From Marxan to management: ocean zoning with stakeholders ... · From Marxan to management: ocean...

From Marxan to management: ocean zoning withstakeholders for Tun Mustapha Park in Sabah,Malaysia

R O B E C C A J U M I N , A U G U S T I N E B I N S O N , J E N N I F E R M CG OWA N , S I K U L A M A G U P I NM A R I A B E G E R , C H R I S T O P H E R J . B R OW N , H U G H P . P O S S I N G H A M and C A R I S S A K L E I N

Abstract Tun Mustapha Park, in Sabah, Malaysia, was ga-zetted in May and is the first multiple-use park inMalaysia where conservation, sustainable resource use anddevelopment co-occur within one management framework.We applied a systematic conservation planning tool,Marxan with Zones, and stakeholder consultation to designand revise the draft zoning plan. This process was facilitatedby Sabah Parks, a government agency, and WWF-Malaysia,under the guidance of the TunMustapha Park steering com-mittee and with support from the University of Queensland.Four conservation and fishing zones, including no-takeareas, were developed, each with representation and replica-tion targets for key marine habitats, and a range of socio-economic and community objectives. Here we report onhow decision-support tools informed the reserve designprocess in three planning stages: prioritization, governmentreview, and community consultation. Using marine habitatand species representation as a reportingmetric, we describehow the zoning plan changed at each stage of the design pro-cess. We found that the changes made to the zoning plan bythe government and stakeholders resulted in plans thatcompromised the achievement of conservation targets be-cause no-take areas were moved away from villages andthe coastline, where unique habitats are located. The designprocess highlights a number of lessons learned for futureconservation zoning, which we believe will be useful as

many other places embark on similar zoning processes onland and in the sea.

Keywords Biodiversity, Coral Triangle Initiative, marineprotected area, Marxan, representation, sustainable resourceuse, systematic conservation planning, zoning

Supplementary material for this article can be found athttps://doi.org/./S

Introduction

Marine ecosystems are threatened by human activitieson land and in the sea (Halpern et al., ). Coupledwith growing human populations and economies, the mainthreats include overfishing (Jackson et al., ; Lotze et al.,; Worm et al., , ), pollution (Vitousek et al.,; Syvitski et al., ), and habitat modification and deg-radation (Halpern et al., , ; Burke et al., ).Furthermore, climate change affects marine ecosystemsthrough changes in sea level, aragonite concentrations,and temperature (Jackson et al., ; Hughes et al., ;Hoegh-Guldberg et al., ). Marine protected areas area key regional initiative that can help conserve marine bio-diversity and sustain coastal resources (Gaines et al., ;Hughes et al., ; Mumby & Harborne, ; Edgaret al., ).

Given the growing threat to marine ecosystems, there isan increasing incentive to establish marine protected areas;for example, the Convention on Biological Diversity aims torepresent % of marine habitats in protected areas by (Convention on Biological Diversity, ). As protectedareas often constrain resource users such as fishers, estab-lishing various types of zones can accommodate multipleconflicting and incompatible uses of the ocean (Crowderet al., ; Yates et al., ). Ocean zoning thus aims toregulate activities in time and space to achieve specific ob-jectives for industries and biodiversity (Agardy, ).

Many approaches have been used to design zoning plans,from stakeholder- to software-driven processes. For ex-ample, stakeholder groups were responsible for developingnetworks of coastal marine protected areas in California(Klein et al., ; Gleason et al., ), and a national mar-ine conservation strategy in the Marshall Islands (Bakeret al., ). In Papua New Guinea (Green et al., ),

ROBECCA JUMIn* (Corresponding author) Borneo Marine Research Institute,Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Jalan UMS, 88400 Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, MalaysiaE-mail [email protected]

AUGUSTINE BINSON Sabah Parks, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia

JENNIFER MCGOWAN and MARIA BEGER Centre for Biodiversity and ConservationScience, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia

SIKULA MAGUPIN WWF-Malaysia, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia

CHRISTOPHER J. BROWN† The Global Change Institute, The University ofQueensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia

HUGH P. POSSINGHAM The Nature Conservancy, South Brisbane, Queensland,Australia, and The Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, TheUniversity of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia

CARISSA KLEIN The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia,and School of Geography, Planning, and Environmental Management,Brisbane, Queensland, Australia*Also at: WWF-Malaysia, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia†Current address: Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, Nathan,Queensland, Australia

Received February . Revision requested August .Accepted November .

Oryx, Page 1 of 12 © 2017 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605316001514

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605316001514Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Squire Law Library, on 09 May 2017 at 14:47:10, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605316001514https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605316001514mailto:[email protected]://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605316001514https:/www.cambridge.org/corehttps:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms

Australia (Fernandes et al., ) and Indonesia (Granthamet al., ), spatial planning software was used to identifypriority areas for multiple human activities and biodiversity.Ideally, decision makers would utilize both stakeholderinput and spatial planning software to identify zone place-ments to meet conservation and socio-economic objectives(Game et al., ). However, there is limited guidance onhow best to integrate these approaches to design a zoningplan for multiple uses. Few examples in the literature de-scribe the challenges and opportunities associated with inte-grated approaches. Accessing lessons learnt from projectsthat pioneered such approaches remains a challenge. Asan increasing number of nations embark on ocean zoningprocesses to conserve biodiversity and manage increasingeconomic activity, such guidance is required urgently tosupport effective decisions.

Here we describe the approach used to develop a zoningplan for Tun Mustapha Park in Sabah, Malaysian Borneo,in which the planning tool Marxan with Zones (Wattset al., ) was integrated with stakeholder consultation.Stakeholders included representatives from the government,academia, NGOs, and community members affected by thePark. One of the primary objectives of the plan was to meetbasic representation targets for key marine habitats and spe-cies within the Park. We show how the representation of keymarine habitats and species changed in each of three stagesof the design process, as well as how evenly habitats and spe-cies are represented across each zone. We believe that les-sons learned from our experience can guide decisionsabout how to zone for conservation and human uses else-where. In particular, we believe this study will be usefulacross the Coral Triangle, where an increasing number ofzoning plans are underway, as the policy context and datalimitations are similar.

Study area

Tun Mustapha Park is located in the northern region ofSabah. Prior to gazettement the region had no effective for-mal natural resource management plans, and laws regulat-ing its resource use were not fully enforced. To address thisthe Sabah Government approved, in , the intention togazette the Park and the gazettement was finalized in May. During this period the Park became part of twomajor initiatives: the Sulu Sulawesi Marine EcoregionProgramme and the Coral Triangle Initiative for CoralReefs, Fisheries and Food Security. The Initiative is a region-al multilateral collaboration to manage coral reef resources.TunMustapha Park is one of the top priority sites within theregion that will help fulfil multiple goals of the Initiative(Beger et al., ). The Park is globally significant for itsmarine life, with a rich diversity of coral reef, mangroveand seagrass habitats as well as several threatened species,

including dugongs Dugong dugon, otters Lutra perspicillata,humpback whalesMegaptera novaeangliae, and marine tur-tles (Chelonia mydas, Eretmochelys imbricata, Lepidochelysolivacea; Dumaup et al., ). The Park is home to. , people living in three administrative districts(Kudat, Pitas, Kota Marudu; Supplementary Fig. S), almosthalf of which depend on marine resources for their liveli-hood and well-being (Department of Statistics Malaysia,; PE Research, ). Fishing is a primary economic ac-tivity in the region, and contributed % of total marinefisheries production in Sabah in (PE Research, ).Although trawl and purse seine fisheries are the largest fish-eries in the region, the live reef fish trade, long-line andsmall-scale artisanal fisheries are significant for local liveli-hoods. Habitats and marine life are thus threatened by asuite of human activities, including overfishing, destructivefishing, unsustainable coastal land uses, and illegal harvest-ing of marine turtles and eggs (Jumin et al., ).

We categorized the Park into four ecological regions, basedon geographical location, ocean currents and wind regimesthat influence the development of coral reef ecosystems,and report our results according to these regions (Fig. ).The planning area is . million ha, which includes areasthree nautical miles (. km) from the mainland and twonautical miles (. km) from the islands within the Park.We excluded an area of c. ha adjacent to Kudat Town be-cause of heavy degradation and industrial development, in-cluding regional port and ferry terminals, and a landing jetty.

Methods

Zoning process

In the Sabah State Government approved the intentionto gazette and zone the area for multiple uses, includingconservation and fishing. The Sabah State Governmenthas three objectives for Tun Mustapha Park: () eradicatepoverty, () develop economic activities that are environ-mentally sustainable, and () conserve habitats and threa-tened species. In an Interim Steering Committee(henceforth the Committee) was established to manageand guide the development of an integrated managementplan for the Park. The Committee comprises stakeholdersrepresenting the region’s interests and is chaired by theMinistry of Tourism, Culture and Environment. There aresix technical working groups focused on various aspects ofmanagement, including a zoning working group, which fa-cilitated all stages of the planning process described here, viareview, feedback and endorsement of the final draft to theCommittee. Stakeholder outreach was focused on thethree objectives, with emphasis on how they could beachieved by a well-designed multiple-use marine protectedarea.

2 R. Jumin et al.



https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605316001514https:/www.cambridge.org/corehttps:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms

Prior to this zoning effort two major marine zonesexisted within the proposed boundary of the Park: a com-mercial fishing zone (. nautical miles from the mainlandand . nautical mile from the islands) and a traditionalfishing zone (, nautical miles from the mainland and, nautical mile from the islands). Both zones wereinsufficient to protect key habitats such as mangroves andcoral reefs, existing laws were not fully enforced and as a re-sult overfishing occurred and threatened species were killed.Potential new zone types were developed consultatively withkey stakeholders from Sabah Parks, Department of FisheriesSabah, Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Land & SurveyDepartment, Sabah Forestry Department, and PersatuanPemilik Kapal Nelayan Kudat (Kudat Fishing BoatOwners’ Association) and other NGOs (Weeks et al.,). The new zone types determined for the Park were() a preservation zone, prohibiting all extractive activities;() a community use zone, in which non-destructivesmall-scale and traditional fishing activities are allowedand the nearby communities are encouraged to take partin the management of their own resources; () a multipleuse zone, in which non-destructive and small-scale fishingactivities as well as other sustainable development activities,such as tourism and recreation, are allowed; and () a com-mercial fishing zone, in which large-scale extractive fishing

practices are allowed. Certain types of commercial fishingactivities, such as long line (rawai) and recreational fishing,are also allowed in multiple use zones but not in the com-munity use zone.

The primary four design principles considered in thezoning process were protection of key habitats in no-takeareas, replication, representation and connectivity (Lee &Jumin, ; Green et al., ). Specifically, the representa-tion goal was to ensure that all major habitats were includedwithin no-take zones, and the replication goal was to ensurethat each habitat was protected in multiple individual no-take zones. The zoning process was undertaken in threestages: prioritization, review and consultation (Fig. ),each of which produced a proposed zoning map. The entireprocess involved academics, government and NGO repre-sentatives, and local communities. Here we describe eachstage of the process and evaluate how well each resultingzoning plan achieved the conservation and socio-economicgoals for the Park.

Stage 1: prioritization using Marxan with Zones

We used the systematic conservation planning softwareMarxan with Zones (Watts et al., ) in the creation of

FIG. 1 Coral reef types and ecological regions (R–R) within Tun Mustapha Park, Sabah, Malaysia.

Ocean zoning in Sabah, Malaysia 3




multiple use zoning plans to ensure a repeatable, transpar-ent and scientifically credible methodology (Klein et al.,). We identified priority areas for three zones: () pres-ervation, () community use, and () multiple use. We didnot include a zone for commercial fishing activities (i.e.trawling and purse seine gear). Rather, the commercial fish-ing zone was restricted to. nautical miles from the main-land, which is the legal limit for commercial fishing activityin Sabah. However, this limit is not strictly enforced, andcommercial fishing occurs closer to shore; a problem thatwill be addressed when the zoning plan is implemented.

For each zone Marxan with Zones requires two types ofinformation: () how much and what type of features (e.g.habitat, distribution, fishing grounds) should be includedin each zone, and () the cost of implementing the zone.

We targeted conservation features (habitats and spe-cies) and two socio-economic features (fishing groundsand historical sites) in each of the four ecological regionsfor inclusion in preservation and community use zones(Table ; Weeks et al., ). We set a target for each featurein each zone to address the principle of replication, whichhelps to ensure the zoning plan is resilient to catastrophicevents (Green et al., , ). A minimum of %representation of habitats and species was set, in line withgeneral recommendations from conservation science(Bohnsack et al., ; O’Leary et al., ). This is higherthan the % target set for the broader Coral Triangle(White et al., ) but is justified by the prevailing threatsof unsustainable fishing practices, such as dynamite andcyanide fishing. The Balambangan Island caves and histor-ical sites were fixed as targets to protect their unique status(Lee & Jumin, ).

The coral reefs were divided into eight distinct types onthe basis of a rapid morphological assessment of the Park’s

reef area, combining reef data from Zulkafly et al. () andUNEP-WCMC et al. (). Each reef type represents differ-ent reef assemblages based on the general influence of windand ocean current exposure. Mangrove data were sourcedfrom remotely sensed images from the SPOT- satellite,from . Turtle nesting and feeding grounds, dugonghabitat, and traditional fishing grounds were mappedusing data from a community survey conducted during– by WWF-Malaysia and Sabah Parks (Juminet al., ). The survey team visited villages, interviewed. people, using a structured questionnaire, and con-ducted discussions and mapping with . , local com-munity members.

Many of the Park’s communities depend on fisheries forsubsistence and livelihoods, and therefore we aimed to min-imize the impact of preservation zones on these communi-ties. We developed a proxy of opportunity cost that was afunction of distance from fishing villages (the closer to thevillage, the higher the cost) and important fishing grounds(higher cost where important fishing grounds existed).Furthermore, we targeted traditional fishing grounds inthe community use andmultiple use zones where traditionalfishing is allowed. Distance from the village was used as themanagement cost for the community use zone: the furtheran area is from a village, the more costly it will be for thecommunity to manage the area. As a cost is required foreach zone, we defined the cost in the multiple use zonesas the area of the planning unit; this essentially identifiesthe smallest area possible that achieves the conservationand socio-economic targets. We constrained Marxan withZones to ensure that some of the preservation zones wereadjacent to community use zones so that communitiescould benefit from the spillover of adult fish from the pres-ervation zone.

FIG. 2 The iterative planning processused for Tun Mustapha Park, Sabah,Malaysia (Fig. ; refer to SupplementaryFig. S for the full zoning process).

4 R. Jumin et al.




Stage 2: review and enforceability assessment by SabahParks

The Marxan with Zones planning stage produced severalzoning solutions that met the Park’s conservation and socio-economic targets. As the analysis is based on a grid of smallplanning units, the boundaries of the zones are jagged andrealistically cannot be enforced. Thus, the best solutionMarxan with Zones map (Fig. a) was submitted to SabahParks to assess in terms of enforceability. Based on thismap, Sabah Parks identified general areas for each zone,using the map as a guide to refine zone boundaries. Thisproduced the first draft zoning plan that was endorsed bythe Committee for stakeholder consultation (Fig. b).

Stage 3: stakeholder consultation

The stakeholder consultationwas conducted by Sabah Parks,with support fromWWF-Malaysia, Department of FisheriesSabah, and Universiti Malaysia Sabah. Facilitators with in-depth knowledge of the Park, its stakeholders and their lan-guages conducted consultations for feedback on the draftzoning plan produced in Stage , targeting three main stake-holder groups: local coastal communities, the private sector,in particular commercial fishers, and government agencies.Consultations were conducted in two steps, taking accessi-bility and efficiency of information dissemination into con-sideration, as well as the role and influence of thestakeholders in the decision making process. The first stepinvolved discussions with district officers, briefing duringDistrict Offices Development Committee meetings (Pitasand Kota Marudu), an exhibition at the annual KotaMarudu Corn Festival, pilot testing on Banggi Island,where community leaders and members of thecommunities were invited to the district office of Banggifor presentations about the zoning process, and early ground

surveys (Pitas, Kudat, Banggi, Matunggong). During theground surveys facilitators visited at least coastal com-munities/villages and the commercial fishing group basedin Kudat, to inform community groups about the proposedplans, and to establish contact with village heads to assistwith information dissemination for the second step.

The second step of the consultations involved the use ofa semi-structured questionnaire as a tool for systematic cap-ture of stakeholder feedback on the draft zoning plan,including direct input to the draft zoning map attached tothe questionnaire. There were , respondents fromthe coastal villages (% of targeted respondents) and from the commercial fishing group (% of targetedrespondents).

Subsequent to the consultation with the coastal commu-nities and the private sector, consultations were conductedwith the district offices of Pitas, Kota Marudu, Kudat andthe sub-district of Banggi, presenting the outcome of theprevious consultations. Feedback from the stakeholderswas incorporated into the draft zoning plan and, when ne-cessary, follow-up consultations with specific stakeholderswere undertaken to reach a consensus on their input tothe zoning plan. The consultations resulted in a third zoningplan (Fig. c).

Evaluation of zoning maps produced in each planningstage

For each stage of the zoning process we calculated theamount of each conservation feature represented in eachzone by region (Fig. ). We also used an additional metricto illustrate how evenly the habitats were represented withineach zone. This metric is a modification of the Gini coeffi-cient (Barr et al., ), which is widely used in economics asa measure of income equality. Here we used it to quantifythe evenness of habitat representation within each zone

TABLE 1 Representation targets for conservation and socio-economic features for preservation, community use, and multiple use zones inTun Mustapha Park, Sabah, Malaysia (Figs & ).

Features

Targets for zones in each ecological region (%)

Preservation Community use Multi-use

Traditional/small-scale fishing ground No target set 30 70Coral reefs (fringing reef exposed, fringing semi-sheltered, fringing very sheltered,

patch reef exposed, patch reef semi-sheltered, patch reef sheltered, limestonereef exposed, limestone reef sheltered)

30 30

Dugong habitat 30Estuary 30Mangroves 30Seagrass 30Turtle feeding areas 30Turtle nesting areas 30Balambangan limestone caves Locked inHistorical sites Locked in





for each planning stage. We modified the coefficient so thata value of indicates perfect evenness across conservationfeatures, and values closer to indicate uneven representa-tion. We also capped the coefficient, so that % protectionwas considered to be the maximum. For simplicity in theevaluation, we aggregated the coral reef types and report re-presentation of coral reef habitat as a whole.

Results

The zoning plan resulting from Stage (Marxan with Zonesprioritization) achieved all conservation targets (Table ).

Stage met the design principles for the preservationzones, representation of features and replication of featuresacross regions. We found an even representation of featuresin the preservation zones, and an unequal representation offeatures in the other two zones (Table ).

In Stage Sabah Parks altered the zone boundaries. Thisprocess maintained the % habitat targets achieved forRegion and Region but did not maintain the % targetsfor coral reefs and seagrass in Region or for seagrass andturtle nesting in Region (Fig. ). The Gini coefficient indi-cated reduced evenness in representation of features in pres-ervation zones across the Park (Table ). The draft zoningmap from this stage produced large coastal preservation

FIG. 3 The evolution of the zoning plan for Tun Mustapha Park through each stage of the planning process: (a) prioritization: bestsolution from Marxan with Zones results; (b) review: draft zoning plan endorsed by the Tun Mustapha Park Interim SteeringCommittee; and (c) consultation: revised zoning plan incorporating feedback from the stakeholder consultation.

6 R. Jumin et al.




zones, particularly around Banggi Island, driven by the de-sire to protect important coastal habitats such as seagrassand mangroves (Fig. b).

In Stage the stakeholder consultation process produceda result that reflects the general preference of stakeholdersfor more area assigned to community use and less for pres-ervation. No % targets were achieved in Regions , or. In these regions some features still achieved some

inclusion in preservation areas (corals, dugong), but inRegion only % of corals were represented, and none ofthe estuary, mangrove or seagrass features (Fig. ). The% targets for coral reefs and turtle habitat were achievedfor Region (Fig. ). Stakeholders’ preference to have pres-ervation zones located away from their villages contributedto the lack of coastal habitats in the preservation zone. Insome cases stakeholders recommended relocation of a pres-ervation zone to areas that do not contain conservation fea-tures or important habitats. Some governmental decisionsmade during this process also contributed to the targetshortfall, including excluding coastal land area and man-grove forest reserves from the Park boundary, and amend-ing the outer boundary in some regions (Fig. c). Thisdevelopment equates to a change in management objectivesduring the process, where stakeholders decided that somenearshore habitats could not be represented, given theirsocio-economic and political needs.

Changing conservation objectives to accommodate eco-nomic and political realities is common (Sale et al., ;

TABLE 2 Modified Gini coefficients for each of the three stages ofthe zoning process for Tun Mustapha Park, Sabah, Malaysia(Fig. ), indicating habitat representation within each zone.Higher values indicate a more even representation of habitats/features.

Zoning stages

Zones

Preservation Community use Multiple use

Marxan (best) 1 0.57 0.63Sabah Parks 0.72 0.54 0.3Stakeholder 0.36 0.64 0.27

FIG. 4 Percentage allocation of conservation features to each zone (multiple use, community use, preservation) across planning stagesfor each of the four ecological regions in Tun Mustapha Park, Sabah, Malaysia. The target for the preservation zone was % perfeature.





Gormley et al., ; Goldsmith et al., ) but it compro-mises management outcomes and the livelihoods of peoplewho depend on sustainable resource use. For example, manyimportant fisheries species that are well protected on coralreefs require nursery habitat in seagrasses and mangroves(Olds et al., ), which remain unprotected.

The biggest change was evident in Region . After thestakeholder process the coastal boundary of the Park was al-tered significantly; in some areas it was moved to maway from the coastline, and the total area of the Park wasreduced. Additionally, coastal habitats such as mangroves,seagrass and turtle nesting areas were excluded from thePark. As in Region , mangroves are not represented withinthe Park in Region , although some mangrove areas areprotected by forestry management regulations (Boon &Beger, ). The changes in the Park and zone boundariesreduced the Gini coefficient for the preservation zone butincreased it slightly for the community use zone (Table ;Supplementary Fig. S).

Discussion

The establishment of Tun Mustapha Park as a multiple usepark under IUCN Category VI (Protected Area withSustainable Use of Natural Resources) is the first of itskind to be established in Malaysia, and the first under theCoral Triangle Initiative (Weeks et al., ; Beger et al.,). We believe the Park makes substantial progress to-wards the protection of biodiversity and the ecosystem ser-vices it provides to the local communities. The planningprocess began with the approval of the intention to gazettethe Park by the Sabah State Government in , andspannedmore than a decade and included the establishmentof a management plan and the design of the Park zoningplan. However, it was not a perfect planning process andwe focus the discussion on the challenges and lessons learn-ed. Our aim is to assist other integrated planning processeswithin the Coral Triangle, and elsewhere, to establish mar-ine protected areas.

Our evaluation shows that the conservation targets weresubstantially compromised in Stage of the planning pro-cess, during the stakeholder consultations, when areasnear the coastline were excluded from the Park and theouter boundary of the Park was reduced. These modifica-tions reflect the concerns of the stakeholders, includinglocal communities, government agencies, and industries(e.g. commercial fishing), who thought that they wouldnot have access to natural resources once the zones were es-tablished. These concerns are, in part, attributable to theperception that the law under which the Park was estab-lished (Sabah Parks Enactment ) is focused on protect-ing biodiversity and does not allow for extractive activities,such as fishing. This perception arose because most parks

established under this law are no-take state parks (estab-lished as IUCN category II) that allow only non-extractiverecreational activities. However, as demonstrated with TunMustapha Park, special provisions can be made to allow forthe establishment of multiple use parks (IUCN category VI).Educating stakeholders on the benefits of no-take areas tofisheries and food security, as well as clear communicationof the special provisions of law, might have prevented someof the changes that occurred in Stage .

The reduction of the Park’s outer boundary in Stage re-flects concerns of government agencies. In Sabah differentgovernment agencies have jurisdiction over different habi-tats important for marine biodiversity (e.g. mangroves, estu-aries, turtle nesting areas). The Parks Enactment law doesnot allow for collaborative management, and the sole man-date of management belongs to the Sabah Parks Board ofTrustees for a period of years (Thandauthapany, ).The lack of regulatory support for collaborative manage-ment contributed to the doubts of other government agen-cies that the Park could be managed successfully by multipleagencies. Consequently, government agencies preferred tomaintain current management practices. For example, theForestry Department requested that mangrove forest re-serves remain under their management, and the DistrictOffices requested the exclusion of some coastal area fromthe Park for development purposes (Binson, ).Excluding these areas may influence the effectiveness ofthe Park in terms of marine resource management andbiodiversity conservation. Most mangrove areas that are im-portant for fish breeding will remain as mangrove forest re-serves under the management of the Forestry Department,which does not regulate fishing activities, and turtle nestingbeaches will remain as state land under the management ofthe Land Office, and will be subject to development. Overall,the exclusions reduced the total area gazetted under TunMustapha Park from the proposed . million ha to, ha (Warta Kerajaan Negeri Sabah, ).

We believe that if stakeholders had been involved earlierin the planning process the resulting zoning plan wouldhave yielded better protection for biodiversity. Collective de-cision making on critical issues such as the park boundary,conservation objectives, features to be protected and theirconservation targets, and the types of zones is a crucialstep in conservation planning and the success of conserva-tion plans (Margules & Pressey, ; Carwardine et al.,; Watts et al., ). Although the benefits of involvingstakeholders at the beginning of the planning process arewell known (Pollnac & Crawford, ; Beger et al., ;Fernandes et al., ; Crawford et al., ; Gaymeret al., ), inadequate resources delayed the consultationprocess until funding from the USAID Coral TriangleSupport Partnership could be secured in , facilitatinga focused and structured effort to bring about the zoningand design of Tun Mustapha Park. This effort commenced

8 R. Jumin et al.




with the establishment of the Interim Steering Committee inJanuary .

The delay led to other, not yet mentioned, challengingnegotiations during stakeholder consultation in Stage. Several government agencies requested that new areasfor commercial fisheries, aquaculture and socio-economicdevelopment be identified. Stakeholders in the trawl fisherywere concerned that the exclusion of trawl fishing frommultiple use zones would make their fishery unprofitable.Many of the trawl operators have to service significantloans taken out to buy boats and gear, which they feelthey will not be able to repay if spatial restrictions are placedon their fishing effort (Cinner et al., ; Barrett et al., ;Cinner, ; McNally et al., ). In line with institutionaland legal support, adequate funding of the process overmultiple years is vital to maintain momentum and toachieve stakeholder buy-in throughout the process.

Important hurdles tackled during the planning processarose from realities and perceptions of the legislationrelevant to Malaysian marine parks. The Sabah ParksEnactment is perceived to be a strong legislation that doesnot allow for multiple use and collaboratively managedparks. We found that a legal framework that allows for theimplementation of a conservation planning process gearedtowards multiple use and collaborative management wouldensure commitment and foster confidence among the stake-holders involved in the process.

A decision support tool such as Marxan with Zones isuseful because it translates the planning goals into spatialmaps and provides several zoning options for considerationby stakeholders. In the development of a zoning plan forTun Mustapha Park only one zoning map was given toSabah Parks (Stage ) for consideration. The decision touse only the best option produced by the Marxan withZones analysis was based on the desire to keep communica-tions with stakeholders simple, rapid and less technical.However, this was a mistake and we learnt that a numberof different zoning plans should have been submitted todemonstrate that there are multiple ways to achieve the de-sired goals (Game et al., ; Linke et al., ).

The use of a planning tool and the associated internallearning processes of the implementing agencies were anovel step for Malaysian national parks planning. Manymarine protected areas worldwide are planned without theuse of decision support tools but although there are manyvalid planning approaches, decision support tools ensurethat resulting plans achieve goals efficiently (Klein et al.,). Furthermore, they identify places that are requiredto achieve goals and places that are not needed to achievegoals, and provide stakeholders with alternatives for achiev-ing their goals. Marxan with Zones was chosen becauseSabah Parks and WWF-Malaysia required a decision sup-port tool that was transparent, repeatable and could directlyidentify areas required for various management types

(Watts et al., ; Game et al., ). Marxan with Zonesproduces multiple options for decision making and in-formed selection of zones that can serve to guide an iterativedecision process in stakeholder consultations. However, be-cause of the need to reach a large number of stakeholdersrapidly, the approach used in Tun Mustapha Park was tofocus on the best solution produced by Marxan withZones, which facilitated direct input from stakeholdersinto the Marxan design. Although this approach is flawed,by using Marxan with Zones the zoning team could assesswhether conservation targets had been achieved and providerecommendations where critical areas needed to be in-cluded in the zoning plan.

The use of Marxan with Zones was challenging because itwas new to most people involved in the zoning process.WWF and Sabah Parks staff invested considerable time inlearning and understanding how to use the software.Although the software itself is relatively simple to use, it re-quires a sophisticated understanding of the principles of sys-tematic conservation planning, as well as spatial analysisskills. We learned that understanding the basic guidingprinciples of systematic conservation planning and thesocio-economic benefits of marine protected areas is per-haps more fundamental compared to understanding themechanics of a decision support tool, as such technical ex-pertise can be sourced externally. This type of education re-quires long-term commitment and ideally would start inuniversity environmental programmes.

Future planning processes would benefit from explicitconsideration of social implications, such as poverty traps,in planning tools. For instance, social equity is an importantconsideration in trading off conservation, cost and equityoutcomes in reserve design (Agardy, ; Barrett et al.,; Halpern et al., ). Although poverty traps werenot considered explicitly in the tools used for the TunMustapha Park planning process, the process has helpedto start discussions between fishers and the government.These discussions have brought poverty traps to the govern-ment’s attention and it is seeking solutions, although imple-mentation (e.g. trawler buy-back) is hindered by inadequatefunding.

Zoning the ocean is one of many interventions used tomanage natural resources. There are other effective toolsthat can be used either in isolation or in conjunction withocean zoning, including various fisheries management re-gimes (e.g. quotas, gear restrictions; Day & Dobbs, ;Costello et al., ; Hilborn, ). The designing of thezoning plan described here is part of the overall initiativeto develop an integrated management plan for the Park.We hope that the lessons from this zoning process will pro-vide guidance for implementation of similar initiatives inMalaysia and elsewhere, as ecosystem approaches to re-source management become more important regionallyand globally. Collaborative planning processes that involve





representative stakeholders in all phases will lead to out-comes that foster the protection of biodiversity and securityof livelihoods for many generations to come.

Acknowledgements

The TunMustapha Park Project is funded byWWF and theUnited States Agency for International Development CoralTriangle Support Partnership. Robecca Jumin received aPhD grant from the WWF Russell E. Train Education forNature Fellowship. Carissa Klein was supported by a post-doctoral research fellowship from the University ofQueensland and a Discovery grant from the AustralianResearch Council (DP ).

References

AGARDY, T. () An environmentalist’s perspective on responsiblefisheries: the need for holistic approaches. In Responsible Fisheriesin the Marine Ecosystem (eds M. Sinclair & G. Valdimarsson), pp.–. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.

AGARDY, T. () Ocean Zoning: Making Marine Management MoreEffective. Earthscan, London, UK.

BAKER, N., BEGER, M., MCCLENNEN, C., ISHODA, A. & EDWARDS, F.() Reimaanlok: a national framework for conservation areaplanning in the Marshall Islands. Journal of Marine Biology, http://dx.doi.org/.//.

BARR, L.M., PRESSEY, R.L., FULLER, R.A., SEGAN, D.B., MCDONALD-MADDEN, E. & POSSINGHAM, H.P. () A new way to measure theworld’s protected area coverage. PLoS ONE, (), e.

BARRETT, C.B., TRAVIS , A.J. & DASGUPTA, P. () On biodiversityconservation and poverty traps. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences of the United States of America, , –.

BEGER, M., HARBORNE, A.R., DACLES, T.P., SOLANDT, J.-L. &LEDESMA, G.L. () A framework of lessons learned fromcommunity-based marine reserves and its effectiveness in guiding anew coastal management initiative in the Philippines.Environmental Management, , –.

BEGER, M., MCGOWAN, J., TREML, E.A., GREEN, A.L., WHITE, A.T.,WOLFF, N.H. et al. () Integrating regional conservationpriorities for multiple objectives into national policy. NatureCommunications, , http://dx.doi.org/./ncomms.

BINSON, A. () Brief Report/Programme Technical Report onGazettement of Tun Mustapha Park. Unpublished report. WWF-Malaysia, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.

BOHNSACK, J.A., CAUSEY, B., CROSBY, M.P., GRIFFIS , R.B., HIXON, M.A., HOURIGAN, T.F. et al. () A rationale for minimum –%no-take protection. Proceedings of the Ninth International CoralReef Symposium, , –.

BOON, P.Y. & BEGER, M. () The effect of contrasting threatmitigation objectives on spatial conservation priorities. MarinePolicy, , –.

BURKE, L., REYTAR, K., SPALDING, M. & PERRY, A. () Reefs at RiskRevisited. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C., USA.

CARWARDINE, J., KLEIN, C.J., WILSON, K.A., PRESSEY, R.L. &POSSINGHAM, H.P. () Hitting the target and missing the point:target-based conservation planning in context.Conservation Letters,, –.

CINNER, J.E. () Social-ecological traps in reef fisheries. GlobalEnvironmental Change, , –.

CINNER, J.E., DAW, T. & MCCLANAHAN, T.R. () Socioeconomicfactors that affect artisanal fishers’ readiness to exit a decliningfishery. Conservation Biology, , –.

CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY () Aichi BiodiversityTargets. Https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/default.shtml [accessed October ].

COSTELLO, C., OVANDO, D., CLAVELLE, T., STRAUSS, C.K., HILBORN,R., MELNYCHUK, M.C. et al. () Global fishery prospects undercontrasting management regimes, Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences of the United States of America, , –.Http://doi.org/./pnas..

CRAWFORD, B., KASMIDI , M., KOROMPIS , F. & POLLNAC, R.B. ()Factors influencing progress in establishing community-basedmarine protected areas in Indonesia. Coastal Management, ,–.

CROWDER, L.B., OSHERENKO, G., YOUNG, O.R., AIRAME, S., NORSE,E. A., BARON, N. et al. () Resolving mismatches in U.S. oceangovernance. Science, , –.

DAY, J.C. & DOBBS, K. () Effective governance of a large andcomplex cross-jurisdictional marine protected area: Australia‘sGreat Barrier Reef. Marine Policy, , –.

DEPARTMENT OF STATISTICS MALAYSIA () Laporan KiraanPermulaan. Banci Penduduk dan PerumahanMalaysia, . Http://www.reigroup.com.my/wp-content/uploads/pdf/resources/Housing%census%.pdf [accessed February ].

DUMAUP, J.N.B., COLA, R.M., TRONO, R.B., INGLES, J.A., MICLAT,E.F.B. & IBUNA, N.P. () Conservation Plan for the Sulu-SulawesiMarine Ecoregion. WWF, Quezon City, Philippines.

EDGAR, G.J., STUART-SMITH, R.D., WILLIS, T.J., KININMONTH, S.,BAKER, S.C., BANKS, S. et al. () Global conservation outcomesdepend on marine protected areas with five key features. Nature,, –.

FERNANDES, L., DAY, J., LEWIS, A., SLEGERS, S., KERRIGAN, B., BREEN,D. et al. () Establishing representative no-take areas in the GreatBarrier Reef: large-scale implementation of theory on marineprotected areas. Conservation Biology, , –.

GAINES, S.D., WHITE, C., CARR, M.H. & PALUMBI, S.R. ()Designing marine reserve networks for both conservation andfisheries management. Proceedings of the National Academy ofSciences of the United States of America, , –.

GAME, E.T., LIPSETT-MOORE, G., HAMILTON, R., PETERSON, N.,KERESEKA, J., ATU, W. et al. () Informed opportunism forconservation planning in the Solomon Islands. Conservation Letters,, –.

GAYMER, C.F., STADEL, A.V., BAN, N.C., CÁRCAMO, P.F., IERNA, JR, J.& LIEBERKNECHT, L.M. () Merging top-down and bottom-upapproaches in marine protected areas planning: experiences fromaround the globe. Aquatic Conservation, , –.

GLEASON, M., MCCREARY, S., MILLER-HENSON, M., UGORETZ, J.,FOX, E., MERRIFIELD, M. et al. () Science-based andstakeholder-driven marine protected area network planning: asuccessful case study from north central California.Ocean&CoastalManagement, , –.

GOLDSMITH, K., GRANEK, E., LUBITOW, A. & PAPENFUS, M. ()Bridge over troubled waters: a synthesis session to connect scientificand decision making sectors. Marine Policy, , –.

GORMLEY, K.S.G., HULL, A.D., PORTER, J.S., BELL, M.C. &SANDERSON, W.G. () Adaptive management, international co-operation and planning for marine conservation hotspots in achanging climate. Marine Policy, , –.

GRANTHAM, H.S., AGOSTINI, V.N., WILSON, J., MANGUBHAI, S.,HIDAYAT, N., MULJADI, A. et al. () A comparison of zoning

10 R. Jumin et al.



http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/273034http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/273034http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/273034http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9208http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms9208https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/default.shtmlhttps://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/default.shtmlhttp://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1520420113http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1520420113http://www.reigroup.com.my/wp-content/uploads/pdf/resources2/Housing%20census%202010.pdfhttp://www.reigroup.com.my/wp-content/uploads/pdf/resources2/Housing%20census%202010.pdfhttp://www.reigroup.com.my/wp-content/uploads/pdf/resources2/Housing%20census%202010.pdfhttp://www.reigroup.com.my/wp-content/uploads/pdf/resources2/Housing%20census%202010.pdfhttp://www.reigroup.com.my/wp-content/uploads/pdf/resources2/Housing%20census%202010.pdfhttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605316001514https:/www.cambridge.org/corehttps:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms

analyses to inform the planning of a marine protected area networkin Raja Ampat, Indonesia. Marine Policy, , –.

GREEN, A., SMITH, S.E., LIPSETT-MOORE, G., GROVES, C., PETERSON,N., SHEPPARD, S. et al. () Designing a resilient network ofmarine protected areas for Kimbe Bay, Papua NewGuinea.Oryx, ,–.

GREEN, A.L., FERNANDES, L., ALMANY, G., ABESAMIS, R., MCLEOD,E., ALIÑO, P.M. et al. () Designing marine reserves for fisheriesmanagement, biodiversity conservation, and climate changeadaptation. Coastal Management, , –.

HALPERN, B.S., FRAZIER, M., POTAPENKO, J., CASEY, K.S., KOENIG,K., LONGO, C. et al. () Spatial and temporal changes incumulative human impacts on the world’s ocean. NatureCommunications, , http://doi.org/./ncomms.

HALPERN, B.S., KLEIN, C.J., BROWN, C.J., BEGER, M., GRANTHAM, H.S., MANGUBHAI, S. et al. () Achieving the triple bottom line inthe face of inherent trade-offs among social equity, economic return,and conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencesof the United States of America, , –.

HALPERN, B.S., WALBRIDGE, S., SELKOE, K.A., KAPPEL, C.V.,MICHELI , F., D ’AGROSA, C. et al. () A global map of humanimpact on marine ecosystems. Science, , –.

HILBORN, R. () Marine biodiversity needs more than protection.Nature, , –.

HOEGH-GULDBERG, O., MUMBY, P.J., HOOTEN, A.J., STENECK, R.S.,GREENFIELD, P., GOMEZ, E. et al. () Coral reefs under rapidclimate change and ocean acidification. Science, , –.

HUGHES, T.P., BAIRD, A.H., BELLWOOD, D.R., CARD, M., CONNOLLY,S.R., FOLKE, C. et al. () Climate change, human impacts, andthe resilience of coral reefs. Science, , –.

HUGHES, T.P., GRAHAM, N.A.J., JACKSON, J.B.C., MUMBY, P.J. &STENECK, R.S. () Rising to the challenge of sustaining coral reefresilience. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, , –.

JACKSON, J.B.C., KIRBY, M.X., BERGER, W.H., BJORNDAL, K.A.,BOTSFORD, L.W., BOURQUE, B.J. et al. () Historical overfishingand the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science, , –.

JUMIN, R., MAGUPIN, S. & KASSEM, K. ()Community Survey in theProposed Tun Mustapha Park. Unpublished report. WWF-Malaysia, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.

JUMIN, R., SYED HUSSEIN, M.A., HOEKSEMA, B. & WAHID, Z. (eds)() Tun Mustapha Park Marine Ecological Expedition.Unpublished report. WWF-Malaysia, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.

KLEIN, C.J., STEINBACK, C., SCHOLZ, A.J. & POSSINGHAM, H.P. ()Effectiveness of marine reserve networks in representingbiodiversity and minimizing impact to fishermen: a comparison oftwo approaches used in California. Conservation Letters, , –.

KLEIN, C.J., WILSON, K.A., WATTS, M., STEIN, J., CARWARDINE, J.,MACKEY, B. & POSSINGHAM, H.P. () Spatial conservationprioritization inclusive of wilderness quality: a case study ofAustralia’s biodiversity. Biological Conservation, , –.

LEE, Y.L. & JUMIN, R. () Workshop Report: EstablishingSociological and Ecological Criteria for Zoning in the Proposed TunMustapha Park (TMP). WWF-Malaysia Technical Report. WWF-Malaysia, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.

LINKE, S., WATTS, M., STEWART, R. & POSSINGHAM, H.P. () Usingmultivariate analysis to deliver conservation planning products thatalign with practitioner needs. Ecography, , –.

LOTZE, H.K., LENIHAN, H.S., BOURQUE, B.J., BRADBURY, R.H., COOKE,R.G., KAY, M.C. et al. () Depletion, degradation, and recoverypotential of estuaries and coastal seas. Science, , –.

MARGULES, C.R. & PRESSEY, R.L. () Systematic conservationplanning. Nature, , –.

MCNALLY, C.G., UCHIDA, E. & GOLD, A.J. () The effect of aprotected area on the tradeoffs between short-run and long-run

benefits from mangrove ecosystems. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences of the United States of America, , –.

MUMBY, P.J. & HARBORNE, A.R. () Marine reserves enhance therecovery of corals on Caribbean reefs. PLoS ONE, (), e.

OLDS, A.D., CONNOLLY, R.M., PITT, K.A. & MAXWELL, P.S. ()Habitat connectivity improves reserve performance. ConservationLetters, , –.

O ’LEARY, B.C., WINTHER-JANSON, M., BAINBRIDGE, J.M., AITKEN,J., HAWKINS, J.P. & ROBERTS, C.M. () Effective coverage targetsfor ocean protection. Conservation Letters, , –.

PE RESEARCH () Valuation Study of the Proposed Tun MustaphaPark. WWF-Malaysia Technical Report. WWF-Malaysia, PetalingJaya, Malaysia.

POLLNAC, R.B. & CRAWFORD, B.R. () Discovering Factors thatInfluence the Success of Community-Based Marine Protected Areasin the Visayas, Philippines. Coastal Management Report No. .Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research andDevelopment Book Series No. . Coastal Resources Center,University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, USA, and PhilippineCouncil for Aquatic and Marine Research and Development, LosBanos, Philippines.

SALE, P.F., AGARDY, T., AINSWORTH, C.H., FEIST, B.E., BELL, J.D.,CHRISTIE, P. et al. () Transforming management of tropicalcoastal seas to cope with challenges of the st century. MarinePollution Bulletin, , –.

SYVITSKI , J.P.M., VÖRÖSMARTY, C.J., KETTNER, A.J. & GREEN, P.() Impact of humans on the flux of terrestrial sediment to theglobal coastal ocean. Science, , –.

THANDAUTHAPANY, L. () Policy Analysis for the Proposed TunMustapha Park. WWF-Malaysia, Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.

UNEP-WCMC, WORLDFISH CENTRE, WORLD RESOURCESINSTITUTE & THE NATURE CONSERVANCY () Globaldistribution of warm-water coral reefs, compiled from multiplesources, including the Millennium Coral Reef Mapping Project,Version .. Http://data.unep-wcmc.org/datasets/ [accessed October ].

VITOUSEK, P.M., MOONEY, H.A., LUBCHENCO, J. & MELILLO, J.M.() Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems. Science, ,–.

WARTA KERAJAAN NEGERI SABAH () Https://www.sabah.gov.my/gazette/docs/.pdf [accessed October ].

WATTS, M.E., BALL, I.R., STEWART, R.S., KLEIN, C.J., WILSON, K.,STEINBACK, C. et al. () Marxan with Zones: software foroptimal conservation based land- and sea-use zoning.Environmental Modelling & Software, , –.

WEEKS, R., ALIÑO, P.M., ATKINSON, S., BELIDA, II, P., BINSON, A.,CAMPOS, W.L. et al. () Developing marine protected areanetworks in the Coral Triangle: good practices for expanding theCoral Triangle marine protected area system. Coastal Management,, –.

WHITE, A.T., ALIÑO, P.M., CROS, A., FATAN, N.A., GREEN, A.L.,TEOH, S.J. et al. () Marine protected areas in the Coral Triangle:progress, issues, and options. Coastal Management, , –.

WORM, B., BARBIER, E.B., BEAUMONT, N., DUFFY, J.E., FOLKE, C.,HALPERN, B.S. et al. () Impacts of biodiversity loss on oceanecosystem services. Science, , –.

WORM, B., HILBORN, R., BAUM, J.K., BRANCH, T.A., COLLIE, J.S.,COSTELLO, C. et al. () Rebuilding global fisheries. Science, ,–.

YATES, K.L., SCHOEMAN, D.S. & KLEIN, C.J. () Ocean zoning forconservation, fisheries and marine renewable energy: assessingtrade-offs and co-location opportunities. Journal of EnvironmentalManagement, , –.




http://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8615http://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8615http://data.unep-wcmc.org/datasets/1http://data.unep-wcmc.org/datasets/1http://data.unep-wcmc.org/datasets/1https://www.sabah.gov.my/gazette/docs/002352.pdfhttps://www.sabah.gov.my/gazette/docs/002352.pdfhttps://www.sabah.gov.my/gazette/docs/002352.pdfhttps://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605316001514https:/www.cambridge.org/corehttps:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms

ZULKAFLY, A.F., MAGUPIN, S. & JUMIN, R. () Spatial Database forthe Proposed Tun Mustapha Park. Report for Tun Mustapha ParkInterim Steering Committee, TWG: Zoning. WWF-Malaysia,Petaling Jaya, Malaysia.

Biographical sketches

ROBECCA JUM IN ’s interest is in conservation planning, and especiallyin the integration of science and human dimensions in marine conser-vation and resource management. AUGUST INE B IN SON is specializedin park management, and ensures that a good governance andmanagement system is in place for Tun Mustapha Park. J ENN I F ER

MCGOWAN is focused on developing novel methods for the conserva-tion of mobile marine species, and integrating these methods into spa-tial decision-support tools. S I KULA MAGUP IN is a geographicalinformation system specialist with an interest in coastal managementand spatial conservation planning. MAR IA BEGER ’s research interestis in spatial conservation planning, environmental managementand ecology, combining empirical and theoretical approaches.CHR I S TOPHER BROWN is interested in the conservation of marineecosystems and sustainable management of fisheries. HUGHPOS S INGHAM is Chief Scientist of The Nature Conservancy and a pro-fessor at The University of Queensland. CAR I S SA KLE IN ’s primary re-search interest is in supporting marine conservation decisions,especially in tropical ecosystems.

12 R. Jumin et al.




From Marxan to management: ocean zoning with stakeholders for Tun Mustapha Park in Sabah, MalaysiaAbstractIntroductionStudy areaMethodsZoning processStage 1: prioritization using Marxan with ZonesStage 2: review and enforceability assessment by Sabah ParksStage 3: stakeholder consultationEvaluation of zoning maps produced in each planning stage

ResultsDiscussionAcknowledgementsReferences

From Marxan to management: ocean zoning with stakeholders ... · From Marxan to management: ocean...

Documents

Transcript of From Marxan to management: ocean zoning with stakeholders ... · From Marxan to management: ocean...