Marine “Conservation”: You Keep Using That Word but I Don't Think It Means What You Think It Means

Parsons, E. C. M.; MacPherson, Rick; Villagomez, Angelo

doi:10.3389/fmars.2017.00299

Cited by 13 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While it is apparent that capacity shortfalls, inappropriate targets and poor monitoring tools are hindering the effective use of MPAs in many countries (Ahmadia et al, 2015;Gill et al, 2017;Parsons, MacPherson, & Villagomez, 2017), MPA management is still typically shown to be a valuable cost-effective tool for producing multiple biological benefits for marine systems across scales (Lester et al, 2009;Roberts et al, 2017), a finding supported by this study. The ability to effectively manage and build reef resources is an important tool within a wider integrated social-ecological system approach.…”

Section: Management Implicationssupporting

confidence: 61%

Evaluating the efficacy of small‐scale marine protected areas for preserving reef health: A case study applying emerging monitoring technology

Bayley

Mogg

Purvis

et al. 2019

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are widely used as management tools to conserve species and ecosystems at risk from human impact. Coastal managers often focus MPA designation on biogenic reef environments due to their value and sensitivity to damage. However, difficulties in enforcement and a lack of capacity to adequately monitor MPAs often make it hard for managers to assess the effectiveness of MPAs, particularly in under-resourced, low-income coastal countries. 2. Reef community data were collected at three long-term managed reserves within the Western Visayas region of the central Philippines in order to assess the state of reef community structure inside and outside of these small-scale locally managed MPAs. In addition, 3D structural data were captured using recently developed 'Structure from Motion' (SfM) photogrammetry techniques, demonstrating how multiple quantitative metrics of physical structural complexity and health can be recorded in such analyses. 3. These community-run MPAs were shown to be effective even when small (10-20 ha). Mean fish biomass density was five times greater within present-day protected sites, alongside significantly increased levels of fish diversity, richness, and size. No significant structural differences were observed inside and outside of MPAs, however, average reef rugosity, height, and roughness were significantly higher in unfished reefs compared to blast-fished reefs. Reef substrate complexity, coral composition, and level of management, were also shown to structure fish community assemblages, with the link between reef structure and fish richness / abundance disrupted outside of MPAs. 4. The SfM technique allows a greater range of quantitative morphometrics to be assessed than traditional methods and at relatively low cost. The technique is rapid, non-destructive and can be archived, increasing the value of data for managers wishing to quantify reef health and efficiently monitor benthic changes through time. We discuss both the limitations and benefits of this technology's future use.

show abstract

Section: Management Implicationssupporting

confidence: 61%

Evaluating the efficacy of small‐scale marine protected areas for preserving reef health: A case study applying emerging monitoring technology

Bayley

Mogg

Purvis

et al. 2019

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Practitioner-based research yielding nonsignificant results maybe even less likely to be published in a peer-reviewed setting, since published practitioner-led research is arguably less prevalent, to begin with (Mlinarić et al, 2017). The disproportionate publication output between academics and practitioners is due to constraints associated with the practitioner landscape, such as accessibility, capacity, costs, and funder expectations (Gordon et al, 2016;Parsons et al, 2017;Veríssimo et al, 2018). Therefore, we approach this research topic through reflection on an already-constrained academic and practitioner landscape that neither encourages nor rewards the dissemination of research documenting failed interventions.…”

Section: Absence Of Failure In Academic and Practitioner Publishingmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Causes Social Marketing Programs to Fail? A Qualitative Study

Akbar

Foote

Soraghan

et al. 2021

Social Marketing Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This paper addresses the key factors that cause social marketing programs (typically consisting of discrete programs or interventions, but also including broader-scale initiatives) to fail. It argues that understanding these failures offers greater insight to researchers and practitioners than publications solely focused on successes. Focus: Our paper discusses the causes of the failure of social marketing programs, an area that has largely been ignored in extant research. Research Question: What causes social marketing programs to fail? Importance: As the majority of practitioner-oriented social marketing research focuses on how to develop a successful program, we identify a tendency to ignore failed programs. We suggest that both researchers and practitioners can arguably learn more useful lessons from failures rather than successes. Thus, this paper contributes to social marketing literature by exploring the key causes of social marketing failures. Methods: We conducted ten semi-structured interviews with social marketing practitioners recruited using a purposive sampling technique. Results: We identify four elements responsible for the failure of social marketing programs, each centered on the planning and implementation stage. Firstly, formative research at the earliest stages of program planning is often neglected, resulting in a limited understanding of the target audience. Relatedly, extant research is frequently overlooked during this early planning stage, and this failure to use available social marketing theory and frameworks can result in program performing poorly. Thirdly, for a program to be successful, it must be congruent with the goals of the wider environment and infrastructure within which it is situated; adopting too narrow a focus can also result in a limited impact or program failure. Lastly, we found a common issue relating of stakeholder mismanagement, specifically around issues of power imbalance and mismanaged expectations resulting in social marketing program failing to launch. Researchers and practitioners must acknowledge that social marketing programs do indeed fail but recognize that in these failings lies insight into how to enhance future practice. Recommendations: We suggest that more attention is required from social marketing practitioners during the early design stage into understanding the target audience in detail. We suggest drawing upon extant social marketing frameworks and research to inform the planning and development of social marketing programs. We demonstrate how implementing these changes in the earliest stages of program designs would reduce the chance of program failure. Further, we suggest that adopting a more systems-level approach or critical approach would additionally benefit program outcomes. Limitations: A relatively small sample size could be considered a limitation of the study. Similarly, our focus on practitioner insights may limit the scope of the findings. Future research could advance the current findings by incorporating the views of a broader range of stakeholders, including the target audience themselves. We also suggest future research consider integrating the analysis of failure into the social marketing process to encourage practitioner reflection and inform and improve future practice.

show abstract

“…As UAVs are still an emerging technology, trends of helicopter research could be avoided. The 72 studies identified in this paper are just a sliver of the entirety of mangrove research; however, this problem has been identified across many disciplines and tools (Parsons et al, 2017;Minasny et al, 2020). By focusing on technology transfer, scientific equity, and collaborative processes across regions, the benefits of aerial tools could be harnessed globally and lead to greater collective knowledge generation.…”

Section: Current Challenges and Recommendations For Uavsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Challenges and Recommendations for Equitable Use of Aerial Tools for Mangrove Research

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As the use of aerial tools such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) for mangrove monitoring gains in popularity, understanding who leads this research and where is critical for expanding efficient monitoring methods and achieving international commitments to sustainable development, technology transfer and reduced inequality. Between 2000 and 2019, mangrove research using aerial tools was largely conducted in and led by institutions in higher income countries, despite High-income countries accounting for only 9% of global mangrove coverage. Of studies where the country of the lead institution differed from that of the study site, only 38% of the studies included local co-authors. These results echo historical patterns of research conducted by researchers from higher income countries on biodiversity concentrated in lower income countries, frequently with limited involvement of local scientists—known as “helicopter research.” The disconnect between where mangroves are located and where aerial research is conducted may result from barriers such as government restrictions, limited financial and technical resources, language barriers hindering UAV deployment, or hampered findability of local research. Our findings suggest that expertise for aerial surveys currently lies in “High-income, Annex II” and “Upper-middle-income, Non-Annex” countries, and both groups could invest time and resources in building local, long-term technological capacity in Upper-middle, Lower-middle and Low-income countries. We identify strategic partnerships to expand aerial tools for mangrove research that also address commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and potential international collaborations under the framework proposed by the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development.

show abstract

Marine “Conservation”: You Keep Using That Word but I Don't Think It Means What You Think It Means

Cited by 13 publications

References 11 publications

Evaluating the efficacy of small‐scale marine protected areas for preserving reef health: A case study applying emerging monitoring technology

Evaluating the efficacy of small‐scale marine protected areas for preserving reef health: A case study applying emerging monitoring technology

What Causes Social Marketing Programs to Fail? A Qualitative Study

Challenges and Recommendations for Equitable Use of Aerial Tools for Mangrove Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About