fishers’ needs in marine protected area zoning: a case study

183

Coastal Management, 34:183–198, 2006Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0892-0753 print / 1521-0421 onlineDOI: 10.1080/08920750600567234

Fishers’ Needs in Marine Protected Area Zoning:A Case Study from Thailand

KRISTIN E. LUNNPHILIP DEARDENMarine Protected Areas Research GroupDepartment of GeographyUniversity of VictoriaVictoria, British Columbia, Canada

Conserving marine ecosystems, while ensuring the livelihood needs of communities,is a challenge for protected area managers worldwide. Multiple-use zoning can helpto balance human uses with conservation goals. Developing effective zoning plansrequires information on the condition and uses of marine resources and the conflictsamong them. Through interviews and participant observation, we investigated resi-dents’ reliance on nearshore fisheries in Ko Chang Marine National Park, a desig-nated “no-take” area in eastern Thailand. Approximately 25% of households de-pended on fishing as their main source of income, with boat owners earning aver-age net wages of 7–68 US$/day in small-scale fisheries. Apparently unaware ofrestrictions on resource use, small-scale fishers reported working in 95% of thepark’s marine waters. Understanding the needs and usage patterns of small-scalefishers will help to inform management and zoning plans for Ko Chang and providea valuable example for other parks in the region.

Keywords marine conservation, multiple-use zoning, no-take zones, small-scale fisheries

Received 21 December 2004; accepted 2 January 2006.The authors thank the fishers and residents of Ko Chang for their help and support. They are

grateful to Tom Reimchen, Cliff Robinson, and Surachet Chettamart for their insightful advice,and to Weerasak Yingyuad, Kullatida Muangkhum, Anurak Loogon, Ekkawit Wongsrisung, andAnukorn Boutson for their assistance in the field. The authors appreciate the institutional supportof the University of Victoria, Kasetsart University, the National Research Council of Thailand,the Royal Forest Department of Thailand, the Department of Fisheries, and the Southeast AsianFisheries Development Centre, and especially Pongboon Pongtong, Apiwat Sretarugsa, and SitthichaiSeereesongsaeng for their roles in the project. They are thankful for the financial support of theCanadian International Development Agency, the University of Victoria’s Centre for Asia-PacificInitiatives, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and PADI’s ProjectAWARE. Many thanks to Ole Heggen, Jason Miller, and Ian O’Connell for their invaluabletechnical assistance, and to Marie-Annick Moreau, Michele-Lee Moore, and two anonymous re-viewers for their helpful comments on previous drafts of this manuscript.

Address correspondence to Kristin E. Lunn, Department of Geography, University of Victoria,P.O. Box 3050, Victoria, British Columbia, V8W 3P5, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]

184 K. E. Lunn and P. Dearden

Introduction

More than 4,000 marine and coastal protected areas have now been established world-wide (Chape et al., 2003). Marine protected areas (MPAs) are defined by the WorldConservation Union (IUCN) as “area[s] of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with[their] overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, whichha[ve] been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the en-closed environment” (Kelleher, 1999, xi). Under this broad definition, MPAs are de-signed to meet a variety of environmental and socioeconomic goals, including the pro-tection of commercial and non-commercial marine species, the generation of tourismrevenue, the conservation of critical habitats and ecosystem processes, and the creationof educational and research opportunities (Salm et al., 2000).

Many MPAs have, however, failed to achieve their management objectives. A globalassessment showed, for instance, that only 10% of the world’s MPAs were reachingtheir goals in the mid-1990s (Kelleher et al., 1995). A separate poll of managers, non-governmental staff, and researchers working in tropical MPAs revealed that only 35%of respondents thought the parks in which they worked were “successful” in attainingmanagement goals (Alder, 1996). Low success rates have often been attributed to inad-equate consultation and involvement of local communities during the planning and decision-making processes (e.g., White, 1986; Kelleher et al., 1995; Laffoley, 1995; Wells andWhite, 1995; Alder, 1996; White et al., 2002). With many user groups relying on ma-rine ecosystems for their livelihoods and sustenance, stakeholders’ needs often comeinto direct conflict with each other and with the conservation of marine habitats, biodiversity,and ecological processes (Dixon et al., 1993).

Subsistence and commercial fishers comprise one of the most prominent user groupsof marine systems, with an estimated 23 million people collecting their main source ofincome from marine capture fisheries worldwide (FAO, 2002). Small-scale fisheries havebeen said to account for as much as 99% of global fishing labor, clearly serving aninvaluable role in the economy of coastal communities (Berkes et al., 2001). Marineproducts, furthermore, provide a critical supply of animal protein; indeed, small-scalefisheries are thought to account for 40% of the world’s marine fish catch destined forhuman consumption (FAO, 1998). Despite their many benefits to humans, marine fish-eries can lead to declines in the size and number of targeted fish and invertebrates,reductions in species richness, and the degradation of marine habitats (Russ, 1991; Jennings& Polunin, 1996; Hall, 1999; Jackson et al., 2001; Sinclair & Valdimarsson, 2003).

MPAs are a common mechanism for trying to accomplish conservation objectiveswhile still allowing for economic development. Reconciling different uses is, however,challenging, particularly when the usage patterns of different stakeholder groups overlapand differential regulations lead to animosity among users (e.g., Bunce et al., 1999;Suman et al., 1999; Gladstone, 2000; Oracion et al., 2005). Multiple-use zoning hasemerged as one way of achieving several objectives within a single park and helping toease current and potential conflicts among user groups (Kelleher, 1999; Agardy, 2000;Villa et al., 2002). Zoning plans are used to delineate zones where particular humanactivities are and are not allowed within a given MPA, resulting in a spatial separationof different resource uses that buffer fully “no-take” and/or “no-access” areas (Kelleher,1999). Developing successful zoning schemes requires information on the biophysicalcharacteristics of the area, the activities of and conflicts among user groups, and theconflicts among users and their environments (Laffoley, 1995). Zoning plans, built on acombination of social and environmental information, have now been developed formany MPAs worldwide (e.g., Great Barrier Reef Marine Park; Day, 2002).

Fishers’ Needs in MPA Zoning 185

Initiatives to coordinate and facilitate the development of an effective MPA net-work are already underway for Southeast Asia (e.g., World Commission on ProtectedAreas’ Southeast Asia Working Group), a region characterized by its rich marine biodiversity(Briggs, 2005). With a growing interest in the ecological and socioeconomic benefits ofestablishing MPAs, Thailand has gazetted 26 Marine National Parks (MNPs), each de-signed to maintain natural integrity and encourage biological research, public education,and recreation (RFD, 2002). Thailand’s MNPs are legislated as fully “no-take” areasunder the National Parks Act of 1961, with fishing activities prohibited from operatingwithin any area of the parks (Chettamart & Emphandhu, 2002). The Department ofWildlife and Plant Conservation (DWPC)1 maintains official responsibility for governingthe nation’s protected areas, and public participation in natural resource management isnow mandated under the Thai Constitution (Rajani, 2002). Monitoring and managementof the country’s MNPs has, however, been described as “weak,” a problem mainly at-tributed to a lack of qualified government personnel, inadequate funds, and conflictingresource uses (UP-MSI et al., 2002).

Thailand has encountered many of the same park management issues as other coun-tries worldwide, including poor compliance to local regulations and mounting conflictsamong user groups (Chettamart & Emphandhu, 2002). Ko Chang MNP is a large MPAlocated off the eastern coast of Thailand that is subject to rapid and increasing tourismdevelopment, but is also home to an extensive local fishing industry. General zoningshave already been suggested for the MNP, based mainly on the analysis of recreationalpatterns (Roman, 2004). The purpose of this study was to provide greater understandingof the importance and spatial distribution of small-scale fishers as an input to an inte-grated zoning plan in the future. In particular, we describe (i) the involvement of parkresidents in small-scale fisheries and their management, (ii) the local value and impor-tance of these fisheries, (iii) the locations of fishing grounds, and (iv) the conflicts be-tween small-scale fishers and other user groups (e.g., dive operators, large-scale fishers).Quantifying small-scale fishers’ reliance on park resources, and documenting their per-spectives on tourists’ use of the park, will help to develop a practical management strat-egy for this park and, furthermore, to identify potential research needs and governancerequirements for other parks in the region.

Methods

Study Site

The Ko Chang MNP consists of 47 islands, located off the coast of Trat province ineastern Thailand (Figure 1). Encompassing government-owned lands and nearshore wa-ters up to 3 km from shore, the Ko Chang MNP currently includes 650 km² of land andsea. Coral reefs cover 5 km² of the park, being found mainly along the sheltered coastsof the MNP’s small islands (DoF, 1999). Residents of the Ko Chang MNP live prima-rily on the park’s largest island—Ko Chang—with only one community on Ko MaisiYai. Since its designation in 1982, the Ko Chang MNP has officially been closed to allforms of resource extraction (Chettamart & Emphandhu, 2002). Little investment hasbeen made by the authorities to outline these regulations to park residents and small-scale fisheries have continued to operate, virtually unmonitored, within the boundariesof the park. Park managers have instead focused intense effort on developing the area’stourism opportunities; owing to a successful marketing scheme, the Ko Chang MNPattracted more than 450,000 tourists in 2002, an increase of nearly 20% over the previous


Figure 1. Map of Ko Chang Marine National Park in Thailand’s Trat province (courtesy ofO. Heggen).


year (TAT, 2002). Concentrated mainly on the western coast of the island, tourismoperations on Ko Chang offer snorkeling, diving, boating, fishing, elephant riding, andother tour packages to their domestic and international clients. Roman (2004) estimatedthat roughly 30,000 people/year participated in organized snorkel trips to the MNP’scoral reefs, in addition to 9,000 organized dives being sold. Weather conditions in thearea vary among the wet and dry seasons, lasting from May–September and October–April, respectively.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were collected by the first author during two excursions to the Ko Chang archi-pelago in May–July 2002 (wet season) and January–March 2003 (dry season). Informa-tion was collected using a combination of semi-structured interviews and participantobservation. Data were gathered predominantly about small-scale fisheries, defined asthose in which boat owners and their crew operated longtail or flat-bed boats less than15 m in size. Unlike industrial fisheries, small-scale fishing boat owners tended to en-gage family members as crew on their boats, and occasionally employed younger fisherswithin their communities to work as crewmates. The types of gear used in this fleetwere, furthermore, distinct from the equipment used in medium- and large-scale opera-tions (see gear description in Eiamsa-Ard & Amornchairojkul, 1997).

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with village heads (or phoo yai, as theelected leaders are known in Thai), selected small-scale fishers, and government offi-cials from the Department of Fisheries (DoF) and the Department of Wildlife and PlantConservation (DWPC). Interviewees were found by asking village heads to identify keyfishers within each community, and then asking these key fishers to suggest other poten-tial interviewees (i.e., snowball sampling; see description in Miles & Huberman, 1994).Interview respondents, covering a range of ages and experience levels, were all boatowners, rather than crew members, as these fishers were more knowledgeable abouttheir boat’s income, costs, and fishing grounds. Unless otherwise specified, the term“fisher” is used throughout the text to describe boat owners, rather than hired crew.Interviews were conducted in Thai through English-speaking Thai interpreters, and re-sponses were recorded in notebooks during the interviews. Interviews ranged in lengthfrom roughly 20 min to 2 h, depending on respondents’ availability and willingness tocontinue answering questions.

Interview questions depended on the type of respondent. To gather demographicand socioeconomic information about fishing communities within the park, village headswere asked about: (i) the total number of households in their village, (ii) the main live-lihood activities for village residents, (iii) the percentage of fishing households in theirvillage, and (iv) the types of small-scale fishing activities in which park residents par-ticipated. During our visits to each village, the number of boats operating in each fisherywas counted by observing the gear onboard small-scale fishing vessels. Small-scale fish-ers were asked about: (i) their involvement in local fisheries and their management, (ii)their fishing grounds (e.g., seasonal variation in fishing sites, restrictions on access), (iii)their income (e.g., daily earnings and costs), (iv) any conflicts among different fisheries(e.g., shrimp/crab) or industrial sectors (e.g., fishing/tourism), and (v) their impressionsof the growing tourism industry on Ko Chang (e.g., involvement and outlook). Govern-ment officials from the DoF and the DWPC were asked about fishing regulations andenforcement practices in the park’s coastal areas. Given the variability of the samplesizes for each data collection method, and the fact that not all fishers were asked or


could answer every interview question, sample sizes (n) are reported throughout the textand refer to the number of fishers who provided information; sample sizes were notablylower for questions that were asked later in the interview schedule, as respondents’interest and willingness to respond often declined with time. Where values are reportedas the percentage of respondents, “n” refers to the total sample size of respondents forthat question. Fishers’ income and costs were converted to U.S. dollars (US$) from ThaiBhat (B) using an exchange rate of 1B to 0.0234 US$, the average rate between May 1,2002 and May 1, 2003.

Building on the qualitative information provided in interviews, fishing grounds weremapped using a stakeholder-driven methodology adapted from O’Connell (2003) and atechnology-based approach relying on Global Positioning System (GPS) data, allowingfor the cross-validation among data sets. Participants for the mapping exercises werechosen from the pool of interview respondents. Interviewees who clearly understoodpaper maps and could identify reference points within the park were asked to physicallysketch the locations of their fishing grounds, while anyone willing to take a hand-heldGPS unit on their boat was asked to do so; some fishers participated in both activities.Participants selected for the community mapping exercise were supplied with 1:228,000paper maps of the park, simplified from the Royal Thai Government’s (RTG) 1:50,000topographic maps of the area, in order to draw the locations of popular fishing sites forlocal fishers (including themselves). The base map and fishers’ drawings of fishing groundswere then digitized as individual layers in Geographic Information System (GIS) soft-ware (ArcMap module of ArcGIS®) and referenced to the Universal Transverse Mercator(UTM) system. Individual data layers were converted into raster format, making fishingactivity either “present” or “absent” for each two-dimensional data cell. Layers wereoverlaid using the raster calculator function, with the resulting map showing concentra-tions of fishing activity within the park’s boundaries. As a way of cross-checking theinformation provided through the community mapping approach, hand-held GPS units(Garmin® 12) were fixed to the fishing boats of willing fishers and set to record theUTM coordinates of the fishing boats every 2 min during the course of fishers’ 1–2 daycollection trips.2 Spatially referenced data were then downloaded to a portable computerusing GPS Utility 4.04.6 (Freeware Edition) software and added as separate layers in theGIS file; the resulting map showed the fishing tracks of all participating fishers.

Results

Study Participants

Interviews were conducted with 64 small-scale fishing boat owners, 8 village heads, 2DoF staff, and 2 DWPC staff in the Ko Chang MNP. Twenty-seven fishers were in-volved in the community mapping exercise, whereas 52 fishers took GPS units on indi-vidual fishing trips. Observations of the number of small-scale boats suggested that 123and 187 boats worked in this fleet during the dry and wet seasons, respectively. Inter-views were therefore conducted with roughly 34% of boat owners, sketched maps col-lected from 14%, and GPS tracklog data gathered from 28% of the total number ofsmall-scale boat owners operating out of villages within the park.

Participation of Park Residents in Marine Fisheries

Residents of the Ko Chang MNP participated in various small- and large-scale fishingactivities throughout the year. Interview responses from village heads suggested that 25–


30% of the total number of households in the park were involved in fisheries as theirmain source of year-round employment (Table 1). Small-scale fishers worked in thecoastal gill net, crab trap, hook-and-line, krill scoop net, reef fish trap, shellfish glean-ing, shrimp trammel net, small trawl net, and squid trap fisheries, whereas large-scalefishers were involved mainly in the anchovy purse seine and squid cast net fisheries.Although none of the respondents knew of any restrictions on small-scale fishing withinthe park, six interviewees did report that government officials enforced regulations onlarge-scale boats. Small-scale fishers were, as a result, the main consumptive users ofthe park, at least during daylight hours.3

Small-scale fishers reported working in one to four fisheries throughout the year.More than half of the fishing respondents worked in two fisheries, alternating betweenthese fisheries intra- or inter-seasonally; the remaining 31%, 13%, and 5% participatedin one, three, and four fisheries, respectively (n = 64). Village heads identified shrimptrammel netting, squid trapping, crab trapping, reef fish trapping, fish gill netting, andhook-and-line fishing as the primary fisheries for park residents (Table 1), making thesefisheries the focus of our investigations. Shrimp fishing was the primary activity forsmall-scale fishers, with 27% and 76% of the total number of boats operating in thisfishery during the dry and wet seasons. Crab fishers made up much of the remainingfleet, with 24% of the total operating in this fishery during the dry season and 17% inthe wet season. Gill net, hook-and-line, reef fish trap, and squid trap fishers comprisedan average 12.5 ± 2.1% and 2.0 ± 2.2% of the boats during the dry and wet seasons,respectively. Village heads commented that fishers from all 10 communities participatedin shrimp trammel net fishing during the wet season, whereas participation in otherfisheries was limited to 4-6 villages each (Table 1).

Value and Importance of Small-Scale Fisheries to Park Residents

Small-scale fisheries serve as an important source of market and subsistence income toresidents of the Ko Chang MNP. Small-scale boat owners’ earnings and costs variedamong fisheries, with average net incomes ranging from 300 to 2900 B/day (7–68 US$)(Table 2). Because crew members were usually boat owners’ relatives, they were nottypically paid for their labor. Non-familial crew members reportedly earned 40–200 B/day (1–5 US$), or an average of 121 ± 72 B/day (3 US$), according to 6 boat owners inthe crab, shrimp, and squid fisheries. Fishers collected the majority of their market earn-ings from target catches, with highly sought after species such as groupers, shrimp, andcrab, selling for 50–620 B/kg (1–15 US$/kg), 100–400 B/kg (2–9 US$/kg), and 40–200B/kg (1–5 US$/kg), respectively. Non-target species were usually kept for food or soldcheaply as bait, aquaculture feed, or fertilizer for crops, adding to the value of small-scale fisheries in the area. Boat owners’ reported fishing costs included fuel, bait, equip-ment replacement, and crew members’ salaries (when needed). Irregular expenses suchas the purchase and maintenance of fishers’ boats were, however, difficult for respon-dents to estimate and were therefore not included in our analysis. Fishers’ actual netearnings were, as a result, probably lower than the values reported here, particularly forlarger operations relying on expensive equipment such as the flat-bed crab boats.

More than three-quarters of small-scale fishing respondents worked in the industryon a full-time basis (n = 54). Part-time fishers in the small-scale fleet also worked inagriculture, tourism, and/or retail sales, among the main income sources for communi-ties in the Ko Chang area (see Table 1). Even fishers who considered themselves to befull-time fishers would, however, occasionally engage in other livelihood activities if

Tab

le 1

Sum

mar

y of

inf

orm

atio

n pr

ovid

ed b

y vi

llage

hea

ds a

nd r

esid

ents

abo

ut t

he d

emog

raph

ics

of v

illag

esan

d th

e liv

elih

ood

activ

ities

of

com

mun

ity m

embe

rs

% F

ishi

ng

Mai

n ty

pes

of s

mal

l-sc

ale

fish

erie

s

Res

iden

ts’s

liv

elih

ood

activ

ities

hous

ehol

dsb

Tot

al n

o.S

hrim

pF

ish

Hoo

k-R

eef

hous

ehol

dsR

etai

lW

etD

rytr

amm

elSq

uid

Cra

bgi

llan

d-fi

shN

o.V

illag

esa

in v

illag

eFi

sher

ies

Agr

icul

ture

sale

sT

ouri

smse

ason

seas

onne

ttr

aptr

apne

tlin

etr

apso

urce

sc

Aow

Cho

m8

X10

010

0Y

R2d

Aow

Sup

paro

d/15

0X

XX

2525

WS

YR

YR

YR

YR

3K

hlon

g So

n

Aow

Yie

men

40X

100

N/A

WS

2d

Ban

gbao

105

XX

705

WS

DS

DS

DS

YR

3

Che

k B

ae71

XX

2020

WS

DS

YR

DS

YR

2

Dan

Kao

/12

0X

X20

20W

SD

SY

RY

R5

Dan

Mai

/L

amta

kien

190

Haa

d Sa

i12

0X

X15

0W

S1

Kha

o/K

ai B

e/K

hlon

g Pr

ao

Sala

k K

hok

63X

X50

50Y

RY

RY

R6

Sala

k Ph

et13

0X

X50

50W

SY

RY

RD

SY

R4

Tha

n M

ayom

45X

X10

10W

SY

RD

S2

WS

= w

et s

easo

n, D

S =

dry

sea

son,

YR

= y

ear-

roun

d.a V

illag

es s

hari

ng t

he s

ame

elec

ted

lead

er (

or p

hoo

yai)

wer

e co

unte

d to

geth

er i

n th

is s

tudy

.b T

he p

erce

ntag

e of

fis

hing

hou

seho

lds

acco

unts

for

sm

all-

and

lar

ge-s

cale

fis

hers

tha

t ea

rn t

he m

ajor

ity o

f th

eir

year

-rou

nd i

ncom

e fr

om f

ishi

ng.

c The

num

ber

of s

ourc

es g

iven

in

this

col

umn

incl

uded

onl

y pe

ople

who

com

men

ted

spec

ific

ally

on

villa

ge d

emog

raph

ics

and

not

all

of t

he p

eopl

e in

terv

iew

ed i

n ea

ch v

illag

e.d A

ow C

hom

and

Aow

Yie

men

did

not

hav

e el

ecte

d le

ader

s be

caus

e bo

th c

omm

uniti

es w

ere

esta

blis

hed

as t

empo

rary

fis

hing

vill

ages

. I

nfor

mat

ion

abou

t th

ese

villa

ges

was

, th

us,

prov

ided

onl

y by

loc

al r

esid

ents

.

191


192

Tab

le 2

Inco

me

and

cost

s fo

r ar

tisan

al f

ishe

rs w

orki

ng i

n th

e K

o C

hang

are

a, b

ased

on

inte

rvie

ws

with

fis

hers

Gro

ss i

ncom

eFu

el c

osts

Cre

w w

ages

Bai

tG

ear

repl

acem

ent

Net

inc

ome

Smal

l-sc

ale

fish

erie

s(B

/boa

t/d)

n(B

/boa

t/d)

n(B

/boa

t/d)

n(B

/boa

t/d)

n(B

/boa

t/d)c

n(B

/boa

t ow

ner/

d)

Coa

stal

fis

h gi

ll ne

t35

0 ±

300

539

± 9

70

± 0

4N

/A12

± 6

430

0C

rab

trap

Long

tail

boat

s52

0 ±

140

445

± 0

30

± 0

632

± 2

19

20 ±

13

1042

0F

lat-

bed

boat

sb45

002

450

274

02

250

213

02

2900

Hoo

k-an

d-lin

ea59

0 ±

210

311

0 ±

48

40

± 0

3?

?48

0Sh

rim

p tr

amm

el n

et79

0 ±

250

1116

0 ±

130

1249

± 7

114

N/A

130

± 68

345

0Sq

uid

trap

1000

± 2

505

370

± 14

012

6 ±

157

N/A

56 ±

82

570

a Alth

ough

hoo

k-an

d-lin

e fi

sher

s co

uld

not

prov

ide

info

rmat

ion

abou

t ba

it or

equ

ipm

ent

cost

s ov

er a

ny u

nit

of t

ime,

the

se c

osts

app

eare

d to

be

negl

igib

le a

ndw

ere

ther

efor

e co

unte

d as

zer

o in

thi

s an

alys

is.

b Giv

en t

he l

ow s

ampl

e si

ze f

or f

lat-

bed

boat

s, t

he v

alue

s pr

ovid

ed a

re s

impl

y m

id-p

oint

s of

the

tw

o re

spon

dent

s’ a

nsw

ers.

c Gea

r re

plac

emen

t co

sts

wer

e st

anda

rdiz

ed t

o da

ily c

osts

, by

con

side

ring

the

cos

t of

equ

ipm

ent

and

the

freq

uenc

y w

ith w

hich

equ

ipm

ent

need

ed t

o be

rep

lace

d.


such opportunities arose; 15% of fishers reported working in the tourism industry (typi-cally taking tourists to diving and snorkeling destinations on their boats), 4% engaged inagricultural activities, and 4% worked in land-based construction, in addition to fishing(n = 26).

Use of Nearshore Fishing Grounds

To earn an income and collect food for their families and friends, small-scale fishersgathered fish and invertebrate species from nearshore fishing grounds, usually locatedvery close to their own villages. Despite official regulations prohibiting resource usewithin the park, small-scale fishers from Ko Chang were found to work throughout theprotected area. An overlay of the 27 maps drawn by participants of the mapping exer-cise showed that, together, fishers reported small-scale fishing activity in approximately95% of the park’s marine area (see Figure 2a). Fishing activity was, according to thismap overlay, concentrated in the southern and western portions of the Ko Chang MNP,where as many as 52% (or 14) of the 27 participating fishers reported that the area wasused for small-scale fishing. The tracklog data, collected from GPS units attached tofishers’ boats, supported reports that local fishers worked predominantly within the pro-tected area (see Figure 2b). Although fishers were aware of the area’s status as a na-tional park, interview respondents did not realize that this designation had any implica-tions for small-scale fishing boats. When asked if there were any legislated or customaryrestrictions on access to nearshore fishing grounds, small-scale respondents reported onlythat large-scale fishing boats were prohibited from operating within the park.

(a) (b)

Figure 2. Map of Ko Chang MNP, with (a) showing the locations of key fishing grounds drawnby 27 small-scale fishers from the park, and (b) displaying the GPS data points recorded during52 fishing trips with resident fishers. Note that the polygon around the islands represents theMNP boundary.


Inter-Fishery and Inter-Sectoral Relationships

In the Ko Chang area, small-scale fishers reported that their main conflicts were a resultof large-scale fishers’ use of nearshore fishing grounds, and occasionally due to othersmall-scale fishers’ activities. Small-scale fishers in the squid and crab trap fisheries toldus that when large-scale boats (equipped with pair trawls, purse seines, push nets, andotter board trawls) operated close to shore, they frequently destroyed small-scale fishers’traps (n = 9). This conflict has, according to two crab trappers, diminished in recentyears, as the trawl and trap fishers have begun communicating by radio about the loca-tions of their fishing sites. Two crab fishers also noted that it was difficult to deploytheir traps during the rainy season, when shrimp trammel nets were scattered throughouttheir nearshore fishing grounds. The importance of spatially separating fishing activitieswas further noted by a village head, who reported that residents of his village tended towork close to home in order to avoid conflicts with fishers from nearby villages. Similarconflicts among fishers have been noted elsewhere in Southeast Asia (Oracion et al.,2005). Shrimp trammel net, hook-and-line, and coastal finfish gill net fishers did notnote any conflicts with participants in other large- or small-scale fisheries.

Small-scale fishing respondents were generally supportive of increased tourism op-portunities in the area. Interviewees identified several benefits to the increase in tourism,including secured local markets for selling their catches (n = 6), new earning opportuni-ties from taking tourists on snorkeling and diving trips to nearby islands (n = 5), andallowing tourists to stay at their homes (n = 1), and improved roads and docks aroundthe island (n = 1). Only one reef trap fisher noted any concern about the increase intourism, telling us that tourists and dive operators had occasionally cut the mesh on histraps. Apart from this reef fisher, none of the other respondents who discussed theirinvolvement in and opinions of tourism in the MNP (n = 21) noted any prior problemswith tourists or dive operators; ten respondents did say that the risk of conflict was lowbecause they worked far away from shore and not in areas where dive tourism wasconcentrated (i.e., near coral reefs).

Discussion

Many residents of the Ko Chang MNP were found to depend on nearshore, small-scalefisheries for their market and subsistence income. Local fisheries provided more than aquarter of the households on Ko Chang and nearby islands of the marine park with theirmain source of year-round income, and furthermore secured local people’s access toprotein-rich seafood. Indeed many small-scale boat owners in the Ko Chang area earnedhigher daily wages than the national household average, which was recently estimated at13,418 B/month (314 US$) (NSO, 2001), or roughly 670 B/day (16 US$) if employeesworked an average 20 days/month. Fishers gave lower valued, edible fish and inverte-brates to their friends and family, adding to the informal income generated from localfisheries. In addition to local fishers, user groups such as non-resident fishers, marineproduct processors, and distributors also earned income from capture fisheries operatingwithin the park. Accounting for user groups’ current subsistence and market income willbe essential for devising practical and effective management strategies for the Ko Changarea. Although monetary compensation schemes have been proposed elsewhere (Hatcher,1998), this strategy is unlikely to be effective in Thailand, where government officialswere already voicing concerns about the prohibitive costs of enforcing restrictions through-out the park.


Assessing the potential of alternative approaches, such as multiple-use zoning, re-quires information about the spatial usage patterns of park residents and other resourceusers. By using participatory mapping and GIS/GPS technologies, we found that small-scale fishers did indeed work within the park’s boundaries. Information collected throughthe community mapping approach yielded valuable insight into the year-round practicesof participating fishers and other members of their fleet, whereas GPS tracklog data wasused to corroborate this information. Although the GPS/GIS component of the studyinvolved more fishers than the community mapping exercise, the latter likely providedmore comprehensive information about the fleet’s activities because respondents wereasked to sketch the locations of popular fishing grounds, not only for themselves butalso for other fishers in the park. The GPS approach was further limited by the numberof fishing trips that could be observed and the timescale during which the data werecollected. Fishers were often uncomfortable taking us, or the GPS units, on their boatswhen the weather was rough, and thus the GPS data were gathered predominantly dur-ing the dry season. Sketched maps were, however, designed to capture the usage pat-terns of all fisheries, including the large fleet of shrimp trammel net fishers that operatedmostly on the west and south coasts of the island during the wet season. Similar partici-patory methodologies have been used elsewhere to map the fishing patterns and poten-tial conflicts among fisheries (e.g., central Thailand, Anuchiracheeva et al., 2003).

When combined with the large and rapidly expanding tourism industry around KoChang, on-going fishing activity within the park could lead to future issues among ma-rine user groups, particularly if their spatial usage patterns were to overlap. Marinetourism activities have so far been concentrated on coral reef habitats located at thenorthern tip of Ko Chang, along the island’s west coast, and on the east side of KoRang (Roman, 2004). Few fishers were found, however, to operate around reef habitats,with only 2–13% of the small-scale fleet involved in the live reef fish industry through-out the year. Interviewees suggested, however, that local interest in this lucrative indus-try could be mounting. Although respondents generally had positive comments aboutthe local boom in tourism, and current activity patterns suggested little overlap betweenthese industries, surveys of foreign and domestic tourists suggested that the number anddiversity of fish on the archipelago’s reefs was already an area of “minor” concern formanagers (Roman, 2004), one that has the potential to spark conflict between reef fish-ers and tour operators. Already, polled tourists considered the presence of active fishinggear and/or ghost traps to be among the top five factors leading to dissatisfaction ontheir snorkeling trips (Roman, 2004). Adopting a formal zoning plan to separate sustain-able uses into different zones could help to achieve the park’s objectives, while mitigat-ing future conflicts within and among reef-based industries.

Fully protecting certain areas of the Ko Chang MNP, while managing the remainingarea for sustainable small-scale fishing and tourism activities, offers a great deal ofpromise for re-balancing the goals of the park. Because small-scale fisheries have beenlinked to declines in fish and invertebrate abundance and diversity, placing restrictionson fishing activities without enforcing these regulations for small-scale boats will dolittle to achieve the Ko Chang MNP’s main goal of conserving the area’s natural integ-rity. Coral reef fishes with long life spans, slow growth rates, and low natural mortalityand recruitment have been shown to be especially vulnerable to fishing pressure (Russ& Alcala, 1998). Short-lived invertebrate species such as squid and shrimp, on the otherhand, might be capable of sustaining higher levels of fishing effort, and thus could bepermitted on a monitored basis within general use zones. In the Gulf of Thailand, for


example, cephalopod stocks have remained viable in spite of large-scale trawl fisheries(Christensen, 1998). Designating “no-take” zones around the MNP’s coral reefs couldhelp to conserve local biodiversity, protect species most vulnerable to exploitation (e.g.,groupers, snappers), encourage marine tourism opportunities, and alleviate future con-flicts among stakeholders. Indeed even small “no-take” zones have been shown to pro-vide high levels of protection, as documented for 70 reserves all at least 0.002 km² insize (Halpern, 2003). Large-scale fishing boats should continue to be excluded from theMNP, as these boats are capable of operating further offshore at fishing grounds outsidethe park and, in the case of several gear types (e.g., trawl nets), lead to inevitable incon-sistencies with the park’s conservation goals.

Despite their dependence on nearshore waters, small-scale fishers in the area wereclearly not consulted about the establishment of the Ko Chang MNP and its implicationsfor local users, as fishers continued to work unknowingly within the park. Althoughpublic participation in resource management is now required under the Thai Constitu-tion, Chettamart and Emphandhu (2002) note that “there is still no workable mechanismto allow full-fledged local participation in marine park management.” Resident fishershave, however, maintained good relationships with park officials at Ko Chang, and thereforea high level of public participation in management could be achieved. Fishers’ accep-tance of, and compliance with, park regulations will likely hinge on their involvement inthe process and their increased understanding of the fisheries and conservation benefitsof such areas, for instance as outlined by Russ et al. (2004) in the Philippines.

Fishers’ continued dependence on fishing inside the boundaries of Ko Chang MNPunderscores the need for increased monitoring, management, and public awareness if thepark is to be successful in reaching its conservation, tourism, research, and educationalobjectives. Because small-scale fishers were limited by the small size and engine powerof their boats, fishing territories could be expected to remain relatively consistent throughtime as has been documented elsewhere (e.g. Begossi, 2001). Fishers’ activity patternscould, therefore, be collated with tourism and underwater census data (Roman, 2004) todevelop a draft marine park zoning plan (in conjunction with local stakeholders) thatcould assist in preventing future conflicts and achieving multiple objectives. Given thebiological richness of the Southeast Asian seas, and the growing attention on developingan effective network of MPAs in the region, the suggestions proposed for the Ko ChangMNP could have implications for other parks in Thailand and lead to increased steward-ship of the region’s marine ecosystems.

Notes

1. The Department of Wildlife and Plant Conservation came into existence in 2002, follow-ing an extensive restructuring of the Royal Thai Government. Prior to 2002, the Marine NationalParks Division fell under the Royal Forest Department. Today, marine protected areas are man-aged under the newly established Department of Wildlife and Plant Conservation, rather than theRoyal Forest Department.

2. Longer trips could not be observed using this approach because of the limited battery lifeof the GPS units. Because only hook-and-line fishers and flat-bed crab boat operators took tripslonger than 2 days (see Lunn & Dearden, in press), these were the only fisheries to be affectedby the limitations of the GPS-dependent approach.

3. Anchovy purse seine and squid cast net fishers worked overnight, employing luring lightsto attract their target species. Large-scale fishing boats could, as a result, be seen from shore, andfrom our field observations were operating (at least partly) within park boundaries.


References

Agardy, T. 2000. Information needs for marine protected areas: Scientific and societal. Bulletin of MarineScience 66(3):875–888.

Alder, J. 1996. Have tropical marine protected areas worked? An initial analysis of their success. CoastalManagement 24:97–114.

Anuchiracheeva, S., H. Demaine, G. P. Shivakoti, and K. Ruddle. 2003. Systematizing local knowledgeusing GIS: Fisheries management in Bang Saphan Bay, Thailand. Coastal Management 46:1049–1068.

Begossi, A. 2001. Mapping spots: Fishing areas or territories among islanders of the Atlantic Forest (Brazil).Regional Environmental Change 2(1):1–12.

Berkes, F., R. Mahon, P. McConney, R. B. Pollnac, and R. Pomeroy. 2001. Managing small-scale fisheries:Alternative directions and methods. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.

Briggs, J. C. 2005. Coral reefs: Conserving the evolutionary sources. Biological Conservation 126:297–305.

Bunce, L., K. Gustavson, J. Williams, and M. Miller. 1999. The human side of reef management: A casestudy analysis of the socioeconomic framework of Montego Bay Marine Park. Coral Reefs 18:369–380.

Chape, S., S. Blyth, L. Fish, P. Fox, and M. Spalding. 2003. 2003 United Nations List of Protected Areas.Gland and Cambridge: IUCN and UNEP-WCMC.

Chettamart, S., and D. Emphandhu. 2002. Experience with coastal and marine protected area planning andmanagement in Thailand. In Environmental Protection and Rural Development in Thailand: Chal-lenges and Opportunities, ed. P. Dearden, 113–136. Bangkok: White Lotus Press.

Christensen, V. 1998. Fishery-induced changes in a marine ecosystem: Insight from models of the Gulf ofThailand. Journal of Fish Biology 53(Supp. A):128–142.

Day, J. C. 2002. Zoning—Lessons from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Ocean & Coastal Manage-ment 45(2–3):139–156.

Dixon, J. A., L. Fallon Scura, and T. van’t Hof. 1993. Meeting ecological and economic goals: Marineparks in the Caribbean. Ambio 22(2):117–125.

DoF. 1999. Coral reef maps in Thai waters. Bangkok: Fisheries Resources Management Project, Depart-ment of Fisheries.

Eiamsa-Ard, M., and S. Amornchairojkul. 1997. The marine fisheries of Thailand, with emphasis on theGulf of Thailand Trawl Fishery. In Status and management of tropical coastal fisheries in Asia, eds.G. Silvestre and D. Pauly, 85–95. Manila: International Centre for Living Aquatic Resources Manage-ment.

FAO. 1998. Integrated coastal area management and agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, FAO Guidelines.Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

FAO. 2002. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations.

Gladstone, W. 2000. The ecological and social basis for management of a Red Sea marine-protected area.Ocean & Coastal Management 43:1015–1032.

Hall, S. J. 1999. The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems and communities. Oxford: Blackwell Science.Halpern, B. S. 2003. The impact of marine reserves: Do reserves work and does size matter? Ecological

Applications 13(Supp. 1):S117–S137.Hatcher, B. G. 1998. Can marine protected areas optimize fishery production and biodiversity preservation

in the same ecosystem? Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 50:493–502.Jackson, J. B. C., M. X. Kirby, W. H. Berger, K. A. Bjorndal, L. W. Botsford, B. J. Bourque, R. H.

Bradbury, R. Cooke, J. Erlandson, J. A. Estes, T. P. Hughes, S. Kidwell, C. B. Lange, H. S. Lenihan,J. M. Pandolfi, C. H. Peterson, R. S. Steneck, M. J. Tegner, and R. R. Warner. 2001. Historicaloverfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293:629–638.

Jennings, S., and N. V. C. Polunin. 1996. Impacts of fishing on tropical reef ecosystems. Ambio 25(1):44–49.

Kelleher, G. 1999. Guidelines for marine protected areas. Gland and Cambridge: IUCN.Kelleher, G., C. Bleakley, and S. Wells. 1995. A global representative system of marine protected areas.

Washington: The World Bank.Laffoley, D. 1995. Techniques for managing marine protected areas: Zoning. In Marine protected areas:

Principles and techniques for management, ed. S. Gubbay, 103–118. London: Chapman & Hall.Lunn, K. E., and P. Dearden. 2006. Monitoring small-scale marine fisheries: An example from Thailand’s

Ko Chang Archipelago. Fisheries Research 77(1):60–71.


Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods, 2nded. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

NSO. 2001. Statistical Yearbook Thailand. Bangkok: National Statistical Office.O’Connell, I. J. 2003. Towards the design of spatial decision support for stakeholder-driven collaborative

land valuation in non-urban areas. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Victoria.Oracion, E. G., M. L. Miller, and P. Christie. 2005. Marine protected areas for whom? Fisheries, tourism

and solidarity in a Philippine Community. Ocean & Coastal Management 48:393–410.Rajani, M. R. B. 2002. Thailand Country Report on the MAB Programme Activities to the 17th UNESCO/

MAB ICC Meeting. Bangkok: Royal Forest Department.RFD. 2002. Map and Guidelines: Marine National Parks of Thailand. Bangkok: Royal Forest Department.Roman, G. 2004. Zoning as a tool to manage tourism in protected areas: A case study of Mu Koh Chang

National Marine Park, Thailand. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Victoria.Russ, G. R. 1991. Coral reef fisheries: Effects and yields. In The ecology of fishes on coral reefs, ed. P. F.

Sale, 601–635. San Diego: Academic Press Inc.Russ, G. R., and A. C. Alcala. 1998. Natural fishing experiments in marine reserves 1983–1993: Roles of

life history and fishing intensity in family responses. Coral Reefs 17:399–416.Russ, G. R., A. C. Alcala, A. P. Maypa, H. P. Calumpong, and A. T. White. 2004. Marine reserve benefits

local fisheries. Ecological Applications 14:597–606.Salm, R. V., J. Clark, and E. Siirila. 2000. Marine and coastal protected areas: A guide for planners and

managers. Washington: IUCN.Sinclair, M., and G. Valdimarsson, eds. 2003. Responsible risheries in the marine ecosystem. Rome: Food

and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and CABI Publishing.Suman, D., M. Shivlani, and J. W. Milon. 1999. Perceptions and attitudes regarding marine reserves: A

comparison of stakeholder groups in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Ocean & CoastalManagement 42:1019–1040.

TAT. 2002. Tourism in Trat Province: A briefing document for cabinet ministers. Ko Chang: TourismAuthority of Thailand.

UP-MSI, ABC, ARCBC, DENR, and ASEAN. 2002. Marine protected areas in southeast Asia. Los Banos:ASEAN Regional Centre for Biodiversity Conservation, Department of Environment and Natural Re-sources.

Villa, F., L. Tunesi, and T. Agardy. 2002. Zoning marine protected areas through spatial multiple-criteriaAnalysis: The case of the Asinara National Marine Reserve of Italy. Conservation Biology 16(2):515–526.

Wells, S., and A. T. White. 1995. Involving the community. In marine protected areas: Principles andtechniques for management, ed. S. Gubbay, 61–84. London: Chapman & Hall.

White, A. T. 1986. Marine reserves: How effective as management strategies for Philippine, Indonesian,and Malaysian coral reef environments? Ocean Management 10(2):137–159.

White, A. T., C. A. Courtney, and A. Salamanca. 2002. Experience with marine protected area planningand management in the Philippines. Coastal Management 30:1–26.

fishers’ needs in marine protected area zoning: a case study

Documents