Marine protected areas and human well-being – A systematic review and recommendations

Highlights

• Explicit studies quantifying human well-being from MPAs are limited.

• Most MPA studies focus ona few aspects of well-being in the context of a sub-set of stakeholders.

• Most studies consider only a single type of MPA and assessments focus on conventional objective measures.

Abstract

This paper reviews literature relating to Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and human well-being. It finds that explicit studies on human well-being from MPAs are limited and empirical studies quantifying these relationships are rare. Most MPA papers, including those examining MPA effectiveness, focus on just a few aspects of well-being in the context of a sub-set of stakeholders, and consider only a single type of MPA. They mostly focus on conventional objective measures that are not comprehensive or systematically selected. This review argues for a systematic and integrative framework to ensure future MPA assessments are equipped to capture MPAs’ contributions to human well-being more adequately and comprehensively. Such a framework can also allow for cross-MPA comparisons that can capture differences in well-being across different types of MPAs, and information gained can be useful for MPA practitioners and policy makers, particularly in reaching current global targets, such as the CBD, Aichi Target 11.

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.