Stakeholders, Algorithms, and Marine Protected Area Design in California

Carissa Klein, University of Queensland

c.klein@uq.edu.au

Charles Steinback, Ecotrust

charles@ecotrust.org

Marine Life Protection Act Initiative

Working Groups

• Blue Ribbon Task Force

• Stakeholder Group

• Science Advisory Team

Study Area

Pigeon Point

Point Conception

MLPA Goals & Objectives

Biodiversity Conservation • Habitats across depth zones

• Areas of high species diversity

• Populations of special status

Socioeconomic Viability• Minimize negative socioeconomic impacts

Example Conservation Features

Rocky reefs

Kelp beds

Estuaries

Canyons

Sandy bottom

Surfgrass beds

Total = 47

Laura Francis

Sea otter habitat

Mammal rookeries

Bathymetric complexity

Pinnacles

Bird colonies

Areas of high fish diversity

• Recreational Fishing Effort

Trips per planning unit

• Commercial Fishing Effort

Relative importance to fishermen

Consumptive Socioeconomic Data

Expert Approach• Interest groups (fishing, conservation, etc.) developed

proposals

• Provided with biophysical data

• Not provided with all fishing data

• Proposals were evaluated by Scientific Advisory Team (biodiversity representation and impact to fisheries)

• Using scientific feedback, stakeholders revised proposals

Four Proposals

1 2 3 4

Software Approach: MARXAN

• 2.5 km2 planning units

• Calculated how much of each feature was in each planning unit

• Targeted same amount of each feature as stakeholder proposals

• Minimize impact (“cost”) to 19 fisheries

• Used BLM that gave solutions comparable in size to stakeholder proposals

Monterey

Morro Bay

Spatial Compactness (BLM)

a. BLM = 0 b. BLM = 0.0001 c. BLM = 1

0 20 40 60 8010Miles ¯

Planning Unit Inclusion

0 - 10

11 - 20

21 - 30

31 - 40

41 - 50

51 - 60

61 - 70

71 - 80

81 - 90

91 - 100

• Relative impact reservation of a planning unit has on fishing effort

• Equal weight to individual fisheries within commercial and recreational sector

• Equal weight to sectors

Cost per Planning Unit

, , ,

Solution 1 Summed SolutionSolution 2

Individual Summed Solutions

+ =

100 Solutions

Expert and Marxan Summed Solution

Effort lost

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

1 2 3 4

Proposal Marxan

Relative effort lost per unit area

-30.00%

-25.00%

-20.00%

-15.00%

-10.00%

-5.00%

0.00%

1 2 3 4

0.00%

2.00%

4.00%

6.00%

8.00%

10.00%

12.00%

1 2 3 4

Proposal Marxan

Cost vs. MARXAN Output

Cost: Area & Fishing Effort

COST

Low

High

Monterey Monterey

Priority Areas Included?

• Proposal 1 – 96.7%

• Proposal 2 – 70.8%

• Proposal 3 – 76.9%

• Proposal 4 – 87.7%

Caveats

• Marxan solutions assume exclusion of all fishing

• Assumes that effort is not redistributed after conservation

• Data quality and scale

Conclusions

Fishermen designed the most cost-effective solutions

• Local/Expert knowledge

• Data availability may lead to more efficient proposals

Marxan solutions were more efficient than stakeholder proposals

Marxan solutions do not reveal sensitive socioeconomic information

Good tool to support, NOT replace, stakeholder driven process

Photo: Gretchen Hoffman

Acknowledgements

Bruce Kendall, Satie Airamé, Astrid Scholz,

Lindsay Kircher, Allison Chan, Amanda

Cundiff, Nadia Gardner, Yvana Hrovat, Will

McClintock, Fishermen, Fisherwomen,

MLPA staff

Photo: Gretchen Hoffman

Photo: Gretchen Hoffman

)1()(

1

1

1

1

M

a

a

P

b

b

E

M

kN

jjk

ikP

kN

jjk

ik

i