Understanding marine park opposition: the relationship between social impacts, environmental knowledge and motivation to fish

Abstract

Marine protected areas (MPAs), are being vigorously pursued globally but meeting significant resistance at a local level. Despite this, there is limited research into the factors that drive this resistance. The Port Stephens–Great Lakes Marine Park (PSGLMP) and Batemans Marine Park (BMP), both situated in New South Wales (NSW) Australia, were established in December 2005 and April 2006 respectively. Both generated significant controversy and hostility, particularly from the recreational fishing sector. The controversy surrounding the declaration of these and other NSW marine parks continues and has been the subject of intense political interest and government enquiry. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with recreational, professional and indigenous fishers. They explored the social impacts of the declaration of PSGLMP and BMP and their link to marine park opposition. Opponents felt the marine parks had resulted in a variety of negative impacts ranging from a loss of enjoyment and convenience through to more serious impacts on wellbeing, livelihood and culture. Examination of the reasons why interview subjects participated in fishing provided further insight into their perception of the marine park and the impacts resulting from the declaration. Opposition to MPAs, however, cannot be explained by impact alone. All the marine park opponents interviewed represented themselves as ‘knowledge holders’ about their local marine area. This knowledge – predominately ‘fish’ knowledge – appears to have conflicted with a policy position which places biodiversity conservation as the primary objective of MPAs. This has led to a perception that the practical knowledge of users was not valued in the planning of each marine park. Incorporation of the goals and objectives of local communities into the development of MPA proposals may provide communities with a greater sense of ownership. Considering motivation to fish may allow for the development of more holistic management responses to mitigate and compensate users for social impacts that may arise from any necessary trade‐offs between these often competing objectives. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Poor ecological representation by an expensive reserve system: Evaluating 35 years of marine protected area expansion

“…Optimal trajectories are provided for different starting years of systematic planning. A mean percentage gap of 0 means that 10% of each ecoregion is protected (Plasman, 2008;Voyer, Gladstone, & Goodall, 2014). Although there are some MPA networks, which were developed with the support of systematic conservation planning tools (e.g., the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in Australia), the global MPA estate remains highly residual (i.e., placed in areas unsuitable for other uses) (Barr & Possingham, 2013).…”

Criticisms of science, social impacts, opinion leaders, and targets for no‐take zones led to cuts in New South Wales' (Australia) system of marine protected areas

“…In many ways the dynamics of MPA planning and implementation that have occurred in NSW since 2007 mirrors other situations where MPAs have either failed or been significantly modified following resistance and opposition from some stakeholder groups (Voyer et al ., in press). MPA opponents in NSW were mobilized into more active opposition by their belief that recreational fishing had minor/no environmental impacts and that MPAs were an irrelevant management response to the actual threats to marine biodiversity.…”

“…Opposition to the establishment of marine parks and the zoning plans that followed was fuelled by the absence of proper social impact assessments of the groups that were negatively impacted or believed they were going to be negatively impacted such as recreational fishers, commercial fishers, and indigenous people (Kearney, ; Voyer et al ., in press). Public participation exercises (such as public meetings, requests for submissions of opinion on draft zoning plans) and economic assessments were used as the primary tools for gauging the social impacts of the marine parks and their zoning plans, on the assumptions that people will volunteer their views and that economic impacts are the primary determinants of social impacts.…”

‘It׳s part of me’; understanding the values, images and principles of coastal users and their influence on the social acceptability of MPAs

“…Their lack of trust in 'experts', such as the scientific community, however, and their desire for greater integration of alternative forms of knowledge, indicates that different approaches are required to engage these stakeholders in planning processes and in the acceptance of management activities that restrict their activities. This research suggests that communication with this group is most likely to be most effective when it taps into accepted ideas of appropriate behaviour from within their own model rather than from external regulators [9,45,56].…”

“…Conflict over marine park management, and particularly the location and size of 'no-take' components of the parks, has been common in these parks and many other MPAs around the world. Yet, to date, efforts to ameliorate this conflict have been hampered by a limited understanding of its social and cultural drivers [1,55,56]. This study focused exclusively on coastal users, particularly users of open coast beaches and headlands in the marine parks, and identified the key values, principles and images held by these users as well as their support for no-take zones in coastal areas.…”