A comparison of zoning analyses to inform the planning of a marine protected area network in Raja Ampat,Indonesia |
| |
| Institution: | 1. The University of Queensland, Centre for Applied Environmental Decision and Analysis, St Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia;2. Conservation International, 2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202, USA;3. The Nature Conservancy, Global Marine Team, 255 Alhambra Circle, Miami, FL 33134, USA;4. The Nature Conservancy, Indonesia Marine Program, Jl. Pengembak 2, Sanur 80228, Bali, Indonesia;5. Conservation International, Jl. Kedondong, Puncak Vihara, Klademak, Sorong 98414, Papua Barat, Indonesia;6. Conservation International, Jl Dr. Muwardi 17, Renon, Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia;7. The Nature Conservancy, 100 Shaffer Road, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95062, USA;1. Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia;2. Reef Check Indonesia, Jalan Tukad Balian Gang 43 No. 1A, Renon, Bali, Indonesia;3. School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, PO Box 1700 STN CSC, Victoria, BC V8W 2Y2, Canada;4. Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Land and Water, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia;1. Marine Science Institute, University of the Philippines, Diliman, 1101 Quezon City, Philippines;2. Sustainable Fisheries Group, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management and Marine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA;1. Instituto Español de Oceanografía, Promontorio San Martín s/n, 39004, Santander, Spain;2. Instituto Español de Oceanografía, Corazón de María 8, 28002, Madrid, Spain;1. Department of Oceanography, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Sylhet-3114, Bangladesh;2. Center for Participatory Research and Development (CPRD), Dhaka, Bangladesh;3. GEOMAR Helmholtz Center for Ocean Research Kiel, Kiel, Germany;4. Department of Coastal and Marine Fisheries, Sylhet Agricultural University, Sylhet-3100, Bangladesh;1. School of Ocean Sciences, College of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, United Kingdom;2. School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Australia;3. School of the Environment, Natural Resources and Geography, College of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, United Kingdom;1. National Center for Scientific Research, PSL Université Paris, CRIOBE, USR 3278 CNRS-EPHE-UPVD, Maison des Océans, 195 rue Saint-Jacques, 75005 Paris, France;2. Royal Belgium Institute of Natural Science, Rue Vautier 29, 1000 Brussels, Belgium |
| |
| Abstract: | Marine protected areas (MPAs) are often managed using several management zones, each of which allows different human-uses. Decision support tools can be applied to provide advice on potential zoning configurations. However, few studies used decision support tools to systematically determine good locations for different types of zones that accommodate multiple and often conflicting objectives. Previous studies have mostly used scores to integrate multiple objectives and identify different zoning configurations or explored priority areas for each zone separately. Neither of these approaches ensure that solutions meet both biodiversity and human-use objectives. Nor do they deal with the fact that in zoning plans the whole is not the same as the sum of the parts, the importance of a site depends on how the rest of the sites are managed. The aim of this study was to identify different zoning configurations for the Raja Ampat MPA network in Eastern Indonesia that address biodiversity, sustainable fisheries and community resource access objectives. Identifying zoning configurations is particularly difficult here given the importance of protecting high biodiversity reefs and other conservation values, and the high reliance of local communities on their marine resources. Potential areas for no-take zones were identified that have a small and equitable impact across the fishing grounds of different fishing communities whilst ensuring each community has access to a ‘sustainable fishing zone’. Access to fishing grounds for each community is complicated due to marine tenure restricting where individuals can fish and reliance on traditional types of fishing vessels that restrict long distance travel. This approach for zoning was compared to three others. The first focused on identifying areas only for the no-take zone, a traditional systematic planning approach, and the second on both zones without explicitly accounting for the issue of resource access for each community. The solutions unfairly impacted particular communities. Finally, it is demonstrated how a pre-existing zoning proposal, driven by negotiation can be integrated into systematic planning. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
