UBC Faculty Research and Publications

Economics of marine protected areas : papers, discussions and issues: a conference held at the UBC Fisheries… Sumaila, Ussif Rashid; Alder, Jackie 2001

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


52383-FCRR_2001_9-8.pdf [ 272.05MB ]
JSON: 52383-1.0074791.json
JSON-LD: 52383-1.0074791-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52383-1.0074791-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52383-1.0074791-rdf.json
Turtle: 52383-1.0074791-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52383-1.0074791-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52383-1.0074791-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

Fisheries Centre The University of British Columbia K r t l k v J 1 K r c a i v v wmm Economics of Marine Protected Areas Fisheries Centre Research Reports 2001 Volume 9 Number 8 ISSN 1198-6727 Economics of Marine Protected Areas Fisheries Centre Research Reports 2001 Volume 9 Number 8 H ^ r ? - D A D I C ^ ISSN 1198-6727 Fisheries Centre Research Reports 2001 Volume 9 Number 8 Economics of Marine Protected Areas Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Canada ECONOMICS OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS Papers, Discussions and Issues: A Conference held at the UBC Fisheries Centre July 2000 edited by UssifRashid Sumaila & Jacqueline Alder with the assistance of Gunna Weingartner published by The Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia 2204 Main Mall VancouverB.C., Canada ISSN 1198-6727 1 A B S T R A C T This Report documents most of the presentations given at an international conference on the Economics of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) on July 6 to 7, 2000 at the UBC Fisheries Centre. MPAs are areas in a marine habitat that are closed either partially or completely to fishing. They have recently been promoted as complements to traditional fisheries management in the literature. The conference sought to provide a forum for academics, government and private sector actors to present, share ideas, information and models for assessing the benefits of MPAs. The focus of the conference was on the analysis and modelling of economic and social aspects of MPAs. As the papers in this volume show, the presentations were multidisciplinary in scope, covering the state of the art in the analysis of the use of MPAs as management tools for sustainable fisheries. Results reported at the conference include: • protecting one of the subpopulations in a stochastic model reduces the sum of squared deviations of catches and effort while the average catch increases; • to assess the potential benefits of MPAs to fisheries one needs to factor in possible benefits arising from improvements in habitat within reserves, and the lower management costs that MPA implementation could lead to; • the success of MPAs hinges on the development of economic alternatives for former users of the areas protected; • if the current fisheries management system is inefficient and no improvement is expected, it is very hard to provide an economic reason for introducing MPAs; • incorrectly sized or located MPAs may increase the risk of depletion; • small MPAs with artificial reefs achieve little to avert collapse of fisheries or shift towards catches of low trophic level species; • accounting for the non-consumptive economic value of fish abundance and size may have a large impact on the economic viability of ecologically functional MPAs; • in the presence of a limited entry license system, reserve creation can produce a win-win situation where aggregate biomass and the common license price increase; • MPAs can have differential impacts on the various players involved in a fishery; • the possibility of spatial heterogeneity in fish stocks implies that an MPA can impact on biodiversity in potentially undesirable ways; • MPAs can help hedge against uncertainty, especially in cooperatively managed fisheries; • the precautionary approach in fisheries management implies that economic loss due to the implementation of MPAs will have to be very large to make the establishment of MPAs economically unwise. ii DIRECTOR'S FOREWORD Three Blind Memes: thinking about marine reserves A meme is the kernel of an idea (Dawkins 1976). Like genes, memes are blind, and compete unconsciously for dominance in human culture. I suggest that the acceptance of the idea of marine reserves (or Marine Protected Areas, MPAs) among the community of fisheries scientists is a illustration of meme competition. In the 1990s the meme for Marine Reserves spread rapidly around the world. Large no-take areas appeared to provide a neat answer to the fisheries problem. But today, a decade later, less than 1% of the ocean is marine reserves, and much of this is not fully no-take. So why have they not been widely adopted? One clue is that the wilder advocates of MPAs struck some 5 years before most fisheries scientists had brought themselves to acknowledge that there was, indeed, a fisheries problem. Many fisheries scientists clung for a long time to notions that the ocean water was too cold (or too warm) for their local fish, and this alone provided a credible reason for decline or even collapse. So, while technical controls such as small adjustments in quotas or mesh sizes were acceptable, there was no need to conceive of massive controls on fishing while overfishing was not seen as a problem. Now, in 2001, although there is a very wide acceptance of the disastrous effects of overfishing, which is solidly grounded in rigorous and extensive evidence, it is a paradox that MPAs are still controversial. I think this is due to the inertia of two counter-MPA memes. Rolled into the basic MPA meme is the notion that they 'must' work - what else could happen other than the recovery of fish populations when protected from fishing? But others say they cannot work because fish, especially schooling mobile species like cod, often swim out of them. Early on the MPA debate, this 'fish swim out' perspective evolved rapidly into an 'MPAs cannot work' meme, largely because Beverton and Holt had 'proven' in the 1950s, using the 'fish swimming out' model, that closed areas would not work for mobile species. Ideas sanctified by Beverton and Holt are deeply embedded in the training of fisheries scientists (see Pitcher 1999), and hence are difficult to argue against. Despite great improvements in many types of modelling of MPAs, including much more sophisticated swimming models (e.g. Guenette et al. 2000), and all of which pointed to tangible benefits of large MPAs, the next counter-MPA meme then took root. Lack of evidence of performance began to be cited as a reason for holding off implementation. This 'fishery benefit not proven ' meme managed to blind people to the obvious: how could there be evidence of performance when almost no MPAs had been set up and even fewer had been monitored or evaluated? When the Fisheries Centre held a workshop on the design of MPAs in 1997 (Pitcher 1997), the debate did not get much further than this. In particular, the meeting noted that there was a lack of work on economic and social costs and benefits from MPAs. That counter-MPA memes fell on fertile ground is likely due to fishery science, at root, being done for the benefit of the fishing industry for so many years. Nothing that seriously impeded the industry, and no-take MPAs are certainly such, was an acceptable solution. This partisan attitude is no longer the case in most of the world, although its legacy can still pop up in surprising ways. An example is the recent abandonment under industry pressure of the highly successful large closed areas (which were not fully no-take) in New England. Is now evident that MPAs, especially large ones, do clearly 'work' to rebuild biomass and this will seed fishery catches. In fact, evidence is now emerging from two sites where small MPAs have been set up. Artisanal fishers in the Philippines (MPAs initiated by Amanda Vincent and recreational fishers in New Zealand (MPAs initiated by Bill Ballentine, the keynote speaker at the Fisheries Centre's 1997 meeting) are reported to gather around the edges of the MPA to catch fish that come out. In his seminal book 'An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding', the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776), providing a good antidote to silly memes, said "it is only experience which teaches us the nature and bounds of cause and effect, and enables us to infer the existence of one object from that of another. Such is the foundation of reasoning, which forms the greater part of human knowledge, and is the source of all human action and behaviour". Hume called this attitude "mitigated skepticism", and considered it the proper attitude for anyone "sensible of the strange infirmities of human understanding". He said that one should not believe in the miraculous, unless the evidence was such that not to believe in it would itself be miraculous: " .. no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish". It is interesting to note that Hume was forced by the religious memes propogated by Bishop Butler to omit the section on miracles from the first 1739 edition of his book, which had been written during a stay in rural France, saying it had been "castrated". I trust that Hume would join with me in predicting that the counter-MPA memes are going to have a hard time in the face of hard scientific evidence. All three blind memes were alive and kicking at the start of the meeting, held in July 2000, that is the subject of this Fisheries Centre Research Report. The conference aimed to address the issue of evaluating the benefits of MPAs. It attracted over 100 participants from 16 countries and it has led to 22 papers published in this Fisheries Centre Research Report, and to no less than two special issues of journals, Natural Resource Modeling and Coastal Management. Participants at the meeting felt that it was a great success in bringing key issues to the fore. To give readers an idea of how participants felt about the conference, here is a quote from Darwin Hall of the California State University Long Beach: "The conference was a huge success in many ways, large and small. The organizers brought great diversity to the program, selecting researchers at all levels - long standing and newly emerging leaders, younger scholars, and newly minted Ph.D.'s -selecting examples from around the world, and integrating aspects of biology heretofore omitted from the economics. The combination of approaches, perspectives, and aspects of the greater problem enriched everyone who attended, and the cross-pollination of ideas will become manifest in the next round of research. The opportunity for informal discussion over meals allowed us to pursue lines of argument with each other, and to isolate the bases in modeling that lead to differing policy conclusion, as well as enjoy each others company. The organizers are to be congratulated". By the end of the meeting even some well-known hardliners were changing their views and counter-MPA memes could be heard running for cover from the harsh world of the open discussion sessions into the safety of coffee break chat with cronies. Whether this sea-change is reflected in the published papers, readers themselves are invited to discover for themselves. This report is the latest in a series of Fisheries Centre Research Reports published by the UBC Fisheries Centre. A full list is shown on our web site at http:/fisheries.ubc.ca, and the series is fully abstracted in the Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts. The Research Report series aims to focus on broad multidisciplinary problems in fisheries management, to provide a synoptic overview of the foundations and themes of current research, to report on research work-in-progress, and to identify the next steps and ways that research may be improved. Fisheries Centre Research Reports are distributed to all project or workshop participants. Further copies are available on request for a modest cost-recovery charge. Please contact the Fisheries Centre by mail, fax or e-mail to 'office @fisheries .ubc.ca'. Tony J. Pitcher Professor of Fisheries Director, UBC Fisheries Centre Literature cited Dawkins, R. (1976) The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press. 224pp Guenette, S., Pitcher, T.J. and Walters, C.J. (2000) The potential of marine reserves for the management of northern cod in Newfoundland. Bulletin of Marine Science 66(3): 831-852. Hume, David (1772) Section X Of Miracles. In "An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding", ed. Tom L. Beauchamp (Oxford University Press, 1999). Page 116 of the standard Selby-Bigge edition. Pitcher, T.J. (ed) (1997) The Design and Monitoring of Marine Reserves. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 5(1): 47 pp. Pitcher, T.J. (1998) A cover story: fisheries may drive stocks to extinction. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 8(3): 367-370. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT [ DIRECTOR'S FOREWORD » TABLE OF CONTENTS IV CONTRIBUTED PAPERS Evaluating Marine Protected Area Management: A New Modelling Approach l Jacqueline Alder, UssifRashid Sumaila, Tony Pitcher, and Dirk Zeller Marine Reserves - will they accomplish more with management costs? A comment to 11 Hannesson's (1998) paper Claire Armstrong andSiv Reithe Marine Reserves: Is there an economic justification? 19 Ragnar Arnason Marine protected areas in the North Sea: a preliminary bioeconomic evaluation using 32 Ecoseed, a new game theory tool for use with the ecosystem simulation Ecopath with Ecosim Alasdair Beattie, Villy Christensen, UssifRashid Sumaila and Daniel Pauly Costs and benefits of implementing a marine reserve facing prey-predator interactions 43 Jean Boncoeur, Frederique Alban Olivier Thebaud and Olivier Guyader Importance of Marine Protected Areas and their Benefits: the local community's 53 perspectives Ratana Chuenpagdee, Julia Fraga, Ricardo Torres, and Jorge Euan An overview of socioeconomic Aspects of an Indonesian Marine Protected Area: 62 A Perspective from Kepulauan Seribu Marine Park Akhmad Fauzi and Eny Buchary Contingent Valuation of Southern California Rocky Intertidal Ecosystems 70 Darwin C. Hall, Jane V. Hall, Steven N. Murray The Economics of Marine Reserves 85 Rognvaldur Hannesson Integrating Marine Protected Areas into Dynamic Spatial Models of Fish and 93 Fishermen Daniel S. Holland The value of a spill-over fishery for spiny lobsters around a marine reserve in northern 99 New Zealand S. Kelly, A. B. MacDiarmid, D. Scott and R. Babcock Marine reserves: designing cost effective options 114 Kenton Lawson and Peter Gooday V The Potential Role of Marine Reserves in Selected Countries in East and Southern 121 Africa. O.V. Msiska, N. Jiddawi and U. R. Sumaila Lake Malawi National Park Fisheries: Basic Assessment of Benefits and Impact 131 Edward Nsiku Consequences of MPAs: an exercise in the Upper Gulf of California assessing 140 immediate economic consequences of no-take zones Ivonne Ortiz Spatial Ecosystem Simulation of No-take Human-Made Reefs in Marine Protected 146 Areas: Forecasting the Costs and Benefits in Hong Kong Tony Pitcher, UssifRashid Sumaila and Eny Anggraini Buchary Estimating the fishery benefits of fully-protected marine reserves: why habitat and 171 behaviour are important Callum M. Roberts and Helen Sargant A bioeconomic analysis of tropical marine reserve-fishery linkages: Mombasa Marine 183 National Park Lynda D. Rodwell, Edward B. Barbier, Callum M. Roberts and Tim R. McClanahan Are Marine Protected Areas in the Turks and Caicos Islands ecologically or 198 economically valuable? MA. Rudd,A.J. Danylchuk, SA. Gore, andM.H. Tupper. The Impacts of Marine Reserves on Limited Entry Fisheries 212 James Sanchirico and James E. Wilen MPAs: Process, Privilege and Participation: a sociological discussion 223 Victoria Silk Marine protected area performance in a game theoretic model of the fishery 229 UssifRashid Sumaila PAPERS IN ABSTRACT 236 GENERAL DISCUSSION 240 SUMMARY 243 Scott Farrow LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 246 I CONTRIBUTED PAPERS EVALUATING MARINE PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT: A NEW MODELLING APPROACH Jacqueline Alder'UssifRashid Sumaila2' Dirk Zeller2 and Tony J. Pitcher2 1 Centre for Ecosystem Management, Edith Cowan University, 100 Joondalup Dr., Joondalup, WA 6027, Australia. 2 Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2204 Main Mall, Vancouver, V6T1Z4, Canada. 3 Chr. Michelsen Institute, Bergen, Norway 4 Corresponding author, E-mail: j.alder @fisheries.ubc.ca Running title: MPA management evaluation method Abstract An assumption underlying the growing support for Marine Protected Areas (MPA) is that they meet conservation goals and provide economic benefits to fisheries and ecotourism. However, continued support for MPAs will be at risk if managers cannot assess whether multidisciplinary objectives are being fulfilled. Current approaches to MPA management emphasise the need to evaluate performance criteria; however, there is little consensus on criteria and their evaluation. We propose a Marine Protected Area Evaluation Model (MPAEM), based on a multidisciplinary non-metric approach used to assess the sustainability of fisheries (Rapfish). The application of MPAEM was explored in a pilot study of 20 MPAs located throughout the world. Results indicate that MPAEM can be used to evaluate MPA management effectiveness. However, further development of the attributes used, ways to engage various user groups and options for easier access to the analytical software should be explored before MPAEM can become part of the day-to-day management of MPAs. Keywords: Coastal management, Management evaluation, Marine Protected Areas, Model, Performance criteria Introduction The role of protected areas in managing marine ecosystems has been widely discussed as the new paradigm for ocean resource management, and there is a growing consensus that Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) should be an integral component of any marine management plan including fisheries management programs (Sumaila et al. 2000; Boersma and Parrish 1999; Costanza et al. 1998; Barr and Thornton 1997). The promotion of MPAs in marine management has been supported by studies which suggest that under certain conditions MPAs will improve the sustainability of exploited fisheries (Russ and Alcala 1999; Brown et al. 1998; Bohnsack 1996; Alcala and Russ 1990). Much of this observed fisheries success is due to the improved biomass, abundance or biodiversity noted after protection of exploited resources. Economic studies on the benefits and costs of MPAs are fewer, but generally they too support the benefits of MPAs under specific conditions (Conrad 1999; Sanchirico and Wilen 1999; Hannesson, 1998; Sumaila 1998, Holland and Brazee 1996). However, much of the latter work is theoretical and awaits field validation. There have been few studies on potential social benefits of MPAs (Bunce et al. 1999; Alder 1996; White et al. 1994) but one could assume that if MPAs provide improved economic returns then ultimately social benefits would follow. In general, these studies have been subject and site specific. None have examined the overall impact of MPA management in an integrated and holistic framework. Often the impetus to establish a MPA is to protect an ecosystem or resource while providing a range of economic and social benefits. This results in objectives being set for the area, with consequential expectations of stakeholders, managers and politicians on the benefits of the MPA. The ability to evaluate whether these objectives are being met will become increasingly important as more MPAs are established. Like any resource management program there comes a point when the effectiveness of the program has to be evaluated. Management process models used in business may provide a framework to develop a method to evaluate the effectiveness of MPAs. One such model uses a cyclic process of planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, with evaluation feeding into planning and implementation (Armstrong 1986). The planning process focuses on setting objectives and identifying criteria for the evaluation of the objectives. Ideally, these criteria should be simple, measurable, cost-effective and reflect the objectives of management (Kay and Alder 1999). These same concepts of management can be applied to MPAs (Alder 1996) and form the basis on which to develop a Marine Protected Areas Evaluation Model (MPAEM). 2 If the objective of a MPA is simply to maintain the resources, we can measure the effectiveness of a resource management program by assessing if the populations in question have increased, diminished or even collapsed. Clearly, the objectives of MPAs are rarely so simple, most often MPAs are seen as one means of reaching the goal of sustainable use of marine ecosystems. Evaluating whether the exploitation of an ecosystem is sustainable is difficult (Boesch 1999). There is ongoing debate on the definition of "sustainability" and how it should be measured (Berke and Conroy 2000; Buckingham-Hatfield and Evans 1996). This debate is outside the scope of this paper. There is, however, a general agreement by many that the definition of sustainability should include ecological, social, economic and ethical components (Garcia et al. 2000; Antunes and Santos 1999, Costanza et al. 1999; Pomeroy 1999). Therefore any approach that assesses sustainability should utilise a multi-disciplinary approach encompassing these components. Clearly, other objectives such as recreation, tourism, research and cultural may also apply, and may require inclusion in the evaluation (Boersma and Parrish 1999; Alder 1996). Few management models have been developed to evaluate the effectiveness of MPA management (McClanahan 1999; Hockey and Branch 1997; Alder 1996; Kelleher et al. 1995). Most of these studies investigated whether MPAs were translated from 'paper' parks to functional management systems. Alder (1996) requested MPA managers to rate the success of their MPAs, but did not provide any criteria to guide managers in their assessment. Hockey and Branch (1997) proposed broadly described criteria to measure the scientific, practical, socio-economic and legal performance of MPAs against the management objectives. Some of their criteria are difficult to score because they are measuring several factors such as education, recreation, tourism and research in a single criterium. Furthermore, the method does not provide any measure of uncertainty or the degree of influence of specific criteria. The paucity of criteria to measure management objectives and the paucity of multi-disciplinary approaches also applies to similar fields such as coastal management, stream management and marine water quality (e.g., Anon. 1999, Bain et al. 1999, Harris and Silveira 1999, Hershman et al. 1999, DEP 2000). A review of sustainability models in fisheries management, however, revealed at least three multidisciplinary approaches. Garcia et al. (2000) have developed a reference system, based on multi-criteria analysis, to assess the sustainability of single species fisheries. In 1998, the Marine Stewardship Council introduced an accreditation scheme to assess the sustainability of capture fisheries (Anon. 1998). Performance criteria and guideposts are used with an Analytical Hierarchy Process to evaluate a fishery against ecological and biological principles (MSC 1998). However, social, cultural and technological aspects are given limited attention. The third approach, which forms the basis of the present study, is Rapfish. Rapfish uses a multi-disciplinary appraisal technique to evaluate the comparative sustainability of fisheries, based on a number of easy-to-score attributes (Pitcher and Preikshot 2000). The attributes (criteria) within each dimension (ecological, economic, social, technological and ethical) are chosen and defined to reflect the notion of sustainability. All criteria may be refined or substituted as improved information arises. An ordination of sets of attributes using multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) is the analytical focus of the technique. The technique has been used to assess 153 fisheries worldwide including commercial, subsistence, artisanal and industrial sectors in temperate and tropical regions (Pitcher and Preikshot 2000). The present study modifies this appraisal technique for use in the assessment of MPA management (Marine Protected Areas Evaluation Model: MPAEM), and applies several case studies to evaluate the effectiveness of the management of existing MPAs. The Rapfish Approach The Rapfish approach was introduced as a technique to appraise the sustainability of fisheries (Pitcher et al. 1998; Pitcher and Preikshot 2000). Separate ordinations are performed on each set of sustainability attributes (evaluation fields) and the results expressing the relative sustainability in each of the fields are reported on a scale from zero to 100%. The fields cover ecological, social, economic, technological and ethical sustainability dimensions. The descriptions of individual attributes for capture fisheries are detailed in Pitcher and Preikshot (2000) and accessible from the web (www.fisheries.ubc.ca/Projects/MPAEM.htm). These attributes are the result of an iterative selection process with experts and are considered 3 to best measure the objectives of sustainability within an evaluation field. There is considerable flexibility in defining the entities (i.e. fisheries or MPAs) for a MDS analysis, and these can be based on a range of criteria (e.g., spatial, temporal, technological, anthropological and political). Entities within a single MDS analysis should be defined consistently at a scale that identify significant changes in management, resource use or extraction practices. Two hypothetical reference entities which are scored at the extreme lower (minimum scores for all attributes, o%) and extreme upper end (maximum score for all attributes, 100%) for all evaluation fields also provide reference points for comparing the sustainability scores. Once entities (e.g., MPAs) are defined and the attributes and associated scoring criteria confirmed, each entity is scored according to the attributes within each evaluation field. These scores are standardised and distances between entities in multidimensional space are calculated before ordination. The resulting distance matrix is the input for the multivariate ordination. Multi-Dimensional Scaling (MDS) has been found to be the most appropriate ordination technique to date (Pitcher and Preikshot 2000). The resulting reduction in dimensionality permits the relationships between the entities to be shown in one, two or multiple dimensions (e.g., Figure 1). Dimensions greater than three, however, are difficult to visually represent and to interpret. The coordinates and distances have no units and can be rotated and re-scaled for ease of interpretation. M P A E M - Marine Protected Areas Evaluation Model The Model Initially it appeared that the Rapfish approach could be used to evaluate the management of MPAs by simply substituting MPAs for fisheries and defining a new set of attributes that reflect MPA management. However, upon closer examination, four aspects of the Rapfish approach need to be evaluated before the approach can be applied to assess MPA management. First, the original Rapfish approach measures sustainability, whereas in this study the focus is on the assessment of management effectiveness. Can management effectiveness be measured in a pragmatic and cost-effective way? Any measure of management effectiveness must be pragmatic so that policy and decision makers can readily understand what is being measured and apply its relevance in MPA management. Similarly, the cost of collecting and analysing the information needed to evaluate management effectiveness must be small compared to the value of the MPA and the cost of managing the area. If we measure effectiveness based on meeting management objectives, then for many objectives, pragmatic and measurable criteria can be defined. Alder (1996) and Boersma and Parrish (1999) showed that for MPAs, management objectives are varied and multi-disciplinary, spanning ecological, social and economic issues. Clearly, if we are to apply the present methodology, a new set of evaluation fields with attributes reflecting measures of MPA management effectiveness across a range of disciplines will need to be defined. Second, can any MPA be evaluated? The definition of MPA can be described with the same degree of flexibility as for fisheries in the Rapfish approach. MPAs can be defined broadly as in IUCN's protected areas system (Kelleher et al. 1995, P- vii) or very specific, such as strictly no-take areas (Bohnsack 1999, p. 9). The definition of the MPA has to meet the same requirements as fisheries in the Rapfish approach; the same criteria have to be applied consistently to all MPAs, and the MPAs should be spatially independent of each other. Third, does the size of the MPA matter? If most of the attributes are defined so that scoring is independent of size of the MPA, then size should not be a constraint for the methodology. We acknowledge that for a few attributes, differences in scale might be important in meeting management objectives. Larger MPAs, due to their physical size alone, may better meet management objectives such as maintaining connectivity and buffering adjacent areas (Watson et al. 2000) and therefore may score higher than smaller MPAs. Fourth, can temporal differences between MPAs be accommodated in the analysis? Given that this requirement is met for fisheries using the Rapfish approach, differences in MPA management effectiveness over time can be analysed using the present methodology. Indeed, time series to examine the effectiveness of management over time for more than one MPA can be investigated simultaneously. M P A Attributes The key to applying the Rapfish approach to MPAs is identifying and defining the appropriate attributes within the dimensions of MPA evaluation. These dimensions are defined by MPA 4 11 • 0 S3 S5 S2 -1- C1 S4 h i A7 A6 if N2 ^ ft A3 A 1 • A4