A. Garcia Rodriguez, L. M. Fanning
cating the improvements needed in the management of the evaluated MPA
(Appendix 1). This modification of the original scorecard was viewed as im-
proving the evaluation of the effectiveness of the MPA by acquiring more moni-
toring details and to guide the selection of the best indicators to be measured
according to the MPA’s goals. To achieve this, questions in the Process category
were adapted. Question 19 of the original scorecard was divided into three sepa-
rate questions to address specific biophysical, socioeconomic, and governance
indicators (Question 19, 23 and 25) and the relevant indicators from Pomeroy
et
al
. [23] for each of these were then assigned as illustrated in Questions 20, 24 and
26 (Appendix 1). Lastly, to conduct a more comprehensive evaluation of the
monitoring activities undertaken within the MPA, the adapted scorecard was
modified to also incorporate questions on the different spatial and temporal
scales being measured as recommended by Stelzenmuller and Pinnegar in 2011
[26], as well as the frequency for monitoring biophysical indicators (Questions
21 and 22, Appendix 1).
To obtain a preliminary assessment of the TCMP using the adapted evaluation
framework, responses to the questions were obtained based on a literature re-
view of key TCMP’s management and monitoring documents (e.g. the TCMP
management plan, as well as previous assessments and documents describing the
area and its management) and in person experience in the area while conducting
research on the TCMP
[27] [29] [32] [33] [34]. The majority of the indicators
were scored on a scale of 0 to 3 (three being scored on a scale of 0 to 2 due to the
nature of the questions), with the opportunity for bonus points to be awarded.
Effectiveness was calculated based on percent of maximum allowable score ob-
tainable where 0% - 29% was deemed “deficient”, 30% - 49% was “limited”, 50%
- 69% was “fair”, 70% - 79% was “good” and more than 80% was considered to
be “excellent”.
In addition to the assessment of the TCMP performance in 2016 using the
modified scorecard comprised of both the original and supplemental questions,
a comparative assessment was undertaken of the results obtained in 2016 using
the adapted scorecard with the 2007 assessment using the original scorecard
[25]. This comparison allowed for improvements in the effectiveness of the
TCMP over a ten-year period to be determined as well as highlighted the addi-
tional management information gleaned from a more in-depth monitoring sco-
recard when assessing MPA effectiveness in 2016.
3.2. Queen Conch Density Surveys to Measure MPA Effectiveness
As noted by scholars and practitioners in the field of MPA management, the ul-
timate objective of MPAs is to enhance marine conservation. To determine
whether this outcome has been achieved by the TCMP, the desktop assessment
using the adapted scorecard was supplemented with in situ fieldwork aimed at
assessing queen conch abundance and density inside and outside of the Park.
Queen conch is a very important resource (environmentally, economically, and
culturally) in SVG, as well as in most Caribbean countries. Current management
384