Upload
quinton-blackaby
View
213
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Stakeholders, Algorithms, and Marine Protected Area Design in California
Carissa Klein, University of Queensland
Charles Steinback, Ecotrust
Marine Life Protection Act Initiative
Working Groups
• Blue Ribbon Task Force
• Stakeholder Group
• Science Advisory Team
Study Area
Pigeon Point
Point Conception
MLPA Goals & Objectives
Biodiversity Conservation • Habitats across depth zones
• Areas of high species diversity
• Populations of special status
Socioeconomic Viability• Minimize negative socioeconomic impacts
Example Conservation Features
Rocky reefs
Kelp beds
Estuaries
Canyons
Sandy bottom
Surfgrass beds
Total = 47
Laura Francis
Sea otter habitat
Mammal rookeries
Bathymetric complexity
Pinnacles
Bird colonies
Areas of high fish diversity
• Recreational Fishing Effort
Trips per planning unit
• Commercial Fishing Effort
Relative importance to fishermen
Consumptive Socioeconomic Data
Expert Approach• Interest groups (fishing, conservation, etc.) developed
proposals
• Provided with biophysical data
• Not provided with all fishing data
• Proposals were evaluated by Scientific Advisory Team (biodiversity representation and impact to fisheries)
• Using scientific feedback, stakeholders revised proposals
Four Proposals
1 2 3 4
Software Approach: MARXAN
• 2.5 km2 planning units
• Calculated how much of each feature was in each planning unit
• Targeted same amount of each feature as stakeholder proposals
• Minimize impact (“cost”) to 19 fisheries
• Used BLM that gave solutions comparable in size to stakeholder proposals
Monterey
Morro Bay
Spatial Compactness (BLM)
a. BLM = 0 b. BLM = 0.0001 c. BLM = 1
0 20 40 60 8010Miles ¯
Planning Unit Inclusion
0 - 10
11 - 20
21 - 30
31 - 40
41 - 50
51 - 60
61 - 70
71 - 80
81 - 90
91 - 100
• Relative impact reservation of a planning unit has on fishing effort
• Equal weight to individual fisheries within commercial and recreational sector
• Equal weight to sectors
Cost per Planning Unit
, , ,
Solution 1 Summed SolutionSolution 2
Individual Summed Solutions
+ =
100 Solutions
Expert and Marxan Summed Solution
Effort lost
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
10.00%
12.00%
1 2 3 4
Proposal Marxan
Relative effort lost per unit area
-30.00%
-25.00%
-20.00%
-15.00%
-10.00%
-5.00%
0.00%
1 2 3 4
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
10.00%
12.00%
1 2 3 4
Proposal Marxan
Cost vs. MARXAN Output
Cost: Area & Fishing Effort
COST
Low
High
Monterey Monterey
Priority Areas Included?
• Proposal 1 – 96.7%
• Proposal 2 – 70.8%
• Proposal 3 – 76.9%
• Proposal 4 – 87.7%
Caveats
• Marxan solutions assume exclusion of all fishing
• Assumes that effort is not redistributed after conservation
• Data quality and scale
Conclusions
Fishermen designed the most cost-effective solutions
• Local/Expert knowledge
• Data availability may lead to more efficient proposals
Marxan solutions were more efficient than stakeholder proposals
Marxan solutions do not reveal sensitive socioeconomic information
Good tool to support, NOT replace, stakeholder driven process
Photo: Gretchen Hoffman
Acknowledgements
Bruce Kendall, Satie Airamé, Astrid Scholz,
Lindsay Kircher, Allison Chan, Amanda
Cundiff, Nadia Gardner, Yvana Hrovat, Will
McClintock, Fishermen, Fisherwomen,
MLPA staff
Photo: Gretchen Hoffman
Photo: Gretchen Hoffman
)1()(
1
1
1
1
M
a
a
P
b
b
E
M
kN
jjk
ikP
kN
jjk
ik
i