Integrating Biophysical, Socio-Economic and Governance Principles Into Marine Reserve Design and Management in Mexico: From Theory to Practice

Abstract

Marine conservation design and fisheries management are increasingly integrating biophysical, socio-economic and governance considerations. Integrative approaches are adopted to achieve more effective, equitable, inclusive, and robust marine policies and practices. This paper describes a participatory process to co-produce biophysical, socio-economic, and governance principles to guide the design and management of marine reserves in three regions of Mexico: the Pacific region of the Baja California Peninsula, the Gulf of California, and the Mexican Caribbean. The process of co-producing the principles included convening a coordination team, reviewing the science, convening multi-stakeholder workshops, developing and communicating the principles with key practitioners and policy makers, and supporting uptake and application to policy and practice. Biophysical principles were related to: habitat representation and risk spreading; protecting critical, special and unique areas; incorporating connectivity; allowing time for recovery; adapting to changes in climate and ocean chemistry; and considering threats and opportunities. Socio-economic principles focused on: integrating the social context, local aspirations, and human-environment interactions; considering economic and non-economic uses, promoting an equitable distribution of costs and benefits, and respecting and maintaining cultural identity and diversity. Governance principles prioritized establishing and ensuring legitimacy and institutional continuity; implementing collaborative and adaptive management; and, promoting effective management. The paper also examines early efforts to implement the principles, next steps to promote further uptake and application in Mexico, and lessons learned from the process. Thus it provides insights into a practical process and a set of principles that are valuable to inform marine conservation and fisheries management processes elsewhere.

Introduction

Past marine conservation and fisheries management decisions were often driven primarily by ecological objectives and information (Punt and Smith, 2001; Leslie, 2005; Anderson and Seijo, 2011; Cornu et al., 2014). Academics and practitioners alike have long called for a more holistic and integrated approach to environmental decision-making and management on land and the sea, that includes relevant data, knowledge, goals and stakeholders (Folke et al., 2005; Ostrom, 2009; Sayer et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2015; Guerrero and Wilson, 2016; Levin et al., 2016; Cumming and Allen, 2017). The premise is that adopting a social-ecological perspective and incorporating environmental, social, economic, and governance objectives and information will produce more effective, equitable and robust policies and practices. As a result, marine conservation and fisheries management processes around the globe are integrating biophysical, socio-economic, and governance considerations developed through participatory processes.

Examples of more integrative and participatory approaches to marine design and fisheries management abound. These include, for example, the broad uptake of integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) and marine spatial planning (MSP) that incorporate multiple considerations (Ehler and Douvere, 2009; Cornu et al., 2014; Domínguez-Tejo et al., 2016; Gee et al., 2017; Diggon et al., 2019; Frazão Santos et al., 2019; Noble et al., 2019). National legal and policy mandates in many countries now require that social, cultural, economic, and governance aspects are taken into account in fisheries decision-making (Hobday et al., 2016, 2018; Stephenson et al., 2018). There are also a growing number of integrative marine protected areas (MPA) design and management processes around the world that incorporate both social and ecological data (Fernandes et al., 2005; Green et al., 2009; Mangubhai et al., 2015; Diggon et al., 2019). As a result of this increased interest and application, many integrative processes, principles and indicators for marine conservation and fisheries management have been developed (Garcia, 2003; Cicin-Sain and Belfiore, 2005; Ban et al., 2013; Anderson et al., 2015; Long et al., 2015; Stephenson et al., 2017; Alexander et al., 2018). Yet, in practice, integrative marine design and management are still relatively nascent in many parts of the world. Thus, there is a need to continue to document and share additional real-world examples that demonstrate how to move from the development of integrative principles to practical application for ocean sustainability. This paper presents the results of one such participatory process that focused on the development of principles and their application to marine conservation and fisheries management in Mexico (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1

Over the last half a century, Mexico has been developing a national network of marine conservation initiatives [including marine protected areas (MPAs), fish refuges, state reserves, voluntary community reserves] on both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts (Bezaury-Creel, 2005; Espinosa-Andrade et al., 2020). In this paper, we use the global term “marine reserves” to represent these diverse marine conservation and fisheries management initiatives. Their authors, objectives, levels of protection, and permanence vary. However, during the process that is described in this paper, stakeholders agreed to use the term “zonas de recuperacion pesquera” (fisheries replenishment zones) because they felt that this term was the most inclusive and representative of Mexico’s various models. These include the establishment of protected areas under the jurisdiction of the National Commission of Protected Areas (Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas – CONANP), fish refuges under the National Commission of Aquaculture and Fisheries (Comisión Nacional de Acuacultura y Pesca – CONAPESCA), Refuge Areas to Protect Aquatic Species under the Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales – SEMARNAT) (Table 1). State governments and local communities also create state and “voluntary” marine reserves respectively see Koch (2015) and Fulton et al. (2019) for more information.

These efforts have substantially increased the number and spatial coverage of Mexico’s marine reserves. Estimates of spatial coverage of MPAs in Mexico are in the range of 700,000 km2 or approximately 22–24% of the exclusive economic zone¹. Most of these are zoned protected areas that permit fishing in most of the management zone. Core zones and preservation zones inside the protected areas restrict fishing. In total, fishing is prohibited in 4.55% of the EEZ; however, 98.1% of the no-take area is contained in one MPA (Revillagigedo National Park). This concentration is a concern because fully-protected marine reserves are the most effective type of protected areas at conserving biodiversity and replenishing overfished areas (Gell and Roberts, 2003; Lester et al., 2009; Sala and Giakoumi, 2018). For that reason, the Mexican government intends to increase the national coverage of marine reserves and protected areas. In 2018, Mexico and 14 other countries joined the “High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy,” focused on a sustainable ocean economy in which effective protection, sustainable production and equitable prosperity go hand in hand². To support this vision, during October 2020, CONAPESCA announced the establishment of 77 new no-take fish refuges, covering around 1,000 km2 (López, 2021).

One challenge that has persisted in Mexico is the inconsistent incorporation of biophysical, socio-economic, and governance considerations into marine conservation and fisheries management. The lack of coordination among agencies to create a common vision, standards, and tools for protecting marine ecosystems and managing fisheries exacerbates this problem (Weigel et al., 2014). Networks of marine reserves that are coordinated and apply integrated approaches guided by scientific principles are better positioned to maintain or increase long-term fisheries productivity, contribute to marine biodiversity conservation, support climate change adaptation, and help maintain food security and livelihoods in coastal communities (Green et al., 2014; Gurney et al., 2015; Mangubhai et al., 2015; Kockel et al., 2019). They also allow for tradeoffs between ecological and social benefits to be explicitly identified to guide decision making (Munguia-Vega et al., 2018a). Seeing the opportunity to strengthen enabling conditions for marine reserve design and management, several governmental and non-governmental organizations combined efforts and resources to lead a process to co-develop principles and guidance with stakeholders building on global best practices. This paper presents the results of the resultant participatory and collaborative process to develop and apply biophysical, socio-economic and governance principles to the design and management of marine conservation initiatives in Mexico. The paper begins with a discussion of the three priority regions of Mexico that were the focus areas of these processes and a presentation of the steps and methods that were used to co-develop the principles in each site. In conclusion, we discuss how the principles have been promoted and applied, additional actions to mainstream the principles in policy and practice in Mexico, and lessons learned from the process.

Methods

Regional Context Descriptions

Here we describe the three priority regions of Mexico that were the focus of a participatory process to co-develop biophysical, socio-economic, and governance principles for marine reserve design and management: (a) the Pacific region of the Baja California Peninsula, (b) the Gulf of California, and (c) the Mexican Caribbean (Figure 2).

FIGURE 2

The Pacific Region of the Baja California Peninsula

The Pacific Region of the Baja California Peninsula ranges from Tijuana, Baja California (BC) in the north, to Cabo San Lucas, Baja California Sur (BCS) in the south. The region represents an area of a biogeographic transition between temperate ecosystems associated with the California Current and the tropical characteristics from the south of the Gulf of California (Durazo and Baumgartner, 2002). These conditions generate diverse oceanographic features that lead to a variety of habitats. The primary habitat in the region’s northern part are the forests formed by the kelp Macrocystis pyrifera (Arafeh-Dalmau et al., 2021). This habitat supports the region’s high diversity and productivity, providing both nursery and food for many species (Schiel and Foster, 2015; Ramírez-Valdez et al., 2017). Other important habitats, especially relevant in the southern section of the peninsula include intertidal, sub-tidal and deep rocky reefs, seagrass beds, mangroves and estuaries. These conditions also result in the most diverse fisheries in northwestern Mexico, including high value resources used for export (e.g., abalone, lobster, sea cucumber), and others usually consumed locally or nationally (sea snail, bivalves, shrimp, finfish, elasmobranchs, etc.) (Erisman et al., 2011; Finkbeiner, 2015), generating approximately US$170 million in fisheries exports, while providing benefits to over 10,000 fishing families. Many of the local community fisheries are managed or co-managed through seasonal fishing, quotas, size limits, seasonal closures and sustainable harvesting practices (McCay et al., 2014). Also, there are over 18,000 km2 of protected areas in the marine environment (CONANP, 2020), three fish refuges covering 19,935 km2 (CONAPESCA, 2019), and a substantial but unknown number of voluntary marine reserves managed by local communities who have been granted exclusive fishing concessions.

The Gulf of California

The Gulf of California is known for its great biological richness, endemism and productivity, derived from upwelling events and other oceanographic processes (Lluch-Cota et al., 2007). This region is a biodiversity hotspot that harbors one of the world’s top ten ecosystems for endemic species (Roberts et al., 2002). A wide range of habitats can be found, including rocky reefs, wetlands, mangroves, Sargassum forests, rhodoliths and seagrass beds, seamounts, coral and black-coral reefs, which provide important nesting, nursing, reproductive and aggregation sites for both resident and migratory species (Ulloa et al., 2006; Ezcurra et al., 2009; Sánchez-Ibarra et al., 2013). Strong tidal mixing and wind-driven coastal upwelling result in high year-round primary productivity (Lavín and Marinone, 2003), with the area representing over 70% of the total volume of Mexico’s fisheries landings and about 50% of its value (900 million USD) (Munguia-Vega et al., 2018a). Small-scale fisheries are one of the most important sources of income for coastal communities in the region (Ulloa et al., 2006; Cisneros-Mata, 2010). Aquaculture, tourism, agriculture and cattle ranching are also regionally important and impact the marine environment (Ulloa et al., 2006; Páez-Osuna et al., 2017). Currently, ∼7% of the Gulf of California is under some form of protection in Marine Protected Areas (covering ∼12,383 km2) (Munguia-Vega et al., 2018a; CONANP, 2020) and there are additionally 18 fish refuges (covering ∼72 km2) (CONAPESCA, 2019); however, the areas that are fully protected cover less than 0.5% of the region (Munguia-Vega et al., 2018a) and important gaps remain between conservation areas and biodiversity hotspots in the region (Morzaria-Luna et al., 2018).

Mexican Caribbean

The Mesoamerican Reef System (MAR) is the longest coral reef ecosystem in the Western Hemisphere, supporting unique biodiversity (Roberts et al., 2002) and spanning more than 1,000 km from Cabo Catoche, Mexico, through Belize and Guatemala, to the Bay Islands, Honduras (Kramer et al., 2015). The region includes at least five distinct ecological areas, ranging from warm, clear waters offshore, to turbid inshore areas around bays and cold areas subjected to upwelling in the north of the ecoregion (Chollett et al., 2012, 2017). The MAR is a priority ecoregion (Olson and Dinerstein, 2002), supporting the economies and culturally rich livelihoods of over 17 million people. The Tulum Declaration between the heads of state of the four countries in 1997 set the conservation agenda, inspiring the creation of a range of marine protected areas, coastal management plans and reef monitoring programs. The Mexican Caribbean portion of the MAR, representing the state of Quintana Roo, has a population of 1.8 million (2020) (INEGI, 2020). Tourism is by far the biggest economic driver, with the state receiving 23 million visitors in 2019, which represent 87% of the region’s Gross Domestic Product (Quintana Roo Gobierno del Estado, 2020). There are approximately 2,200 small-scale fishers who target lobster (Panulirus argus) and finfish (principally groupers and snappers), as well as Queen conch (Lobatus gigas) in Banco Chinchorro, and octopus (Octopus maya, Octopus vulgaris) in the northern part of the state (Green et al., 2017). There are many protected areas, with 97% of the territorial sea being inside one of 12 federal protected areas covering 63,837 km2 (CONANP, 2020). In addition, there are currently 14 fish refuges (178 km2). The network of protected areas and no take zones currently protects 3.96% of the territorial sea within this region from fishing. While fish refuges do provide benefits to fish biomass and diversity, the current piecemeal design of the network is not considered effective (Espinosa-Andrade et al., 2020) and thus there is a need for a more science-driven MPA network design in the region.

Steps in the Process to Co-produce the Principles

In the three regions of the country, multiple stakeholders (government agencies, non-profit organizations, academic institutions, fishing organizations, etc.) joined a participatory process to co-develop the principles. The benefits of participatory policy development processes are well documented and include ensuring that diverse actors and perspectives inform the process, enhancing the fit of policy proposals to the social and political context, improving the legitimacy and ownership of outputs, and increasing the likelihood of application of recommendations (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2007; Armitage et al., 2010; Gaymer et al., 2014; Karrasch et al., 2017; d’Armengol et al., 2018; Norström et al., 2020). Knowledge co-production, which is a topic that is receiving growing attention in sustainability science and natural resource management (Djenontin and Meadow, 2018; Lemos et al., 2018; Harvey et al., 2019; Mitchell and Leach, 2019; Wyborn et al., 2019; Cooke et al., 2020), refers to “iterative and collaborative processes involving diverse types of expertise, knowledge and actors to produce context-specific knowledge and pathways toward a sustainable future” (Norström et al., 2020, 2). There are a growing number of examples where participatory processes were used to co-develop principles or indicators for environmental or marine management (Reed et al., 2006; Bohunovsky et al., 2010; Espinosa-Romero et al., 2011; Marques et al., 2011; Biedenweg et al., 2014; Sterling et al., 2017; Gilani et al., 2018).

The participatory processes used to co-develop the principles and guidance in each of the three priority regions followed similar steps – which included:

• 1.

  Visioning, fundraising and creating a core team – We first developed a vision focusing on the needs and opportunities in each region, obtaining the necessary funding and capacity to support and create a multi-stakeholder leadership team (from a national and international level) who have led similar processes in other countries. The leadership team ensured close coordination, documentation, sound planning and adaptive management during the different stages of the process.

• 2.

  Conducting a literature review – We conducted a review of existing literature to identify candidate biophysical, socio-economic, and governance principles used in marine conservation design and management elsewhere (see review below), that we could use for group deliberations and adapt to each region.

• 3.

  Gathering background information – Next, we gather background information on each region, including biophysical, socio-economic, and governance information as well as the number and type of existing marine reserves. This was used as background information for the workshops, and helped to provide a clear rationale for each process and to identify key information gaps.

• 4.

  Convening stakeholder workshops – Then, we convened a series of participatory workshops with stakeholders in each region. Stakeholders were identified through creating a stakeholder map to ensure representation of different organizations, sectors and areas of expertise. The process to identify, develop, and adapt biophysical principles started in the Gulf of California region, with four workshops held between 2015 and 2016. The process continued in the Mexican Caribbean in 2016 with two workshops and finally, in the Pacific of Baja California Peninsula with two workshops in 2017 and 2019. Also, multidisciplinary groups identified Socioeconomic and governance principles in 2016 (in two workshops in the Gulf of California region), one workshop focusing on the Mexican Caribbean in 2018, and one workshop in 2019 with participants from the Pacific of Baja California Peninsula. The 12 workshops were facilitated by scientific experts and non-profit organizations (NGO) staff, structured around a series of participatory activities and discussions, and included more than 180 participants (of which 44% were women and 56% were men), from over 70 institutions, including representatives from government, NGOs, fishing organizations, academic institutions and others (private sector, foundations, alliances, independent researchers; see Table 2).

• 5.

  Drafting and refining principles and guidance – Based on the discussions at the workshops, a draft set of principles (biophysical, socioeconomic and governance) was developed, circulated for comments and feedback, and refined iteratively for each region. In some cases, scientific working groups were convened to further refine the principles, generate new data, and develop models (Munguia-Vega, 2018; Munguia-Vega et al., 2018a). The final principles were then elaborated in a series of reports and publications, that also provide guidance on how to apply the principles to design and management of marine reserves (Bennett et al., 2017a; Green et al., 2017; Munguia-Vega, 2018; Munguia-Vega et al., 2018a; COBI and TNC, 2019a,b).

• 6.

  Communicating and socializing the principles and guidance – To promote awareness, uptake and application of the principles, the results of the workshops were then shared and communicated broadly to regional government decision-makers, NGO practitioners, and local communities. A general summary of the adapted principles on the three regions was distributed to the workshop attendees and shared on social media, as well as promoted in several meetings with government agencies. An outreach brochure describing the principles for the design, establishment and effective management of marine reserves in Mexico was produced for the general public, and in some regions lessons from the application of principles were documented in case studies (Mancha-Cisneros et al., 2018a,b,c).

• 7.

  Promoting and supporting application to policy and in practice – The final and arguably the most important step in the process has been, and will continue to be, to promote and support the application of the biophysical, socioeconomic and governance principles by decision makers at all spatial scales and within different governance regimes. This includes, for example, informing national marine conservation policy and place-based marine reserves in each region. For example, we have continued scientific efforts to refine the design principles (Munguia-Vega, 2018; Munguia-Vega et al., 2018a), participated in marine planning processes (e.g., applying the principles to the subzoning of the Mexican Caribbean Biosphere Reserve), worked with the national government to incorporate principles into law and policy (e.g., updating the NOM-049 that provides the framework for establishing fish refuges), and engaged with communities regarding how to adapt the principles to design voluntary reserves (see examples in Boxes 1, 2). Ideas for future engagements and applications are discussed later in the paper.

These steps were used in each region with adjustments for contextual factors, available budgets, timelines and logistics.

Results

This section, presents insights from our literature review, the resultant biophysical, socio-economic, and governance principles identified through the workshops, and an overview of early efforts to apply the principles to policy and practice.

Insights From the Literature Review

Our review of the academic and gray literature focused on understanding the biophysical, socio-economic, or governance considerations that might guide the design and management of marine conservation initiatives to achieve various objectives. Table 3 summarizes insights from this literature.

Biophysical Considerations

The efficacy of marine conservation initiatives at achieving positive ecological and fisheries outcomes depends on consideration of biophysical factors (Edgar et al., 2014; Turnbull et al., 2018; Lorenzo et al., 2020). Key biophysical considerations are related to protecting habitats and species, enabling fisheries to recover, increasing resilience to climate change, and threat avoidance or reduction (Green et al., 2014). A central consideration is protecting biodiversity, which requires the representation of surrogates such as habitats or species (Ward et al., 1999; Gaines et al., 2010; Maxwell et al., 2020), adequate replication of sites to spread risks in case of disasters (Saarman et al., 2013; Green et al., 2014), and the protection of areas with special, unique or endangered habitats or species inside networks of protected areas (Green et al., 2014, 2015; Klein et al., 2015). Special and unique areas include critical areas in the life history of focal species (e.g., nursery, spawning or breeding areas), or areas with high productivity, endemism or diversity. The design of marine reserves for the recovery of fisheries and conservation of rare and threatened species (e.g., sea turtles), in particular, necessitates: connecting protected areas to support movement of larvae, juveniles and adults (Green et al., 2015; Magris et al., 2018); allowing adequate time for recovery of stocks (Green et al., 2014; Duarte et al., 2020) and protecting areas and time periods that support critical life stages or that are highly productive (Erisman et al., 2017; Dunn et al., 2019; Berkström et al., 2020).

Climate change, and associated changes to ocean conditions including temperature rise and acidity, requires that marine conservation takes into account the resilience or adaptive capacity of habitats and species (Micheli et al., 2012; Roberts et al., 2017; Wilson et al., 2020; Arafeh-Dalmau et al., 2021), the effects of climate change on ecosystem functioning and different life stages of species (Dahlke et al., 2020; Trisos et al., 2020), and adopts a precautionary approach that takes uncertainty into account in the decisions related to representation and risk spreading (Tittensor et al., 2019; Pinsky et al., 2020). Finally, since threats can impact ecosystems and species and undermine the effectiveness of recovery efforts – consideration should be given to the siting of marine conservation initiatives to avoid areas with high populations, levels of development, or cumulative impacts unless there are efforts to mitigate or manage these existential threats (Ban et al., 2010; Cinner et al., 2018b; Halpern et al., 2019).

Socio-Economic Considerations

It is increasingly recognized that social, economic and cultural considerations need to be taken into account in the planning and management of marine conservation initiatives (Ban et al., 2013; Cornu et al., 2014; Kittinger et al., 2014; Grimmel et al., 2019), with the rationale being that this is both a more equitable and just approach to conservation and it can also increase the effectiveness of conservation (Aswani et al., 2017; Bennett et al., 2017b). A key consideration is the social and economic impacts of marine conservation – which raises the importance for marine conservation planners and managers to recognize and take into account the diversity of stake- and rights-holders, uses, tenure and rights (Reed et al., 2009; Gunton et al., 2010; Kittinger et al., 2014), existing extractive and non-extractive economic activities (Mangubhai et al., 2015; Ruiz-Frau et al., 2015), the equitable distribution of benefits and harms (Halpern et al., 2013; Gurney et al., 2015; Kleiber et al., 2018), and actions that might be taken to reduce, manage or compensate for negative consequences (Bennett et al., 2017b; Kaplan-Hallam and Bennett, 2018). Marine conservation design and management also increasingly incorporate cultural considerations, which include local or traditional knowledge (Drew, 2005; Aswani and Lauer, 2006), diverse perceptions of cultural values related to the marine environment (Klain and Chan, 2012; Blake et al., 2017), cultural practices (e.g., harvesting, management) or customs (Cinner and Aswani, 2007; Aswani, 2017), as well as species or areas that are important for cultural uses or identity (Poe et al., 2014; Gee et al., 2017). Additional social considerations that might be taken into account in marine conservation include: human well-being in local populations (Biedenweg et al., 2016; Ban et al., 2019; Gollan et al., 2019), the quality of social relations or levels of conflict (Young et al., 2016; Rosales, 2018), gender equality (Baker-Médard, 2017; Kleiber et al., 2018), social agency and empowerment of local groups (Lansing, 2009; Diedrich et al., 2017), and of the social adaptive capacity of local resource users to new restrictions on access or to new livelihood opportunities (Armitage, 2005; Bennett et al., 2014; Maldonado and del Pilar Moreno-Sánchez, 2014; Cinner et al., 2018a). While integrating social considerations into marine conservation and planning is recognized as important, the practice is still relatively nascent compared to biophysical considerations and there is substantial variation in approaches and application across sites (Cornu et al., 2014; Grimmel et al., 2019).

Governance Considerations

Governance is understood to be one of the most important factors for the environmental effectiveness and longevity of conservation initiatives (Ostrom, 1999; Lockwood et al., 2010; Armitage et al., 2012). We use the term governance broadly to refer to the set of formal and informal policies, institutions and processes that influence how decisions are made, who makes decisions, and what actions are taken as well as the resulting resources, plans and actions of applied management (Lockwood, 2010; Bennett and Satterfield, 2018). Overarching governance factors related to the effective design and management of marine conservation initiatives include management effectiveness (Pomeroy et al., 2004; Rodríguez-Rodríguez et al., 2015), adaptive management (Armitage, 2005; Boyd et al., 2015), good governance (Lockwood, 2010; Borrini-Feyerabend and Hill, 2015) and institutional robustness (Anderies and Janssen, 2013; Morrison, 2017). The effectiveness of management relies on having a clear vision and documented plan or strategy (Pomeroy et al., 2004; Lockwood, 2010; Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2013), adequate financial and human capacity (Pomeroy et al., 2004; Lockwood, 2010; Gill et al., 2017), sustainable financing mechanisms (Emerton et al., 2006; Ison et al., 2018), evidence-based decision-making processes (Tengö et al., 2014; Charnley et al., 2017), and coordination with organizations and activities in the broader seascape (Wyborn, 2015; Abe et al., 2016). Key factors underlying adaptive management include mechanisms, such as monitoring and evaluation or communities of practice, to facilitate and document collective or social learning (Berkes and Turner, 2006; Armitage and Plummer, 2011; Maida and Beck, 2016), a spirit of innovation and experimentation (Westley et al., 2011; Chaffin et al., 2016), foresight thinking to plan for expected or unexpected future changes (Tschakert and Dietrich, 2010; Boyd et al., 2015), and clear processes to ensure that corrective adaptations are taken (Dietz et al., 2003; Armitage et al., 2010). Good quality governance processes – also called “good governance” or “equitable governance” – involve attention to recognition of the diverse perspectives and needs of all stakeholder groups (McDermott et al., 2013; Borrini-Feyerabend and Hill, 2015), participatory and inclusive decision-making processes (Reed, 2008; Lockwood, 2010; Havard et al., 2015), attention to equity in the distribution of positive and negative impacts (Pascual et al., 2014; Zafra-Calvo et al., 2017), and respect for human rights (Jonas et al., 2016; Bennett et al., 2017b). Perceptions of good governance also leads to legitimacy among stakeholders, and thus engenders long-term support for conservation among stakeholders (Dalton et al., 2012; Bennett et al., 2019). The legitimacy and continuity of institutions also requires that organizations at various scales (i.e., local, regional, national) remain autonomous but connected (Marshall, 2007; Bodin, 2017), to facilitate information sharing and coordination of actions (Cohen et al., 2012; Barnes et al., 2016), and that they work toward a common vision (Ostrom, 2010; Carlisle and Gruby, 2017).

Principles and Guidance From Stakeholder Workshops

Each process, with its participatory workshops, produced a set of principles and guidance for biophysical, socio-economic, and governance considerations for the three priority regions (see Table 4). These were developed using the best available scientific information, local knowledge of stakeholders and adapting the insights and principles found in the literature to the local context – and when none existed developing new principles and guidance. There were six categories of biophysical principles: habitat representation and risk spreading; protecting critical, special and unique areas; incorporating connectivity; allowing time for recovery; adapting to changes in climate and ocean chemistry; and considering threats and opportunities. Three categories of socioeconomic principles emerged: integrating the social context, local aspirations, and human-environment interactions; considering economic and non-economic uses, and promote an equitable distribution of costs and benefits; and respecting and maintaining cultural identity and diversity. The workshops also produced three categories of governance principles: establishing and ensuring legitimacy and institutional continuity; implementing collaborative and adaptive management; and promoting effective management.

Within the broad categories, the principles were quite similar overall in the three geographic regions. There were, however, some key differences in the principles that came out from the workshops due to regional variation. Overall, the biophysical principles were highly aligned but differences came out in their application. For example, while the same overarching biophysical principles were used (e.g., representation, replication, critical areas, size, spacing), the specifics of how they were to be applied in each region differed due to variation in the habitats and species that were the focus of protection. A key difference was the possibility of larger marine reserves on the Pacific Coast of BCS versus networks of smaller marine reserves in the Gulf of California and Mexican Caribbean. The reason for this difference was related to both density of users and threats, as well as the number of key biogeographic regions, habitats important for fish spawning, and the speed of currents and larval dispersal. Another difference is the transboundary nature of the northern Pacific Coast of Baja California (Arafeh-Dalmau et al., 2017), and Mesoamerican Reef (Chollett et al., 2017) which necessitates that the process take into account the connectivity of species and habitats with California, United States, and Belize, respectively. One major variation in the socio-economic principles was related to the attention given to culture and local knowledge in the Gulf of California and Caribbean due the presence of Indigenous groups. Finally, the main differences related to the governance principles focused on the promotion of adaptive management, commitment of actors and gender equity in the Pacific region, the creation of a network of supportive organizations and promotion of good social relations with and between stakeholders in the Gulf of California and attention when implementing marine reserves, to human rights and legitimacy, since eco-tourism is the main priority of government in the Mexican Caribbean.

Taken together, these outcomes highlight both the generality of principles, and therefore their broad applicability to other regions, and also the context dependency of their implementation, and need to address the specific characteristics of planning regions (e.g., biogeographic boundaries, the presence of indigenous groups and customary rights, and pre-existing conservation and management measures).

Moving From Principles to Practice – Initial Actions and Efforts

Since the completion of the principles, a number of efforts have been made to promote and apply them. These include the following six types of actions: (a) communicating and socializing the principles, (b) forming scientific working groups and projects, (c) evaluating current networks and incorporating principles into marine spatial design processes, (d) conducting community workshops on application of principles, (e) working to formalize principles in law and policy, and (f) replicating and scaling the identification and use of principles elsewhere. First, the principles were communicated to and socialized with stakeholders at various scales, including government agencies to encourage the adoption of the principles at a regional scale, fishing communities (e.g., the Comcaac indigenous nation in the northern Gulf of California) to examine how they might be used in the planning of marine reserves at a local scale, and to academics in meetings or conferences at national and international scale. Second, scientific working groups were formed to carry out research projects motivated by the principles. These groups compiled existing information, identified data gaps, and developed new databases [e.g., of habitats, biodiversity hotspots, patterns of larval dispersal, movement of focal species, species recovery rates, effects of climate change (Munguia-Vega et al., 2018a; Arafeh-Dalmau et al., 2021)]. They also applied this information to develop new models and identify priority areas for expanding existing networks of marine reserves (Álvarez-Romero et al., 2018), adapting these models with stakeholder and community input (Morzaria-Luna et al., 2020a,b), and publishing academic papers.

Third, the principles are starting to be integrated into marine spatial design processes and used to evaluate existing networks of marine reserves. Three initial projects include an evaluation of the current representation of each principle in the three regions (i.e., Pacific region, Gulf of California and the Mexican Caribbean) (Espinosa-Andrade, 2019a,b, c), a spatial prioritization analysis with Marxan (Ball et al., 2009) to identify priority areas of conservation in the Gulf of California (Munguia-Vega et al., 2018b), and the application of the biophysical principles during marine spatial planning for 26 fish refuges in the northern Gulf of California (Morzaria-Luna et al., 2020a,b).

Fourth, the principles have been used to guide deliberations in local community workshops focused on marine conservation and fisheries management. For example, during a workshop in Bahía Asunción in Baja California Sur the principles were applied during the design of community marine reserves (see Box 1), and in San Cosme-Punta Coyote Corridor in Baja California Sur, fishing communities adapted the principles during the redesign and renewal of their local fish refuges (see Box 2). A similar process was conducted in the Mexican Caribbean with local fishers, wherein they reviewed each principle and discussed whether any changes would be made to the design of their local fish refuges. Fifth, the team has been working in collaboration with various agencies and levels of government to institutionalize the principles in national laws and the policies of fisheries and conservation agencies (NGOs, CONANP, INAPESCA, and CONAPESCA). In 2019, the NOM-049 (which is the law that provides the framework for establishing fish refuges at national level) completed its 5-year term and suggestions were made, including considering the principles during the different stages of fish refuges design, implementation, management and renewal. In November 2019, CONAPESCA published the modified project of the NOM-049, which promotes the incorporation of biophysical, socioeconomic and governance principles in the proposals for fish refuge areas, as a contribution to optimize the expected benefits in the management, protection and recovery of fishery resources, as well as in strengthening the participation of various sectors in the decision making (SEGOB, 2019). Finally, inspired by our processes and outputs, similar processes of identification of biophysical, socioeconomic and governance principles were also conducted in other countries in the region. In the Mesoamerican Reef region, Mexico, Belize, Honduras and Guatemala jointly developed biophysical principles (Green et al., 2017) and Honduras and Guatemala also developed socio-economic and governance principles aligned with their national characteristics and contexts (Bonilla, 2019).

Discussion

In this paper, we present an overview of the process and outcomes of a multi-year effort to produce and apply a set of biophysical, socio-economic and governance principles to marine conservation and fisheries management in Mexico. The principles that resulted from the three regional processes were quite similar, but had some variation due to different social and ecological contexts. In the past few years, significant efforts have been made to promote and apply the principles but much remains to be done in this regard. In this discussion section of the paper, we compare the principles and process with initiatives from elsewhere, discuss further steps that still need to be taken to promote uptake and increase application of the principles, and examine lessons learned to guide others embarking on similar processes elsewhere.

Comparison With Other Initiatives

Many other processes around the world have developed principles to guide marine conservation planning and fisheries management. While many earlier efforts focused primarily on ecological considerations, it is becoming common to develop and apply an integrated set of biophysical, socio-economic, and governance considerations in marine conservation (Green et al., 2009; Halpern et al., 2013; Mangubhai et al., 2015; Diggon et al., 2019). While we drew inspiration from previous efforts, there have been relatively few processes that developed and applied principles for all three considerations – i.e., biophysical, socio-economic and governance (Cornu et al., 2014; Frazão Santos et al., 2018). Thus, we also drew from a broad literature related to biophysical, socio-economic, and governance considerations in marine and environmental design and management to fill gaps (see literature review). Our principles related to biophysical considerations were much more similar to those found elsewhere in the literature, likely because biophysical principles have been more well-developed and applied to other planning processes (Green et al., 2009, 2014; Munguia-Vega et al., 2018a). However, the development and application of socio-economic and governance principles is much more nascent and variable in application (Cornu et al., 2014; Frazão Santos et al., 2018), so the principles we developed in these areas were mostly new and adapted to the local context. During the process of adapting the principles, we realized that in a transboundary context, biophysical principles could generally be adapted equally, while socio-economic and governance principles needed to consider national socioeconomic conditions and legal frameworks.

There were several other substantial differences to processes that we are aware of elsewhere. The first is that the principles were adapted to each of the three regions. The rationale behind this decision is that it will increase legitimacy among local actors, improve fit to the different local biophysical, socio-economic, and governance contexts, and increase the likelihood of both uptake and success. Second, while many sets of principles are intended to just be developed at the planning phase, we developed the principles to be attentive to both the planning and management phases of marine conservation (e.g., some of the socio-economic and governance principles are more related to the design process, while others are broader advice for working with and considering the needs of people). Finally, we intend the principles to be adapted and used at different scales ranging from regional marine design processes, to local community initiatives.

Next Steps to Promote Uptake and Application

Yet, the process is ongoing. Additional steps are recommended to promote further uptake and application of the principles at various scales, by different groups, and in different regions. Priority activities include the following:

• 1.

  Integrating biophysical, social, and governance considerations in legal and policy mandates: The formalization and institutionalization of these biophysical, socio-economic, and governance considerations for marine reserve design within marine conservation and fisheries management laws and policies will encourage their uptake and application. In the case of Mexico, as there are various agencies responsible for marine conservation and fisheries management (i.e., CONANP, INAPESCA, and CONAPESCA), different legal and policy frameworks will need to incorporate this mandate including the LGEEPA (General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection), which provides the framework for environmental policy and LGPAS (General Law for Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture).

• 2.

  Adapting the principles for other regions: As the principles were developed through regional processes so that they fit each context, additional processes will be needed to work with key stakeholders to adapt and refine the design criteria for other regions in Mexico (e.g., in the Gulf of Mexico and the southwestern Mexican Pacific). These geographies are relevant for fisheries and for biodiversity conservation, and are locations where marine spatial planning and transboundary fisheries management initiatives are occurring or will occur.

• 3.

  Applying the biophysical, socio-economic, and governance principles to design networks of marine reserves and fisheries replenishment areas: Marine reserve network planning processes can take the principles into account during two simultaneous processes: (a) identifying priority areas by conducting spatial prioritizations using the best available information to identify broad areas of ecological importance and (b) working with local stakeholders to consider how their needs, concerns, interests and local knowledge can be taken into account (Margules and Pressey, 2000; Ehler and Douvere, 2009; Green et al., 2014; Mangubhai et al., 2015; Morzaria-Luna et al., 2020a,b). There is also a need to continue to close the gap between biodiversity conservation and fisheries management (Weigel et al., 2014) – by searching for synergies between area-based conservation measures (CONANP) and fisheries management measures, and the value of fish refuges and community reserves (CONAPESCA-INAPESCA) for biodiversity conservation.

• 4.

  Employing the principles to guide management activities: Much of the guidance associated with the principles is also intended to be used during management planning and adaptive management. The principles might be, for example, incorporated into the design of the management plans for Natural Protected Areas (CONANP). Management plans for protected areas should be reviewed every 5 years, providing opportunities for adaptive management based on the principles. The inclusion of the design principles in the NOM-049 and the practice of establishing fish refuges for predetermined time periods (e.g., 5 years) both provide opportunities for adaptive management during the renewal of fish refuges (CONAPESCA). Short and long term financial support needs to be in place to promote effective and adaptive management.

• 5.

  Creating accessible databases of biophysical and socio-economic information: An important enabler for evidence informed marine planning and management processes is the collation of available data into accessible and shareable databases that includes both ecological and socio-economic information. This process of gathering and collation can also help to identify information gaps and research needs. Maintaining a centralized and open-access repository for this information will ensure that it can be used by stakeholders, governmental and non-governmental planners, and by the scientific community (Palacios-Abrantes et al., 2019).

• 6.

  Measuring progress through ongoing monitoring and evaluation: The principles are essentially an ideal set of criteria, and as such can be used to develop indicators for each aspect to establish a baseline and monitor progress. These insights can be used to inform and improve designs and effectiveness through adaptive management. Indicators might be developed to be applied at various scales (e.g., a region or an individual initiative) and to different types of marine conservation initiatives (e.g., MPAs, fish refuges, community areas). For example, indicators might be developed such that communities can do the monitoring themselves and communicated (Fulton et al., 2019; González-Cuellar et al., 2019).

• 7.

  Using the principles as the basis of community workshops and deliberations: Building on the examples above, communities might refer to the principles during the design or renewal processes of their locally conserved areas. Areas prioritized through science driven processes that align with the principles can be brought to fishing cooperatives or communities for refinement through stakeholder deliberations and feedback. Monitoring of the impacts and effectiveness is a key part of the reserve renewal process, which might be carried out in partnership with researchers based on community-selected indicators (and collaborating with them to do part of the monitoring, e.g., fisheries monitoring).

• 8.

  Ensuring that principles stay relevant over time: All environmental policies should be viewed as experiments. Thus, it will be important to consider the principles as being fluid and adaptive, not rigid and prescriptive. As new knowledge emerges and additional learning occurs, the principles should be revisited periodically and adapted as necessary. For example, adaptations may need to be made to better account for transboundary planning, marine heatwaves and prioritize the connectivity of climate-refuge habitats.

Lessons Learned From the Process

Finally, we provide some thoughts on lessons that we learned for others engaging in similar processes elsewhere. First, the process of development is as important as the final product for building legitimacy, support, and alignment around a common goal. Key ingredients included stakeholder participation, coordination across agencies and organizations, regionalization of the processes, and skilled facilitation. Broad and effective stakeholder involvement requires identifying and mapping stakeholders, selecting representatives of different groups to invite, and ensuring a balance of genders and underrepresented groups (e.g., small-scale fishers, Indigenous groups) are included. It is important to recognize that some groups may not have equal opportunities or abilities to participate, due to temporal or financial constraints, so special arrangements may need to be made to enable their participation. Bringing together government agencies with non-governmental organizations in the process required negotiation and respectful listening from participants and facilitators to ensure everyone’s needs and interests were addressed, which allowed the development of strong partnerships and the construction of a common language that can be applied across jurisdictions and to different types of marine reserves. Conducting separate processes in each region allowed for adaptation of the principles to different biophysical, socio-economic, and governance contexts and increased local legitimacy and support for the process and outputs. Skilled facilitation – including in the design of workshops and the creation of a space where all voices and perspectives are valued – also enabled a good process and outputs. We found it particularly important to take the time to listen to stakeholders on terminology and on concerns regarding the models of fisheries management and conservation that are implied. In our process, for example, we had a robust debate on the pros and cons of fish refuges versus other types of marine protected areas, considering the opinion of fishers, cooperatives and government agencies.

Second, the quality of the product requires a strong basis in science, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary expertise, and attention to various applications across phases. The principles were developed based on the best available evidence from both the natural and social sciences, as well as local and practitioner knowledge. This bridging of knowledge types required strong interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary engagements with experts from different disciplines and with field experience. Different disciplinary expertise was needed, for example, to help the group to understand ideas related to key habitats and species, connectivity, climate change, human well-being, economics, culture, or governance. In addition it was important to have the expertise of practitioners in the process to help articulate how each topic and principle could be defined and applied. Unlike in some processes, we found that the principles and guidance would be most useful if designed to be applicable to both planning and management stages. This meant that some were spatially explicit, in order to help identify priority areas for marine conservation, while others were more focused on engagement processes or management activities.

Third, it is a long-term process to move from starting the project to implementation. Thus, carrying out the work requires a strong and long-term vision, a committed team, capable leadership, adequate financial resources for each stage of the process and intersectoral coordination and government engagement. After the initial period of project development and fundraising, developing the principles through participatory workshops with stakeholders alone took 1–2 years in each location. The scientific and technical work to develop marine reserve networks can take much longer. Additional time and efforts were also needed to support uptake and application of the principles through communication, outreach, advocacy and working with stakeholders. A key remaining challenge in this process is the time it will take to continue to promote, facilitate and track implementation of the principles. Long time frames and follow-up will be needed to ensure principles are applied and benefits emerge from the marine conservation initiatives. However, the results are very valuable, and the effort is worthwhile.

Conclusion

We are beginning a critical decade for fisheries management and marine conservation. The approach and actions that we take today will shape the future of marine biodiversity, fisheries management, and people’s relationship with the ocean. This paper reviews the results of a participatory process to co-produce principles to guide marine conservation design and management across three different geographies in Mexico. The biophysical, socio-economic, and governance principles provide a roadmap for a holistic approach to marine conservation and fisheries management in the country. We hope the process and principles we have examined in this paper will be applied as networks of marine reserves and scaled up within Mexico and through transboundary initiatives with neighboring countries. The process and principles might also be instructive for marine conservation occurring elsewhere. Adopting a holistic approach to marine conservation and management will help to achieve a future where people and oceans can thrive together.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

• 1

  Abe J. Brown B. Ajao E. A. Donkor S. (2016). Local to regional polycentric levels of governance of the Guinea Current Large Marine Ecosystem.Environ. Dev.17287–295. 10.1016/j.envdev.2015.06.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  Alexander K. A. Hobday A. J. Cvitanovic C. Ogier E. Nash K. L. Cottrell R. S. et al (2018). Progress in integrating natural and social science in marine ecosystem-based management research.Mar. Freshw. Res.7071–83. 10.1071/MF17248

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  Álvarez-Romero J. G. Munguía-Vega A. Beger M. Del Mar Mancha-Cisneros M. Suárez-Castillo A. N. Gurney G. G. et al (2018). Designing connected marine reserves in the face of global warming.Glob. Change Biol.24e671–e691. 10.1111/gcb.13989

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  Anderies J. M. Janssen M. A. (2013). Robustness of social-ecological systems: implications for public policy.Policy Stud. J.41513–536. 10.1111/psj.12027

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  Anderson J. L. Anderson C. M. Chu J. Meredith J. Asche F. Sylvia G. et al (2015). The fishery performance indicators: a management tool for triple bottom line outcomes.PLoS One10:e0122809. 10.1371/journal.pone.0122809

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  Anderson L. G. Seijo J. C. (2011). Bioeconomics of Fisheries Management.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

  • Google Scholar

• 7

  Arafeh-Dalmau N. Cavanaugh K. C. Possingham H. P. Munguia-Vega A. Monta o-Moctezuma G. Bell T. W. et al (2021). Southward decrease in the protection of persistent giant kelp forests in the northeast Pacific.Commun. Earth Environ.21–7. 10.1038/s43247-021-00177-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  Arafeh-Dalmau N. Torres-Moye G. Seingier G. Montaño-Moctezuma G. Micheli F. (2017). Marine spatial planning in a transboundary context: linking Baja California with California’s network of marine protected areas.Front. Mar. Sci.4:150. 10.3389/fmars.2017.00150

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  Armitage D. (2005). Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management.Environ. Manage.35703–715. 10.1007/s00267-004-0076-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  Armitage D. Berkes F. Doubleday N. (2010). Adaptive Co-Management: Collaboration, Learning, and Multi-Level Governance.Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 11

  Armitage D. de Loë R. Plummer R. (2012). Environmental governance and its implications for conservation practice.Conserv. Lett.5245–255. 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00238.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  Armitage D. Plummer R. (2011). Adaptive Capacity and Environmental Governance.Berlin: Springer.

  • Google Scholar

• 13

  Aswani S. (2017). Customary management as TURFs: social challenges and opportunities.Bull. Mar. Sci.933–12. 10.5343/bms.2015.1084

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  Aswani S. Basurto X. Ferse S. Glaser M. Campbell L. Cinner J. E. et al (2017). Marine resource management and conservation in the Anthropocene.Environ. Conserv.45192–120. 10.1017/S0376892917000431

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  Aswani S. Lauer M. (2006). Incorporating fishermen’s local knowledge and behavior into geographical information systems (GIS) for designing marine protected areas in Oceania.Hum. Organ.6581–102.

  • Google Scholar

• 16

  Baker-Médard M. (2017). Gendering marine conservation: the politics of marine protected areas and fisheries access.Soc. Nat. Resour.30723–737. 10.1080/08941920.2016.1257078

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  Ball I. R. Possingham H. P. Watts M. E. (2009). “Marxan and relatives: software for spatial conservation prioritization,” in Spatial Conservation Prioritization: Quantitative Methods and Computational Tools, edsMoilanenA.WilsonK. A.PossinghamH. P. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 185–195. 10.1371/journal.pone.0182396

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  Ban N. C. Alidina H. M. Ardron J. A. (2010). Cumulative impact mapping: advances, relevance and limitations to marine management and conservation, using Canada’s Pacific waters as a case study.Mar. Policy34876–886. 10.1016/j.marpol.2010.01.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  Ban N. C. Gurney G. G. Marshall N. A. Whitney C. K. Mills M. Gelcich S. et al (2019). Well-being outcomes of marine protected areas.Nat. Sustain.2:524. 10.1038/s41893-019-0306-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  Ban N. C. Mills M. Tam J. Hicks C. C. Klain S. Stoeckl N. et al (2013). A social–ecological approach to conservation planning: embedding social considerations.Front. Ecol. Environ.11194–202. 10.1890/110205

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  Barnes M. L. Lynham J. Kalberg K. Leung P. (2016). Social networks and environmental outcomes.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.1136466–6471. 10.1073/pnas.1523245113

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  Bennett N. J. Dearden P. Murray G. Kadfak A. (2014). The capacity to adapt?: Communities in a changing climate, environment, and economy on the northern Andaman coast of Thailand.Ecol. Soc.19:5. 10.5751/ES-06315-190205

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  Bennett N. J. Franco A. D. Calò A. Nethery E. Niccolini F. Milazzo M. et al (2019). Local support for conservation is associated with perceptions of good governance, social impacts, and ecological effectiveness.Conserv. Lett.12:e12640. 10.1111/conl.12640

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  Bennett N. J. Lasch-Thaler C. Mancha-Cisneros M. M. Suárez-Castillo A. N. Walther-Mendoza M. Vázquez-Vera L. et al (2017a). Integración de Consideraciones Socio-Económicas y de Gobernanza en el Diseño y Manejo de las Zonas de Recuperación en el Golfo de California, México.La Paz, MX: The Nature Conservancy/Comunidad y Biodiversidad A.C.

  • Google Scholar

• 25

  Bennett N. J. Teh L. Ota Y. Christie P. Ayers A. Day J. C. et al (2017b). An appeal for a code of conduct for marine conservation.Mar. Policy81411–418. 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.03.035

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  Bennett N. J. Satterfield T. (2018). Environmental governance: a practical framework to guide design, evaluation, and analysis.Conserv. Lett.11:e12600. 10.1111/conl.12600

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  Berkes F. Turner N. (2006). Knowledge, learning and the evolution of conservation practice for social-ecological system resilience.Hum. Ecol.34479–494. 10.1007/s10745-006-9008-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  Berkström C. Eggertsen L. Goodell W. Cordeiro C. A. M. M. Lucena M. B. Gustafsson R. et al (2020). Thresholds in seascape connectivity: the spatial arrangement of nursery habitats structure fish communities on nearby reefs.Ecography43882–896. 10.1111/ecog.04868

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  Bezaury-Creel J. E. (2005). Protected areas and coastal and ocean management in México.Ocean Coast. Manag.481016–1046. 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.03.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  Biedenweg K. Hanein A. Nelson K. Stiles K. Wellman K. Horowitz J. et al (2014). Developing human wellbeing indicators in the puget sound: focusing on the watershed scale.Coast. Manag.42374–390. 10.1080/08920753.2014.923136

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  Biedenweg K. Stiles K. Wellman K. (2016). A holistic framework for identifying human wellbeing indicators for marine policy.Mar. Policy6431–37. 10.1016/j.marpol.2015.11.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  Blake D. Augé A. A. Sherren K. (2017). Participatory mapping to elicit cultural coastal values for marine spatial planning in a remote archipelago.Ocean Coast. Manag.148195–203. 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.08.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  Bodin Ö (2017). Collaborative environmental governance: achieving collective action in social-ecological systems.Science357:eaan1114. 10.1126/science.aan1114

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  Bohunovsky L. Jäger J. Omann I. (2010). Participatory scenario development for integrated sustainability assessment.Reg. Environ. Change11271–284. 10.1007/s10113-010-0143-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  Bonilla S. (2019). Principios Socioeconómicos y de Gobernanza para el Diseño de una Red de Zonas De Recuperación Pesquera en Honduras.La Ceiba: Centro de Estudios Marinos, MARfund, AK Foundation.

  • Google Scholar

• 36

  Borrini-Feyerabend G. Dudley N. Jaeger T. Lassen B. Pathak Broome N. Philips A. et al (2013). Governance of Protected Areas: From Understanding to Action.Gland: IUCN.

  • Google Scholar

• 37

  Borrini-Feyerabend G. Hill R. (2015). “Governance for the conservation of nature,” in Protected Area Governance and Management, edsWorboysG. L.LockwoodM.KothariA.FearyS.PulsfordI. (Canberra, ACT: ANU Press), 169–206.

  • Google Scholar

• 38

  Borrini-Feyerabend G. Pimbert M. Farvar M. T. Kothari A. Renard Y. (2007). Sharing Power: Learning-by-Doing in Co-Management of Natural Resources Throughout the World.London: Earthscan.

  • Google Scholar

• 39

  Boyd E. Nykvist B. Borgström S. Stacewicz I. A. (2015). Anticipatory governance for social-ecological resilience.AMBIO44149–161. 10.1007/s13280-014-0604-x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  Carlisle K. Gruby R. L. (2017). Polycentric systems of governance: a theoretical model for the commons.Policy Stud. J.47927–952. 10.1111/psj.12212

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  Chaffin B. C. Garmestani A. S. Gunderson L. H. Benson M. H. Angeler D. G. Arnold C. A. Tony et al (2016). Transformative environmental governance.Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.41399–423. 10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085817

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  Charnley S. Carothers C. Satterfield T. Levine A. Poe M. R. Norman K. et al (2017). Evaluating the best available social science for natural resource management decision-making.Environ. Sci. Policy7380–88. 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  Chollett I. Garavelli L. Holstein D. Cherubin L. Fulton S. Box S. J. (2017). A case for redefining the boundaries of the Mesoamerican Reef Ecoregion.Coral Reefs361039–1046. 10.1007/s00338-017-1595-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  Chollett I. Mumby P. J. Müller-Karger F. E. Hu C. (2012). Physical environments of the Caribbean Sea.Limnol. Oceanogr.571233–1244. 10.4319/lo.2012.57.4.1233

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  Cicin-Sain B. Belfiore S. (2005). Linking marine protected areas to integrated coastal and ocean management: a review of theory and practice.Ocean Coast. Manag.48847–868. 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2006.01.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  Cinner J. E. Maire E. Huchery C. MacNeil M. A. Graham N. A. J. Mora C. et al (2018b). Gravity of human impacts mediates coral reef conservation gains.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.115E6116–E6125. 10.1073/pnas.1708001115

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  Cinner J. E. Adger W. N. Allison E. H. Barnes M. L. Brown K. Cohen P. J. et al (2018a). Building adaptive capacity to climate change in tropical coastal communities.Nat. Clim. Change8117–123. 10.1038/s41558-017-0065-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  Cinner J. E. Aswani S. (2007). Integrating customary management into marine conservation.Biol. Conserv.140201–216. 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.08.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  Cisneros-Mata M. A. (2010). “The importance of fisheries in the Gulf of California and ecosystem-based sustainable co-management for conservation,” in The Gulf of California: Biodiversity and Conservation, ed.BruscaR. C. (Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press), 119–134.

  • Google Scholar

• 50

  COBI, and TNC (2019a). Adaptación de Principios Socioeconómicos y de Gobernanza para el Diseño y Manejo Efectivo de Zonas de Recuperación en el Caribe Mexicano.Mexico, CDMX: Comunidad y Biodiversidad, A.C. y The Nature Conservancy.

  • Google Scholar

• 51

  COBI, and TNC (2019b). Identificación y Adaptación de Principios de Gobernanza y Socioeconómicos para el Diseño y Manejo Efectivo de Zonas de Recuperación en la Región Pacífico de la Península de Baja California.Mexico, CDMX: Comunidad y Biodiversidad, A.C. y The Nature Conservancy.

  • Google Scholar

• 52

  Cohen P. J. Evans L. S. Mills M. (2012). Social networks supporting governance of coastal ecosystems in Solomon Islands.Conserv. Lett.5376–386. 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00255.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  CONANP (2020). LISTANP Listado de las Áreas Naturales Protegidas, CONANP, Gobierno de Mexico. Available online at: http://sig.conanp.gob.mx/website/pagsig/listanp/(accessed November 19, 2020).

  • Google Scholar

• 54

  CONAPESCA (2019). Zonas de Refugio Pesquero Vigentes en Mexico al 11 de Diciemgbre de 2019.Mexico, CDMX: Comisión Nacional de Acuacultura y Pesca, Gobierno de Mexico.

  • Google Scholar

• 55

  Cooke S. J. Nguyen V. M. Chapman J. M. Reid A. J. Landsman S. J. Young N. et al (2020). Knowledge co-production: a pathway to effective fisheries management, conservation, and governance.Fisheries4689–97. 10.1002/fsh.10512

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  Cornu E. L. Kittinger J. N. Koehn J. Z. Finkbeiner E. M. Crowder L. B. (2014). Current practice and future prospects for social data in coastal and ocean planning.Conserv. Biol.28902–911. 10.1111/cobi.12310

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  Cumming G. S. Allen C. R. (2017). Protected areas as social-ecological systems: perspectives from resilience and social-ecological systems theory.Ecol. Appl.271709–1717. 10.1002/eap.1584

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  Dahlke F. T. Wohlrab S. Butzin M. Pörtner H.-O. (2020). Thermal bottlenecks in the life cycle define climate vulnerability of fish.Science36965–70. 10.1126/science.aaz3658

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  Dalton T. Forrester G. Pollnac R. (2012). Participation, process quality, and performance of marine protected areas in the wider Caribbean.Environ. Manag.491224–1237. 10.1007/s00267-012-9855-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  d’Armengol L. Prieto Castillo M. Ruiz-Mallén I. Corbera E. (2018). A systematic review of co-managed small-scale fisheries: social diversity and adaptive management improve outcomes.Glob. Environ. Change52212–225. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.07.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  Diedrich A. Stoeckl N. Gurney G. G. Esparon M. Pollnac R. (2017). Social capital as a key determinant of perceived benefits of community-based marine protected areas: social capital and MPAs.Conserv. Biol.31311–321. 10.1111/cobi.12808

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  Dietz T. Ostrom E. Stern P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons.Science3021907–1912. 10.1126/science.1091015

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  Diggon S. Butler C. Heidt A. Bones J. Jones R. Outhet C. (2019). The marine plan partnership: indigenous community-based marine spatial planning.Mar. Policy132:103510. 10.1016/j.marpol.2019.04.014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  Djenontin I. N. S. Meadow A. M. (2018). The art of co-production of knowledge in environmental sciences and management: lessons from international practice.Environ. Manag.61885–903. 10.1007/s00267-018-1028-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  Domínguez-Tejo E. Metternicht G. Johnston E. Hedge L. (2016). Marine spatial planning advancing the ecosystem-based approach to coastal zone management: a review.Mar. Policy72115–130. 10.1016/j.marpol.2016.06.023

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  Drew J. A. (2005). Use of traditional ecological knowledge in marine conservation.Conserv. Biol.191286–1293. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00158.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  Duarte C. M. Agusti S. Barbier E. Britten G. L. Castilla J. C. Gattuso J.-P. et al (2020). Rebuilding marine life.Nature58039–51. 10.1038/s41586-020-2146-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  Dunn D. C. Harrison A.-L. Curtice C. DeLand S. Donnelly B. Fujioka E. et al (2019). The importance of migratory connectivity for global ocean policy.Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.286:20191472. 10.1098/rspb.2019.1472

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  Durazo R. Baumgartner T. R. (2002). Evolution of oceanographic conditions off Baja California: 1997–1999.Prog. Oceanogr.547–31. 10.1016/S0079-6611(02)00041-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  Edgar G. J. Stuart-Smith R. D. Willis T. J. Kininmonth S. Baker S. C. Banks S. et al (2014). Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features.Nature506216–220. 10.1038/nature13022

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  Ehler C. Douvere F. (2009). Marine Spatial Planning: A Step-by-Step Approach Towards Ecosystem-Based Management.Paris: Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme.

  • Google Scholar

• 72

  Emerton L. Bishop J. Thomas L. (2006). Sustainable Financing of Protected Areas: A Global Review of Challenges and Options.Gland: IUCN.

  • Google Scholar

• 73

  Erisman B. Heyman W. Kobara S. Ezer T. Pittman S. Aburto-Oropeza O. et al (2017). Fish spawning aggregations: where well-placed management actions can yield big benefits for fisheries and conservation.Fish Fish.18128–144. 10.1111/faf.12132

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  Erisman B. E. Paredes G. A. Plomozo-Lugo T. Cota-Nieto J. J. Hastings P. A. Aburto-Oropeza O. (2011). Spatial structure of commercial marine fisheries in Northwest Mexico.ICES J. Mar. Sci.68564–571. 10.1093/icesjms/fsq179

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  Espinosa-Andrade N. (2019a). Evaluación de las Zonas de Recuperación de la Región Pacífico de la Península de Baja California con Base en los Principios Biofísicos de Diseño.Guaymas, MX: Comunidad y Biodiversidad, A.C.

  • Google Scholar

• 76

  Espinosa-Andrade N. (2019b). Evaluación de las Zonas de Recuperación del Golfo de California con Base en los Principios Biofísicos de Diseño.Guaymas, MX: Comunidad y Biodiversidad, A.C.

  • Google Scholar

• 77

  Espinosa-Andrade N. (2019c). Evaluación de las Zonas de Recuperación del Sistema Arrecifal Mesoamericano en México (SAM-México) con Base en los Principios Biofísicos de Diseño.Guaymas, MX: Comunidad y Biodiversidad, A.C.

  • Google Scholar

• 78

  Espinosa-Andrade N. Suchley A. Reyes-Bonilla H. Alvarez-Filip L. (2020). The no-take zone network of the Mexican Caribbean: assessing design and management for the protection of coral reef fish communities.Biodivers. Conserv.292069–2087. 10.1007/s10531-020-01966-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  Espinosa-Romero M. J. Chan K. M. A. McDaniels T. Dalmer D. M. (2011). Structuring decision-making for ecosystem-based management.Mar. Policy35575–583. 10.1016/j.marpol.2011.01.019

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  Ezcurra E. Aburto-Oropeza O. de los Angeles Cavajal M. Cudney-Bueno R. Torre J. (2009). “Gulf of California, Mexico,” in Ecosystem-Based Management for the Oceans, edsMcLeodK.LeslieH. (Washington, DC: Island Press), 227–252.

  • Google Scholar

• 81

  Fernandes L. Day J. Lewis A. Slegers S. Kerrigan B. Breen D. et al (2005). Establishing representative no-take areas in the Great Barrier Reef: large-scale implementation of theory on marine protected areas.Conserv. Biol.191733–1744. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00302.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  Finkbeiner E. M. (2015). The role of diversification in dynamic small-scale fisheries: lessons from Baja California Sur, Mexico.Glob. Environ. Change32139–152. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.009

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  Folke C. Hahn T. Olsson P. Norberg J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems.Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.30441–473. 10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  Frazão Santos C. Agardy T. Andrade F. Crowder L. B. Ehler C. N. Orbach M. K. (2018). Major challenges in developing marine spatial planning.Mar. Policy132:103248. 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.08.032

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  Frazão Santos C. Ehler C. N. Agardy T. Andrade F. Orbach M. K. Crowder L. B. (2019). “Marine spatial planning,” in World Seas: An Environmental Evaluation, ed.SheppardC. (Cambridge, MA: Academic Press), 571–592. 10.1016/B978-0-12-805052-1.00033-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  Fulton S. Hernández-Velasco A. Suarez-Castillo A. Fernández-Rivera Melo F. Rojo M. Sáenz-Arroyo A. et al (2019). “From fishing fish to fishing data: the role of artisanal fishers in conservation and resource management in Mexico,” in Viability and Sustainability of Small-Scale Fisheries in Latin America and The Caribbean MARE Publication Series, edsSalasS.Barragán-PaladinesM. J.ChuenpagdeeR. (Cham: Springer International Publishing), 151–175. 10.1007/978-3-319-76078-0_7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  Gaines S. D. White C. Carr M. H. Palumbi S. R. (2010). Designing marine reserve networks for both conservation and fisheries management.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.10718286–18293. 10.1073/pnas.0906473107

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  Garcia S. M. (2003). The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries: Issues, Terminology, Principles, Institutional Foundations, Implementation and Outlook.Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.

  • Google Scholar

• 89

  Gaymer C. F. Stadel A. V. Ban N. C. Cárcamo P. F. Ierna J. Lieberknecht L. M. (2014). Merging top-down and bottom-up approaches in marine protected areas planning: experiences from around the globe.Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst.24128–144. 10.1002/aqc.2508

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  Gee K. Kannen A. Adlam R. Brooks C. Chapman M. Cormier R. et al (2017). Identifying culturally significant areas for marine spatial planning.Ocean Coast. Manag.136139–147. 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.11.026

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  Gell F. R. Roberts C. M. (2003). Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects of marine reserves.Trends Ecol. Evol.18448–455. 10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00189-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  Gilani H. R. Innes J. L. Kent H. (2018). Developing human well-being domains, metrics and indicators in an ecosystem-based management context in Haida Gwaii, British Columbia, Canada.Soc. Nat. Resour.311321–1337. 10.1080/08941920.2018.1481548

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  Gill D. A. Mascia M. B. Ahmadia G. N. Glew L. Lester S. E. Barnes M. et al (2017). Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of marine protected areas globally.Nature543665–669. 10.1038/nature21708

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  Gollan N. Voyer M. Jordan A. Barclay K. (2019). Maximising community wellbeing: assessing the threats to the benefits communities derive from the marine estate.Ocean Coast. Manag.16812–21. 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.10.020

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  González-Cuellar O. T. Weaver A. H. Rodríguez-Villalobos J. C. López-Sagástegui C. (2019). Evaluación de Zonas de Refugio Pesquero del Corredor San Cosme a Punta Coyote. FOR: Sociedad de Historia Natural Niparajá, A. C. 2019. Evaluci n de Zonas de Refugio Pesquero del Corredor San Cosme a Punta-Coyote-Resultados biológicos y ecológicos del monitoreo submarino 2012–2018.Niparajá, A.C: La Paz, México.

  • Google Scholar

• 96

  Green A. Chollett I. Suárez A. Dahlgren C. Cruz S. Zepeda C. et al (2017). Biophysical Principles for Designing a Network of Replenishment Zones for the Mesoamerican Reef System.The Nature Conservancy, Comunidad y Biodiversidad, A.C., Smithsonian Institution, Perry Institute for Marine Science, Centro de Estudios Marinos, Healthy Reefs Initiative and Universidad Autónoma de Baja California Sur: Cancún, México.

  • Google Scholar

• 97

  Green A. Smith S. E. Lipsett-Moore G. Groves C. Peterson N. Sheppard S. et al (2009). Designing a resilient network of marine protected areas for Kimbe Bay, Papua New Guinea.Oryx43488–498. 10.1017/S0030605309990342

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  Green A. L. Fernandes L. Almany G. Abesamis R. McLeod E. Aliño P. M. et al (2014). Designing marine reserves for fisheries management, biodiversity conservation, and climate change adaptation.Coast. Manag.42143–159. 10.1080/08920753.2014.877763

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  Green A. L. Maypa A. P. Almany G. R. Rhodes K. L. Weeks R. Abesamis R. A. et al (2015). Larval dispersal and movement patterns of coral reef fishes, and implications for marine reserve network design.Biol. Rev.901215–1247. 10.1111/brv.12155

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  Grimmel H. Calado H. Fonseca C. Suárez de Vivero J. L. (2019). Integration of the social dimension into marine spatial planning – theoretical aspects and recommendations.Ocean Coast. Manag.173139–147. 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.02.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  Guerrero A. M. Wilson K. A. (2016). Using a social-ecological framework to inform the implementation of conservation plans.Conserv. Biol.31290–301. 10.1111/cobi.12832

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  Gunton T. Rutherford M. Dickinson M. (2010). Stakeholder analysis in marine planning.Environ. J. Interdiscip. Stud.3795–110.

  • Google Scholar

• 103

  Gurney G. G. Pressey R. L. Ban N. C. Alvarez-Romero J. G. Jupiter S. Adams V. M. (2015). Efficient and equitable design of marine protected areas in Fiji through inclusion of stakeholder-specific objectives in conservation planning.Conserv. Biol.291378–1389. 10.1111/cobi.12514

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  Halpern B. S. Frazier M. Afflerbach J. Lowndes J. S. Micheli F. O’Hara C. et al (2019). Recent pace of change in human impact on the world’s ocean.Sci. Rep.9:11609. 10.1038/s41598-019-47201-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  Halpern B. S. Klein C. J. Brown C. J. Beger M. Grantham H. S. Mangubhai S. et al (2013). Achieving the triple bottom line in the face of inherent trade-offs among social equity, economic return, and conservation.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.1106229–6234. 10.1073/pnas.1217689110

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  Harvey B. Cochrane L. Epp M. V. (2019). Charting knowledge co-production pathways in climate and development.Environ. Policy Gov.29107–117. 10.1002/eet.1834

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  Havard L. Brigand L. Cariño M. (2015). Stakeholder participation in decision-making processes for marine and coastal protected areas: case studies of the south-western Gulf of California, Mexico.Ocean Coast. Manag.116116–131. 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.06.017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  Hobday A. Ogier E. Fleming A. Hartog J. Thomas L. Ilona S. et al (2016). Fishery Status Report: Healthcheck for Australian Fisheries.Hobart, TAS: CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere.

  • Google Scholar

• 109

  Hobday A. J. Fleming A. Ogier E. M. Thomas L. Hartog J. R. Hornborg S. et al (2018). Perceptions regarding the need for broad sustainability assessments of Australian fisheries.Fish. Res.208247–257. 10.1016/j.fishres.2018.08.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  INEGI (2020). Número de Habitantes. Quintana Roo. Censo Poblac. Vivienda. Available online at: http://cuentame.inegi.org.mx/monografias/informacion/QRoo/Poblacion/(accessed April 29, 2021).

  • Google Scholar

• 111

  Ison S. Hills J. Morris C. Stead S. M. (2018). Sustainable financing of a national marine protected area network in Fiji.Ocean Coast. Manag.163352–363. 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.07.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  Jonas H. Makagon J. Roe D. (2016). Conservation Standards: From Rights to Responsibilities.London: International Institute for Environment and Development.

  • Google Scholar

• 113

  Kaplan-Hallam M. Bennett N. J. (2018). Adaptive social impact management for conservation and environmental management.Conserv. Biol.32304–314. 10.1111/cobi.12985

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  Karrasch L. Maier M. Kleyer M. Klenke T. (2017). Collaborative landscape planning: co-design of ecosystem-based land management scenarios.Sustainability9:1668. 10.3390/su9091668

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  Kittinger J. N. Koehn J. Z. Le Cornu E. Ban N. C. Gopnik M. Armsby M. et al (2014). A practical approach for putting people in ecosystem-based ocean planning.Front. Ecol. Environ.12448–456. 10.1890/130267

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  Klain S. C. Chan K. M. A. (2012). Navigating coastal values: participatory mapping of ecosystem services for spatial planning.Ecol. Econ.82104–113. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.07.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  Kleiber D. Harris L. Vincent A. C. J. (2018). Gender and marine protected areas: a case study of Danajon Bank, Philippines.Marit. Stud.17163–175. 10.1007/s40152-018-0107-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  Klein C. J. Brown C. J. Halpern B. S. Segan D. B. McGowan J. Beger M. et al (2015). Shortfalls in the global protected area network at representing marine biodiversity.Sci. Rep.5:17539. 10.1038/srep17539

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  Koch V. (2015). Analisis Comparativo de Instrumentos para la Conservacion y el Uso Sustentable de la Biodiversidad en el Golfo de California.Bonn: Alemania: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ).

  • Google Scholar

• 120

  Kockel A. Ban N. C. Costa M. Dearden P. (2019). Evaluating approaches for scaling up community-based marine protected areas into socially equitable and ecologically representative networks.Conserv. Biol.34137–147. 10.1111/cobi.13368

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  Kramer P. McField M. Álvarez-Filip L. Drysdale I. Rueda-Flores M. Giró A. et al (2015). 2015 Report Card for the Mesoamerican Reef. Healthy Reefs Initiative. Belize City.

  • Google Scholar

• 122

  Lansing D. (2009). The spaces of social capital: livelihood geographies and marine conservation in the Cayos Cochinos marine protected area, Honduras.J. Lat. Am. Geogr.829–54.

  • Google Scholar

• 123

  Lavín M. F. Marinone S. G. (2003). “An overview of the physical oceanography of the Gulf of California,” in Nonlinear Processes in Geophysical Fluid Dynamics: A Tribute to the Scientific Work of Pedro Ripa, edsVelasco FuentesO. U.SheinbaumJ.OchoaJ. (Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands), 173–204. 10.1007/978-94-010-0074-1_11

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  Lemos M. C. Arnott J. C. Ardoin N. M. Baja K. Bednarek A. T. Dewulf A. et al (2018). To co-produce or not to co-produce.Nat. Sustain.1722–724. 10.1038/s41893-018-0191-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  Leslie H. (2005). A synthesis of marine conservation planning approaches.Conserv. Biol.191701–1713. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00268.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  Lester S. E. Halpern B. S. Grorud-Coveret L. Lubchenco J. Ruttenberg B. I. Gaines S. D. et al (2009). Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: a global synthesis.Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.38433–49.

  • Google Scholar

• 127

  Levin P. S. Breslow S. J. Harvey C. J. Norman K. C. Poe M. R. Williams G. D. et al (2016). Conceptualization of social-ecological systems of the California current: an examination of interdisciplinary science supporting ecosystem-based management.Coast. Manag.44397–408. 10.1080/08920753.2016.1208036

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  Liu J. Mooney H. Hull V. Davis S. J. Gaskell J. Hertel T. et al (2015). Systems integration for global sustainability.Science347:1258832. 10.1126/science.1258832

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  Lluch-Cota S. E. Aragón-Noriega E. A. Arreguín-Sánchez F. Aurioles-Gamboa D. Jesús Bautista-Romero J. Brusca R. C. et al (2007). The Gulf of California: review of ecosystem status and sustainability challenges.Prog. Oceanogr.731–26. 10.1016/j.pocean.2007.01.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130

  Lockwood M. (2010). Good governance for terrestrial protected areas: a framework, principles and performance outcomes.J. Environ. Manage.91754–766. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.10.005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  Lockwood M. Davidson J. Curtis A. Stratford E. Griffith R. (2010). Governance principles for natural resource management.Soc. Nat. Resour.23986–1001. 10.1080/08941920802178214

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  Long R. D. Charles A. Stephenson R. L. (2015). Key principles of marine ecosystem-based management.Mar. Policy5753–60. 10.1016/j.marpol.2015.01.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  López G. (2021). Los Refugios Pesqueros: Una Herramienta para el Futuro de la Pesca. Causa Nat. Available online at: http://mydomain.com/pagina(accessed April 29, 2021).

  • Google Scholar

• 134

  Lorenzo M. D. Guidetti P. Franco A. D. Calò A. Claudet J. (2020). Assessing spillover from marine protected areas and its drivers: a meta-analytical approach.Fish Fish.21906–915. 10.1111/faf.12469

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  Magris R. A. Andrello M. Pressey R. L. Mouillot D. Dalongeville A. Jacobi M. N. et al (2018). Biologically representative and well-connected marine reserves enhance biodiversity persistence in conservation planning.Conserv. Lett.11:e12439. 10.1111/conl.12439

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  Maida C. A. Beck S. (2016). Towards communities of practice in global sustainability.Anthropol. Action231–5. 10.3167/aia.2016.230101

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 137

  Maldonado J. H. del Pilar Moreno-Sánchez R. (2014). Estimating the adaptive capacity of local communities at marine protected areas in Latin America: a practical approach.Ecol. Soc.19:16. 10.5751/ES-05962-190116

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138

  Mancha-Cisneros M. M. Lasch-Thaler C. Vázquez-Vera L. Suárez-Castillo A. N. Walther-Mendoza M. Espinosa-Romero M. J. et al (2018a). Recovery Zones in the Gulf of California, Mexico: Socioeconomic and Governance Considerations. Case Study for the Loreto-La Paz Corridor.La Paz, MX: The Nature Conservancy/Comunidad y Biodiversidad A.C.

  • Google Scholar

• 139

  Mancha-Cisneros M. M. Lasch-Thaler C. Vázquez-Vera L. Suárez-Castillo A. N. Walther-Mendoza M. Espinosa-Romero M. J. et al (2018b). Recovery Zones in the Gulf of California, Mexico: Socio-Economic and Governance Considerations. Case Study for the Midriff Islands Region.La Paz, MX: The Nature Conservancy/Comunidad y Biodiversidad A.C.

  • Google Scholar

• 140

  Mancha-Cisneros M. M. Lasch-Thaler C. Vázquez-Vera L. Suárez-Castillo A. N. Walther-Mendoza M. Espinosa-Romero M. J. et al (2018c). Recovery Zones of the Gulf of California, Mexico: Socio-Economic and Governance Considerations. Case Study for the Peñasco-Lobos Corridor.La Paz, MX: The Nature Conservancy/Comunidad y Biodiversidad A.C.

  • Google Scholar

• 141

  Mangubhai S. Wilson J. R. Rumetna L. Maturbongs Y. Purwanto (2015). Explicitly incorporating socioeconomic criteria and data into marine protected area zoning.Ocean Coast. Manag.116523–529. 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.08.018

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142

  Margules C. R. Pressey R. L. (2000). Systematic conservation planning.Nature405243–253. 10.1038/35012251

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 143

  Marques A. S. Ramos T. B. Caeiro S. Costa M. H. (2011). Adaptive-participative sustainability indicators in marine protected areas: design and communication.Ocean Coast. Manag.7236–45. 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2011.07.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 144

  Marshall G. (2007). Nesting, subsidiarity, and community-based environmental governance beyond the local scale.Int. J. Commons275–97.

  • Google Scholar

• 145

  Maxwell S. L. Cazalis V. Dudley N. Hoffmann M. Rodrigues A. S. L. Stolton S. et al (2020). Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century.Nature586217–227. 10.1038/s41586-020-2773-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146

  McCay B. J. Micheli F. Ponce-Díaz G. Murray G. Shester G. Ramirez-Sanchez S. et al (2014). Cooperatives, concessions, and co-management on the Pacific coast of Mexico.Mar. Policy4449–59. 10.1016/j.marpol.2013.08.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147

  McDermott M. Mahanty S. Schreckenberg K. (2013). Examining equity: a multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services.Environ. Sci. Policy33416–427. 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.10.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 148

  Micheli F. Saenz-Arroyo A. Greenley A. Vazquez L. Montes J. A. E. Rossetto M. et al (2012). Evidence that marine reserves enhance resilience to climatic impacts.PLoS One7:e40832. 10.1371/journal.pone.0040832

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149

  Mitchell R. E. Leach B. (2019). Knowledge coproduction in environmental impact assessment: lessons from the mining industry in Panama.Environ. Policy Gov.2987–96. 10.1002/eet.1832

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 150

  Morrison T. H. (2017). Evolving polycentric governance of the Great Barrier Reef.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.114E3013–E3021. 10.1073/pnas.1620830114

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 151

  Morzaria-Luna H. Cruz-Piñón G. Brusca R. C. López-Ortiz A. M. Moreno-Báez M. Reyes-Bonilla H. et al (2018). Biodiversity hotspots are not congruent with conservation areas in the Gulf of California.Biodivers. Conserv.273819–3842. 10.1007/s10531-018-1631-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 152

  Morzaria-Luna H. N. Turk-Boyer P. Hernández J. M. D. Polanco-Mizquez E. Downton-Hoffmann C. Cruz-Piñón G. et al (2020a). Fisheries management tools to support coastal and marine spatial planning: a case study from the Northern Gulf of California, Mexico.MethodsX7:101108. 10.1016/j.mex.2020.101108

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 153

  Morzaria-Luna H. N. Turk-Boyer P. Polanco-Mizquez E. I. Downton-Hoffmann C. Cruz-Piñón G. Carrillo-Lammens T. et al (2020b). Coastal and marine spatial planning in the northern Gulf of California, Mexico: consolidating stewardship, property rights, and enforcement for ecosystem-based fisheries management.Ocean Coast. Manag.197:105316. 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105316

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 154

  Munguia-Vega A. (2018). Adaptación de Principios Biofísicos para el Diseño de Zonas de Recuperación en la Región Pacífico de la Península de Baja CaliforniaCOBI y TNC: La Paz, México.

  • Google Scholar

• 155

  Munguia-Vega A. Green A. L. Suarez-Castillo A. N. Espinosa-Romero M. J. Aburto-Oropeza O. Cisneros-Montemayor A. M. et al (2018a). Ecological guidelines for designing networks of marine reserves in the unique biophysical environment of the Gulf of California.Rev. Fish Biol. Fish.28749–776. 10.1007/s11160-018-9529-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 156

  Munguia-Vega A. Torres-Origel J. F. Vazquez-Vera L. (2018b). Identificación y Evaluación de Sitios para el Manejo Pesquero en el Golfo de California.La Paz, MX: The Nature Conservancy.

  • Google Scholar

• 157

  Noble M. M. Harasti D. Pittock J. Doran B. (2019). Understanding the spatial diversity of social uses, dynamics, and conflicts in marine spatial planning.J. Environ. Manag.246929–940. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.06.048

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 158

  Norström A. V. Cvitanovic C. Löf M. F. West S. Wyborn C. Balvanera P. et al (2020). Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research.Nat. Sustain.3182–190. 10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 159

  Olson D. M. Dinerstein E. (2002). The global 200: priority ecoregions for global conservation.Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard.89199–224. 10.2307/3298564

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160

  Ostrom E. (1999). Coping with tragedies of the commons.Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci.2493–535. 10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.493

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 161

  Ostrom E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems.Science325419–422. 10.1126/science.1172133

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 162

  Ostrom E. (2010). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change.Glob. Environ. Change20550–557. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 163

  Páez-Osuna F. Álvarez-Borrego S. Ruiz-Fernández A. C. García-Hernández J. Jara-Marini M. E. Bergés-Tiznado M. E. et al (2017). Environmental status of the Gulf of California: a pollution review.Earth Sci. Rev.166181–205. 10.1016/j.earscirev.2017.01.014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 164

  Palacios-Abrantes J. Cisneros-Montemayor A. M. Cisneros-Mata M. A. Rodríguez L. Arreguín-Sánchez F. Aguilar V. et al (2019). A metadata approach to evaluate the state of ocean knowledge: strengths, limitations, and application to Mexico.PLoS One14:e0216723. 10.1371/journal.pone.0216723

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 165

  Pascual U. Phelps J. Garmendia E. Brown K. Corbera E. Martin A. et al (2014). Social equity matters in payments for ecosystem services.Bioscience641027–1036. 10.1093/biosci/biu146

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 166

  Pinsky M. L. Selden R. L. Kitchel Z. J. (2020). Climate-driven shifts in marine species ranges: scaling from organisms to communities.Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci.12153–179. 10.1146/annurev-marine-010419-010916

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 167

  Poe M. R. Norman K. C. Levin P. S. (2014). cultural dimensions of socioecological systems: key connections and guiding principles for conservation in coastal environments: cultural dimensions of coastal conservation.Conserv. Lett.7166–175. 10.1111/conl.12068

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 168

  Pomeroy R. S. Parks J. E. Watson L. M. (2004). How is Your MPA Doing?: A Guidebook of Natural and Social Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected Area Management Effectiveness.Gland: IUCN.

  • Google Scholar

• 169

  Punt A. E. Smith A. D. M. (2001). “The gospel of maximum sustainable yield in fisheries management: birth, crucifixion and reincarnation,” in Conservation of Exploited Species, edsReynoldsJ. D.MaceG. M.RedfordK. H.RobinsonJ. G. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 41–66.

  • Google Scholar

• 170

  Quintana Roo Gobierno del Estado (2020). Diversificacion y Desarrollo del Turismo. Available online at: https://qroo.gob.mx/eje-1-desarrollo-y-diversificacion-economica-con-oportunidades-para-todos/diversificacion-y(accessed November 19, 2020).

  • Google Scholar

• 171

  Ramírez-Valdez A. Aburto-Oropeza O. Arafeh Dalmau N. Beas-Luna R. Caselle J. E. Castorani M. C. N. et al (2017). Mexico-California Bi-National Initiative of Kelp Forest Ecosystems and Fisheries. Available online at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8sp8j4xs(accessed October 22, 2020).

  • Google Scholar

• 172

  Reed M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review.Biol. Conserv.1412417–2431. 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 173

  Reed M. S. Fraser E. D. G. Dougill A. J. (2006). An adaptive learning process for developing and applying sustainability indicators with local communities.Ecol. Econ.59406–418. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.11.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 174

  Reed M. S. Graves A. Dandy N. Posthumus H. Hubacek K. Morris J. et al (2009). Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management.J. Environ. Manag.901933–1949. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 175

  Roberts C. M. McClean C. J. Veron J. E. N. Hawkins J. P. Allen G. R. McAllister D. E. et al (2002). Marine biodiversity hotspots and conservation priorities for tropical reefs.Science2951280–1284. 10.1126/science.1067728

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 176

  Roberts C. M. O’Leary B. C. McCauley D. J. Cury P. M. Duarte C. M. Lubchenco J. et al (2017). Marine reserves can mitigate and promote adaptation to climate change.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.1146167–6175. 10.1073/pnas.1701262114

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 177

  Rodríguez-Rodríguez D. Sciberras M. Foster N. L. Attrill M. J. (2015). Status of management effort in 153 marine protected areas across the English channel.Mar. Pollut. Bull.94168–175. 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.02.036

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 178

  Rosales R. M. P. (2018). SEAT: measuring socio-economic benefits of marine protected areas.Mar. Policy92120–130. 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.02.026

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 179

  Ruiz-Frau A. Kaiser M. J. Edwards-Jones G. Klein C. J. Segan D. Possingham H. P. (2015). Balancing extractive and non-extractive uses in marine conservation plans.Mar. Policy5211–18. 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.10.017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 180

  Saarman E. Gleason M. Ugoretz J. Airamé S. Carr M. Fox E. et al (2013). The role of science in supporting marine protected area network planning and design in California.Ocean Coast. Manag.7445–56. 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.08.021

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 181

  Sala E. Giakoumi S. (2018). No-take marine reserves are the most effective protected areas in the ocean.ICES J. Mar. Sci.751166–1168. 10.1093/icesjms/fsx059

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 182

  Sánchez-Ibarra C. S. Bermúdez-García D. M. Bezaury-Creel J. Lasch-Thaler C. L. Rodríguez-Dowdell N. Cárdenas-Torres N. et al (2013). Plan de Acción para la Conservación y Aprovechamiento Sustentable de la Biodiversidad Terrestre y Marina de la Región Golfo de California y Pacífico Sudcaliforniano.Mexico, CDMX: Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Fondo Mexicano para la Conserva- ción de la Naturaleza.

  • Google Scholar

• 183

  Sayer J. Sunderland T. Ghazoul J. Pfund J.-L. Sheil D. Meijaard E. et al (2013). Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.1108349–8356. 10.1073/pnas.1210595110

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 184

  Schiel D. R. Foster M. S. (2015). The Biology and Ecology of Giant Kelp Forests.Oakland, CA: Univ of California Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 185

  SEGOB (2019). Proyecto de Modificación a la Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-049-SAG/PESC-2014, Que Determina el Procedimiento para Establecer Zonas de Refugio para los Recursos Pesqueros en Aguas de Jurisdicción Federal de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Available online at: https://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5579617&fecha=22/11/2019#:~:text=PROYECTO%20de%20Modificación%20a%20la,de%20los%20Estados%20Unidos%20Mexicanos(accessed June 25, 2021).

  • Google Scholar

• 186

  Stephenson R. L. Benson A. J. Brooks K. Charles A. Degnbol P. Dichmont C. M. et al (2017). Practical steps toward integrating economic, social and institutional elements in fisheries policy and management.ICES J. Mar. Sci.741981–1989. 10.1093/icesjms/fsx057

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 187

  Stephenson R. L. Wiber M. Paul S. Angel E. Benson A. Charles A. et al (2018). Integrating diverse objectives for sustainable fisheries in Canada.Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.76480–496. 10.1139/cjfas-2017-0345

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 188

  Sterling E. J. Filardi C. Toomey A. Sigouin A. Betley E. Gazit N. et al (2017). Biocultural approaches to well-being and sustainability indicators across scales.Nat. Ecol. Evol.11798–1806. 10.1038/s41559-017-0349-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 189

  Tengö M. Brondizio E. S. Elmqvist T. Malmer P. Spierenburg M. (2014). Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: the multiple evidence base approach.AMBIO43579–591. 10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 190

  Tittensor D. P. Beger M. Boerder K. Boyce D. G. Cavanagh R. D. Cosandey-Godin A. et al (2019). Integrating climate adaptation and biodiversity conservation in the global ocean.Sci. Adv.5:eaay9969. 10.1126/sciadv.aay9969

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 191

  Trisos C. H. Merow C. Pigot A. L. (2020). The projected timing of abrupt ecological disruption from climate change.Nature580496–501. 10.1038/s41586-020-2189-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 192

  Tschakert P. Dietrich K. (2010). Anticipatory learning for climate change adaptation and resilience.Ecol. Soc.15:11. 10.1007/s13280-016-0830-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 193

  Turnbull J. W. Shah Esmaeili Y. Clark G. F. Figueira W. F. Johnston E. L. Ferrari R. (2018). Key drivers of effectiveness in small marine protected areas.Biodivers. Conserv.272217–2242. 10.1007/s10531-018-1532-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 194

  Ulloa R. Torre J. Bourillon L. Gonder A. Alcantar N. (2006). Planeacion para la Conservacion Marina: Golfo de California y Costa Occidental de Baja California Sur.Guaymas, MX: Comunidad y Biodiversidad, A.C.

  • Google Scholar

• 195

  Uribe P. Torre J. Moguel S. Bourillón L. Sáenz A. (2010). Implementación de Reservas Marinas en México.México, MX: Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental (CEMDA) Comunidad y Biodiversidad (COBI).

  • Google Scholar

• 196

  Ward T. J. Vanderklift M. A. Nicholls A. O. Kenchington R. A. (1999). Selecting marine reserves using habitats and species assemblages as surrogates for biological diversity.Ecol. Appl.9691–698.

  • Google Scholar

• 197

  Weigel J.-Y. Mannle K. O. Bennett N. J. Carter E. Westlund L. Burgener V. et al (2014). Marine protected areas and fisheries: bridging the divide.Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst.24199–215. 10.1002/aqc.2514

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 198

  Westley F. Olsson P. Folke C. Homer-Dixon T. Vredenburg H. Loorbach D. et al (2011). Tipping toward sustainability: emerging pathways of transformation.AMBIO40762–780. 10.1007/s13280-011-0186-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 199

  Wilson K. L. Tittensor D. P. Worm B. Lotze H. K. (2020). Incorporating climate change adaptation into marine protected area planning.Glob. Change Biol.263251–3267. 10.1111/gcb.15094

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 200

  Wyborn C. (2015). Cross-scale linkages in connectivity conservation: adaptive governance challenges in spatially distributed networks.Environ. Policy Gov.251–15. 10.1002/eet.1657

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 201

  Wyborn C. Datta A. Montana J. Ryan M. Leith P. Chaffin B. et al (2019). Co-producing sustainability: reordering the governance of science, policy, and practice.Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.44319–346. 10.1146/annurev-environ-101718-033103

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 202

  Young J. C. Searle K. Butler A. Simmons P. Watt A. D. Jordan A. (2016). The role of trust in the resolution of conservation conflicts.Biol. Conserv.195196–202. 10.1016/j.biocon.2015.12.030

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 203

  Zafra-Calvo N. Pascual U. Brockington D. Coolsaet B. Cortes-Vazquez J. A. Gross-Camp N. et al (2017). Towards an indicator system to assess equitable management in protected areas.Biol. Conserv.211(Pt A)134–141. 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.05.014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar