Blount, Ben G., and Ariana Pitchon, 2007. An Anthropological Research Protocol for Marine Protected Areas: Creating a Niche in a Multi-Disciplinary Cultural Hierarchy. Human Organization 66(2): 103-111

Human Organization, Vol. 66, No. 2, 2007 Copyright © 2007 by the Society for Applied Anthropology 0018-7259/07/010103-09$1.40/1 An Anthropological Research Protocol for Marine Protected Areas: Creating a Niche in a Multidisciplinary Cultural Hierarchy Ben G. Blount and Ariana Pitchon Anthropologists who venture into planned multidisciplinary research in marine systems become enmeshed in a social and cultural system of disciplinary hierarchy that constrains the nature and type of expected research. The hierarchical system that favors biology, ecology, and economics before other social sciences is deeply ingrained in U.S. cultural models and enacted managerially in multidisciplinary research agendas. Within that framework, anthropology is one of the social sciences that modifies economics in the form of socioeconomics. Anthropology as socioeconomics is challenged to carve out research questions within the hierarchical framework. A meta-analysis of the design, implementation, and evaluation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) shows that questions of social and economic equity are in the forefront of fishers’ concerns about MPAs, providing a topic of immediate and practical concern for socioeconomic and anthropological research. Key words: Marine Protected Areas, marine systems, multidisciplinary research, socioeconomics Introduction M arine Protected Areas (MPAs) can be defined simply as areas in marine environments that are protected in designated ways from human activity.1 Although a variety of types of MPAs exist, varying by the nature and extent of protection, all MPAs constrain human behavior. Despite that common feature, the major objective of an MPA typically is the conservation of marine organisms and habitats. Regulatory agencies tend to view MPAs in terms of their potential as a management tool for biological and ecological conservation. MPAs are thus typically focused on marine resources, even though they developed in the first instance to conserve resources by placing limits on human behavior. Human behavior, by contrast, tends to be marginalized in discussions about MPAs, except as the source of a conservation problem in some initial ecosystem state—a common problem in all ecological research (Blount 1999). Ben G. Blount is professor of anthropology at the University of Texas at San Antonio, and Ariana Pitchon is a researcher at the Institutes for Fisheries Management and Coastal Community Development in Hirtshals, Denmark. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Anthropology & Environment and Culture & Agriculture Working Conference on Public Policy, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, September 7-8, 2002. Thanks are due to Nora Haenn, who provided critical readings of earlier drafts of the paper. VOL. 66, NO. 2, SUMMER 2007 We begin with the question of how human behavior has actually been viewed in the MPA literature. A very succinct answer can be given. Human behavior characteristically is seen as and subsumed under one generic category: “socioeconomics.” MPA designers and managers see economics, modified by social factors, including culture and history, as the most important component of human behavior. The central assumption is that economic costs will be the major consideration of resource users, especially fishermen, when access to areas of the ocean is regulated. For commercial fishermen, for example, the major concern is considered to be income loss, whereas for recreational fishermen, loss may be incurred through travel to unrestricted areas due to displacement from traditional fishing grounds. Given that social factors are by definition secondary to economic ones in this perspective, what are they and how do they relate to economic factors? What, specifically, is the place or role of anthropology in a socioeconomics framework? How, in practice, have socioeconomics and anthropology been constructed and applied within MPA design, operations, and assessments? This paper represents an attempt to answer those and other related questions. More specifically, the paper: 1) describes the multidisciplinary hierarchy that characterizes research, planning, and management of MPAs; 2) summarizes how socioeconomics has been viewed and used in MPA design, implementation, and assessment; 3) outlines how anthropology, as a social science within that framework, contributes to and modifies economics; 4) surveys and summarizes protocols for anthropological research on MPAs; and 5) identifies specific issues that have been raised in relation 103 to the success of MPAs and that are especially amenable to ethnographic research. The paper has as a central objective of identifying research roles for anthropology within the highly specific and constrained hierarchy of academic disciplines in MPA research. Management goals associated with MPAs place biology and ecology above social sciences in terms of importance and value of contributions, and social sciences are seen as modifiers of economics. We emphasize that the hierarchy is not simply an organizational device but a widely shared cultural model in marine research and policy, one with directive force for action. Within that system, anthropology is consigned to specific and very limited descriptive and analytical roles. Anthropologists can, of course, contest the consignment, and they can also pursue research entirely independent of MPA-designed systems, yet, as parts of multidisciplinary teams, they have particular places and roles delineated for them. Within the constraints of the managerial cultural model, what are the particular questions that socioeconomics and anthropology can fruitfully address? The strategy we use in this paper is to focus on issues that have arisen in the assessment of the effectiveness of marine protected areas. Since effectiveness must be seen against original MPA design, considerations have to be given to design goals and aims, especially to see how socioeconomics is situated within the framework. Assessments of effectiveness are likely to be a fruitful area for identifying socioeconomic factors, since human behavior is what is managed primarily, despite its low status within the hierarchical framework. As will be shown below, socioeconomic considerations will prove to be fundamental for success of MPAs. The presence or absence of cooperation and support from fishermen will be especially telling, since fishermen appear to be especially concerned with notions of “fairness” and “equity,” concepts that require cultural elaboration. For background and context, we offer a brief account of the emergence of MPAs and address the rationale for their creation. We then present information on the number and distribution of MPAs worldwide as evidence of the growing interest in their potential as a conservation tool. Subsequently, we discuss the criteria that are typically considered in the design of MPAs, including socioeconomic factors, followed by an account of the utilization of socioeconomics in MPA assessments. We will show that once MPAs have existed for several years, administrators and evaluators come to see socioeconomic factors as essential to MPA success. Throughout the discussion, we make particular efforts to identify issues within socioeconomics that are especially appropriate for anthropological inquiry. Finally, we will identify some correctives to the unnecessarily constrictive view of anthropology as only modifying economics. MPA Inventories and Databases MPAs began to appear in numbers in the 1990s, with case studies and overview publications appearing in the 104 ensuing decade (see, for example, Recksiek and Hinchcliff 2002; Roberts and Hawkins 2000; Zinn and Buck 2001). As an indication of the scope of interest in MPAs, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the World Bank, and the World Conservation Union (more formally known as the International Union of Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources [IUCN]) jointly published a four volume work in 1995, entitled A Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (Kelleher, Bleakley, and Wells 1995). More recently, in Marine Protected Areas: Tools for Sustaining Ocean Ecosystems (2001), the U.S. National Research Council published a comprehensive overview of the history of MPAs and of the multitude of issues swirling around them. Additionally, the MPA News, published bimonthly since 1999 at the University of Washington, is an important source for current news and developments and for the exchange of ideas and information about MPAs. Again, pointing to the growing interest in marine protected areas, a national MPA Center was established by Executive Order 13158 (May 26, 2000). Affiliated with two federally supported institutes, the National MPA Center Science Institute in Monterey, California, and the Institute for MPA Training and Technical Assistance in Charleston, South Carolina, the National MPA Center is charged with establishing and managing a website database for MPAs and with developing a library of publications on MPA topics and issues.2 As further evidence for growing interest in MPAs, national and international conferences addressing the topic have proliferated in recent years, as have the number of organizations and government agencies that support and promote MPAs.3 For instance, in March 2004, a symposium on financing MPAs was held in Loreto, Mexico, and hosted by the North American Marine Protected Areas Network (NAMPAN), and in October 2005, the first International Marine Protected Areas Congress (IMPACI), was held in Geelong, Victoria, Australia. Perhaps the most revealing indicator of MPAs’ growing popularity, however, is the sheer number of reserves that have been created during the past two decades. According to the global survey undertaken by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the World Bank, and the World Conservation Union in 1995, there were 1,306 MPAs around the world (Kelleher, Bleakley, and Wells 1995:13). The survey included subtidal but not estuarine and other wetland reserves, or else the number would have been much higher. No accurate count of the current number of MPAs is available, although new reserves and protected areas are created each year. At this juncture, it is important to note that MPAs are not uniformly distributed across the world’s oceans and seas. In the 1995 survey, more than 55 percent of all MPAs were in four zones or regions: the Wider Caribbean, Northeast Pacific, Northwest Pacific, and Australia-New Zealand. Six marine regions spanning the Antarctic, Arctic, South Atlantic, Central Indian Ocean, Arabian Seas, and Southeast Pacific all have fewer than 20 MPAs each and together account for less than 10 percent of the total number of MPAs. Except for HumaN OrganizatioN Australia-New Zealand, which had 260 MPAs in 1995, the majority of the MPAs were at that time, and most likely still are, in the northern hemisphere. The past decade has witnessed the creation of many new MPAs, but the exact number depends on how an MPA is defined. A related problem for developing inventories is that MPAs often have built-in expiration dates. Despite those issues, the 1995 IUCN study has been updated, most recently in 2004. New databases are also being developed. The U.S. National MPA Center has been creating an inventory since 2001 of the nation’s marine managed areas. A larger-scale project is underway to create a global MPA database. As reported in the recent issue of the MPA News (March 2005), the project is coordinated by Louisa Wood at the University of British Columbia and is based on collaboration among the UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Center, the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas-Marine, and the World Wildlife Fund (MPA News 2005). The database will contain information on each site’s location, regulations, and habitats. Factors Leading to the Creation of MPAs The motivating causes for this proliferation are various, but one driving factor is the plummeting, if not collapse, of fish stocks. According to Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) reports (1995, 2000), landings of wild-caught fish have leveled off since the mid-1980s, and several of the most productive marine fishing areas are overfished and in serious decline. Overfishing sits alongside growing evidence of the impacts of pollution (the world’s oceans often serve as vast garbage dumps) to create difficulty, if not crisis (McGoodwin 1990), in many of the world’s fisheries, and the causes of these problems are unlikely to be resolved soon. The decline in commercially and recreationally important fish was a major factor promoting MPAs as a fishery management tool. Despite successful management of some fish stocks by regional fishery councils (e.g., king mackerel by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council), the continuing decline nationally and internationally of some fish stocks led to a search for new tools in fishery management (Agardy 1997; Bohnsack 1993; Gubbay 1995; Johnson, Funicello, and Bohnsack 1999). MPAs emerged as a promising new tool in the management toolkit. Like their terrestrial counterparts (Brandon and Sanderson 1998), MPAs involve setting aside an area and constraining either human access to it or use of the resources within the area. Permissible activities in MPAs can be regulated through restrictions on gear, species, number of fish caught, or through age or size limitations. The differences among MPAs result from local circumstances, including ecology, but also from a complex of political and economic compromises that are necessary to assure stakeholders support. Whatever those differences, however, the objectives of MPAs are more or less the same: to promote the health of particular fish stocks through the protection of their essential habitat. Since the creation of MPAs is usually, if not always, a complex, VOL. 66, NO. 2, SUMMER 2007 Table 1. Criteria for Selection of Priority Marine Protected Areas Biogeographical Criteria Presence of rare biogeographical qualities or kinds/ types Unique or unusual geological features Ecological Criteria An essential part of ecological processes Area’s ecological integrity Variety of habitats Habitat for rare or endangered species Nursery or juvenile areas Feeding, breeding, or rest areas Rare or unique habitat Genetic diversity Naturalness Extent to which the area has not been subject to human-induced change Economic Importance Value by virtue of its protection, e.g., for use by traditional inhabitants Social Importance Value to the local, national, or international communities due to history, culture, traditional aesthetic, educational, or recreational qualities Scientific Importance Value for research and monitoring International or National Significance Potential to be listed on the World Heritage List, declared a Biosphere Reserve Practicality/or Feasibility Degree of insulation from external destructive influences Social or political acceptability, degree of community support Accessibility for education, tourism, recreation Compatibility with existing uses, particularly by locals Ease of management or compatibility with existing management regimes. long-term process involving interested groups, the objectives typically include more than conservation of fish and their habitat. For example, an MPA might be expected to preserve a historically important area or even a vaguely defined “benefits to society.” More concrete objectives are found in MPA site selection criteria and indicate the multiple and conflicting values inherent in marine reserves. The criteria given below in Table 1 are derived from A Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (Kelleher, Bleakley, and Wells 1995:4) whose authors created a list from their worldwide survey of MPAs. The criteria in Table 1 are meant to be inclusive and constitute an ideal inventory. It is unlikely that all of the criteria would be applicable to any one reserve. In fact the criteria could easily apply to the design of terrestrial parks or reserves, since the overall objective in reserves, terrestrial 105 Table 2. Major Groups and Topics from the NOAA Santa Cruz Workshop (2002) GROUP 1: Constituent/Stakeholder Attitudes, Perceptions, and Beliefs The natural world and state of the environment Natural resource management at different temporal and spatial scales Local knowledge Communities of interest, managers and the general public Attribution and uncertainty Aesthetics Environmental Ethics GROUP 2: Community Organization Research tool “packages” commonly used Development and building of capacity and skills Management processes: governance, participation, partnerships Description of community and stakeholders GROUP 3: Cultural Heritage Protection of resources Cultural resources characterization GROUP 4: Economics of Marine Protected Areas Cost benefit analysis Baseline information Ecological time and spatial scale dynamics in economic theory/tools Non-market values (use and non-use) GROUP 5: Governance and Institutional Structure Jurisdictional structure Public participation and stewardship Network or site planning establishment Network or site management and evaluation Institutional analysis GROUP 6: Use Patterns Baseline data on patterns of use and the impacts of that use Political ecology of MPA-related use patterns Historical Ecology Refining methods for developing, analyzing, and assessing data Guidelines for establishing limits on “best available” data per context or marine, is to maximize conservation according to multiple criteria and assessments of importance on multiple dimensions. One of those dimensions is to prevent further loss of species, especially those experiencing precipitous decline. In the case of fish stocks, the criteria of particular importance are likely to be ecological, prominently protecting nursery or juvenile areas or feeding, breeding, or rest areas. Depending on circumstances, other criteria may apply toward conservation and rebuilding of fish stocks. Of particular interest here are the social and economic criteria. Even cursory inspection shows, however, that they are extremely broad, stated in relation to the open-ended concept of “value.” In comparison to 106 ecological criteria, social and economic criteria are under-differentiated, reflecting the hierarchy of importance discussed previously. The selection criteria are clearly geared to biological and ecological factors as primary in the protection of marine life and habitat. The place and role of people are secondary, despite the fact that the creation of MPAs principally is to manage human behavior. On the positive side, however, the bias toward biology and ecology leaves open for socioeconomics and anthropology ways to contribute to MPA creation and management. Anthropology in MPA Research In recognition of the need for an anthropological agenda on MPA research, a 2002 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) workshop was held at Santa Cruz, California, to develop a research protocol. The goal of the workshop was the identification and prioritization of economic, social, and cultural aspects of MPA issues along with associated information needs in these areas (Lyons 2002:2). The conference was organized into “breakout groups,” each to provide a set of core questions within specific topics and frameworks (see Table 2). Participants at the NOAA workshop identified an extensive set of topics and subtopics within the purview of social science, and they also proposed research projects that would provide informational content to each of the subtopics. In addition to the topics listed in Table 2, conference attendees identified 19 issues that cross-cut the themes and provided rich areas for exploration. These issues contained items such as “grassroots partnering,” “the structure of MPA social science,” and “social equity.” While not exhaustive in scope, the final report (Lyons 2002) represented a major advance and was, in fact, the most developed blueprint available at the time for coordinated social science and anthropological research on topics, questions, and issues about marine protected areas. The Santa Cruz framework for anthropological inquiry into MPAs has recently been revised through a series of regional workshops focused on identification of social science research themes and strategies (Lyons 2002). The themes are similar to the “group” categories in the earlier document, reported here in Table 2, although there are some differences. The six themes are: 1) Attitudes, Perceptions, and Beliefs; 2) Economics; 3) Communities; 4) Use Patterns; 5) Submerged Cultural Resources; and 6) Governments, Institutions, and Processes. A more complete account of the themes and associated questions, tools, and references can be found in the NOAA Coastal Services Center section on Social Science Methods for Marine Protected Areas (http://www.csc.noaa.gov/mpas). The original list of research groups and subgroups from the 2002 workshop, however, is reported here, in Table 2, since it provides more detailed categories and subcategories for social science research. The Santa Cruz workshop (Lyons 2002) and the revised Social Science Methods for Marine Protected Areas (NOAA 2004) have provided a comprehensive and far-ranging set of HumaN OrganizatioN Figure 1 research topics and issues for anthropologists. Anthropological research on MPAs can profitably follow those research Figure 1. A Diagrammatic Cultural Model of the protocols, and an additional advantage is that research within Place of Socioeconomics within MPA the designed framework will be positioned for comparison Managerial/Policy Framework across case studies. An instance is provided in an account below of public expectations within the category of attitudes, MANAGERIAL DECISION-MAKING & POLICY perceptions, and beliefs. Prior to that discussion, however, a return at this point is needed to the broader set of issues about the place and role ECOLOGICAL SCIENCES BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES of disciplines within MPA research on design, development, and process. Our concern is not only about the specifics of an anthropological research protocol but of the place of anthropology within multidisciplinary research on MPAs. ECOSYSTEMS/ BIOTA/SYSTEMS BIOTA/SYSTEMS SOCIOECONOMICS HABITAT From that perspective, anthropology is only one discipline among others in biological, ecological, and social sciences and is positioned relative to other disciplines. As indicated, anthropology is categorized as “social science,” which in ECONOMICS turn is seen as modifying economics, i.e., as socioeconomics. While anthropologists are unlikely to see their discipline in those terms, the reality of multidisciplinary research is that the discipline is categorized precisely in that way. The SOCIAL SCIENCE development of an anthropological research protocol, then, can be seen as constrained by a disciplinary hierarchy, and the formulation of anthropological research within that ANTHROPOLOGY hierarchy would be a worthwhile and important endeavor. In effect, anthropology as a discipline would derive benefit from carving out a more explicit and detailed niche within the culture of disciplinary hierarchy. The niche that anthropology must carve out in the hierHUMAN COMMUNITIES archy is within socioeconomics. The prevailing view among KEY natural scientists and resource managers appears to be that Flow of information social science can be seen as “socioeconomics,” at least in Initial sources of information terms of its relevance to conservation and thus in MPA design, implementation, and management. Socioeconomics has a specific structural position in MPA research. Socioeconomreality that has a bearing on the conduct of MPA research. ics, in fact, is a component of a cultural model widely shared Anthropology is situated within a deep-seated cultural model by MPA and fishery management personnel (Blount 2002). not as a distinct “anthropology” but as a subcomponent of Social science committees or subcommittees within fishery socioeconomics. management councils or commissions typically are labeled Anthropologists may prefer to simply disregard the “socioeconomics.” The Scientific and Statistical Committee disciplinary-hierarchy cultural model and pursue indepenof the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council has a dent research agendas, perhaps within the research protocols Socioeconomic Subcommittee, the Gulf Fishery Management discussed above. Another strategy, however, would be to pursue Council has a Socioeconomics Committee, and the Atlantic research that shows from the results that socioeconomics has States Marine Fishery Commission has a Committee on Ecocontributions to make beyond the position accorded it within nomics and Social Science. None of those have a committee the model. Socioeconomics may be more central and pivotal in on anthropology or on any other social science discipline or resource management issues than the model typically accommocombination of disciplines. A diagrammatic and nodal depicdates. A related strategy would be to show that anthropology, as tion of the cultural model is given in Figure 1. a part of socioeconomics, can contribute in ways that are crucial Figure 1 may appear to be completely self-evident and to a strategic place within the research paradigm. Anthropology perhaps even unnecessary. The model could be seen as merely has particular strengths or advantages that enable the discipline a logical or commonsense construction of relationships among to contribute in those crucial ways. the disciplinary components that contribute to a managerial One strong point is that anthropology occupies an model. The claim here, however, is that the structure repreadvantageous position in relation to local communities. sents a cultural model of the actual way disciplines and their Anthropology is the only discipline in which research is interrelationships are perceived and defined. The model thus immersed within the social organization and culture of local constitutes reality, not merely a logical construct but a cultural VOL. 66, NO. 2, SUMMER 2007 107 communities. In the managerial cultural model, anthropology is allocated the role of informational intermediary between local communities and regulatory and managerial agencies, representing the understandings and perspectives of members of local communities. Anthropology is in effect institutionalized within the culture of MPA management as providing information from local communities. Since local communities, however, tend to be made up of individuals most affected by MPA regulations, their knowledge may be central to the entire enterprise of MPAs. Their behavior is what the MPA actually constrain, and an understanding of their culture and related behavioral systems may be fundamental to the success of protected areas. Assessments of MPA Needs and Success To illustrate advantages of working within a multidisciplinary framework, we can turn to recent literature on the success of MPAs. As expected, the studies tend to focus on biological criteria. Success tends to be measured largely in relation to increase in size of fish stocks and accordingly a number of studies emphasize the effectiveness of restrictions on fishing (Roberts, et al. 2001). Restrictions on fishing, however, are only one set of variables among many that relate to fish stock size. An increase of number of fish within a reserve area may reflect a concentration of fish but not an actual increase, i.e., fish may migrate to and stay in the area, producing increased numbers within the reserve but not overall. A related concern is that a concentration of fish within a reserve may lead to what is termed “spillover effects,” a larger than usual abundance of fish at the boundaries of the reserve and thus a bonanza for fishermen, all of which impacts population size. Yet another concern is redirection of effort by fisherman, shifting their fishing from the reserve to other areas and thus impacting the numbers of fish there, and as a consequence, overall. In short, MPA success stories often lead to questions about what increases in stock actually mean (Shipp 2003). In general, the narrower and more restrictive the criteria for success, the more likely they are to be restricted to biological parameters (such as recruitment, stock size, and biomass). Narrow evaluation criteria, however, create a dilemma, since narrowness and specificity leave unanswered fundamental issues about the effectiveness of marine reserves. Human factors in particular tend to be ignored, since they are seen as secondary or even nonessential in relation to biological factors. Success, however, is difficult to measure. What actually constitutes success even in regard to fish stock size is a complex matter, but fish stock size may be only one aspect of success expected of protected areas. Social scientists express a growing concern that only by giving attention to the whole range of issues will it be possible to gain an understanding of effective MPA effective management (Alder 1996; Christie et al. 2003). Broader assessments of MPA success have only begun to appear recently. A special issue of Natural Resource Modeling in 2002 was the first journal setting for a comprehensive 108 focus on the economics of MPAs. The overview article in the special issue, by Sumaila and Charles (2002), noted that whatever benefits MPAs might produce, there are associated costs. Moreover, the costs are not born uniformly across stakeholders. Some profit more than others, and costs and benefits may vary across time. Sumaila and Charles (2002:263-264) suggest that perhaps the dominant challenge in MPA design and implementation lies on the human side, not the ecological and technological ones. They argue that the appropriate measure of benefits should focus on coastal communities and society at large. Accordingly, the authors of the case studies in the special issue employ a broad range of approaches to the economic modeling of MPAs. Those include not only bioeconomic natural resource models but multiobjective analysis, contingent valuation, and socioeconomic studies. Sumaila and Charles (2002:266-267) conclude that all types of costs and benefits must be calculated, including consumptive (fishing) and non-consumptive uses (viewing wildlife), nonuse-existence value (inherent value placed on conservation), and option value (value for future economic uses). In addition, direct net benefits from all economic activity must be taken into account. Although Sumaila and Charles present a strong case for variable inclusiveness, the five case studies do not exhibit the same degree of multidisciplinary focus. The articles address issues relevant to bioeconomics and microeconomics, but their major focus tends to be on aspects of modeling methodology. Socioeconomics is either not addressed or is marginal to the theoretical considerations. The special issue is helpful, but a number of other studies have focused more directly on socioeconomic factors in MPA assessments. Recent publications present the claim outright that socioeconomic considerations are central to the creation and maintenance of MPAs. In Fully Protected Marine Reserves: A Guide (2001), Roberts and Hawkins summarized lessons learned about MPAs by drawing both from a large body of literature and from a survey on the experiences of individuals long involved with MPA management. From those sources, Roberts and Hawkins (2001:78-79) provide a list of key lessons learned. Of the 13 key lessons listed, five relate directly to local communities and to socioeconomic considerations. Two of those lessons, specifically, are “Marine reserves must be tailored to local conditions, attitudes, and needs,” and “Socioeconomic considerations usually determine the success or failure of reserves.” The latter lesson is, of course, particularly noteworthy, since socioeconomics is identified as the pivotal set of variables. A few studies have looked in more detail at socioeconomic factors that affect stakeholders’ perceptions about the success of MPAs. One particularly interesting study focuses on the largest of the U.S. marine reserves, the Florida Keys Marine Reserve Sanctuary. Dobryznski and Nicholson (2001) conducted a survey of user-group perceptions in Key West on short-term social and economic impacts of the marine reserve. Noting that the lack of understanding about the social and economic impacts has impeded the establishment of marine HumaN OrganizatioN reserves in U.S. waters, they conducted their survey on those issues in an already established reserve. Their most significant findings were that the reserves had low economic impact on the user groups but a relatively high social-psychological impact. The reserves led to increased crowding and thus conflicts among user groups. The conflicts were especially keen between commercial fishers and diver and snorkel operators, not only over concern about continued health of the reserve and of access to it but of what the reserves portended for their respective futures. Diver and snorkel operators saw the reserves as positive for their businesses, attracting more and more customers. Commercial fishermen, on the other hand, saw the reserves as another wave of limitations that would eventually put them out of business. Fishermen were, thus, primarily concerned about matters of equity, of one stakeholder group having socioeconomic privilege over others. In their view, recreational divers and snorklers have an unfair advantage in access to marine resources over the long term. Similar results were obtained in a survey conducted by J. Stephen Thomas among Gulf of Mexico fishermen (1999). The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council contracted with Thomas to survey fishers in 10 coastal communities from Texas to Key West, Florida, primarily to provide information on the concept of marine reserves and to identify, with the fishers’ help, the critical issues and concerns that individuals might have about protected areas in the Gulf of Mexico. Fishermen identified a total of 140 criteria that could apply to marine protected areas, but by far the three most commonly mentioned criteria were “siting considerations,” “mitigating socioeconomic impacts,” and “designing to facilitate enforcement.” The three most commonly mentioned “problems” were “enforcement issues,” “displaced users and user groups,” and “credibility of policy makers” (ibid.:2) The concerns of the Gulf fishers appear to center around economic issues, in particular what the displacements from usual fishing areas might cost fishermen financially. There was expressed sentiment, for example, for some sort of compensation for individuals and communities that were hurt by the displacements (ibid.:19). The social issues were less direct and were expressed along two lines. One concern was that social disruptions be minimized, especially family and community disruptions caused by financial loss. Consequences of potential financial loss, in other words, were seen in social as well as economic terms, a very common perception in fisheries and marine planning. The second dimension on which fishermen expressed social ideas was similar to findings of the Key West study, that social equity issues should be given priority in planning and management. The particular form of the expression was that equal opportunity should exist for access to resources. Fishers raised the issue of equity especially in relation to enforcement. In their view, inequities will exist unless enforcement is feasible and actually practiced, with less principled individuals having privilege over others. Enforcement, it should be noted, was listed both in the criteria and in the problem categories. The concern with enforcement was not for its own sake but that its absence will VOL. 66, NO. 2, SUMMER 2007 allow for socioeconomic inequities to occur. The stakeholders who are engaged directly in the use of resources impacted by MPAs say clearly that: 1) social and economic equity has to be central to marine protected areas; and 2) that enforcement is essential if equity is to exist. Conclusions and Summary While it may seem self-evident to anthropologists that socioeconomic factors would be pivotal in the design, development, and implementation of MPAs, since human behavior is what is regulated, management culture places socioeconomics at the lower end of the a hierarchy. As discussed, the importance of socioeconomics and thus anthropology is thereby marginalized. The relevance and importance of socioeconomics has to be demonstrated, and the argument developed here is that assessments of the success of established MPAs provide an excellent opportunity for that demonstration. MPAs are unlikely to succeed in meeting their goals if major stakeholder groups, the fishermen themselves, are excluded in design and implementation. The regulations in any given MPA may be to limit the type of fish caught, the amount of fish caught, times when they can be taught, and so forth, but the limitations all apply to the fishers. Their willingness to comply is a central factor in the success. Research to date indicates that fishers are centrally concerned about the socioeconomic consequences of MPAs, especially equity issues. If control for equity is not included in the design and implementation, fishers are more likely to resist compliance. MPA design and function must necessarily give consideration to socioeconomic factors if the biological and ecological goals are to be met. Managerial cultural models have priorities reversed, neglecting the very phenomena that appear to be essential for MPA success. The perspective is too narrow for MPA success. Research that documents the need for a broader perspective, that socioeconomics is pivotal to MPA success, will at least run counter the managerial model and provide more realistic accounts of criteria for success. Anthropology has a particularly important role to play in an expanded socioeconomic research framework. Fishers’ concerns about equity are socially based. Ethnographic inquiry is the appropriate method for documenting those concerns. Cultural models of equity among resource users need to be more fully documented and tied causally to issues of success in MPA development. In summary, the emerging interest in measuring the success of MPAs provides the opportunity for anthropologists to carve out a niche for research on fishers’ perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs with regard to MPAs, ultimately to produce cultural models that describe the critical components of fishers’ concepts. The successful construction of those models provides direction as to how and why socioeconomics plays a determinant role in MPA success. Anthropology is thus made more visible, socioeconomics is made more visible, and the importance of each can perhaps be elevated in the culture model of discipline hierarchy. Those all appear to be worthwhile accomplishments. 109 As an important aside, anthropological research in two arenas of resource management has made contributions relevant to models of social and economic equity. Anthropologists have questioned the superordinate status of economics for at least the past two or three decades, evidenced by studies of fishers and fishing communities. McGoodwin (1990), among others, has noted that fisher commitment to way of life often supersedes economic rationalism, thereby frustrating fishery planners and managers. Durrenberger and Palsson (1987), following the work of Acheson (1981) and McCay (1978), showed that fishers do not necessarily recognize or behave in terms of common property systems, contrary to expectations of economists. Durrenberger (1997) also showed that shrimpers in Mississippi do not operate in the ways that economics assumes or predicts (i.e., as business firms), fishing only when it is profitable. They do not operate on the basis of capitalist logic, as also shown by McGuire (1991). Way of life can, and often does, trump “rational economic actor.” Considerations of equity, then, can be seen and described in economic terms, but more likely the correct terms are ability to continue to practice a way of life. Lastly, coastal anthropological studies of community local ecological knowledge (LEK) are directly relevant methodologically and theoretically to socioeconomically constrained research in the managerial model. Studies, for example, of Puerto Rican reef fishers have shown that success is not measured by catching the largest amount of fish but by providing ably for one’s family consistently and through time (Garcia-Quijano 2006). Blue crab fishers on the Georgia coast (Cooley 2003) who show the most concern for conservation are the older, more experienced crabbers, reflecting sensitivity to continuity of the resource base. Exactly the same pattern is apparent among Garifuna fishers on Roatan, Honduras (Greenawalt 2006). Again, equity is likely to be mostly about continuing a way of life. Federal Fisheries Management Program (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov), and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (http://www.fws.gov), among others. Other important sources of information can be found in the Bibliography of Marine Protected Areas; Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceanscanada/newenglish/library/bibliompa.html) and in GIS – Marine and Coastal Protected Areas Database, Center for Marine Conservation (http://www.epa. gov/owow/oceans/maps/#mcpa). Notes Blount, Ben G. 1999 History and Application of the Ecosystem Concept in Anthropology. In Integrating Social Sciences with Ecosystem Management, H. Kenneth Cordell and John C Bergstrom, eds. Pp. 101-128. Champaign, Ill.: Sagamore Press. 1 A commonly used definition is the one provided by the International Union of Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN): “An area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment” (cited in MPA News 2005(8):4). “Reserved by law” refers to constraints placed on human access and use. The National Marine Protected Area Center has already been noted, but there are other federal agencies within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and in other branches of the federal government that are engaged in aspects of MPA development, monitory, enforcement, and assessment, including the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (http://www.asmfc.org), eight regional fishery management councils (http://nmfs.noaa.gov/partnerships.htm), the National Marine Sanctuaries Program (http://www.sanctuaries. nos.noaa.gov), the Coastal Zone Management Program in the office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (http://www.ocrm.nos. noaa.gov/czm), the National Park Service (http://www.nps.gov), the 2 110 3 Several special sessions at major conferences have been held during the past three or four years, including one at the annual meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1999. Also an international conference on MPAs was organized and held at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in 2001. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) held a Marine Protected Areas Social Science workshop at Monterey, California, April 8-9, 2002, cosponsored by the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, by Duke University, and by the University of California at Santa Cruz. The Center Institute in Monterey has also begun to conduct regional workshops to develop research priorities and plans for social science research on MPA issues. References Acheson, James M. 1981 Anthropology of Fishing. Annual Reviews of Anthropology 10:275-316. Agardy, Tundi S. 1997 Marine Protected Areas and Ocean Conservation. Dallas, Texas: Academic Press. Alder, Jackie 1996 Costs and Effectiveness of Education and Enforcement, Cairn Section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Environmental Management 20:541-551. Blount, Ben G. 2002 Keywords, Cultural Models, and Representation of Knowledge: A Case Study from the Georgia Coast (USA). Occasional Publication Number 3, Coastal Anthropology Resource Laboratory. Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens. Bohnsack, James A. 1993 Marine Reserves: They Enhance Fisheries, Reduce Conflicts, and Protect Resources. Oceanus 36:63-72. Brandon, Katrina E. and S. Laurie Sanderson, eds. 1998 Parks in Peril: People, Politics, and Protected Areas Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Christie, Patrick, Bonnie J. McCay, Marc L. Miller, C. Lowe, Alan T. White, Richard Stoffle, David L. Fluharty, Liana T. McManus, Ratana Chuenpagdee, Carolyn Pomeroy, Daniel O. Suman, Ben G. Blount, Daniel Huppert, Rose-Liza V. Eisma, Enrique G. Oracion, Kem Lowry, and Richard B. Pollnac 2003 Toward Developing a Complete Understanding: A Social Science Research Agenda for Marine Protected Areas. Fisheries 28(12):22-25. HumaN OrganizatioN Cooley, D. Robert 2003 Cultural Models among Blue Crab Fishermen on the Georgia Coast. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens. Dobryznski, Tanya J., and Elizabeth E. Nicholson 2001 An Evaluation of the Short-term Social and Economic Impacts of Marine Reserves on User Groups in Key West. Master’s Thesis, Nicholas School of Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC. Durrenberger, Paul 1997 Fisheries Management Models: Assumptions and Realities, Or Why Shrimpers in Mississippi are Not Firms. Human Organization 56:158-166. Durrenberger, Paul, and Gisli Palsson 1987 Ownership at Sea: fishing Territories and Access to Sea Resources. American Ethnologist 14:508-522. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) 1995 The State of the World’s Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. 2000 The State of the World’s Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Garcia-Quijano, Carlos 2006 Resisting Extinction: The Value of Local Ecological Knowledge for Small-Scale Fishers in Southeastern Puerto Rico. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens. Greenawalt, David 2006 Cultural Ecology of Garifuna Fishers in Punta Gorda. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Georgia, Athens. Gubbay, Susan 1995 Marine Protected Areas: Principles and Techniques for Management. London: Chapman and Hall. Johnson, Darlene R., Nicholas A. Funicello, and James A. Bohnsack 1999 Effectiveness of an Existing Estuarine No-fish Sanctuary within the Kennedy Space Center, Florida. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19:436-453. Kelleher, Graeme, Chris Bleakley, and Sue Wells, eds. 1995 A Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas. Volume 1, Antarctic, Arctic, Mediterranean, Northwest Atlantic, Northeast Atlantic, and Baltic; Volume 1I, Wider Caribbean, West Africa, and South Atlantic; Volume II1, Central Indian Ocean, Arabian Seas, East Africa, and East Asian Seas; Volume 1V, South Pacific, Northeast Pacific, Northwest Pacific, Southeast Pacific, and Australia/New Zealand. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Lyons, Sarah C. 2002 Marine Protected Areas Social Science Workshop: Notes from Breakout Groups. Monterey, Calif.: National Marine Protected Areas Center Science Insititute. McGoodwin, James R. 1990 Crisis in the World’s Fisheries. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. McKay, Bonnie J. 1978 Systems Ecology, People Ecology, and the Anthropology of Fishing Communities. Human Ecology 6:397-422. MPA News 2005 Project is Underway to Create Global MPA Database. MPA News: International News and Analysis on Marine Protected Areas 6(8):4. National Research Council (NRC) 2001 Marine Protected Areas: Tools for Sustaining Ocean Ecosystems. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2004 Social Science Methods for Marine Protected Areas. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration URL: <http://www.csc. noaa.gov/mpass> (access date?) Recksiek, Heidi, and Ginger Hinchcliff 2002 Marine Protected Areas: Needs Assessment Final Report. Prepared by the NOAA Coastal Services Center in cooperation with the National Marine Protected Areas Center. Washington, D.C.: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Roberts, Callum M., and Julie P. Hawkins 2000 Fully-Protected Marine Reserves: A Guide. Washington, D.C.: WWF Endangered Seas Campaign. Roberts, Callum M., James A. Bohnsack, Frank Gill, Julie P. Hawkins, and Renata Goodridge 2001 Effects of Marine Reserves on Adjacent Fisheries. Science 294:1920-1923. Sanchirico, James 2000 Marine Protected Areas as Fishery Policy: A Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future. Shipp, Robert L. 2003 A Perspective on Marine Reserves as a Fishery Management Tool. Fisheries 28(12):10-21. Sumaila, Ussif Rashad, and Anthony T. Charles 2001 Economic Models of Marine Protected Areas: An Introduction. Natural Resource Modeling 15:261-272. Thomas, J. Stephen 1999 Public Responses to Marine Reserves as a Potential Management Tool for the Gulf of Mexico. A Report Prepared for the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Mobile: University of Alabama. Weeks, Hal, and Steven A. Berkeley 2000 Uncertainty and Precautionary Management of Marine Fisheries: Can the Old Methods Fit the New Mandates? Fisheries 25 (12):6-15. Zinn, Jeffrey, and Eugene H. Buck 2001 RS20810: Marine Protected Areas: An Overview. Washington, D.C.: CRS (Congressional Record Service) Report for Congress. McGuire, Thomas 1993 The Political Economy of Shrimping in the Gulf of California. Human Organization 42:132-145. VOL. 66, NO. 2, SUMMER 2007 View publication stats 111