|Variable Component Type||Governance System|
|Theme||Institutions (learn about themes)|
|Question||Are areas of known or suspected importance to connectivity protected within this MPA, and sites are well distributed across the region with a range of distances between sites?|
|Select Options||1 No, 2 Partially, 3 Yes|
|Importance||This concept comes from the systematic conservation planning literature for designing resilient MPAs. A key premise of a network is that individual MPAs interact through ecological linkages. For example, the connectivity between mangroves, seagrass and coral reef systems provides a functional role; mediating the exchange of resources and providing critical habitat for certain life history stages of species that move between those habitats through their life stages (Mumby 2006).|
Connectivity describes the extent to which populations in different parts of a species’ range are linked by the exchange of eggs, larvae recruits or other propagules, juveniles or adults (Palumbi 2003). For an MPA to have considered Connectivity appropriately it must have been considered using the best available data at a range of scales and not be focused on one element or one species.
Yes: Connectivity was considered when designing the MPA, and the MPA encompasses linked habitats (e.g. coral reef and seagrass) and there is some understanding of species lifecycles (larval dispersal and adult movements)
Partially: Connectivity was considered when designing the MPA, and the MPA encompasses some linked habitats or there is some understanding of species lifecycles
No: Connectivity was not appropriately considered when designing this MPA
|Sectors||Marine protected areas|
|Raja Ampat Governance System||Yes (3)||This is a network of MPAs with sites distributed across the region. Knowledge of currents was apparently considered when designing MPAs (see Agostini et al. 2012)|
|Wakatobi National Park 2008-current||Yes (3)||Connectivity was considered during the zoning of the WNP. Information on larval dispersal and climate change was not yet available but the following rules of thumb were used in Wakatobi zoning design revision: Size of no-take zones: minimum = 13 km2 / maximum = 365 km2 Distance between no-take zones: minimum = 10 km / maximum = 20 km 30% of coral reefs (fringing, barrier, atoll and patch) 40% of mangrove forests 20% of seagrass beds 100% of Fish Spawning Aggregation sites 100% of turtle nesting sites 100% of seabird nesting sites|
|Joint Sanctuary Management Governance System||Yes (3)||The MPA network designated by the state includes small reserves within the sanctuaries specifically designated for ecological connectivity purposes (Laffoley et al. 2008). The three national marine sanctuaries are bordering to further strengthen resource protection and ensure consistency among the 3 NMSs. None of the sanctuaries are divided into distinct sites, rather a geometric shaped identified by coordinates. The estuaries in the region are important support systems for the ecosystem, particularly Elkhorn Slough which was included in the designation of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and serves as a vital nursery for many species. Seamounts were especially chosen because of their contribution of larval recruits. Population genetics and coupled biophysical models were used to assess larval dispersal, particularly for the Cordell Bank NMS. Kelp beds were chosen to be protected partially because of their ability to retain larvae (based on Duggins 1988). Rocky shelf communities in the Gulf of the Farallones were noted for their importance in post larval settlements, particularly of abalone (based on Haaker et al. 2001). Outreach programs were developed for watershed populations to learn about how watersheds are connected to the GFNMS (GFNMS FMP, 2008).|
|Seaflower MPA Act 2005||Missing||NO DATA|
|Svalbard Environmental Protection Act||No (1)||No information found which addresses connectivity considerations.|
|GBR Marine Park Act 1975-1999||Partially (2)||The initial zoning plan did not deliberately consider connectivity in its design or coverage of areas, but did have a range of no-take areas distributed through the broader MPA.|
|GBR Marine Park Act 2004-current||Yes (3)||Connectivity was specifically taken into account in re-zoning the GBRMP. Information about connectivity is fairly limited, though (as in most marine systems).|
|Macquarie Island Marine Park Management Plan||No (1)||There is no clear evidence that connectivity was considered as part of the design of this reserve. Although it is now part of the South-east Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan it is somewhat of an outlier from the other members of the network.|
|GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Plan of Management 2000 - 2005 and Management Plan 2005 - 2012||Partially (2)||The State marine mammal protection zone was considered in the design and implementation of Commonwealth marine mammal protection zone.|
|NWHI Monument Act 2006||Yes (3)||A range of areas and levels of connectivity were considered when establishing the MPA. The NWHI has a high range of different areas, such as nesting grounds, coral reefs, atolls and sand banks, deep water foraging grounds and sea grass areas. Ranges of distances were not explicit.|
|Heard Island and McDonald Islands Fishery Management Plan||Not Applicable|
|Galapagos Governance System 1998-current||Partially (2)||The GMR encompasses an area of current convergence. However there was no explicit aim to account for connectivity, other than the size of the park.|
|Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve Management Plan||No (1)||No evidence that connectivity was explicitly considered. Also note that the Heard and McDonald Islands are an Australian overseas territory, so incredibly remote and far from all the other areas that are part of AU's national MPA network.|
|Cenderwasih governance system||Partially (2)||The MPA is a large continuous shape, and it covers approximately half of the entire Bay area. The Bay is known to have limited connectivity outside of this region which has lead to the high number of endemics within the Bay. Teluk Cenderwasih also inlcudes the neighbouring land and so there is some connectivity between habitats and land-sea - I odn't think these were explicitly considered during the design of the MPA.|
|Self.organized rules and norms for SCUBA diving||Missing|
|Marine Areas for Responsible Fishing (AMPRs) Costa Rica||Missing|
|Caeté-Taperaçú Extractive Reserve (RESEX) in Brazil||Yes (3)|
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.