Marine protected areas and human well-being – A systematic review and recommendations
Introduction
Marine protected areas (MPAs) are widely used tools to conserve exploited marine resources (Cinner, 2010, Fox et al., 2012, Bruno et al., 2018). More commonly, they are thought to create win–win outcomes for both nature and humans (Chaigneau and Brown, 2016, Villasante et al., 2016). They safeguard the health of the ecological system, which in turn supports social systems, thereby improving human well-being. However, lessons learnt from scholarship over the past two and half decades indicate that, many MPAs struggle to generate these intended objectives and are deemed ‘failures’ (Christie, 2004, Bennett and Dearden, 2014a, Voyer et al., 2014, Watson et al., 2014, Gill et al., 2017). With over 5000 MPAs situated within national and territorial1 waters (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2018), the physical proximity and connectedness of MPAs to humans are apparent. Thus, if we are to transform MPAs into functioning vital systems that deliver sustainable outcomes for both nature and humans, it is important to understand how MPAs’ contributions affect human well-being (both positively and negatively) (Duraiappah, 2004, Reid et al., 2005, Armitage et al., 2012).
The aim of this paper is to critically review the diverse perspectives in which well-being is explored and integrated in MPA studies. In doing so, this paper also investigates and synthesises current gaps in MPA literature and makes recommendations for future MPA assessments. In this regard, the paper highlights the need for a more systematic, holistic and integrative approach to assess MPA outcomes on human well-being. Such an approach would allow for proper assessments of MPA outcomes, including their likely long-tem sustainability. This review will be beneficial to researchers and practitioners involved in marine management and conservation interventions, particularly for those interested in understanding the current perspectives and use of human dimensions in marine conservation literature.
Human well-being refers to a holistic notion of the state and conditions of individuals and communities (Gough and Clark, 2006, Gough and McGregor, 2007, White, 2010, Coulthard, 2012, Agarwala et al., 2014). The concept has been gaining significant momentum in policy and development literature, particularly after the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005), which recognised the relationship between humans and their environment as the core of human development. Human well-being assessments take into account a range of measures that are not limited to conventional, monetary based objective measures such as income (Diener and Seligman, 2004). They also include subjective measures which capture factors such as people’s perceptions of local environment quality; access to resources and economic opportunities; the quality of cooperation and cohesiveness of the community; and they also often aim to show how such factors affect the ‘quality of life’, ‘life satisfaction’ and/or ‘happiness’ of individuals and communities (Diener et al., 1998, White, 2010, McCrea et al., 2014, Kubiszewski et al., 2018). This balanced and holistic systems perspective makes human well-being a strong and all-encompassing concept. As a result, well-being assessments are considered as a better measure of tracking human progress compared to former measures that were primarily focused on analysing the economic productivity of individuals.
For natural management initiatives like MPAs, considering such a diverse range of factors can allow us to understand how individuals and communities perceive various trade-offs associated with MPA implementation and management. It can also enable us to capture short-term and long-term impacts on well-being for both individuals and communities (Milner-Gulland et al. (2014). For example, while a primary objective of many MPAs is to provide ecological benefits to communities (Roberts et al., 2018), these benefits often take time to materialise (Daw et al., 2016) and can impose costs on some individuals or groups. For instance, regulations restricting fishing harms local fishers in the short-term (McClanahan, 2010) but provide long-term socio-ecological benefits. Conversely, an aquaculture farm provides short-term improvements in peoples’ well-being, but may generate negative long-term impacts to the environment. Thus, there is a need for a broader well-being perspective that takes into account not just the outcome of the improved ecosystem, but also the potential forgone opportunities, motivations, and drivers that influence individuals’ well-being (Polasky et al., 2019).
Integrating human well-being into MPA discourse can also bring new perspectives to MPA evaluation studies. Currently, most MPA studies focus on conservation effectiveness, and predominantly use biological indicators to measure its success (Burgess et al., 2014, Bennett et al., 2017, Christie et al., 2017, Roberts et al., 2018). However, if we are to meet current global targets for MPAs, such as the 2010 UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Aichi Target 11, which seeks to “effectively” and “equitably” conserve and manage at least 10% of coastal and marine areas by 2020 (Day, 2015), MPAs require assessments that consider beyond biological indicators only. At present, there are an estimated 7000 MPAs around the world (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2018), yet the effectiveness and equity of these MPAs are unclear. Globally, there is also a lack of information on effective MPAs (for example, see World Database on Protected Areas (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2018), and this gap also exists in published academic literature (Fig. 1). Over the years, though peer-reviewed MPA literature has grown studies that measure the effectiveness and/or distributional impacts are relatively rare. Therefore, instead of only focusing on increasing the number of MPAs to meet global targets, there is a clear need to better understand what factors do, or do not, facilitate good outcomes for MPAs, and this can be useful in designing more sustainable MPAs and finding possible ways to make existing MPAs work as well.
Section snippets
Literature search
I conducted a systematic search for published academic papers through online databases using the four capitals framework (see Fig. 2) as the basis. I used broad search terms to capture the different types of marine protected areas. Similarly, I searched for the full range of terminologies that describe ‘human well-being’ within MPA literature as well as within the broader marine conservation literature (see Appendix A for full details of the search). This captured studies that directly and
Results
This section presents the main themes that emerged from the review.
Discussion
Our understanding of the relative contributions of MPAs to human well-being remains weak despite the growing number of MPAs globally. Research that explicitly links the effects of MPAs to human well-being is significantly overlooked in literature. In particular, empirical studies that quantify the contributions of MPAs to human well-being are scarce. Though a large number of attributes are used in MPA assessments, they are not explored in a systematic integrative manner. Many attributes are not
Conclusions
This review showed that at present, human well-being is not addressed adequately in MPA literature. Most papers engaged in human well-being focus on a few aspects of well-being – often in the context of a small subset of stakeholders, and measures used to assess well-being are not comprehensive or systematically selected. This paper calls for a systematic and integrative framework to ensure future MPA assessments are equipped to capture temporal changes in human well-being in a comprehensive
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Prof. Ida Kubiszewski, Prof. Natalie Stoeckl, Prof. Robert Costanza, Prof. Ameer Abdulla, Dr. Megan Poore, and the reviewers for their valuable comments on earlier drafts.
References (108)
- et al.
Management effectiveness of a large marine protected area in Northeastern Brazil
Ocean Coast. Manag.
(2016) - et al.
Management of the marine environment: integrating ecosystem services and societal benefits with the DPSIR framework in a systems approach
Mar. Pollut. Bull.
(2011) - et al.
Social and ecological effectiveness of large marine protected areas
Global Environ. Change
(2017) - et al.
Social capital as an ecosystem service: Evidence from a locally managed marine area
Ecosyst. Serv.
(2015) - et al.
From measuring outcomes to providing inputs: Governance, management, and local development for more effective marine protected areas
Marine Policy
(2014) - et al.
Why local people do not support conservation: Community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand
Marine Policy
(2014) - et al.
A holistic framework for identifying human wellbeing indicators for marine policy
Marine Policy
(2016) - et al.
Assessing the social wellbeing of Northern Ireland's fishing society using a three-dimensional approach
Marine Policy
(2013) - et al.
Subjective well-being indicators for large-scale assessment of cultural ecosystem services
Ecosyst. Serv.
(2016) - et al.
Differences in livelihoods, socioeconomic characteristics, and knowledge about the sea between fishers and non-fishers living near and far from marine parks on the Kenyan coast
Marine Policy
(2010)
Changes in the global value of ecosystem services
Global Environ. Change
What does the debate around social wellbeing have to offer sustainable fisheries?
Cur. Opin. Environ. Sustainability
Poverty, sustainability and human wellbeing: a social wellbeing approach to the global fisheries crisis
Global Environ. Change
The evolution of marine protected area planning in Aotearoa New Zealand: Reflections on participation and process
Marine Policy
Sociocultural aspects of estabfishing marine protected areas
Ocean Coastal Manag.
Explaining global patterns and trends in marine protected area (MPA) development
Marine Policy
Evaluating the social acceptability of Marine Protected Areas
Marine Policy
Evaluating the success of a marine protected area: A systematic review approach
J. Environ. Manage.
Can habitat protection lead to improvements in human well-being? Evidence from marine protected areas in the Philippines
World Dev.
Influence of settings management and protection status on recreational uses and pressures in marine protected areas
J. Environ. Manage.
The income requirements of marine protected areas
Ocean Coast. Manag.
Poverty and protected areas: An evaluation of a marine integrated conservation and development project in Indonesia
Global Environ. Change
Participation in devolved commons management: Multiscale socioeconomic factors related to individuals’ participation in community-based management of marine protected areas in Indonesia
Environ. Sci. Policy
Social impacts of a temperate fisheries closure: understanding stakeholders' views
Marine Policy
Community perspectives of governance for effective management of marine protected areas in Malaysia
Ocean Coast. Manag.
Limits of governability: Institutional implications for fisheries and coastal governance
Marine Policy
Looking below the surface: The cultural ecosystem service values of UK marine protected areas (MPAs)
Ecosyst. Serv.
Governing marine protected areas: social–ecological resilience through institutional diversity
Marine Policy
Linking ecological condition to enforcement of marine protected area regulations in the greater Caribbean region
Marine Policy
Volunteer health and emotional wellbeing in marine protected areas
Ocean Coast. Manag.
Objective and subjective indicators of life satisfaction in Australia: how well do people perceive what supports a good life?
Ecol. Econ.
Key factors for successful management of marine protected areas: A comparison of stakeholders׳ perception of two MPAs in Weh island, Sabang, Aceh, Indonesia
Marine Policy
Fishers' perceptions as indicators of the performance of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)
Marine Policy
Fisheries, tourism, and marine protected areas: Conflicting or synergistic interactions?
Ecosyst. Serv.
Perceptions of ecosystem services and benefits to human well-being from community-based marine protected areas in Kenya
Marine Policy
Attitudes to a marine protected area are associated with perceived social impacts
Marine Policy
The relationship of social capital and fishers’ participation in multi-level governance arrangements
Environ. Sci. Policy
Impacts on the ecosystem and human well-being of the marine protected area in Cu Lao Cham, Vietnam
Marine Policy
Measuring what matters – Identifying indicators of success for Brazilian marine protected areas
Marine Policy
Socioeconomic impacts of marine protected areas in the Mediterranean and Black Seas
Ocean Coast. Manag.
Integrating natural capital assessment and marine spatial planning: A case study in the Mediterranean sea
Ecol. Modell.
Do marine protected areas deliver flows of ecosystem services to support human welfare?
Marine Policy
Vulnerability of different types of fishers to potential implementation of a management plan in a Marine Protected Area (MPA) in the Maldives
Marine Policy
The socio-economic effects of a Marine Protected Area on the ecosystem service of leisure and recreation
Marine Policy
Marine protected areas in a welfare-based perspective
Marine Policy
Measuring progress in marine protection: A new set of metrics to evaluate the strength of marine protected area networks
Biol. Conserv.
SEAT: Measuring socio-economic benefits of marine protected areas
Marine Policy
The impacts over time of marine protected areas: A null model
Ocean Coast. Manag.
Social impacts of marine protected areas in South Africa on coastal fishing communities
Ocean Coast. Manag.
Lack of evidence that governance structures provide real ecological benefits in marine protected areas
Ocean Coast. Manag.
Cited by (48)
Common Asset Trusts for blue commons stewardship
2024, Marine Policy