Using clear objectives and criteria are more likely to result in sites with a greater likelihood of success. Some recommended steps for site selection include:
The first step is to have a clearly defined objective(s) that describe what is trying to be achieved. This includes defining the ecosystem functions or natures benefits that are priorities such as habitat, coastal protection, recreational use, and food security. Based on the objectives, a combination of ecological, socio-economic, cultural, and management information should go into selecting the site of an MPA or network of MPAs.
Develop criteria for site/network selection based on existing social, climate, and ecological data on to rank. Criteria may include high biodiversity, low impact from adjacent coastal development, community organized and committed to conservation, or ease of enforcement due to visibility from shore.
Use decision support tools to help prioritize sites: Marxan is a commonly used decision-support software program to design protected areas. The software enables a computer model to utilize data and prioritize areas based on the objectives and criteria defined by planners. If a software program is not feasible, having the right people in the room (e.g., local stakeholders, biologists, and managers) can be used to prioritize sites. Collectively they can discuss areas that achieve the objectives of the site(s) with considerations for ecological and socio-economic factors.
Engage stakeholders to balance ecological and socio-economic interests. Choosing the “best” site ecologically may not be feasible if it would cause severe pushback from local stakeholders. In this case, choosing another area that has high ecological value, but would be more acceptable socially, could be the best option.
Even if you have an established site, it’s not too late to assess how the placement and design of the site may or may not help achieve your objectives and make corrections as needed. If an existing site is placed or designed in a way that cannot achieve its objectives, there are options for improving the situation.
Where possible, redesign the site to enhance the probability of achieving the desired results. This could include expanding the site boundaries or changing zones and rules. It could also include exploring how ecological connected MPA networks could work together to collectively increase the conservation or socio-economic objectives.
Refine objectives to align with what the site can achieve and explore broader management tools that can help achieve the original objective. For example, a site that is too small to improve certain fisheries populations, may require fisheries management tools (e.g., size/gear limits) outside the area to help improve other target species populations. This may also require communicating with stakeholders to align expectations for the site with the new objectives or expected outcomes. While this situation is not ideal, an MPA that is not designed to achieve its objectives can create mistrust about MPAs as an effective tool, and barriers to future use.
What to read next