Lessons from Philippines MPA Management: Social ecological interactions, participation, and MPA performance

Twichell, Julia; Pollnac, Richard Β.; Christie, Patrick

doi:10.31230/osf.io/wk83f

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The study results supported the trend of socio‐ecological change that has been documented in other community‐based conservation projects (Pietri et al, 2009; Twichell, Pollnac & Christie, 2018; Ziegler et al, 2021). Here, the LGUs, BCs or external NGOs convinced community members to support MPAs through information sessions and workshops.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…During the first few years of MPA establishment, community engagement might help to support relatedness by building relationships within communities and also with external agencies such as NGOs. This engagement can help to enhance competence (Twichell, Pollnac & Christie, 2018) by helping participants gain the basic skills for effective MPA management and enhance autonomy by creating a space for open community dialogue and the voicing of negative feelings about MPAs as well as opportunities to help explain practices that could adversely affect fisheries (Pietri et al, 2009; Chaigneau & Daw, 2015; McNeill, Clifton & Harvey, 2018). In addition, in the early years of MPA establishment, such engagement could also support BPN by communicating the socio‐psychological trajectory of an MPA.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The study was conducted in 2017 in Southern Leyte province (10°12′N, 125°12′E) in the eastern Visayan region of the Philippines within the Coral Triangle and a major biodiversity hotspot (Roberts et al, 2002; Cabral & Geronimo, 2018). Here, national laws provide local government units (LGUs; consist of provincial, city, municipality and barangay governments) with the authority and responsibility to declare and manage MPAs within their own municipal waters (Twichell, Pollnac & Christie, 2018). Accordingly, MPAs are established and managed at a local level through municipal or barangay (‘community’ or smallest scale of government within the LGU) initiatives.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The psychological impacts of community‐based protected areas

Yasué

Kockel

Dearden

2022

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This cross‐sectional and mixed‐methods study uses Self‐Determination Theory and the Theory of Basic Human Values to investigate changes in motivations, attitudes, beliefs and values following the establishment of community‐based marine protected areas (MPAs). Open‐ended and retrospective questions, as well as survey instruments, were used in six communities with different‐aged (new: 1–3 years old, medium‐aged: 5–11 years old and old: 20–25 years old) MPAs in the Philippines. Respondents included both community members either involved (n = 101) or not involved (n = 108) in MPA management. Respondents reported increased appreciation for the benefits of MPAs and more positive attitudes about MPAs over time. In comparison to respondents from communities with new MPAs, respondents in communities with medium‐aged and old MPAs identified a wider range of MPA impacts on themselves (e.g. new friendships, learning and greater pro‐environmental values), their community (e.g. increased fish catch, social capital), and on ecosystems (e.g. different species and ecosystems‐types). Similarly, respondents from medium‐aged and old MPAs had fewer non‐autonomous motivations (i.e. motivations arising externally, such as social status or pay) to engage in MPA management and also had higher self‐transcendence values, such as caring for nature. These results suggest that community‐based MPAs may encourage psychological shifts in communities such as greater autonomous motivation to care for nature and enhanced self‐transcendence values, both of which may support conservation. By developing a more holistic approach to assessing the multi‐faceted impacts of community‐based conservation, this type of psychological research helps to identify and prioritize timely actions in the establishment and maintenance of resilient and sustainable community‐based MPAs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The psychological impacts of community‐based protected areas

Yasué

Kockel

Dearden

2022

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Insufficient social and economic monitoring and evaluation of spatial management measures limits the capacity of policy makers and managers to assess and respond to the social and economic implications of these management tools and further exacerbates existing challenges of incorporating social and/or economic considerations into policy and management [46]. Spatial management measures are social constructs and their success often depends on social and economic factors [28,[47][48][49]. Failure to incorporate social and economic considerations, and indeed a reasonable range of outcomes within the social and economic categories, alongside ecological outcomes, risks undertaking incomplete evaluations that do not truly represent the implications of a spatial management measure, which could affect its long term sustainability.…”

Section: Implications For Policy/managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

The nature and extent of evidence on methodologies for monitoring and evaluating marine spatial management measures in the UK and similar coastal waters: a systematic map

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Anthropogenic degradation of marine ecosystems is widely accepted as a major social-ecological problem. The growing urgency to manage marine ecosystems more effectively has led to increasing application of spatial management measures (marine protected areas [MPAs], sectoral [e.g. fishery] closures and marine spatial planning [marine plans]). Understanding the methodologies used to evaluate the effectiveness of these measures against social, economic, and ecological outcomes is key for designing effective monitoring and evaluation programmes. Methods We used a pre-defined and tested search string focusing on intervention and outcome terms to search for relevant studies across four bibliographic databases, Google Scholar, 39 organisational websites, and one specialist data repository. Searches were conducted in English and restricted to the period 2009 to 2019 to align with current UK marine policy contexts. Relevant studies were restricted to UK-relevant coastal countries, as identified by key stakeholders. Search results were screened for relevance against pre-defined eligibility criteria first at title and abstract level, and then at full text. Articles assessed as not relevant at full text were recorded with reasons for exclusion. Two systematic map databases of meta-data and coded data from relevant primary and secondary studies, respectively, were produced. Review findings Over 19,500 search results were identified, resulting in 391 relevant primary articles, 33 secondary articles and 49 tertiary reviews. Relevant primary articles evaluated spatial management measures across a total of 22 social, economic and ecological outcomes; only 2.8% considered all three disciplines, with most focused exclusively on ecological (67.8%) or social (13.3%) evaluations. Secondary articles predominately focused on ecological evaluations (75.8%). The majority of the primary and secondary evidence base aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of MPAs (85.7% and 90.9% respectively), followed by fisheries closures (12.5%; 3.0%) with only 1.8% of primary, and 6.1% of secondary, articles focused on marine plans or on MPAs and fisheries closures combined. Most evaluations reported within primary articles were conducted for a single site (60.4%) or multiple individual sites (32.5%), with few evaluating networks of sites (6.9%). Secondary articles mostly evaluated multiple individual sites (93.9%). Most (70.3%) primary articles conducted principal evaluations, i.e. basic description of effects; 29.4% explored causation; and 0.3% undertook benefit evaluations. Secondary articles predominately explored causation (66.7%) with the remainder conducting principal evaluations. Australia (27.4%), the USA (18.4%) and the UK (11.3%) were most frequently studied by primary articles, with secondary articles reporting mostly global (66.7%) or European (18.2%) syntheses. Conclusions The systematic map reveals substantial bodies of evidence relating to methods of evaluating MPAs against ecological outcomes. However, key knowledge gaps include evaluation across social and economic outcomes and of overall merit and/or worth (benefit evaluation), as well as of: marine plans; networks of sites; real-time, temporary or seasonal closures; spatial management within offshore waters, and lagoon or estuary environments. Although the evidence base has grown over the past two decades, information to develop comprehensive evaluation frameworks remains insufficient. Greater understanding on how to evaluate the effectiveness of spatial management measures is required to support improved management of global ocean resources and spaces.

show abstract

Lessons from Philippines MPA Management: Social ecological interactions, participation, and MPA performance

Cited by 2 publications

References 37 publications

The psychological impacts of community‐based protected areas

The psychological impacts of community‐based protected areas

The nature and extent of evidence on methodologies for monitoring and evaluating marine spatial management measures in the UK and similar coastal waters: a systematic map

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About