www.protectedareasmanagement.org www.protectedareasmanagement.org
www.protectedareasmanagement.org
 
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
[Everything in bold is required]
ABOUT YOU
The results of this study will be of public domain. However, the identity of the respondents will not be disclosed and their contact information will not be shared with anyone. Occasionally, with his or her permission, I may contact a respondent to ask for further clarification on any of the answers. Respondents will receive a message to acknowledge their participation.
If you wish, you may check the consent form approved by the Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board, University of Calgary. Answering this questionnaire indicates that you agree to participate in the research.
 
Name:
 
Position:
 
Organization:
 
Years of experience in this field:
 
Country:
 
E-mail:
 
Area Code and telephone:
 
Do you want to keep the name of your organization anonymous?
 Yes  No 
 
Do you wish to remain anonymous?
 Yes  No 
 
Would you like to receive information about the results of the study?
 Yes  No 
 
[In this questionnaire, the term "park" is used to refer to any category of protected area. I encourage you to use the spaces provided if the available options do not reflect what you wish to share and to expand on your responses.]
 
About your organization
Park Management
Environmental Assessment
 
ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION
 
Please indicate the scope of your organization
International
Local
National
State/Provincial
Other
 
What are the main activities of your organization?
Activism
Community Development
Conservation
Research
Other
 
What is the mission of your organization?
 
What kind of support do you provide to local communities?
Education and training
Funding for projects
Technical assistance
Other
 
What are the main issues of concern for your organization?
Economic
Environmental
Political
Social
Other
Other
Comments
 
How would you rate the effectiveness of the following methods to disseminate your products or communicate your activities and results to other parties?
Informal Visits to individuals or organizations Very Effective  Effective  Not Effective  Not Applicable 
Invitation to open houses to comment on management plans Very Effective  Effective  Not Effective  Not Applicable 
Participation in advisory groups that include stakeholders Very Effective  Effective  Not Effective  Not Applicable 
Posting information on a web page  Very Effective  Effective  Not Effective  Not Applicable 
Posting Notices in newspapers Very Effective  Effective  Not Effective  Not Applicable 
Presentations to meetings of local associations Very Effective  Effective  Not Effective  Not Applicable 
Submitting reports to park authorities, other government agencies, or the public Very Effective  Effective  Not Effective  Not Applicable 
Other   Very Effective  Effective  Not Effective  Not Applicable 
Comments
 
What kind of indicators does your organization use to report on achievements? Please give some examples.
Biodiversity or biophysical indicators
Community development indicators
Educational outreach indicators
Environmental indicators
Financial indicators
Heritage preservation indicators
Other state of the environment indicators
Social or policy indicators
Other
None
 
PARK MANAGEMENT
 
In which park(s) does your organization have projects (past or present) or is active in some way?
 
How is your organization involved with the park?
Advocate/Watchdog group
Co-manager
Consultant
Manager
Owner
Partner
Sponsor
Other
 
If your organization is involved in park management, what motivated its involvement?
 
What information from the park is most useful to your organization?
Activities allowed inside the park
Coordination with adjacent landowners or communities
Inventories
Legislation
Management plans
Monitoring or research programs
State of the resources
Threats
Other
 
What level of priority would you give to the following initiatives towards increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of park management?
Addressing stakeholders’ values and needs High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Considering different levels and/or scales (time, space) when evaluating management alternatives High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Consulting with visitors, business, residents, or other agencies High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Defining park's vision, goals and objectives High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Designing or improving strategies for conservation of biodiversity High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Generating information about the park's ecosystems and their function High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Implementing conflict resolution mechanisms High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Implementing or improving educational programs for visitors, residents, or tourism operators High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Improving communication between the park and NGOs or other stakeholders High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Improving on identifying, modelling and selecting management alternatives High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Improving on management of human resources  High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Improving the effectiveness of management actions High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Incorporating stakeholder and institutional factors in analysis of management alternatives High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Increasing awareness among neighbours, stakeholders and public in general of goods and ecological or other services provided by the park  High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Making financial management more efficient or transparent High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Making internal communication (among park units) more efficient and effective  High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Making park management more collaborative and integrated in a regional context High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Making research more proactive, adaptive, flexible, and responsive to park management needs High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Managing visitor use High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Promoting awareness about the park's contribution to the economy of the region High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Promoting educational or training programs for communities High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Promoting interdisciplinary approaches to park management and problem solving High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Promoting mutual understanding of how the activities of the park and the community affect each other  High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Promoting partnerships with other stakeholders, land managers, or possible sponsors High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Setting benchmarks and parameters to understand and assess the health of the park ecosystems High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Sharing information and resources with neighbours and other land managers or agencies High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Understanding how the park ecosystems function High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Using monitoring and evaluation to provide feedback for updating management plans High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Using sound information for decision-making High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Other    High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
 
What would you recommend to park managers to improve their relationships with NGOs?
 
What would you recommend to park managers to improve their relationships with other stakeholders?
 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA)
 
Has there been an EIA process involving the park(s) that your organization is interested in?
Yes
No . Please click here to continue
 
If yes, what was the purpose of the EIA?
 
What was your position regarding the project or activity focus of the EIA process?
Oppose it
Support it
Undecided
 
Which was the final decision?
Approved
Rejected
Under review
 
Do think that the assessment(s) included a comprehensive analysis of cumulative effects?
Yes
No
Do not have enough information
 
Was your organization satisfied with the results of the review processes and the final decision?
 Yes  No 
If not, why?
 
What deficiencies have you observed in the assessment process?
An assessment is conducted even if it is not needed
An assessment is not conducted even if it is needed
The final decision is based on the results of the assessment; however, the poject is implemented in a different way or the conditions are not followed throughly
The final decision is not based on the results of the assessment
The project is approved based on mitigation measures or recommendations; however, the measures/recommendations are not properly implemented or do not have adequate follow up.
The project is rejected; however, the proponent implements different phases of it on a piecemeal basis.
The results of the assessment are not objective
Other
Other
Comments
 
If you were satisfied with the assessment process, which of the following contributed to your satisfaction?
Appropriateness and feasibility of mitigation measures or recommendations
Collaboration between proponents and stakeholders
Consideration of the results of the assessment and input from the review process to reach the final decision
Objectivity of the assessment
Participation of an interdisciplinary team of experts and stakeholders during the review process
Participation of an interdisciplinary team of experts to carry out the assessment
Specification of mitigation measures and follow-up as conditions to aprove the project
Support of responsible authorities
Other
Other
Comments
 
1
Do you think Environmental Assessments are effectively used as a tool to improve management of parks and natural resources in your region?
 Yes  No 
Why?
 
What level of priority do you think the following elements should have in order to increase the usefulness of Environmental Impact Assessment as a tool for decision-making?
Adequacy of environmental legislation High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Consideration of social, economic and environmental factors and trade-offs High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Consistency among different laws High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Consultation process with the public or interested parties High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Coordination between government agencies High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Objectivity in the evaluation process High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Quality of the reports/usefulness for decision-making High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Training / access to technology for consultants High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Training / access to technology for reviewing agencies High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Other   High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Other   High  Medium  Low  Not Applicable 
Comments
 
Please use this space if you have additional comments or if you would like to comment on any aspect that you think is related to this topic and was not covered by this questionaire.
 
Please, use this link if you would like to give me some feedback on this questionnaire