Practitioner approaches to trade-off decision-making in marine conservation development

被引:6
作者
Fortnam, M. [1 ]
Chaigneau, T. [1 ]
Evans, L. [2 ]
Bastian, L. [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Exeter, Environm & Sustainabil Inst, Exeter, England
[2] Univ Exeter, Geog, Exeter, England
[3] Ocean Vis, Atlanta, GA USA
关键词
conservation development; decision-making; justice; marine governance; trade-offs; ECOSYSTEM SERVICES; BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION; POVERTY ALLEVIATION; PROTECTED AREAS; EQUITY; OBJECTIVES; CHALLENGES; SYNERGIES; BENEFITS;
D O I
10.1002/pan3.10530
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
1. Mounting evidence suggests that win- wins are elusive and trade- offs are the norm in marine conservation development practice. The status quo involves trade- offs, and any change brought to ecosystems, economies and societies will alter the distribution of costs and benefits, creating other winners and losers among ecosystem services, sectors and people.2. While studies are increasingly acknowledging the prevalence of trade- offs, this article analyses how practitioners working for conservation development agencies consider, facilitate and make trade -off decisions a priori and post hoc when designing and implementing marine conservation development programmes in Southeast Asia.3. We find that these practitioners recognize both substantive trade- offs, which are diverse social and ecological trade- offs resulting from their programmes, and process trade- offs, related to how they design programmes, including between their prioritization of different locations; between strategic relationships; and between the efficacy, equity and sustainability of projects.4. Existing decision support tools only capture a limited range of substantive (mainly ecological) trade- offs, however, and are not widely used. Typically, social trade-offs are not systematically assessed. Instead, they are implicitly identified by participants and beneficiaries voicing their concerns during consultation processes.5. Importantly, whether a trade -off is then deemed acceptable is not determined through transparent assessment of trade- offs and principles of equity or jus-tice but by the uneven political power of stakeholders to project their values in decision-making processes.6. The article concludes that practitioners should facilitate inclusive, transparent and systematic identification and deliberation of the social acceptability of multidimensional trade- offs, and formulate response options to avoid or minimize adverse consequences. Tackling trade- offs in this way has the potential to make invisible trade- offs visible and improve the sustainability and legitimacy of marine conservation development programmes while promoting the interests of the most marginalized in efforts to achieve the sustainable development goals.
引用
收藏
页码:1636 / 1648
页数:13
相关论文
共 67 条
[1]   Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty [J].
Adams, WM ;
Aveling, R ;
Brockington, D ;
Dickson, B ;
Elliott, J ;
Hutton, J ;
Roe, D ;
Vira, B ;
Wolmer, W .
SCIENCE, 2004, 306 (5699) :1146-1149
[2]   Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? [J].
Adger, W. Neil ;
Dessai, Suraje ;
Goulden, Marisa ;
Hulme, Mike ;
Lorenzoni, Irene ;
Nelson, Donald R. ;
Naess, Lars Otto ;
Wolf, Johanna ;
Wreford, Anita .
CLIMATIC CHANGE, 2009, 93 (3-4) :335-354
[3]   Towards a sustainable and equitable blue economy [J].
Bennett, Nathan J. ;
Cisneros-Montemayor, Andres M. ;
Blythe, Jessica ;
Silver, Jennifer J. ;
Singh, Gerald ;
Andrews, Nathan ;
Calo, Antonio ;
Christie, Patrick ;
Di Franco, Antonio ;
Finkbeiner, Elena M. ;
Gelcich, Stefan ;
Guidetti, Paolo ;
Harper, Sarah ;
Hotte, Ngaio ;
Kittinger, John N. ;
Le Billon, Philippe ;
Lister, Jane ;
de la Lama, Rocio Lopez ;
McKinley, Emma ;
Scholtens, Joeri ;
Solas, Ann-Magnhild ;
Sowman, Merle ;
Talloni-Alvarez, Nicolas ;
Teh, Lydia C. L. ;
Voyer, Michelle ;
Sumaila, U. Rashid .
NATURE SUSTAINABILITY, 2019, 2 (11) :991-993
[4]   Implementing the "Sustainable Development Goals": towards addressing three key governance challenges-collective action, trade-offs, and accountability [J].
Bowen, Kathryn J. ;
Cradock-Henry, Nicholas A. ;
Koch, Florian ;
Patterson, James ;
Hayha, Tiina ;
Vogt, Jess ;
Barbi, Fabiana .
CURRENT OPINION IN ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY, 2017, 26-27 :90-96
[5]   Trade-off analysis for marine protected area management [J].
Brown, K ;
Adger, WN ;
Tompkins, E ;
Bacon, P ;
Shim, D ;
Young, K .
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, 2001, 37 (03) :417-434
[6]   Implementing ecological compensation in New Zealand: stakeholder perspectives and a way forward [J].
Brown, M. A. ;
Clarkson, B. D. ;
Barton, B. J. ;
Joshi, C. .
JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND, 2014, 44 (01) :34-47
[7]  
Burke L., 2006, Reefs at risk in Southeast Asia
[8]   Challenging the win-win discourse on conservation and development: analyzing support for marine protected areas [J].
Chaigneau, Tomas ;
Brown, Katrina .
ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY, 2016, 21 (01)
[9]   Why joint conservation and development projects often fail: An in-depth examination in the Peruvian Amazon [J].
Chambers, Josephine ;
Mejia, Margarita Del Aguila ;
Ramirez Reategui, Raydith ;
Sandbrook, Chris .
ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING E-NATURE AND SPACE, 2020, 3 (02) :365-398
[10]   Improving human and environmental conditions through the Coral Triangle Initiative: progress and challenges [J].
Christie, Patrick ;
Pietri, Diana M. ;
Stevenson, Todd C. ;
Pollnac, Richard ;
Knight, Maurice ;
White, Alan T. .
CURRENT OPINION IN ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY, 2016, 19 :169-181