lable at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management 89 (2014) 1e10

Contents lists avai

Ocean & Coastal Management

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

Enhancing management effectiveness of environmental protectedareas, Thailand

Suvaluck Satumanatpan a,*, Pisase Senawongse b, Weranit Thansuporn c, Hugh Kirkman d

a Faculty of Environment and Resource Studies, Mahidol University, Salaya, Nakorn Pathom 73170, Thailandb 1500 Charansanitwong 75, Bangplud, Bangkok 10110, ThailandcOffice of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning, Praram 6, Payathai, Bangkok 10400, Thailandd 5a Garden Grove, Seaholme, Vic 3018, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online

Abbreviations: BOD, Biological Oxygen Demand;and Monitor; CEA, Committee for Environmental AsseEffort; DH, Department of Harbors; DIW, DepartmenDepartment for Marine and Coastal Resources; DPIMdustries and Mines; ECC, Environmental Carrying CImpact Assessment; EPA, Environmental ProtectedBacteria; GESAMP, Joint Group of Experts on theEnvironmental Protection.; ICM, Integrated Coastal Mronmental Evaluation; NEF, National Environmentalronmental Quality Act 1992; NPO, National Park OfResources and Environmental Policy and Planning; PBEnvironment Office; PFO, Provincial Fisheries OfficeOffice; PPH, Provincial Public Health; PK, PrachuapOffice; REO, Regional Environment Office; SEAAssessment.* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ66 817007512, 66 2 4

E-mail addresses: suvaluck.nat@mahidol.a(S. Satumanatpan).

0964-5691/$ e see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.12.001

a b s t r a c t

In Thailand, Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) has been carried out since 1992, through Environ-mental Protected Areas (EPAs) that are used in coastal planning and management for most populartourist coasts and islands. This paper examines the effectiveness of Phetchaburi (PB) and PrachuapKirikhan (PK) EPAs. The study finds the processes and results are not as comprehensive and sustainableas wished. Considerable environmental degradation, i.e., coastal erosion, poor water quality anddegraded natural resources were found widely along the EPAs’ coasts. The implications of PB and PK EPAswithin an ICM framework were analyzed. The study findings indicated the important issues to beresolved include: inefficient intersectoral and intergovernmental integration within and between themulti-governments, weak commitments to financial and human resources, weak leadership and lawenforcement capability and limited participatory and adaptive management through the stages of theICM cycle. Moving forward requires specific actions, commitment, strong leadership and effectivecooperation of key stakeholders. Continued building of environmental awareness on the impacts ofenvironmental degradation to people and the economy is also needed. This ambitious project differsfrom most others in its coverage and the large number of communities and governance bodies that needto reach agreement. We suggest a number of recommendations that apply generally to developingcountries wishing to conserve biological diversity and use resources sustainably on coasts with multi-stakeholders and uses.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

CCM, Committee to Controlssment; CPUE, Catch Per Unitt of Industrial Work; DMCR,, Department of Primary In-apacity; EIA, EnvironmentalArea; FCB, Faecal Coliform

Scientific Aspects of Marineanagement; IEE, Initial Envi-Fund; NEQA, National Envi-fice; ONEP, Office of Natural, Petchaburi; PEO, Provincial; PMO, Provincial MangroveKirikhan; PWO, Public Work, Strategic Environmental

415000; fax: þ66 2 4419510.c.th, ajyomm@yahoo.com

All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Developing countries in Southeast Asia, Africa and SouthAmerica have an enormous task in attempting to conserve marineenvironments and sustain exploited resources. These countriesmostly have priorities in developing, reducing poverty and sup-plying food and commodities to their people.

The challenges of marine and coastal environmental sustain-ability are many and diverse in Thailand, where coastal and marineplanning has been practiced since 1992. Focusing on coastal zoning,Thailand has a variety of systems in place, including ecologicalconservation for mangrove areas, coral reefs, fisheries, nationalmarine parks, and environmental protected areas (EPAs).

Sustainable development of coastal and marine resources needsIntegrated Coastal Management (ICM) as a dynamic process basedon intersectoral, intergovernmental, land-sea and science-basedmanagement (GESAMP, 1996). Through long experience of ICMpractices there are major factors that are likely to have considerableimpact on ICM sustainability including: integration and

Fig. 1. Study area and boundaries of zones.

S. Satumanatpan et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 89 (2014) 1e102

coordination efforts; participative management; relevant policies,legislation and institutional arrangements; long-term commitmentand continuing monitoring and evaluation and adaptive processes(Olsen and Christie, 2000; Olsen, 2003; Christie et al., 2005; Whiteet al., 2005a, 2006; Pollnac and Pomeroy, 2005; Eisma et al., 2005;Sekhar, 2005) The process of ICM sets out to avoid fragmented,single-sector management so that all activities function to collec-tively achieve agreed goals. Coastal zones are a contested space,characterized by diverse definitions, values, uses, biophysical con-ditions and impacts (Cicin-Sain and Knecht, 1998). The ICM conceptwas used in developing the EPAs for most tourist coasts and islandsin Thailand.

Coastal areas of concern were declared as restricted zones in1972. In 1996, prohibiting trawling and push netting using motor-ized boats closer than 3 km from the shore and establishingpollution control areas were initiated. This did nothing to reverseenvironment problems. It was found necessary to declare suchareas as EPAs, to support measures for other legislation to betterconserve natural resources and the environment. Phetchaburi (PB)and Prachuap Kirikhan (PK) were approved as EPAs by the Cabinetin 1996 and, through a long process, were enacted by Parliament inJuly 2004.

Early planning did not guarantee continuous financial support.Many ICM projects in other countries are funded by externalfunding sources such as: World Bank; Canadian InternationalDevelopment; US Agency for International Development; WWF-US(Pollnac and Pomeroy, 2005). In the EPAs of PB and PK the onlyfunding is coming from the provincial governments and the Officeof Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning(ONEP) and there is no guarantee that it will continue.

Before PB and PK were declared EPAs, consultation took placeduring 1997e1999 led by ONEP, through provincial meetings con-taining mainly local government stakeholders. At that time, thesestakeholders agreed to declare PB and PK as EPAs. Although the EPAapproach at “step zero” (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft, 2007), for PBand PK provinces, was initiated by the government (ONEP), therewas only partial engagement of the relevant stakeholders and ashortage of support and funding commitment. The ProvincialEnvironment Office (PEO) was assigned to coordinate the workwithin and between multi-governance levels.

The EPAs of PB and PK were developed to avoid conflict and aproliferation of plans and regulations. These constraints were alsoreported in other EPAs (coasts and islands) in the Gulf of Thailandand the Andaman Sea (personnel observations) and in othercountries (Gilman, 2002; Sekhar, 2005). Development of anappropriate institutional framework for the coordination ofdifferent sectors (Vallejo, 1993; Henocque and Denis, 2001; Chua,2006) was needed.

First was the challenge of integrating within and between themulti-governance scales of PB and PK. Previously a sector-by-sectorapproach with large institutions dealing with separate activities(mangrove-salt farmeagriculture interactions, coastal construc-tions by the local and central governments, conflicts betweencoastal development projects and local government authorities,uncontrolled pollution by sub-districts, rehabilitation of mangrovesand treatment and disposal of effluent) was found to be inefficient.

Based on ICM practices, another obstacle is seen in the country’slegislative framework and regulatory enforcement. Laws used inthe EPAs: the Forest Act 1941, the Fishery Act 1947, the NationalParks Act 1961, the City and Town Planning Act 1975, the FactoryAct 1992, the Public Health Act 1992, the Wildlife Conservation andProtection Act 1992, the NEQA 1992 Act, the Building Control Act1989 and the Decentralization for Local Administrative Act 1999,provide a fairly extensive legal framework for environmental pro-tection. Despite these laws, there is a total absence of an integrated

and coherent program and policy for integrated law enforcement inThailand for a variety of reasons including inadequate staff andnecessary facilities. This impediment was also reported for coastalmanagement in the Philippines (Eisma et al., 2005; White et al.,2005a) and in Vietnam (Sekhar, 2005). From 2002 to now,Thailand (the DMCR with assistance from the Asian DevelopmentBank and the World Conservation Union) has developed a draftMarine and Coastal Resources Management Act. This Act isdesigned to provide an integrated approach to coastal resourcesmanagement through an area-function participation approach,identifying the rights of communities to manage their own coastalresources through a local organization or a co-management rela-tionship with the local government. Unfortunately, this law has notyet been enacted by Parliament.

This study is a first attempt to assess the management effec-tiveness of PB and PK EPAs, using the following objectives:

� control and reduce activities that cause coastal erosion and loss;� control and reduce activities that cause pollution along thecoast;

Table 1Indicators and Objectives used to assess effectiveness of the objectives for the EPAs.

Indicator Objectives

1) Are there sea ports for vessels larger than 60ton gross?

1) Control and reduce ac-tivities that causecoastal erosion2) Is there collection of pebbles, soil or sand for

commercial use?3) Is there deposition of soil that may affect

water circulation?4) Is there land reclamation that is not

permitted by the government or public use?5) Are there factories that cause adverse im-

pacts to the environment, built<200 m fromthe shore?

2) Control and reduce ac-tivities that cause pollu-tion along the coast

6) Are there livestock buildings with an areagreater than 10 m2 < 200 m from the shore,or for commercial purposes or are bother-some to the public?

7) Is there a cemetery or crematorium<200 mfrom the shore?

8) Is there any waste system<200 m from theshoreline, except those run by thegovernment?

9) Are there mining activities?10) Is there any piped transport of hazardous

substances?11) Is there any waste discharge, not compiling

to the standard requirement to waterbodies?

12) Are there development projects that arelikely to avoid impact assessment?

13) Are there buildings constructed in therestricted areas?

3) Conserve natural re-sources and scenery;

14) Are there salt farms outside the allowableareas?

15) Are there any activities that invade ordestroy mangrove forest?

16) Is there illegal fishing (motorized trawling,push netting or dredging) in the restrictedarea of 3 km from the coast?

17) Are provinces supporting the prevention ofdamage to natural resources and theenvironment?

4) Improve environmentalmanagement

18) Do PB and PK Provinces support buildingenvironmental awareness?

19) Do PB and PK Provinces support rehabili-tation of the environment?

20) Is there a formal committee to control andmonitor (CCM) the EPAs?

21) Is there an expert committee for environ-mental assessment (CEA) in each EPAs?

S. Satumanatpan et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 89 (2014) 1e10 3

� conserve natural resources and scenery; and� improve environmental management.

A simple model detailed in GESAMP (1996) was widely adaptedto coastal municipalities in the Philippines (White et al., 2005a) andThailand (Satumanatpan, 2012). The model testing for PB and PKEPAs is at a very early stage of the process recognized by GESAMP

Table 2Indicators: restricted, suggested and required conditions in each zone.

Indicators Restriction, suggestion or requirement Zone

1e5 All restricted 1e76e9 All restricted in terrestrial zones 1e510e12 All restricted 1e713 All restricted in terrestrial zones 1e514 Restricted 1, 4, 515 Restricted 1,2,5, 6, 716 Restricted in both marine zones 6, 717e19 Suggested activities for all zones 1e720, 21 Required activities for all zones 1e7

(1996). It suggests that five consecutive stages (issues identifica-tion and assessment, program preparation, implementation, formaladoption and funding, and evaluation) form an ongoing, iterativeprocess. The model may go through a number of cycles before theprogram is sufficiently refined to produce effective results.

Our attempts at implementing ICM by developing EPAs may beuseful for other developing countries with similar problems.

2. Methods

2.1. Study area

The PB and PK EPAs are situated on the west coast of the Gulf ofThailand (Fig. 1). PB covers the whole coast of that province, but PKcovers only the two Sub-districts of Hua Hin and Pranburi.

The western part of the study area is riverine floodplain next tothe Tanaosri mountain range along the Thai-Myanmar border. ThePhetchaburi and Pranburi rivers are the two main rivers of PB andPK EPAs. They and their tributaries flow from the range to the Gulfof Thailand. The eastern part of the study area is uplifted, flat, sandyfloodplain to the Gulf of Thailand. There are important economicfisheries and tourism along this floodplain. Fig. 1 presents theboundaries of the study area covering a total area of about 850 sq.km. or 115 km of coastline.

The zoning of the PB and PK EPAs and the activities undertakento enhance sustainable coastal resources were developed based onan interface of land-sea interaction and the use of science todevelop management policies.

The EPAs of PB and PK were divided, by locality, into five coastal(Zones 1e5) and two marine zones (Zones 6e7).

2.2. Assessment of management effectiveness

The study began by completing a review for the GovernmentGazette, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment: EPAs ofPB and PK Provinces (31 July 2004). Following the review, wedeveloped a list of 21 indicators and separated them into the fourobjectives (Table 1). These were then given conditions to decide onwhat activities could take place. These conditions were: restricted,suggested or required in each of the seven zones (Table 2).

Informationwas obtained by reviewing government documentsfor all the components of the PB and PK EPAs. These documents arenot cited because they are in Thai; most can be obtained fromdepartment websites. This assessment employed a participatoryprocess through in-depth interviews, focus group meetings andworkshop meetings during 2007e2008, involving the followinglocal stakeholders: 1) Local administrative authorities of PB and PKEPAs; 2) Local government authorities: Governor of PB and PKProvinces, Department of Harbors, Department of Industrial Work,Department of Primary Industries and Mine, National Park Office,Provincial Environment Office, Provincial Fisheries Office, Provin-cial Public Health, Provincial Mangrove Office, Public Work Office,and Regional Environment Office; 3) The local academic institution:Silapakorn University; 4) Private agencies: commercial offices,Tourism Authority, Tourism Association and Hotel Association; 5)Conservation groups: Bang Khunsai Conservation Group (smallscale fishers), Muang Petch Safeguard Group, Phetchaburi NaturalResources and Environment Group, Hua Hin Protection Group; 6)Two formal committees: the Committee to Control and Monitor(CCM) and the Committee for Environmental Assessment (CEA) inPB and PK EPAs. Large scale fishers were not included in thestakeholders asked for an assessment of performance, even thoughthey were often invited to join the stakeholder group.

The assessment was completed by assigning a performancerating for each indicator using a Score Card (Staub and Hatziolos,

S. Satumanatpan et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 89 (2014) 1e104

2004; Stolton et al., 2007). Each indicator was ranked between0 (poor) to 3 (excellent). The final step in the assessment processwas to calculate the aggregate score for each objective. Points wereconverted to a percentage to represent the overall performanceratings as follows: very good (>85%), good (>70e84%), poor (>55e69), and very poor (<55%)

2.3. Assessment of environmental variables

We reviewed the status of natural resources and the environ-ment of PB and PK EPAs before and after theywere declared as EPAsin 2004. Our review criteria were: land use, coastal change, fish-eries, surface water and seawater quality.

2.3.1. Land use changesWe used Landsat TM data (30 m, RGB band 5, 4, 3) to analyze

land use change between 2002, 2004 and 2007 using 11 land andwater use types: agricultural land, shrimp and fish ponds, salt pans,mangrove forests, terrestrial forests, mine and gravel pits, com-munities, industries, water bodies, marine areas out to 3 km fromthe shore and others (area of peat swamp forests, beach).

2.3.2. FisheriesThe wild fisheries study presents the status of fisheries based on

two indicatorsdthe weight of catch and the CPUE. The first indi-cator was retrieved from the weight of catch landed at Ban Laemand Cha AmDistricts in PB Province and Hua Hin and Pranburi Sub-districts in PK Province. CPUEwas calculated from the meanweightof fish caught divided by the number of fishing hours using an otterboard trawl from three different boat lengths (less than 14 m, 14e18m, and 19e25m) with a cod-endmesh size of 25mm focused onthe fishing areas of Chonburi, Chachunagsao, Samut Prakarn, SamutSakorn, and Phetchaburi provinces. This CPUE closely representsthat of the study areas. Data are available from the Department ofFisheries marine fisheries statistics based on a sample survey. CPUEis an indicator that clearly illustrates fish abundance, and is widelyaccepted as an indicator of fisheries’ effort.

2.3.3. Water qualityParameters used to describe surface water quality were Bio-

logical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Dissolved Oxygen (DO) and FaecalColiform Bacteria (FCB). Historical data from the Phetchaburi andPranburi Rivers were obtained from Regional Environment Office(REO) 8 for the years 2000e2007. These data were not available asraw data so their reliability may be questioned. No information onfrequency, number of samples or accuracy of measurement is

Table 3Area and percentage of land use types in years 2002, 2004, 2007 (sea area calculated ou

Land use type Area (km2)

2002 2004

km2 % km2 %

Agricultural land 186.54 21.93 186.21 21.89Aquaculture 38.52 4.53 39.13 4.60Salt farm 30.68 3.61 30.68 3.61Mangrove forest 26.62 3.13 26.21 3.08Upland forest 32.62 3.83 32.54 3.83Mine and gravel pit 1.51 0.18 1.51 0.18Urban 107.77 12.67 108.18 12.72Industry 2.63 0.31 3.01 0.36Water body 6.92 0.81 6.92 0.81Sea 354.77 41.70 354.57 41.68Others 62.15 7.31 61.77 7.26Total 850.73 100.00 850.73 100.00

Others ¼ area of peat, swamp forests, beach.

available. This information is metadata which is information aboutdata and should be the basis of all monitoring programs.

Dissolved oxygen (DO), Faecal Coliform Bacteria (FCB), nitrate(NO3

�) and phosphate (OrPO43�) were used to describe seawater

quality along the coast of PB and PK Provinces during 2003e2007.As with the surface water quality measurements, some criticism

can be leveled at the departments responsible for collecting theseparameters as raw data were not available and we could not verifytheir quality.

3. Results

This section is divided into two parts; Part I provides the statusand changes in natural resources and the environment and Part IIreports on the assessment of management effectiveness of PB andPK EPAs, against the four objectives using 21 indicators.

3.1. Part I: status and change in natural resources and environment

3.1.1. Land use changeThe area and percentage of 11 land and water use type changes

between 2002 and 2007 are shown in Table 3. The PB and PK EPAscover approximately 850 km2, including the sea area. Agriculturalland (38%) was the largest component followed by urban areas(22%), in terrestrial cover.

The salt farm area increased by 27% between 2004 and 2007 andthis was mostly found in the allowable areas of Zones 2 and 3 whilea small area of 0.6 km2 was in the restricted area of Zone 1 Aqua-culture areas expanded by 1.6% during 2002e2004, and continuedto increase to 6% from 2004 to 2007. Activities that damagedmangrove forests, agricultural areas and fishery resources occurredthroughout. This study illustrated that the expansion of salt farmsand white leg shrimp farming are the main activities invadingagricultural areas. Mangrove forest decreased by 1.5%, changing toaquaculture and some eroded during 2002e2004, but after 2004 itsarea increased by 0.3% or 9 ha from mangrove replanting in mostareas of Zone 2 and part of Zone 1. Mangrove areas in Zone 3, 4 and5 were constant.

Agriculture land area decreased during 2002e2004 anddecreased further during 2004e2007, by changing to aquacultureand urban areas. The industrial area showed an increase of 14.45%during 2002e2004 but did not change between 2004 and 2007.There was a small increase in urban area (0.38%) between 2002 and2004 and a further increase of 3.34% during 2004e2007. Uplandforest decreased by 0.25% during 2002e2004 and 0.74% during2004e2007. There was no change in mining and gravel pit areas

t to 3 km from the shore).

%Change 2002e2004 %Change 2004e2007

2007

km2 %

171.10 20.11 �0.18 �8.1141.46 4.87 1.58 5.9539.01 4.59 e 27.1526.28 3.09 �1.54 0.2732.30 3.80 �0.25 �0.741.55 0.18 e 2.65

111.79 13.14 0.38 3.343.01 0.36 14.45 e

6.94 0.82 e 0.29353.74 41.58 �0.06 �0.2363.53 7.47 �0.61 2.85

850.73 100.00

Fig. 2. Total fish catch and catch per unit effort (CPUE) during 1990e2008.

S. Satumanatpan et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 89 (2014) 1e10 5

between 2002 and 2004, but their areas increased by 2.65% be-tween 2004 and 2007.

3.1.2. Coastal changeBeaches and the coast represent significant resources for

tourism and other uses in environmental protected areas. A surveyby ONEP in 2008 revealed that up to 44.2% of the total coast lengthhad been transformed into engineering structures.

The total length from PB Province to Pranburi estuary, PKProvince is 115 km. Aerial photographs during 1976e1995 revealedthat nine areas (1.55 km2) over a length of 32 km were eroded;26 km or 1.48 km2 of this had a moderate erosion level of 1e5 m/year. The highest erosion rate of 4.4 m/year was recorded at bea-ches in Zone 2 over a distance of 7.5 km.

3.1.3. FisheriesIllegal fishing from trawling and dredging was reported widely

within 3 km of the shore along the coast of PB and PK Provinces.Thai fisheries statistics during 1990e2008, showed a graduallydegrading marine catch (Fig. 2).

Table 4Objective and indicator scores.

Objective Grade & score Rating Indicator

1 3 Fully met 13 Fully met 21 Partially met 33 Fully met 410/12 83%

2 3 Fully met 51 Partially met 63 Fully met 71 Partially met 83 Fully met 93 Fully met 100 Not met 111 Partially met 1215/24 62.5%

3 3 Fully met 131 Partially met 142 Largely met 150 Not met 166/12 50%

4 1 Partially met 171 Partially met 181 Partially met 191 Partially met 201 Partially met 215/15 33%

CPUE decreased from 56 kg/hr in1991 to a low of 17 kg/hr in1998. After PB and PK were declared as EPAs in 2004 the CPUEincreased but was still lower (32 kg/h) in 2008 than in the past. Thecoasts of Zones 1 and 2 are fertile grounds for blood cockle which isthe source of income for most residents. Hand collection using foot-driven boards yield up to 8e10 tons daily during the peak season,valued at about 1.2e1.7 million dollars yearly and an average in-come distribution of 6.5e9.7% per capita. A small-scale fishers’conservation group in these zones is conserving blood cockles sothat they can reach maximum fertility, in a special conservationarea that only allows hand collection using foot-driven boards.Nevertheless, at present, cockle-harvesting bymechanical dredgingyields numerous cockles of all sizes.

3.1.4. Water qualityDuring 2000e2007, REO reported overall surface water quality

of Phetchaburi and Pranburi Rivers was poor to very poor. Bothrivers contained high amounts of Faecal Coliform Bacteria (FCB)almost every year. It is assumed that these coliforms were fromuntreated wastewater from communities along the rivers.

Comparison of seawater quality before, during and after theannouncement of PB and PK as EPAs found that it has not yetimproved. PCD reported that estuaries in PB and PK Provinces holdexamples of high FCB counts, and high nitrate and phosphateconcentration that did not comply with coastal water qualitystandards for recreation. These estuaries are adjacent to wastedisposal sites, which are considered risky open dumps (WorldBank, 2003). Thus water is polluted by solid and hazardous waste.Currently, unsafe disposal practices cause health problems to thepeople living in adjacent areas. The community needs wastewatertreatment plants before discharging wastewater into public wa-terways and ultimately the sea.

3.2. Part II: assessment of management effectiveness in PB and PKEPAs

This section illustrates the assessments made of PB and PK EPAsbased on the four objectives using 21 indicators (Table 1). A detailedassessment for each indicator is provided below. Conditions were:restricted, suggested or required in each of the seven zones(Table 2).

3.2.1. Objective 1: control or reduce activities that caused coastalerosion and loss from the construction of protection structures

1. Are there sea ports for ships over 60 tonnes? There is no portin the EPAs. This indicator was fully met.

2. Are the prohibited activities of collecting pebbles, soil orsand for commercial use, continuing? After 2004, registrationdata from the Department of Factories showed no prohibitedactivities occurred. Two commercial companies (Sila PuangSombat, Kao and Yai Sila) existed in Cha Am district before 2004.This indicator was fully met.

3. Is there deposition of soil that may affect water circulation?Local residents deposit soil and solid waste in waterways andpublic canals at Cha Am and Hua Hin Sub-districts (Zone 4). As aconsequence, water circulation has changed, causing frequentflooding in these towns. Although these activities wereforbidden according to the enactment of the PB and PK EPAs in2004, they are disregarded by the local residents and there is noapparent effort of the local government to control or reducesuch activity. This indicator was only partially met.

4. Is there land reclamation that is not permitted by the gov-ernment? To protect or reduce coastal erosion, land wasreclaimed and coastal defenses were built mainly by the local

S. Satumanatpan et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 89 (2014) 1e106

governments and local administration. A number of seawallsand breakwaters around the shore were built. There was noillegal constructions or land claim, thus the indicator was fullymet.

The first objective was met at a high level (83% Table 4) based onperformance indicators. Of the four indicators, three of them wereimplemented well. The exception was the deposition of soil inwaterways or public canals frequently found around the hightourist areas of Zone 4.

Apparently, the causes of erosionwere from seasonal monsoons,human impacts, such as dam construction in the upper watershedreducing the amount of sediment to the coast and erosion causedby construction of breakwaters, groins, jetties and seawalls thataltered water circulation along the coast. Sixteen kilometers ofseawalls and groins were constructed along the coast from Zones2e5 to reduce coastal erosion. Although there was coastal con-struction and a comprehensive study and master plan proposed byONEP in 2003 to resolve coastal erosion from the Phetchaburi es-tuary in PB Province to the Pranburi estuary in PK Province, severeerosion still exists in many places. There was no apparent inte-gration between local administrators to resolve erosion problemseven though PB and PK Provinces are identified as priority areas toreduce erosion under the national strategy for prevention andremediation of coastal erosion (DMCR, 2008). With national policyclearly identified, implementing such policy still needs integrationfrom related agencies.

3.2.2. Objective 2: control and reduce activities that cause pollutionalong the coast

5. Are there prohibited factories that cause adverse impact tothe environment built <200 m from the shore? Inspectionthrough the industrial provincial database and a GIS study foundno prohibited factories, according to the Factory Act, <200 mfrom the shore. This indicator was fully met.

6. Are there livestock buildings with an area greater than10 m2< 200 m from the shore, or there for commercial pur-poses or are bothersome to the public? The local governmenthas no system to control livestock buildings with an area>10 m2. The restricted area of 10 m2 for livestock buildingswould impact on people’s livelihoods as the local residents inthe EPA sites usually raised a few cows, ducks and chickens fortheir livelihood. Clearly, no livestock buildings for commercialpurposes exist in the area <200 m from the shore. Many resi-dential buildings in Zone 2 are used to nourish swiflets for theiredible-nests, valued at $2 000e$3 300/kg. This artificial farminghas raised a number of concerns including noise pollution(swiflet attraction calling through microphones) and perhapshealth problems, yet health and safety regulations for this ac-tivity do not exist. Its impact has disturbed the adjacent resi-dents. This indicator was partially met.

7. Is there a cemetery or crematorium <200 m from the shore?No cemetery exists <200 m from the shore. This indicator wasfully met.

8. Is there any waste system <200 m from the shore, exceptthose run by the government? In the EPAs, the three mostcrowded municipalities have wastewater treatment plantsfunded and managed by local administrative authorities. First,Bann Laem District has a wastewater treatment plant in theform of a stabilization pond with a capacity of 10 000 m3/daybut it receives only 4 000 m3/day. Second, Cha Am District hasan aerated lagoon system designed for treatment of up to17 000 m3/day, at present it receives only 3 500 m3/day. Third,Hua Hin District has twowastewater treatment systems; one is a

rotating biological contractor system receiving a full capacity of8 000 m3/day wastewater and the second is an oxidation ditchreceiving 5 000 m3/day.

Significant progress in constructing wastewater treatmentplants in the EPA, mainly in crowded community areas or populartourist places, was invested in by the local government. Obviously,the total installed capacity of wastewater treatment plants is notbeing used as planned. The indicator was partially met mainlybecause of inefficient wastewater collection systems, a low budgetfor operation and maintenance, and few appropriately trained andexperienced personnel for operation and maintenance. Thesecauses are also reported in other parts of Thailand by the Ministryof Natural Resources and Environment

9. Are there any mining activities? Under the declaration ofthis EPA in 2004, the Department of Primary Industries andMines, temporarily closed the one private mine in Cha AmDistrict in 2005. The indicator was fully met.

10. Is there any piped transport of hazardous substances?There is no transport of hazardous substances through pipesin the EPA. The indicator was fully met.

11. Is there any waste not compiling to the standard re-quirements for discharging to water bodies? Results fromrelated agencies in PB Province indicated that domestic andagriculture wastewater from areas located outside Ban LaemDistrict wastewater treatment system, were released directlyintowater bodies. Often, industries and aquaculture effluentswere discharged to the coastal areas of Ban Laem District.Similarly, domestic and agricultural wastewater from areaslocated outside the service area of the wastewater treatmentsystem, PB Province, were also discharged directly into waterbodies. This indicator was not met.

12. Are there development projects that are likely to avoidimpact assessment? Following PB and PK EPA regulations,seven types of development projects required environmentalassessment (IEE or EIA), depending on their size, they were:hotels or resorts, residential buildings, hospitals, power plants,land allotments, sea ports, and aquaculture. Official data fromPB PEO, revealed that hotels, residential buildings and landallotments have had full environmental assessment andreceived permission for construction. We had no official datafrom the PK PEO during our study. However, both PB and PKProvinces were facing similar constraints; project proponentsalways avoid impact assessment studies by decreasing roomnumbers (resorts with 10 rooms or more required an IEE, lessthan 10 rooms only required permission from the localadministrative authorities). These deficiencies occurcommonly in Zones 4 and 5, which are popular tourist areas.

Other deficiencies were addressed: aquaculture with an area �8 ha requires an IEE, in fact no shrimp farm (>8ha) in this EPA hasever had an IEE. Shrimp farmers register with the District FisheriesOffice, as a free technical service provided to farmers whenrequested. In addition to farm registration, to minimize environ-mental impacts, the Fishery Act 1947 requires that large shrimpfarms with areas � 8 ha must provide wastewater treatment sys-tems (10% of the farm area) and wastewater effluent should haveBOD� 20 mg/l; suspended solids� 70mg/l; NH3eN� 1.1 mg/l andpH of 6.9e9.0. Therefore, to enforce aquaculture areas � 8 ha tocarry out an IEE was not rational and may cause confusion, asaquaculture was previously controlled by the Fishery Act. This in-dicator was partially met.

For this objective, the overall performance was rated as poor(62.5% Table 4). Among the eight indicators, four activities: no

S. Satumanatpan et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 89 (2014) 1e10 7

factories or cemeteries in an area 200 m from the shore, and nomining activities or transport of hazardous substances were fullymet. Three indicators: livestock buildings less than 200 m from theshore, waste disposal (wastewater treatment plants) and projectimpact assessments were partially met.

Controlling waste discharge to comply with the standard forwater bodies was not met. Obviously, the quality of surface andcoastal water was generally poor as untreated wastewater wasdischarged directly into some water bodies. In addition, morepollution was added to coastal waters due to a number of devel-opment projects that avoided impact assessment studies. We foundsigns of a disregard to assess the impact of development particu-larly for hotels, resorts, residential buildings and land allotments.

3.2.3. Objective 3: conserve natural resources and scenery

13. Are there buildings constructed in restricted areas? Nobuildings exist < 20 m from the coast. Buildings with aheight <6 m and buildings with a height >12 m were foundin the allowable area behind the set-back line of 20e50 mand after 50 m, respectively. This indicator was fully met.

14. Are there salt farms outside the allowable area? Land usetype classification in 2007 by the Land DevelopmentDepartment and satellite image processing from this studyshowed that salt farms (39 km2) were found mainly in theallowable areas of Zones 2 and 3. However, a small salt farm(0.59 km2) was found outside the allowable area in Zone 1, itwas operating before the enactment of this EPA in 2004.

There were deficiencies detected by this study. First, it is likelythat the expansion of salt farms into agricultural areas and adjacentmangrove areas was a possibility due to the high price of salt.Second, the regulated area of salt farms was stated clearly in theEPA; but there is no single process from the local administrative orgovernment to control this activity. Although most salt farm areaswere in allowable areas, expansion of salt farms to agriculturalareas was also noted. Salt intrusion from salt farms causes adverseimpacts to the adjacent agricultural areas. Some small salt farmsadjacent to mangrove areas, may cause the death of mangroveslater as the salt making process requires two months of seawaterinundation. In addition, Mwandya et al. (2009) suggested that saltfarms had a profound influence on decreasing the density and di-versity of mangrove associated fish. The indicator was partiallymet.

15. Are there any activities that invade or destroy mangroveforest? Expansion of salt farms is the main activity that mayinvade remnant mangrove forest. Apparently, salt farms,with small areas adjacent to mangroves, require 2e3 monthsof seawater, this may result in the later death of mangroveforests. Generally, this indicator was largely met.

16. Is there illegal fishing (motorized trawling, push nettingor dredging) in the restricted area of 3 km from the coast?The provincial fisheries offices reported much illegal fishing(motorized trawling, push nets and dredging) found in theprohibited area of 3 km from the shore of PB and PK Prov-inces. In fact, in the prohibited areas 3 km from the shore ofthe whole Thai coast, motorized trawling and push nets areprohibited by a Notification (1972) issued under the FisheryAct 1947. Similarly, motorized dredging for bivalves was alsowidespread along the shore of Thailand even though it wasprohibited by another Notification (1974). In sum, this indi-cator was not met. Lately, the Phetchaburi Notification(2008) was issued to prohibit all kinds of fishing gear tocatch bivalves (except hand collecting) in the coastal areas ofZone 2.

Based on four indicators, the overall performance for thisobjective was very poor (50% Table 4). Prohibiting construction ofbuildings in front of the set-back line and restricting their heightwas well implemented. For activities that might damage naturalresources, we focused on mangrove areas and fishery resources.

White leg shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) farms expandedwidely because of the shrimps’ fast growth and high price. Thisexpansion is likely to invade mangrove and rice fields in PB and PKEPAs. We found very small change in mangrove area as efforts weremade to compensate the loss to shrimp farms by plantingmangrove seedlings in newly formed mudflats along the coasts ofZone 1 and 2.

Fisheries in PB and PK EPAs are obviously declining as a result ofillegal trawling, motorized push netting and dredging for cockleswithin the restricted area of 3 km from the shore. Prohibition on theuse of certain types of motorized fishing gear, i.e., trawls and pushnets within 3 km of the coast and a three-month prohibition offishing during the spawning period of specific economicallyimportant fish species (seasonal closure) in the Gulf of Thailand, areresponses widely used in Thai waters. In addition, in 2007, therewas a movement to change the area of prohibition on the use ofmotorized push nets and trawls from 3 km to 5.4 km offshore. Thenew prohibition distance of 5.4 km is not yet declared as a Minis-terial Notification, because it is still facing opposition from the largescale fisheries. However, for the PB coast (part of Zone 2) covering acoastal area of 13 km2 all types of motorized fishing gear wereofficially prohibited to help conserve bivalves. This will probablyhelp to improve CPUE in the future. Thus, all improvements tosustainable fishery resources have been fostered through theFishery Act, with no particular activities reflecting the EPAconditions.

3.2.4. Objective 4: improve environmental management

17. Are PB and PK provinces supporting the prevention ofdamage to natural resources and the environment? Wefound that neither province had any direct activity to preventdamage to fisheries or mangroves, the only resourcesconsidered. PB PEO supported Bang Kun Sai ConservationGroup for its activity on close surveillance of dredging forcockles, large trawlers and motorized push netting along thecoast. Apparently, the main support came from a single localadministrative office and the PB Fisheries Office. This indictorwas partially met.

18. Do PB and PK provinces support building environmentalawareness? Limitation to building environmental awarenessby private agencies was recognized in the EPA process. Tosome extent PB and PK PEOs have annual plans and activitiesfor building environmental awareness. Most governmentrelated agencies and other local government agencies in thearea have programs to support building awareness as part oftheir own regular activities. PEOs support funding through anumber of environmental conservation groups such as theMuang Petch Safeguard Group, the Phetchaburi Natural Re-sources and Environment Group and the Hua Hin ProtectionGroup.

In the case of private agencies that intended to take part inenvironmental activities, the EPA’s charter stated that environ-mental planning, prepared by private agencies or others, mustreceive formal permission and approval from the CCM beforeimplementation, but there was no regular meeting of the CCM, infact only one meeting was held in the four years, 2004e2007. Thisindicator was partially met.

S. Satumanatpan et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 89 (2014) 1e108

19. Do PB and PK Provinces support rehabilitation of theenvironment? Overall, both provinces had no rehabilitationplans. Exceptions were rehabilitation of mangroves andmitigation of severe erosion, mainly carried out by the localauthorities. Rehabilitation of mangroves was implementedregularly by the PMO (under the DMCR) with some supportfrom the PEOs and private agencies. Similarly, there was anumber of coastal protection structures constructed by thelocal administration in many areas of PB and PK EPAs.Degraded land and salt farms should have been rehabilitatedby PEOs as clearly stated in the EPAs’mandate, but in fact thiswas never done. Similarly, no plan for rehabilitation of areasimpacted before 2004 were implemented, even if the im-pacts ceased in PB and PK EPAs after 2004. As noted in In-dicator 18, before executing such rehabilitation plans, theEPA mandates the plans must have been formally approvedby the CCM. Obviously, the CCM process is not functioningand the indicator was only partially met.

20. Is there a formal committee to control and monitor theEPA? There is a formal CCM for PB and PK Provinces asrequired in the EPA conditions. The provincial environmentofficer from the PEO acts as the secretary and the provincialgovernor as the chairman. The CCM was very ineffectualfacing budgetary and personnel limitations and had no reg-ular meeting and no noticeable result. The indicator waspartially met.

21. Is there an expert committee for environmental assess-ment in the EPA areas? PB and PK Provinces have their ownexpert CEA responsible for considering IEE and EIA reports ineach province, with regular meetings every month. The CEAhas the provincial environment officer from the PEO acting asits secretary and the provincial governor as its chairman. TheCEA had regular monthly meetings. Some deficiencies exist:

� Members of the CEA were mainly from local administrationswith little expertise, experience, or technical knowledge.

� Local politics influenced the CEA during considerations forIEE and EIA.

� A budget was provided, mainly for CEA meetings but notcovering monitoring costs to examine the project area beforemaking a decision or after the project’s completion.

Because of these deficiencies the indicator was only partiallymet.

All indicators in this objective were partially implemented butperformance was very poor (33% Table 4). The PEO played animportant role in participating in five indicators assessed for thiscriterion. Their performance was very poor and rated as onlypartially met (Table 4).

4. Discussion

The effectiveness of EPAs in PB and PK Provinces, Thailand wasassessed around objectives that were to some extent achieved andvaried from good to very poor. The main aim of this managementeffectiveness evaluationwas to provide information that could leadto an improvement in themanagement of the EPAs and increase thedegree to which the EPAs achieve their goals and objectives. Overallsome output indicators were achieved well, while the outcome andprocess indicators were met poorly.

The first objective was met to a reasonable extent, as activitiesthat may cause coastal erosionwere controlled well although thereis still widespread erosion. Implementation of a national policy wasneeded to strictly control land use and restore mangrove forests. Atthe same time, an integrated approach between and among sectorswas strongly needed.

The overall performance of the second objective was rated aspoor, mainly because of inefficient wastewater collection systems, alow budget for operation and maintenance and few appropriatelytrained and experienced personnel. The World Bank (2001) alsoreported unclear wastewater treatment fee legislation, a lack ofenforcement, poor public relations and insufficient publicinvolvement, were contributing to the failure in management ofwastewater in Thailand.

The water quality data were difficult to obtain other than sam-pling period means. We have little idea of the quality of themonitoring or analyzing of these samples. It is recommended thatmore transparency and metadata be given for all monitoring sitesand occasions.

The third objectivedconserving nature and scenery along thecoastdwas met very poorly. Prohibiting construction of buildingsin front of the set-back line and restricting their height was wellimplemented. For fisheries resources, overall decline in catch andCPUE was found along the coast of PB and PK, like many places inThai waters. Obviously, widespread illegal fishing activitiesoccurred even with fishery legislation prohibiting trawling within3 km of the coast.

Increasing the efficiency for environmental management, thefourth objective, was mostly involved with institutions, in partic-ular the PEO, and performed very poorly. The three main activitiesthat were supposed to take placedthe prevention of damage tonatural resources (mangrove and fisheries), building environ-mental awareness and rehabilitation of the environmentdtookplace to a very limited extent. There were no direct activities fromPB and PK PEOs to prevent damage to fisheries or mangroves,except a small fund supporting mangrove rehabilitation.

Some realistic solutions to the problems in PB and PK were notcarefully recognized; rather the conceptual problems perceived at ahigher level were identified. This could possibly explain the EPA’simplementation ineffectiveness. To remedy this impediment thenational government (under the NEQA 1992 Act), provided amechanism to properly manage EPAs by mandating local consul-tative boards CCM and CEAdcontaining relevant stakeholders withthe PEO as the main supporting body. The CCM must formallyapprove all environmental awareness or rehabilitation plans pre-pared by private agencies or others, only one CCM meeting wasever held in four years ((2004e2008). In contrast the CEA hadregular monthly meetings because the CEA’s mandate was to re-view and consider EIA or IEE reports within 45 days as regulated bythe NEQA 1992 (section 49), especially for development projects ofgovernment agencies or state enterprises that are not required tobe approved by cabinet. The process seems to have fallen downbecause no rehabilitation plans were made in the PB or PK EPAsafter they were gazetted in 2004. The CCM has no visible processfor it to work. Both committees were facing similar difficultiesdalimited budget and few personnel.

We question whether the PEOs have sufficient capacity tomanage an EPA effectively. We found the challenge was theextensive conflict between sectors. Considerable improvement inthe PEOs’ ability is required as they are important bodies that candeploy resources effectively in the pursuit of more sustainablenatural resource uses (Brown et al., 2012). However, the continuityof policies through changes in leadership was one common prob-lem in Thailand and all developing countries (White et al., 2005a).They showed the problem occurred in Indonesia and Philippineswhere local leaders were quite powerful and could have a majorimpact on local policies and the degree of enforcement. Althoughthis study did not find similar impacts as these, frequently replacingthe PEOs’ officers did occur. To overcome this constraint, localleaders who can serve as champions, aware of the importance ofthe environment and the need to balance economic development

S. Satumanatpan et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 89 (2014) 1e10 9

with ecosystem conservation are important allies for the initiation,development and implementation of EPAs (Kirkman and Kirkman,2002; Chua, 2006).

As national legislation provides mechanisms for EPAs to sustaincoastal resources through integration, essential factors include aconsultative body, enhanced PEO capability, continual dedicatedleadership, as mentioned previously, and long-term commitmentto foster success and sustainability. With long-term commitmentthrough national to provincial levels, consistent and transparentfinancial resources should be provided (Christie et al., 2005).Clearly, coordination between different sectors could not be easilyobtained, partly due to a limited budget and personnel.

The provinces of PB and PK contain many districts and withinthem many villages (Fig. 1). Developing EPAs in them is more thanintegrating small village communities and stakeholders. Examplesfrom the Philippines and Indonesia have usually been in singlecommunities (Pollnac and Pomeroy, 2005; Pomeroy et al., 2005).White et al. (2005b) maintained that, although successful ICMprograms in the Philippines are still localized where the geographicscope is small and the number of stakeholders limited, this ischanging as more multi-municipal or city and bay-wide ICM plansare being developed and implemented.

Conducting project monitoring, evaluation and adaptive man-agement as indicated by extensive studies (Christie et al., 2005;Gilman, 2002; Olsen, 2003) were among other strong strategiesto improve ICM projects designed to foster sustainability. Generally,monitoring and evaluation has concentrated on ecological systems,but, at the same time an increasing socio-economic impact has alsobeen realized. Self-evaluation manuals for sustainable ICM projectsin Thailand have been produced widely (Henocque et al., 2006;Satumanatpan and Henocque, 2010). Enhanced by communityparticipation, monitoring and science-based efforts have helpedtrack ICM performance and order of outcomes (Olsen, 2003).

The fundamental purpose of all ICM initiatives is to maintain,restore or improve specified qualities of coastal ecosystems andtheir associated human societies. The times required to achievethese fundamental goals at significant spatial scales far exceedthose of the usual 4e6-year ICM project in developing nations. Twomain weakness are: linking environmental concerns into a socio-economic framework and no or unclear evaluation and reportingactivities coming from a continued weak monitoring systememerging in most coastal management initiatives in Thailand overthe past 20 years.

5. Conclusion

Much can be learned from this attempt at integrating people’sneeds, sustainable resource use and environmental conservation.Many other developing countries could use the recommendationsdescribed here to overcome the pitfalls of ICM or EPA, as it is calledin Thailand. Although this study found the management effective-ness of EPAs was only partially met, our concern is how the resultscould be used to further adaptively improve the managementprocess for successful EPA management in the future.

The ICM approach is strongly recommended to facilitate effec-tive EPA management to obtain sustainability and environmentalconservation. A suite of tools employed in ICM, i.e. environmentalprotected areas, land-use control, zoning and permit systems andpartial stakeholder participation, were applied in the PB and PKEPAs but much improvement is required. More importantly, beforethe EPAs were initiated some parts of the ICM process should havebeen ensured, i.e. the PEO should have enough resources andfunding for its efficient consultative committees, viz., the CCM andthe CEA. There should have been some ability to enforce laws andregulations at all levels of government. All stakeholders should

have been involved and supportive of EPA activities and continuousfunding for administration and activities should have been secured.

Similar to other popular tourist places, PB and PK Provinces havea high potential for urban, industrial and tourism development,incorporating environmental issues into their socio-economicdevelopment plans is essential. Balancing between environmentand development is a most difficult activity that needs to beplanned sustainably. There is no generic model available to deter-mine how much economic development should be allowed beforebeing detrimental to natural ecosystems. The challenge is to findthe appropriate balance and translating it into policy, planning andmanagementmeasures. To copewith the concept of sustainable useplanning for PB and PK EPAs, an Environmental Carrying Capacity(ECC) approach is strongly recommended. Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment (SEA) for the whole area should also be explored.Actually, the ECC approach has been accomplished for some time,mainly in tourism planning, for some Thai marine national parks,while SEA was initiated recently, focusing on a few very largeprojects that may cause an adverse impact to watershed areas.

ICM was an obvious framework on which to base sound man-agement. Of particular considerationwere: close integrationwithinand between governances, long-term commitment of resources, anadequate legislative framework and the capacity to enforce the law.Participatory management must be linked through the ICM cycle toregular monitoring, evaluation and reporting. To resolve the lack offunding, the National Environmental Fund mechanism (under theresponsibility of ONEP) is being considered. Through this mecha-nism the PEO can request special funding from the NEF to supportappropriate EPA activities. To achieve this ideal managementstrategy it is necessary to have a strong leader whose sole aim is tosolve problems from inception to outcome. This “problem specificmanager” gains input from stakeholders and sells the plan to thebroader community always implementing conservation of coastalresources and their sustainable use (Kirkman and Kirkman, 2002).

Practical activities were developed through an understanding ofthe problems facing the coastal areas of PB and PK. Because moreeffort was not put into strategic research on these problems anddeveloping stakeholders’ understanding of the consequences of notacting against the problems, the results from this first evaluation ofEPAs are not as wished. Theway forward is tomove onto the secondgeneration of the GESAMP model (GESAMP, 1996) and, through aniterative process to produce effective results.

6. Recommendations from PB and PK EPA evaluation

There are many lessons that can be taken from this study of twoThai provinces by the participants and by other developing coun-tries in endeavors to conserve environmental biodiversity and stilluse coastal resources in a sustainable fashion. These recommen-dations may assist proponents of integrated coastal management.

� Link environmental concerns into a socio-economic frameworkwith clear evaluation and reporting activities.

� Introduce the ECC approach as a management tool to balancethe complexities of environmen and socio-economic.

� Integrate and coordinate within and between multi-governancescales with a long-term committed budget and personnel.

� Identify realistic solutions to the problems.� Prevent damage to natural resources.� Rehabilitate the environment.� Develop participatory management, with an open, inclusive andinteractive dialog between all stakeholders.

� The national government to mandate local consultative boardscontaining relevant stakeholders with consistent and long-term

S. Satumanatpan et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 89 (2014) 1e1010

membership and commitment to foster success and sustain-ability through consistent and transparent financial resources.

� Promote a strong leadership role for a “problem specificmanager”.

� Introduce a single, adequate legislative framework and regula-tory enforcement authority.

� Monitor and evaluate for management effectiveness based onthe concept of sustainable use planning.

� Develop transparency in data communication and metadata forall monitoring sites and occasions.

� Build environmental awareness combining with public educa-tion, enforcement and economic incentive.

Acknowledgments

This research formed part of the study to improve the PB and PKEPAs Government Gazette, supported by the ONEP. We thankMahidol University Research Grant) (2011e2012) for partial sup-port to complete the study. The opinions expressed herein are thoseof the authors and do not reflect the views of research grant in-stitutions. We gratefully acknowledge Dr. Alan White and Dr. Rat-tana Chuenpagdee for their helpful comments. Many thanks arealso due to Songyot Yoosuk, Aoranuch Silmaneepan, Pansa Chom-chit, Kittma Yodkam, Arnat Siriwan and Punika Polamporn forgathering the relevant documents and supporting the interviews.We are grateful to three anonymous reviewers who suggested waysto improve the manuscript and that we add more relevance to in-ternational audiences.

References

Brown, R.P., Jacobs, B., Leith, P., 2012. Participatory monitoring and evaluation to aidinvestment in natural resource manager capacity at a range of scales. Environ.Monit. Assess. 184, 7207e7220.

Cicin-Sain, B., Knecht, R.W., 1998. Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management:Concepts and Practices. Island Press, Washington D. C.

Christie, P., Lowry, K., White, A.T., Oracion, E.G., Sievenen, L., Pomeroy, R.S.,Pollnac, R.B., Patlis, J.M., Eisma, R.V., 2005. Key findings from a multidisciplinaryexamination of integrated coastal management process sustainability. OceanCoast. Manage. 48, 468e483.

Chua, T.E., 2006. The Dynamics of Integrated Coastal Management: Practical Ap-plications in the Sustainable Coastal Development in East Asia. Global Envi-ronmental Facility/United Nations Development Programme/InternationalMaritime Organization Regional Programme on Building Partnerships in Envi-ronmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA). PEMSEA, QuezonCity, Philippines.

Chuenpagdee, R., Jentoft, S., 2007. Step zero for fisheries co-management: whatprecedes implementation. Mar. Pol. 31, 657e668.

DMCR, 2008. Strategy for Protection and Resolve Coastal Erosion. Ministry of Nat-ural Resources and Environment, Bangkok (In Thai).

Eisma, R.V., Christie, P., Hershman, M., 2005. Legal issues affecting sustainability ofintegrated coastal management in the Philippines. Ocean Coast. Manage. 45,336e359.

GESAMP, 1996. The Contributions of Science to Coastal Zone Management. Rep.Stud. GESAMP, IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Groupof Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection.GESAMP reports and studies no.61.

Gilman, E., 2002. Guidelines for coastal and marine site-planning and examples ofplanning and management intervention tools. Ocean Coast. Manage. 45, 377e404.

Henocque, Y., Denis, J., 2001. A Methodological Guide: Steps and Tools towardsIntegrated Coastal Area Management. IOC Manuals and Guides No42. UNESCO,Paris, France.

Henocque, Y., Satumanatpan, S., Juntarashote, K., Tandavanitj, S., 2006. A Manual forAssessing Progress in Coastal Management: Towards a Common Understandingof the Role of Co-management. CHARM Project, Bangkok, Thailand.

Kirkman, H., Kirkman, J.A., 2002. The management of seagrasses in Southeast Asia.Bull. Mar. Sci. 71, 1379e1390.

Mwandya, W.A., Gullstrom, M., Ohman, C.M., Anderson, H.M., Mgaya, D.Y., 2009.Fish assemblages in Tanzania mangrove creek systems influence by solar saltfarms construction. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 82, 193e200.

Olsen, S.B., 2003. Frameworks and indicators for assessing progress in integratedcoastal management initiatives. Ocean Coast. Manage. 46, 347e361.

Olsen, S.B., Christie, P., 2000. What are we learning from tropical coastal manage-ment experiences? Coast. Manage. 28, 5e18.

Pollnac, R.B., Pomeroy, R.S., 2005. Factors influencing the sustainability of integratedcoastal management projects in the Philippines and Indonesia. Ocean Coast.Manage. 48, 233e251.

Pomeroy, R.S., Oracion, E.G., Pollnac, R.B., Caballes, D.A., 2005. Perceived economicfactors influencing the sustainability of integrated coastal management projectsin the Philippines. Ocean Coast. Manage. 48, 360e377.

Satumanatpan, S., 2012. Coastal Management: Integration to Sustainability. MahidolUniveristy Press, Nakorn Pathom (In Thai).

Satumanatpan, S., Henocque, Y., 2010. Tracking progress in coastal management-across the integrated coastal management cycle and indicators. Environ. Asia3 (1), 39e46.

Sekhar, U.N., 2005. Integrated coastal zone management in Vietnam: present po-tentials and future challenges. Ocean Coast. Manage. 48, 813e827.

Staub, F., Hatziolos, M.E., 2004. Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Man-agement Effectiveness Goals for Marine Protected Areas. World Bank.

Stolton, S., Hockings, M., Dudley, N., MacKinnon, K., Whitten, T., Leverington, F.,2007. Reporting Progress in Protected Areas ASite Level Management Effec-tiveness Tracking Tool, second ed. World Bank/WWF Forest Alliance publishedby WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

Vallejo, S., 1993. The integration of coastal zone management into national devel-opment planning. Ocean Coast. Manage. 21, 163e182.

White, A.T., Deguit, E., Jatulan, W., Eisma-Osorio, R.-L., 2006. Integrated coastalmanagement in Philippine local governance: evolution and benefits. Coast.Manage. 34, 287e302.

White, A.T., Christie, P., Agnes, H.D., Lowry, K., Milne, N., 2005a. Designing ICMprojects for sustainability: lessons from the Philippines and Indonesia. OceanCoast. Manage. 48, 271e296.

White, A.T., Eisma-Osorio, R.-L., Green, S.J., 2005b. Integrated coastal managementand marine protected areas: complementarity in the Philippines. Ocean Coast.Manage. 48, 948e971.

World Bank, 2003. Thailand Environment Monitor 2003. Assessment of the Statusof Solid and Hazardous Waste Management. World Bank Office, Bangkok.

World Bank, 2001. Thailand Environment Monitor 2001. Assessment of the Status ofWater Quality Management in the Country. World Bank Office, Bangkok.