The Economics of Marine Reserves
Summary and Keywords
Marine protected areas (MPAs) remain one of the principal strategies for marine conservation globally. MPAs are highly heterogeneous in terms of physical features such as size and shape, habitats included, management bodies undertaking management, goals, level of funding, and extent of enforcement. Economic research related to MPAs initially measured financial, gross, and net values generated by the habitats, most commonly fisheries, tourism, coastal protection, and non-use values. Bioeconomic modeling also generated important insights into the complexities of fisheries-related outcomes at MPAs.
MPAs require a significant investment in public funds for design, designation, and ongoing management, which have associated opportunity costs. Therefore cost-benefit analysis has been increasingly required to justify this investment and demonstrate their benefits over time. The true economic value of MPAs is the value of protection, not the resource being protected. There is substantial evidence that MPAs should increase recreational values due to improvements in biodiversity and habitat quality, but assumptions that MPAs will generate such improvements may not be justified. Indeed, there remains no equivocal demonstration of spillover in fisheries adjacent to MPAs, due in part to the variability inherent in ecological and socio-economic processes and limited evidence of tourism benefits that are biologically or socio-cultural sustainable.
There is a need for carefully designed valuation studies that compare values for areas within MPAs compared the same areas without management (the counterfactual scenario). The ecosystem service framework has become widely adopted as a way of characterizing goods and services that contribute directly or indirectly to human welfare. Quantitative analyses of the marginal changes to ecosystem services due to MPAs remains rare due to the requirements of large amounts of fine-grained data, relatively undeveloped bio-physical models for the majority of services, and the complexities of incorporating ecological non-linearities and threshold effects. In addition while some services are synergistic (so that double counting is difficult to avoid), others are traded off. Such marginal ecosystem service values are highly context specific, which limits the accuracy associated with benefits transfer. A number of studies published since 2000 have made advances in this area, and this is a rapidly developing field of research.
While MPAs have been promoted as a sustainable development tool, there is evidence of significant distributive impacts of MPAs over time, over different time scales and between different stakeholders, including unintended costs to local stakeholders. Research suggests that support and compliance is predicated on the costs and benefits generated locally, which is a major determinant of MPA performance. Better understanding of socio-economic impacts will help to align incentives with MPA objectives. Further research is needed to value supporting and regulating services and to elucidate how ecosystem service provision is affected by MPAs in different conditions and contexts, over time and compared to unmanaged areas, to guide adaptive management.
Marine resources play an invaluable role in human welfare globally, as a source of food, energy and recreation, as well as being valued for existence and cultural reasons and playing a role in regulating the world’s climate (Barbier et al., 2011; de Groot et al., 2012). Marine resources are highly threatened by human activities including industrial fishing, raw material extraction oil, and gas exploration, shipping, and terrestrial source pollution (Barbier et al., 2011; Halpern et al., 2008). Marine protected areas (MPAs) are an ecosystem-based management tool that remain one of the principal strategies for marine conservation globally (Fox et al., 2012). To date, there are approximately 13,000 MPAs worldwide, which cumulatively covers more than 5% of the global ocean by area, with new MPAs continuing to be established at an increasing rate (O’Leary et al., 2018) (Figure 1).
The IUCN has defined an MPA as “a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated, and managed through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” (Laffoley, 2008, p. 7). MPA is an umbrella term for such areas that have been assigned many diverse titles (Boersma & Parrish, 1999; Kelleher, 1996). MPAs include a range of protection from areas where no use is permitted (e.g., marine reserves, conservation areas), areas where extractive use such as fishing, aquaculture, and industrial development is banned (e.g., no-take areas), sites that have zones with distinct regulations (e.g., multiple use MPAs), and areas with negligible restrictions (IUCN, 2008). The coverage of multiple-use MPAs is far greater than that of no-take MPAs (Brander et al., 2015; Wood, Fish, Laughren, & Pauly, 2008). MPAs are highly heterogeneous in terms of physical features such as size and shape, habitats included, management bodies undertaking management, goals, level of funding, and extent of enforcement (Hargreaves-Allen, Mourato, & Milner-Gulland, 2011).
Historically, MPAs were established principally with goals related to fisheries and to a lesser extent habitat protection (Kelleher, 1999). Research sought to measure or model ecological improvements inside the MPAs compared to areas outside. Subsequently, MPAs were promoted as a “win-win” strategy, which could achieve multiple diverse goals simultaneously, including supporting sustainable economic development and livelihoods of local stakeholders, increasing tourism, increasing opportunities for education and research, and preserving cultural values and ways of life (O’Leary et al., 2018; Watson, Dudley, Segan, & Hockings, 2014).
Since MPAs are situated all over the world, they incorporate many types of tropical, temperate, and artic habitats, including coral reefs, sea grass beds, mangroves, wetlands, estuaries, and kelp forests. Many of the values of such natural habitats, including coastal protection, climate mitigation, biodiversity support and cultural values, are not traded in markets, despite having substantial benefits to people. For example, during the 2004 tsumani, damage to coastal infrastructure and human loss of life in South East Asia was significantly mitigated by the presence of healthy mangroves (Danielsen et al., 2005). Since these sorts of benefits are not represented directly in markets, they were historically effectively considered to be negligible. This lack of consideration in non-market values in policy creation and decision-making resulted in outcomes that have not maximized public social welfare or allowed for sustainable use of marine resources due to wide-scale habitat loss and destruction (Halpern et al., 2008; Lipton, Lew, Wallmo, Wiley, & Dvarskas, 2014; MEA, 2005; TEEB, 2010).
Economic analysis should help us make more informed decisions about how to use or manage such areas in an easily understood metric (Schmidt, Manceur, & Sepppelt, 2016; TEEB, 2010). Valuation of such areas has demonstrated that the environment makes a large contribution to well-being and generates a range of values generated for stakeholders locally nationally and internationally (Bockstael, Freeman, Kopp, Portney, & Smith, 2000). It has also helped to elucidate the causes of environmentally destructive behavior. For example, an economic analysis of blast fishing in Indonesia showed that while there are significant revenues generated for a large number of people, allowing it to continue is perverse as the economic costs to society are four times higher than the total net private benefits in areas with high potential value of tourism and coastal protection (Pet-Soede, Cesar, & Pet, 1999). Additionally, economic analysis may help to generate solutions to reverse environmental degradation. One of the key research questions remains under what conditions might the conservation gains attributed to MPAs provide the largest benefit for the smallest cost (Farrow, 1996; Hoagland, Yashiaki, & Broadus, 1995; Milon, 2000).
A Historical Perspective on the Economics of Marine Protected Areas
The Economic Value of Resources Within MPAs
Research conducted from the 1990s demonstrated significant and varied values from marine habitats. Such valuation work built support for habitat protection measures including MPAs as it demonstrated value to humans, potential losses from threats, and benefits of resource protection (Dixon & Sherman, 1991; Turner et al., 2003). Often, the total economic value framework was used to understand the different types of values generated by natural resources (Figure 2). This distinguishes between direct use values (e.g., extractive uses and recreation), indirect values (e.g., biophysical or biological functions), option values (value of delaying irreversible decisions), and non-use values (Arrow et al., 1993; Barton, 1994). This framework was used as the basis of numerous valuation studies. Some focused on a specific use, others on a specific habitat or threat (e.g., see Cesar, 2001, for a compendium of coral reef economic research). The ease of valuation is highest for extractive uses, medium for most ecosystem services (ESs) and low for genetic resources, climate control, and science and knowledge, which is reflected in the number of studies for the different types of benefits (Schumann, 2012). Pelagic and continental shelf ecosystems were underrepresented in the literature compared to wetland and reef-related systems (Barbier, 2012; Schuhmann, 2012). See Vassilopoulos and Koundouri (2017) for a review of marine ecosystem valuation methodologies and research.
Fisheries and then tourism-related values were the most commonly measured initially (Alban, Apere, & Boncoeur, 2008). Fisheries values typically related to gross and net revenues from fisheries close to no-take MPAs. The implicit assumption was that these fisheries are indirectly supported through adult and juvenile spillover and larval transport from inside the MPA. Some of these showed very large values generated by artisanal or recreational fisheries adjacent to MPAs (e.g., Bell & Leeworthy, 1997; Hyder, Armstrong, Ferter, & Strehlow, 2014; Lipton et al., 2014; Prayaga, Rolfe, & Stoeckl, 2010; Ruitenbeek & Cartier, 1999). For recreational values, studies that reported gross revenues from MPA-related tourism (including tourist expenditures, park fees, and tourism taxes) may have contributed toward support, as they have shown that these may be substantial, especially if indirect and induced local and regional impacts were included (e.g., Dixon, 1993; Driml, 1994; Israel, 2004; Johns, Leeworthy, Bell, & Bonn, 2003; Ruitenbeek & Cartier, 1999). Such studies reported static fisheries or tourism valuations, which do not indicate if current levels are sustainable ecologically or culturally (Carter, 2003).
Financial flows, or economic impacts of fisheries and tourism, are important from a policy perspective since they will substantially influence stakeholder attitudes toward the MPA. Studies reporting substantial revenues from MPA-related tourism and fisheries helped to increase support for MPAs as they were seen to offset opportunity costs such as loss of access to traditional fishing and recreational areas. However, these transfers of funds and groups represent the financial impacts of MPAs, not the economic values.
Numerous valuation studies have been conducted to analyze visitor willingness to pay (WTP) for access to MPAs using mainly contingent valuation and travel cost analysis (e.g., Peters & Hawkins, 2009; Spash, 2000; Thur, 2010). These showed that recreational visitors have significant WTP for access to MPAs provided that threshold levels of quality and limits on use are maintained. WTP for MPAs was found to depend on numerous site-related factors including the activity being undertaken, site crowding, and the diversity of wildlife as well as respondent characteristics including age, education level, income, environmental awareness and attitudes, country of residence and non-use values (Brander, Florax, & Vermaat, 2006; Gelcich et al., 2013; McVittie & Moran, 2010; Paltriguera, Ferrini, Luisetti, & Turner, 2018; Spash, 2000). Value estimates were also found to sensitive to methodological aspects such as the methodology used, the information presented, the survey format, and the payment vehicle presented (Brander et al., 2006; Setiasih, 2000; Thur, 2010).
There have been relatively few studies to measure local (rather than visitor) WTP for MPAs, but both use and non-use have been demonstrated to be significant at certain MPAs in Belize, Madagascar, and Fiji (Hargreaves-Allen, 2010; O’Garra, 2006; Oleson et al., 2015). Traditional financial payments can be replaced with time or labor-based contributions where incomes are very constrained or discount rates very high (Gibson, Rigby, Polya, & Russell, 2016; Ison, Hills, Morris, & Stead, 2018; O’Garra, 2009). Local WTP to support MPA is influenced by proximity to markets, dependence on marine resources, food security, attendance in education activities, participation in decision-making, use of the MPA, and perception of MPA benefits (Hargreaves-Allen, 2010; Ison et al., 2018; O’Garra, 2009).
Significant progress was also made on measuring coastal protection values (Barbier et al., 2011; Russi et al., 2016) for seagrass, mangrove, saltmarsh, and reef habitats inside MPAs, which can be estimated using estimates of the value of avoided damages or replacement cost for the function (e.g., Burke, Greenhalgh, Prager, & Cooper, 2008; Pascal et al. (2016). Such values have been demonstrated to be large (e.g., Beaumont, Austen, Mangi, & Townsend, 2008; Burke, Selig, & Spalding, 2002; Fletcher et al., 2012; Ruitenbeek & Cartier, 1999). Comparatively little progress has been made on measuring research and education values or option and quasi-option values (Barbier, 2012).
Non-use values for protection of marine biodiversity can be worth billions of dollars when aggregated nationally and outweigh project costs by several orders of magnitude (e.g., Kenter et al., 2013; McVittie & Moran, 2010). Non-use values were found to constitute a large part of values at numerous MPAs, even at remote and unfamiliar MPAs (Brouwer et al., 2016). Interestingly, very little effort has been made to measure the relative contribution of existence and bequest values, which are typically measured together. Including these values allows the preferences of remote stakeholders and future generations to be considered (Carter, 2003). However, it is uncertain if MPAs could achieve the improvements in conservation that many valuations assume in practice, given MPA underfunding, current pervasive threats, and conflict associated with management (Christie, 2004; Hargreaves-Allen, Mourato, & Milner-Guilland, 2017; Zupan et al., 2018).
Values Net of Costs
The true measure of economic value should be net of costs, meaning “producer surplus” (PS) and “consumer surplus” (CS) values. Fisher producer surplus has, however, rarely been measured in practice at MPAs. This is likely due to the large data requirements needed to offset large amounts of variation in terms of ecological and human behavioral parameters. In Belize, a year of landings data, fisher surveys, and household surveys was needed to estimate producer surplus values for fisheries within a multi-use MPA (Hargreaves-Allen, 2010). The cost and effort for such analyses are typically prohibitive, especially in understaffed MPAs. Fisher PS is typically small compared to gross revenues, e.g., in the Great Barrier Reef Marine park, it was $31 million of the $128 million value of product landed per annum (Driml, 1994) due to the high costs of fishing. In contrast, recreational CS values are typically high as WTP is typically greater than the entrance fees charged (Arin & Kramer, 2002; Cesar, Van Beukering, & Goodridge, 2002; Depondt & Green, 2006; Green & Donnelly, 2003).
A number of studies have addressed MPA costs, which include one-off establishment costs as well as ongoing management costs and opportunity costs such as forgone fishing or tourism revenue and unintended costs such as cultural impacts (Adams, Mills, Jupiter, & Pressey, 2011; Cook & Heinen, 2005; Sanchirico & Wilen, 2001; White, Vogt, & Arin, 2000). MPA establishment and operational costs were found to be highly heterogeneous and depend on scale and location (Balmford, Gravestock, Hockley, McClean, & Roberts, 2004; Ban, Adams, Pressey, & Hicks, 2011; McCrea-Strub et al., 2011). Opportunity costs of MPAs are challenging to measure but are starting to be considered in MPA design (e.g., Adams et al., 2011; Leathwick et al., 2008), although these tend to focus on fisheries, not so much other sectors that may be affected such as mineral extraction, shipping, or renewable energy sectors (Kenter et al., 2013). MPA costs can outweigh benefits if large compensation payments to fishers are necessary, e.g., (Hunt, 2013). However, simply choosing MPAs that minimize cost will not be effective (Devillers et al., 2014).
MPAs are an investment of public money, which entail an opportunity cost of those funds (Carter, 2003; Cook, Hockings, & Carater, 2010; Sanchirico, 2000). Therefore, as is the case for other public investments, cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of MPAs was increasingly understood to be justified and necessary. MPAs are underfunded, which limits their effectiveness, and direct start-up and management costs can limit implementation (Balmford et al., 2004; Gravestock, Roberts, & Bailey, 2008; Mora et al., 2006). Hence it is important to establish that the benefits generated outweigh the costs to make a case for better funding (Brander et al., 2015; Sanchirico, Cochran, & Emersen, 2002).
The Value of Protection
Studies reporting the value of habitats inside MPAs imply that the value of such areas would disappear totally and immediately should management cease. However, this assumption is unlikely to be true, as environmental degradation would be expected to occur gradually. Furthermore, some values may not be greatly affected by degazetting. For example, in the Bonaire National Marine Park, tourist visitation continued to increase despite the park being dissolved for several years. The true value of MPAs is the savings in loss of value that would occur if the area was not an MPA minus the costs of protection—that is, the protection itself, not the resource being protected (Pendleton, 1995). Using this approach, the economic value of paper parks (where no management actually takes place) would be correctly reported to be zero. To address this issue, Pendleton (1995) recommended using a dynamic approach and estimating shifts in demand curves with travel cost analysis and discrete choice random utility analysis.
Despite recognition of the need to value the marginal benefits of protection, few analyses were done to undertake this due to the necessary complexities entailed and the unavailability of necessary socio-economic data (Barbier, 2012; Carter, 2003). One approach to measuring the marginal value of protection indirectly is to measure CS for changes, namely expected improvements or avoided losses in quality that would be likely result from effective MPA management (Carter, 2003). Such changes might include larger fish, greater sightings of charismatic species, higher levels of coral cover, or visitor information or infrastructure (Alban et al., 2008). Numerous studies have demonstrated WTP for habitat quality improvements (e.g., Bhat, 2003; Spash, 2000; Uyarra et al., 2005; Wright, 1994; Wielgus, Chadwick-Furman, Duckinsky, Schechter, & Zeitouni, 2002). Conversely Parsons and Thur (2007) show that declines in visibility, species diversity, and coral cover are worth $45–192 per person in the Bonaire National Marine Park, depending on the severity of the decline. Since these reported values are likely to be very dependent on the location and the scenario and payment vehicle presented, it is difficult to generalize these results. There is also little evidence to tease apart the contribution of distinct attributes including changes to tourist facilities (Williams & Polunin, 2000), and the assumptions that MPAs will achieve these changes may not be realistic, as MPA performance is highly heterogeneous (Edgar et al., 2014; Gill et al., 2017; Hargreaves-Allen et al., 2011).
Another approach is to develop scenarios and to value resources with and without protection (Figure 3). The difference, then, between the counterfactual (what would have occurred otherwise) and the observed or predicted state can (with careful study design) indicate the impact on the system attributable to the MPA (Fulton et al., 2015). The counterfactual needs to be carefully chosen so that the scope of the model matches the scope of the question. An early example of this approach was conducted for the Leuser National Park in Indonesia (van Beukering, Cesar, & Janssen, 2003). The park total economic value was calculated for 11 benefit categories under three scenarios using a dynamic simulation model and showed the large increase in net benefits of not allowing deforestation to occur.
Models are a simplified description of certain features and processes of interest which are abstracted from reality (Fulton et al., 2015). Bioeconomic modeling has been used to better understand the contribution of MPAs to fish biomass, catch levels, and the present value of the fishery under different scenarios including MPA features, biological aspects of the habitats and fisheries, and different regulations (Alban et al., 2008). One of the first papers on the economics of marine reserves for fishery management demonstrated that marine reserves can sustain or increase yields for moderate to heavily fished fisheries using data on red snapper (Holland & Brazee, 1996).
Bioeconomic models have two main types. Spatially non-explicit models such as equilibrium models (e.g., Goñi, Hilborn, Díaz, Mallol, & Adlerstein, 2010; Walters, Hillborn, & Parrish, 2007) typically model the effects of one species and one gear and assume spatial homogeneity to show the effects of closing an area to fishing and then calculating spillover using a transfer function. Spatially explicit models are multispecies models (e.g., Sanchirico, 2005; Sanchirico & Wilen, 2001), which usually focus on the location of MPAs rather than the size. These include oceanographic, ecological, and dispersal-related parameters as well as socio-economic factors. They require simulations of fisher behavior or mobility, which are incorporated using several techniques, notably gravity models, random utility, game theory and multi-agent modeling (Alban et al., 2008). The appropriate model to examine MPA outcomes depends on the research objective. Fulton et al. (2015) describe models used in analyzing MPAs, and Sumaila and Charles (2002) and Grafton, Kompas, and Schneider (2005) review the literature of bioeconomic modeling.
Such models are important since they can be used to explain or predict how systems work and might respond to internal and external changes, to identify unanticipated outcomes, and to test if indicators and management strategies are robust to uncertainties. They can be used in data-poor situations and can allow a comprehensiveness that would be too costly to conduct using surveys and include conditions that are hard to observed or have not yet occurred (Fulton et al., 2015).
However, they have a limited ability to incorporate fine-scale details, which is important given the median area of MPAs globally is less than 5 km2 (Fulton et al., 2015). There are also important limitations related to oversimplified assumptions, such as spatial heterogeneity or constant prices, which can lead to inappropriate conclusions (Alban et al., 2008; Rudd, Tupper, Folmer, & Van Kooten, 2003). Since there is a gap between the empirical data available and the data required to estimate models for economic analyses, many studies are theoretical and limited to one specific change with regards to a specific activity. Such models fail to take into account critical ecological impacts, such as habitat protection, which may enhance fishery sustainability in numerous interacting ways (Rodwell & Roberts, 2000). However, more complex models include more uncertainty (Jiang et al., 2008). If all the parameters that affect fisheries outcomes from MPAs were included, the resulting model would be too complex to provide meaningful results (Rodwell & Roberts, 2000). Model projections can, however, be improved by calibrating them with field data, using sensitivity analyses and running multiple realisations to evaluate the robustness of the model result and conditioning the model with retrospective analyses (Fulton et al., 2015).
Bioeconomic models have yielded valuable insights into the relationship between MPAs and fisheries. They have demonstrated that MPAs can increase biomass inside and outside of MPAs and reduce the variability in stock levels and hence variations in harvest levels over time (Conrad, 1999; Hannesson, 1998; Savina, Condie, & Fulton, 2013; Sumaila, 1998). They have also elucidated the variability of fishery responses to protection, depending on the specific circumstances (Holland, 2000; Rodwell & Roberts, 2000; Sciberras, Jenkins, Kaiser, Hawkins, & Pullin, 2013) and the extent of fisheries management outside the MPA (Carter, 2003). For example, spillover has been shown to be dependent on numerous factors, notably the target species, reserve size, habitat connectivity, fish mobility, reserve demarcation, level of enforcement, and availability of alternative sites (Boersma & Parrish, 1999; Gerber, Kareiva, & Bascompte, 2002; Goñi, Badalamenti, & Tupper, 2011; Sumalia, 2002; Pelletier & Mahévas, 2005). Reserve size has been shown to have a non-linear relationship with fishery yield (Gaines, White, Carr, & Palumbi, 2010; Holland, 2000; Pelletier & Mahévas, 2005; Sumaila, 1998), which in turn will be affected by spatial heterogeneity inside and outside the reserve (Schnier, 2005).
Such models have underscored the importance of human behavioral responses to MPAs, including the degree and location of displaced fishing effort across fishing grounds and into other fisheries, as well as non-compliance, which can dissipate fishery benefits (Boersma & Parrish, 1999; Edwards & Plagányi, 2011; Fulton & Gorton, 2014; Pelletier & Mahévas, 2005; Sanchirico & Wilen, 2001; Smith & Wilen, 2003). Indeed a marine reserve alone will do nothing to eliminate or even reduce rent dissipation by itself even if it does increase stock sizes and even catch (Hannesson, 1998), and under certain conditions MPAs may increase costs, overcapacity, and conflict. Unfortunately, despite advances in agent-based models used to investigate human behavior in different situations (e.g., McDonald et al., 2008), such human responses to MPAs remain poorly understood (Alban et al., 2008).
More recent research combines several models with datasets to generate highly sophisticated information related to fisheries outcomes at MPAs. For example in Fiji, Adams, Pressey, and Naidoo (2010) combined habitats/species abundance models with catch, fishing effort, market value, fishing, and cost-profit models used as inputs into Marxan planning software to identify socially acceptable configurations for community-managed MPAs. In the gulf of Carpentria, fisheries models, biophysical models, assessment models, and management models were coupled and considered in the context of five performance measures, one of which was economic performance, to generate an output decision table for alternative management options (Bustamante et al., 2011).
Emerging Research on the Economics of MPAs
Marginal Values of Ecosystem Services
The Millennium assessment in 2005 first characterized consistent and usable terms for ESs (defined as outputs from ecosystems from which people and society derive benefits) and underscored how they were linked to human well-being (Figure 4). This framework is very useful to conceptualize many different benefits and is being broadly adopted by government agencies in developed economies (Fisher & Turner, 2008; Lipton et al., 2014). It divides services into provisioning, supporting, regulating, and cultural (see Liquete et al., 2013, for a systematic review of marine ESs).
There have been advances in detailing qualitative links between marine habitats and suites of ESs. For example, Potts et al. (2014) developed matrices of services for each marine habitat in the United Kingdom using export opinion and a literature review. They also estimated the relative importance of each habitat type in providing the ES and the level of confidence in the evidence. Nevertheless, the Millenium Ecosystem Assesment (MEA) categorisation, which is the most commonly used, is not straightforward because of the intangibility of the categories, their interactions, and bias in terms of which services are included due to complexity of valuation (Liquete et al., 2013).
No single tool can achieve all goals for ocean management, and MPAs do not mitigate global stressors such as climate change, ocean acidification, and pollution (Allison, Lubchenco, & Carr, 1998; Hilborn, 2018; Zupan et al., 2018). However, MPAs should help to maintain habitats in a healthy, productive, and resilient condition by maintaining biodiversity and acting as a hedge against fisheries and environmental management failures and a replenishment area in the event of a catastrophic event due to a reduction in local threats (Alban et al., 2008; Boersma & Parrish, 1999; Mellin, MacNeil, Cheal, Emslie, & Caley, 2016; Olds et al., 2014; Roberts et al., 2017; Sanchirico, 2000; Worm et al., 2006). This means that MPAs should maintain or even enhance the provision of ESs situated inside MPAs (Palumbi et al., 2009; Potts et al., 2014; Russi et al., 2016; TEEB, 2010). The keys ESs supported are likely to be food provision, tourism and recreation, education and research, coastal protection, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity, as well as supporting services (Brander et al., 2015).
Management activities will change the type, magnitude, and mix of ESs provided by ecosystems (Rodriguez et al., 2006). Valuing these changes involves a number of stages, including (1) parametising the direct and indirect link between the utility, functionality, and extent of ecosystems, (2) estimating how ES supply will change if there is a change to the ecosystem, (3) knowing how this change will affect the provision of direct and indirect benefits once behavioral responses to the changes in ES have been accounted for, and (4) finding suitable methods to measure the monetary value of this change to benefits (Bateman, Mace, Fezzi, Atkinson, & Turner, 2011). The conceptual framework for this analysis is illustrated in Figure 5.
Many studies that value ESs implicitly assume that habitats are totally destroyed or degraded, but the extent to which this might occur without protection within an MPA is very context specific and poorly understood. MPAs may only slow degradation rather than totally stop it (Glenn et al., 2010). Some authors have addressed this by valuing MPA benefits in terms of reduction or halting current trends in habitat loss and then calculating difference in service generated using mean values per area (see, e.g., Beaumont, Jones, Garbutt, Hansom, & Toberman, 2014; Brander et al., 2015). The size of the protection benefit then depends significantly on the imminence of environmental degradation. This approach does not take into account marginal value changes associated with scale or increases in the values of services generated through management so will likely significantly underestimate MPA values.
While marginal changes are known to be the correct metric to value MPAs, they are rarely measured in practice. This is due to the complexity of underlying ecological non-linearities, limited understanding of bio-physical linkages, and requirements for simplifying assumptions that reduce the accuracy of these estimates (Barbier, 2012; Bateman et al., 2011; Pascal et al., 2018). Non-linearities in service provision occur over time and space, and there are also likely scale and threshold effects depending on numerous variables, which are often poorly understood. Such non-linearities are difficult to predict or incorporate into ES valuations (Ban et al., 2011; Barbier et al., 2008). Assuming flows are linear or static is likely to result in inaccurate valuations and lead to inappropriate policy recommendations. Koch et al. (2009) provide an overview of this issue and recommendations to reduce this problem. The fine-scale local data required to value ESs are also rarely available and costly to collect. Hence, there is limited scope to value ESs, even when biophysical models exist to use as a framework for analysis, which is often not the case. The greater the complexity entailed in the valuation, the less precise the valuation estimates (Sanchirico et al., 2002). Economists often therefore need to use proxies or make simplifying assumptions to undertake these studies. Sensitivity analyses should be conducted to clarify the effect of assumptions on results, although this is rarely done in practice (Pascal et al., 2018).
There remain significant uncertainties regarding MPA impacts on fishery yields, tourism revenues, coastal protection, and other ESs (Boersma & Parrish, 1999; Pascal et al., 2018; Russi et al., 2016). Generally there is also insufficient understanding of MPA impacts on the provision of supporting and regulating services, which makes them the least amenable to valuation, especially for climate mitigation, coastal protection, and water quality (Barbier, 2012; Hanley, Hynes, Patterson, & Jobstvogt, 2015; Jobstvogt, Watson, & Kenter, 2014; Keller et al., 2009). Some MPA benefits are unlikely monetised because theoretical foundations to do so do not yet exist. These include the reduced chance of ecosystem collapse or species extinction, increased research opportunities to compared with unmanaged areas, increased resilience to environmental shocks, hedge against poor fisheries, or environmental management (Lipton et al., 2014; Sale et al., 2005). See Brander et al. (2015) for a comprehensive review of all literature relating to potential changes in ES provision in MPAs.
Furthermore, many services are synergistic, e.g., erosion control and recreational values and nursery values (Russi et al., 2016), but many are also traded off locally at different scales or over time (e.g., tourism and effluent storage in wetlands; Barbier et al., 2011; Brown et al., 2001; Hargreaves-Allen et al., 2017; Rodriguez et al., 2006). Care should be taken to avoid double counting, especially where benefits are not complementary or when provision of one service such as biodiversity underlies the provision of many others (Mace, Norris, & Fitter, 2012; Worm et al., 2006). Double counting can be reduced by only valuing final and not intermediary services (Fu et al., 2011; Potts et al., 2014).
Most ES provision and value is highly context specific, depending on, for example, environmental quality, scale, resource scarcity, and availability of substitute sites (Barbier, 2012; Turner et al., 2003). Localized and non-localized threats and coastal management outside of MPAs will influence ES provision (Jameson, Tupper, & Ridley, 2002), and these may be enacted directly or indirectly and in an additive way, may cancel one another out, or may be synergistic (Halpern et al., 2008). The cumulative impacts of threats on the provision of ESs are largely unknown or highly uncertain (Hanley et al., 2015; Keller et al., 2009; Noone, Sumaila, & Díaz, 2014). Furthermore, network properties of MPAs may emerge, which are poorly understood (Claudet, Garcia-Charton, & Lenfant, 2011; Lester et al., 2009, Roberts & Hawkins, 2000). Therefore, valuation of marginal changes to resource quality or service provision from MPAs is difficult to undertake and cannot be aggregated to value the resource as a whole or from local to regional scales (Barbier, 2012; Schuhmann, 2012). These complexities in MPA valuation have yet to be widely incorporated into political decision-making (Laurans, Rankovic, Billé, Pirard, & Mermet, 2013).
Valuing the full range of benefits is generally not feasible (Lipton et al., 2014). Which benefits to include in valuation can be informed by difficulty of estimation, whether the benefit is excludable, and whether a loss in benefits would be reversible (Dixon & Sherman, 1991), as well as MPA goals and which activities have been restricted or undertaken (MPA regulations and management activities, such as education or restoration). A one-size-fits-all method may grossly underestimate true economic value and may not be sufficient for informing policy (Schuhmann, 2012). It is also usually not advisable to add values generated with different methodologies together, since they often have different theoretical foundations and measure different things (Russi et al., 2016).
While environmental valuation methods have become considerably more sophisticated, no new methods have been developed since the 1980s (Hanley et al., 2015). Use of secondary market data virtually ensures that the significant components of value associated with non-market uses and passive uses will be omitted and potentially ignored (Schuhmann, 2012). Contingent valuation is a useful and flexible tool to measure cultural values associated with MPAs. However, it has key limitations, including being vulnerable to strategic behavior, having significant hypothetical and instrumental biases, and being highly sensitive to the information, the valuation scenario, and payment vehicle presented (Alban et al., 2008; Carson, 2000). Choice modelling can also be useful to examine the relative values of different attributes and to value ex ante the potential benefits of different management scenarios to inform decision-making (Beharry-Borg & Scarpa, 2010; Glenn et al., 2010; Wattage et al., 2011). For example, McVittie and Moran (2010) used CM to look at values associated with biodiversity conservation, ESs, alternative levels of fishing restrictions, and resource extraction for a system of MPAs in the United Kingdom. Authors are also increasingly combining multiple methodologies in single surveys to measure recreational values associated with MPAs ( e.g., Jobstvogt et al., 2014; Kenter et al., 2013). Stated preferences may include both use and non-use values, which require being cautious about adding these to other types of valuation studies (McVittie & Moran, 2010).
Benefits transfer (the extrapolation of values from a source site to another site with similar characteristics) can be used to provide an indication of ES values, although its application is limited due to the inherently case-specific nature of natural resource value and the marginal aspects of resource change. Benefits transfer has a number of important limitations including uncertainty in the primary valuations (due to weak methodologies, unreliable or unavailable data, analyst error and biases, and inaccuracies associated with valuation methods), the dearth of studies to measure some ESs and biases in terms of disseminations of results, errors in the transfer process, and temporal generalization errors (Brander, 2013; Hussain et al., 2010; Rosenberger & Stanley, 2006). Therefore, while it is highly cost effective, it should not be used in situations where very accurate estimates are required. Guidance for best practice benefits transfer has been developed (Bergstrom & Taylor, 2006; Rosenberger & Loomis, 2003; Wilson & Hoehn, 2006).
Cost-Benefit Analysis Measuring Marginal Impacts of MPAs on Ecosystem Services
Cost-benefit analysis is a rapidly emerging field of research but remains rare compared to static analyses of total economic values (Wielgus, Balmford, Lewis, Mora, & Gerber, 2010), despite an increasing number of policies requiring or encouraging environmental valuation and CBA (Börger, Hattam, Burdon, Atkins, & Austen, 2014; Hanley et al., 2015). Recent studies have made significant methodological advancements in terms of estimating marginal impacts of MPAs on ecosystem services, although not all significant impacts on ESs can yet be valued.
Hussain et al. (2010) used benefits transfer to estimate ES values of GBP10-23 billion for a potential network of MPAs in the United Kingdom, compared to a counterfactual of no designation. This was equivalent to a cost-benefit ratio of 5.5–12.7. They considered three configurations of MPAs under two management regimes that differed in their level of restrictions. They first identified 35 landscape types and 11 ES categories. They then scored the impact of designation in each category on a per hectare basis, which accounted for expectations as to threats and threat mitigation, so that highly threatened services would receive a score showing they would respond significantly to MPA designation. They then valued this impact and aggregated it based on landscape area data. The study was innovative since they incorporated a temporal dimension for the benefit provision by using three trajectories—linear, exponential, and logarithmic—and modelling the number of years it would take to achieve the threshold level of change. Generally, provisioning services were shown to have a low value since they would be banned or minimised, whereas services such as nutrient cycling and culture heritage and identity would be greatly enhanced. There was uncertainty with regard to the impact of MPAs on climate regulation, which was significant, since this was the ES with the largest value.
Pascal et al. (2018) undertake CBAs for two very different MPAs considering six ESs: fish biomass, scenic beauty and emblematic species for tourism, damages avoided from coastal protection, bequest value, ability to gain external assistance through grants or technical support, and carbon sequestration by mangroves. Results were highly sensitive to the expected different levels of impact of ESs, which remains poorly understood. Fishery productivity enhancement was used as a proxy for the effect of the MPA on fisheries, whereas tourism enhancement was based on attitudinal responses of visitors and the social capital effect from the ratio of grants linked to the MPA and those not. The authors estimated a contributing factor of the MPA where there was limited data or theoretical models of 5% for coastal protection, 10% for carbon sequestration, and 35% for bequest values. The authors also estimated direct operational costs, initial investment, and opportunity cost of time lost in fisheries or spent employed at the MPA. In both MPAs, tourism effects represented 60–70% of benefits followed by fisheries and coastal protection. Both return on investment and CB ratio were positive, although the choice of MPA factor influenced results highly. Pascal et al. (2018) were unusual in calculating both CBA and return on investment to capture both economic values and cash flows to the local economy.
In an ambitious and comprehensive analysis, Brander et al. (2015) consider the economic costs and benefits for six scenarios of a global expansion of MPAs, where 10 to 30% of marine habitats become no-take areas. The different scenarios included different configurations of MPA locations and sizes, with data on human impacts (Halpern et al., 2008) used to create priority maps. Costs modeled included set-up and operational costs, as well as opportunity costs to commercial fisheries, and depended on MPA scale and location. The ESs included were coastal protection, fisheries, tourism, recreation, and carbon storage. Where possible, they used benefits transfer based on functions obtained from meta-analyses of valuation studies, so that value estimates would reflect site, socio-economic, and context characteristics. Habitat loss was assumed to fall to zero for habitats situated inside MPAs and to continue at the current rate of loss otherwise. The estimated changes in the rates of habitat loss were based on publish studies but were subject to sensitivity analyses, since they are highly uncertain. For reefs, the economic value of services was highest due to the fast rate of loss of reefs of around 2% per year that would occur with the status quo (Bruno & Selig, 2007). They also incorporated data on the abundance of marine ecosystems locally to account for changes in terms of substitute or complementary ecosystems, using the method reported in Brander et al. (2012). The counterfactual scenario was creating using spatially explicit threat levels from Burke, Reytar, Spaldig, and Perry (2011). Carbon sequestration was the only service that was not scale dependent and was calculated based on the social cost of carbon. Fisheries benefits were also a reduction in the rate of decline of fisheries, and sensitivity analyses were used to test the sensitivity of results to the rates used, since this effect is highly uncertain and showed that the assumed baseline rate of decline (the status quo) used affected fisheries values to a large degree. The cost-benefit ratio ranged from 3.17 to 19.77 and confirmed that the net benefits of MPAs are highly dependent on design and location and that benefits show diminishing returns to scale. The difference in provision from reefs was highly significant. Missing benefits that could not be valued included fishery spillover, bio-prospecting, opportunity costs of extractive industries, non-use values, and network effects. It should be noted, however, that this analysis has yet to be peer reviewed and that the authors note significant limitations in terms of necessary generalizations and extrapolations due to the global scale, the lack of inclusion of performance and future threats on values, missing determinants of cost, effects of displacement of human activities to outside areas, the time horizon only extending to 2050, and the existence of other marine management tools outside MPAs.
Distributional Impacts of MPAs
MPAs will have complex distributional impacts, which will depend on the MPA features, location, regulations enforced, and the local and national socio-economic and institutional context (Mascia, 2004; Pollnac et al., 2010; Pomeroy, Mascia, & Pollnac, 2007; Sanchirico et al., 2002). Such distributive impacts are not reflected in valuation studies as they produce aggregate measures of benefits (Steiner, McCormick, & Johnson, 2004). Different types of access rights can be lost, secured, or gained, which will also largely determine the extent and equity of MPAs impacts, both positive and negative, which will in turn affect governance, economic well-being, health, education, social capital, and culture (Mascia & Claus, 2009). The impacts of re-allocating rights to MPA resources vary within and among social groups, inducing changes in society, in patterns of resource use, and in the environment (Adams et al., 2011; Holland, 2000; Mascia, Claus, & Naidoo, 2010).
Each individual will incur costs and benefits associated with the MPA, which will vary for different stakeholders (Alban et al., 2008; Ferraro, 2002). The main costs and benefits are outlined in Table 1. The relative magnitude of these costs and benefits will determine stakeholder support and behavior (Heinen, 1996; Kremen et al., 2000; Sanchirico, 2000). Indeed, even if total benefits of an MPA are much greater than costs, it does not mean that certain stakeholders will not face substantial costs (Adams et al., 2010; Bennett & Dearden, 2014). Incentives are poorly aligned where there is a mismatch of those receiving benefits and those costs (Balmford & Whitten, 2003; Norton-Griffiths & Southey, 1995; Wells, 1992), resulting in perceived inequity. There can also be an intertemporal trade-off, where costs incur immediately and benefits largely arise in the future (Vandeperre et al., 2011; Weigel et al., 2014). Where local stakeholder incentives do not support conservation, compliance is likely to be low, enforcement costly, and conflict high, which will undermine MPA effectiveness (Agardy et al., 2003; Bennett & Dearden, 2014; Carter, 2003; Christie, 2004; Christie et al., 2017; Gutierrez, Hilborn, & Defeo, 2011; Hutton & Leader-Williams, 2003).
Table 1. Economic Benefits and Costs Generated by MPAs for Different Stakeholders
Increased fishery stock abundance or age/size composition
Increased spawning stock biomass
Increased catch levels or catch per unit effort or market value of fishery
Reduced variability in annual catch levels
Reduced likelihood of fishery collapse
Support for traditional livelihoods, ways of life, and sense of place
Reduced vulnerability to environmental shocks
Formalize or strengthen traditional fishing access rights
Increased food security and poverty reduction
Increased habitat quality
Increased species density and diversity
Increased access and facilities
Improved ecosystem health
Protection of marine biodiversity
Reduction in probability of irreversible changes
Increased resilience to environmental shocks
Option and quasi-option values
Enhanced ecosystem services, e.g., waste assimilation, coastal protection
Support of existence and bequest values
Revenues from fees and permits
Increased scientific knowledge
Opportunities for education
Savings in enforcement costs over other management models
Hedge against uncertain stock assessments
Increased demand or prices for local goods and services
New, increased, or more sustainable income and employment
Increased food security or nutrition
Indirect and induced economic impact of increased local visitation
Increased environmental awareness
Improved tourism-related infrastructure
Increased access to services from MPA-related development grants
Improved institutional capacity and governance
Increased participation and representation of marginalized groups
Loss of access to fishing grounds
Decreased control over natural resources and alienation
Increased travel and search costs and decreased profitability
Increased poverty and food insecurity
Fisher congestion in open areas
MPA-related fines and penalties
Increase in safety risks
Overcrowding and environmental damage
Opportunity costs of other uses of public money and effort
Costs associated with MPA designation, e.g., design, consultation, boundary demarcation, visitor infrastructure
Management costs, e.g., monitoring, enforcement, staffing and equipment, compensation payment
Loss of recreational access and tenure
Environmental damage from visitation and tourism-related development
Loss of cultural identity
Forgone income from extractive activities, e.g., oil or mineral extraction
Greater social inequality and marginalization of vulnerable groups
Weakening of traditional institutions
Decreased adaptive capacity and resilience
For conservation initiatives to work effectively, the benefits may need to outweigh the costs at numerous scales (Kremen et al., 2000). However, it is locally where MPAs will have their most marked effect, as it is local users whose behavior, compliance, and support will most influence MPA ecological and socio-economic outcomes (Bennett & Dearden, 2012; Pomeroy et al., 2007). In particular, fisher responses are a key determinant of success as they can dissipate fishery improvements through poaching or re-allocation of effort or unsustainable practices (Lundquist & Granek, 2005; Sanchirico et al., 2002). Fisher support will be influenced by incentives to poach and perceived equity in terms of beneficiaries, rules, and enforcement as well as involvement in decision-making about MPA design and management (Adams et al., 2011; Agardy et al., 2003; Charles & Wilson, 2009; Gutierrez et al., 2011; McClanahan, Marnana, Cinner, & Kiene, 2006; Pollnac, Crawford, & Gorospe, 2001; Pollnac et al., 2010). It is also local extractive and non-extractive threats that need to be mitigated by MPAs, as their ability to directly counter large-scale or remote threats is very limited (Agardy, Di Sciara, & Christie, 2011; Boersma & Parrish, 1999; Hargreaves-Allen et al., 2011; Jameson et al., 2002; Zupan et al., 2018).
Evidence of Economic Benefits of MPAs
The increases in species biomass, size of target species, and species richness inside MPAs compared to areas outside, which bioeconomic models predict, have been observed in practice (Edgar et al., 2014; Fenberg et al., 2012; Guidetti et al., 2014; Lester et al., 2009). There is also evidence of spillover from MPAs (Goñi et al., 2010; Halpern, Lester, & Kellner, 2010; Roberts, Bohnsack, Gell, Hawkins, & Goodrich, 2001; Russ, Alcala, Maypa, Calumpong, & White, 2004; Stobart et al., 2009). However, fisheries benefits are difficult to detect, and increased catches may not always occur or may be marginal (Willis, Millar, Babcock, & Tolimieri, 2003). Indeed, there are remarkably few well-designed studies of MPA that can rigorously demonstrate recruitment effects of MPAs, or sustained or enhanced fishery yields and much of the evidence of spillover is equivocal (Buxton, Hartmann, Kearney, & Gardner, 2014; Goñi et al., 2011; Sale et al., 2005; Willis et al., 2003). This is due to the ecological and temporal variability of species, fisheries, and habitats as well as site-specific anthropogenic stressors, MPA attributes, and human behavior. There remains considerable uncertainty with regard to larval dispersal, species mobility, ecosystem impacts of fishing, hydrodynamic patterns, and ecosystem interconnectedness (Pascal et al., 2018; Sale et al., 2005). Even in well-managed MPAs, species and site-specific factors impact the effects of protection, including MPA age, species interaction and exploitation levels prior to protection (Claudet, Osenberg, & Benedetti-Cecchi, 2008; Edgar et al., 2014; Selig & Bruno, 2010).
In terms of impacts on fishers, increased fishery yields have been demonstrated at MPAs (Garcia-Charton, Perez-Ruzafa, & Marcos, 2008; McClanahan, Glaesel, Rubens, & Kiambo, 1997; Moland et al., 2013; Roberts et al., 2001; Russ et al., 2004), and several studies have shown minimal impacts on fisher profits or incomes despite displacement of fishing activity (e.g., Mangi, Rodwell, & Hattam, 2011; Stevenson, Tissot, & Walsh, 2013). More research is needed to quantify the effects on fishing communities and the effects of changes to spatial distribution of fishing effort on fishery sustainability and to test against projected outcomes predicted by models (Agardy et al., 2011; Fulton et al., 2015; Mascia et al., 2010).
A number of studies have demonstrated benefits to local communities adjacent to MPAs over time or compared to those without MPAs. These have included benefits in terms of nutrition and health, economic development, income diversification or poverty reduction, resilience, as well as education, stronger governance, and security of tenure (Aswani & Furusawa, 2007; Cohen, Valemei, & Govan, 2008; Hargreaves-Allen et al., 2011; Leisher, Van Beukering, & Scherl, 2007; Mascia et al., 2010). However, rigorous evidence of causality is rare due to reliance on perceptual surveys and poor experimental design (Agrawal & Redford, 2006; Ferraro & Pressey, 2015).
Many MPAs are set up with the expectation of increasing local tourism revenues (Sorensen & Thomsen, 2009). The “designation effect” of MPAs alone can generate tourism in a previously unvisited area and so support sustainable use of marine resources as well as create jobs directly in management activities (Alban et al., 2008; Edwards, Sutton-Grier, & Coyle, 2013; Fletcher et al., 2012; Hargreaves-Allen et al., 2011; Lemelin & Dawson, 2014). MPAs have been shown to have increased tourism-related revenues (Garcia-Charton et al., 2008; Jobstvogt et al., 2014; Rees, Rodwell, Attrill, Austen, & Mangi, 2010; Roncin et al., 2008). However, tourism increases may not occur or can be lost through leakage from the local economy (Bennett & Dearden, 2014). Recreational impacts of MPA designation may vary for different types of activity, affecting different types of operators differently (Rees et al., 2015).
Cultural benefits are often omitted from CBAs as they are difficult or costly to quantify. However, MPAs can support cultural services related to spiritual enrichment and well-being as well as a sense of maintenance of the culture, identity, and lifestyle of local communities (Jobstvogt et al., 2014; O’Garra, 2009). In the United Kingdom, such values were dependent on spirituality (an emotional connection providing sense of place, peace, and tranquility), the extent of community involvement, research and education being undertaken, and marketing efforts (Pike, Johnson, Fletcher, Wright, & Lee, 2010). It is difficult to unequivocally link particular changes in socio-ecological systems to particular changes in cultural benefits, and cultural benefits are associated with many services, not just cultural ES, which is likely to leads to underestimates of MPA value (Chan et al., 2012).
Evidence of Economic Costs of MPAs to Local Stakeholders
A number of studies have shown unintended negative impacts from MPAs for local communities, notably increased inequality and conflict and reduced access rights and local participation in management (Bennett & Dearden, 2014; Brondo & Woods, 2007; Christie, 2004; Fabinyi, 2008). Such costs are of greatest concern when the cost-bearing group is relatively poor (Steiner et al., 2004).
The effectiveness of MPAs depends to a large extent on support from coastal fishing communities, yet these can be subject to the greatest costs (Boncoeur, Alban, Ifremer, & Ifremer, 2002; Kiringe, Okello, & Ekajul, 2007; Madden, 2004; Mascia et al., 2010; Smith, Lynham, Sanchirico, & Wilson, 2010). Small-scale fisheries in developing countries are most vulnerable to negative impacts since they typically operate in a small range and have limited spatial and occupational mobility (Carter, 2003; Cinner et al., 2009; Mascia, 2004). Fishers can be impacted differently depending on gears and locations used (e.g., Adams et al., 2011). Hence it is difficult to predict costs for fishers since they are so context specific (Boncoeur et al., 2002).
Environmental degradation due to increased visitation has been recorded at many MPAs, for example, though trampling on corals, mooring impacts, or changing fish or marine mammal behavior (Garcia-Charton et al., 2008; Hawkins & Roberts, 1993; Juhasz, Ho, Bender, & Fong, 2010; Loper et al., 2008; Milazzo, Chemello, Badalamenti, Camarda, & Riggio, 2002). Overcrowding can also reduce recreational values (Carter, 2003; Davis & Tisdell, 1995), hence increased visitation may eventually depress tourism (Lindberg, Enriquez, & Sproule, 1996). An understanding of visitor CS values can help to identify the correct level of fees to keep visitation within the MPA’s carrying capacity in terms of ecological and socio-cultural impacts, although it is difficult to restrict access at many MPAs (Arin & Kramer, 2002; Carter, 2003; Green & Donnelly, 2003).
New approaches using rigorous experimental design are needed to analyze the distributive impacts of MPAs on local community well-being, stakeholder sensitivity to these impacts, and, in turn, how perceived incentives influence MPA outcomes (Christie et al., 2017; Mascia & Claus, 2009). Since there have been so many available methodologies, there is a need to identify and standardize economic indicators to quantitively measure changes in outcomes for adaptive management (Fox et al., 2014; Hargreaves-Allen et al., 2017; Johns, Lee, Leeworthy, Boyer, & Nuttle, 2014). The sustainable livelihoods framework, which distinguishes between natural, social, human, physical financial, cultural, and political assets, is one promising area of development (Bennett & Dearden, 2014; Igoe, 2006; Scoones, 1998). Research has shown that social and ecological systems are highly linked, so economic factors cannot be investigated in isolation from ecological and socio-cultural factors (Ban et al., 2017; Fox et al., 2012; Pollnac et al., 2010).
Mitigating Distributive Impacts
MPAs can create trade-offs between different uses or objectives that are not compatible (Gaines et al., 2010; Jiang et al., 2008; O’Leary et al., 2018). Goals need to be explicit so that design and management can prioritize benefits and evaluate performance (Christie & White, 2007; Hargreaves-Allen et al., 2017). Whether MPAs will be able to provide ecological, economic, and socio-political benefits concurrently, and the conditions that can make this more likely, remains an important research question (McShane et al., 2011).
Although the ecological benefits from MPAs (e.g., species or habitat recovery) are greatest for strongly or fully protected areas (Edgar et al., 2014), multiple-use MPAs can also be effective (Di Franco et al., 2016). Zoning of MPAs, where different uses are permitted and restricted, may help to limit visitor-related environmental impacts, reduce costs, and balance social, ecological, and economic objectives (Day & Dobbs, 2013). Zoned MPAs could also be fertile ground for comparative studies looking at impacts of different anthropogenic threats (Cook & Heinen, 2005). Indeed, spatial models suggest that zoned MPAs can maximize benefits to extractive and non-extractive users concurrently (Davis, Kragt, Gelcich, Schilizzi, & Pannell, 2015; Merino, Maynou, & Boncoeur, 2009) and benefit both fisheries and conservation outcomes, although this is not guaranteed (Gaines et al., 2010).
MPAs need to carefully consider distributional impacts of MPAs and, where necessary, use compensation programs such as alternative livelihood initiatives, access to micro-finance, equipment buy-backs or additional fisheries management measures to ensure incentives are aligned with management goals (Gutierrez et al., 2011; Mascia et al., 2010; McClanahan et al., 2006; Rettig, 1994). Direct compensation payments should be transitional as they have been problematic in developing countries. Indirect benefits such as improvements to infrastructure, access to health, education, and alternative livelihood training can also increase local support (Niesten & Gjertsen, 2010).
In order to protect marine resources, it is important to understand the magnitude of values, to whom they accrue, and the relative value of activates that degrade them. Lack of recognition by policymakers of the economic value of natural assets most certainly leads to inefficient resource allocations, leaving society worse off. Valuation studies have made explicit the direct, indirect, and non-use values generated by ecosystems inside MPAs, which makes a powerful case for conservation. Research has also demonstrated that MPA benefits are typically much greater than their costs, so they constitute a worthwhile investment in public funds.
However, MPA outcomes are highly complex, as each MPA operates in a unique context, so that it is difficult to generalize or predict effects on ecosystem services. Not all expected benefits may occur, and multiple objectives may not be compatible. Economic analysis is most challenging when understanding of biophysical processes is limited, quantitative information is scarce, and uncertainties are great, as is the case with ESs in MPAs. In addition, there are problems related to lack of a scientific baseline, temporal and non-linear aspects of service provision, and the risk of double counting, which means that MPA valuation remains to be widely incorporated into political decision-making. Questions remain about how human-induced threats change the provision of ESs, how interaction between ecosystems affects this, and how changes in the provision of services, mediated by human responses, ultimately affect the welfare of different stakeholders.
Socio-economic factors may shape MPAs more than biological or physical factors, but the human aspects of MPAs are not yet well understood. MPAs will produce both positive and negative impacts for different groups of stakeholders over time and for individuals. Social benefits of MPAs are principally linked to income and employment benefits from improved natural resource management and tourism, the support of ecosystem services delivered locally, and non-use values. Many costs associated with MPAs are unintended and accrue to local stakeholders. Better understanding of costs and social impacts will help to inform appropriate compensatation initiatives or alter MPA design or regulations so as to increase the support and compliance and reduce conflict, which will enhance MPA performance.
Adams, V. M., Mills, M., Jupiter, S. D., & Pressey, R. L. (2011). Improving social acceptability of marine protected area networks: A method for estimating opportunity costs to multiple gear types in both fished and currently unfished areas. Biological Conservation, 144, 350–361.Find this resource:
Adams, V. M., Pressey, R. L., & Naidoo, R. (2010). Opportunity costs: Who really pays for conservation? Biological Conservation, 143, 439–448.Find this resource:
Agardy, T., Bridgewater, P., Crosby, M. P., Day, J., Dayton, P. K., Kenchington, R., . . . Peau, L. (2003). Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 13, 353–367.Find this resource:
Agardy, T., Di Sciara, G. N., & Christie, P. (2011). Mind the gap: Addressing the shortcomings of marine protected areas through large scale marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 35, 226–232.Find this resource:
Agrawal, A., & Redford, K. (2006). Poverty, development and biodiversity conservation. New York: Wildlife Conservation Society.Find this resource:
Alban, F., Apere, G., & Boncoeur, J. (2008). Economic analysis of marine protected areas—A literature review. Emphafish.Find this resource:
Allison, G. W., Lubchenco, J., & Carr, M. H. (1998). Marine reserves are necessary but not sufficient for marine conservation. Ecological Applications, 8, S79–S92.Find this resource:
Arin, T., & Kramer, R. A. (2002). Divers’ willingness to pay to visit marine sanctuaries: an exploratory study. Ocean & Coastal Management, 45, 171–183.Find this resource:
Arrow, K. J., Solow, R., Portney, P., Leamer, E., Radner, R., & Schuman, H. (1993). Report of the NOAA Panel of Contingent Valuation. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Find this resource:
Aswani, S., & Furusawa, T. (2007). Do marine protected areas affect human nutrition and health? A comparison between villages in Roviana, Solomon Islands. Coastal Management, 35, 545–565.Find this resource:
Balmford, A., Gravestock, P., Hockley, N., McClean, C. J., & Roberts, C. M. (2004). The worldwide costs of marine protected areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 9694–9697.Find this resource:
Balmford, A., & Whitten, T. (2003). Who should pay for tropical conservation, and how could the costs be met? Oryx, 37, 238–250.Find this resource:
Ban, N. C., Adams, V., Pressey, R. L., & Hicks, J. (2011). Promise and problems for estimating management costs of marine protected areas. Conservation Letters, 4, 241–252.Find this resource:
Ban, N. C., Davies, T. E., Aguilera, S. E., Brooks, C., Cox, M., Epstein, G., . . . Nenadovic, M. (2017). Social and ecological effectiveness of large marine protected areas. Global Environmental Change, 43, 82–91.Find this resource:
Barbier, E. B. (2012). Progress and challenges in valuing coastal and marine ecosystem services. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 6, 1–19.Find this resource:
Barbier, E. B., Hacker, S. D., Kennedy, C., Koch, E. W., Stier, A. C., & Sillman, B. (2011). The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecological Monographs, 81, 169–193.Find this resource:
Barbier, E. B., Koch, E. W., Silliman, B. R., Hacker, S. D., Wolanski, E., Primavera, J., . . . Reed, D. J. (2008). Coastal ecosystem-based management with nonlinear ecological functions and values. Science, 319, 321–323.Find this resource:
Barton, D. N. (1994). Economic factors and valuation of tropical coastal resources. Bergen, Norway: University of Bergen.Find this resource:
Bateman, I. J., Mace, G. M., Fezzi, C., Atkinson, G., & Turner, K. (2011). Economic analysis for ecosystem service assessments. Environmental and Resource Economics, 48, 177–218.Find this resource:
Beaumont, N., Austen, M., Mangi, S., & Townsend, M. (2008). Economic valuation for the conservation of marine biodiversity. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 56, 386–396.Find this resource:
Beaumont, N. J., Jones, L., Garbutt, A., Hansom, J. D., & Toberman, M. (2014). The value of carbon sequestration and storage in coastal habitats. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 137, 32–40.Find this resource:
Beharry-Borg, N., & Scarpa, R. (2010). Valuing quality changes in Caribbean coastal waters for heterogeneous beach visitors. Ecological Economics, 69, 1124–1139.Find this resource:
Bell, F. W., & Leeworthy, V. R. (1997). The economic valuation of saltwater marsh supporting marine recreational fishing in the southeastern United States. Ecological Economics, 21, 243–254.Find this resource:
Bennett, N. J., & Dearden, P. (2012). From outcomes to inputs: What is required to achieve the ecological and socio-economic potential of marine protected areas? Victoria, Canada: Marine Protected Areas Research Group/University of Victoria.Find this resource:
Bennett, N. J., & Dearden, P. (2014). Why local people do not support conservation: Community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand. Marine Policy, 44, 107–116.Find this resource:
Bergstrom, J. C., & Taylor, L. O. (2006). Using meta-analysis for benefits transfer: Theory and practice. Ecological Economics, 60, 351–360.Find this resource:
Bhat, M. G. (2003). Application of non-market valuation to the Florida Keys marine reserve management. Journal of Environmental Management, 67, 315–325.Find this resource:
Bockstael, N. E., Freeman, A. M., Kopp, R. J., Portney, P. R., & Smith, V. K. (2000). On measuring economic values for nature. Environmental Science & Technology, 34, 1384–1389.Find this resource:
Boersma, P. D., & Parrish, J. K. (1999). Limiting abuse: marine protected areas, a limited solution. Ecological Economics, 31, 287–304.Find this resource:
Boncoeur, J., Alban, F., Ifremer, O. G., & Ifremer, O. T. (2002). Fish, fishers, seals and tourists: Econmic consequences of creating a marine reserve in a multi-species activity context. Natural Resource Modeling, 15, 387–411.Find this resource:
Börger, T., Hattam, C., Burdon, D., Atkins, J. P., & Austen, M. C. (2014). Valuing conservation benefits of an offshore marine protected area. Ecological Economics, 108, 229–241.Find this resource:
Brander, L. (2013). Guidance manual on value transfer methods for ecosystem services. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP.Find this resource:
Brander, L., Baulcomb, C., Van Der Lelji, J. A. C., Eppink, F., McVittie, A., Nijsten, L., & Van Beukering, P. J. H. (2015). The benefits to people of expanding marine protected areas. Amsterdam: IVM Institute for Environmental Studies.Find this resource:
Brander, L. M., Bräuer, I., Gerdes, H., Ghermandi, A., Kuik, O., Markandya, A., . . . Wagtendonk, A. (2012). Using meta-analysis and GIS for value transfer and scaling up: Valuing climate change induced losses of European wetlands. Environmental and Resource Economics, 52, 395–413.Find this resource:
Brander, L. M., Florax, R., & Vermaat, J. E. (2006). The empirics of wetland valuation: A comprehensive summary and a meta-analysis of the literature. Environmental and Resource Economics, 33, 223–250.Find this resource:
Brondo, K. V., & Woods, L. (2007). Garifuna land rights and ecotourism as economic development in Honduras’ Cayos Cochinos marine protected area. Ecological and Environmental Anthropology, 3, 2–18.Find this resource:
Brouwer, R., Brouwer, S., Eleveld, M. A., Verbraak, M., Wagtendonk, A. J., & Van Der Woerd, H. J. (2016). Public willingness to pay for alternative management regimes of remote marine protected areas in the North Sea. Marine Policy, 68, 195–204.Find this resource:
Brown, K., Adger, W. N., Tompkins, E., Bacon, P., Shim, D., & Young, K. (2001). Trade-off analysis for marine protected area management. Ecological Economics, 37, 417–434.Find this resource:
Bruno, J. F., & Selig, E. R. (2007). Regional decline of coral cover in the Indo-Pacific: Timing, extent, and subregional comparisons. PLOS ONE, 2, e711.Find this resource:
Burke, L., Greenhalgh, S., Prager, D., & Cooper, E. (2008). Economic valuation of coral reefs in Tobago and St. Lucia. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Find this resource:
Burke, L., Reytar, K., Spalding, M., & Perry, A. (2011). Reefs at risk revisited. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Find this resource:
Burke, L., Selig, L., & Spalding, M. (2002). Reefs at risk in Southeast Asia. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Find this resource:
Bustamante, R., Dichmont, C., Ellis, N., Rochester, W., Griffiths, S., Rothlisberg, P., . . . Morello, B. (2011). Effects of trawling on the benthos and biodiversity: development and delivery of a spatially-explicit management framework for the Northern Prawn Fishery. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research.Find this resource:
Buxton, C. D., Hartmann, K., Kearney, R., & Gardner, C. (2014). When is spillover from marine reserves likely to benefit fisheries? PLOS ONE, 9, e107032.Find this resource:
Carson, R. T. (2000). Contingent valuation: A user’s guide. Environmental Science & Technology, 34, 1413–1418.Find this resource:
Carter, D. W. (2003). Protected areas in marine resource management: Another look at the economics and research issues. Ocean & Coastal Management, 46, 439–456.Find this resource:
Cesar, H. (2001). In Collected essays on the economics of coral reefs, Kalmar University, Sweden., CORDIO Department for Biology and Environmental Sciences.Find this resource:
Cesar, H., Van Beukering, P., & Goodridge, R. (2002). Economic values of coral reefs in the Carribean.Find this resource:
Chan, K. M. A., Guerry, A. D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Basurto, X., . . . Guerry, D. (2012). Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. BioScience, 62, 744–756.Find this resource:
Charles, A., & Wilson, L. (2009). Human dimensions of marine protected areas. Ices Journal of Marine Science, 66, 6–15.Find this resource:
Christie, P. (2004). Marine protected areas as biological successes and social failures in southeast Asia. In Aquatic protected areas as fisheries management tools (pp. 155–164).Find this resource:
Christie, P., Bennett, N. J., Gray, N. J., ‘Aulani Wilhelm, T., Lewis, N. A., Parks, J., . . . Friedlander, A. M. (2017). Why people matter in ocean governance: Incorporating human dimensions into large-scale marine protected areas. Marine Policy, 84, 273–284.Find this resource:
Christie, P., & White, A. T. (2007). Best practices for improved governance of coral reef marine protected areas. Coral Reefs, 26, 1047–1056.Find this resource:
Cinner, J., McClanahan, T. R., Daw, T. M., Graham, N. A. J., Maina, J., Wilson, S. K., & Hughes, T. P. (2009). Linking social and ecological systems to sustain coral reef fisheries. Current Biology, 19, 206–212.Find this resource:
Claudet, J., Garcia-Charton, J. A., & Lenfant, P. (2011). Combined effects of level of protection and environmental variables at different spatial resolutions on fish assemblages in a marine protected area. Conserv Biol, 25.Find this resource:
Claudet, J., Osenberg, C. W., & Benedetti-Cecchi, L. (2008). Marine reserves: Size and age do matter. Ecol Lett, 11.Find this resource:
Cohen, P., Valemei, A., & Govan, H. (2008). Annotated bibliography on socio-economic and ecological impacts of marine protected areas in Pacific island countries. Penang, Malaysia: The WorldFish Center.Find this resource:
Conrad, J. M. (1999). The bioeconomics of marine sanctuaries. Journal of Bioeconomics, 1, 205–217.Find this resource:
Cook, C. N., Hockings, M., & Carter, R. W. (2010). Conservation in the dark? The information used to support management decisions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8, 181–186.Find this resource:
Cook, G. S., & Heinen, J. T. (2005). On the uncertain costs and tenuous benefits of Marine reserves: A case study of the Tortugas Ecological Reserve, South Florida, USA. Natural Areas Journal, 25, 390–396.Find this resource:
Danielsen, F., Sørensen, M. K., Olwig, M. F., Selvam, V., Parish, F., Burgess, N. D., . . . Suryadiputra, N. (2005). The Asian tsunami: A protective role for coastal vegetation. Science, 310, 643.Find this resource:
Davis, D., & Tisdell, C. (1995). Recreational scuba-diving and carrying-capacity in marine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management, 26, 19–40.Find this resource:
Davis, K., Kragt, M., Gelcich, S., Schilizzi, S., & Pannell, D. (2015). Accounting for enforcement costs in the spatial allocation of marine zones. Conservation Biology, 29, 226–237.Find this resource:
Day, J. C., & Dobbs, K. (2013). Effective governance of a large and complex cross-jurisdictional marine protected area: Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Marine Policy, 41, 14–24.Find this resource:
De Groot, R., Brander, L., Van Der Ploeg, S., Costanza, R., Bernard, F., Braat, L., . . . Van Beukering, P. (2012). Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units. Ecosystem Services, 1, 50–61.Find this resource:
Depondt, F., & Green, E. (2006). Diving user fees and the financial sustainability of marine protected areas: Opportunities and impediments. Ocean & Coastal Management, 49, 188–202.Find this resource:
Devillers, R., Pressey, R. L., Grecg, A., Kittinger, J. N., Edgar, G. J., Ward, T., & Watson, R. (2014). Reinventing residual reserves in the sea: Are we favouring ease of establishment over need for protection? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems.Find this resource:
Di Franco, A., Thiriet, P., Di Carlo, G., Dimitriadis, C., Francour, P., Gutiérrez, N. L., . . . Guidetti, P. (2016). Five key attributes can increase marine protected areas performance for small-scale fisheries management. Scientific Reports, 6, 38135.Find this resource:
Dixon, J. A. (1993). Economic benefits of marine protected areas. Oceanus, 36, 35–40.Find this resource:
Dixon, J. A., & Sherman, P. B. (1991). Economics of protected areas. AMBIO, 20, 68–74.Find this resource:
Driml, S. (1994). Protection for profit: Economic and financial values of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and other protected areas. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.Find this resource:
Edgar, G. J., Stuart-Smith, R. D., Willis, T. J., Kininmonth, S., Baker, S. C., Banks, S., . . . Thomson, R. J. (2014). Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features. Nature, 506, 216–220.Find this resource:
Edwards, C. T. T., & Plagányi, É. E. (2011). Protecting old fish through spatial management: Is there a benefit for sustainable exploitation? Journal of Applied Ecology, 48, 853–863.Find this resource:
Edwards, P. E. T., Sutton-Grier, A. E., & Coyle, G. E. (2013). Investing in nature: Restoring coastal habitat blue infrastructure and green job creation. Marine Policy, 38, 65–71.Find this resource:
Fabinyi, M. (2008). Dive tourism, fishing and marine protected areas in the Calamianes Islands, Philippines. Marine Policy, 32, 898–904.Find this resource:
Farrow, S. (1996). Marine protected areas: Emerging economics. Marine Policy, 20, 439–446.Find this resource:
Fenberg, P. B., Caselle, J. E., Claudet, J., Clemence, M., Gaines, S. D., Antonio García-Charton, J., . . . Sørensen, T. K. (2012). The science of European marine reserves: Status, efficacy, and future needs. Marine Policy, 36, 1012–1021.Find this resource:
Ferraro, P. J. (2002). The local costs of establishing protected areas in low-income nations: Ranomafana National Park, Madagascar. Ecological Economics, 43, 261–275.Find this resource:
Ferraro, P. J., & Pressey, R. L. (2015). Measuring the difference made by conservation initiatives: protected areas and their environmental and social impacts. Philosophical Transactions B, 370, 0270.Find this resource:
Fisher, B., & Turner, R. K. (2008). Ecosystem services: Classifaction for valuation. Biological Conservation, 141, 1167–1169.Find this resource:
Fletcher, S., Rees, S., Gall, S., Jackson, E., Friedrich, L., & Rodwell, L. (2012). Securing the benefits of the Marine Conservation Zone Network. Plymouth, U.K.: Centre for Marine and Coastal Policy Research.Find this resource:
Fox, H. E., Holtzman, J. L., Haisfield, K. M., McNally, C. G., Cid, G. A., Mascia, M. B., . . . Pomeroy, R. S. (2014). How are our MPAs doing? Challenges in assessing global patterns in marine protected area performance. Coastal Management, 42, 207–226.Find this resource:
Fox, H. E., Mascia, M. B., Basurto, X., Costa, A., Glew, L., Heinemann, D., . . . White, A. T. (2012). Reexamining the science of marine protected areas: Linking knowledge to action. Conservation Letters, 5, 1–10.Find this resource:
Fu, B., Su, C., Wei, Y., Willett, I. R., Lu, Y., & Liu, G. (2011). Double counting in ecosystem services valuation: Causes and countermeasures. Ecoloigcal Resources, 26, 1–14.Find this resource:
Fulton, E. A., Bax, N. J., Bustamante, R. H., Dambacher, J. M., Dichmont, C., Dunstan, P. K., . . . Smith, D. C. (2015). Modelling marine protected areas: Insights and hurdles. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370.Find this resource:
Fulton, E. A., & Gorton, R. (2014). Adaptive futures for SE Australian fisheries and aquaculture: Climate adaptation simulations. Australia: CSIRO.Find this resource:
Gaines, S. D., White, C., Carr, M. H., & Palumbi, S. R. (2010). Designing marine reserve networks for both conservation and fisheries management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, 107, 18286–18293.Find this resource:
Garcia-Charton, J. A., Perez-Ruzafa, A., & Marcos, C. (2008). Effectiveness of European Atlanto-Mediterranean MPAs: Do they accomplish the expected effects on populations, communities and ecosystems? J Nat Conserv, 16.Find this resource:
Gelcich, S., Amar, F., Valdebenito, A., Castilla, J. C., Fernandez, M., Godoy, C., & Biggs, D. (2013). Financing marine protected areas through visitor fees: Insights from tourists willingness to pay in Chile. AMBIO, 42, 975–984.Find this resource:
Gerber, L. R., Kareiva, P. M., & Bascompte, J. (2002). The influence of life history attributes and fishing pressure on the efficacy of marine reserves. Biological Conservation, 106, 11–18.Find this resource:
Gibson, J. M., Rigby, D., Polya, D. A., & Russell, N. (2016). Discrete choice experiments in developing countries: Willingness to pay versus willingness to work. Environmental and Resource Economics, 65, 697–721.Find this resource:
Gill, D. A., Mascia, M. B., Ahmadia, G. N., Glew, L., Lester, S. E., Barnes, M., . . . Fox, H. E. (2017). Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of marine protected areas globally. Nature, 543, 665–669.Find this resource:
Glenn, H., Wattage, P., Mardle, S., Rensburg, T. V., Grehan, A., & Foley, N. (2010). Marine protected areas—Substantiating their worth. Marine Policy, 34, 421–430.Find this resource:
Goñi, R., Badalamenti, F., & Tupper, M. H. (2011). Effects of marine protected areas on adjacent fisheries: Evidence from empirical studies. In J. Claudet (Ed.), Marine protected areas: Effects, networks and monitoring —A multidisciplinary approach. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Find this resource:
Goñi, R., Hilborn, R., Díaz, D., Mallol, S., & Adlerstein, S. (2010). Net contribution of spillover from a marine reserve to fishery catches. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 400, 233–243.Find this resource:
Grafton, R. Q., Kompas, T., & Schneider, V. (2005). The bioeconomics of marine reserves: A selected review with policy implications. Journal of Bioeconomics, 7, 161–178.Find this resource:
Gravestock, P., Roberts, C. M., & Bailey, A. (2008). The income requirements of marine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management, 51, 272–283.Find this resource:
Green, E., & Donnelly, R. (2003). Recreational scuba diving in Caribbean marine protected areas: Do the users pay? AMBIO, 32, 140–144.Find this resource:
Guidetti, P., Baiata, P., Ballesteros, E., Di Franco, A., Hereu, B., Macpherson, E., . . . Sala, E. (2014). Large-scale assessment of Mediterranean marine protected areas effects on fish assemblages. PLOS ONE, 9, e91841.Find this resource:
Gutierrez, N. L., Hilborn, R., & Defeo, O. (2011). Leadership, social capital and incentives promote successful fisheries. Nature, 470, 386–389.Find this resource:
Halpern, B. S., Lester, S. E., & Kellner, J. B. (2010). Spillover from marine reserves and the replenishment of fished stocks. Environ Conserv, 36.Find this resource:
Halpern, B. S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K. A., Kappel, C. V., Micheli, F., D’Agrosa, C., . . . Watson, R. (2008). A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science, 319, 948–952.Find this resource:
Hanley, N., Hynes, S., Patterson, D., & Jobstvogt, N. (2015). Economic valuation of marine and coastal ecosystems: Is it currently fit for purpose? Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics, 2, 1.Find this resource:
Hannesson, R. (1998). Marine reserves: What would they accomplish? Marine Resource Economics, 13, 159–170.Find this resource:
Hargreaves-Allen, V. (2010). Economic values, distributional impacts and conservation outcomes for coral reef marine protected areas (PhD dissertation). Imperial College, London.Find this resource:
Hargreaves-Allen, V. A., Mourato, S., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2011). A global evaluation of coral reef management performance: Are MPAs producing conservation and socio-economic improvements? Environmental Management, 47, 684–700.Find this resource:
Hargreaves-Allen, V. A., Mourato, S., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2017). Drivers of coral reef marine protected area performance. PLOS ONE, 12, e0179394.Find this resource:
Hawkins, J. P., & Roberts, C. M. (1993). Effects of recreational scuba diving on coral reefs: Trampling on reef-flat communities. Journal of Applied Ecology, 30, 25–30.Find this resource:
Heinen, J. T. (1996). Human behavior, incentives, and protected area management. Conservation Biology, 10, 681–684.Find this resource:
Hilborn, R. (2018). Are MPAs effective? ICES Journal of Marine Science, 75, 1160–1162.Find this resource:
Hoagland, P., Yashiaki, K., & Broadus, J. M. (1995). A methodology review of net benefit evaluation for marine reserves. Washington, DC: World Bank.Find this resource:
Holland, D. S. (2000). A bioeconomic model of marine sanctuaries on Georges Bank. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 57, 1307–1319.Find this resource:
Holland, D. S., & Brazee, R. J. (1996). Marine reserves for fisheries management. Marine Resource Economics, 11, 157–171.Find this resource:
Hunt, C. (2013). Benefits and opportunity costs of Australia’s Coral Sea marine protected area: A precautionary tale. Marine Policy, 39, 352–360.Find this resource:
Hussain, S. S., Winrow-Giffin, A., Moran, D., Robinson, L. A., Fofana, A., Paramor, O. A. L., & Frid, C. L. J. (2010). An ex ante ecological economic assessment of the benefits arising from marine protected areas designation in the UK. Ecological Economics, 69, 828–838.Find this resource:
Hutton, J. M., & Leader-Williams, N. (2003). Sustainable use and incentive-driven conservation: Realigning human and conservation interests. Oryx, 37, 215–226.Find this resource:
Hyder, K., Armstrong, M., Ferter, K., & Strehlow, H. V. (2014). Recreational sea fishing—The high value forgotten catch. ICES Insight, 51, 8–15.Find this resource:
Igoe, J. (2006). Measuring costs and benefits of conservation to local communities. Journal of Ecological Anthropology, 10, 72–77.Find this resource:
Ison, S., Hills, J., Morris, C., & Stead, S. M. (2018). Sustainable financing of a national marine protected area network in Fiji. Ocean & Coastal Management, 163, 352–363.Find this resource:
Israel, J. (2004). Impact of visitor spending and park operations on the regional economy: Virgin Islands National Park.Find this resource:
IUCN. (2008). Guidelines for applying the IUCN protected area management categories to marine protected areas. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature.Find this resource:
Jameson, S. C., Tupper, M. H., & Ridley, J. M. (2002). The three screen doors: can marine “protected” areas be effective? Marine Pollution Bulletin, 44, 1177–1183.Find this resource:
Jiang, H., Cheng, H.-Q., Le Quesne, W. J. F., Xu, H.-G., Wu, J. U. N., Ding, H. U. I., & Arreguín-Sánchez, F. (2008). Ecosystem model predictions of fishery and conservation trade-offs resulting from marine protected areas in the East China Sea. Environmental Conservation, 35, 137–146.Find this resource:
Jobstvogt, N., Watson, V., & Kenter, J. O. (2014). Looking below the surface: The cultural ecosystem service values of UK marine protected areas (MPAs). Ecosystem Services, 10, 97–110.Find this resource:
Johns, G., Lee, D. J., Leeworthy, V., Boyer, J., & Nuttle, W. (2014). Developing economic indices to assess the human dimensions of the South Florida coastal marine ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators, 44, 69–80.Find this resource:
Johns, G. M., Leeworthy, V. R., Bell, F. W., & Bonn, M. A. (2003). Socioeconomic study of reefs in southeast Florida, final report. Broward County: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.Find this resource:
Juhasz, A., Ho, E., Bender, E., & Fong, P. (2010). Does use of tropical beaches by tourists and island residents result in damage to fringing coral reefs? A case study in Moorea French Polynesia. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 60, 2251–2256.Find this resource:
Kelleher, G. (1996). A global representative system of marine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management, 32, 123–126.Find this resource:
Kelleher, G. (1999). Guidelines for marine protected areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, The World Conservation Union.Find this resource:
Keller, B. D., Gleason, D. F., McLeod, E., Woodley, C. M., Airame ́, S. D. C. B., Friedlander, A. M., . . . Steneck, R. S. (2009). Climate change, coral reef ecosystems, and management options for marine protected areas. Environmental Management, 44, 1069–1088.Find this resource:
Kenter, J. O., Bryce, R., Davies, A., Jobstvogt, N., Watson, V., Ranger, S., . . . Reed, M. S. (2013). The value of potential marine protected areas in the UK to divers and sea anglers. Cambridge, UK.: UNEP-WCMC.Find this resource:
Kiringe, J. W., Okello, M. M., & Ekajul, S. W. (2007). Managers’ perceptions of threats to the protected areas of Kenya: Prioritization for effective management. Oryx, 41, 314–321.Find this resource:
Koch, E. W., Barbier, E. B., Silliman, B. R., Reed, D. J., Perillo, G. M. E., Hacker, S. D., . . . Wolanski, E. (2009). Non-linearity in ecosystem services: temporal and spatial variability in coastal protection. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 29–37.Find this resource:
Kremen, C., Niles, J. O., Dalton, M. G., Daily, G. C., Ehrlich, P. R., Fay, J. P., . . . Guillery, R. P. (2000). Economic incentives for rain forest conservation across scales. Science, 288, 1828–1832.Find this resource:
Laffoley, D. D. A. (2008). Towards networks of marine protected areas. The MPA plan of action for IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN WCPA.Find this resource:
Laurans, Y., Rankovic, A., Billé, R., Pirard, R., & Mermet, L. (2013). Use of ecosystem services economic valuation for decision making: Questioning a literature blindspot. Journal of Environmental Management, 119, 208–219.Find this resource:
Leathwick, J., Moilanen, A., Francis, M., Elith, J., Taylor, P., Julian, K., . . . Duffy, C. (2008). Novel methods for the design and evaluation of marine protected areas in offshore waters. Conservation Letters, 1, 91–102.Find this resource:
Leisher, C., Van Beukering, P., & Scherl, L. M. (2007). Nature’s investment bank: How marine protected areas contribute to poverty reduction. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy.Find this resource:
Lemelin, R. H., & Dawson, J. (2014). Great expectations: Examining the designation effect of marine protected areas in coastal Arctic and sub-Arctic communities in Canada. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien, 58, 217–232.Find this resource:
Lester, S. E., Halpern, B. S., Grorud-Colvert, K., Lubchenco, J., Ruttenberg, B. I., Gaines, S. D., . . . Warner, R. R. (2009). Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: A global synthesis. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 384, 33–46.Find this resource:
Lindberg, K., Enriquez, J., & Sproule, K. (1996). Ecotourism questioned—Case studies from Belize. Annals of Tourism Research, 23, 543–562.Find this resource:
Lipton, D., Lew, D., Wallmo, K., Wiley, P., & Dvarskas, A. (2014). The evolution of non- market valuation of U.S. coastal and marine resources. Journal of Ocean and Coastal Economics,Find this resource:
Liquete, C., Piroddi, C., Drakou, E. G., Gurney, L., Katsanevakis, S., Charef, A., & Egoh, B. (2013). Current status and future prospects for the assessment of marine and coastal ecosystem services: A systematic review. PLoS ONE, 8, e67737.Find this resource:
Loper, C., Pomeroy, R., Hoon, V., McConney, P., Pena, M., Sanders, A., . . . Wanyoni, I. (2008). Socioeconomic conditions along the world’s tropical coasts. Conservation International.Find this resource:
Lundquist, C. J., & Granek, E. F. (2005). Strategies for successful marine conservation: Integrating socioeconomic, political, and scientific factors. Conservation Biology, 19, 1771–1778.Find this resource:
Lutchman, L. (2005). Marine protected areas: Benefits and costs for islands. the Netherlands: WWF.Find this resource:
Mace, G. M., Norris, K., & Fitter, A. H. (2012). Biodiversity and ecosystem services: A multilayered relationship. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 27, 19–26.Find this resource:
Madden, J. (2004). Economic values of NSW marine parks. Sydney, Australia: Hassall and Associates and Gillespie Economics.Find this resource:
Mangi, S. C., Rodwell, L. D., & Hattam, C. (2011). Assessing the impacts of establishing MPAs on fishermen and fish merchants: The case of Lyme Bay, UK. AMBIO, 40, 457–468.Find this resource:
Mascia, M. (2004). Social dimensions of marine reserves. In J. Sobel & C. Dahlgren (Eds.), Marine reserves: A guide to science, design, and use. Washington, DC: Island Press.Find this resource:
Mascia, M. B., & Claus, C. (2009). A property rights approach to understanding human displacement from protected areas: The case of marine protected areas. Conservation Biology, 23, 16–23.Find this resource:
Mascia, M. B., Claus, C. A., & Naidoo, R. (2010). Impacts of marine protected areas on fishing communities. Conservation Biology, 24, 1424–1429.Find this resource:
McClanahan, T., Marnane, M. J., Cinner, J. E., & Kiene, W. E. (2006). A Comparison of marine protected areas and alternative approaches to coral-reef management. Current Biology, 16, 1408–1413.Find this resource:
McClanahan, T. R., Glaesel, H., Rubens, J., & Kiambo, R. (1997). The effects of traditional fisheries management on fisheries yields and the coral-reef ecosystems of southern Kenya. Environmental Conservation, 24, 105–120.Find this resource:
McCrea-Strub, A., Zeller, D., Sumaila, U. R., Nelson, J., Balmford, A., & Pauly, D. (2011). Understanding the cost of establishing marine protected areas. Marine Policy, 35, 1–9.Find this resource:
McDonald, A. D., Little, L. R., Gray, R., Fulton, E., Sainsbury, K. J., & Lyne, V. D. (2008). An agent-based modelling approach to evaluation of multiple-use management strategies for coastal marine ecosystems. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 78, 401–411.Find this resource:
McShane, T. O., Hirsch, P. D., Trung, T. C., Songorwa, A. N., Kinzig, A., Monteferri, B., . . . O’Connor, S. (2011). Hard choices: Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being. Biological Conservation, 144, 966–972.Find this resource:
McVittie, A., & Moran, D. (2010). Valuing the non-use benefits of marine conservation zones: An application to the UK Marine Bill. Ecological Economics, 70, 413–424.Find this resource:
MEA. (2005). Millennium ecosystem assessment, ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.Find this resource:
Mellin, C., Aaron MacNeil, M. A., Cheal, A. J., Emslie, M. J., & Caley, M J. (2016). Marine protected areas increase resilience among coral reef communities. Ecology Letters, 19, 629–637.Find this resource:
Merino, G., Maynou, F., & Boncoeur, J. (2009). Bioeconomic model for a three-zone marine protected area: A case study of Medes Islands (northwest Mediterranean). Journal of Marine Science, 66, 147–154.Find this resource:
Milazzo, M., Chemello, R., Badalamenti, F., Camarda, R., & Riggio, S. (2002). The impact of human recreational activities in marine protected areas: What lessons should be learnt in the Mediterranean Sea? Marine Ecology, 23, 280–290.Find this resource:
Milon, J. W. (2000). Pastures, fences, tragedies and marine reserves. Bulletin of Marine Science, 66, 901–916.Find this resource:
Moland, E., Olsen, E. M., Knutsen, H., Garrigou, P., Espeland, S. H., Kleiven, A. R., . . . Knutsen, J. A. (2013). Lobster and cod benefit from small-scale northern marine protected areas: Inference from an empirical before–after control-impact study. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 280.Find this resource:
Mora, C., Andrefouet, S., Costello, M. J., Kranenburg, C., Rollo, A., Veron, J., . . . Myers, R. A. (2006). Coral reefs and the global network of marine protected areas. Science, 312, 1750–1751.Find this resource:
Niesten, E., & Gjertsen, H. (2010). Economic incentives for marine conservation. VA: Conservation International.Find this resource:
Noone, K., Sumaila, R., & Díaz, R. J. (2014). Valuing the oceans. Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute.Find this resource:
Norton-Griffiths, M., & Southey, C. (1995). The opportunity costs of biodiversity conservation in Kenya. Ecological Economics, 12, 125–139.Find this resource:
O’Garra, T. (2006). Estimating the total economic value (TEV) of the Navakau locally managed marine area (LMMA) in Viti Levu Island, Fiji. Noumea, New Caledonia: CRISP.Find this resource:
O’Garra, T. (2009). Bequest values for marine resources: How important for indigenous communities in less-developed economies? Environmental and Resource Economics, 44, 179.Find this resource:
O’Leary, B. C., Ban, N. C., Fernandez, M., Friedlander, A. M., García-Borboroglu, P., Golbuu, Y., . . . Roberts, C. M. (2018). Addressing criticisms of large-scale marine protected areas. BioScience, 68, 359–370.Find this resource:
Olds, A. D., Pitt, K. A., Maxwell, P. S., Babcock, R. C., Rissik, D., & Connolly, R. M. (2014). Marine reserves help coastal ecosystems cope with extreme weather. Global Change Biology, 20, 3050–3058.Find this resource:
Oleson, K. L. L., Barnes, M., Brander, L. M., Oliver, T. A., Van Beek, I., Zafindrasilivonona, B., & Van Beukering, P. (2015). Cultural bequest values for ecosystem service flows among indigenous fishers: A discrete choice experiment validated with mixed methods. Ecological Economics, 114, 104–116.Find this resource:
Paltriguera, L., Ferrini, S., Luisetti, T., & Turner, R. K. (2018). An analysis and valuation of post-designation management aimed at maximising recreational benefits in coastal marine protected areas. Ecological Economics, 148, 121–130.Find this resource:
Palumbi, S. R., Sandifer, P. A., Allan, J. D., Beck, M. W., Fautin, D. G., Fogarty, M. J., . . . & Wall, D. H. (2009). Managing for ocean biodiversity to sustain marine ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 204–211.Find this resource:
Parsons, G. R., & Thur, S. M. (2007). valuing changes in the quality of coral reef ecosystems: A stated preference study of scuba diving in the Bonaire National Marine Park. Environmental & Resource Economics, 1–16.Find this resource:
Pascal, N., Allenbach, M., Brathwaite, A., Burke, L., Le Port, G., & Clua, E. (2016). Economic valuation of coral reef ecosystem service of coastal protection: A pragmatic approach. Ecosystem Services, 21, 72–80.Find this resource:
Pascal, N., Brathwaite, A., Brander, L., Seidl, A., Philip, M., & Clua, E. (2018). Evidence of economic benefits for public investment in MPAs. Ecosystem Services, 30, 3–13.Find this resource:
Pelletier, D., & Mahévas, S. (2005). Spatially explicit fisheries simulation models for policy evaluation. Fish and Fisheries, 6, 307–349.Find this resource:
Pendleton, L. H. (1995). Valuing coral-reef protection. Ocean & Coastal Management, 26, 119–131.Find this resource:
Pet-Soede, C., Cesar, H. S. J., & Pet, J. S. (1999). An economic analysis of blast fishing on Indonesian coral reefs. Environmental Conservation, 26, 83–93.Find this resource:
Peters, H., & Hawkins, J. P. (2009). Access to marine parks: A comparative study in willingness to pay. Ocean and Coastal Management, 52, 219–228.Find this resource:
Pike, K., Johnson, D., Fletcher, S., Wright, P., & Lee, B. (2010). Social value of marine and coastal protected areas in England and Wales. Coastal Management, 38, 412–432.Find this resource:
Pollnac, R., Christie, P., Cinner, J. E., Dalton, T., Daw, T. M., Forrester, G. E., . . . McClanahan, T. (2010). Marine reserves as linked social-ecological systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 18262–18265.Find this resource:
Pollnac, R. B., Crawford, B. R., & Gorospe, M. L. G. (2001). Discovering factors that influence the success of community-based marine protected areas in the Visayas, Philippines. Ocean & Coastal Management, 44, 683–710.Find this resource:
Pomeroy, R., Mascia, M., & Pollnac, R. (2007). Marine protected areas: The social dimension. FAO Fisheries Report, 149–181.Find this resource:
Potts, T., Burdon, D., Jackson, E., Atkins, J., Saunders, J., Hastings, E., & Langmead, O. (2014). Do marine protected areas deliver flows of ecosystem services to support human welfare? Marine Policy, 44, 139–148.Find this resource:
Prayaga, P., Rolfe, J., & Stoeckl, N. (2010). The value of recreational fishing in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia: A pooled revealed preference and contingent behaviour model. Marine Policy, 34, 244–251.Find this resource:
Rees, S. E., Mangi, S. C., Hattam, C., Gall, S. C., Rodwell, L. D., Peckett, F. J., & Attrill, M. J. (2015). The socio-economic effects of a marine protected area on the ecosystem service of leisure and recreation. Marine Policy, 62, 144–152.Find this resource:
Rees, S. E., Rodwell, L. D., Attrill, M. J., Austen, M. C., & Mangi, S. C. (2010). The value of marine biodiversity to the leisure and recreation industry and its application to marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 34, 868–875.Find this resource:
Rettig, B. (1994). Who should preserve the marine environment? Marine Resource Economics, 9, 87–94.Find this resource:
Roberts, C. M., Bohnsack, J. A., Gell, F., Hawkins, J. P., & Goodridge, R. (2001). Effects of marine reserves on adjacent fisheries. Science, 294.Find this resource:
Roberts, C. M., & Hawkins, J. P. (2000). Fully-protected marine reserves: A guide. Washington, DC: World Wildlife Fund.Find this resource:
Roberts, C. M., O’Leary, B. C., McCauley, D. J., Cury, P. M., Duarte, C. M., Lubchenco, J., . . . Castilla, J. C. (2017). Marine reserves can mitigate and promote adaptation to climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.Find this resource:
Rodriguez, J. P., Beard, T. D., Bennett, E. M., Cumming, G. S., Cork, S. J., Agard, J., . . . Peterson, G. D. (2006). Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecology and Society, 11, 28–42.Find this resource:
Rodwell, L. D., & Roberts, C. M. (2000). Economic implications of fully-protected marine reserves for coral reef fisheries. In H. S. J. Cesar (Ed.), Collected essays on the economics of coral reefs. Sweden: CORDIO.Find this resource:
Roncin, N., Alban, F., Charbonnel, E., Crechriou, R., De La Cruzmodino, R., Culioli, J.-M., . . . Boncoeur, J. (2008). Uses of ecosystem services provided by MPAs: How much do they impact the local economy? A southern Europe perspective. Journal for Nature Conservation, 16, 256–270.Find this resource:
Rosenberger, R. S., & Loomis, J. B. (2003). Benefit transfer. In P. A. Champ, K. J. Boyle, & T. C. Brown, (Eds.), A primer on nonmarket valuation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Find this resource:
Rosenberger, R. S., & Stanley, T. D. (2006). Measurement, generalization, and publication: Sources of error in benefit transfers and their management. Ecological Economics, 60, 372–378.Find this resource:
Rudd, M. A., Tupper, M. H., Folmer, H., & Van Kooten, G. C. (2003). Policy analysis for tropical marine reserves: Challenges and directions. Fish and Fisheries, 4, 65–85.Find this resource:
Ruitenbeek, J., & Cartier, C. (1999). Issues in applied coral reef biodiversity valuation: Results for Montego Bay, Jamaica.Find this resource:
Russ, G. R., Alcala, A. C., Maypa, A. P., Calumpong, H. P., & White, A. T. (2004). Marine reserve benefits local fisheries. Ecological Applications, 14, 597–606.Find this resource:
Russi, R., Pantzar, M., Kettunen, M., Gitti, G., Mutafoglu, K., Kotulak, M., & Ten Brink, P. (2016). Socio-economic benefits of the EU marine protected areas. Brussels: Insititute for European Environmental Policy.Find this resource:
Sale, P. F., Cowen, R. K., Danilowicz, B. S., Jones, G. P., Kritzer, J. P., Lindeman, K. C., . . . Steneck, R. S. (2005). Critical science gaps impede use of no-take fishery reserves. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 20, 74–80.Find this resource:
Sanchirico, J. N. (2000). Marine protected areas as fishery policy: A discussion of potential costs and benefits. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Find this resource:
Sanchirico, J. N. (2005). Additivity properties in metapopulation models: Implications for the assessment of marine reserves. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 49, 1–25.Find this resource:
Sanchirico, J. N., Cochran, K. A., & Emersen, P. A. (2002). Marine protected areas: Economic and social implications. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Find this resource:
Sanchirico, J. N., & Wilen, J. E. (2001). A bioeconomic model of marine reserve creation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 42, 257–276.Find this resource:
Savina, M., Condie, S. A., & Fulton, E. A. (2013). The role of pre-existing disturbances in the effect of marine reserves on coastal ecosystems: A modelling approach. PLOS ONE, 8, e61207.Find this resource:
Schmidt, S., Manceur, A. M., & Seppelt, R. (2016). Uncertainty of monetary valued ecosystem services? Value transfer functions for global mapping. PLoS ONE, 11, e0148524.Find this resource:
Schnier, K. E. (2005). Biological “hot spots” and their effect on optimal bioeconomic marine reserve formation. Ecological Economics, 52, 453–468.Find this resource:
Schuhmann, P. (2012). The valuation of marine ecosystem goods and services in the wider Caribbean region. Barbados.Find this resource:
Sciberras, M., Jenkins, S. R., Kaiser, M. J., Hawkins, S. J., & Pullin, A. S. (2013). Evaluating the biological effectiveness of fully and partially protected marine areas. Environmental Evidence, 2, 4.Find this resource:
Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: A frmaework for analysis. IDS working paper.Find this resource:
Selig, E. R., & Bruno, J. F. (2010). A global analysis of the effectiveness of marine protected areas in preventing coral loss. PLoS ONE, 5, e9278.Find this resource:
Setiasih, N. (2000). Recreational valuation using contingent and conjoint analysis: A study from Menjangan Island, Bali Barat National Park.Find this resource:
Smith, M. D., Lynham, J., Sanchirico, J. N., & Wilson, J. A. (2010). Political economy of marine reserves: Understanding the role of opportunity costs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 18300–18305.Find this resource:
Smith, M. D., & Wilen, J. E. (2003). Economic impacts of marine reserves: the importance of spatial behavior. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 46, 183–206.Find this resource:
Sorensen, T. K., & Thomsen, L. N. (2009). A comparison of frameworks and objectives for implementation of marine protected areas in Northern Europe and in Southeast Asia. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management, 12, 258–263.Find this resource:
Spash, C. L. (2000). Assessing the benefits of improving coral reef biodiversity: The contingent valuation method. In H. Cesar (Ed.), Collected essays on the economics of coral reefs. Kalmar: Cordio.Find this resource:
Steiner, A., McCormick, S. J., & Johnson, I. (2004). How much is an ecosystem worth? Assessing the economic value of conservation. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Find this resource:
Stevenson, T. C., Tissot, B. N., & Walsh, W. J. (2013). Socioeconomic consequences of fishing displacement from marine protected areas in Hawaii. Biological Conservation, 160, 50–58.Find this resource:
Stobart, B., Warwick, R., González, C., Mallol, S., Díaz, D., Reñones, O., & Goñi, R. (2009). Long-term and spillover effects of a marine protected area on an exploited fish community. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 384, 47–60.Find this resource:
Sumaila, U. R. (1998). Protected marine reserves as fisheries management tools: A bioeconomic analysis. Fisheries Research, 37, 287–296.Find this resource:
Sumaila, U. R. (2002). Marine protected area performance in a model of the fishery. Natural Resource Modeling, 15, 439–451.Find this resource:
Sumaila, U. R., & Charles, A. T. (2002). Economic models of marine protected areas: An introduction. Natural Resource Modeling, 15, 261–272.Find this resource:
TEEB. (2010). The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Mainstreaming the economics of nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of TEEB. Malta.Find this resource:
Thur, S. M. (2010). User fees as sustainable financing mechanisms for marine protected areas: An application to the Bonaire National Marine Park. Marine Policy, 34, 63–69.Find this resource:
Turner, K. R., Paavola, J., Cooper, P., Farber, S., Jessamy, V., & Georgiou, S. (2003). Valuing nature: Lessons learned and future research directions. Ecological Economics, 46, 493–510.Find this resource:
Uyarra, M. C., Côté, I. M., Gill, J. A., Tinch, R. R. T., Viner, D., & Watkinson, A. R. (2005). Island-specific preferences of tourists for environmental features: implications of climate change for tourism-dependent states. Environmental Conservation, 32, 11–19.Find this resource:
Van Beukering, P. J. H., Cesar, H. S. J., & Janssen, M. A. (2003). Economic valuation of the Leuser National Park on Sumatra, Indonesia. Ecological Economics, 44, 43–62.Find this resource:
Vandeperre, F., Higgins, R. M., Sanchez-Meca, J., Maynou, F., Goni, R., & Martin-Sosa, P. (2011). Effects of no-take area size and age of marine protected areas on fisheries yields: A meta-analytical approach. Fish Fish, 12.Find this resource:
Vassilopoulos, A., & Koundouri, P. (2017). Valuation of marine ecosystems. In J. R. Kahn (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of environmental science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Find this resource:
Walters, C. J., Hilborn, R., & Parrish, R. (2007). An equilibrium model for predicting the efficacy of marine protected areas in coastal environments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 64, 1009–1018.Find this resource:
Watson, J. E. M., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B., & Hockings, M. (2014). The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature, 515, 67–73.Find this resource:
Wattage, P., Glenn, H., Mardle, S., Van Rensburg, T., Grehan, A., & Foley, N. (2011). Economic value of conserving deep-sea corals in Irish waters: A choice experiment study on marine protected areas. Fisheries Research, 107, 59–67.Find this resource:
Weigel, J.-Y., Mannle, K. O., Bennett, N. J., Carter, E., Westlund, L., Burgener, V., . . . Hellman, A. (2014). Marine protected areas and fisheries: Bridging the divide. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 24, 199–215.Find this resource:
Wells, M. (1992). Biodiversity conservation, affluence and poverty—Mismatched costs and benefits and efforts to remedy them. AMBIO, 21, 237–243.Find this resource:
White, A., Vogt, H. P., & Arin, T. (2000). Philippine coral reefs under threat: The economic losses caused by reef destruction. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 40, 598–605.Find this resource:
Wielgus, J., Balmford, A., Lewis, T. B., Mora, C., & Gerber, L. R. (2010). Coral reef quality and recreation fees in marine protected areas. Conservation Letters, 3, 38–44.Find this resource:
Wielgus, J., Chadwick-Furman, N. E., Dubinsky, Z., Schechter, M., & Zeitouni, N. (2002). Dose-response modeling of recreationally important coral-reef attributes: A review and potential application to the economic valuation of damage. Coral Reefs, 21, 253–259.Find this resource:
Williams, I. D., & Polunin, N. V. C. (2000). Differences between protected and unprotected reefs of the western Caribbean in attributes preferred by dive tourists. Environmental Conservation, 27, 382–391.Find this resource:
Willis, T. J., Millar, R. B., Babcock, B. A., & Tolimieri, N. (2003). Burdens of evidence and the benefits of marine reserves: Putting Descartes before des horse? Environmental Conservation, 30, 97–103.Find this resource:
Wilson, M. A., & Hoehn, J. P. (2006). Valuing environmental goods and services using benefit transfer: The state-of-the art and science. Ecological Economics, 60, 335–342.Find this resource:
Wood, L. J., Fish, L., Laughren, J., & Pauly, D. (2008). Assessing progress towards global marine protection targets: Shortfalls in information and action. Oryx, 42, 340–351.Find this resource:
Worm, B., Barbier, E. B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J. E., Folke, C., Halpern, B. S., . . . Watson, R. (2006). Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science, 314, 787–790.Find this resource:
Wright, B. D. (1994). An economic analysis of coral reef protection in Negril, Jamaica (M.Sc. thesis). Williams College, Williamstown, MA.Find this resource:
Zupan, M., Bulleri, F., Evans, J., Fraschetti, S., Guidetti, P., Garcia-Rubies, A., . . . Claudet, J. (2018). How good is your marine protected area at curbing threats? Biological Conservation, 221, 237–245.Find this resource: