3.1 Results of Management Effectiveness Evaluation at the First Step
Based on hierarchical cluster classification analysis, sites were classified into Groups A, B, and C. The dendrogram combined with Ward’s method (Figure 3) shows the protected wetland target areas on the vertical axis and the relative distance on the horizontal axis. After clustering, Group A included Yongneup of Mt. Daeam (site 1), Moojechineup (site 8), Sajapyeong (site 9), Sinbulsan wetland (site 10), Hwaeom neup (site 11), and Incheon river estuary (site 20); Group B included Upo wetland (site 21), Munkyung Doline wetland (site 12), Ungok wetland (site 13), Wolyeong wetland (site 14), Nakdong river estuary (site 18), Hwapocheon (site 19), and Gonggumji (site 22); Group C included the Damyang riverine wetland (site 15), 1100 m altitude wetland (site 2), Dongbaekdongsan (Site 3), Mulyeongari-oreum (Site 4), Muljangori-oreum (Site 5), Sumeunmulbaengdui (site 6), Jang-do wetland (site 7), Dongcheon estuary (site 16), and Chimsil wetland (site 17).
The average value of the design sector for all 22 target sites was 20.95 (± 3.15), of the appropriateness sector was 25.95 (± 5.76), and of the delivery sector was 6.36 (± 2.59). As for descriptive statistics per group, the averages in the design sector were 19.67 (± 3.14) for Group A, 24.14 (± 2.61) for Group B, and 19.33 (± 1.32) for Group C; the averages in the appropriateness sector were 19.50 (± 5.21) for Group A, 29.71 (± 3.35) for Group B, and 27.33 (± 4.00) for Group C; the averages in the delivery sector were 5.17 (± 0.98) for Group A, 8.86 (± 3.29) for Group B, and 5.22 (± 0.97) for Group C. The mean value of Group B was the highest in all sectors of design, appropriateness, and delivery. The standard deviation of Group A was relatively higher than other groups in the sectors of design and appropriateness, whereas that of Group B was the highest in the delivery sector (Table 3).
As a result of analyzing Box's test statistic (M) for homogeneity verification of the covariance matrix (Table 4), the hypothesis of the covariance matrix was rejected (P = 0.000) as the sample size was too small or the hypothesis of covariance invariance was violated; Pillai's trace, which is used when there is a difference in the size of groups (Hair et al. 2010), was applied. Levene's test confirmed that the variance of the evaluation result values, which are the dependent variables of the three groups, was homogeneous, and the significance of the difference between groups by sector of design, appropriateness, and delivery, which are dependent variables between groups, was recognized. As a result of analyzing eta-squared values (0.453–0.501), it was confirmed that the dependent variables of design, appropriateness, and delivery and independent variables of Groups, had sufficient effects on the differences between groups.
Scheffe's post-hoc test was used to confirm the significance level of the differences between groups, the average difference between Group B and Groups A and C was significant in the design and delivery sectors, based on a 95% confidence interval; in the appropriateness sector, the average difference between Group A and Groups B and C was significant (Table 5).
Analysis of the dependent variables in the design sector showed significant differences in five items that led to significant differences between groups (Table 6): Items 3 (Establishment and implementation of management (conservation) plans), 4 (Establishment and implementation of wide-area management plan), 5 (Establishment and implementation of annual management action plans), 6 (wetland management boundaries), and 7 (setting management (use) district). In the appropriateness sector, differences between groups stemmed from seven items: Items 10 (DB establishment for comprehensive environmental survey and monitoring), 12 (Employee training), 16 (Visitor center), 20 (Habitat restoration project), 21 (Research), 22 (Tour and education programs), and 23 (Public relations to raise awareness). In the delivery sector, differences between groups stemmed from two evaluation items: Items 28 (revitalization of the local economy) and 29 (capacity building).
3.2 Evaluation of Target Sites of Three-Step Pilot Projects
Yongneup of Mt. Daeam, the protected wetland area, showed an overall management effect of 43.9%, with the highest management effect (58.1%) in the design sector, and lower effects in the appropriateness (38.3%) and delivery (37.5%) sectors.
As a result of the Step 1 (self-assessment) evaluation of the design sector, Item 1 (Legal protection) scored 3 points; four evaluation items, Items 2 (establishment of wetland management direction), 3 (establishment and implementation of management (conservation) plans), 8 (Implementation and reflection of comprehensive environmental survey), and 9 (Monitoring detailed items and its reflection), scored 2 points; and Items 5 (Establishment and implementation of annual management action plans), 6 (wetland management boundaries), 7 (setting management (use) district), and 4 (establishment and implementation of wide-area management plan) scored 0 points. As a result of the final evaluation Steps 2 (form a bond of sympathy with local stakeholders) and 3 (external specialist), one additional point was given to Item 4, as the item suggests the necessity for conserving Yongneup of Mt. Daeam, and its location information in the wide-area level of a higher plan. In the case of detailed items such as 3c and 3d for additional points, there was no scoring for their pre-evaluation. However, considering that five-year conservation plans are established based on the Wetland Conservation Act and that implementation evaluations of previous conservation plans have been implemented before setting new conservation plans, additional points were assigned to the detailed items in the case of qualitative evaluations. In the Step 1 (self-assessment) evaluation of the appropriateness sector, Items 21 (Research) and 24 (Purchase and management of private land) scored 3 points; evaluation Items 11 (Number of employees), 15 (Budget management), 18 (Management equipment and facility management), 19 (Visitor management system), 20 (Habitat restoration project), and 22 (Tour and education programs) scored 2 points. Items that scored 1 point were as follows: 10 (DB establishment for comprehensive environmental survey and monitoring), 12 (Employee training), 13 (Current budget), 16 (Visitor center), and 23 (Public relations to raise awareness). Item 25 (Wetland management governance) scored 0 points. As a result of the final evaluation via Steps 2 and 3, the evaluation results were corrected for items 12, 16, and 17. One point was given for the detailed items of 12a and 20b in the same manner as the self-evaluation; evaluation scores were corrected for other detailed items. As a result of Step 1 (self-assessment) evaluation in the delivery sector, no items scored 3 or 0 points; Item 28 (Revitalization of the local economy) scored 2 points and three items scored 1 point, Item 26 (Status on key management targets), Item 27 (Conservation of cultural value of wetland), and Item 29 (Capacity building). One additional point was assigned to the detailed items of 29a and 20b; evaluation scores were corrected for other detailed items via Steps 2 and 3 (Figure 4).
The Damyang riverine wetland, the protected wetland area, had a management effect of 37.4%; the management effect in the design sector was the highest at 48.4%, the appropriateness sector was 38.3%, and the delivery sector was particularly low at 12.5%.
As a result of the Step 1 (self-assessment) evaluation of the design sector, Item 1 (legal protection) scored 3 points; four items, Items 2 (Establishment of wetland management direction), 3 (Establishment and implementation of management (conservation) plans), 5 (Establishment and implementation of annual management action plans), and 8 (implementation and reflection of comprehensive environmental survey), scored 2 points. Three items scored 1 point: Items 4 (Establishment and implementation of wide-area management plan), 6 (wetland management boundaries), and 9 (monitoring detailed items and their reflections). Item 7 (setting management (use) district) scored 0 points. As a result of the final evaluation via Steps 2 (form a bond of sympathy with local stakeholders) and 3 (external specialist), the evaluation outcomes of Items 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9 produced by administrative agencies were adjusted through the process of forming a consensus and reviews from external experts. an additional point was given to 3c in both self-evaluation and external expert evaluation, with no other additional points.
As a result of Step 1 (self-assessment) evaluation in the appropriateness sector, the evaluation Items 12 (Employee training), 13 (Current budget), 14 (Budget security), 15 (Budget management), 17 (Introduction of management equipment and facilities), and 19 (Visitor management system) scored 3 points: Items 16 (Visitor Center), 18 (Management equipment and facility management), 22 (Tour and education programs), 23 (Public relations to raise awareness), and 24 (Purchase and management of private land) scored 2 points. Items 11 (number of employees) and 21 (research) scored 1 point. Items 10 (DB establishment for comprehensive environmental survey and monitoring), 20 (Habitat restoration project), and 25 (Wetland management governance) scored 0 points. As a result of the final evaluation via Step 2 and Step 3, the self-evaluation results for Items 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, and 21 were corrected: one point was given to the detailed item, 12a, but no scores were assigned to other detailed items.
As a result of Step 1 (self-assessment) evaluation in the delivery sector, no items scored 3 or 0 points; Items 26 (status on key management targets) and 27 (conservation of cultural value of wetland) scored 2 points, and two items such as Item 28 (Revitalization of the local economy) and 29 (Capacity building) scored 1 point. Via Steps 2 and 3, all items of 26, 27, and 29, except for Item 28, were corrected, and no additional points were assigned. In particular, in the case of this target site, it was clear that the current management level was overestimated to some extent during the self-evaluation, or there was a lack of understanding due to the rotation of managers (Figure 5).
Upo wetlands showed an overall management effect of 59.8%; the management effect in the design sector was evaluated as the highest at 77.4%; the management effect in the delivery sector was 62.5%, whereas the appropriateness sector showed a relatively lower effect (48.3%). As a result of Step 1 (self-assessment) evaluation in the design sector, the following items scored 3 points: Item 1 (legal protection), 5 (establishment and implementation of annual management action plans), 6 (wetland management boundaries), 8 (implementation and reflection of comprehensive environmental survey), and 9 (monitoring detailed items and their reflections). Four items scored 2 points: Items 2 (Establishment of wetland management direction), 3 (Establishment and implementation of management (conservation) plans), 4 (Establishment and implementation of wide-area management plan), and 7 (setting management (use) district). As a result of the final evaluation via Steps 2 (form a bond of sympathy with local stakeholders) and 3 (external specialist), corrections were made to Items 7, 8, and 9, and additional points were attributed to detailed items of 3a, 3c, and 3d. As a result of Step 1 (self-assessment) evaluation in the appropriateness sector, the following evaluation items scored 3 points: 15 (budget management), 16 (visitor center), 17 (introduction of management equipment and facilities), 18 (management equipment and facility management), 19 (visitor management system), 22 (tour and education programs), and 25 (wetland management governance). The evaluation Items 10 (DB establishment for comprehensive environmental survey and monitoring), 13 (current budget), 20 (habitat restoration project), 21 (research), and 24 (purchase and management of private land) scored 2 points. Items 11 (number of employees) and 14 (budget security) scored 1 point, whereas items 12 (employee training) and 23 (public relations to raise awareness) scored 0 points. As a result of the final evaluation via the Step 2 and Step 3 process, the evaluation results of Items 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, and 23 were corrected with additional points attributed to the detailed items 10a, 20a, 20b, and 22a. As a result of Step 1 (self-assessment) evaluation in the delivery sector, Items 26 (status on key management targets) and 29 (capacity building) scored 3 points, whereas Item 27 (conservation of cultural value of wetland) and item 28 (revitalization of the local economy) scored 2 points. The self-evaluation scores of Items 27 and 29 were corrected through the process of Step 2 and Step 3, and additional points were given to detailed items 26a and 29a (Figure 5).