AQUATIC CONSERVATION: MARINE AND FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2013) Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/aqc.2334

Marine conservation planning in practice: lessons learned from the Gulf of California

JORGE G. ÁLVAREZ-ROMEROa,*, ROBERT L. PRESSEYa, NATALIE C. BANa, JORGE TORRE-COSÍOb and OCTAVIO ABURTO-OROPEZAc aAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia bComunidad y Biodiversidad, A.C., Colonia Delicias, Guaymas, México cCenter for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, USA

ABSTRACT 1. Overfishing, pollution, coastal development and climate change threaten marine biodiversity globally and compromise the services that marine ecosystems provide. Systematic conservation planning (SCP) provides a framework to identify areas where actions can be effective in addressing these threats, while minimizing the costs of interventions. This study investigated the application of SCP in the Gulf of California, a marine hotspot where seven prioritization exercises have been undertaken. 2. The review of planning exercises showed that the use of SCP methods has progressed slowly (gaps include planning for land–sea connections and ecosystem services) and highlighted benefits and difficulties of applying SCP principles and tools. 3. Despite some convergence, important spatial differences were found in priorities between plans. Convergence was evident in well-studied shallow and benthic marine ecosystems. There were also important differences related to the planning approach, methods and extent. Divergence between methodological and spatial similarities between plans suggests that additional factors (e.g. manually delineating priority areas, incorporating updated datasets, random error), in addition to data and objectives, play an important role in defining the distribution of conservation priorities. 4. According to expert opinion, the implementation of new marine protected areas (MPAs) in the region has been influenced by some of the planning exercises. However, uptake of planning outputs has progressed slowly for many reasons (e.g. conflicting mandates and interests between organizations, limited technical capacities and resources, insufficient political commitment). Other benefits of planning included: developing institutional skills and knowledge; improving collaboration and coordination between organizations (including agencies, and local, regional and national NGOs); converging on the need to assess priorities for marine conservation in regional context; and building trust among organizations. 5. The existence of multiple marine conservation plans in the Gulf of California also highlighted some of the complexities and benefits of having multiple sets of priorities. Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 12 April 2012; Revised 15 November 2012; Accepted 31 December 2012

KEY WORDS: systematic conservation planning; conservation priority; marine spatial planning; marine protected area network; spatial similarity; gap analysis

INTRODUCTION because fish stocks continue to decline (Worm et al., Biodiversity conservation of marine ecosystems 2009), eutrophication of coastal areas is ongoing remains a global priority (Spalding et al., 2010) (Howarth, 2008), and extinctions of marine species

*Correspondence to: Jorge G. Álvarez-Romero, Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. G. ÁLVAREZ-ROMERO ET AL. continue (Sala and Knowlton, 2006). The socioeconomic considerations. Major recent services provided by marine ecosystems (e.g. food advances include planning for several kinds of provisioning, water quality, coastal protection) are dynamics and interactions: the persistence of dynamic also being compromised (Worm et al., 2006; oceanographic processes and pelagic biodiversity Aburto-Oropeza et al., 2008). Ongoing conservation (Lombard et al., 2007; Game et al., 2009; Grantham efforts, including marine protected areas (MPAs) et al., 2011), connectivity between different habitats (Lester et al., 2009; McCook et al., 2010; Spalding (Beger et al., 2010; Edwards et al., 2010), planning for et al., 2010), fisheries management (Mora et al., ecosystem services (Granek et al., 2010), adaptation 2009; Worm et al., 2009), and ecosystem-based to climate change (Green et al., 2009; McLeod et al., spatial planning and management (Leslie and 2009), land–sea integration (Tallis et al., 2008; McLeod, 2007; Foley et al., 2010), are providing Klein et al., 2010), and socioeconomic considerations some benefits to protect marine biodiversity, but (Ban and Klein, 2009; Baker et al., 2011). These are not yet sufficient to halt or reverse the declines. advances have guided some recent conservation The expansion of threats to the oceans and the strategies (Green et al., 2009; Baker et al., 2011). limited resources available for conservation thus While theory in conservation planning is call for effective, transparent, and cost-effective developing quickly, there has been no assessment of strategies to protect biodiversity and maximize the influence of new ideas on applications of marine benefits for human livelihoods. conservation. Previous studies have reviewed aspects Systematic conservation planning (SCP) provides of MPA design that led to successful conservation a framework to identify areas where conservation actions (Lundquist and Granek, 2005; Osmond actions can be effective at achieving conservation et al., 2010) and there are retrospectives on objectives, while minimizing the costs of particular planning exercises, e.g. the Great Barrier fi interventions (Pressey and Bottrill, 2009). Bene ts Reef Marine Park rezoning (Fernandes et al., 2005) beyond guiding effective investment in conservation and the Northern Central California MPA network areas include increasing socio-ecological knowledge design (Gleason et al., 2010). However, we are relevant to biodiversity conservation, building aware of no previous studies that assessed multiple institutional and individual capacity, facilitating marine planning initiatives within a single region, collaboration among stakeholders, and increasing using a comprehensive SCP framework for review awareness of the need for urgent action to prevent and comparison. biodiversity loss (Pressey and Bottrill, 2009; The Gulf of California is ideal for comparative Bottrill et al., 2012; Bottrill and Pressey, 2012). studies of marine conservation planning, with seven Conditions for successful implementation of marine planning exercises undertaken in the past – fi actions in conservation areas as identi ed through 15 years. This study investigated how SCP principles – SCP exercises have been shown to include have guided marine prioritization in the region, integration of ecological and socioeconomic criteria identified missing components of the planning into designs of conservation areas (Fernandes et al., process, and discussed the benefits and difficulties of 2005; Green et al., 2009), stakeholder ownership applying SCP principles and tools. The similarities and support (Gleason et al., 2010), input from and differences between planning exercises were managers and experts (Fernandes et al., 2009), examined in terms of data, methods and outputs, how effective participation and engagement with local identified priorities match the existing MPA system, communities (Game et al., 2011; Baker et al., 2011), and whether plans have guided conservation and consideration of practical aspects of implementation management actions. Difficulties and opportunities (e.g. simple boundaries of conservation areas) for conservation planners and practitioners are (Fernandes et al., 2005; Lombard et al., 2007), discussed when multiple planning initiatives coexist. adaptive management (McCook et al., 2010), transparency during planning, and effective communication strategies (Day, 2002). Given the increasing recognition of the value METHODS of systematic planning for marine conservation, Study region research in the field is advancing rapidly (Leslie, 2005). The initial limited focus on representation The Gulf of California is a marine conservation of biodiversity patterns is expanding to hotspot (Olson and Dinerstein, 2002; Roberts et al., include planning for ecological processes and 2002), globally recognized for its outstanding

Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2013) MARINE CONSERVATION PLANNING IN PRACTICE marine biodiversity (Brusca et al., 2005; Lluch-Cota declines of many fish stocks, changes in populations et al., 2007). Oceanographic processes, including of targeted species, and composition of fish gyres, fronts, and upwellings (Lavín and Marinone, communities (Sala et al., 2004), which in turn have 2003), contribute to high levels of primary affected regional and local economies (Erisman production that sustain rich coastal and marine et al., 2010). communities and important fisheries (Beman et al., 2005; Lluch-Cota et al., 2007; Aburto-Oropeza Data collection and sources et al., 2008). The Gulf is an important feeding, Spatial marine conservation planning exercises were breeding and nursery area for 36 marine mammals the focus of this study, excluding policy, regulation, (Morgan et al., 2005; Lluch-Cota et al., 2007), and education initiatives. Seven planning exercises including the critically endangered and endemic were identified and reviewed that prioritized vaquita, Phocoena sinus (Jaramillo-Legorreta et al., coastal or marine conservation areas in the Gulf 2007). The Gulf supports large portions of the of California. The extents of these exercises, ’ world s populations of several marine bird species developed between 1998 and 2006, ranged from (Lluch-Cota et al., 2007) and provides critical sub-continental (B2B: Morgan et al., 2005), to habitat for migrating birds (Glenn et al., 2006). The national (RMP: Arriaga-Cabrera et al., 1998; SPM: islands of the Gulf of California have ~655 plant CONABIO, 2007), regional (i.e. Gulf-wide) (CSGC: species, 28 of which can be found nowhere else Enríquez-Andrade et al., 2005; ERA: Ulloa et al., (Rebman et al., 2002). Comparable levels of 2006), and sub-regional initiatives (i.e. covering endemicity have been recorded for marine fauna, portions of the Gulf) (BCP: Enríquez-Andrade including 766 invertebrate and 87 fish species and Danemann, 1998; MRN: Sala et al., 2002). (Brusca et al., 2005). Table 1 contains full names for acronyms and The rapid expansion and intensification of human brief descriptions of the exercises. Information activities in the Gulf of California are threatening sources included published and unpublished reports its biodiversity and associated ecosystem services. and digital information. A digital map of marine Human population density is relatively low in the priority conservation areas (hereafter ‘priority areas’) western coast’s catchments draining into the Gulf of and details of datasets were not available for one California (i.e. the Baja California Peninsula), plan (BCP). This plan included only the Baja but rapidly increasing, with associated increases Peninsula and a portion of the Gulf of California, in threats to the marine environment (Lluch-Cota and defined priority areas based on modifications et al., 2007). While the western coast of the Gulf to the National Marine Priority Regions (RMP). remains comparatively undisturbed, many eastern For these reasons, spatial analyses were focused coastal areas and catchments draining into the Gulf on the other six planning exercises. However, key are affected by aquaculture, industry, agriculture, elements of this seventh planning process were and urban development (Beman et al., 2005; summarized and discussed. A comprehensive Páez-Osuna and Ruiz-Fernández, 2005; Lluch-Cota description of the methods and planning stages for et al., 2007). Intensive use of pesticides in agricultural each plan, as well the maps of priority areas, are areas is also a concern (Gutierrez-Galindo et al., provided in Appendices 1 and 2 (Supplementary 1992; Galindo-Reyes et al., 1999; Niño-Torres et al., 2010). Alteration of freshwater and sediment inputs material). from the Colorado River has modified the habitat Review of approaches to marine conservation planning for commercial and endangered species (Carriquiry and Sánchez, 1999; All, 2006; Rowell et al., 2008). Key aspects of a systematic conservation planning Saltgrass marshes and mangrove forests are being framework developed by Alvarez-Romero et al. reduced and degraded by coastal development, (2011) were used to identify commonalities and land-based pollution, and shrimp farms (INE, 2005; differences in approaches and methods between the Glenn et al., 2006; Aburto-Oropeza et al., 2008). seven marine conservation plans (Table 1), and to Deposition of atmospheric pollution and point identify missing elements or stages (see Appendix 1, sources of mercury (e.g. mining, urban and industrial Supplementary material for details). This framework sewage) are also affecting marine food webs includes key components in planning (e.g. (García-Hernández et al., 2007). Finally, the conservation goals and objectives, stakeholder dramatic increase in fishing effort and inadequate participation, threats, and costs) and emerging management of fisheries have led to substantial issues in conservation planning (e.g. planning for

Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2013) Copyright Table 1. Selected aspects of planning exercises that have identified marine priority conservation areas in the Gulf of California

Biodiversity: patterns Plan Extent (km2) Goals# Objectives Approach/methods Stakeholder participation and processes Threats and costs #

03Jh ie os Ltd. Sons, & Wiley John 2013 Baja to Bering - B2B Sub-continental 1, 2, 3 Qualitative Expert-based, considering Based on a workshop with the Patterns: endangered, Expert-based assessment (Morgan (7,165,359) continental endemism, participation of agencies, NGOs, protected, endemic, of threats affecting et al., 2005) high beta-diversity, universities, and some fishermen. migratory, and keystone priority areas: land- and significance to Participants provided input on: species (birds and sea-based organic and migratory species, and conservation objectives; data mammals); critical inorganic pollution; productivity. Priority availability; and selection, breeding and feeding subsistence, commercial Conservation Areas delineation, and documentation habitat for multiple and recreational fishing; selected based on of priority areas. species; deep sea corals; aquaculture; damming; significant threats and seamounts; benthic tourism; coastline conservation complexity model; beta- alteration; coastal opportunities. Areas diversity. Processes: development and selected by working ocean fronts, currents, urbanization. Experts groups (benthos, pelagic eddies, primary also ranked relative environment, planning productivity, and intensity of threats. and management) were migration corridors. Costs were not overlayed to identify incorporated.

spatial overlap. Other ÁLVAREZ-ROMERO G. J. selection criteria included connectivity and minimum area. Marine Priority National 1, 2, 3 Not explicitly Expert-based Participants in the workshop included Patterns: macroalgae, Threats were not explicitly Regions - RMP (3,290,584) stated identification of priority public and private research marine invertebrates, and systematically used (Arriaga-Cabrera areas during two institutions, agencies, NGOs, MPA fish, sea turtles, marine in the priority regions et al., 1998) workshops subdivided managers, and international mammals, birds and selection process. Major by expertise (e.g. organizations. Participants identified corals; mangroves, threats to biodiversity chordates, fish, benthic and delineated areas where coastal dunes, algae, and mitigation

invertebrates, conservation features occur, seagrass, and wetlands. strategies were identified AL ET oceanographic identified potential trade-offs, defined Processes: primary and documented for

processes). Software to the priority status, and formulated productivity areas (i.e. priority regions. Costs . facilitate decision- general recommendations. phyto/zooplankton, were not incorporated. making by consensus fishing areas); physical, was used. Areas chemical and geologic identified were used to oceanographic qai osr:Mr rsw Ecosyst. Freshw. Mar. Conserv: Aquatic analyse use patterns and processes. potential conflicts between use and conservation of biodiversity; establish priorities; and make conservation recommendations. Marine Priority National 1, 2 Qualitative Expert-based selection Expert-based participatory workshop Patterns: priority areas for Threats were analysed Sites - SPM (3,152,985) based on included researchers, national and endangered, endemic, after delineating priority (CONABIO, representativeness and regional environmental NGOs and and protected species sites, and therefore not 2007) viability, fisheries agencies. Major inputs from participants (vertebrates and used as a criteria for the sustainability, high included additional data, selection of invertebrates), habitats selection of diversity, ecological conservation objectives, selection (coast types, reefs, conservation areas. processes, species and delineation of priority areas, seagrass, kelp forests), Costs were not (2013) habitat, connectivity, and special elements incorporated. (Continues) Copyright Table 1. (Continued)

Biodiversity: patterns Plan Extent (km2) Goals# Objectives Approach/methods Stakeholder participation and processes Threats and costs #

03Jh ie os Ltd. Sons, & Wiley John 2013 ecosystem services and threat assessment, and documentation of (aggregation areas, cultural or research priority areas and islands. refugees, seamounts, rift value. Priority areas zones, bacteria mats, delineated in working minimum oxygen groups (vertebrates, zones). Processes: benthos, plankton and upwellings, fronts, fisheries, processes, and vertical mixing, gyres coastal vegetation) were and eddies, currents, overlapped. and river discharges. Representation of features of interest across all bioregions

guided prioritization. PRACTICE IN PLANNING CONSERVATION MARINE Coalition for the Regional 1 Qualitative Expert-based selection of Highly participatory consensus-based Patterns: selected species Threats were not used to Sustainability (902,225) biologically important process with international, national, aggregated and guide or modify the of the Gulf of areas (AIB) to sustain regional and local stakeholders from analysed by group (fish, selection of priority California - CSGC viable populations and NGOs, academia, MPA management mammals, sea turtles, areas, but were one of (Enríquez-Andrade represent selected bodies, and agencies. Participants set invertebrates, the criteria considered et al., 2005) groups (land flora, land goals, selected conservation features, macroalgae, birds, and by experts to delineate fauna, marine biota, provided information, participated in the land flora and fauna); viable conservation and wetlands). Priority analysis and priority area portfolio design, selection criteria areas. Current and near areas were defined by an and developed maps of anthropogenic included population and future (5 year scenario) overlap of more than threats to biodiversity and potential social habitat condition, threats were mapped. A two or three AIBs. conflict (between uses and conservation). endemism, distribution threat index was Design criteria also range, threats and developed to identify included representing trends. Processes: the feasibility of important ecosystems oceanographic implementing and habitat for multiple (upwellings, oceanic conservation species and inclusion of fronts, and currents) programmes or important physical and and ecological processes protected areas, but was ecological processes. were mapped by not used to define experts. Reproduction, priority sites. Post-hoc larvae dispersal, ‘costs’ assessment based qai osr:Mr rsw Ecosyst. Freshw. Mar. Conserv: Aquatic recruitment, and on potential social migration were also conflict. considered. Ecoregional Regional 1, 2 Quantitative Prioritization was based The planning team defined the general Patterns: important areas A "cost" layer was Assessment - ERA (361,375) on representation of goals, objectives, and methodology. (interpolated constructed based on (Ulloa et al., 2006) species, communities, Support and input was given by occurrences/planning the summed values of and systems within the experts, managers and conservation unit) and occurrences individual threats ecoregion. The process organizations. The major input from of protected, threatened, (tourism, population follows a fine-filter and fishermen was information on fishing endemic, migratory, and marginality and size, coarse-filter approach. areas via interviews. During a workshop keystone species aquaculture, different (Groves et al., 2002) the planning process and portfolio was (Sargassum, seagrass, fishing types, navigation Domain was stratified in presented for external expert review. fish, corals, sea turtles, routes and ports). sub-ecoregions based on sea mammals, seabirds); Threats were rated in a SST model. A draft mangroves; coast types; terms of their potential portfolio of benthic complexity; impacts on biodiversity (2013) conservation areas was reefs; seamounts; and used in Marxan to (Continues) Copyright Table 1. (Continued)

Biodiversity: patterns Plan Extent (km2) Goals# Objectives Approach/methods Stakeholder participation and processes Threats and costs #

03Jh ie os Ltd. Sons, & Wiley John 2013 constructed with rhodolith beds; species minimize the ‘cost’ for Marxan (Ball et al., aggregations; sardine each planning unit (i.e. 2009) and further recruitment areas; avoid highly threatened refined based on expert important invertebrate areas and minimize opinion. General design areas. Processes: conflict with fisheries criteria (connectivity primary productivity and other uses). and viability of and upwelling zones. conservation features) were used to refine portfolio. Baja California Sub-regional 1, 2, 3, 4 Qualitative Important areas for Expert-based participatory workshop Spatial data on Literature/expert-based Peninsula (237,653) coastal-marine included researchers, industry, biodiversity patters or assessment and Priorities - BCP conservation, as well as tradesmen, businessmen, agencies, processes were not used prioritization of (Enríquez-Andrade key problems/threats MPA managers, and conservation to identify priority problems/threats and Danemann, and actions (not only organizations. Natural resource users conservation areas. related to fisheries, 1998 spatial) were identified (fishermen and tourism), were interviewed However, biological coastal zone use,

and prioritized by regarding resource uses. Stakeholders criteria (ecological ecotourism and use of ÁLVAREZ-ROMERO G. J. experts based on also attended workshops to review integrity, ecosystem islands, and protected qualitative multi-criteria conservation and management problems, diversity, endemicity, areas. Identified analysis. Previous and to propose and identify priority richness, number of problems included national priorities (RMP) actions to address them. A selected endangered species) access to resources served as a guide. group of researchers identified and guided area (illegal fishing, Preference was given prioritized conservation areas. prioritization. Processes overexploitation, to areas with higher considered by experts in conflict); management ecological value, larger area prioritization (inadequate planning, size, stronger threats, included primary regulation and

lower conservation productivity, enforcement, AL ET opportunities (except upwellings, migrations jurisdictional

preexistent protection), and biological corridors. fragmentation/overlap, . higher economic poor data); market importance and (resources and services historical/cultural values. valuation, incentives); economic (migration); qai osr:Mr rsw Ecosyst. Freshw. Mar. Conserv: Aquatic fisheries organisation and infrastructure; and research-management gap. Costs were not incorporated. Marine Reserves Sub-regional @1, 2 Qualitative, Prioritization focused on The planning exercise was an academic Patterns: Reef fish richness A ‘cost’ layer was Network - MRN (132,176) Quantitative reef fish, but included process organized by two research (134 spp.); habitats developed to be (Sala et al., 2002) coastal vegetation and centres and one NGO. Input from (sandy bottoms, included in analyses invertebrate biodiversity. artisanal fishermen was important seamounts, rhodolith using SITES to avoid/ Marine reserve design for mapping fishing areas. beds, Sargassum beds, minimize social conflict principles were: protect and black coral beds) with artisanal fisheries. representative and rare used as surrogate for Artisanal (small) boat habitats; include areas plant and invertebrate fishing pressure (density with high species biodiversity and boats/km2) was used to richness; maximize important reef fish minimise conflict (2013) ecosystem functioning habitat; coral between fishermen and (Continues) MARINE CONSERVATION PLANNING IN PRACTICE

ecological processes, ecosystem services and land–sea interactions).

Assessment of methodological and spatial similarity Methodological similarity between planning

potential marine reserves. exercises was calculated based on the Jaccard coefficient (which adds up the total number of items that are different, excluding instances of

sh zero ties), focusing on conservation objectives and fi sh.

fi data because these were assumed to be most influential in the selection of priority areas. First,

and processes Threats and costs conservation objectives and data for features of Biodiversity: patterns Processes: Population connectivity incorporated though general design criteria (max. distance between priority sites: 100 km) and implemented via reserve selection rule. communities and seagrass beds; nurseries (mangroves); important larval sources and spawning aggregations of commercial interest were coded as binary attributes (1 = used; 0 = not used). When planning exercises used datasets differently (e.g. extent, resolution, date) or when data were grouped or disaggregated differently, data types were matched with the most equivalent elements in other exercises or grouped in the same way as in other exercises. Based on an overlay of the maps (a.k.a. portfolios) of priority areas (hereafter ‘priority maps’), areas of coincidence were identified and spatial similarity between pairs of priority maps were measured with the Kappa statistic using the Map Comparison Kit (Visser and de Nijs, 2006). Kappa similarity is adequate and commonly used for assessing agreement between categorical maps (Wilson et al., ict

fl 2005; Edwards et al., 2010). The Jaccard coefficient and Kappa statistic were displayed with similarity sh ed in fi sh; ensure fi phenograms based on hierarchical clustering, fi sheries). A

fi also applied previously (Ban, 2009; Weeks et al., ., 2009). Domain 2010b). In addition, the spatial configuration of with decision-support tool was used (SITES; Ball et al was strati zoogeographic regions following abundance. population connectivity through larval dispersal; minimum reserve size to ensure self-recruitment; and minimize con (protect larval sources and nurseries for targeted priority maps (i.e. number, size, perimeter, and spacing) and the sizes of the planning domains were also compared. A second spatial analysis focused on how areas of convergence between the six Objectives Approach/methods Stakeholder participation planning exercises were related spatially to existing MPAs (CONANP, 2010), marine bioregions # (CEC, 2006), and selected ecosystems and seascape features (Lugo-Hubp and Fernandez Córdova, 1990; Ulloa et al., 2006; CONABIO, 2008; ) Goals

2 UNEP-WCMC, 2010).

Evaluation of achievement of goals and benefits of planning Interviews were carried out with 13 experts, selected

) based on their expertise in marine conservation in the region and their involvement in one or more of the planning processes discussed here. Affiliation Continued of interviewees included national agencies, regional and international NGOs, and research centres. Primarily an academic planning exercise. 1. Biodiversity conservation; 2. Natural resource management; 3. Research priorities; and 4. Livelihoods. Table 1. ( # @ Plan Extent (km During these interviews, experts identified both

Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2013) J. G. ÁLVAREZ-ROMERO ET AL. reported and unreported planning goals (from a restricted to academics and conservation NGOs. In predefined list, supplemented with their responses; the four expert-based processes, representatives see Appendix 3 Supplementary material) and from agencies, academia and NGOs actively indicated the extent to which these goals had been participated and contributed to different stages of achieved (using a 5-point Likert scale). Further, the planning process. experts assessed how planning outputs guided or influenced spatial implementation of conservation Conservation objectives actions by identifying (from a list) which actions Approaches to setting conservation objectives have been implemented (e.g. establishment of were diverse (Table 1). A coarse/fine-filter approach multiple-use MPAs and no-take areas, fisheries to identifying conservation features (i.e. targeting zoning, restoration, surveillance). Experts also communities/ecosystems and individual species/ described the main factors perceived to facilitate or features independently) (Groves et al., 2002) was constrain actions (open-ended questions). In addition, taken in most exercises, but there were also important other perceived benefits of the planning processes differences. Quantitative objectives were set for (besides spatial actions) were identified from a only two planning exercises (MRN and ERA), preliminary list modified from Bottrill et al. (2012), both of which also defined separate objectives for as well as the existence of any formal assessments conservation features occurring in more than one of outcomes, and intentions for revising plans. bioregion. Qualitative objectives were common to Interviews were supported by a written survey all planning exercises. Qualitative objectives included (Appendix 3 Supplementary material). selecting areas with high species richness and abundance or endemic, endangered or protected species, and ensuring connectivity between areas. RESULTS Threats and costs Approaches to marine conservation planning There were major differences between planning All seven planning exercises included fundamental exercises in the treatment of threats and costs. In two elements of systematic conservation planning exercises (SPM and CSGC), important threats to (e.g. involving stakeholders, setting conservation coastal and marine ecosystems were identified objectives, assessing threats and conservation costs, independently of the prioritization process and and delineating new priority areas), but differed therefore had no influence on the selection of priority widely in the way they addressed these elements (see areas. One exercise (CSGC) mapped current and Table 1 and Appendix 1 Supplementary material). near-future (5-year projection) threats to inform the Notable differences included the way costs were feasibility of implementing conservation actions, as incorporated (e.g. least-cost solutions vs. prioritization well as to identify potential areas of conflict. Threats of highly threatened areas) and methods for identifying and potential mitigation strategies were documented priority areas (e.g. expert-based vs. software). In the for the national marine priority regions (RMP) following sections the most relevant similarities after these were delineated by experts. For the B2B and differences are summarized and discussed. exercise, a qualitative ranking of the intensity and trend of threats was developed by experts to Stakeholders identify areas with both threats and conservation Stakeholder participation varied considerably opportunities (e.g. ongoing conservation or between planning exercises (Table 1). Participation management efforts). In contrast, the two planning of researchers was prominent in all cases, and input exercises supported by conservation planning from agencies, conservation non-governmental software (MRN and ERA) used data on threats to organizations (NGOs) and MPA managers was achieve objectives while minimizing conflicts and/or substantial in most exercises. Two planning conservation costs (Ban and Klein, 2009) by placing processes (B2B and SPM) also included some priority areas away from highly threatened or representatives of the fishing and tourism sectors. A heavily used (e.g. fishing) areas, where possible. contribution by resource users was to provide Emerging issues information on areas of economic importance, such as fishing grounds (Ulloa et al., 2006). Stakeholder Uptake of recent advances in conservation planning involvement in one planning exercise (MRN) was (e.g. planning for ecosystem services, land–sea

Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2013) MARINE CONSERVATION PLANNING IN PRACTICE interactions, and climate change) was limited, despite experts applied generic design criteria, supported their relevance to address major environmental by available information on processes such as problems in the Gulf of California (Table 2); an migration routes and areas of high productivity, to exception was the consideration of ecological delineate priority areas. Ecological processes linking processes (Appendix 1 Supplementary material). land and sea, such as nutrient flows from rivers, Generic design criteria such as minimum area size were considered by experts in the national marine and connectivity guided the selection of priority gap analysis (SPM), but no spatially-explicit models areas to address some processes. To maintain larval were available. Cross-system threats (e.g. land- dispersal, the MRN exercise used software to based pollution and coastal development) were ensure that distances between priority areas did considered by experts in B2B and, in the ERA not exceed 100 km. For the B2B exercise, exercise, simple spatial models of land-based threats

Table 2. Significance of emerging issues in marine conservation planning, with examples from the Gulf of California

Topic Significance in conservation planning Examples of importance in the region

Ecosystem services Planning for ecosystem services aims to maintain the Mangroves increase fisheries landings by providing various benefits provided by coastal and marine habitat used by many commercial species as nursery ecosystems (e.g. food provision, pollution buffering, and/or feeding grounds, thus providing important coastal protection, nutrient cycling, recreation) and the economic benefits to local communities and impacting economic gains associated with these (e.g. fisheries, the regional economy. However, these ecosystems tourism); the need to consider ecosystem services in continue to be degraded by coastal development in the marine planning is well recognized (Granek et al., 2010; Gulf of California (INE, 2005; Aburto-Oropeza et al., Silvestri and Kershaw, 2010). 2008; Ezcurra et al., 2009). Land–sea integration Integrated land–sea planning aims to mitigate threats Many eastern coastal areas of the Gulf of California are originating beyond the boundaries of marine affected by land-based threats, including agriculture, conservation areas (e.g. land-based threats to urbanization, aquaculture, and damming (Páez-Osuna coastal-marine ecosystems) and maintain the ecological and Ruiz-Fernández, 2005; Lluch-Cota et al., 2007). linkages between land and sea that support species and Intensive use of pesticides in agricultural areas is a ecological processes occurring across terrestrial, particular concern (Galindo-Reyes et al., 1999; freshwater, and marine realms (Tallis et al., 2008; Niño-Torres et al., 2010). In some cases, the potential Alvarez-Romero et al., 2011). impacts of these threats can extend hundreds of kilometers from the coast (Beman et al., 2005). Ecological processes Incorporating ecological processes is critical to maintain Persistent oceanographic processes, including upwellings, connectivity (e.g. through recruitment and spillover) contribute to the occurrence of areas of high between conservation and fishing areas, as well as to productivity in the Gulf of California, where major identify persistent high productivity areas (e.g. commercial, artisanal, and recreational fisheries occur associated with upwellings or ocean fronts) and to (Lluch-Cota et al., 2007). Ocean currents contribute to minimize the likelihood of MPAs within a region being the ecological connectivity between protected and affected by single disturbance events (Allison et al., fished areas (e.g. through larval dispersal), thus 2003; Almany et al., 2009). emphasizing the significance of connectivity for conservation and fisheries planning in the region (Cudney-Bueno et al., 2009). Climate change Designing networks of marine protected areas that are The ecological impacts of climate change in the Gulf of resilient to climate change is considered a global California are still poorly understood, but changes in priority. Strategies to deal with predicted changes temperature and precipitation are expected, along with include: design criteria (e.g. size, spacing, shape); fluctuations in runoff and fisheries (Lluch-Cota et al., spreading risk through representation and replication; 2007, 2010). Predicted increase in temperature forecasts identifying and protecting refugia for species, habitats, changes in abundance of species with limited capacity and special features (e.g. species aggregations); for acclimation due to thermal stress (Stillman, 2003). reducing other impacts (e.g. pollutants runoff) to On the other hand, ENSO episodes are expected to improve the resilience of ecosystems; and maintaining increase in frequency and intensity, with potential ecological connectivity through networks of MPAs impacts on marine populations, communities, and (Green et al., 2009; McLeod et al., 2009). fisheries of highly commercial species (Velarde et al., 2004; Aburto-Oropeza et al., 2010b). Scheduling and zoning In addition to identifying priority conservation areas, Limited human and financial resources have delayed the planners need to decide in which areas to invest first implementation of conservation actions in the Gulf of considering limited resources (not all can be protected California. The lack of immediate intervention in some immediately) and pervasive threats (values of marine cases could mean the extinction of threatened species, ecosystems continue to degrade due to current and such as the vaquita (Jaramillo-Legorreta et al., 2007) future threats). Spatial distribution of biodiversity/ or the loss of critical ecosystems, such as mangroves, fisheries values, threats, costs, investments returns and that sustain important fisheries in the region data uncertainty play a role in scheduling conservation (Aburto-Oropeza et al., 2008). Prioritizing areas and interventions (Wilson et al. 2006, 2007). actions within proposed portfolios of conservation areas and identifying no-take areas in the already established MPAs could help to mitigate these negative impacts (Rife et al., 2012).

Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2013) J. G. ÁLVAREZ-ROMERO ET AL.

(i.e. multiple-ring buffers associated with higher conservation costs) were incorporated. Only one planning exercise (CSGC) explicitly targeted ecological linkages between terrestrial, freshwater and marine priority areas. In the national marine gap analysis, a post hoc integration with terrestrial and freshwater priorities was recommended for the future. None of the studies recommended a sequential allocation (i.e. scheduling) of investments in delineated priority areas, e.g. to act first in areas facing imminent threats (Wilson et al., 2009). However, one exercise (SPM) assigned priority levels, based on expert advice, to priority areas after they were delineated and another (ERA) recommended scheduling.

Similarity and spatial coincidence between planning exercises Methodological similarity Clustering of exercises based on objectives and datasets (Figure 1(a)) showed that the exercise emphasizing protection of fish (MRN) was very different to the others, which also considered other taxonomic groups and oceanographic processes. Likewise, similarity values between the sub-continental exercise (B2B) and other plans were relatively low. B2B focused on species of conservation concern throughout North America, not on those more typical of the Gulf, and also Figure 1. Similarity phenograms for marine planning exercises considered processes operating over larger constructed through agglomerative hierarchical clustering analysis (unweighted pair-group average). B2B: Baja-to-Bering; RMP: Marine geographic extents (e.g. migratory corridors) than Priority Regions; SPM: Marine Priority Sites; CSGC: Coalition’s the Gulf. Common to both MRN and B2B was Important Conservation Areas; ERA: Eco-regional Assessment; MRN: Marine Reserves Network. (a) Methodological similarity their focus on a few species and key habitats. Also based on planning objectives and datasets (Jaccard coefficient); notable was the similarity between the two (b) overall spatial similarity based on location of priority areas and relative proportions (Kappa statistic); and (c) location-only similarity regional-scale exercises (CSGC and ERA) which, (K-loc statistic: Visser, 2004). Spatial similarity varied, but general despite differences in methodology (expert-based strength of agreement between pairs of priority maps was fair based on overall similarity (mean Kappa = 0.24) and moderate for similarity vs. software-driven), shared many conservation in location-only (mean K-loc = 0.52). A value of 1 means identical objectives, and used similar data. Similarity priority maps, while 0 indicates no more overlap than expected by between the two national-scale exercises (RMP chance. A significance analysis based on random constraint match models (Visser and de Nijs, 2006) indicated that Kappa values and SPM) was relatively low. The analysis placed between pairs of maps were significant when compared to similarity SPM closer to the regional plans and with random maps (0.066–0.074), P < 0.001. RMP somewhere between the regional and the sub-continental exercises. This is consistent with subgroups (CSGC-B2B and ERA-SPM) and two both B2B and RMP identifying regions, rather planning exercises that were substantially different than specific areas, for marine conservation and from the rest (RMP and MRN). Spatial similarity their use of data appropriate for that purpose. based only on the locations of priority and non-priority areas (K-loc), and not their relative Spatial similarity proportions (Figure 1(c)), showed higher values Overall spatial similarity (Figure 1(b)), accounting but also a different clustering pattern. For for spatial overlap of priority areas and their instance, MRN – isolated based on overall relative proportions in the region, revealed two Kappa – formed a new subgroup with CSGC

Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2013) MARINE CONSERVATION PLANNING IN PRACTICE based on K-loc. This cluster could result from the fit between number of priority areas and extent priority areas from MRN being almost entirely of domain. The tendency for larger planning contained within CSGC and, in both exercises, the domains to be associated with larger and fewer preferential location of priority areas in coastal priority areas (Figure 2(a)–(c)) was related to and nearshore environments. On the other hand, coarser data resolution, larger planning units being the subgroup formed by ERA and SPM based on assessed and compared for conservation, and overall spatial similarity (Figure 1(b)) remained in more extensive targeting of ecological processes. the location-only phenogram (Figure 1(c)), but was stronger for location-only, possibly due to the inclusion (with minor adjustments) of some of the ERA priority areas into the SPM priority map.

Configuration of priority areas There was an asymptotic increase in the mean size and perimeter of priority areas as the extents of planning domains increased, with significant variation within each plan (Figure 2(a), (b)). There was an inverse relationship between the number of priority areas and the extent of the planning domain, though the strength of this relationship was fairly low (Figure 2(c)). Excluding the values Figure 3. Frequency of spatial coincidence between the priority maps corresponding to MRN – the exercise that (number of plans identifying an area as a priority) and two variables: focused on fish protection (formed by relatively total area covered by each frequency value of spatial coincidence (blue dots and line); and proportion of the total extent of existing few, small priority areas intended to form a MPAs identified as priority areas (green squares and line). Fitted lines network of no-take zones) – appreciably increased correspond to second-order polynomial regressions.

Figure 2. Comparison of selected features of priority maps in relation to the full planning domain extent (values on Y axes correspond to priority areas within the Gulf of California only): (a) mean size and (b) mean perimeter of priority areas; (c) total number of priority areas comprising each priority map; and (d) median separation between nearest priority areas (use of median responds to highly skewed distributions). Points corresponding to the national-scale exercises are marked by blue (SPM) and red/dashed (RMP) circles. Fitted trend lines correspond to power (a, b), exponential (c) and linear (d) types; light-grey lines show an improved fit when MRN is excluded from the analysis (see text). Error bars represent the 95% C.I. for the mean (P < 0.0001) estimated by Monte Carlo simulation (a, b) and the first and third quartiles (d).

Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2013) J. G. ÁLVAREZ-ROMERO ET AL.

The extent of the planning domain was positively consistent with the methodological similarity correlated with the separation between priority discussed above. areas and therefore with lower potential connectivity (Figure 2(d)). Again, excluding MRN improved curve-fitting because its proposed Overall spatial coincidence, ecological representativeness marine reserves were considerably smaller than and MPA coverage all other exercises, and thus were relatively widely The combined (summed) priority maps covered spaced relative to the extent of the planning ~100 000 km2, but relatively little of the summed domain. Also evident from Figure 2(c), (d) is that area was consistently identified as having priority RMP identified fewer and significantly more for marine conservation. About 31% of the separated priority areas than SPM. In these aspects, summed area was identified by at least four plans RMP was more similar to the sub-continental and only 3% was selected by all plans. This was exercise (B2B) than to the other national plan, reflected in the negative relationship between the

Figure 4. Spatial coincidence of priority areas between planning exercises in the Gulf of California. For overall frequencies, darker areas were identified as priorities in more plans. Pie charts represent the percentages of each marine bioregion in three classes of frequency of spatial coincidence across plans, from none (dark blue) to most plans (red).

Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2013) MARINE CONSERVATION PLANNING IN PRACTICE frequency of spatial coincidence and the total priority area in each frequency (Figure 3). Conversely, the percentage of existing MPAs covered by priority areas increased with the frequency of spatial coincidence. This means that a large proportion of the areas consistently identified as priorities have also been granted some type of legal protection (Figures 3 and 4), although, in some areas protection preceded prioritization exercises. Spatial coincidence was generally higher in the northern Gulf and western coast (Figure 4). Representation of marine bioregions varied markedly among plans (Figure 4). About one-third of the 14 bioregions within the Gulf of California were covered almost entirely by selected priority areas of most plans, including the highly productive Upper Cortezian Inner Neritic and Midriff Islands Straits. In contrast, significant portions of other bioregions, including the Slope and Basins, the Guaymean Neritic, and the East Pacific Rise were only partially incorporated into priority maps. Priority areas were concentrated in coastal and shallow areas (<300 m depth), with frequency of prioritization decreasing with depth. This is evident Figure 5. Representation of geomorphology classes and ecosystems in the biased coverage of geomorphological features within different levels of overlap of priority conservation areas. Graphs show the percentages of the total area of (a) marine (Figure 5(a)), with priority areas more often geomorphology classes and subclasses and (b) selected coastal and identified on the continental shelf. Features such as marine ecosystems that correspond to three classes of frequency of trenches, submarine canyons, and valleys were spatial coincidence: low (1–2), medium (3–4), and high (5–6). often omitted. Ecosystems were also unevenly represented (Figure 5(b)). Coral reefs, seagrasses, and rhodolith and Sargassum beds were more often generic priority areas for conservation, while included in plans, while others such as seamounts identifying the particular conservation actions were rarely included, probably because of limited required within these areas was generally information. Mangroves were included to some considered to be implicit. Other explicit goals extent in most plans, but the portion of mangrove indicated by most experts were to document and fl covered by high coincidence of priority areas (i.e. assess biodiversity and threats and/or con icts overlaps >4 exercises) was minimal. Partial with human activities, as well as to guide inclusion of mangroves can be related to their conservation and resource use planning. The occurrence along the land–sea interface (planning majority of experts agreed that, overall, reported has largely focused on marine ecosystems) and to goals had been achieved satisfactorily. Some experts their relatively wide distribution along the coast, disagreed with this perception, mostly because the making their frequently represented areas small in application of planning outputs had progressed very percentage terms. slowly beyond local ongoing initiatives that lacked the perspective potentially provided by the planning exercises. Opinions regarding implicit goals were Achievement of goals, implementation of spatial more varied. The use of existing priority maps by actions, and benefits of planning later plans was commonly perceived as a positive Through interviews and surveys, experts assessed outcome from planning, but never reported or the reported and implicit goals of the planning mentioned as an implicit goal. exercises in the Gulf of California, and the extent Despite differences in opinions, experts commonly to which these had been achieved (Figure 6). An indicated that plans had guided or in some way explicit goal cited by all experts was identifying influenced the implementation of spatial actions

Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2013) J. G. ÁLVAREZ-ROMERO ET AL.

Figure 6. Expert opinion on reported and implicit planning goals. (a) Percentages of experts (N = 13) that identified the described planning goals as being explicitly reported (black portion of the bar) or implicitly considered (grey portion) by planners when developing the planning exercises; only the last goal was common to all planning exercises (either implicitly or explicitly). (b) Percentages of experts that considered the overall achievement of goals within each level of achievement, from ‘Not at all’ (experts strongly disagreed that goals were achieved) to ‘Fully’ (experts completely agreed that overall goals were met). within priority areas (Figure 7). According to more spatial framework that provided sound scientific than half of the experts interviewed, a common support for ongoing marine conservation efforts outcome of plans was the implementation of and supported decisions by agencies regarding multiple-use protected areas (e.g. Bahia de los the creation or zoning of MPAs; and participation Angeles, Espiritu Santo National Park, San of multiple stakeholders in planning, in particular Lorenzo Archipelago National Park, San Pedro those directly influencing conservation decisions Martir Biosphere Reserve). Two actions, although in the region. On the other hand, some factors only cited a few times, were the creation of no-take were perceived as major constraints on the zones (e.g. Guaymas Hydrothermal Vents) and implementation of plans or causes of the slow uptake the promotion of socio-ecological monitoring or of plans in general, including: conflicting mandates research projects within priority areas (e.g. or priorities between conservation and natural PANGAS: http://pangas.arizona.edu/es/inicio). To resource management agencies and organizations; a lesser extent, experts also considered that plans had limited technical capacities and public conservation contributed to informing coastal-marine informing resources (particularly at the municipal and State and zoning plans, mainly by providing information levels); insufficient political determination (e.g. from to agencies and industry regarding the location of State governments) to implement MPAs; the areas of conservation value. need to further refine the design of conservation According to experts, factors that facilitated areas (e.g. incorporate socioeconomic constraints, spatial implementation included: bringing priority biological connectivity, zones) and schedule their areas to the attention of agencies, organizations, implementation; and the fact that plans have not and general public; having a regional or national been incorporated by relevant agencies into their strategic plans and annual work programmes, particularly agencies not directly related to conservation,e.g.tourism,watermanagement, infrastructure, and development. In addition to spatial actions, experts considered that planning brought other benefits within the region (Figure 8). Despite differences in opinions, enhancing institutional and knowledge/skills was commonly perceived as a benefit of planning. Institutional benefits included: standardizing or having more rigorous planning processes, Figure 7. Expert opinion on how planning influenced or led to spatial facilitating the development/implementation of implementation of actions. Bars denote the percentages of experts (N = 13) that considered the described actions as being implemented regional or local conservation strategies, and as a result of planning, either directly or indirectly. influencing conservation strategies and actions by

Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2013) MARINE CONSERVATION PLANNING IN PRACTICE

Figure 8. Expert opinion on the benefits of planning apart from spatial implementation of actions. The black portion of each bar represents the percentages of experts (N = 13) that considered the described benefits were a result of planning; the grey portion depicts the percentages that indicated that those benefits were unexpected; white represents the percentages of experts not citing those benefits as outcomes of planning.

organizations/agencies/partners, guided by the DISCUSSION priority maps. Other important benefits identified were developing skills/expertise of organizations The state of marine conservation planning in the Gulf in conservation planning and building the of California supporting scientific evidence for decision-making Despite the growing number of studies and marine by participating organizations, agencies or partners. applications of systematic conservation planning Among the social benefits, improving collaboration methods and tools, uptake has been relatively and coordination between organizations, creating a limited in the Gulf of California. Only two planning regional conservation approach for conservation, exercises (Sala et al., 2002; Ulloa et al., 2006) used and building trust among organizations were conservation planning software to find least-cost apparent common outcomes. In comparison, solutions that achieved conservation objectives, direct financial benefits (e.g. making better use of even though these tools have been readily available available conservation resources, improving for more than 10 years (Ball et al., 2009), with efficiency in the operations of organizations) were applications to marine planning dating back to 1999 less commonly noted. (Leslie, 2005). Emerging issues, including targeting

Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2013) J. G. ÁLVAREZ-ROMERO ET AL. of ecosystem services and consideration of land–sea assemblages, including species that are poorly connections, have also received limited attention recorded or undescribed (Roberts et al., 2003a). in the Gulf. Notably, none of the planning exercises Bioregional representation has been fundamental dealt with climate change or scheduling of to other marine planning initiatives, e.g. the conservation actions. California Channel Islands Marine Reserves Conservation plans in the Gulf of California (Airame et al., 2003) and the Great Barrier Reef followed some best-practices regarding stakeholder Marine Park rezoning (Fernandes et al., 2005). involvement but fell short for others. Stakeholder Incorporating spatially explicit socioeconomic input was decisive in five stages of planning: data (e.g. human activities, opportunity costs identifying broad goals; setting objectives; defining associated with use restrictions, and costs of selection criteria for priority areas; supplying, managing MPAs) in marine planning is critical to validating, and generating spatial data to represent minimizing the costs of interventions (Klein et al., conservation features; and identifying priority areas 2008; Ban and Klein, 2009). Exercises from the (see Pomeroy and Douvere (2008) for a review on Gulf of California illustrate contrasting approaches stakeholder participation in marine planning). Expert to incorporating threats and costs in planning. The workshops facilitated stakeholder involvement in two exercises that used conservation planning decision-making processes in the Gulf of California software explicitly avoided threatened areas and and contributed to filling gaps concerning ecological minimized conflict with fisheries (Sala et al., 2002; and socioeconomic data (Wheeler et al., 2008). In Ulloa et al., 2006). In both cases, field data on addition, highly participatory processes (e.g. SPM fishing effort informed the cost layers. Despite and CSGC) also contributed to building common potential limitations and coarse spatial resolution of visions of conservation problems and opportunities. these data, they are likely to be more accurate than In expert-driven processes, tools other than surrogates for socioeconomic variables (Weeks conservation planning softwarehelpedtovisualize et al., 2010b). In contrast, the B2B exercise spatial data (Enríquez-Andrade et al., 2005; (Morgan et al., 2005) focused on areas where CONABIO, 2007), facilitate group decision-making conservation features of interest and threats (Arriaga-Cabrera et al., 1998), and delineate priority intersected (i.e. prioritized vulnerable areas), an areas (Morgan et al., 2005). A notable gap in approach that aims to reduce further loss of most exercises was the limited input from natural conservation features. Although these approaches resource users and industry, which was mostly might seem opposite, they are likely to converge. restricted to providing information on highly used Application of actions following selection of areas areas. Including all stakeholders, but particularly such as those by Sala et al. (2002) and Ulloa et al. resource users, from the outset of planning helps to (2006) would require scheduling, in which areas of build ownership and support (Lundquist and both high irreplaceability and high threat would Granek, 2005; Gilliland and Laffoley, 2008), and has need to be prioritized (Pressey and Bottrill, 2008). been pivotal in successful regional-scale exercises in Surprisingly, most exercises identified priority marine planning (Fernandes et al., 2005; Gleason areas independently of their vulnerability or level et al., 2010). of use, either assessing threats independently Only two planning exercises set quantitative (Enríquez-Andrade et al., 2005) or designing objectives (Sala et al., 2002; Ulloa et al., 2006), strategies to address threats after priorities were set which contributed to more explicit, transparent, (Arriaga-Cabrera et al., 1998; Enríquez-Andrade and justifiable decision-making processes (Margules and Danemann, 1998; CONABIO, 2007). and Pressey, 2000). While qualitative objectives (e.g. An interesting finding of the CSGC exercise maximize species richness) were common to all (Enríquez-Andrade et al., 2005) was that priority exercises, only Sala et al. (2002) quantified and areas tended to be heavily used or highly threatened, targeted species richness (for fish species). indicating that conservation management in some Both exercises that used quantitative objectives also used and threatened areas might be inevitable. This partitioned these objectives between occurrences of emphasizes the need for better data on threats and the same features in different bioregions. costs and an understanding of management actions Incorporating bioregional representativeness as a that are feasible and effective in contested parts of conservation objective is critical to ensuring that the Gulf. Conflict over conservation and extractive MPA networks capture the variety of biological uses can be reduced, but not altogether avoided,

Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2013) MARINE CONSERVATION PLANNING IN PRACTICE by explicitly incorporating costs and threats in The importance of land–sea interactions was the prioritization process. Combining multiple costs recognized by most planning exercises, both in (e.g. to different stakeholder groups) is challenging terms of cross-system threats and ecological for marine planners (Ban and Klein, 2009), but connections. However, spatial data on, or models should be considered in the Gulf of California. of, land-based threats were very limited and only Despite spatial data limitations, ecological processes used in a couple of plans. Prioritization of (e.g. migrations and oceanographic phenomena catchments to mitigate land-based threats was not associated with high productivity) were considered by considered by any plan. Considering land-based most planning exercises. Readily-available biological threats can alter marine priority areas (e.g. by and oceanographic data (e.g. satellite-derived data locating them away from imminent land-based on spatial variability of high-productivity areas) sources of pollution when possible) (Tallis et al., (Hidalgo-González and Alvarez-Borrego, 2011), 2008), but can also help to integrate terrestrial and combined with existing oceanographic-ecological marine planning and facilitate marine management models (Marinone et al., 2008; Cudney-Bueno et al., (Klein et al., 2010). Only one exercise 2009), can help to improve planning for processes (Enríquez-Andrade et al., 2005) explicitly targeted in the Gulf of California and elsewhere. freshwater and terrestrial areas important to Recent spatial planning that could be adapted to maintaining ecological processes connecting land the Gulf has incorporated extensive pelagic and and sea. Adjustments of priority maps can also be oceanographic phenomena (Grantham et al., 2011) required to plan for land–sea processes, e.g. and considered the effects of climate change species migrations between disjunct terrestrial and (Hobday, 2011). These approaches will help to marine habitats (Hazlitt et al., 2010) or input of ensure local functionality of priority areas as well marine-derived nutrients into coastal and insular as contributing to regional-scale conservation ecosystems (Lombard et al., 2007). The lack of objectives (Roberts et al., 2003b), including those consideration of land–sea connections in the related to fisheries. National Protected Area System of Mexico was Notwithstanding the global importance and emphasized by Ortiz-Lozano et al. (2009), and degradation of the services provided by coastal highlights the need to improve data and models on marine ecosystems (Worm et al., 2006; Barbier spatial and temporal occurrence of land–sea et al., 2010), particularly in the Gulf of California processes and cross-system threats for marine (Aburto-Oropeza et al., 2008; Ezcurra et al., planning (Alvarez-Romero et al., 2011). 2009), these were not considered explicitly by any of the planning exercises. This gap might have Convergence and divergence between plans been partially addressed, however, by targeting Based on a spatial overlay of priority maps, conservation features based on their potential Aburto-Oropeza and Lopez-Sagastegui (2006) economic value, including: areas of high noted important spatial coincidences between the fi productivity and plankton abundance for sheries outputs of different marine planning exercises in (Arriaga-Cabrera et al., 1998; CONABIO, 2007); the Gulf. These similarities have led to a general coastal ecosystems (e.g. coral reefs and kelp forest) perception among conservation practitioners in the that provide protection to sandy beaches against region that planning exercises identified the same wave action; estuaries and marshes as exporters of priority areas. The present analysis shows that, nutrients/energy and buffers against land-based despite areas of convergence, there are important threats (Enríquez-Andrade and Danemann, 1998; differences, some of which can be related to the Morgan et al., 2005); and mangroves as nurseries planning approach, methods and extent. The small for commercial fish and invertebrates (Sala et al., overlap between all exercises raises the question of 2002; Enríquez-Andrade et al., 2005). The omission whether the convergence of multiple independent of ecosystem services is common in marine spatial plans is in fact pointing to areas that hold valuable planning (Leslie, 2005; Granek et al., 2010), biodiversity features and processes that have been although there have been recent advances in their recognized widely by planners. In some cases, valuation and mapping (Tallis and Polasky, 2009; areas commonly identified as marine priorities Silvestri and Kershaw, 2010). Further research is seem to be located in better studied areas (e.g. needed for marine applications (Chan and Upper Gulf, Midriff Islands, Loreto, La Paz Bay), Ruckelshaus, 2010). a common outcome in marine planning in general

Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2013) J. G. ÁLVAREZ-ROMERO ET AL.

(Ardron et al., 2008) and a plausible explanation of The recent addition of an MPA in the Gulf of why these areas also overlap with existing MPAs California to protect the benthic communities (Weeks et al., 2010a), some of which were (hydrothermal vents) in the Guaymas Basin – an established before prioritization exercises. area identified as a marine priority by only one The similarities and differences in plans might exercise – is an exception to the general trend. The be explained by commonalities between them, under-representation of deep-ocean and pelagic including similar data, similar approaches (e.g. environments in the Gulf of California, in expert-based vs. data driven, prioritization of comparison with nearshore/shallow ecosystems, threatened areas with biodiversity value, focus on reflects the relatively limited data for deep-ocean nearshore environments), the use of priority maps and pelagic environments in general (Glover and from previous exercises, and the resolution of data Smith, 2003; Webb et al., 2010) and the emphasis and targeted conservation features. Contrary to on the protection of near-shore ecosystems expectations, clustering based on spatial similarity (Wood et al., 2008; Spalding et al., 2010). Among the did not show clear differences between priority solutions, vertical zoning (i.e. implementing different maps developed at different spatial scales. An use restrictions along the water column) provides a important result from the Kappa location analysis way of designing priority areas suitable for protecting was the greater similarity values among all exercises pelagic and/or benthic environments as required compared with the overall Kappa. This indicates (Grober-Dunsmore et al., 2008). New technologies that the relative proportions/size of priority areas are allowing the exploration of deeper environments (which can be related to the extent of planning in the Gulf of California (Aburto-Oropeza et al., domain) can be an important driver of overall 2010a) and the data from these studies should be spatial similarity between overlapping priority maps. used to update marine planning exercises. Interestingly, grouping based on spatial similarity did not closely match that based on planning Uptake of planning: implementation of spatial actions objectives and datasets. Divergence between the and other benefits methodological and spatial similarity phenograms Assessing the implementation of plans was not suggests that other factors, in addition to data and an objective of this study. However, based on fi objectives, played an important role in de ning the the information provided by experts, the distribution of conservation priorities. These could implementation of new MPAs in the region has include inaccuracy in manual delineation of priority been influenced by some of these planning exercises. areas from expert-based exercises, incorporation of It seems that monitoring and research activities updated datasets, and random error. Unfortunately, have resulted from the long history of prioritizing the limited and fragmented spatial data available conservation areas in the region. However, as from these studies did not allow further the experts noted, enforcement and many other investigation of these differences. problems (Rife et al., 2012) indicate that MPAs Size and perimeter have important design are not necessarily fulfilling the objectives stated in implications, both biologically and practically their decrees. (Roberts et al., 2001; Leslie et al., 2003). Remarkably, An element regarded by some experts as a priority areas proposed by the only exercise constraint on the implementation of spatial actions that explicitly included minimum size as a design was the lack of regard for ongoing refinement of fi criterion (Sala et al., 2002) were signi cantly smaller priority area designs to maximize the likelihood of than those from other exercises (Figure 2(a)). In implementation. Such refinements include defining part, this is explained by the reduced number of simple and readily recognizable boundaries to planning units, but also reflects differences in maximize compliance and facilitate enforcement. objectives and how these can influence priority area These refinements have been applied in other design. regions to maximize implementation feasibility, thus Convergence of priorities was observed in well leading to the successful application of planning studied shallow and benthic marine ecosystems (e.g. outputs (Fernandes et al., 2005, 2009; Lombard coral reefs, seagrass, Sargassum beds). Coastal et al., 2007). These exercises also illustrate the need ecosystems were also represented in established to work with stakeholders once preliminary priority MPAs, some of which were established at least maps are proposed. The execution of specific partially in response to the exercises reviewed here. actions such as surveillance, species recovery, and

Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2013) MARINE CONSERVATION PLANNING IN PRACTICE invasive species eradication/control programmes multi-scale planning framework (e.g. South African within priority areas were seldom mentioned by National Biodiversity GIS: http://cpu.uwc.ac.za/). experts as being implemented following planning. Additional elements that have constrained or This suggests that the failure to identify specific facilitated implementation include institutional actions within priority areas (to address problems continuity, funding availability, and political trends, associated with particular areas) may also be so these need to be considered by planners. limiting the direct application of conservation plans because further work to identify adequate interventions is needed. Interestingly, none of the CONCLUSIONS interviewees mentioned actions related to fisheries The Gulf of California has seen seven marine management, which could in part reflect the limited planning exercises in the past decade. Yet uptake participation of the fisheries sector in planning and of marine applications of systematic conservation the general disconnect between this sector with the planning methods and tools has been relatively national and regional conservation agenda. limited, and the existence of multiple plans within The implementation of MPAs in the Gulf of the region pointed to some difficulties as well as California, as everywhere in Mexico (Bezaury-Creel, benefits. On one hand, multiple plans have 2005), has been mostly opportunistic, thus limiting contributed to uncertainty, confusion and tension the uptake of marine planning outputs. Reasons between stakeholders. Multiple plans may have underlying this approach include incomplete and also contributed to the spreading and inefficient biased socioecological data, accelerated degradation use of financial and human resources, as well as to of certain areas (and reactive local efforts to protect unnecessary redundancy in actions. Despite good them), and concurrence of suitable socioeconomic intentions, the coexistence of multiple plans and political conditions. These elements can, (particularly when these are developed without however, be considered and incorporated into considering pre-existing plans) can hamper the SCP initiatives by following an adaptive approach. goal to create a common approach and focus for Adaptive conservation planning is critical to conservation, thus resulting in uncoordinated make the best use available socioecological data, actions undertaken by the different stakeholders. deal with ongoing loss of biodiversity, and take On the other hand, the existence of multiple advantage of emerging conservation opportunities planning processes and plans seems to have (Grantham et al., 2010). Some key requirements to contributed to improved methods, data and tools, adaptive planning are: setting explicit and preferably as well as being the basis for more robust and quantitative conservation objectives (critical to the refined plans developed later. transparency, traceability and revision of planning Given that the National Marine Gap Analysis decisions); developing spatial data infrastructures (CONABIO, 2007) considered the outputs of (needed to organize and share data to revise the plans previous plans (incorporating some priority areas or to inform other plans, as well as to continuously delineated in previous exercises) and engaged with and systematically update socioecological data stakeholders who participated in previous exercises, derived from monitoring and research); and assessing this plan has now been widely accepted and is the effectiveness or response of socioecological considered (at least by environmental organizations systems to conservation interventions (essential and agencies) the national framework for marine to adjust objectives, priority area design, and conservation in Mexico, including the Gulf of implementation strategies). Unfortunately, few California. Thus, the logical next step is to build on long-term monitoring programmes (a pre-requisite this plan and refine priority areas (which provide to adaptive management) exist in the region the required regional context) into conservation today, and there are no explicit intentions to update areas associated with specific actions (e.g. through the plans, even when information from these zoning) appropriate to address current threats, programmes is available. The lack of these two maintaining connectivity incorporating local strategies is a major limitation of marine planning socioeconomic data, and ensuring participation of in the Gulf of California. Conservation planning local stakeholders. This refinement should include initiatives in South Africa exemplify how national integration with terrestrial and freshwater priorities, and regional-scale plans are being documented, in particular for areas where important land–sea updated and implemented under a national connections have been identified (Enríquez-Andrade

Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2013) J. G. ÁLVAREZ-ROMERO ET AL. et al., 2005) or where land-based threats are a California increase fishery yields. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of concern. A stronger commitment of agencies from America 105: 10456–10459. different sectors (environment, fishing, tourism, Aburto-Oropeza O, Erisman B, Caso M, Ezcurra E. 2010a. water management, infrastructure and Log of the Deep Sea: An Expedition to the Seamounts of the Sea of Cortes. Instituto Nacional de Ecologia: Mexico, DF. development) is also needed to incorporate planning Aburto-Oropeza O, Paredes G, Mascareñas-Osorio I, Sala E. results into the relevant policies, regulations and 2010b. Climatic influence on reef fish recruitment and annual programs, as well as to continue fisheries. Marine Ecology Progress Series 410: 283–287. fi Airame S, Dugan JE, Lafferty KD, Leslie H, McArdle DA, participating in the re nement of plans. Increased Warner RR. 2003. Applying ecological criteria to marine coordination between organizations (from local to reserve design: a case study from the California Channel international) will be fundamental to implement a Islands. Ecological Applications 13: S170–S184. fl functional network of MPAs that contributes to All JD. 2006. Colorado river oods, droughts, and shrimp fishing in the upper Gulf of California, Mexico. achieving conservation goals and the sustainable Environmental Management 37: 111–125. use of natural resources in the Gulf of California. Allison GW, Gaines SD, Lubchenco J, Possingham HP. 2003. Ensuring persistence of marine reserves: catastrophes require adopting an insurance factor. Ecological Applications 13:8–24. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Almany G, Connolly S, Heath D, Hogan J, Jones G, McCook L, Mills M, Pressey R, Williamson D. 2009. Connectivity, biodiversity conservation and the design of marine reserve We thank the following persons for providing networks for coral reefs. Coral Reefs 28: 339–351. information on the planning exercises: Amy Alvarez-Romero JG, Pressey RL, Ban NC, Vance-Borland K, Hudson-Weaver, Anne Gondor, Cesar Sanchez-Ibarra, Willer C, Klein CJ, Gaines SD. 2011. Integrated land–sea Diana Hernandez, Enric Sala, Fan Tsao, Juan E. conservation planning: the missing links. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 42: 381–409. Bezaury, Lance Morgan, Marcia Moreno-Baez, Ardron JA, Possingham H, Klein C. 2008. Marxan Good Melanie Kolb, Patricia Koleff, Raul Ulloa, Rocio Practices Handbook. Pacific Marine Analysis and Research Esquivel, and Veronica Aguilar. We thank Association: Vancouver, BC. Arriaga-Cabrera L, Vázquez-Domínguez E, González-Cano J, Johnathan Kool and Morena Mills for their Jiménez-Rosenberg R, Muñoz-López E, Aguilar-Sierra V. valuable comments to improve this manuscript. We 1998. Regiones marinas prioritarias de México. Comisión also thank the following organizations for proving Nacional para el Conocimiento y uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO): Mexico, DF. datasets and reports on the planning exercises: Baker N, Beger M, McClennen C, Ishoda A, Edwards F. 2011. Comision Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso Reimaanlok: a national framework for conservation area de la Biodiversidad, Comunidad y Biodiversidad, planning in the Marshall Islands. Journal of Marine Biology – Pronatura Noroeste, Marine Conservation 2011:1 11. Ball I, Possingham H, Watts DJ. 2009. Marxan and relatives: Biology Institute, North America’sCommission software for spatial conservation prioritization. In Spatial for Environmental Cooperation, The Nature Conservation Prioritization Quantitative Methods and Conservancy-Mexico, and World Wildlife Computational Tools, Moilanen A, Wilson K, Possingham H (eds). Oxford University Press: Oxford; 185–195. Fund-Mexico. We also thank Gordon Bailey for Ban NC. 2009. Minimum data requirements for designing a providing IT support and the High Performance set of marine protected areas, using commonly available Computing Unit at James Cook University abiotic and biotic datasets. Biodiversity and Conservation 18: 1829–1845. for computational facilities. JGAR gratefully Ban NC, Klein CJ. 2009. Spatial socioeconomic data as a cost acknowledges support from Mexico’s Consejo in systematic marine conservation planning. Conservation Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT) Letters 2: 206–215. and Secretaría de Educación Pública (SEP), as Barbier EB, Hacker SD, Kennedy C, Koch EW, Stier AC, Silliman BR. 2010. The value of estuarine and coastal well as from the Australian Research Council ecosystem services. Ecological Monographs 81: 169–193. Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. Beger M, Linke S, Watts M, Game E, Treml E, Ball I, RLP and NCB acknowledge the support of the Possingham HP. 2010. Incorporating asymmetric Australian Research Council. connectivity into spatial decision making for conservation. Conservation Letters 3: 359–368. Beman JM, Arrigo KR, Matson PA. 2005. Agricultural runoff fuels large phytoplankton blooms in vulnerable areas of the REFERENCES ocean. Nature 434: 211–214. Bezaury-Creel JE. 2005. Protected areas and coastal and ocean Aburto-Oropeza O, Lopez-Sagastegui C. 2006. A marine management in México. Ocean & Coastal Management 48: reserve network for the Gulf of California the next step in 1016–1046. conserving the world’s aquarium. Greenpeace, Mexico, D.F. Bottrill MC, Pressey RL. 2012. The effectiveness and Aburto-Oropeza O, Ezcurra E, Danemann G, Valdez V, evaluation of conservation planning. Conservation Letters 5: Murray J, Sala E. 2008. Mangroves in the Gulf of 407–420.

Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2013) MARINE CONSERVATION PLANNING IN PRACTICE

Bottrill MC, Mills M, Pressey RL, Game ET, Groves C. 2012. Fernandes L, Day J, Kerrigan B, Breen D, De’ath G, Evaluating perceived benefits of ecoregional assessments. Mapstone B, Coles R, Done T, Marsh H, Poiner I, et al. Conservation Biology 26: 851–861. 2009. A process to design a network of marine no-take Brusca R, Findley LT, Hastings PA, Hendrickx ME, Cosio JT, areas: Lessons from the Great Barrier Reef. Ocean and van der Heiden AM, Cartron J, Ceballos G, Felger R. 2005. Coastal Management 52: 439–447. Macrofaunal diversity in the Gulf of California. In FoleyM,HalpernB,MicheliF,ArmsbyM,CaldwellM,CrainC, Biodiversity, Ecosystems, and Conservation in Northern Prahler E, Rohr N, Sivas D, Beck M. 2010. Guiding Mexico, Cartron J, Ceballos G, Felger R (eds). Oxford ecological principles for marine spatial planning. Marine University Press: New York; 179–203. Policy 34: 955–966. Carriquiry JD, Sánchez A. 1999. Sedimentation in the Galindo-Reyes JG, Villagrana LC, Lazcano-Alvarez G. 1999. Colorado River delta and Upper Gulf of California after Environmental conditions and pesticide pollution of two nearly a century of discharge loss. Marine Geology 158: coastal ecosystems in the Gulf of California, Mexico. 125–145. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 44: 280–286. CEC. 2006. Ecological Regions of North America: Toward a Game ET, Grantham HS, Hobday AJ, Pressey RL, Lombard Common Perspective - Update. Commission for AT, Beckley LE, Gjerde K, Bustamante R, Possingham Environmental Cooperation: Montreal, Quebec, Canada. HP, Richardson AJ. 2009. Pelagic protected areas: the Chan KMA, Ruckelshaus M. 2010. Characterizing changes in missing dimension in ocean conservation. Trends in Ecology marine ecosystem services. F1000 Biology Reports 2. & Evolution 24: 360–369. CONABIO. 2007. Analisis de vacios y omisiones en Game ET, Lipsett-Moore G, Hamilton R, Peterson N, conservacion de la biodiversidad marina de Mexico: oceanos, Kereseka J, Atu W, Watts M, Possingham H. 2011. costas e islas. Comision Nacional para el Conocimiento y LETTER: Informed opportunism for conservation planning Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO); Comision Nacional in the Solomon Islands. Conservation Letters 4:38–46. de Areas Naturales Protegidas; The Nature Conservancy; García-Hernández J, Cadena-Cárdenas L, Betancourt-Lozano M, Pronatura A.C.: Mexico, DF. García-De-La-Parra LM, García-Rico L, Márquez-Farías F. CONABIO. 2008. Distribución de los manglares de México. 2007. Total mercury content found in edible tissues of Escala 1:50 000. Extraído del proyecto DQ056: Programa de top predator fish from the Gulf of California, Mexico. monitoreo de los manglares de México a largo plazo, primera Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry 89:507–522. etapa. Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de Gilliland PM, Laffoley D. 2008. Key elements and steps in the la Biodiversidad: Mexico, DF. process of developing ecosystem-based marine spatial CONANP. 2010. Cobertura de las Áreas Naturales Protegidas planning. Marine Policy 32: 787–796. Federales y Estatales de México. Comisión Nacional de Gleason M, McCreary S, Miller-Henson M, Ugoretz J, Fox E, Áreas Naturales Protegidas, Dirección de Evaluación y Merrifield M, McClintock W, Serpa P, Hoffman K. 2010. Seguimiento, Subdirección Encargada de la Coordinación Science-based and stakeholder-driven marine protected de Geomática: Mexico, DF. area network planning: a successful case study from Cudney-Bueno R, Lavín MF, Marinone SG, Raimondi PT, north central California. Ocean and Coastal Management Shaw WW. 2009. Rapid effects of marine reserves via larval 53:52–68. dispersal. PloS One 4: e4140. Glenn EP, Nagler PL, Brusca RC, Hinojosa-Huerta O. 2006. Day JC. 2002. Zoning - lessons from the Great Barrier Reef Coastal wetlands of the northern Gulf of California: Marine Park. Ocean & Coastal Management 45: 139–156. inventory and conservation status. Aquatic Conservation: Edwards HJ, Elliott IA, Pressey RL, Mumby PJ. 2010. Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 16:5–28. Incorporating ontogenetic dispersal, ecological processes Glover AG, Smith CR. 2003. The deep-sea floor ecosystem: and conservation zoning into reserve design. Biological current status and prospects of anthropogenic change by the Conservation 143: 457–470. year 2025. Environmental Conservation 30: 219–241. Enríquez-Andrade R, Danemann G. 1998. Identificación y Granek EF, Polasky S, Kappel CV, Reed DJ, Stoms DM, establecimiento de prioridades para las acciones de Koch EW, Kennedy CJ, Cramer LA, Kacker SD, Barbier conservación y oportunidades de uso sustentable de los recursos EB, et al. 2010. Ecosystem services as a common language marinos y costeros de la Península de Baja California. Reporte for coastal ecosystem-Based Management. Conservation técnico de proyecto. Pronatura Península de Baja Biology 24: 207–216. California, Ensenada, Baja California. Grantham HS, Bode M, McDonald-Madden E, Game ET, Enríquez-Andrade R, Anaya-Reyna G, Barrera-Guevara JC, Knight AT, Possingham H. 2010. Effective conservation C-M MdlÁ, Martínez-Delgado ME, Vaca-Rodríguez J, planning requires learning and adaptation. Frontiers in Valdés-Casillas C. 2005. An analysis of critical areas for Ecology and the Environment 8: 431–437. biodiversity conservation in the Gulf of California Region. Grantham HS, Game ET, Lombard AT, Hobday AJ, Ocean & Coastal Management 48:31–50. Richardson AJ, Beckley LE, Pressey RL, Huggett JA, Erisman B, Mascarenas I, Paredes G, de Mitcheson YS, Coetzee JC, van der Lingen CD, et al. 2011. Accommodating Aburto-Oropeza O, Hastings P. 2010. Seasonal, annual, dynamic oceanographic processes and pelagic biodiversity in and long-term trends in commercial fisheries for aggregating marine conservation planning. PloS One 6: e16552. reef fishes in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Fisheries Green A, Smith SE, Lipsett-Moore G, Groves C, Peterson N, Research 106: 279–288. Sheppard S, Lokani P, Hamilton R, Almany J, Aitsi J, Ezcurra E, Aburto-Oropeza O, C-M MdlÁ, Cudney-Bueno R, Bualia L. 2009. Designing a resilient network of marine Torre J. 2009. Gulf of California, Mexico. In Ecosystem-based protected areas for Kimbe Bay, Papua New Guinea. Oryx Management for the Oceans, McLeod K, Leslie H (eds). Island 43: 488–498. Press: Washington, DC; 227–252. Grober-Dunsmore R, Wooninck L, Field J, Ainsworth C, Fernandes L, Day J, Lewis A, Slegers S, Kerrigan B, Breen D, Beets J, Berkeley S, Bohnsack J, Boulon R, Brodeur R, Cameron D, Jago B, Hall J, Lowe D, et al. 2005. Establishing Brodziak J, et al. 2008. Vertical zoning in marine protected representative no-take areas in the Great Barrier Reef: areas: ecological considerations for balancing pelagic fishing Large-scale implementation of theory on marine protected with conservation of benthic communities. Fisheries 33: areas. Conservation Biology 19: 1733–1744. 598–610.

Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2013) J. G. ÁLVAREZ-ROMERO ET AL.

Groves CR, Jensen DB, Valutis LL, Redford KH, Shaffer ML, Lombard AT, Reyers B, Schonegevel LY, Coopers J, Scott JM, Baumgartner JV, Higgins JV, Beck MW, Smith-Adao LB, Nel DC, Froneman PW, Ansorge IJ, Anderson MG. 2002. Planning for biodiversity Bester MN, Tosh CA, et al. 2007. Conserving pattern and conservation: Putting conservation science into practice. process in the Southern Ocean: Designing a marine Bioscience 52: 499–512. protected area for the Prince Edward Islands. Antarctic Gutierrez-Galindo EA, Flores Munoz G, Ortega Garcia ML, Science 19:39–54. Villaescusa Celaya JA. 1992. Pesticides in coastal waters of Lugo-Hubp J, Fernandez Córdova C. 1990. Geomorfología the Gulf of California: Mussel Watch Program 1987–1988. Marina. Obtenido de Geomorfología 1. IV.3.3., Atlas Pesticidas en las aguas costeras del Golfo de California: Nacional de México, Vol. II, Escala 1:4000000. Instituto de Programa de Vigilancia con Mejillon 1987–1988 18:77–99. Geografía, UNAM: Mexico, DF. Hazlitt SL, Martin TG, Sampson L, Arcese P. 2010. The Lundquist CJ, Granek EF. 2005. Strategies for successful effects of including marine ecological values in terrestrial marine conservation: integrating socioeconomic, political, reserve planning for a forest-nesting seabird. Biological and scientific factors. Conservation Biology 19: 1771–1778. Conservation 143: 1299–1303. Margules CR, Pressey RL. 2000. Systematic conservation Hidalgo-González RM, Alvarez-Borrego S. 2011. Total and planning. Nature 405: 243–253. new production in the Gulf of California estimated from Marinone SG, Ulloa MJ, Parés-Sierra A, Lavín MF, ocean color data from the satellite sensor SeaWIFS. Deep Cudney-Bueno R. 2008. Connectivity in the northern Gulf Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 51: of California from particle tracking in a three-dimensional 739–752. numerical model. Journal of Marine Systems 71: 149–158. Hobday AJ. 2011. Sliding baselines and shuffling species: McCook L, Ayling T, Cappo M, Choat J, Evans R, implications of climate change for marine conservation. De Freitas D, Heupel M, Hughes T, Jones G, Mapstone B, Marine Ecology 32: 392–403. et al. 2010. Adaptive management of the Great Barrier Howarth RW. 2008. Coastal nitrogen pollution: a review of Reef: a globally significant demonstration of the benefits sources and trends globally and regionally. Harmful Algae of networks of marine reserves. Proceedings of the 8:14–20. National Academy of Sciences of the United States of INE. 2005. Evaluacion preliminar de las tasas de perdida de la America 107: 18278–18285. superficie de manglar en Mexico. Instituto Nacional de McLeod E, Salm R, Green A, Almany J. 2009. Designing Ecologıa, SEMARNAT: Mexico, DF. marine protected area networks to address the impacts of Jaramillo-Legorreta A, Rojas-Bracho L, Brownell Jr RL, climate change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7: Read AJ, Reeves RR, Ralls K, Taylor BL. 2007. Saving the 362–370. vaquita: immediate action, not more data. Conservation Mora C, Myers RA, Coll M, Libralato S, Pitcher TJ, Sumaila Biology 21: 1653–1655. RU, Zeller D, Watson R, Gaston KJ, Worm B. 2009. Klein C, Steinback C, Scholz A, Possingham H. 2008. Management effectiveness of the world’s marine fisheries. Effectiveness of marine reserve networks in representing PLoS Biology 7: e1000131. biodiversity and minimizing impact to fishermen: a Morgan L, Maxwell S, Tsao F, Wilkinson TAC, Etnoyer P. comparison of two approaches used in California. 2005. Marine priority conservation areas: Baja California to Conservation Letters 1:44–51. the Bering Sea. Commission for Environmental Cooperation Klein CJ, Ban NC, Halpern BS, Beger M, Game ET, of North America and the Marine Conservation Biology Grantham HS, Green A, Klein TJ, Kininmonth S, Treml E, Institute: Montreal, Quebec, Canada. et al. 2010. Prioritizing land and sea conservation Niño-Torres CA, Zenteno-Savín T, Gardner SC, Urbán RJ. investments to protect coral reefs. PloS One 5: e12431. 2010. Organochlorine pesticides and polychlorinated Lavín M, Marinone S. 2003. An overview of the physical biphenyls in fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) from the oceanography of the Gulf of California. In Nonlinear Gulf of California. Environmental Toxicology 25: 381–390. Processes in Geophysical Fluid Dynamics, Velasco OU, Olson DM, Dinerstein E. 2002. The Global 200: priority Sheinbaum J, Ochoa J (eds). Kluwer Academia Publishers: ecoregions for global conservation. Annals of the Missouri Dordrecht, Holland; 173–204. Botanical Garden 89: 199–224. Leslie H, Ruckelshaus M, Ball IR, Andelman S, Possingham HP. Ortiz-Lozano L, Gutiérrez-Velázquez AL, Granados-Barba A. 2003. Using siting algorithms in the design of marine reserve 2009. Marine and terrestrial protected areas in Mexico: networks. Ecological Applications 13:S185–S198. Importance of their functional connectivity in conservation Leslie HM. 2005. Synthesis of marine conservation planning management. Ocean and Coastal Management 52: 620–627. approaches. Conservation Biology 19: 1701–1713. Osmond M, Airame S, Caldwell M, Day J. 2010. Lessons Leslie HM, McLeod KL. 2007. Confronting the challenges for marine conservation planning: A comparison of three of implementing marine ecosystem-based management. marine protected area planning processes. Ocean and Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5: 540–548. Coastal Management 53:41–51. Lester SE, Halpern BS, Grorud-Colvert K, Lubchenco J, Páez-Osuna F, Ruiz-Fernández AC. 2005. Environmental load Ruttenberg BI, Gaines SD, Airame S, Warner RR. 2009. of nitrogen and phosphorus from extensive, semiintensive, Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: a global and intensive shrimp farms in the Gulf of California synthesis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 384:33–46. ecoregion. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Lluch-Cota SE, Aragon-Noriega EA, Arreguin-Sanchez F, Toxicology 74: 681–688. Aurioles-Gamboa D, Bautista-Romero JJ, Brusca RC, Pomeroy R, Douvere F. 2008. The engagement of stakeholders Cervantes-Duarte R, Cortes-Altamirano R, Del-Monte-Luna in the marine spatial planning process. Marine Policy 32: P, Esquivel-Herrera A, et al. 2007. The Gulf of California: 816–822. review of ecosystem status and sustainability challenges. Pressey RL, Bottrill MC. 2008. Opportunism, threats, and the Progress in Oceanography 73:1–26. evolution of systematic conservation planning. Conservation Lluch-Cota SE, Parés-Sierra A, Magaña-Rueda VO, Biology 22: 1340–1345. Arreguín-Sánchez F, Bazzino G, Herrera-Cervantes H, Pressey RL, Bottrill MC. 2009. Approaches to landscape- and Lluch-Belda D. 2010. Changing climate in the Gulf of seascape-scale conservation planning: convergence, contrasts California. Progress in Oceanography 87:114–126. and challenges. Oryx 43:464–475.

Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2013) MARINE CONSERVATION PLANNING IN PRACTICE

Rebman JP, De La Luz JLL, Moran RV. 2002. Vascular plants Ulloa R, Torre J, Bourillón L, Gondor A, Alcantar N. 2006. of the Gulf islands. In A New Island Biogeography of the Sea Planeación ecorregional para la conservación marina: Golfo of Cortes, Case TJ, Cody ML, Ezcurra E (eds). Oxford de California y costa occidental de Baja California Sur. University Press: New York; 465–511. Informe final a The Nature Conservancy. Comunidad y Rife AN, Erisman B, Sanchez A, Aburto-Oropeza O. 2012. Biodiversidad: A.C., Guaymas, Mexico. When good intentions are not enough ... insights on UNEP-WCMC. 2010. Coral Reefs of the World. World networks of “paper park” marine protected areas. Conservation Monitoring Centre, United Nations Conservation Letters doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00303.x. Environmental Program (UNEP-WCMC): Cambridge, UK. Roberts CM, Halpern BS, Palumbi SR, Warner RR. 2001. Velarde E, Ezcurra E, Cisneros-Mata MA, LavÍn MF. 2004. Designing marine reserve networks: why small, isolated Seabird ecology, El Niño anomalies, and prediction of protected areas are not enough. Conservation Biology in sardine fisheries in the Gulf of California. Ecological Practice 2:11–17. Applications 14: 607–615. Roberts CM, McClean CJ, Veron JEN, Hawkins JP, Allen Visser H, de Nijs T. 2006. The Map Comparison Kit. GR, McAllister DE, Mittermeier CG, Schueler FW, Environmental Modelling and Software 21: 346–358. Spalding M, Wells F, et al. 2002. Marine biodiversity Visser H. (Ed.), 2004. The MAP COMPARISON KIT: hotspots and conservation priorities for tropical reefs. methods, software and applications. RIVM report Science 295: 1280–1284. 550002005. Available from http://www.rivm.nl/milieu/ Roberts CM, Andelman S, Branch G, Bustamante RH, modellen. Castilla JC, Dugan J, Halpern BS, Lafferty KD, Leslie H, Webb TJ, Vanden Berghe E, O’Dor R. 2010. Biodiversity’s big Lubchenco J, et al. 2003a. Ecological criteria for evaluating wet secret: the global distribution of marine biological candidate sites for marine reserves. Ecological Applications 13: records reveals chronic under-exploration of the deep S199–S214. pelagic ocean. PloS One 5: e10223. Roberts CM, Branch G, Bustamante RH, Castilla JC, Weeks R, Russ GR, Alcala AC, White AT. 2010a. Dugan J, Halpern BS, Lafferty KD, Leslie H, Lubchenco J, Effectiveness of marine protected areas in the Philippines McArdle D, et al. 2003b. Application of ecological criteria for biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 24: in selecting marine reserves and developing reserve 531–540. networks. Ecological Applications 13: 215–228. Weeks R, Russ GR, Bucol AA, Alcala AC. 2010b. Shortcuts Rowell K, Flessa KW, Dettman DL, Román MJ, Gerber LR, for marine conservation planning: The effectiveness of Findley LT. 2008. Diverting the Colorado River leads to a socioeconomic data surrogates. Biological Conservation 143: dramatic life history shift in an endangered marine fish. 1236–1244. Biological Conservation 141: 1138–1148. Wheeler M, Chambers FMJ, Sims-Castley R, Cowling RM, Sala E, Knowlton N. 2006. Global marine biodiversity Schoeman D. 2008. From beans to breams: how trends. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 31: participatory workshops can contribute to marine 93–122. conservation planning. African Journal of Marine Science Sala E, Aburto-Oropeza O, Paredes G, Parra I, Barrera JC, 30: 475–487. Dayton PK. 2002. A general model for designing networks Wilson KA, Westphal MI, Possingham HP, Elith J. 2005. of marine reserves. Science 298: 1991–1993. Sensitivity of conservation planning to different approaches Sala E, Aburto-Oropeza O, Reza M, Paredes G, López-Lemus to using predicted species distribution data. Biological LG. 2004. Fishing down coastal food webs in the Gulf of Conservation 122:99–112. California. Fisheries 29:19–25. WilsonKA,McBrideMF,BodeM,PossinghamHP. Silvestri S, Kershaw F. 2010. Framing the flow: innovative 2006. Prioritizing global conservation efforts. Nature approaches to understand, protect and value ecosystem 440: 337–340. services across linked habitats. UNEP World Conservation Wilson KA, Underwood EC, Morrison SA, Klausmeyer KR, Monitoring Centre: Cambridge, UK. Murdoch WW, Reyers B, Wardell-Johnson G, Marquet PA, Spalding M, Wood LJ, Fitzgerald C, Gjerde K. 2010. The 10% Rundel PW, McBride MF, et al. 2007. Conserving target: where do we stand? In Global Ocean Protection: biodiversity efficiently: what to do, where, and when. PLoS Present Status and Future Possibilities. Toropova C, Biology 5: e223. Meliane I, Laffoley D, Matthews E, Spalding M (eds). Agence Wilson KA, Carwardine J, Possingham HP. 2009. Setting des aires marines protégées. Brest, France:; IUCN WCPA; conservation priorities. In Year in Ecology and Conservation UNEP-WCMC; TNC; UNU; and WCS: Gland, Switzerland; Biology 2009. Blackwell Publishing: Oxford; 237–264. Washington, DC and New York, USA; Cambridge, UK; Wood LJ, Fish L, Laughren J, Pauly D. 2008. Assessing Arlington, USA; Tokyo, Japan; and New York; 25–41. progress towards global marine protection targets: shortfalls Stillman JH. 2003. Acclimation capacity underlies in information and action. Oryx 42: 340–351. susceptibility to climate change. Science 301: 65. Worm B, Barbier EB, Beaumont N, Duffy JE, Folke C, Tallis H, Polasky S. 2009. Mapping and valuing ecosystem Halpern BS, Jackson JBC, Lotze HK, Micheli F, Palumbi services as an approach for conservation and natural-resource SR, et al. 2006. Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean management. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences ecosystem services. Science 314: 787–790. 1162:265–283. Worm B, Hilborn R, Baum JK, Branch TA, Collie JS, Tallis H, Ferdana Z, Gray E. 2008. Linking terrestrial Costello C, Fogarty MJ, Fulton EA, Hutchings JA, and marine conservation planning and threats analysis. Jennings S, et al. 2009. Rebuilding global fisheries. Science Conservation Biology 22: 120–130. 325: 578–585.

Copyright # 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2013)