Hindsight in Marine Protected Area Selection: a Comparison of Ecological Representation Arising from Opportunistic and Systematic Approaches ⇑ Gretchen J.A

Biological Conservation 144 (2011) 1866–1875 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Hindsight in marine protected area selection: A comparison of ecological representation arising from opportunistic and systematic approaches ⇑ Gretchen J.A. Hansen a, , Natalie C. Ban b,c, Michael L. Jones a, Les Kaufman d, Hazel M. Panes e, Maï Yasué b,f, Amanda C.J. Vincent b a Michigan State University, Quantitative Fisheries Center and Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, 13 Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, MI 4882, USA b Project Seahorse, Fisheries Centre, The University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver BC, Canada V6T 1Z4 c Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia d Boston University Marine Program, Department of Biology, Boston University, 5 Cummington Street, Boston, MA 02445, USA e Project Seahorse Foundation for Marine Conservation, Gaviola Cmpd, Ma. Theresa Village II. Guadalupe, Cebu 6000, Philippines f Quest University Canada, 3200 University Blvd., Squamish, BC, Canada V8B 0N8 article info abstract Article history: Systematic approaches to site selection for marine protected areas (MPAs) are often favored over oppor- Received 2 June 2010 tunistic approaches as a means to meet conservation objectives efficiently. In this study, we compared Received in revised form 28 December 2010 analytically the conservation value of these two approaches. We locate this study in Danajon Bank, cen- Accepted 1 April 2011 tral Philippines, where many MPAs were established opportunistically based on community preference, Available online 29 April 2011 with few if any contributions from biophysical data. We began by identifying the biophysical data that would have been available when the first MPA was created in Danajon Bank (1995). We next used these Keywords: data with the reserve selection software Marxan to identify MPAs that covered the same area as is pro- Marine reserve tected under the current set of MPAs (0.32% of the total study area) and that would protect the greatest Community-based conservation Conservation planning number of conservation targets at the lowest cost. We finally compared the conservation value of the cur- Marxan rent MPAs to the value of those selected by Marxan. Because of the dearth of biophysical data available in Philippines 1995 and the small area currently under protection, Marxan identified multiple configurations of MPAs Danajon Bank that would protect the same percentage of conservation targets, with little differentiation among sites. Further, we discovered that the costs of obtaining and analyzing these data to be used for conservation planning would have been large relative to resources typically available to conservation planners in developing countries. Finally, we found that the current set of MPAs protected more ecological features than would be expected by chance, although not as many as could be protected using a systematic approach. Our results suggest that an opportunistic approach can be a valuable component of conservation planning, especially when biophysical data are sparse and community acceptance is a critical factor affecting the success of an MPA. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction WCPA/IUCN, 2007), although the exact targets are debated (Carwardine et al., 2009; McLeod et al., 2009; Moffitt et al., Marine protected areas (MPAs) make vital contributions to mar- 2011). Globally, MPAs protect less than 1% of ocean habitats (Wood ine conservation, particularly in regions such as the Philippines et al., 2007). It is tremendously important to hasten the rate of with multi-species fisheries and where strong governmental con- MPA establishment, while still meeting conservation objectives trol of fisheries is lacking (Hilborn et al., 2004). While MPAs have in order to meet the World Summit on Sustainable Development acknowledged limitations (e.g., Allison et al., 1998; Byers and commitment to a globally representative network of MPAs by the Noonburg, 2007), they are enjoying growing political support year 2012 (WCPA/IUCN, 2007). (WCPA/IUCN, 2007; UNEP/WCMC, 2008). It has been suggested A large body of literature emphasizes the importance of sci- that protection of 20% or more of marine habitats is necessary to ence-driven, systematic approaches to selecting reserve locations. ensure the effectiveness of MPAs (Roberts, 2000; NRC, 2001; It has been argued that systematic approaches are more efficient and effective means of achieving representation of conservation targets than opportunistic approaches (e.g., Pressey et al., 1993; ⇑ Corresponding author. Present address: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Margules and Pressey, 2000; Stewart et al., 2003). In a systematic Center for Limnology, 680 N Park Street, Madison, WI 53706, USA. Tel.: +1 608 263 2465. process, key features for ecosystem function (e.g., species, pro- E-mail address: [email protected] (G.J.A. Hansen). cesses, habitats) are identified as conservation targets (Groves 0006-3207/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.04.002 G.J.A. Hansen et al. / Biological Conservation 144 (2011) 1866–1875 1867 et al., 2002), and objectives are set for the amount of each target to et al., 2007; Hansen and Jones, 2008). In a recent study examining be protected. Community-driven approaches are often called the trade-off between data acquisition and conservation action in a ‘opportunistic’ because they establish MPAs where they are most terrestrial reserve, Grantham and others (2009) determined that in easily implemented and enforced, i.e., where there are opportuni- the face of increasing habitat loss, conducting species distribution ties (Knight and Cowling, 2007; Pressey and Bottrill, 2008). surveys for more than 2 years did not increase the effectiveness of While a diversity of approaches to systematic conservation reserves. Importantly, the Grantham et al. study emphasizes the planning exists, the overall goal is usually the persistence of a rep- opportunity cost of delaying conservation action to obtain more resentative sample of diversity within the minimum possible area accurate species distribution data when habitat data already exist. (Pressey and Bottrill, 2009). Systematic approaches rely upon sub- However, those authors assumed that the data acquisition costs stantial data inputs to identify priority areas for conservation, and were zero for both obtaining existing habitat data and species dis- so biophysical data such as species distributions or surrogates of tribution surveys. In reality, even collating existing data and for- species diversity are often primary targets (Roberts et al., 2003a). matting data for use in systematic conservation planning may The process of systematic conservation planning sometimes in- represent substantial costs relative to available resources. cludes involvement of stakeholders and iterative identification of conservation priorities (Pressey and Bottrill, 2009), but most sys- 1.1. Objectives tematic conservation planning efforts focus on the selection of protected areas to meet conservation objectives with limited, if any, Here we compare opportunistic to systematic approaches based emphasis on stakeholder involvement (e.g., Margules and Pressey, on a suite of MPAs in the central Philippines. These were estab- 2000; Groves et al., 2002). For the purposes of this analysis, we use lished primarily through opportunistic processes, and we compare the term systematic conservation planning to refer to the identifi- these existing reserves to a hypothetical set of reserves selected cation of conservation areas that achieve maximum representation using a systematic approach based on available data (i.e., data that of ecological features in the smallest amount of area, and do not in- had already been collected at the time of MPA creation). In this pa- clude the entire process of conservation planning as recently de- per we took three steps: (1) assembled all biophysical data that fined by Pressey and Bottrill (2009). would have been available in 1995 when the first MPA was estab- Opportunistic approaches to reserve planning identify reserve lished in the region; (2) used these data and systematic reserve locations through community stakeholder discussions. Criteria selection software to identify an optimal reserve configuration for reserve placement include pragmatic considerations such as comprising the same area as is currently protected; and (3) evalu- ease of enforcement and maximizing fish population recovery ated the value of the existing MPAs in terms of meeting ecological (e.g., White and Vogt, 2000; Johannes, 2002; Oracion et al., 2005) representation targets. Our objectives were to determine the costs and often draw upon indigenous ecological knowledge (e.g., Game and benefits of obtaining biophysical data to be used for reserve et al., 2011). Biophysical information may or may not be included planning in this region, and to compare the ecological representa- (Roberts, 2000; Weeks et al., 2010). A major concern with the tiveness of the existing MPAs to that of MPAs that would have been opportunistic process is the risk that it will dedicate resources to selected systematically using biophysical data. Because one of our areas that are not critical for biodiversity representation at the ex- main objectives was to document the process and costs of assem- pense of those

Load more