Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Social-ecological dynamics of coral reef resource use and management
Dissertation proposal for Ph.D. in Environmental Science Department of Environmental Science and Management
Portland State University Submitted by Sarah Freed
May 2011
For defense to be presented on May 25 2011, 2:00 PM, SB2 room 228
Dissertation Committee members
Dr. Elise F. Granek, chair
Dr. Veronica Dujon
Dr. Yangdong Pan
Dr. J. Alan Yeakley
Dr. Darrell Brown, Graduate Office Representative
2
Table of contents
Introduction and rationale …………………………………….. 3
Status report and timetable ……………………………………. 7
Chapter 1 ……………………………………………………… 8
Local anthropogenic impacts on the world’s most vulnerable reefs:
A case study of the Comoros
Chapter 2 ……………………………………………………… 13
Social-ecological outcomes of traditional and co-management
strategies for coral reef conservation in the Comoros
Chapter 3 ……………………………………………………… 23
Challenges to traditional management and co-management of
coral reef fisheries in the Comoros
Chapter 4 ……………………………………………………… 28
Global success of coral reef management strategies in
social-ecological outcomes
Graduate Coursework and Degree Requirements ……………. 34
Literature Cited ………………………………………………. 36
3
Introduction and rationale
In broadest terms, my research interest is in human-environment dynamics. This
dissertation will focus on these dynamics in the context of localized interactions in coral reef
ecosystems. Human-environment dynamics is an essential area of study for both ecology and
sociology and pertains to sub-disciplines of marine ecology, conservation, and management. The
questions undertaken for this dissertation will enhance understanding of human-coral reef
relationships as well as provide insight into how to undertake and succeed in natural resource
conservation and management of human activities.
Conservation of coral reef ecosystems requires the maintenance of hard coral diversity
and abundance, benthic cover diversity, and fish diversity, abundance and biomass. The steps to
maintaining and conserving coral reefs are well described in explanations of reef resilience.
Diversity of coral colonies maintains resilience of the reef to physical disturbance (Connell et al.
1997) such as storms, erosion, sedimentation, and sea temperature change. Diversity of coral and
other habitat forming organisms on reefs and facilitate diversity of fish (Sale 1977; Steneck
1988) and other organisms in coral reef communities. The diversity of benthic cover, especially
presence of crustose coralline algae and a low relative abundance of macroalgae, ensures that
coral recruits will find places to settle on the reef (Miller and Hay 1996; Steneck 1988). Fish
4
functional groups and diversity help maintain reef resilience. Predators control lower trophic
level populations, including herbivores and bioeroders (Hughes 1994; McClanahan et al.1994).
Herbivores in turn control macroalgal growth and other plant growth on the reef to allow for
coral recruitment (Mumby et al. 2007), which is essential to reef recovery from disturbance
(Hughes 1994).
Humans are one of the most significant components of the coral reef ecosystem. Humans
have uncontested impacts on coral reef ecosystems and also are highly reliant on its resources.
Human impacts on reefs are tremendous; 58% of the world’s known tropical reef systems are
within 25 kilometers of urban populations of 100,000 or more (Agardy et al. 2005) and it is
unlikely that any “pristine” reefs remain (Hughes et al. 2003; Pandolfi et al. 2003, Gardner et al.
2003). Indirect impacts such as climate change and accompanying sea temperature rise are also
becoming more and more drastic. Impacts from overfishing and pollution have also been well
documented. Localized and global impacts can work synergistically to devastate coral reef
systems. Reefs have been demonstrated to recover fairly well from natural disturbance (Connell
et al. 1997) but their ability to do so is stunted by human pressures (Hughes 1994). Reefs provide
several goods and services to humans, including: fish and other food products, pharmaceutical
compounds, raw materials such as seaweed and algae for agar and fertilizer, aquarium trade
products, construction materials such as coral blocks, rubble and sand, raw materials for
production of lime and cement, mineral oil and gas deposits; services of shoreline protection,
land accretion, beach formation, recreation and tourism, geologic information- climate and
pollution records, aesthetic value, and cultural and spiritual services (Moberg and Folke 1999).
We must find a way to balance provision of essential goods and services with maintenance of
reef health.
5
Management is the process that can guide the interactions of humans and coral reefs and
must guide these interactions in a sustainable direction. Management is increasingly studied as
we become aware of the urgency to create sustainable human-reef dynamics as well as the
difficulty in achieving this goal. Management of interconnected social-ecological systems is a
challenging undertaking that requires work across multiple disciplines and scales (Liu et al.
2007). Management must address both social and ecological components of the coral reef system
in order to sustain ecosystem functions and services (Hughes et al. 2005). Several management
strategies have been developed to address the cross-scale and interdisciplinary needs of social-
ecological systems, with varying success. Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are the focus of many
reef management studies (e.g. Hargreaves-Allen et al. 2011; Selig and Bruno 2010), yet only
27% of the world’s reefs are within MPAs and nearly half of these MPAs are considered
ineffective (Burke et al. 2011). While MPAs and marine reserves have been demonstrated to
improve or at least maintain ecological status (Lester et al. 2009; Selig and Bruno 2010), less
success is observed in social outcomes (Alder 1996; Christie 2004). A regional study of the
Indian Ocean indicated the effectiveness of fishery closure areas in increasing fish biomass, but
also the negative impact of poverty on fish biomass for unprotected areas, thus emphasizing an
integrated approach of ecological conservation and socioeconomic development and poverty
reduction to attain sustainable coral reef fisheries (Cinner et al. 2009). Traditional and customary
management strategies have been shown to achieve social outcomes and although these
strategies may not outperform others in ecological outcomes, integration of traditional and
customary management techniques can facilitate successful outcomes for other management
strategies (Cinner and Aswani 2007; Cinner et al. 2005; McClanahan et al. 2006). As no single
strategy will be appropriate in all situations, we must determine under what conditions certain
6
management strategies work and what inputs are required for the management process to
succeed (Berkes 2004).
My proposed research will contribute to the study and practice of managing human-reef
interactions. I will investigate localized human impacts on reefs in order to identify where
management should be prioritized to balance human-reef interactions in a sustainable manner.
Through evaluation of social and ecological management outcomes, I will compare the
effectiveness of two reef management strategies in balancing human-reef interactions. These
investigations are focused on a particular setting, the reefs and management strategies in the
Comoros. The single country focus of these investigations will provide an in depth analysis of
reef impacts and management strategies and will be applicable to reefs in other developing
countries and small island states. A broader investigation will also be included to conclude the
dissertation, a global analysis of social-ecological outcomes of reef management strategies.
7
Status report and timetable By-chapter status report
Chapter Completed tasks Remaining tasks Planned finish date
1. Local anthropogenic impacts on reef health
Data collected, introduction written
Data analysis, write methods, results, and discussion
Writing completed by July 25, 2011
2. Social-ecological outcomes of traditional and co-management strategies for coral reef conservation in the Comoros
Manuscript submitted to AMBIO, returned with comments to address before re-submission
Revise data analysis, edit results and discussion, send out for co-author review, resubmit for peer review
Sent for co-author review by June 10, 2011 Resubmitted for peer review by June 24, 2011
3. Challenges to traditional and co-management of coral reef fisheries
Data collected, introduction written
Data analysis, write methods, results, and discussion
Writing completed by September 5, 2011
4. Global success of coral reef management strategies in social-ecological outcomes
Study design planned, introduction written
Systematic literature review, data collection and analysis, write methods, results, and discussion
Data collected by October 24, 2011 Writing completed by January 9, 2012
Proposed timetable
Summer 2011: Resubmit chapter 2, finish chapters 1 & 3 (see table above)
Fall 2011: Finish chapter 4 (see table above)
Winter 2012: Submit/resubmit manuscripts for publication
Spring 2012: Dissertation defense
8
Chapter 1. Local anthropogenic impacts on the world’s most vulnerable reefs:
A case study of the Comoros
Abstract
Localized anthropogenic activities are the source of some of the greatest pressures
threatening coral reef health, yet they are not studied in enough detail to ensure effective
management. The reefs of the Comoros contain abundant and diverse communities, but are
subject to a variety of anthropogenic pressures, and the nation is among the most vulnerable
to the effects of coral reef degradation. We studied the impact of eight anthropogenic
activities on aspects of coral reef health with the goal of providing prioritized management
targets and measurable attributes of the activities and of reef health. We found attributes of
fishing and sand extraction to be among the top indicators of reef health, along with
environmental variables of island, coastline orientation, and wave exposure.
Introduction
Coral reefs provide valuable ecosystem functions and services which are compromised
by increasing anthropogenic pressures (Moberg and Folke 1999). Local activities near reefs are
increasing as coastal development and population growth increases (Agardy et al. 2005). The
majority of coral reefs remain unprotected and local pressures currently threaten over 60% of the
world’s coral reefs (Burke et al. 2011). Studies suggest that reducing local threats to a coral reef
can enhance its resilience and is a strategy for preventing climate change effects on reefs while
global greenhouse gas emissions remain high (Burke et al. 2011).
Local activities affecting reefs are rarely studied and the sparse knowledge of the
contributions of a given activity to reef health decline is an obstacle to conducting effective
9
management. Studies of coral reef health tend to focus on the impact of water quality or other
environmental variables rather than the relationship of human activities with reef health (eg.
Fabricius and De’ath 2004; Parsons et al. 2008; Risk et al. 2001). Overfishing and pollution are
commonly cited as problems but the specific activities that lead to overfishing and pollution must
be identified and managed. Fishing is by far most often investigated, with a few studies of
tourism, household waste, agricultural runoff, and coral and/or sand extraction. Reef health
studies incorporating human activities tend to focus on a single factor or cumulative impact of
several factors (eg. Ryan et al. 2008; Selkoe 2009). It is equally important to determine the
relative impact of several human activities, especially for providing decision-making information
to reef managers. More thorough investigation of the impact of local activities on coral reef
health is necessary for establishing management goals.
We evaluated the impact of eight activities reported to affect reef health in the Comoros
islands. The Comoros is listed among nations most vulnerable to the effects of coral reef
degradation due to high reef dependence, highly threatened reefs, and low adaptive capacity
(Burke et al. 2011) and thus will provide an example of the most immediate concerns to address
for reef conservation. The 2002 GCRMN World Status of Coral Reefs report for the Comoros
listed several activities that contribute to reef degradation, emphasizing the urgent need for
management (Ahamada et al. 2002). These activities include: men’s and women’s fishing; coral
and sand extraction; coastal housing; tourism; agriculture; and transport by motorized fiberglass
boat. Our aims are to identify the attributes of these activities that most impact coral reef health,
provide management with measurable attributes of each activity, and provide management
recommendations to support reef health.
10
Methods
Data was collected through social interviews and ecological surveys at sites throughout
the Comoros. Each site consisted of a local community and adjacent reef (n=21) or a reef on an
uninhabited islet (n=5).
Due to sparse information available and the large number of activities to investigate, we
gathered data on each activity through interviews with community members knowledgeable of
coastal activities at each site. The interviews included open-ended questions that allowed us to
gather qualitative information as well as structured questions for which responses were scored.
We used observations to verify interview findings. We interviewed 2-10 individuals from each
site-associated community through individual and single-gender group interviews. Data gathered
from the interviews consisted of information on eight potential reef impacting activities (men’s
fishing, women’s fishing, sand extraction, coral extraction, agriculture, tourism, coastal housing
and construction, transport by outboard motor boat) and on management of men’s and women’s
fishing and sand extraction. Interviews and observations were conducted from May through
August 2009 with additional interviews and observations from September 2010 through March
2011 to synchronize our findings with collection of ecological data and to determine whether any
changes had occurred since our last interviews.
Reef health can be measured in many ways. In this study we evaluated: percent cover and
diversity of hard coral; percent cover of macroalgae, coralline algae, crustose coralline algae, turf
algae, sand, debris, non-scleractinian coral, other biotic organisms (hydroids and zoanthids), and
dead coral; fish biomass, abundance, and diversity; extent of coral bleaching; and number of
coral recruits.Surveys were conducted on fringing reef at <1-6m deep at low tide, using line-
point-intercept transects for benthic cover (25m long with observations made each 25cm, 2-
11
3/site), belt transects for fish (25x5m, 2-3/site), circle sampling (a radius of ~2m, 7-10/site) for
coral bleaching, and quadrats (0.25m2, 5-15/site) for coral recruitment. Surveys were conducted
twice at each site to account for seasonal differences, pre-rainy season from September-
December 2010 and during rainy-season from January-March 2011. Surveys were not conducted
from April-August due to high winds and wave action and poor visibility during those months.
We used multivariate regression tree analysis to determine the impact of the scored
attributes of each activity (predictor variables) on the reef health variables. Analysis was
conducted separately on the 2010 and 2011 reef health data sets. Environmental predictor
variables included in the analysis were: island, rugosity, horizontal visibility on the reef, distance
to other habitats, presence of a river mouth, coast shape, wave exposure, and coast orientation for
each reef.
Preliminary Results
A preliminary evaluation was conducted using pilot reef health data from 2009. A
univariate regression tree analysis revealed five variables each for the primary splits in live coral
and turf algal cover (respectively: 1) island 2) type of fish caught 3) coastline orientation 4) wave
exposure 5) type of fish consumed; and 1) type of fish caught 2) coastline orientation 3) island 4)
time since last sand extraction 5) type of fish consumed; Figure 1).
12
Figure 1. Regression trees for a) live coral and b) Turf algal percent cover. Means are reported
for each node and defining characteristics of new groups based on the foremost predictor
variable are labeled on the tree branches.
Journal for submission
Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater ecosystems
OR Biodiversity and Conservation
13
Chapter 2. Social-ecological outcomes of traditional and co-management strategies for
coral reef conservation in the Comoros
Abstract
Traditional and co-management strategies for marine conservation have been promoted as
scale and resource appropriate for small and developing nations. While traditional
management is based on local knowledge and culture, co-management is grounded in science
and incorporates traditional management aspects. We assessed the relative influence of each
management type on four social and ecological outcomes. Results indicated that management
only influenced perspectives of non-extractive reef value, while island, rather than
management type, most influenced other outcomes. Live coral and turf algal cover were
additionally influenced by environmental and human impact variables. Co-management
strategies of education and community participation can increase local understanding of the
non-extractive importance of coral reefs, but do not automatically translate into more
effective reef conservation. Activities impacting reef health must be addressed with wider
scope and greater depth to achieve conservation in both traditional and co-management
settings.
Introduction
Awareness and concern are rising over the decline of coral reef health worldwide
(Bellwood et al. 2004; Agardy et al. 2005). Humans benefit from both undisturbed and exploited
reefs, a precarious situation in which we must maintain simultaneous preservation and
sustainable use of reefs. Such conservation has been implemented through various strategies,
with varying degrees of success. It has been recognized that ecological and social aspects of
resource management must be considered simultaneously to achieve sustainable management
14
outcomes in marine systems (Hughes et al. 2005).
Conservation of coral reefs, in ecological terms, requires the maintenance of hard coral
cover and diversity and fish abundance and diversity, which ensures reef health and resilience
(Bellwood et al. 2004). While ecological management outcomes such as species and habitat
conservation can be considered the primary goals of conservation, these goals can be supported
through social outcomes such as pro-conservation attitudes and behavior (Waylen et al. 2010).
Ecological outcomes in this study include: hard coral diversity and abundance; and fish diversity,
abundance and biomass. Social outcomes in this study include: behavior reflected in prevalence
and intensity of reef-impacting activities; and attitudes reflected in local perceptions of reef
health and non-extractive reef value. This study compares social and ecological outcomes of
traditional and co-management of coral reefs.
Traditional management can be any form of management that has a historical and cultural
continuity and for the purpose of this study includes “neo-traditional” forms of management in
which local resource users utilize their knowledge, experience, and observations to govern
resource use (Berkes & Folke 1998). Traditional management of coral reef resources has a long
history, and although conservation is not necessarily its chief purpose, conservation is generally
acknowledged as one outcome of such management (Cinner & Aswani 2007). While traditional
management has provided effective conservation in many locales for hundreds of years, more
recent experiences suggest that traditional management practices are less effective when faced
with population growth and socio-economic changes (Cinner & Aswani 2007; Cinner et al.
2007). A study in Papua New Guinea revealed population and modernization “thresholds”
beyond which customary fishing grounds closures were not utilized as strategies for fisheries
management (Cinner et al. 2007).
15
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) have been promoted based on conservation science, yet
their success is conditional on adequate consideration of the local social context throughout their
implementation and management (Alder 1996; McClanahan 1999; Lundquist & Granek 2005).
One barrier to MPA success is the failure to consider and integrate socio-economic factors into
management plans (Mascia 2003). For example, MPA success rates in the Western Indian
Ocean are very low primarily due to financing and management unsuited to their local contexts;
only a few sites in Kenya have maintained effective management for more than 25 years
(McClanahan 1999).
Integration of MPAs and traditional management can overcome some barriers to success
encountered in each management type alone (Cinner & Aswani 2007). This co-management
approach has been tested in several settings. An analysis of co-managed MPAs in the Philippines
found that success (based on a combination of ecological and social indicators) was predicted
most by: 1. community population size; 2. perceived crisis in terms of reduced fish populations;
3. successful alternative income projects; 4. high levels of participation in community decision
making; 5.continuing advice from the implementing organization; and 6. inputs from local
government (Pollnac et al. 2001). A co-managed MPA in the Solomon Islands was successful in
most biological and socioeconomic outcomes due to: use of local knowledge for a low-cost and
flexible approach; supplementing local knowledge with ecological and social research during
establishment of the MPA; and involvement of local resource users, which facilitated monitoring
and enforcement of rules. (Aswani et al. 2007).
Traditional management, formal MPAs, and co-management, have been studied widely
in isolation but seldom compared, and rarely compared in a single setting. Empirical evidence is
needed to evaluate whether co-management actually improves upon existing management in
16
both social and ecological outcomes. Although one comparative study determined the effect of
social and economic factors on the ecological success of national MPAs, co-managed MPAs, and
traditionally managed areas in Indonesia and Papua New Guinea (McClanahan et al. 2006), the
study did not directly evaluate whether and how management type influenced the observed
socioeconomic variables. Socioeconomic factors certainly can influence ecological success, but
we must also examine whether management type can influence both socioeconomic and
ecological outcomes, and whether socioeconomic and/or ecological factors affecting outcomes
act independently from management. Many proponents of co-management assert that indeed,
management can influence social and economic factors, but this assertion has not been
investigated, either through comparison of social and economic factors before and after co-
management implementation, or through comparing such factors inside and outside co-managed
areas.
This study investigates whether co-management can improve both social and ecological
outcomes by comparing a co-managed MPA to surrounding traditional management in the
Comoros. Social and ecological outcomes studied include: 1) live coral cover and diversity and
turf algal cover; 2) fish abundance, diversity, and biomass; 3) reef-impacting activities; 4) local
perceptions of reef health and non-extractive reef value; and 5) community perceptions of
management. These outcomes were selected to evaluate the effectiveness of co-management in:
improving ecological condition of the target area (outcomes 1 and 2); bolstering ecologically
sound practices and the social institutions that support them in the face of changing social,
economic, and demographic conditions (outcome 3); improving local understanding of reef
health, ecological functions and services to increase support of reef conservation and
management methods (outcome 4); and maintaining local acceptance of management through
17
incorporation of traditional social institutions with context-appropriate science-based methods
(outcome 5). The study also investigates whether social and ecological outcomes were more
impacted by underlying social and ecological contexts relative to management strategy.
Methods
Study Area
The reefs of the Comoros Islands, located in the Mozambique channel (Figure 2a), are
particularly suited to investigating differences between traditional and co-managed approaches to
conservation. The reefs are subject to relatively few natural pressures and have proven to be
resilient to major coral bleaching events such as the 1998 event (Ahamada et al. 2002).
Traditional management has been practiced in most settlements, where subsistence use of
adjacent reefs is high. While national legislation has been passed to protect biodiversity, coastal
habitats, and key species, such laws receive little attention and enforcement; most environmental
action is decentralized and occurs through community groups (Ahamada et al. 2002; Bigot et al.
2002). Mohéli is the smallest and most rural of the three islands, with an area of 211 km2 (UN
2002) and population of 46,443 (projection for 2011 based on 2003 census, Comoros
Government).
Since 2000, a co-managed MPA has governed the coral reefs of the southern half of
Moheli island. The project that undertook the design and creation of the Mohéli Marine Park
(Parc Marin de Mohéli; PMM, Figure 2b) was a joint international-Comoran government effort
that was well-funded, primarily by the World Bank’s Global Environment Facility (GEF), and
benefited from the support and representation of a highly qualified team of experts from the
Comoran government and multiple international organizations, with the explicit and thorough
18
involvement of citizens from local communities (Granek & Brown 2005). PMM remains the
only existing MPA in the Comoros. After a lapse in funding and deterioration of the park’s
formal structure occurred from 2006-2009, PMM gained a short-term (2 year) source of funding
and resumption of official management and search for continuing funding was underway. The
unstable financial state of PMM reflects the reality faced by many MPAs (co-managed or
otherwise) in developing nations, which does not always impede achievement ecological and
social outcomes, and thus provides a true test of the co-managed MPA effectiveness under
“real,” non-idealized, conditions (see Hargreaves-Allen et al. 2011).
Figure 2. Map of a) Comoros and b)co-managed MPA on Mohéli.
Experimental design
We compared management outcomes of a co-managed area to traditionally managed area on
Mohéli, Comoros. The co-managed sites served as the experimental treatment while the
surrounding original conditions of traditional management served the control sites, without
comparing before and after implementation of co-management due to the timing of the study.
While a complete Before-After-Control-Impact study would be ideal and could be used in
19
situations where a co-managed MPA has yet to be implemented, this type of study would require
a much longer study period and was beyond the resources available for our study. Inside/outside
comparisons have been widely used in ecological assessments of management success (eg.
McClanahan et al. 2006). Social assessments have compared across various forms and strengths
of management, similar to the inside/outside approach (eg. Pollnac et al. 2001).
We chose 11 sites for the study, 6 within co-managed PMM and 5 under traditional
management on Mohéli. Each site consisted of fringing reef habitat and an adjacent human
community, selected to represent the geographic and population variability present within each
management type.
Sampling
We conducted reef surveys according to protocol used in the Comoros and throughout the
Western Indian Ocean region for Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network status reports (Bigot et
al. 2002; e.g.Ahamada et al. 2002), published by the Regional Environment Programme and the
Indian Ocean Commission (Conand et al. 1998), with the exception of using line-point-intercept
(LPI) observations instead of recording continuous observations along the transects, to cover
more area and sites. The LPI method is comparable and in some cases preferable to other
methods of data collection along transects due to its reliability under time and effort constraints
(Beenaerts & Vanden Berghe 2005). We conducted surveys at depths of 1-5m below mean sea
level and recorded observations at 25cm intervals along three 25m transects per site, noting at
each point the benthic cover type (live coral, turf algae, sand, etc.). Fish transects were along the
same reef transects but additionally 2.5 m on either side of the transect line (25x5m belt
transect). A total of 27 species were identified during belt transects, fourteen of which were
indicator species from Conand et al. (1998). Other fish were identified to genus or family for
20
selected functional groups and numbers recorded in size increments of 3-10cm, >10-30cm, and
>30cm to facilitate biomass estimation. Surveys were conducted twice at each site to account for
seasonal differences, pre-rainy season from September-December 2010 and during rainy-season
from January-March 2011. Surveys were not conducted from April-September due to high winds
and wave action and poor visibility during those months.
To evaluate social management outcomes including reef-impacting activities and perceptions
of reef health, non-extractive reef value, and management, we conducted semi-structured
interviews in the communities at each site from May to August 2009 to identify: attributes of
eight reef-impacting activities observed in the Comoros (Ahamada et al. 2002; men’s fishing,
women’s fishing, coral extraction, sand extraction, coastal housing, transport, tourism, and
agriculture); non-extractive uses of the reef; and perceptions of reef health and management. The
questions included open-ended questions that allowed us to gather qualitative information as well
as structured questions for which responses were scored. We used observations to verify
interview findings. During September 2010-March 2011 we conducted additional interviews and
observations to synchronize our findings with collection of ecological data and to determine
whether any changes had occurred since our last interviews. We selected interviewees on the
basis of knowledge of the community and local fishing practices to gather information and
perspectives from those most familiar with the topics. We interviewed 2-10 individuals from
each site-associated community through individual and single-gender group interviews. This
low-sample size method was chosen to: obtain in-depth information; suit cultural norms that
require relationships to be built prior to asking personal information and norms that encourage
discussion, debate, and lengthy responses rather than short answers; and avoid participant
burnout. Group interviews were utilized when possible as we sought consensus-based
21
information for community-level analysis of the social outcomes. While one disadvantage of
group interviews can be disproportionate participation among group members, we avoided this
by encouraging group members to discuss individual opinions amongst each other and come to a
consensus when possible. We interviewed groups of single-gender in accordance with Muslim
tradition and to encourage unreserved participation of interviewees. Interviews were attended by
the field researcher local field assistants and conducted in the local Comoran dialect. To
encourage candid participation of the interviewees, we hand-wrote interview responses on site
rather than recording and transcribing.
Data Analysis
To evaluate ecological outcomes, we used repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-
ANOVA) to compare results among management types and field seasons for arcsine transformed
average percent cover of live coral, Simpson diversity index of hard coral, average fish
abundance per square meter, fish biomass, and Simpson diversity index for fish among
management types. We used a permutational multivariate analysis of variance with year as a
fixed factor (PERMANOVA; vegan package in R) of hard coral and fish assemblages to detect
differences between management types. Fish biomass was calculated using species Length-
Weight tables (Froese and Pauly 2000) to determine the average weight of a given fish in each
species and size class. This weight was then multiplied by the number of fish observed in that
species-size class at each site to determine average biomass/m^2 by site.
To prepare interview data for analysis, scored responses were averaged or otherwise
combined for each site when multiple individual responses existed or group consensus had not
been attained so that analysis could be performed at the site level. To evaluate reef impacting
activities, we constructed a nonparametric multidimensional scaling (MDS; vegan package in R)
22
ordination plot using scored responses from interviews. In MDS, the sites are plotted using Bray-
Curtis dissimilarity in a reduced-dimension ordinal space such that and stress (inverse measure
of fit) is minimized (Okansen 2011; Parendes and Jones 2000). We tested for differences
between management types using PERMANOVA.
To evaluate perspectives of reef health, scored responses were averaged for each
management type and compared using a Mann-Whitney test. The same procedure was used to
evaluate perceptions of non-extractive reef value.
To evaluate management perspectives, we constructed a MDS ordination plot using
scored responses from interviews, and tested using PERMANOVA, using the same procedure as
for the reef impacting activities analysis.
Responses to open-ended interview questions provided greater depth of analysis for
social outcomes and interpretation of quantitative results.
Preliminary results
RM-ANOVA tests revealed no significant differences between management types for any
of the ecological outcomes.
Journal for submission
AMBIO
OR Environmental Management
23
Chapter 3. Challenges to traditional management and co-management of coral reef
fisheries in the Comoros
Abstract
Traditional and co-management are popular strategies for local resource management such as
community-based coral reef fisheries. While traditional management, which is conducted by
local resource users and has historical and cultural continuity, has encountered modern-day
challenges such as demographic and socio-economic change, co-management, a hybrid of
traditional and science-based management, has been promoted as a strategy that both meets the
needs of local resource users and addresses contemporary challenges. We conducted a qualitative
study of traditional and co-management in the Comoros to compare how each strategy handled
challenges and to identify strengths and weaknesses of each. Using the principles of common
pool resource management (Ostrom 1990) as a framework, we conducted interviews with
community participants in fishing and fishery management in 21 villages to determine whether a
traditional or co-management strategy was more successful in management outcomes. Analysis
of the interview data revealed that both strategies met similar challenges to management
framework, including: internal challenges such as defining boundaries to resource use, rule
enforcement, and surveillance; and external pressures such as inadequate recognition and support
of management, poor knowledge of resource, low social capital, and inadequate capacity for
adaptation to change. We found that both types of management had examples of strong and weak
management, but where co-managed sites had weak local management, the co-management rules
were still generally recognized, while traditionally managed sites with weak management did not
have an alternative source of rule-making, and in several instances, traditionally managed sites
with strong local management achieved management strength only after prolonged conflict with
other villages and island authorities. Co-management provided sites a safety-net of rules to fall
back on when local management was not effective, while traditional management was only able
to succeed when exceptionally strong local managers resisted pressures from outside
communities and authority figures.
Introduction
24
Fishing is one of the foremost activities contributing to coral reef destruction worldwide,
affecting more than 55% of the world’s reefs (Burke et al. 2011). Fishing can be high on coral
reefs and while it has been the subject of many studies, it is still difficult to manage successfully.
We must find ways to successfully manage fishing to ensure that reefs continue to provide
valuable ecosystem functions and services. Traditional and co-management are popular
strategies for management of coral reef fisheries. While traditional management, which is
conducted by local resource users and has historical and cultural continuity, has encountered
modern-day challenges such as demographic and socio-economic change, co-management, a
strategy that integrates traditional and science-based management, has been promoted as a
strategy that both meets the needs of local resource users and addresses contemporary
challenges. There are examples of success and failure for each management type, and in this
study we set out to identify whether there are weaknesses inherent in each strategy that need to
be addressed.
Design principles of Common Pool Resource (CPR) governance (Ostrom 1990) provide a
useful framework in which to examine coral reef fisheries management. Traditional and co-
management strategies both rely on the participation of stakeholders in management decision-
making and actions, fitting the CPR philosophy of stakeholder based management. The eight
design principles of CPR governance outline the attributes of robust CPR governance systems
and facilitate the evaluation of CPR systems for strengths and weaknesses. The CPR governance
design principles include: 1) existence of boundaries and memberships for resource use; 2)
resource use rules appropriate for resource and participants; 3) arenas for collective-choice
concerning rules and the resource; 4) monitoring of the resource and its users; 5) graduated
sanctions for rule infractions; 6) mechanisms for resolution of conflicts among resource users; 7)
25
recognition of the rights of resource users to organize; and 8) nested units of governance. In
addition to these principles, Ostrom’s work and other studies have highlighted factors that
influence CPR governance success, particularly for coral reef fisheries. These factors were
incorporated in our study and include: 1) knowledge of the resource; 2) outside pressures and
conflicts affecting the resource and its users; 3) critical perceptions of the resource; 4) social
capital available to resource users; and 5) adaptive capacity of resource users and the CPR rules
and governance.
We conducted a qualitative study of traditional and co-management of coral reef fisheries
in the Comoros to compare how each strategy handled challenges of fishery management and to
identify strengths and weaknesses of each. Our goal was to identify barriers to management
success and identify ways to improve management effectiveness. We also wanted to test the
applicability of the common pool resource framework to both traditional and co-management
approaches. We expected the framework would be useful in identifying areas of weakness in
each management strategy as well as the five additional areas not included directly in the
framework.
Methods
Semi-structured interviews were conducted in 21 communities throughout the Comoros.
Interviews conducted from May to August 2009 focused on attributes of fishing practiced within
each community in addition to investigating other local activities. Additional interviews from
October 2010 through February 2011 focused on the management of fishing and another activity,
sand extraction. The questions included open-ended questions that allowed us to gather
qualitative information as well as structured questions for which responses were scored. We used
26
observations to verify interview findings. We selected interviewees on the basis of knowledge of
the community and local fishing practices to gather information and perspectives from those
most familiar with the topics. We interviewed 4-16 individuals from each site-associated
community through individual and single-gender group interviews. This low-sample size method
was chosen to: obtain in-depth information; suit cultural norms that require relationships to be
built prior to asking personal information and norms that encourage discussion, debate, and
lengthy responses rather than short answers; and avoid participant burnout. Group interviews
were utilized when possible as we sought to understand the management process as it involves
all stakeholders and community-level perspectives on management. While one disadvantage of
group interviews can be disproportionate participation among group members, we avoided this
by encouraging group members to discuss individual responses amongst each other and elaborate
their responses when disagreement occurred. We interviewed groups of single-gender in
accordance with Muslim tradition and to encourage unreserved participation of interviewees.
Interviews were attended by the field researcher local field assistants and conducted in the local
Comoran dialect. To encourage candid participation of the interviewees, we hand-wrote
interview responses on site rather than recording and transcribing.
The interview notes were transcribed and coded, including codes for attributes that pertained
to common pool resource management. The codes were used to identify emergent themes of
fishery attributes and management practices and stakeholder perceptions of management. By
comparing our findings to the framework for common pool resource management, we identified
areas where management could be strengthened and consulted interviewee’s comments to make
recommendations of how to improve management.
27
Preliminary Results
Preliminary examination of the interview data indicates that both traditional and co-
management strategies have similar challenges to success, including: governance design
challenges such as defining boundaries to resource use, rule enforcement, and surveillance; and
external pressures such as inadequate recognition and support of management, poor knowledge
of resource, low social capital, and inadequate capacity for adaptation to change. Strong and
weak management cases were revealed in both traditional and co-management settings, but
where co-managed sites had weak local management, the co-management rules were still
generally recognized, while traditionally managed sites with weak management did not have an
alternative source of rule-making. At least one traditionally managed site and one co-managed
site with strong local management achieved management strength only after prolonged conflict
with other villages and island authorities. Co-management provided sites a safety-net of rules to
fall back on when local management was not effective, while traditional management was only
able to succeed when exceptionally strong local managers resisted pressures from outside
communities and authority figures.
Journal for submission
Society and Natural Resources
OR Marine Policy
OR Global Environmental Change
28
Chapter 4. Global success of coral reef management strategies in social-ecological outcomes
Abstract
Coral reefs are a site of social-ecological interactions that must be carefully governed to
sustain both the humans and the reef involved. Several strategies have been tried for coral
reef management and several studies exist evaluating the success of the various strategies, yet
we still know little about how to succeed in maintaining healthy social-ecological coral reef
systems. Using examples from customary, traditional, co-management, Marine Protected
Area, and marine reserve management strategies, we set out to determine: correlation of
successful social and ecological outcomes; conditions necessary to succeed in both social and
ecological governance outcomes; and type of governance that most often succeeds in both
social and ecological outcomes. Social outcomes included local benefits in: wealth and
income; employment and livelihood opportunities; capacity in leadership and education; and
availability of subsistence materials. Ecological outcomes included improvement and/or
maintenance of: hard coral cover and diversity; fish abundance, biomass, and diversity;
recovery from disturbance; and water quality. We found that local involvement is a key
factor in achieving social and ecological outcomes, as well as governance at multiple scales.
We suggest that a nested approach to governance, involving multiple governance strategies,
will help assure success in social and ecological governance outcomes.
Introduction
Coral reefs provide important ecosystem functions and services and management must
balance increasing pressures on the system with sustaining its capacity to function and provide
services (Moberg and Folke 1999). In order to sustain ecosystem functions and services,
29
management must address both social and ecological components of the coral reef system
(Hughes et al. 2005). Social outcomes of management may include benefits in: wealth and
income; employment and livelihood opportunities; capacity-building in leadership and
education; and availability of subsistence materials. Ecological outcomes of successful
conservation must include improvement and/or maintenance of: hard coral cover and diversity;
fish abundance, biomass, and diversity; recovery from disturbance; and water quality.
Despite the proliferation of coral reef management world-wide, we still do not know how
to sustain dynamic social-ecological coral reef systems. Global analysis of coral reef
management effectiveness focuses on Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and on only a few
management outcomes (e.g. Hargreaves-Allen et al. 2011; Selig and Bruno 2010). Our analysis
will investigate several types of management and will determine the relationship of successful
social and ecological management outcomes, the conditions necessary to succeed in both social
and ecological outcomes, and the governance strategy that most often succeeds in both social and
ecological outcomes. The abundance of coral reef management cases allows us to investigate
several hypotheses related to management success in social and ecological outcomes.
Our first hypotheses concern the co-occurrence of successful social and ecological
outcomes and management strategies most conducive to success. While MPAs and marine
reserves have been demonstrated to improve or at least maintain ecological status (Lester et al.
2009; Selig and Bruno 2010), less success is observed in social outcomes (Alder 1996; Christie
2004). A regional study of the Indian Ocean indicated the effectiveness of fishery closure areas
in increasing fish biomass, but also the negative impact of poverty on fish biomass for
unprotected areas, thus emphasizing an integrated approach of ecological conservation and
socioeconomic development and poverty reduction to attain sustainable coral reef fisheries
30
(Cinner et al. 2009). Traditional and customary management strategies have been shown to
achieve social outcomes and although these strategies may not outperform others in ecological
outcomes, integration of traditional and customary management techniques can facilitate
successful outcomes for other management strategies (Cinner and Aswani 2007; Cinner et al.
2005; McClanahan et al. 2006). Complex systems theory and commons research indicate that the
multi-scale nature of conservation goals requires a pluralistic approach that involves networks
and linkage of multiple levels of organization (Berkes 2007). In terrestrial and aquatic
conservation, multiple scales of organization that include local involvement contribute to social
and ecological success (Brooks et al. 2006; Pomeroy et al. 2001; White et al. 2005). We
hypothesize: 1) management that includes local involvement is most likely to succeed in social
outcomes; 2) strict marine reserves are most likely to succeed in ecological outcomes; and 3) a
mixed approach to management, with participation at multiple scales, is most likely to succeed in
both social and ecological outcomes.
Our next hypotheses concern the predictors of success in social and ecological outcomes.
As Berkes (2004) argued in the case of co-management, it is not the method itself but rather the
conditions in which it is carried out that will determine its success. Studies evaluating
management success point to a variety of factors that contribute to or prevent success; we will
systematically evaluate these factors in the context of several case studies. An empirical study of
regional success of fisheries co-management recognized conditions necessary for success existed
at multiple spatial scales, from supra-community to individuals (Pomeroy et al. 2001). Scale of
decision making and implementation were found to be significant to both social and ecological
outcomes of Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs; Brooks et al. 2006).
Another study of ICDPs revealed that consideration of local context can be important to
31
management success (Waylen et al. 2010). The same study found that factors such as population
size do not necessarily affect management success (Waylen et al. 2010); although population has
been found to be influential in other cases (Cinner et al. 2007). Region, time and duration of
implementation were all found to influence ecological outcomes of MPAs (Selig and Bruno
2010). Management success has been attributed to local involvement in the management process
in many studies (Brooks et al. 2006; Pollnac et al. 2001). Management success has also been
attributed to support from national, regional or international sources (White et al. 2005) and
conflict resolution efforts (Christie et al. 2009). We hypothesize: 4) while time since
implementation and size of managed areas may provide within-management type differences of
social-ecological success, there is no general relationship between these variables and
management outcomes; 5) factors leading to success and/or failure will outperform all other
predictors (management type, location, size of management area, and time since implementation)
of social-ecological success; 6) factors leading to success will include: local participation;
national, regional, or international support; and conflict resolution efforts; 7) factors leading to
failure to include: market or livelihood dependence on reef-destructing activities; inadequate
local involvement; imbalance of stakeholder power; and instability or absence of outside support.
Methods
The paper will be either a systematic review or a meta-analysis, depending on the amount
of quantitative data retrieved from papers. Data collection will follow guidelines for systematic
reviews to be published in PLoS ONE and/or Centre for Evidence Based Conservation (used by
Waylen et al. 2010). Using examples from customary, traditional, co-managed, Marine Protected
Area, and marine reserve management strategies, we address the seven hypotheses outlined
above. We will conduct a systematic search of published and grey literature in Web of
32
Knowledge and Google scholar and peruse each study to collect information on: management
type, location, size, and time since implementation; factors that authors identified as important to
success and/or failure; and social and ecological management outcomes. Social outcomes of
management will include: wealth and income; employment and livelihood opportunities;
capacity-building in leadership and education; and availability of subsistence materials.
Ecological outcomes will include: hard coral cover and diversity; algal abundance and diversity
by functional group (coralline algae, crustose coralline algae, macroalgae, turf algae); fish
abundance, biomass, and diversity; water quality; and recovery from disturbance for any of these
outcomes.
Where possible, we will record quantitative data for change in ecological and social
outcomes along with standard deviation and p-value, for change measured as either before and
after management implementation, or in comparison of a managed to a non-managed area. We
will assign scores for social and ecological outcome success based on reports in papers and the
author’s analysis (three level ordinal scale, 0 for failure, 1 for limited success, 2 for success, as in
Brooks et al. 2006 and Waylen et al. 2010). We will also include a similar score for quality of
data reported for each outcome to ensure that reporting quality does not influence the results
(Waylen et al. 2010). If reporting quality is found to influence results, tests will be rerun with
only the studies with mid- and highest quality reporting.
We will construct a multivariate matrix of the predictors (success and failure predictors,
presence/absence data; management type; location; size of management area; time since
implementation) with the ecological and social outcomes (either effect size for meta-analysis or
3-level scale for systematic review). A multivariate regression tree will be used to test which
predictor variables most influence the outcomes. A PERMANOVA test between management
33
types will be used to determine which achieves the most social, ecological, and social-ecological
success. Ecological and social outcomes will be entered in separate matrices and analyzed using
a Mantel test to determine whether there is a correlation of the success of these two outcome
types.
Preliminary Results
A preliminary search using terms “coral” with “Community based management,”
“Community management,” “co-management,” “Customary management,” “custom*,”
“Traditional management,” “Tradition*,” “Marine Protected Area,” “MPA,” and “marine
reserve” has returned 1,534 papers from Web of Knowledge search. “Coral” and “management”
returned 4,461 papers from a Web of Knowledge search.
Journal for submission
PLoS ONE
OR PNAS Sustainability section
OR Environmental Management
OR Ocean&Coastal Management
34
Graduate Coursework and Degree Requirements Class Instructor Term Credits Grade ESR 610 Bayesian Statistics DeRivera Spring 2010 2 P ESR 527 Watershed Biogeochemistry Yeakley Spring 2010 4 A R&C Marine Conservation Science Granek Winter
2010 2 P
ESR 510 Ecosystem Services Toolbox Ervin Winter 2010
1 A-
PHE 520 Qualitative Research Design and Methods
Carder Fall 2008 3 A
ESR 566 Environmental Data Analysis Pan Fall 2008 4 A GEOL 510 Coastal Geomorphology Peterson Spring 2008 4 B+ SOC 510 Social Sustainability Dujon, Dudley Spring 2008 4 A ECO 522 Economics of Sustainability Bluffstone Winter
2008 4 A
ESR 510 Aquatic Chemistry Fish Winter 2008
4 B-
ESR 550 Multivariate Analysis of Environmental Data
Pan Fall 2007 4 B
ESR 510 Environmental Sustainability Granek, Yeakley Fall 2007 4 B+ ESR 510 Coastal Marine Ecology DeRivera,
Granek Fall 2007 4 A-
35
Additional Credits Courses to fulfill requirements,
instructor, and grade Credits
Term
Seminar – 6 credits ESR Seminar “” “” “” “” “”
1 1 1 1 1 1
Winter 2008 Spring 2008 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Winter 2010 Spring 2010
Dissertation – 27 credits Dissertation Dissertation – to be completed
1 27
Winter 2010 Fall 2011, Winter/Spring 2012
Research credits Social Research Methods, Dujon, A Coral Reef Management, Granek, P Coral Reef Management, Granek, P Coral Reef Management, Granek, A Regime Shift Meta-Analysis, Granek, P Socioeconomic Data Analysis, Dujon, A Meta-Analysis, Granek, P Coastal Habitats, Sytsma, A Coral Reef Research, Sytsma, A Coral reef ecology & sociology, Granek, P Coral reef ecology & sociology, Granek, IP
1 1 1 2 3 1 1 3 2 9 9
Fall 2008 Winter 2009 Spring 2009 Fall 2009 Fall 2009 Fall 2009 Winter 2010 Winter 2010 Spring 2010 Fall 2010 Winter 2011
36
Literature Cited Agardy, T., J. Alder, P. Dayton, S. Curran, A. Kitchingman, M. Wilson, A. Catenazzi, J.
Restrepo, C. Birkeland, S. Blaber, S. Saifullah, G. Branch, D. Boersma, S. Nixon, P.
Dugan, N. Davidson, and C. Vorosmarty. 2005. Coastal Systems. pp. 513–549. In:
Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current States and Trends, Vol. 1, Chapter 19.
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. Hassan R., Scholes, R. and Ash, N. (eds.). Island
Press, Washington, D.C.
Ahamada, S., L. Bigot, J. Bijoux, J. Maharavo, S. Meunier, M. Moyne-Picard, and N. Paupiah.
2002. Status of the Coral Reefs of the South West Indian Ocean Island Node: Comoros,
Madagascar, Mauritius, Reunion and Seychelles. p: 79-100. in C. Wilkinson (ed.). Status
of coral reefs of the world: 2002. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville,
Queensland, Australia. 378 p.
Alder, J. 1996. Have tropical marine protected areas worked? An initial analysis of their success.
Coastal Management 24: 97-114.
Aswani, S., S. Albert, A. Sabetian, and T. Furusawa. 2007. Customary management as
precautionary and adaptive principles for protecting coral reefs in Oceania. Coral Reefs
26: 1009-1021.
Beenaerts, N. and E. Vanden Berghe. 2005. Comparative study of three transect methods to
assess coral cover, richness, and diversity. Western Indian Ocean Journal of Marine
Science 4: 29-37.
Bellwood, D.R., T.P. Hughes, C. Folke, and M. Nystrom. 2004. Confronting the coral reef crisis.
Nature 429: 827-833.
Berkes, F. 2004. Rethinking Community-Based Conservation. Conservation Biology 18:621-
630.
Berkes, F. and C. Folke. 1998. Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and
sustainability. In Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and
Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience, eds. Berkes, F. and C. Folke, 1-25.
Cambridge, New York.
Bigot, L., J. Maharavo, J. Bijoux, S. Ahamada, S. Meunier, N. Paupiah, and M. Moyne- Picard.
2002. Regional report “coral reef monitoring 2002” – South West Indian Ocean Region –
37
Present situation and 2000-2002 evolution. Indian Ocean Comission, Quatre Bornes,
Mauritius. 72 p.
Brooks, J. S., M. A. Franzen, C. M. Holmes, M. N. Grote, and M.Borgerhoff-Mulder. 2006.
Testing hypotheses for the success of different conservation strategies. Conservation
Biology 20:1528–1538.
Burke, L., K. Reytar, M. Spalding, and A. Perry. 2011. Reefs at Risk Revisited. World
Resources Institute, Washington, DC. 111p.
Christie, P. 2004. Marine Protected Areas as biological successes and social failures in
Southeast Asia. American Fisheries Society Symposium 42: 155-164.
Christie, P., R.B. Pollnac, D.L. Fluharty, M.A. Hixon, G.K. Lowry, R. Mahon, D. Pietri, B.N.
Tissot, A.T. White, N. Armada, and R.L. Eisma-Osorio. 2009. Tropical marine EBM
feasibility: a synthesis of case studies and comparative analyses. Coastal Management
37:374-385.
Cinner J.E., M.J. Marnane, T.R. McClanahan. 2005. Conservation and community benefits from
traditional coral reef management at Ahus Island, Papua New Guinea. Conservation
Biology 19: 1714-1723.
Cinner, J. E. and S. Aswani 2007. Integrating customary management into marine conservation.
Biological Conservation 140: 201-216.
Cinner, J.E., T.R. McClanahan, T.M. Daw, N.A.J. Graham, J. Maina, S.K. Wilson, and T.P.
Hughes. 2009. Linking Social and Ecological Systems to Sustain Coral Reef Fisheries.
Current Biology 19:206–212.
Cinner, J.E., Sutton, S.G., Bond, T.G. 2007. Socioeconomic thresholds that affect use of
customary fisheries management tools. Conservation Biology 21: 1603-1611.
Conand C., Chabanet P., Quod J.P., Bigot L. 1998. Manuel méthodologique pour le suivi
del’état de santé des récifs coralliens du sud-ouest de l’Océan Indien. Mauritius :
Commission Océan Indien. (In French).
Connell, J. H., T. P. Hughes, and C.C. Wallace. 1997. A 30-‐years study of coral abundance,
recruitment, and disturbance at several scales in space and time. Ecological
Monographs 67:461-‐488.
Fabricius, K.E. and G. De’ath. 2004. Identifying ecological change and its causes: a case
study on coral reefs. Ecological Applications 14:1448-‐1465.
38
Froese, R., and D. Pauly. 2000. FishBase 2000: concepts, design and data sources. International
Centre for Living and Aquatic Resource Management, Manila, Philippines.
Gardner, T.A., I.M. Cote, J.A. Gill, A. Grant, and A.R. Watkinson. 2003.Long-‐term region-‐wide
declines in Caribbean corals. Science, 301:958–960.
Granek, E.F. and M.A. Brown. 2005. Co-Management Approach to Marine Conservation in
Mohéli, Comoros Islands. Conservation Biology 19(6): 1724-1732.
Hargreaves-Allen, V., S. Mourato, and E.J. Milner-Gulland. 2011. A global evaluation of coral
reef management performance: Are MPAs producing conservation and socio-economic
improvements? Environmental Management 47:684-700.
Hughes, T. P. 1994. Catastrophes, phase-‐shifts, and large-‐scale degradation of a Caribbean
coral reef. Science 265:1547–1551.
Hughes, T.P., A.H. Baird, D.R. Bellwood, M. Card, S.R. Connolly, C. Folke, R. Grosberg, O.
Hoegh-‐Guldberg, J.B.C. Jackson, J. Kleypas, J.M. Lough, P. Marshall, M. Nystrom, S.R.
Palumbi, J.M. Pandolfi, B. Rosen, and J. Roughgarden. 2003. Climate change, human
impacts, and the resilience of coral reefs. Science 301:929–933.
Hughes, T.P., D.R. Bellwood, C. Folke, R.S. Steneck, and J. Wilson. 2005. New Paradigms for
Supporting the Resilience of Marine Ecosystems. Trends in Ecology and Evolution
20:380–386.
Lester, S.E., B.S. Halpern, K. Grorud-‐Colvert, J. Lubchenco, B.I. Ruttenberg, S.D. Gaines, S.
Airame, and R.R. Warner. 2009. Biological effects within no-‐take marine reserves: a
global synthesis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 384:33–46.
Liu, J., T. Dietz, S.R. Carpenter, C. Folke, M. Alberti, C.L. Redman, S.H. Schneider, E. Ostrom,
A.N. Pell, J. Lubchenco, W.W. Taylor, Z. Ouyang, P. Deadman, T. Kratz, and W.
Provencher. 2007. Coupled human and natural systems. Ambio 36: 639-649.
Lundquist, C.J. and E.F. Granek. 2005. Strategies for successful marine conservation: integrating
socioeconomic, political, and scientific factors. Conservation Biology 19: 1771-1778.
Mascia, M. B. 2003. The human dimension of coral reef marine protected areas: recent social
science research and its policy implications. Conservation Biology 17: 630–632.
McClanahan, T. R. 1999. Is there a future for coral reef parks in poor tropical countries? Coral
Reefs 18: 321–325.
39
McClanahan, T.R., M. Nugues, and S. Mwachireya. 1994. Fish and sea urchin herbivory and
competition in Kenyan coral reef lagoons: the role of reef management. Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 184:237–254.
McClanahan, T.R., M.J. Marnane, J.E. Cinner, and W.E. Kiene. 2006. A comparison of Marine
Protected Areas and alternative approaches to coral-reef management. Current Biology
16: 1408-1413.
Miller, M.W. and M.E. Hay. 1996. Coral-seaweed-grazer-nutrient interactions on temperate
reefs. Ecological Monographs 66:323-344.
Moberg, F. and C. Folke. 1999. Ecological goods and services of coral reef ecosystems.
Ecological Economics 29:215–233.
Mumby, P.J., A.R. Harborne, J. Williams, C.V. Kappel, D.R. Brumbaugh, F. Micheli, K.E.
Holmes, C.P. Dahlgren, C.B. Paris, and P.G. Blackwell. 2007. Trophic cascade
facilitates coral recruitment in a marine reserve. Proceedings of the National Academy of
sciences of the United States of America 104:8362-8367.
Okansen, J. 2011. Multivariate analysis of ecological communities in R: vegan tutorial.
Worldwide web publication. http://cc.oulu.fi/~jarioksa/opetus/metodi/vegantutor.pdf.
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press, London. 280pp.
Pandolfi, J.M., R.H. Bradbury, E. Sala, T.P. Hughes, K.A. Bjorndal, R.G. Cooke, D. McArdle,
L. McClenachan, M.J.H. Newman, G. Paredes, R.R. Warner, and J.B.C. Jackson. 2003.
Global trajectories of the long-‐term decline of coral reef ecosystems. Science
301:955 –958.
Parendes, L.A. and J.A. Jones. 2000. Role of Light Availability and Dispersal in Exotic Plant
Invasion along Roads and Streams in the H. J. Andrews Experimental Forest, Oregon.
Conservation Biology 14:64-75.
Parsons, M.L., W.J. Walsh, C.J. Settlemier, D.J. White, J.M. Ballauer, P.M. Ayotte, K.M. Osada,
and B. Carman. 2008 A multivariate assessment of the coral ecosystem health of two
embayments on the lee island of Hawai’i. Marine Pollution Bulletin 56:1138-1149.
Pollnac, R.B., B.R. Crawford, and M.L.G. Gorospe. 2001. Discovering factors that influence the
success of community-based marine protected areas in the Visayas, Philippines. Ocean &
Coastal Management 44: 683-710.
40
Pomeroy, R.S., B.M. Katon, and I. Harkes. 2001. Conditions affecting the success of fisheries
co-management: lessons from Asia. Marine Policy 25:197-208.
Risk, M.J., J.M. Heikoop, E.N. Edinger, and M.V. Erdmann. 2001. The assessment ‘toolbox’:
community-based reef evaluation methods coupoled with geochemical techniques to
identify sources of stress. Bulletin of Marine Science 69:443-458.
Ryan, K.E., J.P. Walsh, D.R. Corbett, and A. Winter. 2008. A record of recent change in
terrestrial sedimentation in a coral-reef environment, La Parguera, Puerto Rico: a
response to coastal development? Marine Pollution Bulletin 56:1177-1183.
Sale, P. 1977. Maintenance of high diversity in coral-reef fish communities. The American
Naturalist 111:337-359.
Selig, E.R. and J.F. Bruno. 2010. A global analysis of the effectiveness of marine protected areas
in preventing coral loss. PLoS ONE 5:e9278.
Selkoe, K.A., B.S. Halpern, C.M. Ebert, E.C. Franklin, E.R. Selig, K.S. Casey, J. Bruno, and R.J.
Toonen. 2009. A map of human impacts to a “pristine” coral reef ecosystem, the
PapahAnaumokuAkea Marine National Monument. Coral Reefs 28:635-650.
Steneck, R.S. 1988. Herbivore on coral reefs: a synthesis. Proceedings of the 6th International
Coral Reef Symposium. Australia pp.37-49.
Waylen, K.A., A. Fischer, P.J.K. McGowan, S.J. Thirgood, and E.J. Milner-Gulland. 2010.
Effect of local cultural context on the success of community-based conservation
interventions. Conservation Biology 24:1119-1129.
White, A.T. R.L. Eisma-Osorio, and S.J. Green. 2005. Integrated coastal management and
marine protected areas: complementarity in the Philippines. Ocean & Coastal
Management 48:948-971.
