Elsevier

Ecological Indicators

Volume 67, August 2016, Pages 146-155
Ecological Indicators

Environmental education indicators system for protected areas management

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.053Get rights and content

Highlights

  • We developed a participative bottom-up strategy for EE indicators elaboration.

  • Common EE objectives exist besides the heterogeneity of the PA system.

  • EE indicators were focused on networking, participation, and process continuity.

  • EE could act as a catalyzer for social and biological process.

  • An easy-use set of indicators is proposed for its integration into PA management.

Abstract

A new perspective for the management effectiveness of protected areas needs the inclusion of social data for decision-making. In this process, environmental education (EE) plays a key role in catalyzing biological and social issues in the management process, but there are scarce data about this relationship. The objective of this paper is to develop, from an institutional bottom-up perspective, a proposal for a set of EE indicators that is easy to use by practitioners to measure the response of the EE program in relation to the conservation objectives of protected areas management plans. Using a combination of quantitative and qualitative techniques, a case study at the National Parks System of Colombia is presented, which is divided in five stages: 1. An EE evaluation survey on a national scale. 2. An interview phase with EE practitioners and NGOs. 3. EE objectives categorization. 4. Systematization process and 5. Focus group to evaluate the proposed set of indicators. A set of 5 EE indicators was developed to fulfill the identified needs: appropriation of information, articulation, participation quality, program implementation and continuity of EE process. We expect that this new approach for EE evaluation will hopefully be adopted in the update of management plans, as an innovative tool that contributes to the effectiveness assessment of protected areas, integrating a more social and participative focus.

Introduction

A crucial step forward in the conservation field has been the moving beyond the establishment of protected areas to the assessment of management effectiveness (Hockings et al., 2004). Environmental indicators are essential tools in this progress, but the lack of social data is still a common problem that these protected areas face (Moon and Blackman, 2014, Popescu et al., 2014, Stephanson and Mascia, 2014). New integrated solutions must be developed, and environmental education (EE) could be a key piece to bridge the gap between people's needs and biological aims. This conservation practice can be useful for a better decision-making, communication and policy development, (Bearzi, 2007, Mascia et al., 2003, Meijaard et al., 2014), so a measure of its true scope is necessary.

Any measure of conservation is inadequate without education and a direct involvement of the different social actors (Mascia et al., 2003, Sherrow, 2010). Fortunately, a shift in conservation science is taking place and a need to include social research is increasingly growing (Fisher et al., 2005, p. 2, 15; Linton and Warner, 2003, Mascia et al., 2003, Moon and Blackman, 2014, Stephanson and Mascia, 2014). Therefore, conservation is related to people as much as it is to species or ecosystems.

From the First Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education Tbilisi in 1977, EE can be defined as a holistic approach, rooted in a broad interdisciplinary base, which acknowledges the fact that natural environment and man-made environment are profoundly interdependent. EE uses the findings of science and technology to play a leading role in creating awareness and a better understanding of rapidly evolving environmental problems. It should foster positive patterns toward the environment and the nations’ use of their resources, to make intelligent, informed and well structured decisions (UNESCO, 1979, p. 24).

Inclusion of EE within management plans is still in its infancy (Muñoz-Santos and Benayas, 2012), and with the current environmental crisis, education must be considered as a principle for biological conservation and management (Abdulla et al., 2008, p. 132; Brewer, 2006). Assessments based on knowledge gain are already on the shelf (Kuhar et al., 2010, Ruiz-Mallen et al., 2009), however it is also important to move a step forward, and measure why and how EE works (Pomeroy et al., 2005, Stern et al., 2013).

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has long been a pioneer in the field of environmental indicators. It developed and published the first international set of environmental indicators in 1993, describing 12 main rules of what an ideal indicator should be in terms of policy relevance and utility for users, analytical soundness and measurability (OECD, 2006, p. 143). These first guidelines have been used as a reference point for benchmark organizations like the World Bank, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, and International Cooperation Agencies, among others, to develop environmental and sustainability indicators, with small variations according to their needs and objectives (Global Environmental Facility, 2010, IOC-UNESCO, 2006, Pomeroy et al., 2004, Segnestam, 2002, Tilbury et al., 2007).

Governance and socio-economic indicators found in evaluation manuals for protected areas often include EE issues, but they provide limited information about the appropriateness and effects of EE on the conservation aims of the protected area. Some examples of such indicators are: establishment of education and training programs, increased awareness of environmental issues or number and trained decision makers (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013, IOC-UNESCO, 2006, p. 129; Marino et al., 2015, Pomeroy et al., 2005).

Kuhar et al. (2010), went further. They measured knowledge gain through EE programs in a quantitative way. The study compared the performance of an EE conservation program in Uganda, using pre-post tests after 30 days, 1 year and 2 years from the initial program. They demonstrated that knowledge gain was not transient, but did not guarantee that proper behaviors would be performed in a middle-long term time frame.

To improve the evaluation process, the EE indicators should be quality based, embracing quantitative and qualitative measures, to provide additional details to understand not only if EE works, but also why and how it works (Stern et al., 2013). Attention must be focused to link EE activities, processes and evaluation to the park's conservation aims (Claudet and Guidetti, 2010, Muñoz-Santos and Benayas, 2012), starting a strategy of continuous assessment (Blumstein and Saylan, 2007). The new EE approach should be inclusive with stakeholders who have a direct impact on the achievement of management objectives and are directly influenced by management decisions (Himes, 2007, Zorrilla-Pujana and Rossi, 2014).

Through a revision of a wide environmental and sustainability indicators sets, the present study found that criteria used by the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) were the most suitable for the research. GEF works with 5 criteria denoted by the acronym SMART, meaning that indicators should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bounded (GEF, 2010, pp. 28–29).

With these indicators’ guidelines established, we conducted an action-research guided by the critical theory paradigm (Crotty, 1998, pp. 139–159), which dictates how data collection and interpretation will be done. This branch of social research intends to challenge, induce and document a change in the reality studied (García and Sampedro, 2006, Sauvè, 2000). It looks to improve some practical aspects of reality as a means for developing our understanding of it, through a participative and empowering focus and praxis (Moon and Blackman, 2014, Winter, 2002).

Having selected this roadmap and following the pressure-state-response indicator framework, the objective of this action-research was to develop a theoretical EE indicator set proposal from an institutional bottom-up perspective that is easy to use by practitioners and induces a change in the EE evaluation system. These indicators will assist in measuring the influence of the EE programs on the conservation objectives of the Park's management plan, using the NPS of Colombia as a case study.

Section snippets

Methods

The action-research was conducted using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methodologies (Fig. 1). The use of both compatible and complementary methodologies provides a better understanding of the national and local context during the study, considering an approach that incorporates social variables in the evaluation of protected areas management (Benayas et al., 2003, Dillon and Wals, 2006, Gerson and Horowitz, 2002, Russell, 2006).

To avoid failures or misunderstandings in the

Results

In first place, quantitative results from the national survey are presented, in which responses from questionnaires are also supplemented by comments given by respondents, in cases that they are considered necessary.

In second place, qualitative results are presented as a result from interviews, divided in 4 thematic areas: (i) Indicators, (ii) Networking and Participation, (iii) Objectives, structure, systematization and planning, and (iv) Economic criteria, continuity and social perception. In

Discussion

Quantitative and qualitative results support the need for an evaluation framework for the EE program that goes beyond annual reports or specific products, supported by the fact that there were no established indicators for EE that allowed measuring of the impact of the program. Similar recommendations were exposed in the last analysis of management effectiveness for the NPS by international experts, in which they highlight the need to identify impact and response indicators that reveal the

Conclusions

Environmental governance is also about education. This management variable must go beyond the establishment of laws, scientific knowledge sharing, and cooperation. A general need to increase social participation in the management process is evident and valuation of this involvement must be included in governance issues. With this research we should give a baseline to start this process.

An institutional shift in the conception of management indicators has occurred, in which qualitative measures

Acknowledgements

Zorrilla-Pujana, J., was financed with a grant from the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID). Rossi, S., was financed with a Ramón & Cajal contract (RYC-2007-374 01327) and a Marie Curie International Outgoing Fellowship (ANIMAL FOREST HEALTH, Grant Agreement Number 327845). We want to sincerely acknowledge all staff from National Parks of Colombia, specially the EE team, for their engagement and commitment that made possible this investigation. We also want to thank

References (63)

  • G. Bearzi

    Marine conservation on paper

    Conserv. Biol.

    (2007)
  • J. Benayas et al.

    La Investigación en Educación Ambiental en España, Educación Ambiental, Educación Ambiental

    (2003)
  • T.L. Bettinger et al.

    Discovering the unexpected: lessons learned from evaluating conservation education programs in Africa

    Am. J. Primatol.

    (2010)
  • D.T. Blumstein et al.

    The failure of environmental education (and how we can fix it)

    PLoS Biol.

    (2007)
  • G. Borrini-Feyerabend et al.

    Governance of protected areas: from understanding to action

    Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 20

    (2013)
  • C. Brewer

    Translating data into meaning: education in conservation biology

    Conserv. Biol.

    (2006)
  • J. Claudet et al.

    Improving assessments of marine protected areas

    Aquat. Conserv.

    (2010)
  • M. Crotty

    The foundations of social research: meaning and perspective in the research process.

    (1998)
  • J. Dillon et al.

    On the danger of blurring methods, methodologies and ideologies in environmental education research

    Environ. Educ. Res.

    (2006)
  • M. Elbroch et al.

    The Value, Limitations, and Challenges of Employing Local Experts in Conservation Research

    Conserv. Biol.

    (2011)
  • L. Fernández

    ¿cómo se elabora un cuestionario?

    Butlletí LaRecerca

    (2007)
  • R.J. Fisher et al.

    Poverty and Conservation: Landscapes People and Power

    (2005)
  • S. Fraschetti et al.

    Marine protected areas in the Mediterranean sea: objectives, effectiveness and monitoring

    Mar. Ecol.

    (2002)
  • J. García et al.

    Un viaje por la Educación Ambiental en España., Educación Ambiental

    (2006)
  • D. García Ventura

    La educación ambiental en los Ayuntamientos de la Comunidad de Madrid

  • K. Gerson et al.

    Observation and interviewing: options and choices in qualitative research

  • Global Environmental Facility

    The GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Policy. Washington D.C.

    (2010)
  • F. Hesselink et al.

    Communication, education and public awareness (CEPA): a toolkit for national focal points and NBSAP coordinators

  • M. Hockings et al.

    Management effectiveness: assessing management of protected areas?

    J. Environ. Policy Plan.

    (2004)
  • C.K.I. Ibrahim et al.

    Key relationship oriented indicators of team integration in construction projects

    Int. J. Innov. Manag. Technol.

    (2011)
  • IOC-UNESCO

    A Handbook for Measuring the Progress and Outcomes of Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management

    (2006)
  • Cited by (15)

    • Lessons learned and challenges for environmental management in Colombia: The role of communication, education and participation strategies

      2022, Journal for Nature Conservation
      Citation Excerpt :

      Thus, communication, education and participation (hereafter CEPA; Hesselink et al. 2007) were brought out as fundamental tools for enhancing social engagement and decision-making that supports biodiversity conservation (Sodhi et al. 2010; Holfelder 2019; Ardoin et al. 2020). For example, CEPA are used to reconnect people with nature (Jacobson et al. 2006, Barthel et al. 2018), to raise environmental awareness (Aminrad et al. 2013), to promote informed participation, to involve citizens on environmental management, and decision-making for the use and management of natural resources (Ardoin and Heimlich 2013; Zorrilla-Pujana and Rossi 2014, 2016; Battisti and Cerfolli 2021). CEPA are also a critical aspect for the Aichi Target N.1 “by 2020, at latest, people are aware of the values of biodiversity”, becoming an important bridge to accomplish the other 19 Aichi targets.

    • Willingness to pay for protected areas: A case of Etna Park

      2018, Ecological Indicators
      Citation Excerpt :

      Indeed, through good governance and effective management, it is possible to guarantee the use and conservation of these areas to meet the needs of present generations without compromising the possibilities of future generations (Brundtland, 1987). These models of governance must however be participatory because any measure of conservation and promotion is more likely to fail without education and the direct involvement of the different social actors (Modica et al., 2013; Zorrilla-Pujana and Rossi, 2016). In this sense, sustainable tourism is one of the most effective means of generating funds and respecting the need to protect and conserve areas of particular naturalistic and environmental interest (Eagles, 2009).

    • Protected areas as outdoor classrooms and global laboratories: Intellectual ecosystem services flowing to-and-from a National Park

      2017, Ecosystem Services
      Citation Excerpt :

      Similarly, Van Wilgen et al. (2016) note that research is highly concentrated in five of 19 South African national parks. EE is a well-established practice in many conservation areas (e.g. Sureda et al., 2004; Leisher et al., 2012; Zorrilla-Pujana and Rossi, 2016) although not always framed as an ecosystem service (but see; Palomo et al., 2013; Plieninger et al., 2013), and sometimes lacking from management plans (Ormsby, 2008; Muñoz-Santos and Benayas, 2012). With the increasing focus on social and not just biophysical and ecological aspects in PA management (Stephanson and Mascia, 2014; Cumming, 2016), integrated management solutions must be developed.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text