Showing papers by "Bonnie J. McCay published in 2003"

Toward developing a complete understanding: A social science research agenda for marine protected areas

Abstract: Although many types of MPAs exist—including reserves, sanctuaries, and parks—each involves a group of people collectively engaged in decision-making and most MPAs have both biological and social goals. Biological goals include rehabilitating damaged habitats, sustaining biodiversity, protecting marine life, and providing a laboratory for basic natural science inquiry. Examples of social goals include restoring commercial, recreational, or subsistence fisheries, creating ecotourism experiences, generating economic opportunities, and empowering coastal communities. Biological and social goals may be contradictory or unequally appealing to different constituency groups, resulting in controversy and conflict. These dynamics contribute to the high rate of MPA failure—approaching 90% in some countries (White et al. 2002). In most cases, MPA design and impacts are examined principally from a biological perspective. Use of mainly biological evaluation criteria may contribute to MPAs being categorically defined as a successful, when, in fact, the story is more complex (Christie in press). A particular MPA may be both a biological “success”—resulting in increased fish abundance and diversity and improved habitat—and a social “failure”—lacking broad participation in management, sharing of economic benefits, and conflict resolution mechanisms. Short-term biological gains will likely disappear unless these social issues are addressed (Pollnac et al. 2001; Christie et al. 2002) Social science research is conducted too late in the design process to influence policies despite the understanding that such research is fundamentally important (Salm et al. 2000; NRC 2001; Mascia et al. 2003; Pomeroy and Hunter in press). In general, social science research that is “too little, too late” in the MPA design and implementation processes results in a poor understanding of frequently contentious social interactions operating on multiple levels (local, national, international, gender, class, ethnicity), unintended negative consequences, missed opportunities for positive change and reallocation of resources, and an incomplete scientific record. For example, managers involved in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary acknowledge that they initially underestimated the importance of a broadly participative process grounded in a sound understanding of constituents’ interests and activities—a costly oversight that set back the management process considerably (Suman et al. 1999; Causey 2000). Toward developing a complete understanding: A social science research agenda for marine protected areas

The Place of Civil Society in Fisheries Management

Abstract: The management of natural resources is an area attractive to all the social sciences. Although they all share the same root model concerning the role of the institution of property rights, or the lack thereof, depicted by Garrett Hardin in his seminal article on the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ (Hardin, 1968), there is no consensus as to the analytic merits of this model. Neither do they agree on priorities and substantive conclusions. In this presentation we summarize the main issues and arguments in this discourse — in particular as they pertain to the question of regime design. Where are we at this point in time and what themes are begging for more social research in the years to come?