The challenges of establishing marine protected areas in South East Asia

C H A P T E R

18 The challenges of establishing marine protected areas in South East Asia Jessica M. Savagea, Malcolm D. Hudsonb, Patrick E. Osborneb a

Global Sustainable Development, School for Cross Faculty Studies, University of Warwick, Coventry, Warwickshire, United Kingdom; bCentre for Environmental Science, School of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom

Abstract Whilst Africa is among the most vulnerable regions to climate change, relevant scenario models suggests that Eastern Africa will be among the regions with the largest decline in agricultural yields in the continent due to increasing mean surface temperatures and GHG concentrations. Climate change impacts in the Eastern African region will include an acceleration of the hydrologic cycle, occasioning increased variance in rainfall. This will particularly impact dryland environments due to their climate sensitive production systems and low adaptive capacities. Context specific adaptive responses will be necessary to reduce vulnerability of communities to environmental change, hence increasing their resilience to climate variability. Such adaptive solutions will require, among others, the building of institutional capacity in technology and governance particularly in the food, energy and water nexus. Appropriate technologies such as rainwater harvesting systems, can be applied for supplemental irrigation, and in conjunction with good agricultural technologies, would ensure food, energy and water security at the household level among the small holders. This chapter discusses regional strategies to address food security, energy needs and water resources in the Eastern African region. It postulates that current sectoral approach is not sustainable and therefore provides a nexus perspective, based on use of Rainwater Harvesting Technologies at the farm level, as a step towards sustainability.

Keywords: Marine protected areas; Marine habitats; Zonation; Tourism; Southeast Asia; Natural resource governance.

Marine Protected Areas https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102698-4.00018-6

343

Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

344

18. The challenges of establishing marine protected areas in South East Asia

Introduction The issue The world’s oceans include some of the most productive and valuable habitats, providing ecosystem goods and services to millions of people for more than a millennium (Toropova et al., 2010). Consequently, no areas of the oceans are unaffected by human influence (Halpern et al., 2008). The health of marine habitats is declining worldwide under the influence of multiple disturbances at both local and global scales of either natural or anthropogenic origin (Lasagna et al., 2014), often degrading ecosystem services, including fisheries (Worm et al., 2006; Lester and Halpern, 2008). Negative changes resulting from this degradation have led to calls for ecosystem-based approaches to marine management, including the implementation of marine protected areas (MPAs) (Lubchenco et al., 2003; Lester and Halpern, 2008). However, marine reserves often face opposition by resource-dependent extractive users, which can make the process of establishing marine protection strategies difficult (Lester and Halpern, 2008) and hinder long-term success. Worldwide, people and communities are dependent on natural resources derived from the oceans; the issue can be more extreme in developing nations where low-levels of education and high poverty rates can limit opportunities for livelihood diversification. Fundamentally, ‘You cannot tell a fisher in a developing nation that they must throw a fish back into the ocean because it is too small, or that they must only catch four fish per day, when they have eight family members to feed’ (Russ, 2002). In response to the global targets agreed under the Convention on Biological Diversity, there are an increasing number of marine protected areas (MPAs) declared, yet, the resulting benefits of such management programmes continue to be difficult to predict and to detect (Edgar et al., 2014). There are a wealth of research papers, books and news articles highlighting the proposed and expected benefits of MPAs. There is also a good understanding of how long it can take for benefits of MPAs to be detected (Christie, 2004; Russ et al., 2004). However, we are now at the stage where some of the first MPAs are reaching maturity, and we are getting a better understanding of the realities of MPAs in relation to our original expectations. It is very clear that each MPA is individual and we need to consider the relevant local complexities and social-ecological interactions, need for recovery, and compatibility with local livelihoods. So, the question is, do we need a reality check? The views expressed in this chapter are derived from work contributing to the designation of MPAs in the Gulf of Thailand. The perspectives described are those of Europeans working on regional MPA projects.

Southeast Asia Tropical ecosystems are ecologically rich, and the tropics are considered an exclusive reservoir of much of the world’s biodiversity (Sodhi et al., 2010). Southeast Asia is home to nearly 100,000 km2 of the some of the planets most biologically diverse coral reefs (Pomeroy, 2012) (estimated at almost 34% of the global total) (Burke et al., 2012). However, many countries in this region (including Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam) experience high levels of resource exploitation alongside rising populations and ongoing

International policies and targets

345

poverty, and there is increasing pressure placed on marine fisheries and the extraction of natural resources (Nasuchon and Charles, 2010). Southeast Asia is clearly an important geographic region for conservation efforts. This coupled with increasing rates of tourism and on-going pressures to build more and more resorts (Wong, 1998; Fabinyi, 2008, 2010), means that environmental stress is likely to increase. However, the implementation of management programmes such as MPAs in the region is incredibly complex. Establishing an MPA requires balancing political instability and ambitious global targets for the protection of habitats with the necessary economic growth and development. At the same time, the ongoing needs of numerous unique resource dependent communities must be supported. This chapter will discuss a variety of issues regarding the implementation of MPAs in Southeast Asia and will highlight key areas for future attention, attempting to identify a path forward.

International policies and targets International targets relating to the protection of marine habitats The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that climate change will significantly impact ecosystems, ecological processes, species and biological diversity; furthermore, coral reefs are highlighted as one of the most vulnerable marine ecosystems (Campbell et al., 2009). It has been estimated that approximately three-quarters of all the world’s population will live within 60 km of the coast by 2020 (IPCC as cited by Vincent, 2011), suggesting that pressures on marine systems will continue to increase. There are numerous international targets for the protection of marine environments, the most recognisable of which relate to the Convention on Biological Diversity. In 2002 the 193 signatory parties to the CBD agreed to ‘significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010’. This commitment became known as the 2010 biodiversity target (Jones et al., 2011) and was later expanded through the adoption of the Programme of Work on Protected Areas (POWPAs) in 2004 and additional sub-targets for strategic plans on 2006 (Toropova et al., 2010). Issues of political targets become even more contentious when considering the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, which simultaneously call for ‘No Poverty’ (Goal 1), ‘Zero Hunger’ and the protection of ‘life below water’ (Goal 14). However, it remains to be seen whether it is possible to achieve all the goals, or will some be prioritised at the expense of others? The primary objective of POWPA was the establishment and maintenance of terrestrial and marine protected areas by 2010 and 2012 respectively. These targets required the protection to be ‘comprehensive, effectively managed and ecologically representative of national and regional systems of protected areas’ (Toropova et al., 2010). This was further clarified by the addition of the 2006 target which calls for “at least 10% of each of the world’s marine and coastal ecological regions to be effectively conserved’ by 2010 (Toropova et al., 2010). It is now clear that these targets have not been met (Butchart et al., 2010; Danielsen et al., 2010; McCay and Jones, 2011) meaning that despite the increases in the number of MPAs globally over recent years (Hargreaves-Allen et al., 2011), national governments have been unsuccessful at implementing an adequate number of MPAs, let alone MPAs that provide

346

18. The challenges of establishing marine protected areas in South East Asia

tangible conservation benefits (Jameson et al., 2002; Hargreaves-Allen et al., 2011). The 2010 deadline was subsequently extended to 2012, and again to 2020 (De Santo, 2013). Additionally, in 2014 the Worlds Parks Congress increased their recommendation for 30% of the oceans to be strongly protected by 2030 (Shugart-Schmidt et al., 2015). However, despite current progress, the extended deadline coupled with increasing targets begs the question; are these targets achievable?

Can we deliver on current targets? Marine protected areas are an integral component of local, national and international fisheries management strategies, and the conservation of marine biodiversity (Halpern et a., 2008; Fox et al., 2012) As of September 2018, 3.7% of the world’s oceans (2% in strict no-take zones) was protected by 11,169 implemented MPAs (Marine Conservation Institute, 2018). However, the actual number of MPAs is difficult to quantify as new ones are being established continuously, many of which are very small (Hargreaves-Allen et al., 2011) or may not be considered formal enough to be included in global databases (Marine Conservation Institute, 2018). Additionally, although the number and rate of MPA implementation is encouraging, there is a concern that some are being implemented too quickly, with the intention of meeting political rather than conservation targets. In many countries, this issue is compounded further by insufficient government funds for both management and enforcement. Success is also hindered by poor support from local communities (Mora et al., 2006; Yasué et al., 2010). As a result, evaluations of individual or regional MPAs suggest that a vast majority do not meet their management objectives (Hargreaves-Allen et al., 2011). Similarly, many developing countries, including several in South East Asia, are faced with a serious lack of resources, limiting the size, number and efficacy of management programmes. The rush to establish MPAs (in order to meet the variety of international targets currently imposed) without proper resources, planning or governance mechanisms has created networks of ‘paper parks’ that are intended and anticipated to provide numerous ecological and socioeconomic benefits, such as population connectivity spill over, and resilience against climate change impacts but in actuality may be indistinguishable from surrounding areas (Rife et al., 2013). Owing to the prevalence of international targets for the implementation of protected areas, governments worldwide are under pressure to increase both the quantity and size of protected areas. However, past research suggests that social factors, not biological or physical variables determine MPA success or failure (McClanahan, 1999). Successful implementation of marine management initiatives requires strong support from local communities. If they cannot perceive benefits for the immediate area of the reserve, they are far less likely to support reserves as a fisheries management tool (Russ et al., 2004). While there is a wealth of knowledge in the scientific literature on MPAs, there are still many questions that require answers in order to have sufficient understanding of the complexities surrounding their design and management, particularly relating to their socioeconomic impacts. This problem is further exacerbated by the fact that every MPA is different, and as such, requires personalisation to each unique area and set of environmental and socio-economic variables. This means that there will never be an ‘off-the-shelf’ MPA or associated research and/or monitoring programme. Management objectives and reserve

International policies and targets

347

designs should ideally be tailored to address the specific ecological, cultural and socioeconomic problems that the MPA was designed to alleviate (Agardy, 2000). Thus, the critical issue is not which type of MPA is more useful or legitimate, but, rather, which MPA approach(es) are most appropriate for specific purposes and conditions (Agardy et al., 2003).

Do we have the manpower? One of the fundamental factors limiting the success of any management strategy, particularly in a developing country, is the distinct lack of resources, and there is a general consensus that science has neither the financial resources nor manpower to meet the demand (Uychaioco et al., 2005; Danielsen et al., 2014; Savage et al., 2017). Marine protected areas typically have both biological objectives, such as maintaining biological diversity, and social objectives such as enhancing the livelihoods of fishermen and local communities (Mascia, 2003). Both biological and ecological targets need monitoring to determine success, however the methods and techniques needed are vastly different, and pose different issues. While methods of determining MPA efficacy vary in response to individual management targets, monitoring typically relies on the use of biomass and biodiversity metrics. These metrics include, but are not limited to, size of fish, total fish biomass, fish diversity and the presence and biomass of key species, such as Sharks (Edgar et al., 2014). However, owing to the knowledge and skill required to be able to collect this data, getting reliable information is extremely difficult. As a result of what is becoming known as the ‘data deficit’ (O’Leary et al., 2012), there is a distinct need for coastal communities worldwide to have access to simple marine monitoring techniques that are able to assess the health of coastal and marine environments (Risk et al., 2001). This in itself is a tremendous challenge; however, the issue is further complicated when considering developing communities who are often resource-limited. In addition, the costs and logistical constraints with the effective monitoring of marine resource use are often prohibitive and hard to sustain, especially in developing countries where financial resources are limited (Danielsen et al., 2005) and the results of such studies are rarely communicated to the local populations (Uychaioco et al., 2005). Additionally, there have been few seminal advances in the methods and techniques used to evaluate the health of coral reef systems since line transects and visual fish counts were first proposed in 1972 (Risk et al., 2001). Of the alternatives that have since been proposed, most typically rely on technology such as underwater cameras, video equipment, water quality testing, lab analysis, and more recently, the use of CT scanners and drones. In many developed countries, these options may be feasible and provide valuable results, but in countries with limited resources, their applicability is limited. Clearly, there is a need for more accessible marine monitoring techniques, however, there is a lot of contention within scientific circles about the best way to meet this demand. In the last 20e30 years, there has been a progressive shift towards the integration of volunteers into the collection of marine management data. However, many members of the scientific community remain sceptical about the reliability of data collected by volunteers (Foster-Smith and Evans, 2003; Uychaioco et al., 2005; Danielsen et al., 2014; Savage et al., 2017). While a number of studies have attempted to determine the suitability of volunteer-based survey data, few

348

18. The challenges of establishing marine protected areas in South East Asia

have also expanded research into community members (Savage et al., 2017). Further research in this area may help to fill the gaps in current knowledge and effectively inform and support management efforts.

What makes a successful MPA? Research suggests that successful MPAs tend to have specific traits. In a review of 87 MPAs from around the world, Edgar et al. (2014) reported that successful MPAs demonstrated at least four out of a possible five NEOLI features (no-take, enforced, old, large, and isolated). While each of these factors makes sense from an ecological perspective, this summary of success factors does not include the human dimension-other than implying restriction of access to resources. Although this provides a valuable list of variables for consideration, the idealistic nature of these factors limits their applicability.

No-take No-take MPAs are an extreme form of MPA which prohibits all forms of natural resource extraction. In many cases, these areas will still allow access for tourism, or allow boats to pass through. However, the degree to which access is allowed varies. For example, some MPAs may not allow boats to enter the area at all, or may allow boats to enter, but not anchor. The key point however, is that prohibiting all resource extraction as well as potentially prohibiting access in an area inherently requires people and communities to change behaviours. Clearly, the extent of behavioural change will depend on the individual characteristics of each protected area. For example, an MPA established in the deep ocean, far from any coastlines and human populations, would be easier to avoid than a coastal MPA established in a populated archipelago with a dwindling fishery. As a result, the actualities of developing a no-take MPA will vary, as will the associated efficacy. Alternatives include the use of zonation plans, where specifically identified sections of the MPA can be closed permanently, or periodically depending on the specific ecological purpose of the management programme. For example, a seasonal closure could be established in an area identified as a breeding ground for a specific species during the breeding season. The theory behind the establishment of no-take MPAs may be sound, however, the resulting impacts on local communities may be detrimental, and unacceptable. This could have repercussions for community satisfaction or ‘buy-in’, which in turn, may limit the efficacy of the management initiative.

Enforced Enforcement of marine protected areas is a difficult topic, and levels of enforcement can vary greatly between management areas. Enforcing the rules of a management programme requires a significant amount of manpower, and associated financing. Depending on the size of the MPA, there may be a large area which needs to be patrolled and monitored, particularly in the early days of management, when rules need to be consistently and effectively

What makes a successful MPA?

349

communicated to users. Associated costs include wages for personnel, boats, maintenance and fuel, and on-going training for community members and MPA support staff. The levels and extent of enforcement within MPAs varies greatly; a lack of enforcement is often identified as a component of paper-parks. In many such areas, lack of community support for MPAs stems from a lack of enforcement. If you consider that the establishment of any form of management regime is inherently designed to alter the interactions between humans and their environment, the pressure for MPAs to succeed is often placed on those with the highest dependence on the natural resources. Surely, it is therefore reasonable to expect that if there are no consequences for not adhering to prescribed rules, people will naturally disregard them, to maintain their incomes and livelihoods. This effect will have considerable impacts on community buy-in, and as a result, a lack of enforcement will harm long-term efficacy. On the other hand, MPAs which are appropriately provisioned, and managed by people who are both capable and willing to enforce rules have the greatest chance of success.

Large Larger MPAs are those protecting over 100 km2 (Lewis et al., 2017) and research suggests they are more effective than smaller MPAs (Edgar et al., 2014). From an ecological perspective, this makes perfect sense. Larger MPAs are inherently able to protect larger areas, and possibly a greater number of habitats, providing more refuges for species. Understandably, there has been a big push in recent years for the declaration of large scale MPAs, such as the Chagos Archipelago Marine Park in April 2010 (UK) (De Santo et al., 2011), the Papah anaumoku akea Marine Park in April 2006 (expanded in 2016) (US), and Phoenix Island Protected Area in 2008 (Republic of Kiribati). The Chagos Archipelago is an excellent example of a successful large-scale MPA. However, the protected area was declared around an archipelago which has been uninhabited for more than four decades. The declaration of the Chagos MPA has also drawn extensive criticism, because it was established while the European Court of Human Rights was still debating the rights of native Chagossians to return to their islands following more than 40 years of exile in Mauritius (De Santo et al., 2011). Arguably, it is difficult to declare such an MPA successful, when the human populations responsible for degradation have been removed, and its mere establishment is rife with such political contention. Issues also arise when considering the resources needed to support a large-scale MPA. In reality, the larger the MPA the more resources that are necessary to support, monitor and enforce it. In many developed nations, GPS tracking data is used to identify the course travelled and activities undertaken by fishing vessels. However, in many poorer areas, such technology is not available and it is necessary to physically patrol the MPA to enforce the rules. One potential solution, is the development of MPA networks (McCook et al., 2009) or, more simply, a set of individually managed MPAs whose boundaries overlap in a way that results in a larger MPA with shared responsibilities for management and maintenance. Obviously, a strategy like this presents different challenges politically, particularly in areas where the MPA boundaries cross national borders, but may be a viable mechanism for the protection of larger areas, especially in coastal areas with resource dependent communities.

350

18. The challenges of establishing marine protected areas in South East Asia

Isolated Isolation forms part of the need for successful MPAs because isolated MPAs are under less human pressure. However, while there are no areas of the world’s marine environments unaffected by human influence (Halpern et al., 2008), most of the environmental degradation has occurred in areas with higher levels of human disturbance. Therefore, while isolation may help to promote the efficacy of MPAs, in many cases it may not be possible. There is an argument to suggest that large MPAs in isolated areas could provide refuge to species. Through the ‘Spill-over effect’ (Fabinyi, 2008), there is the chance, depending on the species, that fisheries could be replenished if individuals were to travel from the protected area. However, while this might seem like a simplistic theory, in reality there are certain species which would not benefit from such arrangements. For example, Parrotfish (Scariedae sp.) are reef-dwelling fish, popular with fishermen because they can grow to be quite large. However, these fish spend their entire lives on coral reef, and with the exception of one species (Scarus ghobban) do not stray far from their habitat. Parrotfish are not only important for fisheries, but their grazing habits help control algal populations on coral reefs, and a decline in parrotfish numbers has been directly linked to coral-algal phase-shifts (Cramer et al., 2017). Each of the variables discussed above makes a reasonable contribution to our understanding of what makes a successful MPA. However, the feasibility of each of these options will vary greatly from place to place. While Edgar et al. (2014) suggest that three of these five variables will lead to more successful MPAs, designing MPAs which meet three or more of these variables may have detrimental consequences to local resource dependent communities. This, in turn, may impact community support, or ‘buy-in’, for MPA establishment.

Governance Environmental governance has emerged as a discrete area of policy and research, particularly concerning the expansion of theoretical knowledge regarding environmental justice and sustainability (Batterbury and Fernando, 2006). The decentralisation of decisionmaking powers from governments, downwards towards local institutions, NGOs and communities, is an important feature of the environmental governance approach because it is intended to improve accountability, accessibility, and a voice for local people and their representatives (Batterbury and Fernando, 2006). However, the mechanisms for decentralisation vary, as does the level of success. As a result, a series of indicators for ‘good governance’ have evolved (including: Legitimacy, Transparency, Accountability, Inclusivity, Fairness, Integration, Capability, Effectiveness. See Lockwood et al., 2010). The term ‘good governance’ is typically attributed to a package of public sector reforms designed to elicit positive, lasting changes in accordance with key governance principles (Batterbury and Fernando, 2006). The explicit adoption of good governance within international development and policy dates back to the early 1990s (Doonbos, 2003), and requires new political and judicial measures and instruments to be implemented. For example, political reforms following the end of authoritarian rule in Indonesia in the 1990s have allowed rural communities to protest government abuses of power with more confidence and local government officials are, as a result, more obliged to listen to communities under these new

Community buy-in

351

operating conditions of state-society rules (McCarthy, 2004). A similar process of change is now underway in Cambodia. Following the end of the Khmer Rouge regime in the 1970s, the country has been in an ongoing state of recovery. Reforms are based around The Rectangular Strategy, published in 2013. The strategy uses principles of good governance to support development, political stability, build capacity and enhance the agricultural sector (Rectangular Strategy, 2013). Good governance supports stakeholders at different hierarchical levels, and at least in theory, should encourage community support for management initiatives such as MPAs. However, there is little understanding of how well theories of good governance are implemented across different countries and regions. Inadequate governance mechanisms can directly impact MPA efficacy by impeding community perceptions and support. This leads to the understanding that management systems such as MPAs can exist as social failures, causing social harm by triggering conflict and economic and social dislocation for disadvantaged communities in and around the MPA (such as artisanal fishers). In response, the marginalised communities may either strongly resist the implementation of an MPA, or support the MPA initially, but lose interest and confidence in its management (Christie, 2004).

Community buy-in Considering that MPAs essentially rely on human behavioural change to be effective, surely it stands to reason that community support for management is essential. An MPA is a linked social-ecological system (Pollnac et al., 2010) which incorporates place-based management designed to regulate social and ecological interactions by restricting access to the natural resources within its geographic boundaries (Wu and Tsai, 2016). As a result of the inherent impacts on human behaviour, it is now a commonly understood notion that management initiatives should consider both the needs of the environment, and the needs of local communities hand-in-hand (Adger et al., 2006). Environmental governance has emerged as a key area of research, eliciting both critical and normative policy discussions. This is of particular importance when considering the interactions between environmental justice and sustainability (Agrawal, 2005; Batterbury and Fernando, 2006). Marine protected areas typically suffer because of the inherent complexities present in such dynamic systems. As a result, their benefits and shortcomings are difficult to quantify, and often slow to be detected (Micheli et al., 2004). Key supporters for the establishment of MPAs suggest that management initiatives can provide a lot of benefits to communities. Reported benefits include local empowerment, improved governance, livelihood diversification, improved fisheries, poverty reduction through tourism, empowerment of women, and social, educational and cultural benefits (Agardy, 1993; Leisher et al., 2007; Bennett and Dearden, 2014). ‘The construction of many MPAs indicates a tendency for the interests of conservation to be prioritised over those of fisheries management. This is a key point because proponents of MPAs often assert that the benefits of MPAs will be spread among all stakeholders’ (Fabinyi, 2008, 899). Often, the spill-over effect is described as a benefit to local communities. The idea is that a protected area will allow refuge for protected species to recover, increasing

352

18. The challenges of establishing marine protected areas in South East Asia

populations within the protected area to a point where fish and other organisms will extend out beyond the boundaries where they can be harvested more easily by fishers. However, Fabinyi (2018) argues that there is no evidence that MPAs enhance fishery yields in the surrounding area to a degree that compensates for the losses of fishery access to the local environment or communities. The timescales for detection of change vary, but research suggests upwards of 15e40 years may be necessary for fish populations to recover (Russ et al., 2004) to determine the efficacy of MPAs. Clearly, that is a long time for community members to have to wait, often in areas where MPA designation has resulted in extensive changes to behaviour and livelihoods. This means that stakeholder perceptions are critical to the ongoing success of management programmes, because without strong and long-term support from local communities, they are likely to fail (Mascia, 2003). In addition, social attitudes are considered a key factor when discussing community support or ‘buy-in’ for MPAs (Ballantine, 1994; Pollnac and Pomeroy, 2005). In theory, positive attitudes towards protected areas, in turn, lead to greater compliance with rules and regulations, and result in more effective enforcement (Ballantine, 1994; Pollnac and Pomeroy, 2005; Chaigneau and Daw, 2015). Community based conservation should ‘include natural resource or biodiversity protection by, for and with the local community’ (Western and Wright, 1994, 18). The rhetoric which often surrounds MPAs is typically focused on the importance of community participation, but in many cases, there are often critiques of engagement with local stakeholders, particularly when it comes to design and planning (Bennett and Dearden, 2014; GuerrónMontero, 2005). Christie (2004) discussed how MPAs in the Philippines and Indonesia could be simultaneously considered ‘biological successes’ and ‘social failures’ as a result of limited participation, inequitable division of economic benefits and failures in conflict resolution mechanisms. It may be a result of desires within scientific circles to continue the narrative of positive impacts surrounding MPAs, but few studies attempt to identify negative traits within MPAs, potentially due to the risk of highlighting issues and then subsequently causing harm to community perceptions and buy-in. However, the likelihood is that communities are well aware if their MPAs are not delivering benefits or indeed if any benefits are not appropriately shared. Therefore, it begs the question, if we are not developing effective MPAs, are we doing more harm than good in the long-term?

Tourism Tourism is a more recent form of marine resource use that has emerged as a potential ‘fix’ to the problems associated with marine resource decline and provides a means of extracting capital from the marine environment without directly extracting resources (Fabinyi, 2018). Tourism is consequently often integrated into management plans as a strategy to compensate the local communities for the restrictions put in place through the establishment of an MPA (Oracion et al., 2005; Wu and Tsai, 2016; Strickland-Munro et al., 2010). Coastal and marine tourism has formed a large part of the attraction of tourists in countries such as the Philippines (Department of Tourism, 2017, as cited by Fabinyi, 2018) since the 1970’s, (Fabinyi, 2018); other countries in South East Asia, such as Cambodia, are following suit (Rectangular Strategy, 2013). Tourism in the Philippines has been planned by the government and NGOs as an alternative livelihood for coastal communities in order to

Community buy-in

353

relieve stress from resource over-exploitation from marine habitats (Depondt and Green, 2006), a model which can be seen worldwide. There is a wealth of research advocating the implementation of tourism programmes, showing links between tourism activities and MPAs through the Ecosystem Services Framework and the associated cultural services, capitalising on people’s desire to visit nature. More directly, tourism generates employment opportunities within local communities, which can both improve incomes, and reduce the outward migration of community members seeking work elsewhere (Wu and Tsai, 2016). On a psychological level, research indicates that visiting protected areas can enhance well-being, and support health and the social development of children (Louv, 2005; McNeely and Suksawang, 2018). The development of tourism in coastal areas is intrinsically linked to the establishment of MPAs, and advocates suggest that even the smallest and most obscure MPAs can provide benefits and business opportunities to local people (McNeely and Suksawang, 2018). ‘Entrepreneurs can provide food and drink, accommodation, and guide services to tourists. Research has shown that tourism benefits enable people who live close to protected areas to be financially better off than people living in similar conditions, farther from protected areas’ (Andam et al., 2010; McNeely and Suksawang, 2018). However, more critical studies contest this argument displaying the prominence of both the level of environmental degradation that can be caused by tourism activities (Trousdale, 1999; Fabinyi, 2018), and the lack of economic benefits to fishing communities (Fabinyi, 2010). ‘While the rhetoric may often be about ‘eco-tourism’, promoting jobs and preserving the environment, in practice tourism is often simply tourism that involves the environment’ (Fabinyi, 2018, p.90). Similarly, the development of tourism, without the appropriate inclusion and participation of local communities may contribute little to the local population (Tsai and Hong, 2014; Wu and Tsai, 2016). ‘It is argued that although the assumed harmonious relationship between marine conservation and tourism may work in theory, in practice different understandings of MPAs can create conflict’ (Fabinyi, 2008). In some cases, ineffective inclusion may also undermine local livelihoods and threaten management efficacy (Wu and Tsai, 2016). In many coastal communities where land-rights are tenuous, people are facing battles to hold on to their lands and opportunities as coastal developments for tourism increase the costs of coastal lands, squeezing out local residents (Fabinyi, 2018). In countries such as Cambodia, these issues develop further and, in some cases, has led to communities being forcibly removed from their land to allow tourism development (pers. obs.); this is due to haphazardly arranged land tenure arrangements following the re-stabilisation of the country following the Khmer Rouge regime (Blunt and Turner, 2005). However, those with stronger land tenure may be able to benefit more from the establishment of tourism (Fabinyi, 2018); however, that being said, such arrangements may exacerbate social tensions in communities where there is a resulting inequitable division of the benefits of tourism efforts (Oracion et al., 2005). Local support and capacity prior to tourism development are essential. Local communities are highly complex and heterogeneous, and tourism developments need to be adapted to the diverse needs of a community (Wu and Tsai, 2016). However, research suggests that conflict can arise from the marginalisation of artisanal fisheries by other forms of resource utilisation such as dive tourism (Christie, 2004). Therefore, the introduction of MPAs as part of a tourism

354

18. The challenges of establishing marine protected areas in South East Asia

strategy by governments may also be negatively perceived within sectors of fishing communities (Oracion et al., 2005). While the broad trajectory accepted by many is a general shift away from marine resource extraction and towards tourism or marine resource ‘appreciation’, the associated processes are complex, and the outcomes at the local scale are likely be highly uneven. The path forward for tourism efforts within MPAs needs to focus on enhancing community participation. Tourism development as a mechanism for social-economic regeneration within MPAs needs to focus more on capacity building as opposed to the development of tourism itself. Capacity building in this context would also provide more equitable access to tourism-based opportunities.

Expectations and realities Globally, inshore marine resources are increasingly being managed through collaborative arrangements between communities, governments, civil society and other groups (Wamukota et al., 2012). Community perceptions of management strategies are crucial to their long-term survival and efficacy. However, owing to the current situation regarding mass designation of MPAs, discussions with communities in Cambodia suggests that there may be some inaccuracies surrounding the way that protected areas and management strategies are communicated to the people most impacted by their implementation (Savage, 2017). MPAs have been promoted as the answer to issues of resource exploitation; in fact, a large proportion of the population believe that an MPA will solve all of their problems. They refer to issues of illegal fishing and government corruption as being the causes for declining fisheries outputs. However, while discussing these issues, there is a lack of understanding about the realities of what the implementation of MPAs means in terms of behavioural change, dayto-day life, and the timescale for the detection of management benefits. When discussing the perceived benefits of MPAs. Community members in Cambodia tend to believe that the designation of MPAs will improve all aspects of their lives. Critically however, there is very little awareness of the process of behavioural change that needs to occur. This, coupled with issues relating to the expectations and realities of tourism implementation, may result in conflict within and between communities.

Conclusions While the general feeling from this chapter may be one of disappointment and frustration, it helps to identify some of the key issues regarding the implementation of MPAs and begins to mark a path forward. Indeed, as Sale (2002, 361) pointed out ‘If political correctness requires that we never point out our problems, finding real solutions may take a lot longer than we can afford’. Awareness of issues can help to identify the best methods by which to go about establishing different levels of MPA protection. One of the biggest drivers for the establishment of MPAs is the wealth of top-down global and political targets for the development of MPAs. However, as discussed above, these targets are pushing towards quantity rather than quality (De Santo, 2013). On the surface, it seems reasonable to agree with the voices of many MPA advocates. Essentially, if we establish

References

355

a large number of MPAs, some of them will have beneficial impacts. However, this idea lends itself to a great deal of public scrutiny. For those around the world who have had to alter their livelihoods and behaviours in support of MPA establishment, or who have felt marginalised as a result, ineffective MPAs are going to have a drastic impact on long-term compliance. This effect will only be stronger in developing parts of the world, such as Southeast Asia, because of the abundant constraints preventing the adoption of alternative livelihoods. The emergence of ‘solutions’ such as tourism, may represent a positive way forward, but evidence suggests that without proper integration of local communities into the planning, development and ongoing adaptation to tourism implementations, any benefits derived are likely to be inequitably distributed throughout the community. Such inequitable distribution may then aggravate existing social tensions and lead to divisions within communities. On the other hand, assessing and supporting community ‘buy-in’ is essential. However, it is also critical to ensure there is an appropriate understanding of the realities of the establishment of management. And finally, the ‘selling’ of MPAs to communities must be honest, so that people are able to prepare and deal with the potential impacts of management on their way of life. International targets for environmental protection mean that governments worldwide are obligated to protect 10 % of the world’s oceans by 2020 (Toropova et al., 2010). However, with only two years to go, we are unlikely to meet that target. Overall, it might be time to reconsider the targets for global habitat protection. Current targets push towards a quantity rather than quality approach (De Santo, 2013). Considering the complexities and issues discussed above, there is the risk that the mass designation of MPAs might have negative impacts on communities and exacerbate social tensions between and across stakeholder levels. It is then reasonable to assume that such negative impacts may have repercussions for the long-term acceptance of MPAs within societies. It would be more appropriate to stagger the targets set into more achievable stages over a longer time period. For example, one solution may be to set an incremental 5% increase per decade until 2050. While this could be considered too slow in order to ‘. significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity loss’ as required by the Convention on Biological Diversity (Jones et al., 2011), is it not more efficient to implement a smaller number of marine management strategies which are appropriately provisioned and implemented, before scaling-up efforts to meet international targets? This approach could help in a number of developing countries, particularly in Southeast Asia, where resource dependent communities may require more time to adapt to the rules and lifestyle alterations associated with MPAs.

References Adger, N.W., Brown, K., Tompkins, E.L., 2006. The political economy of cross-scale networks in resource comanagement. Ecology and Society 10 (2), 9e20. Agardy, M.T., 1993. Accommodating ecotourism in multiple use planning of coastal and marine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management 20 (3), 219e239. Agardy, T., 2000. Information needs for marine protected areas: scientific and societal. Bulletin of Marine Science 66 (3), 875e888. Agardy, T., Bridgewater, P., Crosby, M.P., Day, J., Dayton, P.K., Kenchington, R., Laffoley, D., McConney, P., Murray, P.A., Parks, J.E., Peau, L., 2003. Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 13 (4), 353e367.

356

18. The challenges of establishing marine protected areas in South East Asia

Agrawal, A., 2005. Environmentaility: Technologies of Government and the Making of Subjects. Duke, Durham, NC. Andam, K., Ferraro, P., Sims, K., Healy, A., Holland, M., 2010. Protected areas reduced poverty in Costa Rica and Thailand. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 107 (22), 9996e10001. Ballantine, W.J., 1994. Networks of ‘no-take’ marine reserves are practical and necessary. In: Shackell, N., Wilson, J. (Eds.), Marine Protected Areas and Sustainable Fisheries. Science and Management of Protected Areas Association, Nova Scotia, Canada. Batterbury, S.P., Fernando, J.L., 2006. Rescaling governance and the impacts of political and environmental decentralization: an introduction. World Development 34 (11), 1851e1863. Bennett, N.J., 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, 107e116. Blunt, P., Turner, M., 2005. Decentralisation, democracy and development in a post-conflict society: commune councils in Cambodia. Public Administration and Development: The International Journal of Management Research and Practice 25 (1), 75e87. Burke, L., Selig, E., Spalding, M., 2012. Reefs at Risk in Southeast Asia. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. Butchart, S.H., Walpole, M., Collen, B., Van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J.P., Almond, R.E., Baillie, J.E., Bomhard, B., Brown, C., Bruno, J., Carpenter, K.E., 2010. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328, 1164. Campbell, M.D., Patino, R., Tolan, J., Strauss, R., Diamond, S.L., 2009. Sublethal effects of catch-and-release fishing: measuring capture stress, fish impairment, and predation risk using a condition index. ICES Journal of Marine Science 67 (3), 513e521. Chaigneau, T., Daw, T.M., 2015. Individual and village-level effects on community support for Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the Philippines. Marine Policy 51, 499e506. Christie, P., 2004. Marine protected areas as biological successes and social failures in Southeast Asia. American Fisheries Society 42, 155e164. Cramer, K.L., O’Dea, A., Clark, T.R., Zhao, J-x., Norris, R.D., 2017. Pre-historical and historical declines in Caribbean coral reef accretion rates driven by loss of parrotfish. Nature Communications 8, 14160. Danielsen, F., Burgess, N.D., Balmford, A., 2005. Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Biodiversity & Conservation 14 (11), 2507e2542. Danielsen, F., Burgess, N.D., Jensen, P.M., Pirhofer-Walzl, K., 2010. Environmental monitoring: the scale and speed of implementation varies according to the degree of peoples’ involvement. Journal of Applied Ecology 47 (6), 1166e1168. Danielsen, F., Jensen, P.M., Burgess, N.D., Altamirano, R., Alviola, P.A., Andrianandrasana, H., Brashares, J.S., Burton, A.C., Coronado, I., Corpuz, N., Enghoff, M., Fjeldsa, J., Funder, M., Holt, S., Hubertx, H., Jensen, A.E., Lewis, R., Massao, J., Mendoza, M.M., Ngaga, y., Pipper, C.B., Poulsen, M.K., Rueda, R.M., Sam, M.K., Skielboe, T., Sorensen, M., Youngm, R., 2014. A multicountry assessment of tropical resource monitoring by local communities. BioScience 64 (3), 236e251. Department of Tourism, It’s more fun in the Philippines, 2017, http://itsmorefuninthephilippines.com/. Depondt, F., Green, E., 2006. Diving user fees and the financial sustainability of marine protected areas: opportunities and impediments. Ocean & Coastal Management 49 (3e4), 188e202. De Santo, E.M., Jones, P.J.S., Miller, A.M.M., 2011. Fortress conservation at sea: a commentary on the Chagos MPA. Marine Policy 35 (2), 258e260. De Santo, E.M., 2013. Missing marine protected area (MPA) targets: how the push for quantity over quality undermines sustainability and social justice. Journal of Environmental Management 124, 137e146. Doonbos, M., 2003. “Good Governance”: the metamorphosis of a policy metaphor. Journal of International Affairs 57 (1), 2e17. Edgar, G.J., Stuart-Smith, R.D., Willis, T.J., Kininmonth, S., Baker, S.C., Banks, S., Barrett, N.S., Becerro, M.A., Bernard, A.T., Berkhout, J., Buxton, C.D., 2014. Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features. Nature 506 (7487), 216. Fabinyi, M., 2008. Dive tourism, fishing and marine protected areas in the Calamianes Islands, Philippines. Marine Policy 32 (6), 898e904. Fabinyi, M., 2010. The intensification of fishing and the rise of tourism: competing coastal livelihoods in the Calamianes Islands, Philippines. Human Ecology 38 (3), 415e427.

References

357

Fabinyi, M., 2018. Environmental fixes and historical trajectories of marine resource use in Southeast Asia. Geoforum 91, 87e96. Foster-Smith, J., Evans, S.M., 2003. The value of marine ecological data collected by volunteers. Biological Conservation 113 (2), 199e213. Fox, H.E., Mascia, M.B., Basurto, X., Costa, A., Glew, L., Heinemann, D., Karrer, L.B., Lester, S.E., Lombana, A.V., Pomeroy, R.S., Recchia, C.A., 2012. Re-examining the science of marine protected areas: linking knowledge to action. Conservation Letters 5 (1), 1e10. Guerrón-Montero, C., 2005. Marine Protected areas in Panama: grassroots activism and advocacy. Human Organization 30 (1), 360e373. Halpern, B.S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K.A., Kappel, C.V., Micheli, F., D’agrosa, C., Bruno, J.F., Casey, K.S., Ebert, C., Fox, H.E., Fujita, R., 2008. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319 (5865), 948e952. Hargreaves-Allen, V., Mourato, S., Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2011. A global evaluation of coral reef management performance: are MPAs producing conservation and socio-economic improvements? Environmental Management 47 (4), 684e700. Jameson, S.C., Tupper, M.H., Ridley, J.M., 2002. The three screen doors: can marine “protected” areas be effective? Marine Pollution Bulletin 44 (11), 1177e1183. Jones, J.P.G., Collen, B., Atkinson, G., Baxter, P.W.J., Bubb, P., Illian, J.B., atxer, T.E., Keane, A., Loh, J., McDonaldMadden, E., Nicholson, E., Pereira, H.M., Possingham, H.P., Pullin, A.S., Rodrigues, A.S.L., Ruiz-Gutierrez, V., Sommerville, M., Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2011. The why, what and how of global biodiversity indicators beyond the 2010 target. Conservation Biology 25 (3), 450e457. Lasagna, R., Gnone, G., Taruffi, M., Morri, C., Bianchi, C.N., Parravicini, V., Lavorano, S., 2014. A new synthetic index to evaluate reef coral condition. Ecological Indicators 40, 1e9. Leisher, C., Carlton, V.A., Van Beukering, P., Scherl, L.M., 2007. Nature’s Investment Bank: How Marine Protected Areas Contributed to Poverty Reduction. Nature Conservancy, Australia. Lester, S.E., Halpern, B.S., 2008. Biological responses in marine no-take reserves versus partially protected areas. Marine Ecology Progress Series 367, 49e56. Lewis, N., Day, J.C., Wilhelm, ‘A., Wagner, D., Gaymer, C., Parks, J., Friedlander, A., White, S., Sheppard, C., Spalding, M., San Martin, G., Skeat, A., Taei, S., Teroroko, T., Evans, J., 2017. Large-Scale Marine Protected Areas: Guidelines for Design and Management. Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series, No. 26. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland xxviii þ 120 pp. Lockwood, M., Davidson, J., Curtis, A., Stratford, E., Griffith, R., 2010. Governance principles for natural resource management. Society & Natural Resources 23, 986e1001. Louv, R., 2005. The Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature Deficit Disorder. Algonquin Books, New York. Lubchenco, J., Palumbi, S.R., Gaines, S.D., Andelman, S., 2003. Plugging a hole in the ocean: the emerging science of marine reserves. Ecological Applications 13 (1), 3e7. Marine Conservation Institute, 2018. MPAtlas [On-Line]. www.mpatlas.org. Mascia, M.B., 2003. The human dimension of coral reef marine protected areas: recent social science research and its policy implications. Conservation Biology 17 (2), 630e632. McCarthy, J., 2004. Privatising conditions of production: trade agreements as neoliberal environmental governance. Geoforum 35, 32e341. McCay, B.J., Jones, P.J., 2011. Marine protected areas and the governance of marine ecosystems and fisheries. Conservation Biology 25 (6), 1130e1133. McClanahan, T.R., 1999. Is there a future for coral reef parks in poor tropical countries? Coral Reefs 18, 321e325. McClanahan, T., Davies, J., Maina, J., 2005. Factors influencing resource users and managers’ perceptions towards marine protected area management in Kenya. Environmental Conservation 32 (1), 42e49. McCook, L.J., Almany, G.R., Berumen, M.L., Day, J.C., Green, A.L., Jones, G.P., Leis, J.M., Planes, S., Russ, G.R., Sale, P.F., Thorrold, S.R., 2009. Management under uncertainty; guidelines for incorporating connectivity into the protection of coral reefs. Coral Reefs 28, 353e366. McNeely, J.A., Suksawang, S., 2018. How conserving biodiversity will help the ASEAN countries adapt to changing conditions. In: Morand, S., Lajaunie, C., Satrawaha, R. (Eds.), Biodiversity Conservation in Southeast Asia. Routledge, Abingdon, UK.

358

18. The challenges of establishing marine protected areas in South East Asia

Micheli, F., Halpern, B.S., Botsford, L.W., Warner, R.R., 2004. Trajectories and correlates of community change in notake marine reserves. Ecological Applications 14 (6), 1709e1723. Mora, C., Andréfouët, S., Costello, M.J., Kranenburg, C., Rollo, A., Veron, J., Gaston, K.J., Myers, R.A., 2006. Coral reefs and the global network of marine protected areas. Science 312, 1750. Nasuchon, N., Charles, A., 2010. Community involvement in fisheries management: experiences in the Gulf of Thailand countries. Marine Policy 34 (1), 163e169. O’Leary, B.C., Brown, R.L., Johnson, D.E., von Nordheim, H., Ardron, J., Packeiser, T., Roberts, C.M., 2012. The first network of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the high seas: the process, the challenges and where next. Marine Policy 36, 598e605. Oracion, E.G., Miller, M.L., Christie, P., 2005. Marine protected areas for whom? Fisheries, tourism, and solidarity in a Philippine community. Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (3e6), 393e410. Pollnac, R.B., Pomeroy, R.S., 2005. Factors influencing the sustainability of integrated coastal management projects in the Philippines and Indonesia. Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (3e6), 233e251. Pollnac, R., Christie, P., Cinner, J.E., Dalton, T., Daw, T.M., Forrester, G.E., Graham, N.A., McClanahan, T.R., 2010. Marine reserves as linked socialeecological systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (43), 18262e18265. Pomeroy, R.S., 2012. Managing overcapacity in small-scale fisheries in Southeast Asia. Marine Policy 36 (2), 520e527. Rectangular Strategy, 2013. “Rectangular Strategy” for Growth, Employment, Equity and Efficiency Phase III of the Royal Government of Cambodia of the Fifth Legislature of the National Assembly. Technical Report. Royal Government of Cambodia, Phnom Penh. Rife, A.N., Erisman, B., Sanchez, A., Aburto-Oropeza, O., 2013. When good intentions are not enough. Insights on networks of “paper park” marine protected areas. Conservation Letters 6 (3), 200e212. Risk, M.J., Heikoop, J.M., Edinger, E.N., Erdmann, M.V., 2001. The assessment ‘toolbox’: community-based reef evaluation methods coupled with geochemical techniques to identify sources of stress. Bulletin of Marine Science 69 (20), 443e458. Russ, G.R., 2002. Yet another review of marine reserves as reef fishery management tools. Coral Reef Fishes: Dynamics and Diversity in a Complex Ecosystem 24, 421. Russ, G.R., Alcala, A.C., Maypa, A.P., Calumpong, H.P., White, A.T., 2004. Marine reserve benefits local fisheries. Ecological Applications 14 (2), 597e606. Sale, P.F. (Ed.), 2002. Coral Reef Fishes: Dynamics and Diversity in a Complex Ecosystem. Academic Press, Ontario, Canada. Savage, J.M., Osborne, P.E., Hudson, M.D., 2017. Can international volunteers and community members effectively monitor coral reef resources in Cambodia? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 27 (2), 340e352. Savage, J.M., 2017. The Design and Implementation of Marine Management Strategies in Cambodia (Ph.D. thesis). Faculty of Engineering and the Environment - University of Southampton, UK. Shugart-Schmidt, K.L., Pike, E.P., Moffitt, R.A., Saccomanno, V.R., Magier, S.A., Morgan, L.E., 2015. SeaStates G20 2014: how much of the seas are G20 nations really protecting? Ocean & Coastal Management 115, 25e30. Sodhi, N.S., Posa, M.R.C., Lee, T.M., Bickford, D., Koh, L.P., Brook, B.W., 2010. The state and conservation of Southeast Asian biodiversity. Biodiversity & Conservation 19 (2), 317e328. Strickland-Munro, J.K., Allison, H.E., Moore, S.A., 2010. Using resilience concepts to investigate the impacts of protected area tourism on communities. Annals of Tourism Research 37 (2), 499e519. Toropova, C., Meliane, I., Laffoley, D., Matthews, E., Spalding, M., 2010. Global Ocean Protection: Present Status and Future Possibilities. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Trousdale, W.J., 1999. Governance in context: Boracay Island, Philippines. Annals of Tourism Research 26 (4), 840e867. Tsai, H.-M., Hong, S.-K., 2014. Island Development: local governance under globalisation. Journal of Marine and Island Cultures 3, 41e42. Uychaioco, A.J., Arceo, H.O., Green, S.J., Margarita, T., Gaite, P.A., Aliño, P.M., 2005. Monitoring and evaluation of reef protected areas by local Fishers in the Philippines: tightening the adaptive management cycle. Biodiversity & Conservation 14 (11), 2775e2794. Vincent, A.C., 2011. Saving the shallows: focusing marine conservation where people might care. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 21 (6), 495e499.

References

359

Wamukota, A.W., Cinner, J.E., McClanahan, T.R., 2012. Co-management of coral reef fisheries: a critical evaluation of the literature. Marine Policy 36 (2), 481e488. Western, D., Wright, R., 1994. Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-Based Conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC. Wong, P., 1998. Coastal tourism development in Southeast Asia. Ocean & Coastal Management 38, 89e109. Worm, B., Barbier, E.B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J.E., Folke, C., Halpern, B.S., Jackson, J.B., Lotze, H.K., Micheli, F., Palumbi, S.R., Sala, E., 2006. Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 314 (5800), 787e790. Wu, C.-C., Tsai, H.-M., 2016. Capacity building for tourism development in a nested social-ecological system: a case study for the South Penghu Archipelago Marine National Park, Taiwan. Ocean & Coastal Management 123, 66e73. Yasué, M., Kaufman, L., Vincent, A.C.J., 2010. Assessing ecological changes in and around marine reserves using community perceptions and biological surveys. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 20 (4), 407e418.