Upload
lamthuan
View
226
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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.
Conservation BiologyVolume 19, No. 6, December 2005
1704 Marine Conservation Planning Leslie
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
)
Conservation BiologyVolume 19, No. 6, December 2005
Leslie Marine Conservation Planning 1705
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
)
Conservation BiologyVolume 19, No. 6, December 2005
1706 Marine Conservation Planning Leslie
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
.
Conservation BiologyVolume 19, No. 6, December 2005
Leslie Marine Conservation Planning 1707
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.
Conservation BiologyVolume 19, No. 6, December 2005
1708 Marine Conservation Planning Leslie
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
Conservation BiologyVolume 19, No. 6, December 2005
Leslie Marine Conservation Planning 1709
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).
Conservation BiologyVolume 19, No. 6, December 2005
1710 Marine Conservation Planning Leslie
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
Conservation BiologyVolume 19, No. 6, December 2005
Leslie Marine Conservation Planning 1711
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.
Conservation BiologyVolume 19, No. 6, December 2005
1712 Marine Conservation Planning Leslie
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.
Conservation BiologyVolume 19, No. 6, December 2005
Leslie Marine Conservation Planning 1713
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.
Conservation BiologyVolume 19, No. 6, December 2005