A conceptual framework for the integral management of marine protected areas

Abstract

A general conceptual framework for the management of marine protected areas (MPAs) was developed. The driver-pressure-state-impacts-response (DPSIR) framework was used to determine the elements affecting MPAs. The developed evaluation framework helped to select an appropriate suite of indicators to support an ecosystem approach, an assessment of the MPAs functioning and policy decisions. Gaps derived from the management and policy responses in the MPAs were also outlined. It was concluded that the DPSIR framework can help to simplify the complexity of MPA management. This document is a tool for policy makers, scientists and general public on the relevance of indicators to monitor changes and MPAs management.

Full text

Page 1

A conceptual framework for the integral management of marine protected areas
Celia Ojeda-Martı ´neza,*, Francisca Gime ´nez Casaldueroa, Just T. Bayle-Semperea,
Carmen Barbera Cebria ´na, Carlos Vallea, Jose Luis Sanchez-Lizasoa, Aitor Forcadaa,
Pablo Sanchez-Jereza, Pablo Martı ´n-Sosab, Jesu ´s M. Falco ´nb,c, Fuensanta Salasd, Mariagrazia Grazianoe,
Renato Chemelloe, Ben Stobartf, Pedro Cartagenaa, Angel Pe ´rez-Ruzafad, Fre ´deric Vandeperreg,
Elisabeth Rochelh, Serge Planesh, Alberto Britoc
aDepartment of Marine Sciences and Applied Biology, University of Alicante, P.O. Box 99, E-03080, Alicante, Spain
bCentro Oceanogra ´fico de Canarias, Instituto Espan ˜ol de Oceanografı ´a. Ed. Sanahuja, Avda. 3 de Mayo 73, 38005 S/C Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain
cGrupo de investigacio ´n BIOECOMAC, Dpto. de Biologı ´a Animal (Ciencias marinas), Facultad de Biologı ´a, Universidad de La Laguna, c/Astrofı ´sico Francisco Sa ´nchez s/n, 38026 La
Laguna, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain
dDepartment of Ecology and Hydrology, Faculty of Biology, University of Murcia, 30100, Murcia, Spain
eDipartimento di Ecologia, Laboratorio di Conservazione della Natura, via Archirafi 28, 90123 Palermo, Italy
fCentro Oceanogra ´fico de Baleares, Instituto Espan ˜ol de Oceanografı ´a, Muelle Poniente s/n, Palma de Mallorca, Spain
gDepartment of Oceanography and Fisheries, University of the Azores, PT-9901-862 Horta, Portugal
hUMR 5244 EPHE CNRS UPVD, Centre de Biologie et d’Ecologie Tropicale et Me ´diterrane ´enne, Universite de Perpignan, 52, Av. Paul Alduy, 66860 Perpignan, France
a b s t r a c t
A general conceptual framework for the management of marine protected areas (MPAs) was developed.
The driver-pressure-state-impacts-response (DPSIR) framework was used to determine the elements
affecting MPAs. The developed evaluation framework helped to select an appropriate suite of indicators
to support an ecosystem approach, an assessment of the MPAs functioning and policy decisions. Gaps
derived from the management and policy responses in the MPAs were also outlined. It was concluded
that the DPSIR framework can help to simplify the complexity of MPA management. This document is
a tool for policy makers, scientists and general public on the relevance of indicators to monitor changes
and MPAs management.
? 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The marine system is arguably more complex than any other
ecosystem with highly interrelated processes between its physical,
chemical and biological components. Its study and management
requires information on all processes and an understanding of the
structure and function of the systems. In addition, the increasing
amount of national, supra-national and global legislation and
agreements, is producing the necessity to develop tools for the
sustainable use of the marine environment, in particular manage-
ment for conservation and biodiversity in order to protect habitat
integrity. This calls for multi-disciplinary approaches to marine
protected areas research and resource management.
From the First World Conference on National Parks, when
countries were invited to create marine protected areas and parks,
the number of MPAs and surface protected has increased [1]. The
spatial extent of marine areas protected globally has grown at an
annual growth rate of 5.2%, over the last two decades, which have
been established with different aims. Approximately 2.2 million
km2, equivalent to 0.6% of the world’s oceans and 1.5% of the total
marine area under national jurisdiction, are currently protected [2].
In general, MPAs have been proposed throughout the world as an
optimal way to protect marine ecosystems [3–5]. The effectiveness
of a MPA, among other many things, is related with its manage-
ment. This should include defined objectives and goals from the
outset,siteselection, zoning,
a surveillance and enforcement system, as well as monitoring
actions [6]. In order to determine the validity of MPAs as fisheries
management tools is essential to evaluate the MPA performance by
means of continuous monitoring.
Indicators are increasingly being developed and used as
management tools to address environmental issues [7–10], theyare
also used to assess the effectiveness of the actions and policies
implemented, by measuring progress towards environmental
targets [8,11]. In this sense indicators can contribute in the moni-
toring of the effectiveness of MPAs. Indicators are variables used to
quantify or qualitatively describe phenomena that are not directly
easily measured, but which society considers valuable to monitor
planningand implementing
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ34965903400x2916; fax: þ34965903815.
E-mail address: celia.ojeda@ua.es (C. Ojeda-Martı ´nez).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ocean & Coastal Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0964-5691/$ – see front matter ? 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2008.10.004
Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2008) 1–13
Please cite this article in press as: Ojeda-Martı ´nez C et al., A conceptual framework for the integral management of marine protected areas,
Ocean & Coastal Management (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2008.10.004

Page 2

over time [12,13]. The paradox is that while the scientific commu-
nity is mostly working on very detailed and narrower aspects the
managers require a holistic and ecosystem approach, not neces-
sarily at a very high level of detail [14]. The selection of a set of
indicators must provide information that can be clearly understood
by managers and stakeholders, providing them with a base for
decision making.
However before selecting and choosing indicators it is necessary
to clearly define cause–effect relationships, and to establish
a framework from which the indicators can be selected. One of the
techniques available in defining indicators is the driver-pressure-
state-impact-response (DPSIR) conceptual framework, initially
developed by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development). The DPSIR scheme of indicators is a flexible
framework that can be adapted to the necessities of specific pro-
grammes to stress the different indicator types. It has been widely
used for different purposes, for the implementation of the Euro-
pean Water Framework Directive [15–17], coastal zone studies
[10,18–26] and in fisheries management [14]. This methodology
works well at simplifying the complexity of environmental
management and makes easier communication among policy
makers, scientists and the general public, improving the coopera-
tion among them. It allows a better understanding between
the results from an action developed and the effects produced in
thedifferentsystem components
socioeconomics).
(e.g.the fisheries,the
1.1. Problems facing MPAs management
Many calls have become for the further designation of MPAs,
understanding as an MPA as those that present conservation as
resource protection objectives, included all the categories defined
by the IUCN [27], recommending that 20–30% of the area of each
marine habitat should be designated as no-take area by 2012 [28].
MPAs reflect the extension of scientific and ethical concerns for the
wider health of marine ecosystem conservation, including their
component populations and habitats, the processes that sustain
them and the functions they provide, having beneficial effects for
habitat-specific species associated with sensitive grounds [29] or
very sedentary species [30]. However, many authors argue that
MPAs are not a fishery panacea [31] basically because few data
sustain positively their potential to promote sustainable fish stock
yields. Nevertheless these authors are not referring to multiple-use
zones, but huge areas with some kind of management [32].
In general MPAs have been sited at intrinsically ecological rich
places based more on opportunistic human factors than on relevant
ecological and/or socioeconomic features such as: currents struc-
ture, habitat requirements, inter-specific processes, fishing effort
distribution, effects of MPA location, size and design [33], resulting
in a very heterogeneous pool of small reserves along the coast and
a number of verylargehigh seas reserves within the EEZs countries.
This heterogeneity is also reflected in the management imple-
mented and, therefore, in its results, being difficult post-
comparisons to deduce general trends derived from the effects of
protection. Moreover, many of the objectives assigned to MPAs
have not been tackled, resulting in a very narrow use of method-
ological approaches and study subjects (Ojeda-Martinez, unpub-
lished data). Another problem facing MPAs management is the lack
of coordination at different levels. Although some authors advo-
cated [34] or interpreted [35] this increase of MPAs as a network in
some regional areas (e.g. the Mediterranean Sea), the fact is that
theyare not working like it. There lacks a minimum of coordination
on their functioning, even among MPAs depending on the same
institution. Furthermore, fewer than 10% of MPAs that exist today
achieve their management goals and objectives [2,13], and in many
cases, the effects resulting from the protection are not duly
disseminated, creating uneasiness in many stakeholders and users.
Furthermore, there are few studies and mainly located in some
areas that analyse management by itself, relating the investment
(in terms of budget, staff, time of surveillance, etc) in the MPA with
those elements that theoretically should be affected by the
protection [13,36]. Therefore MPAs management needs to look
towards an integrated governance approach that recognizes the
interdependences of the different elements, and the need to know
and manage the effects of each activity affecting the MPA. With
typical small MPAs the activities and management of the
surrounding and upstream areas are major factors and if these –
including particularly their impacts and sustainability in relation to
the designated area – are not studied, the prospect of integration is
remote.
The purpose of this document was to identify, define and discuss
the ecological, socioeconomic and related essential variables that
can potentially be used as indicators, in order to assess the effec-
tiveness of MPAs as a policy response to conserve and restore
fisheries and marine biodiversity. The specific goals include: a) to
select the main components of the marine biodiversity affected by
fisheries and tourism, including their descriptors and their derived
consequences; b) to define a conceptual framework relating the
selected components; c) to propose a set of variables that can
potentially be used as indicators at each level in the DPSIR
framework.
2. Methodological approach
2.1. Establishment of an expert panel
The methodological approach of this research started with the
establishment of an expert panel formed by scientists belonging to
EMPAFISH project (http://www.um.es/empafish/). This group was
formed by experts in: fisheries, MPAs, marine ecology, mathe-
matics, statistics and multi-criteria analysis. The expert panel, such
as those proposed for other purposes [5,37,38] was formed by
a principal committee which led the process. This principal
committee analysed different methodological approaches and
selected the DPSIR framework, among all of them. The main
objective of the expert panel was to define a conceptual framework
which improved the understanding of the complexity of linkages
and feedbacks between the causes and effects within environ-
mental issues in MPAs. Also look for management gaps and identify
variables as potential indicators, with the help of the conceptual
framework defined. This process lasted about eleven months,
weekly meetings were held by the expert panel, while more
frequent ones, were held by the principal committee, until the
development of the conceptual framework and the indicators
definition.
2.2. Participation process
The first step of the participation process (Fig. 1) was to define
the key elements that are those components of the ecosystem that
are susceptible to be affected by any of the elements generated by
human activity, particularly from fishing and tourism as the main
driving forces affecting the environment. As the objectives of the
project were to assess the effectiveness of MPAs as management
tools, the responses on the framework were defined as the actions
arising from the existence of such figures of protection. Cause–
effect diagrams were developed and were broken down into the
different elements within the DPSIR framework. Each element was
studied in detail, based on the experience of the expert panel and
on a deep search in the bibliography, including everycause or factor
that interacted with the element. Identification according to the
DPSIR framework was done to establish at which level of the
C. Ojeda-Martı ´nez et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2008) 1–132
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article in press as: Ojeda-Martı ´nez C et al., A conceptual framework for the integral management of marine protected areas,
Ocean & Coastal Management (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2008.10.004

Page 3

framework the elements were found (driving forces, pressures,
states or impacts). Every management action associated with MPAs
was identified and broken down into different parts, introducing
them in the conceptual framework and connecting as responses to
the driving forces, pressures, states or impacts. In this phase gaps in
the overall responses of the MPAs management were identified
towards the different levels of the framework. The search for all
possible indicators associated with each element of the model was
the next step.
3. MPAs DPSIR framework
The first results were the definition and selection of the key
elements, the driving forces and the responses. Key elements were
defined as those components of the ecosystem that are susceptible
to be affected by any of the elements of the DPSIR framework. They
play an important role in the DPSIR framework, as cause–effect
diagrams are based on the relationships between these elements
and the system studied. The key elements selection is an important
partof the framework and managers are mostly interested, in them,
as they need to define effective actions in prevention, restoration
and control. For the general conceptual framework, the key
elements selected were; species and habitats protected by Euro-
pean directives (Habitats Directive, Barcelona Protocol concerning
Specially Protected Areas and Biodiversity in the Mediterranean,
OSPAR Convention and those featured in the IUCN red list); target
commercial species; ecological process developed (e.g. recruit-
ment, biological production, species interaction, genes trans-
ference) andsocioeconomic
socioeconomic resources, demography). Fishing and tourism
sectors were chosen as driving forces. Driving forces: are under-
stood as the factors that cause changes in the system; they can be
processes (e.g.incomes,
Fig. 1. Scheme of the participation process to develop the DPSIR conceptual framework and its application to the management of a marine protected area.
C. Ojeda-Martı ´nez et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2008) 1–133
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article in press as: Ojeda-Martı ´nez C et al., A conceptual framework for the integral management of marine protected areas,
Ocean & Coastal Management (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2008.10.004

Page 4

social, economical or ecological and can have positive or negative
influences on pressures. These economical areas were chosen as
they are mainly the sectors that generate activities affecting most
MPAs in developed countries, although this can be different in
underdeveloped countries [14]. Responses: that are the efforts
made by society as a result of the changes manifested, can be any
legal measure that is done to manage the marine environment as
e.g. fishing gears banned and artificial reef installation. Because of
the objectives in the conceptual framework, the responses were the
MPAs, as indicators and gaps for MPAs present and future
management must be found. In order to make policy recommen-
dations for the management of MPAs and the selection of indica-
tors, it is first necessary to describe the present state of the marine
environment, its pressures and its management. Once the links
between driving forces, pressures (that are the human activities
that directly affect the system), states (are the condition of the
systemat a specific time and is represented bya setof descriptors of
system attributes that are affected by pressures) and impacts (that
are the effects on human health and/orecosystems) are clear, policy
responses can be formulated.
3.1. The fishing sector as driving force: pressures, states and impacts
Fishing incorporates different types of fishing gears and there-
fore the fishing sector driving force has been divided into sub-
driving forces, taking into account the different fishing gears
(Fig. 2). Depending on the type of fishing gears used, the fishing
activities affect the marine environment in different ways. Each
sub-driving force embraces the different types of fishing using the
different gears considered. The number of fishing boats/year can be
a good example of a driving force parameteras it reflects the fishing
activity round MPAs (Fig. 3). Several actions contribute to generate
pressures on the system,the pressures werechosen as theyaffected
our key elements. The different fishing gears cause similar pres-
sures over the key elements and the states, its measure is what
makes pressures different. Fishing has an environmental effect on
many coastal areas [34,39] and it can exert pressure over the
marine environment in a number of different ways: i) Extraction or
harvesting on the resource at a higher rate than its capacity to
regenerate is the most direct pressure (e.g. the sighting of profes-
sional fishing activities/year (Fig. 3), reflects the pressure exerted in
the MPA boundaries or close to them, being a good indicators). This
is not only unsustainable in economic terms, but also has signifi-
cant effects elsewhere in the ecosystem. Generally, impacts are the
causes that evoke responses and fishing activities usually cause
a decrease in the abundance, biomass and size of commercial and
non-commercial species [34,40–43], the measure of these param-
eters being a good indicator (e.g. species biomass as a state indi-
cator (Fig. 4) and big Sparidae biomass as an impact indicator
(Fig. 5). As the target species declines due to over fishing, others
became more dominant and the whole structure of the ecosystem
andtypically the fisherytargetsaltered. Stocks are overexploited so
there is a decrease in total catch of the initial high trophic level
target species, but as in the case of some low trophic level target
species, fishing down the food chain can for a time increase total
catch. ii) The effect of fishing gear on the non-target species,
communities and habitats (e.g. total or partial broken of species like
Pinna nobilis or coral species, and discards), that produces
substantial habitat destruction by trawl and dredge gears on first
use and destruction of the seabed ecosystem with little recovery in
Fig. 2. DPSIR conceptual framework for the fishing sector. Rows represent the cause-effect relations from the driving forces to the responses. Lined rows represent the level at which
responses can act.
C. Ojeda-Martı ´nez et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2008) 1–134
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article in press as: Ojeda-Martı ´nez C et al., A conceptual framework for the integral management of marine protected areas,
Ocean & Coastal Management (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2008.10.004

Page 5

regularly trawled or dredged areas. Discards attract and increase
the number of scavenger fish [44], invertebrates and seabirds [45],
varying the relationships among ecosystem components. Depend-
ing on the type of gear used, the effect on species and habitats
modifies the spatial structure in different ways. Other less aggres-
sive gear, e.g. trammel nets, may also affect the target and non-
target species, thus modifying the population structures. Some
static fishing tackles do not exert this type of pressure [46–48]. iii)
Waste, understood as detritus generated by the stakeholders, litter
dropped from the deck, hydrocarbon emissions by boats, organic
emissions and chemical pollution, is an indirect pressure produced
by the fishing sector. Pollution although not an objective of fishing
is a direct consequent operational pressure on the habitats and
species affected. The major impact of inert solids waste is the
mortality of species such as turtles that mistake plastics and other
rubbish as jellyfish and ingest them. Hydrocarbons are also
a problem as they are deposited on sessile and pelagic species, as
well as birds. In the case of coral reefs and some sediment studies it
has been shown that hydrocarbons can have long-term persistent
effects killing invertebrates and inhibiting settlement of larvae to
replace adults that have died. Inert solids are a problem for filter-
feeding species whose filtering appendages can become obstructed
resulting in death. Most species and habitats are buried by inert
solids and hydrocarbons, killing them or limiting their vital func-
tions, such as photosynthesis. iv) Lost tackles are also a hazard and
dangerous to wildlife (fishes, marine mammals, turtles and birds).
Lost gears may affect habitats, but in most cases they affect species,
key species like turtles and sea mammals [49], can be totally or
partially broken or trapped by them. Birds are also affected by lost
gears, suffering amputations of wings and feet [50]. As animals are
trapped, they die, which increases the scavenger presence modi-
fying the inter-specific relations.
3.2. The tourism sector as a driving force: pressures, states and
impacts
Ocean and coastal tourism is widely regarded as one of the
fastest growing sectors of contemporary tourism [51], indeed
tourism is the driving economic sector (Fig. 6) in many coastal zone
areas because it is seen as a cost effective means of bringing
development and foreign currency earning capacity to isolated
areas and countries. Tourism is expected to continue to grow, and
nowadays is producing a major environmental impact on many
coastal areas. Nevertheless, the popularity of fishing, surfing, scuba
diving, windsurfing, whale watching and yachting and selling of
‘‘sun, sand and surf experience’’, drives the development of beach
resorts and associated residential and commercial infrastructure
(e.g. this driving force can be measured by the indicator of the
evolution of the number of diving permissions in an MPA (Fig. 7).
This brings increased pressure space and resource competition on
coastal areas which may already be subject to highly concentrated
useand infrastructure stressthrough agriculture,human
Fig. 3. Driving force: temporal evolution in numbers of amount of professional fishing boats for the closest brotherhoods to Tabarca MPA [84]. Pressure: number of professional
fishing activities close to the MPA, obtained by the Tabarca MPA surveillance. Data source: Tabarca MPA surveillance technical reports (TRAGSA, Secretarı ´a de Pesca Marı ´tima).
Fig. 4. State:totalfishbiomasssampledbyUVC(underwatervisualcensus),temporaltrendandlinearregressionswithintheMPAandincontrolareas(noprotection),inTabarcaMPA.
C. Ojeda-Martı ´nez et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2008) 1–135
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article in press as: Ojeda-Martı ´nez C et al., A conceptual framework for the integral management of marine protected areas,
Ocean & Coastal Management (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2008.10.004

Page 6

settlements, fishing, urban, industrial transport and communica-
tions development [51]. Also this increases a whole of social and
cultural impacts, derived from the abandonment of traditional
economic activities, to adapt to new patterns of behaviour, use and
consumption of resources and management of wastes [52]. Pres-
sures of marine tourism can be broadly categorised as ecological,
social and cultural: i) Angling from shore, angling from boat and
spear fishing are very popular activities in most countries where
they are practiced at recreational and competitive levels [43,53–
55]. These activities are forbidden in most of the marine protected
areas, but are allowed along the coast. However, there are still
certain problems, such as the illegal selling of the catches or the
resistance of spear fishermen to comply with protection measures,
despite spear fishing could be policed and possession of spear
fishing equipment could be a controlled activity. Although spear
fishing is usually carried out at low intensity along all suitable
Fig. 5. Impacts: big Sparidae biomass sampled by UVC (underwater visual census), temporal trend and linear regressions within the MPA and in control areas (no protection), in
Tabarca MPA.
Fig. 6. DPSIR conceptual framework for the tourism sector. Rows represent the cause effect relations from the driving forces to the responses. Lined rows represent at which level
can act the responses.
C. Ojeda-Martı ´nez et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2008) 1–136
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article in press as: Ojeda-Martı ´nez C et al., A conceptual framework for the integral management of marine protected areas,
Ocean & Coastal Management (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2008.10.004

Page 7

stretches of coast, (except during competition events), there is
published evidence that, in the western Mediterranean, spear
fishing can affect the composition of fish communities [56–59] and
the structure of fish populations [60–62]. Conflicts between
different user groups can arise because recreational fishing may
take place in areas closed to commercial fishers and they may
compete for the same resources. ii) Diving and snorkelling have
been well studied overseas [63] and this pressure also generates
most of the incomes of coastal areas e.g. the real number of divers
in the MPA is an indicator to assess the pressure of this driving force
(Fig. 7). A percentage of divers who swim too close of the bottom
may break species [64]. Fragile branching corals are the most
susceptible to breakage [65], bryozoans and sea fans have erosion
problems due to this pressure [66]. Some studies on snorkellers
have detected larger numbers of broken species in areas actively
used by snorkellers, including snorkel trails, but the level of
breakage levelled off quickly [65]. Other associated effects are
changes in fish behaviour due to feeding [67]. iii) Tourism produces
problems due to trampling [68–70] and illegal species collection in
accessible rocky shore areas. It can provoke the replacement of low
growth (e.g. Cystoseira spp) to rapid growth opportunistic species.
Visitors usuallycollect keyspecies which inserts pressure similar to
the extraction done by recreational fishing. Furthermore, indirect
effects include: erosionbytrampling, gradual changes invegetation
structure and plant species composition as an adaptation to
mechanical pressure. iv) Also visitors, divers, shipping and recrea-
tional fishing, generate waste in many other different ways, as
happened in the fishing sector. v) Visitors need to have infra-
structure built and they create a seasonal demand for resources
[71]. In some cases, this expansion generates a need of comple-
mentary infrastructures (e.g. desalination plants, sewage plants,
etc) to provide this demand (e.g. fresh water necessities in
Mediterranean localities doubles during the tourist season
incrementing subsequently the amount of sewage processing,
that at the end is more important for near shore water, so does
the amount of sewage processed [71]). Besides land-use, demand
for resources and need for waste disposal facilities cause pressure
on fresh water and natural coastal habitats. Uncontrolled devel-
opment associated with tourism affects coastal ecology (e.g.
varyingtheecological balance
adequate standards of design and implementation of sewage
management are not adopted). Construction in coastal regions,
sand erosion and instabilities in beaches, have destructive effects
on fauna, flora and habitats and, in particular, on endemic species
[72]. vi) Anchoring and mooring generate impacts associated
with other pressures such as recreational fishing, shipping and
diving and have been well studied [73]. A series of extensive
impact assessments have found that pressures of moorings on
the surrounding areas are minimal, apart from the ‘footprint’
under the moorings. Anchoring of both tourist and recreational
boats is a significant issue in heavily visited sites [74]. Anchors
and anchor chains are capable of breaking multiple species (e.g.
coral colonies) at each drop and affect habitats like Posidonia
oceanica meadows.
througheutrophication,if
Fig. 7. Driving force: number of diving permissions ordered to dive in Tabarca MPA. Pressure: number of divers in internal and external waters for Tabarca MPA. Data source:
Tabarca MPA surveillance technical reports (TRAGSA, Secretarı ´a de Pesca Marı ´tima).
Fig. 8. Response: evolution of the budget for management-conservation, surveillance, divulgation and research in Tabarca MPA. Response: evolution of the number of surveillance
hours in Tabarca MPA, total number, number of surveillance hours in vessel and from land. Data source: Tabarca MPA surveillance technical reports (TRAGSA, Secretarı ´a de Pesca
Marı ´tima).
C. Ojeda-Martı ´nez et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2008) 1–137
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article in press as: Ojeda-Martı ´nez C et al., A conceptual framework for the integral management of marine protected areas,
Ocean & Coastal Management (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2008.10.004

Page 8

Table 1
List of potential indicators with their definition, developed from the DPSIR conceptual framework.
TypeSectorIndicator Definition
Driving
forces
FishingNumber of fishing boatsTemporal and/or spatial variations in the number of the professional fishing boats that fish on the Marine
Protected Area (MPA) or its boundaries.
Temporal variations on the number of the people working for the fishing sector or industry. Principally
people fishing.
Temporal variations of the profit of the fishing sector. Differences of the profit of this sector with the
establishment of the MPA.
Temporaldistribution of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) bythe differentsectorsselectedas drivingforces.
FishingNumber of fishers
FishingFishing sector profit
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing
GDP produced by the sector
Number of investments done in the
sector
Fishing boats power
Temporal and spatial number of investments done to improve the sector either fishing or tourism (in this
case the driving forces).
Temporalvariations of the power of the fishing boats that fish in the MPA or in its boundaries or the fleet that
fishes close to it.
Spatial and temporal distribution of per capita income in the area influenced by the MPA. Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing
Tourism
Per capita income in the area
Per capita income of the sector Per capita income of the fishing and tourist sector (in this case the driving forces) in the area influenced by
the MPA.
Number of fishing boats that use a determinate kind of gear.
Temporal variations of the number of fishing boats that are counted or are registered in the area influenced
by the MPA.
Number of people fishing with a spear by kilometres of coast influenced by the MPA.
Number of people counted fishing with a fishing rod along the coast influenced by the MPA.
Number of fishing rods sold per number of habitants in the area influenced by the MPA.
Temporal variation in the number of specialised shop for recreational fishing established in the area within
the creation of the MPA.
Temporal variation in the number of spear guns sold by population.
Temporal and spatial evolution of the number of divers.
Temporal and spatial evolution of the number of diving clubs in the area.
Temporal and spatial evolution of the incomes produced by diving activities.
Temporal and spatial evolution of the diving licences in the area.
Temporal evolution of the visitants.
Temporal evolution of the number of the guided activities in the area.
Temporal evolution of the number of recreational boats sold in the area.
Temporal evolution of the number of jet sky sold in the area.
Temporal and spatial evolution of the number of nautical activities offered in the area.
Temporal and spatial evolution of the hotel accommodation offer in the area.
Fishing boats with a kind of gear
Recreational boats
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Spear fishing/coast
Angling/coast
Fishing rods sold
Specialised shops
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Spear guns sold/habitant
Number of divers
Diving clubs number
Diving incomes
Diving licences number
Influx of visitants
Guided activities in the area
Recreational boats sold
Jet sky sold
Nautical activities offered
Hotel accommodation offer
Pressures FishingFishing ground
Boats fishing/day
CPUE
Length of net
Number of hooks
Fishing time
Total Biomass extracted
Biomass extracted by specie
Individuals fished/total capture
Number of species caught
Hydrocarbons consumed
Organic matter thrown
Gears lost
Tourist angling in coast
Tourist angling in boat
Spear fishers
Density of recreational fishers
Recreational fishing surface
Recreational boats
Boating or jet sky
Divers
Visitants
Littoral itinerary
Hydrocarbons consumed
Organic matter
Recreational boats
Area, were the fishing is exerted.
Number of boats fishing.
Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE).
Length of the net over a type of habitat.
Number of hooks over a type of habitat.
Fishing time
Kilograms of biomass extracted when fishing by boat and by gear.
Specie biomass (kilograms) extracted by boat and by gear.
Kilograms of individuals from the same specie fished divided by the total capture in kilograms.
Number of different species caught by gear.
Litres of hydrocarbons consumed for fishing by boat.
Tons of organic matter thrown to the sea.
Number of fishing gears lost.
Number of tourist anglers along the coast (in km) per day.
Number of tourist anglers by boat along the coast (in km).
Number of spear fishers along the coast (in km) per day.
Temporal density of recreational fishers.
Recreational fishing surface
Number of recreational boats in a day along the MPA boundaries.
Number of motor boating or jet sky in a day in the MPA or influenced area.
Number of recreational divers in a day in the MPA or along its boundaries.
Number of visitants in a day in the MPA
Number of visitants in a day in a littoral itinerary or route.
Hydrocarbons concentration (mg/l) consumed by boat in the closer ports.
Quantity in tonnes (Tn) of organic matter thrown by recreational boats
Number of recreational boats (fishing boatsþtourism boats þwhale watchingþ.).
Quantity of each key specie can be found in the MPA
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Tourist
Tourist
Tourist
Tourist
Tourist
Tourist
Tourist
Tourist
Tourist
Tourist
Tourist
Tourist
Tourist
StateFishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Abundance
BiomassWeight of each key specie that can be found in the MPA
DensityAbundance per unit area of key species are in the MPA
Size structure Size distribution of the different key elements selected
Diversity Assemblage structure in the MPA
Relative Abundance Relative abundance of key species.
Richness Number of species.
C. Ojeda-Martı ´nez et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2008) 1–138
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article in press as: Ojeda-Martı ´nez C et al., A conceptual framework for the integral management of marine protected areas,
Ocean & Coastal Management (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2008.10.004

Page 9

Table 1 (continued)
Type SectorIndicator Definition
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Dominance Relative abundance of the more abundant species
Community structureChanges in the community structure.
Coverture Coverture of a key specie within the boundaries of the MPA
Trophic categoriesNumber of trophic categories affected
Recruitment Number of new individuals (juveniles) incorporated to a population
Occupied surfaceChanges on the occupied surface
Key species
Hydrocarbons concentration
Chemical products concentration
Solid waste
Species broken
Nests
Number of key species endangered by solid objects.
Hydrocarbons concentration in the water column.
Chemical products concentration in the water column.
Number of solid waste in a type of habitat.
Number of species broken by anchoring or diving.
Density of bird nests.
Impacts Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Tourism
Surface affected by a gear
Surface affected
Changes in density
Changes in covertures
Total surface of a determinate kind of habitat affected by a gear.
Total surface of a determinate kind of habitat
Temporal and spatial changes of the quantity of key species that are in the MPA boundaries
Changes produced in the state of the key elements during the time a pressure is affecting them.
Changes in community structure
Species size variation
Relative abundance
Changes in abundance
Temporal and spatial changes in the community structure.
Temporal and spatial variation of the size of the different key elements selected.
Temporal and spatial variations on the relative abundance of the individuals for each key species.
Temporal and spatial variations of the quantity of each key specie that can be found in the MPA
Changes in diversity Temporal and spatial variations on the species composition structure in the MPA boundaries.
Changes in richnessTemporal and spatial variations on the number of the key species.
Changes in dominance
Changes in sediment
Species substitution
Families substitution
Changes in recruitment
Breaking index
Rugosity
Changes in habitat heterogeneity
Changes in trophic levels
Opportunistic species
Sensitive species
Species size
Species weight
Mortality rate
Captures
Recruitment rate
Extracted biomass
Extracted biomass by specie
Fragile species
Protected species
Sediment
Opportunistic species
Filter species
Anchoring
Diving activities
Whale watching
Sea mammals
Trampling
Water quality
Marine Protected Area
Temporal and spatial variations on the abundance of the dominant species.
Changes in sediment composition and/or quality.
Temporal and spatial substitution of the species
Temporal and spatial substitution of the families
Temporal and spatial variations on changes in the recruitment rate
Temporal and spatial variations of breaking index of key species.
Temporal changes in the rugosity of key elements
Temporal and spatial habitat changes
Temporal and spatial changes in trophic levels
Appearance of opportunistic species.
Changes in sensitive species
Variation of the targeted species size
Variation of the targeted species weight
Changes in mortality rate
Temporal changes in captures
Evolution in the recruitment rate
Evolution of the extracted biomass
Evolution of the extracted biomass by specie
Decrease of fragile species
Disappear rate of protected species
Changes in the sediment composition and/or quality
Opportunistic species evolution
Evolution of filter species
Evolution of the surface damaged by anchoring
Evolution in the surface affected by the diving activities.
Temporal and spatial variations in whale watching
Number of impacts with sea mammals
Evolution in the surface affected by the influx of visitants.
Changes in water quality
Surface of the Marine Protected Area Responses Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Integral reserve Surface of integral reserve
Zoning surface Surface zoned for each use
Sport fishing surface % of the total surface of the MPA limited for sport fishing.
Diving surface% of the total surface of the MPA limited for diving (recreational or scientific)
Budget Total budget invested in the MPA by the governments
(continued on next page)
C. Ojeda-Martı ´nez et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2008) 1–139
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article in press as: Ojeda-Martı ´nez C et al., A conceptual framework for the integral management of marine protected areas,
Ocean & Coastal Management (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2008.10.004

Page 10

3.3. Marine protected areas: a response
Responses are possible at all levels in the DPSIR framework, but
at the pressure and state level, measures are technically and
economically hardly feasible. MPAs were being proposed widely as
a tool to manage marine biodiversity and fisheries, complementa-
rily to other management measures [75].
The selection of a site for conservation management is only one
of many elements in the building of a MPA. It requires goal
identification, site survey and data collection, data analysis, and
data synthesis and plan formulation, all of which apply to site
selection as well as all other steps in a MPA programme. Experi-
ences and processes all over the world demonstrate that MPAs are
an effective management tool.
Some key experiences can be outlined from the US Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary, which is administered by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in partnership
with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP).
Table 1 (continued)
Type Sector IndicatorDefinition
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Fishing &
tourism
Budget for surveillanceTemporal (annual, monthly.) budget for surveillance.
Budget for each pressureTemporal (annual, monthly.) budget invested to research each pressure
Budget for educational programsBudget invested in educational programs
Budget for waste programs or actionsBudget invested in waste programs or actions
Budget for anchoring pointsBudget invested in anchoring points actions
Budget for duties of management of
anchoring points
Budget for improvement actions
Budget for duties of management of anchoring points
Budget invested for improvement actions.
Budget for participant organismsBudget invested for each participant organisms or stakeholder.
Participation budget Budget invested in participation.
Budget for research programs for each
pressure
Research budget
Budget invested in each research program developed for the pressures acting in the MPA.
Annual research budget.
Budget for management actions for
each pressure
Littoral itinerary budget
Budget invested for management actions for each pressure acting in the MPA.
Budget invested for management and conservation of littoral itineraries.
Surveillance hours Number of surveillance hours applied in the MPA
Anchoring surveillance Number of surveillance hours applied in anchoring surveillance.
Licences for sport fishing Temporal variations of the number of licences for the different kinds of sport fishing.
DenouncesTemporal variations of the number of denounces for illegal fishing or illegal diving or illegal boating.
Educational programs Temporal variations of the number of educational programs.
Number of actions doneTemporal variations of the number of actions done to became aware of waste, recreational fishing, divers.
Anchoring pointsTotal number of anchoring points
Anchoring points for divingTemporal variations of the number of anchoring points established for diving activities.
Evolution of diving in the MPATemporal and spatial evolution of the limitations or places for diving in the MPA or its boundaries.
Visitants surfaceTerrestrial surface limited for the visitant
Littoral itinerariesTemporal and spatial evolution in the number of littoral itineraries.
Improvement actionsTemporal variations of the number of improvement actions.
People contracted Number of people contracted in a year.
Publications Number of publications done related to the MPA.
Research projects Number of research projects in a year.
Meetings between the actorsNumber of meetings between the actors.
People working in projects
Variations on the people working on projects.
Legislation changesChanges in laws, normative, restrictions and/or limitations.
C. Ojeda-Martı ´nez et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2008) 1–1310
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article in press as: Ojeda-Martı ´nez C et al., A conceptual framework for the integral management of marine protected areas,
Ocean & Coastal Management (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2008.10.004

Page 11

In 1960 Floridians responded to early warning signs that the Keys’
marine environment was fragile – that its coral reefs, seagrass beds,
mangrove islands and the fish, lobsters, birds, and other creatures
that lived there were not infinite. Their concern led to the creation
of the world’s first underwater marine park, the John Pennekamp
Coral Reef State Park. In 1990 Congress designated the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary. It encompasses the goals of balancing
the long-term health of the ecosystem with the economy it
supports [76]. In Australia examples like the Great Barrier and
Ningaloo Marine Parks can be found. Scattered over a distance of
2300 kilometres, from the middle of Australia’s eastern coast
northwards to Papua New Guinea, lies the Great Barrier Reef. Not
really a continuous barrier but a collection of about 3400 separates
coral reefs, shoals and other formations, it is the largest system of
coral reefs in the world and one of the main examples of protection,
conservation and management. Australia had already taken action
to protect coral reefs when it established the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park. The Marine Park is a multiple-use management
approach which aims to achieve reasonable use consistent with
conservation. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, approved in 1975
anticipated the 1981 World Conservation Strategy and it may be
unique in providing specifically for conservation and reasonable
use, or sustainable development of a large area of recognised
conservational significance [77,78]. Another example in this region
is the Ningaloo Marine Park in Australia that is managed to
conserve a unique environment for the enjoyment of visitors. This
area was in 1987 under the National Parks and Wildlife Conserva-
tion Act 1975 (NPWC Act). Its management plan sets out the main
objectives for the park management, as conservation, recreation,
science and education. This Park is protected to allow sustainable
recreation for current and future generations. In the Mediterranean
region MPAs have also been established to protect marine biodi-
versity and restocking commercial species, exhibiting a high
heterogeneity in terms of zoning, management and results [35].
As these examples show the MPAs were chosen as tools to
mitigate the impacts caused by different socioeconomic activities
on marine resources, at least in some very representative areas. For
this reason, MPAs and their related management activities should
be considered, in this conceptual framework, as responses (e.g. this
can be measured through the evolution of the budget and the
number of surveillance hours as a management response indicator.
Fig. 8). They were divided in two different stages: plan the uses and
activities allowed or forbidden in the area of the reserve and
management of the different activities planned to enhance
different programs developed in the reserve.
3.4. DPSIR framework to select indicators
We linked the components of the DPSIR framework through
cause–effect connections. Once these links were obtained, we
defined parameters that could be measured toassess the protection
effect for each of the components of the framework. In this way we
obtained variables for the driving forces, pressures, states, impacts
and responses for both, fishing and tourism sectors. Finally 149
variables were defined and classified within the DPSIR framework
(Table 1). Here we present variables that have been defined for
a general conceptual model for MPAs and that could be used as
potential indicators, although they have to be adapted to each
particular case study.
4. Discussion
A general conceptual framework using the DPSIR methodology
to analyse the socioeconomic issues, environmental changes and
policy responses of MPAs, was developed. This framework was
developed through a participation process which involved an
expert panel but must be used by managers and evaluated by the
stakeholders implicated in the MPA. From this conceptual frame-
work a set of variables for each DPSIR component were defined.
These variables will be evaluated as indicators through criteria by
a participation process which also involves managers. Also this
framework helped us to analyse and find gaps on the management
of an MPA. This general framework seems to be appropriated for
the evaluation of the problems developed in an MPA.
To develop the conceptual framework, we used the DPSIR
framework [8], among many other methodologies because it
demonstrates and illustrates the complexity of linkages between
the causes and impacts to managers, politicians, resource users and
scientists. DPSIR also allows a holistic and multi-dimensional view
of causal relationships. The DPSIR framework is an extended
version of the Pressure-State-Response (PSR) approach, that is
based on the idea that anthropogenic activities impact the envi-
ronment and that adverse environmental impacts drive humans to
control the pressures. It introduces two new concepts: human
welfare and environmental quality and societal behaviour and
economic pressures affecting the environment, incorporating them
as ‘‘Driving Forces’’ and ‘‘Impacts’’. This methodologyalso embraces
the process of indicator linkages of environmental functions. Under
DPSIR, environmental problems and solutions are simplified into
variables that stress the cause–effect relationships between human
activities that exert pressures on the environment, the condition of
the environment and society’s response tothe condition [14]. Other
systematic conservation planning tools, like Marxan [79] and
MarZone [80], consider biodiversity conservation and socioeco-
nomic interests ad hoc to design networks of marine protected
areas. These tools incorporate data to model predictions about the
results of the management. The conceptual framework resulting
from DPSIR methodology was proposed as a first step to define the
condition of certain MPAs, enabling the use of further and more
accurate tools. The incorporation of different approaches will
increase the efficiency of designing marine protected areas that will
satisfy biodiversity conservation goals and will be socioeconomi-
cally viable.
The conceptual framework can be applied to any case study and
it should be used as a systemguide for MPA planners and managers.
For a right application of the conceptual framework to develop an
ecosystem based approach management, species, habitats, the
whole ecosystem, diverse and potentially conflicting uses, thus
a diversity of stakeholders, for a certain case study must be
contemplated. In this process, various stakeholders might have
different conceptual frameworks to be, to the extent possible,
reconciled and accommodated in a common conceptual frame-
work. The exact composition of the framework can change in
response to the concerned person and/or institution necessities.
Thus, if this framework is applied and there exists local legislation,
it must be considered. Diagrams represented here are a general
example, applying them must be done with the legislation and
specific characteristics of each MPAs. Also foreach application there
will be different problems, uses, necessities and stakeholders that
must be considered when defining the DPSIR components and
making the cause–effect diagrams.
The relationship between marine science and marine policy has
historically been challenging, with examples from fisheries, water
quality, whaling, and marine conservation readily available [81].
The challenging relationship has often been attributed to the form
of interaction between marine scientists and those involved in
policy-making [82]. It can also be argued that the MPA definition
issue is a factor. Scientists and conservationists who focus only on
MPAs as no-take reserves set up a counterpoint ‘‘game’’ with
fishery interests who can spend energy resisting loss of fishing
areas rather than investing research and resources into developing
verifiability indicators and management measures for ecologically
C. Ojeda-Martı ´nez et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2008) 1–1311
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article in press as: Ojeda-Martı ´nez C et al., A conceptual framework for the integral management of marine protected areas,
Ocean & Coastal Management (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2008.10.004

Page 12

sustainable fisheries. This well known divorce between science and
management is reflected in, that most of science research does not
respond to management necessities. This lack of response to MPAs
management objectives is focused on gaps on research in deter-
minate fields such as: temporal data for states, and non-existence
of data concerning responses and driving forces. The adoption of an
objective-based management system for the marine environment
and application of conceptual frameworks will require some
adaptation and reconciliation by managers, scientists and stake-
holders, as has been happening in several parts of the world for 10
or more years [83]. Social approaches and negotiation processes,
and science as a trans-cultural and testable knowledge can play
a role in this framework. This methodology will make management
simpler to understand and will make easiest to spread it to
stakeholders.
5. Conclusions
The DPSIR scheme of indicators is a flexible framework that can
be adapted to the necessities of specific programmes to identify the
different actors and processes affecting the MPA and surrounding
areas. It allows a better understanding of the effects of manage-
ment actions on the differentsystemcomponents (e.g. the fisheries,
the socioeconomics), and hence is more suitable in the identifica-
tion and analysis of indicators. Its structure can be used to select
indicators as is being done in the implementation of e.g. European
Water Framework Directive [15–17]. Moreover it can be a very
effective tool to organize participation processes to better involve
stakeholders, managers and scientists.
Acknowledgments
This work has been carried out with financial support from the
Commission of the European Community, specific RTD programme
‘‘Specific Support to Policies’’, SSP-2003-006539 ‘‘European Marine
Protected Areas as Tools for Fisheries Management and Conserva-
tion (EMPAFISH)’’. It does not necessarily reflect its views and in no
way anticipates the Commission’s future policy in this area. We
thank two anonymous referees for their helpful suggestions and
every member of the project who has directly been involved in this
document, for their patience and their advice. The authors are very
grateful to Pedro Cartagena Rocamora for his helpful advice on
DPSIR methodology.
References
[1] Kelleher G, Bleakly C, Wells S. In: A global representative system of marine
protected areas. The great barrier reef marine park authority, the world bank
and the world conservation union (IUCN). Washington, DC, USA: Environment
Department, The World Bank; 1995.
[2] Wood LJ, Fish L, Laughren J, Pauly D. Assessing progress towards global marine
protection targets: shortfalls in information and action. Fisheries centre
working paper #2007–03. Vancouver, B.C., Canada: The University of British
Columbia; 2007.
[3] IUCN-The World Conservation Union. Resolution 17.38 of the 17th general
assembly of the IUCN. Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: Gland; 1987.
[4] Kelleher G, Kenchington R. Guidelines for establishing marine protected areas.
Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources; 1992.
[5] Lubchenco J, Palumbi SR, Gaines SD, Andelman S. Plugging a hole in the ocean:
theemerging scienceof marine
2003;13(Suppl. 1):S3–7.
[6] Kelleher G. Guidelines for marine protected areas. Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK: IUCN; 1999.
[7] OECD(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). Environ-
mental indicators: a preliminary set. Paris: OECD; 1991.
[8] OECD(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). Environ-
mental indicators: OECD core set. Paris: OECD; 1994.
[9] EEA (European Environment Agency). Environmental indicators: typology and
overview. Technical report No 25. Copenhagen, Denmark: European Envi-
ronment Agency; 1999.
reserves. EcologicalApplications
[10] EEA (European Environment Agency). State and pressures of the marine and
coastalMediterraneanenvironment.
Copenhagen, Denmark: European Environment Agency; 1999.
[11] DEFRA. A biodiversity strategy for England. Measuring progress: baseline
assessment. England: England Biodiversity Group Working with the GRAIN of
Nature; 2003.
[12] Boyd H, Charles A. Creating community-based indicators to monitor
sustainability of local fisheries. Ocean & Coastal Management 2006;49(5–6):
237–58.
[13] Pomeroy RS, Parks JE, Watson LM. How is your MPA doing? A guidebook of
natural and social indicators for evaluating marine protected area manage-
ment effectiveness. Gland, Switerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN; 2004. p. 216.
[14] Mangi SC, Roberts CM, Rodwell LD. Reef fisheries management in Kenya:
preliminaryapproachusing the
(DPSIR) scheme of indicators. Ocean & Coastal Management 2007;50:463–80.
[15] La Jeunesse I, Rounsevell M, Vanclooster M. Delivering a decision support
system tool to a river contract: a way to implement the participatory approach
principle at the catchment scale? Physics and Chemistry of the Earth
2003;28:547–55.
[16] Mysiak J, Giupponi C, Rosato P. Towards the development of a decision support
system for water resource management. Environmental Modelling and Soft-
ware 2005;20(2):203–14.
[17] Borja A, Josefson AB, Miles A, Muxika I, Olsgard F, Phillips G, et al. An approach
to the intercalibration of benthic ecological status assessment in the North
Atlantic ecoregion, according to the European water framework directive.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 2007;55:42–52.
[18] Cooley B, Goddard C, Hancock P, O’Connell E, McCoy M. Pensacola bay
ecosystem management plan. Environmental indicators system. Pensacola,
Florida, USA: Florida Department of Environmental Protection; 1996.
[19] Chesapeake Bay Program/USEPA. Environmental outcome-based manage-
ment: using environmental goals and measures in the Chesapeake bay
program. EPA 903-R-00-016. CBP/TRS 248/00. Chesapeake Bay Program.
Annapolis, USA: United States Environmental Protection Agency; 1999.
[20] Casazza G, Silvestri C, Spada E, Melley A. Coastal environment in Italy:
preliminary approach using the ‘‘DPSIR Scheme’’ of indicators. In: Gomes FV,
editor. Sixth international symposium proceedings: a multi-disciplinary
symposium on coastal zone research, vol. 2. Porto, Portugal, Littoral:
Management and Planning; 2002. p. 541–9.
[21] Casazza G, Cecilia S, Emanuela S. The use of bio-indicators for quality
assessments of the marine environment: examples from the Mediterranean
sea. Journal of Coastal Research 2002;8:147–56.
[22] Elliott M. The role of the DPSIR approach and conceptual models in marine
environmental management: an example for offshore wind power. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 2002;44:iii–vii.
[23] Jorge MR, Lourenço N, Machado CR, Rodrigues L. Measuring monitoring
and managing sustainability in Indian coastal areas: The socioeconomic
dimension.In: Veloso-GomesF,
Proceeding ofLittoral. The
EUROCOAST/EUCC; 2002. p. 237–247.
[24] Silva MC, Rodrigues AC. Environmental indicators as management tools
ofestuaries.Methodologyand
Veloso-Gomes F, Taveira-Pinto F, Neves L, editors. Littoral 2002, the
changing coast. Porto, Portugal: European Coastal Zone Association for
Science and Technology (EUROCOAST)-Portugal Association/EUCC - The
Coastal Union; 2002. p. 199–210.
[25] Nunneri C, Hoffmann J. Integrated coastal zone management and river basin
management and application of GIS for the river Elbe management (Ger-
many). In: Proceedings of fifth international symposium on GIS and computer
cartography for coastal zone management. Genoa, Italy: GISIG/ICOOPS; 2003.
p. 1–11.
[26] Picollo A, Albertelli G, Bava S, Cappo S. The role of geographic information
systems (GIS) and of DPSIR model in Ligurian coastal zone management. In:
Proceedings of fifth international symposium on GIS and computer cartog-
raphy for coastal zone management. Genoa, Italy: GISIG/ICOOPS; 2003. p.1–5.
[27] IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). Guidelines for pro-
tected area management categories. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK:
IUCN; 1994.
[28] CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). Draft global outcome-oriented
targets for the programme of work on marine and coastal biological diversity.
UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/10/8/Add; 2004.
[29] Willis TJ, Millar RB, Babcock RC, Tolimieri N. Burdens of evidence and the
benefits of marine reserves: putting descartes before des horse? Environ-
mental Conservation 2003;30(2):97–103.
[30] Murawski SA, Brown R, Lai H-L, Rago PJ, Hendrickson L. Large-scale closed
areas as a fishery-management tool in temperate marine systems: the
Georges bank experience. Bulletin of Marine Science 2000;66(3):775–798.
[31] Kaiser MJ. Are marine protected areas a red herring or fisheries panacea?
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2005;62(5):1194–1199.
[32] Kaiser MJ, Blyth-Skyrme RE, Hart PJB, Edwards-Jones G, Palmer D. Evidence for
greater reproductive output per unit area in areas protected from fishing.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2007;64:1284–1289.
[33] Ramos TB, Caeiro S, Melo JJ. Environmental indicators frameworks to design
and assess environmental monitoring programs. Impact Assessment and
Project Appraisal 2004;22(1):47–62.
[34] Gon ˜i R. Ecosystem effects of marine fisheries: an overview. Ocean and Coastal
Management 1998;40:37–64.
Environmental assessmentseries.
driver-pressure-state-impacts-response
Taveira-Pinto
changing
F, Neves
Porto,
L, editors.
Portugal: coast.
thecase of theTejoestuary. In:
C. Ojeda-Martı ´nez et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2008) 1–13 12
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article in press as: Ojeda-Martı ´nez C et al., A conceptual framework for the integral management of marine protected areas,
Ocean & Coastal Management (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2008.10.004

Page 13

[35] Francour P, Harmelin J-G, Pollard D, Sartoretto S. A review of marine protected
areas in the northwestern Mediterranean region: sitting, usage, zonation and
management. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
2001;11:155–188.
[36] Crawford BR, Siahainenia A, Rotinsulu C, Sukmara A. Compliance and
enforcement of community-based coastal resource management regulations
in North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Coastal Management 2004;32(1):39–50.
[37] McIntyre S, Hobbs R. A framework for conceptualizing human effects on
landscapes and its relevance to management and research models. Conser-
vation Biology Dec 1999;13(6):1282–1292.
[38] Finley BL, Iannuzzi TJ, Wilson ND, Kinnell JC, Craven VA, Lemeshow S, et al.
The Passaic river creel/angler survey: expert panel review, findings, and
recommendations. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 2003;9(3):
829–855.
[39] Tudela S, Kai Kai A, Maynou F, El Andalosi M, Guglielmi P. Driftnet fishing and
biodiversity conservation: the case study of the large-scale Morocan driftnet
fleet operating in the Alboran Sea (SW Mediterranean). Biological Conserva-
tion 2005;121:65–78.
[40] Koslow JA. Managing nonrandomly varying fisheries. Canadian Journal of
Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 1989;46:1302–1308.
[41] Bohnsack JA. Protection of grouper spawning aggregations. Coastal resource
division contribution: CRD-88/89-06. Miami, Florida: Southeast Fisheries
Science Center; 1989.
[42] Gislason H. Ecosystem effects of fishing activities in the north sea. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 1994;68:520–527.
[43] Sluka RD, Sullivan KM. The influence of spear fishing on species composition
and size of groupers on match reefs in the upper Florida keys. Fishery Bulletin
1998;96:388–392.
[44] Sa ´nchez F, Olaso I. Effects of fisheries on the Cantabrian sea shelf ecosystem.
Ecological Modelling 2004;172:151–174.
[45] Garthe S, Camphuysen K, Furness R. Amounts of discards by commercial
fisheries and their significance as food for seabirds in the north sea. Marine
Ecology Progress Series 1996;136:1–11.
[46] Munro JL, Parrish JD, Talbot FH. The biological effect of intensive fishing upon
reef fish communities. In: Salvat B, editor. Human impacts on coral reefs; facts
and recommendations. French Polynesia: Antenne Musseum EPHE; 1987. p.
41–49.
[47] Eno NC, MacDonalds DS, Amos SC. A study on the effects of fish (crustacea/
mollusc) traps on benthic habitats and species. Report to European Commi-
sion Directorate General XIV; 1996. Studies contract: 94/076.
[48] MacDonalds DS, Little M, Eno NC, Hiscock K. Towards assessing the sensitivity
of benthic species and in relation to fishing activities. Aquatic Conservation:
Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 1996;6:257–268.
[49] Chan EH, Liew HC, Mazlan AG. The incidental capture of sea turtles in fishing
gear in Terengganu, Malaysia. Biological Conservation 1988;43:1–7.
[50] Tasker ML, Camphuysen CJ, Cooper J, Garthe S, Monterecchi WA, Blaber SJM.
The impacts of fishing on marine birds. ICES Journal of Marine Science
2000;57:531–547.
[51] Hall CM. Trends in ocean and coastal tourism: the end of the last frontier?
Ocean and Coastal Management 2001;44:601–618.
[52] Santana A. Antropologı ´a del turismo, ¿nuevas hordas, viejas culturas?. Bar-
celona, Spain: Ariel; 1997.
[53] Coll J, Garcı ´a-Rubies A, Moranta J, Stefanni S, Morales-Nin A. Efectes de la
prohibicio ´ de la pesca esportiva sobre l’estructura poblacional de l’anfo ´s
(Epinephelus marginatus Lowe, 1834. Pisces, Serranidae) en el Parc Nacional
de Cabrera. Bolleti Societat d’Historia Natural de les Balears 1999;42:125–138.
[54] Murray SN, Denis TG, Kido JS, Smith JR. Human visitation and the frequency
and potential effects of collecting on rocky intertidal populations in
southern California marine reserves reports, vol. 40. California, USA: CalCOFI;
1999. p. 100–6.
[55] Policansky D. Catch-and-release recreational fishing: a historical perspec-
tive. In: Pitcher TJ, Hollingworth CE, editors. Recreational fisheries: ecolog-
ical, economical and social evaluation. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science; 2002.
p. 74–94.
[56] Bell JD. Effects of depth and marine reserve fishing restrictions on the struc-
ture of a rocky reef fish assemblage in the north western Mediterranean sea.
Journal of Applied Ecology 1983;20:357–369.
[57] Garcı ´a-Rubies A, Zabala M. Effects of total fishing prohibition on the rocha fish
assemblages of Medes islands marine reserve (NW Mediterranean). Scientia
Marina 1990;54(4):317–328.
[58] Moranta J, Reviriego B, Coll J. Contribucio ´n al conocimiento de la estructura de
la comunidad ı ´ctica asociada a los fondos rocosos litorales de las islas del Toro
y d’Es Malgrat (suroeste de Mallorca, islas Baleares). Publicaciones Especiales
Instituto Espan ˜ol de Oceanografı ´a 1997;23:143–152.
[59] Ren ˜ones O, Moranta J, Coll J, Morales-Nin B. Rocky bottom fish communities of
Cabrera Archipelago national park (Mallorca, western Mediterranean). Sci-
entia Marina 1997;1997(61):495–506.
[60] Harmelin JG, Marinopoulos J. Recensement de la population de corbs (Sciaena
umbra Linneaus 1758: Pisces) du Parc national de Port-Cros (Me ´diterra ´ne ´e,
France) par inventaires visuels, vol. 15. France: Science Report Port-Cros
National Park; 1993. p. 265–75.
[61] Zabala M, Garcı ´a-Rubies A, Louisy P, Sala E. Spawning bahaviour of the
Mediterranean dusky grouper Epinephelus marginatus (Lowe, 1834) (pisces,
serranidae) in the Medes islands marine reserve (NW Mediterranean, Spain).
Sciencia Marina 1997;61(1):65–77.
[62] Jouvenel J-Y, Pollard DA. Some effects of marine reserve protection on the
population structure of two spearfishing target-fish species, Dicentrarchus
labrax (Moronidae) and Sparus aurata (Sparidae), in shallow inshore waters,
along a rocky coast in the northern Mediterranean Sea. Aquatic Conservation:
Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 2001;11:1–9.
[63] Barker NHL, Roberts CM. Scuba diver behaviour and the management of
diving impacts on coral reefs. Biological Conservation 2004;120:481–489.
[64] Rouphael T, Inglis G. The effects of qualified recreational SCUBA divers on coral
reefs. CRC Reef Research Centre Technical report no. 4, Townsville, Australia;
1995.
[65] Harriott VJ, Davis D, Banks SA. Recreational diving and its impact in marine
protected areas in eastern Australia. Ambio 1997;26:173–179.
[66] Sala E, Garrabou J, Zabala M. Effects of diver frequentation on Mediterranean
sublitoral populations of the bryozoan Pentapora fascialis. Marine Biology
1996;126:451–459.
[67] Milazzo M, Badalamenti F, Vega-Fernandez T, Chemello R. Effects of fish
feeding by snorkellers on the density and size distribution of fishes in
a Mediterranean marine protected area. Marine Biology 146:1213–22.
[68] Schiel DR, Taylor DI. Effects of trampling on a rocky intertidal algal assemblage
in southern New Zealand. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology
1999;235:213–235.
[69] Milazzo M, Chemello R, Badalamenti F, Riggio S. Short-term effect of human
trampling on the upper infralittoral macroalgae of Ustica Island MPA (western
Mediterranean, Italy). Journal of the Marine Biological Association UK
2002;82:745–748.
[70] Milazzo M, Riggio S, Badalamenti F, Chemello R. Patterns of algal recovery and
small-scale effects of canopy removal as a result of human trampling on
aMediterranean rockyshallow
2004;117:191–202.
[71] Mazo ´n T, Aledo A, editors. Turismo Residencial y Cambio Social. Nuevas per-
spectivas teo ´ricas y empı ´ricas. Alicante, Spain: CAM, FRAX and Alicante
University. Agua Clara S.L.; 2005. p. 565.
[72] Burak S, Dogan E, Gazioglub C. Impact of urbanization and tourism on coastal
environment. Ocean & Coastal Management 2004;47:515–527.
[73] Milazzo M, Badalamenti F, Ceccherelli G, Chemello R. Boat anchoring on
Posidonia oceanica beds in a marine protected area (Italy, western Mediter-
ranean): effect of anchor types in different anchoring stages. Journal of
Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 2004;299:51–62.
[74] Garcia-Charton JA, Bayle-Sempere JT, Sa ´nchez Lizaso JL, Chiesa P, Llaurado F,
Perez C, et al. Respuesta de la pradera de Posidonia oceanica y su ictiofaua
sociada al anclaje de embarcaciones en el Parque Natural de Port-Cros
(Francia).Publicaciones Especiales
1993;11:423–430.
[75] Kellegher G. A global representative system of marine protected areas. Ocean
& Coastal Management 1996;32(2):123–126.
[76] BhatMG.Application ofnon-marketvaluation totheFloridakeysmarinereserve
management. Journal of Environmental Management 2003;67:315–325.
[77] Brodie J. Management of the great barrier reef as a large marine ecosystem. In:
Sherman K, Tang Q, editors. Large marine ecosystems of the pacific rim.
Malden: Blackwell Science; 1999. p. 428–437.
[78] Brodie J. Keeping the wolf from the door: managing land-based threats to the
great barrier reef (GBR). In: Proceedings of the ninth international coral reef
symposium, Bali; 2001.
[79] Possingham HP, Ball IR, Andelman S. Mathematical methods for identifying
representative reserve networks. In: Ferson S, Burgman M, editors. Quan-
titative methods for conservation biology. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2000.
p. 291–305.
[80] Watts M, Klein C, Ball I, Possingham H. MarZone: protected area design using
spatially explicit annealing. Brisbane: University of Queensland; 2006.
[81] Duda AM, Sherman K. A new imperative for improving management of large
marine ecosystems. Ocean & Coastal Management 2002;42:797–833.
[82] Fletcher S. Converting science to policy through stakeholder involvement: an
analysis of the European marine strategy directive. Marine Pollution Bulletin
2007;54:1881–1886.
[83] Andrews G. Mafia island marine park, Tanzania: implications of applying
a marine park paradigm in a developing country. ITMEMS Proceedings
1998:267–279.
[84] Ramos AA. La Reserva Marina de la Isla Plana o Nueva Tabarca (Alicante).
Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alicante – Ayuntamiento de Alicante; 1985.
community. BiologicalConservation
InstitutoEspan ˜ol deOceanografı ´a
C. Ojeda-Martı ´nez et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2008) 1–13 13
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Please cite this article in press as: Ojeda-Martı ´nez C et al., A conceptual framework for the integral management of marine protected areas,
Ocean & Coastal Management (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2008.10.004