Recasting shortfalls of marine protected areas as opportunities through adaptive management

Ban, Natalie C.; Cinner, Joshua E.; Adams, Vanessa M.; Mills, Morena; Almany, Glenn R.; Ban, Stephen S.; McCook, Laurence; White, Alan T.

doi:10.1002/aqc.2224

Cited by 41 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Scientific evidence shows that MPAs can produce ecological, economic, and social benefits under appropriate design and management conditions (Ban et al, 2012;PISCO UNS, 2016). Comparative studies across marine regions have enabled us to explore common factors contributing to MPA success (e.g., Charles and Wilson, 2009;Edgar et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting “Success” and “Failure” of Marine Protected Areas: A Conservation Scientist Perspective

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marine protected areas (MPAs) form the cornerstone of marine conservation. Identifying which factors contribute to their success or failure is crucial considering the international conservation targets for 2020 and the limited funds generally available for marine conservation. We identified common factors of success and/or failure of MPA effectiveness using peer-reviewed publications and first-hand expert knowledge for 27 case studies around the world. We found that stakeholder engagement was considered to be the most important factor affecting MPA success, and equally, its absence, was the most important factor influencing failure. Conversely, while some factors were identified as critical for success, their absence was not considered a driver of failure, and vice versa. This mismatch provided the impetus for considering these factors more critically. Bearing in mind that most MPAs have multiple objectives, including non-biological, this highlights the need for the development and adoption of standardized effectiveness metrics, besides biological considerations, to measure factors contributing to the success or failure of MPAs to reach their objectives. Considering our conclusions, we suggest the development of specific protocols for the assessment of stakeholder engagement, the role of leadership, the capacity of enforcement and compliance with MPAs objectives. Moreover, factors defining the success and failure of MPAs should be assessed not Giakoumi et al. MPA Success and Failure only by technical experts and the relevant authorities, but also by other stakeholder groups whose compliance is critical for the successful functioning of an MPA. These factors should be considered along with appropriate ecological, social, and economic data and then incorporated into adaptive management to improve MPA effectiveness.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting “Success” and “Failure” of Marine Protected Areas: A Conservation Scientist Perspective

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This may go some way towards explaining the general hostility towards MPAs from some sectors from the earliest stages of inception. This presents a key challenge for policy makers in how best to seek synergies between the needs and aspirations of local communities and the international commitments and ecological imperative that are driving the global push for MPA networks (Agardy et al ., ; Ban et al ., ). There are two possible ways in which this could possibly be achieved: expanding the scope and objectives of MPA policy to embrace some secondary, local level fisheries management objectives; or incorporating consideration of MPAs into wider, ecosystem based spatial planning exercises that incorporate a diversity of objectives.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Understanding marine park opposition: the relationship between social impacts, environmental knowledge and motivation to fish

Voyer

Gladstone

Goodall

2013

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marine protected areas (MPAs), are being vigorously pursued globally but meeting significant resistance at a local level. Despite this, there is limited research into the factors that drive this resistance. The Port Stephens–Great Lakes Marine Park (PSGLMP) and Batemans Marine Park (BMP), both situated in New South Wales (NSW) Australia, were established in December 2005 and April 2006 respectively. Both generated significant controversy and hostility, particularly from the recreational fishing sector. The controversy surrounding the declaration of these and other NSW marine parks continues and has been the subject of intense political interest and government enquiry. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with recreational, professional and indigenous fishers. They explored the social impacts of the declaration of PSGLMP and BMP and their link to marine park opposition. Opponents felt the marine parks had resulted in a variety of negative impacts ranging from a loss of enjoyment and convenience through to more serious impacts on wellbeing, livelihood and culture. Examination of the reasons why interview subjects participated in fishing provided further insight into their perception of the marine park and the impacts resulting from the declaration. Opposition to MPAs, however, cannot be explained by impact alone. All the marine park opponents interviewed represented themselves as ‘knowledge holders’ about their local marine area. This knowledge – predominately ‘fish’ knowledge – appears to have conflicted with a policy position which places biodiversity conservation as the primary objective of MPAs. This has led to a perception that the practical knowledge of users was not valued in the planning of each marine park. Incorporation of the goals and objectives of local communities into the development of MPA proposals may provide communities with a greater sense of ownership. Considering motivation to fish may allow for the development of more holistic management responses to mitigate and compensate users for social impacts that may arise from any necessary trade‐offs between these often competing objectives. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

“…In the protected areas literature, the debate around management effectiveness is not exactly the same as the one around biodiversity conservation effectiveness (Geldmann et al, ; Geldmann, Woodley, Hockings, & Burgess, ; Watson et al, ). In terms of results for biodiversity conservation and fish stock maintenance or renewal, attention has been focused on factors of efficiency and effectiveness of protected areas—such as location, staff, budget, size and general regional governance (Ban et al, ; Edgar et al, ; S. Woodley, pers. comm., April 2017; Watson et al, ).…”

Section: Evolution and Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marine and coastal protected and conserved areas strategy in Brazil: Context, lessons, challenges, finance, participation, new management models, and first results

Maretti

Leão

Prates

et al. 2019

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last two decades, Brazil has advanced significantly with the expansion and improvement of its national system of protected areas. Until recently most of the expansion was concentrated in the Amazon region (with useful lessons). It also had an uneven ecological representation of coastal and marine ecosystems, concentrated in coastal waters. Despite significant advances, the levels of funding, staff and stakeholders' engagement remain relatively low for such a vast system. Within the past few years, key elements of a new strategy for protection of coastal and marine areas have started to emerge, combined with some participatory processes and a focus on expansion of the total area protected (from <1.5% protection of the country's marine area). These included: a renewed focus on priority areas for conservation; attention to national and international commitments and targets; clarity about the need for partnerships and funding; better engagement of Brazilian society and stakeholders; new, and more collaborative, models of protected areas management and conservation; and openness in the relationships with wider society. Significant results of this effort have started to appear: new large mosaics of oceanic protected areas were created; Amazon mangroves were recognized by the Ramsar Convention; new mangrove protected areas were created, besides other ones proposed; project proposals are under development with partners for better funding and sharing of responsibility; and there is a better engagement with stakeholders. The building of the Brazilian Blue Initiative is underway. The implementation of the proposed 15‐year marine strategy is at its onset: partnerships need to be strengthened and substantial funding is required. It will only be possible to manage the larger system of protected areas if there are more collaborative and innovative models for protected areas and conservation management. These should include partnerships with civil society, local and traditional communities and the private sector, as well as greater engagement of scientists and research institutions, stronger and more qualified tourism, volunteer work, etc. Further innovative funding mechanisms will also be needed along the way.

show abstract

Recasting shortfalls of marine protected areas as opportunities through adaptive management

Cited by 41 publications

References 81 publications

Revisiting “Success” and “Failure” of Marine Protected Areas: A Conservation Scientist Perspective

Revisiting “Success” and “Failure” of Marine Protected Areas: A Conservation Scientist Perspective

Understanding marine park opposition: the relationship between social impacts, environmental knowledge and motivation to fish

Marine and coastal protected and conserved areas strategy in Brazil: Context, lessons, challenges, finance, participation, new management models, and first results

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About