Next Article in Journal
Integrating Design for Adaptability, Disassembly, and Reuse into Architectural Design Practice
Previous Article in Journal
The Sustainable Innovation of AI: Text Mining the Core Capabilities of Researchers in the Digital Age of Industry 4.0
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 17
10.3390/su16177772
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Global Trends and Prospects of Community Participation in Marine Protected Areas: A Bibliometric Analysis

by
Xun Jiang
1,
Fangming Liu
2,
Jing Yu
1,3,*,
Kuncheng Zhang
4,
Zhaohui Zhang
2 and
Quanbin Wang
2
1
College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, China
2
First Institute of Oceanography, Ministry of Natural Resources, Qingdao 266061, China
3
Institute of Marine Development, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, China
4
Military Teaching Department, School of Marxism, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(17), 7772; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177772
Submission received: 13 July 2024 / Revised: 4 September 2024 / Accepted: 4 September 2024 / Published: 6 September 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Marine protected areas (MPAs) are effective tools for preserving marine organisms and ecosystems against the background of climate change and intense human activities. Community participation is a helpful management approach for MPAs and has received substantial attention from researchers worldwide. To identify the research status of the field of community participation in MPAs, we reviewed 391 papers from the Web of Science with bibliometric methods and VOSviewer. The results showed that the number of publications continued to grow from 1994 to 2022, with the USA producing the most publications followed by Australia. Environmental science was the major thematic area. Studies have concentrated on community-based marine resource management, the participation mode of communities, and participatory planning and monitoring. In addition, we summarized the experience and lessons of community participation to illustrate the role of community involvement in constructing and managing MPAs. Finally, the outlook for future research was presented based on the analysis above. We recommend promoting cross-disciplinary cooperation and combining quantitative and qualitative methods to support this research. Meanwhile, it is critical to further study the specific path of community participation and fully utilize local knowledge to supplement scientific data. The current study provided an overview of publication characteristics, research trends, and primary research methods in studies of community participation in MPAs. The results will help to find ways to mitigate conflicts between MPAs and communities. We hope that our study promotes their coordinated and sustainable development and contributes to marine biodiversity conservation and human well-being.

1. Introduction

In recent years, there has been a growing awareness of the need to protect degraded marine environments. Marine conservation should be achieved through integrated marine management and rational resource utilization. Marine protected areas (MPAs) are effective tools for protecting marine ecosystems and promoting the rational use of marine resources. They perform the function of marine ecological protection as well as providing various services for the survival and well-being of coastal people [1]. Meanwhile, human behavior also affects the management effects of MPAs [2,3]. Scholars believe that human factors are the key to sustainably developing the marine environment [4]. Most of the human factors affecting the conservation effectiveness of MPAs originate from surrounding communities. MPAs and their surrounding communities are complementary and indispensable to each other and, therefore, are often regarded as a coupled social–ecological system to be studied [5,6]. However, building and managing MPAs can also lead to conflicts with residents. For example, marine ecology is usually restored by closing fishing grounds or controlling catches in MPAs, exacerbating problems between MPAs and communities in terms of resource use [7]. Alleviating the contradiction between MPAs and communities in achieving common development is the focus of scholarly research [8]. In recent decades, community participation (also known as “community involvement”, “community engagement”, “public engagement”, or “stakeholder engagement”) has become an important part of environmental decision-making processes [9]. It is defined as “the involvement of those affected by a decision in the decision making process” [10]. Effective community participation can mitigate conflicts and enhance MPA management [11,12]. It provides a chance to solve biodiversity problems and partially mitigate cultural, economic, and political issues [13]. Over the past two decades, there has been a global trend in MPA management from a top-down to a bottom-up approach [14]. The number of studies on community involvement in MPAs has increased in recent years. Issues such as the influence of the community’s perception of marine conservation [15,16] and improving co-management mechanisms [17,18,19] have attracted scholarly attention. Furthermore, citizen science is also an emerging research methodology for enhancing the study of protected areas. Citizen science projects can provide community-based monitoring and improve the ability of researchers to collect data [20]. This method provides a chance for scientists and communities to collaborate [21]. The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, agreed to at the 15th meeting of the Conference of Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in December 2022, also refers to recognizing the rights of Indigenous people and local communities, ensuring their full and effective participation [22]. The international community recognizes the central role of Indigenous people and local communities in conserving biodiversity-rich ecosystems [23]. Community participation can also improve the resilience of MPAs to global climate change, and it plays a significant role in marine environment protection work [24].
Research on community participation in MPAs mainly focuses on the following aspects. The first is community participation models MPA management [25]. Scholars believe that diversified community participation types, like fisheries and tourism, may promote coordinated and sustainable development between MPAs and multiple economic sectors [26]. Studies have shown that community participation in ecotourism has contributed to the social, economic, and environmental sustainability of MPAs [27]. Secondly, the attitudes and current participation status of community residents, especially fishers, have been analyzed through literature analysis, as well as open and semi-structured interviews [28]. This type of research usually involves a case study of a specific MPA, using participatory field research methods to understand the community’s perceptions and attitudes [29]. For example, Masud et al. used questionnaires to collect data and revealed the community’s view on co-management in Malaysia MPAs. The results showed that the co-management framework helps local people sustainably utilize natural resources and achieve socio-economic development [30]. Finally, researchers have explored specific methods of community involvement in MPA management. Means of participation include community-based marine spatial planning [31], community-based conservation [32], and participatory monitoring [33] and assessment [34].
In related literature reviews, some scholars have summarized the history and development process of community participation [35] and analyzed its impact on MPA management [36]. For example, von der Porten et al. provided a rounded analysis of community-led conservation initiatives, illustrating the role of Indigenous people and local communities in MPAs [37]. The current study has reviewed the status, significance, and challenges of community participation in MPAs [38]. However, there is currently a lack of systematic, diversified, and dynamic analysis of community involvement research in MPAs. The traditional literature review method has difficulty capturing the overall features and research trends in this field. Thus, this study provides a comprehensive review of international research on community participation in MPAs using the bibliometric method. The publication characteristics, research hotspots, and evolution of research themes are clarified, and the research methods are summarized. The lessons learned from community participation in MPAs are analyzed based on case studies. The results will help to identify the key research points and forecast future trends in the field of community participation in MPAs. This will also be conducive to optimizing participation paths for local people and searching for ways to alleviate conflicts. Eventually, we hope that our study will promote coordinated and sustainable development between MPAs and communities, and contribute to marine conservation and human well-being.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Source of Data

We used the Web of Science as a database. This database collects world-class academic journals and is widely used. With nearly a thousand academic journals and 1.5 billion citations, it can confidently support literature analyses in various research fields [39]. Furthermore, its representativeness has been validated through previous bibliometric studies [40]. To retrieve information from the literature spanning 1994 to 2022, we used the following terms individually: “marine protected area community-based”, “marine protected area community involvement”, and “marine protected area community participation”. A total of 470 documents were obtained as of December 2022. We then filtered the papers in two steps: During the initial screening, some reports, letters, and book reviews were excluded because these are usually considered less influential and persuasive than journal articles, review articles, and dissertation theses. In the second step of screening, we carefully read the abstracts of these articles, as well as some of their full texts, and papers not encompassing community participation in MPAs or community-based MPAs were excluded. Finally, 391 articles, reviews, and proceedings were selected for analysis after eliminating documents that were not closely related to the research topic.

2.2. Data Analysis

Our main research method was bibliometric analysis, which can identify the external characteristics of the literature through statistical methods. Based on the basic information provided by the Web of Science database, the temporal and spatial distribution of the literature releases and the main characteristics of the publications were analyzed. To a certain extent, the temporal and spatial distribution of the literature can reflect the development level of research in a study field and the degree of importance attached to related issues in different regions [40]. Publication characteristics include major journals and their impact factors (IFs), research institutions, and subject categories. The IF usually measures the effectiveness of the journal, and those with high IFs contribute more to the research field’s development [41]. Analysis of research institutions shows the most productive universities or organizations, and the main research contents are illustrated by statistics of subject categories. Research hotspots and trends in the evolution of research topics were visualized with VOSviewer ( version 1.6.17), a software tool with keyword clustering and co-occurrence functions [42].

3. Results

3.1. Temporal and Spatial Distribution of Literature Releases

Before 2008, there were few relevant studies on community participation in MPAs, but the number of relevant studies has proliferated since 2009, with publications reaching their peak in 2021. In general, the number of papers related to community participation in MPAs showed a clear upward trend from 1994 to 2022 (Figure 1a), demonstrating that increasing attention has been paid to this field.
Geographically, relevant publications covered 89 countries or regions (Figure 1b). Research on community participation in MPAs was mainly distributed in North America and Oceania. Of these, the USA took first place, followed by Australia, with both publishing more than 100 papers. Other countries with many publications were the United Kingdom and Canada. Brazil, Mexico, and some tropical island countries like the Philippines and Indonesia also had many papers. The results illustrate that developing counties were also the significant power in this study area, mainly because community involvement can fill the gaps in scientific data and save manpower and finances in the process of monitoring and managing MPAs. Participatory approaches are an essential tool for managing MPAs in developing countries [43,44].

3.2. Publication Characteristics

In total, 144 journals published relevant papers. The journal with the most publications was Ocean Coastal Management (with 77 records, 15.8% of the total), followed by Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems (29, 6.0%), Coastal Management (29, 6.0%), and Frontiers in Marine Science (24, 4.9%). In terms of IF, Conservation Biology had the highest (6.3) and Biological Conservation had the second highest (5.9). Both are associated with biological protection, making vital contributions to this study field. A total of 202 research organizations were involved in related studies. The top 10 most active institutions published over 50% of the total publications (Table 1). James Cook University published 48 articles from 1994 to 2022, far exceeding other institutions. Besides universities, non-governmental organizations such as Nature Conservancy also played an important role in this area. There were 38 subject categories among the sample articles, and the research field covered a wide range of topics. In first place was environmental science (with 233 records). Furthermore, the subjects of the publications were also widely distributed in marine freshwater biology, water resources, ecology, etc. (Table 1). Overall, studies of community participation in MPAs concentrated on the environment, biology, and resources. In the future, multidisciplinary studies will be significant.

3.3. Visualization Analysis of Research Hotspots and Theme Evolution

VOSviewer was run to obtain a keyword co-occurrence clustering table (Table 2) and a co-occurrence map (Figure 2). In the network visualization map of co-occurrence keywords (Figure 2a), the size of each node indicates the number of occurrences, and the different colors represent different clusters. All the keywords were grouped into six clusters, each reflecting a research topic. In the time-overlay visualization map of co-occurrence keywords (Figure 2b), nodes changing from blue (older publications) to yellow (more recent publications) reflect a change in temporal gradient.
Cluster 1 includes the core keywords “co-management”, “coral reefs”, and “resilience”, showing that community participation in MPAs mainly focuses on protecting coral reef ecosystems. Ecosystem services provided by marine ecosystems connect stakeholders with MPAs and make them a social–ecological system [45]. Coral reef ecosystems are a critical source of fish diversity and recreation. However, increasing anthropogenic activities have led to coral degradation [46]. Participatory strategies, such as co-management and community involvement, offer opportunities to improve the management and sustainable use of coral reefs in MPAs [47]. A comprehensive governance system that includes local customary tenure and community participation is critical to increasing the resilience of marine ecosystems [48]. Cluster 2 concentrates on governance and management. Especially in the context of climate change, community participation in managing MPAs can effectively respond to changes in the external environment. Resource co-management through MPAs and locally managed marine areas can improve ecological conditions and enhance community adaptability [49]. Combining ecosystem-based adaptation and community-based adaptation is the most appropriate pathway to meeting the challenges of climate change. The core keyword in Cluster 3 is “community-based management”, indicating the mode of participation. It also involves the keywords “customary management”, “adaptive management”, and “decentralization”. Governments and administrative organizations share and delegate power to communities to achieve decentralization [50]. Furthermore, communities providing positive social–ecological feedback to the government is also a participation pattern that benefits adaptive co-management [51]. Community participation can provide a foundation of local management for large marine protected area networks [52]. Related fisheries management topics are classified in Cluster 4, including the keywords “fisheries management”, “artisanal fisheries”, and “fisheries co-management”. Community-based marine resource management (CBMRM) is also a key component of community participation. Community-based no-take areas managed by Indigenous people and fishers are usually established in this fisheries management model [53]. Community-based marine fishery resource management promotes biodiversity inside and, in some cases, outside MPAs [54]. The keywords in Cluster 5 and Cluster 6 reflect various methods of community participation, including “community-based conservation”, “systematic conservation”, and “community-based monitoring”. Community participation should be conducted throughout the MPA construction process, including preliminary planning and later monitoring [55]. A community-based priority-protected area map should be drawn through community interviews and meetings before establishing an MPA [56]. Research shows that community residents and fishermen involved in early planning are likelier to participate in later monitoring and management [57]. Indeed, as the main beneficiaries of resource management, local people are ideally qualified for monitoring and maintaining MPAs [58]. It will not only reduce management costs but also raise community awareness of ecological conservation.
Theme evolution in the research field was analyzed by distributing keywords along a temporal gradient. At the beginning of the research phase, community participation mainly appeared in some Pacific Island countries [59], with studies concentrated on protecting fragile coral reef ecosystems [7]. With expanding research content, scholars realized the importance of communities in managing MPAs and started to focus on the attitudes of local people. Adaptive management, the co-management of marine resources, and native perceptions became the research emphasis at this stage [60,61,62,63]. This research area was then combined with other emerging issues, like climate change, citizen science, and ecotourism [3,64,65]. The depth and angle of this field continuously improved from 1994 to 2022. Participatory management methods will be a future research interest since planning and managing MPAs require a large amount of basic information and the active cooperation of residents [66].
Table 2. Clusters and relative keywords resulting from keyword co-occurrence analysis.
Table 2. Clusters and relative keywords resulting from keyword co-occurrence analysis.
ClusterKeywordsKey Points in Representative Literature
Cluster 1 (Red)Co-management, coral reefs, resilience, social–ecological systems, perceptions, coastal management, Caribbean, ecosystem services, management effectiveness, tourism, community involvement, institutions, marine protected area, stakeholder participationTwenty-five years of community-based and cooperative coral reef conservation in the Philippines demonstrates that effective coastal resource management requires a combination of government support, community participation, environmental education, and economic incentives [67].
Cluster 2 (Green)Governance, fisheries, climate change, management, ecotourism, biodiversity, sustainability, coastal, ocean, common-pool resources, food security, sustainable development, vulnerabilityMarine resource management in marine protected areas and locally managed marine areas can mitigate ecological degradation from climate change and promote sustainable fisheries [49].
Cluster 3 (Blue)Community-based management, community-based, Indonesia, conservation planning, livelihoods, local knowledge, Fiji, coral triangle, customary management, adaptive management, decentralization, monitoringThe failure to effectively include local communities in the design and implementation of relevant measures is one of the reasons for the ineffective management of marine protected areas. Community-based marine protected areas and community-based marine resource management can effectively address the alarming depletion of coastal resources [52].
Cluster 4 (Yellow)Marine protected area, fisheries management, ecosystem-based management, artisanal fisheries, community participation, fisheries co-management, integrated coastal management, stakeholders, Brazil, marine spatial planningImproving marine resource management by enabling local communities to work with state or regional partners to reduce fishing is a priority for Hawaii and American Samoa. Community-based fisheries co-management is an important step toward improving the sustainability of global fisheries [68].
Cluster 5 (Purple)Marine conservation, Philippines, community-based conservation, small-scale fisheries, Marxan, systematic conservation, environmental justice, OceaniaCommunity-based conservation means marine conservation based on the participation, knowledge, and priorities of local communities and is more conducive to enhancing the ecological and social benefits of MPAs than conventional “people-free” conservation [32].
Cluster 6 (Cyan)Conservation, participation, Mexico, citizen science, community-based monitoring, local ecological knowledgeLocal community volunteers (usually fishers) use simple methods (e.g., visual census) with professional marine biologists to regularly monitor and assess coral reef protection in the Philippines. Community-collected fish data typically have higher variance and higher abundance than data collected by biologists. Community-based monitoring can inform the development of management actions (e.g., increased enforcement, stronger organizations, etc.) and encourage stakeholder cooperation [69].

4. Discussion

4.1. Research Method Application

By analyzing the sample literature, we found that research methods applied in the study of community participation in MPAs include qualitative analysis and quantitative analysis. We have summarized the advantages and disadvantages of these methods and provided examples of applying them in this research field (Table 3).
In-depth interviews [70], thematic analysis [65], and SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis [71] were included in the qualitative analysis methods. Scholars have interviewed community residents for their attitudes and perspectives on MPAs through group discussions or in-depth interviews. The data are handled through thematic analysis based on grounded theory, adopting an inductive method where data are systematically analyzed to identify emergent themes [72]. Furthermore, SWOT is a critical method for analyzing the management problems of community participation in MPAs. This method helps to formulate the optimal development strategy for MPAs by analyzing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats in projects.
Quantitative methods include structural equation modeling (SEM), principal component analysis (PCA), and the generalized linear model (GLM). SEM and PCA are mainly used to study factors that influence community participation in managing MPAs [73,74]. SEM and PCA results help governance and management organizations offer more effective measures to increase community involvement. The GLM can analyze the perceptions and attitudes of local people based on questionnaire survey data [75]. The effectiveness of management and the implementation of strategic goals can be estimated this way. The GLM integrates the perspectives of multiple stakeholders into MPA planning and management, reducing conflict and improving the compliance of the community members with the rules and regulations [76].
Table 3. Major research methods in the study of community participation in MPAs.
Table 3. Major research methods in the study of community participation in MPAs.
Method DefinitionAdvantageDisadvantageExamplePublication Year of the Examples
Qualitative analysisIn-depth interviewAn in-depth interview is a direct and personal interview used to reveal the motivation, beliefs, and attitudes of the respondents to a certain question [72].In-depth interviews are considered non-standard because they are flexible and allow the questions to be rearranged according to the role of each interviewee [77].Finding interviewees who will contribute to relevant research and making them willing to be interviewed is difficult, requiring a high level of interviewing skills and experience on the interviewer’s part [78].Syamsi et al. [70] conducted in-depth interviews with 18 local community members and government officers about their perceptions of the Korea–Indonesia ecotourism project. The results demonstrated the positive impact of education and community participation.2021
Thematic analysisThematic analysis is a method of pattern recognition in data. The themes are summarized and classified and become new categories for analysis [79].Thematic analysis can explain the reasons behind a phenomenon or problem and reveal the laws of human social behavior and the logic of their thoughts.It is difficult for researchers to determine which aspects of the data to focus on or which theoretical frameworks to use for their analyses. Thematic analysis is more prone to inconsistent or inappropriate use of terminology [80].A thematic analysis was used to determine vulnerability risk and the relationship between the attitudes of local people toward designating the Anambas area as an MPA [65].2021
SWOTSWOT is a strategic planning method used to assess the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats involved in a project [71].SWOT maximizes strengths and opportunities, minimizes external threats, and can turn weaknesses into strengths. It takes advantage of opportunities while reducing weaknesses [81].The results of this method are often rough and brief, making the analysis superficial and inaccurate [82].Micheli and Niccolini [71] used the SWOT framework to identify the pressures and leverage of biological performance in a Mediterranean marine protected area and search for opportunities to improve this performance.2013
Quantitative analysisStructural equation modelingStructural equation modeling is a theoretical exploratory model that identifies the potential multivariate relationship between the latent and observable variables from an inductive scope [83].SEM can simultaneously handle latent factors that are difficult to measure directly and model the links between them.This method requires the researcher to set up a causal relationship between variables based on a theory or hypothesis. This setting process is highly subjective [84].Masud et al. [74] applied SEM to identify factors influencing community participation in managing community-based ecotourism for sustainable MPA development in Peninsular Malaysia.2016
Principal component analysisPCA is a statistical method used to analyze the correlation between the variables of dimensions and each dimension through dimension reduction [6].Through PCA, large sets of variables can be reduced to integrated sets that maintain as much information as possible to help explore the relationships between the variables [85].The individual principal components obtained with PCA are usually linear combinations of the original variables, and the meaning of these principal components is often less intuitive and more difficult to interpret.Islam et al. [86] recognized the critical factors of MPA governance through PCA. The results showed that local participation played an essential role in successfully managing MPAs in Malaysia.2017
Generalized linear modelsGLMs are extensions of linear models that use link function to establish a connection between the response and predictors [87].The data used in a GLM are not limited. This allows for data with non-linear and non-constant variance structures [88].This model may have computational efficiency issues when dealing with large-scale datasets [89].Giglio et al. [76] used GLM to verify the perceptions of different stakeholders on the effectiveness of management in three marine protected areas in Brazil. They found that communication between stakeholders and managers was crucial to fair management. 2019

4.2. Key Lessons from Community Participation Cases

The ideas for community participation in MPAs should be implemented in practical actions and specific projects. Using five representative articles in the sample literature, our study analyzed the elements of community participation in five MPAs (Table 4). The lessons learned from those cases are as follows:
Customary management systems like customary harvested closures are respected in the Fiji MPA network. The supportive co-management policy environment and multi-level interactions between stakeholders in Fiji are conducive to adaptive co-management decision-making in MPAs. The experience of Puerto Morelos shows that the sectors of an MPA should open to communities during and after its creation. This improves community support and participation. In addition, communities play an essential role in natural resource management, and agreements between communities and management organizations should be respected and legalized. In Australia, the Representative Areas Program (RAP) played an essential role in participatory planning issues for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The cost of information collection can be reduced and the residents’ awareness of protection can be improved through participation in activities like holding community seminars before formulating draft zoning plans. Combining local knowledge with expert opinions is important to marine spatial planning. This can make community residents feel involved and reduce the cost of information collection. Therefore, effective public engagement can promote the implementation of marine spatial planning in MPAs. The case of Moheli Marine Park illustrates the importance of community participation in environmental monitoring for MPAs. Improving environmental education and utilizing local knowledge can alleviate gaps in scientific data and poor law enforcement in management departments. Lastly, the participatory approach was used in the management plan of the Right Whale Environmental Protection Area (MP-RWEPA). Local fishers provided suggestions during the plan’s development, and this advice was fully reflected in the final management actions and guidelines. This reduced social participation asymmetries in MPA management and strengthened the relationship between small-scale fishing communities and the RWEPA’s organizations and leaders.
To sum up, community participation in early planning and later monitoring makes up for insufficient data and funds to a certain extent. In addition, the attitudes and perceptions of communities and a supportive policy environment are vital to achieving management goals in MPAs. Finally, the sense of identity and responsibility of local people can be increased through co-management and community empowerment, contributing to developing governance strategies and improving management effects.

4.3. The Effect of Community Participation in MPAs

Our cluster analysis and case studies revealed that the significance of community participation in MPAs is mainly reflected in two aspects, namely, benefits to community residents and MPA management.
Firstly, community participation in marine resource management can increase the sense of ownership, trust, and support for MPAs among residents. This alleviates conflicts between community residents and marine protected area construction projects in terms of marine resource usage. Protecting marine resources is one of the main purposes of establishing marine protected areas. However, establishing MPAs can prohibit or limit access to marine resources for residents, increasing the livelihood vulnerability of local communities. Community involvement in managing marine resources, such as the participation of residents in establishing and enforcing fisheries resource management measures (e.g., establishing no-fishing zones and prohibiting the use of fishing gear) can foster a sense of ownership over MPAs, leading to increased support and improved compliance with conservation measures [15]. In addition, local people can also provide knowledge to complement scientific research in managing marine resources, increasing the community’s trust in MPA managers and scientists because they are also involved in data collection and developing measures [91]. In addition, engaging communities in marine resource management can increase their understanding of the resource composition and ecological status of MPAs, leading to the discovery or exploration of alternative livelihoods, such as eco-tourism and recreational fisheries. Developing these alternative economies will enhance the livelihoods of community residents and contribute to sustainably developing the community and the MPA [92].
Secondly, community participation can improve the adaptive management of MPAs. Effective adaptive management requires clear conservation objectives, systematic monitoring, evaluating progress toward conservation objectives, and management structures that are flexible enough to adapt to changes in the external environment [24]. In the early stages of marine protected area planning, Indigenous residents can provide reference in determining protection goals and scope based on their ecological knowledge. Incorporating traditional knowledge into MPA management provides an adaptive approach when responding to changing socio-economic and environmental conditions. Because of their long history of ocean use, there are many lessons to be learned from indigenous practices that can contribute to innovative thinking about ecosystem-based management in today’s world [93]. Monitoring and evaluation are necessary components of adaptive management, determining whether these protected areas have effectively achieved their goals after establishing MPAs [94]. However, the effectiveness of protection is often limited by insufficient investment and manpower for monitoring and enforcement. Therefore, monitoring and enforcement deficiencies can be overcome by encouraging resource users to develop and enforce protective regulations [57]. Monitoring with the participation of local communities enables the collection of detailed observations over a long period. Communities can then feed this information back to the governing body to help it adjust its management strategies [95]. Furthermore, combining community-based conservation programs with the top-down management of MPAs can increase flexibility, as this creates a multi-level governance system that ensures that multiple stakeholders can make recommendations to improve the effectiveness of MPA management in the face of uncertainty [52].
In summary, community participation is important to marine protected areas. On the one hand, it can promote the rational management of marine resources to alleviate conflicts over resource use between communities and MPAs; on the other hand, it can improve the efficiency of MPA management by promoting adaptive management. These issues are difficult to resolve via top-down and scientist-led management. Therefore, community participation should be prioritized in constructing and managing MPAs in the future.

4.4. Future Research Prospects

Research on community participation in MPAs has yielded many positive results. Based on previous research findings and case studies, this study proposes the following research directions to provide a reference for other researchers.
Research should be conducted from a multidisciplinary perspective, combining study content with emerging topics. Communities should be involved in all aspects of constructing and managing MPAs, such as marine ecosystem protection, marine resources management, and biodiversity conservation. Currently, most relevant research is focused on subjects such as environmental science, conservation biology, and oceanography. Furthermore, economics is also an important research area in community participation. Increasing community incomes and promoting local economic development are the keys to enabling sustainably developed marine protected areas [96]. Furthermore, community-based monitoring programs for marine protected areas have increased in recent years, such as recording benthic habitat information by trained community divers. The information collected by the community can be integrated into Geographic Information Systems (GISs) to provide a data foundation for marine conservation [97]. This suggests that geography is also an important tool for future research on community participation in MPAs. In addition, from a psychological perspective, assessing the acceptability of marine protected areas among community residents can improve the effectiveness of marine conservation and achieve long-term success [98]. Therefore, conducting research from a multidisciplinary perspective, such as through economics, geography, and psychology, can provide a more comprehensive and systematic understanding of community participation in marine protected areas, helping to explore more potential study possibilities in this field.
Meanwhile, researchers should pay more attention to new issues. In recent years, the resilience of social–ecological systems has become a hot issue, particularly in the context of global climate change and future crises (like the COVID-19 pandemic [99]). Social–ecological system resilience is defined as the degree to which a coupled human–natural system can absorb disturbances and reorganize itself to maintain its basic state, structure, function, and feedback when exposed to changes in the external environment [100]. Research on the resilience of social–ecological systems formed by marine protected areas and communities is an important means of exploring the interactions between people and the ocean and promoting their sustainable development. In addition, the critical role of participatory science in marine protected area research should be recognized, such as citizen science and community science. Although these methods are not uncommon in marine protected areas, combining participatory science with emerging topics such as artificial intelligence will provide more effective assistance for information collection. An artificial intelligence-empowered citizen science approach has been proposed in relevant research and has been used to enhance intertidal conservation efforts [101]. In the future, more topics can be explored based on existing content to provide support for research on community participation in marine protected areas.
It is necessary to integrate quantitative methods with qualitative methods for research. Qualitative methods are mainly used to study community perceptions and attitudes toward MPA management, and quantitative approaches are usually used for statistical analyses of more objective data. With the deep study of community participation in MPAs, research results cannot be supported by a single qualitative or quantitative analysis. As a result, qualitative analysis should be combined with quantitative analysis to evaluate the results from subjective and objective perspectives.
Further studying the specific paths of community participation is necessary. Community-based management is a bottom-up management model that can alleviate conflicts and reduce the cost of protection. Meanwhile, respect for local culture and historical traditions improves the sense of ownership of community residents and increases their enthusiasm for participation. However, at this stage, the decision-making power is still held by the government or managing institutions in most MPAs, and communities are in a passive management situation. With increasing requirements for co-management from communities, we should start by decentralizing management and then seek a management mechanism that balances top-down and bottom-up approaches. Thus, research on participating paths needs to be broadened by exploring the possibilities of involving communities in MPA planning and design, as well as in daily supervision and monitoring.
Local knowledge could supplement gaps in scientific data. Traditional ecological knowledge is increasingly recognized as an important part of ecological protection and resource management studies. Some local people understand the status and dynamic changes in ecosystems and species well, and they could become a key source of primary environmental data. The researcher can also learn the needs of communities and provide more targeted suggestions for MPA policy formulation by communicating with local people.

5. Conclusions

Marine conservation has faced an enormous threat in recent years owing to anthropic activities and global climate change. The importance of communities in the ecosystem and biodiversity protection has been gradually recognized by scientists. This study provides an overview of research on community participation in MPAs through bibliometric analysis. The results showed that the number of studies in this field experienced an upward trend, and the main countries producing research were the United States and Australia. In addition, hot research topics were identified via keyword clustering, including community-based resource management, co-management models, and the methods of community participation in MPAs. This research topic has begun to integrate many emerging issues with the continuous expansion of its subjects. Finally, the analysis of actual cases in this study illustrates the role of community participation in planning, managing, and monitoring MPAs.
Given the above, future research should be conducted from multiple perspectives, and new topics like the resilience of social–ecological systems, citizen science, and artificial intelligence should also be reflected. Meanwhile, community participation models and paths need to be widely explored by combining quantitative and qualitative methods. Finally, we suggest that researchers complement their research with local ecological knowledge, a critical source of ecological data.
In the future, research on community participation in MPAs will play a significant role in promoting the sustainable development of the global ocean and realizing the well-being of all humanity. This article reflects on the research status of community participation in MPAs. We emphasize the value of communities in terms of providing ecological knowledge and participating in planning and monitoring. The directions we propose for future research are beneficial for enriching the research content of community participation and improving study methodologies. Our research is expected to provide a research base for the coordinated and sustainable development of MPAs and communities.
Despite the above contributions, we acknowledge that this study has limitations. Firstly, bibliometric analysis focuses on quantitative analyses such as counting the number of documents, citations, keyword occurrences, etc., but it fails to complete context analysis and potentially ignores the research context and diversity of results in the literature. Secondly, since cluster analysis is based on statistical data and mathematical models, its results possess a certain level of abstraction, potentially allowing the introduction of subjectivity and bias when the results are interpreted. Finally, the Web of Science was the only data source used in this research. Despite the significant influence of this database, it lacks comprehensiveness to a certain extent. Therefore, future research scopes can be expanded to include other databases such as Scopus, and comparative analyses of the literature characteristics of community engagement in marine protected areas can be conducted based on different databases.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.Z., F.L. and X.J.; methodology and software, X.J.; writing—original draft preparation, X.J.; writing—review and editing, J.Y., K.Z. and Q.W.; supervision, J.Y.; funding acquisition, F.L. and J.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Key Laboratory of Coastal Science and Integrated Management, Ministry of Natural Resources (2022COSIMQ002); Shandong Provincial Social Science Planning Research Project (22CXSXJ15); Guangxi Key Laboratory of Marine Environmental Science, Guangxi Academy of Sciences (GXKLHY21-04); and Hainan Province Marxism Project General Program (2023HNMGC03).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available in the Web of Science database.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

MPAMarine Protected Area
UNUnited Nations
IFImpact Factor
CBMRMCommunity-based Marine Resource Management
SWOTStrengths, Weakness, Opportunity, Threats
SEMStructural Equation Modelling
PCAPrincipal Component Analysis
GLMGeneralized Linear Model
RAPRepresentative Areas Program
WCSWildlife Conservation Society
GISGeographic Information Systems
MP-RWEPAManagement Plan of the Right Whale Environmental Protection Area

References

  1. Harker, A.L.; Stojanovic, T.A.; Majalia, A.M.; Jackson, C.; Baya, S.; Tsiganyiu, K.D. Relationships between Livelihoods, Well-Being, and Marine Protected Areas: Evidence from a Community Survey, Watamu Marine National Park and Reserve, Kenya. Coast. Manag. 2022, 50, 490–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Abdurrahim, A.Y.; Adhuri, D.S.; Ross, H.; Phelan, A. Community champions of ecosystem services: The role of local agency in protecting Indonesian coral reefs. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 10, 868218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Boncheva, A.I.; Hernandez-Morales, P. Impacts of Climate Change in the El Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve (REBIVI): Challenges for Coastal Communities and the Conservation of Biodiversity. Diversity 2022, 14, 786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Vella, P.; Bowen, R.E.; Frankic, A. An evolving protocol to identify key stakeholder-influenced indicators of coastal change: The case of Marine Protected Areas. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2009, 66, 203–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Palomo, L.E.; Hernández-Flores, A. Application of the Ostrom framework in the analysis of a social-ecological system with multiple resources in a marine protected area. PeerJ 2019, 7, e7374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Osuka, K.; Rosendo, S.; Riddell, M.; Huet, J.; Daide, M.; Chauque, E.; Samoilys, M. Applying a Social-Ecological Systems Approach to Understanding Local Marine Management Trajectories in Northern Mozambique. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Elliott, G.; Mitchell, B.; Wiltshire, B.; Manan, I.A.; Wismer, S. Community participation in marine protected area management: Wakatobi National Park, Sulawesi, Indonesia. Coast. Manag. 2001, 29, 295–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Marques, A.S.; Ramos, T.B.; Caeiro, S.; Costa, M.H. Adaptive-participative sustainability indicators in marine protected are-as: Design and communication. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2013, 72, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Day, J.C. Effective Public Participation is Fundamental for Marine Conservation-Lessons from a Large-Scale MPA. Coast. Manag. 2017, 45, 470–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO). Public Participation in Government Decision-Making: Better Practice Guide. 23. 2015. Available online: https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/report/public-participation-government-decision-making-better-practice-guide (accessed on 12 July 2024).
  11. Tissot, B.N.; Walsh, W.J.; Hixon, M.A. Hawaiian Islands Marine Ecosystem Case Study: Ecosystem- and Community-Based Management in Hawaii. Coast Manag. 2009, 37, 255–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Horvat, K.P.; Gasperic, P.; Leban, K.; Ticar, J.; Smrekar, A. Participatory Approach to Wetland Governance: The Case of The Memorandum of Understanding of the Secovlje Salina Nature Park. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Granek, E.F.; Brown, M.A. Co-management approach to marine conservation in Moheli, Comoros Islands. Conserv. Biol. 2005, 19, 1724–1732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. de Oliveira, J.G.C.; Campos-Silva, J.V.; Ladle, R.J.; Batista, V.D. Linking social organization, attitudes, and stakeholder empowerment in MPA governance. Mar. Policy 2021, 130, 104543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rosendo, S.; Brown, K.; Joubert, A.; Jiddawi, N.; Mechisso, M. A clash of values and approaches: A case study of marine protected area planning in Mozambique. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2011, 54, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Espectato, L.N.; Monteclaro, H.M.; Arceo, H.O.; Catedrilla, L.C.; Baylon, C.C. Community perceptions on the role of inter-local government units alliance in coastal resource management: The case of Banate Bay alliance in Iloilo, Philippines. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2022, 219, 106059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Begossi, A.; May, P.H.; Lopes, P.F.; Oliveira, L.E.C.; da Vinha, V.; Silvano, R.A.M. Compensation for environmental services from artisanal fisheries in SE Brazil: Policy and technical strategies. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 71, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Trimble, M.; de Araujo, L.G.; Seixas, C.S. One party does not tango! Fishers’ non-participation as a barrier to co-management in Paraty, Brazil. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2014, 92, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Peer, N.; Muhl, E.K.; Janna, J.; Brown, M.; Zukulu, S.; Mbatha, P. Community and Marine Conservation in South Africa: Are We Still Missing the Mark? Front. Mar. Sci. 2022, 9, 884442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Turicchia, E.; Cerrano, C.; Ghetta, M.; Abbiati, M.; Ponti, M. MedSens index: The bridge between marine citizen science and coastal management. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 122, 107296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cheung, S.Y.; Leung, Y.F.; Larson, L.R. Citizen science as a tool for enhancing recreation research in protected areas: Applications and opportunities. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 305, 114353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Joly, C.A. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Biota Neotrop. 2022, 22, e2022e001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Fajardo, P.; Beauchesne, D.; Carbajal-López, A.; Daigle, R.M.; Fierro-Arcos, L.D.; Goldsmit, J.; Zajderman, S.; Valdez-Hernández, J.I.; Maigua, M.Y.T.; Christofoletti, R.A. Aichi Target 18 beyond 2020: Mainstreaming Traditional Biodiversity Knowledge in the conservation and sustainable use of marine and coastal ecosystems. PeerJ 2021, 9, e9616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Weeks, R.; Jupiter, S.D. Adaptive Comanagement of a Marine Protected Area Network in Fiji. Conserv. Biol. 2013, 27, 1234–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Olaya-Restrepo, J.; Schiavetti, A.; Barbeitos, M.S. A multilayered network analysis of social participation in the management of Marine Protected Areas in Brazil. Mar. Policy 2022, 146, 105329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Tranter, S.N.; Estradivari; Ahmadia, G.N.; Andradi-Brown, D.A.; Muenzel, D.; Agung, F.; Amkieltiela; Ford, A.K.; Habibi, A.; Handayani, C.N.; et al. The inclusion of fisheries and tourism in marine protected areas to support conservation in Indonesia. Mar. Policy 2022, 146, 105301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rahman, M.K.; Masud, M.M.; Akhtar, R.; Hossain, M.M. Impact of community participation on sustainable development of marine protected areas: Assessment of ecotourism development. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2021, 24, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. de Freitas, R.R.; Costa, R.C.; Alvite, C.M.D.; Balensiefer, D.C.; de Barros, C.R.D.B.; Prado, J.H. Challenges for fishers’ engagement in Marine Protected Areas: Lessons from Right Whale Environmental Protection Area, Southern Brazil. Mar. Policy 2022, 143, 105135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Funk, L.; Wilson, A.M.W.; Gough, C.; Brayne, K.; Djerryh, N.R. Perceptions of access and benefits from community-based aquaculture through Photovoice: A case study within a locally managed marine area in Madagascar. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2022, 222, 106046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Masud, M.M.; Shahabudin, S.M.; Baskaran, A.; Akhtar, R. Co-management approach to sustainable management of marine protected areas: The case of Malaysia. Mar. Policy 2022, 138, 105010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Diggon, S.; Butler, C.; Heidt, A.; Bones, J.; Jones, R.; Outhet, C. The Marine Plan Partnership: Indigenous community-based marine spatial planning. Mar. Policy 2021, 132, 103510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rice, W.S.; Sowman, M.R.; Bavinck, M. Informing a conservation policy-praxis disjuncture: A ‘commons’ perspective to tackling coastal-marine community-conserved area implementation in South Africa. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 261, 109296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kleitou, P.; Rees, S.; Cecconi, F.; Kletou, D.; Savva, I.; Cai, L.L.; Hall-Spencer, J.M. Regular monitoring and targeted removals can control lionfish in Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2021, 31, 2870–2882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Miller, A.E.; Davenport, A.; Chen, S.; Hart, C.; Gary, D.; Fitzpatrick, B.; Muflihati; Kartikawati; Sudaryanti; Sagita, N. Using a participatory impact assessment framework to evaluate a community-led mangrove and fisheries conservation approach in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. People Nat. 2020, 2, 1061–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Katikiro, R.E.; Macusi, E.D.; Deepananda, K.H.M.A. Challenges facing local communities in Tanzania in realising locally-managed marine areas. Mar. Policy 2015, 51, 220–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Smallhorn-West, P.; Cohen, P.J.; Phillips, M.; Jupiter, S.D.; Govan, H.; Pressey, R.L. Linking small-scale fisheries co-management to UN Sustainable Development Goals. Conserv. Biol. 2022, 36, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. von der Porten, S.; Ota, Y.; Cisneros-Montemayor, A.; Pictou, S. The Role of Indigenous Resurgence in Marine Conservation. Coast. Manag. 2019, 47, 527–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ban, N.C.; Frid, A. Indigenous peoples’ rights and marine protected areas. Mar. Policy 2018, 87, 180–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jiang, L.; Yang, T.; Yu, J. Global trends and prospects of blue carbon sinks: A bibliometric analysis. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 65924–65939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Li, J.; Weng, G.; Pan, Y.; Li, C.; Wang, N. A scientometric review of tourism carrying capacity research: Cooperation, hotspots, and prospect. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 325, 129278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lu, Z.; Li, W.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, S. Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research on Ecological Networks in Nature Conservation from 1990 to 2020. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Picone, F.; Buonocore, E.; Chemello, R.; Russo, G.F.; Franzese, P.P. Exploring the development of scientific research on Marine Protected Areas: From conservation to global ocean sustainability. Ecol. Inf. 2021, 61, 101200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Thiault, L.; Collin, A.; Chlous, F.; Gelcich, S.; Claudet, J. Combining participatory and socioeconomic approaches to map fishing effort in small-scale fisheries. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0176862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Twichell, J.; Pollnac, R.; Christie, P. Lessons from Philippines MPA Management: Social Ecological Interactions, Participation, and MPA Performance. Environ. Manag. 2018, 61, 916–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lopes, R.; Videira, N. A Collaborative Approach for Scoping Ecosystem Services with Stakeholders: The Case of Arrabida Natural Park. Environ. Manag. 2016, 58, 323–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Amjad, A.; Siddiqui, P.J.A.; Ahmad, N.; Amir, S.A.; Masroor, R.; Shafique, S.; Burhan, Z.U.N. Ecology of Fish Communities in Coral Habitats Along the Coast of Pakistan: Potential Threats and Conservation Strategies. Pak. J. Zool. 2021, 53, 1341–1351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Camargo, C.; Maldonado, J.H.; Alvarado, E.; Moreno-Sánchez, R.; Mendoza, S.; Manrique, N.; Mogollón, A.; Osorio, J.D.; Grajales, A.; Sánchez, J.A. Community involvement in management for maintaining coral reef resilience and biodiversity in southern Caribbean marine protected areas. Biodivers. Conserv. 2009, 18, 935–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Harvey, B.J.; Nash, K.L.; Blanchard, J.L.; Edwards, D.P. Ecosystem-based management of coral reefs under climate change. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 8, 6354–6368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. D’agata, S.; Darling, E.S.; Gurney, G.G.; McClanahan, T.R.; Muthiga, N.A.; Rabearisoa, A.; Maina, J.M. Multiscale determinants of social adaptive capacity in small-scale fishing communities. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 198, 56–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wever, L.; Glaser, M.; Gorris, P.; Ferrol-Schulte, D. Decentralization and participation in integrated coastal management: Policy lessons from Brazil and Indonesia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2012, 66, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Quintana, A.C.E.; Giron-Nava, A.; Urmy, S.; Cramer, A.N.; Dominguez-Sanchez, S.; Dyck, S.R.; Aburto-Oropeza, O.; Basurto, X.; Weaver, A.H. Positive Social-Ecological Feedbacks in Community-Based Conservation. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021, 8, 652318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ferse, S.C.A.; Costa, M.M.; Manez, K.S.; Adhuri, D.S.; Glaser, M. Allies, not aliens: Increasing the role of local communities in marine protected area implementation. Environ. Conserv. 2010, 37, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Camacho, R.A.; Steneck, R.S. Creating a TURF from the bottom-up: Antigua’s community-based coral reef no-take reserve. Bull. Mar. Sci. 2017, 93, 217–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Marriott, S.E.; Cox, C.; Amolo, R.C.; Apistar, D.; Mancao, R.H.; de Mutsert, K. Implications of Community-Based Management of Marine Reserves in the Philippines for Reef Fish Communities and Biodiversity. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021, 8, 731675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Villasenor-Derbez, J.C.; Amador-Castro, I.G.; Hernandez-Velasco, A.; Torre, J.; Fulton, S. Two Decades of Community-Based Marine Conservation Provide the Foundations for Future Action. Front. Mar. Sci. 2022, 9, 893104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ban, N.C.; Picard, C.R.; Vincent, A.C.J. Comparing and Integrating Community-Based and Science-Based Approaches to Prioritizing Marine Areas for Protection. Conserv. Biol. 2009, 23, 899–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Alexander, S.M.; Epstein, G.; Bodin, O.; Armitage, D.; Campbell, D. Participation in planning and social networks increase social monitoring in community-based conservation. Conserv. Lett. 2018, 11, e12562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Quintana, A.; Basurto, X.; Van Dyck, S.R.; Weaver, A.H. Political making of more-than-fishers through their involvement in ecological monitoring of protected areas. Biodivers. Conserv. 2020, 29, 3899–3923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Russ, G.R.; Alcala, A.C. Management histories of Sumilon and Apo Marine Reserves, Philippines, and their influence on national marine resource policy. Coral Reefs 1999, 18, 307–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Aswani, S.; Albert, S.; Sabetian, A.; Furusawa, T. Customary management as precautionary and adaptive principles for protecting coral reefs in Oceania. Coral Reefs 2007, 26, 1009–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cinner, J.; Huchery, C. A Comparison of Social Outcomes Associated with Different Fisheries Co-Management Institutions. Conserv. Lett. 2014, 7, 224–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Thaman, B.; Icely, J.D.; Fragoso, B.D.D.; Veitayaki, J. A comparison of rural community perceptions and involvement in conservation between the Fiji Islands and Southwestern Portugal. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2016, 133, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hogg, K.; Noguera-Mendez, P.; Semitiel-Garcia, M.; Gray, T.; Young, S. Controversies over stakeholder participation in marine protected area (MPA) management: A case study of the Cabo de Palos-Islas Hormigas MPA. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2017, 144, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. DiBattista, J.D.; West, K.M.; Hay, A.C.; Hughes, J.M.; Fowler, A.M.; McGrouther, M.A. Community-based citizen science projects can support the distributional monitoring of fishes. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2021, 31, 3580–3593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Albasri, H.; Sammut, J. A Comparison of Vulnerability Risks and Conservation Perceptions between Mariculture, Fishery and Ecotourism Livelihood Groups in a Multi-Use MPA in Indonesia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lim, V.C.; Justine, E.V.; Yusof, K.; Ariffin, W.N.S.W.M.; Goh, H.C.; Fadzil, K.S. Eliciting local knowledge of ecosystem services using participatory mapping and Photovoice: A case study of Tun Mustapha Park, Malaysia. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0253740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. White, A.T.; Vogt, H.P. Philippine coral reefs under threat: Lessons learned after 25 years of community-based reef conservation. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2000, 40, 537–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Levine, A.S.; Richmond, L.S. Examining Enabling Conditions for Community-Based Fisheries Comanagement: Comparing Efforts in Hawai’i and American Samoa. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Uychiaoco, A.J.; Arceo, H.O.; Green, S.J.; De la Cruz, M.T.; Gaite, P.A.; Aliño, P.M. Monitoring and evaluation of reef protected areas by local fishers in the Philippines: Tightening the adaptive management cycle. Biodivers. Conserv. 2005, 14, 2775–2794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Syamsi, M.N.; Lee, J. A Longitudinal Study of the Local Community Perspective on Ecotourism Development in Lombok, Indonesia. Water 2021, 13, 2398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Micheli, F.; Niccolini, F. Achieving Success under Pressure in the Conservation of Intensely Used Coastal Areas. Ecol. Soc. 2013, 18, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Schmidt, R.; Le Corre, N.; Hughes, M.; Peuziat, I. The view from the inside: Institutional dimensions of public communication of two coastal and marine protected area networks in France. Coast Manag. 2020, 48, 210–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Pollnac, R.; Seara, T. Factors Influencing Success of Marine Protected Areas in the Visayas, Philippines as Related to Increasing Protected Area Coverage. Environ. Manag. 2011, 47, 584–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Masud, M.M.; Aldakhil, A.M.; Nassani, A.A.; Azam, M.N. Community-based ecotourism management for sustainable development of marine protected areas in Malaysia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2016, 136, 104–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Pajaro, M.G.; Mulrennan, M.E.; Alder, J.; Vincent, A.C.J. Developing MPA Effectiveness Indicators: Comparison within and Across Stakeholder Groups and Communities. Coast. Manag. 2010, 38, 122–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Giglio, V.J.; Moura, R.L.; Gibran, F.Z.; Rossi, L.C.; Banzato, B.M.; Corsso, J.T.; Pereira-Filho, G.H.; Motta, F.S. Do managers and stakeholders have congruent perceptions on marine protected area management effectiveness? Ocean Coast. Manag. 2019, 179, 104865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Casagrande, A.; Salvatore, R.; Rover, O.J.; Chiodo, E.; Fantini, A. Artisanal mollusc fisheries co-management in Brazil and Italy: Institutional innovations to address environmental crisis. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 291, 112671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. MacDougall, C.; Fudge, E. Planning and recruiting the sample for focus groups and in-depth interviews. Qual. Health Res. 2001, 11, 117–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Fereday, J.; Muir-Cochrane, E. Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. Int. J. Qual. Methods 2006, 5, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kiger, M.E.; Varpio, L. Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Med. Teach. 2020, 42, 846–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Arslan, O.; Er, I.D. A SWOT analysis for successful bridge team organization and safer marine operations. Process Saf. Prog. 2007, 27, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Gao, C.Y.; Peng, D.H. Consolidating SWOT analysis with nonhomogeneous uncertain preference information. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2011, 24, 796–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Perea-Munoz, J.M.; Miles, A.; Bayle-Sempere, J.T. Sharing goals by timely communication improves fishermen’s satisfaction with marine protected areas: A case study in the Mediterranean. Ambio 2022, 51, 1520–1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Wu, X.L.; Heringstad, B.; Gianola, D. Bayesian structural equation models for inferring relationships between phenotypes: A review of methodology, identifiability, and applications. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 2010, 127, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Hoshino, E.; van Putten, E.I.; Girsang, W.; Resosudarmo, B.P.; Yamazaki, S. Fishers’ Perceived Objectives of Community-Based Coastal Resource Management in the Kei Islands, Indonesia. Front. Mar. Sci. 2017, 4, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Islam, G.M.N.; Tai, S.Y.; Kusairi, M.N.; Ahmad, S.; Aswani, F.M.N.; Senan, M.K.A.M.; Ahmad, A. Community perspectives of governance for effective management of marine protected areas in Malaysia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2017, 135, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Venables, W.N.; Dichmont, C.M. GLMs, GAMs and GLMMs: An overview of theory for applications in fisheries research. Fish. Res. 2004, 70, 319–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Guisan, A.; Edwards, T.C.; Hastie, T. Generalized linear and generalized additive models in studies of species distributions: Setting the scene. Ecol. Model 2002, 157, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Vencálek, O.; Hron, K.; Filzmoser, P. A comparison of generalised linear models and compositional models for ordered categorical data. Stat. Model 2020, 20, 249–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Rodriguez-Martinez, R.E. Community involvement in marine protected areas: The case of Puerto Morelos reef, Mexico. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 88, 1151–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Wendt, D.E.; Starr, R.M. Collaborative Research: An Effective Way to Collect Data for Stock Assessments and Evaluate Marine Protected Areas in California. Mar. Coast. Fish. 2009, 1, 315–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Gilman, E. Guidelines for coastal and marine site-planning and examples of planning and management intervention tools. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2002, 45, 377–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Friedlander, A.M. Marine conservation in Oceania: Past, present, and future. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 135, 139–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Loury, E.K.; Ainsley, S.M. Identifying Indicators to Evaluate Community-Managed Freshwater Protected Areas in the Lower Mekong Basin: A Review of Marine and Freshwater Examples. Water 2021, 12, 3530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Schemmel, E.; Friedlander, A.M.; Andrade, P.; Keakealani, K.; Castro, L.M.; Wiggins, C.; Wilcox, B.A.; Yasutake, Y.; Kittinger, J.N. The codevelopment of coastal fisheries monitoring methods to support local management. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Casimiro, D.; Ventura, M.A.; Botelho, A.Z.; Guerreiro, J. Ecotourism in Marine Protected Areas as a tool to valuate natural capital and enhance good marine governance: A review. Front. Mar. Sci. 2023, 9, 1002677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Game, E.T.; Lipsett-Moore, G.; Hamilton, R.; Peterson, N.; Kereseka, J.; Atu, W.; Watts, M.; Possingham, H.P. Informed opportunism for conservation planning in the Solomon Islands. Conserv. Lett. 2011, 4, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Marzo, D.; Cavallini, I.; Scaccia, L.; Guidetti, P.; Di Franco, A.; Calò, A.; Niccolini, F. Drivers of Small-Scale Fishers’ Acceptability across Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas at Different Stages of Establishment. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. King, C.; Adhuri, D.S.; Clifton, J. Marine reserves and resilience in the era of COVID-19. Mar. Policy 2023, 141, 105093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Refulio-Coronado, S.; Lacasse, K.; Dalton, T.; Humphries, A.; Basu, S.; Uchida, H.; Uchida, E. Coastal and Marine Socio-Ecological Systems: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021, 8, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Chen, V.Y.; Lu, D.J.; Han, Y.S. Hybrid Intelligence for Marine Biodiversity: Integrating Citizen Science with AI for Enhanced Intertidal Conservation Efforts at Cape Santiago, Taiwan. Sustainability 2024, 16, 454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 07772 g001
Figure 1. (a) Temporal and (b) spatial distribution of studies on community participation in MPAs from 1994 to 2022.
Figure 1. (a) Temporal and (b) spatial distribution of studies on community participation in MPAs from 1994 to 2022.
Sustainability 16 07772 g001
Sustainability 16 07772 g002
Figure 2. Keyword co-occurrence analysis of community participation in MPAs from 1994 to 2022: (a) the network visualization map of co-occurrence keywords; (b) the time-overlay visualization map of co-occurrence keywords.
Figure 2. Keyword co-occurrence analysis of community participation in MPAs from 1994 to 2022: (a) the network visualization map of co-occurrence keywords; (b) the time-overlay visualization map of co-occurrence keywords.
Sustainability 16 07772 g002
Table 1. The leading journals, research organizations, and subject categories in the research field.
Table 1. The leading journals, research organizations, and subject categories in the research field.
Journal NameCountsResearch OrganizationCountsSubject CategoryCounts
Ocean Coastal Management
(IF: 4.6)		77James Cook University48Environmental Sciences233
Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
(IF:2.4)		29University of California System24Marine Freshwater Biology124
Coastal Management
(IF: 2.5)		29Nature Conservancy19Water Resources113
Frontiers in Marine Science
(IF: 3.7)		24Duke University18Ecology109
Biological Conservation
(IF: 5.9)		17CGIAR16Oceanography106
Conservation Biology
(IF: 6.3)		17NOAA USA16Biodiversity Conservation101
Ecology and Society
(IF: 4.1)		16University of British Columbia16Environmental Studies69
Environmental Conservation
(IF: 2.7)		14University of Queensland16Fisheries31
Plos One
(IF: 3.7)		13University of Hawaii System15Multidisciplinary Sciences21
Biodiversity and Conservation
(IF: 3.4)		12University of Rhode Island15Green Sustainable Science Technology14
(IF value from Journal Citation Reports, 2022).
Table 4. Case studies and key lessons on community participation in MPAs.
Table 4. Case studies and key lessons on community participation in MPAs.
Marine Protected AreaCountryYear of EstablishmentYear of Literature PublicationThe Content of Community Participation
Marine protected area network in Kubulau District [24]Fiji20052013The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) cooperated with communities to establish an MPA network that is locally implemented and managed in the Kubulau District. It improved the resilience of coral reefs to climate change by combining the permanent no-take areas with customary harvested closures.
Puerto Morelos Reef Marine Protected Area [90]Mexico19982008This MPA is the first to be established through a community-based approach in Mexico. It was initially established to protect artificially threatened coral reefs, and the local communities participated in sustainably utilizing the coral reefs via collaborative co-management.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park [9]Australia19752017The Representative Areas Program (RAP) in Australia dealt with environmental issues of community involvement and participatory planning. It ensured that community residents could understand the action plan and put forward valuable recommendations before formulating a draft zoning plan. The communities were invited to discuss the economic, political, and social influence of the zoning plan after the draft was published. As a result, the final zoning plan was created based on expert views and community participation.
Moheli Marine Park [13]Union of the Comoros19982005Community members participated in boundary delineation and regulation-making in the Moheli Marine Park. Village representatives were selected as “ecoguards” who would be responsible for monitoring their marine resources, implementing park regulations, and representing the interests of the local people.
Right Whale Environmental Protection Area [28]Brazil20002022Fishers were invited to participate in workshops to discuss the difficulties and needs of small-scale fisheries, their relationship history with the RWEPA, and their expectations for MPA management. The management actions, guidelines, norms, and MPA regions became systematic based on the information provided by participants through three workshop stages.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jiang, X.; Liu, F.; Yu, J.; Zhang, K.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, Q. Global Trends and Prospects of Community Participation in Marine Protected Areas: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7772. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177772

AMA Style

Jiang X, Liu F, Yu J, Zhang K, Zhang Z, Wang Q. Global Trends and Prospects of Community Participation in Marine Protected Areas: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability. 2024; 16(17):7772. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177772

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jiang, Xun, Fangming Liu, Jing Yu, Kuncheng Zhang, Zhaohui Zhang, and Quanbin Wang. 2024. "Global Trends and Prospects of Community Participation in Marine Protected Areas: A Bibliometric Analysis" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7772. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177772

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop