Embedded Files
Insights from the lower Gordon River Case Study
Insights from the lower Gordon River Case Study
Case study learning summary
Case study learning summary
This case study illustrates the application of adaptive management principles, providing a structured framework that connects scientific evidence with management decisions. The management of anthropogenic riverbank erosion on the lower Gordon River demonstrates the practical application of a Management Effectiveness Evaluation (MEE) system.
This case study emphasises the following key features of successful systematic monitoring, evaluation and adaptive management:
Strategic alignment with enduring responsibilities
Values-based framework
Community relevance
Outcomes focus
Evidence-based decision-making
Systematic and transparent evaluation
Practicality
Adaptive management cycle
This Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA) MEE approach and its demonstrated application in the lower Gordon River, underscore how systematic monitoring, evaluation and adaptive management can lead to measurable conservation successes, demonstrating a robust model for protected area management globally.
Setting the scene: the challenge that MEE seeks to address
Setting the scene: the challenge that MEE seeks to address
Cradle Mountain and Dove Lake. Image credit: Fiona Rice
The TWWHA encompasses approximately 1.58 million hectares—nearly a quarter of Tasmania's landmass—and is inscribed on the World Heritage List for both its natural and cultural values, meeting seven out of ten criteria for World Heritage listing.
Managing a protected area can present complex challenges in balancing multiple objectives and determining the effectiveness of management action. Integrated adaptive management of the TWWHA aims to:
Be systematic and take into account the diverse landscape and values facing multiple threats
Address multiple management objectives and responsibilities
Balance protection and conservation of World Heritage values with sustainable visitation and presentation
Create and support a culture and commitment to evidence-based evaluation and adaptive management
Define the scope for well-targeted, sustainable long term monitoring and evaluation, aligned with available resources and organisational capacity
Maintain effective protection and conservation programs and consistent approaches, being flexible when there are resource constraints
Demonstrate the results achieved from the investment of time and resources in protected area management, and take account of the results to guide future planning and management decisions.
The TWWHA Management Effectiveness Evaluation (MEE) program was established to institute a systematic, evidence-based approach to protected area management.
The lower Gordon River project is a long-term monitoring and research study that has provided a real-world demonstration of the benefits of evidence-based adaptive management. It clearly demonstrates the value of in-depth monitoring to inform decision making for complex management issues and has contributed to building the TWWHA MEE. The principles demonstrated by the Gordon River case study project are reflected in the TWWHA MEE system, supporting Tasmania’s broader protected area management approach.
Principles of the TWWHA Management Effectiveness Evaluation approach
Principles of the TWWHA Management Effectiveness Evaluation approach
The MEE approach is founded on the basis that effectiveness evaluation is considered "the best use of limited resources to guide adaptive management for better on-ground outcomes" (Jones, 2009). This underpins an important principle that continues to guide the system: prioritising outcome measurement over process documentation i.e. assessing the result rather than what was done.
The MEE process involves collecting data and other evidence on various management indicators, such as the condition of natural resources and the effectiveness of various management projects or programs. These evaluations are conducted by the Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service with inputs from a wide range of staff and stakeholders, including scientists, subject matter experts and data-holders across and outside government.
The evaluation approach is founded on several key principles:
Strategic alignment: Aligns closely with formal management responsibilities and international obligations, particularly those related to World Heritage management.
Values-based framework: Focuses on safeguarding Tasmania’s unique natural and cultural heritage values, particularly the area's Outstanding Universal Value (OUV)1 .
Community relevance: Recognition that protected areas must play a valued role in community life and well-being
Outcomes focus: Emphasis on outcomes rather than just outputs or activities
Evidence-based decision-making: Prioritises systematic scientific data collection and analysis to guide management interventions.
Systematic and transparent monitoring and evaluation: Uses consistent evaluation questions and structured reporting, ensuring transparency and accountability to stakeholders.
Practicality and resilience: Development of approaches that are operationally practical and scalable and resilient to change through alignment with enduring mandates.
Adaptive management cycle: Incorporates management planning, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, reporting, and continual improvement, promoting organisational learning and responsiveness to measured evidence of management progress, achievements and challenges.
Development and implementation
Development and implementation
Staged development of the MEE approach
Staged development of the MEE approach
The MEE approach evolved through five developmental stages (Jones, 2009). These stages reflect some of the enabling conditions that are discussed later in this case study and provide valuable insight into the time and process required to establish a functioning adaptive management system.
Following legislation and High Court decisions, joint federal-state arrangements and increased funding created the foundation for comprehensive management.
Increased funding enabled appointment of additional staff including natural resource scientists, cultural heritage specialists and management planners, building the professional and technical capacity needed for evaluation.
The first statutory management plan (1992) included prescribed actions for developing an evaluation system, followed by the second plan (1999) which integrated formal statements of management intent (Key Desired Outcomes).
Development of methodologies began in 1999, with linkages established to international initiatives, culminating in publication of the first "State of the TWWHA Report — an evaluation of management effectiveness" in 2004.
Following international recognition of evaluation as a strategic priority, the managing agency established a dedicated staff position for evaluation in 2005 and began applying evaluation findings to guide management improvements.
Implementation of the TWWHA MEE system
Implementation of the TWWHA MEE system
Development and implementation of the TWWHA MEE system went through its own staged evolution.
Initial development (1992-1999): The first statutory Management Plan for the TWWHA prescribed the development of an effectiveness evaluation system, creating the foundation for future work.
Framework development (1999-2004): The second Management Plan introduced statements of 'Key Desired Outcomes' and an evaluation framework, providing a structure for the first State of the TWWHA Report in 2004.
System formalisation (2004-2013): Consolidation of methods and approaches into a formal system, documented in 'Evaluating Management Effectiveness: The Monitoring and Reporting System for Tasmania's National Parks and Reserves' (PWS, 2013).
Selected monitoring, evaluation and reporting: Monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of selected projects and production of a range of 'Evaluated case study' reports (available at www.parks.tas.gov.au/monitoring).
Institutionalisation (2016-present): Monitoring, evaluation and reporting provisions embedded as Chapter 9 of the 2016 TWWHA Management Plan, along with Evaluation Statements throughout other management focused chapters.
Production of Status and Trends Reports in 2022 on the condition of natural and cultural values.
TWWHA MEE achievements
TWWHA MEE achievements
The TWWHA MEE has delivered several important achievements:
Systematic framework
Systematic framework
Adaptive management process
Adaptive management process
Management plan
Management plan
Evaluation reports
Evaluation reports
Informed management
Informed management
Demonstrable outcomes
Demonstrable outcomes
Resourcing decision-making
Resourcing decision-making
Organisational learning
Organisational learning
Key players
Key players
Development of evaluation frameworks and processes involves meaningful consultation with staff and key stakeholders (including reserve managers, specialists and experts, community stakeholders, government and funding partners (PWS, 2013). The collaborative nature of the process ensures that the evaluation framework is relevant to management responsibilities and meaningful to staff and stakeholders.
Key contributors to TWWHA MEE have been:
ℹ️ Click the left and right arrows to read more
Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania & Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service
Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania & Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service
Management advisory committees
Management advisory committees
TWWHA management program staff
TWWHA management program staff
Experts and academic institutions
Experts and academic institutions
Community stakeholders
Community stakeholders
Other government departments and data holders
Other government departments and data holders
The lower Gordon River example
The lower Gordon River example
One notable example of the PWS evaluation approach in action is the monitoring and management of the lower Gordon River. This portion of the river and narrow estuary within the TWWHA has geomorphological features of World Heritage significance. In the 1980s, the riverbanks experienced severe erosion following an increase in tourism boat traffic.
Scientific staff in the management department implemented a comprehensive monitoring and research program to evaluate management actions and guide adaptive responses.
The erosion challenge and response
The erosion challenge and response
Management objectives for the TWWHA include the protection of natural values, and presentation of the TWWHA through a diversity of sustainable visitor experiences.
The lower Gordon River was historically a stable to actively depositional environment until the 1980s when increased tourism led to larger and faster cruise boats. By 1984, staff noticed bank collapse, which was attributed to boat wake-induced erosion. Rather than applying conventional engineering solutions (bank stabilisation works) that would compromise the area's natural values, the department took an evidence-based management approach:
Scientific monitoring and research: Implemented erosion pin monitoring and bank profile surveys to precisely measure erosion rates and used empirical data from experimental studies to demonstrate the relationship between boat speed and erosion rates
Evidence-based regulation: Took account of the findings of monitoring and research to regulate motorised vessel access and speed
Adaptive management: Progressively adjusted speed limits and access zones based on monitoring results
Ongoing monitoring and evaluation: Maintained a long-term monitoring program that continues to inform management decisions
Closing the adaptive management cycle: The updated edition of the Lower Gordon River Recreation Zone Plan 2023 includes adaptive management provisions and performance criteria for monitoring management effectiveness
The monitoring program documented the success of management interventions, showing how erosion rates declined from meters per year in the 1980s to millimetres per year by the 2020s.
ℹ️ View the below document in a new screen by clicking the pop-out in the top right corner, or scroll through the document in-situ
Link between LGR adaptive management and TWWHA MEE.pdfThe lower Gordon River erosion monitoring program exemplifies the practical application of the MEE framework. It illustrates how long-term strategic monitoring and evaluation can support informed decision-making and effective conservation outcomes, resulting in measurable improvement in environmental conditions and the sustainability of tourism and visitor use.
ℹ️ Click the left and right arrows to read more
Lower Gordon management achievements
Lower Gordon management achievements
The lower Gordon River case study provides demonstrated evidence of the MEE system's effectiveness
ℹ️ View the below document in a new screen by clicking the pop-out in the top right corner, or scroll through the document in-situ
Link between LGR achievements and TWWHA MEE.pdfThe lower Gordon River monitoring program continues to inform management today, with recent monitoring (2022-2024) identifying potential new concerns from increased private vessel traffic and the effects of climate change-related sea level rise, demonstrating the ongoing value of long-term monitoring and evaluation programs.
Enablers, barriers and challenges
Enablers, barriers and challenges
Enablers
Enablers
The successful implementation of a Management Effectiveness Evaluation (MEE) system depends on several interconnected factors. Central is an adaptive management approach, beginning with simple methods and progressively building capacity and sophistication to support robust evidence-based monitoring, evaluation, and reporting.
The support of leadership across programs, and dedicated staff for evaluation coordination significantly reinforces institutional capability and commitment for monitoring and evaluation.
The MEE's credibility and effectiveness are underpinned by scientific rigour and the use of evidence-based management, facilitated by developing operationally practical methods and ensuring appropriate staffing. This scientific approach enhances transparency and stakeholder confidence in the reported findings of evaluations.
Broad stakeholder engagement is important, as reflected in public support, trust and cooperation, further bolstered by external recognition and validation of the evaluation system. Finally, the embedding of evaluation requirements within statutory management plans and a clear, sustained strategic vision are critical to achieving long-term continuity and resilience in protected area management programs.
Regular evaluations create a feedback loop that promotes continuous learning and improvement. Lessons learned from past management decisions inform future planning, making the TWWHA's management more dynamic, informed and effective in delivering the desired outcomes.
Joint state federal government arrangements support sound management of the TWWHA guided by a shared vision: “To identify, protect, conserve, present, and if appropriate, to rehabilitate the World Heritage, National Heritage, and other natural and cultural values of the TWWHA, and to transmit that heritage to future generations in as good or better condition than at present”.
Challenges: addressing complexity, resource intensity and applicability
Challenges: addressing complexity, resource intensity and applicability
Potential critiques of adopting a comprehensive approach to Management Effectiveness Evaluation (MEE), such as that applied in the TWWHA, typically revolve around complexity, resourcing intensity, and applicability. Below are several possible critiques and how the lower Gordon River case provides an example of a response that addresses them.
Resources and cost intensity
Resources and cost intensity
Potential critique:
Comprehensive MEE systems require significant resources, including substantial financial investment, skilled personnel, and institutional commitment, often perceived as impractical or unsustainable in resource-limited contexts.
Example response:
The Gordon River project demonstrated that adaptive management can start with simple, cost-effective monitoring methods (e.g. erosion pins). These foundational practices required modest initial investments, which evolved incrementally into sophisticated techniques as resources permitted, illustrating effective resource prioritisation and manageable scaling of investments.
Complexity and technical difficulty
Complexity and technical difficulty
Potential critique:
Comprehensive monitoring and evaluation systems can become overly complex, making them difficult to implement effectively and sustain in practice, potentially overwhelming management staff or obscuring practical insights within technical data.
Example response:
The lower Gordon River project adopted pragmatic, stepwise approaches—beginning with straightforward methods—gradually advancing to sophisticated techniques (e.g. wave wake impact measurement and continuous turbidity monitoring). This incremental approach balanced technical complexity, ensuring practical application while progressively building staff capability and organisational understanding for evidence-based management.
Information overload
Information overload
Potential critique:
There is a risk that excessive detail in monitoring and reporting can overwhelm users, leading to confusion or difficulties in identifying actionable information, thereby undermining the utility of the evaluation.
Example response:
The Gordon River case emphasised clear and targeted evidence-based decisions, directly linking scientific findings (such as erosion rates correlated with boat speeds) to straightforward management actions. This clarity of purpose in evaluation reporting ensured practical usability and clear decision-making relevance.
Slow responsiveness
Slow responsiveness
Potential critique:
Comprehensive evaluation systems might delay management responses due to prolonged data collection, analysis, and interpretation cycles, potentially undermining timely intervention.
Example response:
The adaptive management approach implemented on the Gordon River allowed for ongoing adjustments as trends in monitoring data emerged, facilitating responsive management actions (e.g. adjusting boat speed regulations incrementally). Continuous adaptive responses highlighted that comprehensive monitoring and evaluation need not compromise timely intervention.
Why overarching MEE frameworks are so important
Why overarching MEE frameworks are so important
ℹ️ Click the left and right arrows to read more
Comprehensive overarching frameworks like the TWWHA MEE system are vitally important. They provide essential structure, coherence, and consistency to protected area management, particularly across large, complex landscapes. Without a comprehensive framework, management can drift towards becoming fragmented, inconsistent, or reactive rather than being strategically adaptive.
The TWWHA’s experience of developing an outcomes-focused, evidence-based management effectiveness evaluation system, particularly as illustrated by the lower Gordon River example, demonstrates that these frameworks are essential to informed management and can be operationally practical and useful.
Lessons for success
Lessons for success
The PWS experience with MEE for the TWWHA and the lower Gordon River example offer several important lessons.
Strategic commitment to evaluation
Strategic commitment to evaluation
Sustained strategic and organisational commitment is critical for a successful management effectiveness evaluation system.
Monitoring, evaluation and reporting activities should be integrated fully into management planning processes, not treated as ancillary tasks.
Monitoring and evaluation programs require resourcing, and need to be flexible and scalable to adjust to changing operational conditions, in the same way as other management activities.
Identify the lesson that an MEE system that focuses on outcomes, as well as milestone achievements and program delivery efficiency can help demonstrate the value proposition for funding MEE systems and achieving organisational commitment and improved integration.
Evidence-based and data-driven management
Evidence-based and data-driven management
Robust scientific baselines (or reference data) are crucial for demonstrating effectiveness and changes in conditions over time.
Evidence (quantifiable data such as erosion measurements and qualitative photo-monitoring sequences) is necessary to demonstrate the results and directly supports informed management decisions and adjustments.
Technological innovations (e.g., experimental design, turbidity monitoring, low wake vessel hull design) can enhance the precision of targeted monitoring and evaluation.
Adaptive and incremental improvement
Adaptive and incremental improvement
Beginning with simple monitoring methods (such as erosion pins) provides a foundation for developing more sophisticated evaluation approaches.
Continuous, incremental refinement of monitoring systems maintains data continuity and improves the quality of evidence over time.
Regular and consistent evaluation informs adaptive management responses for progressive improvement in management results.
Stakeholder engagement and complementary perspectives
Stakeholder engagement and complementary perspectives
Integrating staff and stakeholder insights on factors affecting performance complements scientific data and strengthens causal understanding of results.
Active involvement of staff and stakeholders in the evaluation process builds trust, promotes understanding, and ensures broader acceptance of adaptive management actions.
Communication, transparency, and credibility
Communication, transparency, and credibility
Transparent public reporting of the findings of evaluations enhances credibility, community trust, and acceptance of management decisions.
Visual documentation (photography) can provide compelling, easy-to-understand evidence of management outcomes.
User-friendly reporting (e.g., public websites, accessible documents) ensures evaluation findings are broadly available and effectively communicated.
Long-term monitoring and continuity
Long-term monitoring and continuity
Commitment to long-term monitoring programs is essential for demonstrating credible evidence of management effectiveness. This includes tracking the conditions, trends and changes in key values over time, such as the restoration of degraded sites and values, or adverse impacts on the environment.
Stability and continuity of evaluation approaches across organisational changes, budget fluctuations, and shifting policy contexts are critical for ensuring ongoing relevance.
Embedding monitoring and evaluation requirements and processes into management plans secures evaluation as a continuous and integral aspect of protected area management.
The lower Gordon River program specifically demonstrates that even complex management issues involving severe environmental impacts and conflicting management objectives (e.g. protection of natural values while providing for compatible tourism) can be successfully managed through taking an integrated, evidence-based management approach. It shows how initial simple steps in monitoring and evaluation can evolve over time into sophisticated evidence-based adaptive management systems. Even with limited staffing resources for MEE, much can be achieved through slow and steady progress. Maintaining data continuity over the long term has provided invaluable evidence and insights into long-term environmental processes that would be missed by short-term studies. Perhaps most importantly, this case study illustrates how consistent monitoring, evaluation and reporting over decades has informed sound management decisions which have delivered demonstrable improvements in outcomes for both the protection of natural values and the sustainability of human use.
Specific actions that might be considered at different levels
Specific actions that might be considered at different levels
For government and management culture
For government and management culture
Focus on achievement of important long-term outcomes
Encourage evidence-based management approaches
Value strategic management planning and evaluation
Commit to transparency and accountability
Strive for excellence and continuous improvement
For funding and investment bodies
For funding and investment bodies
Support ongoing funding realistic to effective management of the protected area
Build capacity for evidence-based adaptive management
Encourage enabling management arrangements
Support well-targeted scientific and monitoring programs
Encourage evidence-based adaptive management and in recognition of demonstrated management successes
For management agencies
For management agencies
Integrate adaptive management into 'enduring' agency systems
Establish designated positions to manage evaluation frameworks and support staff to implement robust evidence based MEE
Foster staff and stakeholder engagement
Commit to high standards of management and MEE
For external stakeholders
For external stakeholders
Provide advocacy for evidence-based adaptive management
Expect transparency and accountability
Provide recognition for outstanding achievements
Contribute constructive feedback to improve effectiveness
Conclusion
Conclusion
The Management Effectiveness Evaluation (MEE) system for the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA) demonstrates a comprehensive and systematic evidence-based approach to protected area management, highlighting the critical importance of adaptive management, scientific rigour, and staff and stakeholder involvement.
The lower Gordon River case specifically illustrates how sustained long-term monitoring, coupled with evidence-based strategies, have effectively addressed severe environmental impacts, providing valuable lessons on the importance of long-term commitment and incremental improvement in management practices.
Ultimately, the successful integration of localised adaptive management practices into the broader TWWHA management framework exemplifies how focused, evidence-based projects can inform and strengthen overarching management effectiveness.
PWS's robust, evidence-based evaluation reports for the TWWHA have been well accepted by diverse audiences which is helping to build confidence and trust in the standard of Tasmania’s management of its national parks and World Heritage properties.
The principles and practices developed and refined through the lower Gordon River experience continue to underpin ongoing conservation efforts, demonstrating the scalability and adaptability of Tasmania's approach to protected area management, and offering a robust model for global application.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) is a central concept underpinning the World Heritage Convention. It means ‘cultural and/or natural significance which is so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and future generations of all humanity. As such, the permanent protection of this heritage is of the highest importance to the international community as a whole.’ (UNESCO Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, World Heritage Centre AHC 23/10. 24 September 2023).
Further reading
Further reading
Bradbury, J. (2025). Lower Gordon River adaptive management history and erosion monitoring program retrospective establishment report. Nature Conservation Report series 25/03 Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania.
Bradbury, J., Cullen, P., Dixon, G., & Pemberton, M. (1995). Streambank erosion, revegetation and management of the lower Gordon River, Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. Environmental Management, 19, 259-272.
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment. (2016). Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Management Plan 2016. Hobart, Tasmania.
Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N., & Courrau, J. (2006). Evaluating Effectiveness: A framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas (2nd ed.). IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Jones, G. (2009). The adaptive management system for the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area – linking management planning with effectiveness evaluation. In C. Allan & G. Stankey (Eds.), Adaptive Environmental Management: A Practitioner's Guide. Springer.
Jones, G. (2015). What's working, what's not: The monitoring and reporting system for Tasmania's national parks and reserves. In A. Watson et al. (Eds.), Tenth World Wilderness Congress Science and Stewardship Symposium, Proceedings RMRS-P-74.
Parks and Wildlife Service. (2004). State of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area – an evaluation of management effectiveness. Report No. 1. Department of Tourism Parks Heritage and the Arts, Hobart.
Parks and Wildlife Service. (2013). Evaluating Management Effectiveness: The Monitoring and Reporting System for Tasmania's National Parks and Reserves. Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Hobart.
Parks and Wildlife Service. (2023). Lower Gordon River Recreation Zone Plan 2023. Parks and Wildlife Service, Hobart.
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
This case study and its contents were researched and compiled by Our Common Place, formerly Conservation Management and developed with permission and generous input from the Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania and Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service. Thank you to the staff, past and present, who contributed insights, expertise and publications to this resource.
Special thanks are extended to the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE) Tasmania staff members Jason Bradbury (Geoscientist, Natural Values Science Services) for inputs on lower Gordon River monitoring, and to Glenys Jones (PWS Specialist – Evaluation, NRE Tasmania) for inputs on the PWS management effectiveness evaluation system.
Video production was provided by the University of Tasmania. Special thanks are extended to Matthew McKee, Educational Technologist Sciences and Engineering, Academic Division for his generous input of time and skill.
Banner image: Cradle Mountain and Dove Lake. Rebecca Schneider
Page updated
Report abuse