|Variable Component Type||Governance System|
|Theme||Institutions (learn about themes)|
|Question||What was the motivation for siting of this MPA?|
|Select Options||Ecological value, High human impact to mitigate, Feasibility, Other|
|Importance||Many MPAs have been selected mainly based on pragmatic and socio-economic considerations (e.g. Leslie, 2005), there is an increasing body of scientific research devoted to the question of how to select protected areas that most cost-effectively satisfy conservation and management goals. A consternation of large MPAs is that they are located in areas with low human impact and least promise for commercial uses; protection is therefore not provided to species and ecosystems that are most susceptible to threatening processes (Devillers et al. 2014).|
Ecological value: the MPA was chosen because of a high ecological value, i.e. it is considered to have high levels of biodiversity, endemism, and/or unique features which warrant protection.
High human impact: the MPA was sited because there are high human pressures on the environment known to be negative drivers of change (e.g. pollution, fishing, ship traffic)
Feasibility: the MPA was sited because there was relatively little opposition, and/or minimal disruption to commercial activities.
Other: please describe
|Sectors||Marine protected areas|
|GBR Marine Park Act 1975-1999||["Ecological value"]|
|GBR Marine Park Act 2004-current||["Ecological value"]|
|Wakatobi National Park 2008-current||["Ecological value", "High human impact to mitigate"]||established in an attempt to reduce destructive fishing practices and the threat of overfishing (WWF/TNC 2003 report: rapid ecological assessment Wakatobi NP).|
|NWHI Monument Act 2006||["Ecological value", "Feasibility"]||Intact ecosystems, but nobody lives there.|
|Raja Ampat Governance System||["Ecological value"]||Raja Ampat is a national and global priority for conservation as it contains the world’s most diverse coral reefs and critical habitats for globally threatened marine species, and is a cetacean migratory corridor.|
|Joint Sanctuary Management Governance System||["Ecological value", "High human impact to mitigate"]||Oil companies wanted to drill in this area, which was the primary reason the siting was motivated. But the high ecological value and highly productive biological biodiversity was also deemed critical to why this MPA was here vs elsewhere.|
|Svalbard Environmental Protection Act||[""]||These parks were created by the recognition of large intact habitat in the polar environment.|
|Seaflower MPA Act 2005||["Ecological value", "Feasibility"]||Its biodiversity, declared as a Biosphere Reserve by UNESCO, high social capital of major (if not all) stakeholders (i.e. feasibility).|
|Galapagos Governance System 1998-current||["Ecological value", "High human impact to mitigate"]||The Galapagos Islands have been long recognized for their unique characteristics, and it was recognised that there was considereable chnage occuring due to human impacts.|
|Macquarie Island Marine Park Management Plan||["Ecological value", "Feasibility"]||The Macquarie Island Nature Reserve has been protected in one way or another since the early 1900's. The area is important for a number of migratory species. It appears that the area was chosen fior an MPA because of this value; but also because the absence of a human population made it fairly easy to design and implement.|
|GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Plan of Management 2000 - 2005 and Management Plan 2005 - 2012||["Ecological value"]||The Park was declared for two reasons: firstly, to complement the State Marine Park for the primary purpose of protecting the endangered southern right whale and rare Australian sea lion, and secondly, to preserve a representative strip of the unique seafloor (benthic) environment in line with the development of a National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas under Australia’s Oceans Policy.|
|Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve Management Plan||["Ecological value", "Feasibility"]||Ecological value: HIMI was one of five priority areas that the Australian government identified for marine protection as part of their Australian Ocean Policy. Feasibility: Heard and McDonald Islands are incredibly remote. There is no native population and the region is incredibly inhospitable. They islands are only occasionally visited by tourists or scientists. Fishing does occur outside the MPA.|
|Heard Island and McDonald Islands Fishery Management Plan||Not Applicable|
|Cenderwasih governance system||["Ecological value"]||High ecological value - although it's true value (number of endemic species) wasn't fully realised to after designation.|
Basic:A basic variable describes essential and basic background information for a component.
Biophysical:Biophysical variables describe just that: important biophysical properties, largely of environmental commons, that are not captured by a more specific theme.
Causation:A variable with this theme describes issues of causality, which is a complex subject. Most basically this theme is associated with variables that describe different types of causation and different types of causes of environmental problems.
Context:contextual variable relates the component with which it associated to the social and/or ecological setting of a particular interaction and/or case.
Ecosystem services:Variables associated with this theme describe factors that affect or describe the provision of important ecosystem services by a natural resource.
Enforcement:Enforcement involves several different processes, including monitoring for violations of rules, sanctioning violators, and conflict resolution mechanisms involved in this process. Variables that relate to any of these processes should be attached to this theme.
External:Variables with this theme relate a component to processes external to the case with which the component is associated.
Heterogeneity:Variables with this theme describe important ways in which the member of an actor group differ from each other.
Incentives: This theme is associated with variables that are not directly related to institutions and rules, but which still play a role in affecting the incentives that commons users have to ameliorate or exacerbate the commons they use.
Institutional-biophysical linkage:This is a sub-theme of the institutions theme, and describes those variables that ask about the relationship between a set of institutions and a biophysical aspect of a commons.
Institutions:Variables with this theme describe the social institutions (rules, property rights) that are used to organize and direct human behavior. It does not include monitoring and enforcement of these institutions, as these are associated with the Enforcement theme.
Knowledge and uncertainty:Variables with this theme describe levels of knowledge that actor groups have regarding a commons, as well as factors that affect how much uncertainty there is in the status and dynamics of that commons.
Leadership:Leaders play an important role in commons management, most traditionally by providing for public goods needed to organize commons users. But there are other possible roles, and variables associated with this theme can relate to any role that a leader might play in an interaction.
Outcomes:This theme is attached to variables that deal with any outcomes that are produced by the actions of relevant actors in an interaction.
Resource renewability:Variables associated with this theme deal with the ability of a natural resource to be highly productive and renewable.
Social capital:Social capital captures the processes that enable the members of an actor group to work effectively together. Variables associated with this theme describe factors that affect or in some way express the level of social capital among members of a group.
Spatial:Variables associated with the Spatial theme describe important spatial patterns or dynamics, such as the spatial heterogeneity of a commons, or whether or not a user group resides within a particular commons.
Technology:This theme is attached to variables that consider the role that technology and infrastructure have in affecting commons outcomes.