Measuring and monitoring compliance in no-take marine reserves

No‐take marine reserves are increasingly popular tools for conservation and fisheries management. While much attention has been paid to evaluating the effects of design aspects (size, location, etc.) in achieving reserve objectives, less emphasis has been placed on the role of stakeholder compliance...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Fish and fisheries (Oxford, England) England), 2015-06, Vol.16 (2), p.240-258
Hauptverfasser: Bergseth, Brock J, Russ, Garry R, Cinner, Joshua E
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 258
container_issue 2
container_start_page 240
container_title Fish and fisheries (Oxford, England)
container_volume 16
creator Bergseth, Brock J
Russ, Garry R
Cinner, Joshua E
description No‐take marine reserves are increasingly popular tools for conservation and fisheries management. While much attention has been paid to evaluating the effects of design aspects (size, location, etc.) in achieving reserve objectives, less emphasis has been placed on the role of stakeholder compliance. Therefore, the first aim of this study was to evaluate the state of compliance literature and examine the methods used to measure compliance in reserves. The state of compliance literature is limited, although publications with compliance information have increased sixfold in the last decade. However, most studies containing compliance information (63%) fail to provide quantitative estimates. Furthermore, most (95%) quantitative estimates of compliance were reported using a single method, which is problematic because each method has biases and limited applicability. Methods used to indicate compliance include (i) direct observation; (ii) indirect observation; (iii) law enforcement records; (iv) direct questioning; (v) expert opinion; and (vi) modelling. Our second aim was to empirically demonstrate the critical role of compliance in reserve outcomes by comparing a mixed‐effects model on compliance data synthesized from 63 marine reserves to that of a null model. The model of best fit demonstrated a negative relationship between non‐compliance and target species biomass response ratios. Thus, without incorporating any aspects of reserve design, compliance data predicted reserve response ratios of fish biomass. Accordingly, researchers should explore ways to better understand and measure non‐compliance. Therefore, future research should triangulate multiple sources of quantitative compliance data collected using standardized techniques and conduct baseline surveys before reserve implementation.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/faf.12051
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1676346869</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1676346869</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4381-78373f1b2816d21ac8b2445cddda2ea6163162d7841c8e7eb929f6f212ae7e5e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMFOwzAMhiMEEmNw4A0qcYFDtzptk_SCNCE2kMaQYGjHKGtd1K1tRtICe3vCCjsg4Ytt-fst-yfkHIIBuBjmKh8ADWI4ID2IGPdpwpPDfc2CY3Ji7SoIAiYg6pHrB1S2NUX96qk68ypdF43etamuNmWh6hS9ovZq7TdqjV6l3BA9gxbNO9pTcpSr0uLZT-6Tl_Ht_ObOnz5O7m9GUz-NQgE-FyEPc1hSASyjoFKxpFEUp1mWKYqKAQuB0YyLCFKBHJcJTXKWU6DKdTGGfXLZ7d0Y_daibWRV2BTLUtWoWyuBcRZGTLDEoRd_0JVuTe2ucxRLuGCxO6ZPrjoqNdpag7ncmMI9t5UQyG8npXNS7px07LBjP4oSt_-Dcjwa_yr8TlHYBj_3CmXWkvGQx3Ixm0gGwfPsaTGT8_ALR7uCdg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1669786537</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Measuring and monitoring compliance in no-take marine reserves</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Bergseth, Brock J ; Russ, Garry R ; Cinner, Joshua E</creator><creatorcontrib>Bergseth, Brock J ; Russ, Garry R ; Cinner, Joshua E</creatorcontrib><description>No‐take marine reserves are increasingly popular tools for conservation and fisheries management. While much attention has been paid to evaluating the effects of design aspects (size, location, etc.) in achieving reserve objectives, less emphasis has been placed on the role of stakeholder compliance. Therefore, the first aim of this study was to evaluate the state of compliance literature and examine the methods used to measure compliance in reserves. The state of compliance literature is limited, although publications with compliance information have increased sixfold in the last decade. However, most studies containing compliance information (63%) fail to provide quantitative estimates. Furthermore, most (95%) quantitative estimates of compliance were reported using a single method, which is problematic because each method has biases and limited applicability. Methods used to indicate compliance include (i) direct observation; (ii) indirect observation; (iii) law enforcement records; (iv) direct questioning; (v) expert opinion; and (vi) modelling. Our second aim was to empirically demonstrate the critical role of compliance in reserve outcomes by comparing a mixed‐effects model on compliance data synthesized from 63 marine reserves to that of a null model. The model of best fit demonstrated a negative relationship between non‐compliance and target species biomass response ratios. Thus, without incorporating any aspects of reserve design, compliance data predicted reserve response ratios of fish biomass. Accordingly, researchers should explore ways to better understand and measure non‐compliance. Therefore, future research should triangulate multiple sources of quantitative compliance data collected using standardized techniques and conduct baseline surveys before reserve implementation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1467-2960</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1467-2979</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/faf.12051</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Commercial fishing ; Compliance ; Compliance measurement ; Fisheries management ; illegal activity ; law enforcement ; marine reserves ; poaching ; reserve response ratios</subject><ispartof>Fish and fisheries (Oxford, England), 2015-06, Vol.16 (2), p.240-258</ispartof><rights>2013 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2015 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4381-78373f1b2816d21ac8b2445cddda2ea6163162d7841c8e7eb929f6f212ae7e5e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4381-78373f1b2816d21ac8b2445cddda2ea6163162d7841c8e7eb929f6f212ae7e5e3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Ffaf.12051$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Ffaf.12051$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bergseth, Brock J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Russ, Garry R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cinner, Joshua E</creatorcontrib><title>Measuring and monitoring compliance in no-take marine reserves</title><title>Fish and fisheries (Oxford, England)</title><addtitle>Fish Fish</addtitle><description>No‐take marine reserves are increasingly popular tools for conservation and fisheries management. While much attention has been paid to evaluating the effects of design aspects (size, location, etc.) in achieving reserve objectives, less emphasis has been placed on the role of stakeholder compliance. Therefore, the first aim of this study was to evaluate the state of compliance literature and examine the methods used to measure compliance in reserves. The state of compliance literature is limited, although publications with compliance information have increased sixfold in the last decade. However, most studies containing compliance information (63%) fail to provide quantitative estimates. Furthermore, most (95%) quantitative estimates of compliance were reported using a single method, which is problematic because each method has biases and limited applicability. Methods used to indicate compliance include (i) direct observation; (ii) indirect observation; (iii) law enforcement records; (iv) direct questioning; (v) expert opinion; and (vi) modelling. Our second aim was to empirically demonstrate the critical role of compliance in reserve outcomes by comparing a mixed‐effects model on compliance data synthesized from 63 marine reserves to that of a null model. The model of best fit demonstrated a negative relationship between non‐compliance and target species biomass response ratios. Thus, without incorporating any aspects of reserve design, compliance data predicted reserve response ratios of fish biomass. Accordingly, researchers should explore ways to better understand and measure non‐compliance. Therefore, future research should triangulate multiple sources of quantitative compliance data collected using standardized techniques and conduct baseline surveys before reserve implementation.</description><subject>Commercial fishing</subject><subject>Compliance</subject><subject>Compliance measurement</subject><subject>Fisheries management</subject><subject>illegal activity</subject><subject>law enforcement</subject><subject>marine reserves</subject><subject>poaching</subject><subject>reserve response ratios</subject><issn>1467-2960</issn><issn>1467-2979</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kMFOwzAMhiMEEmNw4A0qcYFDtzptk_SCNCE2kMaQYGjHKGtd1K1tRtICe3vCCjsg4Ytt-fst-yfkHIIBuBjmKh8ADWI4ID2IGPdpwpPDfc2CY3Ji7SoIAiYg6pHrB1S2NUX96qk68ypdF43etamuNmWh6hS9ovZq7TdqjV6l3BA9gxbNO9pTcpSr0uLZT-6Tl_Ht_ObOnz5O7m9GUz-NQgE-FyEPc1hSASyjoFKxpFEUp1mWKYqKAQuB0YyLCFKBHJcJTXKWU6DKdTGGfXLZ7d0Y_daibWRV2BTLUtWoWyuBcRZGTLDEoRd_0JVuTe2ucxRLuGCxO6ZPrjoqNdpag7ncmMI9t5UQyG8npXNS7px07LBjP4oSt_-Dcjwa_yr8TlHYBj_3CmXWkvGQx3Ixm0gGwfPsaTGT8_ALR7uCdg</recordid><startdate>201506</startdate><enddate>201506</enddate><creator>Bergseth, Brock J</creator><creator>Russ, Garry R</creator><creator>Cinner, Joshua E</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>H98</scope><scope>H99</scope><scope>L.F</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>P64</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201506</creationdate><title>Measuring and monitoring compliance in no-take marine reserves</title><author>Bergseth, Brock J ; Russ, Garry R ; Cinner, Joshua E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4381-78373f1b2816d21ac8b2445cddda2ea6163162d7841c8e7eb929f6f212ae7e5e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Commercial fishing</topic><topic>Compliance</topic><topic>Compliance measurement</topic><topic>Fisheries management</topic><topic>illegal activity</topic><topic>law enforcement</topic><topic>marine reserves</topic><topic>poaching</topic><topic>reserve response ratios</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bergseth, Brock J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Russ, Garry R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cinner, Joshua E</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences &amp; Living Resources</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Aquaculture Abstracts</collection><collection>ASFA: Marine Biotechnology Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Marine Biotechnology Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Fish and fisheries (Oxford, England)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bergseth, Brock J</au><au>Russ, Garry R</au><au>Cinner, Joshua E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Measuring and monitoring compliance in no-take marine reserves</atitle><jtitle>Fish and fisheries (Oxford, England)</jtitle><addtitle>Fish Fish</addtitle><date>2015-06</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>240</spage><epage>258</epage><pages>240-258</pages><issn>1467-2960</issn><eissn>1467-2979</eissn><abstract>No‐take marine reserves are increasingly popular tools for conservation and fisheries management. While much attention has been paid to evaluating the effects of design aspects (size, location, etc.) in achieving reserve objectives, less emphasis has been placed on the role of stakeholder compliance. Therefore, the first aim of this study was to evaluate the state of compliance literature and examine the methods used to measure compliance in reserves. The state of compliance literature is limited, although publications with compliance information have increased sixfold in the last decade. However, most studies containing compliance information (63%) fail to provide quantitative estimates. Furthermore, most (95%) quantitative estimates of compliance were reported using a single method, which is problematic because each method has biases and limited applicability. Methods used to indicate compliance include (i) direct observation; (ii) indirect observation; (iii) law enforcement records; (iv) direct questioning; (v) expert opinion; and (vi) modelling. Our second aim was to empirically demonstrate the critical role of compliance in reserve outcomes by comparing a mixed‐effects model on compliance data synthesized from 63 marine reserves to that of a null model. The model of best fit demonstrated a negative relationship between non‐compliance and target species biomass response ratios. Thus, without incorporating any aspects of reserve design, compliance data predicted reserve response ratios of fish biomass. Accordingly, researchers should explore ways to better understand and measure non‐compliance. Therefore, future research should triangulate multiple sources of quantitative compliance data collected using standardized techniques and conduct baseline surveys before reserve implementation.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/faf.12051</doi><tpages>19</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1467-2960
ispartof Fish and fisheries (Oxford, England), 2015-06, Vol.16 (2), p.240-258
issn 1467-2960
1467-2979
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1676346869
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Commercial fishing
Compliance
Compliance measurement
Fisheries management
illegal activity
law enforcement
marine reserves
poaching
reserve response ratios
title Measuring and monitoring compliance in no-take marine reserves
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T03%3A36%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Measuring%20and%20monitoring%20compliance%20in%20no-take%20marine%20reserves&rft.jtitle=Fish%20and%20fisheries%20(Oxford,%20England)&rft.au=Bergseth,%20Brock%20J&rft.date=2015-06&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=240&rft.epage=258&rft.pages=240-258&rft.issn=1467-2960&rft.eissn=1467-2979&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/faf.12051&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1676346869%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1669786537&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true