Academic Paper Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/An-Anthropological-Research-Protocol-Fo 👈

1. 103
VOL. 66, NO. 2, SUMMER 2007
Human Organization, Vol. 66, No. 2, 2007
Copyright © 2007 by the Society for Applied Anthropology
0018-7259/07/010103-09$1.40/1
Introduction
M
arine Protected Areas (MPAs) can be defined
simply as areas in marine environments that are
protected in designated ways from human activity.1
Although a variety of types of MPAs exist, varying by the
nature and extent of protection, all MPAs constrain human
behavior. Despite that common feature, the major objective
of an MPA typically is the conservation of marine organisms
and habitats. Regulatory agencies tend to view MPAs in
terms of their potential as a management tool for biologi-
cal and ecological conservation. MPAs are thus typically
focused on marine resources, even though they developed
in the first instance to conserve resources by placing limits
on human behavior. Human behavior, by contrast, tends to
be marginalized in discussions about MPAs, except as the
source of a conservation problem in some initial ecosys-
tem state—a common problem in all ecological research
(Blount 1999).
Ben G. Blount is professor of anthropology at the University of Texas
at San Antonio, and Ariana Pitchon is a researcher at the Institutes
for Fisheries Management and Coastal Community Development in
Hirtshals, Denmark. An earlier version of this paper was presented at
the Anthropology & Environment and Culture & Agriculture Working
Conference on Public Policy, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, Sep-
tember 7-8, 2002. Thanks are due to Nora Haenn, who provided critical
readings of earlier drafts of the paper.
an anthropological research Protocol for
marine Protected areas: Creating a niche in a
multidisciplinary Cultural Hierarchy
Ben G. Blount and Ariana Pitchon
Anthropologists who venture into planned multidisciplinary research in marine systems become enmeshed in a social and
cultural system of disciplinary hierarchy that constrains the nature and type of expected research. The hierarchical system that
favors biology, ecology, and economics before other social sciences is deeply ingrained in U.S. cultural models and enacted
managerially in multidisciplinary research agendas. Within that framework, anthropology is one of the social sciences that
modifies economics in the form of socioeconomics.Anthropology as socioeconomics is challenged to carve out research questions
within the hierarchical framework. A meta-analysis of the design, implementation, and evaluation of Marine Protected Areas
(MPAs) shows that questions of social and economic equity are in the forefront of fishers’ concerns about MPAs, providing a
topic of immediate and practical concern for socioeconomic and anthropological research.
Key words: Marine Protected Areas, marine systems, multidisciplinary research, socioeconomics
We begin with the question of how human behavior has
actually been viewed in the MPA literature. A very succinct
answer can be given. Human behavior characteristically is
seen as and subsumed under one generic category: “socio-
economics.” MPA designers and managers see economics,
modified by social factors, including culture and history, as
the most important component of human behavior.The central
assumption is that economic costs will be the major consid-
eration of resource users, especially fishermen, when access
to areas of the ocean is regulated. For commercial fishermen,
for example, the major concern is considered to be income
loss, whereas for recreational fishermen, loss may be incurred
through travel to unrestricted areas due to displacement from
traditional fishing grounds. Given that social factors are by
definition secondary to economic ones in this perspective,
what are they and how do they relate to economic factors?
What, specifically, is the place or role of anthropology in a
socioeconomics framework? How, in practice, have socio-
economics and anthropology been constructed and applied
within MPA design, operations, and assessments?
This paper represents an attempt to answer those and
other related questions. More specifically, the paper: 1)
describes the multidisciplinary hierarchy that characterizes
research, planning, and management of MPAs; 2) summa-
rizes how socioeconomics has been viewed and used in MPA
design, implementation, and assessment; 3) outlines how
anthropology, as a social science within that framework,
contributes to and modifies economics; 4) surveys and sum-
marizes protocols for anthropological research on MPAs; and
5) identifies specific issues that have been raised in relation

2. 104 HUMAN ORGANIZATION
to the success of MPAs and that are especially amenable to
ethnographic research.
The paper has a central objective of identifying research
roles for anthropology within the highly specific and con-
strained hierarchy of academic disciplines in MPA research.
Management goals associated with MPAs place biology and
ecology above social sciences in terms of importance and
value of contributions, and as noted social sciences are seen as
modifiers of economics.We emphasize that the hierarchy is not
simply an organizational device but a widely shared cultural
model in marine research and policy, one with directive force
for action. Within that system, anthropology is consigned
to specific and very limited descriptive and analytical roles.
Anthropologists can, of course, contest the consignment, and
they can also pursue research entirely independent of MPA-
designed systems, yet, as parts of multidisciplinary teams, they
have particular places and roles delineated for them.
Within the constraints of the managerial cultural model,
what are the particular questions that socioeconomics and
anthropology can fruitfully address? The strategy we use in
this paper is to focus on issues that have arisen in the assess-
ment of the effectiveness of marine protected areas. Since
effectiveness must be seen against original MPA design,
considerations have to be given to design goals and aims,
especially to see how socioeconomics is situated within the
framework. Assessments of effectiveness are likely to be a
fruitful area for identifying socioeconomic factors, since hu-
man behavior is what is managed primarily, despite its low
status within the hierarchical framework. As will be shown
below, socioeconomic considerations will prove to be fun-
damental for success of MPAs. The presence or absence of
cooperation and support from fishermen will be especially
telling, since fishermen appear to be especially concerned
with notions of “fairness” and “equity,” concepts that require
cultural elaboration.
For background and context, we offer a brief account of
the emergence of MPAs and address the rationale for their
creation. We then present information on the number and
distribution of MPAs worldwide as evidence of the growing
interest in their potential as a conservation tool. Subsequently,
we discuss the criteria that are typically considered in the
design of MPAs, including socioeconomic factors, followed
by an account of the utilization of socioeconomics in MPA
assessments. We will show that once MPAs have existed for
several years, administrators and evaluators come to see so-
cioeconomic factors as essential to MPAsuccess. Throughout
the discussion, we make particular efforts to identify issues
within socioeconomics that are especially appropriate for
anthropological inquiry. Finally, we will identify some correc-
tives to the unnecessarily constrictive view of anthropology
as only modifying economics.
MPA Inventories and Databases
MPAs began to appear in numbers in the 1990s, with
case studies and overview publications appearing in the
ensuing decade (see, for example, Recksiek and Hinchcliff
2002; Roberts and Hawkins 2000; Zinn and Buck 2001).
As an indication of the scope of interest in MPAs, the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the World Bank, and
the World Conservation Union (more formally known as the
International Union of Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources [IUCN]) jointly published a four volume work
in 1995, entitled A Global Representative System of Marine
Protected Areas (Kelleher, Bleakley, and Wells 1995).
More recently, in Marine Protected Areas: Tools for Sus-
taining Ocean Ecosystems (2001), the U.S. National Research
Council published a comprehensive overview of the history
of MPAs and of the multitude of issues swirling around them.
Additionally, the MPA News, published monthly since 1999
at the University of Washington, is an important source for
current news and developments and for the exchange of ideas
and information about MPAs.Again, pointing to the growing
interest in marine protected areas, a national MPACenter was
established by Executive Order 13158 (May 26, 2000). Af-
filiated with two federally supported institutes, the National
MPA Center Science Institute in Monterey, California, and
the Institute for MPA Training and Technical Assistance in
Charleston, South Carolina, the National MPA Center is
charged with establishing and managing a website database
for MPAs and with developing a library of publications on
MPA topics and issues.2
As further evidence for growing interest in MPAs,
national and international conferences addressing the topic
have proliferated in recent years, as have the number of orga-
nizations and government agencies that support and promote
MPAs.3
For instance, in March 2004, a symposium on financ-
ing MPAs was held in Loreto, Mexico, and hosted by the North
American Marine Protected Areas Network (NAMPAN), and
in October 2005, the first International Marine ProtectedAreas
Congress (IMPACI), was held in Geelong, Victoria,Australia.
Perhaps the most revealing indicator of MPAs’growing popu-
larity, however, is the sheer numberof reserves that have been
created during the past two decades.
According to the global survey undertaken by the Great
Barrier Reef Marine ParkAuthority, the World Bank, and the
World Conservation Union in 1995, there were 1,306 MPAs
around the world (Kelleher, Bleakley, and Wells 1995:13).
The survey included subtidal but not estuarine and other
wetland reserves, or else the number would have been much
higher. No accurate count of the current number of MPAs
is available, although new reserves and protected areas are
created each year.
At this juncture, it is important to note that MPAs are
not uniformly distributed across the world’s oceans and seas.
In the 1995 survey, more than 55 percent of all MPAs were
in four zones or regions: the Wider Caribbean, Northeast
Pacific, Northwest Pacific, and Australia-New Zealand. Six
marine regions spanning theAntarctic,Arctic, SouthAtlantic,
Central Indian Ocean, Arabian Seas, and Southeast Pacific
all have fewer than 20 MPAs each and together account for
less than 10 percent of the total number of MPAs. Except for

3. 105
VOL. 66, NO. 2, SUMMER 2007
Australia-New Zealand, which had 260 MPAs in 1995, the
majority of the MPAs were at that time, and most likely still
are, in the northern hemisphere.
The past decade has witnessed the creation of many
new MPAs, but the exact number depends on how an MPA
is defined. A related problem for developing inventories is
that MPAs often have built-in expiration dates. Despite those
issues, the 1995 IUCN study has been updated, most recently
in 2004. New databases are also being developed. The U.S.
National MPA Center has been creating an inventory since
2001 of the nation’s marine managed areas. A larger-scale
project is underway to create a global MPA database. As
reported in a recent issue of the MPA News (March 2005),
the project is coordinated by Louisa Wood at the University
of British Columbia and is based on collaboration among the
UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Center, the IUCN
World Commission on ProtectedAreas-Marine, and theWorld
Wildlife Fund (MPA News 2005). The database will contain
information on each site’s location, regulations, and habitats.
Factors Leading to the Creation of MPAs
The motivating causes for this proliferation are various,
but one driving factor is the plummeting, if not collapse, of
fish stocks. According to Food and Agricultural Organiza-
tion (FAO) reports (1995, 2000), landings of wild-caught
fish have leveled off since the mid-1980s, and several of the
most productive marine fishing areas are overfished and in
serious decline. Overfishing sits alongside growing evidence
of the impacts of pollution (the world’s oceans often serve
as vast garbage dumps) to create difficulty, if not crisis (Mc-
Goodwin 1990), in many of the world’s fisheries, and the
causes of these problems are unlikely to be resolved soon.
The decline in commercially and recreationally important fish
was a major factor promoting MPAs as a fishery management
tool. Despite successful management of some fish stocks by
regional fishery councils (e.g., king mackerel by the South
Atlantic Fishery Management Council), the continuing de-
cline nationally and internationally of some fish stocks led
to a search for new tools in fishery management (Agardy
1997; Bohnsack 1993; Gubbay 1995; Johnson, Funicello, and
Bohnsack 1999). MPAs emerged as a promising new tool in
the management toolkit.
Like their terrestrial counterparts (Brandon and Sander-
son 1998), MPAs involve setting aside an area and constrain-
ing either human access to it or use of the resources within
the area. Permissible activities in MPAs can be regulated
through restrictions on gear, species, number of fish caught,
or through age or size limitations. The differences among
MPAs result from local circumstances, including ecology, but
also from a complex of political and economic compromises
that are necessary to assure stakeholders support. Whatever
those differences, however, the objectives of MPAs are more
or less the same: to promote the health of particular fish
stocks through the protection of their essential habitat. Since
the creation of MPAs is usually, if not always, a complex,
long-term process involving interested groups, the objectives
typically include more than conservation of fish and their
habitat. For example, an MPAmight be expected to preserve a
historically important area or even a vaguely defined “benefits
to society.” More concrete objectives are found in MPA site
selection criteria and indicate the multiple and conflicting
values inherent in marine reserves. The criteria given below
in Table 1 are derived from A Global Representative System
of Marine Protected Areas (Kelleher, Bleakley, and Wells
1995:4) whose authors created a list from their worldwide
survey of MPAs.
The criteria in Table 1 are meant to be inclusive and
constitute an ideal inventory. It is unlikely that all of the
criteria would be applicable to any one reserve. In fact the
criteria could easily apply to the design of terrestrial parks
or reserves, since the overall objective in reserves, terrestrial
Table 1. Criteria for Selection of Priority Marine
Protected Areas
Biogeographical Criteria
Presence of rare biogeographical qualities or kinds/
types
Unique or unusual geological features
Ecological Criteria
An essential part of ecological processes
Area’s ecological integrity
Variety of habitats
Habitat for rare or endangered species
Nursery or juvenile areas
Feeding, breeding, or rest areas
Rare or unique habitat
Genetic diversity
Naturalness
Extent to which the area has not been subject to hu-
man-induced change
Economic Importance
Value by virtue of its protection, e.g., for use by tradi-
tional inhabitants
Social Importance
Value to the local, national, or international communi-
ties due to history, culture,
traditional aesthetic, educational, or recreational qualities
Scientific Importance
Value for research and monitoring
International or National Significance
Potential to be listed on the World Heritage List, de-
clared a Biosphere Reserve
Practicality/or Feasibility
Degree of insulation from external destructive influ-
ences
Social or political acceptability, degree of community
support
Accessibility for education, tourism, recreation
Compatibility with existing uses, particularly by locals
Ease of management or compatibility with existing
management regimes.

4. 106 HUMAN ORGANIZATION
or marine, is to maximize conservation according to multiple
criteria and assessments of importance on multiple dimen-
sions. One of those dimensions is to prevent further loss of
species, especially those experiencing precipitous decline. In
the case of fish stocks, the criteria of particular importance
are likely to be ecological, prominently protecting nursery or
juvenile areas or feeding, breeding, or rest areas. Depending
on circumstances, other criteria may apply toward conserva-
tion and rebuilding of fish stocks. Of particular interest here
are the social and economic criteria. Even cursory inspection
shows, however, that they are extremely broad, stated in rela-
tion to the open-ended concept of “value.” In comparison to
ecological criteria, social and economic criteria are under-dif-
ferentiated, reflecting the hierarchy of importance discussed
previously. The selection criteria are clearly geared to bio-
logical and ecological factors as primary in the protection
of marine life and habitat. The place and role of people are
secondary, despite the fact that the creation of MPAs prin-
cipally is to manage human behavior. On the positive side,
however, the bias toward biology and ecology leaves open
for socioeconomics and anthropology ways to contribute to
MPA creation and management.
Anthropology in MPA Research
In recognition of the need for an anthropological agenda
on MPAresearch, a 2002 National Oceanic andAtmospheric
Administration (NOAA) workshop was held at Santa Cruz,
California to develop a research protocol. The goal of the
workshop was the identification and prioritization of eco-
nomic, social, and cultural aspects of MPA issues along with
associated information needs in these areas (Lyons 2002:2).
The conference was organized into “breakout groups,” each
to provide a set of core questions within specific topics and
frameworks (see Table 2).
Participants at the NOAAworkshop identified an exten-
sive set of topics and subtopics within the purview of social
science, and they also proposed research projects that would
provide informational content to each of the subtopics. In
addition to the topics listed in Table 2, conference attendees
identified 19 issues that cross-cut the themes and provided
rich areas for exploration. These issues contained items such
as “grassroots partnering,” “the structure of MPA social sci-
ence,” and “social equity.” While not exhaustive in scope, the
final report (Lyons 2002) represented a major advance and
was, in fact, the most developed blueprint available at the time
for coordinated social science and anthropological research
on topics, questions, and issues about marine protected areas.
The Santa Cruz framework for anthropological inquiry into
MPAs has recently been revised through a series of regional
workshops focused on identification of social science research
themes and strategies (Lyons 2002). The themes are similar
to the “group” categories in the earlier document, reported
here in Table 2, although there are some differences. The six
themes are: 1)Attitudes, Perceptions, and Beliefs; 2) Econom-
ics; 3) Communities; 4) Use Patterns; 5) Submerged Cultural
Resources; and 6) Governments, Institutions, and Processes.
A more complete account of the themes and associated
questions, tools, and references can be found in the NOAA
Coastal Services Center section on Social Science Methods
for Marine ProtectedAreas (http://www.csc.noaa.gov/mpas).
The original list of research groups and subgroups from the
2002 workshop, however, is reported here, in Table 2, since
it provides more detailed categories and subcategories for
social science research.
The Santa Cruz workshop (Lyons 2002) and the revised
Social Science Methods for Marine Protected Areas (NOAA
2004) have provided a comprehensive and far-ranging set of
Table 2. Major Groups and Topics from the NOAA
Santa Cruz Workshop (2002)
GROUP 1: Constituent/Stakeholder Attitudes,
Perceptions, and Beliefs
The natural world and state of the environment
Natural resource management at different temporal
and spatial scales
Local knowledge
Communities of interest, managers and the general
public
Attribution and uncertainty
Aesthetics
Environmental Ethics
GROUP 2: Community Organization
Research tool “packages” commonly used
Development and building of capacity and skills
Management processes: governance, participation,
partnerships
Description of community and stakeholders
GROUP 3: Cultural Heritage
Protection of resources
Cultural resources characterization
GROUP 4: Economics of Marine Protected Areas
Cost benefit analysis
Baseline information
Ecological time and spatial scale dynamics in
economic theory/tools
Non-market values (use and non-use)
GROUP 5: Governance and Institutional Structure
Jurisdictional structure
Public participation and stewardship
Network or site planning establishment
Network or site management and evaluation
Institutional analysis
GROUP 6: Use Patterns
Baseline data on patterns of use and the impacts of
that use
Political ecology of MPA-related use patterns
Historical Ecology
Refining methods for developing, analyzing, and
assessing data
Guidelines for establishing limits on “best available”
data per context

5. 107
VOL. 66, NO. 2, SUMMER 2007
research topics and issues for anthropologists.Anthropologi-
cal research on MPAs can profitably follow those research
protocols, and an additional advantage is that research within
the designed framework will be positioned for comparison
across case studies. An instance is provided in an account
below of public expectations within the category of attitudes,
perceptions, and beliefs.
Prior to that discussion, however, a return at this point is
needed to the broader set of issues about the place and role
of disciplines within MPA research on design, development,
and process. Our concern is not only about the specifics
of an anthropological research protocol but of the place of
anthropology within multidisciplinary research on MPAs.
From that perspective, anthropology is only one discipline
among others in biological, ecological, and social sciences
and is positioned relative to other disciplines. As indicated,
anthropology is categorized as “social science,” which in
turn is seen as modifying economics, i.e., as socioeconom-
ics. While anthropologists are unlikely to see their discipline
in those terms, the reality of multidisciplinary research is
that the discipline is categorized precisely in that way. The
development of an anthropological research protocol, then,
can be seen as constrained by a disciplinary hierarchy, and
the formulation of anthropological research within that
hierarchy would be a worthwhile and important endeavor.
In effect, anthropology as a discipline would derive benefit
from carving out a more explicit and detailed niche within
the culture of disciplinary hierarchy.
The niche that anthropology must carve out in the hier-
archy is within socioeconomics. The prevailing view among
natural scientists and resource managers appears to be that
social science can be seen as “socioeconomics,” at least in
terms of its relevance to conservation and thus in MPAdesign,
implementation, and management. Socioeconomics has a
specific structural position in MPA research. Socioeconom-
ics, in fact, is a component of a cultural model widely shared
by MPA and fishery management personnel (Blount 2002).
Social science committees or subcommittees within fishery
management councils or commissions typically are labeled
“socioeconomics.” The Scientific and Statistical Committee
of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council has a
Socioeconomic Subcommittee, the Gulf Fishery Management
Council has a Socioeconomics Committee, and the Atlantic
States Marine Fishery Commission has a Committee on Eco-
nomics and Social Science. None of those have a committee
on anthropology or on any other social science discipline or
combination of disciplines.Adiagrammatic and nodal depic-
tion of the cultural model is given in Figure 1.
Figure 1 may appear to be completely self-evident and
perhaps even unnecessary. The model could be seen as merely
a logical or commonsense construction of relationships among
the disciplinary components that contribute to a managerial
model. The claim here, however, is that the structure repre-
sents a cultural model of the actual way disciplines and their
interrelationships are perceived and defined. The model thus
constitutes reality, not merely a logical construct but a cultural
reality that has a bearing on the conduct of MPA research.
Anthropology is situated within a deep-seated cultural model
not as a distinct “anthropology” but as a subcomponent of
socioeconomics.
Anthropologists may prefer to simply disregard the
disciplinary-hierarchy cultural model and pursue indepen-
dent research agendas, perhaps within the research protocols
discussedabove.Anotherstrategy,however,wouldbetopursue
research that shows from the results that socioeconomics has
contributions to make beyond the position accorded it within
the model. Socioeconomics may be more central and pivotal in
resourcemanagementissuesthanthemodeltypicallyaccommo-
dates.Arelated strategy would be to show that anthropology, as
apartofsocioeconomics,cancontributeinwaysthatarecrucial
toastrategicplace within the research paradigm.Anthropology
has particular strengths or advantages that enable the discipline
to contribute in those crucial ways.
One strong point is that anthropology occupies an
advantageous position in relation to local communities.
Anthropology is the only discipline in which research is
immersed within the social organization and culture of local
Figure 1. A Diagrammatic Cultural Model of the
Place of Socioeconomics within MPA
Managerial/Policy Framework
MANAGERIAL DECISION-MAKING & POLICY
BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES ECOLOGICAL SCIENCES
A/SYSTEMS SOCIOECONOMICS
ECONOMICS
SOCIAL SCIENCE
ANTHROPOLOGY
Flow of information
Initial sources of information
BIOTA/SYSTEMS ECOSYSTEMS/
HABITAT
KEY
HUMAN
COMMUNITIES

6. 108 HUMAN ORGANIZATION
communities. In the managerial cultural model, anthropology
is allocated the role of informational intermediary between
local communities and regulatory and managerial agencies,
representing the understandings and perspectives of members
of local communities. Anthropology is in effect institution-
alized within the culture of MPA management as providing
information from local communities. Since local communi-
ties, however, tend to be made up of individuals most affected
by MPA regulations, their knowledge may be central to the
entire enterprise of MPAs. Their behavior is what the MPA
actually constrain, and an understanding of their culture and
related behavioral systems may be fundamental to the success
of protected areas.
Assessments of MPA Needs and Success
To illustrate advantages of working within a multidis-
ciplinary framework, we can turn to recent literature on the
success of MPAs. As expected, the studies tend to focus on
biological criteria. Success tends to be measured largely in
relation to increase in size of fish stocks and accordingly a
number of studies emphasize the effectiveness of restric-
tions on fishing (Roberts, et al. 2001). Restrictions on fish-
ing, however, are only one set of variables among many
that relate to fish stock size. An increase of number of fish
within a reserve area may reflect a concentration of fish but
not an actual increase, i.e., fish may migrate to and stay in
the area, producing increased numbers within the reserve but
not overall. A related concern is that a concentration of fish
within a reserve may lead to what is termed “spillover ef-
fects,” a larger than usual abundance of fish at the boundaries
of the reserve and thus a bonanza for fishermen, all of which
impacts population size. Yet another concern is redirection
of effort by fisherman, shifting their fishing from the reserve
to other areas and thus impacting the numbers of fish there,
and as a consequence, overall. In short, MPA success stories
often lead to questions about what increases in stock actually
mean (Shipp 2003).
In general, the narrower and more restrictive the criteria
for success, the more likely they are to be restricted to biologi-
cal parameters (such as recruitment, stock size, and biomass).
Narrow evaluation criteria, however, create a dilemma, since
narrowness and specificity leave unanswered fundamental is-
sues about the effectiveness of marine reserves. Human factors
inparticulartendtobeignored,sincetheyareseenassecondary
or even nonessential in relation to biological factors. Success,
however, is difficult to measure.What actually constitutes suc-
cess even in regard to fish stock size is a complex matter, but
fish stock size may be only one aspect of success expected of
protectedareas.Socialscientistsexpressagrowingconcernthat
only by giving attention to the whole range of issues will it be
possible to gain an understanding of effective MPA effective
management (Alder 1996; Christie et al. 2003).
Broader assessments of MPAsuccess have only begun to
appear recently. A special issue of Natural Resource Model-
ing in 2002 was the first journal setting for a comprehensive
focus on the economics of MPAs. The overview article in
the special issue, by Sumaila and Charles (2002), noted that
whatever benefits MPAs might produce, there are associated
costs. Moreover, the costs are not born uniformly across stake-
holders. Some profit more than others, and costs and benefits
may vary across time. Sumaila and Charles (2002:263-264)
suggest that perhaps the dominant challenge in MPA design
and implementation lies on the human side, not the ecologi-
cal and technological ones. They argue that the appropriate
measure of benefits should focus on coastal communities and
society at large. Accordingly, the authors of the case studies
in the special issue employ a broad range of approaches to
the economic modeling of MPAs. Those include not only
bioeconomic natural resource models but multiobjective
analysis, contingent valuation, and socioeconomic studies.
Sumaila and Charles (2002:266-267) conclude that all types
of costs and benefits must be calculated, including consump-
tive (fishing) and non-consumptive uses (viewing wildlife),
nonuse-existence value (inherent value placed on conserva-
tion), and option value (value for future economic uses). In
addition, direct net benefits from all economic activity must
be taken into account.
Although Sumaila and Charles present a strong case for
variable inclusiveness, the five case studies do not exhibit the
same degree of multidisciplinary focus. The articles address
issues relevant to bioeconomics and microeconomics, but
their major focus tends to be on aspects of modeling method-
ology. Socioeconomics is either not addressed or is marginal
to the theoretical considerations. The special issue is helpful,
but a number of other studies have focused more directly on
socioeconomic factors in MPA assessments.
Recent publications present the claim outright that so-
cioeconomic considerations are central to the creation and
maintenance of MPAs. In Fully Protected Marine Reserves:
A Guide (2001), Roberts and Hawkins summarized lessons
learned about MPAs by drawing both from a large body of
literature and from a survey on the experiences of individuals
long involved with MPA management. From those sources,
Roberts and Hawkins (2001:78-79) provide a list of key les-
sons learned. Of the 13 key lessons listed, five relate directly
to local communities and to socioeconomic considerations.
Two of those lessons, specifically, are “Marine reserves must
be tailored to local conditions, attitudes, and needs,” and
“Socioeconomic considerations usually determine the suc-
cess or failure of reserves.” The latter lesson is, of course,
particularly noteworthy, since socioeconomics is identified
as the pivotal set of variables.
A few studies have looked in more detail at socioeco-
nomic factors that affect stakeholders’perceptions about the
success of MPAs. One particularly interesting study focuses
on the largest of the U.S. marine reserves, the Florida Keys
Marine Reserve Sanctuary. Dobryznski and Nicholson (2001)
conducted a survey of user-group perceptions in Key West on
short-term social and economic impacts of the marine reserve.
Noting that the lack of understanding about the social and
economic impacts has impeded the establishment of marine

7. 109
VOL. 66, NO. 2, SUMMER 2007
reserves in U.S. waters, they conducted their survey on those
issues in an already established reserve. Their most significant
findings were that the reserves had low economic impact on
the user groups but a relatively high social-psychological
impact. The reserves led to increased crowding and thus con-
flicts among user groups. The conflicts were especially keen
between commercial fishers and diver and snorkel operators,
not only over concern about continued health of the reserve
and of access to it but of what the reserves portended for
their respective futures. Diver and snorkel operators saw the
reserves as positive for their businesses, attracting more and
morecustomers.Commercialfishermen,ontheotherhand,saw
the reserves as another wave of limitations that would eventu-
ally put them out of business. Fishermen were, thus, primarily
concerned about matters of equity, of one stakeholder group
having socioeconomic privilege over others. In their view,
recreational divers and snorklers have an unfair advantage in
access to marine resources over the long term.
Similar results were obtained in a survey conducted by
J. Stephen Thomas among Gulf of Mexico fishermen (1999).
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council contracted
with Thomas to survey fishers in 10 coastal communities from
Texas to Key West, Florida, primarily to provide information
on the concept of marine reserves and to identify, with the
fishers’ help, the critical issues and concerns that individu-
als might have about protected areas in the Gulf of Mexico.
Fishermen identified a total of 140 criteria that could apply to
marine protected areas, but by far the three most commonly
mentioned criteria were “siting considerations,” “mitigating
socioeconomic impacts,” and “designing to facilitate enforce-
ment.”The three most commonly mentioned “problems” were
“enforcement issues,” “displaced users and user groups,” and
“credibility of policy makers” (ibid.:2)
The concerns of the Gulf fishers appear to center around
economic issues, in particular what the displacements from
usual fishing areas might cost fishermen financially.There was
expressed sentiment, for example, for some sort of compensa-
tion for individuals and communities that were hurt by the
displacements (ibid.:19). The social issues were less direct
and were expressed along two lines. One concern was that
social disruptions be minimized, especially family and com-
munity disruptions caused by financial loss. Consequences of
potential financial loss, in other words, were seen in social as
well as economic terms, a very common perception in fish-
eries and marine planning. The second dimension on which
fishermen expressed social ideas was similar to findings of
the Key West study, that social equity issues should be given
priority in planning and management. The particular form of
the expression was that equal opportunity should exist for ac-
cess to resources. Fishers raised the issue of equity especially
in relation to enforcement. In their view, inequities will exist
unless enforcement is feasible and actually practiced, with less
principled individuals having privilege over others.
Enforcement, it should be noted, was listed both in the
criteria and in the problem categories. The concern with en-
forcement was not for its own sake but that its absence will
allow for socioeconomic inequities to occur. The stakeholders
who are engaged directly in the use of resources impacted by
MPAs say clearly that: 1) social and economic equity has to
be central to marine protected areas; and 2) that enforcement
is essential if equity is to exist.
Conclusions and Summary
While it may seem self-evident to anthropologists
that socioeconomic factors would be pivotal in the design,
development, and implementation of MPAs, since human
behavior is what is regulated, management culture places
socioeconomics at the lower end of a hierarchy.As discussed,
the importance of socioeconomics and thus anthropology
is thereby marginalized. The relevance and importance of
socioeconomics has to be demonstrated, and the argument de-
veloped here is that assessments of the success of established
MPAs provide an excellent opportunity for that demonstra-
tion. MPAs are unlikely to succeed in meeting their goals
if major stakeholder groups, the fishermen themselves, are
excluded in design and implementation. The regulations in
any given MPA may be to limit the type of fish caught, the
amount of fish caught, times when they can be taught, and
so forth, but the limitations all apply to the fishers. Their
willingness to comply is a central factor in the success.
Research to date indicates that fishers are centrally
concerned about the socioeconomic consequences of MPAs,
especially equity issues. If control for equity is not included
in the design and implementation, fishers are more likely to
resist compliance. MPAdesign and function must necessarily
give consideration to socioeconomic factors if the biological
and ecological goals are to be met. Managerial cultural models
have priorities reversed, neglecting the very phenomena that
appear to be essential for MPAsuccess. The perspective is too
narrow for MPA success. Research that documents the need
for a broader perspective, that socioeconomics is pivotal to
MPA success, will at least run counter the managerial model
and provide more realistic accounts of criteria for success.
Anthropology has a particularly important role to play
in an expanded socioeconomic research framework. Fish-
ers’ concerns about equity are socially based. Ethnographic
inquiry is the appropriate method for documenting those
concerns. Cultural models of equity among resource users
need to be more fully documented and tied causally to issues
of success in MPA development. In summary, the emerging
interest in measuring the success of MPAs provides the op-
portunity for anthropologists to carve out a niche for research
on fishers’ perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs with regard to
MPAs, ultimately to produce cultural models that describe
the critical components of fishers’ concepts. The successful
construction of those models provides direction as to how and
why socioeconomics plays a determinant role in MPAsuccess.
Anthropology is thus made more visible, socioeconomics is
made more visible, and the importance of each can perhaps
be elevated in the culture model of discipline hierarchy. Those
all appear to be worthwhile accomplishments.

8. 110 HUMAN ORGANIZATION
As an important aside, anthropological research in two
arenas of resource management has made contributions rel-
evant to models of social and economic equity. Anthropolo-
gists have questioned the superordinate status of economics
for at least the past two or three decades, evidenced by
studies of fishers and fishing communities. McGoodwin
(1990), among others, has noted that fisher commitment to
way of life often supersedes economic rationalism, thereby
frustrating fishery planners and managers. Durrenberger
and Palsson (1987), following the work of Acheson (1981)
and McCay (1978), showed that fishers do not necessarily
recognize or behave in terms of common property systems,
contrary to expectations of economists. Durrenberger (1997)
also showed that shrimpers in Mississippi do not operate
in the ways that economics assumes or predicts (i.e., as
business firms), fishing only when it is profitable. They do
not operate on the basis of capitalist logic, as also shown
by McGuire (1991). Way of life can, and often does, trump
“rational economic actor.” Considerations of equity, then,
can be seen and described in economic terms, but more
likely the correct terms are ability to continue to practice
a way of life.
Lastly, coastal anthropological studies of commu-
nity local ecological knowledge (LEK) are directly relevant
methodologically and theoretically to socioeconomically
constrained research in the managerial model. Studies, for
example, of Puerto Rican reef fishers have shown that success
is not measured by catching the largest amount of fish but by
providing ably for one’s family consistently and through time
(Garcia-Quijano 2006). Blue crab fishers on the Georgia coast
(Cooley 2003) who show the most concern for conservation
are the older, more experienced crabbers, reflecting sensitivity
to continuity of the resource base. Exactly the same pattern
is apparent among Garifuna fishers on Roatan, Honduras
(Greenawalt 2006).Again, equity is likely to be mostly about
continuing a way of life.
Notes
1
A commonly used definition is the one provided by the Inter-
national Union of Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
(IUCN): “An area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its
overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural
features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to
protect part or all of the enclosed environment” (cited in MPA News
2005(8):4). “Reserved by law” refers to constraints placed on human
access and use.
2
The National Marine Protected Area Center has already been
noted, but there are other federal agencies within the National Oce-
anic and Atmospheric Administration and in other branches of the
federal government that are engaged in aspects of MPA development,
monitory, enforcement, and assessment, including the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission (http://www.asmfc.org), eight regional
fishery management councils (http://nmfs.noaa.gov/partnerships.htm),
the National Marine Sanctuaries Program (http://www.sanctuaries.
nos.noaa.gov), the Coastal Zone Management Program in the office
of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (http://www.ocrm.nos.
noaa.gov/czm), the National Park Service (http://www.nps.gov), the
Federal Fisheries Management Program (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov),
and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (http://www.fws.gov), among
others. Other important sources of information can be found in the
Bibliography of Marine Protected Areas; Department of Fisheries and
Oceans, Canada (http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceanscanada/neweng-
lish/library/bibliompa.html) and in GIS – Marine and Coastal Protected
Areas Database, Center for Marine Conservation (http://www.epa.
gov/owow/oceans/maps/#mcpa).
3
Several special sessions at major conferences have been held dur-
ing the past three or four years, including one at the annual meetings
of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1999.
Also an international conference on MPAs was organized and held at
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in 2001. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) held a Marine Protected Areas
Social Science workshop at Monterey, California, April 8-9, 2002,
cosponsored by the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, by
Duke University, and by the University of California at Santa Cruz.
The Center Institute in Monterey has also begun to conduct regional
workshops to develop research priorities and plans for social science
research on MPA issues.
References
Acheson, James M.
1981 Anthropology of Fishing. Annual Reviews of Anthropology
10:275-316.
Agardy, Tundi S.
1997 Marine Protected Areas and Ocean Conservation. Dallas,
Texas: Academic Press.
Alder, Jackie
1996 Costs and Effectiveness of Education and Enforcement, Cairn
Section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Environmental
Management 20:541-551.
Blount, Ben G.
2002 Keywords, Cultural Models, and Representation of
Knowledge: A Case Study from the Georgia Coast (USA).
Occasional Publication Number 3, Coastal Anthropology
Resource Laboratory. Department of Anthropology, University
of Georgia, Athens.
Blount, Ben G.
1999 History and Application of the Ecosystem Concept in
Anthropology. In Integrating Social Sciences with Ecosystem
Management, H. Kenneth Cordell and John C Bergstrom, eds.
Pp. 101-128. Champaign, Ill.: Sagamore Press.
Bohnsack, James A.
1993 Marine Reserves: They Enhance Fisheries, Reduce Conflicts,
and Protect Resources. Oceanus 36:63-72.
Brandon, Katrina E. and S. Laurie Sanderson, eds.
1998 Parks in Peril: People, Politics, and Protected Areas
Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Christie, Patrick, Bonnie J. McCay, Marc L. Miller, C. Lowe, Alan T.
White, Richard Stoffle, David L. Fluharty, Liana T. McManus, Ratana
Chuenpagdee, Carolyn Pomeroy, Daniel O. Suman, Ben G. Blount,
Daniel Huppert, Rose-Liza V. Eisma, Enrique G. Oracion, Kem Lowry,
and Richard B. Pollnac
2003 Toward Developing a Complete Understanding: A Social
Science Research Agenda for Marine Protected Areas. Fisheries
28(12):22-25.

9. 111
VOL. 66, NO. 2, SUMMER 2007
Cooley, D. Robert
2003 Cultural Models among Blue Crab Fishermen on the
Georgia Coast. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department ofAnthropology,
University of Georgia, Athens.
Dobryznski, Tanya J., and Elizabeth E. Nicholson
2001 An Evaluation of the Short-term Social and Economic Impacts
of Marine Reserves on User Groups in Key West. Master’s Thesis,
Nicholas School of Environment, Duke University, Durham,
NC.
Durrenberger, Paul
1997 Fisheries Management Models: Assumptions and Realities,
Or Why Shrimpers in Mississippi are Not Firms. Human
Organization 56:158-166.
Durrenberger, Paul, and Gisli Palsson
1987 Ownership at Sea: Fishing Territories and Access to Sea
Resources. American Ethnologist 14:508-522.
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)
1995 The State of the World’s Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome:
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.
2000 The State of the World’s Fisheries and Aquaculture. Rome
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.
Garcia-Quijano, Carlos
2006 Resisting Extinction: The Value of Local Ecological
Knowledge for Small-Scale Fishers in Southeastern Puerto Rico.
Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
Georgia, Athens.
Greenawalt, David
2006 Cultural Ecology of Garifuna Fishers in Punta Gorda. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of Georgia,
Athens.
Gubbay, Susan
1995 Marine Protected Areas: Principles and Techniques for
Management. London: Chapman and Hall.
Johnson, Darlene R., Nicholas A. Funicello, and James A. Bohnsack
1999 Effectiveness of an Existing Estuarine No-fish Sanctuary
within the Kennedy Space Center, Florida. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 19:436-453.
Kelleher, Graeme, Chris Bleakley, and Sue Wells, eds.
1995 A Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas.
Volume 1, Antarctic, Arctic, Mediterranean, Northwest Atlantic,
NortheastAtlantic, and Baltic; Volume 1I, Wider Caribbean, West
Africa, and South Atlantic; Volume II1, Central Indian Ocean,
Arabian Seas, EastAfrica, and EastAsian Seas; Volume 1V, South
Pacific, NortheastPacific, NorthwestPacific,SoutheastPacific, and
Australia/New Zealand. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Lyons, Sarah C.
2002 Marine ProtectedAreas Social ScienceWorkshop: Notes from
Breakout Groups. Monterey, Calif.: National Marine Protected
Areas Center Science Insititute.
McGoodwin, James R.
1990 Crisis in the World’s Fisheries. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford
University Press.
McGuire, Thomas
1993 The Political Economy of Shrimping in the Gulf of California.
Human Organization 42:132-145.
McKay, Bonnie J.
1978 Systems Ecology, People Ecology, and the Anthropology of
Fishing Communities. Human Ecology 6:397-422.
MPA News
2005 Project is Underway to Create Global MPA Database. MPA
News: International News and Analysis on Marine Protected
Areas 6(8):4.
National Research Council (NRC)
2001 Marine Protected Areas: Tools for Sustaining Ocean
Ecosystems. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
2004 Social Science Methods for Marine ProtectedAreas. National
Oceanic andAtmosphericAdministration URL: <http://www.csc.
noaa.gov/mpass> (April 27, 2007).
Recksiek, Heidi, and Ginger Hinchcliff
2002 Marine Protected Areas: Needs Assessment Final Report.
Prepared by the NOAA Coastal Services Center in cooperation
with the National Marine Protected Areas Center. Washington,
D.C.: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Roberts, Callum M., and Julie P. Hawkins
2000 Fully-Protected Marine Reserves:AGuide.Washington, D.C.:
WWF Endangered Seas Campaign.
Roberts, Callum M., James A. Bohnsack, Frank Gill, Julie P. Hawkins,
and Renata Goodridge
2001 Effects of Marine Reserves on Adjacent Fisheries. Science
294:1920-1923.
Sanchirico, James
2000 Marine Protected Areas as Fishery Policy: A Discussion of
Potential Costs and Benefits. Washington, D.C.: Resources for
the Future.
Shipp, Robert L.
2003 APerspective on Marine Reserves as a Fishery Management
Tool. Fisheries 28(12):10-21.
Sumaila, Ussif Rashad, and Anthony T. Charles
2001 Economic Models of Marine ProtectedAreas:An Introduction.
Natural Resource Modeling 15:261-272.
Thomas, J. Stephen
1999 Public Responses to Marine Reserves as a Potential
Management Tool for the Gulf of Mexico. A Report Prepared
for the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Mobile:
University of Alabama.
Weeks, Hal, and Steven A. Berkeley
2000 Uncertainty and Precautionary Management of Marine
Fisheries: Can the Old Methods Fit the New Mandates? Fisheries
25 (12):6-15.
Zinn, Jeffrey, and Eugene H. Buck
2001 RS20810: Marine ProtectedAreas:An Overview.Washington,
D.C.: CRS (Congressional Record Service) Report for
Congress.