across= diameter
offsoot 樹木的分枝 (樹幹分枝)
penetrate 穿透、進入
diligently 勤奮
narrative 敘述式的、記事的
rousing Western 激起西部情感的
voracious 貪婪的
tenacious 堅持的
protagonist 主角=lead
2007/02/07
2007/02/04
Enhacing our Heritage--Part E--Hockings et al., 2006
2. Effective management systems
It is difficult to manage effectively without basic businessmanagement systems.
Some suggestions are:
*straightforward changes in management practices
*followed by small-scale projects that could enhance capacity
*larger-scale projects to address major management issues
3. Developing clear management targets
*Site values however should also reflect other natural values such as geological or representative ecological processes, as well as any cultural or social values that arelocally, nationally or globally important to stakeholders.
*It proved a challenge to agree on management objectives, inseveral of the pilot sites, particularly for the areas that did not have agreed or effective management plans.
4. Increasing site knowledge
*There is an on-going need to collect data and develop,expand or refine monitoring systems to assess the overall condition of the site and to ensure that site management is leading to the expected conservation outcomes.
*Focus on effective and critical oucome evaluation.
It is difficult to manage effectively without basic businessmanagement systems.
Some suggestions are:
*straightforward changes in management practices
*followed by small-scale projects that could enhance capacity
*larger-scale projects to address major management issues
3. Developing clear management targets
*Site values however should also reflect other natural values such as geological or representative ecological processes, as well as any cultural or social values that arelocally, nationally or globally important to stakeholders.
*It proved a challenge to agree on management objectives, inseveral of the pilot sites, particularly for the areas that did not have agreed or effective management plans.
4. Increasing site knowledge
*There is an on-going need to collect data and develop,expand or refine monitoring systems to assess the overall condition of the site and to ensure that site management is leading to the expected conservation outcomes.
*Focus on effective and critical oucome evaluation.
Enhacing our Heritage--Part D--Hockings et al., 2006
Fund (Cost): US$30,000 per site/per year
took four years form undertake to monitor system
Lesson learned:
1. Working in partnership
2. Effective management systems
3. Developing clear management targets
4. Increasing site knowledge
1. Working in partnership
(1) It is rigorous (hard) for site managers to assemble a team of stakeholder representatives to work with them to develop and support the M&E process.
(2) It should avoid overlapping of activities by different stakeholders and thus maximize the use of their resources.
(3) Although there are some stakeholder dialogues, but most are just provide information for elicit rather than working with managers and share information and opinions and ensure effectivesite management
(4) Stakeholder input need to be strengthened. There remains a strong tendency for reports produced solely or largely by managers to present a ‘positive’view of management, with limited external input.
took four years form undertake to monitor system
Lesson learned:
1. Working in partnership
2. Effective management systems
3. Developing clear management targets
4. Increasing site knowledge
1. Working in partnership
(1) It is rigorous (hard) for site managers to assemble a team of stakeholder representatives to work with them to develop and support the M&E process.
(2) It should avoid overlapping of activities by different stakeholders and thus maximize the use of their resources.
(3) Although there are some stakeholder dialogues, but most are just provide information for elicit rather than working with managers and share information and opinions and ensure effectivesite management
(4) Stakeholder input need to be strengthened. There remains a strong tendency for reports produced solely or largely by managers to present a ‘positive’view of management, with limited external input.
Enhacing our Heritage--Part C--Hockings et al., 2006
*Initial Evaluation*
1.Be used to gain baseline data on the current situation
2.Information can also be used to develop addition M&E systems to
(1) formulate small-scale response
(2) large-scale proposals for areas where adaptations to management have been identified (ex. add staff training)
3. Also used to test the various methodologies developed to assess the elements of the IUCN-WCPA Framework
1.Be used to gain baseline data on the current situation
2.Information can also be used to develop addition M&E systems to
(1) formulate small-scale response
(2) large-scale proposals for areas where adaptations to management have been identified (ex. add staff training)
3. Also used to test the various methodologies developed to assess the elements of the IUCN-WCPA Framework
*Results of EoH project
1. As to first aim...
--The research team found that will depend on the managers & management agency awareness and got benefits or not
--Some suggestions: (1) working with managers and staff during periods of management reviews (ex. develop MP together); (2) institutionalize M&E at the agency level.
2. Many PAs can't finish all WCPA framework in first evaluation
3. The success has been mixed in :
(1) Integrating the results of assessment
(2)Resulting adaptive management with management planning
(3) Reinforcing the underlying needs to ensure the sites can implementation
Enhacing our Heritage--Part B--Hockings et al., 2006
Framework: WCPA Framework
Indicators and tools: Build up a picture of the adequacy & appropriateness of management and the extent to which objectives are being achieved (Learned by TNC & Biodiversity Support Program)
Suit for all natural WH sites --> also can adapted to fit all PAs
Real Practice : (4 years)
1. Initial Evaluation (first year)
2. Second Evaluation (fourth year)
Indicators and tools: Build up a picture of the adequacy & appropriateness of management and the extent to which objectives are being achieved (Learned by TNC & Biodiversity Support Program)
Suit for all natural WH sites --> also can adapted to fit all PAs
Real Practice : (4 years)
1. Initial Evaluation (first year)
2. Second Evaluation (fourth year)
Enhacing our Heritage--Part A--Hockings et al., 2006
Enhacing our Heritage (EoH) Project
Aim:
1. establish and integrate assessment, monitoringand reporting programmes
2. implement the findings of assessments byproviding support for training, small-scaleinterventions and if possible assistance inpreparing and funding large-scale projects.
Team:
1. Head--Hockings
2. Team Members -- from Europe and Latin America
3. Managed by -- University of Queenland, Australia
4. Partner-- Staff and partners in nine pilot WH sites
(3 of Africa, 3 of Asia, and 3 of Latin America)
Approach:
Not top-down system-->
EoH toolkit are used to help all stakeholders (include managers) to
(1) assess current activities, (2) identify gaps, and discuss how problems might be addresses.
2007/02/03
WCPA 架構的演進--Hockings, 2000
Evaluating Protected Area Management: A review of systems for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas.
WCPA的評估架構結合不同的評估工具(指標及評分系統)及目前最常被使用的評估架構(經營管理循環)，為保護區經營管理評估帶來整體面向的考量。
WCPA的架構的形成並非一蹴可幾，而是從1980年開始的評估方法中，擷取其精瓍而形成就之；如深究自1980年來的評估方法，就能從中了解WCPA架構的由來及整合了哪些部分以成為目前各國保護區經營管理效能評估的重要依據及參考。保護區經營管理的研究自1980年代以來，保護區評估共有幾十個研究個案，本研究依其評估的內容將其分為三個階段，分別是1980~1990年的初探期，1990~1999年的成熟期及1999年WCPA架構出現後的應用期。
在1980年代的初探期，1982年Thorsell 所做的研究是保護區經營管理中最早的先鋒，使用問題來評估經營管理的情形，在最初步的研究中並未提出任何的指標及評分系統，問題的內容約為投入(input)、管理過程(process)及成果(outcome)的評估；後續的研究涉入了不同的部分，包括規劃(planning)、產出(output)及內容(context)的評估。在初探期中，雖未有六個經營管理因子的明確區分，但從評估的內容分析，的確包含了這六個經營管理要素，在1983年到1989年間，許多的指標及各式各樣的評分系統紛紛出籠，但對於其指標的評分系統仍未有一個統一的規定及討論。而1990年TNC(The Nature Conservancy)所提出的scorecard的概念結合了指標和評分系統，使其有一個近似標準的概念，也成為WCPA架構中，指標和評分系統的初步架構。
1990年到1997年為WCPA架構的成熟期，基於上面的研究，學者們開始針對這六個經營管理要素彼此的關係進行討論，對於指標及評分系統也進行標準化之研究；另外，相關研究提出評估的後續應該和經營管理計劃有相關的連結及回饋機制。在1994年的時候，Hcockings整合了這些觀念，提出WCPA架構的前身；1995年時，WCPA創辦了一個經營管理效能的特派小組(Management Effectiveness Task Force)，專門研究並注意世界各地保護區的經營管理評估，並在1998-2000年間結合1994年來相關WCPA架構的構想，利用經營管理循環(management process/cycle)來囊括上述保護區的規劃及管理方面的內容以進行評估，這樣的思考和純質性或量化研究比較起來較具整體性及實用價值，跳脫原有的評估思路，不只是探究保護區發生的問題，研究解決方案；而是針對和保護區經營管理相關的經營管理循環進行全盤的了解，除了能解決保護區現在面臨的壓力及威脅之外，對於整個經營管理環節也都能有整體的了解，以求經營管理效能的促進 (Hockings 2000)。
從1997年WCPA的架構出現後，其他依照此架構的評估方法相繼出籠，1999年在保護區經營管理效能評估的工作坊討論中，更讓2000年IUCN出版的保護區經營管理效能評估指南增加了許多的案例，藉由1999年的工作坊及2000年出版的指南，保護區的經營管理效能評估有更明確的原則、目的及架構得以進行。WCPA架構的出現並非想要嚴格規範現存的經營管理評估方法，只希望能夠提供評估者在設計評估系統上的參考、提供一個有哪些面向需要評估的清單及有哪些可用的指標得以評估等建議，希望這樣的架構能夠帶來更準確、仔細和及時的評估，讓評估能夠達到本身原有的功能，也就是適性管理(adaptive management)、增進保護區計劃中的規劃(improve programme planning)及促進會計責任(accountability)，使保護區能夠有更好的管理，發揮其原設功能。
WCPA的評估架構結合不同的評估工具(指標及評分系統)及目前最常被使用的評估架構(經營管理循環)，為保護區經營管理評估帶來整體面向的考量。
WCPA的架構的形成並非一蹴可幾，而是從1980年開始的評估方法中，擷取其精瓍而形成就之；如深究自1980年來的評估方法，就能從中了解WCPA架構的由來及整合了哪些部分以成為目前各國保護區經營管理效能評估的重要依據及參考。保護區經營管理的研究自1980年代以來，保護區評估共有幾十個研究個案，本研究依其評估的內容將其分為三個階段，分別是1980~1990年的初探期，1990~1999年的成熟期及1999年WCPA架構出現後的應用期。
在1980年代的初探期，1982年Thorsell 所做的研究是保護區經營管理中最早的先鋒，使用問題來評估經營管理的情形，在最初步的研究中並未提出任何的指標及評分系統，問題的內容約為投入(input)、管理過程(process)及成果(outcome)的評估；後續的研究涉入了不同的部分，包括規劃(planning)、產出(output)及內容(context)的評估。在初探期中，雖未有六個經營管理因子的明確區分，但從評估的內容分析，的確包含了這六個經營管理要素，在1983年到1989年間，許多的指標及各式各樣的評分系統紛紛出籠，但對於其指標的評分系統仍未有一個統一的規定及討論。而1990年TNC(The Nature Conservancy)所提出的scorecard的概念結合了指標和評分系統，使其有一個近似標準的概念，也成為WCPA架構中，指標和評分系統的初步架構。
1990年到1997年為WCPA架構的成熟期，基於上面的研究，學者們開始針對這六個經營管理要素彼此的關係進行討論，對於指標及評分系統也進行標準化之研究；另外，相關研究提出評估的後續應該和經營管理計劃有相關的連結及回饋機制。在1994年的時候，Hcockings整合了這些觀念，提出WCPA架構的前身；1995年時，WCPA創辦了一個經營管理效能的特派小組(Management Effectiveness Task Force)，專門研究並注意世界各地保護區的經營管理評估，並在1998-2000年間結合1994年來相關WCPA架構的構想，利用經營管理循環(management process/cycle)來囊括上述保護區的規劃及管理方面的內容以進行評估，這樣的思考和純質性或量化研究比較起來較具整體性及實用價值，跳脫原有的評估思路，不只是探究保護區發生的問題，研究解決方案；而是針對和保護區經營管理相關的經營管理循環進行全盤的了解，除了能解決保護區現在面臨的壓力及威脅之外，對於整個經營管理環節也都能有整體的了解，以求經營管理效能的促進 (Hockings 2000)。
從1997年WCPA的架構出現後，其他依照此架構的評估方法相繼出籠，1999年在保護區經營管理效能評估的工作坊討論中，更讓2000年IUCN出版的保護區經營管理效能評估指南增加了許多的案例，藉由1999年的工作坊及2000年出版的指南，保護區的經營管理效能評估有更明確的原則、目的及架構得以進行。WCPA架構的出現並非想要嚴格規範現存的經營管理評估方法，只希望能夠提供評估者在設計評估系統上的參考、提供一個有哪些面向需要評估的清單及有哪些可用的指標得以評估等建議，希望這樣的架構能夠帶來更準確、仔細和及時的評估，讓評估能夠達到本身原有的功能，也就是適性管理(adaptive management)、增進保護區計劃中的規劃(improve programme planning)及促進會計責任(accountability)，使保護區能夠有更好的管理，發揮其原設功能。
訂閱：
意見 (Atom)
