Defining Success Metrics and Guardrails for a New Country's National Park System

You are leading the creation of a national park system for a country that has only just been founded. How would you measure whether the system is a success? ```hint Decide what the system is for Parks serve several goals, and some of them pull against each other. Settle what the system exists to achieve, and for whom, before choosing anything to count. ``` ### Clarifying Questions - Is the main purpose protecting nature, giving people places to visit, earning tourism income, building a national identity, or a mix, and who sets that priority? - Over what horizon should success show up: the first few years while parks are designated and opened, or once the system is established? - Does the system cover only natural areas, or historic and cultural sites as well? - Is the land already in public hands, or will parks need land that private owners or local communities hold or use? ### What a Strong Answer Covers - A mission that reconciles conservation, public access and the country's other aims, and the stakeholders behind each - A small set of top-level metrics tied to that mission, with precise definitions - Metrics that shift as the system moves from being built to being run - Guardrails for the tension between visitor use and ecological health, and for who actually gets access - How each metric will be measured in a country with no baseline data, and how to separate the parks' effect from outside trends ### Follow-up Questions - How would you measure success for the communities living in or next to the parks, including people whose land or livelihoods are affected? - You can afford baseline ecological surveys for only half the parks this year. Which do you choose, and what do you track in the rest meanwhile? - Two years in, every top-level metric looks healthy, yet surveys show most citizens feel the parks have nothing to do with them. What did your metrics miss?