2010
DOI: 10.1080/08920751003633094
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Developing MPA Effectiveness Indicators: Comparison Within and Across Stakeholder Groups and Communities

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
17
0
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
1
17
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, frequencies of responses for individual indicators in the open-ended format were low due to the great diversity of cited performance indicators. A similar finding was made by Pajaro et al (2010) in existing MPAs. Workshop reports also did not indicate who made the comments and hence if there were any significant differences among participating groups.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, frequencies of responses for individual indicators in the open-ended format were low due to the great diversity of cited performance indicators. A similar finding was made by Pajaro et al (2010) in existing MPAs. Workshop reports also did not indicate who made the comments and hence if there were any significant differences among participating groups.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…While the importance of acknowledging stakeholder opinion in MPA management is well documented (Borad and Sanchirico 2008;Elliott et al 2001;Pollnac, Crawford, and Gorospe 2001), the literature on stakeholder opinions on MPA performance in existing MPAs is limited (Himes 2007;Webb, Maliao, and Siar 2004;Suman, Shivlani, and Milon 1999;Dahl-Tacconi 2005;Pajaro et al 2010), and particularly scarce with respect to proposed MPAs. Previous work on proposed MPAs, for example, has focused on social acceptability for a proposed MPA (Thomassin et al 2010) and saltwater anglers' attitudes toward fishery regulations in several hypothetical MPAs (Salz and Loomis 2004), but not local expectations on desired future MPA performance.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Evaluating whether or not protected areas are meeting goals and objectives can help identify areas for improvement [8], encourage accountability [9], justify resource allocation [9], and encourage reflection about the MPA's goals and objectives. Recent studies have found that protected areas are having mixed success in terms of achieving goals and objectives, with an estimated 22% of terrestrial protected areas managed soundly [10] and somewhere between 10 and 35% of marine and coastal areas achieving their objectives [11]. This study contributes to a better understanding of protected area management effectiveness by examining how marine protected areas (MPAs) in the wider Caribbean are progressing toward their goals and objectives.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…It would be worthwhile for individual MPAs in the Caribbean to periodically reassess goals and objectives at their sites and readjust them when needed. Because stakeholders define MPA management effectiveness in different ways, recent studies emphasize the importance of involving multiple stakeholder groups in this on-going process of goal assessment [11,58].…”
Section: Why Are Mpas Not Achieving Some Objectives?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Fernandes et al (1999) took a participatory approach to defining the management problems of a coral reef in a small island state. Several authors have proposed participatory methods for the design of indicator systems as a tool to measure the effectiveness of CZM programs (FontalvoHerazo et al, 2007;Vella et al, 2009;Pajaro et al, 2010). Others employ the participatory process for defining alternative management strategies (Tompkins et al, 2008;Soma, 2010) and in some cases test the scenarios defined with stakeholders by applying multi-criteria analysis or social-ecological modeling approaches, then share and discuss results with all the participants (Roca et al, 2008;Garmendia et al, 2010;Franz en et al, 2011;Mongruel et al, 2011;Tomlinson et al, 2011).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%