Next Article in Journal
Three New Species of Cystolepiota from Laos and Thailand
Next Article in Special Issue
Macrobenthic Assemblages, Distribution and Functional Guilds from a Freshwater-Dominated Tropical Estuary
Previous Article in Journal
Contribution of Sheep Grazing to Plant Diversity in Natural Grasslands
Previous Article in Special Issue
New Insights into a Mediterranean Sea Benthic Habitat: High Diversity of Epiphytic Bryozoan Assemblages on Phyllophora crispa (Rhodophyta) Mats
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 14
Issue 6
10.3390/d14060448
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Marine Protected Areas Management in the Mediterranean Sea—The Case of Croatia

by
María Maestro
1,*,
Juan Adolfo Chica-Ruiz
1,
Zvjezdana Popović Perković
2 and
María Luisa Pérez-Cayeiro
1
1
Faculty of Marine and Environmental Sciences, University of Cadiz, 11510 Puerto Real, Spain
2
Department of Marine Studies, University of Split, 21000 Split, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2022, 14(6), 448; https://doi.org/10.3390/d14060448
Submission received: 12 May 2022 / Revised: 30 May 2022 / Accepted: 31 May 2022 / Published: 2 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystems Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Marine protected areas (MPAs) are widely used tools to conserve marine ecosystems and their services. They are complex socio-ecological systems where human activities and nature interact. Croatia has 409 protected areas, of which 19 are coastal-marine. The aim of this paper is to analyze the management model of MPAs in Croatia and to identify their strengths and weaknesses. For this purpose, three MPAs have been chosen: Brijuni National Park, Telašćica Nature Park, and Pakleni Islands Significant Landscape. The methodology used assesses 26 specific indicators to analyze the status of 4 key factors: management body, planning subprocess, public participation, and implementation subprocess. The results of this evaluation are 5 possible scenarios: proactive (1), learning (2), interactive (3), centralized (4), and formal (5) management. The results show that Brijuni presents a proactive scenario (1), Telašćica an interactive scenario (3), and Pakleni Islands a centralized scenario (4). A series of measures are presented, which can improve the score. In general, MPA management in Croatia tends towards a proactive model, where the management body is its greatest strength. There is a shift from a top-down to a bottom-up approach, which implies a greater involvement of the population in decision-making. However, public participation is not yet fully consolidated.

1. Introduction

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are widely used tools to conserve marine ecosystems and their services. They are found worldwide [1] and have proven to be a successful management instrument to conserve biodiversity [2,3,4], being critical for human well-being [5,6] and providing numerous benefits to society, especially related to recreation and tourism [7,8]. In recent years, they have evolved from a pristine model, where no human presence was allowed, to an ecosystem approach, where the social part is equally important as the physical–natural one [9,10,11,12,13,14,15].
Nowadays, MPAs are complex socio-ecological systems in which human activities and nature interact. They are typically found in coastal or coastal-marine areas, which have historically been used by fishermen and indigenous people [16,17,18]. In fact, only 1.18% of MPAs are found in international waters [19]. This means that their creation and management directly affect the activities and behavior of populations living along the coast, making it necessary to reconcile the use and exploitation of resources with conservation.
MPAs can have different degrees of protection and/or use of sites and their resources. Generally, benefits for local communities and general population, and for biodiversity, tend to be greater as the degree of protection increases [20,21,22]. However, results are not always obvious or immediate. Sometimes, local people are limited in their access to resources after declaration, and this can lead to conflict or lack of support and respect for regulations [23]. Nonetheless, MPAs are fundamental to the economic and social well-being of the population.
Therefore, conservation of ecosystems and their resources must be addressed together with the communities that use these spaces. In fact, several authors consider social acceptance as the main indicator to measure the success of an MPA [24,25,26,27]. Nowadays, not only is the inclusion of the population in the use and enjoyment of resources being contemplated, but there is an increasing trend towards a participatory management model, in which society has the tools to influence decision-making [11,28].
Another notable problem is that many of the current MPAs do not have management plans and are not being adequately managed [9]. Sometimes, the only protection they receive is designation as a protected area, but without appropriate human and financial resources, biodiversity conservation is not ensured. This leads to poor management and, in the worst cases, to so-called “paper parks”, i.e., areas that have been designated as protected, but in practice receive no management at all [29,30,31]. Appropriate management that is adaptive and ensures the sustainable and equitable use of ecosystems and their services is needed.
For all these reasons, the improvement of management and the development of different tools to help managers to exercise a more participative management and to monitor progress are being promoted. To analyze how management actions and components are doing, and to identify strengths and weaknesses, a management assessment is a very useful element. Numerous frameworks consider this as an integral step because it makes it possible to receive feedback that facilitates decision-making and error correction [32,33]. It does not only mean observing problems but also identifying and analyzing those aspects that are being done well, in order to provide the necessary information for decision-making by area managers [34]. Different methodologies exist to evaluate management [35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43]. However, there is a lack of internal analysis of the management body itself and of the MPA management model.
Croatia is extremely rich in terms of landscape and favorable climate and has a great biological diversity. It has 409 protected areas, of which 19 are coastal-marine. The system of protected areas nationally designated covers approximately 1.04% of the sea, although the Croatian part of the Natura 2000 network includes 8.79% of the marine area [44]. The Nature Protection Act ensures the conservation of the natural environment. It provides for nine categories of protected areas that correspond, as far as possible, to one of the internationally recognized IUCN categories. National and nature parks are designated by the Parliament, strict and special reserves by the Government, and the other categories by the county assemblies and the Zagreb City Assembly. This Act provides for public participation and access to designation acts [45]. Protected areas are managed by Public Institutions, whose main function is the protection, maintenance, and promotion of protected areas, and monitoring compliance with regulations.
The aim of the paper is to analyze the management model of MPAs in Croatia and to identify strengths and weaknesses. For this purpose, three MPAs with different protection statuses have been chosen: Brijuni National Park, Telašćica Nature Park (both managed at national level) and Pakleni Islands (significant landscape managed by Split-Dalmatia County) (Figure 1a). These three cases studies account for 2.48% of Croatia’s protected coastal and marine area.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Areas

2.1.1. Brijuni National Park

Brijuni National Park (Figure 1b) consists of 14 islands, islets, and cliffs located along the western coast of Istria. It was declared a national park and memorial site on 1 November 1983 by the National Parks Act and the Brijuni Memorial Site. It has almost 47 km of coastline and is 3395.0 ha, of which 2651.7 are marine [46]. It was declared thanks to its geomorphological–hydrological, climatic, and landscape characteristics, together with the flora, fauna, and its unique cultural heritage. In 2021, it was awarded the Blue Park prize for achieving the highest scientific standards of marine life protection and management.
As with all national parks in Croatia, commercial fishing around Brijuni is prohibited. There are no population centers in the national park. As some islands are very close to the mainland and local people have always enjoyed the right to fish, today the Public Institution still issues permit for recreational fishing around two islands. However, there is significant pressure on fish stocks in and beyond the boundaries of the Park, and the establishment of a buffer zone around the current park boundaries is under consideration.

2.1.2. Telašćica Nature Park

Telašćica Nature Park (Figure 1c) was designated as such in 1988 with the separation from Kornati National Park, of which it was a part of from 1980 to 1988. Telašćica obtained the status of a protected area thanks to its fauna and flora, geological and geomorphological phenomena, diverse seabed communities, and archaeological heritage. Three basic units represent the fundamental characteristics of this area: the bay of Telašćica, the cliffs of Dugi Otok, and the salt lake “Mir”. The total area of the nature park is 70.50 km2, with 25.95 km2 in Dugi Otok and the islets, and 44.55 km2 in the sea [47].
On Long Island there are 2873 inhabitants (according to the Census of Population, Households and Dwellings. Republic of Croatia: Central Bureau of Statistics, 2011). The population works in tourism, agriculture, or fishing, although a survey conducted in 2010 revealed public concern about the state of fish stocks. Respondents pointed out that there have been changes in the community due to the emigration of young people from the island and reduced quality of life due to inability to find employment and insufficient cultural offer [48].
Fishing activities in Nature Parks in Croatia are regulated through the Fisheries Act with no differences in size and type of fishing gear outside and inside protected areas. Only recreational fishing has been regulated since July 2018. Specific (more restricted) regulations are just about to be developed and adopted.

2.1.3. Pakleni Islands Significant Landscape

Pakleni Islands (Figure 1d) are an archipelago of 19 islands and islets declared “significant landscape” in 1968 for their complex geography of 634.38 ha. The underwater environments surrounding the islands are part of the European ecological network Natura 2000 and were chosen with the aim of preserving Posidonia oceanica beads, reefs with established algal and coral biocenoses, infralittoral sands, mudflats, and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide and sea caves. They are managed by the “More i Krš” Institution, under the County of Split-Dalmatia.
On the nearest inhabited island, Hvar, there are 11,077 inhabitants, while on the larger island, Sv. Klement, there are three villages that are only occasionally inhabited [49]. Tourism is one of the main sources of income for the communities. Many are engaged in agriculture, animal husbandry, or fishing.

2.2. Methodology

The methodology used to analyze the management of Pakleni Islands, Telašćica Nature Park, and Brijuni National Park has been applied before in Azores Marine Park [50] and in three national parks of Costa Rica [51]. It has a social perspective that is based on the analysis of two fundamental elements: processes and people involved. The steps to be taken are as follows.

2.2.1. Step 1. Selection of Key Management Aspects

Four management aspects were identified as key. Key aspects are those of a transversal nature that also encompass different elements. These are: management body, planning sub-process, public participation, and implementation sub-process. Based on the methodologies developed by the World Database of Protected Areas (WDPA), these four aspects have been chosen because, in a first approach, we aim to cover the whole process of planning and execution, and the people involved in the management: the managers and stakeholders.

2.2.2. Step 2. Identification of Specific Indicators

A series of specific indicators were selected for each aspect. An indicator is a specific, observable, and measurable characteristic that can be used to show the status of an aspect of management. In this case, indicators are in question format. This resulted in 26 indicators (Table 1), which were chosen based on the literature reviewed and on our expert criteria. Some of them were developed by the authors, while others were adapted from other methodologies. Table 2 shows the general themes that were drawn from these sources.

2.2.3. Step 3. Data Collection and Assessment of Indicators: Score from 1 to 3 Points

Each of the indicators has been rated on a scale of one to three, with one being the most unfavorable situation and three the optimum. Although using these options is a simple representation, it covers the entire spectrum of responses, from a negative assessment of the indicator to an optimal situation, passing through an intermediate state. This system facilitates responses and future proposals for improvement. For each indicator, each of the ranges has been specified to identify what “optimal state” means.
To respond to the indicators, several sources of information have been used, primarily interviews with the managers of the protected areas. One manager was interviewed in Brijuni and Pakleni, and three in Telašćica. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with managers at three parks, always by the same person. These were based on a questionnaire with open-ended questions, but the conversation was allowed to bring up new topics or issues of relevance to the interviewee. The information obtained from the interviews and field observations was contrasted with the bibliographic sources to determine the score obtained for each indicator. Specifically, management plans, annual reports, technical documents, project documents, and scientific articles were analyzed. Field observations included visits to the facilities of the park administration and to the most important physical, natural, and cultural sites. Once all sources were analyzed, the score for each indicator was determined.

2.2.4. Step 4. Definition of Five Management Scenarios: Expert Criteria

Once all indicators have a value from 1 to 3, the average is calculated to find out how each of the four key aspects is valued. The different possibilities that can be found are considered, depending on the value from 1 to 3 of each of the aspects. From this combination, we have proposed five models that represent five realities, depending on four variables each (Table 3). They are ordered from the ideal situation to the least favorable as follows:
-
Scenario 1: Proactive management. The team that makes up the managing body is multidisciplinary and highly trained. They collaborate and cooperate with other institutions. Participatory management is carried out where all stakeholders are represented. It is planned years ahead and possible problems are anticipated.
-
Scenario 2: Learning management. All four elements have the same intermediate value; therefore, they are in a situation where they could be improved. The management body is multidisciplinary. It is planned for the medium term and is managed in response to past mistakes and successes. There is public participation, but it is not fully representative or well consolidated.
-
Scenario 3: Interactive management. The management responsibility falls largely on social actors. All stakeholders are well represented and have appropriate participation mechanisms. Planning and implementation subprocesses are carried out transparently by the authorities. Awareness is high among the population.
-
Scenario 4: Centralized management. The managing body is sound and multidisciplinary and functions correctly. It can belong to different scales. It has responsibility, determines the management objectives, and develops and executes the management plan. However, public participation is not very common in decision-making.
-
Scenario 5: Formal management. Priority is given to short-term management. Planning is extremely static, public participation in decision-making is not carried out, nor are there evaluation mechanisms or strategic medium to long-term objectives.
A method of analysis and projection of reality through the construction of scenarios was used, by applying alternative (five options) and contrasted (can be compared) scenarios [50]. This is a tool for understanding the potential and limits of management. The factors that define these scenarios can change over time, and thus are images of present, future, and/or desirable situations [53,54]. Therefore, it is a proposal that allows us to understand the evolution of a management model. In addition, it can be seen whether certain specific changes (in any of the indicators) cause significant changes to the general model or not.

3. Results

Brijuni National Park scored 2.9 for the management body, 2.8 for the planning stage, 2.5 for public participation, and 2.6 for the implementation stage. With these results, the park management model is considered to resemble the proactive scenario (Figure 2a).
Telašćica Nature Park scored 2.9 for the management body, 2.6 for the planning stage, 2.5 for public participation, and 2.2 for the implementation stage. With these results, the park management model is included in the interactive scenario (Figure 2b).
Pakleni Islands scored 2.9 for the management body, 2 for the planning stage, 2.1 for public participation, and 2 for the implementation stage. With these results, the park management model falls into the centralized scenario (Figure 2c).
Figure 3 shows the assessment for each of the indicators analyzed in Brijuni National Park, Telašćica Nature Park, and Pakleni Islands Significant Landscape. Table 4 shows some details on the assessment of each of the indicators.

4. Discussion

All parks have almost the highest score (2.9) for the management body, showing that it is one of the greatest strengths of the Croatian protected area system. This is similar in other European countries, such as France and the UK [55]. Appropriate training of MPA managers or technicians should be multidisciplinary. In Croatia, each park has a Management Board, which is responsible for adopting the management plan and annual plans, drawing up a financial plan and managing the accounts [46]. In addition, it has an expert service, with specialized university training, which advises the Board in making decisions that have a direct impact on the biophysical systems. Therefore, the parks have a multidisciplinary team that allows them to approach management with an ecosystem approach, which is necessary to reconcile the protection of ecosystems and their services with the economic development of local populations [56,57].
There is no doubt that capacity building is fundamental to successfully addressing management of protected spaces. Van der Molen [58] argues that conflict resolution and working towards a sustainable relationship between environment and society is a multifaceted process that encompasses different forms of capacity building. The three MPAs provide for staff training based on current priorities and specific needs. However, there is no established training plan as such, and the responsibility and initiative lie with the employee himself/herself. Nevertheless, an analysis of the annual reports shows a high level of staff involvement, as many multidisciplinary courses are held each year. At the more operational levels, there is compulsory training to enable them to carry out certain activities. The absence of a regulated training program is a shortcoming observed in other MPAs around the world, such as Costa Rica [51], even though they manage their resources adequately.
In the Mediterranean, MPAs are generally understaffed (Brijuni is an exception) or have staff with no experience in management, conservation, and planning [59], making capacity building programs very useful. Di Carlo et al. [59] identified 250 training opportunities related or applicable to MPA management in the Mediterranean, provided over the past five years by 51 national and international organizations. Of these, only four were extensive courses covering the full range of management topics. Most of them are one-time courses and do not belong to any regular training program. With a few exceptions, only online courses are available on a continuous basis and can be taken at any time. However, MPA staff may change (new staff joining and requiring training) or face emerging problems and needs, so mechanisms need to be put in place to ensure that knowledge remains with the managing body and MPA staff and is continuously updated. Examples of ways to overcome this problem are the creation of learning networks, support teams, or a core group of trainers.
Cooperation with other levels of administration and even with other international agencies and bodies should be highlighted. These include national and international universities to research institutes and local associations. Projects such as MedPan South Project, which supported the creation of Brijuni and Telašćica management plans, stand out. Brijuni, being a national park, is involved in a large number of projects. This broad collaboration is a very positive factor, as it is key to the implementation of marine policies [60] and fosters public awareness and support for protection. Increasingly, MPA management is moving towards interdisciplinarity.
It is clear that good management requires the adoption of clear objectives and governance systems, the allocation of adequate and appropriate resources, and the implementation of management strategies and processes [61]. More effort needs to be devoted to planning for the future and planning and implementing current activities [62]. Benefits derived from MPAs are related to the design, the number of resources, the degree of protection provided through fair governance and effective management, and the scale at which it works [63]. Brijuni scored near the highest score in the planning stage, demonstrating that this protection category (national park) is committed to short-, medium-, and long-term planning for marine environment. The management plans for Brijuni and Telašćica are almost fully complied with. In Pakleni Islands the management plan is in the process of development and, so far, the annual operational plan has exercised the functions of the management plan. However, the implementation of the activities of the three parks has been reduced due to the SARS-CoV pandemic. This has occurred in many countries, including Brazil, Costa Rica, Namibia, Ecuador, Indonesia, Canada, the United States, and South Africa [64,65,66]. Adapting MPA management to the current situation left by the pandemic is a global challenge. Parks face emerging challenges, such as drastically decreasing budgets [64,67] or increasing contamination from single-use masks [68], and it is essential to address them in a holistic manner, seeking nature-based solutions [64].
Croatia has a network of MPAs (CroMPA), which was promoted by the Brijuni Public Institution with the objectives of increasing management effectiveness, capacity building, data exchange, implementing a common approach to solving management problems, influencing the future development of a strategic legal framework, and planning, preparing, and implementing common projects. This network provides the opportunity to establish Croatia as a leading country in the protection of the marine environment. In addition, all parks are part of the Mediterranean MPA Network (MedMPAnet), which is indispensable for long-term marine biodiversity monitoring projects [69].
An important part of MPA planning and management is understanding and incorporating the priorities of different groups [70,71,72,73]. The design and management of an MPA should be based on knowledge of the physical and ecological systems that affect it, and on human dimensions, including governance, socio-economic, and cultural aspects [74,75]. Management must be adapted to the socio-cultural situation of each place. Furthermore, the design of the decision-making process must be transparent and cover all stages of management.
Until 2004, an effective system was in place to ensure a representative inclusion of stakeholders in management. Boards consisted of representatives of scientific communities, local communities, the Nature Protection Directorate, and political representatives. However, this system was abandoned, and members are now determined solely on political grounds [76]. Despite this, there is a balance between all sectors involved in the Boards of the three parks, which are multidisciplinary. Recent publications suggest that MPA management should evolve towards a bottom-up model, in which local people are involved in planning processes [77], or towards an intermediate model combining both top-down and bottom-up elements [78,79,80].
In this sense, Croatia is getting closer to this desirable situation. For example, in the case of Telašćica, the development of the management plan was the first event that included the population. Since then, it has collaborated in some monitoring and local fisheries councils have been established. In the framework of the FishMPABlue2 project, for the first time in Croatia, fishermen were involved in the design of the fisheries management plan. They decided to create no-take zone in the MPA themselves and replaced their nets with more selective ones to reduce fishing pressure and catch per unit effort. This is a good example of a management plan developed in a bottom-up approach involving fishermen, scientists, non-governmental organizations, and the government [81].
However, there is still a long way to go. MPAs are only legally obliged to ensure stakeholder participation in relation to the designation of an MPA and in the form of public consultations regarding proposals for management plans and acts of secondary legislation affecting their interests. Nevertheless, an effective system of stakeholder participation in day-to-day management has not been developed [76].
This situation is found in other MPAs around the world, for example in California, where the design and planning of its MPA network was highly participatory. Stakeholders played a key role and were the sole group responsible for proposing MPA configurations and locations [82]. However, without specific structures for this process, maintaining the high level of participation and engagement is challenging, especially with the top-down model that is legally in place [82]. In Thailand, meanwhile, national legislation contains provisions for participation, but ministerial mandates and local managers maintain top-down approaches, leading to conflicts between the community and managers [83]. As can be seen, it is essential that public policies are aligned at all scales, and that the institutions in charge of managing MPAs have the will and the tools to do so in a participatory way, beyond the design of the MPA or the elaboration of the management plan.
There are no population centers in Brijuni National Park, so stakeholders belong to the nearest communities (mainly Fažana). One of the activities carried out during the development of the management plan were interviews with visitors. It was observed that most of them have concerns related to problems with infrastructure and services, tourism management (hotels and visitors), and conservation of natural and historical-cultural heritage [46]. Some of them have no problems with the current levels of cooperation and expect to continue to do so (in research, education, or volunteering), while others want to increase the level of cooperation and participate more actively in the park’s activities [46].
Overall, these findings show that the desires of communities interested in coastal MPAs are context-specific, even when the groups appear to be similar. A similar finding occurs in a Canadian MPA, Basin Head, where strong community support was found [84]. Most interviewees in this park indicated that they were satisfied with just receiving updates and allowing local management and leaders to make management decisions. This was influenced by the fact that the partnership formed by managers and the population generated a high level of trust, allowing other stakeholders to take a hands-off approach. However, in Brijuni, since the creation of the management plan, social actors have not been involved in management processes and relations with the community are not as consolidated, although communication channels are always open for suggestions and consultations.
To avoid conflict, it is imperative that all stakeholders are involved in planning and management processes in a representative manner [85,86], leading to greater transparency and recognition of the views and concerns of different actors. This increases the likelihood of agreements and improves social acceptability, legitimacy, and support for future MPAs. In Croatia, efforts have been made to involve stakeholders in ocean projects and management. However, despite its long experience in creating and implementing park policies, there are obvious difficulties in getting protected areas to play their role through the involvement of local communities [87]. Successful participatory conservation requires a legislative framework, understanding and determination of management, and local willingness to implement conservation programs. One case of an MPA that has significantly improved its public participation is Tubbataha, in the Philippines. Initially, the state did not take community input into consideration during the design of the MPA. However, eight years later, a participatory governance system was established, which has been instrumental in the success of this area. The management plan was subject to extensive consultation, and participatory evaluation is carried out as part of an adaptive planning process. Research, information, and education campaigns are often carried out in collaboration with various organizations [88]. Zeng et al. [89] propose promoting public participation through better advocacy and incentive mechanisms, and the creation of local advisory councils, which allow for more active stakeholder participation and provide opportunities to interact with management agencies.
Both Telašćica and Brijuni have education and volunteer programs and activities, although both were affected due to restrictions caused by the SARS-CoV pandemic. In Brijuni several activities are being developed to better present the park and its heritage [46], and in Telašćica there are various activities on the values of the park. However, there are some problems, especially in the Mir Bay area, which receives more than 100,000 visitors during the tourist season [47].
In order to implement management actions effectively, sufficient human and financial resources are essential. The main sources of income in Croatian parks are EU and national funds, donations, and sponsorships, and those generated through their own activities. The funds for the annual budget of the Brijuni Public Institution come from the income earned by the institution. Until 2014, the park received small financial contributions from the Croatian government for certain staff salaries and capital projects. Since then, the park has been financially independent from the government and is funded through tourism revenues, donations, and EU-sponsored projects. It has attracted attention for its sustainable funding strategy, which includes a concession program for tourism activities that was used to achieve conservation objectives. This, among other reasons, has led to it being awarded the Blue Park Award in 2021.
However, it is relevant to note the impact that the SARS-CoV pandemic has had on the Croatian economy, which is heavily dependent on tourism. In the Plitvice Lakes National Park (also in Croatia), tourism-related revenues account for approximately 98% of the total, which leads to MPAs being unable to carry out their actions and management plans in the absence of visitors. A paradigm shift is needed, including diversification of funding sources for areas and communities, effective allocation of financial resources, and responsible tourism recovery plans [64].
The meaning of management is none other than to implement the plan and programs that have emerged in the planning stage. In addition to executing the various measures, it is also essential to monitor implementation [90]. Several authorities adopt adaptive management as a central orientation of conservation management [79]. It is the cyclical process of systematically testing assumptions, generating learning by evaluating results, and continuing to correct and improve management practices [33]. This enables the identification of the most effective measures to achieve desired outcomes, and a better understanding of how objectives should be modified in the context of changing conditions [91]. It requires a regular system of monitoring and evaluation. Attention should be paid to the analysis of socio-economic aspects of the MPA and local perceptions [92,93].
Monitoring of indicators is carried out when there is a project that requires it. In Telašćica and Pakleni Islands, only biophysical indicators are considered. In Brijuni they also have visitor monitoring. This aspect could be improved by establishing a regular monitoring system, as its absence can lead to conflicts between managers, fishermen and the scientific community, as has happened in the Sanya Coral Reefs [94]. However, all three parks have a system of annual evaluation, through reporting, which examines the degree of compliance with the operational plan. This evaluation is used to propose changes to the management plan for the following year. This procedure is used in other successful MPAs, such as the Australian Great Barrier Reef [95], although public participation in this park is higher. Monitoring of management activities is well established in Croatia but monitoring of biophysical and socio-economic indicators is not systematic.
Despite this, all parks have a long scientific tradition and results are integrated into management. In the case of Brijuni, biophysical, cultural, and archaeological issues are studied. For example, several databases have been created, such as marine habitats, cultural heritage sites from prehistory to the 20th century, and sites of geological–paleontological interest. In Telašćica, the biophysical part is the most important, although the social part is becoming increasingly important. A database on the fishing situation is planned. The license holders are not obliged to report the amount of their catches to the Public Institution, so it has not been possible to monitor the fishing effort within the park. Considering that almost the whole area is privately owned (95%), its management becomes more complex, and mutual co-operation is of utmost importance. Another example of the use of scientific information in management in this park is the analysis of metal concentrations in the water, which is serving as a basis for delimiting the carrying capacity of anchored vessels [47].
In general, public participation and the implementation stage are the aspects that need to be strengthened the most. These weaknesses have been identified at least since 2014 [96]. At the time, the identified weaknesses were facilitation and conflict resolution, communication with the local community and their participation in management, dissemination of MPA values, issues and rules of behavior with visitors (public participation), and monitoring, evaluation, and management of the project cycle (implementation stage). These elements could serve as a starting point for developing a training program for managers at the national level, strengthening community relations and adaptive management through constant feedback. This happens in many MPAs. Case studies in France, England, and Portugal showed deficiencies in the implementation of their actions, which was present in only 40% of cases, while this percentage was somewhat higher in Spain [55]. This may be due to numerous reasons, such as lack of resources. For example, Gill et al. [97] analyzed the management of 433 MPAs around the world and 65% stated that their budget was inadequate.
The traditional top-down approach to nature protection in Croatia is being replaced by bottom-up conservation, as recommended by recent publications [77]. This approach considers local communities as key partners in wildlife management and requires their involvement in social development and biodiversity conservation [98]. Telašćica and Pakleni Islands need to start adopting the socio-ecosystem view, a process that has already begun.

5. Conclusions

In general, MPA management in Croatia tends towards a proactive model, where the management body is its greatest strength. There is a shift from a top-down to a bottom-up approach, which implies a greater involvement of the population in decision-making. However, public participation is not yet fully consolidated, as the involvement of stakeholders outside the management plan development process is not always common. However, the surface area of MPAs in Croatia is still low.
It can be observed that those areas that have a higher protection category, in this case Brijuni and Telašćica, also have a higher assessment of their indicators (proactive and interactive scenarios, respectively). Pakleni Islands, however, is in the process of developing its management plan, which makes its management model more similar to a centralized one. There is ample evidence that the management of the marine environment and its resources should move towards a proactive model.
However, it is logical to think that it is not possible to progress from the centralized to the proactive scenario directly, so some priority actions are recommended in this research, which can improve the score, especially in the indicators that are scored below 2:
-
Planning instruments, containing clear objectives and strategies, such as coastal/spatial plans, marine spatial plans, zoning plans, sustainable development and climate change adaptation strategies, sustainable tourism plans, etc., should be developed.
-
To develop the zoning of the MPA and establish mechanisms to ensure its implementation and the respect of its rules. Marine spatial planning could help in this regard, which can be seen as a means to compensate for the weakness of MPAs.
-
To develop a socio-ecosystem diagnosis of the MPA and update it periodically, always using the best available information.
-
To establish a periodic monitoring system, which collects biophysical and socio-economic data, and whose results are integrated into management.
It is recommended that public participation bodies are created and strengthened throughout the country. Stakeholder involvement is crucial at all stages of integrated management: baseline analysis of the situation, goal setting, political commitment, implementation and monitoring of the process, and evaluation and reporting [99]. Finally, as the management body is the greatest strength of Croatian MPAs, it would be of great interest to create a network of managers linked to different MPAs—national and international—to promote the exchange of experience and knowledge. Additionally, to develop an inter-institutional project to train staff working in MPAs in integrated coastal and marine management, including skills such as conflict resolution techniques, negotiation and decision-making, resource economics, etc., would be of interest.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M.; methodology, M.M., J.A.C.-R. and M.L.P.-C.; resources, M.M. and Z.P.P.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M.; writing—review and editing, J.A.C.-R., M.L.P.-C. and Z.P.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work has not received any funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the European University of the Seas and Diputación de Cádiz for the fellowship “Becas Talento Diputación de Cádiz—Universidad Europea de los Mares (SEAEU)” awarded to the corresponding author. We also want to thank Brijuni, Telaščica and More i Krš Public Institutions for their collaboration.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Salm, R.V.; John, R.C.; Siirila, E. Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: A Guide for Planners and Managers; IUCN: Washington, DC, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  2. Sala, E.; Ballesteros, E.; Dendrinos, P.; Di Franco, A.; Ferretti, F.; Foley, D.; Fraschetti, S.; Friedlander, A.; Garrabou, J.; Güçlüsoy, H.; et al. The Structure of Mediterranean Rocky Reef Ecosystems across Environmental and Human Gradients, and Conservation Implications. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, 32742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Ojeda-Martínez, C.; Bayle-Sempere, J.T.; Sánchez-Jerez, P.; Salas, F.; Stobart, B.; Goñi, R.; Falcon, J.M.; Graziano, M.; Guala, I.; Higgins, R.; et al. Review of the Effects of Protection in Marine Protected Areas: Current Knowledge and Gaps. Anim. Biodivers. Conserv. 2011, 34, 191–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. García-Charton, J.A.; Pérez-Ruzafa, A.; Marcos, C.; Claudet, J.; Badalamenti, F.; Benedetti-Cecchi, L.; Falcon, J.M.; Milazzo, M.; Schembri, P.J.; Stobart, B.; et al. Effectiveness of European Atlanto-Mediterranean MPAs: Do They Accomplish the Expected Effects on Populations, Communities and Ecosystems? J. Nat. Conserv. 2008, 16, 193–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Bonet-García, F.J.; Perez-Luque, A.J.; Moreno-Llorca, R.A.; Perez-Perez, R.; Puerta-Piñero, C.; Zamora, R. Protected Areas as Elicitors of Human Well-Being in a Developed Region: A New Synthetic (So-Cioeconomic) Approach. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 187, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Romagosa, F.; Eagles, P.F.; Lemieux, C.J. From the inside Out to the Outside In: Exploring the Role of Parks and Protected Areas as Providers of Human Health and Well-Being. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2015, 10, 70–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Nyaupane, G.P.; Poudel, S. Linkages among Biodiversity, Livelihood, and Tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2011, 38, 1344–1366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ervin, J.; Sekhran, N.; Dinu, A.; Gidda, S.; Vergeichik, M.; Mee, J. Protected Areas for the 21st Century: Lessons from UNDP/GEF’s Portfolio; United Nations Development Programme and Montreal: New York, NY, USA, 2010; p. 132. [Google Scholar]
  9. Maestro, M.; Pérez-Cayeiro, M.L.; Chica-Ruiz, J.A.; Reyes, H. Marine Protected Areas in the 21st Century: Current Situation and Trends. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2019, 171, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Freeman, E.R.; Civera, C.; Cortese, D.; Fiandrino, S. Strategising Stakeholder Empowerment for Effective Co-management within Fishery-Based Commons. Br. Food J. 2018, 120, 2631–2644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bennett, N.J.; Teh, L.; Ota, Y.; Christie, P.; Ayers, A.; Day, J.C.; Franks, P.; Gill, D.; Gruby, R.L.; Kittinger, J.N.; et al. An Appeal for a Code of Conduct for Marine Conservation. Mar. Policy 2017, 81, 411–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Christie, P.; Bennett, N.J.; Gray, N.J.; Aulani Wilhelm, T.; Lewis, N.; Parks, J.; Ban, N.C.; Gruby, R.L.; Gordon, L.; Day, J.; et al. Why People Matter in Ocean Governance: Incorporating Human Dimensions into Large-Scale Marine Protected Areas. Mar. Policy 2017, 84, 273–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Hill, L.S.; Johnson, J.A.; Adamowski, J. Meeting Aichi Target 11: Equity Considerations in Marine Protected Areas Design. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2016, 134, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dearden, P.; Bennett, N.J. The Role of Aboriginal People in Protected Areas. In Parks and Protected Areas in Canada; Dearden, P., Rollins, R., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Don Mills, ON, USA, 2016; pp. 357–390. [Google Scholar]
  15. Gurney, G.G.; Pressey, R.L.; Ban, N.C.; Alvarez-Romero, J.G.; Jupiter, S.; Adams, V.M. Efficient and Equitable Design of Marine Protected Areas in Fiji through Inclusión of Stake-Holder-Specific Objectives in Conservation Planning. Biol. Conserv. 2015, 29, 1378–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Ban, N.C.; Frid, A. Indigenous Peoples’ Rights and Marine Protected Areas. Mar. Policy 2018, 87, 180–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kleiber, D.; Harris, L.; Vincent, A.C. Gender and Marine Protected Areas: A Case Study of Danajon Bank, Philippines. Marit. Stud. 2018, 17, 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Di Franco, A.; Thiriet, P.; Di Carlo, G.; Dimitriadis, C.; Francour, P.; Gutiérrez, N.L.; Jeudy de Grissac, A.; Koutsoubas, D.; Milazzo, M.; Otero, M.; et al. Five Key Attributes Can Increase Marine Protected Areas Performance for Small-Scale Fisheries Management. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 38135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. UNEP-WCMC; IUCN. Marine Protected Planet. Available online: www.protectedplanet.net (accessed on 29 May 2022).
  20. Wilson, J.R.; Bradley, D.; Phipps, K.; Gleason, M.G. Beyond Protection: Fisheries Co-benefits of No-Take Marine Reserves. Mar. Policy 2020, 122, 104224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Navarro, M.; Kragt, M.E.; Hailu, A.; Langlois, T.J. Recreational Fishers’ Support for No-Take Marine Reserves Is High and Increases with Reserve Age. Mar. Policy 2018, 96, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Buglass, S.; Reyes, H.; Ramirez-González, J.; Eddy, T.D.; Salinas-de-León, P.; Jarrin, J.M. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Coastal No-Take Zones of the Galapagos Marine Reserve for the Red Spiny Lobster, Panulirus penicillatus. Mar. Policy 2018, 88, 204–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. McClenachan, L. Recreation and the “Right to Fish” Movement: Anglers and Ecological Degradation in the Florida Keys. Environ. Hist. 2013, 18, 76–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bennett, N.J.; Calo, A.; Di Franco, A.; Niccolini, F.; Marzo, D.; Domina, I.; Dimitriadis, C.; Sobrado, F.; Santoni, M.C.; Charbonnel, E.; et al. Social Equity and Marine Protected Areas: Perceptions of Small-Scale Fishermen in the Mediterranean Sea. Biol. Conserv 2020, 244, 108531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bennett, N.J.; Di Franco, A.; Calo, A.; Nethery, E.; Niccolini, F.; Milazzo, M.; Guidetti, P. Local Support for Conservation Is Associated with Perceptions of Good Governance, Social Impacts, and Ecological Effectiveness. Conserv. Lett. 2019, 12, e12640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hogg, K.; Noguera-Mendez, P.; Semitiel-García, M.; Gray, T.; Young, S. Controversies over Stakeholder Participation in Marine Protected Area (MPA) Management: A Case Study of the Cabo de Palos-Islas Hormigas MPA. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2017, 144, 120–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Chaigneau, T.; Brown, K. Challenging the Win-Win Discourse on Conservation and Development: Analyzing Support for Marine Protected Areas. Ecol. Soc. 2016, 21, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Charles, A.; Westlund, L.; Bartley, D.M.; Fletcher, W.J.; Garcia, S.; Govan, H.; Sanders, J. Fishing Livelihoods as Key to Marine Protected Areas: Insights from the World Parks Congress. Aquat. Conserv. 2016, 26, 165–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Halpern, B.S. Conservation: Making Marine Protected Areas Work. Nature 2014, 506, 167–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Edgar, G.J.; Stuart-Smith, R.D.; Willis, T.J.; Kininmonth, S.; Baker, S.C.; Banks, S.; Barrett, N.S.; Becerro, M.A.; Bernard, A.T.; Berkhout, J.; et al. Global Conservation Outcomes Depend on Marine Protected Areas with Five Key Features. Nature 2014, 506, 216–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Rife, A.; Erisman, B.; Sanchez, A.; Aburto-Oropeza, O. When Good Intentions Are Not Enough…Insights on Networks of “Paper Park” Marine Protected Areas. Conserv. Lett. 2013, 6, 200–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Stoll-Kleemann, S.; Job, H. The relevance of Effective Protected Areas for Biodiversity Conservation: An Introduction. GAIA 2008, 17, 86–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pomeroy, R.S.; Parks, J.E.; Watson, L.M. Cómo Evaluar una AMP. Manual de Indicadores Naturales y Sociales para Evaluar la Efectividad de la Gestión de AMPs; UICN: Gland, Switzerland; Cambridge, UK, 2006; Volume 16, p. 216. [Google Scholar]
  34. Mojica, A.M.; Arrivillaga, A. Evaluación Rápida de la Efectividad de Manejo en las Cuatro Áreas Protegidas del Proyecto—FASE I. Proyecto Conservación de Recursos Marinos en Centroamérica. Fondo para el Sistema Arrecifal Mesoamericano. 2014, p. 241. Available online: https://docplayer.es/5081732-Evaluacion-rapida-de-la-efectividad-de-manejo-en-las-cuatro-areas-protegidas-del-proyecto-fase-i.html (accessed on 10 May 2022).
  35. Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade. Relatório de Aplicação do Sistema de Análise e Monitoramento de Gestão SAMGe—Ciclo 2020; Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade: Brasilia, Brazil, 2021; p. 138.
  36. Pérez-Cayeiro, M.L.; Chica-Ruiz, J.A. Evaluation of a Programme of Integrated Coastal Zone Management: The Ecoplata Programme (Uruguay). Mar. Policy 2015, 51, 527–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Stolton, S.; Hockings, M.; Dudley, N.; MacKinnon, K.; Whitten, T.; Leverington, F. Reporting Progress in Protected Areas A Site-Level Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool, 2nd ed.; WWF: Gland, Switzerland, 2007; p. 22. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hockings, M.; Stolton, S.; Courrau, J.; Dudley, N.; Parrish, J.; James, R.; Mathur, V.; Makombo, J. The World Heritage Management Effectiveness Workbook: 2007 Edition; University of Queensland: Queensland, Australia, 2007; p. 106. [Google Scholar]
  39. Gillespie, A. PESTEL Analysis of the Macro-Environment. Foundations of Economics; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  40. Pomeroy, R.; Parks, J.; Watson, L. How is your MPA doing? A Guidebook of Natural and Social Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected Area Management Effectiveness; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland; Cambridge, UK, 2007; Volume 16, p. 216. [Google Scholar]
  41. Barragán, J.M. Las Áreas Litorales de España: Del Análisis Geográfico a la Gestión Integrada; Ariel: Barcelona, Spain, 2004; p. 215. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ervin, J. WWF: Rapid Assessment and prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) Methodology; WWF: Gland, Switzerland, 2003; p. 52. [Google Scholar]
  43. Olsen, S.B. Frameworks and Indicators for Assessing Progress in Integrated Coastal Management Initiatives. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2003, 46, 356–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sovinc, A. Analysis of Marine (Water) Protected Areas in EUSAIR and Proposals for Corrective Measures. Final Report; Government Office of the Republic of Slovenia for Development and European Cohesion Policy: Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2021; p. 77.
  45. Rajković, Ž. Effectiveness of Protected Area Management in Croatia: Results of the First Evaluation of Protected Area Management in Croatia Using the RAPPAM Methodology; Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Croatia: Zagreb, Croatia, 2009; p. 57.
  46. Brijuni National Park Public Institution. Brijuni National Park Management Plan (2016–2025); English Version; Brijuni National Park Public Institution: Brijuni, Croatia, 2016; p. 159. [Google Scholar]
  47. Telašćica Nature Park Public Institution. Extract of Management Plan (2012–2021); Telašćica Nature Park Public Institution: Sali, Croatia, 2012; p. 40. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ramov, M.; Petešić, J.; Petešić, V.; Carić, H.; Rajković, Z.; Šijan, M. Plan Održivog Turizma Parka Prirode Telašćica i Dugog Otoka 2016–2021; Telašćica: Zadar, Croatia, 2016; p. 137. ISBN 978-953-57348-3-3. Available online: https://www.opcina-sali.hr/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/plan-odrzivog-turizma-p-p-telascica-dugog-otoka-2016-2021.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2022).
  49. Gabelica, I.; Piasevoli, G.; Jurić, M.; Mekinić, S.; Kažimir, Z.; Pešić, N.; Perković, A.; Kurtović, J. Protected Parts of Nature of the Public Institution “Sea and Karst”. Javna Ustanova za Upravljanje Zaštićenim Djelovima Prirode na Području Splitsko-Dalmatinske Županije “More i krš”; Public Institution “Sea and Karst”: Split, Croatia, 2016; pp. 56–58. [Google Scholar]
  50. Maestro, M.; Chica-Ruiz, J.A.; Pérez-Cayeiro, M.L. Analysis of Marine Protected Area Management: The Marine Park of the Azores (Portugal). Mar. Policy 2020, 119, 104104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Maestro, M.; Pérez-Cayeiro, M.L.; Morales-Ramírez, Á.; Chica-Ruiz, J.A. Evaluation of the Management of Marine Protected Areas. Comparative Study in Costa Rica. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 308, 114633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Coad, L.; Leverington, F.; Knights, K.; Geldmann, J.; Eassom, A.; Kapos, V.; Kingston, N.; de Lima, M.; Zamora, C.; Cuadros, I.; et al. Measuring Impact of Protected Area Management Interventions: Current and Future Use of the Global Database of Protected Area Management Effectiveness. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2015, 370, 20140281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Licha, I. La Construcción de Escenarios: Herramienta de la Gerencia Social; INDES, BID: Washington, DC, USA, 2000; p. 482. [Google Scholar]
  54. Nygrén, N.A. Scenario Workshops as a Tool for a Participatory Planning in a Case of Lake Management. Futures 2019, 107, 29–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Álvarez-Fernández, I.; Freire, J.; Sánchez-Carnero, N. Low-Quality Management of Marine Protected Areas in the North-East Atlantic. Mar. Policy 2020, 117, 103922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Cárcamo, P.F.; Garay-Flühmann, R.; Squeo, F.A.; Gaymer, C.F. Using Skateholders’ Perspective of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity Features to Plan a Marine Protected Area. Environ. Sci. Policy 2014, 40, 116–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Tallis, H.; Goldman, R.; Uhl, M.; Brosi, B. Integrating Conservation and Development in the Field: Implementing Ecosystem Service Projects. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2009, 7, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Van der Molen, F.N. How Knowledge Enables Governance: The Coproduction of Environmental Governance Capacity. Environ. Sci. Policy 2018, 87, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Di Carlo, G.; Lopez, A.; Staub, F. Capacity Building Strategy to Enhance the Management of MPAs in the Mediterranean Sea. Commissioned by WWF MedPO/MedPAN/UNEP/MAP/RAC/SPA. 2012. 19 pages + Annexes. Available online: https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?206184/Report-Capacity-building-strategy-to-enhance-the-management-of-MPAs-in-the-Mediterranean-sea (accessed on 10 May 2022).
  60. Fraser, K.A.; Adams, V.M.; Pressey, R.L.; Pandolfi, J.M. Purpose, Policy, and Practice: Intent and Reality for On-Ground Management and Outcomes of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Mar. Policy 2017, 81, 301–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hockings, M.; Stolton, S.; Leverington, F.; Dudley, N.; Courrau, J. Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas, 2nd ed.; IUCN: Gland, Switzerland; Cambridge, UK, 2006; Volume 14, p. 105. [Google Scholar]
  62. Scianna, C.; Niccolini, F.; Giakoumi, S.; Di Franco, A.; Gaines, S.D.; Bianchi, C.N.; Scaccia, L.; Bava, S.; Cappanera, V.; Charbonnel, E.; et al. Organization Science Improves Management Effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 240, 285–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. IUCN-WCPA. Applying IUCN’s Global Conservation Standards to Marine Protected Areas (MPA). In Delivering Effective Conservation Action through MPAs, to Secure Ocean Health & Sustainable Development, 1st ed.; IUCN-WCPA: Gland, Switzerland, 2018; p. 4. [Google Scholar]
  64. Mandić, A. Protected Area Management Effectiveness and COVID-19: The Case of Plitvice Lakes National Park, Croatia. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2021, 100397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Spenceley, A.; Mccool, S.; Newsome, D.; B’aez, A.; James, R.; Blye, C.-J.; Bricker, K.; Sigit Cahyadi, H.; Corrigan, K.; Halpenny, E.; et al. Tourism in Protected and Conserved Areas amid the COVID-19 Pandemic. Parks 2021, 27, 103–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Smith, M.K.; Smit, I.P.; Swemmer, L.K.; Mokhatla, M.M.; Freitag, S.; Roux, D.J.; Dziba, L. Sustainability of Protected Areas: Vulnerabilities and Opportunities as Revealed by COVID-19 in a National Park Management Agency. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 255, 108985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ndlovu, M.; Matipano, G.; Miliyasi, R. An Analysis of the Effect of COVID-19 Pandemic on Wildlife Protection in Protected Areas of Zimbabwe in 2020. Sci. Afr. 2021, 14, e01031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Eisfeld-Pierantonio, S.M.; Pierantonio, N.; Simmonds, M.P. The Impact of Marine Debris on Cetaceans with Consideration of Plastics Generated by the COVID-19 Pandemic. Environ. Pollut. 2022, 300, 118967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Bianchi, C.N.; Azzola, A.; Cocito, S.; Morri, C.; Oprandi, A.; Peirano, A.; Sgorbini, S.; Montefalcone, M. Biodiversity Monitoring in Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas: Scientific and Methodological Challenges. Diversity 2022, 14, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Yates, K.L.; Clarke, B.; Thurstan, R.H. Purpose vs. Performance: What Does Marine Protected Area Success Look Like? Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 92, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Dean, A.; Fielding, K.; Wilson, K. Building Community Support for Coastal Management—What Types of Messages Are Most Effective? Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 92, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Sowman, M.; Sunde, J. Social Impacts of Marine Protected Areas in South Africa on Coastal Fishing Communities. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2018, 157, 168–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Pendred, S.; Fischer, A.; Fischer, S. Improved Management Effectiveness of a Marine Protected Area through Prioritizing Performance Indicators. Coast. Manag. 2016, 44, 93–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Di Franco, A.; Hogg, K.E.; Calo, A.; Bennett, N.J.; Sévin-Allouet, M.A.; Alaminos, O.E.; Lang, M.; Koutsoubas, D.; Prvan, M.; Santarossa, L.; et al. Improving Marine Protected Area and Governance through Collaboration and Co-production. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 269, 110757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Charles, A.; Wilson, L. Human Dimensions of Marine Protected Areas. ICES. J. Mar. Sci. 2009, 66, 6–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. IUCN-Med. Croatia and Marine Protected Areas: Legal and Institutional Framework Assessment for Con-Servation of Coastal and Marine Biodiversity and the Establishment of MPAs; RAC/SPA—MedMPAnet Project; IUCN-Med: Tunis, Tunisia, 2014; p. 62. [Google Scholar]
  77. Arévalo-Valenzuela, P.; Peña-Cortés, F.; Pincheira-Ulbrich, J. Ecosystem Services and Uses of Dune Systems of the Coast of the Araucanía Region, Chile: A Perception Study. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2021, 200, 105450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Ballarini, E.; D’Adamo, R.; Pazienza, G.; Zaggia, L.; Vafeidis, A. Assessing the Applicability of a Bottom-up or Top-down Approach for Effective Management of a Coastal Lagoon Area. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2021, 200, 105417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Cowell, C.; Bissett, C.; Ferreira, S.M. Top-down and Bottom-up Processes to Implement Biological Monitoring in Protected Areas. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 257, 109998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ferreira, A.; Seixas, S.; Marques, J.C. Bottom-up Management Approach to Coastal Marine Protected Areas in Portugal. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2015, 118, 275–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Eurofish Magazine. Eurofish Magazine 5/2019. September/October 2019. Available online: https://issuu.com/eurofish/docs/eurofish_magazine_5_2019 (accessed on 27 May 2022).
  82. Saarman, E.T.; Carr, M.H. The California Marine Life Protection Act: A Balance of Top Down and Bottom up Governance in MPA Planning. Mar. Policy 2013, 41, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Bennett, N.J.; Dearden, P. Why Local People Do Not Support Conservation: Community Perceptions of Marine Protected Area Livelihood Impacts, Governance and Management in Thailand. Mar. Policy 2014, 44, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Dehens, L.A.; Fanning, L.M. What Counts in Making Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) Count? The Role of Legitimacy in MPA Success in Canada. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 86, 45–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Shackleton, R.T.; Richardson, D.M.; Shackleton, C.M.; Bennett, B.; Crowley, S.L.; Dehnen-Schmutz, K.; Estévez, R.A.; Fischer, A.; Kueffer, C.; Kull, C.A.; et al. Explaining People’s Perceptions of Invasive Alien Species: A Conceptual Framework. J. Environ. Manage. 2019, 229, 10–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Benham, C.F. Aligning Public Participation with Local Environmental Knowledge in Complex Marine Social-Ecological Systems. Mar. Policy 2017, 82, 16–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Martinić, I.; Sladonja, B.; Zahtila, E. Development Prospects of the Protected Areas System in Croatia. In Protected Area Management; Sladonja, B., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Dygico, M.; Songco, A.; White, A.T.; Green, S.J. Achieving MPA Effectiveness through Application of Responsive Governance Incentives in the Tubbataha Reefs. Mar. Policy 2013, 41, 87–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Zeng, X.; Chen, M.; Zeng, C.; Cheng, S.; Wang, Z.; Liu, S.; Zou, C.; Ye, S.; Zhu, Z.; Cao, L. Assessing the Management Effectiveness of China’s Marine Protected Areas: Challenges and Recommendations. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2022, 224, 106172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Barragán, J.M. Política, Gestión y Litoral: Uuna Nueva Visión de la Gestión Integrada de Áreas Costero-Marinas; Tébar: Madrid, Spain, 2014; p. 685. [Google Scholar]
  91. Douvere, F. World Heritage Marine Sites, Managing Effectively the World’s Most Iconic Marine Protected Areas, Best Practice Guide; Programa Marino del Patrimonio Mundial de la UNESCO: Paris, France, 2015; p. 114. [Google Scholar]
  92. Bennett, N.J. Use of Perceptions to Improve Conservation and Environmental Management. Conserv. Biol. 2016, 30, 582–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Eagles, P.F.; Romagosa, F.; Buteau-Duitschaever, W.C.; Havitz, M.; Glover, T.D.; McCutcheon, B. Good Governance in Protected Areas: An Evaluation of Stakeholders’ Perceptions in British Columbia and Ontario Provincial Parks. J. Sustain. Tour. 2013, 21, 60–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Qiu, W. The Sanya Coral Reef National Marine Nature Reserve, China: A Governance Analysis. Mar. Policy 2013, 41, 50–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Brodie, J.; Waterhouse, J. A Critical Review of Environmental Management of the ‘Not So Great’ Barrier Reef. Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 2012, 104, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Sunce; WWF; Nava. Strengthening of the Marine Protected Areas Network in Croatia MedPAN South Pilot Project; WWF: Nava, Croatia, 2014; p. 30. [Google Scholar]
  97. Gill, D.; Mascia, M.; Ahmadia, G.; Glew, L.; Lester, S.; Barnes, M.; Craigie, I.; Darling, E.; Free, C.; Geldmann, J.; et al. Capacity Shortfalls Hinder the Performance of Marine Protected Areas Globally. Nature 2017, 543, 665–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Sladonja, B. (Ed.) Protected Area Management; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2012; 240p. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. RAC/SPA (Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas) and IUCN-Med. In Stakeholder Participation Toolkit for Identification, Designation and Management of Marine Protected Areas; RAC/SP: Tunis, Tunisia, 2013; p. 30.
Diversity 14 00448 g001 550
Figure 1. (a) Map of Croatia showing the location of the three study areas: (b) Map of Brijuni National Park; (c) Map of Telašćica Nature Park; (d) Map of Pakleni Islands Significant Landscape.
Figure 1. (a) Map of Croatia showing the location of the three study areas: (b) Map of Brijuni National Park; (c) Map of Telašćica Nature Park; (d) Map of Pakleni Islands Significant Landscape.
Diversity 14 00448 g001
Diversity 14 00448 g002 550
Figure 2. (a) Evaluation of the management of Brijuni National Park; (b) Evaluation of the management of Telašćica Nature Park; (c) Evaluation of the management of Pakleni Islands Significant Landscape.
Figure 2. (a) Evaluation of the management of Brijuni National Park; (b) Evaluation of the management of Telašćica Nature Park; (c) Evaluation of the management of Pakleni Islands Significant Landscape.
Diversity 14 00448 g002
Diversity 14 00448 g003 550
Figure 3. Assessment of indicators.
Figure 3. Assessment of indicators.
Diversity 14 00448 g003
Table
Table 1. Indicators for MPA management analysis.
Table 1. Indicators for MPA management analysis.
Key Management AspectIndicatorEvaluation
Management Body1. Background of the staff1Without basic training or education.
2Higher education: only natural sciences.
3Higher education: multidisciplinary team (natural and social sciences)
2. Technical training offered to staff1No, or sporadically.
2Yes.
3It also anticipates future needs.
3. MPA staff participation in the planning processes1No.
2Sporadic.
3In all planning processes.
4. MPA staff have the necessary procedures to participate in the planning processes1No.
2It has some procedures, sometimes insufficient.
3Yes.
5. Cooperation with other institutions at the local level1No.
2Not with all institutions or not on a regular basis.
3It exists on a regular basis with all institutions.
6. Cooperation with other institutions at the regional level1No.
2Not with all institutions or not on a regular basis.
3It exists on a regular basis with all institutions.
7. Cooperation with other institutions at the international level1No.
2Not on a regular basis.
3It exists on a regular basis, with a large number of institutions.
8. Collaboration and exchange of knowledge with other international projects/programs1No.
2Not on a regular basis.
3It exists on a regular basis, with a large number of projects/programs.
Planning sub-process9. Management plan1No.
2Not implemented, or only partially implemented.
3It exists, is updated, is fully implemented, and has an established schedule for regular reviews and updates.
10. Strategies and management measures identified with the management objectives1They do not exist or are not related to the objectives.
2They exist partly in relation to the objectives.
3They exist and are completely identified with the objectives.
11. Operational Plan1No.
2Partially implemented.
3Fully implemented.
12. Ecosystem diagnosis carried out prior to the development of the management plan1No.
2Not available to interested parties.
3Yes, and it is published or available.
13. The MPA integrated into an MPA network1No.
2It is in the process of being integrated.
3Yes.
Public Participation14. Public participation in the process of developing the management plan1There was or is no management plan.
2Yes.
3Yes, at all stages of the development of the management plan and participation is foreseen for the evaluation of the management plan.
15. Representative public participation in the process of developing the management plan1There was no management plan, it was not representative, or there is no management plan.
2Only the priority groups were represented.
3Both primary and secondary users were represented.
16. Social actors participation in management decision making or planning processes1No.
2Through consultation
3Interactive participation with a direct impact on decision making
17. Collegiate body for participation1No.
2Is not representative and/or does not function properly.
3It exists, it is representative, and it works properly.
18. Communication between stakeholders and managers1Very little or none.
2Not within an established program.
3A communication programs is being implemented to build stakeholder support for the MPA.
19. Sustainability education activities1No.
2Sporadically.
3On a regular basis and with wide participation.
20. Volunteer or environmental communication activities1No.
2Sporadically.
3On a regular basis and with wide participation.
21. MPA information available to stakeholders and the general public1No.
2Part is available upon request to the park management.
3It is available on the website, available to any interested party.
Implementation Sub-Process22. Zoning of the MPA1It does not exist for the use or conservation of resources.
2It exists for use and conservation, but it is only partially functional or outdated.
3It exists updated, with measures and concrete uses for each zone.
23. Budget allocated for the management of the MPA is adequate1This information is not accessible.
2The budget guarantees the costs of the administration and surveillance staff and the means necessary for management (vehicles, equipment, fuel, etc.).
3The budget also allows for other innovative activities such as: research, development, etc.
24. Monitoring and evaluation of biophysical, socio-economic and governance indicators1No.
2It does not follow a strategy or regular collection of results, which are not systematically used for management.
3There is a good system of monitoring and evaluation, which is well implemented and used in adaptive management.
25. Scientific information integrated into MPA management1No.
2In some cases.
3It serves to evaluate and improve the management of the MPA.
26. The MPA considered a socio-ecosystem1No.
2The social system is an important factor, but the natural system is a priority.
3It is considered and taken into account throughout the process.
Table
Table 2. Topics evaluated with indicators adapted from other methodologies.
Table 2. Topics evaluated with indicators adapted from other methodologies.
TopicsSources
Trainings[37,38,52]
Planning tools[52]
Management plans[37,38,39,52]
Operative plans[37,38]
Public participation[38,52]
Collegiate bodies[39]
Communication[37,38,39,52]
Environmental education[38,52]
Volunteer[38]
Information[39]
Budget[38,52]
Monitoring[38,52]
Scientific knowledge[37,38,39]
Table
Table 3. Management Scenarios.
Table 3. Management Scenarios.
Type of ManagementRatingFigures
Management BodyPlanning Sub-ProcessPublic ParticipationImplementation Sub-Process
Proactive3333 Diversity 14 00448 i001
Learning2222 Diversity 14 00448 i002
Interactive *1, 2, 31, 2, 331, 2, 3 Diversity 14 00448 i003
Centralized31, 2, 31, 21, 2, 3 Diversity 14 00448 i004
Formal **1, 21, 21, 21, 2 Diversity 14 00448 i005
* Interactive management is where public participation scores the highest but at least one of the other 3 aspects does not have a score of 3. ** Formal management occurs with any combination of one and two when the total is not two.
Table
Table 4. Details of the rating given to each indicator.
Table 4. Details of the rating given to each indicator.
Key Management AspectIndicatorDetails
BrijuniTelašćicaPakleni Islands
Management Body1. Background of the staffBoard of 5 members, multidisciplinary, managed by the Brijuni National Park Public InstitutionBoard of 5 members, multidisciplinary, managed by the Public Institution of the Telašćica Nature ParkBoard of 5 members, multidisciplinary, managed by the Institution More i Krš, under the County of Split-Dalmatia
2. Technical training offered to staffBudget is set aside, but there is no set programBudget is set aside, but there is no set programBudget is set aside, but there is no set program
3. MPA staff participation in the planning processesYesYesYes
4. MPA staff have the necessary procedures to participate in the planning processesYesYesYes
5. Cooperation with other institutions at the local levelYesYesYes
6. Cooperation with other institutions at the regional levelYesYesYes
7. Cooperation with other institutions at the international levelYesYesYes
8 Collaboration and exchange of knowledge with other international projects/programmesYes, it is involved in many projectsYes, e.g., FishMPABlue2Yes
Planning Sub-Process9. Management planYes, valid for 10 years (2016–2025). Currently under revision. In addition to this plan, the documents that regulate the organization, use, planning, protection, and management of MPAs are the spatial plan and the internal organizational rulesYes, valid for 10 years (2012–2021). A new one is currently being developed. In addition to this plan, the documents that regulate the organization, use, planning, protection, and management of MPAs are the spatial plan and the internal organizational rulesUnder development
10. Strategies and management measures identified with the management objectivesYesYes--
11. Operational PlanYesYesYes, it has exercised the functions of the management plan so far
12. Ecosystem diagnosis carried out prior to the development of the management planNo, but an external analysis of the state of ecosystems was developedNoNo, but an ecosystem services assessment was developed
13. The MPA integrated into an MPA networkYes, national (CroMPA) and international (MedMPAnet)Yes, national (CroMPA) and international (MedMPAnet)Yes, national (CroMPA) and international (MedMPAnet)
Public Participation14. Public participation in the process of developing the management planYes, participation was mainly through two workshops, providing phone numbers and emails for enquiries and interviewing visitors. The first was “Objectives and activities of Brijuni National Park management” and the second “Zoning of Brijuni National Park” [46]Yes, it was the first event that included the population. The implementation of the management plan is carried out in cooperation with the Sunce Association and the MedPAN South Project [47]Yes
15. Representative public participation in the process of developing the management planYesYesYes
16. Social actors participation in management decision making or planning processesNoPopulation participates in some monitoringNo
17. Collegiate body for participationNoFor some specific aspects, such as fishing. A network has been created between fishermen, the government (Directorate of Fisheries), the park management, and WWF Adria to co-manage fisheries. The network is part of the FishMPABlue2 projectNo
18. Communication between stakeholders and managersYes, there is an annual marketing plan, and the park is very active on social mediaYes, there is no communication plan in place, but the park is very active on social mediaThere is no communication plan, but there is a telephone and email available, and annual meetings are held with the population
19. Sustainability education activitiesYesYesYes. Some initiatives are mobile applications to identify invasive species or illegal activities
20. Volunteer or environmental communication activitiesYesYes, but there are areas where more information panels and routes are needed. An information point is under constructionYes
21. MPA information available to stakeholders and the general publicYesYesAs it is managed at County level, the website and social media are shared with the rest of the More I Krš protected areas, and information about this particular area is more limited to the public, although it is available on request
Implementation Sub-Process22. Zoning of the MPAYes, but there is a gap between the management plan and the spatial planYes, but there are no powers to manage it. A new internal regulation is currently being developed that will give authority to the parkNo. There is only one habitat map. Zoning is not mandatory for this protection category
23. Budget allocated for the management of the MPA is adequateIt has sufficient budget for basic management, but not for the full implementation of projects and all the necessary staff. It has attracted attention for its sustainable financing strategy, which includes a concession program for tourism activities that was used to achieve conservation objectives. The SARS-CoV pandemic has significantly affected the Croatian economyIt has sufficient budget for basic management, but not for the full implementation of projects and all the necessary staff. The SARS-CoV pandemic has considerably affected the Croatian economyIt has sufficient budget for basic management, but not for the full implementation of projects and all the necessary staff. The SARS-CoV pandemic has considerably affected the Croatian economy
24. Monitoring and evaluation of biophysical, socio-economic, and governance indicatorsWhen there are projects. Biophysical and socio-cultural indicatorsWhen there are projects. Biophysical indicatorsWhen there are projects. Biophysical indicators
25. Scientific information integrated into MPA managementYes. Several databases have been created, for example one on marine habitats, cultural heritage sites from prehistoric times to the 20th century, and geological–paleontological sites of interestFor example, the analysis of metal concentrations in water is serving as a basis for delimiting the carrying capacity of anchored vessels and is about to be determined on land [47]. A database on the fishing situation in the marine part of the park would be needed, which is plannedYes
26. The MPA considered a socio-ecosystemYesIn processIn process
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Maestro, M.; Chica-Ruiz, J.A.; Popović Perković, Z.; Pérez-Cayeiro, M.L. Marine Protected Areas Management in the Mediterranean Sea—The Case of Croatia. Diversity 2022, 14, 448. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14060448

AMA Style

Maestro M, Chica-Ruiz JA, Popović Perković Z, Pérez-Cayeiro ML. Marine Protected Areas Management in the Mediterranean Sea—The Case of Croatia. Diversity. 2022; 14(6):448. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14060448

Chicago/Turabian Style

Maestro, María, Juan Adolfo Chica-Ruiz, Zvjezdana Popović Perković, and María Luisa Pérez-Cayeiro. 2022. "Marine Protected Areas Management in the Mediterranean Sea—The Case of Croatia" Diversity 14, no. 6: 448. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14060448

APA Style

Maestro, M., Chica-Ruiz, J. A., Popović Perković, Z., & Pérez-Cayeiro, M. L. (2022). Marine Protected Areas Management in the Mediterranean Sea—The Case of Croatia. Diversity, 14(6), 448. https://doi.org/10.3390/d14060448

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop