Evaluating approaches for scaling‐up community‐based marine‐protected areas into socially equitable and ecologically representative networks

• Published in: Conservation biology 2020-02, Vol.34 (1), p.137-147
• Main Authors: Kockel, Alessia, Ban, Natalie C., Costa, Maycira, Dearden, Philip
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aichi Target 11; Biodiversity; Computer programs; Conservation; Convention on Biological Diversity; costos de oportunidad; Costs; Distribution; distribution equity; equidad de la distribución; Evaluation; Filipinas; Fisheries; Fishers; Fishery data; Fishing areas; Gap analysis; Identification; Knowledge representation; Marinas; Marine conservation; Marine ecology; Marine environment; Marine parks; Marine protected areas; Marxan with Zones; Marxan with Zones 软件; Objetivo 11 de Aichi; opportunity costs; pesquerías a pequeña escala; Philippines; planeación sistemática de la conservación; Protected areas; small‐scale fisheries; Software; Spatial data; systematic conservation planning; 分配公平性; 小规模渔业; 机会成本; 爱知目标 11; 系统保护规划; 菲律宾
• ISSN: 0888-8892; 1523-1739
• DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13368

Marine‐protected areas (MPAs) are vital to marine conservation, but their coverage and distribution is insufficient to address declines in global biodiversity and fisheries. In response, many countries have committed through the Aichi Target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity to conserve 10% of the marine environment through ecologically representative and equitably managed MPAs by 2020. The rush to fulfill this commitment has raised concerns on how increasing MPA coverage will affect other elements of Target 11, including representation and equity. We examined a Philippines case study to assess and compare 3 MPA planning approaches for biodiversity representation and equitable distribution of costs to small‐scale fishers. In the opportunistic approach, MPAs were identified and supported by coastal communities. The donor‐assisted approach used local knowledge to select MPAs through a national‐scale and donor‐assisted conservation project. The systematic conservation planning approach identified MPA locations with the spatial prioritization software Marxan with Zones to achieve biodiversity objectives with minimal costs to fishers. We collected spatial data on biodiversity and fisheries features and performed a gap analysis to evaluate MPAs derived from different approaches. We assessed representation based on the proportion of biodiversity features conserved in MPAs and distribution equity by the distribution of opportunity costs (fishing areas lost in MPAs) among fisher stakeholder groups. The opportunistic approach did not ineffectively represent biodiversity and resulted in inequitable costs to fishers. The donor‐assisted approach affected fishers disproportionately but provided near‐optimal regional representation. Only the systematic approach achieved all representation targets with minimal and equitable costs to fishers. Our results demonstrate the utility of systematic conservation planning to address key elements of Target 11 and highlight opportunities (e.g., integration of local and scientific knowledge can address representation and equity concerns) and pitfalls (e.g., insufficient stakeholder considerations can exacerbate social inequalities) for planning MPAs in similar contexts. Article impact Statement: Systematic conservation planning is more effective than ad hoc or donor approaches at deriving representative and equitable protected areas. Evaluación de las Estrategias para Ampliar las Áreas Marinas Protegidas Basadas en Comunida