A Social–Ecological Systems Approach to Assessing Conservation and Fisheries Outcomes in Fijian Locally Managed Marine Areas

<p>Locally managed marine areas (LMMAs) are often recommended as a strategy to achieve conservation and fisheries management, though few studies have evaluated their performance against these objectives. We assessed the effectiveness of eight periodically harvested closures (PHCs), the most common form of management within Fijian LMMAs, focusing on two outcomes: protection of resource units and biodiversity conservation. Of the eight PHCs, only one provided biodiversity benefits, whereas three were moderately successful in protecting resource units (targeted fish biomass). Protection of resource units was more likely when PHCs were harvested less frequently, less recently, and when total fish biomass in open areas was lower. Our findings further suggest that monitoring, enforcement, and clearly defined boundaries are critical, less frequent harvesting regimes are advised, and culturally appropriate management incentives are needed. Although PHCs have some potential to protect resource units, they are not recommended as a single strategy for broad-scale biodiversity conservation.</p

Mechanisms that may give rise to trade-offs, including description and examples from the literature.

<p>Mechanisms that may give rise to trade-offs, including description and examples from the literature.</p

Visual representations of how the three conceptual trade-offs (as identified by Mouchet <i>et al</i>. (23)) may appear across the seven outcomes assessed in our study.

<p>Each example radar plot (A,B,C) shows all five focal outcomes (ecosystem health, migratory species, fishery resources, well-being of user groups (e.g., fishers), and well-being of users of the ecosystem (e.g., coastal residents, tourists), with the inner-most band representing a decline and the outside line representing an increase (indicated with ‘worst’ to ‘best’ on the radar plot). Key outcome trade-offs have been circled to aid understanding of the trade-off typology and how it applies to our data. Outcome abbreviations used in radar plot: Eco = ecosystem health change; WB_Eco = well-being change of the user of the ecosystem health indicator; WB_Fish = well-being change of the user of the fisheries indicator; Mig = migratory species change; Fish = fisheries change. <b>A</b>: Supply trade-off: ecosystem health improving, but fisheries declining (or vice versa; conservation versus use). <b>B</b>: Supply-demand trade-off: fisheries improving, but well-being of a user (fisher) declining (or vice versa). <b>C</b>: Demand trade-off: differentiated impacts in the well-being of different users, with a well-being decline of a user dependent on fisheries, and a well-being improvement of a user dependent on ecosystem health (e.g. tourism) (or vice versa).</p

The three main components of the social-ecological system and the five outcomes measured in this study.

<p>The three main components of the social-ecological system and the five outcomes measured in this study.</p

Visual representations of how the three conceptual trade-offs (as identified by Mouchet <i>et al</i>. (23)) may appear across the seven outcomes assessed in our study.

<p>Each example radar plot (A,B,C) shows all five focal outcomes (ecosystem health, migratory species, fishery resources, well-being of user groups (e.g., fishers), and well-being of users of the ecosystem (e.g., coastal residents, tourists), with the inner-most band representing a decline and the outside line representing an increase (indicated with ‘worst’ to ‘best’ on the radar plot). Key outcome trade-offs have been circled to aid understanding of the trade-off typology and how it applies to our data. Outcome abbreviations used in radar plot: Eco = ecosystem health change; WB_Eco = well-being change of the user of the ecosystem health indicator; WB_Fish = well-being change of the user of the fisheries indicator; Mig = migratory species change; Fish = fisheries change. <b>A</b>: Supply trade-off: ecosystem health improving, but fisheries declining (or vice versa; conservation versus use). <b>B</b>: Supply-demand trade-off: fisheries improving, but well-being of a user (fisher) declining (or vice versa). <b>C</b>: Demand trade-off: differentiated impacts in the well-being of different users, with a well-being decline of a user dependent on fisheries, and a well-being improvement of a user dependent on ecosystem health (e.g. tourism) (or vice versa).</p

The three main components of the social-ecological system and the five outcomes measured in this study.

<p>The three main components of the social-ecological system and the five outcomes measured in this study.</p

Radar plots of all outcomes for each case study.

<p>Inner line is declining status, middle line is same or mixed effects, and outer line is increasing status. Missing data (either where there was no user so an outcome was not appropriate, or no data present) were not plotted as points on the radar chart and the lines connect the points where data were present. Outcome abbreviations used in radar plot: Eco = ecosystem health change; WBEco = well-being change of the user of the ecosystem health indicator; WBFish = well-being change of the user of the fisheries indicator; Migratory = migratory species change; Fish = fisheries change.</p