F

Ka

b

c

a

ARRA

KLPCPPM

1

tarPs2dapeeraP

ce((r

s

0h

Fisheries Research 144 (2013) 48– 59

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Fisheries Research

j our nal ho mep ag e: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / f i shres

actors affecting support for Puget Sound Marine Protected Areas

ristin R. Hoeltinga,∗, Clara H. Harda, Patrick Christieb, Richard B. Pollnacc

School of Marine and Environmental Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USASchool of Marine and Environmental Affairs and Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USADepartment of Marine Affairs & Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USA

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 5 March 2012eceived in revised form 8 October 2012ccepted 18 October 2012

a b s t r a c t

Previous studies suggest that collaboration between management agencies and the public has the poten-tial to increase the legitimacy of Marine Protected Area (MPA) establishment processes, thereby leadingto increased support for MPAs. A social survey was conducted in communities near seven Puget SoundMPAs to examine relationships between indicators of participatory democracy and process legitimacy, aswell as respondents’ stated support for MPAs. Results show that, in addition to the effect of process vari-

eywords:egitimacyublic supportollaborationublic participationuget Sound

ables, significant predictors of support include environmental beliefs, perceptions of ecological successof MPAs, and demographic variables. Taken together, these variables explain almost 70% of the variancein stated MPA support.

© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

PAs

. Introduction

An ecosystem-wide recovery effort is underway in Puget Sound,he second-largest estuary in the United States. Habitat alter-tion and loss, ongoing inputs of pollution and other threats haveesulted in losses of ecosystem function and the inclusion of over 20uget Sound species on the endangered species list, including orca,almon, and three species of rockfish (Puget Sound Partnership,008a; WDFW, 2011). Agencies and tribal governments with juris-iction over Washington State terrestrial and marine ecosystemsnd living marine resources are working to respond to a com-lex array of management challenges in order to protect remainingcosystem processes, structures and functions and restore essentiallements of what has been lost. The Puget Sound Action Agenda,eleased in 2008 by the Puget Sound Partnership, outlines man-gement priorities, goals and near-term actions needed to restoreuget Sound by the year 2020.

One of the near-term actions identified by the Partnership asritical for ecosystem protection and restoration is to improve theffectiveness of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in Puget SoundPuget Sound Partnership, 2008b:38). Marine Protected Areas

MPAs) are a tool increasingly advocated for use in protection andestoration of the marine environment worldwide (Agardy, 1994;

∗ Corresponding author at: School of Marine and Environmental Affairs, Univer-ity of Washington, 3707 Brooklyn Ave NE, Seattle, WA 98105-6715, USA.

E-mail address: hoelting@uw.edu (K.R. Hoelting).

165-7836/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2012.10.006

NRC, 2001). The International Union for the Conservation of Nature(IUCN) defines ‘protected area’ as:

“A clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicatedand managed, through legal or other effective means, to achievethe long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystemservices and cultural values” (Dudley and Stolton, 2008:9).

This study focuses specifically on protections in marine andintertidal areas. MPAs may be established for a variety of pur-poses, including ecosystem protection, habitat/species protection,recreation, research, protection of natural/cultural features, andnatural resource/fisheries management, among others (Dudley andStolton, 2008).

In the context of fisheries enhancement, MPAs are viewedas a complement rather than a replacement for traditional fish-eries management strategies; area closures are not a substitutefor proper incentive and institutional structures. Nevertheless,MPAs offer an important tool as management agencies continueto move toward an ecosystem-based approach (Allison et al.,1998; Hilborn et al., 2004; Ruckelshaus et al., 2008). In PugetSound, MPAs are of particular interest for protection of rocky reeffishes, including the three species recently listed on the endan-gered species list (WDFW, 2011). Puget Sound no-take MPAs havebeen shown to increase populations of both rockfish (Sebastesspp.) and lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) (Palsson, 2002). At the

ecosystem level, MPAs are of interest in Puget Sound to pro-tect habitats used by many species as spawning grounds, nurseryareas, migration corridors and feeding areas (Van Cleve et al.,2009).

ries Re

whiamW2opnC

otWPitMaecccnfl

shTg2(ncciwt

dmoumsua

sMswtcwb

S“oa

K.R. Hoelting et al. / Fishe

As of 2009, there were at least 127 MPAs in Washington State, ofhich 16% were no-take areas in which all resource harvest is pro-ibited. In addition to areas restricting harvest, some of these MPAs

nvolve habitat protections or restrict non-harvest activities suchs vessel anchoring or recreational access. Until now, the establish-ent of these MPAs has been relatively uncoordinated. An MPAork Group established by the Washington State Legislature in

008 concluded that MPAs sited and designed in isolation fromne another rarely achieve ecosystem-based management princi-les, and called for design of a comprehensive, science-based MPAetwork to improve MPA effectiveness at the ecosystem scale (Vanleve et al., 2009; WDFW, 2011).

In addition to considerations of biological design, the responsef local communities and resource users to an MPA plays an impor-ant role in determining its biological success or failure (Christie and

hite, 2007; Jones, 2006; Mascia et al., 2003; Pietri et al., 2009;ollnac et al., 2001). Consideration of social and cultural factorsn MPA design and management has been shown to be essen-ial, since the degree to which local resource users comply with

PA restrictions has the potential to undermine biological man-gement objectives (Himes, 2003; McClanahan et al., 2006). Pollnact al. (2010) found that compliance with MPA rules is significantlyorrelated with well-delineated MPA boundaries, active ecologi-al monitoring, training (capacity formation), and use of a formalonsultation process with the community. The incorporation of theeeds and interests of stakeholders in the design of MPAs has been

ound to be a prerequisite for acceptance and support of MPAs byocal stakeholder groups (Brown et al., 2001; Himes, 2007).

In Puget Sound, limited research has been conducted regardingocial and cultural dynamics surrounding MPA creation. Some workas been done, however, regarding views of Washington Treatyribes.1 Many tribes have expressed hesitation regarding MPAs,iven that treaty fishing rights are spatially delineated (NWIFC,003; Whitesell et al., 2007). In relation to this issue, Singleton2009) looked specifically at challenges in integrating tribal andontribal entities in ‘collaborative stakeholder processes’ in theontext of Puget Sound marine resource management; such pro-esses may not effectively differentiate between the role andnfluence of non-tribal stakeholder groups and that of treaty tribes,

hich possess greater decision authority and influence based onheir treaty rights.

In addition, Evans and Klinger (2008) examined the stakeholder-riven process toward implementation of ecosystem-basedanagement in the San Juan Islands. Uncertainty was found to be

ne of the primary obstacles to the success of this process, includingncertainty originating from differing interpretation of biologicalonitoring data, unknown future ecological interaction effects, and

ubjective judgments related to language use and categorization ofser types. High transaction costs of planning and negotiation werelso noted as obstacles to successful implementation.

This paper is based on results of a social survey conducted in theummer and fall of 2010 in communities near seven Puget SoundPAs. The goals of the study were to develop a baseline under-

tanding of the degree to which government agencies collaboratedith the public during the establishment of selected MPAs, and

o explore the role of agency–public collaboration in generating

ommunity support for MPAs and their restrictions. Survey dataere collected from respondents representing key groups likely to

e directly or indirectly impacted by MPAs, including stakeholder

1 Treaty tribes are those tribes that signed treaties with Territorial Governor Isaactevens in 1854 and 1855. All ten treaties contained a clause guaranteeing tribes theright of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with the citizensf the Territory” (Yale Lewis, 2003). The Boldt decision of 1974 upheld this clause,llocating half of harvestable salmon to treaty tribes (United States v. Washington).

search 144 (2013) 48– 59 49

groups such as recreational and commercial fishers, members oftribes with reservations near the MPA or treaty fishing rights inthe area, recreational divers, adjacent waterfront landowners,2 andother interested local community members. Together, these indi-vidual ‘communities of interest’, identified in part through theirrelationship to a ‘community of place’ (Dunham et al., 2006), wereseen to constitute and provide a representative voice for the ‘MPAcommunity’.

Based on this study, Hard et al. (2012) found positive cor-relations between collaboration and legitimacy variables, andrespondents’ stated support for MPAs. The level of perceived col-laboration during MPA establishment was shown to explain 33.1%of the variance in process legitimacy, and process legitimacy wasshown to explain 29.7% of the variance in stated support for MPAs.The partial correlation between perceived agency–public collabo-ration and stated MPA support, controlling for process legitimacy,was not statistically significant. This provides support for the theorythat an increase in process legitimacy is a primary route by whichagency–public collaboration acts on levels of support for MPAs(Ansell and Gash, 2007; Beierle and Cayford, 2002; Jentoft, 2000;Johnson et al., 2006; Kuperan and Sutinen, 1998; Mascarenhas andScarce, 2004; Nøstbakken, 2008; Pinkerton and John, 2008; Tyleret al., 1989; Tyler, 1990; Wondolleck and Yaffee, 2000).

This paper builds on findings in Hard et al. (2012) by asking thefollowing questions: Do process legitimacy and stated MPA sup-port vary significantly across MPAs and interest groups in PugetSound? Which indicators of agency–public collaboration and pro-cess legitimacy are the most important predictors of stated MPAsupport? Finally, if additional aspects theorized to affect supportare included in the equation, which of these variables explain asignificant amount of unique variance, and how much total vari-ance in stated MPA support is explained? The analysis presentedin this paper is among the first to examine quantitative relation-ships between perceptions of collaborative processes and variablesinvolved in community support for MPAs in Puget Sound. Factorsidentified in this study should be considered in future researchon socio-cultural dynamics surrounding MPAs and the design ofeffective collaborative governance in Puget Sound.

2. Theory

An individual’s support for environmental regulations such asMPAs can be expressed as active support (direct involvement,i.e. engagement in a process), supportive behavior (i.e. compli-ance or adoption of suggested behaviors) and as psychologicalsupport and acceptance (Stern et al., 1999). This paper investi-gates factors related to a dependent variable, ‘stated MPA support’,that measures the psychological aspect of support and acceptance.Thomassin et al. (2010:170) offer the following definition of socialacceptability in the context of MPAs: “a measure of support towardsa set of regulations, management tools or towards an organisation[sic] by an individual or a group of individuals based on geographic,social, economic and/or cultural criteria.”

Factors underlying an individual’s stated support for environ-mental regulations such as MPAs may include instrumental andpragmatic motivations (self-interest, personal costs and benefits),normative motivations (belief that a regulation is just, appropriate,and in line with the individual’s morality), tradition (Held, 1987),

personal beliefs and ideology regarding regulation and the environ-ment (Easton, 1965; Inglehart, 1995), and personal level of trust ingovernment (Christie et al., 2009; Pollnac et al., 2001; Tyler et al.,

2 Waterfront landowners may be directly impacted by MPAs involving habitatprotections and heightened review of leasing activity, such as the WashingtonDepartment of Natural Resources’ Aquatic Reserve program.

5 ies Re

1sstPe

tbsi2lti(Nin

cmd2ipGeamiacprm

prfiismalmppaJ

3

3

piR(m

SS

0 K.R. Hoelting et al. / Fisher

989). In addition, factors affecting the success of MPAs have beenhown to include MPA features such as marker buoys, communityignboards, a management plan, management committee, moni-oring program and enforcement presence (Christie et al., 2009;ollnac et al., 2001) and the presence of a clear MPA leader (Pietrit al., 2009).

The normative motivations outlined by Held (1987) are relatedo the concept of legitimacy. Tyler (2006:375) defines legitimacyroadly as, “a psychological property of an authority, institution, orocial arrangement that leads those connected to it to believe thatt is appropriate, proper, and just” (see also Easton, 1965; Jentoft,000; Johnson et al., 2006; Nielsen, 2003; Tyler, 1990). Process

egitimacy is a construct based on procedural justice and distribu-ive justice (perceptions of fairness, equality of representation andnfluence among interest groups), and use of adequate informationJentoft, 2000; Johnson et al., 2006; Kuperan and Sutinen, 1998;ielsen, 2003). Some of these elements relate to scientific and polit-

cal legitimacy as defined in Pinkerton and John (2008), who alsoote that legitimacy and support change and grow over time.

Lack of sufficient legitimacy and public support has been impli-ated as one source of the failure of top-down environmentalanagement efforts to effectively implement protections in recent

ecades (Parkins, 2006; Singleton, 2009; Wondolleck and Yaffee,000). Effective public engagement in regulatory processes is

ncreasingly viewed as a mechanism to increase the legitimacy andublic support of natural resource management efforts (Ansell andash, 2007; Beierle and Cayford, 2002; Christie et al., 2009; Cocklint al., 1998; Dalton, 2005; Stern and Dietz, 2008; Wondollecknd Yaffee, 2000). In the context of Puget Sound MPA establish-ent, collaboration between government agencies and the public

s conceptualized here as similar to ‘public participation’. Sternnd Dietz (2008:1) define public participation as “organized pro-esses adopted by elected officials, government agencies, or otherublic or private sector organizations to engage the public in envi-onmental assessment, planning, decision-making, management,onitoring, and evaluation.”Public participation in decision-making has been identified as

articularly necessary and appropriate in the context of naturalesource management (Beierle and Cayford, 2002). Given the dif-culty in enforcing restrictions on natural resource use through

nstrumental compliance mechanisms over large and remote areasuch as the ocean (Kuperan and Sutinen, 1998; Nøstbakken, 2008),anagement agencies must rely more heavily on the involvement

nd support of local communities and stakeholders. In this context,ack of public support can easily undermine the success of manage-

ent efforts. One way that collaboration is theorized to increaseublic support is through increasing the legitimacy of managementrocesses and outcomes (Hard et al., 2012; Jentoft, 2000; Kuperannd Sutinen, 1998; Mascarenhas and Scarce, 2004; Pinkerton andohn, 2008).

. Methods

.1. Site selection

MPAs were selected for inclusion in this study from tworimary State agencies with jurisdiction over aspects of Wash-

ngton State waters: (1) The Washington Department of Natural

esources (DNR), which manages use of state bottomlands, and2) Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), which

anages harvest of living marine resources.3 The Voluntary

3 WDFW has jurisdiction over harvest of all living marine resources in Washingtontate waters, with the exception of geoduck, which is co-managed by Washingtontate treaty tribes and DNR.

search 144 (2013) 48– 59

No-take Bottomfish Recovery Zone (BRZ) program initiated by theSan Juan County Marine Resources Committee (MRC) was includedas a seventh case. Chosen MPA sites varied with regard to: typeof restriction/regulation; perceived biological success; geographiclocation; recreational and commercial use in or nearby the MPA,and involvement of partner agencies or organizations.

The map presented in Fig. 1 highlights the seven MPAs includedin this study. Two DNR-sponsored MPAs were chosen (Maury Islandand Smith and Minor Islands Aquatic Reserves). Four WDFW-managed MPAs were selected, including two Conservation Areas(Brackett’s Landing and Sund Rock) and two Marine Preserves (Yel-low and Low Islands and Shaw Island). Finally, the study looked atthe voluntary no-take BRZs sponsored by the San Juan MRC. Charac-teristics of each selected MPA are described below. The Universityof Washington Friday Harbor Labs (UW FHL) was involved in theestablishment of Yellow and Low Islands and Shaw Island MarinePreserves, and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is also involved at theYellow and Low Islands site. The City of Edmonds was involved inthe establishment of Brackett’s Landing Conservation Area. Table 1presents characteristics of the seven MPA sites and their establish-ment processes.

3.2. Data collection

Social survey instruments were developed to gather infor-mation from individuals involved in or affected by nearby MPAestablishment. Structured surveys were used to gather informa-tion from (1) resource users and (2) waterfront users. Resourceuser surveys contained open and close-ended questions to assessknowledge, perceptions and opinions regarding environmentalconditions, MPA establishment and management processes, MPAeffectiveness and rules. Waterfront user surveys contained tenbrief questions related to respondents’ demographics and knowl-edge of the MPA. Surveys were conducted in person and includedclosed-ended and open-ended questions. Researchers received oralconsent from respondents prior to initiating the survey in agree-ment with standard human subjects protocols.

The analysis presented in this paper is based on the resourceuser dataset only. The resource user sample was generated usinga stratified purposive sampling strategy (Tashakkori and Teddlie,2003:278). The shorter waterfront user survey was used to identifypotential resource user respondents. Researchers identified water-front access points, including marinas, boat launches, waterfrontparks and boatyards. Individuals were approached in each locationin a systematic way to add trustworthiness to the findings. Samp-ling was conducted at different times of day and different days ofthe week in each location. The short-form sampling target was 100short-form responses per MPA, which was achieved for each site(see Table 2).

Individuals identified as having attended a meeting, or possess-ing general knowledge and awareness of the MPA establishmentprocess, were invited to participate in the longer resource user sur-vey. The resource user sample was broken down into sub-groupswith the goal of including perspectives from a comparable num-ber and type of respondents for each MPA. Original resource usertargets were 3–4 divers, 3–4 landowners, 3–4 tribal fishers, 3–4non-tribal fishers, and 3–4 ‘other knowledgeable community mem-bers’ (total of 15–20 respondents per site). These targets wereachieved for all categories except tribal fishers at Maury and Smithand Minor Islands Aquatic Reserves or at Brackett’s Landing Con-servation Area. Three additional interest group categories wereidentified through the course of sampling: commercial fishers, sci-

entific researchers and members or employees of conservationorganizations. The sample included respondents from a diverseand balanced range of interest groups. Some respondents hadthe potential to be affiliated with multiple groups. Researchers

K.R. Hoelting et al. / Fisheries Research 144 (2013) 48– 59 51

s, =

aia

roIragr

Fig. 1. Map of Puget Sound with studied MPAs shaded (� = WDFW site

ssigned respondents to the category corresponding to the activityn which they were engaged when contact was made at a waterfrontccess point, or how respondents identified themselves.

At most sites, several resource user respondents were alsoeferred to the study by local government officials and other leadersf MPA establishment efforts. A special case was Smith and Minorslands, where waterfront user surveys yielded no knowledgeable

esource user respondents due to low overall awareness of the MPAmong the public. In this case, researchers relied on contacts sug-ested by key informants at Island County and DNR to generate theesource user sample.

Bottomfish Recovery Zones, and � = WA DNR sites) (Hard et al., 2012).

3.3. Measurement of ‘stated MPA support’ and ‘processlegitimacy’

Two variables, (1) stated MPA support and (2) process legiti-macy, were analyzed to determine whether significant differencesexist across MPAs and/or interest groups. Stated MPA support wasmeasured by asking survey respondents to rate their present level

of support for the MPA on a scale of 1–5 (1 = lowest, 5 = highest).

Process legitimacy is a latent variable that is difficult to measuredirectly. In order to generate a measure, a scale was created usingthe following indicators of legitimacy: perceptions of fairness,

52K

.R.

Hoelting

et al.

/ Fisheries

Research

144 (2013) 48– 59

Table 1Characteristics of analyzed MPAs (Hard et al., 2012; Van Cleve et al., 2009).

Site Agency Acres Year est. Protection level Restrictions Primary uses Initiation

Brackett’s LandingConservation Area

WDFWCity of Edmonds

46.9 1970 No take MPA – allow recreationaldiving but prohibit boating andextraction of resources

All harvest prohibited Recreational andrestoration

Recreational divers

Yellow and Low Island MarinePreserve

WDFWUW FHLTNC

187.2 1990 No take of salmon or bottomfish Some harvest restricted Research andrestoration

University

Shaw Island Marine Preserve WDFWUW FHL

432.5 1990 No take of bottomfish Some harvest restricted Research andrestoration

University

Sund Rock Conservation Area WDFW 70.2 1994 No take MPA – allow recreationaldiving but prohibit extraction ofresources

All harvest prohibited Recreational andrestoration

Individual landowner

Voluntary Bottomfish RecoveryZones

SJMRC 8 sites – up to a¼ mile offshore

1996 Voluntary no-take of bottomfish No restrictions – onlyvoluntary

Restoration Community group

Maury Island EnvironmentalAquatic Reserve

WA DNR 5531 2000 Protect high quality marine areas fromleased activities that may damagesensitive areas

No harvest restrictions;increased leasing scrutiny

Recognize ecologicalpriority areas

State agency

Smith and Minor IslandsEnvironmental AquaticReserve

WA DNR 36,308 2010 Protect high quality marine areas fromleased activities that may damagesensitive areas

No harvest restrictions;increased leasing scrutiny

Recognize ecologicalpriority areas

LocalNon-profit

Table 2Total surveys completed at each MPA.

Maury Island(DNR)

Sund Rock(WDFW)

Brackett’s Landing (WDFWand City of Edmonds)

Smith and MinorIslands (DNR)

Yellow and Low Islands(WDFW, FHL and TNC)

Shaw Island(WDFW and FHL)

Bottomfish Recovery Zones(San Juan County MRC)

Resource users 19 16 18 14 24 27 22Waterfront users 102 126 155 197 179 184 144

K.R. Hoelting et al. / Fisheries Research 144 (2013) 48– 59 53

Table 3Legitimacy indicators.

All legitimacy variables were measured on a Likert scale of 1–5 (1 = disagree strongly,5 = agree strongly)

1. Procedural justice• The reserve establishment process was fair.• The views of all interest groups were taken into account in thedecision-making process.• Interest groups had equal influence in the planning process.

2. Distributive justice• The regulations for the reserve are fair.• The views of all users were reflected in the final plan for the reserve.

eawsassro

3M

ws(aasicit

rvrv

3

aMaf

TP

Table 5Additional independent variables that may predict ‘stated MPA support’.

1. Respondent demographics• Age (years) and gender (male = 0, female = 1)• Educational attainment (years)• Length of time respondent had lived in the Puget Sound Area (years)• Respondent interest group affiliation (i.e. fisher, tribal member, diver,landowner) (for each, no = 0, yes = 1)

2. MPA characteristics• Age of reserve (years since initial establishment)

3. Ecological perceptions and perceived costs and benefits• Perceived ecological benefits (0 = no, 1 = uncertain, 2 = yes)• Perceived ecological costs (0 = no, 1 = uncertain, 2 = yes)

4. Personal costs and benefits• Perceived economic benefits (0 = no, 1 = uncertain, 2 = yes)• Perceived recreational benefits (0 = no, 1 = uncertain, 2 = yes)• Perceived economic costs (0 = no, 1 = uncertain, 2 = yes)• Perceived recreational costs (0 = no, 1 = uncertain, 2 = yes)

5. Personal ideology related to MPAs: all on a scale of 1–5 (1 = disagree strongly,5 = agree strongly)• If rules are respected, reserves can improve the environment• The reserve will improve long-term human well-being• Fishing practices are not harmful to the environment

3. Adequate information was used to develop the reserve

quality of representation of viewpoints, equality of influencemong interest groups, and the adequacy of information uponhich decisions were based. Each of these indicators was mea-

ured directly by asking the survey respondent to rate his/hergreement with a statement. All variables were measured on theame 1–5 Likert scale (1 = least agreement, 5 = most agreement),o they were not converted to z-scores prior to summation. Scaleeliability was quite high (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81), and indicativef an underlying construct (Netemeyer et al., 2003).

.4. Selection and measurement of potential predictors of ‘statedPA support’

A primary goal of this analysis is to examine the degree tohich variables related to public process may influence stated MPA

upport. In previous analysis using the same dataset, Hard et al.2012) found significant correlations between the dependent vari-ble, stated MPA support, and measures of perceived collaborationnd process legitimacy. These measures were constructed usingcales and indices of indicator variables from the survey. In thenterest of determining which indicators of process legitimacy andollaboration (participatory democracy) may have greater signif-cance than others, individual elements of these measures werereated as individual variables in this analysis (Tables 3 and 4).

As described in Section 2, additional factors beyond process-elated variables are theorized to affect support. Independentariables representing these factors were selected from theesource user dataset and included in regression analysis. Theseariables are presented in Table 5.

.5. Statistical methods

Statistical analysis was used to explore relationships between

suite of independent variables and a dependent variable, statedPA support. First, the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallace test for

nalysis of variance by ranks was used to identify significant dif-erences in process legitimacy and stated MPA support across

able 4articipatory democracy indicators.

1. Perceptions of collaboration• On a scale from 1 to 5, how open was the decision-making process? (1 = veryclosed, 5 = very open)• Were community members involved throughout the establishment processof this reserve? (no = 0, yes = 1)

2. Recalled participation by survey respondent in establishment process• Did you ever attend a meeting related to the reserve? (no = 0, yes = 1)• Have you ever received informational materials about this reserve? (no = 0,yes = 1)• Have you ever been asked to share your opinion about this reserve? (no = 0,yes = 1)

6. Level of trust in government scale of 0–10 (0 = strong distrust, 10 = strong trust)

MPA sites and interest groups4 (Zar, 1999). This test was chosenover a parametric analysis of variance (ANOVA) given the pre-dominance of ordinal-scale variables in the resource user surveyinstrument.

Step-wise (forward) regression analysis was then used to iden-tify variables explaining a significant amount of the variance instated MPA support. Forward regression works by identifying theindependent variable among those entered that explains the great-est amount of variance in the dependent variable. This variable isthe first entered into the regression equation. After it is enteredand controlled, the variable explaining the next greatest amountof remaining variance is identified and entered into the equation.This process is repeated until no additional independent variablesexplain a significant amount of additional variance beyond thosealready entered into the equation. Predictors with a significancelevel of p = 0.05 were included in forward regression. Collinearitystatistics were examined at each stage of forward regressions toensure that that multicollinearity did not have an effect on theanalysis.

4. Results and analysis

This analysis has two parts. First, process legitimacy and statedMPA support were tested for significant differences across MPAsites and across interest groups. Second, forward regression anal-ysis was used to investigate potential predictors of the dependentvariable, stated MPA support. Two initial regression analyses wereused to determine which indicators of process legitimacy and par-ticipatory democracy explain the greatest amount of variance inthe dependent variable when compared only within their vari-able groups (Tables 3 and 4). Additional independent variables(Table 5) were then entered into a regression analysis, along withthe legitimacy participatory democracy variables, to determinewhich of the factors theorized to affect support were the mostsignificant predictors in the context of Puget Sound MPA estab-lishment.

4 It is important to note that several interest groups had low N (commercial fishersN = 6, conservation NGO N = 9). Error bars are included in figures reporting results ofanalysis of variance by ranks.

5 ies Research 144 (2013) 48– 59

4i

lCllISwrIl(22lptZp

purdaaf

wMcr

lltorsr

4s

svdwaTivrss

4cowaN

Table 6Results of forward regression on legitimacy variables.

Coefficients Standardized ˇcoefficient

t p (2-tail)

Dependent variable = stated MPA supportAll views were represented in

decision-making.0.322 4.079 <0.001

MPA regulations are fair. 0.281 3.710 <0.001Adequate information was

used in the establishmentprocess.

0.215 2.710 0.008

related to MPA establishment. It is of note that this variable was notshown to be the most important predictor when compared only toother participatory democracy variables (Table 7). Perception of

Table 7Results of forward regression on participatory democracy variables.

Coefficients Standardized ˇcoefficient

t p (2-tail)

Dependent variable = stated MPA support

4 K.R. Hoelting et al. / Fisher

.1. Variance of support and legitimacy measures across MPA andnterest group

A variety of different public processes characterized the estab-ishment of the MPAs included in this study. The two WDFWonservation areas, Sund Rock and Brackett’s Landing, were estab-

ished in large part due to the efforts of individuals who approachedocal and state leaders with an interest in creating protections.n the case of the WDFW Marine Preserves, both located in thean Juan Islands, the University of Washington Friday Harbor Labsorked with WDFW to create no-take control sites for scientific

esearch. Public processes also differed between the two DNR sites.n the case of the Maury Island Aquatic Reserve, the 2004 estab-ishment process was based on State Environmental Protection ActSEPA) public involvement requirements (Neugebauer, 2011; WAC,011). The Smith and Minor Island Aquatic Reserve, established in010, used DNR’s revised approach to collaboration with the pub-

ic, including formation of an advisory committee in addition toublic process elements mandated by SEPA (DNR, 2009). Finally,he San Juan County MRC Voluntary No-take Bottomfish Recoveryones were established through a ‘bottom-up’, community-drivenrocess.

Significant differences were not found when comparing eitherrocess legitimacy or stated MPA support variables across sitessing the Kruskal–Wallace test (Figs. 2 and 3). The fact that variableselated to participatory democracy were shown to be significantlyifferent across MPAs (Hard et al., 2012), while process legitimacynd stated MPA support were not, suggests that additional vari-bles beyond those related to participatory processes also accountor a significant amount of variance in these measures.

Second, the Kruskal–Wallace test was conducted to determinehether significant differences in process legitimacy and statedPA support could be observed across interest groups. In both

ases, significant differences were observed (p = 0.003 and p = 0.001,espectively; Figs. 4 and 5).

Representatives of conservation organizations rated MPA estab-ishment processes as most legitimate and reported the highestevel of personal support, while non-tribal commercial fishers ratedhese processes as least legitimate and reported the lowest levelf support. After non-tribal commercial fishers, the next lowest-ating interest groups in the case of both process legitimacy andtated MPA support were tribal representatives and non-tribalecreational fishers.

.2. Regression to identify variables accounting for variance intated MPA support

With interest in the effect of public process on support for MPAs,tep-wise (forward) regression analyses were run on two groups ofariables: indicators of (1) process legitimacy and (2) participatoryemocracy. The goal of these regression analyses was to determinehich indicators – from within each group – explained the greatest

mount of variance in the dependent variable, stated MPA support.he legitimacy variables presented in Table 3 were entered togethernto a forward regression analysis, and the participatory democracyariables presented in Table 4 were entered together into a sepa-ate forward regression. The variables from these groups that werehown to explain a statistically significant amount of variance intated MPA support are presented in Tables 6 and 7.

The adjusted R2 value in Table 6 was 0.416, indicating that over0% of the variance in stated MPA support is accounted for by aombination of three process legitimacy variables. In Table 7, one

f the five participatory democracy variables – process openness –as found to account for a statistically significant amount of vari-

nce in stated MPA support, with an adjusted R2 value of 0.157.o other participatory democracy variables explained a significant

R = 0.655, R2 = 0.429, Adj.R2 = 0.416, F = 33.073

p < 0.001 N = 136

portion of unique variance beyond that already accounted for byprocess openness.

4.3. Regression including all potential predictors of stated MPAsupport

Second, a forward regression analysis was run using the vari-ables included in the previous analyses, along with a set ofadditional independent variables theorized to affect differentfacets of support (Table 5). Theoretical motivations for supportinclude instrumental motivations (self-interest, costs and bene-fits), normative motivations (fairness, justice), tradition, ideologyand beliefs. Participatory democracy and process legitimacy vari-ables are theorized to affect the normative aspect of support (Held,1987; Jentoft, 2000; Kuperan and Sutinen, 1998). In addition tothese aspects of support, demographic variables and number ofyears since MPA establishment were included as contextual inde-pendent variables. The goal of this regression analysis was both todetermine how much variance in MPA support could be explainedby these factors in combination, and to identify the individual fac-tors that have the greatest influence on resulting levels of supportfor MPAs. The variables that were determined to explain statisti-cally significant amounts of variance in support are presented inTable 8.

The adjusted R2 value in Table 8 was 0.695, indicating thatalmost 70% of the variance in stated MPA support is explainedwhen the groups of variables are considered together. The fourvariables showing the strongest relationships with stated MPAsupport included two ideology variables (belief that an MPA willimprove long-term human well-being and belief that currentfishing practices are harmful to the environment), perception ofecological benefit from the MPA, and one process legitimacy indi-cator (whether all views were represented in decision-making). Allfour of these variables had positive relationships with the depend-ent variable.

In addition, one participatory democracy variable was shownto account for significant negative variance when the other vari-ables were controlled: whether the respondent attended a meeting

The MPA establishmentprocess was open.

0.433 5.422 <0.001

R = 0.405, R2 = 0.164, Adj.R2 = 0.157, F = 26.223

p < 0.001 N = 136

K.R. Hoelting et al. / Fisheries Research 144 (2013) 48– 59 55

Fig. 2. Variance of process legitimacy across MPA sites (Kruskal–Wallace test: p > 0.05).

Fig. 3. Variance of stated MPA support across MPA sites (Kruskal–Wallace test: p > 0.05).

Table 8Results of final forward regression – multiple factors affecting support.

Coefficients Standardized ̌ coefficient t p (2-tail)

Dependent variable = stated MPA supportBelief that the MPA can improve long-term human well-being. 0.377 6.583 <0.001Belief that current fishing practices are damaging the environment. 0.209 4.047 <0.001Perceived ecological benefit from the MPA. 0.289 5.841 <0.001All views were represented in decision-making. 0.250 4.436 <0.001Perceived ecological cost from the MPA. −0.150 −2.976 0.003Respondent attended a meeting related to MPA establishment. −0.143 −2.932 0.004Respondent is female. 0.109 2.182 0.031

R = 0.843, R2 = 0.711, Adj. R2 = 0.695, F = 20.174 p < 0.001 N = 136

56 K.R. Hoelting et al. / Fisheries Research 144 (2013) 48– 59

intere

eM(l

5

tdTcttcaat

a

Fig. 4. Variance of process legitimacy across

cological costs was also shown to be a negative predictor of statedPA support, and gender was also a significant positive predictor

where male = 0 and female = 1, indicating that females were moreikely to support MPAs).

. Discussion

Findings in Hard et al. (2012) previously showed that sta-istically significant correlations exist between participatoryemocracy variables, process legitimacy and stated MPA support.heir study documented that perceptions of process openness andommunity involvement vary significantly across the MPAs inves-igated in this study. Despite the significant correlations betweenhese measures, the present analysis found that measures of pro-ess legitimacy and stated MPA support did not vary significantlycross these MPAs. This result indicates that additional factors, in

ddition to process variables, must be considered in order to explainhe variance in stated MPA support.

Results from the present analysis suggest that interest groupffiliation is one variable that accounts for a portion of the

Fig. 5. Variance of stated MPA support across inter

st groups (Kruskal–Wallace test: p = 0.003).

remaining variance in levels of support for MPAs. Measures of pro-cess legitimacy and stated MPA support measured in this studywere shown to vary significantly across interest groups. Commer-cial fishers displayed the lowest levels of support for the MPAsinvestigated, while individuals affiliated with conservation orga-nizations stated the highest levels of support.

These findings align with previous studies of attitudes relatedto MPA establishment, which have found that recreational andcommercial fishers are often strong opponents of MPAs. Sumanet al. (1999) compared the attitudes of recreational fishers, recre-ational dive operators, and the conservation community aroundthe creation of protected zones in the Florida Keys National MarineSanctuary. Recreational fishers were consistently less supportive ofMPAs than the other user groups. In the case of no-take MPAs, fish-ers are the most directly affected user group and may view them asinfringement of their access rights (McClanahan et al., 2005; Salz

and Loomis, 2004). Fishers may not be willing to accept the eco-nomic or recreational costs of reducing fishing effort in the face ofuncertainty regarding either stock decline or the potential for MPAsto achieve fishery benefits (Helvey, 2004; NRC, 2001; Suman et al.,

est groups (Kruskal–Wallace test: p = 0.001).

ries Re

1ttwrfgcnM2

taucfvsamitc

aswmamtaaslmstHivwst

wiwocerdSscw(arpit

n

K.R. Hoelting et al. / Fishe

999). Some MPA efforts are criticized for lacking clear goals relatedo fisheries enhancement (Shipp, 2003). A study in England foundhat fishers would be more likely to support MPAs if (1) their goalsere more objective (less precautionary), (2) uncertainty were

educed surrounding the potential for secondary fisheries benefitsrom spillover/export, and (3) if the MPAs can be shown to have tan-ible effects (Jones, 2008). Other studies have also documented thatompliance and support for MPAs among fishers and local commu-ity members can increase if they understand the need for the anPA and see that it can provide long-term benefits (Christie et al.,

009; Himes, 2003; Pollnac et al., 2010).Stepwise (forward) regression analysis was used to explore

he influence of independent variables on the dependent vari-ble, stated MPA support. Two complementary approaches weresed. First, process legitimacy and participatory democracy indi-ators were examined to determine which individual indicatorsrom these sets of variables accounted for the greatest amount ofariance in stated MPA support relative to other variables in eachet. Second, process legitimacy and participatory democracy vari-bles were entered into a regression analysis along with variableseasuring additional factors that would be expected to affect an

ndividual’s level of support for an MPA. This allowed the rela-ive importance of process-related variables to be revealed whenompared to other factors affecting support.

The three process legitimacy variables that were shown toccount for statistically significant amounts of the variance intated MPA support, when compared to other legitimacy indicators,ere: (1) whether adequate information was used in decision-aking, (2) whether the regulations for the MPA were perceived

s fair, and (3) whether all views were represented in decision-aking. The analysis presented in Hard et al. (2012) found that the

wo legitimacy indicators explaining the greatest amount of vari-nce in perceived collaboration were adequate use of informationnd whether all views were represented in decision-making. Thealience of these two variables in the relationships between col-aboration, legitimacy and stated MPA support suggest that they

ay be primary routes by which collaborative process can affecttated MPA support. This finding relates to the impact of scien-ific uncertainty on support for MPAs (Evans and Klinger, 2008;elvey, 2004; Jones, 2006), as well as the importance of design-

ng effective participatory processes (Dalton, 2005). In Table 6, oneariable from within the set of participatory democracy indicatorsas shown to account for the greatest amount of variance in MPA

upport when compared to the other indicators: perception thathe establishment process was open.

Table 8 presents results from the final regression analysis, inhich additional variables were regressed along with process legit-

macy and participatory democracy variables. Additional variablesere measures of factors theorized to affect an individual’s level

f support for environmental regulations, including perception ofosts and benefits, personal ideology related to MPAs and thenvironment, level of trust in government to effectively manageesources, interest group affiliation and other contextual indepen-ent variables. When all these variables (listed in Tables 3–5 inection 3) were entered together into a forward regression analysis,even variables were shown to account for statistically signifi-ant amounts of variance in stated MPA support. Four variablesere significant below p = 0.001, including two ideology variables

belief that an MPA will improve long-term human well-being,nd belief that current fishing practices are harmful to the envi-onment), perception of ecological benefit from the MPA, and onerocess legitimacy indicator (whether all views were represented

n decision-making). All four of these variables had positive rela-ionships with the dependent variable.

The three additional variables found to explain statistically sig-ificant portions of variance in stated MPA support were perception

search 144 (2013) 48– 59 57

of ecological costs (p = 0.003), one participatory democracy vari-able (meeting attendance, p = 0.004), and a demographic variable(gender, p = 0.031). Two of these predictors were found to havenegative relationships with the dependent variable: perception ofecological costs and meeting attendance. It is of note that the sig-nificant participatory democracy variable in the final regressionanalysis (Table 8 – meeting attendance) was different from the vari-able shown to explain the most variance in the initial participatorydemocracy regression (Table 7 – process openness). This result indi-cates that some of the variance explained by process openness is thesame as that explained by the variables that were entered first intothe final regression analysis, while meeting attendance explaineda greater amount of unique variance in comparison to these othervariables.

The negative relationship between meeting attendance andstated MPA support in the final regression was an illuminatingfinding. A bivariate correlation of the two variables did not finda significant relationship (Spearman’s rho = −0.068, p = 0.435, 2-tailed). However, when included in forward regression analysisalong with many variables that are positively related to support,meeting attendance emerged as a variable that explained a sta-tistically significant amount of the remaining variance associatedwith lack of support for MPAs.

This negative relationship could have several explanations. First,one element of effective public process outlined in Dalton (2005) is‘meaningful’ participation. The variable investigated here, ‘meetingattendance,’ did not measure the degree to which the respondenthad a meaningful engagement with the establishment process,beyond choosing to participate in at least one meeting. People maynot agree with the means of consultation used at meetings, whichmay erode the MPA’s legitimacy and resulting support. Second, ina public process characterized by intense opposition from someinterest groups, this result suggests that one motivation to attend ameeting is to voice strong opinions against an outcome. This expla-nation reflects findings in Cocklin et al. (1998), which found thatopposition to the MPA dominated public process, despite overallpublic support for the MPA. A third explanation may be that peoplelearn about the design and impacts of an MPA at a meeting, leadingto their increased opposition. In short, it is clear that having highattendance at MPA planning meetings, as currently implemented,is not adequate in ensuring MPA support. Future research shouldfocus on understanding this finding and, as necessary, generating aneffective measure of meaningful engagement in MPA establishmentprocesses.

Perception of ecological benefits and ecological costs from MPAsboth emerged as significant predictors of MPA support. Perceivedecological benefit has been identified as a significant predictor ofMPA success and public support in various studies (Christie et al.,2009; Cocklin et al., 1998; Leleu et al., 2012; Pollnac et al., 2001;Thomassin et al., 2010). Regarding ecological costs, no-take MPAs inPuget Sound have been shown to lead to increases in both rockfishand lingcod (Palsson, 2002). Some survey respondents expressedconcern that increases in lingcod populations resulting from har-vest restrictions may lead to increased predation on threatenedrockfish species, and considered this an ecological cost. This find-ing again points to the impact of uncertainty regarding ecologicalinteractions as a key variable affecting support for MPAs (Evans andKlinger, 2008; Jones, 2006).

In addition, gender was shown to explain a statistically signif-icant amount of variance in stated MPA support (p = 0.031). Thisfinding is likely related to interest group affiliation, as the greatestnumber of female respondents was associated with conservation

organizations (the interest group displaying the highest levelof support for MPAs), and no female respondents were fishers.Recreational and commercial fishers were two of the interestgroups showing the lowest levels of support for MPAs. Other

5 ies Re

iwa

6

qlrgtMeeHW

lsdwiasmoovcraeteg

R

ioa

C

tvIsAPsIroaisffiaS

8 K.R. Hoelting et al. / Fisher

nterests group categories that contained female respondentsere property owners, scientific researchers, recreational divers,

nd ‘other community members’.

. Conclusions

This paper presents results from one of the first studies touantitatively investigate relationships between public processes,

egitimacy, and public support in the context of Puget Sound marineesource management. MPAs were chosen as a focus of this studyiven the increasing conversation surrounding their potential as aool to further ecosystem-based management. Previous studies on

PA efforts around the world have identified the importance ofngaging local communities in the creation of such areas (Agardyt al., 2003; Brown et al., 2001; Christie, 2004; Christie et al., 2009;imes, 2007; McClanahan et al., 2005; Pollnac et al., 2001, 2010;hite et al., 2010).Findings from this analysis show that participatory process and

egitimacy variables play a significant role in influencing statedupport for Puget Sound MPAs. However, statistically significantifferences in process variables across MPAs (Hard et al., 2012)ere not followed by significant differences in perceptions of legit-

macy or stated MPA support of these MPAs. This indicates thatdditional variables must be considered to explain variance inupport. If additional variables are included that address otherotivations for supporting environmental regulations, almost 70%

f the variance in stated MPA support is explained (Table 8). Ide-logical variables were shown to explain the greatest amount ofariance in support for MPAs in this analysis, along with per-eptions of ecological cost and benefit, whether all views wereepresented in decision-making, whether the respondent attended

meeting, and the respondent’s gender. Further research is nec-ssary to better understand these relationships and to refinehe variables used in assessment of MPA establishment processffectiveness. This study serves as a starting point in the investi-ation.

ole of the funding source

The funder of this research, Washington Sea Grant, was notnvolved in study design, the collection, analysis or interpretationf data, the writing of the manuscript, or the decision to submit therticle for publication.

ontributors

This research was carried out in fulfillment of the Master’shesis requirement for a Masters of Marine Affairs from the Uni-ersity of Washington School of Marine and Environmental Affairs.t was funded by a grant from Washington Sea Grant, Univer-ity of Washington, pursuant to National Oceanic and Atmosphericdministration Award No. NA070AR4170007, Project E/ES-12. Therinciple Investigator was Patrick Christie, Professor at the Univer-ity of Washington School of Marine Affairs and Jackson School ofnternational Studies. Design of survey instruments was a collabo-ative effort between Professor Christie, Professor Richard Pollnacf the University of Rhode Island, Kristin Hoelting (the primaryuthor), and another graduate researcher, Clara Hard. Kristin Hoelt-ng and Clara Hard carried out field research and coding of data, withupervision from Patrick Christie and Richard Pollnac. Data analysisor this paper was carried out by Kristin Hoelting, with comments

rom Richard Pollnac and Patrick Christie. The present manuscripts based on Kristin Hoelting’s Master’s thesis, entitled, “Legitimacynd Collaborative Process: Factors Affecting Public Support of Pugetound Marine Protected Areas.”

search 144 (2013) 48– 59

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express gratitude to Washington SeaGrant for funding for this research. Thank you also to Friday HarborLabs for financial support of field research in the San Juan Islands.Special thanks to all the individuals who took time to participate inthe study.

References

Agardy, M.T., 1994. Advances in marine conservation: the role of marine protectedareas. Trends Ecol. Evol. 9, 267–270.

Agardy, M.T., Bridgewater, P., Crosby, M., Day, J., Dayton, P., Kenchington, R., Laf-foley, D., McConney, P., Murray, P., Perks, J., Peau, L., 2003. Dangerous targets?Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas. Aquat.Conserv. 13, 353–367.

Allison, G., Lubchenco, J., Carr, M.H., 1998. Marine reserves are necessary but notsufficient for marine conservation. Ecol. Appl. 8, S79–S92.

Ansell, C., Gash, A., 2007. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J. Publ.Adm. Res. Theor. 18, 543–571.

Beierle, T., Cayford, J., 2002. Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environ-mental Decisions. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.

Brown, K., Adger, W.N., Tompkins, E., Bacon, P., Shin, D., Young, K., 2001. Trade-offanalysis for marine protected area management. Ecol. Econ. 37, 417–434.

Christie, P., 2004. Marine protected areas as biological successes and social failuresin Southeast Asia. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 42, 155–164.

Christie, P., White, A., 2007. Best practices for improved governance of coral reefmarine protected areas. Coral Reefs 26, 1047–1056.

Christie, P., Pollnac, R.B., Oracion, E., Sabonsolin, A., Diaz, R., Pietri, D., 2009. Back tobasics: an empirical study demonstrating the importance of local-level dynam-ics for the success of tropical marine ecosystem-based management. Coast.Manage. 37, 349–373.

Cocklin, C., Craw, M., Mcauley, I., 1998. Marine reserves in New Zealand: use rights,public attitudes, and social impacts. Coast. Manage. 26, 213–231.

Dalton, T., 2005. Beyond biogeography: a framework for involving the public inplanning of U.S. Marine Protected Areas. Conserv. Biol. 19, 1392–1401.

Department of Natural Resources (DNR), 2009. Proposed Formal AdvisoryCommittee Planning Process: Proposed Smith and Minor Islands AquaticReserve. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WAhttp://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/aqr ac proposed advisory committeeprocess.pdf (accessed 19.04.11).

Dudley, N., Stolton, S. (Eds.), 2008. Defining Protected Areas: An International Con-ference in Almeria, Spain, May 2007. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, p. 220.

Dunham, L., Freeman, R.E., Liedtka, J., 2006. Enhancing stakeholder practice: a par-ticularized exploration of community. Bus. Ethics Q. 16, 23–42.

Easton, D., 1965. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NewYork.

Evans, K., Klinger, T., 2008. Obstacles to bottom-up implementation of marineecosystem management. Conserv. Biol. 22, 1135–1143.

Hard, C.H., Hoelting, K.R., Christie, P., Pollnac, R.B., 2012. Collaboration, legitimacy,and awareness in Puget Sound MPAs. Coast. Manage. 40, 312–326.

Held, D., 1987. Models of Democracy. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.Helvey, M., 2004. Seeking consensus on designing marine protected areas: keeping

the fishing community engaged. Coast. Manage. 32, 173–190.Hilborn, R., Stokes, K., Maguire, J.J., Smith, T., Botsford, L.W., Mangel, M., Orensanz, J.,

Parma, A., Rice, J., Bell, J., Cochrane, K.L., Garcia, S., Hill, S.J., Kirkwood, G.P., Sains-bury, K., Stefansson, G., Walters, C., 2004. When can marine reserves improvefisheries management? Ocean Coast. Manage. 47, 197–205.

Himes, A., 2003. Small-scale sicilian fisheries: opinions of artisanal fishers and socio-cultural effects in two MPA case studies. Coast. Manage. 31, 389–408.

Himes, A., 2007. Performance indicator importance in MPA management using amulti-criteria approach. Coast. Manage. 35, 601–618.

Inglehart, R., 1995. Public support for environmental protection: objective problemsand subjective values in 43 societies. Polit. Sci. Polit. 28, 57–72.

Jentoft, S., 2000. Legitimacy and disappointment in fisheries management. Mar.Policy 24, 141–148.

Johnson, C., Dowd, T.J., Ridgeway, C.L., 2006. Legitimacy and social process. Annu.Rev. Sociol. 32, 53–78.

Jones, P.J.S., 2006. Collective action problems posed by no-take zones. Mar. Policy30, 143–156.

Jones, P.J.S., 2008. Fishing industry and related perspectives on the issues raised byno-take marine protected area proposals. Mar. Policy 32, 749–758.

Kuperan, K., Sutinen, J., 1998. Blue water crime: deterrence, legitimacy, and compli-ance in fisheries. Law Soc. Rev. 32, 309–338.

Leleu, K., Alban, F., Pelletier, D., Charbonnel, E., Letourneur, Y., Boudouresque, C.,2012. Fishers’ perceptions as indicators of the performance of Marine ProtectedAreas. Marine Policy 36, 414–422.

Mascia, M.B., Peter Bosius, J., Dobson, T.A., Forbes, B.C., Horowitz, L., McKean, M.A.,

Turner, N.J., 2003. Conservation and the Social Sciences. Conservation Biology17 (3), 649–650.

Mascarenhas, M., Scarce, R., 2004. The intention was good: legitimacy, consensus-based decision making, and the case of forest planning in British Columbia. Soc.Nat. Resour. 17, 17–38.

ries Re

M

M

N

N

N

N

NN

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

R

S

S

S

K.R. Hoelting et al. / Fishe

cClanahan, T., Davies, J., Maina, J., 2005. Factors influencing resource users andmanagers’ perceptions towards marine protected area management in Kenya.Environ. Conserv. 32, 42–49.

cClanahan, T.R., Marnane, M.J., Cinner, J.E., Kiene, K.E., 2006. A comparison ofmarine protected areas and alternative approaches to coral-reef management.Curr. Biol. 16, 1408–1413.

ational Research Council (NRC), 2001. Marine Protected Areas: Tools for SustainingOcean Ecosystem. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

etemeyer, R., Bearden, W., Sharma, S., 2003. Scaling Procedures: Issues and Appli-cations. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks/London.

eugebauer, W., 2011. Sand and gravel: a case study of the proposed industrial minein Puget Sound’s Maury Island Aquatic Reserve and the fight to stop it. MastersThesis. School of Marine and Environmental Affairs, University of Washington.

ielsen, J., 2003. An analytical framework for studying: compliance and legitimacyin fisheries management. Mar. Policy 27, 425–432.

orthwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC), 2003. MPA Policy Statement.østbakken, L., 2008. Fisheries law enforcement – a survey of the economic litera-

ture. Mar. Policy 32, 293–300.alsson, W., 2002. The development of criteria for establishing and monitoring no-

take refuges for rockfishes and other rocky habitat fishes in Puget Sound. In:Puget Sound Research 2001.

arkins, J.R., 2006. De-centering environmental governance: a short history andanalysis of democratic processes in the forest sector of Alberta, Canada. PolicySci. 39, 183–203.

ietri, D., Christie, P., Pollnac, R.B., Diaz, R., Sabonsolin, A., 2009. Information diffusionin two marine protected area networks in the Central Visayas Region Philippines.Coast. Manage. 37, 331–348.

inkerton, E., John, L., 2008. Creating local management legitimacy. Mar. Policy 32,680–691.

ollnac, R.B., Crawford, B., Gorospe, M., 2001. Discovering factors that influence thesuccess of community-based marine protected areas in the Visayas, Philippines.Ocean Coast. Manage. 44, 683–710.

ollnac, R.B., Christie, P., Cinner, J.E., Dalton, T., Daw, T., Forrester, G., Graham, N.,McClanahan, T.T., 2010. Marine reserves as linked social-ecological systems.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107, 18262–18265.

uget Sound Partnership, 2008a. Puget Sound – where land and sea meet. RetrievedOctober 2, 2012 from http://www.psparchives.com/puget sound.htm

uget Sound Partnership, 2008b. Puget Sound Action Agenda.http://www.psp.wa.gov/aa action agenda.php (accessed 19.04.11).

uckleshaus, M., Klinger, T., Knowlton, N., DeMaster, D.P., 2008. Marine ecosystem-based management in practice: scientific and governance challenges. BioScience58, 53–63.

alz, R.J., Loomis, D.K., 2004. Saltwater anglers’ attitudes toward marine protectedareas. Fisheries 29, 10–17.

hipp, R.L., 2003. A perspective on marine reserves as a fishery management tool.Fisheries 28, 10–21.

ingleton, S., 2009. Native people and planning for marine protected areas: how“stakeholder” processes fail to address conflicts in complex, real-world envi-ronments. Coast. Manage. 37, 421–440.

search 144 (2013) 48– 59 59

Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G.A., Kalof, L., 1999. A value-belief-normtheory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Res.Hum. Ecol. 6, 81–97.

Stern, P., Dietz, T. (Eds.), 2008. Public Participation In Environmental Assessment andDecision Making. Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change. TheNational Academies Press, Washington, DC www.nap.edu (accessed 19.04.11).

Suman, D., Shivlani, M., Milon, J., 1999. Perceptions and attitudes regarding marinereserves: a comparison of stakeholder groups in the Florida Keys NationalMarine Sanctuary. Ocean Coast. Manage. 42, 1019–1040.

Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (Eds.), 2003. Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social &Behavioral Research. Sage Publications, London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi.

Thomassin, A., White, C., Stead, S., David, G., 2010. Social acceptability of a marineprotected area: the case of Reunion Island. Ocean Coast. Manage. 53, 169–179.

Tyler, T.R., Casper, J.D., Fisher, B., 1989. Maintaining allegiance toward PoliticalAuthorities: the role of prior attitudes and the use of fair procedures. Am. J.Polit. Sci. 33, 629–652.

Tyler, T.R., 1990. Why People Obey the Law. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.Tyler, T.R., 2006. Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annu.

Rev. Psychol. 57, 375–400.United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312, 407 (W.D. Wash, 1974).Van Cleve, F., Bargmann, G., Culver, M., MPA Work Group, 2009. Marine Protected

Areas in Washington: Recommendations of the Marine Protected Area WorkGroup to the Washington State Legislature. Washington Department of Fish andWildlife, Olympia, WA.

Washington Administrative Code, WAC 197-11-500, 1984.WDFW, 2011. Rockfish Recovery Plan. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,

Olympia, WA.White, A., Courtney, C., Salamanca, A., 2010. Experience with marine protected area

planning and management in the Philippines. Coast. Manage. 30, 1–26.Whitesell, E., Wilshusen Schroeder, F., Hardison, P., 2007. Protecting Washington’s

Marine Environments: Tribal Perspectives. SeaDoc Society.Wondolleck, J.M., Yaffee, S.L., 2000. Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from Inno-

vation in Natural Resource Management. Island Press, Washington, DC.Yale Lewis III, O., 2003. Treaty fishing right: a habitat right as part of the trinity of

rights implied by the fishing clause of the Stevens treaties. Am. Indian L. Rev. 7,281–311.

Zar, J., 1999. Biostatistical Analysis, fourth ed. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River,NJ.

Further reading

Halpern, B., Warner, R., 2003. The impact of marine reserves: do reserves work anddoes size matter? Ecol. Appl. 13, 117–137.

Osborne, R., Koski, K., Tallman, R., 2001. Voluntary Marine Protected Areas and Adap-tive Management in the San Juan Islands. The Whale Museum, Friday Harbor,WA.

Roberts, C., Hawkins, J., Gell, F., 2005. The role of marine reserves in achieving sus-tainable fisheries. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 360, 123–132.