Developing MPA performance indicators with local stakeholders’ input in the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, Canada

ORI GIN AL PA PER

Developing MPA performance indicators with localstakeholders’ input in the Pacific Rim National ParkReserve, Canada

Nadine Heck • Philip Dearden • Adrian McDonald • Steve Carver

Received: 1 April 2010 / Accepted: 27 January 2011 / Published online: 8 February 2011� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract Along with an increase in the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs),

the need arises to assess if designated MPAs are achieving their goals and objectives. A

first step in this process is the identification of MPA performance indicators against which

to evaluate MPA management. This study investigates the development of MPA perfor-

mance indicators using an in situ approach by including diverse stakeholder groups in the

process. The results show that local stakeholders identify a range of MPA performance

indicators in all stages of the management cycle and in diverse MPA indicators categories.

Statistical analysis reveals that multiple groups identify distinct performance indicators.

Fishermen groups primarily mention governance performance indicators in the planning

and output stage. Other groups most often cite biophysical and social outcome performance

indicators. The findings demonstrate distinct management expectations towards MPA

performance among included stakeholder groups. The study also shows that the integration

of multiple groups is necessary for the identification of MPA performance indicators as the

groups identify distinct performance indicators.

Keywords MPA evaluation � Performance indicators � Canada � Stakeholders

N. Heck (&) � A. McDonald � S. CarverSchool of Geography, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds LS2 9JT, UKe-mail: [email protected]

A. McDonalde-mail: [email protected]

S. Carvere-mail: [email protected]

P. DeardenDepartment of Geography, University of Victoria, PO Box 3060 STN CSC, Victoria,BC V8W 3R4, Canadae-mail: [email protected]

123

Biodivers Conserv (2011) 20:895–911DOI 10.1007/s10531-011-0002-7

Introduction

While the number of MPAs are continuously increasing (Spalding et al. 2008), knowledge

about the effectiveness of existing sites is very limited. In order to address this information

gap, the Convention on Biological Diversity recommended to increase evaluation efforts

and to develop frameworks for monitoring, evaluating and reporting effectiveness of

protected area management at the site, national, regional, and transboundary scale by 2010

(Convention on Biological Diversity 2008). As part of this process, appropriate methods,

standards, criteria and indicators for measuring effectiveness need to be developed based

on local circumstances of MPA sites or networks to be evaluated (Convention on Bio-

logical Diversity 2008). Clear statements are critical indicating what an MPA is supposed

to achieve and how management effectiveness will be demonstrated over time (Syms and

Carr 2001; Day 2008).

MPA effectiveness is commonly referred to as the ‘degree to which management actions

are achieving the goals and objectives of a protected area’ (Pomeroy et al. 2004, p. 3) and

‘how well an area is being managed’ (Hockings et al. 2006). MPA outcomes are usually the

single most important measure for demonstrating effectiveness of well established MPAs.

Understanding other aspects such as adequacy of the MPA design and appropriateness of the

management process however provide critical complementary information about MPA

management performance that can be used for adaptive management, in particular with

respect to management efficiency (Day et al. 2002). Caution also needs to be taken with

respect to MPA effects and effectiveness (Syms and Carr 2001). Even though a growing body

of research demonstrates effects of MPAs especially in terms of biological changes, only few

studies look at how these effects enable MPAs to achieve their objectives (e.g Edgar and

Barrett 1997; Babcock et al. 1999; Planes et al. 2000; Jamieson and Levings 2001).

Management statements for many MPAs are often too vague and unclear to directly serve

as a basis for evaluating MPA effectiveness (Day et al. 2002). In most cases, indicators that

provide information about desired MPA performance aspects need to be developed that

provide an indication about the kind of information that should be addressed in an evaluation

(Dahl-Tacconi 2005). The definition of expected MPA performance is also inherently a

social construct and different groups and people might define it differently depending on

their background, values and affiliation (Himes 2007a). Involving local stakeholders in all

aspects of MPA management including the design and implementation of an evaluation is

therefore increasingly advocated (Charles and Wilson 2008; Vella et al. 2009). Stakeholders

might be more aware of local circumstances and issues that need to be resolved than pro-

tected area managers or external evaluators and can provide valuable insights into MPA

performance (Pomeroy et al. 2004; Hockings et al. 2006). The integration of stakeholders in

the development of MPA performance indicators also increases the value of evaluation

results to local users and makes sure that local information needs are addressed in an

evaluation. Their input can be critical for developing appropriate indicators for evaluating

MPA management as they might be interested in evaluating different aspects than managers

or scientists (Suman et al. 1999; Pomeroy et al. 2005).

While the importance of stakeholder participation is mentioned in a growing body of

literature looking at social and economic aspects of protected area management and their

effects on environmental performance (Milon et al. 1997; Suman et al. 1999; Elliott et al.

2001; Helvey 2004; McClanahan et al. 2005a; Borad and Sanchirico 2008), literature on

stakeholders opinion on MPA effectiveness and their inclusion in the development of MPA

performance indicators is very limited (Dahl-Tacconi 2005; Himes 2007a; Pajaro et al.

2010).

896 Biodivers Conserv (2011) 20:895–911

123

Using a case study approach, this study attempts to address this gap by developing MPA

performance indicators using an in situ approach by actively engaging local stakeholders in

the process. The aim of the study is to make a contribution to the current literature on MPA

performance indicators development and the inclusion of different stakeholders in this

process.

Study site

The study was conducted in Pacific Rim National Park Reserve located on the west coast of

Vancouver Island, British Columbia (Fig. 1). The park reserve covers terrestrial and

marine areas encompassing 525 km2 and consists of three geographically distinct units, the

Long Beach Unit, the West Coast Trail Unit and the Broken Group Islands Unit. The

largest marine park section lies around the Broken Groups Islands (9,178 ha), followed by

the West Coast Trial marine section (6,623 ha) and the Long Beach marine Unit (6,367 ha)

(Parks Canada 2010a).

Pacific Rim National Park Reserve provides a range of intertidal and ocean habitats.

Subtidal ecosystems in the park reserve include different fish species, diverse marine

Fig. 1 Pacific Rim National Park Reserve

Biodivers Conserv (2011) 20:895–911 897

123

mammals, seabirds and kelp forests. The intertidal section contains habitats such as rocky

shores, eelgrass beds and soft sediments and invertebrates. Marine cultural values in the park

reserve include a high number of ship wrecks, shell middens, light houses, fish traps, and

canoe skids. In addition to settlements of multiple aboriginal groups, First Nations, three

communities are located adjacent to the reserve: Bamfield (population 740), Ucluelet

(population 1,487), and Tofino (population 1,655). Main marine activities undertaken in the

park reserve include paddling, kayaking, surfing, canoeing, recreational boating, scuba

diving, fishing and wildlife viewing. An all year round finfish fishery closure was established

in 2002 by Fisheries and Oceans Canada in the biggest marine portion of the park reserve, the

Broken Group Islands. The closure applies to commercial and recreational fisheries, but not

First Nations as Fisheries and Oceans Canada provides First Nations peoples with priority

access to fish resource for food, social and ceremonial purposes (Fisheries and Oceans

Canada 2010). Fishing restrictions in other park reserve areas do not exist. Commercial

whale watching activities are regulated according to national guidelines. All recreational and

transportation businesses further require a license in order to operate inside the park reserve

according to the Canadian National Parks Act (Parks Canada 2010b).

The Pacific Rim National Park Reserve is managed by Parks Canada. The Park Reserve

was designated in 1970 but officially gazette in 2001 when the National Park was declared

a National Park Reserve thereby acknowledging outstanding rights and titles in the park

area of local aboriginal groups, First Nations, due to pending treaties.

At the time of this study, the park reserve was managed according to broad management

guidelines that were developed in 1994 (Parks Canada 1994). As of June 2010, the park has

a management plan that is based on the following vision (Parks Canada 2010a, p. 27):

(1) People: park needs to work with people in the spirit of respectful cooperation to be

good stewards of the park;

(2) Stories: culture and stories will be shared and used to enhance understanding and

appreciation; and

(3) Legacy: long-term protection of the park and its natural and cultural resources.

The management plan outlines 16 management objectives that refer to the above listed

management strategies. Most of these objectives are management planning activities such as

the development of detailed management goals, a better resource inventory, baseline data

collection and a new zoning plan. The involvement of First Nations and local communities is

explicitly mentioned for developing a common vision for the park, improving the resource

inventory by collecting local ecological knowledge, and developing a new zoning plan.

Methods

Stakeholder groups in this study consisted of the main commercial user groups: marine

tourism operators including whale-watching and kayaking operators, and commercial

fishermen and recreational fishing operators that take recreational users out on fishing trips.

Two non-commercial groups with an interest in the area, researchers and environmental

NGO members, were also included in the study. The opinions of First Nations that have

rights and titles in this area were not included in this study as the integration of these

groups would have required distinct data collection mechanisms (Assembly of First

Nations Environmental Stewardship Unit 2009).

Marine tourism operators, recreational fishing charter businesses and NGOs were iden-

tified through lists supplied by Parks Canada. Additional information was collected via local


123

visitor information centers in all three adjacent communities, Tofino, Ucluelet and Bamfield,

and a list provided by the Chamber of Commerce in Ucluelet. Researchers were identified

through the Bamfield Marine Science station that is located adjacent to the park reserve. The

number of commercial fishermen active in the area is unknown. Estimates for commercial

use in areas adjacent to the Broken Groups Islands were provided by Fisheries and Oceans as

100–120 vessels up to 2–3 days/week over a 4–5 week period, typically between June 10 and

July 10. In addition, there are an estimated 9 licenses for geoduck and 33 for crab fishing,

which are open all-year around (Leung and Thompson, personal communication, Nov.

2008). Most fishermen thus do not live in local communities adjacent to the park reserve and

spent only a few weeks in the area during the summer. This was reflected in this study as more

than half of commercial fishermen (69.7%) and recreational fishing charters (53.8%) did not

live in the area whereas the majority of tourism operators (83.9%), researchers (61.1%) and

NGO members (60%) lived in local communities.

Data was collected via a self-administered questionnaire based survey between July and

September 2008, the main business season for tourism businesses and commercial and

recreational fishing activities. Due to the short time period, limitations with regard to off-

seasonal users need to be acknowledged. A total of 126 stakeholders were included in the

study: 32 marine tourism operators, 26 recreational fishing charter operators, 33 com-

mercial fishermen, 18 researchers and 17 environmental NGO staff members.

All marine tourism operators, recreational fishing charter operators, NGOs members of

the Regional Aquatic Management Board were approached. Researchers were sampled

through the Bamfield Marine Science station located adjacent to the Broken Group Islands

and West Coast Trail Unit of the park reserve. Commercial fishermen were sampled

randomly during the 3 months period in five local harbors, three in Ucluelet, one in Tofino

and one in Bamfield. The main data collection was done face-to-face. Recreational fishing

charter operators and commercial fishermen were approached at their vessels. Tourism

operators and NGOs were visited at their place of work and questionnaires were dropped

off for later collection. In addition, a web-based questionnaire was posted online and links

sent out to all identified researchers, NGO members including those on the regional

management board and listed recreational fishing charter operators. Those without an

e-mail address were sent a mail version with a return envelope. The highest response rate

was achieved using the face-to-face approach (80.4%) compared to the mail survey

(26.7%) and the web-based distribution of the questionnaire (51.1%).

The study followed a similar approach previously used by Himes (2007a) and Dahl-

Tacconi (2005). The first part of the questionnaire covered closed questions about the MPA

context. Multiple response questions were applied to elicit the importance of marine values

and park goals for managing marine areas based on frequency of responses. A rating

question was included to detect the significance of impacts on the marine park environment

and the level of restrictions that should be applied to marine activities within the park area.

MPA performance indicators were elicited in an unconstrained format using an open-

question asking participants to finish the sentence ‘‘In my opinion, marine protection in the

Pacific Rim National Park Reserve is a success if/when…’’. The last section covered

personal information including stakeholders’ livelihood dependency on the marine envi-

ronment in the park, their occupation, how many years they have spent in this occupation,

their age, level of familiarity with the reserve, main activities undertaken, place of resi-

dence, types of fish species they are harvesting and which gear they are using.

Cited MPA performance indicators were coded into the 6 stages of the WCPA

framework developed by Hockings et al. (2006) and analyzed descriptively. The frame-

work by Hockings et al. (2006) was applied since it allows the systematic categorization of


123

qualitative data. The framework is based on an iterative protected area management cycle

that divides the management in 6 stages including (1) Context, (2) Planning, (3) Inputs,

(4) Process, (5) Outputs, and (6) Outcomes (Fig. 2).

Performance indicators were also categorized into biophysical, social, economic and

governance performance indicators following Pomeroy et al. (2004). Quantitative data was

analyzed using SPSS 17.0. Descriptive analysis of the data included frequencies, means

and cross tabulations. The Pearson’s chi-square test was applied for identifying statistical

differences in diverse stakeholder groups’ opinions. Ordinal data were analyzed using the

Kruskal–Wallis test.

Results

Marine values

Respondents mainly selected environmental marine values as important such as marine

mammals, marine biodiversity, important habitats, fish resources and areas for migrating

species (Fig. 3). Relatively few respondents mentioned social values like opportunities for

marine research and protection of cultural resources, even though diverse marine cultural

features lie inside the park reserve.

Statistical analysis revealed diverse opinions on most important marine values. Fish-

ermen put special emphasis on fish resources (v2 (2) = 12.156, df = 4, P \ 0.05) and the

abundance of other marine mammals (v2 (2) = 15.469, df = 4, P \ 0.05). Tourism

operators and NGOs valued general biodiversity more than other groups (v2 (2) = 23.573,

Fig. 2 WCPA framework for assessing protected area management. (Hockings et al. 2006, p. 12)


123

df = 4, P \ 0.001). Researchers mentioned social values such as education about the

marine environment (v2 (2) = 19.349, df = 4, P \ 0.01) and marine research opportuni-

ties (v2 (2) = 16.842, df = 4, P \ 0.05) more often than other groups. Tourism operators

and recreational fishermen also thought that income from tourism is an important value of

the protected area (v2 (2) = 11.422, df = 4, P \ 0.05).

Management goals for marine areas in the park reserve

Out of all listed goals, environmental ones were most often selected for the management

of marine areas in the park reserve, including the protection of marine biodiversity and

ecosystems, the protection of marine mammals, fish resources, and marine habitats

including feeding areas for migrating whales (Fig. 4).

Even though there were some differences in the perceived importance of MPA values

(Fig. 3), stakeholder groups mainly agreed on MPA goals and hence the direction of

management of marine areas for the park reserve. Only differences were obvious for the

protection of general biodiversity, which was most important for all non-fishermen groups

(v2 (2) = 10.926, df = 4, P \ 0.05) and the protection of marine mammals, which was

given greater importance by recreational fishing operators and NGO members than other

groups (v2 (2) = 19.304, df = 4, P \ 0.001). All groups put the lowest importance on

socio-economic goals and the highest importance on environmental ones.

Fig. 3 Importance of marine values (% of respondents, N = 126). *P \ 0.05 (Chi-square, two-sided)

Fig. 4 Management goals formarine areas in the park reserve(% of respondents, N = 126).*P \ 0.05 (Chi-square,two-sided)


123

Significance of impacts on the marine environment in the park reserve

Stakeholders perceived a wide range of marine and terrestrial activities inside and outside

the protected area as having significant impacts on the marine environment in the park

(Fig. 5). The most significant pressures included different fishing activities and adjacent

logging, log handling and fish farming.

While fishing regulations have been put in place for reducing impacts on fish resources,

user compliance seems to be a problem since illegal fishing was perceived to be more

detrimental than other fishing activities. It should also be noted that not just illegal fishing

activities but also illegal business operators were perceived to be negatively affecting the

marine environment. Results also reveal that impacts from use in adjacent terrestrial areas

including logging and camping among recreational activities were seen as more detri-

mental than some activities taking place on and in the water. This emphasises the

importance of managing upland use for effective MPA management especially in coastal

and near shore areas. Kayaking, wildlife viewing and scuba diving were judged as having

the least significant impact. Statistical analysis revealed that both fisherman groups were

most concerned with illegal fishing (H = 11.033, df = 4, P \ 0.05). Recreational fishing

operators pointed out impacts from commercial fishing (H = 13.326, df = 4, P \ 0.01)

whereas commercial fishermen perceived recreational fishing more detrimental than other

groups (H = 9.516, df = 4, P \ 0.05). Researchers and NGO members perceived impacts

from marine traffic more to be more significant than other groups (H = 9.921, df = 4,

P \ 0.05).

Stakeholder views on adequate regulations in the park reserve

Results on recommended restrictions demonstrate that most activities should at least be

restricted in environmentally sensitive areas (Fig. 6). Such areas were identified in pre-

vious management guidelines but will be updated in the next 5 years as outlined in the

current management plan. Extractive uses including commercial and recreational fishing

should not be allowed in the whole park reserve according to some respondents. Hardly

any restrictions were mentioned for kayaking and scuba diving, which were also not seen

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

% o

f im

pact

High

Medium

Fig. 5 Significance of impacts (% of impact, N = 126). *P \ 0.05 (Chi-square, two-sided)


123

as having significant impacts on the marine environment in the park as seen before. Other

impacts that were perceived to be significant such as logging, log handling, and fish

farming are affecting the park reserve from outside and thus lie beyond the management

competence of the park reserve managers.

In particular non-fishermen groups would restrict commercial fishing in the whole park

area (v2 (2) = 21.028, df = 4, P \ 0.05). The majority of respondents in all groups except

recreational fishermen would also ban recreational fishing in the whole protected area

(v2 (2) = 20.595, df = 4, P \ 0.05). Most NGO members and researchers mentioned

that marine transportation should be restricted at least in environmentally sensitive areas or

the whole park (v2 (2) = 26.040, df = 4, P \ 0.05), which reflects the perceived signifi-

cance of impacts from marine traffic.

MPA performance indicators for Pacific Rim National Park Reserve

Eliciting stakeholders view on MPA performance in an unconstrained format revealed 25

MPA indicators (Fig. 7). Classifying these indicators into biophysical, social, economic,

and governance ones shows that indicators in all categories were identified illustrating

diverse expectations towards MPA performance in the park reserve. Yet, it needs to be

noted that most mentioned performance indicators related to MPA governance and how the

area should be managed.

The highest number of indicators was identified by tourism operators and commercial

fishermen (Table 1). These two groups also identified indicators in multiple categories

(Table 2) suggesting a wider understanding of MPA performance than researchers and

NGOs. NGO members cited mainly biophysical indicators and thus seemed to equate MPA

performance with environmental achievements. Economic performance was only men-

tioned by a few commercial fishermen and thus seemed not to be an important performance

indicator for the park reserve based on the frequency of open-ended responses.

Fig. 6 Preferred level of restriction for marine activities. (% of responses for each activity, N = 126).*P \ 0.05 (Chi-square, two-sided)


123

MPA performance indicators within different management stages

Categorizing mentioned MPA indicators in different stages of the management cycle

(context, planning, input, process, output, and outcome) shows that indicators for all six

management cycle stages were identified (Fig. 8).

Most performance indicators fell into the outcome and output stage as well as the

planning and process stage. Individual MPA outcome indicators that were mentioned most

often in the open-ended format were primarily environmental ones, reflecting the most

important goals for managing marine areas in the park reserve (Fig. 4). Most frequently

mentioned were reduced wildlife and habitat disturbance, sustainability of fish resources

and good water quality (Fig. 9). A major concern was the disturbance of feeding areas for

migrating whales by crab traps. Garbage and pollution from upland streams was also

Fig. 7 MPA performanceindicators categories (% ofresponses, N = 145 MPA)

Table 1 Number of MPA indicators mentioned by different groups

Tourismoperators

Fishingcharters

Researchers Commercialfishermen

NGOs

No of MPA indicators 20 11 7 17 5

Table 2 MPA indicators categories of different groups (% of responses within stakeholder group, n = 145)

Tourismoperators (%)

Fishingcharters (%)

Researchers(%)

Commercialfishermen (%)

NGOs(%)

v2 P

Biophysical** 9.1 0.0 23.1 4.3 60.0 31.253 0.000

Social 18.2 4.8 23.1 6.5 0.0 7.350 0.119

Economic 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 2.167 0.705

Governance** 72.7 95.2 53.8 89.1 40.0 20.143 0.000

** P \ 0.001 (Chi-square, two-sided)


123

mentioned frequently, as was the health of indigenous fish species and making sure that

they are not affected by introduced alien species from aquaculture operations in adjacent

areas. Social performance indicators focused on an increase in scientific data on the marine

ecology in the park reserve as well as user awareness of human impacts and knowledge

about the marine ecology in the park reserve.

Identified planning performance indicators included the establishment of more no-take

zones that should equally apply to different fisheries meaning that there should be ‘no double

standards for special interest groups’. Also cited was better management of tourism and

recreational activities. Most often mentioned output performance indicators were enforce-

ment and user compliance reflecting the perceived detrimental impacts of illegal fishing and

unlicensed tourism operators. Participants further mentioned the integration of local com-

munities and stakeholders in the management processes as an important performance indi-

cator. Informal interviews revealed that some stakeholders felt that current management is

too detached from local issues. Respondents thought that managers were often unaware of

locally important issues and ‘should get out more on the water’. Respondents emphasized

that stakeholders should not only be consulted and informed but also have more influence in

the decision-making process and that ‘local input is listened to and implemented’.

Among the different groups, commercial fishermen and recreational fishing charter

operators identified most MPA indicators in the planning stages (v2 (2) = 20.899, df = 4,

P \ 0.05). Commercial fishermen identified adequacy of rule and regulations most often.

They point out that restriction of harvesting activities should apply to all users including

commercial, recreational and First Nations fisheries, in order to protect fish resources in the

park reserve (Table 3). Some commercial fishermen further mentioned the restriction of all

activities in some areas in order to reduce habitat and wildlife disturbance in ecologically

sensitive areas. Tourism operators mentioned better tourism regulations as an indicator for

MPA planning performance.

Most outcome indicators were identified by non-fishermen groups (v2 (2) = 33.023,

df = 4, P \ 0.001). NGO members and tourism operators mainly mentioned reducing

wildlife and habitat disturbances in the park reserve, especially the removal of crab traps in

whale feeding areas, and reducing impacts from activities outside the park reserve (e.g fish

farms, logging). Researchers mentioned an increase in scientific understanding as impor-

tant. This is currently not a park goal and getting a research permit is very difficult and

time consuming. As a result, studies are often undertaken in adjacent areas rather than

within the park reserve. Yet, especially with hindsight of limited monitoring resources,

research activities within the park could significantly increase management capacity and

assist in more systematic and comprehensive evaluation efforts.

Fig. 8 MPA performance indicators’ management stages (% of respondents, N = 85)


123

The findings demonstrate that multiple groups’ identify distinct MPA indicators. In

order to identify a comprehensive set of performance indicators and revealing diverse

expectations towards the MPA, including multiple groups in the development of MPA

performance indicators seems important.

Fig. 9 MPA performance indicators within management stages (% of respondents, N = 85)


123

Discussion

Indicators in the marine and coastal context have been typically developed by government

institutions with the support of scientists and academics (Fontalvo-Herazo et al. 2007). Yet,

it is increasingly advocated that protected area management should embrace a more user-

driven, stakeholder-engaged approach to evaluation (Vella et al. 2009). Despite this rec-

ognition, local stakeholders have rarely been involved in the identification of MPA

Table 3 MPA performance indicators of different groups (% of respondents, n = 85)

Tourismoperators(%)

Fishingcharters(%)

Researchers(%)

Commercialfishermen (%)

NGOs(%)

Context 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0

Resource use (oil drilling, logging)not allowed in adjacent areas

8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0

Planning* 49.8 66.6 14.3 54.4 20.0

More no-take/fishery regulations thatapply to all fisheries

26.1 50.0 14.3 22.7 0.0

No fish farms 4.3 0.0 0.0 4.5 20.0

No access areas 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0

Tourism regulations 10.7 2.6 0.0 3.5 0.0

Bigger size 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

Input 8.6 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0

Staff presence 4.3 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0

More financial resources 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Process 34.7 0.0 14.3 18.0 0.0

Stakeholders consulted 21.7 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0

More research undertaken 8.7 0.0 14.3 4.5 0.0

Management process transparent 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0

Parks Canada oversees management 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Output 39.1 33.3 14.3 36.3 0.0

Enforcement coverage 21.7 16.7 14.3 16.1 0.0

Monitoring undertaken 8.7 8.3 0.0 9.1 0.0

Information distributed 8.7 6.3 0.0 6.1 0.0

User compliance 0.0 1.7 0.0 3.7 0.0

Outcomes* 81.8 16.7 85.8 43.7 80.0

Less wildlife and habitat disturbance 21.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.0

Fish resources abundance 13.0 8.3 14.3 9.1 0.0

Good water quality 17.4 0.0 0.0 4.5 20.0

No alien species 0.0 0.0 28.6 3.0 0.0

User aware of human impacts 8.7 8.3 0.0 9.1 0.0

More scientific data about marineecology

8.7 0.0 28.6 0.0 0.0

User knowledge of marine ecology 8.7 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0

Local support for park 4.3 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0

Income for local fisheries 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0

* P \ 0.05 (Chi-square, two-sided)


123

indicators (Dahl-Tacconi 2005; Himes 2007a; Pajaro et al. 2010). This research attempts to

address this point by developing MPA performance indicators in situ based on diverse

stakeholder groups input in Pacific Rim National Park Reserve. The current vision state-

ment for the park reserve is very broad and according to the current management plan

should be refined with input of local communities and First Nations within the next

5 years. Findings in this study thus provide information that can be used by Parks Canada

for refining the vision for the park reserve, and subsequent monitoring and evaluation. The

results however only represent the opinions of the groups that were included in the study.

First Nations were not part of the study as their inclusion would have warranted distinct

data collection mechanisms (Assembly of First Nations Environmental Stewardship Unit

2009).

Using an in situ approach, findings in this study reveal that local stakeholders identify a

wide range of MPA performance indicators in the absence of clear management objectives

and conservation targets, which coincides with findings in similar studies (Dahl-Tacconi

2005; Himes 2007a; Pajaro et al. 2010). Statistical analysis illustrates the importance of

integrating diverse groups in the development of MPA performance indicators as different

groups in this study identify distinct MPA indicators based on their understanding of what

management in the park reserve is supposed to achieve.

Findings reveal that diverse indicators are identified encompassing biophysical, social,

economic and governance ones. The majority of identified performance indicators are

indeed governance ones indicating a strong interest among local stakeholders on how the

area is being managed.

Economic indicators, however, are not frequently mentioned even though the current

management plan indicates the need to create economic business opportunities for local

First Nations and to generate economic benefits for these groups (Parks Canada 2010a).

This point, however, was not mentioned frequently by non-traditional users indicating that

coastal stakeholder groups can have different perceptions how an area should be managed

than park managers or other use groups (McClanahan et al. 2005b; Himes 2007a;

Thomassin et al. 2010).

Classifying MPA indicators in stages of the management cycle (context, planning,

input, process, output, and outcomes) illustrates that mentioned MPA indicators mainly

refer to MPA outcomes and planning. Context and input indicators are not mentioned by

most participants, which was also found by Himes (2007a) in Italy and Dahl-Tacconi

(2005) in Indonesia. Local stakeholder thus might take sufficient management resources

for granted (Himes 2007a) or might not count them as important MPA performance

indicators from their point of view.

Most often cited individual indicators are biophysical ones, reflecting the importance

given to environmental management goals for marine park areas. These outcome indicators

include reduced habitat and wildlife disturbances, maintenance of fish resources and high

water quality. Most respondents did not mention social and economic outcome indicators.

This corresponds to the fact that social park goals do not seem as very important from their

point of view. The focus on environmental protection in marine areas of the park reserve

coincides with findings by Parks Canada about the state of the environment in the park

reserve. Environmental conditions in terrestrial areas are judged as being fair or stable but

the state of the marine environment is poor and deteriorating (Parks Canada 2008).

Focusing more on environmental protection in these areas might improve the health of the

marine environment in the park reserve.

Most often mentioned planning performance indicators are the existence of more no-

take zones and fishery restrictions that apply to all fisheries. These restrictions relate to


123

perceived detrimental activities inside the park reserve as a range of fishing activities are

seen as significantly affecting the marine ecosystem in the park reserve. These performance

indicators relate to output indicators as enforcement and more user compliance with fishery

restrictions are mentioned most frequently in this cycle stage reflecting the fact that illegal

fishing is perceived to be an issue.

Respondents further cite the integration of all stakeholders as an important performance

indicator. Participants stress the importance not only to be consulted but also that their

opinions have influence in the decision-making process, which would mean a shift up

Arnstein’s ladder of participation (Arnstein 1969). The new management plan mentions

consultation of local communities and stakeholders about planning issues, but does not

specify in how far their input will be used in the decision-making process. As Parks Canada

indicates the need to integrate local knowledge into the design of the park reserve in the

current management plan, a more participatory management approach could be helpful

since participatory decision-making often facilitates the integration of tradition or local

knowledge into MPA design (Dalton 2005).

Compared to studies on local opinions on MPA performance in developing countries,

wider aspects such as food security, poverty reduction (Pajaro et al. 2010), political stability

and safety issues (Dahl-Tacconi 2005) were not mentioned in Pacific Rim National Park

Reserve. The national context in which MPAs are implemented thus seems to influence local

expectations towards MPA management. Results in this study however might have been

different if First Nations groups would have been included. These groups have a different

cultural, traditional and socio-economic background than non-traditional groups, which

often influences expectations towards MPA management (Pomeroy et al. 2007).

Statistical analysis demonstrates that the different groups identify distinct MPA per-

formance indicators, confirming that desired MPA performance often differs between

groups (Hockings 2006). Results show that marine tourism operators and commercial

fishermen identify considerably more and more diverse indicators than researchers and

NGO members. This finding suggests that tourism operators and commercial fishermen

have a broader understanding of MPA performance than researchers and NGO members

who only cite a small number of indicators. NGO members in particular almost only

mention environmental performance indicators. Tourism operators, recreational fishing

charters and commercial fishermen cite governance indicators most often, but also identify

performance indicators in the other three categories. All groups do not mention social and

economic outcomes frequently. Indicators mentioned by fishermen further mainly refer to

MPA planning and management output performance in terms of fishery rules and regu-

lations and their enforcement. A similar result has been found by Himes (2007a). Fish-

ermen emphasize that all fishery activities should be restricted in environmentally sensitive

areas as long as no-take zones or restrictions did not cover the whole park reserve area, and

are applied to all different fisheries to the same degree for more comprehensive protection

in these areas. This result is different to the general assumption that fishermen tend to

oppose marine protected areas and the establishment of no-take zones in particular

(Pomeroy et al. 2007). It also indicates a strong interest of fishermen concerning location,

size and terms of access for fishery restrictions and no-take zones (Suman et al. 1999).

More fishery restrictions could be critical for reducing habitat and wildlife disturbance,

since some fishery activities such as crab traps pose a significant danger to feeding whales

in the area. The emphasis of fishermen groups on more restrictions could be based on the

fact that fishermen, like all other groups, mentioned environmental values and goals most

often as important. This result is in contrast to findings made by Himes (2007b) in Italy,

where fishermen valued economic values more than the environmental aspects. Another


123

explanation might be the perceived unfairness for existing fishery restrictions. Existing

restrictions do not apply to First Nations, but commercial and recreational fisheries and

comments and informal talks reveal that non-aboriginal fishermen are not content with this

situation. While it is usually recommended to reconcile MPA rules with pre-existing,

traditional governance systems (Pomeroy et al. 2007), unequal application of rules to

diverse user groups often creates controversies and conflicts between different user groups.

Addressing such user conflicts is usually critical for MPA management and increases the

legitimacy of MPA rules and regulations (Pomeroy et al. 2007). The emphasis on

enforcement of both fishermen reflects their perception of significant impacts from illegal

fishing activities in the area, which was also found to be an important issue for fishermen in

a study by Himes (2007a) in Italy.

Non-fishermen groups in this study mainly identify MPA outcome indicators. The

findings demonstrate that even though all groups mention environmental goals most often

for managing marine areas in the park reserve, cited MPA performance indicators were

considerably different and provided complementary information on MPA performance.

Conclusion

The study illustrates that local stakeholders can provide valuable input for the development

of MPA performance indicators in the absence of clear management goals and measurable

objectives. Applying an in situ approach revealed a range of performance indicators that

reflect local expectations towards MPA management in the park reserve. Cited performance

indicators also provide insights into information needs that should be addressed in a future

evaluation of the park reserve. The results show that commercial user groups in particular

identify more and a wider range of indicators than researchers and NGOs. Fishermen further

mention primarily performance indicators for planning and management output performance

that relate to fishery regulations and their enforcement. Other groups identify mainly MPA

outcome indicators indicating what the MPA is supposed to achieve. The findings demon-

strate the importance to include diverse stakeholder groups in the identification of MPA

performance indicators as their opinions on MPA performance can be very different.

Acknowledgments The study is part of a PhD underway at the University of Leeds (UK) in collaborationwith the University of Victoria (CA). Financial assistance was provided by the University of Leeds ResearchScholarship, the Canadian Studies Centre, at the University of Leeds postgraduate award, the BritishAssociation for Canadian Studies travel award and fieldwork funding provided by the Ocean ManagementResearch Network, Canada, through the MPA Working Group based at the University of Victoria.

References

Arnstein S (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Plann Assoc 35(4):216–224Assembly of First Nations Environmental Stewardship Unit (2009) Ethics in First Nations ResearchBabcock RC, Kelly S, Shears NT, Walker JW, Willis TJ (1999) Changes in community structure in

temperate marine reserves. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 189:125–134Borad K, Sanchirico J (2008) Local perspectives on marine reserves creation in the Bahamas. Ocean Coast

Manag 51:763–771Charles A, Wilson L (2008) Human dimensions of marine protected areas. ICES J Mar Sci 66:6–15Convention on Biological Diversity (2008) Protected Area Management Effectiveness. Online available at:

http://www.cbd.int/protected-old/PAME.shtml. Accessed 15 Nov 2010Dahl-Tacconi N (2005) Investigating information requirements for evaluating effectiveness of marine

protected areas—Indonesian case studies. Coast Manag 33:225–246


123

http://www.cbd.int/protected-old/PAME.shtml

Dalton TM (2005) Beyond biogeography: a framework for involving the public in planning of U.S. marineprotected areas. Conserv Biol 19:1392–1401

Day J (2008) The need and practice of monitoring, evaluating and adapting marine planning and man-agement—lessons from the Great Barrier Reef. Mar Policy 32(5):823–831

Day JC, Hockings M, and Jones G (2002) Measuring effectiveness in marine protected areas—principlesand practice. World Congress on Aquatic Protected Areas 14–17 August 2002, Cairns, Australia

Edgar GJ, Barrett NS (1997) Short term monitoring of biotic changes in Tasmanian marine reserves. J ExpBiol Ecol 213:261–279

Elliott G, Mitchell B, Wiltshire B, Manan IA, Wismer S (2001) Community participation in marine pro-tected area management: Wakatobi National Park, Sulawesi, Indonesia. Coast Manag 29(4):295–316

Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2010) Pacific Region Integrated Fisheries Management Plan. Fisheries andOceans Canada

Fontalvo-Herazo ML, Glaser M, Lobato-Ribeiro A (2007) A method for the participatory design of anindicator system as a tool for local coastal management. Ocean Coast Manag 50(10):779–795

Helvey M (2004) Seeking consensus on designing marine protected areas: keeping the fishing communityengaged. Coast Manag 32(2):173–190

Himes AH (2007a) Performance indicators in MPA management: using questionnaires to analyze stake-holder preferences. Ocean Coast Manag 50(5–6):329–351

Himes AH (2007b) Performance indicator importance in MPA management using a multi-criteria approach.Coast Manag 35(5):601–618

Hockings M (2006) On defining MPA ‘success’ and choosing an evaluation method. MPA news 7(10):4Hockings M, Stolton S, Leverington F, Dudley N, Courrau J (2006) Evaluating effectiveness. IUCN, GlandJamieson GS, Levings CO (2001) Marine protected areas in Canada: implications for both conservation and

fisheries management. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 58:138–156McClanahan T, Davies J, Maina J (2005a) Factors influencing resource users and managers’ perceptions

towards marine protected area management in Kenya. Environ Conserv 32(1):42–49McClanahan TR, Maina J, Davies J (2005b) Perceptions of resource users and managers towards fisheries

management options in Kenyan coral reefs. Fish Manag Ecol 12(2):105–112Milon JW, Suman D, Shivlani M, Cochran AK (1997) Commercial fierhs’ perceptions of marine reserves for

the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. NOAA, University of Florida, FloridaPajaro MG, Mulrennan ME, Alder J, Vincent ACJ (2010) Developing MPA effectiveness indicators:

comparison within and across stakeholder groups and communities. Coast Manag 38(2):122–143Parks Canada (1994) Pacific rim national park reserve management guidelines. Parks CanadaParks Canada (2008) State of the Park Report. Parks CanadaParks Canada (2010a) Pacific Rim National Park Reserve Management Plan. Parks Canada, UclueletParks Canada (2010b) Pacific Rim National Park Reserve of Canada. Online available at: http://www.

pc.gc.ca/pn-np/bc/pacificrim/plan.aspx. Accessed 16 Oct 2010Planes S, Galzin R, Garcia Rubies A, Goni R, Harmelin JG, Direach L, Lenfant P, Quetglas A (2000) Effects

of marine protected areas on recruitment processes with special reference to Mediterranean littoralecosystems. Environ Conserv 27:126–143

Pomeroy RS, Parks JE, Watson LM (2004) How is your MPA doing? A guidebook for natural and socialindicators for evaluating marine protected areas management effectiveness. IUCN, Gland, Cambridge

Pomeroy RS, Watson LM, Parks JE, Cid GA (2005) How is your MPA doing? A methodology for eval-uating the management effectiveness of marine protected areas. Ocean Coast Manag 48(7–8):485–502

Pomeroy RS, Mascia MB, Pollnac RB (2007) Marine protected areas: the social dimension. Report anddocumentation of the Expert Workshop on Marine Protected Areas and Fisheries Management: Reviewof Issues and Considerations. FAO 149–182

Spalding MD, Fish L, Wood LJ (2008) Toward representative protection of the world’s coasts and oceans-progress, gaps, and opportunities. Conserv Lett 1(5):217–226

Suman D, Shivlani M, Walter Milon J (1999) Perceptions and attitudes regarding marine reserves: acomparison of stakeholder groups in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Ocean Coast Manag42(12):1019–1040

Syms C, Carr M (2001) Marine Protected Areas: Evaluating MPA effectiveness in an uncertain world.Scoping Paper Prepared for North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation Workshop,Monteray, California USA

Thomassin A, White CS, Stead SS, David G (2010) Social acceptability of a marine protected area: the caseof Reunion Island. Ocean Coast Manag 53(4):169–179

Vella P, Bowen RE, Frankic A (2009) An evolving protocol to identify key stakeholder-influenced indi-cators of coastal change: the case of Marine Protected Areas. ICES J Mar Sci 66(1):203–213


123

http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/bc/pacificrim/plan.aspx

http://www.pc.gc.ca/pn-np/bc/pacificrim/plan.aspx

Documents

Developing MPA performance indicators with local stakeholders’ input in the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, Canada