The evolution of marineprotected areas (MPAs):the North Adriatic case

Monica Camuffo, Stefano Soriani and Gabriele ZanettoCa’ Foscari University, Venice, Italy

Abstract

Purpose – This study seeks to consider the recent evolution of the Italian policy in the field of marineprotected areas (MPAs). In particular, it aims to point out the increasing role played by Italian regionsin establishing and managing MPAs. This evolution is to be described by focusing attention on theNorth Adriatic case.

Design/methodology/approach – After a brief introduction on the legislative framework, points ofweakness and strength of the Italian experience in the field of MPAs are discussed. Different initiativesfor promoting and implementing an MPA strategy are analyzed through the North Adriatic casestudy, pointing out the increasing role played by the regions in the design and implementation ofprotection policies.

Findings – The analysis shows how regions direct greater attention to the involvement of the publicand economic sector in the design and implementation of protection policies, and to the definition ofmore flexible management tools. This element clearly confirms the general and overall tendencytowards more regional-based forms of environmental policy, even in coastal and marine affairs.However, in order to improve the environmental gains and implement sustainable forms of economicdevelopment, these regional initiatives should be better linked to a more comprehensive coastal zonemanagement framework, which is still lacking. From this perspective, a national strategy for theItalian coast system could strongly contribute to increasing the role and effectiveness of regionalinitiatives aimed at protecting coastal and marine ecosystems.

Originality/value – The North Adriatic case shows the growing need for integrated policies indifferent scale projects, enhancing the involvement of local communities toward their own territory.

Keywords Marine biology, Seas, Italy

Paper type Case study

IntroductionMarine protected areas have been established mainly to address biodiversity loss incoastal and marine environment, increasing the abundance and/or biomass of targetspecies or allowing the recovery of more “natural” population with positive effects onlocal fishery through biomass exportation to surrounding non protected areas;however, they should be also regarded as fundamental experiences of participatoryplanning and management, integrated with a social and economic framework atbroader scale to ensure their sustainability (Cicin-Sain and Belfiore, 2005).

At the same time, their institution might be considered a proxy of scientific andethical concerns for the wider and most effective conservation of marine ecosystems,including their populations and habitats, the processes that sustain them and thefunctions they provide (Ojeda-Martınez et al., 2009).

The different MPAs’ conditions of protection in the Mediterranean and all over theworld vary widely depending on the countries and their cultural and political

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1477-7835.htm

The evolution ofmarine protected

areas

59

Received 30 March 2010Revised 12 May 2010

Accepted 12 June 2010

Management of EnvironmentalQuality: An International Journal

Vol. 22 No. 1, 2011pp. 59-71

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1477-7835

DOI 10.1108/14777831111098480

peculiarities. This heterogeneity is also shown in their management and, therefore, inthe effects of such management. Theoretically, the protection of MPAs can range fromareas strictly managed for science or wilderness values, where many activities such asfishing are excluded, to areas managed more broadly for the quantified sustainable useof natural resources and ecosystems (Table I). Yet, it is evident that MPAs have beensited mostly at intrinsically ecological rich places, often already not interested byhuman activities, as for example in the Mediterranean Sea.

The result is a very large number of small reserves, mostly along the coast. Asnoted in the research of IUCN on Mediterranean MPAs (Ameer et al., 2008), thedistribution of all Mediterranean Sea habitats and biomes are not represented insidethe system of MPAs, and the distance among them is too wide to provide larvalexchange for most marine organisms.

As several authors point out (see, as an example, Laffoley, 2008), it is necessary tocreate an ecological network of MPAs fully integrated in their management,interconnected and well distributed geographically to protect biodiversity of a wholeecoregion and provide ecosystem services for people inhabiting it.

Against this background, the recent experience would come to confirm theimportance of some critical issues: the relation among the management structure andthe different stakeholders, the integration of MPAs on sectoral planning, their role aslaboratory for the sustainability.

The collaboration with local community and key stakeholders is fundamental toreach these aims, while often overlapping interests in the same area provideuncoordinated solutions or superimposed restrictions that can foster conflicts andillegal actions. The differences in expectations and perceptions among stakeholderscan be dramatically different, as Mangi and Austen (2008) point out in their study insome south European MPAs. Fishers and government officials ranked in the oppositeway the aims of a protected area showing the basis of a strong contraposition thatweakens the role of the MPAs. This lead to other critical aspects during themanagement of MPAs: researches and management activities are mostly biologicallybased (Fletcher and Smith, 2007) and rarely plans integrate concerns related to

IUCN category Main objective

IA. Strict nature reserve Managed mainly for scienceIB. Wilderness area Managed mainly for the protection of wilderness

qualitiesII. National park Managed mainly for ecosystem protection and

recreationIII. Natural monument Managed mainly for conservation of specific natural

featuresIV. Habitat/species management area Managed mainly for conservation through

management interventionsV. Protected landscape/seascape Managed mainly for landscape/seascape

conservation and recreationVI. Managed resource protected area Managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural

ecosystems and resources

Source: IUCN (1994)

Table I.IUCN protected areamanagement categories

MEQ22,1

60

biological and ecological variables with socio-economical and governability ones(Garcia-Charton et al., 2008). Overall there are very few examples of integration ofMPAs with specific sectoral planning or wider plans for the integrated coastal andmarine management, which contributes to extend also to the social economic aspectsthe isolation and lack of connections of the protected zones.

Italian marine protected areasNational Law 979/1982 (the so-called Law for “the defence of the sea”) was the firstItalian law on the protection of marine environment, introducing in the Italianlegislation several important European instruments as the 1976/170/EEC directive anddefining an organic frame on marine protection. The two main aspects it deals with arefishing activities and marine reserves. The law introduces marine reserves providing aprotection instrument aiming to overcome terrestrial parks problems such as conflictswith local communities or different users. Therefore, marine reserves have beendefined as multiple purpose protection areas, with the introduction of the zoningsystem: thus, in a marine reserve, there are strictly protected areas (A zone) –characterized by the exclusion of most of the human activities – which are surroundedby other areas (B and C zones) – where the use of the resources is partially allowed.However, marine reserves can be identified and established only by the Ministry ofEnvironment and thus they are the expression of centralized decisions.

The role of the national government on environmental protection was reaffirmed bythe national Law 394/1991, which can be considered as the second milestone for marineprotection in Italy. The law was introduced after ten years during which initiatives formarine protection bloomed both in relation with Law 979/1982 and many regionalinitiatives. It provides a framework for marine and terrestrial national parks and reserves.

Nowadays Italian MPAs system includes tools as marine reserves and marine parks(according to the national Laws 979/1982 and 394/1991) that aim to protect the wholemarine ecosystem, but also other protection measures specifically oriented to theprotection of biological resources (zone di tutela biologica hereafter referred asBiological resources Protection Areas (BPAs)).

The biological resources protection areas were introduced in 1965 by Law 963/1965to preserve and increase the productivity of the alieutic resources, not only withprohibitions but with a different management. Currently they are receiving moreinterest because of their possible connection with NATURA2000 network and of thegrowing role of regional governments in the alieutic management.

The marine reserves and parks are multiple-use management protected areas thataim to achieve reasonable uses consistent with conservation. Along the Italiancoastline 25 marine reserves and parks are currently established, whose size rangesfrom 8 to more than 50,000 ha. It has also been established as an “InternationalSanctuary for the Protection of Mediterranean Marine Mammals”, also known as the“Pelagos Sanctuary”. It encompasses over 87,500 sq. km of the north-westernMediterranean Sea, extending between south-eastern France, Monaco, north-westernItaly and northern Sardinia, and surrounding Corsica and the Tuscan Archipelago(Notarbartolo di Sciara et al., 2008) (Table II).

Marine parks and reserves include one or more no-take/no-access zones (accordingto the Italian law, “A” zones) surrounded by buffer zones (“B” and “C” zones) where therestrictions to human uses progressively decrease.

The evolution ofmarine protected

areas

61

As it is possible to note from the table, the surfaces protected by each marine reserve orpark are very different and some of them probably too small to be ecologicallysignificant, but what is even more problematic is the relation among the no-take areas(A zone) and the other areas (B and C). For example, in the MPA of “Isola di Ustica”only 0.4 percent of the reserve surface is the area where only research activities areallowed (A zone), in open contrast with the current ecological models suggesting thatthe size of each MPA zone should be scaled to maximize the size of the no-take area inrelation to the buffer and economical development zones (Garcia-Charton et al., 2008).

The presence of a specific management plan is necessary in all the typology ofmarine protected areas recognized by the Italian law, but this element represents aweak point for most of them. Law 979/1982 introduced a fundamental instrument forthe management of the protected areas, the so-called “Piano del Parco” (Plan of thePark): once it is established, it acts as a national law, and is superimposed to regional orlocal plans. This is a useful instrument for the MPAs because it offers the opportunityto integrate different sectoral plans and plans acting at different scales. This tool canavoid specific interests of local stakeholders from frustrating the conservation aims; atthe same time, however, it can be perceived by local communities as an externalimposition that may generate several unsolved conflicts, which in turn can result inillegal activities inside the MPAs, very often difficult to be monitored and controlled.

Name Total surface (ha) Establishment (year)

Portofino 346 1998Riserva Naturale Marina di Miramare 120 1986Cinque Terre 2,726 1997Secche di Torpaterno 1,387 2000Isola dell’Asinara 10,732 2002Isola di Ventotene 2,799 1997Capo Caccia – Isola Piana 2,631 2002Penisola di Sinis – Isola di Mal Ventre 25,673 1997Capo Carbonara 8,598 1999Isola di Ustica 15,951 1986Capo Gallo – Isola delle Femmine 2,173 2002Isole Egadi 53,992 1989Isole Pelagie 3,230 2002Parco Sommerso di Baia 1,766 2002Parco Sommerso di Gaiola 416 2002Punta Campanella 1,539 1997Isole Tremiti 1,466 1989Torre Guaceto 2,227 1991Porto Cesareo 16,654 1997Capo Rizzato 14,721 1991Isole Ciclopi 623 1989Plemmirio 2,500 2004Tavolara – Punta Coda Cavallo 15,357 1997Isola di Berteggi 8 2007Regno di Nettuno 4,600 2007

Note: The “Pelagos Sanctuary” is not included

Table II.Marine parks andreserves currentlyestablished according tothe Laws 979/1982 and349/1991

MEQ22,1

62

In Italian protected areas this problem is quite common and it can be related also to thelack of participatory approaches, education and communication programs, both in thephase of establishment of the protected area and in its management (Guidetti et al.,2008). Protected areas affect different communities and stakeholders with specificinterests and perspectives in the marine environment. The perception of the marineenvironment and of the role of the marine protected areas become thus very relevantissues, which should be considered for a successful management of those areas.

Another contradictory aspect in Italian MPAs is their relation with tourism. Theopportunities offered by protected areas to local communities on this field are oftenregarded as the main reason for the promotion of new protectionist initiatives. In thesecases, MPAs are marketed and promoted as a lever for improving the image of theresort in the tourist market, but sometimes this function prevails on the environmentprotection and sustainable management. The effects of tourism are not always easilypredictable and sometimes dubious concessions are given to promote developmentprojects. This is particularly the case of recreational boating, which very oftenrepresents a significant threat for marine ecosystems. To this regard, in 2007 a protocolfor the “Sustainable development of recreational boating in MPAs” was signed by theItalian Association of MPAs, the environmental associations, the Ministry ofEnvironment and the Ministry of Transport, and by the Association of Shipyards. Thisprotocol was endorsed by the Italian government in the same year, and it providesguidelines for MPAs in the field of recreational navigation. In particular, the protocolaims to promote the development of new sustainable ships (hybrid engines, moreenvironmentally-friendly antifouling paints, etc.) (Moschini, 2009).

The combined action of the above mentioned factors, together with a lack of properstrategy for MPAs at national level, have resulted in weak enforcement, also for oldermarine reserves and parks (as Egadi and Ciclopi islands, both established in 1989).

Other different forms of marine protection are currently growing, thanks to a newsensibility in the field of biodiversity protection also promoted by the EU through itsHabitat directive (92/43/EEC). The Habitat directive requires the selections of SpecialAreas of Conservations (SAC) for the protection of habitats and species of communityimportance. These areas, together with the special protection areas (SPAs) provided bythe Birds Directive (79/409/EEC), form the European NATURA2000 conservationnetwork.

Many NATURA2000 sites are currently established along Italian coasts. This canbe considered an important result, useful for the promotion of coastal zone integratedprotection: in fact, each site should have a specific management plan and othermeasures, which correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat typesand the species of community interest. According to the EU nature directives, theconservation objectives should be met taking account of economic, social, cultural,regional and recreational requirements. This means that activities in these sites are notforbidden but they need a previous assessment of the possible impacts on the protectedspecies and habitats. This assessment should be applied also to plans and programsthat could affect the area.

Protected areas in the North Adriatic SeaThe Adriatic Sea is an interesting example of semi-enclosed sea. It is connected withthe rest of the Mediterranean Sea by the 70 km-wide Otranto straits. The Adriatic Sea

The evolution ofmarine protected

areas

63

washes seven countries: Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina,Albania and Greece. Geographical position, climatic characteristics, low salinity andbathymetry contribute to determine many different ecosystems and threebiogeographic areas: north, central and south Adriatic.

The North Adriatic area lies on the continental shelf with an average depth of 30meters. Together with the Central Adriatic, it collects 1/3 of all the continental freshwater of the Mediterranean Sea and 80 percent of pollutants of the Adriatic. Thewestern side is characterized by sandy coasts interrupted by lagoons, while the easterncoast has many channels, small islands, submerged reefs and rocky shores thatabruptly drop in the depths. In a relative small area is thus present a high biodiversityin habitats and benthonic fauna (Tagliapietra, 2005).

The conformation of the basin and the dynamism of the territories overlooking ithave contributed to make North Adriatic an emblematic case of the growing economicimportance of the sea (Soriani, 2003) and of the risks and impacts connected to it. Infact, in the North Adriatic sea there are several direct uses such as marine transport,offshore platforms, submarine cables, hydrocarbon survey, fishing, aquaculture, armyexercises, scientific research and tourism, as well as indirect uses (like urban andindustrial draining and run-off), often conflicting among them. Moreover, the area canbe considered as one of the most threatened ecosystems in the world because of thepollution and the overexploitation of its natural resources.

Since mid-1980 the area has shown many environmental conflicts, caused by thedecreased quality of coastal waters and ecosystems. These conflicts (Soriani, 2003)have highlighted the need for new protection policies.

However, such a complicated situation has not been addressed by timely andarticulated protection actions. On the contrary, if we observe the geographicaldistribution of marine parks and reserves in Italy, we can notice a comparatively lowerpresence of protected areas in the Adriatic sea.

This situation is confirmed also if compared to the rest of the Mediterranean Sea: theIUCN report (Ameer et al., 2008) shows that only 12 percent of the MPAs of theMediterranean Sea have been established in the Adriatic Sea, despite the huge amountof habitats and the socio-economic relevance of the area (Figures 1 and 2).

Only one marine reserve is present in the North Adriatic area (Miramare) andbecause of its physical characteristics (high rocky coast), it is not fully representative ofthe Italian side of the North Adriatic ecosystems (lagoons, sandy littorals), but it shouldbe considered an exceptional ecosystem, also from a landscape point of view.

This situation seems to confirm that also for the design and implementation ofItalian marine protected areas greater attention has been paid to those coastal andmarine areas characterized by outstanding landscape values. In fact, in Italy theconservation debate has developed giving much emphasis on aesthetic values (Zanettoet al., 1996) and they are still maintaining a relevant role in the nature protection“discourse” (Benton and Short, 1999).

Moreover, the lack of a diffuse ocean citizenship (as defined by Fletcher and Potts,2007) is reflected also in Italy in the difficulties to understand the marine environmentand the measures for its protection. As a point of fact, the very nature of marineecosystems and their constitutive characteristics make it very often difficult to developsocial awareness on the importance of conservation policies.

MEQ22,1

64

Figure 1.Italian MPAs

The evolution ofmarine protected

areas

65

Figure 2.Italian North AdriaticBPAs, MPAs andNATURA2000 sites

MEQ22,1

66

The situation in the Adriatic Sea, and more specifically in its northern part, iscompletely different if considering all the protection measures present in Italianlegislation. Today, 13 BPAs have been established by the Ministry of Agricultural,Food and Forestry Policies, mostly following indication of local population or localNGOs. Observing their geographical distribution, it is possible to note that more than50 percent (8/13) of the proclaimed areas are in the Adriatic Sea.

BPAs do not prescribe any restriction to the navigation and do not prohibit fishingcompletely. According to the law, they do not require any form of active management,local population involvement and the development of policies aimed at promotingsustainable tourism, but many BPAs are in fact running these activities.

BPAs should be formally established by the national government, but as underlinedbefore, in the last few years a stronger role in their implementation was assigned to theRegions. Veneto Region is explanatory of that: the regional Law 15/2007 valorized therole of BPAs, proposing them as multi-purpose MPAs; as a point of fact, theseinitiatives aim, besides the conservation of the alieutic resources, to a wholeenvironmental protection through environmental education, no-take areas, areas withcontrolled access, areas for diving and fishing, and to promote a socio-economicdevelopment compatible with the marine environment.

Relevant examples are the two BPAs of the Veneto coast: “Tenue di Chioggia” and“Tegnue di Porto Falconera”. Both were created under the pressure of environmentaland divers associations and citizens that for many years, besides collectingenvironmental data to prove the relevance of the areas, were involved in disseminatinginformation and supporting environmental education programs.

In north Adriatic the term tegnue refers to submarine rocky substrates scattered inthe sandy or muddy seabed, characterized by extraordinary benthonic biocenosis. Thefirst report of these rocky outcrops on the bottom of the Adriatic goes back to 1792, theyear in which Giuseppe Olivi (Olivi, 1792) used the term “tegnue” in his ZoologiaAdriatica to indicate that they hold and break the fishermen’s nets.

The presence of rocky outcrops off the seaside village of Caorle was confirmed bythe scientific community since 1969 (Stefanon, 1969). Several theories were applied toexplain their origin, and currently the most credited one proposes that their rocky coreshave been formed over the centuries as a result of the cementing of muddy sandysediments, by the precipitation of carbonates on beach sediments or after the ascent ofmethane from the sea bottom through the sediments themselves (Stefanon and Zuppi,2000). Methane came most likely from the microbial decomposition of fossil plantmaterial. The biocenoses are slightly different from the classic coralligenuous one,being the faunal component always dominant (Casellato et al., 2007). Several biologicalstudies conducted in the tegnue of the Gulf of Venice have revealed a high diversity ofspecies and the presence of many species currently rare in the Italian seas (e.g. Mizzan,1992). Thanks to their irregular profile, they limit the use of trawl fishing and thus theyare still able to preserve the habitat of many marine invertebrates and to act as nurseryfor many species of fishes. However, the growing resistance of the nets and of thepower of fishing boat engines, the dumping of waste, the damaging because of anchorsand the pollution are endangering them.

Since the end of the 1980s, the divers club of Caorle began to propose the creation ofa marine reserve to protect some outcrops in front of the city. In order to have fishers’support, they discussed with them to select some tegnue particularly endangered but

The evolution ofmarine protected

areas

67

not always utilized for fishing. In 1997, after collecting several geological andbio-ecological information about the area, they submitted a formal request for theinstitution of a marine reserve to the Minister of Environment, but although the areafulfilled all the law requirements to be designed as protected area and despite therepeated requests, no action was taken by the Minister. The association decided then toconcentrate the actions on dissemination and tourism valorization, involving all thelocal schools, many local actors, promoting lessons, expositions and videos to avoid theloosing of the local knowledge and to enhance the diffusion of scientific researches onthe Tegnue (Camuffo, 2001). As a consequence, the divers association, supported by thelocal fishers, the municipality, part of the tourism actors and by other environmentalassociations, made several requests also to the regional institutions. These requestswere eventually recognized by the regional government in 2004 (Regional Decree2060/07) and confirmed by the national government in the same year.

DiscussionThe Italian MPAs’ system has developed thanks to two important legislativemeasures, L.979/1982 and L.394/1991. These laws introduced important principles andtools, such as the zoning principle, the concept of sustainable use of environmentalresources and the “Piano del Parco”. In particular, these laws were basic steps in theprocess of development and strengthening of new public (and institutional) attitudestowards the coastal and marine environment.

However, that (state-based) phase has shown many relevant weak points. Theorganizational weakness has prevented the coherent implementation of principles andgoals, leaving them largely “on paper”. Moreover, the centralization of the decisionsprevented from establishing new protected areas and sometimes also from acceptingthe older ones.

It has to be noted also that these laws stressed the need to balance economic andenvironmental goals, but rarely these aspects were fully recognized. This lack ofattention in social and economic implications of both established and establishingMPAs for the most important sectors (tourism and fishing) has often resulted in socialconflict and last-minute problems.

At the same time, in some cases the opposite situation has occurred with MPAsconsidered merely as a means to promote the image of a coastal resort in the touristmarket, with few environmental benefits.

To this, it must be added the scanty coordination and the lack of connections withother coastal initiatives and policies, to the extent that MPAs have often resulted asisolated and exceptional elements.

Against this background, the national marine protected areas in the North AdriaticSea are in very problematic conditions. First, established MPAs affect only a verylimited coastal and marine area; secondly, the specific ecological features of the Italianside of the Adriatic – especially in its northern part – are not included in any form ofnational protection; moreover, MPAs have not been effective enough until now in theprotection of ecological and environmental values because of the social and economiccomplexity of the Adriatic.

However, the promotion and implementation of new protection measures on thebasis of EU approaches have recently improved the situation. Moreover, thanks tothe re-contextualization during the late-1990s of a particular tool (BPAs) introduced in

MEQ22,1

68

the Italian legislative framework in 1965, greater attention has been placed onsustainability perspectives in the management of biotic resources.

In particular, several Adriatic Regions’ 1990s initiatives have focused on newstrategies to combine economic and environmental goals through the involvement oflocal associations and communities. In this perspective, the setting up of a new marineprotected area is now perceived and promoted more and more as a sort of process oforganizational learning, through which new management capabilities and tools aredeveloped, monitored and assessed.

The positive results it has recently brought about derive from regionalgovernments’ dynamic and pragmatic role: as a matter of fact they answered veryquickly to the changing social perception of the sea and of the coast, and to a widerattention to the problems of sustainability by the most important stakeholders.However, in order to improve the environmental gains and to make them coherent withsustainable strategies of economic development, these regional initiatives should beconsidered – and promoted as well – within a more comprehensive (national andinternational) coastal zone management framework. In this perspective, the poorimplementation of integrated coastal management’s approaches and tools in the Italianadministrative and political system has not contributed until now to exploit thepotential role of MPAs in protection and sustainable management of coastal andmarine ecosystems.

Thanks to the Mediterranean Protocol for ICZM (January 2008), Italiangovernment’s commitment to the topic will hopefully increase, allowing to considerprotection initiatives within their most appropriate context. Moreover, the regions’experience conducted in the frame of BPAs activating the collaboration of differentactors might become an exemplar reference point for the diffusion and implementationof ICZM programs. At the same time, activating these virtuous paths might helpstrengthening the collaboration among countries too, especially in the case of severalcountries overlooking a semi-closed basin, like the Adriatic Sea.

References

Ameer, A., Gomei, M., Maison, E. and Piante, C. (2008), Status of Marine Protected Areas in theMediterranean Sea, IUCN, Malaga and WWF, p. 152.

Benton, L.M. and Short, J.R. (1999), Environmental Discourse and Practice, Blackwell, Oxford.

Camuffo, M. (2001), “La gestione di un bene ambientale ed il problema della sua rappresentazionescientifica e vernacolare” (“Management of an environmental resources and the problem ofits different representations”), Master’s thesis in Environmental Science, Ca’ FoscariUniversity, Venezia, available at: www.istitutoveneto.it/venezia/documenti/tesi_laurea_dott/tesi_camuffo/tesi_camuffo.htm

Casellato, S., Masiero, L., Sichirollo, E. and Soresi, S. (2007), “Hidden secrets of the NorthernAdriatic: Tegnue, peculiar reefs”, Central European Journal of Biology, Vol. 2 No. 1,pp. 122-36.

Cicin-Sain, B. and Belfiore, S. (2005), “Linking marine protected areas to integrated coastal andocean management: a review of theory and practice”, Ocean and Coastal Management,Vol. 48, pp. 847-68.

Fletcher, S. and Potts, J. (2007), “Ocean citizenship: an emergent geographical concept”, CoastalManagement, Vol. 35, pp. 511-24.

The evolution ofmarine protected

areas

69

Fletcher, S. and Smith, H.D. (2007), “Geography and coastal management”, Coastal Management,Vol. 35, pp. 419-27.

Garcia-Charton, J.A., Perez-Ruzafa, A., Marcos, C., Claudet, J., Badalamenti, F.,Benedetti-Cecchi, L., Falcon, J.M., Milazzo, M., Schembri, P.J., Stobart, B., Vandeperre, F.,Brito, A., Chemello, R., Dimech, M., Domenici, P., Guala, I., Le Direach, L., Maggi, E. andPlanes, S. (2008), “Effectiveness of European Atlanto-Mediterranean MPAs: do theyaccomplish the expected effects on populations, communities and ecosystems?”, Journalfor Nature Conservation, Vol. 16, pp. 193-221.

Guidetti, P., Milazzo, M., Bussotti, S., Molinari, A., Murenu, M., Pais, A., Spano, N., Balzano, R.,Agardy, T., Boero, F., Carrada, G., Cattaneo-Vietti, R., Cau, A., Chemello, R., Greco, S.,Manganaro, A., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Russo, G. and Tunesi, L. (2008), “Italian marinereserve effectiveness: does enforcement matter?”, Biological Conservation, Vol. 141,pp. 699-709.

IUCN (1994), Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories, IUCN, Gland, CNPPA withthe assistance of WCMC, p. 261.

Laffoley, D. d’A. (Ed.) (2008), Towards Networks of Marine Protected Areas. The MPA Plan ofAction for IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas, IUCN WCPA, Gland, p. 28.

Mangi, S.C. and Austen, M.C. (2008), “Perception of stakeholders towards objectives and zoningof marine-protected areas in southern Europe”, Journal for Nature Conservation, Vol. 16,pp. 271-80.

Mizzan, L. (1992), “Malacocenosi e faune associate in due stazioni alto adriatiche a substratisolidi”, Boll. Mus. Civ. St. Nat., Vol. 41, Venezia, pp. 7-54.

Moschini, R. (Ed.) (2009), Aree protette e nautica sostenibile, Editrice ETS, Pisa, p. 176.

Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Agardy, T., Hyrenbach, D., Scovazzi, T. and Van Klaveren, P. (2008),“The Pelagos sanctuary for Mediterranean marine mammals”, Aquatic Conserv: Mar.Freshw. Ecosyst., Vol. 18, pp. 367-91.

Ojeda-Martınez, C., Gimenez Casalduero, F., Bayle-Semperea, J.T., Barbera Cebrian, C., Valle, C.,Sanchez-Lizaso, J.C., Forcada, A., Sanchez-Jerez, P., Martın-Sosa, P., Falcon, J.M., Salas, F.,Graziano, M., Chemello, R., Stobart, B., Cartagena, P., Perez-Ruzafa, A., Vandeperre, F.,Rochel, E., Planes, S. and Brito, A. (2009), “A conceptual framework for the integralmanagement of marine protected areas”, Ocean and Coastal Management, Vol. 52 No. 2,pp. 89-101.

Olivi, G. (1792), Zoologia Adriatica, Reale Accademia Sc. Lettere Arti, Bassano, p. 334.

Soriani, S. (Ed.) (2003), L’articolazione territoriale dello spazio costiero. Il caso dell’Alto Adriatico,Editrice Cafoscarina, Venezia, p. 228.

Stefanon, A. (1969), “The role of beachrock on the study of the evolution of the North AdriaticSea”, Mem. Biogeogr. Adriat., Vol. 8, pp. 79-87.

Stefanon, A. and Zuppi, G.M. (2000), “Recent carbonate rock formation in the Northern AdriaticSea: hydrogeological and geotechnical implications”, Hydrogeologie, Vol. 4, pp. 3-10.

Tagliapietra, D. (2005), “Le caratteristiche dell’Alto Adriatico”, pp. 24-32, Proceedings of the1st Congress Diving and Environment (Subacquea and Ambiente): le tegnue di Chioggia,Chioggia 17-18/09/2005.

Zanetto, G., Vallerani, F. and Soriani, S. (1996), Nature, Environment, Landscape: EuropeanAttitudes and Discourses in the Modern Period, The Italian Case, 1920-1970, Quaderni delDipartimento di Geografia, Padova.

MEQ22,1

70

About the authorsMonica Camuffo is a post-doctoral researcher in the Department of Environmental Sciences (Ca’Foscari University, Venice). She got her doctoral degree in Environmental Sciences in 2004. Herresearches are based on Environmental Education, focusing in particular on its role inEnvironmental Management and Assessment. She currently teaches “Environmental Education”at Ca’ Foscari University. Monica Camuffo is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:camonic@unive.it

Stefano Soriani is Associate Professor of Geography in the Department of EnvironmentalSciences (Ca’ Foscari University, Venice), member of the Steering Committee of AGEI(Associazione dei Geografi Italiani) and Secretary of the Commission on Marine Geography ofthe International Geographical Union. He currently teaches “Environmental Politics” and“Integrated Coastal Zone Management”. His main fields of research include urban waterfrontredevelopment and urban marketing, port development and maritime transportation, the societaland economic implications of Integrated Coastal Zone Management programmes.

Gabriele Zanetto is Professor of Economic and Political Geography in the Department ofEnvironmental Sciences (Ca’ Foscari University, Venice). His researches focus on the theory ofthe organization of the territory and its environmental, economic and cultural aspects, withparticular attention to Venice, its lagoon and the Veneto Region. He is the author of over 200publications and a member of the main geographic institutions and of the Ateneo Veneto. He hasheld several managerial roles, whereas his administrative duties include the co-foundation of theInterdepartmental Centre on Sustainable Development in the Mediterranean CESD/IDEAS,which he has directed since 2005.

The evolution ofmarine protected

areas

71

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints