Sample Success Measures Difference in coral health

3

2. Methods

2.1 Sample

It was decided to conduct the analysis within one nation as a means of controlling for aspects of national legislation and policies which could impact establishment and sustainability of CB-MPAs. A cross-national study would only further complicate an already complicated analytical problem. The Philippines was selected since the nation has had more experience and a larger number of CB-MPAs than any other country. The CB-MPAs in the Philippines also manifest a wide range of levels of success, ranging from “paper” existing only in legislation and non-functional CB-MPAs to those that have achieved worldwide recognition for their achievements e.g., Apo Island. To minimize the amount of time and resources spent on travel it was decided to limit the sample to the provinces of Bohol, Leyte, Cebu, and Negros Oriental in the Visayas. The sample is a quota sample including only CB-MPAs which include coral reef area, allow no fishing within the boundary, and were officially recognized by municipal ordinance for at least three years. It was selected to include sites manifesting a range of “success”, with a stress on geographic representativeness across the four provinces. The final sample is composed of 14 CB-MPAs located in Bohol, 12 in Leyte, 8 in Cebu and 11 in Negros Oriental see Figure 1.

2.2 Success Measures Difference in coral health

Since MPAs protecting coral reef area were the focus of this study, one measure of success is the difference in reef quality inside and outside the MPA. Data concerning condition of the coral was determined using a systematic snorkel method. 1 For purposes of this paper difference in mortality index MI is the success measure used. This measure was selected over difference in total coral cover because different MPAs would have had different starting points; hence, amount of coral cover would not be a reliable between site measure of MPA effectiveness. 2 MI is calculated by dividing the total amount of dead coral by the sum of total 1 The systematic snorkel method used required the observer to swim using a dive mask, snorkel, and fins over a shallow reef area 1-5 meters deep. The observer had to swim along an imaginary transect line 500 to 1000 meters in total length. The depth of the transect line was maintained by following the contour of the reef. The observer visualized a square meter area on the substrate and, based on a list of parameters, noted the percent cover of each parameter within the imaginary square as seen from the surface. The squares were required to be 50 meters apart approximated by a predetermined number of fin kicks; hence, ten to twenty 50 meter interval observations were accomplished. This was done both inside and outside adjacent to the MPA. 2 Amounts of live and dead coral were not the only data observed during the transect. Substrate categories included dead substrate sand and silt, rocks and blocks, coral rubble, white dead standing coral, dead coral with algae, live substrate hard and soft corals; sea grasses; fleshy, turf, and coralline algae, and sponges. Observed causes of coral damage were noted as well as number of groupers, schools of fish, and large marine life. Presence of garbage and natural debris in the water and along the beach were also noted. These other data will be analyzed in future research. 4 Figure 1. Location of community-based marine protected areas surveyed 5 amount of live and dead coral. This was done for transect data inside and outside the MPA. The difference in Coral Health success measure referred to hereafter as Coral Health is the figure resulting from subtracting the inside MI from the outside MI. If the MI inside the MPA is greater than the outside MI, Coral Health will be negative, suggesting that the MPA is ineffective. The larger the Coral Health, the more effective, or “successful” the MPA. The minimum Coral Health is -0.21, maximum = 0.67, mean = 0.09, and sd = 0.19. Perceptions of resource abundance changes Community members’ perception of the MPA’s impact on the resource is also an important indicator. It is these perceptions that will influence their behavior regarding the CB-MPA. Fishers representing all the different gear types deployed in the community were requested to evaluate the coral, the fish numbers, and the number of fish types in the MPA as well as the numbers of fish adjacent to the MPA. The evaluation was a simple three-point scale— “worse”, “the same” or “better” than before the establishment of the MPA. If all of the fishers replied that a specific aspect e.g., number of fish in the MPA of the resource improved e.g., was “better”, the MPA would receive a score of “one” for that aspect. Otherwise, it would receive a score of “zero”. The scores for each of the four aspects of the resource were summed, resulting in a scale with a range of from zero to four. This measure is referred to as perceptions of resource abundance changes referred to hereafter as Resource Perception; range = 0 to 4, mean = 2.0, sd = 1.6. MPA features Another indicator of success is the establishment and maintenance of a set of features inherent to a functioning CB-MPA, such as marker buoys, community signboards, a management plan, a management committee, a file of documents concerning the MPA, a monitoring program, and a guard house. MPA sites were assigned a score of “one” if a specific feature were present and a “zero” if not. These scores were summed creating a MPA features measure referred to hereafter as MPA Features; range = 0 to 7, mean = 3.9, sd = 2.2 Degree of adherence to rules Degree of adherence to rules associated with the MPA is a further success indicator. This is not easy to measure. Violation rates if records are kept are not a good indicator. You may have a relatively high officially recorded violation rate where strict enforcement is practiced and a low or no official violation rate where the enforcement is weak or non-existent. It was therefore decided to have an “expert panel” rank the communities on a scale of from zero to five concerning the degree of adherence to MPA rules. The “expert panel” consisted of the researcher, his research associate, and the three to five experienced field workers who were involved in the data collection process. Following completion of data collection at each site the team assembled all were involved in the data collection process and ranked each site in relation to the others. The ranking was based on research team observations, as well as comments made by fishers, members of the MPA committees, officials e.g., the barangay captain, secretary, etc., and other community members concerning illegal activities in the 6 MPA. The issue was discussed until a consensus was reached. This measure is referred to as degree of adherence to MPA rules referred to hereafter as Community Compliance; range = 0 to 5, median = 2, mean = 2.2, sd = 1.7. 3 Community member empowerment to manage resources Finally, since a CB-MPA involves empowering community members to manage their own resources, the degree to which this empowerment is realized is a component of success. This is also difficult to measure. Once again, it was decided to have an “expert panel” rank the communities on a scale of from zero to five concerning the degree of community member empowerment to manage resources. The “expert panel” consisted of the researcher, his research associate, and the three to five experienced field workers who were involved in the data collection process. Following completion of data collection at each site the team assembled all were involved in the data collection process and ranked each site in relation to the others. The ranking was based on research team observations, as well as comments made by fishers, members of the MPA committees, officials e.g., the barangay captain, secretary, etc., and other community members concerning community members perceptions of and involvement in control over their marine resources. The issue was discussed until a consensus was reached. This scale is referred to as community empowerment over marine resources referred to hereafter as Community Empowerment; range = 0 to 5, median = 2, mean = 2.3, sd = 1.8. Composite measures It is argued here that a successful CB-MPA will manifest relatively high levels of all five of the aforementioned success indicators. Since Coral Health based on differences in coral mortality indices was missing from four MPAs due to bad weather and the need to move rapidly from site to site, two of the measures do not include Coral Health to facilitate inclusion of all the sites in the analysis. The first measure is a simple combination of the four measures, excluding Coral Health. This measure is referred to as Composite Success 1 range = 0 to 20, mean = 10.4, sd = 5.8. Since some may object to a summation of ordinal and interval scales, another measure was constructed by summing the same four measures dichotomized at sample means or medians, as appropriate. If the site was above the mean or median for a specific measure, it was given a score of “one” for that measure. The scores were summed for all four measures, resulting in the second measure of success, Composite Success 2 range = 0 to 4, mean = 1.9, sd = 1.5. For the final composite measure, Coral Health was dichotomized at “zero”. Sites with a Coral Health value greater than 0, indicating that coral was healthier in the MPA, were assigned a score of “one”, and sites with a value of zero or less were assigned a score of “zero”. This score was then added to Composite Success 2, resulting in a composite measure including the differences in mortality index. This scale is referred to as Composite Success 3 range = 0 to 5, mean = 2.7, sd = 1.6. 3 Means and standard deviations are supplied for some ordinal variables for informative purposes only. 7

3. Analysis