Leslie, H. M. 2005a

A Synthesis of Marine Conservation PlanningApproachesHEATHER M. LESLIE∗

Department of Zoology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331–8530, U.S.A.

Abstract: In the last decade, there has been increasing interest—particularly among international non-governmental and multilateral development organizations—in evaluating the effectiveness of conservationand development projects. To evaluate success, we need more comprehensive and case-specific informationon how conservation decisions are made. I report on a database that synthesizes information on 27 marineconservation planning cases from around the world. I collected data on each case’s geographic scale, primaryplanning objective and outcome, legal and institutional context, degree of stakeholder involvement, and theecological criteria and tools used to facilitate conservation decisions. The majority of cases were located inNorth and Central America, were regional in nature, and had biodiversity conservation as the primary plan-ning objectives. Outcomes included priority-setting plans and implementation of marine reserves and othertypes of marine protected areas. Governments and local nongovernmental organizations led more partici-patory processes than national and international nongovernmental organizations. Eleven cases consideredecological criteria first, whereas 16 relied on integrated criteria (ecological plus socioeconomic data and otherpragmatic considerations) to select priority areas for conservation and management action. Key tools for dataintegration and synthesis were expert workshops, maps, and reserve-selection algorithms (i.e., computer-basedtools for priority setting and reserve design). To facilitate evaluation of success, future documentation of marineconservation planning cases should include a standard set of ecological, social, economic, and institutionalelements. To develop standards for effective marine conservation, a more diverse set of documented cases isneeded; for example, those that failed were located outside North and Central America, focused on the localgeographic scale, or were motivated by objectives other than biodiversity conservation.

Key Words: ecoregional planning, marine protected areas, marine reserves, priority-setting approaches, reserveselection algorithms, systematic planning

Sıntesis de Estrategias de Planificacion de Conservacion Marina

Resumen: En la ultima decada ha habido mayor interes—particularmente entre organizaciones inter-nacionales no gubernamentales y de desarrollo multilateral—en evaluar la efectividad de los proyectos deconservacion y de desarrollo. Para evaluar el exito, requerimos de informacion, integral y de casos especıficos,sobre como se toman decisiones de conservacion. Analice una base de datos que sintetiza informacion sobre27 casos de planificacion de conservacion marina alrededor del mundo. Para cada caso, recolecte datos de laescala geografica, del objetivo primario de planificacion y su producto, del contexto institucional y legal, elgrado de participacion de los interesados y de los criterios y herramientas ecologicas utilizadas para facilitarlas decisiones de conservacion. La mayorıa de los casos se localizaron en Norte y Centro America, fueron denaturaleza regional, y tuvieron como objetivos primarios de planificacion a la conservacion de biodiversidad.Los productos incluyeron planes de definicion de prioridades y la implementacion de reservas marinas y otrostipos de areas marinas protegidas- Las gobiernos y organizaciones no gubernamentales locales condujeron

∗Current address: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544–1003, U.S.A., email [email protected] received December 10, 2004; revised manuscript accepted June 6, 2005.

1701

Conservation Biology 1701–1713C©2005 Society for Conservation BiologyDOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00268.x

1702 Marine Conservation Planning Leslie

mas procesos participativos que las organizaciones no gubernamentales nacionales e internacionales. Oncecasos consideraron criterios ecologicos en primera instancia, mientras que 16 se basaron en criterios integrales(datos ecologicos y socioeconomicos y otras consideraciones pragmaticas) para seleccionar areas prioritariaspara la conservacion y acciones de manejo. Las herramientas clave para la integracion y sıntesis de datos in-cluyeron talleres de expertos, mapas y algoritmos para la seleccion de reservas (i. e., herramientas de computopara la definicion de prioridades y el diseno de reservas). Para facilitar la evaluacion de exito, la futuradocumentacion de casos de planificacion de conservacion marina debera incluir un conjunto estandar deelementos ecologicos, sociales, economicos e institucionales. Para desarrollar estandares para la conservacionmarina efectiva se requiere de un conjunto mas diverso de casos documentados; por ejemplo, aquellos que fra-casaron estaban localizados fuera de Norte y Centro America, estaban enfocados en la escala local o estabanmotivados por objetivos distintos a la conservacion de la biodiversidad.

Palabras Clave: algoritmos para seleccion de reservas, areas protegidas marinas, estrategias para el establec-imiento de prioridades, planificacion ecoregional, planificacion sistematica, reservas marinas

Introduction

Marine ecosystems face increasing threats from bothland- and sea-based anthropogenic activities, includingpollution, exploitation, invasive species, habitat degrada-tion and loss, and climate change (Pew Oceans Commis-sion 2003; U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 2004; Mil-lennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Mitigating thesethreats requires a suite of strategies, including develop-ing institutions and incentives that encourage conserva-tion and sustainability, building awareness of the value ofbiodiversity, and protecting key species and ecosystemsthrough protected areas and other area-based manage-ment strategies (Salafsky et al. 2002). Implementation ofprotected areas and other area-based management strate-gies, in particular, requires that priorities be set in a geo-graphically explicit manner so as to make efficient use oflimited resources. Such priority setting is often referred toas systematic conservation planning and is based on clearobjectives, with specific conservation targets and an ex-plicit and transparent decision-making framework (Mar-gules & Pressey 2000). Although the primary planningobjective is often biodiversity conservation (Groves 2003;Noss 2003; Redford et al. 2003), other objectives may in-clude sustaining ecosystem services, preserving culturaland spiritual values, and providing places for research andeducation (Daily et al. 2000; National Research Council2001).

In the last decade, there has been increasing interest—particularly among international nongovernmental andmultilateral development organizations—in evaluatingthe effectiveness of conservation and developmentprojects (Margoluis & Salafsky 1998; Salafsky et al. 2002;Conservation Measures Partnership 2003; Saterson et al.2004). Evaluation is needed to learn which conservationapproaches work and why, to demonstrate the impactof conservation, and to provide public and internal ac-countability (Stem et al. 2005). Success may be definedby a multitude of social, economic, political, cultural orecological criteria but should be explicitly linked to theproject’s objectives and specific activities (Conservation

Measures Partnership 2003; Saterson et al. 2004). To eval-uate success, more comprehensive and case-specific in-formation on how conservation decisions are made isneeded (Conservation Measures Partnership 2003; Sater-son et al. 2004). Ideally, such documentation would in-clude information on project objectives and outcomes,the decision-making process, and measures of success(Kleiman et al. 2000).

Although governments and nongovernmental organiza-tions have engaged in systematic conservation planningfor decades, few comparative analyses of the approachestaken on land exist ( Johnson 1995; Redford et al. 2003)or in the sea (Beck 2003; Lourie & Vincent 2004). Ma-rine conservation planning efforts have benefited greatlyfrom the more developed science and practice of ter-restrial conservation planning (Beck 2003). Nonetheless,knowledge of differences between terrestrial and marinesystems—in terms of both the biogeophysical realm (Carret al. 2003) and resource management and governanceinstitutions (National Research Council 1997)—suggeststhat an explicit synthesis and evaluation of marine conser-vation planning approaches is needed. Here I report ona database designed to facilitate the documentation andsynthesis of marine conservation planning approachesglobally and describe preliminary trends that emerge fromthe cases in the database thus far. To explore the eco-logical and social elements that contribute to conserva-tion success, I focused on the following questions: Wherehave marine conservation planning cases been well doc-umented? What was the geographic extent of these cases,and who participated? What contributions did natural sci-ence make to the planning processes? What attributeswere shared among successful cases, and how can thisinformation be used to develop standards for effectivemarine conservation planning?

Methods

To investigate the ecological and social attributes thatcontribute to conservation success, I conducted an initial

Conservation BiologyVolume 19, No. 6, December 2005

Leslie Marine Conservation Planning 1703

survey of marine conservation planning processes glob-ally and assembled a list of 90 cases (available on requestfrom H.M.L.). Based on this initial survey, I developed adatabase in Microsoft Excel (Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.)that captured the major features of each case (available onthe Web, see Supplementary Material). I collected data oneach case’s geographic scale, primary planning objectiveand outcome, legal and institutional context, degree ofstakeholder involvement, and the ecological criteria andtools used to facilitate conservation decisions. To fullyevaluate conservation success, data on monitoring, thesocial and economic criteria used to make decisions, andindicators of project success also would be useful. Thesevariables were not available for most cases, however, sothey were not included in the database. In terms of geo-graphic scale, each case was scored as local (i.e., limitedto one community), regional (i.e., transcending state ornational boundaries), national, or global. When possible,information was collected on the spatial extent of boththe planning region and individual planning units.

Each case focused on one of three outcomes: marinereserve implementation, implementation of a less restric-tive type of marine protected area (MPA), or priority-setting plans. Although these three outcomes are notmutually exclusive, in each case a primary outcome wasapparent. Marine reserves (or no-take areas) are areas ofthe ocean completely protected from all extractive or de-structive activities, except as necessary for monitoring toevaluate reserve effectiveness (National Research Council2001; Lubchenco et al. 2003). Marine protected areas in-clude all area-based management efforts designated to en-hance conservation of marine resources or meet other ob-jectives of ocean management (National Research Coun-cil 2001; Lubchenco et al. 2003). The actual level of pro-tection of living marine resources within a particular MPAvaries considerably. Priority-setting plans are portfolios orlists of priority areas used to direct conservation and man-agement activities such as MPA implementation or envi-ronmental education. The term priority setting encom-passes biodiversity conservation planning (Groves 2003)and marine regional planning (Beck 2003). I use the for-mer term because not all priority-setting plans in the ma-rine environment are focused primarily on biodiversityconservation (Table 1, Bahamas and Fiordland cases).

Information from a variety of natural and social sciencedisciplines can be used to inform conservation planningdecisions and thus is relevant to evaluating conservationsuccess. As a starting point, I focused on how natural sci-ence was used to help make conservation planning de-cisions. Preliminary examination of the cases suggestedthree major roles for natural science in marine conserva-tion planning: (1) to inform selection of conservation tar-gets; (2) to provide guidance on the choice of ecologicalcriteria used to select priority areas; and (3) to developand apply scientific tools for information synthesis andpriority area selection.

Conservation targets include species and ecosystems,physical features, or a combination of biotic and abioticelements (Groves et al. 2002). In many cases, marine habi-tats serve as biodiversity surrogates and are assumed toincorporate other targets such as species (Beck 2003).

Most conservation planning processes, particularlythose focused on reserve or MPA implementation, arebased on explicit ecological or socioeconomic criteriaused to identify priority areas ( Johnson 1995). In eachcase, I examined which ecological criteria were used to in-form decision making. These criteria were adapted froma review of ecological criteria for marine reserve designconducted by Roberts et al. (2003) and included elementsrelated to biodiversity values, sustaining marine fisheriesand other ecosystem services, and the degree of anthro-pogenic and natural threats.

Scientists also may design and apply tools for data inte-gration and synthesis as part of conservation planning ef-forts. Such tools help ensure a transparent and defensibleprocess and make the most efficient use of available re-sources (Margules & Pressey 2000). Three main decision-support tools were used: expert workshops, maps, andreserve selection algorithms (i.e., computer-based toolsfor priority setting and reserve design). Expert (or Delphi)workshops bring together people knowledgeable aboutthe ecological, social, and economic aspects of the iden-tified study region (Groves 2003). Maps included analog,digital, and geographic information system (GIS) sources.Computer-based tools for reserve design included heuris-tic and simulated annealing algorithms (e.g., SPEXAN,SITES, and MARXAN) used to generate networks of pro-tected or priority areas (Possingham et al. 2000; Palumbi& Warner 2003).

Full documentation was not available for any of thecases I surveyed initially, so I selected 27 focal cases basedon the following criteria: (1) the case included, but wasnot necessarily restricted to, coastal and marine areas andhad explicit spatial boundaries; (2) the planning processwas led by an identifiable institution, and more than onegroup of stakeholders was involved; (3) specific planningobjectives and conservation targets were articulated; (4)the planning process was either completed or sufficientlydeveloped to result in specific, real-world marine conser-vation and management activities; and (5) documentationof at least 60% of the variables in the database was avail-able from English-language publications (including jour-nal articles, organizational reports and documents, andWeb sites). In all cases, I conducted interviews with keyinformants who participated in the planning processesto verify the accuracy of data collected from the writtendocuments and to fill in missing information.

This paper is not meant to be exhaustive, but rather tostimulate dialog. To my knowledge, this work is the firsteffort to synthesize such detailed information on a num-ber of marine conservation planning cases globally. Somecaution is warranted in interpreting these data, however.



Tabl

e1.

Key

feat

ures

ofth

e27

foca

lmar

ine

cons

erva

tion

plan

ning

case

sex

amin

ed.

Pri

ma

ryP

rim

ary

Lea

den

tity

Pla

nn

ing

regi

on

Pri

ma

ryLo

cati

on

Sca

leobje

ctiv

e∗ou

tcom

ea

nd

pa

rtn

ers

size

(km

2)

con

serv

ati

on

targ

ets

Ref

eren

ce

Bah

amas

nat

ion

al1

pri

ori

ty-s

etti

ng

pla

nB

aham

asR

eef

Envi

ron

men

tEd

uca

tio

nal

Fou

nd

atio

n,B

aham

asD

ept.

of

Fish

erie

s

20,0

00re

efan

dm

angr

ove

hab

itat

;co

mm

erci

ally

valu

able

fish

erie

s

Sto

ner

etal

.199

9

Ber

ing

Sea,

Ru

ssia

and

U.S

.A.

regi

on

al2

pri

ori

ty-s

etti

ng

pla

nN

atu

reC

on

serv

ancy

(TN

C),

Wo

rld

Wild

life

Fun

d(W

WF

)

1,43

2,96

5u

niq

ue

spec

ies

or

hab

itat

asse

mb

lage

s,ar

eas

of

ou

tsta

nd

ing

abu

nd

ance

s,ke

yto

eco

logi

calp

hen

om

ena,

e.g.

,mig

rati

on

Ban

kset

al.1

999

Bri

tish

Co

lum

bia

Cen

tral

Co

ast,

Can

ada

regi

on

al2

MPA

net

wo

rkLi

vin

gO

cean

sSo

ciet

y22

,303

pri

mar

ilyh

abit

atty

pes

,bu

tal

sosp

ecie

so

fsp

ecia

lco

nce

rnA

rdro

net

al.

2002

Cen

tral

Car

ibb

ean

Eco

regi

on

regi

on

al2

pri

ori

ty-s

etti

ng

pla

nT

NC

,Bio

div

ersi

tySu

pp

ort

Pro

gram

,U.S

.A

gen

cyfo

rIn

tern

atio

nal

Dev

elo

pm

ent

2,65

4,94

5n

atu

ralc

om

mu

nit

ies,

incl

ud

ing

cora

lree

fsan

dco

ral-a

sso

ciat

edsp

ecie

s

Sulli

van

Seal

ey&

Bu

stam

ante

1999

Ch

ann

elIs

lan

ds

Nat

ion

alM

arin

eSa

nct

uar

y,U

.S.A

.

regi

on

al1,

2M

PAn

etw

ork

U.S

.Nat

ion

alM

arin

eSa

nct

uar

yP

rogr

am,

stat

eo

fC

alif

orn

ia

4,29

5p

rim

arily

hab

itat

typ

es,a

lso

spec

ies

of

spec

ialc

on

cern

Air

ame

etal

.20

03

Ch

ile:C

alet

aEl

Qu

isco

Man

agem

ent

&Ex

plo

itat

ion

Are

a

loca

l1

MPA

Sin

dic

ato

del

Qu

isco

(lo

calf

ish

ers’

coo

per

ativ

e)

no

tav

aila

ble

com

mer

cial

lyva

luab

lesp

ecie

sC

asti

lla&

Fern

and

ez19

98C

hile

:Pu

nta

ElLa

cho

,La

sC

ruce

slo

cal

3m

arin

ere

serv

eEs

taci

on

Co

ster

ad

eIn

vest

igac

ion

esM

arin

a,U

niv

ersi

dad

Cat

olic

ad

eC

hile

no

tav

aila

ble

inte

rtid

alh

abit

atC

asti

lla&

Du

ran

1985

Co

ralr

eef

ho

tsp

ots

glo

bal

2p

rio

rity

-set

tin

gp

lan

Co

nse

rvat

ion

Inte

rnat

ion

al(C

I),

vari

ou

su

niv

ersi

ties

,N

GO

s,U

.N.

Envi

ron

men

tP

rogr

amm

e

284,

300

rest

rict

ed-r

ange

cora

lree

fsp

ecie

sas

ind

icat

ors

of

reef

bio

div

ersi

tyh

ots

po

tsgl

ob

ally

Ro

ber

tset

al.

2002

East

ern

Afr

ica

Mar

ine

Eco

regi

on

regi

on

al2

pri

ori

ty-s

etti

ng

pla

nW

WF

727,

174

six

coas

talh

abit

ats

(man

gro

ves,

reef

s,se

agra

ssb

eds,

wet

lan

ds)

and

nu

mb

ero

fsp

ecie

so

fsp

ecia

lco

nce

rn(e

.g.,

bir

ds,

mam

mal

s,tu

rtle

s,sh

arks

)

Ho

rrill

2002

(con

tin

ued

)



Tabl

e1.

(con

tinue

d)

Pri

ma

ryP

rim

ary

Lea

den

tity

Pla

nn

ing

regi

on

Pri

ma

ryLo

cati

on

Sca

leobje

ctiv

e∗ou

tcom

ea

nd

pa

rtn

ers

size

(km

2)

con

serv

ati

on

targ

ets

Ref

eren

ce

Fio

rdla

nd

,New

Zea

lan

dre

gio

nal

1,2

pri

ori

ty-s

etti

ng

pla

nG

uar

dia

ns

of

Fio

rdla

nd

s’s

Fish

erie

s&

Mar

ine

Envi

ron

men

t

4,07

6m

arin

eh

abit

ats,

com

mu

nit

ies,

and

bio

div

ersi

ty(i

ncl

ud

ing

ind

icat

or

and

exp

loit

edsp

ecie

s)th

atre

pre

sen

tFi

ord

lan

d’s

mar

ine

envi

ron

men

to

rar

eh

ots

po

tso

fb

iod

iver

sity

Gu

ard

ian

so

fFi

ord

lan

d’s

Fish

erie

s&

Mar

ine

Envi

ron

men

t20

03

Flo

rid

aK

eys

Nat

ion

alM

arin

eSa

nct

uar

y:sa

nct

uar

yp

rese

rvat

ion

area

s,U

.S.A

.

regi

on

al2

rese

rve

net

wo

rkU

.S.N

atio

nal

Mar

ine

San

ctu

ary

Pro

gram

9,50

0h

abit

atty

pes

of

inte

rest

and

deg

ree

of

use

rco

nfl

ict

Bo

hn

sack

1997

Gal

apag

os

Isla

nd

s,Ec

uad

or

regi

on

al2

rese

rve

net

wo

rkC

har

les

Dar

win

Res

earc

hSt

atio

n,G

alap

ago

sN

atio

nal

Park

Serv

ice,

WW

F

6,17

7co

asta

lan

dn

ears

ho

reh

abit

atty

pes

and

spec

ies

of

spec

ial

con

cern

Ben

sted

-Sm

ith

2002

Glo

bal

glo

bal

2p

rio

rity

-set

tin

gp

lan

Wo

rld

Ban

k,W

orl

dC

on

serv

atio

nU

nio

n,

and

Gre

atB

arri

erR

eef

Mar

ine

Park

Au

tho

rity

(GB

RM

PA)

361,

059,

000

eco

syst

ems

and

spec

ies

of

spec

ialc

on

cern

Kel

leh

eret

al.

1995

Glo

bal

200

glo

bal

2p

rio

rity

-set

tin

gp

lan

WW

F36

1,05

9,00

0ec

ore

gio

ns,

i.e.,

rela

tive

lyla

rge

area

sd

elin

eate

db

yb

ioti

can

den

viro

nm

enta

lfac

tors

that

regu

late

the

stru

ctu

rean

dfu

nct

ion

of

eco

syst

ems

wit

hin

them

and

foca

ltax

a

Ols

on

&D

iner

stei

n20

02

Gre

atB

arri

erR

eef

Mar

ine

Park

:R

epre

sen

tati

veA

reas

Pro

gram

,Au

stra

lia

regi

on

al2

rese

rve

net

wo

rkG

BR

MPA

345,

400

eco

syst

ems

pri

mar

ilyan

du

niq

ue

spec

ies

Day

etal

.200

3

Gu

lfo

fC

alif

orn

ia,

Mex

ico

regi

on

al2

rese

rve

net

wo

rkSc

rip

ps

Inst

itu

tio

no

fO

cean

ogr

aph

y,W

WF

120,

000

pri

mar

ilyh

abit

atty

pes

;als

ore

efsp

ecie

sri

chn

ess,

spaw

nin

gag

greg

atio

nsi

tes,

and

site

sw

ith

low

erfi

shin

gp

ress

ure

Sala

etal

.200

2

Mes

oam

eric

anR

eef:

Mex

ico

,Bel

ize,

Gu

atem

ala,

and

Ho

nd

ura

s

regi

on

al2

pri

ori

ty-s

etti

ng

pla

nW

WF

464,

263

foca

ltax

a,gu

ilds,

and

hab

itat

su

sed

assu

rro

gate

sfo

rsp

ecie

so

ccu

rren

ces

Kra

mer

etal

.20

02

(con

tin

ued

)



Tabl

e1.

(con

tinue

d)

Pri

ma

ryP

rim

ary

Lea

den

tity

Pla

nn

ing

regi

on

Pri

ma

ryLo

cati

on

Sca

leobje

ctiv

e∗ou

tcom

ea

nd

pa

rtn

ers

size

(km

2)

con

serv

ati

on

targ

ets

Ref

eren

ce

Mid

-Atl

anti

cP

rio

rity

Oce

anA

reas

,U.S

.A.

regi

on

al2

pri

ori

ty-s

etti

ng

pla

nN

atu

ralR

eso

urc

esD

efen

seC

ou

nci

l36

7,00

0h

abit

ats

of

hig

hb

iod

iver

sity

,o

rgan

ism

alab

un

dan

ce,o

ro

fim

po

rtan

cefo

rth

reat

ened

and

end

ange

red

spec

ies

Azi

mi2

001

New

Zea

lan

das

of

2002

nat

ion

al3

rese

rve

net

wo

rkN

ewZ

eala

nd

Dep

artm

ent

of

Co

nse

rvat

ion

160,

000

hab

itat

typ

eso

fin

tere

st,

par

ticu

larl

yu

niq

ue

on

esW

alls

1998

No

rth

ern

Gu

lfo

fM

exic

oEc

ore

gio

n,U

.S.A

.re

gio

nal

2p

rio

rity

-set

tin

gp

lan

TN

C,U

.S.E

nvi

ron

men

tal

Pro

tect

ion

Age

ncy

33,6

00ei

ght

bio

logi

cal

com

mu

nit

ies/

hab

itat

typ

esan

dfi

vep

rim

ary

spec

ies

of

inte

rest

Bec

k&

Od

aya

2001

No

rth

wes

tA

tlan

tic

(Gu

lfo

fM

ain

e/B

ayo

fFu

ndy

/Sco

tian

Shel

f/G

eorg

esB

ank)

,U

.S.A

.an

dC

anad

a

regi

on

al2

pri

ori

ty-s

etti

ng

pla

nW

WF,

Co

nse

rvat

ion

Law

Fou

nd

atio

n,o

ther

NG

Os

800,

000

seas

cap

esas

pro

xie

sfo

rb

iolo

gica

lco

mm

un

itie

s,h

abit

ats,

and

spec

ies

of

inte

rest

san

dd

istr

ibu

tio

no

ffo

cals

pec

ies

and

eco

logi

cal

pro

cess

es

Day

&R

off

2000

No

rth

wes

tern

Haw

aiia

nIs

lan

ds

Co

ralR

eef

Eco

syst

emR

eser

ve’s

Res

erve

Pre

serv

atio

nA

reas

,U.S

.A.

regi

on

al2

MPA

net

wo

rkU

.S.N

atio

nal

Oce

anic

and

Atm

osp

her

icA

dm

inis

trat

ion

341,

360

pro

tect

edsp

ecie

san

dec

osy

stem

so

fin

tere

sth

ttp

://h

awai

iree

f.n

oaa

.go

v/

Ph

ilip

pin

esn

atio

nal

2p

rio

rity

-set

tin

gp

lan

CI,

Ph

ilip

pin

ego

vern

men

t,u

niv

ersi

ties

2,20

0,00

0h

abit

ats

(e.g

.,m

angr

ove

s,re

efs,

and

seag

rass

bed

s)an

dsp

ecie

so

fsp

ecia

lco

nce

rn(e

.g.,

du

gon

g,ce

tace

ans,

elas

mo

bra

nch

es,t

urt

les)

On

get

al.2

002

San

Juan

Co

un

tyB

ott

om

fish

Rec

ove

ryZ

on

es,U

.S.A

.

loca

l1

MPA

San

Juan

Co

un

tyM

arin

eR

eso

urc

esC

om

mit

tee

2,43

5h

isto

rica

llyp

rod

uct

ive

bo

tto

mfi

shh

abit

ats

Klin

ger

2001

Sou

thA

fric

an

atio

nal

2p

rio

rity

-set

tin

gp

lan

gove

rnm

ent

of

Sou

thA

fric

a1,

050,

000

vuln

erab

leh

abit

ats

and

spec

ies

(par

ticu

larl

yen

dem

ic,r

are,

exp

loit

able

spec

ies)

Ho

ckey

&B

ran

ch19

97

Tort

uga

sEc

olo

gica

lR

eser

ve,F

lori

da

Key

sN

atio

nal

Mar

ine

San

ctu

ary,

U.S

.A.

regi

on

al2

mar

ine

rese

rve

U.S

.Nat

ion

alM

arin

eSa

nct

uar

yP

rogr

am9,

500

hab

itat

s,h

igh

bio

div

ersi

tyar

eas,

area

so

fim

po

rtan

ceto

com

mer

cial

lyan

dre

crea

tio

nal

lyva

luab

lesp

ecie

s

htt

p:/

/ww

w.f

knm

s.n

os.

no

aa.g

ov/

tort

uga

s

Will

amet

teV

alle

y-P

uge

tTr

ou

gh-G

eorg

iaB

asin

Eco

regi

on

,U.S

.A.a

nd

Can

ada

regi

on

al2

pri

ori

ty-s

etti

ng

pla

nT

NC

,Was

hin

gto

nD

ept.

of

Nat

ura

lRes

ou

rces

,Fis

han

dW

ildlif

e,U

.S.F

ish

and

Wild

life

Serv

ice

15,0

9713

4ta

rget

s,in

clu

din

g40

eco

syst

emty

pes

and

94fo

cal

spec

ies

Bec

k20

03

∗ Pri

ma

rypla

nn

ing

obje

ctiv

es:1

,su

sta

ina

ble

fish

erie

s;2

,bio

div

ersi

tyco

nse

rva

tion

;3,s

cien

tifi

cre

sea

rch

.



In some cases the primary objective and other key vari-ables had to be inferred because they were not explic-itly reported. The iterative nature of planning processesmay complicate interpretation of the stakeholder groupsinvolved and the criteria and tools used. This databasecan serve as a prototype of what could be a very usefulresource for future planning, implementation, and evalu-ation of marine conservation efforts.

Results

Characteristics of the Focal Cases

The majority of the 27 focal cases were in North and Cen-tral America (Table 1). Thirteen were within the U.S. Ex-clusive Economic Zone (0 to 200 nautical miles offshore).Seventeen cases had “regional” planning areas, meaningthey transcended political boundaries and were based pri-marily on biogeographic boundaries. Three cases wereglobal in focus. The geographic scale of the nonglobalcases varied from 2,435 to 2,654,945 km2, with an aver-age region size of 486,618 km2 and median size of 160,000km2 (Table 1).

Biodiversity conservation was the primary objective in22 cases (Fig. 1a, Table 1). Creation of areas for scientificresearch was the lead objective in two cases, and sus-tainable fisheries were the primary objective in five cases(Fig. 1a). Two cases had dual primary aims of biodiversityconservation and sustainable fisheries: Channel Islands,United States (Airame et al. 2003), and Fiordland, NewZealand (Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries & Marine En-vironment 2003).

Planners selected priority or protected areas in eachcase based either on a standardized set of units (e.g., 2.5-km2 hexagons or 1◦ grid squares) or on a set of differ-ently sized units delineated by environmental or politicalfactors. Of those cases for which planning unit size wasreported, two-thirds included variably sized units. Themean size of individual planning units ranged from 0.3to 1.1 × 106 km2, with an average of 67,000 km2 and amedian of 740 km2 (n = 22 cases). As planning region in-creased, mean individual priority area and total protectedor priority area increased (n = 21 cases).

Governments and nongovernmental organizationsboth led planning processes (Table 1). Governments weremore active in MPA and reserve implementation efforts.Nongovernmental organizations dominated initiatives fo-cused on priority-setting plans. Universities and multilat-eral institutions (e.g., World Conservation Union) rarelyplayed a lead role. Based on the average number of stake-holder groups involved in cases led by each institutiontype, government and local nongovernmental organiza-tions led more participatory processes than national andinternational nongovernmental organizations (Fig. 1b).Completed or more fully developed processes seemedto include more stakeholder groups.

Outcomes of Marine Conservation Planning

Of the 27 marine conservation planning cases evaluated,15 focused on production of priority-setting plans (Table1), which were particularly common at the regional andglobal political scales. Four cases involved implementa-tion of marine reserves or reserve networks; the othereight focused on the implementation of other types ofMPAs or MPA networks. At the local and regional scales,

Figure 1. (a) Objectives and (b) stakeholderinvolvement in the marine conservation planningcases. Primary objectives included biodiversityconservation, areas for scientific research, andsustainable fisheries management. The mean numberof stakeholder groups involved in each process ispresented as a function of the type of lead institution.Institution types: 1, federal government; 2, countygovernment; 3, local nongovernmental organization(NGO); 4, international NGO; 5, national NGO; 6,multilateral institution; and 7, university. The numberof cases per institution type is listed above each bar.



cases tended to focus on marine reserve or MPA imple-mentation.

An example of a priority-setting plan is the Mid-Atlan-tic case led by the Natural Resources Defense Council(NRDC). The Council convened scientists with expertisein Mid-Atlantic marine species and ecosystems to identifypriority areas. Participants chose candidate areas basedon seven major criteria and their knowledge of the re-gion. They produced a composite map of all the candi-date sites. Areas of great overlap were designated priorityareas (Azimi 2001; L. Speer, personal communication).As a first step, NRDC used the portfolio of priority areasto advocate for changes in fisheries management throughthe Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council process (L.Speer, personal communication).

An example of MPA network implementation tookplace in the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary.The sanctuary and state of California jointly coordinated amarine reserve working group, which was charged withdesigning a network of reserves and other less-restrictivetypes of MPAs to meet biodiversity conservation and fish-eries management objectives (Airame et al. 2003). The2-year process was highly participatory and public. State-of-the-art natural and social science information gener-ated by scientists from government, nongovernmentalorganizations, and universities played key roles. In April2003, California implemented an MPA network that en-compasses approximately 25% of state waters surround-ing the Channel Islands; complementary federal actionis expected in 2006 (http://www.cinms.nos.noaa.gov/marineres/enviro review.html).

Role of Natural Science in Marine Conservation Planning

Decision makers considered both fine-scale (species) andcoarse-scale targets (ecosystems, habitats) in 25 of the27 cases (Table 1). Although the majority of cases em-phasized ecosystem-based approaches, 25 cases includedsome species-level targets, often those deemed focal, key-stone, or umbrella species (see supplementary material inonline article).

Planners considered ecological criteria first in 11 ofthe 27 cases, whereas they relied on integrated crite-ria (ecological plus socioeconomic data and other prag-matic considerations) in 16 cases to select priority areasfor conservation and management action. None of thedocumented cases considered social and economic cri-teria first. Explicit ecological criteria were considered in26 cases. Nongovernmental organizations tended to giveecological criteria priority, whereas government-led ini-tiatives tended to integrate social and economic criteriainto the decision-making processes earlier and more ex-plicitly. Presence of species of special concern, represen-tation of biogeographic regions and habitat types, andinclusion of vulnerable habitats and life stages were con-sidered in at least 20 of the 27 cases (Fig. 2). The criterion

Figure 2. Ecological criteria used to inform marineconservation decisions were scored as “included” ifthey were articulated in the published documentationor in interviews. Criteria: 1, species of special concern;2, biogeographic representation; 3, habitatrepresentation; 4, vulnerable habitats; 5, vulnerablelife stages; 6, exploitable species; 7, connectivity; 8,ecosystem functioning; 9, anthropogenic catastrophes;10, size; 11, natural catastrophes; and 12, ecosystemservices.

considered least often was the provision of ecosystem ser-vices such as nursery grounds for fisheries, clean water,protection from storm damage, and areas for recreation(Peterson & Lubchenco 1997).

Connectivity was included as a criterion in 15 cases.Marine scientists have documented multiple mechanismsby which marine ecosystems are connected through themovement of nutrients and other resources (Dugginset al. 1989; Bustamante et al. 1995), larvae (Palumbi &Warner 2003), or adult organisms ( Johnson et al. 1999).Such linkages are critical to the maintenance of func-tioning marine populations and ecosystems and enablepopulations, species, and ecosystems to persist at spa-tial scales beyond that of a single site (Lubchenco et al.2003; Roberts et al. 2003). In addition, 17 cases men-tioned the desirability of a network approach in draftingpriority areas for conservation. Interestingly, there wasnot a one-to-one coherence between these two variables.That is, not all processes that alluded to networks nec-essarily considered connectivity explicitly, or vice versa.The term network can have more than one connotation,which may explain the discrepancy. For some decisionmakers, a network is simply a set of complementary sites.For others, the term relates to connectivity and the eco-logical relationships and processes that link sites in thenetwork.

In terms of scientific tools, expert workshops wereused in all 27 cases. Experts were most often scientistsand resource managers, but in some cases included other



stakeholders such as fishers and local residents. In somecases, such as in the Eastern African Marine Ecore-gion (Horrill 2002) or the Galapagos Islands of Ecuador(Bensted-Smith 2002), expert workshops were used todevelop a common vision of conservation action for thearea. In other cases, such as in the Bering Sea (Banks etal. 1999) and the Mid-Atlantic region (Azimi 2001), theassembled experts actually drew lines on maps and pro-duced a list of priority areas for conservation action.

Maps were used to help make decisions in 24 cases.The distributions of habitat, target species, or resourceuse (e.g., fishing, recreation) were mapped in GIS in atleast 17 cases. In the northwestern Hawaiian Islands, forexample, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion staff initially relied on nautical charts and sketched ininformation from scientists, managers, fishers, and con-servationists about fisheries effort and vulnerable habi-tats to locate the Sanctuary Preservation Areas (R. Griffis,personal communication). Researchers from Scripps In-stitute of Oceanography and the World Wildlife Fund usedGIS to visualize the distributions of habitat, reef fish, andfishing pressure in the Gulf of California (Sala et al. 2002).

Computer-based tools for priority setting and reservedesign (i.e., reserve-selection algorithms such as SPEXAN,SITES, and MARXAN) were used in eight cases. Thesetools were used to identify potential networks of sites thatmet explicit conservation objectives. Conservation goals(e.g., representation of a certain proportion of marinepopulations or habitats) were formulated as constraintswithin a cost function (Possingham et al. 2000). In thenorthern Gulf of Mexico, for example, The Nature Con-servancy used SITES to help prioritize coastal and marineactivities in the region (Beck & Odaya 2001). In the Gulf ofCalifornia, Sala et al. used MARXAN to help create alterna-tive reserve network configurations that met biodiversityobjectives while minimizing costs to fishers in the region(Sala et al. 2002). In the Great Barrier Reef Park of Australia(S. Slegers, personal communication) and in the ChannelIslands of southern California (Airame et al. 2003), stake-holder groups explored possible reserve network con-figurations with similar tools. The Gulf of California andAustralia cases were among the first marine applicationsto explicitly incorporate socioeconomic constraints byusing reserve-selection algorithms, which enabled plan-ners to examine the trade-offs among different conserva-tion goals and network configurations. All eight of thesecases are part of ongoing marine conservation planningefforts.

Discussion

Evaluating Conservation Success

Measuring the effectiveness of a conservation project re-quires an explicit link between project objectives, activ-ities, and indicators of success (Conservation Measures

Partnership 2003; Saterson et al. 2004; Stem et al. 2005).Indicators of success should be focused on specific con-servation objectives and be measurable, precise, consis-tent, and sensitive (Conservation Measures Partnership2003). In addition to biological indicators, social, politi-cal, and economic data are needed (Saterson et al. 2004;Stem et al. 2005). The 27 focal cases were all “successes”in the sense that their objectives, outcomes, and decision-making processes were well documented and had somemeasure of stakeholder support. Almost every case hada clear primary planning objective; in the majority ofcases, this was biodiversity conservation. It was muchless common to have specific, lower-level objectives thatmet the standards of the Conservation Measures Partner-ship (2003): “impact oriented, measurable, time limited,specific, and practical.” Also, the majority of cases focusedon the regional scale, where the planning region was de-lineated based on biogeographic rather than politicalboundaries. The planning processes—from identifyingobjectives and conservation targets, integrating relevantinformation, and identifying priority areas for conser-vation and management to implementing appropriatestrategies—engaged multiple institutions and stakeholdergroups.

In several cases—Gulf of California (Sala et al. 2002),Channel Islands (Airame et al. 2003), Willamette Valley-Puget Trough-Georgia Basin ecoregion (Ferdana 2002;Beck 2003), and Great Barrier Reef (Day et al. 2003)—theintegration of natural science knowledge into the plan-ning processes was particularly well documented andtransparent. These cases serve as successful models, atleast in terms of the detail, extent, and clarity with whichkey features of each case were conveyed in printed andonline materials and the degree to which natural sciencewas used. Ecologists from academia, government, andnongovernmental organizations were key players in eachcase, providing technical expertise and detailed knowl-edge of the ecological dynamics of the regions of interest.Also, conservation targets and tools were well matchedto the primary planning objectives. That is, all four casesrelied primarily (although not exclusively) on informa-tion about habitat and ecosystem conservation targetsto set conservation goals and select priority areas thatmet their primary objective, mainly biodiversity conser-vation. This trend differed from some earlier cases (e.g.,Bering Sea), where priority setting relied more heavilyon species-based conservation targets even though thestated primary objective also was biodiversity conserva-tion. This difference may have partly been due to the avail-ability of information or to variation in the lower-level,more specific objectives in each case. This topic war-rants further research. Although including both speciesand ecosystem-based targets resonates with current scien-tific understanding, there have been few systematic testsof the value of using species versus ecosystems as targetsin marine systems (Ward et al. 1999; Gladstone 2002).



Ideally, conservation success would be evaluated bycomparing a random sample of cases (a mix of successesand failures) based on clear and standardized ecological,social, and economic indicators. As of December 2003,however, such indicators were available for few of thesecases. That is not to say that these cases will not be eval-uated in the future; for example, in the Channel Islands(NOAA 2003; CDFG 2004) and Great Barrier Reef (http://www.reeffutures.org/topics/monitoring/review.cfm)monitoring is ongoing. Also, in Fiordland, New Zealand,planners have identified a number of social and eco-logical indicators of success (Guardians of Fiordland’sFisheries & Marine Environment 2003). In other cases, itmay be that monitoring plans and results exist but havenot been widely disseminated.

The database that I created, along with other recentefforts (Beck 2003; Lourie & Vincent 2004), provides astrong starting point for assessing success of marine con-servation planning cases and developing standards of ef-fective practice. Ideally, documentation of marine con-servation planning cases would include a standard set ofecological, social, economic, and institutional elementsso that cases could be more systematically compared.Future documentation of marine conservation planningefforts should include the following elements: (1) loca-tion; (2) geographic scope (e.g., the size of the planningregion, planning units, and priority areas); (3) primaryplanning objectives and specific measurable lower-levelobjectives; (4) primary obstacles or threats to achievingthe planning objectives; (5) primary and secondary out-comes, including unexpected outcomes; (6) chronologyof the planning process (e.g., length and planning and im-plementation milestones); (7) lead institution and partnerorganizations; (8) degree and form of stakeholder involve-ment; (9) key legal, institutional, and social mechanismsused to achieve the planning objectives; (10) primary con-servation targets and quantitative conservation goals; (11)ecological, social, economic, and pragmatic criteria usedto select priority areas; (12) scientific tools used; (13)monitoring (e.g., lead institution, social, economic, andecological indicators of project success), and temporalextent and frequency of monitoring; (14) project evalua-tion (e.g., links among indicators and planning objectives,outcomes, targets, and goals); and (15) sources of infor-mation and key contacts.

With further development of case-specific, comprehen-sive databases like this one, we would be in a markedlybetter position to develop scientifically informed stan-dards of marine conservation planning and to advancethe protection of marine biodiversity and sustainable useof marine resources. I reported on a number of the aboveelements, including geographic scale, primary planningobjective and outcome, legal and institutional context,degree of stakeholder involvement, and the ecological cri-teria and tools used to facilitate conservation decisions.In addition, data on the social and economic context and

outcomes of each case are needed (Christie et al. 2002;Pomeroy et al. 2004; Stem et al. 2005). Neither socioeco-nomic nor monitoring data were available for most cases,indicating the need for more documentation and synthe-sis in these areas. Also, it would valuable to documentmore cases that were located outside North and CentralAmerica, were focused on the local geographic scale (par-ticularly those led by local organizations or coalitions ofstakeholders and institutions), or were motivated by ob-jectives other than biodiversity conservation. We needmore examples of failed cases, as well. Evaluation of suc-cess will require synthesis and collaboration across dis-ciplines and among scientists and practitioners (Satersonet al. 2004).

Outstanding Research Questions

Targeted research in several areas would strengthen thescientific basis of marine conservation planning and con-tribute to more effective evaluation of project success.First, approaches to integrating information on ecologi-cal and evolutionary processes into marine conservationplanning need further development and testing. The im-portance of integrating process information into conser-vation planning decisions is increasingly recognized be-cause ecological and evolutionary processes underlie thepersistence of target populations, species, and ecosys-tems (Noss 1996; Cowling et al. 1999; Olson et al. 2002).Yet few marine conservation planning processes explic-itly have incorporated ecological processes as targets orconstraints (see Bering Sea, Gulf of California, and North-west Atlantic cases for exceptions). Critical ecologicalprocesses include larval dispersal, migration, spawningand reproduction, recruitment, and trophic cascades andother interspecific interactions. The spatial distribution ofsuch processes often has been linked with upwelling andproductivity gradients (Menge et al. 2004; Leslie 2005),oceanic fronts (Malakoff 2004), or other oceanographicfeatures. Consequently, oceanographic phenomena mayserve as proxies for ecological processes in some cases,although see Barber et al. (2002) for a notable exception.

Second, it would be productive to examine in greaterdetail how reserve-selection algorithms have been ap-plied in marine conservation planning thus far and inwhich social and ecological contexts they have been mostuseful. Eight of the 27 focal cases used siting tools, andseveral other applications have been initiated since I con-ducted this synthesis (for a list of MARXAN marine appli-cations, see http://www.ecology.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=29781). Moreover, applications to date have fo-cused primarily on representing marine habitats and fo-cal species to meet biodiversity conservation objectives.They have not explicitly integrated ecological conceptssuch as metapopulation dynamics, larval dispersal, or dis-turbance, even though these factors are widely recog-nized as important (Allison et al. 2003; Beck 2003; Roberts



et al. 2003). Some planners have incorporated these fac-tors through expert review (as in the Willamette Valley-Puget Trough and Gulf of Mexico cases) after using an al-gorithm to generate preliminary network configurations(Beck & Odaya 2001; Z. Ferdana, personal communica-tion). Others have used features of the algorithms to im-plicitly incorporate connectivity (Sala et al. 2002; Airameet al. 2003; Day et al. 2003). This research need relatesclosely to the earlier discussion regarding ecological pro-cesses. The large-scale distribution patterns of marinespecies and habitats that are the focus of most marineconservation planning activities are dynamic in space andtime and can be generated by ecological processes (suchas dispersal and predation) that operate on local spatialscales (Guichard et al. 2004). Consequently, it would beworthwhile to explore how reserve selection algorithmscould be adapted to more explicitly integrate informationon the local processes that drive population, community,and ecosystem dynamics (Guichard et al. 2004; Williamset al. 2004).

Finally, further research is needed on the realizedoutcomes, costs, and benefits of marine conservationplanning. Considerable resources have been invested ingenerating and synthesizing scientific knowledge to in-form marine reserve design and other planning activi-ties. These efforts have yielded substantial dividends interms of project implementation and advancement of ma-rine conservation science. Now, greater attention shouldbe focused on evaluating project success. That is, dothese activities make a measurable difference in terms ofthe health and resilience of marine populations, species,ecosystems, and associated human communities? Withbetter documentation of the planning, implementation,and monitoring phases of marine conservation and devel-opment projects, scientists and practitioners will be in aconsiderably stronger position to evaluate the ecological,social, economic, and institutional dimensions of successand to develop standards for effective marine conserva-tion practice.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to S. Adelman, S. Airame, H. Alidina, J. Ardron,M. Beck, R. Bensted-Smith, G. Branch, W. Causey, J. C.Castilla, Z. Ferdana, M. Fernandez, L. Gerber, R. Griffis, R.Hagenstein, B. Haskell, M. Hixon, K. Kassem, G. Kelleher,T. Klinger, J. Lubchenco, M. McField, B. Menge, I. Parra, S.Slegers, K. Walls, T. Werner, and S. Wing for informationand thoughtful discussion. This manuscript was improvedby comments from C. Lundquist, E. Granek, B. Menge, J.Lubchenco, and two anonymous reviewers. I gratefullyacknowledge support from the National Science Foun-dation (NSF) Graduate Fellowship Program, Environmen-tal Defense, Lundeen Marine Biology Fund, and the Part-nership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans:

A Long-Term Ecological Consortium (PISCO). This workwas conducted as part of the Science of Marine ReservesWorking Group supported by the National Center for Eco-logical Analysis and Synthesis, a Center funded by NSF(grant DEB-0072909), the University of California, andthe Santa Barbara campus. Additional vital support (to B.Menge and J. Lubchenco) was provided by the David andLucile Packard Foundation and the A.W. Mellon Founda-tion for PISCO. This is PISCO contribution number 178.

Supplementary Material

The following supplementary material is available for thisarticle online:

Appendix S1. Database of major features of 90 casesof marine conservation planning processes. This materialis available as part of the online article from http://www.blackwell-synergy.com.

Literature Cited

Airame, S., et al. 2003. Applying ecological criteria to marine reservedesign: a case study from the California Channel Islands. EcologicalApplications 13:S170–S184.

Allison, G. W., et al. 2003. Ensuring persistence of marine reserves:catastrophes require adopting an insurance factor. Ecological Appli-cations 13:S8–S24.

Ardron, J. A., J. Lash, and D. Haggarty. 2002. Modelling a network of ma-rine protected areas for the central coast of BC. Version 3.1. LivingOceans Society, Sointula, British Columbia, Canada. Available fromhttp://www.livingoceans.org/files/LOS MPA model v31 web.pdf(accessed April 2005).

Azimi, S. 2001. Priority ocean areas for protection in the mid-Atlantic:findings of NRDC’s marine habitat workshop. Natural Resources De-fense Council, New York.

Banks, D. M., et al. 1999. Ecoregion-based conservation in the BeringSea: identifying important areas for biodiversity conservation. WorldWildlife Fund and The Nature Conservancy of Alaska, Washington,D.C.

Barber, P. H., et al. 2002. A marine Wallace’s line? Nature 406:692–693.Beck, M. W. 2003. The sea around us: marine regional planning. Pages

319–344 in C. R. Groves, editor. Drafting a conservation blueprint: apractitioner’s guide to planning for biodiversity. Island Press, Wash-ington, D.C.

Beck, M. W., and M. Odaya. 2001. Ecoregional planning in marine en-vironments: identifying priority sites for conservation in the north-ern Gulf of Mexico. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and FreshwaterEcosystems 11:235–242.

Bensted-Smith, R., editor. 2002. A biodiversity vision for the GalapagosIslands. Charles Darwin Foundation and World Wildlife Fund, PuertoAyora, Galapagos.

Bohnsack, J. A. 1997. Consensus development and the use of marine re-serves in the Florida Keys, USA. Proceedings of the 8th InternationalCoral Reef Symposium 2:1922–1930.

Bustamante, R. H., et al. 1995. Maintenance of an exceptional intertidalgrazer biomass in South Africa: Subsidy by subtidal kelps. Ecology76:2314–2329.

Carr, M. H., et al. 2003. Comparing marine and terrestrial ecosystems:implications for the design of coastal marine reserves. EcologicalApplications 13:S90–S107.

Castilla, J. C., and L. R. Duran. 1985. Human exclusion from the rockyintertidal zone of central Chile: the effects on Concholepas conc-holepas (Gastropoda). Oikos 45:391–399.


Administrator

Cross-Out

Administrator

Inserted Text

27

Administrator

Text Box

27


Castilla, J. C., and M. Fernandez. 1998. Small-scale benthic fisheries inChile: on co-management and sustainable use of benthic inverte-brates. Ecological Applications 8:S124–132.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2004. Channel Islandsmarine protected areas monitoring plan. CDFG, Sacramento.

Christie, P., et al. 2002. Toward developing a complete understanding: asocial science research agenda for marine protected areas. Fisheries28:22–26.

Conservation Measures Partnership. 2004. Open standards for the prac-tice of conservation. Conservation Measures Partnership, Bethesda,Maryland. Available from http://conservationmeasures.org/CMP/Library/CMP Open Standards v1.0.pdf (accessed April 2005).

Cowling, R. M., et al. 1999. From representation to persistence: require-ments for a sustainable system of conservation areas in the species-rich Mediterranean-climate desert of southern Africa. Diversity andDistributions 5:51–71.

Daily, G. C., et al. 2000. The value of nature and the nature of value.Science 289:395–396.

Day, J. C., and J. C. Roff. 2000. Planning for representative marineprotected areas: a framework for Canada’s oceans. World WildlifeFund Canada, Toronto, Canada. Available from http://www.wwf.ca/NewsAndFacts/Supplemental/marinemain.pdf (accessed April2005).

Day, J., et al. 2003. RAP—an ecosystem level approach to biodiversityprotection planning. Second International Tropical Marine Ecosys-tems Management Symposium (ITMEMS 2). Available from http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp site/management/zoning/documents/ITMEMS paper 23 Mar03 Comp lf-1.pdf (accessed September 2005).

Duggins, D. O., et al. 1989. Magnification of secondary production bykelp detritus in coastal marine ecosystems. Science 245:170–173.

Ferdana, Z. 2002. Approaches to integrating a marine GIS into The Na-ture Conservancy’s ecoregional planning process. Pages 151–158 inJ. Breman, editor. Marine geography: GIS for the oceans and seas.Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands, Washington.

Gladstone, W. G. 2002. The potential value of indicator groups in theselection of marine reserves. Biological Conservation 104:211–220.

Groves, C. R., editor. 2003. Drafting a conservation blueprint: a practi-tioner’s guide to planning for biodiversity. Island Press, Washington,D.C.

Groves, C. R., et al. 2002. Planning for biodiversity conservation: puttingconservation science into practice. BioScience 52:499–512.

Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries & Marine Environment. 2003. Fiord-land marine conservation strategy. Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries& Marine Environment, Invercargill, New Zealand.

Guichard, F., et al. 2004. Toward a dynamic metacommunity approachto marine reserve theory. BioScience 54:1003–1011.

Hockey, P. A. R., and G. M. Branch. 1997. Criteria, objectives, andmethodology for evaluating marine protected areas in South Africa.South African Journal of Marine Science 18:369–383.

Horrill, C. 2002. Proceedings of the Eastern African marine ecoregionvisioning workshop: 21–24 April 2001. World Wildlife Fund TanzaniaProgramme Office, Dar es Sallaam, Tanzania.

Johnson, D. R., et al. 1999. Effectiveness of an existing estuarine no-take fish sanctuary within the Kennedy Space Center, Florida. NorthAmerican Journal of Fisheries Management 19:436–453.

Johnson, N. C. 1995. Biodiversity in the balance: approaches to settinggeographic conservation priorities. Biodiversity Support Program,Washington, D.C.

Kelleher, G., C. Bleakley, and S. Wells. 1995. A global representativesystem of marine protected areas. World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Kleiman, D. G., et al. 2000. Improving the evaluation of conservationprograms. Conservation Biology 14:356–365.

Klinger, T. 2001. Marine protected areas: examples from the San JuanIslands, Washington. Endangered Species UPDATE 18:55–58.

Kramer, P. A., et al. 2002. Ecoregional conservation planning for theMesoamerican Caribbean Reef. World Wildlife Fund, Washington,D.C.

Leslie, H. M., E. N. Breck, F. Chan, J. Lubchenco, and B. A. Menge. 2005.Barnacle reproductive hotspots linked to nearshore ocean condi-tions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102:10534–10539.

Lourie, S. A., and A. C. J. Vincent. 2004. Using biogeography to help setpriorities in marine conservation. Conservation Biology 18:1004–1020.

Lubchenco, J., et al. 2003. Plugging a hole in the ocean: the emergingscience of marine reserves. Ecological Applications 13:S3–S7.

Malakoff, D. 2004. New tools reveal treasures at ocean hot spots. Science304:1104–1105.

Margoluis, R., and N. Salafsky. 1998. Measures of success: designing,managing, and monitoring conservation and development projects.Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Margules, C. R., and R. L. Pressey. 2000. Systematic conservation plan-ning. Nature 405:243–253.

Menge, B. A., et al. 2004. Species interaction strength: testing modelpredictions along an upwelling gradient. Ecological Monographs74:663–684.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Millennium ecosystem assess-ment synthesis report. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Available fromhttp://www.maweb.org (accessed April 2005).

National Research Council. 1997. Striking a balance: improving stew-ardship of marine areas. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

National Research Council. 2001. Marine protected areas: tools for sus-taining ocean ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington,D.C.

NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2003.Socioeconomic research and monitoring recommendations for ma-rine protected areas in the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctu-ary. NOAA, National Ocean Service, Special Projects, Silver Spring,Maryland.

Noss, R. F. 1996. Ecosystems as conservation targets. Trends in Ecology& Evolution 11:351.

Noss, R. F. 2003. A checklist for wildlands network designs. Conserva-tion Biology 17:1270–1275.

Olson, D. M., and E. Dinerstein. 2002. The global 200: priority ecore-gions for global conservation. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Gar-den 89:199–224.

Olson, D. M., et al. 2002. Conservation biology for the biodiversity crisis.Conservation Biology 16:1–3.

Ong, P. S., et al., editors. 2002. Philippine biodiversity conservationpriorities: a second iteration of the national biodiversity strategyand action plan. Department of Environment and Natural Resources,Conservation International, University of the Philippines Center forIntegrative and Development Studies, and Foundation for the Philip-pine Environment, Quezon City.

Palumbi, S. R., and R. R. Warner. 2003. Why gobies are like hobbits.Science 299:51–52.

Palumbi, S. R., S. D. Gaines, H. Leslie, and R. R. Warner. 2003. Newwave: high-tech tools to help marine reserve research. Frontiers inEcology and the Environment 1:73–79.

Peterson, C. H., and J. Lubchenco. 1997. Marine ecosystem services.Pages 177–194 in G. C. Daily, editor. Nature’s services: societal de-pendence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Pew Oceans Commission. 2003. America’s living oceans: charting acourse for sea change. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, Virginia.

Pomeroy, R. S., et al. 2004. How is your MPA doing? A guidebook of nat-ural and social indicators for evaluating marine protected area man-agement effectiveness. World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzer-land.

Possingham, H. P., et al. 2000. Mathematical methods for identifying re-presentative reserve networks. Pages 291–306 in S. Ferson and M.A. Burgman, editors. Quantitative methods in conservation biology.Springer-Verlag, New York.

Redford, K. H., et al. 2003. Mapping the conservation landscape. Con-servation Biology 17:116–131.



Roberts, C. M., et al. 2002. Marine biodiversity hotspots and conserva-tion priorities for tropical reefs. Science 295:1282–1285.

Roberts, C. M., et al. 2003. Ecological criteria for evaluating candidatesites for marine reserves. Ecological Applications 13:S199–S214.

Sala, E., et al. 2002. A general model for designing networks of marinereserves. Science 298:1991–1993.

Salafsky, N., et al. 2002. Improving the practice of conservation: a con-ceptual framework and research agenda for conservation science.Conservation Biology 16:1469.

Saterson, K. A., et al. 2004. Disconnects in evaluating the relative effec-tiveness of conservation strategies. Conservation Biology 18:597–599.

Stem, C., et al. 2005. Monitoring and evaluation in conservation: a re-view of trends and approaches. Conservation Biology 19:295–309.

Stoner, A. W., et al. 1999. Scientific review of the marine reserve network

proposed for the Commonwealth of the Bahamas by the BahamasDepartment of Fisheries. Bahamas Department of Fisheries, Nassau.

Sullivan Sealey, K., and G. Bustamante. 1999. Setting geographic prior-ities for marine conservation in Latin America and the Caribbean.The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An ocean blueprint for the 21stcentury. Final report. U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, Washing-ton, D.C.

Walls, K. 1998. Leigh Marine Reserve, New Zealand. Parks 8:5–10.Ward, T. J., et al. 1999. Selecting marine reserves using habitats and

species assemblages as surrogates for biological diversity. EcologicalApplications 9:691–698.

Williams, J. C., et al. 2004. Using mathematical optimization models todesign nature reserves. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment2:98–105.


Date post:	11-Feb-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lamthuan
View:	227 times
Download:	1 times

Leslie, H. M. 2005a

Documents