Communicating marine reserve science todiverse audiencesKirsten Grorud-Colverta,1, Sarah E. Lesterb, Satie Airaméb, Elizabeth Neeleyc, and Steven D. GainesbaDepartment of Zoology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331; bMarine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA93106-6150; and cThe Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea, School of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences, University ofWashington, Seattle, WA 98195

Edited by Simon A. Levin, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, and approved March 2, 2010 (received for review December 11, 2009)

As human impacts cause ecosystem-wide changes in the oceans, the need to protect and restoremarine resources has led to increasing callsfor and establishment of marine reserves. Scientific information aboutmarine reserves has multiplied over the last decade, providing usefulknowledge about this tool for resource users, managers, policy makers, and the general public. This information must be conveyed tononscientists in a nontechnical, credible, and neutral format, but most scientists are not trained to communicate in this style or to developeffective strategies for sharing their scientific knowledge. Here, we present a case study from California, in which communicating scientificinformation during the process to establishmarine reserves in the Channel Islands and along the Californiamainland coast expanded into aninternational communication effort. We discuss how to develop a strategy for communicating marine reserve science to diverse audiencesand highlight the influence that effective science communication can have in discussions about marine management.

marine protected areas | science education | public outreach | communication strategy | California

As scientists, we develop hypoth-eses, collect data, analyze results,and become the keepers of a vastamount of information, much

of it relevant to those beyond our scientificcommunity. Scientists often receive con-siderable levels of public trust and respect(1), and scientific data are consideredvaluable, for example, when seeking thebest way to protect our natural resources.Often we assume that our published sci-entific research is reaching those who aremaking decisions or are involved withmanagement discussions. In reality, manystakeholders and policy makers still do notknow about the breadth of scientific in-formation that could inform their man-agement efforts, and they may assumethese data do not yet exist. Thus, it is im-perative to share relevant research withdecision makers. When scientists effec-tively present the results of impartialstudies and identify what is known andwhat is unknown, they can encouragecollaborative, data-based discussionsabout different management options andhow to implement them, given the trade-offs among stakeholders’ interests. Thisprocess also can benefit scientists as theydemonstrate to funders the outreach andeducation potential for their data; manyfoundations and agencies are interested infunding research that has a political orsocial connection. Communication effortsalso can help to inspire new ideas forresearch that informs management ques-tions and may generate connections withother scientists outside a narrow rangeof expertise.Science communication is particularly

important for marine resource manage-ment. Managers, policy makers, andincreasing segments of the general publicare learning that the old paradigm of an

ocean with limitless bounty is far fromtrue. Recent research has shown that nomarine ecosystem remains untouched byhuman influence (2), and many regionshave been burdened by historical overf-ishing (3) and other stressors, calling intoquestion our present understanding ofwhat constitutes a “healthy” marine sys-tem (4). Science can provide importantinsight into solutions to ocean degrada-tion. For example, extensive study hasdemonstrated that fully protected no-takemarine reserves can be important tools forprotecting ecosystems from extractive ac-tivities and restoring marine habitats andspecies. Ecologic field studies of marinereserves have demonstrated positive ef-fects on biologic measures (e.g., biomassand density) inside their borders (5–7)and in the adjacent fished waters (8, 9).Consequently, governments and localcommunities are increasingly consideringmarine reserves or networks of reserves asa means of reducing threats tomarine ecosystems.By definition, reserves restrict human

activities, creating a tradeoff betweenconservation and use. There are manystakeholders to consider in these man-agement decisions, including resourceusers, local and national interest groups,coastal communities, managers, andpolitical officials. These diverse groupshave a wide range of needs, values, andopinions about marine reserves as a man-agement tool and can often enter intoconflict because of their different per-spectives (10). Particularly for those whoselivelihoods are tied to marine resources,such as the fishermen who will be excludedfrom a no-take area, the term “marinereserve” can evoke a suite of negativeconnotations (11), and disagreementsabout the best approach to management

can lead to a combative, politicized at-mosphere. However, scientists remain arespected source of information in manydialogues about marine reserves (12–14),and thus, clear communication by scien-tists about the effects of marine reserves iscrucial for science-based management de-cisions as well as public understanding andcompliance with regulations.In this article we present steps for

developing an effective science communi-cation strategy, focusing on marine re-serves. We then illustrate these stepsusing examples from a marine reserveplanning process in California that ex-panded over time to reach global audi-ences. We end with a suite of lessonslearned during the process of communi-cating marine reserve science to non-scientific audiences.

Developing a Strategy for Communi-cating Marine Reserve ScienceAs scientists, we focus on accuracy, pre-cision, and critical dialogue. This complexand technical approach to discussing data ispoorly suited for sharing findings withnonscientists (15), yet science emphasizesunbiased results, which are critical to thepublic and political discourse about ma-rine resource management. Scientificguidelines serve as the starting point for anincreasing number of reserve planningdiscussions (16). As a result, there is a highdemand for scientists who are willingand able to act as “honest brokers” of

Author contributions: K.G.-C., S.E.L., S.A., E.N., and S.D.G.wrote the paper.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.1To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:grorudck@science.oregonstate.edu.

18306–18311 | PNAS | October 26, 2010 | vol. 107 | no. 43 www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0914292107

Dow

nloa

ded

by g

uest

on

July

30,

202

0

information and communicate science in aclear, accessible, and neutral manner.It can be intimidating for scientists to

enter the debate about marine reserves,especially when doing so exposes them tocriticism and, potentially, personal attacksfrom all sides of the debate. A step-by-stepcommunication strategy can help a scientistprepare for common questions or argu-ments, clarify what information is mostimportant and what may only be marginallyuseful, identify the appropriate tools fordelivering that information, and refinehis or her messages. We suggest that thedevelopment of a communication strategycan be guided by four key steps.

Step 1: Know the Audience. The outdated“deficit”model of science communication,which characterizes top-down transmission ofscientific data as the antidote to “publicignorance,” runs the risk of alienatingkey audiences who are knowledgeable aboutthe issue (1). Effective communication is aprocess, not simply a one-way delivery ofpublished data (15). Identifying and under-standing your audience is a criticalfirst step inthis process (16–18).Begin by identifying who is asking for

information and whom else you would liketo reach. Key participants for successfulmarine reserve planning include localcommunities, resource users, interestgroups, managers, agency representatives,and public officials (19, 20).Members of thepublic who are not directly involved alsomay become interested as they hear moreabout marine reserves via local mediaoutlets and word of mouth. From a broadperspective, communication of marine re-serve science does not need to be limited tothose involved or interested in a specificplanning process; for example, students ofvarying ages may be a target audience bestreached via classroom curricula.Next, it is important to obtain a general

understandingofeachgroup’sneeds, values,levels of technical expertise, and educa-tional background (21). This does not nec-essarily require quantitative polling anddemographic data but should involve athoughtful consideration of each group’svalues and needs, which you might gleanfrom public statements, online forums, andpersonal interactions. Agency staff mem-bers working on a policy process are a usefulresource if youneed to distill a large amountof public input. Ideally, each product orpresentation should be tailored to a specificaudience; however, in time- and resource-limited situations, you may need to targetmultiple groups with a single product orendeavor. In such cases, understanding yourmultiple audiences is critical (22). For ex-ample, although it may be impossible todevelopa single resource for users as diverseas school children and agency scientists, ajargon-free pamphlet summarizing key re-

sults might be effective for bringing in-formation to politicians, members ofinterest groups, and agency officials.

Step 2: Identify the Main Messages. Thewealth of available scientific informationabout marine reserves can be over-whelming, especially for nonspecialistaudiences. Thus, the next step is to identifya communication goal and the clear mes-sages needed to accomplish this goal.During this stage in the communicationprocess, developing a strategy in partner-ship with communication professionals andpolicy experts can be especially critical forensuring that your communication iseffective.Researchers have identified five broad

responses to science communication:awareness; enjoyment or other affectiveresponses; interest and voluntary involve-ment; the forming, reforming, or con-firming of science-related opinions (orattitudes); and understanding of sciencecontent and processes (18). Identifyingwhich of these you wish to achieve willbetter enable you to narrow the scope ofinformation that you would like to com-municate. For example, when communi-cating science in the context of a marinereserve planning process, the target re-sponses tend to be increased awarenessand understanding about the effects ofreserves; these enable stakeholders tomake informed decisions about whetherand how to implement marine reserves.Next you must articulate the essential

ideas, results, or “take home messages” forachieving your communication goal(s).The list of main messages should be shortbecause additional material—even relatedexamples intended to illustrate an over-arching theme—can detract from people’sability to retain a core concept (23).Communications experts use various toolsto identify a story’s main messages, butwhen the goal is to increase your audi-ence’s knowledge about reserves, oneuseful approach involves four importantmessages (24). First, the overarchingmessage should identify the problem orcontext for the information, demonstrat-ing why these data are necessary. For thecase of marine reserves, a broad problemstatement might be “overfishing and hab-itat destruction are degrading coastalecosystems.” Second, the audience needsto understand why this matters to them; inthis scenario, changes to ocean ecosystemsaffect their capacity to provide benefitssuch as food, good water quality, andrecreational opportunities, among others.However, if you expect a change in be-havior based on the scientific informationprovided, audiences need a call to action,rather than strictly a message of “doomand gloom,” and thus the next step is toprovide a potential solution based on the

data. For example, establishing marinereserves can protect both animals andhabitats in a given area, preserving a moreintact ecosystem. Finally, the audienceneeds to know what benefits will arisefrom these actions. For instance, when amarine reserve is established, local com-munities can benefit economically fromincreases in animals and plants inside andoutside reserve borders. Each of the fourmessages should consist of one or twosimple (but not simplistic) sentences,which may be supported by statistics,graphics, anecdotes, and so forth.After the core ideas are in place, the

language and presentation should bereworked to translate scientific conceptsand terminology into lay-person’s terms.Technical and complex graphic depictionsof data should be revised to supportcommon pattern recognition and mentalassociations, such as relating the color redto negative responses or activities. Graphsbased on logical inferences, such as thosethat require your audience to extracttrends or compare relative differences,should be avoided (25). Although trans-lating scientific information into engaging,jargon-free text and straightforwardfigures can be challenging, scientific argu-ments are not inherently inaccessible andcan be effectively communicated withthoughtful and creative strategies (26).Finally, communicating uncertainty in

scientific understanding can be challengingto do in a way that does not underminethe power of the main messages. Forexample, it is necessary to include con-fidence intervals in peer-reviewed pub-lications so that other scientists canreview the precision of certain resultsand evaluate the statistical significance.However, confidence intervals may notbe meaningful to a nonscientist and mayseem to render the results imprecise andtherefore meaningless. Concepts such asconfidence intervals arebest communicatedto a general audience by speaking aboutaverages or medians and specifically iden-tifying themas thegeneral responsewithin arange of results. Furthermore, conceptsof uncertainty are quite applicable to dailylife—we consult the weather report eventhough there is still a high level of un-certainty about whether it will actually rain.It is important for scientists to be clearabout what is known, what is unknown, andwhat is under debate. This requires aworking knowledge of the most currentdata about reserves, and scientists shouldbe prepared to answer questions usingexamples from their own marine reserveresearch as well as the recent and re-levant work of others.

Step 3: Choose the Communication Tactics.Every scientist has his or her own commu-nication strengths; some may be better at

Grorud-Colvert et al. PNAS | October 26, 2010 | vol. 107 | no. 43 | 18307

SPECIA

LFEATURE:PERSPECTIV

ED

ownl

oade

d by

gue

st o

n Ju

ly 3

0, 2

020

giving engaging presentations to largeaudiences, whereas others may excel atgenerating clear and concise writtendescriptions of scientific information. Fur-thermore, some audiences may learn morefrom an engaging presentation and dis-cussion format, whereas others may benefitinstead from a resource, such as a booklet,that they can hold in their hands andreviewat their ownpace. Someusersmay beinterested in the details of scientific meth-ods and results, whereas others will bebest reached through vivid pictures andgraphics. It is important to select the com-munication tactics and tools best suited toyour skill set, audience, and messages.In-person interactions such as inter-

views, one-on-one meetings, or publicpresentations allow the audience to askquestions in real time and can connect arecognizable and relatable face to a sci-entist’s name. Although such interactionscan be spontaneous, they do require ad-vance planning. Successful interviews andpresentations usually require substantialpractice for the speaker to be clear andremain on message. Spoken communica-tion methods tend to be more limited inthe amount of information that can rea-sonably be shared, particularly if it is notpossible to use visual aids.Printed materials vary widely, from one-

page handouts to books with many chap-ters. The length, format, and style of theseresources should be driven by the targetaudience (funding for time and resourcesnot withstanding). Your particular audi-ence, for example, may be best reached by asingle-sheet flyer that communicates sci-entific information in a few words witheasy-to-understand graphic depictions ofchanges inside reserves. There are noabsolute rules about how to best designan effective handout or other printedresource, but existing research does pro-vide some insight into effective font sizeand selection, image use, and layout ofprint materials (27–29). Written resourceswill not be effective for nonliterate audi-ences, although posters and pictorial rep-resentations can be tailored accordingly.Regardless, relying on printed materialsfor outreach requires a plan for activelysharing the communication tool(s), andresources for postage and distribution,which may prove prohibitive over time.Print materials also can quickly becomeout-of-date; therefore, clear statementsabout both when the data were collectedand when the synthesis was conducted arecritical for ensuring appropriate under-standing of the applicability of the data.Increasingly, our communication meth-

ods are transitioning to the exchange ofideasonline.Webcontent,which is dynamicin nature, allows for continual updating ofscientific information, linking of interre-lated concepts, and an interactive learning

experience. The most effective Webpages are developed to provide a variety ofquality content, maximize ease of navi-gation and interactivity, and minimizedownload delay (30, 31). Websites allowusers to follow many different pathsthrough the same content, supporting theirown preferences and pace for acquiringnew information. Web-based tools such associal networking sites, blogs, online videohosting, and Google Earth also provideinventive new ways for interested audi-ences to connect to marine reserve scienceand to each other. Web-based resourcescan be particularly cost-effective forreaching a global audience. Furthermore,they offer a higher likelihood that non-target audiences, users that were not fore-seen at the time of material development,will access the information. Most onlineresources, however, require significanttime investments to maintain and update,and the dynamic nature of Web tools andrapid swings in usage trends can make itdifficult to determine how long they willremain relevant. Further, user-generatedWeb tools such as opinion-based blogs canbe inaccurate, and thus it is important toclearly identify the primary data source forscience-based Web tools, differentiatingthem from advocacy or editorial musings.Finally, mass media tools and enter-

tainment products (such as commercials,movies or short films, and advertisingcampaigns) are compelling ways to sharemarine reserve science and environmentalresearch as a whole. Scientists, who havegenerally been slow to use these types ofcommunication tools, could benefitgreatly from the communication expertisefound in the movie industry, advertisingfirms, and graphic design groups. For sci-entists whose goal is to reach a wideaudience, these “big business” resourcescan have an unmatched impact on com-municating marine reserve science andother environmental issues. However,creative solutions are needed to financethe cost of such endeavors and/or buildindustry support for blockbuster marinereserve communications.

Step 4: Measuring Success as CommunicationContinues. Arguably the most challengingstep in a communication strategy is meas-uring the success of outreach efforts, pri-marily because there is no single definitionof success. If printed materials are part ofthe strategy, simple numbers of requests forthe documents and the sources of theserequests can give an idea of demand andreachbasedongeographyand sector.Usagestatistics and visitor metadata from Websites track how many people view theinformation, but these do not describeimpact. One means for assessing influenceon opinions or behavior is to conduct sur-veys before and after the communication

has takenplace, an increasingly feasible taskgiven the advent of online survey tools.The real impact of communicating

marine reserve science typically can only bemeasured qualitatively, by tracking eventsresulting from the communication. Thesemay include the integration of key scientificmessages about marine reserves intopublic documents, legal or otherwise; newcollaborations developed among re-searchers or between researchers andnonscientist local experts; or the estab-lishment of a network of marine reserves.Regardless of the specific impacts,

communication about marine reserve sci-ence with nonscientists is almost alwaysa win-win situation: nonscientists learnmore about what marine reserves can andcannot do, and scientists learn from theexperiential knowledge of resource usersand managers. This dialogue is not only ameasure of success but also a key piecein the continuing cycle of communication.The exchanges among scientists and theirtargeted audiences often identify themost critical and applicable data for amarine reserve planning process. Inevi-tably, more research questions will arise,new audiences will be drawn into theconversation, and additional tools willbecome useful. A communication strategyshould be cyclical, not linear (15), ensuringthat we, as scientists, are not speaking atan audience but instead involving themin an ongoing process to understand theeffects of marine reserves and collect themost informative scientific data.

Case Study: Marine Reserve Science forCalifornia and BeyondOne of the most comprehensive coast-widemarine protected area (MPA) planningprocesses is currentlyunderway inCalifornia,as part of an initiative to protect marineresources using reserves and other protectedareas (32). In 1999, the Channel IslandsNational Marine Sanctuary and CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game initiated apublic process to design a network of MPAsin the Channel Islands, engaging a diversegroup of representative stakeholders underthe guidance of the Sanctuary AdvisoryCouncil (33). Additionally, a Science Advi-sory Panel and Socioeconomic Team wereformed to gather relevant information, pro-vide ecologic guidelines forMPAdesign, andevaluate proposed MPA networks. Theseadvisory groups shared scientific knowledgewith nonscientists through public pre-sentations to the stakeholder group and inpublic forums (34).Concurrently, a scientific working group

at the National Center for EcologicalAnalysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) met toanswer a set of basic questions, includingscientific guidance about where to locatemarine reserves, how many to establish,how to distribute them spatially, what size

18308 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0914292107 Grorud-Colvert et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by g

uest

on

July

30,

202

0

reserves should be, and how to evaluateecologic responses to reserve protection.The development of these key conceptswas guided by the ongoing managementconversations in the Channel Islands publicprocess, and in turn the products of theworking group formed the basis for publicpresentations and informed the develop-ment of the scientific guidelines for theChannel Islands MPAs. The scientificworking group’s results also were pub-lished in a special journal feature (35),which included information rangingfrom size and spacing guidelines based onlarval dispersal distance (36) to a globalmetaanalysis of the ecologic effects ofmarine reserves (37).As more and more communities

requested scientific information aboutmarine reserves, it became clear that asynthesis publication developed for non-scientists was necessary to communicatethe science of marine reserves when sci-entists were not available for in-personinteractions. Thus, an educationalbooklet and film, titled “The Science ofMarine Reserves,” were developed withthe input of marine ecologists and sciencecommunication specialists (38). Thebooklet summarized the breadth of marinereserve data available in peer-reviewedpublications, including those papers re-viewed by the NCEAS working group aswell as the publications it generated. Akey graphic in the booklet showed thefrequent increases in density, diversity,and size of fishes, invertebrates, andplants inside marine reserves around theworld (37).The “Science of Marine Reserves” syn-

thesis presented publicly by scientists orthrough the educational booklet continuedto inform discussions about MPAs inCalifornia, which gained momentum afterthe Marine Life Protection Act was passedin 1999 (Assembly Bill 993). This beganan initiative to establish a statewide net-work of MPAs, region by region along thecoast, again informed by guidelines de-veloped by scientists serving as advisorymembers of a Master Plan Science Advi-sory Team (13, 32). As a result of theincreased attention on MPAs, academics,scientists, managers, policy makers, non-governmental organizations, politicians,and interested lay people from the UnitedStates continued to request the “Scienceof Marine Reserves” booklet and film.These were accompanied by growingnumbers of requests from internationallocations such as Australia, New Zealand,the Pacific Islands, Mexico, Central andSouth America, Africa, Europe, and In-donesia. After the initial 15,000 bookletcopies were distributed to these andother locations, an additional printing of3,750 copies was required to continuemeeting the demand for information.

As the number of scientific publicationsabout marine reserves continued to grow,more than doubling between 2001 (whenthe first metaanalysis was conducted)and 2006 (5, 37), users asked for a newresource that synthesized current dataand presented the effects of reserves usingregional examples and case studies. As aresult, three new editions of the educa-tional booklet were developed, one gearedtoward US audiences (in both Englishand Spanish), one for general interna-tional audiences, and one for LatinAmerican and Caribbean audiences (inboth English and Spanish) (39). An up-dated metaanalysis synthesized the ex-plosion of new research, illustrating thegreat majority of positive responses indensity, biomass, size, and diversity insidemarine reserves across latitudes and spe-cies groups (5). These trends were illus-trated with case studies, such as one fromthe Anacapa Island marine reserve inCalifornia, where lobsters inside the re-serve were released from fishing pressureand thus increased in density, leading tolower densities of their urchin prey andlarger percentage areas of ungrazed kelpforests (Fig. 1).The second editions of the booklet built

on the experience gained during the pro-duction of the original version by usingfeedback from mailed and online surveysand discussing the presentation of newconcepts with policy makers and commu-nication specialists. This input helped toidentifywhich concepts hadnot been clearlyarticulated, what additional concepts thereaders wanted to learn about, whichgraphic formats were too technical, andwhich graphics andmessageswere clear anduseful to the original readers. The bookletupdate process also created an even larger

group of coauthors and reviewers to ensurethat the science represented was trulyinternational and applicable to globalaudiences. Seven convening lead authorsand 18 contributing authors from 12countries reviewed the up-to-date scientificliterature, developed new graphics, andselectedmarine reserve case studies.A totalof 101 scientist and stakeholder reviewersfrom 22 countries and two US territoriesprovidedcommentson thedraft booklet.Todate, more than 10,000 of the updatedbooklets have been distributed to 57countries and three US territories.The compiled scientific information

about marine reserves continues to be rel-evant on the global scale, yet distributingbooklets inproportion to thewide interest iscostly and difficult. In response, a follow-up initiative to make the booklet informa-tion available online has been launched.Case studies are now hosted online atProtect PlanetOcean, aWeb site that offersusers the opportunity to browse generalinformation about marine reserves andother types of MPAs, explore a globaldatabase of MPAs and upload their owncontent, track progress on governments’commitments to establishMPAs, andmakeuse of a range of related learning oppor-tunities. Since the launch of the site inOctober 2008, 600,000 visitors from 220countries visited Protect Planet Ocean in126 languages during the first 12 months.Additionally, an MPA layer in Google

Earth’s new Ocean feature complementsthe Protect Planet Ocean Web site bydisplaying the locations of MPAs aroundthe globe along with videos, stories, andfacts about these sites. Data from peer-reviewed publications synthesized in“The Science of Marine Reserves” bookletare represented as engaging animations

Fig. 1. Depiction of numeric data from a marine reserve study by Behrens and Lafferty (45) in a non-numeric format for general audiences. In theAnacapa Islandmarine reserve in California, abundant lobsterskeep their urchin prey in check, allowing kelp forests to flourish. Reprinted with permission from The Sci-ence of Marine Reserves, published by the Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans.

Grorud-Colvert et al. PNAS | October 26, 2010 | vol. 107 | no. 43 | 18309

Dow

nloa

ded

by g

uest

on

July

30,

202

0

at a subset of these sites. Instead of pre-senting numeric graphs, ecologic changesare depicted by organism icons thatrepresent relative changes in biomass,density, and size for species documentedwithin the reserve (Fig. 2). By clicking abutton, the user can see how the estab-lishment of a marine reserve led to dif-ferences in the marine community inside;fishes grow and increase in number. Sci-ence communication specialists helpedto ensure that these animations are in-tuitive for general audiences, and a teamof scientists carefully developed the iconsand scaled their growth and numeric re-sponses to reflect the published data fromvisual surveys. An online tour of thesemarine reserves with animated data allowsusers to “fly around the world” in GoogleEarth and view the effects of differentmarine reserves.

Lessons Learned from Communicationin PracticeThe process of communicating marinereserve science first to California audiencesand then on the larger global stage pro-vided some key lessons. First, we dis-covered that a critical part of this processwas the external review of the booklets.The booklet authors, as well as outsidescientists with backgrounds in a diversity offields, verified the accuracy of informationtranslated from technical to more acces-sible language. Conversely, nonscientiststakeholders and laypersons verifiedwhether the concepts were stated clearly.The resulting text is precise, simple, credi-ble, and useful. An unexpected but usefuloutcome of the review process was theidentification of research questionsthat were not answered in the booklets,either through oversight, space limitation,or lack of data. The absence of research onvital questions served to underscore thenecessity ofongoing researchor thecreationof new science plans for addressing thesequestions. Since the process began, confer-ence symposia, synthetic papers (40), andjournal special issues on marine reserves(including this journal issues) have ad-vanced marine reserve science by address-ing some of the remaining questionsidentified during this communication effort.We did not have the resources through

this process to provide each of our audi-ences with a unique product. To bridgeeverything from the streamlined mainmessages to the technical primary liter-ature, we used a four-tier approach in thebooklet. Each level elaborated on theprevious one, offering more technicaldetail. First, we presented informationthrough engaging pictures and graphics—pictorial representations of data thatcommunicate a concept with minimal orno words. For users who wanted to learnmore, the main messages of the scientific

study or concept were summarized in afew key bullet points. This short formathelped to articulate the main messagesclearly and concisely. For users who wereinterested in the details of a scientificstudy, expanded text told a story about theeffects of marine reserves. The text pro-vided more information but avoided jar-gon and technical descriptions, drawing onregional case studies to provide concreteexamples that readers could place incontext. Finally, the original researchsources were cited, allowing the user toconsult the scientific literature if they wereinterested in further detail. This last pieceis a critical step, because it also commu-nicated that the information was science-based and not the result of subjectiveadvocacy by a special interest group. Intotal, this tiered approach allowed us tooffer exactly as much, or as little, in-formation requested by readers with arange of interests.It has been challenging to provide rele-

vant information to all stakeholder groupsthrough the printed booklets and Web-based communication. For example, in areview response to the first draft of the

booklet update, a fisherman requestedmore information about density-dependentpopulation control and stock-recruitmentrelationships and did not find the bookletuseful to him without this content.Stakeholders are a highly varied audienceaccording to theirpersonal experienceswithreserves. In some regions, reserves donot yet exist, and thus there is concern thattheir effect on local fisheries and otherresources cannot be accurately inferred. Inother cases, reserves have had strong, pos-itive effects inside their borders and aug-mented localfisheries over time through thespillover of adults (41, 42), sometimeschanging previously negative opinions oflocal stakeholders. The responses of hu-man communities to reserves can changeover time; for example, in some modeledscenarios, fishermen are more willing topay, in both costs andmissed opportunities,for the establishment of a reserve if it willbenefit them in the long run (43). Un-fortunately, it has proved difficult to getfeedback about our communication tacticsfrom some stakeholders, particularly fish-ermen of diverse backgrounds. Althoughsome groups, such as the Communidad y

Fig. 2. Depiction of numeric survey data from Apo Island, Philippines (46) in animation form used withGoogle Earth to illustrate the density and size of organisms (A) inside and (B) outside the Apo Islandmarine reserve.

18310 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0914292107 Grorud-Colvert et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by g

uest

on

July

30,

202

0

Bioversidad project in Baja California andthe International Collective in Support ofFishworkers based in India, have used thebooklet to reach out to fishermen, thesetools are not adequate for reaching thediversity of fishermen in developed anddeveloping countries. More appropriatemethods should be developed to commu-nicate with this and other key groups ofmarine reserve stakeholders.Finally, we were able to build our com-

munication strategy to be expandable,flexible, and adaptable. Specifically, webroadened our reach by adding products(public presentations, educational book-lets, online case studies, interactive ani-mations aspart of a featured layer inGoogleEarth) over time with the intent to expandthe geographic and cross-sector reach ofthe scientific information. The flexibility ofthese multiple formats increased the like-lihood that people with diverse learningpreferences would be connected to ourcompiled information through one of ourcommunication tools. It is also worthwhileto note that little additional informationwas needed to develop new tools after thefirst educational booklet was created.Although the booklet update in 2007 that

produced three new editions did increasethe number of concepts and topics thatwere included, the design format changedlittle, and the page layout of the case studieswas easily adaptable to the online casestudy pages. The creation of these multipletools also provided numerous metrics forsuccess, including mailing requests,Web site usage statistics, collaborationsamong scientists who served as authors orreviewers, and the use of scientific guide-lines generated in the literature as partof formal marine reserve planning pro-cesses (13, 34, 44)Scientists, graphic designers, communi-

cation professionals, and policy experts allcollaborated on this project to communi-cate marine reserves in scientifically accu-rate yet engaging and easily accessibleformats. The process of developing theseresources was unique, not only becauseof thesepartnerships, but also in the fundingprovided to undertake such an effort. Weassert that this model of collaborativecommunication should become moreprevalent. Funding to support the com-munication of scientific results should be aninherent component of research grants,especially because some tools, such as

online resources, can be relatively eco-nomical to produce. Regardless, scientistsshould make the most of the growingbody of available resources. Communica-tion training programs and seminars, con-sulting services, and graphic design firmsgeared toward working with scientists allcan contribute useful advice, techniques,and coaching for communicating scientificinformation to those who need itmost—theindividuals who are asking questions andmaking decisions about marine reservesand other natural resource managementand conservation issues.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We thank Brooke SimlerSmith, Matt Wright, Will McClintock, and twoanonymous reviewers for their comments on ear-lier versions of the manuscript. Graphics werecreated by Monica Pessino, Chad Burt, and Kar-oleen Decastro. This work was supported by thePartnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of CoastalOceans funded primarily by the David and LucilePackard Foundation and the Gordon and BettyMoore Foundation (K.G.C., S.A., S.D.G.), the Com-munication Partnership for Science and the Seawith a grant from the David and Lucile PackardFoundation (K.G.C., E.N.), and the Paul G. AllenFamily Foundation (S.E.L., S.D.G). This is Partner-ship for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceanscontribution number 356.

1. Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA (2009) What’s next for sciencecommunication? Promising directions and lingeringdistractions. Am J Bot 96:1767–1778.

2. Halpern BS, et al. (2008) A global map of humanimpact on marine ecosystems. Science 319:948–952.

3. Roberts CM (2007) The Unnatural History of the Sea(Island Press, Washington, DC), p 465.

4. Pandolfi JM, et al. (2005) Are US coral reefs on theslippery slope to slime? Science 307:1725–1726.

5. Lester SE, et al. (2009) Biological effects within no-takemarine reserves: A global synthesis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser384:33–46.

6. Molloy PP, McLean IB, Cote IM (2009) Effects of marinereserve age on fish populations: A global meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol 46:743–751.

7. Claudet J, et al. (2008) Marine reserves: Size and age domatter. Ecol Lett 11:481–489.

8. Goni R, et al. (2008) Spillover from six westernMediterranean marine protected areas: Evidence fromartisanal fisheries. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 366:159–174.

9. Halpern BS, Lester SE, Kellner JB (2010) Spillover frommarine reserves and the replenishment of fishedstocks. Environ Conserv, 10.1017/S0376892910000032.

10. Agardy T, et al. (2003) Dangerous targets? Unresolvedissues and ideological clashes around marine protectedareas. Aquat Conserv 13:353–367.

11. Jones PJS (2001) Marine protected area strategies:Issues, divergences and the search for middle ground.Rev Fish Biol Fish 11:197–216.

12. Fernandes L, et al. (2009) A process to design anetwork of marine no-take areas: Lessons from theGreat Barrier Reef. Ocean Coast Manage 52:439–447.

13. Klein CJ, et al. (2008) Striking a balance betweenbiodiversity conservation and socioeconomic viabilityin the design of marine protected areas. Conserv Biol22:691–700.

14. Alcala AC, Russ GR (2006) No-take marine reserves andreef fisheries management in the Philippines: A newpeople power revolution. Ambio 35:245–254.

15. Weber JR, Word CS (2001) The communication processas evaluative context: What do nonscientists hearwhen scientists speak? Bioscience 51:487–495.

16. Warren DR, Weiss MS, Wolfe DW, Friedlander B,Lewenstein B (2007) Lessons from science communicationtraining. Science 316:1122.

17. Rogers CL (2000) Making the audience a keyparticipant in the science communication process. SciEng Ethics 6:553–557.

18. Burns TW, O’Connor DJ, Stocklmayer SM (2003) Sciencecommunication: A contemporary definition. PublicUnderst Sci 12:183–202.

19. Ban NC, Picard CR, Vincent ACJ (2009) Comparing andintegrating community-based and science-based ap-proaches to prioritizing marine areas for protection.Conserv Biol 23:899–910.

20. ChristieP,etal. (2005)Keyfindings fromamultidisciplinaryexamination of integrated coastal management processsustainability.Ocean Coast Manage 48:468–483.

21. Collier JH, Toomey DM eds (1997) Scientific andTechnical Communication: Theory, Practice, andPolicy (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA), p 415.

22. Christensen LL (2007) The Hands-On Guide for ScienceCommunicators: A Step-by-Step Approach to PublicOutreach (Springer, New York).

23. Mayer RE, DeLeeuw KE, Ayres P (2007) Creatingretroactive and proactive interference in multimedialearning. Appl Cogn Psychol 21:795–809.

24. Baron N (2010) Escape from the Ivory Tower: AResearcher’s Guide to Making Your Science Matter(Island Press, Washington, DC).

25. Shah P, Hegarty M, Mayer RE (1999) Graphs as aids toknowledge construction: Signaling techniques forguiding the process of graph comprehension. J EducPsychol 94:690–702.

26. Fahnestock J (2004) Preserving thefigure: Consistency in thepresentationof scientific arguments.WritCommun21:6–31.

27. Bix L (2002) The elements of text andmessage design andtheir impact on message legibility: A literature review.J Design Communication, Issue 4. Available at: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JDC/Spring-2002/bix.html.

28. Marsh EE, White MD (2003) A taxonomy of relationshipsbetween images and text. J Doc 59:647–672.

29. Mayer RE (2008) Applying the science of learning:Evidence-based principles for the design of multimediainstruction. Am Psychol 63:760–769.

30. Teo HH, Oh LB, Liu C, Wei KK (2003) An empirical studyof the effects of interactivity on web user attitude. IntJ Hum Comput Stud 58:281–305.

31. Palmer JW (2002) Web site usability, design, andperformance metrics. Inf Syst Res 13:151–167.

32. California Department of Fish and Game, Marine Re-gion (2008) Master plan for marine protected areas,

revised draft January 2008. California Marine Life Pro-tection Act California. (CDFG, Sacramento, CA).

33. Davis GE (2005) Science and society: Marine reservedesign for the California Channel Islands. ConservBiol 19:1745–1751.

34. Airame S, et al. (2003) Applying ecological criteria tomarine reserve design: A case study from the CaliforniaChannel Islands. Ecol Appl 13:S170–S184.

35. Lubchenco J, Palumbi SR, Gaines SD, Andelman S(2003) Plugging a hole in the ocean: The emergingscience of marine reserves. Ecol Appl 13:S3–S7.

36. Shanks AL, Grantham BA, Carr MH (2003) Propaguledispersal distance and the size and spacing of marinereserves. Ecol Appl 13:S159–S169.

37. Halpern BS (2003) The impact of marine reserves: Doreserves work and does reserve size matter? Ecol Appl13:S117–S137.

38. PISCO (2002) The Science of Marine Reserves (Partner-ship for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans,Santa Barbara, CA).

39. PISCO (2007) The Science of Marine Reserves (Partner-ship for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans,Santa Barbara, CA).

40. Lester SE, Halpern BS (2008) Biological responses inmarine no-take reserves versus partially protectedareas. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 367:49–56.

41. Stobart B, et al. (2009) Long-term and spillover effectsof a marine protected area on an exploited fishcommunity. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 384:47–60.

42. Abesamis RA, Alcala AC, Russ GR (2006) How muchdoes the fishery at Apo Island benefit from spilloverof adult fish from the adjacent marine reserve? FishBull (Wash D C) 104:360–375.

43. Smith MD, Lynham J, Sanchirico JN, Wilson JA (2010)Political economy of marine reserves: Understandingthe role of opportunity costs. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA107:18300–18305.

44. Costello C, et al. (2010) The value of spatial informa-tion in MPA network design. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:18294–18299.

45. Behrens MD, Lafferty KD (2004) Effects of marinereserves and urchin disease on southern Californianrocky reef communities.Mar Ecol Prog Ser 279:129–139.

46. Abesamis RA, Russ GR, Alcala AC (2006) Gradients ofabundance of fish across no-take marine reserveboundaries: Evidence from Philippine coral reefs.Aquat Conserv 16:349–371.

Grorud-Colvert et al. PNAS | October 26, 2010 | vol. 107 | no. 43 | 18311

Dow

nloa

ded

by g

uest

on

July

30,

202

0