![Modified sustainable livelihoods framework (adapted from [33-35]).](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nathan-Bennett-4/publication/326309917/figure/fig1/AS:649421347897346@1531845523642/Modified-sustainable-livelihoods-framework-adapted-from-33-35_Q320.jpg)
Content uploaded by Nathan James Bennett
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nathan James Bennett on Jul 17, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Why local people do not support conservation: Community
perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance
and management in Thailand
$
Nathan James Bennett
a,b,
n
, Philip Dearden
c
a
Department of Geography, University of Victoria, PO Box 3060 STN CSC, Victoria, BC, Canada V8W 3R4
b
Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Canada
c
Marine Protected Areas Research Group, Department of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada
article info
Article history:
Received 31 May 2013
Received in revised form
1 August 2013
Accepted 4 August 2013
Available online 30 August 2013
Keywords:
Marine protected areas
Conservation impacts
Livelihoods
Governance
Management
abstract
Conservation success is often predicated on local support for conservation which is strongly influenced by
perceptions of the impacts that are experienced by local communities and opinions of management and
governance. Marine protected areas (MPAs) are effective conservation and fisheries management tools that
can also have a broad array of positive and negative social, economic, cultural, and political impacts on local
communities. Drawing on results from a mixed-methods study of communities on the Andaman Coast of
Thailand, this paper explores perceptions of MPA impacts on community livelihood resources (assets) and
outcomes as well as MPA governance and management. The area includes 17 National Marine Parks (NMPs)
that are situated near rural communities that are highly dependent on coastal resources. Interview
participants perceived NMPs to have limited to negative impacts on fisheries and agricultural livelihoods
and negligible benefits for tourism livelihoods. Perceived impacts on livelihoods were felt to result from
NMPs undermining access to or lacking support for development of cultural, social, political, financial,
natural, human, physical, and political capital assets. Conflicting views emerged on whether NMPs resulted in
negative or positive marine or terrestrial conservation outcomes. Perceptions of NMP governance and
management processes were generally negative. These results point to some necessary policy improvements
and actions to ameliorate: the relationship between the NMP and communities, NMP management and
governance processes, and socio-economic and conservation outcomes.
&2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Marine protected areas (MPAs) are an important instrument for
conservation and fisheries management. MPAs can protect habitats,
ecosystem structure, functioning and integrity, and species diver-
sity, richness, size and density [1–3]. These conservation and fish-
eries benefits are particularly evident in “no-take”MPAs [4].Their
import as a management tool has lead to increasing numbers of
MPAs around the world –more than 6800 MPAs covering 2.86%
of Exclusive Economic Zones in 2010 [5] –and global commitments
to scale up the coverage of MPAs to 10% aerial coverage by 2020 [6].
The management and conservation benefits of MPAs can also
lead to positive outcomes for local communities through spillover of
fish into local fisheries [7–12], mitigation of climatic and environ-
mental threats [13], and tourism livelihood benefits [14–17]. Yet
MPAs have also been criticized for leading to negative social,
economic, cultural and political impacts for local people and
communities (see literature review below). This is problematic
since support for and the success of MPAs is predicated on positive
local perceptions of socio-economic and ecological outcomes in
many locations [18–21]. Support is also dependent on perceptions
of the effectiveness and quality of management and governance
policies, institutions, and processes [22–25].
Situated between Malaysia and Myanmar and facing the Bay of
Bengal, the Andaman coast of Thailand is an area of high
biodiversity and ecological importance [26]. Within the
116,000 km
2
of marine area, there are important areas of seagrass,
coral reefs, and mangroves [27,28]. However, the ecological health
of the area is threatened by overexploitation and destructive
fishing, degradation and loss of habitats, and pollution and fish-
eries are in decline [28–30]. There are a number of MPAs in the
area, including several smaller community-based MPAs [31], one
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol
Marine Policy
0308-597X/$ - see front matter &2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.08.017
$
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works License, which per-
mits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original author and source are credited.
n
Corresponding author at: Department of Geography, University of Victoria, PO
Box 3060 STN CSC, Victoria, BC, Canada V8W 3R4. Tel.: +1 250 721 7327;
fax: +1 250 721 6216.
E-mail addresses: njbennet@uvic.ca,
mr.nathan.bennett@gmail.com (N.J. Bennett),
pdearden@office.geog.uvic.ca (P. Dearden).
Marine Policy 44 (2014) 107–116
non-hunting area, several environmental protected areas, 12 fish-
eries sanctuaries, and 16 established and 1 proposed National
Marine Parks (NMPs) that are under the jurisdiction of the
Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation
(DNP) of Thailand [32]. The NMPs cover a total area of 483,990 ha
and have a threefold mandate: conservation, education/research,
and tourism/recreation. However, the region is highly populated
(42 million inhabitants in 6 provinces) and reliant on fisheries,
and the NMPs are situated in areas near or around many of the 621
small-scale fishing communities along the coast [30].
It is important that community perceptions of NMP impacts on
local livelihood outcomes and assets as well as of governance and
management are examined so that NMP processes can be adapted
and outcomes improved. This paper presents results of a multiple
case study of 7 communities situated near 4 NMPs on the Andaman
coast of Thailand. The analysis of perceptions is framed around
various aspects of the sustainable livelihoods [33–35], governance
[23,36], and management [22,37] literatures. The paper proceeds
with a review of literature on the impacts of MPAs on local
communities and the theories that frame the analysis prior to
describing sites and methods and presenting results.
2. Review and theory
2.1. MPAs and local communities
MPAs can benefit local communities. Proponents have long
suggested that MPAs can lead to empowerment, improved govern-
ance, alternative livelihoods, improved fisheries, and social, educa-
tional, and cultural benefits [3,14,38–40]. In practice, however,
MPAs have lead to quite divergent outcomes (Tabl e 1). For example,
one study [17] revealed that MPAs can lead to poverty reduction
through tourism jobs, better governance, health improvements, and
empowerment of women. PacificislandMPAsimprovedfisheries
landings, governance, community organization, resilience and
adaptation, health, integration, traditional management measures,
and security of tenure [41]. On the other hand, Christie [42]
demonstrated that MPAs in Philippines and Indonesia were “biolo-
gical successes and social failures”through limiting participation,
inequitably sharing economic benefits, and lacking in conflict
resolution mechanisms. Cayos Cochinos MPA in Honduras has
restricted livelihoods without providing alternatives and limited
access to traditional areas that are now open to tourists [43].
Bavinck et al. [44] showed that the Gulf of Mannar National Park
and Biosphere Reserve in India has exacerbated pre-existing conflict
and led to violence against officials. Even in the flagship Apo Island
Marine Protected Area in the Philippines, support for the MPA has
declined due to a switch from community-based to centralized
national management and governance [24]. What all of these
studies and broader more integrative studies confirm is the impor-
tance of considering community livelihoods, particularly when “no-
take”MPAs are employed, as well as governance and management
for the success of MPAs [22,45–47].
2.2. Framework for analysis
The sustainable livelihoods literatures provided a frame of
reference for our research and analysis. Sustainable livelihoods
frameworks proposed by Carney [33], DFID [72], Scoones [34] and
Ellis [35] suggest that there are a number of micro to macro-level
contextual factors –including trends and shocks as well as
policies, institutions, and processes –that transform and mediate
access to assets and have impacts on livelihood strategies or
portfolios and the resultant socio-economic and environmental
outcomes (Fig. 1). Central to the sustainable livelihoods frame-
works are a number of capitals or assets that are the platform for
livelihood strategies. These assets include natural, social, human,
physical, financial, cultural, and political capitals –definitions of
each provided in Table 2. In the context of this framework, a
marine protected area can be seen as a social institution that is
comprised of a series of laws, policies and processes that are
enacted by various levels of government (as well as private sector
and civil society actors) through applied governance and manage-
ment. It has been suggested elsewhere that the SL framework is
useful as a tool for analyzing the impacts of protected areas on
livelihood outcomes and assets and the role of protected area
policies, institutions, and processes (i.e., management and govern-
ance) in producing these outcomes with the ultimate goal of
improving conservation practice [73,74].
Since the sustainable livelihoods literatures provided little
guidance on management and governance, literatures on pro-
tected areas governance [23,36] and management [22,37] were
also used when analyzing results of this study. Good governance is
promoted through legitimacy, transparency, accountability, inclu-
siveness or participation, fairness or equity, integration or coordi-
nation, capability, and adaptability. Effective MPA management
requires adequate capacity and resources, effective communica-
tion of rules and regulations (e.g., boundaries), extensive programs
of education and outreach, participatory processes of creation and
management structures, consideration of the values of all stake-
holders, relationships built on trust, coordination with other
management institutions, integration of scientific and traditional
knowledge, and mechanisms for conflict resolution and to ensure
Table 1
Potential socio-economic impacts of marine protected areas on local communities [7,15–17 ,24,43,44,48–71].
Benefits Consequences
Increased food security
Increased wealth
More household assets
Higher levels of employment
Diversified livelihood options
Greater access to health and social infrastructure
Revitalized cultural institutions
Improved governance
Greater community organization
More participation in natural resource management
Increased empowerment of women
Reinvigorated common property regimes
Increased resilience
Decreased food security
Increased restrictions
Decreased power and alienation from NRM
Forced migration
Loss of assets
Increased poverty
Loss of social and educational facilities
Inequitable distribution of benefits
Loss of tenure
Increased social tension
Increased conflict and political struggles
Exacerbated vulnerabilities
Negative socio-cultural changes
Reduced adaptive capacity
N.J. Bennett, P. Dearden / Marine Policy 44 (2014) 107–116108
transparency and accountability. Effective management also relies
on monitoring, evaluation and adaptation of actions based on a
management plan.
3. Site description and methods
3.1. Study sites
Seven communities, situated near 4 different MPAs, were
chosen for the purposes of this study. The communities included
in this study were Baan Tha Khao and Baan Koh Panyee near Ao
Phang-Nga NMP and Than Bhok Khorani NMP, Baan Lions and
Baan Tapae Yoi near the proposed Koh Phrathong NMP, and Baan
Koh Chang, Baan Moken and Baan Ko Sin Hi near Mu Koh Ranong
NMP (Fig. 2; Note: Baan¼Village; Koh¼Island). The NMPs under
question were all located on the northern Andaman coast of
Thailand. They each contain important areas of seagrass, man-
groves, or coral reefs and all have forested islands within their
boundaries. Tourism visitations varied significantly across the sites
with Ao Phang Nga NMP (202,808 visitors) receiving the highest
average visitation between 2002 and 2007, followed by Than Bhok
Khorani (84,506), Mu Koh Ranong (3267), and Mu Koh Rah-Koh
Phrathong (355) [26]. The communities were chosen for diversity
–of livelihoods, population, ethnicity, geography, and marine
habitat dependencies –but also for feasibility. Livelihoods in the
communities consisted primarily of fisheries, agriculture and
plantations, tourism, and migration for wage labor. Populations
ranged from 57 to 1775 people. Ethnic groups in the communities
included Thai Muslim, Thai Buddhist, indigenous Moken [76,77],
as well as Malaysian and Thai diaspora.
3.2. Methods, analysis and limitations
A mixed-methods approach, including interviews and house-
hold surveys, was chosen to examine perceptions of the MPA
impacts on neighboring communities as well as perceptions of
governance and management processes. This study was part of a
broader study that also focused on environmental change, vulner-
ability, and adaptive capacity. Exploratory and in-depth individual
interviews (total¼85) were conducted with community leaders
(n¼22), community group leaders (n¼5), community members
(n¼35), government employees (n¼3), NGO representatives
(n¼7), academics (n¼3), and government agency representatives
(n¼10). The sample included 24 females and 61 males. In addition,
23 interviews were facilitated with groups of 2–5 community
members. Surveys were completed with 237 households in the
7 communities representing between 21% and 47.7% of households
in each community. Households were selected randomly from
community maps by selecting every nth house. Survey partici-
pants were 40.9% male and were an average of 42.1 years old.
The majority of the survey was focused on adaptive capacity;
Fig. 1. Modified sustainable livelihoods framework (adapted from [33–35]).
Table 2
Definitions of the capital assets (adapted from [33,34,75]).
Capital assets
Natural
capital
The natural resource stocks from which resource flows useful for livelihoods are derived (e.g., land, water, wildlife, biodiversity, environmental
resources)
Social capital The social resources (networks, membership of groups, relationships of trust, access to wider institutions of society) upon which people draw in pursuit
of livelihoods
Human
capital
The skills, knowledge, ability to labor and good health important to the ability to pursue different livelihood strategies
Physical
capital
The basic infrastructure (transport, shelter, water, energy, and communications) and the production equipment and means that enable people to pursue
their livelihoods
Financial
capital
The financial resources which are available to people (whether savings, supplies of credit or regular remittances or pensions) and which provide them
with different livelihood options
Cultural
capital
The practices, traditions, and resources that are central to a people's identity and the means and processes to maintain these
Political
capital
The policies and legislations, political supports, governance processes, and formalized institutions that facilitate or hinder the transformation of the
other capital assets
N.J. Bennett, P. Dearden / Marine Policy 44 (2014) 107–116 109
however, several sections also focused on perceptions of the NMPs.
In particular, participants were asked whether they agreed, dis-
agreed, or were neutral on questions related to the impact of the
MPA on marine conservation, terrestrial conservation, participa-
tion in management, knowledge or nature and support for con-
servation, tourism jobs and benefits, and access to livelihood
resources.
Trained research assistants translated interviews as they were
conducted. Field notes were taken, transcribed, and uploaded into
NVivo qualitative research software. Analysis was conducted in an
inductive fashion and then thematically organized under the
various components of the sustainable livelihoods framework:
livelihood strategies, livelihood outcomes, livelihood resources
(i.e., capital assets), and policies, institutions and processes (i.e.,
governance and management). Survey data was analyzed in SAS
and SPSS quantitative research software.
Limitations of this study include a gender bias in the interview
sample and potential cultural misunderstandings or language
mistranslations. The selective sampling of communities means
that results are not generalizable to all communities and NMPs but
provide important insights.
4. Results
4.1. Livelihood strategies and socio-economic outcomes
Across all of the sites, the most discussed and worrying effect of
the creation of the NMPs was the impact on livelihood strategies
and outcomes. Opinions about observed or possible outcomes
varied depending on livelihood strategies (Table 3). Participants
were most often concerned about the exclusion of fishers and
subsistence harvesters from the area. This was more of a concern
in the communities near the proposed Koh Ra-Koh Phrathong
NMP where a commonly expressed opinion was “if there is a
demarcation of a controlled zone then people cannot make a living
from fishing and collecting shells”. In the NMPs that had already
been created, participants also discussed the negative impact on
fishers and gleaners. However, many participants in these areas
observed that there had been minimal impact on fishers because
either (a) DNP regulations allowed small-scale fishing in the NMP
as long as fishers followed Department of Fisheries (DoF) regula-
tions or (b) DNP regulations did not technically allow fishing in the
NMP but the managers did not enforce the regulations. A fisher
from Koh Panyee in Ao Phang-Nga said “Locals can still fish there
with no problems.”Fishers near Mu Ko Ranong MNP would
express sentiments such as “I did not hear anything about any
new rules. I have not changed anything from the past.”Lower level
management and staff in the DNP offices showed empathy
towards local fishers –“As long as the gear is not against the
[DoF] law we don't intervene, because it is people's livelihoods.”–
and said that this was the reason that rules were not enforced for
local fishers. Participants often said that it was only in areas where
there were tourists that the DNP enforced the rules. For example,
in Than Bhok Khorani “DNP does not allow you to collect shells on
some islands. It is restricted. On some touristy islands they do not
allow [harvesting] but on the [islands] that are not so well known
it is allowed.”Quantitative survey results showed that participants
were more likely to feel that the MNP would decrease access to
natural resources for livelihoods and household use (Fig. 3).
Perceived livelihood outcomes of the potential loss of access to
fish and harvest for livelihoods and subsistence were varied, ranging
from that the NMP would (a) have no impact on incomes or
households if the rules were not enforced to (b) concerns that the
loss of rights to fish and harvest would result in increased poverty,
decreased well-being, increased conflict, and declining food secur-
ity. Participants from near Koh Ra-Ko Phrathong NMP often dis-
cussed the example of Mu Koh Surin MNP where the DNP stopped
the traditional Moken community from fishing and harvesting in
the area without providing other livelihoods options. They felt that
this had made traditional local fishers into criminals: “They have to
steal from the sea to make a living. They have lived there for 10
generations, but they have no choice…Everything they do is illegal,
they cannot even collect seashells in their own home. They become
worthless.”Participants discussed arrests that had happened in the
past and were apprehensive that this would continue to happen.
Both in the communities and amongst NGO and academic repre-
sentatives, there was a deep sense of injustice that “poor”,“local”,
“traditional”,and“small-scale”fishing and gleaning practices would
be excluded from the area. In Koh Rah-Koh Phrathong NMP, this had
lead locals to protest the creation of the NMP and to burn down the
national parks office.
Other extractive livelihood strategies that could be impacted by
the NMP included aquaculture and plantations. Interviews showed
that locals did not have any involvement –either as owners or
laborers –in pond aquaculture so there were no perceived impacts
in this area. Participants understood that fish cage aquaculture was
not allowed in the NMP but showed that the DNP did not enforce
this rule. However, since the cages were illegal this meant that
owners could not get insurance from fisheries for the fish cages in
case of disease or failure. This meant increased risk and vulner-
ability for these households. The NMPs, it was felt, had more of an
impact on plantations. In communities near Ao Phang Nga NMP,
locals often discussed how the DNP came to cut down plantations
that were owned by local people and that have been there since
long before the park: “Rubber plantations is an occupation that
was passed on from my grandfather's generation which dated back
to 70 years ago. My plantation is inside the park. They often come
to cut them down”. In several communities, it was perceived that
the rules were not applied judiciously to plantations owned by
Malaysia
Bangkok
Trat
Chanthaburi
Rayong
Chonburi
Surat
Thani
Ranong
Songkhla
Thailand
Gulf of
Thailand
Andaman
Sea
Chumporn
Myanmar
Cambodia
17
16
7
15
6
14
5
13
43
2
10
1
8
9
11
12
Lam Nam Kraburi
Mu Koh Ranong
Laemson
Mu Koh Surin
Mu Koh Ra – Koh
Phrathong (proposed)
Mu Koh Similan
Kao Lampee – Had
Thai Muang
Sirinath
Ao Phang Nga
Than Bhok Khorani
Had Nopparatthara –
Mu Koh Phi Phi
Mu Koh Lanta
Had Chao Mai
Mu Koh Petra
Tarutao
Thaleban
Kao Lak – Lam Ru
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
N
0150 km
National Marine Parks
on the Andaman Coast
of Thailand
Thailand
Fig. 2. Map of MPAs on the Andaman Coast of Thailand.
N.J. Bennett, P. Dearden / Marine Policy 44 (2014) 107–116110
“outside businessmen”even though they were the ones who were
often encroaching and trying to expand their plantations. In the
more recent Mu Ko Ranong and Koh Rah-Koh Phrathong NMPs,
boundaries were created to try to exclude plantations and areas
that were owned by local people. Participants in Koh Chang felt
that the national park had done a reasonable job of excluding
plantations so there would be no impact on local plantation
owners. In Koh Ra-Koh Phrathong, however, DNP attempts to
consider plantations and ownership did not seem to assuage local
people's concerns that plantations would be included within the
boundaries of the national park thus undermining local livelihood
options for diversification both now and in the future.
Two potential alternatives to these extractive livelihood stra-
tegies that could emanate from the creation of the NMP were
related to tourism and management. For tourism, survey results
indicated an overall neutral perception of whether NMPs would
“improve tourism jobs and financial benefit for the local
community”(Fig. 3). These results were the result of highly
polarized views with 39.2% of participants disagreeing and 38.0%
agreeing that “the park has or will improve tourism jobs and
financial benefit”. Results varied significantly (Chi square p-
value¼0.004) across communities suggesting that perception
of the benefits from tourism were spatially segregated, which was
matched by survey data and observations. In Ao Phang Nga NMP,
Ko Panyee received high visitation from tourists but the next
community (Koh Mai Pai) only 5 km away had no visitors.
Similarly, Koh Chang had a growing tourism industry while Koh
Sin Hi did not receive any visitors. Though tourism jobs were
perceived to be a likely outcome of NMPs many participants
discussed how there were limited benefits to most locals because
of elite capture of financial benefits, outside ownership of busi-
nesses and resorts, hiring of outside laborers, or because the DNP
managers owned restaurants and tourism businesses and were
keeping the benefit for themselves. There was a general feeling
Table 3
Perceived impact of NMP on livelihood strategies and outcomes.
Livelihood strategy Relative perceived impact Perceived outcomes
Fishing and harvesting (for income or subsistence) Neutral to very negative
No impact to increased poverty
No impact to decreased food security
No impact to decreased well-being (e.g., traditions, culture, social, conflicts)
No impact to decreased access
Plantations Neutral to very negative
No impact to less diverse livelihood options
None as no local involvement
More vulnerable to risks
Aquaculture –Pond None
Aquaculture –Cages Slight negative
Management Slight negative to slight positive
Minimal increases in employment
Minimal increases in wealth
Decreased well-being (e.g., dignity)
Tourism Fairly positive to fairly negative
Increased employment to minimal and seasonal employment
Increased wealth to decreased wealth
Inequitable distribution of wealth
Rising costs and expenses
Decreased well-being (e.g., social impacts of tourism)
Displacement from accessing or using some areas
Fig. 3. Perceived impacts of the national marine parks on selected conservation, management, and livelihoods indicators (mean score where 1 ¼positive, 0 ¼neutral,
1¼negative).
N.J. Bennett, P. Dearden / Marine Policy 44 (2014) 107–116 111
that the NMP would result in increased sales of crafts and
souvenirs, which would bring some benefit to communities. Many
participants were also concerned that a growing tourism industry
would also result in increased household costs (e.g., for food,
water, and electricity) but also rising costs for land because of
increased demand by outside business people. Finally, tourism
development was seen to have significant social costs –including
cultural appropriation and displacement. Participants discussed
how the Moken community on Koh Surin was moved close to the
national parks office so that they could charge tourists to go to the
Moken community: “The national park thinks that the Moken
belong to them and they are a selling point for tourists. Tourists
want to see the traditional fishermen in their environment.”
However, collected fees are not re-directed towards the Moken
community. Interviewees also discussed how areas with resorts or
that were used by tourists were no longer accessible to local
people.
There were several ways that locals could be employed in
management: as rangers, as managers, as contractors, and as
maintenance staff. Yet participants felt that only a minimal
amount of additional employment in management would result
from the NMPs and they were concerned both about the amount
of pay and the potentially demeaning nature of the job. Overall it
was perceived that there was limited hiring of locals into manage-
ment positions and as one participant stated “I doubt that this
would happen.”The exception to this was on Koh Panyee where
“4–5 people from Panyee are working at Ao Phang Nga NP out of
40 staff.”One interviewee who had previously worked as a ranger
for the DNP in Ao Phang Nga had quit because they did not pay
well enough and even neglected to pay employees sometimes.
Few people expressed willingness to work as maintenance staff
because they felt that the NP did not pay enough and also that it
was demeaning work. Referring to Mu Koh Surin, one participant
told us: “The NP pays them 100 baht per day to cook, clean and
run boat service. It is not enough.”In addition, some participants
saw the maintenance positions as undignified: “Maybe in 20 to 30
years, I will be collecting garbage like the Moken on Surin.”
4.2. Livelihood resources
Assets form the basis of livelihoods. Livelihood assets were felt
to be influenced by the NMPs in two ways. First, the policies,
institutions and processes of the NMPs directly influenced access
to assets. Second, livelihood outcomes could further support or
undermine future access to assets. For example, the wealth earned
from tourism development could promote further local develop-
ment and gains or be centralized with a wealthy external elite. Due
to length restrictions, it is beyond the purview of the current paper
to provide specific narratives or examples but an overview of
perceptions of how livelihood resources are impacted by the NMP
is provided in Table 4. In summation, while NMPs are perceived to
undermine access to resources necessary for traditional liveli-
hoods, it appears that DNP and NMP managers do not consider
adequately the means (assets) that are required to ensure that
locals benefit from alternative livelihoods. For example, according
to community respondents DNP management and policies fail to
consider local values and development needs, support local
capacity building, or promote local businesses.
4.3. Conservation outcomes
Qualitative and quantitative perceptions of participants dif-
fered on the perceived conservation outcomes of the NMPs,
particularly regarding the marine environment. It was agreed
across all sites that terrestrial conservation was part of the
mandate of the DNP. However, qualitative perceptions of the
effectiveness of terrestrial conservation differed amongst areas.
Interviewees in villages in Mu Koh Ranong and Ao Phang Nga
Table 4
Perceived influence of the national marine park on livelihood resources.
Capital asset Perceived influence of NMP
Natural capital
Positive impacts on terrestrial resources
Mixed impacts on marine resources
Undermines access to marine resources
Undermines local land ownership
Social capital
Conflictual relationships with managers and governors
Creation of inter-community conflicts
Undermines community relationships with other agencies and organizations
Human capital
Interferes with social programs or alternative livelihood programs initiated by outside organizations
No provision of training or capacity building for local people to participate in tourism or management
Physical capital
Creation of NMP related tourism infrastructures (e.g., piers, campsites, bathrooms, restaurants)
Does not support the development of social (health, education) or basic (transportation, water, communications) infrastructures
Limits the growth of houses and community boundaries
Confiscates and destroys illegal fishing gears
Financial capital
No additional access to finances to support local development
National park fees are centrally administered
Minimal economic benefit from tourism to be redirected towards development
Economic capital retained by elite, outside business people, or managers
Cultural capital
Undermines traditional livelihoods and cultural practices
Lack of support for maintenance and use of traditional knowledge
Political capital
The DNP mandate for national parks supports tourism development
Lack of policies and mechanisms to incorporate local values and knowledge
Minimal provisions for participation in management processes
Lack of policies to ensure local benefit and to support local development
N.J. Bennett, P. Dearden / Marine Policy 44 (2014) 107–116112
NMPs all thought that the national park would result in protection
of forested areas on the islands. Conversely, the majority of
interview participants near the proposed Koh Rah-Koh Phrathong
NMP believed that the national park would not protect the
forested area effectively. This belief was alleged to be true for
two reasons: there would be encroachment by outside business-
men for plantations and there would be illegal logging and
hunting by the protected area superintendents and managers.
Interviews revealed widespread confusion about whether the DNP
mandate included the protection or management of the marine
environment. Many interviewees expressed sentiments such as
“The islands are under DNP, but there is no control over the sea”or
“If there were new rules, we would know”. A minority of
participants did recognize that the NMPs were also intended to
protect marine habitats and resources. Yet even these participants
were often skeptical that the NMP would actually result in marine
conservation benefits because of lack of active management or
enforcement. Even upper level management in one of the parks
admitted that the DNP has “…no knowledge of the condition of
the fisheries resources. The DNP only really manages the land.”
In brief, interview participants were split on whether NMPs
were effective in protecting the terrestrial environment and
largely in agreement that they would not effectively protect the
marine environment. Survey results regarding perceived terres-
trial and marine conservation outcomes were somewhat positive
overall but views varied significantly (Fig. 3). Approximately fifty
four percent (53.6%) of participants felt that the NMP would
improve marine conservation compared with only 24.9% who
thought it would worsen (Chi square p-value¼o0.001). Slightly
more (57.8%) were in agreement that terrestrial conservation
would be improved by the NMP while 22.4% disagreed (Chi square
p-value¼0.003).
4.4. Institutions and organizations: management and governance
Beliefs about livelihood and conservation outcomes were intri-
cately linked with perceptions of management and governance.
Overall, perceptions of participants on the quality and effective-
ness of management and governance were quite critical.
The legitimacy of DNP governance was broadly questioned on
the grounds that governors and managers were not personally
invested in local community or conservation outcomes and that
the NMPs did not meet their lawful obligation to manage the
resource. According to one participant “The park managers don't
have any investment in the area. They have somewhere to escape
to afterwards, a house in Bangkok, no relationships or social ties in
the area.”Participants often mistrusted the DNP and felt that local
people would do a better job of protecting the area. According to
one NGO representative, though Thai law grants the authority to
manage the resource to the DNP “…they misuse the authority.
They don't take care of the resource, they just act as if they own it.”
The inability to manage the area was attributed to lack of capacity
within the agency and coordination with other agencies by NGO
representatives, academics, and individuals from other govern-
ment agencies. An often discussed issue that led to a lack of
capacity was the political appointment of superintendents by each
subsequent government rather than hiring based on skills and
knowledge. In Thailand's uncertain political climate, this happened
often, leading to a lack of trust and uncertainty in communities
about whether “the rules are going to change under the next
superintendent”. The DNP was also noted for being particularly
challenging to work alongside by interview participants from the
Navy, the Department of Marine and Coastal Resources, the
Department of Fisheries, regional Tambon Administration Offices,
and the Ministry of the Interior. They noted a lack of willingness to
coordinate activities, which was partially related to unclear or
overlapping jurisdictions. One upper level NMP manager noted
“A key conflict between DNP and other government departments
is that other agencies bring development.”
Lack of coordination may be partially due to the centralized and
top-down governance structures and processes that participants
felt had also resulted in a lack of consideration and participation
during creation and ongoing management of the NMPs. In recent
years, DNP policies did require that national parks create commit-
tees for participation in management to increase coordination
with other agencies and inclusion of local people and values. Yet
DNP managers and one academic who sit on a committee told us
that these committees consisted largely of regional business
people and politicians and included few people from local com-
munities. Furthermore, one participant who was on one of these
committees suggested that they were ineffective and that super-
intendents did “not know what to do with them.”In several
instances, we learned that the DNP was trying to engage with
communities more during creation and management but local
elites and politicians in the communities would not allow NMP
officials to enter their communities to meet and discuss ideas.
Interviewees suggested that these individuals felt that their
personal interests and-or those of their communities were threa-
tened. On the other hand, in Koh Chang local leaders had allowed
the DNP onto the island leading to a locally acceptable arrange-
ment for land allocation. Overall, a somewhat negative perception
(0.3) was held by survey participants about the impact of the
NMP on levels of participation in management of natural resources
(Fig. 3).
Several additional governance concerns were transparency,
accountability, and fairness or equity. Participants felt that there
was a lack of transparency in the DNP about programs of work,
management plans, park fees and funding allocations, park crea-
tion processes, and appointment of superintendents. One NGO
representative likened the DNP to “a twilight zone”where the
reasons for decisions were not clear and one could not get answers
to questions: “It is hard for locals to understand what is going on.”
This also led to challenges in holding managers accountable for
their actions. There were widespread perceptions that the DNP
and superintendents were corrupt. This often extended from
anecdotes about managers extorting money from locals and
business people, making financial claims for extra staff who were
non-existent, logging and fishing in the area, and claiming a
portion of park entrance fees. Local people felt that NMPs were
inequitable in two ways: they were only accessible to wealthy
tourist who could afford the fees and financial benefits went
mostly to those who already had money or power. Finally,
participants noted that the DNP was not adaptable or open to
feedback and that managers were “not interested in improving
themselves”so governance was unlikely to change. Moreover, as
one participant said referring to conversations that he had had
with people from communities near several different NMPs:
“Everywhere it is the same. The feeling is not good.”
Management shortcomings were largely seen to extend from
these issues with governance. There had never been programs of
education or outreach in any of the communities that we visited.
Despite this, there was a slightly positive perception (+0.1) that
the NMP would increase knowledge of nature and support for
conservation (Fig. 3). Yet communities lacked knowledge of rules
and regulations, the locations of boundaries, or even the existence
of a park because there was little communication emerging from
management offices. Access to park management plans was
denied to our research team in all but one of four park offices
that we visited without a letter from the DNP head office. If it
occurred, enforcement of rules and regulations was seen to be
inconsistent –due to minimal and seasonal monitoring –and
inequitable –favoring outside business and landowners and
N.J. Bennett, P. Dearden / Marine Policy 44 (2014) 107–116 11 3
commercial fishers over local people. Participants often discussed
how there were no mechanisms for participation in creation or
management, for consideration of local values and development
considerations, for transparency and accountability, for resolving
conflicts, or for integrating local and traditional knowledge into
management. The one exception was on Koh Chang, where locals
had been consulted extensively during the creation of Mu Koh
Ranong. Still it was felt by many participants that park managers
did not understand local communities in large part because the
“superintendent and assistant superintendent never come out into
the park”.
5. Discussion
This paper makes a contribution to the literature on the
impacts of conservation and MPAs in a particular context. This
study suggests that local perceptions of NMPs, under the jurisdic-
tion of the DNP, are fairly negative in coastal communities in
Thailand. Perceived impacts of NMPs on livelihood strategies and
outcomes are mixed. Fishing and harvesting livelihoods are gen-
erally seen to be negatively impacted by NMPs except in cases
where rules were misunderstood or not applied. Participants felt
there were no impacts or negative impacts for plantation owners
or laborers. NMPs were seen to lead to marginal employment or
monetary benefits from tourism for most except for a select elite
who would gain significantly. There was perceived to be little
potential for benefit from employment in NMP management.
Negative impacts were seen to stem from reduced access to or
lack of development of social, cultural, human, political, natural,
physical, and financial assets. Conservation outcomes were per-
ceived to be mostly positive for terrestrial environments and quite
mixed for marine environments. Opinions of DNP governance and
management were quite negative. Moreover, the NMPs provided
little incentive for local people to participate in, or support,
conservation [78,79].
Perceived impacts are not the same as actual (or even intended)
impacts but they are instructive nonetheless. The results presented
in this paper point to a problematic relationship between NMPs
and local communities that is likely to undermine the success of
marine conservation initiatives in Thailand. While these results
cannot be assumed to be representative of the situation in all
communities near all NMPs, interviews with those familiar with
other areas and site visits by members of our research team
suggest that many of the critiques are applicable to other NMPs
on the Andaman coast of Thailand. Furthermore, the critical nature
of these results are largely consistent with those presented else-
where regarding Thai NMP governance, management, and impact
on communities (e.g., [65,80]) but provide a much more nuanced
perspective. Cheung et al. [81] also suggest that in Thailand
“management of MPAs is generally weak…”.
Yet, despite current shortcomings and the negative sentiments
of local communities towards the NMPs, we contend that they
remain an important policy mechanism for marine management
and conservation in Thailand. MPAs have the potential to conserve
the environment and increase fisheries while contributing posi-
tively to social and economic development in local communities if
(a) local development considerations are taken into account and
(b) they are effectively managed and governed. If applied judi-
ciously, support for MPAs may also increase over time as benefits
are realized. However, the effective application of MPAs requires
that they are not islands of protection but situated within a suite of
management actions and frameworks [82–84]. In the Thai context,
this includes local community institutions for fisheries and natural
resource management, broader-scale fisheries management
actions through the Department of Fisheries, and Integrated
Coastal Zone Management through the Department of Marine
and Coastal Resources. However, these other conservation and
management initiatives may not boast the additional benefits of
MPAs, can also be met with local resistance and are also ineffec-
tively applied or enforced in Thailand e.g., [85]. Similarly, these
initiatives benefit from local support and require attention to
management, governance, and local development to ensure
effectiveness.
Rather than dwell on the deleterious situation it is more useful
to reflect on how to overcome the issues presented herein through
recommending well-acknowledged policy improvements and con-
crete actions. Though livelihood and rights trade-offs are an
inherent part of implementing successful conservation initiatives
[86], the relative balance of negative consequences to benefits can
be overcome through specific attention to livelihoods, governance,
and management [22,23,37,45–47,71].
First, concrete changes should be made at the policy level to
address fundamental issues with the overall system of governance
by cultivating DNP wide mechanisms to increase transparency,
accountability, participation, coordination, legitimacy and adapt-
ability. Transparency could be improved through making annual
reports and management documents freely available in park
offices and online and accountability through regularly conducted
external audits and reviews of management effectiveness. Effec-
tive participation requires new processes and equitable involve-
ment of all stakeholders. Enhanced inter-agency coordination –
with the Department of Marine and Coastal Resources and
Department of Fisheries –could facilitate integrated coastal
management [22,38]. Legitimacy might be improved through
increasing the presence of local people in management and
ensuring that trusting relationships are built with long-term and
respected managers who demonstrate attachment to the place
and socio-economic and conservation outcomes. The current
policy of re-appointing NMP superintendents after each election
should be considered. The performance of park managers should
be monitored and corrective actions taken accordingly. Implemen-
tation of ongoing programs of monitoring and evaluation of
ecological, governance, and socio-economic indicators could
improve adaptability [22].
Secondly, fairness or equity could be increased through creat-
ing means to share benefits of conservation locally, particularly by
supporting local economic and tourism development, capacity
building programs, and hiring practices. Specific consideration
should be given to how to support the development of alternative
livelihoods and increase access to assets, which will likely require
partnering with other governmental and non-governmental
organizations.
Third, management capacity needs to be enhanced through
cultivating managerial skills –such as facilitation, communication,
education, and conflict resolution. Management in each NMP will
also need to engage in: programs to effectively communicate rules
and regulations (e.g., marking boundaries), programs of outreach
and education, processes to improve participation in management
and incorporate local values and knowledge, and activities to
increase trust and resolve conflicts. Actions should be taken to
improve transparency in each individual NMP and accountability
in each park management unit. These management actions will
require adequate capacity, resources and massive changes in DNP's
organizational culture.
These changes and actions should build on several defunct or
ongoing policy initiatives in Thailand's system of NMPs that offer
glimmers of hope. The first is the Joint Management of Protected
Areas (JoMPA) Program –a co-management pilot project that was
initiated in Laem Son National Park between 2004 and 2006. Even
though this project was seen to have had a positive impact on
NMP-community relationships, it was abandoned after donor
N.J. Bennett, P. Dearden / Marine Policy 44 (2014) 107–116114
funding from Danida was completed [26,87]. The second is the
Strengthening Andaman Marine Protected Areas Network (SAM-
PAN) Project that is a partnership between the DNP and World
Wildlife Fund with funding from the French Development Agency.
One of the project's aims is to “develop a model for co-
management and implement it using participatory principles
and management effectiveness framework”[88]; however, few of
their activities are focused at the community level. There was also
a recent evaluation of the management effectiveness of Thailand's
NMPs with the goal of improving their management [89]. Yet the
management effectiveness document is not publicly available,
potentially undermining accountability, and additional concrete
steps will need to be formulated and taken to address identified
shortcomings. There are also ongoing attempts to address corrup-
tion within the NMPs on the Andaman coast and the agency
overall [90,91]. Yet these current initiatives are limited in scope,
scale, and longevity and have the potential to be undermined by
previous issues with governance and management, particularly
corruption, lack of accountability and ineffective mechanisms for
participation.
6. Conclusion
Thailand has an extensive system of MPAs that is unlikely to
achieve its conservation potential without significant improve-
ments to governance and management and increased attention to
local development. Enhanced NMP governance and management
processes could build trust and ameliorate relationships with local
communities and might lead to improved conservation outcomes
through engendering support and compliance. However, improv-
ing conservation outcomes will require that the broader array of
issues, and their root causes are taken into account and that
management actions are coordinated between agencies and across
the Andaman coastal zone. Bettering socio-economic development
processes and outcomes will also necessitate partnerships with
organizations that are better equipped to address development
issues. These initiatives would oblige DNP governors and man-
agers to cast a much broader net –to be amenable to coordinating
with other governmental and non-governmental organizations
and to including local communities more fully in NMP manage-
ment and related initiatives.
Acknowledgments
The results presented in this article are one aspect of the work
of Project IMPAACT (http://projectimpaact.asia)–a project of the
Marine Protected Areas Research Group, Department of Geogra-
phy, University of Victoria, Canada. Financial support for this
project came from the Social Science and Human Research Council
of Canada and the Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem Project.
The principal author is a Trudeau Scholar, a SSHRC Scholar, a
Fellow of the Centre for Global Studies, and a Fellow of the
Protected Areas and Poverty Reduction Project. We would like to
recognize our Thai partners –the Department of National Parks,
Phuket Marine Biological Centre, and Prince of Songkla University
–and the invaluable contribution of three research assistants –
Piyapat Nakornchai (Por), Alin Kadfak, and Jutathorn Pravattiyagul
(Aice).
References
[1] Lester SE, Halpern BS, Grorud-Coveret L, Lubchenco J, Ruttenberg BI, Gaines
SD, et al. Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: a global synthesis.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 2009;384:33–49.
[2] Angulo-Valdés JA, Hatcher BG. A new typology of benefits derived from
marine protected areas. Marine Policy 2010;34:635–44.
[3] Salm RV, Clark JR, Siirila E. Marine and coastal protected areas: a guide for
planners and managers.Gland, Switzerland: IUCN; 2000.
[4] Lester SE, Halpern BS. Biological responses in marine no-take reserves versus
partially protected areas. Marine Ecology Progress Series 2008;367:49–56.
[5] Toropova C, Meliane D, Laffoley E, Matthews E, Spalding M. Global ocean
protection.Gland, Switzerland: IUCN WCPA; 2010.
[6] CBD. Aichi biodiversity targets. Convention on Biological Diversity; 2010.
[7] Aswani S, Furusawa T. Do marine protected areas affect human nutrition and
health? A comparison between villages in Roviana, Solomon Islands Coastal
Management 2007;35:545–65.
[8] Gell F, Roberts C. Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects of marine
reserves. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 2003;18:448–55.
[9] Halpern BS, Lester SE, Kellner JB. Spillover from marine reserves and the
replenishment of fished stocks. Environmental Conservation 2009;36:268–76.
[10] Jiang H, Cheng H-Q, Quesne W, Le, Xu H-G, Wu J, Ding H, et al. Ecosystem
model predictions of fishery and conservation trade-offs resulting from
marine protected areas in the East China Sea. Environmental Conservation
2008;35:137–46.
[11] Roberts CM, Bohnsack JA, Gell F, Hawkins JP, Goodridge R. Effects of marine
reserves on adjacent fisheries. Science 2001;294:1920–3.
[12] Sanchiroco J, Wilen JE. The impacts of marine reserves on limited entry
fisheries. Natural Resource Modeling 2002;15:291–310.
[13] MacKinnon K, Dudley N, Sandwith T. Natural solutions: protected areas
helping people to cope with climate change. Oryx 2011;45:461–2.
[14] Agardy T. Accommodating ecotourism in multiple use planning of coastal and
marine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management 1993;20:219–39.
[15] Merino G, Maynou F, Boncoeur J. Bioeconomic model for a three-zone marine
protected area: a case study of Medes Islands (Northwest Mediterranean).
ICES Journal of Marine Science 2009;66:147–54.
[16] Oberholzer S, Saayman M, Saayman A, Slabbert E. The socio-economic impact
of Africa's oldest marine park. KODOE 2010;52:1–9.
[17] Leisher C, Beukering P, van, Scherl L. Nature's investment bank: how marine
protected areas contribute to poverty reduction. The Nature Conservancy/
WWF International; 2007.
[18] Agardy T, Bridgewater P, Crosby MP, Day J, Dayton PK, Kenchington R, et al.
Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine
protected areas Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
2003;13:353–67.
[19] Christie P, McKay BJ, Miller ML, Lowe C, White AT, Stoffle R, et al. Toward
developing a complete understanding: a social science research agenda for
marine protected areas. Fisheries 2003;28:22–6.
[20] Christie P. Observed and perceived environmental impacts of marine pro-
tected areas in two Southeast Asia sites. Ocean & Coastal Management
2005;48:252–70.
[21] Heck N, Dearden P, McDonald A. Insights into marine conservation efforts in
temperate regions: marine protected areas on Canada's West Coast. Ocean &
Coastal Management 2012;57:10–20.
[22] Pomeroy RS, Parks JE, Watson LM. How is your MPA doing? A guidebook of
natural and social indicators for evaluating marine protected area manage-
ment effectiveness Gland, Switzerland: IUCN/WWF; 2004.
[23] Lockwood M. Good governance for terrestrial protected areas: a framework,
principles and performance outcomes. Journal of Environmental Management
2010;91:754–66.
[24] Hind EJ, Hiponia MC, Gray TS. From community-based to centralised national
management—a wrong turning for the governance of the marine protected
area in Apo Island, Philippines. Marine Policy 2010;34:54–62.
[25] Webb EL, Maliao RJ, Siar S. Using local user perceptions to evaluate outcomes
of protected area management in the Sagay Marine Reserve, Philippines.
Environmental Conservation 2004;31:138–48.
[26] World Heritage Nomination Document. Nomination document of the Andaman
Bioregion of Thailand for UNESCO World Heritage Status.Bangkok, Thailand:
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment; 2010.
[27] Juntarashote K. Country Report for BOBLEME Programme. Thailand; 2005.
[28] World Bank. Thailand environment monitor 2006: marine and coastal
resources.Washington, DC: World Bank; 2006.
[29] BOBLME. Transboundary diagnostic analysis –vol. 1: issues, proximate, and
root causes (DRAFT). 2012.
[30] Panjarat S. Sustainable fisheries in the Andaman Sea Coast of Thailand. 2008.
p. 119.
[31] Sudtongkong C, Webb EL. Outcomes of state-vs. community-based mangrove
management in southern Thailand. Ecology and Society 2008;13:27.
[32] Christie P, Ole-Moyoi LK. Status of marine protected areas and fish Refugia in
the Bay of Bengal large marine ecosystem. 2011. p. 162.
[33] Carney D. Sustainable rural livelihoods: what contribution can we make?
London: Department for International Development; 1998.
[34] Scoones I. Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis. IDS working
paper. 1998. p. 72.
[35] Ellis F. Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press; 2000.
[36] Graham J, Amos B, Plumtree T. Governance principles for protected areas in
the 21st century. 2003. p. 50.
[37] Hockings M, Stolton S, Leverington F, Dudley N, Courrau J. Evaluating
effectiveness: a framework for assessing the management effectiveness of
protected areas. 2nd ed. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN; 2006.
N.J. Bennett, P. Dearden / Marine Policy 44 (2014) 107–116 11 5
[38] Kelleher G. Guidelines for marine protected areas.Gland, Switzerland: IUCN;
1999.
[39] Gubbay S. Marine protected areas: principles and techniques for management.
New York, NY: Springer; 1995.
[40] Sobel JA, Dahlgren C. Marine reserves: a guide to science, design, and use.
Washington, DC: Island Press; 2004.
[41] Cohen P, Valemei A, Govan H. Annotated bibliography on socio-economic and
ecological impacts of marine protected areas in Pacific island countries.
Penang, Malaysia: The WorldFish Center; 2008.
[42] Christie P. Marine protected areas as biological successes and social failures in
Southeast Asia. American Fisheries Society Symposium 2004;42:155–64.
[43] Brondo KV, Woods L. Garifuna land rights and ecotourism as economic
development in Honduras' Cayos Cochinos marine protected area. Ecological
and Environmental Anthropology 2007;3:2–18.
[44] Bavinck M, Vivekanandan V. Conservation, conflict and the governance of
fisher wellbeing: analysis of the establishment of the Gulf of Mannar National
Park and Biosphere Reserve. Environmental Management 2011;47:593–602.
[45] Bennett N, Dearden P. From outcomes to inputs: what is required to achieve
the ecological and socio-economic potential of marine protected areas? 2012.
p. 38.
[46] Alder J, Zeller D, Pitcher T, Sumaila R. A method for evaluating marine
protected area management. Coastal Management 2002;30:121–31.
[47] Cattermoul B, Townsley P, Campbell J. Sustainable livelihoods enhancement
and diversification: a manual for practitioners. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN/
CORDIO/ICRAN; 2008.
[48] Dixon JA. Economic benefits of marine protected areas. Oceanus
1993;36:35–40.
[49] Gjertsen H. Can habitat protection lead to improvements in human well-
being? Evidence from marine protected areas in the Philippines World
Development 2005;33:199–217.
[50] Govan H, Tawake A, Tabunakawai K, Jenkins A, Lasgorceix A, Schwarz AM,
et al. Status and potential of locally-managed marine areas in the South
Pacific: meeting nature conservation and sustainable livelihood targets
through wide-spread implementation of LMMAs. 2009. p. 95.
[51] Mallerat-King D. A food security approach to marine protected area impacts
on surrounding fishing communities: the case of Kisite Marine National Park
in Kenya –Warwick Research Archives Project Repository [Dissertation].
University of Warwick; 2000.
[52] Young E. Balancing conservation with development in marine-dependent
communities: is ecotourism an empty promise? In: Zimmerer K, Bassett TJ,
editors. Political ecology: an integrative approach to geography and
environment-development studies. London, UK: Guilford Press; 2003.
p. 29–49.
[53] Mascia MB, Claus CA, Naidoo R. Impacts of marine protected areas on fishing
communities. Conservation Biology 2010;24:1424–9.
[54] Russ GR, Alcala AC, Maypa AP, Calumpong HP, White AT. Marine reserve
benefits local fisheries. Ecological Applications 2004;14:597–606.
[55] Samonte G, Karrer LB, Orbach M. People and oceans: managing marine areas
for human well-being. 2010.
[56] Svensson P, Rodwell LD, Attrill MJ. The perceptions of local fishermen towards
a hotel managed marine reserve in Vietnam. Ocean & Coastal Management
2010;53:114–22.
[57] Tobey J, Torell E. Coastal poverty and MPA management in mainland Tanzania
and Zanzibar. Ocean & Coastal Management 2006;49:834–54.
[58] Webb EL, Mailiao R, Siar SV. Using local user perceptions to evaluate outcomes
of protected area management in the Sagay Marine Reserve, Philippines.
Environmental Conservation 2004;31:138–48.
[59] Weiant P, Aswani S. Early effects of a community-based marine protected area
on the food security of participating households. SPC Traditional Marine
Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin 2006;19:16–31.
[60] White AT, Courtney CA, Salamanca A. Experience with marine protected area
planning and management in the Philippines. Coastal Management
2002;30:1–26.
[61] Bunce M, Brown K, Rosendo S. Policy misfits, climate change and cross-scale
vulnerability in coastal Africa: how development projects undermine resi-
lience. Environmental Science & Policy 2010;13:485–97.
[62] Diegues AC. Marine protected areas and artisinal fisheries in Brazil. 2008. p. 68.
[63] Fabinyi M. Dive tourism, fishing and marine protected areas in the Calamianes
Islands, Philippines. Marine Policy 2008;32:898–904.
[64] Ngugi I. Economic impacts of marine protected areas: a case study of the
Mombasa Marine Park. Journal of the Social Sciences Graduate Student
Association 2002;1:507–16.
[65] Prasertcharoensuk R, Shott J, Sirisook Weston D, Ronarongpairee W. Time for a
sea change: a study of the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation measures
and marine protected areas along southern Thailand's Andaman Sea coastline.
Chennai, India: International Collective in Support of Fishworkers; 2010.
[66] Ransom K, Mangi S. Valuing recreational benefits of coral reefs: the case of
Mombasa Marine National Park and Reserve, Kenya. Environmental Manage-
ment 2010;45:145–54.
[67] Sanchirico JN, Cochran KA, Emerson PM, Defense E, Rader DN. Marine
protected areas: economic and social implications.Washington, DC: Resources
for the Future; 2002.
[68] Sunde J, Isaacs M. Marine conservation and coastal communities: who carries
the costs? A study of marine protected areas and their impact on traditional
small-scale fishing communities in South Africa. 2008.
[69] Walker BLE, Robinson MA. Economic development, marine protected areas
and gendered access to fishing resources in a Polynesian lagoon. Gender, Place
& Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 2009;16:467–84.
[70] Hargreaves-Allen V, Mourato S, Milner-Gulland E. A global evaluation of coral
reef management performance: are MPAs producing conservation and socio-
economic improvements? Environmental Management 2011;47:684–700.
[71] Camargo C, Maldonado J, Alvarado E, Moreno-Sánchez R, Mendoza S, Manri-
que N, et al. Community involvement in management for maintaining coral
reef resilience and biodiversity in southern Caribbean marine protected areas.
Biodiversity and Conservation 2009;18:935–56.
[72] DFID. Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. 1999.
[73] Igoe J. Measuring the costs and benefits of conservation to local communities.
Journal of Ecological Anthropology 2006;10:72–7.
[74] Bennett N. Sustainable livelihoods from theory to practice: an extended
annotated bibliography for prospective application of livelihoods thinking in
protected area community research. 2010. p. 50.
[75] Bennett N, Lemelin RH, Koster R, Budke I. A capital assets framework for
appraising and building capacity for tourism development in aboriginal
protected area gateway communities. Tourism Management 2012;33:752–66.
[76] Arunotai N. Moken traditional knowledge: an unrecognised form of natural
resources management and conservation. International Social Science Journal
2006;58:139–50.
[77] Wasinrapee P. The Moken: today and tomorrow: building a sustainable
livelihood for the Moken community in the Surin Islands Marine National
Park [Master's thesis]. Department of Environment, Technology and Social
Studies, Roskilde University; 2006.
[78] Jones PJS, Qiu W, Santo EMDe. Governing marine protected areas–getting the
balance right. Technical report.Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment
Programme; 2011.
[79] Jones PJS, Qiu W, Santo EMDe. Governing marine protected areas:
social–ecological resilience through institutional diversity. Marine Policy
2013;41:5–13 .
[80] Lunn K, Dearden P. Fishers' needs in marine protected area zoning: a case
study from Thailand. Coastal Management 2006;34:183–98.
[81] Cheung CPS, Botengan BP, Cruz WRD. Marine protected areas in Southeast
Asia.Los Baños, Philippines: ASEAN Regional Centre for Biodiversity Conserva-
tion; 2002.
[82] Christie P, White A, Deguit E. Starting point or solution? Community-based
marine protected areas in the Philippines Journal of Environmental Manage-
ment 2002;66:441–54.
[83] Halpern BS, Lester SE, McLeod KL. Placing marine protected areas onto the
ecosystem-based management seascape. Proceedings of the National Acad-
emy of Sciences 2010;107:18312–7.
[84] Agardy T, Sciara GN, di, Christie P. Mind the gap: addressing the shortcomings
of marine protected areas through large scale marine spatial planning. Marine
Policy 2011;35:226–32.
[85] Panjarat S, Bennett N. Responses of fishers to a 25-year seasonal closed
measure on the Andaman Coast of Thailand. 2012. p. 21.
[86] Mascia MB, Claus CA. A property rights approach to understanding human
displacement from protected areas: the case of marine protected areas.
Conservation Biology 2009;23:16–23.
[87] ONEP. Thailand: third national report on the implementation of the conven-
tion on biological diversity. 2005. p. 145.
[88] SAMPAN. Welcome to SAMPAN. Strengthening Andaman Marine Protected
Areas Network. 2013.
[89] Manopawitr P. Thailand's marine and coastal protected area management
effectiveness evaluation. 2012.
[90] Lem N. Corruption probe on similans, Surin.Phuket Wan: National Parks North
of Phuket; 2012.
[91] Pongrai J, Pongphan S. Marine parks in South “a huge source of graft.”. The
Nation; 2011.
N.J. Bennett, P. Dearden / Marine Policy 44 (2014) 107–116116
