Winners and Losers in Marine Conservation: Fishers' Displacement and Livelihood Benefits from Marine Reserves

Abstract

Marine reserves can create both benefits and costs to fishers. This article explores the perceptions of fishers in Kenya and Seychelles about displacement, spillover, and overall impacts of local marine reserves on their livelihoods. We test whether these perceptions are different among fishers from different geographic and socioeconomic conditions. Sixty-six percent of fishers had been displaced from marine reserves or coastal development and 90% believed they had caught fishes that spilled over from marine reserves. Poorer fishers in Kenya were both displaced from, and also felt like they benefited from, marine reserves. This highlights how people's experiences with marine reserves, both positive and negative, are affected by a range of social considerations that may not be incorporated in typical evaluations of ecological and economic marine reserve success.

Full text

T
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
w
a
s
d
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d
b
y
:
[
J
A
M
E
S
C
OO
K
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
]
O
n
:
04
A
u
g
u
s
t
2014
,
A
t
:
15
:
05
P
u
b
li
s
h
e
r
:
R
o
u
t
l
e
dg
e
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
L
t
d
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
i
n
E
n
g
l
a
n
d
a
n
d
W
a
l
e
s
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
N
u
m
b
e
r
:
1072954
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
o
ff
i
c
e
:
M
o
r
t
i
m
e
r
H
o
u
s
e
,
37
-
41
M
o
r
t
i
m
e
r
S
t
r
ee
t
,
L
o
n
d
o
n
W
1
T
3
J
H
,
U
K
S
o
c
i
e
t
y
&
N
a
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
:
A
n
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
P
u
b
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
t
a
i
l
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
i
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
a
u
t
h
o
r
s
a
n
d
s
u
b
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
:
h
tt
p
:
//
www
.
t
a
n
d
f
o
n
l
i
n
e
.
c
o
m
/
l
o
i
/
u
s
n
r
20
W
i
nn
e
r
s
a
n
d
L
o
s
e
r
s
i
n
M
a
r
i
n
e
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
:
F
i
s
h
e
r
s
'
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
L
i
v
e
l
i
h
oo
d
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
f
r
o
m
M
a
r
i
n
e
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
s
J
o
s
hu
a
E
.
C
i
nn
e
r
a
,
T
i
m
D
a
w
b
c
,
C
i
n
d
y
H
u
c
h
e
r
y
a
,
P
a
s
c
a
l
T
h
o
y
a
d
,
A
n
d
r
e
w
W
a
m
u
k
o
t
a
e
,
M
a
r
i
a
C
e
d
r
a
s
f
&
C
a
r
o
l
i
n
e
A
b
un
g
e
g
a
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
n
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
C
o
un
c
i
l
C
e
n
t
r
e
o
f
E
x
c
e
ll
e
n
c
e
f
o
r
C
o
r
a
l
R
ee
f
S
t
u
d
i
e
s
,
J
a
m
e
s
C
oo
k
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
,
T
o
w
n
s
v
i
ll
e
,
Q
u
ee
n
s
l
a
n
d
,
A
u
s
t
r
a
l
i
a
b
S
c
h
oo
l
o
f
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
o
f
E
a
s
t
A
n
g
l
i
a
,
N
o
r
w
i
c
h
,
U
n
i
t
e
d
K
i
n
g
d
o
m
c
S
t
o
c
k
h
o
l
m
R
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
c
e
C
e
n
t
r
e
,
S
t
o
c
k
h
o
l
m
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
,
S
t
o
c
k
h
o
l
m
,
S
w
e
d
e
n
d
K
e
n
y
a
M
a
r
i
n
e
a
n
d
F
i
s
h
e
r
i
e
s
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
,
M
o
m
b
a
s
a
,
K
e
n
y
a
e
S
c
h
oo
l
o
f
N
a
t
u
r
a
l
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
s
,
L
i
nn
a
e
u
s
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
,
K
a
l
m
a
r
,
S
w
e
d
e
n
f
S
e
y
c
h
e
ll
e
s
F
i
s
h
i
n
g
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
,
V
i
c
t
o
r
i
a
,
S
e
y
c
h
e
ll
e
s
g
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
S
o
c
i
e
t
y
,
C
o
r
a
l
R
ee
f
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
,
M
o
m
b
a
s
a
,
K
e
n
y
a
P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
o
n
l
i
n
e
:
04
A
u
g
2014
.
T
o
c
i
t
e
t
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
:
J
o
s
hu
a
E
.
C
i
nn
e
r
,
T
i
m
D
a
w
,
C
i
n
d
y
H
u
c
h
e
r
y
,
P
a
s
c
a
l
T
h
o
y
a
,
A
n
d
r
e
w
W
a
m
u
k
o
t
a
,
M
a
r
i
a
C
e
d
r
a
s
&
C
a
r
o
l
i
n
e
A
b
un
g
e
(
2014
)
W
i
nn
e
r
s
a
n
d
L
o
s
e
r
s
i
n
M
a
r
i
n
e
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
:
F
i
s
h
e
r
s
'
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
L
i
v
e
l
i
h
oo
d
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
f
r
o
m
M
a
r
i
n
e
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
s
,
S
o
c
i
e
t
y
&
N
a
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
:
A
n
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
,
27
:
9
,
994
-
1005
T
o
l
i
n
k
t
o
t
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
:
h
tt
p
:
//
d
x
.
d
o
i
.
o
r
g
/10
.
1080/08941920
.
2014
.
918229
P
L
E
AS
E
S
C
R
O
LL
D
O
W
N
F
O
R
A
R
T
I
C
L
E
T
a
y
l
o
r
&
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
m
a
k
e
s
e
v
e
r
y
e
ff
o
r
t
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
e
a
cc
u
r
a
c
y
o
f
a
ll
t
h
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
(
t
h
e
“
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
”
)
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
p
u
b
li
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
n
o
u
r
p
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
.
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
T
a
y
l
o
r
&
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
,
o
u
r
a
g
e
n
t
s
,
a
n
d
o
u
r
li
c
e
n
s
o
r
s
m
a
k
e
n
o
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
r
w
a
rr
a
n
t
i
e
s
w
h
a
t
s
o
e
v
e
r
a
s
t
o
t
h
e
a
cc
u
r
a
c
y
,
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
n
e
ss
,
o
r
s
u
i
t
a
b
ili
t
y
f
o
r
a
n
y
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
.
A
n
y
o
p
i
n
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
s
e
x
p
r
e
ss
e
d
i
n
t
h
i
s
p
u
b
li
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
t
h
e
o
p
i
n
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
s
o
f
t
h
e
a
u
t
h
o
r
s
,
a
n
d
a
r
e
n
o
t
t
h
e
v
i
e
w
s
o
f
o
r
e
n
d
o
r
s
e
d
b
y
T
a
y
l
o
r
&
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
.
T
h
e
a
cc
u
r
a
c
y
o
f
t
h
e
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
b
e
r
e
li
e
d
u
p
o
n
a
n
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
l
y
v
e
r
i
f
i
e
d
w
i
t
h
p
r
i
m
a
r
y
s
o
u
r
c
e
s

o
f
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
a
y
l
o
r
a
n
d
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
s
h
a
ll
n
o
t
b
e
li
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
a
n
y
l
o
ss
e
s
,
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
c
l
a
i
m
s
,
p
r
o
c
ee
d
i
n
g
s
,
d
e
m
a
n
d
s
,
c
o
s
t
s
,
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
,
d
a
m
a
g
e
s
,
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
li
a
b
ili
t
i
e
s
w
h
a
t
s
o
e
v
e
r
o
r
h
o
w
s
o
e
v
e
r
c
a
u
s
e
d
a
r
i
s
i
n
g
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
o
r
i
n
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
i
n
c
o
nn
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
,
i
n
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
o
r
a
r
i
s
i
n
g
o
u
t
o
f
t
h
e
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
C
o
n
t
e
n
t
.
T
h
i
s
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
m
a
y
b
e
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
r
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
,
t
e
a
c
h
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
s
t
u
d
y
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
.
A
n
y
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
o
r
s
y
s
t
e
m
a
t
i
c
r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
r
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
,
r
e
s
e
lli
n
g
,
l
o
a
n
,
s
u
b
-
li
c
e
n
s
i
n
g
,
s
y
s
t
e
m
a
t
i
c
s
u
pp
l
y
,
o
r
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
i
n
a
n
y
f
o
r
m
t
o
a
n
y
o
n
e
i
s
e
x
p
r
e
ss
l
y
f
o
r
b
i
dd
e
n
.
T
e
r
m
s
&
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
a
cc
e
ss
a
n
d
u
s
e
c
a
n
b
e
f
o
un
d
a
t
h
tt
p
://
www
.
t
a
n
d
f
o
n
li
n
e
.
c
o
m
/
p
a
g
e
/
t
e
r
m
s
-
a
n
d
-
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d by
[
J
A
M
E
S
C
OOK
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
]
a
t
15
:
05 04
A
ugu
s
t
2014

Winners and Losers in Marine Conservation:
Fishers’ Displacement and Livelihood Benefits
from Marine Reserves
JOSHUA E. CINNER
Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies,
James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
TIM DAW
School of International Development, University of East Anglia,
Norwich, United Kingdom, and Stockholm Resilience Centre,
Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
CINDY HUCHERY
Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies,
James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
PASCAL THOYA
Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute, Mombasa, Kenya
ANDREW WAMUKOTA
School of Natural Sciences, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden
MARIA CEDRAS
Seychelles Fishing Authority, Victoria, Seychelles
CAROLINE ABUNGE
Wildlife Conservation Society, Coral Reef Conservation Program,
Mombasa, Kenya
Marine reserves can create both benefits and costs to fishers. This article explores
the perceptions of fishers in Kenya and Seychelles about displacement, spillover,
and overall impacts of local marine reserves on their livelihoods. We test whether
these perceptions are different among fishers from different geographic and socioe-
conomic conditions. Sixty-six percent of fishers had been displaced from marine
reserves or coastal development and 90%believed they had caught fishes that spilled
Received 18 November 2012; accepted 3 August 2013.
Address correspondence to Joshua E. Cinner, Australian Research Council Centre of
Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia.
E-mail: joshua.cinner@jcu.edu.au
Society and Natural Resources, 27:994–1005
Copyright #2014 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0894-1920 print=1521-0723 online
DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2014.918229
994
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d by
[
J
A
M
E
S
C
OOK
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
]
a
t
15
:
05 04
A
ugu
s
t
2014

over from marine reserves. Poorer fishers in Kenya were both displaced from, and
also felt like they benefited from, marine reserves. This highlights how people’s
experiences with marine reserves, both positive and negative, are affected by a range
of social considerations that may not be incorporated in typical evaluations of
ecological and economic marine reserve success.
Keywords coral reef, marine reserve, protected areas, small-scale fishery, social
impacts, social–ecological system, socioeconomic
Unlike terrestrial reserves, which are largely justified for biodiversity conservation,
marine reserves are often implemented with fisheries management objectives
implicitly offering to fishers long-term benefits that may counter the negative effects
of displacement from reserves (Sala et al. 2013). These benefits and costs have differ-
ential effects among various stakeholders (Mascia and Claus 2009). The costs of dis-
placement result from increased travel to fishing grounds, with implications for fuel,
time, and safety (Daw 2008; Mascia and Claus 2009); loss of particular grounds and
fish stocks; increased search time due to loss of familiar fishing grounds; and
increased densities of fishers in remaining fishing areas (Carter 2003). The cost borne
by an individual fisher depends on the spatial fishing habits of individuals, in turn
affected by the species they target and the gears and vessels used, as well as their fish-
ing experience and skill, the availability of alternative sources of income, and a range
of socioeconomic and cultural constraints (Smith et al. 2010; Coulthard 2011). For
example, wealthier fishers are expected to benefit the most from marine reserves
because they can often influence the marine reserve establishment process to better
fit their needs, and are also better poised to take advantage of alternative opportu-
nities such as from tourism (e.g., Christie 2004; Be
´ne
´et al. 2009). Alternatively,
fishers entrenched in poverty may not have the resources or capacity to fish further
afield or diversify livelihoods (Cinner et al. 2009). Thus, reserves are expected to have
unequal effects on different fishers depending on their existing resource space, skills,
technology, institutions, and socioeconomic conditions.
In the longer term, as biomass accumulates in reserves, fishers may enjoy fish-
eries benefits from enhanced larval production (Harrison et al. 2012) and ‘‘spillover’’
of adult fish into fishing grounds (McClanahan 2010). Several ecological studies
have found higher fish biomass, total catch, or catch per unit effort (CPUE) adjacent
to reserves than further away (McClanahan and Mangi 2000; Stamoulis and
Friedlander 2013; Russ et al. 2004). Fishers may also perceive benefits related to
exclusion of outsiders, reduced competition, and better enforcement of regulations
in the vicinity of a reserve (Mascia et al. 2010), particularly if reserves are implemen-
ted as part of a broader zoning strategy.
Whether benefits can compensate for displacement costs depends on a range of
complex biological, geographical, economic, and technological factors (Smith et al.
2010). Fishers’ support for marine reserves can be undermined by discounting of
uncertain potential future benefits (Smith et al. 2010) and failure to deliver expected
benefits (Pita et al. 2011). While most studies have focussed on the effects of reserves
on fisheries yields (e.g., McClanahan 2010), fisherfolks’ perception of reserves may
also consider other ecosystem services as tourism, conservation of resources for
the future, ecosystem resilience, and ‘‘ripple effects’’ on the well-being of local com-
munities (Mascia and Claus 2009). Ultimately, how fishers perceive the trade-offs
between long- and short-term, direct and indirect benefits and costs will be crucial
Winners and Losers in Marine Conservation 995
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d by
[
J
A
M
E
S
C
OOK
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
]
a
t
15
:
05 04
A
ugu
s
t
2014

for the legitimacy and acceptance of marine reserves, compliance, and subsequently
ecological success (Pollnac et al. 2010; Christie et al. 2003). Studying fishers’ percep-
tions about the costs and benefits of marine reserves can help to highlight whether
and how they support marine reserves, define what they view as burdensome, and
inform whether policy measures could increase benefits.
While a number of studies have examined the ecological and economic dimen-
sions of spillover (reviewed by Halpern et al. 2010; Graham et al. 2011), fewer studies
have explicitly quantified the trade-off between the costs of displacement and spil-
lover (Rudd et al. 2003) and fewer still how individual fishers experience and perceive
displacement and spillover from marine reserves. In this study, we ask fishers about
their own perceptions of displacement, spillover, and overall impacts of marine
reserves on their livelihoods. Specifically, we examine whether fishers in both Kenya
and Seychelles (1) personally were displaced by a reserve or coastal development;
(2) perceived that they had caught fish that had spilled over from a reserve;
(3) perceived that their catch has changed as a result of the reserve; and (4) perceived
that a reserve has been positive or negative for their livelihoods. We test whether
these responses about perceived benefits and costs are related to fishers’ geographic
and socioeconomic characteristics. Our hypotheses are that (1) fishers who are
poorer (i.e., lower fortnightly expenditures and material style of life), elderly, and less
mobile (i.e., don’t use a boat) are more likely to experience the effects of displace-
ment, and are less likely to perceive spillover or livelihood benefits; (2) perceptions
about marine reserves are related to the use of different fishing gears; and (3) percep-
tions about displacement from and benefits of marine protected areas (MPAs) are
related to local context, history, and processes resulting in significant heterogeneity
between sites.
Methods
Study Sites
We focused on smallscale artisanal trap and hand-line fishers in Kenya and
Seychelles, which are within the same biogeographical region and both target coral
reefs and associated habitats, but the two countries represent opposite ends of the
regional spectrum of wealth and development. Seychellois fishers have powered
fiberglass boats and greater access to technology, while only some Kenyan fishers
had access to boats and none had engines. Both countries included large
state-governed marine parks and smaller, privately owned or community-managed
reserves (Table 1). Seychellois fishers have experienced additional displacement from
land reclamation activities.
Seychelles marine parks were established and are managed by government
bodies, except Cousin Island special nature reserve, which is managed and strictly
enforced by a private nongovernmental organization (NGO). In Kenya, Mombasa
Marine National Park was established in 1991 and is managed by the Kenya Wildlife
Service. In 2005, a 29-ha community-based marine reserve was established at Kinuni
with the support of environmental NGOs. This tengefu (a Swahili word meaning
putting something aside) is associated with a successful community development
organization, has full-time guards, and has a fee structure in place for visiting
tourists. Other communities have attempted to replicate the Kinuni tengefu initiative
996 J. E. Cinner et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d by
[
J
A
M
E
S
C
OOK
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
]
a
t
15
:
05 04
A
ugu
s
t
2014

Table 1. Site description of marine reserves
Marine reserve Management
Closure
size (ha)
Year
established Compliance
Sample
area
Sample
size
Estimated
number
of fishers
a
Seychelles
Curieuse MNP Government 1470 1997 Variable NE Praslin 11 70
Cousin Special Nature Reserve Private 120 1968 High SW Praslin 9 68
St Anne MNP Government 1453 1973 Variable E Mahe 32 304
Baie Ternay MNP Government 80 1979 Variable W Mahe 10 114
Port Launay MNP Government 158 1979 Variable
Kenya
Mombasa National
Marine Park
Government 1000 1991 High Bamburi 20 65
Kinuni tengefu Community based 29 2005 High Kinuni 12 26
Kuruwitu 18 34
Vipingo 13 27
Bureni tengefu Community based 5.2 2010 Low Bureni 14 30
Tiwi tengefu Community based 12.5 2009 High Tiwi 20 46
Tradewinds tengefu Community based 11.8 2009 Low Tradewinds 17 178
a
Only including artisanal fishers.
997
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d by
[
J
A
M
E
S
C
OOK
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
]
a
t
15
:
05 04
A
ugu
s
t
2014

with varying degrees of success, including at our study sites in Bureni, Tiwi and
Tradewinds (Table 1).
Sampling
We conducted structured interviews with fishers considered key spatial decision
makers during fishing (mostly captains). In Kenya, sampling of fishers was in dis-
crete landing sites, while, due to the lower numbers of fishers in Seychelles, fishers
were sampled from around the coastline of the two main islands (Mahe and Praslin)
and divided by region (Table 1). In Seychelles, small boat artisanal hand-line and
trap fishers (those most likely to have interactions with marine reserves) were selec-
ted from the Seychelles Fishing Authority list of all registered boats and requested to
take part in the interviews. Additional unregistered fishers were also sampled oppor-
tunistically based on encounters at landing sites. We grouped fishers geographically
by whether they lived in East or West Mahe, and Southwest or Southeast Praslin. In
Kenya, random sampling stratified by gear was based on a list of active fishers and
their gear generated with key informants at each landing site (Table 1).
Dependent Variables
Fishers were asked (1) whether they personally used to fish in areas where fishing
effort had been displaced (largely by marine reserves but also by coastal development
in Seychelles); (2) whether they perceived that they personally caught fish that had
come from a marine reserve; (3) the effect of the reserve on their catch (answer: posi-
tive, neutral, negative); and (4) the effect of the reserve on their livelihoods overall
(answer: positive, neutral, negative). For fishers who had been displaced we asked
an open-ended question on how they responded.
Independent Variables
We examined six key geographic and socioeconomic characteristics of fishers: (1)
whether they used a boat; (2) landing site (i.e., geographic location); (3) gear types
used, including hand line, spear, trap, gillnet, trap, mixed (i.e., a combination of
these), and other (i.e., octopus hook, seine net); (4) age (in years); (5) fortnightly
household expenditure (in U.S. dollars); and (6) a multivariate measure of material
style of life based on the presence of their household possessions and structures
(Pollnac and Crawford 2000), which was factor analyzed to develop an index of
wealth. The material style of life principal components in Kenya and Seychelles
explained 35% and 22% of the variance, respectively.
Analysis
We tested whether fishers’ experience of displacement and perception of benefits
from marine reserves (i.e., dependent variables from those already described) were
significantly different among their geographic and socioeconomic characteristics
(i.e., independent variables from those already described) using chi-squared test
for categorical variables (i.e., boat ownership, landing site, and gear type), and the
Mann–Whitney Uand Kruskal–Wallis tests for continuous variables (material style
of life, fortnightly expenditures, and age). All analyses were conducted in SPSS.
998 J. E. Cinner et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d by
[
J
A
M
E
S
C
OOK
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
]
a
t
15
:
05 04
A
ugu
s
t
2014

Results
Assessing Fishers' Displacement from Mar ine Reserves
In the Seychelles, one-third (33%) of respondents had been displaced by a reserve or
coastal development (Figure 1a), and there were significant differences between
regions. More fishers on Mahe had been displaced than on Praslin (Figure 1a;
v
2
(3, n46) 9.6, p.022).
In Kenya, nearly two-thirds (60%) of the fishers we interviewed had been dis-
placed (Figure 1b) with significant differences between landing sites (Figure 1b;
v
2
(6, n109) 31.5, p<.0001). Additionally, there was a marginally significant
relationship (p<.10) suggesting that fishers who used a boat were less displaced than
fishers who didn’t use a boat (v
2
(1, n107) 2.7, p.08). Displacement differed by
gear weakly in Seychelles (v
2
(3, n46) 7.8, p.051) but not in Kenya: v
2
(6,
n109) 8.4, p.210). In Kenya, fishers who were displaced had significantly
lower fortnightly expenditures and a lower material style of life than fishers who
were not displaced (Table 2a). In Seychelles, other socioeconomic characteristics
Figure 1. How fishers in Seychelles and Kenya perceived that they were displaced from their
fishing grounds (a, b); had their catch affected by the closure (c, d); and had their livelihood
affected by the closure (e, f). Significance indicated for the chi-squared test and pvalue.
Winners and Losers in Marine Conservation 999
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d by
[
J
A
M
E
S
C
OOK
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
]
a
t
15
:
05 04
A
ugu
s
t
2014

Table 2. Results of the questions: (a) displacement: did fishers personally use to fish in
areas that have been displaced by either MPAs or coastal development?; (b) effect on
catch: do fishers catch have increased or decreased as a result of the reserve?; and (c) effect
on livelihood: has the marine reserve been positive or negative for fishers’ livelihoods?
Displacement (a)
Fishers
displaced
Fishers not
displaced n p
Kenya
Material style of life index 0.173 0.098 0.115 0.139 107 .038
Fortnightly expenditure (USD) 99.9 6.1 131.9 11.6 103 .007
Age (years) 39.2 1.5 40.5 2.3 109 .725
Seychelles
Material style of life index 0.244 0.265 0.179 0.135 42 .191
Fortnightly expenditure (USD) 528.7 66.0 453.3 58.4 36 .194
Age (years) 49.1 3.4 46.1 2.4 45 .447
Effect on catch (b) Negative Neutral Positive n p
Kenya
Material style of life
index
0.240 0.180 0.038 0.115 0.088 0.272 81 .326
Fortnightly expenditure
(USD)
109.8 17.4 117.8 8.9 75.3 6.7 80 .007
Age (years) 37.2 1.8 38.7 1.9 42.1 3.0 82 .522
Seychelles
Material style of life
index
0.097 0.282 0.004 0.114
#
55 .925
Fortnightly expenditure
(USD)
404.0 107.6 453.6 40.6
#
46 .523
Age (years) 53.6 5.5 47.0 1.4
#
48 .201
Effect on livelihood (c) Negative Neutral Positive n p
Kenya
Material style of life
index
0.009 0.173 0.240 0.104 0.059 0.212 91 .96
Fortnightly
expenditure (USD)
110.6 11.7 120.0 9.8 84.7 7.6 90 .122
Age (years) 41.0 2.3 37.5 2.3 38.6 1.8 92 .272
Seychelles
Material style of life
index
0.268 0.221 0.457 0.361 0.005 0.120 56 .335
Fortnightly
expenditure (USD)
328.0 99.1 370.0 71.9 475.7 42.8 47 .418
Age (years) 46.9 6.4 50.6 6.6 47.4 1.7 59 .586
Note. Mean levels standard errors of material style of life, fortnightly expenditures, and
age; significance indicated by p<.05, Mann–Whitney U-test for (a) and Kruskal–Wallis test
for (b) and (c). #, Due to low sample numbers, for Seychelles the categories neutral and
positive have been combined into one category, nonnegative.
1000 J. E. Cinner et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d by
[
J
A
M
E
S
C
OOK
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
]
a
t
15
:
05 04
A
ugu
s
t
2014

were not significantly different between fishers who were displaced or not (Table 2a).
In response to displacement, respondents from Seychelles fished further out, found
new grounds, or went deep-sea fishing, whereas in Kenya the majority of displaced
fishers (67%) said they found new grounds.
Assessing Perceptions of Fish Spillover from M a rine Reserves
In both the Seychelles and Kenya, 90% of fishers felt that they had personally caught
fish that had spilled over from marine reserves. Due to the low heterogeneity in
responses, we did not test for differences across personal characteristics.
Assessing Perceptions of Cat ch Impact s from M arine Reserves
In Seychelles, most fishers (85%) perceived no effect of marine reserves on their catch
and there were no significant differences between regions (Figure 1c; v
2
(6,
n59) 5.2, p.52). In Kenya, a smaller majority of fishers (57%) also perceived
no effect, while 23% felt that their catches declined, and 20% felt that their catches
increased (Figure 1d). In Kenya, there were significant differences between regions,
with Kuruwitu and Kinuni (both landing sites adjacent to the Kuruwitu conser-
vation area) reporting the most negative impacts, but Vipingo (also nearby the same
closure) reporting the most positive effects (Figure 1d, v
2
(12, n82) 29.5,
p.003). Differences between gear types were not significant in either country. Like-
wise, using a boat made no difference to the perceived impact of a closure on fishers’
catch in Kenya. Contrary to our hypothesis that the poorer fishers would be less
likely to perceive benefits from marine reserves, in Kenya, fishers who felt that their
catch benefited from the closure had a lower fortnightly expenditure than fishers
who perceived a neutral or a negative impact (Table 2b). In Seychelles, socioeco-
nomic characteristics were not significantly different between fishers with different
perceptions about the impacts of marine reserves on their catch (Table 2b).
Assessing Perceptions of Livelihood Impact fr om M arine Reserves
In Seychelles, 75% of fishers felt that marine reserves were positive for their liveli-
hood, and this did not vary significantly by location, gear type, or socioeconomic
characteristic (Figure 1e); location: v
2
(6, n60) 5.2, p.515; gear type: v
2
(6,
n60) 8.6, p.195; Table 2c). In Kenya, 35% felt a negative impact and 19% felt
a positive impact on their livelihood (Figure 1f). There were significant differences
between regions in Kenya, with Bamburi having extremely negative overall views
about the parks impact on their livelihood, while Vipingo had the highest
(Figure 1f, v
2
(12, n92) 63.8, p<.0001). There were no significant differences
between gear types (v
2
(12, n92) 15.0, p.235), and only marginal differences
where non-boat users felt more positive impacts on their livelihood than boat users
in Kenya (v
2
(2, n90) 5.6, p.062). Other socioeconomic characteristics were not
significantly different between fishers with different perceptions about the impacts of
MPAs on their livelihoods (Table 2c).
Discussion
Of the limited empirical research on fishers’ perceptions and experiences of MPAs,
most studies have been in developed countries, and few have explicitly studied
Winners and Losers in Marine Conservation 1001
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d by
[
J
A
M
E
S
C
OOK
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
]
a
t
15
:
05 04
A
ugu
s
t
2014

perceptions of spillover (Pita et al. 2011). This article examines the perceptions and
experience of displacement and spillover due to marine reserves of nearly 200
small-scale tropical fishers from two contrasting developing countries. A key finding
is that although adult spillover has been difficult to conclusively prove in the ecologi-
cal and conservation literature (Graham et al. 2011), the vast majority of fishers in
both Kenya and Seychelles claim to have caught spilled over fish. However, while
fishers agreed that some of their catch may have come from reserves, most did
not perceive that this increased their catch to compensate for displacement, in agree-
ment with previous studies (Pita et al. 2011). The implications are that raising expec-
tations of spillover benefits during reserve inception risks later disillusionment if (as
appears the case in this study) the benefits are not perceived to outweigh the costs of
displacement. Similar results have been observed in European MPAs where fishers’
belief in positive fishery benefits declined over time (e.g., Bloomfield et al. 2012;
Mangi and Austen 2008).
Many studies of marine protected areas have been focused on aggregate
outcomes such as total catch or profit (Russ et al. 2004; McClanahan 2010), while
social scientists have drawn attention to the importance of analyzing the governance
arrangements around MPAs (Jentoft et al. 2007), including the political dynamics of
their conception (Chuenpagdee et al. 2013), as well as evaluating the winners and
losers from their establishment (Mascia et al. 2010). MPAs can further entrench
existing power inequalities through ‘‘elite capture,’’ where more powerful voices pro-
tect their interests and promote their visions at the expense of the marginalized
(Christie 2004; Be
´ne
´et al. 2009). Indeed, in Kenya, where new community-based
reserves have been negotiated and established, we found that poorer fishers and
those without boats were more likely to be displaced, consistent with our first
hypothesis. However, poorer fishers (as indicated by lower fortnightly expenditures)
were also more likely to perceive a positive effect on their catch, which was inconsist-
ent with our hypothesized expectation that the poor would be less likely to perceive
benefits from spillover. This might suggest that poorer fishers with more limited
resource spaces are more likely to perceive both the negative and positive impacts
of a closure. Our results suggest that the traditional approach of focusing on aggre-
gate outcomes (e.g., total profit or catch) has the potential to alienate the most mar-
ginalized stakeholders, particularly in the short term, as stocks inside marine reserves
rebuild (Sala et al. 2013). We suggest that marine reserve implementation in devel-
oping countries such as Kenya needs to consider ways to minimize or offset displace-
ment of the poorest fishers through programs such as targeted involvement in
planning and decision making; capacity building; and poverty reduction programs.
In Seychelles, despite considerable displacement (33%) and a distinct lack of per-
ceived catch benefits, the vast majority (75%) of fishers perceived closures as having
a positive overall impact on their livelihoods. This positive view may reflect the
widely perceived benefits of reserves for the locally important tourism industry,
the opportunity for accessing alternative fishing grounds, and the long time
since reserve establishment, which can lead to more favorable views of MPAs (Pita
et al. 2011).
In contrast, Kenyan fishers at particular sites perceived negative impacts on
both catch and livelihoods. Ironically, Bamburi is one of the few places globally
where spillover has had a demonstrable benefit for catch and profitability (the
Bamburi landing site is adjacent to the Mombasa Marine Park; McClanahan
2010), yet overall perceptions there were most negative. The adjacent Mombasa
1002 J. E. Cinner et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d by
[
J
A
M
E
S
C
OOK
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
]
a
t
15
:
05 04
A
ugu
s
t
2014

Marine Park is the only government reserve we studied in Kenya. Importantly, the
establishment was much less participatory than the other Kenyan sites, and all rev-
enues from the tourist entry fee go to the central government. In contrast, locally
managed reserves have been established through community members’ initiative in
collaboration with NGOs, and they offer the possibility to distribute financial ben-
efits from tourism or international donor support to community members. The
negative perceptions about the Mombasa Marine Park by fishers are thus consist-
ent with lower overall benefits (beyond fisheries) and lack of participation or own-
ership during establishment. These findings broadly support the contention that
attitudes toward reserves may exhibit a ‘‘path dependency,’’ influenced as much
on the processes of inception and the political meaning of a reserve among stake-
holders, as on material fisheries benefits actually derived (Chuenpagdee et al.
2013).
At smaller scales, the perception of benefits from Kenyan community-based
marine reserves was uneven. Livelihood impacts of Kinuni tengefu were perceived
more negatively at Kuruwitu and Kinuni, but positively in Vipingo, which has a
greater involvement from members of the associated community organization.
Fishers from the other two communities cited higher fisher densities in their grounds
as a result of displacement from the marine reserve. Thus, local context and pro-
cesses seem to have played a substantial role in shaping local perceptions about
the benefits and costs of marine reserves.
Our initial hypotheses were partially supported by our results. Specifically, our
first hypothesis (that fishers who are poorer, elderly, and less mobile are more likely
to experience the effects of displacement, and are less likely to perceive spillover or
livelihood benefits) had conflicting evidence: Poorer fishers were more likely to be
displaced (supporting our hypothesis), but were also more likely to perceive benefits
from marine reserves (contradicting). Age had no effect (contrasting with our
hypothesis), but mobility had marginal effects (supporting). Our second hypothesis
(that perceptions about marine reserves are related to the use of different fishing
gears) was marginally supported in Seychelles, but not in Kenya. Our third hypoth-
esis (that perceptions about displacement from and benefits of MPAs are related to
local context, history, and processes resulting in significant heterogeneity between
sites) was supported in Kenya but not Seychelles. Consistent with other multicountry
investigations (e.g., Pollnac et al. 2010), the differing patterns between our contrast-
ing case studies in Kenya and Seychelles highlight the complexity of these issues and
critical role of context.
Our results on how people differentially experience the costs and benefits from
marine reserves highlight how there are some people who win and some who lose out
in the process of marine reserve development and management (Mascia and Claus
2009). Importantly, people’s experiences with marine reserves, both positive and
negative, are affected by a range of social considerations that may not be considered
in typical evaluations of ecological (e.g., improved biomass inside marine reserve
boundaries) and economic (e.g., improved CPUE, income from tourism) marine
reserve success. More broadly, our study illustrates how the disaggregated costs
and benefits from environmental interventions can create winners and losers, which
may have potential implications for conflict, governance, and environmental justice
(Daw et al. 2011). Indeed, our results reinforce the growing recognition for the
important contributions that social science research can make in marine reserve
planning and management (Fox et al. 2012).
Winners and Losers in Marine Conservation 1003
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d by
[
J
A
M
E
S
C
OOK
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
]
a
t
15
:
05 04
A
ugu
s
t
2014

Acknowledgments
This project has relied on the goodwill of fishers who have generously cooperated
with this project by taking part in interviews and discussions.
Funding
This project was funded by a grant from the Western Indian Ocean Marine Science
Association (WIOMSA) under Phase III of the Marine Science for Management
(MASMA) programme and by the Australian Research Council.
References
Be
´ne
´, C., E. Belal, M. O. Baba, S. Ovie, A. Raji, I. Malasha, F. Njaya, M. N. Andi, A. Russell,
and A. Neiland. 2009. Power struggle, dispute and alliance over local resources: Analyz-
ing ‘democratic’ decentralization of natural resources through the lenses of Africa inland
fisheries. World Dev. 37:1935–1950.
Bloomfield, H. J., C. J. Sweeting, A. C. Mill, S. M. Stead, and N. V. C. Polunin. 2012.
No-trawl area impacts: Perceptions, compliance and fish abundances. Environ. Conserv.
39(3):237–247.
Carter, D. W. 2003. Protected areas in marine resource management: Another look at the
economics and research issues. Ocean Coastal Manage. 46:439–456.
Christie, P. 2004. Marine protected areas as biological successes and social failures in south-
east Asia. Am. Fisheries Society Symp. 42:155–164.
Christie, P., B. J. McCay, M. L. Miller, C. Lowe, A. T. White, R. Stoffle, D. L. Fluharty,
L. T. McManus, R. Chuenpagdee, C. Pomeroy, D. O. Suman, B. G. Blount, D. Huppert,
R. L. V. Eisma, E. Oracion, K. Lowry, and R. B. Pollnac. 2003. Toward developing a
complete understanding: A social science research agenda for marine protected areas.
Fisheries 28(12):22–26.
Chuenpagdee, R., J. J. Pascual-Ferna
´ndez, E. Szelia
´nszky, J. Luis Alegret, J. Fraga, and
S. Jentoft. 2013. Marine protected areas: Re-thinking their inception. Mar. Policy
39(0):234–240.
Cinner, J. E., T. Daw, and T. R. McClanahan. 2009. Socioeconomic factors that affect
artisanal fishers’ readiness to exit a declining fishery. Conserv. Biol. 23(1):124–130.
Coulthard, S. 2011. More than just access to fish: The pros and cons of fisher participation in
a customary marine tenure (Padu) system under pressure. Mar. Policy 35(3):405–412.
Daw, T. M. 2008. Spatial distribution of effort by artisanal fishers: Exploring economic
factors affecting the lobster fisheries of the Corn Islands, Nicaragua. Fisheries Res.
90(1–3):17–25.
Daw, T. M., K. Brown, S. Rosendo, and R. Pomeroy. 2011. Applying the ecosystem services
concept to poverty alleviation: The need to disaggregate human well-being. Environ.
Conserv. 38(4):370–379.
Fox, H. E., M. B. Mascia, X. Basurto, A. Costa, L. Glew, D. Heinemann, L. B. Karrer,
S. E. Lester, A. V. Lombana, R. S. Pomeroy, C. A. Recchia, C. M. Roberts, J. N.
Sanchirico, L. Pet-Soede, and A. T. White. 2012. Reexamining the science of marine
protected areas: Linking knowledge to action. Conserv. Lett. 5(1):1–10.
Graham, N. A. J., T. D. Ainsworth, A. H. Baird, N. C. Ban, L. K. Bay, J. E. Cinner, D. M. De
Freitas, G. Diaz-Pulido, M. Dornelas, S. R. Dunn, P. I. J. Fidelman, S. Foret, T. C. Good,
J. Kool, J. Mallela, L. Penin, M. S. Pratchett, and D. H. Williamson. 2011. From microbes
to people: Tractable benefits of no-take areas for coral reefs. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Annu.
Rev. 49:117–148.
1004 J. E. Cinner et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d by
[
J
A
M
E
S
C
OOK
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
]
a
t
15
:
05 04
A
ugu
s
t
2014

Halpern, B. S., S. E. Lester, and J. B. Kellner. 2010. Spillover from marine reserves and the
replenishment of fished stocks. Environ. Conserv. 36:268–276.
Harrison, H. B., D. H. Williamson, R. D. Evans, G. R. Almany, S. R. Thorrold, G. R. Russ,
K. A. Feldheim, L. van Herwerden, S. Planes, M. Srinivasan, M. L. Berumen, and G. P.
Jones. 2012. Larval export from marine reserves and the recruitment benefit for fish and
fisheries. Curr. Biol. 22(11):1023–1028.
Jentoft, S., T. Son, and M. Bjørkan. 2007. Marine protected areas: A governance system
analysis. Hum. Ecol. 35(5):611–622.
Mangi, S. C., and M. C. Austen. 2008. Perceptions of stakeholders towards objectives and
zoning of marine-protected areas in southern Europe. J. Nat. Conserv. 16(4):271–280.
Mascia, M. B., and C. A. Claus. 2009. A property rights approach to understanding human
displacement from protected areas: The case of marine protected areas. Conserv. Biol.
23(1):16–23.
Mascia, M. B., C. A. Claus, and R. Naidoo. 2010. Impacts of marine protected areas on
fishing communities. Conserv. Biol. 24(5):1424–1429.
McClanahan, T. R. 2010. Effects of fisheries closures and gear restrictions on fishing income
in a Kenyan coral reef. Conserv. Biol. 24(6):1519–1528.
McClanahan, T., and S. Mangi. 2000. Spillover of exploitable fishes from a marine park and
its effect on the adjacent fishery. Ecol. Appl. 10(6):1792–1805.
Pita, C., G. J. Pierce, L. Theodossiou, and K. Macpherson. 2011. An overview of commercial
fishers’ attitudes towards marine protected areas. Hydrobiologia 670(1):289–306.
Pollnac, R., P. Christie, J. E. Cinner, T. Dalton, T. M. Daw, G. E. Forrester, N. A. J. Graham,
and T. R. McClanahan. 2010. Marine reserves as linked social-ecological systems. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107(43):18262–18265.
Pollnac, R., and B. Crawford. 2000. Assessing behavioural aspects of coastal resource use.
Proyek Pesisir Publications Special Report. Coastal Resources Center Report 2226.
Narragansett, RI: Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island.
Rudd, M. A., M. H. Tupper, H. Folmer, and G. C. van Kooten. 2003. Policy analysis for
tropical marine reserves: Challenges and directions. Fish Fisheries 4:65–85.
Russ, G., A. C. Alcala, A. P. Maypa, H. P. Calumpong, and A. T. White. 2004. Marine
reserve benefits local fisheries. Ecol. Appl. 14(2):597–606.
Sala, E., C. Costello, D. Dougherty, G. Heal, K. Kelleher, J. H. Murray, A. A. Rosenberg,
and R. Sumaila. 2013. A general business model for marine reserves. PLoS One
8(4):e58799.
Smith, M. D., J. Lynham, J. N. Sanchirico, and J. A. Wilson. 2010. Political economy of mar-
ine reserves: Understanding the role of opportunity costs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
107(43):18300–18305.
Stamoulis, K. A., and A. M. Friedlander. 2013. A seascape approach to investigating fish
spillover across a marine protected area boundary in Hawai’i. Fisheries Research
144:2–14.
Winners and Losers in Marine Conservation 1005
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d by
[
J
A
M
E
S
C
OOK
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
]
a
t
15
:
05 04
A
ugu
s
t
2014