Author: Felicia Noelle Simone Olmeta-Schult

Publisher:

Published: 2018

Total Pages: 255

ISBN-13:

There has been rapid progress in the designation of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the past decade to restore biodiversity, enhance fisheries, and protect habitats and ecosystems via the restriction of human activities. However, conservation can be a highly controversial topic as it is located at the nexus of biodiversity, wellbeing and sustainability. In 2012, twenty MPAs were established along the North Coast of California as mandated by the 1999 Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA). As part of the MLPA Initiative, the California coast was divided into four study regions, the North Coast being the last one. A Regional Stakeholder Group (RSG) designed MPAs for each region following specific scientific guidelines. Our research objectives addressed the following issues: 1) how NCC commercial fishermen perceived MPAs effects on their livelihood and on natural resources; 2) how fishermen perceived the MPA planning process; and 3) how NCC RSG members agreed on a unified proposal for the designation of MPAs. To accomplish this, we conducted surveys and focus groups with commercial fishermen in six northern California fishing ports, and semi-structured interviews with actors directly involved in the MPA planning process. Findings for Chapter 1 showed that most commercial fishermen perceived MPAs as negatively affecting them, the loss of fishing grounds being the main effect. Most fishermen did not believe that the new closures would help in improving the health of natural resources. Perceptions of these effects varied between fisheries and ports. Results for Chapter 2 showed that most fishermen considered the MPA planning process high in conflict, were dissatisfied with it, and distrusted it. Others suggested that the planning process lacked legitimacy due to several reasons: outsiders leading the process, funding coming from environmental NGOs, and lack of familiarity and trust toward some agencies. Finally, findings for Chapter 3 showed that the development of a unified proposal was led by: the existence of multiple decision centers, the increased community capacity that led to increased communication, trust, social capital, and ultimately collective action, a small North Coast community, and the composition and size of the RSG.