A comparison of zoning analyses to inform the planning of a marine protected area network in Raja Ampat, Indonesia

Grantham, Hedley S.; Agostini, Vera N.; Wilson, Joanne R.; Mangubhai, Sangeeta; Muljadi, Andreas; Muhajir,; Rotinsulu, Chris; Mongdong, Meity; Beck, Michael W.; Possingham, Hugh P.

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2012.05.035

Cited by 81 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…23, 24). More recently, attention has also focused on optimizing social equity through instances where all stakeholders are included in the planning process (18) or are affected equally by actions (12,25,26), and to a lesser extent through consideration of intergenerational equity (27,28). It is typically assumed that increased equity comes at the cost of financially optimal conservation solutions, but the nature and shape of that trade-off is generally unknown (29).…”

Section: Equity and Its Trade-offsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is an ongoing process to zone a network of multiuse MPAs in Raja Ampat in eastern Indonesia to support biodiversity conservation and sustainable fisheries (12). We focus here on Southeast Misool MPA (Fig.…”

Section: Case Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Formalizing equity as a quantifiable and high-priority goal for conservation planning is feasible, as we discuss and demonstrate below. However, explicitly including this additional objective could compromise biodiversity conservation, or in other words create another potential tradeoff among planning objectives (12).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Achieving the triple bottom line in the face of inherent trade-offs among social equity, economic return, and conservation

Halpern

Klein

Brown

et al. 2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

262

260

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Triple-bottom-line outcomes from resource management and conservation, where conservation goals and equity in social outcomes are maximized while overall costs are minimized, remain a highly sought-after ideal. However, despite widespread recognition of the importance that equitable distribution of benefits or costs across society can play in conservation success, little formal theory exists for how to explicitly incorporate equity into conservation planning and prioritization. Here, we develop that theory and implement it for three very different case studies in California (United States), Raja Ampat (Indonesia), and the wider Coral Triangle region (Southeast Asia). We show that equity tends to trade off nonlinearly with the potential to achieve conservation objectives, such that similar conservation outcomes can be possible with greater equity, to a point. However, these case studies also produce a range of trade-off typologies between equity and conservation, depending on how one defines and measures social equity, including direct (linear) and no trade-off. Important gaps remain in our understanding, most notably how equity influences probability of conservation success, in turn affecting the actual ability to achieve conservation objectives. Results here provide an important foundation for moving the science and practice of conservation planning-and broader spatial planning in general-toward more consistently achieving efficient, equitable, and effective outcomes. marine protected areas | environmental justice | marine spatial planning | ecosystem-based management | social-ecological systems

show abstract

Section: Equity and Its Trade-offsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Case Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Achieving the triple bottom line in the face of inherent trade-offs among social equity, economic return, and conservation

Halpern

Klein

Brown

et al. 2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

262

260

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Within the Indo-Pacific, there are several high-profile conservation initiatives for coral reefs such as the Micronesia Challenge and the Coral Triangle Initiative as well as local spatial prioritization efforts , Baker et al 2011, Game et al 2011, Grantham et al 2013. These on-the-ground programs aim to place large areas of reef under protection, using criteria such as biodiversity, sustainable fisheries, food security, avoiding climate change threats, and integrating land-based influences (West and Salm 2003, CTI Secretariat 2009, McLeod et al 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolving coral reef conservation with genetic information

Beger¹,

Selkoe²,

Treml³

et al. 2014

BMS

104

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT.-Targeted conservation and management programs are crucial for mitigating anthropogenic threats to declining biodiversity. Although evolutionary processes underpin extant patterns of biodiversity, it is uncommon for resource managers to explicitly consider genetic data in conservation prioritization. Genetic information is inherently relevant to management because it describes genetic diversity, population connectedness, and evolutionary history; thereby typifying their behavioral traits, physiological climate tolerance, evolutionary potential, and dispersal ability. Incorporating genetic information into spatial conservation prioritization starts with reconciling the terminology and techniques used in genetics and conservation science. Genetic data vary widely in analyses and their interpretations can be challenging even for experienced geneticists. Therefore, identifying objectives, decision rules, and implementations in decision support tools specifically for management using genetic data is challenging. Here, we outline a framework for eight genetic system characteristics, their measurement, and how they could be incorporated in spatial conservation prioritization for two contrasting objectives: biodiversity preservation vs maintaining ecological function and sustainable use. We illustrate this framework with an example using data from Tridacna crocea (Lamarck, 1819) (boring giant clam) in the Coral Triangle. We find that many reefs highlighted as conservation priorities with genetic data based on genetic subregions, genetic diversity, genetic distinctness, and connectivity are not prioritized using standard practices. Moreover, different characteristics calculated from the same samples resulted in different spatial conservation priorities. Our results highlight that omitting genetic information from conservation decisions may fail to adequately represent processes regulating biodiversity, but that conservation objectives related to the choice of genetic system characteristics require careful consideration.

show abstract

“…For more information about zoning and marine spatial planning in MPAs, refer to Douvere & Ehler, (2011), Agardy (2010, Gilliand & Laffoely (2008), Day (2011), Kenchington Day (2011), and Grantham, et al (2013 Effective access and zoning should:…”

Section: Case Study 10mentioning

confidence: 99%