Premium
Evaluating approaches for scaling‐up community‐based marine‐protected areas into socially equitable and ecologically representative networks
Author(s) -
Kockel Alessia,
Ban Natalie C.,
Costa Maycira,
Dearden Philip
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
conservation biology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.2
H-Index - 222
eISSN - 1523-1739
pISSN - 0888-8892
DOI - 10.1111/cobi.13368
Subject(s) - marine protected area , convention on biological diversity , biodiversity , stakeholder , environmental resource management , equity (law) , global biodiversity , geography , business , fishery , fishing , marine reserve , distribution (mathematics) , environmental planning , ecology , environmental science , habitat , economics , political science , biology , mathematical analysis , mathematics , management , law
Marine‐protected areas (MPAs) are vital to marine conservation, but their coverage and distribution is insufficient to address declines in global biodiversity and fisheries. In response, many countries have committed through the Aichi Target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity to conserve 10% of the marine environment through ecologically representative and equitably managed MPAs by 2020. The rush to fulfill this commitment has raised concerns on how increasing MPA coverage will affect other elements of Target 11, including representation and equity. We examined a Philippines case study to assess and compare 3 MPA planning approaches for biodiversity representation and equitable distribution of costs to small‐scale fishers. In the opportunistic approach, MPAs were identified and supported by coastal communities. The donor‐assisted approach used local knowledge to select MPAs through a national‐scale and donor‐assisted conservation project. The systematic conservation planning approach identified MPA locations with the spatial prioritization software Marxan with Zones to achieve biodiversity objectives with minimal costs to fishers. We collected spatial data on biodiversity and fisheries features and performed a gap analysis to evaluate MPAs derived from different approaches. We assessed representation based on the proportion of biodiversity features conserved in MPAs and distribution equity by the distribution of opportunity costs (fishing areas lost in MPAs) among fisher stakeholder groups. The opportunistic approach did not ineffectively represent biodiversity and resulted in inequitable costs to fishers. The donor‐assisted approach affected fishers disproportionately but provided near‐optimal regional representation. Only the systematic approach achieved all representation targets with minimal and equitable costs to fishers. Our results demonstrate the utility of systematic conservation planning to address key elements of Target 11 and highlight opportunities (e.g., integration of local and scientific knowledge can address representation and equity concerns) and pitfalls (e.g., insufficient stakeholder considerations can exacerbate social inequalities) for planning MPAs in similar contexts.