lable at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management 93 (2014) 26e36

Contents lists avai

Ocean & Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ocecoaman

Assessment of the management in Brazilian Marine ExtractiveReserves

Cleverson Zapelini Santos a,*, Alexandre Schiavetti b

a Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation Postgraduate Program, State University of Santa Cruz (UESC), Ilhéus, Bahia, Brazilb Full Professor, Department of Agrarian and Environmental Sciences, Natural Resources Area e UESC, Highway Ilhéus-Itabuna, km 16, Salobrinho, CEP:45662-900 Ilhéus, Bahia, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: czapelini@yahoo.com.br (C.Z. Sant

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.03.0070964-5691/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

Fisheries are under heavy pressure from human activities worldwide. As a result, the livelihoods ofmillions of people who depend directly on marine natural resources are at risk. For this reason, MarineProtected Areas (MPAs) are among the tools used in fisheries management. In Brazil, Marine ExtractiveReserves (MERs) are an MPA model enabling the direct use of resources. MERs attempt to protect thelifestyle of handicraft fishermen as well as to assure the sustainable use of resources. The Reserves aredistributed along the coast and they are part of the Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) of Brazil. This studyassesses the management of 20 Brazilian MERs from the perspective of the managers and comprisesenvironmental, economic, social and institutional aspects. Our working hypothesis was that managersconsidered that MERs performed poorly and that differences existed between the results for MERs andLMEs. In general, the results of the study indicate that the management of MPAs is unsatisfactory,especially in economic terms. The environmental aspect of management obtained the most stronglypositive assessment. Among the three LMEs evaluated, the North Platform reserves had the worstassessment results. The East Coast reserves and the South Platform reserves had equivalent results, butthese results were still not adequate. Mechanisms need to be implemented to provide alternative incomegeneration for the beneficiaries. Furthermore, most of the areas assessed have no Management Plan. Thislack creates difficulties for local management. Because MERs are public areas granted through conces-sions for the use of beneficiaries and the co-managing body is a federal entity, the Brazilian State needs toprovide further institutional support to these areas to fulfil the objectives for which they were created.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Fisheries resources have been under intense pressure in recentdecades (FAO, 2012; Swartz et al., 2010). Several factors, interre-lated, are responsible for this, among them: technological im-provements in the industrial sector, geographical expansion intopreviously inaccessible places and capturing lower trophic levelspecies, previously considered of little commercial value (Paulyet al., 2002). Thus, the industrial fishing sector has expanded itsoperating area and, consequently, increased the competition withthe artisanal sector (Pauly et al., 2002). In addition, other coastalactivities also negatively influence the artisanal activity, such as,shrimp farming, pollution, tourism and disordered urban devel-opment (Amaral and Jablonski, 2005; Halpern et al., 2009; Rossi,

os).

2013). All these factors increase the difficulties of artisanal fisher-men, who are already characterized as a vulnerable social group(Béné, 2003).

In certain regions of the world, Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)have been created to minimise the impact of human activities onthe environment and to serve as instruments for the managementof fisheries (Benedetti-Cecchi et al., 2003; Game et al., 2009; Gelland Roberts, 2003; Halpern and Warner, 2002; Sale et al., 2005).In Brazil, fisheries management through MPAs is still underdevelopment. However, several coastal populations are seekingways to protect their lifestyle and culture and to ensure the sus-tainable use of natural resources via Marine Extractive Reserves(MERs). The country’s 22 MERs are situated in coastal and/or ma-rine areas (the majority in mangroves and estuaries), andcommunity-based co-management is the model being used tosustainably exploit the resources to be managed (Cardozo et al.,2012; Santos and Schiavetti, 2013). These MPAs are public areasgranted through concessions to beneficiary populations, and

Table 1Characteristics of the questions in the questionnaire including those included in theanalysis of Cronbach.

Dimension Question Quantitative Qualitative Cronbach’s analysis

Environmental 1e8 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 3 4,6Economic 9e15 9,10,12,15 11,13,14 9,10,12,14,15Social 16e21 17,19,21 16,18,20 16,18,20Institutional 22e31 22,23,27,28 24,25,26,29,30,31 24,26,28,29Other 32e35 e 32,33,34,35 e

C.Z. Santos, A. Schiavetti / Ocean & Coastal Management 93 (2014) 26e36 27

private property located within these areas is subject to expropri-ation (Brasil, 2000). The MPAs must each have a Deliberative Boardconsisting of representatives from the communities, the managingbody, civil society sectors, NGOs and other entities. The purpose ofthe Deliberative Board is to approve the area’s Management Plan(MP) as well as to propose the operating procedures, the role, thepowers and the duties of the Board (Cardozo et al., 2012).

The literature describes models to assess the effectiveness ofProtected Areas (PA) using a number of indicators adapted to thelocal context, and these approaches have proved to be useful toolsfor examining the management of these areas (Alder et al., 2002;Chape et al., 2005; Cifuentes et al., 2000; Ervin, 2003; Hockingset al., 2006; Leverington et al., 2008; Muthiga, 2009; Ojeda-Martínez et al., 2009; Pomeroy et al., 2004; Schiavetti et al., 2012).Although Mora et al. (2006) showed that a small fraction of MPAsachieve their management objectives, few managed marine areashave adequately assessed their effectiveness (Day, 2008). The lack ofresearch is even more severe in terms of the examination of hand-icraft fisheries management within an MPA. In Brazil, two wide-spread assessments have been conducted involving themanagement effectiveness of Brazilian Federal Conservation Units(IBAMA, 2007; ICMBio, 2011). A Conservation Unit (CU) is a Braziliancategory of PA that can provide restricted protection or offer sus-tainable use (Brasil, 2000). Both assessments were conducted usingthe Rapid Assessment and Prioritisation of Protected Areas Man-agement (Rappam) method (Ervin, 2003) and involved the man-agers of most categories of CUs in the country, on land and sea,offering restricted protection or sustainable use. Because thisassessment was generic, we may not have approached specificquestions involving the management of handicraft fisheries inMERs, such as the level of beneficiary participation in co-management and the existence of fishery agreements, with result-ing information gaps regarding the management of this PA model.The Rappam methodology includes biological and socio-economicvariables as well as the vulnerabilities faced by PAs. However, itdoes not offer an in-depth analysis of aspects of PAs related tofisheryactivities. Such an analysis is the objective of this study.

Assessment models are based on indicators, i.e., parameters orquantitativemeasures of a phenomenon (Ferris andHumphrey,1999;ISO/IEC, 2007); in the context of this study, the assessment indicatorsserve to measure the state of conservation of an area or its manage-mentefficiency (HeinkandKowarik,2010).According tothe literature,MPA management may use a number of indicators that essentiallyfollow four dimensions and are adapted to the local context: ecolog-ical, social, economic and institutional (Pomeroy et al., 2004).

Thus, MPA management is assessed according to biological pa-rameters and from a perspective involving human and institutionalinteractions (Pomeroy et al., 2004). To that extent, such informationis relevant for an overview of the processes developed within theMPA; it incorporates considerations based on the current view ofintegrated social and ecological systems (Berkes et al., 2001). It istherefore essential to improve the knowledge of MERs by includingconsiderations of such factors in view of the increasing demand bycoastal communities in Brazil for the creation of exclusive fishingareas (Cardozo et al., 2012).

The objective of our study is to assess MER management basedon an approach that considers the information supplied by MPAmanagers to questions regarding environmental, social, economicand institutional aspects of the issue.

2. Materials and methods

The management assessment of the 22 MERs was conducted viaa questionnaire submitted to the managers by e-mail and/or bypost. The managers were identified through consultation with the

Ministry of Environment (http://www.mma.gov.br/areas-protegidas/cadastro-nacional-de-ucs/consulta-por-uc) site. Allmanagers are employees legally appointed tomanage the protectedarea that was evaluated. An assessment involving managers hadpreviously been conducted by IBAMA (2007) with 246 Conserva-tion Units (CUs), including 43 Extractive Reserves (ERs - 18 of whichhad a marine component). Another assessment was conductedmore recently by ICMBio (2011) with 292 CUs, of which 59were ERs(including all 22 ERs with a marine component). Both studies usedthe Rappam method, the Rapid Assessment and Prioritization ofProtected Area Management (Ervin, 2003). Abdulla et al. (2008)also used information provided by managers as a basis for theassessment of MPAs in the Mediterranean. Information such as theexistence of management plans, surveillance, enforcement andcompliance with regulations, conditions of exploited species andfunding was assessed.

The questionnaires submitted to the managers in this studyformed a basis for the assessment of the management of MPAs forthe sustainable use of the coastal/marine environment. The ques-tionnaire included 35 questions (including open and multiple-choice questions) (Table 1). All questions in the questionnaire sub-mitted to the managers can be found in the Supplementary data.

Closed-ended questions (multiple choices) were scored ac-cording to values associated with each alternative. The lowestpossible value was assigned to the least desirable response, i.e., thevalue that was most strongly in conflict with the goals of man-agement. Questions that are unanswered due to the lack of data/informationwere also assigned the lowest possible point value. Weconsider that the lack of such data is in conflict with good man-agement. The highest value is the most desirable, indicatingconsonance with good management. From the sum of the closed-ended question values, we obtained the total point score for theresponses to the questionnaire. This total was compared with thetotal potentially obtainable value, and a percentage was computedfrom this comparison. The percentage was then associated with aqualification scale proposed by Faria (2004):

a. � 40.99 per cent e very inferior standardb. 41e54.99 per cent e inferior standardc. 55e69.99 per cent e average standardd. 70e84.99 per cent e high standarde. �85 per cent e standard of excellence

Although several of the indicators used in this research aresuggested by Pomeroy et al. (2004), this method does not use ascale of final qualification. Therefore, the scale of Faria (2004) wasused. Thus, we believe that with the use of a scale there is a betterunderstanding for what dimensions should be given greaterattention by managers.

We chose environmental (n ¼ 8), economic (7), social (6) andinstitutional (10) indicators. The indicators were adapted from anumber of sources (Adrianto et al., 2005; Amazonas, 2006; Boydand Charles, 2006; Dale and Beyeler, 2001; Ehler, 2003; MMA,2006; Ojeda-Martínez et al., 2009; Pickaver et al., 2004;

C.Z. Santos, A. Schiavetti / Ocean & Coastal Management 93 (2014) 26e3628

Pomeroy et al., 2004) to fit the purpose of the study and thecharacteristics of the MPAs in question. We also verified the in-ternal consistency of the indicators, i.e., their coherence inmeasuring the same underlying characteristic. Internal consis-tency refers to the overall degree that the items of the scale areinterrelated (Clark and Watson, 1995) and is, essentially, a functionof two parameters: the number of test items and the averageinter-correlation among the items (Cortina, 1993; Cronbach, 1951).That is, one can achieve a high internal consistency reliabilityestimate by having either many items or highly intercorrelateditems (or some combination of the two) (Clark and Watson, 1995).To measure the internal consistency we used Cronbach’s alphacoefficient (Cronbach, 1951), which varies between 0 and 1. Analpha value of approximately 0.7 corresponds to an indicator withgood internal consistency (Hair et al., 1998). The alpha value isaffected not only by the correlation between the responses, butalso by the number of questions asked and redundancy (Cortina,1993). A large amount of items increase the alpha value withoutimplying increased reliability. Very high alpha values can alsoindicate redundancy, that is, the existence of substantially equalissues formulated differently (Tavakol and Dennick, 2011). Thisanalysis was conducted with SPSS Statistics 20.0 (IBM, 2011).

According to Ekau and Knoppers (1999), the Brazilian coast canbe divided into 3 LargeMarine Ecosystems (LMEs) (Sherman,1994).This division defines 3 large ecoregions: (i) North Platform (NP) efrom the Caribbean Sea border to the Parnaíba river mouth, in Piauíe a total of 11 MERs; (ii) East Coast (EC) e stretching from theParnaíba river mouth to the city of Cabo Frio, in Rio de Janeiro e atotal of 8MERs; and (iii) South Platform (SP)e from Cabo Frio to thecity of Chuí, in Rio Grande do Sul e a total of 3 MERs. Additionally,we considered the coastal divisions of PNGC, the Brazilian coastmanagement plan. The coastal area therefore includes two regions:(i) Land Zone, including the municipal areas close to the sea up to50 km from the coast; and (ii) Marine Zone, extending 12 nauticalmiles seawards (Brasil, 1988). Thus, MERs in land zones that havemarine portions were also considered.

The comparison of the 3 LMEs was based on the mean per-centage achieved by MERs within each LME. In this way, we ob-tained a mean management standard for each LME. Table 2 lists theassessed MERs.

This research study was authorised by Instituto Chico Mendesde Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBio).

3. Results

3.1. Findings of questionnaires

Of the 22 questionnaires sent, 20 were returned, a return rate ofapproximately 90 per cent. Fig. 1 shows the location of the Braziliancoastal MERs whose managers responded to the questionnaire.

Table 2List of Marine Extractive Reserves evaluated in the study, (n ¼ 20).

Acaú-Goiana Gurupi-PiriáBatoque Mãe Grande de CuruçáBaía do Iguape Lagoa do JequiáCassurubá Arraial do CaboChocoaré- Mato Grosso CorumbauCanavieiras PirajubaéCururupu TracuateuaSão João da Ponta Prainha do Canto VerdeDelta do Parnaíba SoureCaeté-Taperaçua Mandiraa

a Extractive Reserves which considers ICMBio are located in another biome,but because they belong to municipalities that suffer direct influence of thephenomena occurring Coastal Zone (according to the National Plan CoastalManagement), were considered in the study.

3.1.1. Environmental DimensionIn the category Environmental Dimension, the MERs have bio-

logical relevance because they are breeding grounds for severalspecies, although fishing exclusion zones are still underutilized andthe lack of control of the total number of boats that can act.

Although many of the reserves were created more than 10 yearsago, information is still lacking for several MERs regarding many ofthe items addressed. Most managers (55 per cent) did not know (ordid not estimate) the number of boats active within the area. Forthe managers who responded to this question, the quantity variedfrom 0 to 500 vessels (mean ¼ 194; median ¼ 120; s.d. ¼ 178.45)with a great variety of vessel types, from canoes and sailing rafts tomotorised boats. The resulting number of beneficiaries varied from100 to 30 720 (mean ¼ 5 493; median ¼ 3 500; s.d. ¼ 6 852.8).Additional information can be found in Table 3.

3.1.2. Economic DimensionIn the Economic Dimension category, beneficiaries of MERs

showed dependence on middlemen for the sale of products, and adeficiency of infrastructure for storage of catches; these factors cannegatively influence a higher income for fishermen. Nevertheless,there is an established supply chain, and fishermen’s associationsare active.

Sixty per cent of the managers identified people in the com-munity who work regularly as tourist guides. However, 70 per centof the reserves do not offer other marine-related activities totourists. Seventy per cent of the reserves offer some market in-centives, but fishermen sell their products, preferably, to mid-dlemen in most of the reserves (85.7 per cent). Eighty per cent ofthe MERs have no storage within their area for the fish caught.Associations are common (90 per cent), and 65 per cent of themparticipate regularly or actively in Deliberative Board meetings. Aconsiderable proportion of the managers (55 per cent) do not haveany information on the beneficiaries’ monthly income, whereas 40per cent of the managers stated that the average fisherman’s in-come is one minimum wage or less (one minimum wage ¼ R$678.00 z US$ 295.00) (Table 4).

3.1.3. Social DimensionIn the Social Dimension category, the presence of some kind of

conflict is striking in all MERs. Managers reported that there areprograms aimed at greater community and dissemination of sci-entific knowledge base among beneficiary participation.

All managers (100 per cent) reported some type of conflictwithin the limits of the MER under their management. The mostsignificant conflicts occur among local fishermen (34.38 per cent)and between local fishermen and fishermen from other regions(31.25 per cent). Information can be disseminated in a number ofways, of which meetings are the most frequent (46.15 per cent).One-half of the reserves have a site considered to be of historical orancestral value, and 35 per cent of the managers responded thatthese sites have remained in undisturbed condition after theestablishment of the MPA (Table 5).

The identification of leaders within the communities was alsoassessed. In the MERs whose managers responded to this item, aminimum of two leaderships and a maximum of 250 leadershipswere identified (mean ¼ 33; median ¼ 20; s.d. ¼ 56.2).

3.1.4. Institutional DimensionIn the Institutional Dimension category, managers reported that

there are educational programs, but most do MERs not train/clarifythe beneficiaries to participate in co-management and sustainableuse of resources. There is also lack of supervision and few areas arefully demarcated. Management plans are still in development or

Fig. 1. Marine Extractive Reserves (MER) location in Brazil which were evaluated in the study. EEZ ¼ Exclusive Economic Zone.

C.Z. Santos, A. Schiavetti / Ocean & Coastal Management 93 (2014) 26e36 29

Table 3Results based on the answers of Brazil’s Marine Extractive Reserve managers toquestions regarding Environmental Dimension aspects in the area under theirmanagement.

Environmental dimension

Question Result

Discardednon-targetspecies

Unable to provide information: 75%Two or more spp.: 15%There are no discarded spp.: 10%

Reproduction sites There are no sites: 10%There is no information: 15%For 1 spp.: 10%For 2 spp.: 5%For 4 spp.: 5%For 5 or more spp.: 55%

Limitations onthe numberof boats inactivity

There is no limitation: 90%Limitation for 41e60% of boats: 5%Limitation for over 80% of boats: 5%

Fishing exclusionzone

None: 90%5% or less of the reserve total area: 10%

Species cultivatedwithin the reserve

None: 65%Cultivation area between 6 and 10% ofthe reserve total: 5%Less than 5% of the reserve total area: 30%

Degraded areas None: 30%Unable to provide information: 25%Area corresponds to 11e15% of the reserve total: 5%Area corresponds to 6e10% of the reserve total: 5%Area is 5% or less of the reserve total: 35%

Table 4Results based on the answers of Brazil’s Marine Extractive Reserve managers toquestions regarding to Economic Dimension aspects in the area under their man-agement. Results in percentage and, in bracket, frequency. Some issues may havehigher values sum to 100% (and frequency more than n ¼ 20), since more than onealternative may occur in the Reserve in question.

Economic dimension

Question Result

Tourist guide service None/not applicable: 40% (8)Up to 5 people involved: 10% (2)Between 6 and 10 people involved: 25% (5)Between 11 and 15 people involved: 5% (1)More than 20 people involved: 20% (4)

Nautical activities None: 70% (14)One activity: 5% (1)Two activities: 10% (2)Five or more activities: 15% (3)

Market incentive Middlemen: 85.7% (12)Native traders: 42.8% (6)Traders from other places: 35.7% (5)Local traders, not native: 21.4% (3)Others: 7.4% (1)

Freezers None: 80% (16)One cold chamber: 5% (1)Two cold chambers: 10% (2)Four or more cold chambers: 5% (1)

Production chain None: 35% (7)Production of inputs: 55% (11)Storage: 35% (7)Distribution: 45% (9)Trading: 60% (12)

Fishermen association There is no association: 10% (2)Association does not participate: 5% (1)Association has little activity: 15% (3)Association participation is sporadic: 5% (1)Association participation is regular: 40% (8)Association has active participation: 25% (5)

Income estimate Does not have information: 55% (11)Income up to 1 minimum wage: 40% (8)Income between 3 and 4 minimum wages: 5% (1)

Table 5Results based on the answers of Brazil’s Marine Extractive Reserve managers toquestions regarding to Social Dimension aspects in the area under their manage-ment. Results in percentage and, in bracket, frequency. Some issues may have highervalues sum to 100% (and frequency more than n ¼ 20), since more than one alter-native may occur in the Reserve in question.

Social dimension

Question Result

Conflicts Local fishermen � Divers: 3.12% (1)Local fishermen � Local fishermen: 34.38%(11)Local fishermen � Trawlers: 9.38% (3)Local fishermen � Divers from otherregions: 9.38% (3)Local fishermen � Boats from otherregions: 31.25% (10)Local fishermen � Boatmen: 6.25% (2)Local fishermen � Port: 3.12% (1)Local fishermen � Caught fishmiddlemen: 3.12% (1)

Accidents There is no information: 70% (14)There were no accidents: 25% (5)One accident: 5% (1)

Dissemination ofscience-basedknowledge

There is no dissemination: 7.69% (2)Informal conversations: 19.23% (5)Meetings: 46.15% (12)Lectures: 26.92% (7)Workshops: 23.07% (6)Courses: 7.69% (2)Others: 7.69% (2)

Ancestral or historicmonuments or sites

None: 40% (8)Relative deterioration: 10% (2)Remains undisturbed: 35% (7)Relative improvement: 5% (1)No response: 10% (2)

Community participationstrengthening program

Program in place: 60% (12)No program, no response,no knowledge: 40% (8)

C.Z. Santos, A. Schiavetti / Ocean & Coastal Management 93 (2014) 26e3630

missing, this comes into conflict with the clarity of goals and ob-jectives intended.

A result of importance tomanagers was that in 55 per cent of thecases, surveillance is either lacking or rarely occurs. In 57.9 per centof the reserves, surveillance occurs with the participation of ben-eficiaries. A situation meriting concern was identified by thefinding that only five per cent of the MERs have a MP effectively inplace. In contrast, 70 per cent of the managers responded that themanagement objectives and targets are clear, monitored andreassessed when needed. The majority of beneficiaries had notraining in the sustainable use of resources (70 per cent) or man-agement participation (85 per cent). Lastly, only 15 per cent ofMERs have had their area demarcated and their boundariesrespected (Table 6).

Other questions addressed the source of the initiative to createthe MER. The source was a government institution in 19.4 per centof the cases, a non-government institution in 19.4 per cent of thecases, a fishermen’s association in 36.1 per cent of the cases and aspecific group of fishermen in 25 per cent of the cases. More thanone source is possible; many institutions could have been involvedin the initiative.

Another interesting finding involves the length of time betweenthe initiation of the process of creating the PA and the date onwhich the decree was issued (date of publication in the BrazilianOfficial Gazette): a minimum of one and a maximum of nine years(mean ¼ 4.84; median ¼ 5; s.d. ¼ 2.5). The average MER age is 9.4years; for the NP, the average is 9 years; the EC has an average of 7.9years; and the SP has the highest average age, 15 years.

The percentage of unanswered questions due to a lack of datawas higher for the NP (9.52 per cent). The percentage was the same(7.14 per cent) for the EC and the SP.

Table 6Results based on answers of Brazil’s Marine Extractive Reserve managers to ques-tions regarding to Institutional Dimension aspects in the area under theirmanagement.

Institutional dimension

Question Result

Program containingeducationalobjectives

There are programs: 60%No program: 20%No response: 20%

DeliberativeBoard Meetings

Meetings are held: 75%Meetings not held: 15%No response: 10%

Surveillance No surveillance: 15%Surveillance rarely conducted: 40%Sporadic surveillance: 25%Surveillance conducted monthly: 20%

Management Plan No plan: 45%Under preparation: 45%Prepared but not in place: 5%Prepared and some are in progress: 5%

Objectives and targets There is no follow up program: 15%Objectives and targets are unclear: 15%Objectives and targets clear and monitored: 40%

Objectives and targetsclear and reassessedwhenever necessary:5%

Objectives and targets clear and reassessedperiodically: 25%

Training for sustainableuse of resources

Trained 0e20% of beneficiaries: 70%Trained 21e40% of beneficiaries: 15%Trained 41e60% of beneficiaries: 5%Trained 81e100% of beneficiaries: 5%No response: 5%

Training formanagementparticipation

Trained 0e20% of beneficiaries: 85%Trained 21e40% of beneficiaries: 5%Trained 41e60% of beneficiaries: 10%

Partnerships There are no partnerships or potentialpartners: 5%Potential partners identified andcontacted: 5%No partnerships yet, but about to beestablished: 30%Formal partnership established, butstill not in action: 5%Partnership formally establishedand in action: 55%

Fishing agreements There are no agreements: 25%There are informal agreements: 25%Formal agreement, receiving littlerespect: 15%There is an agreement and it is respectedin general: 30%There is an agreement which is alwaysrespected: 5%

Borders Not defined or demarcated: 30%Limits defined, but it lacks demarcation:40%Limits defined and demarcated, but they’renot respected: 15%Limits defined, demarcated and respected: 15%

Table 7Result of Cronbach’s alpha assessment as an indicator of Brazil’s Marine ExtractiveReserve management (standardized alpha ¼ 0.732).

N ¼ 20 Average ¼ 24.45 Variance ¼ 81.1 Averageinter-variablecorrelation ¼ 0.16

Cronbach’salpha ¼ 0.672

Variable Average ifitem deleted

Variance ifitem deleted

Correcteditem-Totalcorrelation

Cronbach’salpha ifitem deleted

sit_repra 20.40 71.7 0.16 0.683are_excla 24.35 78.0 0.55 0.661guiab 22.70 69.9 0.23 0.667atv_naub 23.45 69.9 0.25 0.663frigob 24.00 74.9 0.28 0.658assocb 23.55 79.8 0.21 0.670est_rendb 20.60 58.1 0.45 0.629conflc 24.15 69.9 0.42 0.638divulgc 23.30 72.0 0.38 0.645sitiosc 22.40 59.5 0.58 0.599fisclzd 21.95 76.6 0.20 0.666obj_metd 22.35 75.6 0.15 0.673cap_gesd 23.20 76.5 0.38 0.657parcd 21.45 71.1 0.40 0.642

sit_repr ¼ presence of reproduction sites; are_excl ¼ presence of fishing exclusionzones (no-take); guia ¼ opportunity for tourist guide activity; atv_nau ¼ nauticalactivities offered; frigo ¼ # of cold storage chambers; assoc ¼ existence of associ-ations; est_renda ¼ estimated income of beneficiaries; confl ¼ conflicts;divulg ¼ dissemination of scientific knowledge; sitios ¼ existence of archeologicaland/or ancestral sites; fisclz¼ degree of inspections conducted; obj_met¼ clarity ofobjectives and targets; cap_ges ¼ training of beneficiaries for area management;parc ¼ existence and implementation of partnerships.

a Environmental Dimension.b Economic Dimension.c Social Dimension.d Institutional Dimension.

C.Z. Santos, A. Schiavetti / Ocean & Coastal Management 93 (2014) 26e36 31

3.2. Indicator consistency analysis

Table 7 shows the results of an analysis of the coherence of thequestions based on Cronbach’s alpha. Of the 23 initial variablesused in the assessment, 14 remained and were used to classify MERmanagement. The removal of variables according to this process isterminatedwhen the value of the average inter-variable correlationis between 0.15 and 0.50. According to Clark and Watson (1995),this outcome represents a more direct measure of internalconsistency.

Cronbach’s alpha can be characterised as a squared coefficient ofcorrelation (R2) (Ditt et al., 2003). The value obtained was 0.672,indicating that 67 per cent of the management variability has been

explained. The indicator average was 24.45. The variables thatcontributed most strongly to this average were “sit_repr” (repro-duction sites) and “est_renda” (estimated income). If these vari-ables were excluded, theywould cause the greatest decreases in theaverage. The last column is the most relevant, as it indicates thebehaviour of Cronbach’s alpha in response to the omission of eachvariable from the analysis. Note that the variables examined pro-duced essentially no increase in the alpha value. Only “sit_repr” and“obj_met” (objectives and targets) increased the alpha value, to0.683 and 0.673, respectively. However, this increase is very small,indicating that the indicator shows good internal consistency(Pereira, 1999). Therefore, the value of Cronbach’s alpha is satis-factory, the variables are adequate and themanagement indicator istrustworthy. The questions in the questionnaire are reliable formeasuring MER management from the perspective of themanagers.

3.3. Management Qualification Scale of MERs

The findings of the consistency analysis based on Cronbach’salpha enabled us to evaluate theMERs with the qualitative analyseswhose results are shown in Table 8.

Most (n¼ 10)MERmanagement value points occupied the “veryinferior standard” end of the scale, whereas six showed an “inferiorstandard” and four showed an “average standard”. A separateassessment of each dimension enabled us to obtain more detailedindications of the greatest management difficulties. Overall, theEconomic Dimension showed the worst results, although MERArraial do Cabo showed a “high standard” on this dimension. TheEnvironmental Dimension showed the best general result, witheight areas classified as “standard of excellence”, whereas the SocialDimension and the Institutional Dimension had similar results,with most MPAs classified as having an “inferior standard”.

Table 8Qualification of Marine Extractive Reserves (MER) in Brazil. Result according to questionnaire answers given by managements for Environmental, Economic, Social andInstitutional Dimensions, and to consistency analysis with Cronbach’s alpha. Qualification scale according to Faria (2004). Obt.¼ value obtained by theMER according to pointsgiven to each question in the questionnaire; max ¼maximum points for the respective aspect; nd ¼ no data. LME ¼ Large Marine Ecosystem; NP ¼ North Platform; EC ¼ EastCoast; SP ¼ South Platform.

LME MER Age Environmental(max ¼ 10)

Economic(max ¼ 21)

Social(max ¼ 7)

Institutional(max ¼ 17)

Management(max ¼ 54)

Results ofmanagementfor LME (%)

Obt. Obt. Obt. Obt. Obt. %

NP Choc.-Mato Grossod 10 5 2 1 10 18 36.73a 38Cururupud 8 9 0 1 7 17 34.69a

Mãe G. Curuçá 10 10 10 3 7 30 55.56c

Caeté-Taperaçu 7 9 6 5 10 30 55.56c

Gurupi-Piriád 7 nd 2 0 2 4 8.16a

Soured 11 5 4 1 8 18 36.73a

Delta Parnaíba 12 1 7 4 7 19 35.19a

Tracuateuad 7 5 2 1 9 17 34.69a

São João Ponta 10 9 1 nd 14 24 44.44b

EC Acaú-Goiana 5 7 3 4 6 20 37.04a 45Corumbau 12 9 11 3 8 31 57.41c

Canavieiras 6 9 4 1 10 24 44.44b

Cassurubád 3 9 5 1 9 24 48.98b

Batoque 9 3 3 4 11 21 38.89a

Baia de Iguape 12 5 1 4 10 20 37.04a

Lagoa do Jequiád 11 8 3 1 9 21 42.86b

Canto Verde 3 7 6 4 11 28 51.85b

SP Pirajubaéd 20 6 5 1 8 20 40.82a

48Arraial do Cabo 15 nd 15 3 12 30 55.56c

Mandira 10 10 3 4 9 26 48.15b

a Very inferior standard.b Inferior standard.c Average standard.d MERs having no monument sites and/or ancestral and historical sites had this variable removed from the management analysis.

C.Z. Santos, A. Schiavetti / Ocean & Coastal Management 93 (2014) 26e3632

Fig. 2 summarises the results and facilitates the visualisation ofthe proportions of the scale that corresponded to the qualitativeevaluation of the MERs along each dimension. Note that only theEnvironmental Dimension showed outstanding results, with eightMERs that obtained a “standard of excellence” classification. Thisresult shows that the MERs are having difficulty achieving theirobjectives, as the other dimensions all occupied amuch lower level.In global terms, this finding indicates that the management of theMERs has been compromised. In general, all MERs achieved 42 percent on the Management Qualification scale, a result classified as“inferior standard”.

A grouping of the MERs according to the LME to which theybelong indicates that distinct situations are present. In general, theNP obtained the worst management results as awhole, given that it

Fig. 2. Grading scale proportions obtained by the Marine Extractive Reserves in Brazilfor the Environmental, Economic, Social and Institutional dimensions that wereevaluated.

is the LME with the greatest number of MERs. The EC obtained aslightly more satisfactory management result. The SP obtained thebest general result. However, we must recognise that fewer MERsare located in this ecosystem (Table 9). The general average Man-agement Qualification value for each LME was 38 per cent for theNP, 45 per cent for the EC and 48 per cent for the SP. Hence, the NPLME was classified on the qualification scale as showing a “veryinferior standard”, whereas the EC and SP were classified asshowing an “inferior standard” (Table 8). These findings show thatthe management of the MERs is less than satisfactory.

4. Discussion

The biological importance of the MERs e previously proved byreviews of IBAMA (2007) and ICMBio (2011) e stems from thepresence of breeding sites in the majority of these MPAs. Thischaracterisation is justified by the location of a large part of thereserves, which are situated in estuaries and mangroves. However,one factor relevant to the protection of these sites and to thecontinuous exploitation of resources within the MERs is the pres-ence of a fishing exclusion zone. The majority of the MPAs assessedinclude no such exclusion zone. Exclusion zones (no-take zones)can negatively affect local fishermen from a short-term perspectivedue to the loss of fishing areas. From a medium- and long-termperspective, fishing tends to improve at sites adjacent to exclu-sion zones (Lester and Halpern, 2008; Russ et al., 2004). For specieswith limited dispersion, such improvement can occur even in smallareas (Afonso et al., 2011). The designation of no-take areas withinMERs would determine sites to be avoided by fishermen and wouldproduce less impact on certain habitats; these areas would beadequate for juvenile fish and as feeding areas for target species(Roberts et al., 2005). Freire et al. (2002) have stressed that theprotection of habitats by exclusion zones is the measure that can beimplemented most readily in a context of artisanal fishing becauseit is sufficient to map the habitats and to have information

Table 9Number of Marine Extractive Reserves classified according to themanagers’ answersto the questionnaires. Qualification scale according to Faria (2004).Env ¼ environmental; Eco ¼ economic; Soc ¼ social; Inst ¼ institutional.LME ¼ Large Marine Ecosystem; NP ¼ North Platform; EC ¼ East Coast; SP ¼ SouthPlatform.

Standard

LME Dimension Very inferior Inferior Average High Excellence

NP Env 1 3 0 0 4Eco 8 1 0 0 0Soc 1 5 1 1 0Inst 1 5 2 1 0Management 6 1 2 0 0

EC Env 1 1 0 3 3Eco 7 1 0 0 0Soc 1 3 4 0 0Inst 1 3 4 0 0Management 3 4 1 0 0

SP Env 0 0 1 0 1Eco 2 0 0 1 0Soc 0 2 1 0 0Inst 0 2 0 1 0Management 1 1 1 0 0

C.Z. Santos, A. Schiavetti / Ocean & Coastal Management 93 (2014) 26e36 33

concerning the use of the areas. Therefore, the implementation ofno-take zones is of fundamental importance for increasing theprotection of breeding sites. However, the designation of suchexclusion zones must consider the specific ecological attributes ofeach MER.

The lack of exclusion zones is critical for the sustainability ofartisanal fisheries. This issue is especially significant becausealmost noMERs limit the number of boats that can be active per dayand because these boats may be in action concurrently. Anotherconsideration is the substantial variation in fishing power that re-sults from the variety of vessels operated, from rafts and canoes tomotorised boats (trawlers). This characteristic is especially pro-nounced if the number of beneficiaries is large. At times, forexample, over 30 000 people depend on the resources of MERCaeté-Taperaçu. Baticados et al. (1998) have shown that group size(the number of people) in cooperatives was inversely correlatedwith the success of fisheries management in the Philippines. Hence,an MPA with a smaller human population could permit easierorganisation and allow the successful management of communityprojects (Pollnac et al., 2001).

Degraded areas are a reality in numerous MPAs. According toinformation from the managers, the reasons for degradationinclude vessels docking at coral reefs, the presence of exotic species,coral bleaching, the use of mangroves for rice cultivation, old salt-pans and gold extraction. The sheer presence of the MPA shouldinhibit many of these activities, as they are prohibited within thearea. However, coral bleaching is an issue that may extend beyondthe reach of MPA management because it the scale of the problemis much greater than the limits of the MPA (Álvarez-Romero et al.,2011; Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). The occurrence of exotic spe-cies may be related to the proximity of ports, as in the case of theArraial do Cabo MER, a reserve in which a port is located. Theproblem of exotic species introduction demands the cooperation ofentities that are part of the Deliberative Board to ensure that therelease of ballast water by ships is performed according to Brazilianlegislation. The issue of exotic species is a growing problem withinthe Brazilian Conservation Units, ICMBio (2011) reported an in-crease in this type of pressure within the Extractive Reserves ingeneral.

Few MERs have areas for the cultivation of aquatic species.Although this activity may be environmentally inappropriatebecause exotic species such as the grey shrimp [Litopenaeus

vannamei (Boone), 1931] may be cultivated, an absence of cultiva-tion limits the search for alternative sources of income. Given thatMERs seek to protect the lifestyle of extractive populations as wellas the sustainable exploitation of natural resources, it is relevant topromote alternative sources of income within these MPAs, e.g., thetourist-guiding activities already occurring in certain areas and thestill-underexploited opportunities for boating and other marineactivities. Alternative activities not only provide an extra source ofincome for beneficiaries but also reduce the pressure on resources,allowing the exploitation of the resources in a sustainable manner(Lopes et al., 2011).

The activities provided by tourist guides may involve outings tohistoric sites/monuments to incorporate interpretation andawareness programmes that include these sites, thereby generatingincome. Furthermore, monitoring these sites helps to assess howthe MPA is preserving the history of its society, maximising thecompatibility between area management and local culture(Pomeroy et al., 2004).

Even if extra income opportunities do not reach all beneficiaries(Christie, 2004), they may serve to dilute the risks from fishing, anactivity that incorporates many uncertainties due to its seasonality.Such a reduction in the vulnerability of fishermen (Allison and Ellis,2001) is desirable because fishermen are a low-income group andare among the groups that face the greatest amount of socialexclusion (Béné, 2003). Furthermore, their participation in a co-management system provides many opportunities for incomeimprovement as long as they have adequate government support(Khan et al., 2012). Vasconcellos et al. (2011) have stressed thescarcity of socioeconomic data on fishermen, e.g., fishermen’s levelof income. This information is relevant to management because itcan be used to verify whether the MPA is offering its beneficiariesany return that aids to improve their quality of life. Especially inthese situations where the beneficiaries are very dependent onnatural resources and the characteristics of the local environmentdetermine many socioeconomic factors, as noted by ICMBio (2011).In this case, information should be acquired preceding the estab-lishment of theMPA. The degree of dependence on resources by thebeneficiaries can be verified based on this information. Moreover, itwould be possible to assess the status of alternative activities thatcould serve as extra sources of income to remove the pressureplaced on natural resources.

Despite the active participation of beneficiaries’ associations inDeliberative Board meetings and programmes directed toencourage community involvement, most beneficiaries have notbeen trained in the sustainable use of resources and in co-management participation. Training establishes a link betweenusers and the natural resources. As a result of this linkage, the usersare willing to change their exploitation of resources in a way thatmakes their resource use sustainable. The training of the users towork in co-management means that the users are aware of thechanges needed in their attitudes and conduct to enable them towork actively in the area’s management (Pomeroy et al., 2004).With greater involvement in the co-management process, overtime the beneficiaries become aware of the environmental impli-cations of the extractivism and the benefits of management asobserved in Chile by Gelcich et al. (2008), and also allow todistinguish the roles played by the state and by themselves, itbrings greater independence for carrying out certain tasks, such assurveillance, for example (Schumann, 2007). Moreover, trainingcan be fundamental to instil a stronger sense of ownership inpeople involved in co-management. This process increases theprobability of positive and lasting results (Pomeroy et al., 2004).

By feeling more involved with co-management, the extractivecommunity can help with internal and external conflict issues.External conflicts occur when fishermen from outside the reserve

C.Z. Santos, A. Schiavetti / Ocean & Coastal Management 93 (2014) 26e3634

fish within the reserve limits, a situation that could be minimisedthrough the necessary demarcation of reserve borders as well asthrough increased surveillance by both the co-managing body andthe beneficiaries themselves. Hauzer et al. (2013) observed thatthe surveillance conducted by the fishermen themselves was moreeffective and less expensive, since the fishermen feel owners ofresources and ensure compliance with the rules. Internal conflictsmay result simply from sheer social divisions and from the pres-ence of groups of fishermen that use different types of fishing gear.Nobre and Schiavetti (2013) discuss the importance of the Board inthe management of internal conflicts Cassurubá MER, showingthat local empowerment of fishermen allowed the maintenance offishing agreements. Silva (2004) observed that a type of fishinggear used by a group of fishermen at the Arraial do Cabo MERprevented the passage of fish to regions where another group offishermen worked. Because both of these groups of fishermen canparticipate in Deliberative Board decisions, such differencesshould be addressed in this decision-making sphere. Thisapproach serves to reduce conflicts among the beneficiaries.Because the principal source of conflict is internal, this charac-teristic has a strong impact on the management system involvingthe community (Christie, 2004). The MER can develop conflictresolution mechanisms incorporating an integrated structurebased on (i) the typology of the conflict and (ii) the set of three“world views” in fishing (paradigms of conservation, ration-alisation and social/community) that reflect the philosophicalbases that must be used for the analysis of the various approachesto fishing conflicts (Charles, 1992).

Clear, achievable and measurable targets and objectives are theessential factors that must direct the management actions of anyPA. These factors allow the continuing assessment of the actionsthat are developed by management (Pomeroy et al., 2004). Targetsand objectives must be specified in the PA’s MP. According to themanagers, none of the MERs have an MP currently in place. Thissituation is not new and it is worrying, as the reviews of IBAMA(2007) and ICMBio (2011) the Extractive Reserves were one of thecategories that had one of the lowest levels of management plan-ning. In contrast, most areas supplied the information that “targetsand objectives are monitored and reassessed when needed”. UsagePlans may have been developed and generally consist of fishingagreements. Most of these plans are informal or are little respected.A Usage Plan may not even exist for certain areas (Table 6). In fact,the existence of an MP or its inadequate execution contributes to aweak performance by MER management (Diegues, 2008), a situa-tion that is common for MPAs in other developing countries(Francis et al., 2002; Qiu et al., 2009). Abdulla et al. (2008) verifiedthat 42 per cent of the MPAs in the Mediterranean Sea had an MP,whereas 29 per cent did not, especially in eastern Europeancountries. This and other deficiencies led to the assessment of MPAsby the authors as “paper parks”.

Although the methodology of this study differs from that usedby IBAMA (2007) and ICMBio (2011), there are similar (variable)elements, yielding general results that are consistent among thestudies. IBAMA (2007) observed that the effectiveness of ERmanagement (on land and sea) reached 35 per cent, considered alow value. In the assessment by ICMBio (2011), ERs obtained abetter result (47 per cent, considered average). If we consider MERsonly, the results change only slightly: 34.9 per cent (low) in the2007 assessment and 44 per cent (average) in the 2011 assess-ment. Although represent an improvement, MERs are still subjectto difficulties, especially in these areas: access to the results ofresearch conducted within the MPA, effective community partici-pation in management, fund raising, communication with thecommunities, instruments for conflict resolution and adequatedemarcation.

Two of the problem areas cited here are noteworthy: the need toimprove effective community participation and the need toimprove communication with the communities. Our results do notappear to reflect these needs because fishermen’s associationsparticipate actively on the Deliberative Board and in other pro-grammes that strengthen community participation. These resultssuggest that these activities and actions involve part of the com-munity but do not assist the majority of beneficiaries. This outcomemakes the existing participation ineffective. Communicationamong beneficiaries may be difficult; alternatively, the pro-grammes developed may reach only a small part of the community.In this case, the role of the local leadership must be stimulated toallow the leaders to acquire a genuine focus on motivating com-munity participation. In turn, the participants will look forward toexposing the needs of the community and will find ways to meetthese needs. Further research is needed to fill this information gap,producing results that can be useful in projects developed inconjunction with community co-management.

Although the results of this study do not specify the nature ofexisting partnerships in the MERs, these partnerships could bedirected to address the Economic Dimension of MPAs. According toour results, this dimension received the poorest evaluation. Part-nerships could, for example, fund the purchase of cold storage fa-cilities and improve the production chain for products traded bythe beneficiaries. These measures could reduce the dependence ofthe beneficiaries on middlemen and improve the income of thefishermen. Partnerships could also be formed to study the feasi-bility of eco-labelling the products harvested through handicraftfishing and marketed to consumers because monitoring, controland inspection programmes addressing the scale of fishing activitywithin the MERs are part of the MP and are prerequisites for thispurpose (Wessells et al., 2001).

Although Day (2008) recognises that management actions mayrequire a length of time before they can become effective, the age ofthe MERs was not an important determinant of the results on thequalification scale. The results of the study were similar for reservesrangingbetweenfiveand20years inage (Table8). In fact, thecomplexnature of this type of assessment, which involves a large number ofvariables and a number of cultural, social and institutional situations,aggravates the data gap that still characterisesMERs and impedes thedevelopment of a more refined assessment. For this reason, the re-sults of this study must be interpreted with caution.

The differences in the results among LMEs may be related to thenumber of MPAs in each LME (especially the SP). However, theresults for the LMEs also reveal several common characteristics.Despite the positive outcome obtained for the EnvironmentalDimension assessment, we still lack information for several MERs,especially in the NP. Miloslavich et al. (2011) stress that data arelacking for a number of Brazilian coastal areas. Due to the vastextent of the country’s coastal areas, many sites remain unexploredby science. The weak performance of the MERs on the EconomicDimension is related to the lack of activities that can generate extraincome, a relative lack of infrastructure (e.g., cold storage) and alack of data. A noteworthy feature of the Social Dimension is thepresence of mechanisms for disseminating information to thebeneficiaries, although, as discussed above, the coverage of thesemechanisms is still limited. The condition of cultural sites hasremained stable, especially on the EC. This result reflects the rela-tively positive outcome of the evaluation that addressed thisdimension. For the Institutional Dimension, the EC generallyshowed better results than the other LMEs. This positive outcome isa result of partnerships with other institutions and of the targetsand objectives selected, although these data must be analysed withcaution due to the lack of MPs. The results for the EC and SP wereequivalent given the difference in the number of MPAs in each LME.

C.Z. Santos, A. Schiavetti / Ocean & Coastal Management 93 (2014) 26e36 35

The NP obtained the poorest evaluation. This qualification may notreflect the management itself, but the lack of data, because thisfactor was more severe for NP.

As we have observed, the results of this study indicate that MERshave not yet achieved their management objectives from theperspective of the managers. The MPAs still need to improve themechanisms that can allow the beneficiaries to be more active, thiscan be achieved through strengthening the Deliberative Councils(Nobre and Schiavetti, 2013). The co-management system must notonly provide beneficiaries responsibilities in the sustainable use ofresources but also promote their active participation in decisionmaking. As the managers themselves note in the assessment con-ducted by ICMBio (2011), the beneficiaries are still not totallyinvolved. This lack of full involvement needs further effort, not onlyfrommanagementbut fundamentally fromtheBrazilian State, so thatMER communities can truly exercise their self-determinationcapability.

5. Conclusions

The results of this study demonstrate that MERs face certainlimitations, including the occurrence of internal conflicts, theavailability of few alternative sources of income and the limitedextent to which beneficiaries participate in the co-managementprocess. Managers and community leaders must seek ways toimprove the involvement of MER residents in obtaining additionalinformation on the areas; must seek new partnerships to minimisethe problem of lack of funds that vexes Brazilian PA; and mustimprove market incentive mechanisms, placing beneficiaries incontact with consumers without depending on middlemen. Fish-ermen’s associations can play a decisive role in this consolidatingand organizing entrepreneurship, a situation that is already a re-ality for fishermen in Chile (Castilla and Gelcich, 2008).

The programmes developed in the MPA need to focus ontraining residents to be true co-managers of the area because co-management is the purpose of MERs. Alternative income-generation programmes need to be developed in cooperationwith the community inways that involve the people and the placesthat are part of local culture. MPs are fundamental for directing andmonitoring management actions to ascertain whether these ac-tions are following the desired path. Several MERs are alreadydeveloping their MPs.

Although the assessment of the MERs resulted in a low overallqualification level [according to the qualification system of Faria(2004)], the effectiveness of the MERs appears to be improving,as observed from other assessments. This and other previous re-views help to indicate critical points in the co-management pro-cess. We recognize that each MER has specific characteristics andthat the evaluation process needs improvement. The biggest limi-tation of the present studywas the fact that other actors involved inthe co-management were not taken into consideration. Futureevaluations directed to each MER can be developed in conjunctionwith other social actors. This can result in amore accurate picture ofthe specific situation of each MER.

Without an assessment system, support for creating andmaintaining an MPA may be limited, as well as following upprogress and providing feedback becomes more difficult (Garceset al., 2012).

Acknowledgements

We thank Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de NívelSuperior, Marine Sciences Program (No. 2800701811P9), for thefellowship offered to the first author, and CNPq for the fellowship

offered to the second author and for funding the project (process #476932/2011-4).

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.03.007

References

Abdulla, A., Gomei, M., Maison, E., Piante, C., 2008. Status of Marine Protected Areasin the Mediterranean Sea. IUCN Malaga, and WWF, France, 152p.

Adrianto, L., Matsuda, Y., Sakuma, Y., 2005. Assessing local sustainability of fisheriessystem: a multi-criteria participatory approach with the case of Yoron Island,Kagoshima prefecture, Japan. Mar. Policy 29, 9e23.

Afonso, P., Fontes, J., Santos, R.S., 2011. Small Marine reserves can offer long termProtection to an endangered fish. Biol. Conserv. 144 (11), 2739e2744.

Alder, J., Zeller, D., Pitcher, T., Sumaila, R., 2002. Method for evaluating Marineprotected area management. Coast. Manag. 30, 121e131.

Allison, E.H., Ellis, F., 2001. The livelihoods approach and management of small-scale fisheries. Mar. Policy 25, 377e388.

Álvarez-Romero, J.G., Pressey, R.L., Ban, N.C., Vance-Borland, K., Willer, C., Klein, C.J.,Gaines, S.D., 2011. Integrated land-sea conservation planning: the missing links.Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 42 (1), 381e409.

Amaral, A.C.Z., Jablonski, S., 2005. Conservation of Marine and coastal biodiversityin Brazil. Conserv. Biol. 19 (3), 625e631.

Amazonas, 2006. Indicadores de Efetividade da Implementação de Unidades deConservação Estaduais do Amazonas. Secretaria Executiva Adjunta de ProjetosEspeciais Secretaria de Estado do Meio Ambiente e Desenvolvimento Susten-tável (SDS). Séria Técnica Meio Ambiente e Desenvolvimento Sustentável, 64 p.

Baticados, D.B., Agbayani, R.F., Gentoral, F.E., 1998. Fishing cooperatives in Capiz,central Philippines: their importance in managing fishery resources. Fish. Res.34, 137e149.

Béné, C., 2003. When fishery rhymes with poverty: a first step beyond the oldparadigm on poverty in small-scale fisheries. World Dev. 31 (6), 949e975.

Benedetti-Cecchi, L., Bertocci, I., Micheli, F., Maggi, E., Fosella, T., Vaselli, S., 2003.Implications of spatial heterogeneity for management of marine protectedareas (MPAs): examples from assemblages of rocky coasts in the northwestMediterranean. Mar. Environ. Res. 55, 429e458.

Berkes, F., Mahon, R., McConney, P., Pollnac, R.C., Pomeroy, R.S., 2001. ManagingSmall-scale Fisheries: Alternative Directions and Methods. InternationalDevelopment Research Centre, Ottawa, 308pp.

Boyd, H., Charles, A., 2006. Creating community-based indicators to monitor sus-tainability of local fisheries. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 49, 237e258.

Brasil, 2000. Lei N� 9.985, de 18 de julho de 2000. Regulamenta o art. 225, x 1�,incisos I, II, III, e VII da Constituição Federal, institui o Sistema Nacional deUnidades de Conservação da Natureza e dá outras providências. Diário Oficialda União, Brasília, 19 de julho de 2000, N� 138, Seção 1:p 45.

Brasil, 1988. Lei N� 7.661 de 16 de maio de 1988. Institui o Plano Nacional deGerenciamento Costeiro e dá outras providencias. Diário Oficial da União,Brasília, 18 de maio de 1988, N� 92, Seção 1:p 1.

Cardozo, L.S., Porto, M.F., Pimentel, P.C.B., Rodrigues, J.S., Schiavetti, A., Campiolo, S.,2012. Discussões do Conselho Deliberativo da Reserva Extrativista de Cana-vieiras, Bahia, Brasil: da gestão pesqueira à ambiental. Rev. Gestão CosteiraIntegr. 12 (4), 463e475.

Castilla, J.C., Gelcich, S., 2008. Management of the loco (Concholepas concholepas) asa driver for self-governance of small-scale benthic fisheries in Chile. In:Townsend, R., Shotton, R., Uchida, H. (Eds.), Case Studies in Fisheries Self-governance. FAO, Rome, pp. 441e451.

Chape, S., Harrison, J., Spalding, M., Lysenko, I., 2005. Measuring the extent andeffectiveness of protected areas as an indicator for meeting global biodiversitytargets. Philos. Transact. Royal Soc. Lond. Ser. B, Biol. Sci. 360, 443e455.

Charles, A.T., 1992. Fishery conflicts: a unified framework. Mar. Policy 16, 379e393.Christie, P., 2004. Marine protected areas as biological successes and social failures

in Southeast Asia. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 42, 155e164.Cifuentes, M., Izurieta, A., Faria, H.H., 2000. Medición de la Efectividad del Manejo

de Areas Protegidas. CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica, 105p.Clark, L.A., Watson, D., 1995. Constructing Validity: Basic issues in objective scale

development. Psychol. Assess. 7 (3), 309e319.Cortina, J.M., 1993. What is coefficient alpha? an examination of theory and ap-

plications. J. Appl. Psychol. 78, 98e104.Cronbach, L., 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psycho-

metrika 16, 297e337.Dale, V.H., Beyeler, S.C., 2001. Challenges in the development and use of ecological

indicators. Ecol. Indic. 1, 3e10.Day, J., 2008. The need and practice of monitoring, evaluating and adapting marine

planning and managementdlessons from the Great Barrier Reef. Mar. Policy 32(5), 823e831.

Diegues, A.C., 2008. Marine Protected Areas and Artisanal Fisheries In Brazil.Samudra Monograph. ICSF, Chennai, India, 68p.

Ditt, E.H., Mantovani, W., Valladares-Padua, C., Bassi, C., 2003. Entrevistas e apli-cação de questionários em trabalhos de conservação. In: Cullen Jr, L., Rudran, R.,

C.Z. Santos, A. Schiavetti / Ocean & Coastal Management 93 (2014) 26e3636

Valladares-Padua, C. (Eds.), Métodos de estudo em biologia da conservação emanejo da vida silvestre. Ed. da UFPR, Curitiba, pp. 631e646.

Ehler, C.N., 2003. Indicators to measure governance performance in integratedcoastal management. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 46, 335e345.

Ekau, W., Knoppers, B., 1999. An introduction to the pelagic system of the Northeastand East Brazilian shelf. Arch. Fish. Mar. Res. 47 (2/3), 5e24.

Ervin, J., 2003. WWF: Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected AreaManagement e Rappam methodology. WWF, Gland, Swizertland, 70 p.

FAO, 2012. The state of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2012. Rome. 209p.Faria, H.H., 2004. Eficácia de gestão de unidades de conservação gerenciadas pelo

Instituto Florestal de São Paulo, Brasil. Tese de doutorado. UniversidadeEstadual Paulista e Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia. Presidente Prudente:[s.n.], 401 p.

Ferris, R., Humphrey, J.W., 1999. A review of potential biodiversity indicators forapplication in British forests. Forestry 72, 313e328.

Francis, J., Nilsson, A., Waruinge, D., 2002. Marine protected areas in the easternAfrican region: how successful are they? Ambio 31 (7), 503e511.

Freire, J., Bernárdez, C., Corgos, A., Fernández, L., González-Gurriarán, E.,Sampedro, M.P., Veríssimo, P., 2002. Management strategies for sustainableinvertebrate fisheries in coastal ecosystems of Galicia (NW Spain). Aquat. Ecol.36, 41e50.

Game, E.T., Grantham, H.S., Hobday, A.J., Pressey, R.L., Lombard, A.T., Beckley, L.E.,Gjerde, K., Bustamante, R., Possingham, H.P., Richardson, A.J., 2009. Pelagicprotected areas: the missing dimension in ocean conservation. Trends Ecol.Evol. 24 (7), 360e369.

Garces, L.R., Pido, M.D., Tupper, M.H., Silvestre, G.T., 2012. Evaluating the manage-ment effectiveness of three marine protected areas in the Calamianes Islands,Palawan Province, Philippines: Process, selected results and their implicationsfor planning and management. Ocean Coastal Manag. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.07.014.

Gelcich, S., Kaiser, M.J., Castilla, J.C., Edwards-Jones, G., 2008. Engagement in co-management of marine benthic resources influences environmental percep-tions of artisanal fishers. Environ. Conserv. 35 (1), 36e45.

Gell, F.R., Roberts, C.M., 2003. Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects ofmarine reserves. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 448e455.

Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis,fifth ed. Prentice-Hall International, New Jersey.

Halpern, B.S., Warner, R.R., 2002. Marine reserves have rapid and lasting effects.Ecol. Lett. 5, 361e366.

Halpern, B.S., Ebert, C.M., Kappel, C.V., Madin, E.M.P., Micheli, F., Perry, M.,Selkoe, K.A., Walbridge, S., 2009. Global priority areas for incorporating land-sea connections in marine conservation. Conserv. Lett. 2 (4), 189e196.

Hauzer, M., Dearden, P., Murray, G., 2013. The effectiveness of community-basedgovernance of small-scale fisheries, Ngazidja island, Comoros. Mar. Policy 38,346e354.

Heink, U., Kowarik, I., 2010. What are indicators? On the definition of indicators inecology and environmental planning. Ecol. Indic. 10, 584e593.

Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N., Courrau, J., 2006. EvaluatingEffectiveness: a Framework for Assessing Management Effectiveness of Pro-tected Areas, second ed. In: Practice. IUCN, Cambridge, UK. 105p.

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Mumby, P.J., Hooten, A.J., Steneck, R.S., Greenfield, P.,Gomez, E., Harvell, C.D., Sale, P.F., Edwards, A.J., Caldeira, K., Knowlton, K.,Eakin, C.M., Iglesias-Prieto, R., Muthiga, N., Bradbury, R.H., Dubi, A.,Hatziolos, M.E., 2007. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidi-fication. Science 318, 1737e1742.

IBAMA e; Instituto Brasileiro do Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais, 2007.Efetividade de Gestão das Unidades de Conservação Federais do BRASIL. IBAMA,WWF-Brasil, Brasília, DF, 96p.

IBM e; International Business Machines Corporation, 2011. Statistical Package forthe Social Sciences (SPSS), vol. 20, 0.0.

ICMBio e; Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade, 2011. Ava-liação comparada das aplicações do método Rappam nas unidades de con-servação federais, nos ciclos 2005e2006 e 2010. ICMBio, WWF-Brasil, Brasília,DF, 134p.

ISO/IECdInternational Organization for Standardization/International Electro-technical Commission, 2007. Guide 99:2007: International Vocabulary of Met-rologydBasic and General Concepts and Associated Terms (VIM). Geneva, 92 pp.

Khan, M.A., Alam, M.F., Islam, K.J., 2012. The impact of co-management on house-hold income and expenditure: an empirical analysis of common propertyfishery resource management in Bangladesh. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 65, 67e78.

Lester, S., Halpern, B., 2008. Biological responses in Marine no-take reserves versuspartially protected areas. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 367, 49e56.

Leverington, F., Hockings, M., Costa, K.L., 2008. Management Effectiveness Evalua-tion in Protected Areas: Report for the Project “Global Study into ManagementEffectiveness Evaluation of Protected Areas”. The University of Queensland,Gatton, IUCN WCPA, TNC, WWF, Australia, 72p.

Lopes, P.F.M., Silvano, R.A.M., Begossi, A., 2011. Extractive and Sustainable Devel-opment Reserves in Brazil: resilient alternatives to fisheries? J. Environ. Plan.Manag. 54 (4), 421e443.

Miloslavich, P., Klein, E., Díaz, J.M., Hernández, C.E., Bigatti, G., Campos, L., Artigas, F.,Castillo, J., Penchaszadeh, P.E., Neill, P.E., Carranza, A., Retana, M.V., DeAstarloa, J.M.D., Lewis, M., Yorio, P., Piriz, M.L., Rodríguez, D., Yoneshigue-Valentin, Y., Gamboa, L., Martín, A., 2011. Marine biodiversity in the Atlantic andPacific coasts of south America: knowledge and gaps. PLoS ONE 6 (1), e14631.

MMA e Ministério do Meio Ambiente, 2006. Plano Nacional de Áreas Protegidas.Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Secretaria de Biodiversidade e Florestas. Dir-etoria de Áreas Protegidas.

Mora, C., Andréfouët, S., Costello, M.J., Kranenburg, C., Rollo, A., Veron, J.,Gaston, K.J., Myers, R.A., 2006. Coral reefs and the global network of Marineprotected areas. Science 312, 1750e1751.

Muthiga, N.A., 2009. Evaluating the effectiveness of management of the Malindi eWatamu Marine protected area complex in Kenya. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 52 (8),417e423.

Nobre, D., Schiavetti, A., 2013. Acordos de pesca, governança e conselho deliberativode Reserva Extrativista: caso da Resex de Cassurubá, Caravelas, Bahia. Bol. doInst. Pesca 39 (4), 445e455.

Ojeda-Martínez, C., Casalduero, F.G., Bayle-Sempere, J.T., Cebrián, C.B., Valle, C.,Sanchez-Lizaso, J.L., Forcada, A., Sanchez-Jerez, P., Martín-Sosa, P., Falcón, J.M.,Salas, F., Graziano, M., Chemello, R., Stobart, B., Cartagena, P., Pérez-Ruzafa, A.,Vandeperre, F., Rochel, E., Planes, S., Brito, A., 2009. A conceptual framework forthe integral management of marine protected areas. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 52,89e101.

Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Guénette, S., Pitcher, T.J., Sumaila, U.R., Walters, C.J.,Watson, R., Zeller, D., 2002. Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature418, 689e695.

Pereira, J.C.R., 1999. Análise de dados qualitativos: estratégias metodológicas para asciências da saúde, humanas e sociais. Edusp, São Paulo.

Pickaver, A.H., Gilbert, C., Breton, F., 2004. An indicator set to measure the progressin the implementation of integrated coastal zone management in Europe.Ocean. Coast. Manag. 47, 449e462.

Pollnac, R.B., Crawford, B.R., Gorospe, M.L.G., 2001. Discovering factors that influ-ence the Success of community-based Marine protected areas in the Visayas,Philppines. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 44, 683e710.

Pomeroy, R.S., Parks, J.E., Watson, L.M., 2004. How is your MPA doing? A Guidebookof Natural and Social Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected Area Man-agement Effectiveness. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, Cambridge, UK, 216p.

Qiu, W., Wang, B., Jones, P.J.S., Axmacher, J.C., 2009. Challenges in developingChina’s marine protected area system. Mar. Policy 33 (4), 599e605.

Roberts, C.M., Hawkins, J.P., Gell, F.R., 2005. The role of marine reserves in achievingsustainable fisheries. Philos. Transact. Royal Soc. Lond. Ser. B, Biol. Sci. 360(1453), 123e132.

Rossi, S., 2013. The destruction of the ’animal forests’ in the oceans: towards anover-simplification of the benthic ecosystems. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 84, 77e85.

Russ, G.R., Alcala, A.C., Maypa, A.P., Calumpong, H.P., White, A.T., 2004. Marinereserve benefits local fisheries. Ecol. Appl. 14 (2), 597e606.

Sale, P.F., Cowen, R.K., Danilowicz, B.S., Jones, G.P., Kritzer, J.P., Linderman, K.C.,Planes, S., Polunin, N.V.C., Russ, G.R., Sadovy, Y.J., Steneck, R.S., 2005. Criticalscience gaps impede use of no-take fishery reserves. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20 (2),74e80.

Santos, C.Z., Schiavetti, A., 2013. Reservas Extrativistas Marinhas do Brasil: contra-dições de ordem legal, sustentabilidade e aspecto ecológico. Bol. do Inst. Pesca39 (4), 479e494.

Schiavetti, A., Magro, T.C., Silva, M., 2012. Implementação das Unidades de Con-servação do Corredor Central da Mata Atlântica no Estado da Bahia: Desafios eLimites. Rev. Árvore 36, 611e632.

Schumann, S., 2007. Co-management and “consciousness”: Fisher’s assimilation ofmanagement principles in Chile. Mar. Policy 31, 101e111.

Sherman, K., 1994. Sustainability, biomass yields, and health of coastal ecosystems:an ecological perspective. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 112, 277e301.

Silva, P.P., 2004. From common property to Co-management: lessons from Brazil’sfirst maritime extractive reserve. Mar. Policy 28 (5), 419e428.

Swartz, W., Sala, E., Tracey, S., Watson, R., Pauly, D., 2010. The spatial expansion andecological footprint of fisheries (1950 to present). PloS One 5 (12), e15143.

Tavakol, M., Dennick, R., 2011. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2,53e55.

Vasconcellos, M., Diegues, A.C., Kalikoski, D.C., 2011. Coastal fisheries of Brazil. In:Salas, S., Chuenpagdee, R., Charles, A., Seijo, J.C. (Eds.), Coastal Fisheries of LatinAmerica and the Caribbean, vol. 544. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture TechnicalPaper, Rome, pp. 73e116.

Wessells, C.R., Cochrane, K., Deere, C., Wallis, P., Willmann, R., 2001. Product Cer-tification and Ecolabelling for Fisheries sustainability. FAO Fisheries TechnicalPaper No. 422. Rome, FAO. 83p.