Stakeholder Perceptions of a Coastal Marine Protected Area

Journal of Coastal Research

SI

75

622-626

Coconut Creek, Florida

2016

Stakeholder Perceptions of a Coastal Marine Protected Area Beverley Clarke†, Ruth Thurstan†§, and Katherine Yates † †† ‡ † School of the Environment, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia †† Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Australia

§

Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia ‡ Global Change Ecology Lab, School of Biological Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

www.cerf-jcr.org

ABSTRACT Clarke, B.; Thurstan, R.H.; and Yates, K.L, 2016. Stakeholder perceptions of a coastal marine protected area, . In: Vila-Concejo, A.; Bruce, E.; Kennedy, D.M., and McCarroll, R.J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Coastal Symposium (Sydney, Australia). Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue, No. 75, pp. 622-626. Coconut Creek (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208. www.JCRonline.org

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are an increasingly utilised marine and coastal management tool, with rates of designation rising steeply over the last twenty years. MPAs are most commonly designated for biological conservation objectives and the management is thus focused primarily on meeting conservation goals, with associated monitoring programs gathering data on a narrow suite of biological indicators. However, MPAs also have a wide range of potential social and economic impacts and the ability to meet the goals of an MPA is highly influenced by the often unmonitored perceptions and buy-in of local stakeholders. Here we examine a range of stakeholder perceptions concerning a coastal MPA in South Australia. We conducted semi-structured interviews with individuals engaged in the MPA’s planning and designation process, as well as those involved with its ongoing management. We explored their understanding of the purpose of the MPA, whether they thought the MPA was successful and the future management challenges the MPA might face. In particular, we focused on eliciting from stakeholders indicators they thought should be used to monitor the ongoing performance of the MPA. Perceptions varied between stakeholder groups, however, the majority of respondents highlighted the importance of socioeconomic factors in the ongoing performance of the MPA. The vast majority of them suggested both biological and socio-economic indicators that should be incorporated into monitoring programs. Our findings highlight the need for MPA planning and management, when defining goals and developing monitoring programs, to be mindful to incorporate social and economic, as well as, biological indicators. ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS: MPA, marine conservation, marine biodiversity, indicator, South Australia.

INTRODUCTION Globally, marine biodiversity continues to decline (Sala and Knowlton, 2006), despite wide recognition of its essential role in maintaining the provision of marine ecosystem services (Beaumont et al., 2007; Lloret, 2010). Increasingly, management efforts to conserve marine biodiversity focus on the designation of marine protected areas (MPAs). MPAs are areas of the sea in which one or more activities are prohibited or managed in order to protect or restore certain features of interest and there have been drastic increases in the number of MPAs designated over the last 20 years (Pita et al., 2011). According to the IUCN the number of MPAs globally in 2013 had reached 10,280, covering 8.3km2 or 2.8% of the world’s seas and oceans (Kusumawati and Huang, 2015). MPAs exist in many forms and sizes ranging from multiple-use marine parks to highly protected ‘no-go’ sanctuaries. While MPAs play a critical role in protecting marine biodiversity, ecosystem function and sustaining healthy coastal communities, they face many challenges in achieving their objectives (NOAA, 2013) and inadequacies in MPA design and ____________________ DOI: 10.2112/SI75-125.1received 15 October 2015; accepted in revision 15 January 2015. *Corresponding author: [email protected] © Coastal Education and Research Foundation, Inc. 2016

management have led to many MPAs failing to achieve their goals (Weible, 2008). There are therefore concerns that MPAs are not achieving their full potential and that overall performance is relatively poor (Dalton et al., 2012; Kareiva, 2006; Pollnac et al., 2001); there is a danger of rejection of MPAs by adjacent communities if MPAs prove to be unsuccessful (Pollnac et al., 2001). Increasingly authors argue that social factors, not biological or physical variables, are the primary determinants of MPA success or failure and that efforts to design more effective MPAs are hindered by a lack of research into the human dimensions of MPA development and management (Pollnac et al., 2010; Yates, 2014). According to Hamilton (2012: p.1) ‘Social acceptance of MPAs must be achieved if they are to function as effective management tools’. However, ‘It is often more difficult to get the social components of an MPA ‘right’ than the biological or physical components’ (Pomeroy et al., p.157). MPA planning processes vary greatly and implementation is context specific (Charles and Wilson, 2009; Pomeroy et al., 2006; Voyer et al., 2015) and so costs and benefits will be perceived and felt variously, especially between developed and developing countries and regions (Badalamenti et al., 2000). Impacts of MPAs on adjacent communities vary significantly. For example, communties or members of communities reliant on marine resources for livelihood will be directly affected by

Stakeholder Perceptions of a Coastal Marine Protected Area

resource use restrictions (Bennett and Dearden, 2014; Mascia et al., 2010). Many MPAs are introduced adjacent to heterogeneous communities representing diverse perspectives (Himes, 2007); and for this reason ‘it is fundamental to successful conservation that these diverse perceptions are explored and considered’ (Himes, 2007 p. 330). Community expectations not in keeping with goals and objectives of a given MPA will lead to misunderstanding and possibly conflict. The human dimension of MPAs encompasses a complex weave of social, economic, and institutional considerations. This dimension affects all phases of MPA designation from planning through to monitoring and ongoing management. Charles and Wilson (2009) provide a succinct overview of people-oriented attributes they consider fundamental to the acceptance and ultimate success of MPAs (See Table 1). A critical requirement is the support for the MPA by all stakeholders (including by the local management authority and adjacent community) (Himes, 2007; Kusumawati and Huang, 2015). More specifically, meaningful engagement or active participation of the community across all of the phases of MPA designation (from planning to implementation) is considered essential for realisation of MPA goals (Agardy, 2000; Charles and Wilson, 2009; Lundquist and Granek, 2005). Others suggest that if a community is able to see tangible results of a MPA (increased fish catch, tourism) that this is a measure of ‘success’(Hoisington, 2013). The third most commonly cited social factor leading to success is how a community perceives its MPA because this will influence behaviour regarding the MPA (Bernstein et al., 2004; Himes, 2007; Pollnac et al., 2001). Indeed studies concur that where local perceptions of MPAs are positive, conservation outcomes are more likely to be successful (e.g. Bennett and Dearden, 2014). Understanding different perceptions, values and attitudes will also ‘create opportunities for decison making that lead to concensus [for the majority of individuals] rather than conflict’(Brown et al., 2001 p. 418).

The cultivation of stewardship, defined as ‘careful and responsible management to ensure goals and objectives are being achieved for the benefit of current and future generations’ (NOAA, 2013: preface), is a prime mechanism to promote acceptance of MPAs (Himes, 2007). However, in order to achieve this end more needs to be understood about the human dimension of MPA management—local perceptions and social aspects of MPA implementation and management. This paper focuses on stakeholder perceptions and presents a case study of the Encounter Marine Park, a coastal MPA in South Australia (See Figure 1). We investigate how sociocultural or human dimensions have shaped or influenced the effectiveness of the Encounter Marine Park and what key stakeholder groups identify as important indictors of success. This is being done with the intention of developing a locally derived indicator set—one that corresponds to the local community’s knowledge, behaviour and aspiration. Background South Australia has 19 MPAs (known locally as marine parks). The Encounter Marine Park was the ‘pilot’ park and therefore has had the longest history of public engagement. The 19 marine parks were designated under the South Australian Marine Parks Act 2007 and are designed to represent all the biological diversity of South Australia’s marine environment. While the Act focuses on biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, community stewardship is also a central object within the Act, the intent of which has been transferred to strategies and goals within individual marine park management plans. Establishment of Encounter Marine Park took many years, commencing in 2004 with scientific studies and outer boundary planning. An Act to regulate the parks was promulgated in 2009 and the internal zoning structure of parks and their management plans were implemented in 2012 (Kirkman, 2013).

Table 1. Human Dimensions basic to the success of MPAs (after Charles and Wilson 2009) Objectives and attitudes

MPAs are created and function in the context of societal and/or community objectives, which inherently reflect human aspirations and values.

People-orientated ‘entry points’ for discussion

Social, economic, legal, and institutional instruments can be simultaneously drivers, constraints, and/or supports for the creation and implementation of MPAs, and affect outcomes.

Attachment to place

Each location has its unique social and ecological context that influences the MPAs’ design, implementation, and impact.

Make participation meaningful

Strong participation has been demonstrated empirically to be a factor in the success of MPAs in various circumstances— in all stages (consultation, design, implementation, and monitoring).

Knowledge has a ‘people side’

There is a critical need to supplement biophysical and ecological data with people-orientated information: human values and goals that relate to the area.

Effective governance is critical

MPAs require effective governance and well-functioning management institutions if they are to be ecologically and socially successful.

Get the rights right

There are basic issues concerning the nature of the rights (management rights and access rights) and who should hold them. Rights choices can have a major impact on the acceptability of MPAs.

Costs, benefits, and distribution

Implications of economic, social, and cultural aspects of MPAs have not been well studied Who benefits? Who suffers the costs? How are benefits and costs distributed spatially and temporally?

See MPAs in the bigger picture

It is important to see MPAs in the overall picture of marine conservation, of coastal livelihoods, of the broader socio-economic environment, including all the ocean uses, such as fisheries.

Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 75, 2016 623


Almost all of the respondents (n=17, 94%) defined the purpose of the marine park in ecological terms; with most people stating its raison d’être as habitat conservation (n= 11, 61%): The marine park is basically to protect the habitat of the animals that are in there, so the flora and fauna… to actually protect certain areas and samples of the habitat types that actually exist in our waters (ID 15, NGO)

Other ecologically centred purposes identified by respondents included sustainable resource use and protection of fish stocks. A small number of respondents thought the marine park had multiple purposes. Whilst it was noted the primary purpose was to conserve the environment it was suggested there were ‘secondary aspirations’ for the marine park that included educational, research and business opportunities:

Figure 1. Location and boundaries (green line) of the Encounter Marine Park case study, South Australia.

METHODS A series of interviews and focus groups with key stakeholders were conducted to canvass opinions regarding the MPA. The recruitment process targeted members of the wider community as well as people who had been engaged in the development and ongoing management of the marine park. Participants were selected in a veriety of ways. Some of the park management staff and state and local government officials were already known to the researchers. Leaders of sectoral primary industry, recreational and conservation groups were identified by internet searches and snowball sampling. Various volunteer and interest group networks were identified and forwarded an email that explained this project and invited participation of network members. All potential participants were sent a letter of invitation and followed up by telephone to create an appointment. This paper is based on a preliminarly data set of 18 semistructured face-to-face interviews conducted between April and May 2015. Different stakeholder groups are represented including state (n=5) and local governent (n=4), NGOs (n=3), commerical fishermen (n=2) and community group volunteers (n=4). The interview schedule consisted of a set of questions that explored respondents’ knowledge of the marine park, its purpose and perceptions of success as well as seeking ideas about indicators to measure success. Interviews took between 40 minutes to one hour and were recorded for later transcription. The interviews were transcribed to a Word document and later uploaded to NVivo for coding and thematic analysis. RESULTS The following section presents the findings around four key elements: a) Respondents understanding of the purpose of the MPA, b) Perceptions of the park’s success to date, c) Future management challenges facing the MPA, and d) Indicators that should be used to monitor the ongoing performance of the MPA.

Purpose of the Encounter Marine Park

There’s a whole range of other purposes [apart from habitat conservation] things like…providing opportunities to stimulate the local economies in those regional areas where we have the parks… (ID 6, Regional Government).

The findings above show that respondents understood the objectives of the South Australian Marine Parks Act 2007. Perceptions about the park’s success to date There was a mix of responses as to whether or not the park had been a success to date. Five of the eighteen respondents were certain the park was a success (from NGOs, state government, and the community). They thought that achieving the implementation of the park was in itself a success. Five respondents referred back to the process of implementation of the Park explaining there had been much dissatisfaction over the government’s early processes (especially the consultation process). The majority of respondents however, thought that it was too early in the park’s history to give a definitive answer (n=8) but they were able to identify some aspects of success. Social acceptance for the park was the main measure cited; initial ‘noise’ about the park and resistance to it had died down after its implementation, and there was some evidence of community ownership of the park: From what I hear there is very little on-going community unrest [so] maybe it has been successful from that perspective (ID 18 Local Government) In the end the peak [recreational] fishing body actually expressed qualified support for the marine park network. That in of itself is a success. (ID 13 Local Government)

Two respondents from the primary industry sector thought the park had not been successful. Their answers reflected concern over business losses in the region. Future management challenges facing the MPA When asked about future management challenges facing the marine park a number of interconnected concerns were raised: the need for unwavering political support, adequate funding, compliance and enforcement of rules, adequate monitoring and evaluation, the potential impacts of climate change, changing behaviours, and external threats such as competing commercial interests, land-based sources of pollution, and marine pests. Many of these nominated challenges are directly connected to state government support.



So how do you fund, adequately, [the environment]? It’s just not done. So I think the biggest challenge for any of these marine parks is going to be finding the adequate resources to actually monitor and police, so that they can be successful. They won’t be successful just because you put lines on a map. The difficulty that government’s got though is, if you surveyed 50 people at random [asking], ‘where should government spend it’s money?’ No one would vote for marine parks. So it needs to be a regulation requirement. (ID 18 Local Government)

Indicators to monitor the marine park’s performance Respondents were asked how they would measure the success of the marine park. Between them respondents generated a mix of indicators that could be used to gauge the performance of the Encounter Marine Park including environmental, social, and economic measures. Ecological indicators Sixteen of the 18 respondents identified several environmental indicators by which to measure the park’s success: an improvement in habitat condition (rather than simply maintaining the habitat), an increase in size and numbers of fish stocks within the park, an increase in the diversity of benthic habitat, and contrasts to ecosystem health of sites adjacent to the park. It was noted by several respondents that these are the most obvious and easiest indicators to apply. Social indicators Three social measures were identified by respondents as key to success: acceptance of the park by the local community, an understanding of the purpose and need for the marine park by the community and, compliance. The indicators by which to measure these conditions included stewardship (an increase in the number of individuals and community groups that are doing something, or contributing to park management): Helping to self-police the parks is an indicator for me that the parks are valued and that people are willing to help protect them. (ID 2 State Government) In the longer term, ecological evidence is important but I think it’s the community stuff, it’s the harmonizing… if you can build that ownership and stewardship in the community, like we have with our national parks, if the community loves and owns [the parks], then they’ll be there for perpetuity. It doesn’t matter what the science says, really, if the community owns them, they’ll care for them.(ID 3 State Government)

Economic indicators Half of the respondents identified economic indicators by which to measure marine park success. Five people suggested that an increased number of tourism operations and activities would be proof that the marine park had expanded that sector. Other suggestions were more broadly conceived such as an increase in employment generally or changes to real estate or land value in a region: ‘more jobs or less jobs or land prices rising or going down, that would be a good reflection of how successful [marine parks] are for people living in areas with marine parks...’ (ID 10 NGO)

Fisheries-specific indicators included improved marketability of seafood products from the region and fishers fishing on the edges of the marine park (indicating more productive catches at such sites).

DISCUSSION This paper has reported on a set of preliminary interviews with stakeholders from different sectors and government as well as non-government spokespersons who have a varied connection to South Australia’s Encounter Marine Park. The findings reported here suggest that the Park is already demonstrating some important achievements. Respondents perceived that the local community overall, has accepted the park. There was an indication that since implementation even the most adverse sectors had ceased to make complaints about the Park. Local compliance is an indication of both community buy-in and that governance arrangements are sound (Pollnac et al., 2010). Like all MPAs, the Park faces complex and interwoven challenges, many of which were identified by respondents. Provision of funding towards the ongoing management of the park, community outreach, monitoring, and compliance will each be reliant on strong public and governmental support. Respondents felt that politicians would be more likely to support the Park if there is broad public acceptance and that public acceptance will likely be increased by demonstration of the Park’s success. Thus there is a real need for this, and arguably every MPA, to demonstrate its success across a range of objectives. An indicator set that is meaningful to the community and that can be applied by the community would work towards assessing its success. Sound evaluation programs for MPAs utilse appropriate indicators by which to measure effectiveness (Himes, 2007) and there is growing interest in the design of indicators to measure across the spectrum of MPA management goals including socioeconomic, biophysical, and institutional (Pomeroy et al., 2005). The indicators that were raised by respondents in this study are not dissimilar to findings of other studies (Pomeroy et al., 2004; Staub and Hatziolos, 2004). Having said this, the indicators as stated by respondents were largely conceptual, and as such, require more development towards being used as evaluation instruments. Meaningful engagement of the community in all aspects of MPA planning and management (noted in the literature as a requirement for MPA success) (Agardy, 2000; Charles and Wilson, 2009), was not a concept nominated by the 18 interviewees in this study. CONCLUSIONS There is great complexity in meeting both social and conservation goals assigned to MPAs. Different stakeholder groups perceive MPA success in different ways and understanding those differences is important when developing monitoring programs and for maintaining support for an MPA. This study shows the importance of including both socioeconomic and ecological indicators of success and supports the importance of an enhanced understanding of the human dimension of MPAs. Development of the indicator sets that will be relevant to the stakeholder groups in this study is ongoing.



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Wildlife Conservation Fund, South Australian Department of Water, Environment and Natural Resources. LITERATURE CITED Agardy, T., 2000. Information needs for Marine Protected Areas: Scientific and Societal. Bulletin of Marine Science, 66, 875-888. Badalamenti, F.; Ramos, A.; Voultsiadou, E.; Sánchez Lizaso, J.; D’anna, G.; Pipitone, C.; Mas, J.; Ruiz Fernandez, J.; Whitmarsh, D., and Riggio, S., 2000. Cultural and socioeconomic impacts of Mediterranean marine protected areas. Environmental Conservation, 27, 110-125. Beaumont, N.J.; Austen, M.C.; Atkins, J.P.; Burdon, D.;Degraer; S., Dentinho; T.P., Derous; S., Holm, P.; Horton, T.; van Ierland, E.; Marboe, .H.; Starkey, D.J.; Townsend, M., and Zarzycki, T., 2007. Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: implications for the ecosystem approach. Marine pollution bulletin, 54, 253-265. Bennett, N.J. and Dearden, P., 2014. Why local people do not support conservation: Community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand. Marine Policy, 44, 107-116. Bernstein, B.; Iudicello, S., and Stringer, C., 2004. Lessons Learned from Recent Marine Protected Area Designations in the United States. A Report to: The National Marine Protected Areas Center NOAA. Ojai, California: The National Fisheries Conservation Center, 91p. Brown, K.; Adger, W.N.; Tompkins, E.; Bacon, P.; Shim, D., and Young, K., 2001. Trade-off analysis for marine protected area management. Ecological Economics, 37, 417-434. Charles, A. and Wilson, L., 2009. Human dimensions of Marine Protected Areas. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66, 1-15. Dalton, T.; Forrester, G., and Pollnac, R., 2012. Participation, Process Quality, and Performance of Marine Protected Areas in the Wider Caribbean. Environmental Management, 49, 1224-1237. Hamilton, M., 2012. Perceptions of fishermen towards marine protected areas in Cambodia and the Philippines. Bioscience Horizons, 5, 1-24. Himes, A.H., 2007. Performance indicators in MPA management: Using questionnaires to analyze stakeholder preferences. Ocean & Coastal Management, 50, 329-351. Hoisington, C., 2013. The Marine Protection Dividend NSW marine parks deliver more over time. Sydney, NSW: Centre for Policy Development, Occasional Paper 34, 24p. Kareiva, P., 2006. Conservation Biology: Beyond Marine Protected Areas. Current Biology, 16, R533-R535. Kirkman, H., 2013. Choosing boundaries to marine protected areas and zoning the MPAs for restricted use and management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 81, 38-48. Kusumawati, I. and Huang, H.-W., 2015. Key factors for successful management of marine protected areas: A FRPSDULVRQRIVWDNHKROGHUVʾSHUFHStion of two MPAs in Weh island, Sabang, Aceh, Indonesia. Marine Policy, 51, 465-475.

Lloret, J., 2010. Human health benefits supplied by Mediterranean marine biodiversity. Marine pollution bulletin, 60, 1640-1646. Lundquist, C.J. and Granek, E.F., 2005. Strategies for Successful Marine Conservation: Integrating Socioeconomic, Political, and Scientific Factors. Conservation Biology, 19, 1771-1778. Mascia, M.; Claus, C., and Naidoo, R., 2010. Impacts of marine protected areas on fishing communities. Conservation Biology 24, 1424-1429. NOAA, 2013. MPA Effectiveness. National Marine Protected Areas Center. Santa Cruz, California, National Marine Protected Areas Center, MPA Science Institute, 52p. Pita, C.; Pierce, G.J.; Theodossiou, I., and Macpherson, K., 2011. An overview of commercial fishers’ attitudes towards marine protected areas. Hydrobiologia, 670, 289-306. Pollnac, R.; Christie, P.; Cinner, J.; Dalton, T.; Daw, T.; Forrester, G.; Graham, N., and McClanahan, T., 2010. Marine reserves as linked social-ecological systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 18262-18265. Pollnac, R.B.; B.R. Crawford, and Gorospe, M.L.G., 2001. Discovering factors that influence the success of communitybased marine protected areas in the Visayas, Philippines. Ocean & Coastal Management, 44, 683–710. Pomeroy, R.; Mascia, M., and Pollnac, R., 2006. Background paper 3: Marine Protected Areas, the Social Dimension, In: FAO Expert Workshop on Marine Protected Areas and Fisheries Management: Review of Issues and Considerations. Rome FAO, pp. 149–275. Pomeroy, R.S.; Parks, J., and Watson, L., 2004. How is Your MPA Doing? A Guidebook of Natural and Social Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected Areas Management Effectiveness. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. Pomeroy, R.S.; Watson, L.M.; Parks, J.E., and Cid, G.A., 2005. How is your MPA doing? A methodology for evaluating the management effectiveness of marine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management, 48, 485-502. Sala, E. and Knowlton, N., 2006. Global marine biodiversity trends. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31, 93122. Staub, F. and Hatziolos, M.E., 2004. Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management Effectiveness Goals for Marine Protected Areas. Washington DC: The World Bank, 29p. Voyer, M.; Gladstone, W., and Goodall, H., 2015. Obtaining a social licence for MPAs – influences on social acceptability. Marine Policy, 51, 260-266. Weible, C.M., 2008. Caught in a Maelstrom: Implementing California Marine Protected Areas. Coastal Management, 36, 350-373. Yates, K.L., 2014. View from the wheelhouse: Perceptions on marine management from the fishing community and suggestions for improvement. Marine Policy, 48, 39-50.
