Comparing Methodologies of Protected Areas Management Effectiveness Evaluation─ A Case Study of Wu-wei-kang Wildlife Refuge, Ilan

• Main Authors: Yi-Peng Yang, 楊苡芃
• Other Authors: Dau-Jye Lu
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2015
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/6rme8u

碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 森林環境暨資源學研究所 === 103 === Adopting Wu-wei-kang Wildlife Refuge as the study site, this study aimed to compare the process and results of three methodologies of protected area effectiveness evaluation─ RAPPAM, METT and EoH. RAPPAM was implemented in 2010, while METT and EoH were applied from late 2013 to 2014. Using literature review, interview, focus group and workshops, this study try to figure out the differences of the results and put forward the suggestions about the implementation of evaluation methodologies in Taiwan. The study showed that the three methods developed from WCPA framework generally have the similar results. However, the divergence in the principles indeed brought about some deviation in the end. For example, EoH needs more time input, and it produces more delicated results. RAPPAM developed to do the comparison works, therefore, its reslts are beneficial for decision-making level but more difficult to be used on site level. METT doesn’t need too much effort and it can only provide a scan of the management process toward conservation goals. Nevertheless, the study still revealed some differences from the case study. From other cases, the majority of EoH’ cost comes from the flght tickets and accommodation of the workshop participants. Since Taiwan’s protected areas usually close to the cities and settlement, the cost wasn’t that high as expected. By adjusting the process and format of management plan, the utility of RAPPAM in the case assessment could be improved. METT can provide more detailed information as long as the qualitative data are compiled completely and systematically. There is no evaluation method of protected area management effectiveness can suitable for all cases. The study made some advice to the future implmmentation in Taiwan. First, adopt METT as a way to do the mid-term review every 3-5 years. And every 10 years, have more comprehensive assessments, EoH might be a good way. If the data isn’t sufficient to do so, RAPPAM might be an alternative approach.