Scholarlink

<p>Achieving the 30 × 30 target requires marine protected areas (MPAs) to expand in extent, in protection level (10% under strict protection), to be effectively managed and socially viable. Here, we assess how participatory spatial mapping approaches (i.e., Seasketch) can inform zoning processes in a multi-use MPA characterised by high conflict and low governance accountability. When combined with conflict network analysis and stakeholder-driven conservation preferences for strict protection, our results reveal strong spatial overlap between ecological vulnerability and human use and asymmetric conflict structures concentrated in nearshore areas. Stakeholder preferences did not follow a simple pro- versus anti-protection divide but reflected differentiated trade-offs linked to sectoral dependence, access needs, and perceptions of fairness. By integrating these dimensions, the approach captures diverse views on protection and supports more inclusive and context-specific planning. Our findings suggest that effective conservation depends less on expanding boundaries than on structuring how spatial trade-offs are revealed, negotiated, and aligned with governance realities.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Participatory mapping of maritime uses as a pathway to inclusive Marine Protected Area governance

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月26日

查看全文
  • A. Blanco,
  • C. van Rijs,
  • S. Rayo-Luengo,
  • H. Ayarza,
  • E. Ojea

摘要

Achieving the 30 × 30 target requires marine protected areas (MPAs) to expand in extent, in protection level (10% under strict protection), to be effectively managed and socially viable. Here, we assess how participatory spatial mapping approaches (i.e., Seasketch) can inform zoning processes in a multi-use MPA characterised by high conflict and low governance accountability. When combined with conflict network analysis and stakeholder-driven conservation preferences for strict protection, our results reveal strong spatial overlap between ecological vulnerability and human use and asymmetric conflict structures concentrated in nearshore areas. Stakeholder preferences did not follow a simple pro- versus anti-protection divide but reflected differentiated trade-offs linked to sectoral dependence, access needs, and perceptions of fairness. By integrating these dimensions, the approach captures diverse views on protection and supports more inclusive and context-specific planning. Our findings suggest that effective conservation depends less on expanding boundaries than on structuring how spatial trade-offs are revealed, negotiated, and aligned with governance realities.