Assessing the effectiveness of compliance strategies in three Australian MPAs

1. Assessing the effectiveness of compliance strategies in three Australian MPAs David J. Lloyd Southern Cross University R.J. Payne Lakehead University

2. Effectiveness of Compliance Strategies Background • Compliance: • An actor’s behaviour that conforms to explicit rules in particular situations (adapted from Mitchell, 1993) • Non-compliance: • Breaking the rules • Why? • Costs? • Benefits? • Individual perspective

3. Figure 1 Determinants of Compliance

4. Effectiveness of Compliance Strategies • Literature • Voluntary and/or regulatory compliance (MacKendrick, 2005) • Surveillance and enforcement (Davis et al., 2004) • Compliance is improved by thorough community involvement (Lundqvist and Granek, 2005; Dalton, 2005) • Compliance improves with the age of the MPA (McClanahan et al., 2005) • Compliance is related to MPA size (Kritzer, 2004) • Non-compliance at boundaries • Compliance improves with well-marked internal and external boundaries (Mascia, 2003) • Compliance requires more than enforcement (Cesar, 2004) • Compliance behaviour improves with people’s levels of education (Durant et al., 2004) and wealth (Sutinen and Kuperan, 1999) • More and better information reduces non-compliance (Manning et al., 1996; Bradford and McIntyre, 2007)

5. Effectiveness of Compliance Strategies • A Theoretical Perspective: • For individuals, • Compliance <-> benefits • Enforcement <-> costs • A Formative Evaluation: • Examining the processes utilized to encourage compliance • Not examining whether those processes actually worked as expected • Australian MPAs: • Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (1972) • Moreton Bay Marine Park (1993) • Cape Byron Marine Park (2002)

6. Effectiveness of Compliance Strategies Results • Great Barrier Reef Marine Park • Regulatory compliance: • Zoning, permits and enforcement • complexity • Voluntary compliance: • Recognition that management depends upon an informed, supportive and involved public; • Maximising voluntary compliance through promotion and education • Education of the interest groups <-> GBRMPA; • Conflict resolution between the GBRMPA and interest groups  mutual respect, understanding and acceptance of management decisions; • Conflict resolution between interestgroups  mutual understanding of each others’ views.

7. Effectiveness of Compliance Strategies • Moreton Bay Marine Park • Regulatory compliance: • Zoning, permits and enforcement • simplicity • Voluntary compliance: • Interpretation • TV, internet

8. Effectiveness of Compliance Strategies • Cape Byron Marine Park • Regulatory compliance: • Zoning, permits and enforcement • simplicity • Voluntary compliance: • Interpretation • Outreach (e.g., schools) • Internet

9. Effectiveness of Compliance Strategies Discussion • The pre-dominance of the GBRMP • A wide variety of strategies, especially re voluntary compliance • The ubiquity of regulatory compliance strategies • Variation in complexity • The implications of larger protection/sanctuary zones

10. Effectiveness of Compliance Strategies Conclusions • The GBRMP remains the “gold standard” • Voluntary compliance requires considerable efforts in promotion, education and outreach • Expansion of protection/sanctuary zones may require more emphasis on regulatory compliance strategies • Need for more research to examine the effectiveness of both regulatory and voluntary compliance strategies

11. Effectiveness of Compliance Strategies Literature Cited Bradford L. and McIntyre, N. (2007). Off the beaten track: messages as a means of reducing social • trail use at St. Lawrence Islands National Park. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 25, (1), pp. 1-21. Cesar, H., (2004). Background information on the institutional and regulatory framework of marine • managed areas in the main Hawaiian Islands. Cesar Environmental Economics Consulting, Arnhem, The Netherlands, 12 pages (available at URL: http://ideas.repec.org/p/ecm/latm04/168.html). Dalton, T.M., (2005). Beyond biogeography: a framework for involving the public in planning of U.S. marine protected areas. Conservation Biology, 19, (5), pp. 1392-1401. Davis, K. L. F., Russ, G. R., Williamson, D. H. and Evans, R. D., (2004). Surveillance and poaching on inshore reefs of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.Coastal Management, 32, pp. 373–387. Robert F. Durant, R.F., Chun, Y.-P., Kim, B. and Lee, S., (2004). Toward a new governance paradigm for environmental and natural resources management in the 21st century? Administration & Society, 35, (6), pp. 643-682. Kritzer, J.B., (2004). Effects of non-compliance on the success of alternative designs of marine protected –area networks for conservation and fisheries management. Conservation Biology, 18, (4), pp. 1021-1031. Lundqvist, C.J. and Granek, E.F., (2005). Strategies for successful marine conservation: integrating socioeconomic, political, and scientific factors. Conservation Biology, 19, (6), pp. 1771-1778. MacKendrick, N.A., (2005). The role of the state in voluntary environmental reform: A case study of public land. Policy Sciences, 38, (1), pp. 21–44. Manning, R.E., Lime, D.W. and Hof, M., (1996). Social carrying capacity of natural areas: theory and application in the U.S. National Parks. Natural Areas Journal, 16, (2), pp. 118-127. Mascia, M.B., (2003). The human dimension of coral reef marine protected areas: recent social science research and its policy implications. Conservation Biology, 17, (2), pp. 630-632. McClanahan, T., Davies, J. and Maina, J., (2005). Factors influencing resource users and managers’ perceptions towards marine protected area management in Kenya. Environmental Conservation, 32, (1), pp. 42-49. Mitchell, R.B. (1993). Compliance theory: a synthesis. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 2 (4), pp. 327-334.