COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT.doc

《COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT.doc（67页珍藏版）》请在得力文库 - 分享文档赚钱的网站上搜索。

1、A Review of Current Approaches to Performance Measurement in Protected Area ManagementCNPPAM Benchmarking and Best Practice ProgramLead Agency: Queensland Parks and Wildlife ServicePrepared for:Committee on National Parks and Protected Area ManagementBenchmarking and Best Practice ProgramSeptember 2

2、002Lead Agency: Queensland Parks and Wildlife ServiceCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS ANDPROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENTBENCHMARKING AND BEST PRACTICE PROGRAMA REVIEW OFCURRENT APPROACHES TOPERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT INPROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENTSeptember 2002LEAD AGENCYQUEENSLAND PARKS AND WILDLIFE SERVICESUMMARYT

3、his is one of a series of “Benchmarking and Best Practice” reports sponsored by the Committee on National Park and Protected Area Management, which falls within the committee network supporting the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (and previously, the Australian and New Zealand Enviro

4、nment and Conservation Council). This benchmarking and best practice program seeks to actively share knowledge and information that may be adapted to achieve superior performance in member agencies.Measuring the effectiveness of protected area management has been a focus of attention for some time.

5、The business of protected area management does not operate within a production-line environment with tangible inputs, outputs and outcomes. Rather many outcomes are quite challenging to measure and report. Approaches adopted by park management agencies in Australia and New Zealand, coupled with exam

6、ples from around the world, are identified and reviewed. Primary survey data was obtained in December 2000 from 72 projects with a secondary survey conducted of 29 projects, supported by several focus group processes.The logical integration of all performance measurement programs and activities cond

7、ucted within an agency is a critical element of best practice and a simple model for progressing this objective is put forward. Integrated performance measurement frameworks are discussed and comparatively analysed in the report. Recent initiatives based on the development of “State of the Parks” re

8、porting are offered as a sound direction forward.A range of eleven strategic principles and a further twelve project principles are defined and provide the building blocks for a sound performance measurement system. Nine major functional themes that are component parts of the business of protected a

9、rea management are identified. Within each of these themes, the array of performance indicators that have been employed by agencies to measure performance are outlined and discussed.Best practice tips are annotated throughout the report to highlight key signposts toward the achievement of highly eff

10、ective performance management systems for protected area management agencies and a section is devoted to the characteristics of good practice based on some learnings identified whilst conducting this review.A diversity of approaches to performance measurement was found and these are comparatively re

11、viewed in this report. Although some agencies have expended considerable energy in attempting to identify a standardised process for measuring management performance, this is still at an early stage of development. The nature of public sector agencies themselves and the diversity of organisational c

12、haracteristics, socio-political and administrative environments and related organisational drivers are not trivial matters in searching out optimal performance measurement regimes. Variations in scale, scope and objectives characterise the breadth of current approaches to the measurement of performa

13、nce. There is no panacea, nor is this necessarily a prudent goal at this stage of the maturation of this discipline. Table of Contents1Introduction41.1Protected Area Management Benchmarking and Best Practice Program41.2Project Objectives42Methodology43An Integrated Performance Management Model5Figur

14、e 1 Illustrative Model of Best Practice Corporate Performance Measurement64Performance Measurement Frameworks6Table 1 Systems Analysis Summary85Performance Measurement Themes11Figure 2 Performance Measurement Themes126Best Practice Principles for Performance Measurement137Characteristics of Good Pra

15、ctice158Performance Indicators178.1Parks Systems178.2Management Systems188.3Protecting Individual Species198.4Ecological Habitat & Ecosystem Monitoring208.5Fire Management228.6Pests and Weeds238.7Habitat Rehabilitation238.8Human Use & Recreation259Conclusion26Attachment 1 - Glossary of Terms28Attach

16、ment 2 - Discussion of Primary Survey Results30Attachment 3 - Surveyed Projects and Contact Details35Attachment 4 - Primary Survey Questionnaire and Methodology47Attachment 5 - Secondary Survey Questionnaire and Methodology60Attachment 6 - Bibliography63Attachment 7 - Project Team Contact Details671

17、 Introduction1.1 Protected Area Management Benchmarking and Best Practice ProgramIn 1994, ANZECC (Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council), through its Working Group on National Parks and Protected Area Management, initiated a benchmarking and best practice program for park m

18、anagement. This program involves investigations into key operations common to all conservation agencies and its overall objective is to gather and pool the approaches and experiences of these agencies under common themes. This has led to the identification of areas of best practice and hence provide

19、s a resource that will assist and guide individual agencies to learn from, borrow and adapt ideas to improve their effectiveness.In 2001 ANZECC was disbanded and some of its functions, including the Working Group and its benchmarking and best practice program, were transferred to the Natural Resourc

20、e Management Ministerial Council (NRMC). The previous Working Group is now referred to as the Committee on National Parks and Protected Area Management and reports to NRMC through the Land, Water and Biodiversity Committee. Because of the diversity inherent in any evaluation of performance measureme

21、nt, this report, whilst part of the benchmarking and best practice suite, does not put forward a best practice model. Instead it is intended to provide an insight into the approaches currently being adopted by conservation management agencies nationally and to an extent, internationally.1.2 Project

22、ObjectivesThe objectives of this project are:1. To describe current practices being used in performance measurement based on project examples identified from various jurisdictions in Australia and overseas.2. To summarise and critique performance measurement activities undertaken in these projects.3

23、. To identify best practice principles for measuring performance in protected area management.4. To critique performance indicators currently used in best practice protected area management performance management.5. To identify best practice performance indicators for measuring performance in protec

24、ted area management.6. To summarise, compare and contrast performance management systems approaches being adopted in Australian and New Zealand jurisdictions.2 MethodologyThe breadth and diversity of the performance measurement issue was evident from the outset. In order to focus the project suffici

25、ently, a scoping meeting involving Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Environment Australia, Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife and University of Queensland (Gatton) staff was held in Brisbane on 4 August 2000. The outcome was the establishment of the above project objectives and the formation of a pr

26、oject team as listed in Attachment 7.Data collection was for the most part based on a primary and a secondary questionnaire survey. These surveys were developed, piloted for effectiveness and then finalised for distribution. Survey data was supplemented by two workshops involving all ANZECC member a

27、gencies.The primary survey (Attachment4) was completed in December 2000 by 72 respondents primarily from ANZECC member agencies, but also included a number of projects from overseas. All respondents are listed in Attachment 3. From the respondents to the primary survey, a subset of 29 were further s

28、urveyed in March 2001 to seek more detailed descriptions of the performance indicators and the collection methods used. This secondary survey is detailed in Attachment 5.3 An Integrated Performance Management Model “Indicators are chosen on the basis of the best available scientific understanding, a

29、nd can be placed in a number of alternative frameworks to present and organise information.” (ANZECC, Core Environmental Indicators for Reporting on the State of the Environment. Australian and New Zealand Environment Reporting Task Force, March 2000, p. 9). From this review of performance measureme

30、nt activities being undertaken by conservation management agencies, the issue that clearly resonates is the need for integration in performance measurement. The above quote indirectly serves to highlight a key issue in relation to best practice performance measurement. The dimensions and interrelati

31、onships between functional themes in conservation management (eg. conservation of individual species, fire management, weed management, recreation management, etc.) and scale can often introduce complexity into the quest for best practice performance measurement. All agencies have an array of perfor

32、mance measurement activities in place, but there can often be little or no linkage between them. As such, the outcomes of some provide little or no insight into the true effectiveness of the agency or its programs as a whole. A clear finding from the information assembled in this report is that ther

33、e should always be logical and holistic frameworks behind any performance measurement activity in an agency. The key questions that need to be answered when initiating any such activity is to define its objectives and then to check these against the corporate objectives of the agency. There will alw

34、ays be a case for ad hoc performance measurement activities driven by objectives that may, for instance, demand forensic detail on a particular research question. However these one-off projects should never be construed as the backbone of corporate performance measurement.In terms of corporate appro

35、aches to performance measurement, it is suggested that best practice is characterised by a truly integrated approach across an agency (and even integrated across a sector of government) such that performance measurement indicators at the project or activity level are collected such that they ultimat

36、ely contribute to informing the agency of its performance against strategic objectives.This model may be depicted for illustrative purposes as appears in Figure 1. It seeks to integrate the dimensions of functional theme and scale so that in essence, a number of key project-level indicators inform m

37、anagement theme or functionlevel performance measurement, a key number of which in turn inform organisational structure (eg an administrative Division or Branch) or outcome-level performance measurement, a key number of which in turn inform and provide the ultimate measure of corporate effectiveness

38、. The levels of scale and precise terminology may differ from agency to agency, but the underlying principle applies universally. Ignoring the detail of the performance indicator methodologies currently being used by some agencies, which are still very much undergoing refinement, recent initiatives

39、built around “State of the Parks” reporting frameworks move towards the model of an integrated performance management system that is advocated here.4 Performance Measurement FrameworksAs indicated in the previous section, implicit in best practice performance measurement is the existence of a compre

40、hensive and integrated framework within which an organisation positions, plans, measures and reports its achievement. The effectiveness and efficiency of this framework can be a resounding indicator of the overall success of an organisation whether in the private or public sector.Any such framework

41、needs to be finely geared to the political, social and economic environment in which the organisation operates. Hence the notion of a framework that could become a panacea for performance measurement across conservation agencies may not be a useful concept.A scan was conducted across Australian and

42、New Zealand jurisdictions to discover examples of current systems approaches to performance measurement. From this scan four such frameworks were identified, namely:1. Department of Conservation Te Papa Atawhai (New Zealand) - Making the Best Choices for Conservation (May 2001).2. Parks and Wildlife

43、 Service (Tasmania) - Evaluative Management System.3. Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory - Managing for Outcomes in Conservation of Biodiversity.4. Parks Victoria - State of the Parks 2000.This discussion is limited to secondary data analysis and does not include analysis of imp

44、lementation effects or critique effectiveness of the systems being presented. The systems have been implemented to varying degrees, and have been developed to meet the requirements of their sponsoring organisations. This level of contingency for diverse organisational environments is critical and co

45、nsequently no one best practice model is presented. Strategic level performance management frameworks/systems should define the nexus between corporate objectives and each performance measurement activity. The concepts, driving values, and context influencing the development of individual performanc

46、e measurement activities should be embedded in such systems.A comparative analysis is presented using the following criteria to categorise the similarities and differences depicted by the frameworks identified:Analysis CriteriaDefinitionObjectives classifies the level at which the performance manage

47、ment system is focusedOutcomes classifies the articulated and intangible desired outcomes to be achieved from the objectivesActions classifies the prescription-type and models used to describe what is to be doneImplementation classifies the basis for how the performance management activities are to

48、be doneAssessment classifies the type of data used for assessment of management resultsReporting describes the uses of reporting produced from the performance management systemScale describes the scale of the performance management systemFeedback describes the use of performance management system information for realignment, adjustment, le