- Email: [email protected]
Exploring recreational fishers' perceptions, attitudes, and support towards a multiple-use marine protected area six years after implementation
Marine Policy 73 (2016) 138–145
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Marine Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol
Exploring recreational fishers' perceptions, attitudes, and support towards a multiple-use marine protected area six years after implementation Carol L. Martin a,n, Salim Momtaz a, Alan Jordan b, Natalie A. Moltschaniwskyj a a b
School of Environmental & Life Sciences, University of Newcastle, PO Box 127, Ourimbah, NSW 2258, Australia Department of Primary Industries, Port Stephens Fisheries Institute, Locked Bag 1, Nelson Bay, NSW 2315, Australia
art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 8 January 2016 Received in revised form 1 August 2016 Accepted 1 August 2016
This study assessed the acceptance and awareness of an Australian MPA (Port Stephens-Great Lakes Marine Park) post implementation by recreational fishers using the MPA, and identified factors that influenced the perception of this group towards the MPA. Recreational fishers were interviewed in a multiple-use MPA to investigate their perceptions, attitudes, and support towards the MPA six years after implementation. Almost two thirds of recreational fishers supported the MPA and had positive attitudes towards the concept of MPAs. This is a key result since a similar pre-implementation survey of recreational fishers found only 12% would support the creation of PSGLMP due to fears the MPA would negatively impact their fishing activities and ability to catch fish. However, there was a sub-group of fishers who opposed the MPA and were more inclined to have negative attitudes towards the rationale behind MPAs, despite the common perception that no-take zones were for fisheries management purposes and could increase fish stocks in the MPA. More experienced fishers were inclined to oppose the MPA, as well as fishers who believed management zones did not provide clear rules for activities, penalties for non-compliance were too harsh, or that no-take zones did not increase fish stocks. An important perceived threat to the MPA was from commercial fishing due to perceptions of over-exploitation and issues of non-compliance. In contrast, the majority of recreational fishers did not believe the collective actions of recreational fishers negatively impacted the marine environment and fish stocks, or the number of fish available for capture in the future. An improved understanding of these social aspects is important to target ongoing management in order to increase acceptance, success and long-term existence of MPAs. & 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Marine protected areas Marine parks Recreational fishers Perceptions Attitudes Support
1. Introduction Marine protected areas (MPAs) are a management tool used to both conserve marine biodiversity and habitats, and address adverse impacts of anthropogenic activities by restricting human activities and controlling the distribution of anthropogenic pressure in a specific marine area [30]. Management objectives are usually established through consultation with stakeholders and often reflect societal, political, biological, and ecological ideals. Therefore, as MPAs involve the interaction of environmental, social and economic systems, an integrated management approach that considers all these components is required [14]. Social factors are increasingly recognized as the main determinants of an MPA's success or failure, and understanding these aspects of MPAs has the potential to increase acceptance, success and long-term n
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (C.L. Martin).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.08.002 0308-597X/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
existence of MPAs [52,65]. Recreational fishers are a key stakeholder group of MPAs, and their support and compliance with fishing restrictions is paramount to their social acceptance and overall success [54]. Recreational fishing has the potential to directly and indirectly result in impacts on the environmental assets of the area through a range of stressors, including direct harvesting of fish, and disturbance from boats, noise and trampling [12,36]. However, recreational fishers are often unaware of the potential impacts of their activities [23], even though collectively their catch of some fish species can exceed that of commercial fishers resulting in concerns about stock status [12,21,27]. In addition, a high proportion of marine debris is attributed to recreational fishing activity, particularly on reefs [11,60]. There is clear evidence that the recreational fishing experience is often about more than just catching fish; with escape from work and domestic routine, the pleasures of fishing and boating in a natural setting, spending time with family and friends, and socializing with other fishers being important motivations to fish
C.L. Martin et al. / Marine Policy 73 (2016) 138–145
[9,56]. Recreational fishers can be divided into groups according to their level of interest and involvement in fishing (i.e. specialization), which is driven primarily by their motivations to fish [7]. As a fisher's level of specialization increases, so too does their dependency on particular resources such as favorite fishing spots, trophy fish or preferred species [7,56]. Highly specialized fishers are more likely to view ‘no-take’ fishing areas in MPAs as an infringement on their access rights, and while they are often strong opponents to these closures, they support bag and size limits [56,66]. Identifying and monitoring recreational fishers' values, motivations, attitudes, and behaviors towards MPAs post implementation, in addition to their fishing activities and catch, is vital for effective management and long-term success of MPAs [9,34]. This is particularly important as this stakeholder group is most notably impacted by the costs associated with no-take areas in MPAs [10]. Recreational fishers' support or opposition to MPAs depends on perceived costs and benefits incurred by them, and they particularly identify the costs as restrictions that limit where they can fish [56]. Most previous research on MPAs has focused on ecological and conservation aspects, but it is increasingly recognized that social aspects play a key role in the acceptance and success of MPAs [6,10,16,52]. Socio-economic assessments on proposed MPAs are often done pre-implementation to assess likely impacts, acceptance, and support by stakeholders. However, little is known about acceptance and support of MPAs post implementation. Commercial and artisanal fishers have generally been the focus of research on fishers' perceptions, attitudes and support towards MPAs [35,51,62,63]. Since recreational fishers are a key stakeholder group, it is important for management to have information about their perceptions, attitudes and support for MPAs post implementation. In New South Wales (NSW), Australia, there are six multipleuse MPAs (known as marine parks) incorporating design principles of comprehensiveness, adequacy, and representativeness, which includes ‘no-take’ areas that make up around 6% of the State's coastal waters. The planning and implementation of these have aimed to balance environmental and socio-economic objectives, but an independent review concluded that inadequate attention is given to the social dimensions of marine parks; especially social impacts [6]. Marine parks primarily aim to conserve marine biodiversity and habitats, and maintain ecological processes whilst simultaneously accommodating the various demands of multiple users in coastal areas, and providing opportunities for public enjoyment [50]. A key component of ecological change that can help meet these aims is through increasing the abundance and size of fish, although the marine parks are not specifically designed to contribute to fisheries objectives [67]. There are several management zones with differing objectives, and include sanctuary (i.e. no-take), habitat protection, general use, and special purpose zones [50]. Only sanctuary zones exclude recreational fishing activities, and hence the focus on recreational fishers' perspectives and attitudes towards MPAs is principally related to these zones. Recent research on recreational fishers and MPAs has examined compliance with regulations [53,54,59], methods of social assessment in MPA planning [65], and understanding opposition to MPAs [66]. This study aims to contribute to the knowledge and understanding of recreational fishers' values, perceptions, attitudes, levels of support, and factors affecting support of multipleuse MPAs post implementation. It uses a case study of recreational fishers in the Port Stephens-Great Lakes Marine Park (PSGLMP), NSW, Australia, six years after implementation of the zoning scheme. Prior to the implementation of PSGLMP, a survey of recreational fishers conducted between May 2005 and April 2006 found only 12% would support the creation of the marine park
139
[20]. Opposition was primarily attributed to the perception of adverse effects the MPA would have on their fishing activities (particularly sanctuary zones) and their ability to catch fish [20]. However, more recreational fishers indicated they were prepared to support the creation of PSGLMP if they believed it would reduce damage to marine ecology (28%), and especially if they believed it would increase fish stocks and create a more sustainable fishery (45%) [20]. For the purpose of this study the term “social factors” refers to human factors that may positively or negatively affect support of MPAs, such as knowledge, values, perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, and demographic characteristics.
2. Methods Port Stephens-Great Lakes Marine Park (PSGLMP) is located in the Hunter Region of NSW, Australia, and was declared in 2005, with zoning schemes implemented in 2007. The marine park extends from the mean high water mark to the 3 n-mile limit of NSW waters, and covers an area of approximately 980 km2 of marine and estuarine habitats, including rivers and lakes, with their creeks and tributaries to the limit of tidal influence. This is a multiple-use marine park with the different zones varying in size, management objectives and regulations. Visitors to the marine park do not pay an access fee, but they must hold a NSW recreational fishing licence to participate in fishing activities. This study focused on the Port Stephens area of PSGLMP, which lies within a sheltered tidal influenced estuary with shoreline access at many public and private points, including beaches, jetties, and boat ramps. Recreational fishers using PSGLMP were surveyed over a five month period: April to August 2013 (austral autumn and winter). Data were collected using anonymous questionnaires administered on site through personal interviews of both boat-based and shore-based fishers at public boat ramps and along the shoreline in the study site. Boat-based fishers were targeted during late morning and late afternoon to coincide with the most common times fishers exited the water. Additional comments made during interviews were recorded to provide further insight. Random sampling was not possible since the purpose of the study was to interview fishers using the marine park. Oral consent was obtained from participants prior to commencing the survey in accordance with human ethics protocols (Protocol No. H-20130057). A total of 79 fishers completed the questionnaire and were considered to be representative of recreational fishers since almost three quarters of the interviewees had been fishing recreationally for Z20 years. Small sample sizes are common in this type of qualitative research and more data does not necessarily result in more information [45]. The concept of saturation is widely used in social research to determine qualitative sample size, and when the likelihood of acquiring new information is small then the sample size is considered sufficient [45]. In this study saturation was achieved, in that the last few interviews did not provide new information; indicating that the sample size was appropriate for this study. A semi-structured questionnaire, comprising both closed and open-ended questions, was developed to collect data on a range of topics (Table 1), and was pilot tested (n¼ 20) prior to implementing the study. The questionnaire took approximately 10–15 min to complete and was divided into five sections. Belief statements were developed to include: topics about marine conservation objectives for NSW marine parks (to conserve biodiversity and maintain ecological processes); the theory that sanctuary zones increase fish stocks throughout the region due to the “spillover” effect; assessment of whether different management zones provide clear rules for activities in these areas; and potential
140
C.L. Martin et al. / Marine Policy 73 (2016) 138–145
Table 1 Summary of topics covered in the questionnaire and their objectives. Topic General background information on respondents
Objective
To know fishers' level of education, age group, attachment to MPA, values for PSGLMP, support for MPAs in general, and residential location.
To know characteristics of fishers, i.e. number of years as a fisher; member of fishing club; fishing method. To know the extent to which fishers were aware of penalties for non-compliance; their opinion on the harshness of current penalties; and their opinions on how often fishers engaged in fishing in sanctuary zones.
To know the extent to which fishers engaged in fishing next to sanctuary zones. To know whether fishers believed fishing has improved since the implementation of PSGLMP in 2005. To know methods fishers used to determine the locations of sanctuary and habitat protection zones. Extent of support for PSGLMP
To know fishers' level of support towards PSGLMP and explore factors that may influence levels of support/non-support.
Belief statements and attitudes
To determine degree of fishers' agreement/disagreement with the following statements: – – – – – – –
Marine parks help conserve marine biodiversity Marine parks help maintain ecological processes to support marine life No-take sanctuary zones increase overall fish stocks due to the “spillover effect” The different management zones within marine parks provide clear rules for activities in these areas. The accumulative impact of fishers may have a negative impact on the marine environment and fish populations. The marine environment does not need human intervention to repair and replenish itself. The number of fish caught by fishers today will not affect the number available for capture in the future.
cumulative impact of recreational fishing. Respondents were asked to indicate their degree of agreement or disagreement using a four point Likert scale: strongly disagree, disagree, agree and strongly agree. The wording of some statements was reversed to help prevent response bias. The “neutral” response, often used in Likert scales, was omitted from responses as research has revealed respondents tend to select this option when they cannot be bothered to think about an issue [8]. Respondents can also become increasingly tired or bored as questioning proceeds and are prone to laziness in their answers; and often select the “neutral” option. By removing this option, it forces the respondent to think about the issue and make a decision to express an opinion they probably hold. Data quality is not enhanced by the inclusion of the “neutral” option, and this option need only be included when questioning about particularly sensitive issues [8]. Originally, respondents were asked to indicate their degree of agreement or disagreement to a series of belief statements regarding marine conservation and recreational fishing impacts that were based on a four point Likert scale. However, for final analysis this scale was collapsed into a two point scale (agree/disagree). Responses to open-ended questions were categorized into common themes and, together with closed questions, were coded prior to analysis in IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Some Likert scale responses were collapsed into a two or three point scale. Chi-square tests of independence were used to explore relationships between two categorical variables, and log-linear analysis was used to test a suite of categorical variables for significant relationships in multi-way contingency tables, to help explain stated support/opposition for PSGLMP.
3. Results Most fishers had made between 1–3 fishing trips to PSGLMP in the past month (70%), were aged 35–54 years old (49%), had technical and further education (TAFE) or trade certificates (36%), did not live locally (68%), were not members of fishing clubs (66%), and had been fishing for Z20 years (72%). Most fishers supported the concept of MPAs in general (79%), and many fishers identified as having moderate (40%) or high (33%) levels of attachment to PSGLMP, whilst 27% identified having low attachment to the MPA. Their main method of fishing was hook and line (94%), and the remainder were boat-based spear fishers.
Fishers valued PSGLMP primarily for its fishing opportunities (38%), interaction with the marine environment (18%), and protection of marine life and habitats (15%). More than half the fishers (58%) perceived the purpose of sanctuary zones to be for fisheries management rather than for conservation of biodiversity (35%). Most fishers (41%) perceived that an increase in fish abundance to be the greatest potential benefit provided by the MPA, followed by conservation and protection of marine life and habitats (26%). The remainder (33%) stated a combination of other reasons such as tourism, regulation of commercial fishers, future legacy/sustainability, and recreation and public enjoyment. Just over half of recreational fishers (54%) perceived commercial fishing to be the greatest threat to the PSGLMP management objectives; mainly due to perceptions of widespread non-compliance by commercial fishers and the quantities of fish harvested. Other perceived threats included over-fishing and non-compliance (12%), pollution (10%), population growth and human activities (10%), poor management (5%), and a further 9% cited various other reasons. Fishers had different perceptions on whether or not fishing (i.e. the number of fish caught) had improved since the implementation of PSGLMP: 32% of fishers thought it was about the same, some believed it had improved (23%), whilst others believed it had declined (17%), and some could not say (28%). Fishers who believed fishing had not improved gave various reasons why this may have been; with commercial fishing activities being the most frequently stated reason (58%). Other reasons for no improvement included there being a lack of fish generally; migration of fish; aggregation of fish in sanctuary zones; too many fishers targeting fish; and an increase in the number of tourists. Most fishers were aware of the penalties for non-compliance (72%); and 33% of fishers believed these penalties were about right, whilst 32% believed them to be too harsh, 7% believed them to be not harsh enough, and a further 28% did not have an opinion. When asked how often they thought recreational fishers might engage in fishing activities within sanctuary zones, the majority of fishers (37%) stated they believed this rarely occurred, whilst 31% thought it might occur sometimes, and others thought it occurred frequently (10%), always (4%), never (4%), or could not say (14%). Fishers in PSGLMP used a variety of methods to determine the locations of habitat protection and sanctuary zones (Fig. 1), with the most commonly used methods being the zoning plan map, followed by GPS, then posted signs and buoys, and the use of landmarks (Fig. 1).
C.L. Martin et al. / Marine Policy 73 (2016) 138–145
Fig. 1. Methods used (158 responses) by 56 fishers to determine locations of habitat protection and sanctuary zones in Port Stephens-Great Lakes Marine Park. The numbers next to each method is the number of responses.
Overall, a large majority of fishers agreed that marine parks help conserve marine biodiversity, and maintain ecological processes to ensure the marine environment can function in a healthy manner to support marine life (Table 2). Most fishers also agreed with the premise that sanctuary zones increase overall fish stocks due to spill-over, and that different management zones provided clear rules for activities (Table 2). However, the majority of fishers disagreed that the cumulative impact of recreational fishing may have a negative impact on the marine environment and fish populations, and agreed that the number of fish caught today by fishers would not affect the number of fish available for capture in the future (Table 2). During interviews, many fishers identified that existing bag and size limits would prevent this from occurring. Most fishers also disagreed that the marine environment did not require human intervention in order to reduce the impacts associated with human activities in the marine environment (Table 2). More than double the number of fishers supported PSGLMP (60%) compared to those who were opposed to the MPA (27%), whilst some were indifferent (13%). Level of support was linked to attitudes and beliefs, and fisher characteristics. Fishers who believed the different management zones did not provide clear rules for activities in these areas were less supportive (Z ¼ 2.9, df 1, p ¼0.004) than those who did (Fig. 2a), and were almost twice as likely to oppose the marine park if they believed this (χ2 ¼9.6, df 1, p ¼0.002). Additionally, there was less support from fishers who did not believe sanctuary zones increased overall fish stocks in the MPA due to the spillover of individuals (Z ¼ 3, df 2, p ¼0.003) (Fig. 2b); fishers were twice as likely to oppose PSGLMP if they believed this (χ2 ¼15.9, df 1, p o0.001). The fairness of penalties for non-compliance was also a factor affecting fisher support. Fishers were less supportive if they believed current penalties to be too harsh (Z ¼ 20.4, df 10, p o0.001) (Fig. 2c), and twice as likely to oppose the marine park if they believed this (χ2 ¼ 6.2, df 2, p ¼0.045). Fisher characteristics were another factor linked to support of PSGLMP; specifically the number of years as a fisher (i.e. experience) (Fig. 2d). Fishers were more supportive if they had been
141
fishing for o 20 years (Z ¼2.3, df 1, p ¼0.02) (Fig. 2d), and were five times less likely to oppose the marine park compared to those who had been fishing for Z20 years (χ2 ¼ 8.1, df 1, p¼ 0.004). There was no evidence of other factors that might explain fishers' support or opposition to PSGLMP. In general, the only differences in the characteristics of fishers that either supported or opposed PSGLMP were: age, level of attachment, opinion on fairness of current penalties for non-compliance, perception that management zones provided clear rules for activities, and support for MPAs in general. The majority of supportive fishers were aged 35–54 (51%), had moderate levels of attachment to PSGLMP (49%), believed current penalties to be about right (55%), believed management zones provided clear rules for activities (74%), and supported MPAs in general (98%). In contrast, the majority of fishers that opposed PSGLMP were Z 55 years (58%), had low levels of attachment to PSGLMP (40%), believed current penalties to be too harsh (69%), believed management zones did not provide clear rules for activities (67%), and did not support MPAs in general (57%). All other characteristics were the same, i.e. the majority did not live locally, had been fishing for Z20 years, had TAFE/Trade and high school Year 10 qualifications, and were not members of fishing clubs. Additional comments made during interviews provided insights into recreational fishers' opposition to PSGLMP, with many of these fishers saying that commercial fishing should not be permitted in PSGLMP. Other comments highlight the confusion these fishers experienced navigating the rules and boundaries of the different management zones, as well as understanding the purpose of sanctuary zones, and inadequate signage.
4. Discussion This study assessed the post implementation perceptions of recreational fishers in an Australian MPA, and identified factors that influenced the views of this group towards the MPA. There is an increasing understanding that these social aspects have the potential to increase acceptance, success and long-term existence of MPAs [54,65]. Recreational fishers appeared to support PSGLMP and had positive attitudes towards the concept of MPAs, and notake zones, in general. However, a small number of fishers opposed the MPA and had negative attitudes towards the rationale behind MPAs, and did not agree with the premise that no-take zones increase fish stocks. Recreational fishers were generally aware of penalties for non-compliance and believed that recreational fishers generally adhered to fishing constraints in no-take zones. They were more inclined to oppose the MPA if they had been fishing for Z 20 years, believed management zones did not provide clear rules for activities, penalties for non-compliance were too harsh, and that no-take zones did not increase overall fish stocks in the MPA. There was no real consensus on whether or not fishing had improved since the MPA was implemented six years earlier, and the greatest perceived threat to the MPA was from commercial fishing activities. There was evidence that
Table 2 Recreational fishers' attitudes towards MPAs and recreational fishing impacts. The percentage of the respondents who agreed and disagreed with the seven statements. Belief statement
Agree
Disagree
(n)
Marine parks help to conserve marine plants, animals and habitats. Marine parks help maintain ecological processes to ensure the marine environment can function in a healthy manner to support marine life. No-take sanctuary zones increase overall fish stocks within the marine park due to the ‘spill-over’ effect. The different management zones within marine parks provide clear rules for activities in these areas. The accumulative impact of fishers may have a negative impact on the marine environment and fish populations. The marine environment does not need human intervention in order to repair and replenish itself. The number of fish caught by fishers today will not affect the number of fish available for capture in the future.
87% 86% 64% 57% 26% 28% 68%
13% 14% 36% 46% 74% 72% 32%
78 78 78 69 78 79 78
142
C.L. Martin et al. / Marine Policy 73 (2016) 138–145
Fig. 2. Recreational fishers that support (light gray) or oppose (dark gray) Port Stephens-Great Lakes Marine Park (PSGLMP) according to (a) fisher belief that zoning provides clear rules for activities (n ¼60); (b) fisher belief that NTZs increase fish stocks (n ¼67); (c) fisher experience (i.e. years fishing) (n¼ 68); and (d) fisher opinion of current penalties for non-compliance PSGLMP (n ¼49). Note: Don't know and non-responses were not included.
recreational fishers did not believe that the collective impact of their fishing activities negatively affected either fish stocks, the marine environment more generally, or the number of fish available in the future. Almost two thirds of recreational fishers in this study supported the establishment of the PSGLMP and the principle of MPAs in general, indicating a good understanding and support for the rationale behind MPAs; which is consistent with similar studies [9,41,64]. However, there was a sub-group of fishers (representing nearly one third of all recreational fishers surveyed) who opposed MPAs in general. Consistent opposition to MPAs is a major issue affecting implementation and ongoing acceptance of MPAs [29,41,56,63,64,66]. Fishers with negative attitudes and who oppose MPAs may not believe in the benefits of MPAs [18], despite there being evidence that MPAs are effective in conserving biodiversity, and can result in ecological changes that include increases in species density, size and biomass [4,19,22,24], particularly of recreational target species [42]. There is also increasing evidence that MPAs export larva and biomass to adjacent waters that helps replenish local and regional populations [22,26,37,38]. However, the extent of these changes may depend on other factors relating to an MPA such as location, size and habitat characteristics [13], life history traits of the targeted species [15], and pre-existing fishing effort and location of no-take zones [40]. The design of MPAs needs to consider these aspects in order to increase the likelihood of achieving its objectives, and the locations of no-take zones in relation to recreational fishing effort and distribution is an issue that requires consideration. These ecological and social trade-offs are increasingly
recognized as an important determinant of achieving both ecological and social benefits, with increases in fish biomass less likely to occur if areas were either previously not fished [40] or very heavily fished. In NSW marine parks, following community consultation some no-take areas were selected to reduce social impacts, although a number of recreationally fished areas were included, particularly coastal rocky reefs. In PSGLMP, there are 29 no-takes zones covering 17.5% of the marine park area, with these zones containing locations with a range of historical recreational fishing intensities. While there was no consensus among recreational fishers that the fishing experience had improved in the marine park, this may reflect the small time period since establishment, and may change through time with emerging evidence that abundances of some target species are higher in abundance in no-take zones [25]. MPAs are a contentious topic among fishers and much confusion stems from misunderstanding of the intended objectives of MPAs [32]. For instance, in this study over half of recreational fishers believed no-take zones were for fisheries management objectives rather than the conservation of marine biodiversity, although there is evidence that in some instances MPAs may provide benefits to fisheries. On a positive note, recreational fishers’ overall support for PSGLMP post-implementation was five times greater than it was pre-implementation of the MPA; according to a similar survey of recreational fishers between May 2005 and April 2006 [20]. Opposition then was attributed to the perception of adverse effects the MPA may have on their fishing activities (particularly sanctuary zones) and their ability to catch fish [20]. However, some recreational fishers did indicate then that they were prepared to
C.L. Martin et al. / Marine Policy 73 (2016) 138–145
support the creation of PSGLMP if it would reduce damage to the marine environment, and especially if it increases fish stocks and creates a more sustainable fishery [20]. Our study demonstrates the majority of recreational fishers do generally believe marine parks help maintain marine ecological processes, and that no-take zones help increase overall fish stocks in marine parks, which may account for increased levels of support for PSGLMP post implementation, and demonstrates an understanding of the benefits and rationale of MPAs. Increased support post-implementation suggests the perceived negative impacts were not as bad as recreational fishers had feared (this study; [66]). Recreational fishers who had fished for o20 years were less opposed to the MPA compared to those who had been fishing for Z20 years. This difference is a function of the fishers who had fished for o20 years believing that MPAs benefited their fishing experience [35]. In contrast, fishers who had fished for Z20 years were less convinced of the benefits, less satisfied with fishing restrictions, less inclined to change their fishing habits, and are generally less supportive of MPAs [18,35,56]. Complexity of zoning rules and regulations, and penalties for non-compliance influenced fishers' support or opposition to MPAs, and particularly whether or not the different management zones provided clear rules for activities in these areas [53]. Fishers who were less supportive of the MPA generally indicated the rules in the different zones were unclear, suggesting a misunderstanding and confusion about the rules/regulations, or that they did not know how to access information. This interpretation is supported by additional comments made during interviews indicating that there were too many rules in the different zones, causing confusion and difficulty in remembering, and that signage is not clear enough in explaining these rules. This view is supported by evidence that poorly located signage fails to capture and engage the attention of recreational fishers [43,53,66]. Clear, easy to understand rules and easily recognizable boundaries enhance compliance and MPA performance [44]. Fishers who thought that current penalties for non-compliance were too harsh were likely to oppose the presence of PSGLMP (this study; [66]). However, higher penalties are often necessary to deter fishers who repeatedly offend [54]. Problems using GPS, together with confusion over the many rules in each management zone was frustrating for fishers and reduced their enjoyment of fishing (this study; [43,53]). Improving zoning and associated regulations of PSGLMP should help fishers better identify zone boundaries [53], such as increasing access to simple information, simplifying zoning boundary shapes, and minimizing the number of zoning categories and associated rules [53]. It is worth noting that a new smart phone app (Marine Zones) has since been developed (http://marinezones.com.au/regions/), which has improved access to Australian marine parks zoning plan information and location details for recreational fishers. Fishers’ opposition to MPAs is often attributed to lack of their knowledge and understanding of marine ecosystem processes [55]. Providing information to address this knowledge gap may increase support for MPAs, since environmentally-conscious behaviors and attitudes are influenced by peoples' perceptions of ecosystem health and resilience [3]. However, many fishers rank increasing the information about MPAs available to them as a relatively low criterion for a successful MPA [28]. Interestingly, fishers perceive improvements for successful MPAs could be achieved by involving them in management, changing the regulations and zone boundaries, and increasing enforcement [28]. Lack of support from some fishers has also been attributed to the fact they do not believe MPAs deliver an increase of fish stocks in the long term [18,41], which contradicts scientific evidence that indicates that in some instances MPAs increase fish stocks over time in adjacent areas ([24,38]). They can also result in broader
143
ecosystem changes, such as the re-establishment of kelp habitats due to increase in fish and lobster abundance that resulted in the decrease in urchins that graze on kelp and form distinct areas known as ‘barrens’ [5,58]. Furthermore, strong opposition from fishers is often attributed to the MPA planning process and lack of meaningful public participation [29,65]. This study identified that dissatisfaction about the MPA is also associated with the negative view that recreational fishers generally have about commercial fishing activities, particularly the perception of over-exploitation and non-compliance. In NSW, buyout programs have been used to reduce commercial fishing effort, including as part of the establishment of the PSGLMP, where thirty-nine operators agreed to surrender their entitlements [48]. Given the reduction in commercial fishing effort and capacity in PSGLMP, recreational fishers’ perceptions of ongoing over-exploitation by commercial fishers is likely to reflect ongoing competition for the same fishing locations and targeting of the same species [18,29,33,61]. Most recreational fishers in this study did not believe their activities or cumulative impact to be a potential threat to achieving the objectives of the MPA, believing this was managed effectively by bag and size limits. This is despite evidence that recreational fishing activities can have negative impacts on the structure and abundance of some fish populations [1,39,46,57].
5. Conclusion In conclusion, this study clearly identified important information about recreational fishers' values, perceptions, attitudes, and understanding of the rationale behind MPAs, and identified factors that may influence levels of support and social acceptance of MPAs. Effective and sustainable management of multiple-use MPAs requires knowledge of social factors that influence levels of support for management objectives and the rationale behind MPAs. Overall, six years after it was implemented most recreational fishers supported the PSGLMP, suggesting a good level of understanding for the rationale behind MPAs, or that they valued the social and economic services provided by the MPA. However, the complexity of rules/regulations in the different management zones was identified as a source of frustration to recreational fishers. An effective education and communication program can play a key role in fostering support towards MPAs and compliance, and is cost effective in the long-term [2]. The creation of a forum for regular communication between MPA managers, scientists, and fishers; for example, through stakeholder represented advisory committees, will contribute to a better understanding of the rationale behind MPAs and encourage greater support by stakeholders [17,61]. Such processes are currently part of the ongoing management of the PSGLMP, and is a key component of the new approach to marine management in NSW, with the formation of the Marine Estate Management Authority in 2012, which aims to consider the key economic, social and environmental benefits derived by the marine estate, and the threats to those benefits [49,31]. Community engagement in an open and transparent manner facilitates trust from fishers towards management, who often feel marginalized and that their opinions and views are not adequately considered in planning and review processes. If recreational fishers are included in MPA management decision making, and management objectives and initiatives align more closely with their values, they can be strong supporters of MPAs [64]. Support from recreational fishers can be increased by demonstrating more clearly to fishers the benefits that may arise through time through the spatial management within MPAs [41]. Additionally, engaging highly specialized fishers with excellent fisheries knowledge in management strategies may help increase support for this particular stakeholder group [47].
144
C.L. Martin et al. / Marine Policy 73 (2016) 138–145
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the recreational fishers of Port Stephens-Great Lakes Marine Park who kindly gave up their time to participate in this research.
[27]
[28]
[29]
References [1] Ø. Aas, C.E. Thailing, R.B. Ditton, Controversy over catch-and-release recreational fishing in Europe, in: T.J. Pitcher, C. Hollingworth (Eds.), Recreational Fisheries: Ecological, Economic, and Social Evaluation, Blackwell Science, Oxford, 2002, pp. 95–106. [2] J. Alder, Costs and effectiveness of education and enforcement, Cairns section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Environ. Manag. 20 (1996) 541–551. [3] L. Alessa, S.M. Bennett, A.D. Kliskey, Effects of knowledge, personal attribution and perception of ecosystem health on depreciative behaviours in the intertidal zone of Pacific Rim National Park and Reserve, J. Environ. Manag. 68 (2003) 207–218. [4] J. Alós, R. Arlinghaus, Impacts of partial marine protected areas on coastal fish communities exploited by recreational angling, Fish. Res. 137 (2013) 88–96. [5] R.C. Babcock, S. Kelly, N.T. Shears, J.W. Walker, T.J. Willis, Changes in community structure in temperate marine reserves, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 189 (1999) 125–134. [6] R.J.S. Beeton, C.D. Buxton, G.C. Cutbush, P.G. Fairweather, E.L. Johnston, R. Ryan, Report of the independent scientific audit of marine parks in New South Wales, NSW Department of Primary Industries & Office of Environment and Heritage NSW, 2012. [7] H. Bryan, Leisure value systems and recreational specialization: the case of trout fishermen, J. Leis. Res. 9 (1977) 174–187. [8] A. Bryman, Social Research Methods, 4th ed., Oxford University Press, New York, 2012. [9] F. Cardona, B. Morales-Nin, Anglers' perceptions of recreational fisheries and fisheries management in Mallorca, Ocean Coast. Manag. 82 (2013) 146–150. [10] A. Charles, L. Wilson, Human dimensions of marine protected areas, ICES J. Mar. Sci. 66 (2009) 6–15. [11] M. Chiappone, H. Dienes, D.W. Swanson, S.L. Miller, Impacts of lost fishing gear on coral reef sessile invertebrates in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Biol. Conserv. 121 (2005) 221–230. [12] F.C. Coleman, W.S.F. Figueira, J.S. Ueland, L.B. Crowder, The impact of the United States recreational fisheries on marine fish populations, Science 305 (2004) 1958–1960. [13] M. Colléter, D. Gascuel, C. Albouy, P. Francour, L. Tito de Morias, A. Valls, F. Le Loc’h, Fishing inside or outside? A case study of potential spillover effect from marine protected areas, using food web models, J. Mar. Syst. 139 (2014) 383–395. [14] S.L. Collins, S.R. Carpenter, S.M. Swinton, D.E. Orenstein, D.L. Childers, T. L. Gragson, A.C. Whitmer, An integrated conceptual framework for long-term social-ecological research, Front. Ecol. Environ. 9 (2011) 351–357. [15] B.G. Curley, A.R. Jordan, W.F. Figueira, V.C. Valenzuela, A review of the biology and ecology of key fishes targeted by coastal fisheries in south-east Australia: identifying critical knowledge gaps required to improve spatial management, Rev. Fish. Biol. Fish. 23 (2013) 435–458. [16] G.E. Davis, Science and society: marine reserve design for the California Channel Islands, Conserv. Biol. 19 (2005) 1745–1751. [17] M. Dedual, O. Sague Pla, R. Arlinghaus, A. Clarke, K. Ferter, P. Geertzhansen, B. Ueberschär, Communication between scientists, fishery managers and recreational fishers: lessons learned from a comparative analysis of international case studies, Fish. Manag. Ecol. 20 (2013) 234–246. [18] M. Dimech, M. Darmanin, I.P. Smith, M.J. Kaiser, P.J. Schembri, Fishers' perception of a 35 year old exclusive fisheries management zone, Biol. Conserv. 142 (2009) 2691–2702. [19] G.J. Edgar, R.D. Stuart-Smith, Ecological effects of marine protected areas on rocky reef communities – a continental-scale analysis, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 388 (2009) 51–62, doi: 10.3354. [20] Ernst, Young, Economic impact of recreational fishing in Port Stephens and Narooma/Bermagui. Report prepared for the Australian Fishing Tackle Association (AFTA) and Boating Industry Association (BIA), 2006. [21] T. Font, J. Lloret, Biological and ecological impacts derived from recreational fishing in Mediterranean Coastal Areas, Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac. 22 (2014) 73–85. [22] R. Goñi, S. Adlerstein, D. Alvarez-Berastegui, A. Forcada, O. Reñones, G. Criquert, S. Planes, Spillover from six western Mediterranean marine protected areas: evidence from artisanal fisheries, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 366 (2008) 159–174. [23] E.F. Granek, E.M.P. Madin, M.A. Brown, W. Figueira, D.S. Cameron, Z. Hogan, R. Arlinghaus, Engaging recreational fishers in management and conservation: global case studies, Conserv. Biol. 22 (2008) 1125–1134. [24] B. Halpern, The impact of marine reserves: do marine reserves work and does reserve size matter? Ecol. Appl. 13 (2003) S117–S137. [25] D. Harasti, H. Malcolm, C. Gallen, M.A. Coleman, A. Jordan, N.A. Knott, Appropriate set times to represent patterns of rocky reef fishes using baited video, J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 463 (2015) 173–180. [26] H.B. Harrison, D.H. Williamson, R.D. Evans, G.R. Almany, S.R. Thorrold, G.
[30]
[31]
[32] [33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38] [39]
[40] [41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45] [46] [47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]
R. Russ, G.P. Jones, Larval export from marine reserves and the recruitment benefit for fish and fisheries, Curr. Biol. 22 (2012) 1023–1028. G.W. Henry, J.M. Lyle (Eds.), The National Recreational and Indigenous Fishing Survey. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry, FRDC Project No. 99/158, 2003, pp. 188. A.H. Himes, Performance of indicators in MPA management: using questionnaires to analyse stakeholder preferences, Ocean Coast. Manag. 50 (2007) 329–351. K.R. Hoelting, C.H. Hard, P. Christie, R.B. Pollnac, Factors affecting support for Puget Sound marine protected areas, Fish. Res. 144 (2012) 48–59. E. Hoffmann, A. Pèrez-Ruzafa, Marine protected areas as a tool for fishery management and ecosystem conservation: an introduction, ICES J. Mar. Sci. 66 (2009) 1–5. A. Jordan, S. Fairfull, R. Creese, Managing threats to the Marine Estate in New South Wales (Australia) to maximise community wellbeing, J. Coast. Res. 75 (2016) 642–646. M.J. Kaisar, Are marine protected areas a red herring or fisheries panacea? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 62 (2005) 1194–1199. R.E. Kearney, Fisheries property rights and recreational/commercial conflict: implications of policy developments in Australia and New Zealand, Mar. Policy 25 (2001) 49–59. R.E. Kearney, Recreational fishing: value is in the eye of the beholder, in: T. J. Pitcher, C. Hollingworth (Eds.), Recreational Fisheries: Ecological, Economic and Social Evaluation, Blackwell Science, Oxford, 2002, pp. 17–33. K. Leleu, F. Alban, D. Pelletier, E. Charbonnel, Y. Letourneur, C.F. Boudouresque, Fishers' perceptions as indicators of the performance of marine protected areas (MPAs), Mar. Policy 36 (2012) 414–422. W.C. Lewin, R. Arlinghaus, T. Mehner, Documented and potential biological impacts of recreational fishing: insights for management and conservation, Rev. Fish. Sci. 14 (2006) 305–367. À. López-Sanz, V. Stelzenmüller, F. Maynou, A. Sabatés, The influence of environmental characteristics on fish larvae spatial patterns related to a marine protected area: the Medes islands (NW Mediterranean), Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 92 (2011), 521e533. J. Lubchenco, S.R. Palumbi, S.D. Gaines, S. Andelman, Plugging a hole in the ocean: the emerging science of marine reserves, Ecol. Appl. 13 (2003) S3–S7. J.M. Lyle, S.R. Tracey, Catch, effort and fishing practices in a recreational gillnet fishery: assessing the impacts and response to management change, Fish. Res. 177 (2016) 50–58. T. Lynch, Incorporation of recreational fishing effort into design of marine protected areas, Conserv. Biol. 20 (2006) 1466–1476. S.C. Mangi, M.C. Austen, Perceptions of stakeholders towards objectives and zoning of marine-protected areas in southern Europe, J. Nat. Conserv. 16 (2008) 271–280. H.A. Malcolm, Al Schultz, P. Sachs, N. Johnstone, A. Jordan, Decadal changes in the abundance and length of snapper (Chrysophrys auratus) in Subtropical Marine Sanctuaries, PLoS One 10 (6) (2015) e0127616. C.L. Martin, S. Momtaz, A. Jordan, N. Moltschaniwskyj, An assessment of the effectiveness of in-situ signage in multiple-use marine protected areas in providing information to different recreational users, Mar. Policy 56 (2015) 78–85. M.B. Mascia, Designing effective coral reef marine protected areas: insights from political science theory, in: Paper presented at the 9th International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia, October 23–27, 2000. M. Mason, Sample size and saturation in Ph.D. studies using qualitative interviews, Forum: Qual. Soc. Res. 11 (3) (2010) (art. 8). M.I. Muoneke, W.M. Childress, Hooking mortality: a review for recreational fisheries, Rev. Fish. Sci. 2 (1994) 123–156. J.V. Norriss, M. Moran, G. Jackson, Tagging studies reveal restricted movement of snapper (Pagrus auratus) within Shark B ay, supporting fine-scale fisheries management, Mar. Freshw. Res. 63 (2012) 1191–1199. NSW Department of Primary Industries, Final report – NSW marine park buyout program: Port Stephens-Great Lakes and Batemans Bay marine parks. Retrieved from the Professional Fishermen’s Association submission to the senate inquiry into the contamination of Australian defence facilities regarding previous commercial fishing buyouts, file:///C:/Users/C3072154/Downloads/Sub%2028_Supplementary_PFA%202016%20(1).pdf, 2008. NSW Marine Estate Management Authority (MEMA), Managing the NSW Marine Estate: purpose, underpinning principles and priority setting, MEMA (2013) 15. NSW Marine Parks Authority, Developing a representative system of marine protected areas in NSW – an overview. NSW Marine Parks Authority Marine Protected Areas Strategy Working Group. Heartland Publishing, Canberra, 2001. C. Pita, G.J. Pierce, I. Theodossiou, K. Macpherson, An overview of commercial fishers' attitudes towards marine protected areas, Hydrobiologia 670 (2011) 289–306. R.S. Pomeroy, M.B. Mascia, R.B. Pollnac, Marine protected areas: the social dimension, in: FAO Expert Workshop on Marine Protected Areas and Fisheries Management: Review of Issues. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2006, pp. 149–181. A.D. Read, R.J. West, M. Haste, A. Jordan, Optimizing voluntary compliance in marine protected areas: a comparison of recreational fishers and enforcement officer perspectives using multi-criteria analysis, J. Environ. Manag. 92 (2011) 2558–2567. A.D. Read, R.J. West, B.P. Kelaher, Using compliance data to improve marine
C.L. Martin et al. / Marine Policy 73 (2016) 138–145
protected area management, Mar. Policy 60 (2015) 119–127. [55] A. Ressurreição, A. Simas, R.S. Santos, F. Porteiro, Resident and expert opinions on marine related issues: implications for the ecosystem approach, Ocean Coast. Manag. 69 (2012) 243–254. [56] R.A. Robertson, G. Caporossi, New England recreational fishers' attitudes toward marine protected areas: a preliminary investigation, in: J. Murdy (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2003 North Eastern Recreation Research Symposium 2003, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA, 2003, pp. 121–127. [57] D.M. Schroeder, M.S. Love, Recreational fishing and marine fish populations, Calif. Coop. Ocean. Fish. Investig. 43 (2002) 182–190. [58] N.T. Shears, R.C. Babcock, Marine reserves demonstrate top-down control of community structure on temperate reefs, Oecologia 132 (2002) 131–142. [59] C.B. Smallwood, L.E. Beckley, Spatial distribution and zoning compliance of recreational fishing in Ningaloo Marine Park, north-western Australia, Fish. Res. 125 (2012) 40–50. [60] S.D.A. Smith, R.J. Edgar, Documenting the density of subtidal marine debris across multiple marine and coastal habitats, PLoS One 9 (4) (2014) e94593, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094593. [61] K. Stamieszkin, J. Wielgus, L.R. Gerber, Management of a marine protected
[62] [63]
[64] [65]
[66]
[67]
145
area for sustainability and conflict resolution: lessons from Loreto Bay National Park (Baja California Sur, Mexico), Ocean Coast. Manag. 52 (2009) 449–458. N.E. Stump, L.K. Kriwoken, Tasmanian marine protected areas: attitudes and perceptions of wild capture fishers, Ocean Coast. Manag. 49 (2006) 298–307. D. Suman, M. Shivlani, J.W. Milon, Perceptions and attitudes regarding marine reserves: a comparison of stakeholder groups in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Ocean Coast. Manag. 42 (1999) 1019–1040. S.G. Sutton, R.C. Tobin, Recreational fishers' attitudes towards rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Environ. Conserv. 36 (2009) 245–252. M. Voyer, W. Gladstone, H. Goodall, Methods of social assessment in marine protected area planning: is public participation enough? Mar. Policy 36 (2012) 432–439. M. Voyer, W. Gladstone, H. Goodall, Understanding marine park opposition: the relationships between social impacts, environmental knowledge and motivation to fish, Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 24 (2013) 441–462. D.H. Williamson, G.R. Russ, A.M. Ayling, No-take marine reserves increase abundance and biomass of reef fish on inshore fringing reefs of the Great Barrier Reef, Environ. Conserv. 31 (2004) 149–159.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Marine Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol
Exploring recreational fishers' perceptions, attitudes, and support towards a multiple-use marine protected area six years after implementation Carol L. Martin a,n, Salim Momtaz a, Alan Jordan b, Natalie A. Moltschaniwskyj a a b
School of Environmental & Life Sciences, University of Newcastle, PO Box 127, Ourimbah, NSW 2258, Australia Department of Primary Industries, Port Stephens Fisheries Institute, Locked Bag 1, Nelson Bay, NSW 2315, Australia
art ic l e i nf o
a b s t r a c t
Article history: Received 8 January 2016 Received in revised form 1 August 2016 Accepted 1 August 2016
This study assessed the acceptance and awareness of an Australian MPA (Port Stephens-Great Lakes Marine Park) post implementation by recreational fishers using the MPA, and identified factors that influenced the perception of this group towards the MPA. Recreational fishers were interviewed in a multiple-use MPA to investigate their perceptions, attitudes, and support towards the MPA six years after implementation. Almost two thirds of recreational fishers supported the MPA and had positive attitudes towards the concept of MPAs. This is a key result since a similar pre-implementation survey of recreational fishers found only 12% would support the creation of PSGLMP due to fears the MPA would negatively impact their fishing activities and ability to catch fish. However, there was a sub-group of fishers who opposed the MPA and were more inclined to have negative attitudes towards the rationale behind MPAs, despite the common perception that no-take zones were for fisheries management purposes and could increase fish stocks in the MPA. More experienced fishers were inclined to oppose the MPA, as well as fishers who believed management zones did not provide clear rules for activities, penalties for non-compliance were too harsh, or that no-take zones did not increase fish stocks. An important perceived threat to the MPA was from commercial fishing due to perceptions of over-exploitation and issues of non-compliance. In contrast, the majority of recreational fishers did not believe the collective actions of recreational fishers negatively impacted the marine environment and fish stocks, or the number of fish available for capture in the future. An improved understanding of these social aspects is important to target ongoing management in order to increase acceptance, success and long-term existence of MPAs. & 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Marine protected areas Marine parks Recreational fishers Perceptions Attitudes Support
1. Introduction Marine protected areas (MPAs) are a management tool used to both conserve marine biodiversity and habitats, and address adverse impacts of anthropogenic activities by restricting human activities and controlling the distribution of anthropogenic pressure in a specific marine area [30]. Management objectives are usually established through consultation with stakeholders and often reflect societal, political, biological, and ecological ideals. Therefore, as MPAs involve the interaction of environmental, social and economic systems, an integrated management approach that considers all these components is required [14]. Social factors are increasingly recognized as the main determinants of an MPA's success or failure, and understanding these aspects of MPAs has the potential to increase acceptance, success and long-term n
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (C.L. Martin).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.08.002 0308-597X/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
existence of MPAs [52,65]. Recreational fishers are a key stakeholder group of MPAs, and their support and compliance with fishing restrictions is paramount to their social acceptance and overall success [54]. Recreational fishing has the potential to directly and indirectly result in impacts on the environmental assets of the area through a range of stressors, including direct harvesting of fish, and disturbance from boats, noise and trampling [12,36]. However, recreational fishers are often unaware of the potential impacts of their activities [23], even though collectively their catch of some fish species can exceed that of commercial fishers resulting in concerns about stock status [12,21,27]. In addition, a high proportion of marine debris is attributed to recreational fishing activity, particularly on reefs [11,60]. There is clear evidence that the recreational fishing experience is often about more than just catching fish; with escape from work and domestic routine, the pleasures of fishing and boating in a natural setting, spending time with family and friends, and socializing with other fishers being important motivations to fish
C.L. Martin et al. / Marine Policy 73 (2016) 138–145
[9,56]. Recreational fishers can be divided into groups according to their level of interest and involvement in fishing (i.e. specialization), which is driven primarily by their motivations to fish [7]. As a fisher's level of specialization increases, so too does their dependency on particular resources such as favorite fishing spots, trophy fish or preferred species [7,56]. Highly specialized fishers are more likely to view ‘no-take’ fishing areas in MPAs as an infringement on their access rights, and while they are often strong opponents to these closures, they support bag and size limits [56,66]. Identifying and monitoring recreational fishers' values, motivations, attitudes, and behaviors towards MPAs post implementation, in addition to their fishing activities and catch, is vital for effective management and long-term success of MPAs [9,34]. This is particularly important as this stakeholder group is most notably impacted by the costs associated with no-take areas in MPAs [10]. Recreational fishers' support or opposition to MPAs depends on perceived costs and benefits incurred by them, and they particularly identify the costs as restrictions that limit where they can fish [56]. Most previous research on MPAs has focused on ecological and conservation aspects, but it is increasingly recognized that social aspects play a key role in the acceptance and success of MPAs [6,10,16,52]. Socio-economic assessments on proposed MPAs are often done pre-implementation to assess likely impacts, acceptance, and support by stakeholders. However, little is known about acceptance and support of MPAs post implementation. Commercial and artisanal fishers have generally been the focus of research on fishers' perceptions, attitudes and support towards MPAs [35,51,62,63]. Since recreational fishers are a key stakeholder group, it is important for management to have information about their perceptions, attitudes and support for MPAs post implementation. In New South Wales (NSW), Australia, there are six multipleuse MPAs (known as marine parks) incorporating design principles of comprehensiveness, adequacy, and representativeness, which includes ‘no-take’ areas that make up around 6% of the State's coastal waters. The planning and implementation of these have aimed to balance environmental and socio-economic objectives, but an independent review concluded that inadequate attention is given to the social dimensions of marine parks; especially social impacts [6]. Marine parks primarily aim to conserve marine biodiversity and habitats, and maintain ecological processes whilst simultaneously accommodating the various demands of multiple users in coastal areas, and providing opportunities for public enjoyment [50]. A key component of ecological change that can help meet these aims is through increasing the abundance and size of fish, although the marine parks are not specifically designed to contribute to fisheries objectives [67]. There are several management zones with differing objectives, and include sanctuary (i.e. no-take), habitat protection, general use, and special purpose zones [50]. Only sanctuary zones exclude recreational fishing activities, and hence the focus on recreational fishers' perspectives and attitudes towards MPAs is principally related to these zones. Recent research on recreational fishers and MPAs has examined compliance with regulations [53,54,59], methods of social assessment in MPA planning [65], and understanding opposition to MPAs [66]. This study aims to contribute to the knowledge and understanding of recreational fishers' values, perceptions, attitudes, levels of support, and factors affecting support of multipleuse MPAs post implementation. It uses a case study of recreational fishers in the Port Stephens-Great Lakes Marine Park (PSGLMP), NSW, Australia, six years after implementation of the zoning scheme. Prior to the implementation of PSGLMP, a survey of recreational fishers conducted between May 2005 and April 2006 found only 12% would support the creation of the marine park
139
[20]. Opposition was primarily attributed to the perception of adverse effects the MPA would have on their fishing activities (particularly sanctuary zones) and their ability to catch fish [20]. However, more recreational fishers indicated they were prepared to support the creation of PSGLMP if they believed it would reduce damage to marine ecology (28%), and especially if they believed it would increase fish stocks and create a more sustainable fishery (45%) [20]. For the purpose of this study the term “social factors” refers to human factors that may positively or negatively affect support of MPAs, such as knowledge, values, perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, and demographic characteristics.
2. Methods Port Stephens-Great Lakes Marine Park (PSGLMP) is located in the Hunter Region of NSW, Australia, and was declared in 2005, with zoning schemes implemented in 2007. The marine park extends from the mean high water mark to the 3 n-mile limit of NSW waters, and covers an area of approximately 980 km2 of marine and estuarine habitats, including rivers and lakes, with their creeks and tributaries to the limit of tidal influence. This is a multiple-use marine park with the different zones varying in size, management objectives and regulations. Visitors to the marine park do not pay an access fee, but they must hold a NSW recreational fishing licence to participate in fishing activities. This study focused on the Port Stephens area of PSGLMP, which lies within a sheltered tidal influenced estuary with shoreline access at many public and private points, including beaches, jetties, and boat ramps. Recreational fishers using PSGLMP were surveyed over a five month period: April to August 2013 (austral autumn and winter). Data were collected using anonymous questionnaires administered on site through personal interviews of both boat-based and shore-based fishers at public boat ramps and along the shoreline in the study site. Boat-based fishers were targeted during late morning and late afternoon to coincide with the most common times fishers exited the water. Additional comments made during interviews were recorded to provide further insight. Random sampling was not possible since the purpose of the study was to interview fishers using the marine park. Oral consent was obtained from participants prior to commencing the survey in accordance with human ethics protocols (Protocol No. H-20130057). A total of 79 fishers completed the questionnaire and were considered to be representative of recreational fishers since almost three quarters of the interviewees had been fishing recreationally for Z20 years. Small sample sizes are common in this type of qualitative research and more data does not necessarily result in more information [45]. The concept of saturation is widely used in social research to determine qualitative sample size, and when the likelihood of acquiring new information is small then the sample size is considered sufficient [45]. In this study saturation was achieved, in that the last few interviews did not provide new information; indicating that the sample size was appropriate for this study. A semi-structured questionnaire, comprising both closed and open-ended questions, was developed to collect data on a range of topics (Table 1), and was pilot tested (n¼ 20) prior to implementing the study. The questionnaire took approximately 10–15 min to complete and was divided into five sections. Belief statements were developed to include: topics about marine conservation objectives for NSW marine parks (to conserve biodiversity and maintain ecological processes); the theory that sanctuary zones increase fish stocks throughout the region due to the “spillover” effect; assessment of whether different management zones provide clear rules for activities in these areas; and potential
140
C.L. Martin et al. / Marine Policy 73 (2016) 138–145
Table 1 Summary of topics covered in the questionnaire and their objectives. Topic General background information on respondents
Objective
To know fishers' level of education, age group, attachment to MPA, values for PSGLMP, support for MPAs in general, and residential location.
To know characteristics of fishers, i.e. number of years as a fisher; member of fishing club; fishing method. To know the extent to which fishers were aware of penalties for non-compliance; their opinion on the harshness of current penalties; and their opinions on how often fishers engaged in fishing in sanctuary zones.
To know the extent to which fishers engaged in fishing next to sanctuary zones. To know whether fishers believed fishing has improved since the implementation of PSGLMP in 2005. To know methods fishers used to determine the locations of sanctuary and habitat protection zones. Extent of support for PSGLMP
To know fishers' level of support towards PSGLMP and explore factors that may influence levels of support/non-support.
Belief statements and attitudes
To determine degree of fishers' agreement/disagreement with the following statements: – – – – – – –
Marine parks help conserve marine biodiversity Marine parks help maintain ecological processes to support marine life No-take sanctuary zones increase overall fish stocks due to the “spillover effect” The different management zones within marine parks provide clear rules for activities in these areas. The accumulative impact of fishers may have a negative impact on the marine environment and fish populations. The marine environment does not need human intervention to repair and replenish itself. The number of fish caught by fishers today will not affect the number available for capture in the future.
cumulative impact of recreational fishing. Respondents were asked to indicate their degree of agreement or disagreement using a four point Likert scale: strongly disagree, disagree, agree and strongly agree. The wording of some statements was reversed to help prevent response bias. The “neutral” response, often used in Likert scales, was omitted from responses as research has revealed respondents tend to select this option when they cannot be bothered to think about an issue [8]. Respondents can also become increasingly tired or bored as questioning proceeds and are prone to laziness in their answers; and often select the “neutral” option. By removing this option, it forces the respondent to think about the issue and make a decision to express an opinion they probably hold. Data quality is not enhanced by the inclusion of the “neutral” option, and this option need only be included when questioning about particularly sensitive issues [8]. Originally, respondents were asked to indicate their degree of agreement or disagreement to a series of belief statements regarding marine conservation and recreational fishing impacts that were based on a four point Likert scale. However, for final analysis this scale was collapsed into a two point scale (agree/disagree). Responses to open-ended questions were categorized into common themes and, together with closed questions, were coded prior to analysis in IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Some Likert scale responses were collapsed into a two or three point scale. Chi-square tests of independence were used to explore relationships between two categorical variables, and log-linear analysis was used to test a suite of categorical variables for significant relationships in multi-way contingency tables, to help explain stated support/opposition for PSGLMP.
3. Results Most fishers had made between 1–3 fishing trips to PSGLMP in the past month (70%), were aged 35–54 years old (49%), had technical and further education (TAFE) or trade certificates (36%), did not live locally (68%), were not members of fishing clubs (66%), and had been fishing for Z20 years (72%). Most fishers supported the concept of MPAs in general (79%), and many fishers identified as having moderate (40%) or high (33%) levels of attachment to PSGLMP, whilst 27% identified having low attachment to the MPA. Their main method of fishing was hook and line (94%), and the remainder were boat-based spear fishers.
Fishers valued PSGLMP primarily for its fishing opportunities (38%), interaction with the marine environment (18%), and protection of marine life and habitats (15%). More than half the fishers (58%) perceived the purpose of sanctuary zones to be for fisheries management rather than for conservation of biodiversity (35%). Most fishers (41%) perceived that an increase in fish abundance to be the greatest potential benefit provided by the MPA, followed by conservation and protection of marine life and habitats (26%). The remainder (33%) stated a combination of other reasons such as tourism, regulation of commercial fishers, future legacy/sustainability, and recreation and public enjoyment. Just over half of recreational fishers (54%) perceived commercial fishing to be the greatest threat to the PSGLMP management objectives; mainly due to perceptions of widespread non-compliance by commercial fishers and the quantities of fish harvested. Other perceived threats included over-fishing and non-compliance (12%), pollution (10%), population growth and human activities (10%), poor management (5%), and a further 9% cited various other reasons. Fishers had different perceptions on whether or not fishing (i.e. the number of fish caught) had improved since the implementation of PSGLMP: 32% of fishers thought it was about the same, some believed it had improved (23%), whilst others believed it had declined (17%), and some could not say (28%). Fishers who believed fishing had not improved gave various reasons why this may have been; with commercial fishing activities being the most frequently stated reason (58%). Other reasons for no improvement included there being a lack of fish generally; migration of fish; aggregation of fish in sanctuary zones; too many fishers targeting fish; and an increase in the number of tourists. Most fishers were aware of the penalties for non-compliance (72%); and 33% of fishers believed these penalties were about right, whilst 32% believed them to be too harsh, 7% believed them to be not harsh enough, and a further 28% did not have an opinion. When asked how often they thought recreational fishers might engage in fishing activities within sanctuary zones, the majority of fishers (37%) stated they believed this rarely occurred, whilst 31% thought it might occur sometimes, and others thought it occurred frequently (10%), always (4%), never (4%), or could not say (14%). Fishers in PSGLMP used a variety of methods to determine the locations of habitat protection and sanctuary zones (Fig. 1), with the most commonly used methods being the zoning plan map, followed by GPS, then posted signs and buoys, and the use of landmarks (Fig. 1).
C.L. Martin et al. / Marine Policy 73 (2016) 138–145
Fig. 1. Methods used (158 responses) by 56 fishers to determine locations of habitat protection and sanctuary zones in Port Stephens-Great Lakes Marine Park. The numbers next to each method is the number of responses.
Overall, a large majority of fishers agreed that marine parks help conserve marine biodiversity, and maintain ecological processes to ensure the marine environment can function in a healthy manner to support marine life (Table 2). Most fishers also agreed with the premise that sanctuary zones increase overall fish stocks due to spill-over, and that different management zones provided clear rules for activities (Table 2). However, the majority of fishers disagreed that the cumulative impact of recreational fishing may have a negative impact on the marine environment and fish populations, and agreed that the number of fish caught today by fishers would not affect the number of fish available for capture in the future (Table 2). During interviews, many fishers identified that existing bag and size limits would prevent this from occurring. Most fishers also disagreed that the marine environment did not require human intervention in order to reduce the impacts associated with human activities in the marine environment (Table 2). More than double the number of fishers supported PSGLMP (60%) compared to those who were opposed to the MPA (27%), whilst some were indifferent (13%). Level of support was linked to attitudes and beliefs, and fisher characteristics. Fishers who believed the different management zones did not provide clear rules for activities in these areas were less supportive (Z ¼ 2.9, df 1, p ¼0.004) than those who did (Fig. 2a), and were almost twice as likely to oppose the marine park if they believed this (χ2 ¼9.6, df 1, p ¼0.002). Additionally, there was less support from fishers who did not believe sanctuary zones increased overall fish stocks in the MPA due to the spillover of individuals (Z ¼ 3, df 2, p ¼0.003) (Fig. 2b); fishers were twice as likely to oppose PSGLMP if they believed this (χ2 ¼15.9, df 1, p o0.001). The fairness of penalties for non-compliance was also a factor affecting fisher support. Fishers were less supportive if they believed current penalties to be too harsh (Z ¼ 20.4, df 10, p o0.001) (Fig. 2c), and twice as likely to oppose the marine park if they believed this (χ2 ¼ 6.2, df 2, p ¼0.045). Fisher characteristics were another factor linked to support of PSGLMP; specifically the number of years as a fisher (i.e. experience) (Fig. 2d). Fishers were more supportive if they had been
141
fishing for o 20 years (Z ¼2.3, df 1, p ¼0.02) (Fig. 2d), and were five times less likely to oppose the marine park compared to those who had been fishing for Z20 years (χ2 ¼ 8.1, df 1, p¼ 0.004). There was no evidence of other factors that might explain fishers' support or opposition to PSGLMP. In general, the only differences in the characteristics of fishers that either supported or opposed PSGLMP were: age, level of attachment, opinion on fairness of current penalties for non-compliance, perception that management zones provided clear rules for activities, and support for MPAs in general. The majority of supportive fishers were aged 35–54 (51%), had moderate levels of attachment to PSGLMP (49%), believed current penalties to be about right (55%), believed management zones provided clear rules for activities (74%), and supported MPAs in general (98%). In contrast, the majority of fishers that opposed PSGLMP were Z 55 years (58%), had low levels of attachment to PSGLMP (40%), believed current penalties to be too harsh (69%), believed management zones did not provide clear rules for activities (67%), and did not support MPAs in general (57%). All other characteristics were the same, i.e. the majority did not live locally, had been fishing for Z20 years, had TAFE/Trade and high school Year 10 qualifications, and were not members of fishing clubs. Additional comments made during interviews provided insights into recreational fishers' opposition to PSGLMP, with many of these fishers saying that commercial fishing should not be permitted in PSGLMP. Other comments highlight the confusion these fishers experienced navigating the rules and boundaries of the different management zones, as well as understanding the purpose of sanctuary zones, and inadequate signage.
4. Discussion This study assessed the post implementation perceptions of recreational fishers in an Australian MPA, and identified factors that influenced the views of this group towards the MPA. There is an increasing understanding that these social aspects have the potential to increase acceptance, success and long-term existence of MPAs [54,65]. Recreational fishers appeared to support PSGLMP and had positive attitudes towards the concept of MPAs, and notake zones, in general. However, a small number of fishers opposed the MPA and had negative attitudes towards the rationale behind MPAs, and did not agree with the premise that no-take zones increase fish stocks. Recreational fishers were generally aware of penalties for non-compliance and believed that recreational fishers generally adhered to fishing constraints in no-take zones. They were more inclined to oppose the MPA if they had been fishing for Z 20 years, believed management zones did not provide clear rules for activities, penalties for non-compliance were too harsh, and that no-take zones did not increase overall fish stocks in the MPA. There was no real consensus on whether or not fishing had improved since the MPA was implemented six years earlier, and the greatest perceived threat to the MPA was from commercial fishing activities. There was evidence that
Table 2 Recreational fishers' attitudes towards MPAs and recreational fishing impacts. The percentage of the respondents who agreed and disagreed with the seven statements. Belief statement
Agree
Disagree
(n)
Marine parks help to conserve marine plants, animals and habitats. Marine parks help maintain ecological processes to ensure the marine environment can function in a healthy manner to support marine life. No-take sanctuary zones increase overall fish stocks within the marine park due to the ‘spill-over’ effect. The different management zones within marine parks provide clear rules for activities in these areas. The accumulative impact of fishers may have a negative impact on the marine environment and fish populations. The marine environment does not need human intervention in order to repair and replenish itself. The number of fish caught by fishers today will not affect the number of fish available for capture in the future.
87% 86% 64% 57% 26% 28% 68%
13% 14% 36% 46% 74% 72% 32%
78 78 78 69 78 79 78
142
C.L. Martin et al. / Marine Policy 73 (2016) 138–145
Fig. 2. Recreational fishers that support (light gray) or oppose (dark gray) Port Stephens-Great Lakes Marine Park (PSGLMP) according to (a) fisher belief that zoning provides clear rules for activities (n ¼60); (b) fisher belief that NTZs increase fish stocks (n ¼67); (c) fisher experience (i.e. years fishing) (n¼ 68); and (d) fisher opinion of current penalties for non-compliance PSGLMP (n ¼49). Note: Don't know and non-responses were not included.
recreational fishers did not believe that the collective impact of their fishing activities negatively affected either fish stocks, the marine environment more generally, or the number of fish available in the future. Almost two thirds of recreational fishers in this study supported the establishment of the PSGLMP and the principle of MPAs in general, indicating a good understanding and support for the rationale behind MPAs; which is consistent with similar studies [9,41,64]. However, there was a sub-group of fishers (representing nearly one third of all recreational fishers surveyed) who opposed MPAs in general. Consistent opposition to MPAs is a major issue affecting implementation and ongoing acceptance of MPAs [29,41,56,63,64,66]. Fishers with negative attitudes and who oppose MPAs may not believe in the benefits of MPAs [18], despite there being evidence that MPAs are effective in conserving biodiversity, and can result in ecological changes that include increases in species density, size and biomass [4,19,22,24], particularly of recreational target species [42]. There is also increasing evidence that MPAs export larva and biomass to adjacent waters that helps replenish local and regional populations [22,26,37,38]. However, the extent of these changes may depend on other factors relating to an MPA such as location, size and habitat characteristics [13], life history traits of the targeted species [15], and pre-existing fishing effort and location of no-take zones [40]. The design of MPAs needs to consider these aspects in order to increase the likelihood of achieving its objectives, and the locations of no-take zones in relation to recreational fishing effort and distribution is an issue that requires consideration. These ecological and social trade-offs are increasingly
recognized as an important determinant of achieving both ecological and social benefits, with increases in fish biomass less likely to occur if areas were either previously not fished [40] or very heavily fished. In NSW marine parks, following community consultation some no-take areas were selected to reduce social impacts, although a number of recreationally fished areas were included, particularly coastal rocky reefs. In PSGLMP, there are 29 no-takes zones covering 17.5% of the marine park area, with these zones containing locations with a range of historical recreational fishing intensities. While there was no consensus among recreational fishers that the fishing experience had improved in the marine park, this may reflect the small time period since establishment, and may change through time with emerging evidence that abundances of some target species are higher in abundance in no-take zones [25]. MPAs are a contentious topic among fishers and much confusion stems from misunderstanding of the intended objectives of MPAs [32]. For instance, in this study over half of recreational fishers believed no-take zones were for fisheries management objectives rather than the conservation of marine biodiversity, although there is evidence that in some instances MPAs may provide benefits to fisheries. On a positive note, recreational fishers’ overall support for PSGLMP post-implementation was five times greater than it was pre-implementation of the MPA; according to a similar survey of recreational fishers between May 2005 and April 2006 [20]. Opposition then was attributed to the perception of adverse effects the MPA may have on their fishing activities (particularly sanctuary zones) and their ability to catch fish [20]. However, some recreational fishers did indicate then that they were prepared to
C.L. Martin et al. / Marine Policy 73 (2016) 138–145
support the creation of PSGLMP if it would reduce damage to the marine environment, and especially if it increases fish stocks and creates a more sustainable fishery [20]. Our study demonstrates the majority of recreational fishers do generally believe marine parks help maintain marine ecological processes, and that no-take zones help increase overall fish stocks in marine parks, which may account for increased levels of support for PSGLMP post implementation, and demonstrates an understanding of the benefits and rationale of MPAs. Increased support post-implementation suggests the perceived negative impacts were not as bad as recreational fishers had feared (this study; [66]). Recreational fishers who had fished for o20 years were less opposed to the MPA compared to those who had been fishing for Z20 years. This difference is a function of the fishers who had fished for o20 years believing that MPAs benefited their fishing experience [35]. In contrast, fishers who had fished for Z20 years were less convinced of the benefits, less satisfied with fishing restrictions, less inclined to change their fishing habits, and are generally less supportive of MPAs [18,35,56]. Complexity of zoning rules and regulations, and penalties for non-compliance influenced fishers' support or opposition to MPAs, and particularly whether or not the different management zones provided clear rules for activities in these areas [53]. Fishers who were less supportive of the MPA generally indicated the rules in the different zones were unclear, suggesting a misunderstanding and confusion about the rules/regulations, or that they did not know how to access information. This interpretation is supported by additional comments made during interviews indicating that there were too many rules in the different zones, causing confusion and difficulty in remembering, and that signage is not clear enough in explaining these rules. This view is supported by evidence that poorly located signage fails to capture and engage the attention of recreational fishers [43,53,66]. Clear, easy to understand rules and easily recognizable boundaries enhance compliance and MPA performance [44]. Fishers who thought that current penalties for non-compliance were too harsh were likely to oppose the presence of PSGLMP (this study; [66]). However, higher penalties are often necessary to deter fishers who repeatedly offend [54]. Problems using GPS, together with confusion over the many rules in each management zone was frustrating for fishers and reduced their enjoyment of fishing (this study; [43,53]). Improving zoning and associated regulations of PSGLMP should help fishers better identify zone boundaries [53], such as increasing access to simple information, simplifying zoning boundary shapes, and minimizing the number of zoning categories and associated rules [53]. It is worth noting that a new smart phone app (Marine Zones) has since been developed (http://marinezones.com.au/regions/), which has improved access to Australian marine parks zoning plan information and location details for recreational fishers. Fishers’ opposition to MPAs is often attributed to lack of their knowledge and understanding of marine ecosystem processes [55]. Providing information to address this knowledge gap may increase support for MPAs, since environmentally-conscious behaviors and attitudes are influenced by peoples' perceptions of ecosystem health and resilience [3]. However, many fishers rank increasing the information about MPAs available to them as a relatively low criterion for a successful MPA [28]. Interestingly, fishers perceive improvements for successful MPAs could be achieved by involving them in management, changing the regulations and zone boundaries, and increasing enforcement [28]. Lack of support from some fishers has also been attributed to the fact they do not believe MPAs deliver an increase of fish stocks in the long term [18,41], which contradicts scientific evidence that indicates that in some instances MPAs increase fish stocks over time in adjacent areas ([24,38]). They can also result in broader
143
ecosystem changes, such as the re-establishment of kelp habitats due to increase in fish and lobster abundance that resulted in the decrease in urchins that graze on kelp and form distinct areas known as ‘barrens’ [5,58]. Furthermore, strong opposition from fishers is often attributed to the MPA planning process and lack of meaningful public participation [29,65]. This study identified that dissatisfaction about the MPA is also associated with the negative view that recreational fishers generally have about commercial fishing activities, particularly the perception of over-exploitation and non-compliance. In NSW, buyout programs have been used to reduce commercial fishing effort, including as part of the establishment of the PSGLMP, where thirty-nine operators agreed to surrender their entitlements [48]. Given the reduction in commercial fishing effort and capacity in PSGLMP, recreational fishers’ perceptions of ongoing over-exploitation by commercial fishers is likely to reflect ongoing competition for the same fishing locations and targeting of the same species [18,29,33,61]. Most recreational fishers in this study did not believe their activities or cumulative impact to be a potential threat to achieving the objectives of the MPA, believing this was managed effectively by bag and size limits. This is despite evidence that recreational fishing activities can have negative impacts on the structure and abundance of some fish populations [1,39,46,57].
5. Conclusion In conclusion, this study clearly identified important information about recreational fishers' values, perceptions, attitudes, and understanding of the rationale behind MPAs, and identified factors that may influence levels of support and social acceptance of MPAs. Effective and sustainable management of multiple-use MPAs requires knowledge of social factors that influence levels of support for management objectives and the rationale behind MPAs. Overall, six years after it was implemented most recreational fishers supported the PSGLMP, suggesting a good level of understanding for the rationale behind MPAs, or that they valued the social and economic services provided by the MPA. However, the complexity of rules/regulations in the different management zones was identified as a source of frustration to recreational fishers. An effective education and communication program can play a key role in fostering support towards MPAs and compliance, and is cost effective in the long-term [2]. The creation of a forum for regular communication between MPA managers, scientists, and fishers; for example, through stakeholder represented advisory committees, will contribute to a better understanding of the rationale behind MPAs and encourage greater support by stakeholders [17,61]. Such processes are currently part of the ongoing management of the PSGLMP, and is a key component of the new approach to marine management in NSW, with the formation of the Marine Estate Management Authority in 2012, which aims to consider the key economic, social and environmental benefits derived by the marine estate, and the threats to those benefits [49,31]. Community engagement in an open and transparent manner facilitates trust from fishers towards management, who often feel marginalized and that their opinions and views are not adequately considered in planning and review processes. If recreational fishers are included in MPA management decision making, and management objectives and initiatives align more closely with their values, they can be strong supporters of MPAs [64]. Support from recreational fishers can be increased by demonstrating more clearly to fishers the benefits that may arise through time through the spatial management within MPAs [41]. Additionally, engaging highly specialized fishers with excellent fisheries knowledge in management strategies may help increase support for this particular stakeholder group [47].
144
C.L. Martin et al. / Marine Policy 73 (2016) 138–145
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the recreational fishers of Port Stephens-Great Lakes Marine Park who kindly gave up their time to participate in this research.
[27]
[28]
[29]
References [1] Ø. Aas, C.E. Thailing, R.B. Ditton, Controversy over catch-and-release recreational fishing in Europe, in: T.J. Pitcher, C. Hollingworth (Eds.), Recreational Fisheries: Ecological, Economic, and Social Evaluation, Blackwell Science, Oxford, 2002, pp. 95–106. [2] J. Alder, Costs and effectiveness of education and enforcement, Cairns section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Environ. Manag. 20 (1996) 541–551. [3] L. Alessa, S.M. Bennett, A.D. Kliskey, Effects of knowledge, personal attribution and perception of ecosystem health on depreciative behaviours in the intertidal zone of Pacific Rim National Park and Reserve, J. Environ. Manag. 68 (2003) 207–218. [4] J. Alós, R. Arlinghaus, Impacts of partial marine protected areas on coastal fish communities exploited by recreational angling, Fish. Res. 137 (2013) 88–96. [5] R.C. Babcock, S. Kelly, N.T. Shears, J.W. Walker, T.J. Willis, Changes in community structure in temperate marine reserves, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 189 (1999) 125–134. [6] R.J.S. Beeton, C.D. Buxton, G.C. Cutbush, P.G. Fairweather, E.L. Johnston, R. Ryan, Report of the independent scientific audit of marine parks in New South Wales, NSW Department of Primary Industries & Office of Environment and Heritage NSW, 2012. [7] H. Bryan, Leisure value systems and recreational specialization: the case of trout fishermen, J. Leis. Res. 9 (1977) 174–187. [8] A. Bryman, Social Research Methods, 4th ed., Oxford University Press, New York, 2012. [9] F. Cardona, B. Morales-Nin, Anglers' perceptions of recreational fisheries and fisheries management in Mallorca, Ocean Coast. Manag. 82 (2013) 146–150. [10] A. Charles, L. Wilson, Human dimensions of marine protected areas, ICES J. Mar. Sci. 66 (2009) 6–15. [11] M. Chiappone, H. Dienes, D.W. Swanson, S.L. Miller, Impacts of lost fishing gear on coral reef sessile invertebrates in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Biol. Conserv. 121 (2005) 221–230. [12] F.C. Coleman, W.S.F. Figueira, J.S. Ueland, L.B. Crowder, The impact of the United States recreational fisheries on marine fish populations, Science 305 (2004) 1958–1960. [13] M. Colléter, D. Gascuel, C. Albouy, P. Francour, L. Tito de Morias, A. Valls, F. Le Loc’h, Fishing inside or outside? A case study of potential spillover effect from marine protected areas, using food web models, J. Mar. Syst. 139 (2014) 383–395. [14] S.L. Collins, S.R. Carpenter, S.M. Swinton, D.E. Orenstein, D.L. Childers, T. L. Gragson, A.C. Whitmer, An integrated conceptual framework for long-term social-ecological research, Front. Ecol. Environ. 9 (2011) 351–357. [15] B.G. Curley, A.R. Jordan, W.F. Figueira, V.C. Valenzuela, A review of the biology and ecology of key fishes targeted by coastal fisheries in south-east Australia: identifying critical knowledge gaps required to improve spatial management, Rev. Fish. Biol. Fish. 23 (2013) 435–458. [16] G.E. Davis, Science and society: marine reserve design for the California Channel Islands, Conserv. Biol. 19 (2005) 1745–1751. [17] M. Dedual, O. Sague Pla, R. Arlinghaus, A. Clarke, K. Ferter, P. Geertzhansen, B. Ueberschär, Communication between scientists, fishery managers and recreational fishers: lessons learned from a comparative analysis of international case studies, Fish. Manag. Ecol. 20 (2013) 234–246. [18] M. Dimech, M. Darmanin, I.P. Smith, M.J. Kaiser, P.J. Schembri, Fishers' perception of a 35 year old exclusive fisheries management zone, Biol. Conserv. 142 (2009) 2691–2702. [19] G.J. Edgar, R.D. Stuart-Smith, Ecological effects of marine protected areas on rocky reef communities – a continental-scale analysis, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 388 (2009) 51–62, doi: 10.3354. [20] Ernst, Young, Economic impact of recreational fishing in Port Stephens and Narooma/Bermagui. Report prepared for the Australian Fishing Tackle Association (AFTA) and Boating Industry Association (BIA), 2006. [21] T. Font, J. Lloret, Biological and ecological impacts derived from recreational fishing in Mediterranean Coastal Areas, Rev. Fish. Sci. Aquac. 22 (2014) 73–85. [22] R. Goñi, S. Adlerstein, D. Alvarez-Berastegui, A. Forcada, O. Reñones, G. Criquert, S. Planes, Spillover from six western Mediterranean marine protected areas: evidence from artisanal fisheries, Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 366 (2008) 159–174. [23] E.F. Granek, E.M.P. Madin, M.A. Brown, W. Figueira, D.S. Cameron, Z. Hogan, R. Arlinghaus, Engaging recreational fishers in management and conservation: global case studies, Conserv. Biol. 22 (2008) 1125–1134. [24] B. Halpern, The impact of marine reserves: do marine reserves work and does reserve size matter? Ecol. Appl. 13 (2003) S117–S137. [25] D. Harasti, H. Malcolm, C. Gallen, M.A. Coleman, A. Jordan, N.A. Knott, Appropriate set times to represent patterns of rocky reef fishes using baited video, J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 463 (2015) 173–180. [26] H.B. Harrison, D.H. Williamson, R.D. Evans, G.R. Almany, S.R. Thorrold, G.
[30]
[31]
[32] [33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38] [39]
[40] [41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45] [46] [47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]
R. Russ, G.P. Jones, Larval export from marine reserves and the recruitment benefit for fish and fisheries, Curr. Biol. 22 (2012) 1023–1028. G.W. Henry, J.M. Lyle (Eds.), The National Recreational and Indigenous Fishing Survey. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry, FRDC Project No. 99/158, 2003, pp. 188. A.H. Himes, Performance of indicators in MPA management: using questionnaires to analyse stakeholder preferences, Ocean Coast. Manag. 50 (2007) 329–351. K.R. Hoelting, C.H. Hard, P. Christie, R.B. Pollnac, Factors affecting support for Puget Sound marine protected areas, Fish. Res. 144 (2012) 48–59. E. Hoffmann, A. Pèrez-Ruzafa, Marine protected areas as a tool for fishery management and ecosystem conservation: an introduction, ICES J. Mar. Sci. 66 (2009) 1–5. A. Jordan, S. Fairfull, R. Creese, Managing threats to the Marine Estate in New South Wales (Australia) to maximise community wellbeing, J. Coast. Res. 75 (2016) 642–646. M.J. Kaisar, Are marine protected areas a red herring or fisheries panacea? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 62 (2005) 1194–1199. R.E. Kearney, Fisheries property rights and recreational/commercial conflict: implications of policy developments in Australia and New Zealand, Mar. Policy 25 (2001) 49–59. R.E. Kearney, Recreational fishing: value is in the eye of the beholder, in: T. J. Pitcher, C. Hollingworth (Eds.), Recreational Fisheries: Ecological, Economic and Social Evaluation, Blackwell Science, Oxford, 2002, pp. 17–33. K. Leleu, F. Alban, D. Pelletier, E. Charbonnel, Y. Letourneur, C.F. Boudouresque, Fishers' perceptions as indicators of the performance of marine protected areas (MPAs), Mar. Policy 36 (2012) 414–422. W.C. Lewin, R. Arlinghaus, T. Mehner, Documented and potential biological impacts of recreational fishing: insights for management and conservation, Rev. Fish. Sci. 14 (2006) 305–367. À. López-Sanz, V. Stelzenmüller, F. Maynou, A. Sabatés, The influence of environmental characteristics on fish larvae spatial patterns related to a marine protected area: the Medes islands (NW Mediterranean), Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 92 (2011), 521e533. J. Lubchenco, S.R. Palumbi, S.D. Gaines, S. Andelman, Plugging a hole in the ocean: the emerging science of marine reserves, Ecol. Appl. 13 (2003) S3–S7. J.M. Lyle, S.R. Tracey, Catch, effort and fishing practices in a recreational gillnet fishery: assessing the impacts and response to management change, Fish. Res. 177 (2016) 50–58. T. Lynch, Incorporation of recreational fishing effort into design of marine protected areas, Conserv. Biol. 20 (2006) 1466–1476. S.C. Mangi, M.C. Austen, Perceptions of stakeholders towards objectives and zoning of marine-protected areas in southern Europe, J. Nat. Conserv. 16 (2008) 271–280. H.A. Malcolm, Al Schultz, P. Sachs, N. Johnstone, A. Jordan, Decadal changes in the abundance and length of snapper (Chrysophrys auratus) in Subtropical Marine Sanctuaries, PLoS One 10 (6) (2015) e0127616. C.L. Martin, S. Momtaz, A. Jordan, N. Moltschaniwskyj, An assessment of the effectiveness of in-situ signage in multiple-use marine protected areas in providing information to different recreational users, Mar. Policy 56 (2015) 78–85. M.B. Mascia, Designing effective coral reef marine protected areas: insights from political science theory, in: Paper presented at the 9th International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia, October 23–27, 2000. M. Mason, Sample size and saturation in Ph.D. studies using qualitative interviews, Forum: Qual. Soc. Res. 11 (3) (2010) (art. 8). M.I. Muoneke, W.M. Childress, Hooking mortality: a review for recreational fisheries, Rev. Fish. Sci. 2 (1994) 123–156. J.V. Norriss, M. Moran, G. Jackson, Tagging studies reveal restricted movement of snapper (Pagrus auratus) within Shark B ay, supporting fine-scale fisheries management, Mar. Freshw. Res. 63 (2012) 1191–1199. NSW Department of Primary Industries, Final report – NSW marine park buyout program: Port Stephens-Great Lakes and Batemans Bay marine parks. Retrieved from the Professional Fishermen’s Association submission to the senate inquiry into the contamination of Australian defence facilities regarding previous commercial fishing buyouts, file:///C:/Users/C3072154/Downloads/Sub%2028_Supplementary_PFA%202016%20(1).pdf, 2008. NSW Marine Estate Management Authority (MEMA), Managing the NSW Marine Estate: purpose, underpinning principles and priority setting, MEMA (2013) 15. NSW Marine Parks Authority, Developing a representative system of marine protected areas in NSW – an overview. NSW Marine Parks Authority Marine Protected Areas Strategy Working Group. Heartland Publishing, Canberra, 2001. C. Pita, G.J. Pierce, I. Theodossiou, K. Macpherson, An overview of commercial fishers' attitudes towards marine protected areas, Hydrobiologia 670 (2011) 289–306. R.S. Pomeroy, M.B. Mascia, R.B. Pollnac, Marine protected areas: the social dimension, in: FAO Expert Workshop on Marine Protected Areas and Fisheries Management: Review of Issues. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2006, pp. 149–181. A.D. Read, R.J. West, M. Haste, A. Jordan, Optimizing voluntary compliance in marine protected areas: a comparison of recreational fishers and enforcement officer perspectives using multi-criteria analysis, J. Environ. Manag. 92 (2011) 2558–2567. A.D. Read, R.J. West, B.P. Kelaher, Using compliance data to improve marine
C.L. Martin et al. / Marine Policy 73 (2016) 138–145
protected area management, Mar. Policy 60 (2015) 119–127. [55] A. Ressurreição, A. Simas, R.S. Santos, F. Porteiro, Resident and expert opinions on marine related issues: implications for the ecosystem approach, Ocean Coast. Manag. 69 (2012) 243–254. [56] R.A. Robertson, G. Caporossi, New England recreational fishers' attitudes toward marine protected areas: a preliminary investigation, in: J. Murdy (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2003 North Eastern Recreation Research Symposium 2003, Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, Newtown Square, PA, 2003, pp. 121–127. [57] D.M. Schroeder, M.S. Love, Recreational fishing and marine fish populations, Calif. Coop. Ocean. Fish. Investig. 43 (2002) 182–190. [58] N.T. Shears, R.C. Babcock, Marine reserves demonstrate top-down control of community structure on temperate reefs, Oecologia 132 (2002) 131–142. [59] C.B. Smallwood, L.E. Beckley, Spatial distribution and zoning compliance of recreational fishing in Ningaloo Marine Park, north-western Australia, Fish. Res. 125 (2012) 40–50. [60] S.D.A. Smith, R.J. Edgar, Documenting the density of subtidal marine debris across multiple marine and coastal habitats, PLoS One 9 (4) (2014) e94593, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094593. [61] K. Stamieszkin, J. Wielgus, L.R. Gerber, Management of a marine protected
[62] [63]
[64] [65]
[66]
[67]
145
area for sustainability and conflict resolution: lessons from Loreto Bay National Park (Baja California Sur, Mexico), Ocean Coast. Manag. 52 (2009) 449–458. N.E. Stump, L.K. Kriwoken, Tasmanian marine protected areas: attitudes and perceptions of wild capture fishers, Ocean Coast. Manag. 49 (2006) 298–307. D. Suman, M. Shivlani, J.W. Milon, Perceptions and attitudes regarding marine reserves: a comparison of stakeholder groups in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Ocean Coast. Manag. 42 (1999) 1019–1040. S.G. Sutton, R.C. Tobin, Recreational fishers' attitudes towards rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Environ. Conserv. 36 (2009) 245–252. M. Voyer, W. Gladstone, H. Goodall, Methods of social assessment in marine protected area planning: is public participation enough? Mar. Policy 36 (2012) 432–439. M. Voyer, W. Gladstone, H. Goodall, Understanding marine park opposition: the relationships between social impacts, environmental knowledge and motivation to fish, Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 24 (2013) 441–462. D.H. Williamson, G.R. Russ, A.M. Ayling, No-take marine reserves increase abundance and biomass of reef fish on inshore fringing reefs of the Great Barrier Reef, Environ. Conserv. 31 (2004) 149–159.