit the context? how is management working? and what are the management impacts? The IUCN-WCPA Framework (Hockings et al., 2006) served as a template for the evaluation framework as it focuses on the six elements of the management cycle related to design, appropriateness of the management system, and delivery of objectives (Fig. 2), which encompass the participants’ key questions above, and ensures consistency with other international evaluation systems. All the represented stakeholder groups offered unique perspectives and particular assets to the evaluation that were important in facilitating multi-faceted measures of success, highlighting the benefits of a participatory approach. In developing and testing the evaluation framework, however, it was clear that critical issues remain to be addressed including broad stakeholder buy-in, consensus building, data access and quality, and stakeholder capacity.

Conserving biodiversity; sustainable livelihoods; local empowerment Research and education Conserving biodiversity

was not easy as the conservation NGO participants focused mainly on ecological issues while the development NGO and community participants were concerned with socio-economic issues and the government participants with institutional and technical issues. The group, as a whole, often incorporated all suggested measures from different participants without debating the comparative merits of each. Furthermore, as several NGO participants highlighted, the perspective of resource users such as farmers and hunters, private landowners, and business were largely absent. Although a few of the local community participants were engaged in farming, fishing or private enterprise as well as private landowners within or near to a protected area, they were representing a particular community organization rather than these resource user groups. Any management vision and definitions of success for the evaluation framework agreed by the participants would reflect their specific interests, namely biodiversity conservation, tourism and recreation, and institutional issues. Other development-oriented interests related to agriculture, fishing, industrial development, and private enterprise therefore may not be fully captured in the evaluation framework. Participants agreed, however, that the evaluation process was as inclusive as possible given that representatives of these absent stakeholder groups were invited but declined to participate. Participants also struggled with defining ‘‘overall success’’ given the inevitable trade-offs where positive outcomes for biodiversity may not necessarily improve local livelihoods or vice versa. A conservation NGO participant argued, ‘‘We could easily come up with a formula that says okay the community and civil groups have benefited from this arrangement, we have better legal structures and land tenure; you could have positives for all these things and then a reduction in the biological diversity. And then you say that your process is working?’’ Participants generally agreed that this situation could not be labelled a success. They decided that ‘‘overall success’’ would need to be based upon an improvement in one or more factors without a corresponding decline in another factor. However, there was little consideration of evaluation measures that capture trade-offs or recognition that progress across the range of ecological, socio-economic, and institutional indicators is very unlikely.

5.1. Defining success, building consensus

5.2. Designing evaluation objectives to integrate multi-faceted measures of success

Various measures were integrated into the evaluation framework reflecting the diverse, and sometimes conflicting, ideas and needs of the multiple stakeholder groups represented by the participants. Reaching consensus over the evaluation objectives

Tables 2–4 summarize the evaluation objectives and include participants’ suggestions for sample monitoring indicators, what data could be used, and which stakeholders could be responsible for undertaking monitoring. Since the framework is meant to serve

A.A. Granderson / Evaluation and Program Planning 34 (2011) 185–195

189

Fig. 2. IUCN-WCPA framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas (Hockings et al., 2006).

as a guide for site-specific assessments, the indicators are only suggestions. Participants developed the framework’s design elements (Table 2) to address the question ‘‘does management fit the context?’’ There was a broad recognition among the participants that protected areas are embedded within a particular socio-political context, and that management success may depend more on external politics or economics than the type of intervention. Participants hoped to identify the prevailing conditions facilitating or preventing effective management based on: an area’s significance based upon its value to the different stakeholders; threats related to habitat loss, pollution, overexploitation and invasive species; vulnerabilities such as the bio-physical, economic and socio-cultural aspects that influence a protected area’s and its stakeholders’ ability to absorb threats; and initial interest in sustainability and the policy environment. In terms of site-specific design and management planning, participants integrated both ecological and socio-political measures. Conservation NGO participants stressed the need to maintain ecological integrity by ensuring an ecosystem-based approach, and that management efforts address threats at the appropriate scale. Local community and development NGO participants argued that the multiple goals of the different stakeholders involved in management also requires a focus on building consensus and a common management vision, integrating conservation and development, and whether there was legal recognition of multi-stakeholder processes. The framework’s appropriateness elements (Table 3) address the second question of ‘‘how is management working?’’ NGO participants suggested that management input measures be guided by Krishnarayan, Geoghegan, and Renard (2002) matrix for assessing stakeholders capacity for participatory management.

The matrix focuses on the level of interest in stakeholder participation, organizational and administrative structures, adaptive strategies, skills and knowledge, material resources such as funding, equipment and information, and linkages within and among stakeholder groups facilitating collaboration. NGO participants argued that this categorization allowed managers to comprehensively examine inputs into protected area management and so identify overlooked aspects of management or whether shortcomings were due to a lack of appropriate culture, skills or knowledge rather than resources. For the management process, participants wished to examine how administrative and technical procedures, social interactions, and stakeholders’ acceptance of these processes shape four key management operations: (1) data collection and analysis; (2) decision-making; (3) implementation; and (4) evaluation. Development NGO and local community participants, in particular, argued that the management process must be open and inclusive to facilitate stakeholder involvement, with measures focused on representation, transparency, and conflict management as key concerns. The framework’s delivery elements (Table 4) focus on management outputs and outcomes and address the third question ‘‘What are the management impacts?’’ Participants acknowledged that these impacts remain critical to evaluating management effectiveness with one development NGO participant noting: ‘‘We need to change people’s perceptions in order to get them involved, and especially to be able to demonstrate the benefits of participatory management to them. There is a danger of disappointing them due to lack of continuity and especially a lack of clear, tangible benefits.’’ Outputs, which include product and service delivery and achievement of objectives, were assessed based on the performance of management interventions vis a` vis

A.A. Granderson / Evaluation and Program Planning 34 (2011) 185–195

190

Table 2 Design elements of framework for measuring the success of protected areas. Design elements

Evaluation objectives

Sample monitoring indicators

Sources of data

Who is involved?

Context

1. Assess area’s significance

Biodiversity and ecosystem services: presence of threatened species, presence of mangrove for coastal protection Socio-cultural assets: presence of sacred or historical sites, presence of research stations or learning centers Economic assets: land and property values, presence of economically important species Threats: Habitat loss (% growth in agricultural and industrial activity, fire frequency, sea level rise) Pollution (NOx, SOx and VOC levels, nutrient loading) Over-exploitation (illegal logging, fishing, hunting and pet trading violations, water extraction rates) Invasive species (% increase in exotics and overabundant natives) Vulnerabilities: Bio-physical factors (height above sea level, presence of defined and defensible boundaries) Market factors (commodity prices, access to markets) Social factors (access to services, population growth rates) External factors (weather patterns, disaster frequency, presence of international partners and aid) Local employment rates in resource-dependent activities Presence of traditional systems for resource management within stakeholder groups Stakeholder groups’ perceptions of value of biodiversity and its conservation Government interest in conserving biodiversity and sustainable development Government commitment to stakeholder participation Type and severity of institutional conflicts among national, regional and local bodies shaping resource management

Surveys, site monitoring, land register, management plan, historical archives

All stakeholder groups

Site monitoring, Socio-economic survey, environmental impact assessment, vulnerability assessment, remote sensing, climate modelling, census, economic trend data

All stakeholder groups

Stakeholder analysis, socioeconomic surveys, census, historical archives

All stakeholder groups

Interviews, focus groups, historical archives

Protected area staff, government agencies and other stakeholder groups for management

National laws and policies, management agreement and plan, memorandum of understanding, international laws and conventions

Protected area staff, government agencies and other stakeholder groups for management

Site map and management plan, population viability analyses, land use surveys, census, remote sensing and GIS

All stakeholder groups

Management agreement and plan, work programs, monitoring plan, meeting minutes, interview and survey

All stakeholder groups

2. Identify area’s threats and vulnerabilities

3. Identify stakeholders and assess their interest in areas’ sustainability 4. Assess policy environment for protected area management

Planning

1. Identify laws supporting protected area management

2. Assess protected area design

3. Assess management planning

Formal recognition of protected areas and agencies charged with management oversight Formal recognition of use/access rights of appropriate stakeholders to protected areas Legal framework provides mechanism for funding protected areas and management bodies National legislation and policy is consistent with international standards Size ensures population viability (of keystone, threatened, indicator and socio-economically important species) Zoned (core, buffer and multiple use zones) to facilitate conservation and sustainable use Boundaries are clearly demarcated and defensible Interconnectivity with protected or natural areas for migration, dispersal and genetic mixing Clearly defined and common management vision exists Management plan addresses specific identified threats and vulnerabilities Planning process is transparent with broad stakeholder consultation Management plan integrated with wider national and regional land use plans

management goals. Measures recommended by the participants included the number of visitors, number of user groups engaged in sustainable versus unsustainable activities, and annual actual versus planned expenditure. For the outcome measures, participants argued for a holistic assessment of the wide-ranging management impacts on biodiversity, human well-being, and institutions. They also argued for both quantitative and qualitative measures to address any potential issues arising from data scarcity. Conservation NGO participants, in particular, highlighted the difficulty in assessing the dispersed, long-term, and often intangible impacts on biodiversity. Development NGO and government participants also maintained that local communities are not only interested in economic benefits. Key socio-economic measures must focus on both tangible impacts, such as income

growth, and intangibles, such as distribution equity and cultural acceptance. 5.3. Data availability and quality During the process of testing the framework on Matura National Park, government and conservation NGO participants highlighted a number of practical challenges in evaluating the effectiveness of protected area management. They noted that many aspects of management are not easily quantified and relied heavily on qualitative measures. The management process, especially, is assessed mainly based on stakeholders’ perceptions. Data access, sharing, and storage as well as stakeholders’ capacity for data collection and analysis were other major concerns.

A.A. Granderson / Evaluation and Program Planning 34 (2011) 185–195

191

Table 3 Appropriateness elements of framework for measuring the success of protected areas. Appropriateness elements

Evaluation objectives

Sample monitoring indicators

Sources of data

Who is involved?

Inputs

1. Assess the capacity of park staff and stakeholder groups involved in management

World View: Awareness among stakeholder groups of others’ rights, interests and management responsibilities Structure: Clear organizational structures and procedures exist within stakeholder groups Communication plan exists and uses appropriate media for coordination among stakeholders Adaptive Strategies: Mechanisms exist for response to natural disasters and management crises Skills and knowledge: Number and management role of persons with ecological and social science training Number and management role of locals with traditional knowledge Staff turnover rates Mechanisms exist for skills and knowledge transfer Material Resources: Source, level and longevity of funding (for operations, institutional support, conservation, socio-economic activity) Availability of reliable data and information storage onsite Reliable transport available to research sites and for patrols Access to equipment and labs for monitoring and data analysis Safe and accessible venues for meetings, consultations and trainings Linkages: Level of collaboration within and among stakeholder groups Frequency of information sharing (via management meetings, consultations, newsletters, website, TV or radio)

Management plan and work programs, budget, communication plan, personnel files, meeting minutes, interviews and surveys, training workshops, website, annual review

All stakeholder groups

Process

1. Assess how information is collected and analysed for protected area

Management plan and work programs, project reports, annual review, interviews and surveys, databases

Protected area staff, government agencies and other stakeholder groups for management

Meeting minutes, work programs, annual review, interviews and surveys

All stakeholder groups

Management plan and work programs, project reports, budget, annual review, interviews and surveys, training workshop reports Annual review, monitoring and evaluation framework, management plan, stakeholder consultations, surveys

Protected area staff, government agencies and other stakeholder groups for management All stakeholder groups

2. Examine the decision-making process

3. Assess management implementation

4. Assess evaluation process and policies

Research and monitoring plan exists to assess conservation and socio-economic activities Procedures established for appropriate data analysis and reporting Data incorporated into future work plans and informs management decisions Composition and attendance of management body and meetings Venue and style of management meetings optimize participation and bargaining power of stakeholder groups Decisions of representative on management body deemed appropriate by stakeholder group Mechanism for conflict management exists and is used by stakeholders Extent to which management responsibilities fulfilled by appointed stakeholder groups Availability of training and technical assistance in implementation

System exists for institutional review and ecological and socioeconomic evaluation Number and role of stakeholder groups involved in management reviews Mechanism exists for incorporating lessons learned into institutional design and management plan

A conservation NGO participant lamented, ‘‘information seems to be seen as a commodity to be sold by several government agencies and even the university when it really should be shared freely through our national libraries or the Ministry of Public Administration and Information.’’ Consequently, information is not easily accessible among government agencies, or for wider civil society, even where reliable data exists. Participants generally also recognised the need to take into account which parties are involved in data collection, storage and analysis, and design the site-specific monitoring system according to their capacities and interests. Government participants further noted that there are instances where data is collected for long periods without any consideration about how it will be used or interpreted. Limited resources are squandered when data format or cataloguing

procedures are not compatible with software or other methods for analysis. Overall, the group of participants acknowledged that site-specific evaluations will be constrained by the quality and availability of data, and that managers will need to modify the framework accordingly for their local context. For example, where remote sensing data is lacking, managers’ and user groups’ perceptions of changes in vegetation cover may be a possible surrogate measure. 5.4. Stakeholder engagement and balance of power All stakeholder groups, including those not directly involved in management, were viewed as important for providing input on the framework’s design elements and assessing stakeholder capacity

A.A. Granderson / Evaluation and Program Planning 34 (2011) 185–195

192

Table 4 Delivery elements of framework for measuring the success of protected areas. Delivery elements

Evaluation objectives

Outputs

1. Assess delivery of products and services

2. Determine whether management objectives achieved

Outcomes

1. Assess impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services

2. Assess socioeconomic impacts

3. Assess institutional impacts

Sample monitoring indicators Number of visitors to protected area Number of user groups engaged in sustainable versus unsustainable activities Number of research projects undertaken and extent of area surveyed Frequency and extent of patrols undertaken Extent of implementation of work programs Actual versus planned expenditure Level of stakeholder interest and engagement in management

Abundance and richness of threatened and economically important species % change in air quality (NOx and SOx levels), water quality (nutrient loading) and productivity % change in vegetation cover or live coral cover % change in number of violations of management regulations Number of new jobs created in sustainable activities % change in local income from sustainable activities % of men versus women receiving socio-economic benefits Livelihood strategies promoted are culturally acceptable and supported by the local communities Institutional structures facilitate effective and multi-scalar management Management design and activities are understood and supported by stakeholders Management institutions are flexible and able to adapt to change

and management outcomes (see Tables 2–4). Local groups, such as the M2M Network, VOICE and Sun Dew Tours, are critical in evaluating management effectiveness as they possess in-depth knowledge and experience of local conditions and management impacts. They also represent a ready supply of manpower for monitoring. However, as a community participant lamented, ‘‘We are the people in which the information resides, and people are coming to us continuously to get that information. And when we find out what is happening, these people are receiving huge sums of money for information we have and we are getting nothing for it. We are expected to do all the menial tasks on the ground, without remuneration, that props the system out and at the end of the day the people who get the money are quite comfortable because they are in Port-of-Spain. And that’s one of the problems we’re having, too much decisions that affect us are being made by those in a centralized position and we’re expected to toe the line.’’ Government, NGO, and private sector participants agreed that local communities’ knowledge is often undervalued, and that greater efforts must be made to facilitate communities’ control over information and ensure they reap the benefits. However, government participants were concerned that communities would come to expect payment for their involvement in all aspects of the protected areas with significant financial consequences. Engaging the various stakeholder groups within local communities in evaluation poses another problem. Development NGO participants noted that the actively involved community-based organizations focus on nature tourism and conservation and represent only a subset of the local communities’ interests. Private landowners are responsible for significant portions of Matura and Nariva, as well as proposed protected areas, and need to be engaged for management and its evaluation to be fully implemented. Development NGO participants also noted that other key stakeholders including farmers, fishers, and hunters have not been effectively engaged in the protected areas since the government agencies, which facilitate stakeholder participation, view them as a threat to the resource base. They presumed that these stakeholder

Sources of data

Who is involved?

Work programs, project reports, meeting minutes, annual review

Protected area staff, government agencies and other key stakeholder groups involved in management

Management plan and work programs, project reports, budget, meeting minutes, interviews and surveys Monitoring program, annual review, project reports, interviews and surveys

Protected area staff, government agencies and other key stakeholder groups involved in management Protected area staff, government agencies and other key stakeholder groups involved in management

Monitoring program, annual review, project reports, interviews and surveys

All stakeholder groups

Institutional review, project reports, meeting minutes, annual review, interviews and surveys

Protected area staff, government agencies and other key stakeholder groups involved in management

groups declined to participate in the study to evaluate management success, although invited, due to their prior exclusion. Government participants countered stating that they were hesitant to work with resource user membership groups, such as the Trinidad and Tobago Hunters and Fishermen’s Associations, because they are politically well-connected and capable of circumventing the management and M&E process if it threatens their interests. They noted, for example, that the Hunters Association resisted efforts to establish the new protected area system. Participants, however, generally acknowledged that resource users are an invaluable source of data on wildlife populations and local management techniques, expertise, and manpower for M&E. If participatory management is to be a reality, NGO participants argued that concerted efforts are required to engage powerful but dissenting stakeholder groups and that ‘‘We need to get the community and other stakeholders to think about the private sector not just as competitors for the natural resources but as players that can help them develop their skills in taking advantage of the resource, albeit sustainably.’’ Government agencies, such as the EMA, Forestry Division including the National Parks and Wildlife Sections, Fisheries Division, Institute of Marine Affairs, Town and Country Planning Division, Ministry of Tourism, and Tobago House of Assembly, are also critical to M&E as their legislative structures impact on protected areas, their staff are directly involved in natural resource management, and they are the major funding sources. The Forestry and Fisheries Divisions, in particular, are key for effective implementation. Their wardens have the experience and expertise for coordinating M&E activities as past managers of many of these same areas as Forest and Wildlife Reserves. However, the roles and authority of these various agencies are unclear. Although the EMA has taken the lead, ultimate legal authority resides with the Forestry, Fisheries and Town and Country Planning Divisions through the Forest Act, Conservation of Wildlife Act, Fisheries Act, and Town and Country Planning Act. A conservation NGO participant lamented, ‘‘Here it is we still cannot manage these protected areas

A.A. Granderson / Evaluation and Program Planning 34 (2011) 185–195

as real national parks because the legal people are telling us that because this [ESA Rules] is subsidiary legislation, EMA still cannot have effective control over these protected areas. And this is a problem. We have created a management structure that cannot work in the context and framework of the existing legislation.’’ Furthermore, the Town and Country Planning Division, the Ministry of Tourism and local government authorities have not been actively involved in the new protected area system thus far due to EMA’s emphasis on engaging the key Forestry and Fisheries Divisions. National NGOs, such as the Caribbean Forest Conservation Association, Caribbean Natural Resource Institute, Cropper Foundation, Environment Tobago, and Trust for Sustainable Livelihoods, and research institutions, such as the University of the West Indies, also play a crucial role as facilitators of stakeholder participation and mediators of conflicts. Community and private sector participants noted that local communities and private entities are often wary of government agencies, especially where there have been failed development projects, poor enforcement or conflicts over property rights under past government management. NGO staff or faculty, in contrast, are often perceived as neutral and so are able to promote collaboration. However, without government backing, communities, businesses and the general public are unlikely to take management and M&E activities by NGOs seriously. 5.5. Stakeholder commitment versus capacity The participatory research project in Matura National Park, through which the University of West Indies attempted to collect baseline data on local flora and fauna with the aid of the Forestry Division and local communities, was highlighted during the testing of the framework as an example of the issues of stakeholder commitment and capacity. Government and NGO participants lamented the overall lack of commitment, capacity, and culture of collaboration within those agencies currently engaged in the protected areas. As a government participant noted, ‘‘A real constraint is the lack of motivation and of nurturing institutional structures for protected area management, whether participatory or otherwise. I’ll give you an example. We have with the University of the West Indies a participatory research exercise in Matura Park that involves getting the community trained to collect vegetation data, and to encourage overall participation. It has been difficult to get people from the Forestry Division and other agencies involved while those doing most of the work on the ground have been the community. The institutions and people who are heading the research, and responsible for the management, are not motivated and it’s all falling apart.’’ Government participants further acknowledged that agency staff receive limited, if any, training on how to facilitate stakeholder participation and often lack technical skills such as in wildlife ecology or geographic information systems. Government and NGO participants were also concerned that many community-based organizations, despite their high level of commitment, would not be able to sustain their involvement without external technical assistance and funding. As a government participant noted, ‘‘I would like to see us work to develop people’s skills as there will always be need for research in the parks. . . And then in terms of them being involved in research and having that knowledge and information, you can also use them in outreach. And they could also be involved in the day-to-day management.’’ NGOs and research institutions can offer valuable expertise and technical support to community groups as well as government agencies and the private sector. They possess highly trained staff in both ecological and sociological fields, and have the flexibility to

193

allocate funds as needed for capacity building or M&E unlike the government’s bureaucratic finance mechanisms. However, overreliance on national NGOs or research institutions poses a problem. Although they can serve as catalysts to initiate research and monitoring activities, NGOs or research institutions are often unable to undertake such responsibilities in perpetuity. This was the case with the Matura participatory research project where the University of West Indies could not complete the project without the Forestry Division’s backing and manpower. Consequently, NGO participants argued that it is critical to ensure the ongoing and active involvement of local communities as well as government agencies with a long-term stake in protected areas. Accountability remains a further challenge for NGOs and research institutions, which report ultimately to their board of directors and funders whose interests in the protected areas are not public or transparent. 6. Discussion The study’s goals were to determine whether stakeholder involvement enables the development of an evaluation framework for protected area management incorporating multi-faceted measures of success, and examine stakeholders’ role and influence in this process. A holistic yet systematic framework was developed for evaluating the new participatory management system for protected areas in Trinidad and Tobago via input from diverse stakeholders. This input facilitated the integration of expert and lay knowledge, a broad emphasis on ecological, socio-economic, and institutional aspects, and the use of both quantitative and qualitative data allowing the evaluation to capture the multifaceted nature and impacts of protected area management. Although all the stakeholder groups offer unique assets and exert a level of influence on various parts of the evaluation, they possess differing levels of power, interest and capacity that serve as barriers to their full participation. The multi-stakeholder approach has clearly been valuable for knowledge integration, which is what Weaver and Cousins (2004) term the epistemological rationale for participatory evaluation. However, it has been less useful in promoting shared understanding (pragmatic rationale for participatory evaluation) and empowering marginalized voices (political rationale for participatory evaluation). Pluralism in perspectives is invaluable in enabling multifaceted measures of success for protected areas. Defining ‘‘What exactly success means’’ remains a significant challenge, however, without broad consensus over the management vision and evaluation objectives. The most actively engaged stakeholder groups in Trinidad and Tobago can be categorized into those focused on: biodiversity conservation (Wildlife Section and conservation NGOs such as the Caribbean Forest Conservation Association and Environment Tobago), tourism and recreation (Forestry Division, National Parks Section, Ministry of Tourism, and local community groups such as the M2M Network, Sun Dew Tours, and VOICE), and institutional effectiveness (EMA and NGOs such as the Caribbean Natural Resource Institute). Although the evaluation framework incorporated all these different components, it represents an effort to appease the different stakeholders rather than a shared vision for the protected area management system. Furthermore, development interests are clearly underrepresented among the participating stakeholders with private landowners, resource users and their membership groups, and business largely absent. The framing of ‘‘success’’ by the participating stakeholders is likely to be biased, and unlikely to reflect the goals of all the key stakeholder groups impacting and impacted by the protected area. Perceptions of success also vary according to the scale of stakeholder involvement. As Axford et al. (2008) highlight, success

194

A.A. Granderson / Evaluation and Program Planning 34 (2011) 185–195

is defined and viewed differently by ‘‘outsiders’’ versus ‘‘insiders’’. Stakeholders operating at the grassroots level, including the Caribbean Conservation Association and community groups, were more concerned with local livelihoods and benefits, inclusiveness of the process and development impacts on their communities. Stakeholders within government agencies, national NGOs, member associations, and private entities, which are often based in the capital, focus on the national scale and broader issues related to the legal context, large-scale industry, financing, and environmental sustainability. Although both these local and national perspectives were recognized and integrated in some degree into the evaluation framework, powerful government agencies and the private sector can unduly influence what constitutes management success without careful attention to which stakeholder groups are engaged in the evaluation and how. The absence of resource users and their membership groups, such as the Hunters Association, is likely due to their belief that the evaluation process is biased against them given their current exclusion from the multi-stakeholder management committees for the three established protected areas. The task of defining ‘‘overall success’’ and addressing tradeoffs between conservation and development is also problematic. Participants in the workshops and focus groups placed a premium on including all suggestions, which is certainly inclusive. However, there was limited dialogue about the relative importance of various ecological, socio-economic, and institutional factors in the evaluation framework and possible priorities. Trade-off analysis (see Brown, 2002; Brown, Tompkins, & Adger, 2001) will be an important tool in management planning and developing measures that can balance stakeholders’ diverse goals within a site-specific evaluation framework. Trade-off analysis allows stakeholders to define future desired outcomes and determine what management priorities and type of interventions are required. This may then be reflected in a framework with measures that assess relative management inputs and outcomes such as the resources and capacity-building devoted to conservation vis a` vis livelihood development, which stakeholder groups agreed or disagreed with resource allocation, and how these groups were impacted. Examining trade-offs between multiple uses will also allow for greater transparency and highlight ways to better integrate conservation and sustainable development. If multi-faceted measures of success require multi-stakeholder engagement, the process for engagement, stakeholders’ capacity, and the institutional structure for M&E need to be better defined and developed. An inclusive and open forum is vital to engage all key stakeholder groups and ensure powerful groups cannot co-opt or derail the process. Attention needs to be paid to the structure, frequency, timing, and location of stakeholder consultations, monitoring activities, and evaluation reviews. Time spent travelling to and at meetings or monitoring activities by community representatives, private landowners, and other volunteers often detracts from time for income generation activities. If compensation is not available, government agencies and NGOs must be upfront about this and find alternative ways to demonstrate the value of local communities’ and private landowners’ efforts. There are also issues related to equity and fairness in stakeholder representation. Equitable representation requires that all key stakeholder groups are engaged in M&E decisions and that mechanisms are in place to specifically incorporate underrepresented groups, such as women, youth, elderly, and the very poor. In contrast, fairness dictates that primary stakeholders with the largest stake, such as community groups or resource users, should be given greater prominence within the process. The current process meets neither requirements, and stakeholders will need to decide whether equity or fairness is of more significance and how

to balance the tension between these objectives in applying the framework at the site level. Building the capacity of stakeholders according to their needs as well as their roles and responsibilities will also be key to engaging them effectively and implementing M&E. A detailed analysis of stakeholders, and the assets they can provide for M&E, will be a useful starting point. Stakeholders could then be matched to various M&E responsibilities based on their capacity. Training workshops could also be created to address gaps in capacity. Additionally, the development of a clear and consistent institutional structure is vital where the legal authority, roles, and responsibilities among stakeholders are agreed upon and defined. Binding legal and policy instruments will need to be developed to clarify overlapping legal mandates among resource management agencies, including the EMA, Forestry Division, Fisheries Division, and the Town and Country Planning Division, and facilitate inter-agency collaboration. A joint funding mechanism also needs to be established to sustain M&E within protected areas over the long-term. The multi-stakeholder advisory committees for the established protected areas, and proposed ones, need to be reviewed and possibly restructured to address the issues of stakeholder representation and buy-in discussed above. The committees should also specify the roles of the various stakeholders in management, including M&E, as part of the review. Lack of capacity also affects access to quality data that, in turn, poses considerable M&E constraints. There are clear challenges to collecting, analyzing, storing and distributing information for evaluating management success in Trinidad and Tobago due to limited staff, finances, equipment, and technical expertise among the stakeholders managing protected areas. Hockings, Stolton, Dudley, and James (2009) argue for methodological pluralism using approaches and data sources based on what is being measured, scale, and the capacity of those involved. However, as the study’s participants noted, there is likely to be a heavy reliance on subjective and variable stakeholder perceptions within the evaluation framework. This reliance is particularly noticeable in assessing biodiversity and ecosystem services due to the lack of empirical ecological data. The heavy use of sociological and qualitative data in the framework is therefore a necessary, but disconcerting, solution given the importance of objectivity in evaluation (Brisolara, 1998; DeGroff & Cargo, 2009) and the increasing emphasis on ‘‘evidence-based conservation’’ (Ferraro & Pattanayak, 2006; Saterson et al., 2004). 7. Future directions As Murray (2005) argues, questions about how to conceptualize and measure ‘‘success’’ in protected area management are closely intertwined with those about the role of stakeholder participation. A participatory approach holds significant potential in capturing the multi-faceted nature of success through the integration of different knowledges, enhanced transparency and stakeholder buy-in, and shared learning and implementation. However, the lack of consensus over multiple and divergent priorities, politics, and limited stakeholder capacity can limit its value. Further research and development is needed. The evaluation framework, which was developed as part of this study, needs to be further tested and applied in Trinidad and Tobago’s three established protected areas to examine issues of data scarcity, limited capacity, and balancing trade-offs in a specific context. Meta-analysis (see Gurevitch, Curtis, & Jones, 2001; Pagdee, Kim, & Daugherty, 2006) may then offer opportunities for combining the results of site-specific evaluations to draw general conclusions and to track major trends. Large-scale comparative studies of multistakeholder versus sole evaluator approaches are also needed to

A.A. Granderson / Evaluation and Program Planning 34 (2011) 185–195

gauge the true potential of the participatory process for enabling multi-faceted measures of success. Acknowledgements The author wishes to thank all the stakeholders that participated in this study and helped to develop this evaluation framework. This study also would not have been possible without the invaluable guidance of Dr. Stanley Temple, technical assistance from staff at the Caribbean Natural Resource Institute (CANARI) and the Environmental Management Authority, and funding from the Wildlife Conservation Society and the Kaplan Family Travel Award and Tinker-Nave Travel Grant at University of WisconsinMadison. References Axford, J. C., Hockings, M. T., & Carter, R. W. (2008). What constitutes success in Pacific island community conserved areas? Ecology and Society, 13(2), 45. Barbour, R., & Kitzinger, J. (Eds.). (1999). Developing focus group research: Politics, research and practice. London, UK: Sage. Barr, K. H. (1981). Geological outline. In P. R. Bacon & G. C. Cooper (Eds.), The natural resources of Trinidad and Tobago (pp. 13–22). London, UK: Edward Arnold Publishers. Brisolara, S. (1998). The history of participatory evaluation and current debates in the field. New Directions for Evaluation, 80, 25–41. Brown, K. (2002). Innovations for conservation and development. The Geographic Journal, 168(1), 6–17. Brown, K., Tompkins, E., & Adger, W. N. (2001). Trade-off analysis for participatory coastal zone decision-making. Overseas Development Group/University of East Anglia. Caribbean Forest Conservation Association (CFCA). (1998). National parks draft management and physical plan and additional studies: Final report. Trinidad: Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago and World Bank, Port-of-Spain. Chambers, R. (1997). Whose reality counts? Putting the first last London, UK: Intermediate Technology. Cifuentes, M., Izurieta, A., & de Faria, H. (2000). Measuring protected area management effectiveness. Turrialba, Costa Rica: IUCN/World Wildlife Fund. Conley, A., & Moote, M. A. (2003). Evaluating collaborative natural resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 16, 371–386. Convention on Biological Diversity. (2004). Programme of work on protected areas Retrieved from http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=7765. Cousins, J. B., & Whitmore, E. (1998). Framing participatory evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 80, 5–23. Daigneault, P., & Jacob, S. (2009). Toward accurate measurement of participation: Rethinking the conceptualization and operationalization of participatory evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 30(3), 330–348. Danielson, F., Burgess, N. D., Balmford, A., Donald, P. F., Funder, M., Jones, J. P. G., et al. (2009). Local participation in natural resource monitoring: A characterization of approaches. Conservation Biology, 23(1), 31–42. DeGroff, A., & Cargo, M. (2009). Policy implementation: Implications for evaluation. In J. M. Ottoson & P. Hawe (Eds.), Knowledge utilization, diffusion, implementation, transfer, and translation: Implications for evaluation New Directions for Evaluation, 124, 47–60. Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) Rules. (2001). Trinidad and Tobago Environmental Management Authority, Ministry of Public Utilities and the Environment. Ervin, J. (2003). WWF rapid assessment and prioritization of protected area management (RAPPAM) methodology. Gland, Switzerland: World Wildlife Fund. Estrella, M., & Gaventa, J. (1998). Who counts reality? Participatory monitoring and evaluation: A literature review. IDS working paper, 70. Esty, D. C., Levy, M., Srebotnjak, T., & de Sherbinin, A. (2005). Environmental sustainability index: Benchmarking national environmental stewardship. New Haven: Yale Centre for Environmental Law and Policy. Fairhead, J., & Leach, M. (2003). Science, society and power: Environmental knowledge and policy in West Africa and the Caribbean. Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge University Press. Ferraro, P. J., & Pattanayak, S. K. (2006). Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biology, 4(4), 105. Granderson, A. (2007a). Report on workshop on measuring the success and feasibility of participatory management of protected areas held on July 25, 2006 at the Environmental Management Authority. Granderson, A. (2007b). Report on focus group on measuring the success and feasibility of participatory management of protected areas held on December 21, 2006 at the Environmental Management Authority.

195

Gurevitch, J., Curtis, P. S., & Jones, M. H. (2001). Meta-analysis in ecology. Advances in Ecological Research, 32, 199–247. Henwood, K. L., & Lang, I. (2003). Qualitative research resources: A consultation with UK social scientists. Swindon, UK: Economic and Social Research Council. Hockings, M. (2003). Systems for assessing the effectiveness of management in protected areas. Bioscience, 53(9), 823–832. Hockings, M., James, R., Stolton, S., Dudley, N., Mathur, V., Makomobo, J., et al. (2008). Enhancing our heritage toolkit: Assessing management effectiveness of natural World Heritage sites. World Heritage Papers, 23, UNESCO. Hockings, M., Stolton, S., & Dudley, N. (2006). Evaluating effectiveness: A framework for assessing the management effectiveness of protected areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Dudley, N., & James, R. (2009). Data credibility: What are the ‘‘right’’ data for evaluating management effectiveness of protected areas? In M. Birnbaum & P. Mickwitz (Eds.), Environmental program and policy evaluation: Addressing methodological challenges New Directions for Evaluation, 122, 53–63. Homer, F. (2005). Trinidad and Tobago 3rd national report to the conferences of the parties. Convention on biological diversity. Port-of-Spain, Trinidad: Ministry of Public Utilities and the Environment. Huberman, M. (1994). Research utilization: The state of the art. Knowledge and Policy, 7(4), 13–33. Huberman, M., & Cox, P. (1990). Evaluation utilization: Building links between action and reflection. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 16, 157–179. Institute of Marine Affairs (IMA). (1999). Draft technical report for the Nariva management plan: Wetlands ecology. Document prepared for the Ministry of Agriculture, Land and Marine Resources, Port-of-Spain, Trinidad. King, J. A. (2005). Participatory evaluation. In S. Mathison (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evaluation (pp. 291–294). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Krishnarayan, V., Geoghegan, T., & Renard, Y. (2002). Assessing capacity for participatory natural resource management. CANARI . Leverington, F., Hockings, M., & Lemos Costa, K. (2008). Management effectiveness evaluation in protected areas. Report for project ‘‘Global study into management effectiveness of protected areas.’’. WWF Australia: IUCN, TNC, University of Queensland. Leviton, L. C., & Hughes, E. F. X. (1981). Research on the utilization of evaluations: A review and synthesis. Evaluation Review, 5, 525–547. Litoselliti, L. (2003). Using focus groups in research. London, UK: Continuum. Mathie, A., & Green, J. C. (1997). Stakeholder participation in evaluation: How important is diversity? Evaluation and Program Planning, 20, 279–285. Moote, M. A., McClaran, M. P., & Chickering, D. K. (1997). Theory in practice: Applying participatory democracy theory to public land planning. Environmental Management, 21(6), 877–889. Murray, G. D. (2005). Multifaceted measures of success in two Mexican marine protected areas. Society and Natural Resources, 18, 889–905. Pagdee, A., Kim, Y., & Daugherty, P. J. (2006). What makes community forest management successful: A meta-study from community forests throughout the world. Society and Natural Resources, 19(1), 33–52. Parkinson, S. (2009). Power and perceptions in participatory monitoring and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 32, 229–237. Pomeroy, R. S., Parks, J. E., & Watson, L. M. (2004). How is your MPA doing? A guidebook of natural and social indicators for evaluating marine protected area management effectiveness Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Pound, B., Snapp, S., McDougall, C., & Braun, A. (Eds.). (2003). Managing natural resources for sustainable livelihoods: Uniting science and participation. London, UK: Earthscan, IDRC. Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 25(3), 3–29. Saterson, K. A., Christensen, N. L., Jackson, R. B., Kramer, R. A., Pimm, S. L., Smith, M. D., et al. (2004). Disconnects in evaluating the relative effectiveness of conservation strategies. Conservation Biology, 18(3), 597–599. Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant Observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Stem, C., Margoluis, R., Salafsky, N., & Brown, M. (2005). Monitoring and evaluation in conservation: A review of trends and approaches. Conservation Biology, 19(2), 295– 309. The Nature Conservancy (TNC). (2006). The parks in peril site consolidation scorecard. Parks in Peril Program . Tompkins, E., Adger, W. N., & Brown, K. (2002). Institutional networks for inclusive coastal management in Trinidad and Tobago. Environment and Planning A, 34, 1095–1111. Weaver, L., & Cousins, J. B. (2004). Unpacking the participatory process. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 1, 19–40. Ainka Granderson is a conservation biologist with over 5 years experience working on protected areas and participatory management in Trinidad and Tobago, as well as in the wider Caribbean and East Africa. She holds a M.S. in conservation biology and sustainable development from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a B.A. (Hons.) in Geography from the University of Cambridge, UK.