Use of local knowledge in marine protected area management

Mellado, Tiscar; Brochier, Timothée; Timor, Julien; Vitancurt, Javier

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2013.10.004

Cited by 38 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results are consistent with such involvement and inclusion serving to engage and create stronger support and more effective management (FAO ). Given repeated calls for the integration of fisheries and conservation under an EBM approach (Abbott & Hayne, ; FAO ) and for fisher involvement in closed areas (Gaines et al ., ; Mellado et al ., ), the small number of closed areas globally (19 of 562 studies initially considered) that met all the review criteria was surprising, and suggests that the majority of closed area studies have not focused on fisheries impacts. We believe that this needs to change whether closed areas are to achieve management objectives.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Engagement of local communities and fishers can contribute to the success of all types of closed areas (Rossiter & Levine, 2014) and the strength of local support from the planning stages onward often determines whether conservation goals will be met (Agardy, 2000;Leleu et al, 2012;Mellado, Brochier, Timor, & Vitancurt, 2014). Engagement of local communities in closed area planning is a key factor in the success of an area (Charles & Wilson, 2009;IUCN 2007;Pollnac, Crawford, & Gorospe, 2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How fisher‐influenced marine closed areas contribute to ecosystem‐based management: A review and performance indicator scorecard

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A rapid review of the literature on closed areas that recognize key ecosystem‐based management (EBM) principles of fisheries and biodiversity conservation and had fisher involvement was employed to review closed areas worldwide from a fisheries perspective and to develop a scorecard that can assess their efficacy. The review provided 523 abstracts of which 19 areas from various regions worldwide had peer‐reviewed studies that met strict selection criteria. Criteria included fisher involvement, biodiversity conservation and fisheries management objectives. A repeat search without “fisher” and synonyms found, 62,622 papers indicating that most closed area studies had no mention of any fisher involvement. The general success of the areas selected suggests that fisher involvement benefits both biological conservation and fisheries management. Fisheries and biodiversity conservation outcomes were not exclusive to any one type of management closure (e.g. MPA, Fishery Closure). Twenty‐four indicators were selected, designed to provide measurable targets. High scoring indicators included management, planning and socio‐economic indicators such as local support (100%), habitat protection (100%), conservation and fisheries objectives (100%), monitoring (91.7%) and fishers concerns (91.7%). Bio‐ecological‐based indicators scored lower in most cases for all types of areas. Fisheries closures rated as highly as the MPAs with respect to both fisheries and bio‐ecological indicators. The scorecard provided a reasonable means to evaluate management success in the light of often qualitative or missing data. Addressing the interests and utilizing knowledge of those affected by closures and familiar with the area, most often local fishers, is key to achieving management objectives.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How fisher‐influenced marine closed areas contribute to ecosystem‐based management: A review and performance indicator scorecard

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This acknowledges the role of local knowledge and expertise to corroborate or supplement scientific knowledge, and for cooperation with fishers to help highlight areas of conflict that may influence the success of MSP [37][38][39]. Data collected can be combined with other spatial information using geographic information systems (GIS) and incorporated in spatial analysis [19,34,[40][41][42][43][44][45].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping inshore fisheries: Comparing observed and perceived distributions of pot fishing activity in Northumberland

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights• We compare distributions of inshore potting activity mapped by two data sources.• Maps based on vessel sightings and interview data are correlated at multiple ports.• Vessel sightings and map-based interview data have unique limitations and merits.• Triangulation of datasets is recommended to inform marine spatial planning. AbstractMarine spatial planning (MSP) is increasingly promoted as part of an ecosystem-based approach to marine resource management. Impacts of MSP may be particularly great in inshore fisheries, yet despite their vulnerability, assessing potential impacts of spatial measures on inshore fisheries is limited by data scarcity, and the comparability of patterns of fishing activity produced by different data sources is poorly understood. This study contributes to the debate around information needs for MSP by describing the distribution of lobster potting activity at four ports in Northumberland, UK, using two sources of spatial data: observed fishing vessel sightings by patrol vessels and perceived fishing activity elicited through interviews with local fishers. The comparability of the distributions of potting activity mapped by the two datasets was explored using Mantel tests and overlap of fishing hotspots identified. Fishing activity at all ports tended towards an aggregated or patchy distribution, with hotspots located in inshore areas in close proximity to vessels' home ports. The two datasets were correlated at each port, though the strength of correlation varied among ports, being greater in ports with more highly aggregated fishing activity. Results suggest that vessel sightings are likely to better represent variable intensity of fishing activity, while interview data may more accurately capture the absolute extent of grounds important to fishers. This study highlights some of the merits and limitations of two available data sources currently used to inform fisheries management and marine conservation planning, and outlines an approach to assessing the consistency of datasets in describing the spatial distribution of activity. Given the limitations of individual datasets, we recommend triangulation of available data to inform MSP, alongside qualitative data on fishers' behaviour.

show abstract

“…There has been much focus on governance frameworks for large ecosystems, including both natural systems and aquaculture systems embedded within a natural environment [2,34,37,9]. Nonetheless, it remains unclear how industry constituencies can participate in practice in co-managing public research and contribute to shaping its innovation outcomes, as there appears to be still limited research on this in the fisheries domain (exceptions include [31, , 35, , 48]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-managing public research in Australian fisheries through convergence–divergence processes

Dentoni

Klerkx

2015

Marine Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Use of local knowledge in marine protected area management

Cited by 38 publications

References 16 publications

How fisher‐influenced marine closed areas contribute to ecosystem‐based management: A review and performance indicator scorecard

How fisher‐influenced marine closed areas contribute to ecosystem‐based management: A review and performance indicator scorecard

Mapping inshore fisheries: Comparing observed and perceived distributions of pot fishing activity in Northumberland

Co-managing public research in Australian fisheries through convergence–divergence processes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About