This article was downloaded by: [Cornell University Library] On: 01 October 2013, At: 12:01 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Coastal Management Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucmg20

Stakeholder Evaluation Priorities for Demonstrating Marine Protected Area Effectiveness at the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, Canada a

b

Nadine Heck , Philip Dearden & Adrian McDonald

a

a

School of Geography, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds, UK b

Department of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada Published online: 27 Dec 2011.

To cite this article: Nadine Heck , Philip Dearden & Adrian McDonald (2012) Stakeholder Evaluation Priorities for Demonstrating Marine Protected Area Effectiveness at the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, Canada, Coastal Management, 40:1, 55-72, DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2011.639866 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2011.639866

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Coastal Management, 40:55–72, 2012 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0892-0753 print / 1521-0421 online DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2011.639866

Stakeholder Evaluation Priorities for Demonstrating Marine Protected Area Effectiveness at the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, Canada

Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 12:01 01 October 2013

NADINE HECK,1 PHILIP DEARDEN,2 AND ADRIAN MCDONALD1 1

School of Geography, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds, UK Department of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada

2

This study addresses the often advocated involvement of stakeholder groups in all aspects of marine protected area management including the development of an evaluation program. In the absence of clear management objectives, the study investigates the opinions of five non-aboriginal stakeholder groups on the importance, purpose and content of an evaluation at Pacific Rim National Park on the West coast of Canada. Information needs of stakeholders are identified in an open question format as well as based on a list of pre-defined indicators. Findings indicate that both approaches identify unique indicators. Indicators revealed in the open-ended format are more detailed and reflect the local context of the park reserve. Presenting a list of indicators, however, illustrates evaluation priorities more clearly as frequencies of responses for priority indicators are higher. Statistical analysis reveals general agreement among the five groups on the importance, purpose, and content of an evaluation. Only a few differences are obvious in the choice of evaluation indicators between commercial and non-commercial stakeholder groups. Keywords evaluation, MPA indicators, temperate marine protected area, stakeholders, Canada

Introduction While the number of established marine protected areas (MPAs) is increasing, knowledge about the quality of management and effectiveness of existing sites is very limited (Toropova et al. 2010). In order to address this information gap, the Convention on Biological Diversity recommended to increase evaluation efforts and to develop frameworks for monitoring,

The study is part of a Ph.D. undertaken at the University of Leeds (UK). I am grateful for the support of Dr. Steve Carver and Dr. Ken Atkinson at the University of Leeds, UK. I also thank two anonymous reviewers who provided valuable comments on the article. The study would also not have been possible without the financial assistance of the University of Leeds Research Scholarship, the postgraduate award granted by the Canadian Studies Centre at the University of Leeds, and financial fieldwork assistance by the Ocean Management Research Network Canada through the MPA Working Group based at the University of Victoria. Address correspondence to Nadine Heck, University of Leeds, School of Geography, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK. E-mail: tnm [email protected]

55

Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 12:01 01 October 2013

56

N. Heck et al.

evaluating, and reporting effectiveness of protected area management at the site, national, regional, and transboundary scale by 2010 (Convention on Biological Diversity 2008). Since the need for evaluating protected area management effectiveness was highlighted at the World Parks Congress in 1992, more than 40 evaluation methodologies have been developed (Leverington et al. 2008). Fourteen of these methods specifically focus on the assessment of MPAs, although only eight of these methods are actively implemented so far (Stern 2006). While these existing frameworks provide a number of methodologies and potential indicators for assessing MPA management performance (e.g., Pomeroy, Parks, and Watson 2004, Alder et al. 2002), evaluation indicators always depend on the purpose and scale of an evaluation, the specific goals and objectives of an MPA to be evaluated, and the information needs of those who will be using the results (Owen and Rogers 1999). Relevant evaluation indicators thus usually cannot be generalized and often differ greatly across geographic regions and scales from global to local (Fontalvo-Herazo, Glaser, and Lobato-Ribeiro 2007). MPA effectiveness is commonly referred to as the “degree to which management actions are achieving the goals and objectives of a protected area” (Pomeroy, Parks, and Watson 2004:3) and “how well an area is being managed” (Hockings et al. 2006). In well-established MPAs, achieved environmental, social, or economic outcomes as well as achieved management outputs are usually the single most important measure for demonstrating effectiveness(Pomeroy, Parks, and Watson 2004). Understanding other governance aspects such as adequacy of the MPA design and appropriateness of the management process, however, provide critical complementary information about the efficiency of management (Day, Hockings, and Jones 2002). An evaluation should therefore not only investigate the achievement of outcomes but also provide information on other management aspects (Hockings et al. 2006). Caution further needs to be taken with respect to MPA effects and effectiveness (Syms and Carr 2001). Even though a growing body of research demonstrates effects of MPAs especially in terms of biological changes, only few studies look at how these effects enable MPAs to achieve their objectives (e.g., Jamieson and Levings 2001; Babcock et al. 1999; Edgar and Barrett 1997; Planes et al. 2000). The content of an evaluation also depends on the purpose and scale of an evaluation. The most common reasons for evaluating MPA management are to enable adaptive management, to assess performance against a set of management objectives, to promote management accountability, to facilitate strategic management planning and priority setting, to assist in the allocation and mobilization of adequate human, financial and technical resources, and to demonstrate appropriate resource allocation (Hockings et al. 2006; Walmsley 2005; Day 2008). In practice evaluation results of course can be used in more than one way. Managers may use them to improve their own performance (adaptive management) or for reporting (accountability), while lessons learned can be used to improve future planning (project planning) (Day, Hockings, and Jones 2002). Local communities and stakeholders might be interested in evaluation results in order to establish how far their interests are being taken into account (Hockings et al. 2006). Especially in the absence of clear goals and conservation targets, identifying relevant indicators for evaluating MPA management is usually challenging (Alder et al. 2002). Suggestions for developing and selecting evaluation indicators in such situations include the integration of local stakeholders as early as possible, especially if evaluation is done on a site (Vella, Bowen, and Frankic 2009; Hockings et al. 2006). The integration of stakeholders in the evaluation design process not only brings in new input and different perspectives (Danielsen, Burgess, and Balmford 2005), but usually also increases the value of evaluation results to local users and makes sure that local information needs are addressed

Demonstrating MPA Effectiveness

57

Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 12:01 01 October 2013

in an evaluation (Owen and Rogers 1999).Their inclusion also empowers local stakeholders (Danielsen, Burgess, and Balmford 2005) and might encourage them to act on evaluation results (Owen and Rogers 1999). This aspect is very important since the purpose of any evaluation is not only to inform about the success of management strategies but also to influence action on the ground based on evaluation results (Day 2008). Studies looking at stakeholders’ opinions on MPA management performance (Suman, Shivlani, and Walter Milon 1999; Himes 2007) and their opinions on evaluation information needs (Dahl-Tacconi 2005; Pajaro et al. 2010) so far are very limited. Using a case study approach, this study seeks to increase insights into local stakeholders’ interest and opinions on the content of an MPA evaluation. By comparing the opinions of diverse stakeholder groups, this study not only aims on eliciting evaluation interests of local stakeholders, but also examines if there are significant differences among diverse groups.

Study Site The study was conducted in Pacific Rim National Park Reserve located on the West coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia (Figure 1). The park reserve covers terrestrial and marine areas encompassing 525 km2 and consists of three geographically distinct units, the Long Beach Unit, the West Coast Trail Unit and the Broken Group Islands Unit. The largest marine park section lies around the Broken Groups Islands (9,178 ha), followed by the West Coast Trial marine section (6,623 ha), and the Long Beach marine Unit (6,367 ha) (Parks Canada 2010a). Pacific Rim National Park Reserve provides a range of intertidal and ocean habitats. Different fish species, diverse marine mammals, seabirds, and kelp forests can be found in the subtidal ecosystem section. The intertidal area contains diverse invertebrates such as clams, crabs, and snails, as well as important habitats such as rocky shores, eelgrass beds, and soft sediments. Marine cultural values identified by Parks Canada in the state of the park report (Parks Canada 2008) include a high number of ship wrecks, shell middens, light houses, fish traps, and canoe skids. Marine values in the park reserve are affected by a range of human activities such expansion of tourism and recreation, and commercial and sport fisheries. Other activities that have significant impacts on the park ecosystem and its biota include polluted or logged streams that are reducing the extent of salmon-spawning habitats and the number of wild salmon in the area (Parks Canada 2008). Fish farming has also expanded significantly in the area in recent years. Typical impacts are pollution from fish farms, escapement of exotic species such as Atlantic salmon in Pacific waters, and killing of natural predators such as sea lions by fish farm operators (Parks Canada 2003). In addition to settlements of multiple aboriginal user groups, in this case study First Nations, three communities are located adjacent to the reserve: Bamfield (population 740), Ucluelet (population 1,487), and Tofino (population 1,655) (BC Stats 2006). Main marine activities undertaken in the park reserve include paddling, kayaking, surfing, canoeing, recreational boating, scuba diving, fishing, and wildlife viewing. An all year round finfish fishery closure was established in 2002 by Fisheries and Oceans Canada in the biggest marine portion of the park reserve, the Broken Group Islands. The closure applies to commercial and recreational fisheries, but not First Nations as Fisheries and Oceans Canada provides First Nations peoples with priority access to fish resource for food, social and ceremonial purposes (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2010). Fishing restrictions in other park reserve areas do not exist. Commercial whale watching activities are regulated according to national guidelines. All recreational and transportation businesses further require a license

N. Heck et al.

Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 12:01 01 October 2013

58

Figure 1. Pacific Rim National Park Reserve.

in order to operate inside the park reserve according to the Canadian National Parks Act (Parks Canada 2010b). The Pacific Rim National Park Reserve is managed by Parks Canada. The Park Reserve was designated in 1970 but officially gazetted in 2001 when the National Park was declared a

Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 12:01 01 October 2013

Demonstrating MPA Effectiveness

59

National Park Reserve thereby acknowledging outstanding rights and titles of First Nations in the park area despite pending treaties. At the time of this study, the park reserve was managed according to broad management guidelines that were developed in 1994 (Parks Canada 1994). As of June 2010, the park has a management plan that is based on the following vision (Parks Canada 2010a: 27): (1) People: park needs to work with people in the spirit of respectful cooperation to be good stewards of the park; (2) Stories: culture and stories will be shared and used to enhance understanding and appreciation; and (3) Legacy: long-term protection of the park and its natural and cultural resources. According to the management plan, Parks Canada seeks a greater involvement of First Nations and more consultation of local communities for developing a common, more specific, vision for the park and improving the resource inventory. Some monitoring exists concerning the state of ecological integrity in the park (Timko and Innes 2009). These activities were undertaken for a State of the Park Report (Parks Canada 2008) and are based on the Ecological Integrity Monitoring Framework developed by Parks Canada for evaluating Canadian National Parks (Parks Canada 2005; Parks Canada 2007). The assessment requires a high level of expertise and resources (Leverington et al. 2008), covers only a limited number of indicators and solely focuses on ecological integrity. Indicators for evaluating MPA management with regard to management goals or governance are not yet developed and monitored.

Methodology Stakeholder groups included in this study consisted of the main commercial user groups including marine tourism operators, commercial fishermen, and recreational fishing tour operators and two non-commercial groups with an interest in the area, marine researchers that have undertaken research within the park or in adjacent areas, and local environmental nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Local First Nations that have rights and titles in this area were not included in this study as the integration of these groups would have required distinct data collection mechanisms and a longer time frame. Including these groups requires a long-term relationships and trust building between researchers and First Nations, based on local protocols and customs, active engagement of First Nations in the design of a research project, and a qualitative research approach (Assembly of First Nations Environmental Stewardship Unit 2009) rather than the use of a questionnaire based survey, which was the main instrument in this study. Marine tourism operators, recreational fishing charter businesses, and NGOs were identified through the managing agency for the park reserve, Parks Canada. Additional information was collected in local visitor information centres in all three adjacent communities, Tofino, Ucluelet, and Bamfield, and a list provided by the Chamber of Commerce in Ucluelet. Researchers were identified through the Bamfield Marine Science station that is located adjacent to the park reserve. As the number of commercial fishermen active in the area is unknown, commercial fishermen and recreational fishing tour operators were identified at five local harbors adjacent to the park reserve. Estimates for commercial use in the area was provided by Fisheries and Oceans as 9 geoduck licenses, 33 crab fishing licences, and 100–120 commercial vessels that spent up to 2–3 days/week over a 4–5week period fishing in the area, typically between June 10–July 10 (Leung and Thompson, personal communication, November 2008). As most fishermen spent only a few weeks in the area during the summer, the majority does not live in local communities adjacent to the park reserve.

Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 12:01 01 October 2013

60

N. Heck et al.

Data was collected via a self-administered questionnaire based survey between July– September 2008, the main business season for tourism businesses and commercial and recreational fishing activities. Due to the limited time period available for collecting the data, off-seasonal users were not included in the study. Based on low numbers, a 100 percent sample was attempted among marine tourism operators, NGOs, and recreational fishing charters. All researchers identified via the Bamfield Marine Science Station using a snowball sampling approach were included. Commercial fishermen were sampled randomly during the 3-month period in five local harbors, three in Ucluelet, one in Tofino, and one in Bamfield. A total of 126 stakeholders participated in the survey, consisting of 32 marine tourism operators, 26 recreational fishing charter operators, 33 commercial fishermen, 18 researchers, and 17 environmental NGO staff members. The main data collection was done face-to-face. Recreational fishing charter operators and commercial fishermen were approached at their vessels between 11 am and 7 pm when they returned to the harbor. Questionnaire were handed out and completed by fishermen themselves. Tourism operators and NGOs were visited at their place of work and questionnaires were dropped off for later collection. In addition, a Web-based questionnaire was posted online and links sent out to all identified researchers and NGO members. Those without an e-mail address were sent a mail version with a return envelope. The highest response rate was achieved using the face-to-face approach (80.4 percent) compared to the mail survey (26.7 percent) and the Web-based distribution of the questionnaire (51.1 percent). The questionnaire consisted mainly of closed questions. Stakeholders were asked to rate the importance of evaluating MPA management in the park reserve on a scale of 1 = not important at all to 4 = highly important. A multi-response question was included asking respondents about the purpose for evaluating MPA management in the park reserve. An open-ended question was included for identifying performance indicators for the park reserve in an open-ended format following an approach previously used by Himes (2007) and Dahl-Tacconi (2002). Participants were asked to finish the sentence “In my opinion, marine protection in the Pacific Rim National Park would be a success in the future if/when. . . .” Next, a list of 36 indicators was presented consisting of 13 biophysical, 9 socioeconomic and 14 governance indicators and participants were asked to choose up to 12 indicators for evaluating management effectiveness in the park reserve. The number of indicators to be selected was chosen as approximately 10 to 20 evaluation indicators are typically considered a reasonable compromise between time and accuracy (Lindholm and Nordeide 2000). The list of indicators was adapted after the evaluation framework developed by Pomeroy, Parks, and Watson (2004). While all biophysical indicators were part of the survey, only socioeconomic and governance indicators that related to the main park goals and the governance structure of the park reserve were included. Based on results in the pilot study, fishing efforts were divided between efforts within and outside the park reserve. In addition, spawning density, the level of species diversity, the existence of illegal activities, the existence of a monitoring program were added, and a distinction was made between the distribution of information about MPA values and rules and regulations were added. The last section of the questionnaire covered personal information including stakeholders’ level of livelihood dependency on the marine environment in the park, occupation, age, level of familiarity with the marine environment in the park reserve, main activities undertaken in the park reserve, and place of residence. An open-ended question in the end allowed stakeholders to make additional comments. MPA indicators were coded into the 6 management stages of the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) framework developed by Hockings et al. (2006) including

Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 12:01 01 October 2013

Demonstrating MPA Effectiveness

61

Figure 2. Evaluation importance for Pacific Rim National Park Reserve (% of respondents, N = 126).

(1) Context, (2) Planning, (3) Inputs, (4) Process, (5) Outputs, and (6) Outcomes. MPA indicators were also classified in three indicators categories—biophysical, social, and governance indicators—following Pomeroy, Parks, and Watson (2004). Descriptive analysis was undertaken using SPSS 17.0 including frequencies and cross tabulations. Pearson’s chi-square test was applied for testing statistical differences in stakeholders’ opinions on the importance, purpose and content of an evaluation.

Results Evaluation Importance and Purpose Most participants mentioned that evaluating MPA management effectiveness is highly or somewhat important suggesting a great interest among stakeholders in evaluation results (Figure 2). While there was no significant difference among the groups (χ 2 = 21.522, df = 16, p = .156), commercial groups including tourism operators, recreational fishing charter operators, and commercial fishermen indicated that management evaluation of the park reserve is highly important more often than researchers or NGOs (Table 1).

Table 1 Stakeholders’ opinions on evaluation importance (% within group, N = 126)

Not important at all Somewhat unimportant Somewhat important Highly important Don’t know

Tourism operators %

Fishing charters %

Researchers %

Commercial fishermen %

NGOs %

0.0 6.3 31.3 59.4 3.1

3.8 3.8 23.1 69.2 0.0

0.0 0.0 55.6 33.3 11.1

6.1 3.0 27.3 60.6 3.0

0.0 17.6 35.3 47.1 0.0

Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 12:01 01 October 2013

62

N. Heck et al.

Figure 3. Evaluation purpose for Pacific Rim National Park Reserve (% of respondents, N = 126).

Stakeholders would evaluate management in the park reserve in order to get information about MPA achievements (Figure 3). Undertaking an evaluation for raising awareness, adapting management, or increasing transparency was hardly selected. Although not statistically significant, NGO members and researchers thought that the park reserve should be evaluated in order to know more about changes in marine ecological conditions (Table 2). Commercial user groups including tourism operators and both fishermen groups would undertake an evaluation for getting information about more general MPA management achievements.

Evaluation Indicators MPA performance indicators cited in the open-ended question (Table 3) as well as based on the list of pre-defined indicators were primarily outcome indicators (Figure 4), reflecting the main reason for evaluating MPA management in the park reserve, which was information about management achievements as mentioned before. Based on the list of pre-defined indicators, eleven indicators were selected by more than 30 percent of respondents including five biophysical indicators, four social indicators, and two governance indicators. Most often mentioned biophysical indicators focus on the level of human impacts and fishing effort in the park reserve, as well as species abundance, diversity, and water quality (Figure 5). Socioeconomic indicators focused on awareness and understanding including user understanding of human impacts and MPA values, and managers understanding of local values and beliefs (Figure 6). These findings demonstrate an interest in the social performance of the park reserve management and not just the state of the environment in the park reserve, which is currently monitored to some extent. Economic indicators and visitor satisfaction were hardly selected as evaluation priorities. This result is in contrast to the current vision statements according to which visitor experience is a key management aim for the park reserve. Among governance indicators, monitoring and enforcement were most often selected (Figure 7).

63

Adapt management Increase transparency Monitor changes in marine environment MPA achievements Raise awareness

7.7 11.5 23.1 69.2 3.8

62.5 12.5

Fishing charters %

3.1 6.3 31.3

Tourism operators %

33.3 22.2

11.1 0.0 55.6

Researchers %

60.6 12.1

12.1 3.0 27.3

Commercial fishermen %

47.1 35.3

0.0 17.6 35.3

NGOs %

Table 2 Stakeholders’ opinions on evaluation purpose (% within group, N = 126)

Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 12:01 01 October 2013

6.960 9.096

3.759 5.850 5.904

χ2

0.139 0.059

0.440 0.211 0.206

p

64

N. Heck et al.

Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 12:01 01 October 2013

Table 3 MPA indicators mentioned in the open-ended format Biophysical Less wildlife and habitat disturbance Fish resources abundant Socioeconomic More scientific data User aware of human impacts User knowledge of marine ecology Governance Adequate regulations in adjacent areas More fishery restrictions for all fisheries More tourism regulations No access areas No fish farms allowed Protected area bigger Staff presence More financial resources Local opinion included in decision-making

Good water quality Indigenous species healthy Local support for park Income for local fisheries

Stakeholders consulted Application of scientific data Transparent process Parks Canada oversees management Enforcement coverage Monitoring Information distributed User compliance

Compared to indicators elicited in the open-ended format, using a set of pre-defined indicators significantly increased the frequency of responses for individual indicators and revealed additional indicators in all three indicators categories. A constrained approach thus seems particularly useful for exploring which indicators are accepted by a range of respondents. Information derived from the open-ended format, however, provided detailed information that would be necessary for refining pre-defined indicators (Table 3). Openended responses also revealed indicators that were not covered in the pre-defined list. These

Figure 4. Management cycle stages of MPA indicators (% of responses).

Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 12:01 01 October 2013

Demonstrating MPA Effectiveness

65

Figure 5. Biophysical indicators (% of respondents, N = 126).

results suggest that both approaches might be necessary to identify evaluation information needs. Ideally, indicators might first be identified in an open-ended format. Indicators could then be prioritized based on these indicators supplemented with indicators from the literature, as providing a list of indicators revealed additional important indicators that were not mentioned in the open-ended format. Statistical analysis revealed differences in the importance of six out of 38 evaluation indicators among stakeholder groups. Compared to the three commercial user groups, researchers, and NGO members indicated a greater interest in more complex biophysical evaluation indicators (Table 4). Both groups would evaluate food web integrity (χ 2 (2) = 36.361, df = 4, p < .001). Researchers further selected the assessment of community

Figure 6. Socioeconomic indicators (% of respondents, N = 126).

Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 12:01 01 October 2013

66

N. Heck et al.

Figure 7. Governance indicators (% of respondents, N = 126).

Table 4 Biophysical evaluation indicators of different groups (% of respondents within group, N = 126)

Human impact Species abundance Water quality Species diversity Fishing effort in park Spawning density Fishing effort outside Habitat distribution Community composition∗∗ Species population structure Recruitment success Food web integrity∗∗ Recovery ∗∗

Tourism operators %

Fishing charters %

Researchers %

Commercial fishermen %

NGOs %

62.1 48.3 44.8 48.3 34.5 17.2 20.7 27.6 20.7 17.0 17.2 13.8 13.8

56.0 52.0 44.0 36.0 33.3 44.0 25.0 12.0 12.0 16.0 8.0 4.0 8.0

25.0 50.0 12.5 62.5 37.5 12.5 25.0 37.5 75.0 25.0 0.0 50.0 0.0

61.3 51.6 41.9 19.4 34.4 19.4 25.0 19.4 19.4 19.4 22.6 3.2 12.9

20.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 60.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.0 0.0

p < .05 (Chi-square, two-sided).

Demonstrating MPA Effectiveness

67

Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 12:01 01 October 2013

Table 5 Socioeconomic evaluation indicators of different groups (% of respondents within groups, N = 126) Tourism operators %

Fishing charters %

Researchers %

Commercial fishermen %

NGOs %

62.1

50.0

37.5

50.0

40.0

44.8

54.2

75.0

48.4

20.0

44.8 37.9 24.1 20.7 17.2

45.8 29.2 20.8 8.3 20.8

62.5 0.0 50.0 37.5 25.0

31.3 28.1 18.8 28.1 9.4

40.0 40.0 40.0 20.0 20.0

13.8 6.9

4.2 12.5

0.0 12.0

9.4 0.0

0.0 40.0

User understanding human impact User knowledge marine ecology Local values Tourist numbers Resource use pattern New scientific data Condition of cultural resources Marine income Visitors satisfaction∗ ∗

p < .05 (Chi-square, two-sided).

composition and structure (χ 2 (2) = 32.140, df = 4, p < .005). The only difference among social indicators was a more frequent choice of visitor satisfaction among NGOs compared to the other groups (χ 2 (2) = 10.816, df = 4, p < .05) (Table 5). As visitor enjoyment is mentioned as one of the main aims for the park reserve, the opinion of NGOs seems most closely related to Parks Canada’s social vision for the park reserve. Among governance evaluation indicators, NGO members and researchers selected the existence of systematic monitoring more often than the other three groups (χ 2 (2) = 10.995, df = 4, p < .05) (Table 6). The assessment of illegal activities (χ 2 (2) = 13.521, df = 4, p < .05), the existence of clear enforcement procedures (χ 2 (2) = 14.938, df = 4, p < .05), and enforcement coverage (χ 2 (2) = 15.948, df = 4, p < .05) was only chosen by tourism operators and both fishermen groups. As all these governance indicators are related to management outputs, the findings demonstrate that commercial user groups would evaluate different management outputs than non-commercial groups.

Discussion Typically, not all potential MPA indicators can be assessed during an evaluation due to limited evaluation capacity of most protected area management agencies (Wells and Mangubhai 2005; Hockings et al. 2006; Day 2008; Boyd and Charles 2006). Priority indicators need to be selected based on MPA goals and objectives, the purpose of an evaluation, and the information needs of an audience interested in the results (Hockings et al. 2006). Ideally, the opinions of local stakeholders should be considered in the identification of relevant evaluation indicators (Fontalvo-Herazo, Glaser, and Lobato-Ribeiro 2007; Vella, Bowen, and Frankic 2009; Hockings et al. 2006; Pajaro et al. 2010). Such an approach typically increases the relevance of evaluation results to stakeholders (Owen and Rogers 1999) and helps to communicate relevant information.

68

N. Heck et al.

Table 6 Governance evaluation indicators of different groups (% of respondents within group, n = 126)

Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 12:01 01 October 2013

Tourism Fishing Commercial operators charters Researchers fishermen NGOs % % % % % Monitoring program∗ Enforcement coverage∗ Clear enforcement procedures∗ Level of stakeholder participation & satisfaction Management plan Existence and adequacy of regulations User understanding regulations Information MPA values distributed Existence of illegal activities∗ User conflicts Stakeholder involvement monitoring & surveillance Stakeholder trained in sustainable use Information about regulations disseminated Adequacy administrative resources ∗

42.9 32.1 34.1 35.7

33.3 54.2 44.2 29.2

71.4 0.0 0.0 42.9

29.0 32.3 42.3 22.6

60.0 0.0 0.0 20.0

35.7 17.9

12.5 20.8

14.3 14.3

38.7 19.4

40.0 0.0

32.1 20.7

12.5 29.2

14.0 25.0

32.3 21.9

0.0 20.0

10.7 14.3 10.7

29.2 29.2 16.7

0.0 0.0 28.6

32.3 19.4 9.7

0.0 60.0 20.0

24.1

25.0

30.0

25.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

14.3

0.0

0.0

p < .05 (Chi-square, two-sided).

Stakeholders in this study rate evaluation of management effectiveness as very important and are interested in getting information about MPA achievements and changes in environmental and social conditions within the MPA, which are both common reasons for evaluating mature, well established MPAs (Pomeroyomeroy, Parks, and Watson 2004). Their high interest in evaluation results also points out the need to communicate evaluation results to local communities and affected stakeholders in the park reserve. The existing management plan for Pacific Rim National Park Reserve limits interaction with local stakeholders to the planning stage. Based on findings in this study, communication and interaction should be extended into the evaluation phase, as respondents are keen to get information about management performance of the park reserve. Statistical analysis reveals no significant differences among the five groups concerning the importance and focus of an evaluation of the park reserve. Most important indicators based on the open-ended question as well as the list of predefined indicators are outcome indicators, reflecting the interest to gain information about MPA achievements. MPA indicators elicited in the open-ended format provide detailed insights into desired performance and provide initial insights into potential information to be addressed in an evaluation. Yet, the frequency of responses for individual indicators is higher in the constrained format compared to the open-ended one and identifies indicators

Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 12:01 01 October 2013

Demonstrating MPA Effectiveness

69

that fulfil information needs of a high number of local stakeholders. Using a list of predefined indicators also reveals multiple indicators that are not mentioned in the open-ended format and seems to broaden local understanding of MPA effectiveness, which was also found by Pajaro et al. (2010). Open-ended responses in this study, however, also indicate a few indicators that are not revealed based on the pre-defined list. Both approaches thus seem necessary to reveal local evaluation information needs. Ideally, a more qualitative approach might be taken to gain an initial understanding about the kind of information that should be addressed in an evaluation. Additional efforts might then be necessary to identify priority evaluation indicators based on the identified indicators complemented by indicators taken from the literature. Among biophysical outcome indicators, respondents mainly chose indicators that usually require moderate efforts for their measurement such as level of human impacts, species abundance, and water quality (Pomeroy et al. 2004). Frequently mentioned socioeconomic indicators focus on awareness and understanding including user understanding of human impacts and marine ecology, and managers understanding of local values and beliefs. This result demonstrates an interest in the social performance of the park reserve management, not just the state of the environment, which has been monitored in recent years. The results thus indicate that existing monitoring should be extended and also address the social MPA performance of the park reserve. Such as approach would not only address stakeholders’ information needs but also match evaluation efforts more closely to the outlined social and environmental vision for the park reserve. The assessment of social MPA performance is also increasingly advocated in the literature as critical since initial biological achievements might disappear if an MPA is a social “failure” (Pollnac, Crawford, and Gorospe 2001; Christie et al. 2003). Visitor satisfaction is hardly selected as an evaluation indicator, even though visitor experience is a key point in the current vision statement for the park reserve. Economic indicators are also hardly selected in this case study. One explanation might be the fact that most respondents indicated a low or moderate economic livelihood dependency on the park reserve, with the exception of marine tourism operators. Yet, the new management plan for the park reserve explicitly mentions the generation of economic benefits for First Nations from the park reserve in order to improve their livelihoods and diversify their economic opportunities. Findings in this study indicate that non- aboriginal groups included in this study did not recognize this point. In order to prevent future conflicts, more engagement between managers and stakeholders seems necessary for developing a common vision for the park and reaching consensus of relevant indicators for demonstrating future effectiveness of the park reserve. Statistical analysis reveals that the five stakeholder groups included in this study agree on the importance and purpose for evaluating MPA effectiveness. There are, however, a few differences in the selection of individual indicators between commercial user groups including tourism operators, fishing charters and commercial fishermen compared to noncommercial ones such as researchers and NGOs. NGO respondents and researchers select more complex biophysical indicators like food web integrity and species composition structure more often than the other three groups. As the choice of indicators usually depends on available resources and skills (Pomeroy, Parks, and Watson 2004), the fact that researchers and other experts are commonly highly skilled and able to assess complex indicators (Pomeroy, Parks, and Watson 2004; Ojeda-Mart´ınez et al. 2009) might explain the interest in more complex indicators in this study among researchers and NGO members, who are often trained academics as well. Further differences are also obvious for the choice of governance indicators. While all groups select the assessment of management outputs most

Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 12:01 01 October 2013

70

N. Heck et al.

often, researchers and NGOs would judge governance efficiency primarily by the existence of a systematic monitoring program. Commercial user groups including tourism operators and both fishermen groups emphasize the need to assess the existence of illegal activities, the existence of clear enforcement procedures, and the level of enforcement coverage of existing regulations in the park reserve such as fishery restrictions, whale-watching guidelines and mandatory business licences for any operation inside the park reserve. Since the three groups are the ones that are currently affected by existing regulation, providing information about user compliance could be important as users often base their own compliance with regulations on the rate of compliance by others (“contingent compliance”) (Himes 2003). The findings illustrate that the choice of evaluation indicators among the five included groups are overall very similar as only a few differences were obvious. It needs to be seen in how far stakeholder interests coincide with evaluation interests of managers and First Nations for the park reserve. In general, selecting a final set of relevant indicators usually requires consensus building and collaborative work between managers and diverse stakeholder groups (Pajaro 2010).

References Alder, J., D. Zeller, T. Pitcher, and R. Sumaila. 2002. A method for evaluating marine protected area management. Coastal Management 30:121–131. Assembly of First Nations Environmental Stewardship Unit. 2009. Ethics in First Nations Research. Babcock, R. C., S. Kelly, N. T. Shears, J. W. Walker, and T. J. Willis. 1999. Changes in community structure in temperate marine reserves. Marine Ecology Progress Series 189:125–134. BC Stats. 2006. British Columbia Municipal Census Populations, 1921–2006. Available at http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/pop/pop/mun/mun1921 2006.asp (accessed 30 March 2008). Boyd, H., and A. Charles. 2006. Creating community-based indicators to monitor sustainability of local fisheries. Ocean & Coastal Management 49:237–258. Christie, P., B. J. Mccay, M. L., Miller, C. Lowe, A. T. White, R. Stoffle, D. L. Fluharty, et al. 2003. Toward developing a complete understanding: A social science research agenda for marine protected areas. Fisheries 28:22–26. Convention on Biological Diversity. 2008. Protected Area Management Effectiveness. Available at http://www.cbd.int/protected-old/PAME.shtml (accessed 15 November 2010). Dahl-Tacconi, N. 2005. Investigating information requirements for evaluating effectiveness of marine protected areas-Indonesian case studies. Coastal Management 33:225–246. Danielsen, F., N. Burgess, and A. Balmford. 2005. Monitoring matters: Examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Biodiversity and Conservation 14:2507–2542. Day, J. 2008. The need and practice of monitoring, evaluating and adapting marine planning and management—Lessons from the Great Barrier Reef. Marine Policy 32:823–831. Day, J. C., M. Hockings, and G. Jones. 2002. Measuring effectiveness in marine protected areas—Principles and practice. World Congress on Aquatic Protected Areas, August 14–17, 2002 in Cairns, Queensland. Edgar, G. J., and N. S. Barrett. 1997. Short term monitoring of biotic changes in Tasmanian marine reserves. Journal of Experimental Biology and Ecology 213:261–279. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2010. Pacific Region Integrated Fisheries Management Plan Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Fontalvo-Herazo, M. L., M. Glaser, and A. Lobato-Ribeiro. 2007. A method for the participatory design of an indicator system as a tool for local coastal management. Ocean & Coastal Management 50:779–795. Himes, A. H. 2003. Small-scale Sicilian fisheries: Opinions of artisanal fishers and sociocultural effects in two MPA case studies. Coastal Management 31:389–408. Himes, A. H. 2007. Performance indicators in MPA management: Using questionnaires to analyze stakeholder preferences. Ocean & Coastal Management 50:329–351.

Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 12:01 01 October 2013

Demonstrating MPA Effectiveness

71

Hockings, M., S. Stolton, F. Leverington, N. Dudley, and J. Courrau. 2006. Evaluating Effectiveness, Gland, IUCN. Jamieson, G. S., and C. O. Levings. 2001. Marine protected areas in Canada: Implications for both conservation and fisheries management. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 58:138–156. Leverington, F., M. Hockings, H. Pavese, K. L. Costa, and J. Corrau. 2008. Management Effectiveness Evaluation in Protected Areas—A Global Study. Australia: University of Queensland, Gatton, TNC, WWF, IUCN/WCPA. Lindholm, O. G., and T. Nordeide, T. 2000. Relevance of some criteria for sustainability in a project for disconnecting of storm runoff. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 20:413– 423. Ojeda-Mart´ınez, C., F. Gim´enez Casalduero, J. T. Bayle-Sempere, C. Barbera Cebri´an, C. Valle, J. Luis Sanchez-Lizaso, A. Forcada, et al. 2009. A conceptual framework for the integral management of marine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management 52:89–101. Owen, J. M., and P. J. Rogers. 1999. Program evaluation: Forms and approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pajaro, M. G. 2010. Indicators of Effectiveness in Community-Based Marine Protected Areas. Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia. Pajaro, M. G., M. E. Mulrennan, J. Alder, and A. C. J. Vincent. 2010. Developing MPA effectiveness indicators: Comparison within and across stakeholder groups and communities. Coastal Management 38:122–143. Parks Canada. 1994. Pacific Rim National Park Reserve Management Guidelines. Parks Canada. Parks Canada. 2003. Pacific Rim National Park Reserve of Canada. Interim Management Guidelines. Parks Canada. Parks Canada. 2005. Monitoring and Reporting Ecological Integrity in Canada’s National Parks Volume 1: Guiding Principles. Ottawa: Parks Canada Agency. Parks Canada. 2007. Monitoring and Reporting Ecological Integrity in Canada’s National Parks Volume 2: A Park-Level Guide to Establishing EI Monitoring. Ottawa: Parks Canada Agency. Parks Canada. 2008. State of the Park Report. Parks Canada. Parks Canada. 2010a. Pacific Rim National Park Reserve Management Plan. Ucluelet: Parks Canada. Parks Canada. 2010b. Pacific Rim National Park Reserve of Canada. Available at http://www.pc.gc. ca/pn-np/bc/pacificrim/plan.aspx (accessed 16 October 2010). Planes, S., R. Galzin, A. Garcia Rubies, R. Goni, J. G. Harmelin, L. Direach, P. Lenfant, and A. Quetglas. 2000. Effects of marine protected areas on recruitment processes with special reference to Mediterranean littoral ecosystems. Environmental Conservation 27:126– 143. Pollnac, R. B., B. R. Crawford, and M. L. G. Gorospe. 2001. Discovering factors that influence the success of community-based marine protected areas in the Visayas, Philippines. Ocean and Coastal Management 44:683–710. Pomeroy, R. S., J. E. Parks, and L. M. Watson. 2004. How is your MPA doing? A Guidebook for Natural and Social Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected Areas Management Effectiveness, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. Stern, M. 2006. Measuring conservation effectiveness in the marine environment: A review of techniques and recommendations for moving forward. Washington, DC: Nature Conservancy. Suman, D., M. Shivlani, and J. Walter Milon. 1999. Perceptions and attitudes regarding marine reserves: A comparison of stakeholder groups in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Ocean & Coastal Management 42:1019–1040. Syms, C., and M. Carr. Year of conference. Marine Protected Areas: Evaluating MPA effectiveness in an uncertain world. In Scoping Paper Prepared for North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation Workshop, Monterey, California, USA. Timko, J. A., and J. L. Innes. 2009. Evaluating ecological integrity in national parks: Case studies from Canada and South Africa. Biological Conservation 142:676–688.

72

N. Heck et al.

Downloaded by [Cornell University Library] at 12:01 01 October 2013

Toropova, C., I. Meliane, D. Laffoley, E. Matthews, and M. Spalding. 2010. Global Ocean Protection. Gland, Switzerland, Washington, DC and New York, USA: IUCN WCPA, Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC, Arlington, USA: TNC, Tokyo, Japan: UNU, New York, USA: WCS. Vella, P., R. E. Bowen, and A. Frankic. 2009. An evolving protocol to identify key stakeholderinfluenced indicators of coastal change: The case of Marine Protected Areas. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66:203–213. Walmsley, J. 2005. Human Use Objectievs and Indicators for Integrated Ocean Management on the Scotian Shelf. Available at http://www.mar.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/e0010284 (accessed 12 March 2011). Wells, S., and S. Mangubhai. 2005. A workbook for assessing management effectiveness of marine protected areas in the Western Indian Ocean. Nairobi, Kenya: IUCN Eastern Africa Regional Programme.