IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/marpol/v60y2015icp84-97.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Establishing a marine conservation baseline for the insular Caribbean

Author

Listed:
  • Knowles, John E.
  • Doyle, Emma
  • Schill, Steven R.
  • Roth, Lynnette M.
  • Milam, Amy
  • Raber, George T.

Abstract

Marine protected areas are a primary strategy for the conservation of marine habitats and species across the globe. In small island developing states, they often exceed their terrestrial counterparts in both number and area. To assess their effectiveness as a conservation measure over time, the accurate and up-to-date representation of marine protected areas through spatial and tabular data is imperative in order to establish baselines. Various regional and global agreements have set specific protection targets and these require spatial reporting on protected areas as an indicator of progress. For the insular Caribbean region, this study considers progress towards global Aichi Target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity which is to conserve at least 10% of coastal and marine areas, and progress towards the regional target of the Caribbean Challenge Initiative (CCI) to protect “at least 20% of nearshore marine and coastal habitats”, both aiming for a 2020 deadline. Progress towards these targets differs widely depending on the accuracy of the datasets and the methods used. In an effort to update the current baseline of protection within the insular Caribbean, multiple governments, the Nature Conservancy and the Caribbean Marine Protected Area Management Network and Forum collaborated to develop a single insular Caribbean protected area dataset with accurate boundary information and the best available ecoregional and political boundaries. This study represents the most in-depth and spatially accurate effort to date to determine marine protected area coverage in the insular Caribbean. It is found that some form of marine management has been designated for around 7.1% of our study area in the insular Caribbean; progress towards Aichi Target 11 averaged among sovereign states within the insular Caribbean stands at approximately 3.25% and only three of the 10 participating governments in the CCI have reached their 20% target. Ocean protection was further assessed across the 25 governments and the three marine ecoregions by four different marine zones. Recommendations are made on regional to global cooperation for data sharing and reporting on indicators, highlighting possible directions to fill marine conservation gaps in the insular Caribbean.

Suggested Citation

  • Knowles, John E. & Doyle, Emma & Schill, Steven R. & Roth, Lynnette M. & Milam, Amy & Raber, George T., 2015. "Establishing a marine conservation baseline for the insular Caribbean," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 84-97.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:60:y:2015:i:c:p:84-97
    DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2015.05.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X15001384
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.05.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jobstvogt, Niels & Hanley, Nick & Hynes, Stephen & Kenter, Jasper & Witte, Ursula, 2014. "Twenty thousand sterling under the sea: Estimating the value of protecting deep-sea biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 10-19.
    2. Guerreiro, José & Chircop, Aldo & Grilo, Catarina & Viras, Ana & Ribeiro, Raquel & van der Elst, Rudy, 2010. "Establishing a transboundary network of marine protected areas: Diplomatic and management options for the east African context," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 896-910, September.
    3. Dalton, Tracey & Forrester, Graham & Pollnac, Richard, 2015. "Are Caribbean MPAs making progress toward their goals and objectives?," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 69-76.
    4. Agardy, Tundi & di Sciara, Giuseppe Notarbartolo & Christie, Patrick, 2011. "Mind the gap: Addressing the shortcomings of marine protected areas through large scale marine spatial planning," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 226-232, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kristīne Pakalniete & Heini Ahtiainen & Juris Aigars & Ingrīda Andersone & Aurelija Armoškaite & Henning Sten Hansen & Solvita Strāķe, 2021. "Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Service Benefits and Welfare Impacts of Offshore Marine Protected Areas: A Study from the Baltic Sea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-30, September.
    2. Chan, Cheryl & Armitage, Derek & Alexander, Steven M. & Campbell, Donovan, 2019. "Examining linkages between ecosystem services and social wellbeing to improve governance for coastal conservation in Jamaica," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    3. Venetia Alexa Hargreaves-Allen & Susana Mourato & Eleanor Jane Milner-Gulland, 2017. "Drivers of coral reef marine protected area performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-21, June.
    4. Merrie, Andrew & Olsson, Per, 2014. "An innovation and agency perspective on the emergence and spread of Marine Spatial Planning," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 366-374.
    5. David M Keith & Jessica A Sameoto & Freya M Keyser & Christine A Ward-Paige, 2020. "Evaluating socio-economic and conservation impacts of management: A case study of time-area closures on Georges Bank," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-25, October.
    6. Ranger, S. & Kenter, J.O. & Bryce, R. & Cumming, G. & Dapling, T. & Lawes, E. & Richardson, P.B., 2016. "Forming shared values in conservation management: An interpretive-deliberative-democratic approach to including community voices," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 344-357.
    7. Nicholas Tyack & Milan Ščasný, 2018. "Social Valuation of Genebank Activities: Assessing Public Demand for Genetic Resource Conservation in the Czech Republic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, November.
    8. Zimmerhackel, Johanna S & Pannell, David J & Meekan, Mark & Kragt, Marit E & Rogers, Abbie, 2016. "Diving Tourism and Fisheries in Marine Protected Areas: Market Values and New Approaches to Improve Compliance in the Maldives Shark Sanctuary," Working Papers 243921, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    9. Glenk, Klaus & Schaafsma, Marije & Moxey, Andrew & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Hanley, Nick, 2014. "A framework for valuing spatially targeted peatland restoration," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 20-33.
    10. Voyer, Michelle & Gollan, Natalie & Barclay, Kate & Gladstone, William, 2015. "‘It׳s part of me’; understanding the values, images and principles of coastal users and their influence on the social acceptability of MPAs," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 93-102.
    11. Rachel Nichols & Satoshi Yamazaki & Sarah Jennings, 2021. "How did a network of marine protected areas impact adjacent fisheries? Evidence from Australia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 65(1), pages 119-142, January.
    12. Rojas-Nazar, U.A. & Cullen, R. & Gardner, J.P.A. & Bell, J.J., 2015. "Marine reserve establishment and on-going management costs: A case study from New Zealand," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 216-224.
    13. Norton, Daniel & Hynes, Stephen, 2014. "Valuing the non-market benefits arising from the implementation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 84-96.
    14. Delord, Karine & Barbraud, Christophe & Bost, Charles-André & Deceuninck, Bernard & Lefebvre, Thierry & Lutz, Rose & Micol, Thierry & Phillips, Richard A. & Trathan, Phil N. & Weimerskirch, Henri, 2014. "Areas of importance for seabirds tracked from French southern territories, and recommendations for conservation," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 1-13.
    15. George Halkos & Panagiotis Stavros Aslanidis & Angelos Plataniotis & Phoebe Koundouri, 2024. "Global insights on Sustainable Development Goal 14: Reviewing willingness-to-pay levels for marine ecosystem protection and conservation," DEOS Working Papers 2416, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    16. Ainsworth, Gillian B. & Kenter, Jasper O. & O'Connor, Sebastian & Daunt, Francis & Young, Juliette C., 2019. "A fulfilled human life: Eliciting sense of place and cultural identity in two UK marine environments through the Community Voice Method," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    17. Nichols, Rachel & Yamazaki, Satoshi & Jennings, Sarah, 2018. "The Role of Precaution in Stock Recovery Plans in a Fishery with Habitat Effect," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 359-369.
    18. Norton, D. & Hynes, S., 2014. "A Choice Experiment Approach to assess the costs of degradation as specified by the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive," Working Papers 186382, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    19. Ramírez, Alejandro & Ortiz, Marco & Steenbeek, Jeroen & Christensen, Villy, 2015. "Evaluation of the effects on rockfish and kelp artisanal fisheries of the proposed Mejillones Peninsula marine protected area (northern Chile, SE Pacific coast)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 297(C), pages 141-153.
    20. Guillaume Lafortune & Grayson Fuller & Guido Schmidt-Traub & Christian Kroll, 2020. "How Is Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals Measured? Comparing Four Approaches for the EU," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-24, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:60:y:2015:i:c:p:84-97. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.