Evaluation of Management Effectiveness of an Outstanding Marine Protected Area in Southwest Coast of Türkiye: On the Road to 30 by 30

Abstract

The global increase in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) is driven by international goals, like the Aichi Targets (2010) and the Kunming Global Biodiversity Framework (2023), which aim for 30% of land and sea to be protected by 2030. Despite these ambitious targets, experts agree that numerical goals alone are insufficient to address biodiversity loss and ensure ecosystem functionality. This has sparked significant research on the effective management of MPAs, highlighting the importance of biological, socio-economic, and managerial resilience. Various tools have been developed to support these aspects. However, even in areas with management plans, enforcement, and monitoring, stakeholder involvement in assessment processes is vital to equitable and sustainable management. Using Gökova MPA as a case study, this research evaluated its management over a three-year period by applying an assessment tool previously used by co-managing actors. Findings indicate that assessment results can vary depending on who conducts them, and structural challenges, such as coordination issues among governing bodies and overlapping authorities, further complicate management. These insights have been used to formulate recommendations for policymakers and conservation practitioners, emphasizing that reaching the “30 by 30” target requires not only increased area coverage but also improved management practices that incorporate stakeholder perspectives to achieve sustainable management of natural resources.

1. Introduction

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are considered one of the most effective tools for conserving and restoring marine habitats. The motivation to conserve marine habitats evolved from single-species protection or a fish stock management approach [1,2] to an ecosystem-based approach, referring to resilient ecosystems with all its components, including the people who depend on the resources extracted from these areas for their living and the wider community who benefits from it [3]. Recognizing “paper parks”, which are MPAs that are legally designated but do not have active enforcement or monitoring measures in place, evaluating the impact of protected areas (PA) is crucial to determining whether they are effectively managed or merely exist on paper [4,5,6]. Since there have been many international treaties and commitments to protect marine ecosystems since the 1970s, the coverage of MPAs around the world has expanded exponentially to date [7]. Aichi targets were the milestone [8] of this expansion that was agreed upon in 2010 at the Barcelona Convention, where the EU and 21 Countries, including Türkiye, signed off on targeting 10% of marine areas that would be under protection as of 2020 [9]. This initiative had an additional incentive effect for the academy and policymakers to think about “effective management” of these areas and to develop assessment methods [6]. For example, a recent study found that although MPAs in the Mediterranean reached 9.7%, only 1.3% were identified as “effective” meaning that a management plan (MP) was not just documented but also actively implemented [10].

Another threshold took its place in Montreal where the contracting parties committed to Kunming GBF, protecting 30% of land and oceans while ensuring “effective management” of 10% of these protected areas. The key performance indicators and methodology to assess the effectiveness of MPAs in this case, gained more importance since the committed parties will be expected to report in 2026 and 2029 against these targets [11]. In a recent study, following the Kunming GBF on assessing the quality of MPAs, referring to the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) and MPA Atlas, Pike et al., evaluated the biggest 100 MPAs using MPA Guide [12] and concluded that only 2.6% of them were fully or highly protected [13]. It is worth noting that the study area (Gökova) of this research was not listed under global MPAs on WDPA or MPA Atlas platforms. Therefore, it would be fair to argue that previous research on effectiveness is limited to the data available to researchers and could be misleading since the data on these platforms comes from country reports.

It has been seen that a considerable amount of research has been conducted to explore the most efficient ways to make assessments. Within this study twenty Management Effectiveness Assessment (MEA) tools focusing on MPAs were scanned, confirming that they have built on three common pillars as many studies suggest: biodiversity, socio-economic status of local people, and governance of these areas. However, defining stakeholders and beneficiaries that ensure fair management of these territories, as well as the parties entrusted with the assessment, is a rather complex matter [8,14], as many indicators have subjective aspects, such as users’ level of satisfaction and perception of the respective seascape/landscape. A study assessing the ME of some PAs found that despite the official designation of these areas and MPs over the last thirty years, biodiversity continues to decline reliable data for planning cannot be obtained, and capacity building continues to be required. This is due to a lack of understanding of socio-cultural dynamics, as private landowners are excluded from the planning process and collaboration between governments, academia, and NGOs is limited [15]. This brought us to the point of considering the MEA tool’s effectiveness itself, considering the time evaluators would spend, and whether it can be implemented by a wider group of users that may have different backgrounds and perceptions. To the best of our knowledge, most of these evaluations are carried out at desks by scientists, managers/executives, or the decision-makers themselves, and most of them lack a participatory approach [13,16].

Türkiye has a history of more than 60 years, starting with the establishment of natural parks such as Dilek peninsula with 1 km of coastline and Olimpos, which could be accepted as first MPAs in the country [17]. The term “marine protected area” is not adopted legally in Türkiye, however, out of 19 officially designated Special Environmental Protected Areas (SEPA), 13 have marine areas [18]. Within the PAs which has a coastal zone, only Gökova has an up-to-date officially announced MP [19]. Therefore, it has been taken Gökova SEPA as an example, which covers over 800 km² of seascape, on Türkiye’s southwest coast. The area has been subject to in-depth research and conservation projects and is recognized in the conservation community as an example of co-management practice [20,21,22]. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of relevant stakeholders in the implementation of Gökova’s first MP (2020–2024) and to emphasize the significance of a participatory approach on the path to an equitable and effective management of MPAs. This approach is closely aligned with Goal 14 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and is directly or indirectly related to other goals with its socio-economic aspects within the agenda. Considering a broad perspective and comparing the perceptions of management actors, beneficiaries, and stakeholders, a self-assessment tool previously used in 2021 by co-managing actors to examine the effectiveness of the management of the Gökova MPAs was selected and the effectiveness in 2022 reassessed, taking into account the implementation of the activities described in the MP and interviews with relevant actors using a semi-structured form, including the beneficiaries and funders. It was also aimed at understanding the stakeholders’ perception of marine conservation activities in the area and their preferred actor/s in terms of the governance of the SEPA. Descriptive statistics methods such as Best-Worst (B-W) analysis and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) were used to be able to reach quantitative figures.

2. Materials and Methods

The aim of the present study is to ask questions about an MEA method and to outline the limiting factors of an MPA to achieve its effectiveness. Hence, the study relies on a number of sources:

• A review of relevant literature and mainstream media focusing on the study area (mainly the news and articles about the meetings/stakeholder gatherings in Gökova publicized in local media and stakeholders’ websites)
• Project reports (conservation and research project reports that were made available online and ongoing projects’ progress reports obtained from project managers working in NGOs operating in Gökova)
• A self-assessment tool previously tested by the co-managers of the Gökova MPA
• Semi-structured interviews with the key stakeholders identified in the MP.

2.1. Study Area/Context

Gökova is located on the southwestern coast of Türkiye, within the borders of Mugla province, which has the longest coastline and is at the transition point with its coasts from the Aegean to the Mediterranean Sea. Gökova is one of the areas of high ecological importance with its habitats and species endemic to the region within it [23]. It is one of the largest gulfs in Türkiye with an area of one thousand hectares, neighboring another PA: Datca-Bozburun, as shown in Figure 1.

Gökova Bay was accepted as distinctive compared to other SEPAs in Türkiye with the largest marine area by the time it was established [24]. The total area of Gökova SEPA is 1093 km², of which 818 km² consists of marine areas [25].

The livelihood of the region is mainly based on tourism, agriculture and fishing [26]. The area administratively consists of 11 neighborhoods connected to Mugla province, Marmaris, Ula, and Mentese Districts, and 12,548 people reside as of 2018, during the development of the MP [27,28]. The total population in 2021 is 13,700 [29]. Gökova Bay, which has a typical Mediterranean climate and a high species diversity, is an important region in terms of nature conservation as 34 of the 723 macroscopic species in fauna and flora such as Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus), sandbar shark (Carcharinus plumbeus), dusky grouper (Epinephelus marginatus) that are protected by national and international agreements. 73 macroalgae and 6 seagrass species, including highly sensitive and endemic seagrass species Posidonia oceanica are inhabiting the region [30]. Based on previous scientific research led by the universities, conservation projects, and community consultations [31,32] six areas (Akyaka, Camli, Boncuk, Okluk, Bördübet, and Akbük) were declared as No Fishing Zones (NFZ) in 2010 [33]. The Coast Guard, Gendarmerie, and Directorate of Agriculture of Marmaris were assigned for surveillance and enforcement to tackle illegal fishing activities [34]. Following the amendments declared in 2016, 2020, and 2022 a new NFZ with an area of 36 ha is included in the MPAs. All extractive activities are prohibited in these seascapes, except for Löngöz and English Bay where amateur (recreational) fishing is allowed [35,36,37]. As can be seen in Figure 1, the NFZs and FRAs are in SEPA boundaries.

The first MP of Gökova SEPA was developed at the end of 2018 and is targeted to be implemented between 2020 and 2024. The SEPA covering both terrestrial and marine habitats was zoned according to the level of protection: 34% Sensitive Areas to be Strictly Protected, 61% Qualified Natural Protected Areas, 5% Sustainable Protection and Controlled Use Areas [28,38] The MP has 5 main goals, 73 activities and 12 implementation targets to achieve the vision: ‘A Gulf of Gökova dominated by green and blue, where it can be managed with a model that meets its needs. The traditional life culture is preserved, and the deteriorated nature is rehabilitated. It is transferred to future generations and is compatible with the ecological and cultural lifestyle of the land users’.

In this study, we evaluated the activities and conducted the interviews with a focus on Gökova SEPAs marine areas.

2.2. The Effectiveness and Durability Analysis of Gökova MPA with Blue Diagnosis Self-Assessment Tool

Blue Diagnosis self-assessment tool (BD) aims to provide a scorecard related to both the effectiveness of management and its resilience by asking questions around five axes: environment, finance, partnerships, human resources, and innovation. Under each axis, there are three groups of multiple-choice questions designed to understand the current situation, resilience, and potential by answering mainly “yes” or “no” to each indicator. The BD differs from other tools in the speed and the evaluator’s autonomy required for the assessment. This tool can be carried out by a manager alone [39].

Results from the evaluation of MPA management’s sustainability and efficacy indicators are shown as percentages along each of the five axes. Depending on whether the assessor chooses the first or second response, each indicator is assigned a value of 1 or 0, which is then used to determine the percentages for each category. The total of all the indicators within a category can be used to determine the overall score. The highest percentage that can be achieved for each category—potential out of 10%, resilience out of 40%, and current situation out of 50%—is then used to weight this score [39].

The assessment tool was used prior to this study in November 2021 in a workshop led by Blueseeds (funded by MAVA Foundation) in Gökova Bay. The results of this first assessment in the workshop served as a basis and the tool was then implemented again in December 2022 as part of this study, taking into account which activities were carried out or not and the results of the interviews with relevant stakeholders.

This tool has been applied in over 20 MPAs across different countries under the leadership of Blueseeds (Personal communication, Timothee Cook, Bluseeds). However, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first academic study to use this method as part of an effectiveness assessment. Nevertheless, similar methodological approaches have been applied and recommended in previous studies [13,14,16].

The BD is a practical tool in terms of time efficiency and does not require extensive knowledge, particularly for evaluating scientific indicators that are often overlooked by practitioners. It facilitates the evaluation process by leveraging the best available knowledge to enable timely action and ensure the effective management of natural resources. However, since the questions are structured as simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers, the method does not always accurately reflect the situation and may be highly influenced by user bias. This is its most significant shortcoming, which could be mitigated by incorporating response options that expand the scale for a more nuanced representation of results, as well as by integrating questions supported by scientific data or broader surveys.

2.3. Gökova MP Implementation and Semi-Structured Questionnaire

The implemented practices targeted in the MP between 2020 and 2022 were evaluated by reviewing the mainstream media (especially local news, social media and governmental organizations’ websites), one-one meetings with relevant government officers, and project reports mainly from MCS’s ongoing projects such as Medfund-Gökova MPA Co-management and Endangered Landscape Program focusing on Gökova MPA.

Determining the sample size and designation of the interview forms was based on the characteristics of the target groups that derived from the MP stakeholder list shown in Figure 2. The number of participants to the preparatory meetings was reported to be around 100, and a stakeholder list by category obtained from the MP. The aim was to interview around 50 people to obtain reliable data. To obtain the most bias-free perception possible, interviews were conducted with 58 individuals, regardless of their involvement in the preparation of the MP. The distribution of the survey participants as per category is listed in

Table 1. The distribution of the survey participants.

Participant	Frequency	%
Business owners/managers (hotels, restaurants, cafes, etc.)	11	18.97
Fishermen	6	10.34
Governmental organizations	19	32.76
NGO representatives	6	10.34
Academics	6	10.34
Residents in Gökova Bay	10	17.24
Total	58	100.00

. This might be criticized as a limiting factor of this study, as the interviewees could lack knowledge and could be respectively irrelevant to the MP rationale and practices, however this was taken into consideration at the designation of interview forms. Specific, technical questions were avoided, and the questions were focused on the participants’ perception of their involvement, the organizations’ responsibilities, and actions on marine protection. The participants from the organizations and institutions were selected based on their involvement in the MP and their active roles in regional management, regardless of their hierarchical positions. A functional approach is adopted to ensure the inclusion of individuals who contribute to the management process, even if their voices are less frequently heard in decision-making. This approach aimed to capture a more comprehensive and representative perspective on the effectiveness of the MP.

There were two main categories of respondents which led us to design two different sets of questions. One group consists of the area users, academics, government organizations, and NGOs, which would provide an idea of the effectiveness of co-management from the perspective of the key stakeholders outlined in the MP, and the other group consists of the donors who funded the NGO involved in the implementation of the MP.

For the first group, there were 25 questions, including demographic questions that examined participants’ age, status, education level, etc. Also, descriptive questions were asked to understand the participants’ relevance to the management of the area. For example, the participants were asked whether they lived permanently in Gökova and for how many years. If they are aware that the area is protected and if they have knowledge of or involvement in MP preparation processes. If they had participated in MP preparation, their feelings about their influence in decision-making were also examined.

The second group was asked 17 questions to understand how they perceive their role in the conservation and management of the Gökova MPA. Five managers/officers from three donor organizations that finance marine conservation projects in the region were interviewed. Both groups’ interview forms included space for additional comments on the topic. The full list of interview questions is provided in the Supplementary Materials (Tables S1 and S2).

The semi-structured interview form was designed using SurveyMonkey and tested before implementation. SurveyMonkey was selected as a data acquisition tool for the semi-structured interviews due to its ability to facilitate statistical analysis and streamline data management. Compared to traditional notetaking, the platform allowed for more efficient organization, visualization, and interpretation of responses. One limitation of using SurveyMonkey was the potential restriction in capturing in-depth qualitative insights, as respondents might have provided more nuanced answers in a fully open-ended interview format. To mitigate this, open-ended questions were included where necessary, allowing for richer qualitative input while maintaining the benefits of structured data processing. Some of the questions were automatically skipped if the answer was N/A to the previous question. For example, if the respondent answered “no” to the question “Did you know that Gökova is a protected area”, the questions about its establishment or questions about the SEPA MP were not asked. Also, there were some specific questions related to government officials’ perceptions. At the start of the form if one selects their category as government officer, then those questions related to their role in co-management and decision-making processes would show. During the interviews, each participant’s responses were recorded via a digital link to facilitate analysis by ready-to-use metrics. In cases where face-to-face meetings were not possible, the link was shared with participants and their responses were recorded in the database, followed by a phone call or email to ensure there were any problems or questions.

2.4. Data Analysis

The answers to the questions in semi-structured interview forms were analyzed using basic descriptive statistics methods to be able to reach quantitative figures. For example, to determine respondents’ choice of institutions and organizations that are expected to be authorized for the management of MPAs and the level of the respondents’ perception of being involved in decision making processes the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to determine the weighted priorities of different options.

AHP is a methodology for structuring, measurement, and synthesis. The AHP has been applied to a wide range of problem situations: selecting among competing alternatives in a multi-objective environment, the allocation of scarce resources, and forecasting [40].

AHP normalization and synthesis phases are crucial steps for deriving the weights of criteria or alternatives and ultimately making decisions. Normalization is performed on the pairwise comparison matrix to convert raw comparison values into proportions that reflect the relative importance of each element. The goal is to ensure that the sum of values in each column of the matrix equals 1. The normalization formula for an element a_ij in a pairwise comparison matrix A is:

$$n_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{a_{ij}}{\sum _{k=1}^n{a}_{kj}}}$$

where n_ij is the normalized value, a_ij is the initial comparison value of the element in row _i, column _j, n is the number of elements being compared, and $\sum _{k=1}^n{a}_{kj}$ is the sum of all elements in column_j.

Synthesis involves aggregating the normalized values to calculate the priority weights of the criteria or alternatives. After normalization, the priority weight or relative importance of an element (criteria or alternative) is typically determined by averaging across its row in the normalized matrix. The priority weight (W_i) of an element _i is calculated as:

$$W_i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\sum _{j=1}^n{n}_{ij}$$

(1)

where W_i is the weight of the _ith element, n is the number of elements, n_ij is the normalized value of the element in row _i, column _j, $\sum _{j=1}^n{n}_{ij}$ is the sum of the normalized values for the _ith element across all comparisons.

This process is repeated for each element to derive its respective priority weight. The resulting vector of weights represents the relative importance of criteria or the relative preference of alternatives, which guides the decision-making process [41].

This analysis method was used when respondents were asked “which institutions are expected to carry out marine conservation activities”. Through AHP based on peer comparisons, this method weights the priority values of the institutions offered as options. Institutions to choose from were:

1-

Ministry of Environment Urbanization and Climate Change.

2-

Local public institutions.

3-

Municipalities.

4-

NGOs.

Respondents were asked to rate these options in 6 different questions using pairwise comparisons.

Another important aspect that influences stakeholders’ perceptions of marine conservation and ownership of actions is their understanding of the importance they attach to threats to marine habitats. The Best Worst (BW) analysis has been implemented for the options consisting of generally recognized threats to the marine environment, taking into account the status of the Mediterranean Report [42], such as Environmental pollution, overfishing of fish stocks, climate change, etc.

The Best Worst method is a discrete selection model first developed by Jordan Louviere in 1987. Study participants are presented with a set of options and asked to identify the best and worst options (or most and least important, or most and least attractive, etc.). According to Louviere; The Best Worst method assumes that participants evaluate all possible pairs of objects within this array and select the pair that reflects the greatest difference for a given preference or importance. If the participant reports answer A as the best and D as the worst of the four options A, B, C, and D, these two answers indicate 5 of the 6 possible implied paired comparisons [43].

A > B, A > C, A > D, B > D, C > D

After determining the most important (B) and least important frequencies (W) for each option in the decision list, the B-W difference is determined. The option with the highest B-W difference is the first choice, and the option with the lowest B-W difference is the last choice. The other options are ordered from largest to smallest according to the B-W difference. Likewise, the B-W difference of each option can be divided by the total number of participants, and after calculating the average B-W, a ranking from largest to smallest can be created.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. MP Activities Overview

Gökova’s first management plan was announced in 2019 and targeted to be implemented between 2020 and 2024. In terms of governance of the MPA, the actors at the forefront who are legally authorized are: MoE, MoA, Coast Guard, Gendarmerie, and The Ministry of Culture and Tourism. The lead organization that is responsible for the administration of the MP is the General Directorate for Protection of Natural Assets (GDPNA) and it is structured under the headquarters of MoE. They delegate the implementation of the legislation around PAs to the local institutions under the Governor of Mugla. On the other hand, since the main body responsible for the designation and management of NFZs and FRAs is MoAF, the General Directorate of Fisheries has the authority to govern these areas. Another forefront actor in protected areas is the Directorate of Natural Conservation and Natural Parks (DNCN) under MoAF, since they are the focal point for the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the protection of wildlife. This causes an overlap of authority in some of these areas. The lack of coordination between the national authorities was stated as a weakness during the MP preparation—SWOT Analysis workshop [28]. It was observed that confusion among authorities manifested itself in the form of red tape and lengthy procedures, for example, to obtain a research permit in a particular area where these authorities overlap. Furthermore, when comparing MPAs with terrestrial PAs, working in marine environments is more complex due to factors such as the three-dimensional structure of MPAs, property rights, and the high costs and challenging environment of operating in marine environments [44].

Examining the activities’ level of completion, it has been observed that most of the actions stated in the MP were either completed or already a responsibility of the relevant organization but were not necessarily fulfilled considering the MP activity. One of the most important activities of the MP was to set up a steering committee with relevant actors to monitor and evaluate necessary activities was not completed by the time of this study. The first meeting took place in December 2023 [19], following the completion of this study, where the responsible bodies reported on the targets assigned to them.

The MP for this MPA notably lacks a dedicated section addressing financial management. While the plan outlines various activities and identifies responsible institutions, it doesn’t include a comprehensive budgeting framework or any self-financing options.

The management of Gökova MPAs, from enforcement to awareness-raising aspects, was predominantly supported by an NGO (Mediterranean Conservation Society). As a requisite of their ongoing project funded by MEDFUND (an organization based in France, which made its grants available specifically for the effective management of MPAs), they signed an agreement with the GDPNA to support the implementation of the MP [45]. The NGO (MCS) was formally included in the MP steering committee and participated in the first meeting in December 2023 [19]. They had the necessary permits from leading government organizations such as the MoE, MoAF, and the Coast Guard. The NGOs’ marine conservation projects were funded by other international charities and foundations such as Arcadia, Sigrid Rausing Fund, FAO, UNDP, etc. and they are partnering with international conservation organizations such as Fauna Flora International and Blue Marine Foundation [46]. The project grants received from this NGO helped lay the foundation for the implementation of Gökova MP in the marine landscape. Biological indicators demonstrating the health status of MPAs were established and systematically monitored as part of the Endangered Landscape Seascape Program launched in 2019 [47]. Following this, the Medfund project started in 2020 in Gökova which placed an additional focus on the effective management of the MPAs by financing recurrent costs for 5 years such as staff, fuel, office expenses for the management body (National authority, agency, and/or NGOs), in order to promote effective “co-management” of these areas and have an assessment tool to facilitate monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of the area. The activities funded by this grant needed to be linked to an MP and offset against the activities listed in that plan to be accepted as fulfilled [45].

3.2. Comparison of MEA Results 2021 and 2022

Participants from MoAF—Directorate of Fisheries, Coast Guard, MoE, and MCS staff tested the BD assessment in November 2021, in Gökova in the workshop led by Blueseeds and hosted by MCS. In the scope of this study, the assessment tool was reimplemented by the author in December 2022, taking into consideration the level of completeness of MPA-related activities set in the MP, interviews, and the analysis of semi-structured interview forms. There had been a higher score within the group where the co-managing actors took place in the assessment than in the second one which considered the perception analysis, and the implemented activities in the MP.

Table 2. BD MEA scores comparing 2021 with 2022. The scores on the left-hand side show the final assessment results.

	2021				2022
	Current (50%)	Resilience (40%)	Potential (10%)	Total Score	Current (50%)	Resilience (40%)	Potential (10%)	Total Score
Environment	50	30	6.7	86.7	50	10	0	60
Finance	16.7	32	0	48.7	0	24	3.3	27.3
Stakeholders	10	20	3.3	33.3	20	20	3.3	43.3
Human resources	50	40	0	90	33.3	16	0	49.3
Innovation	50	0	10	60	50	0	10	60

shows the individual and overall scores for each axis, comparing the assessments in 2021 and 2022.

Since there was uncertainty regarding the answer to the question of whether at least 50% of the stakeholders are local actors and whether the conservation principles are accepted by the stakeholders, a negative response was given to this question in the workshop. Therefore, the criterion about the stakeholders was scored higher in the author’s evaluation (43.3% vs. 33.3%). However, there was a decline in all other categories, except for the “Innovation” category, which continues to maintain its score.

Table 3. Detailed outline of questions that cause the variance in MEA scores.

Axis/Category	Indicator	2021	2022	Justification
Environment/Resilience	Coordinated activities	Conservation activities are coordinated to increase their individual positive impact on the environment	Conservation activities are not necessarily coordinated relative to their final goal (e.g., protection of seagrass meadows: reducing simultaneously pressures from wild anchoring, pollution and bottom-trawling).	Conservation objectives are not specifically tied to the necessary activities. The institutions partially fulfill their responsibilities and not necessarily related to the MP or its vision.
	Environmental education	Existing good-quality environmental education program, with known results	Little or no existing awareness-raising programs.	Awareness raising programs are built around project requirements, and extensively focusing on “pollution” component lacking an ecosystem-based approach including biodiversity at the time of the assessment
Environment/Potential	Citizen science	Some monitoring activities are carried out by members of the general public	A participatory approach is not considered or structured.	No structured citizen science practice in place
Finance/Current	Financial strategy	Existing financial strategy in relationship to the conservation objectives of the MP, including a business plan for the entire duration of the MP (i.e., 10 years).	No financial planning linked to conservation objectives.	Financial strategy and business plan are partially done by the NGO, not included in the MP and/or public institutions’ budgets
Finance/Resilience	Self-funding	Existence of self-financing mechanisms (e.g., donations, mooring rights, visitor fees, concession fees).	No self-financing.	There isn’t a self-financing mechanism in the MPA level, and it is not covered in the MP
	Alternative funding	Financial opportunities in the MPA? Do you know of any possible financial partners in the area? Which ones?	Little alternatives or visible opportunities in the area. No known possible financial partner in the area.	Financial alternatives are limited to the NGOs network and primarily from project grants
Partnerships/Current	Social acceptability	Local partners represent <50% of partners. Local actors question the legitimacy of the MPA. Conservation measures are not considered to be legitimate.	At least 50% of partners are local (see Figure 1). The MPA is perceived positively by local actors. Conservation measures are accepted.	This question wasn’t understood well during the assessment in 2021; therefore, a negative answer was given. Partnership refers to the stakeholder’s relevance to the area rather than the funding organizations’ origin, which caused ambiguity.
Team/Current	Staff	The management team adapted in number to the activities defined in the MP. Structured team, with specialized job descriptions. Organizational chart respected in day-to-day activities. Recruitment of volunteers during the high season to face the increase in pressures on the MPA.	Insufficient number of employees to carry out management activities. Distribution of roles not respected.	The question was answered considering the NGOs human resources, which is object to change and limited by the project grants. Within the national authorities there isn’t specifically assigned staff to administer MP activities, except for the agreement between NGO and the GDPNA
Team/Resilience	Autonomy	Relevant, clear and balanced distribution of tasks.	Superposition of skills. Distribution of tasks sometimes misunderstood by team members.	As above. The authority in various areas is overlapping due to a lack of structured allocation of tasks and responsibilities. As stated in the survey results, 30% of public institution staff thinks that they have limited influence and are not able to take initiative
	Maturity	The members of the team stay in place for a long time (permanent positions) and are not constantly replaced. Good working relationships, valuing results and individuals, ability to resolve conflicts.	Regular turnover of team members.	There is a high turnover rate both in the NGOs and national authorities’ organizational structure.
	Internal communication	Weekly and structured team meetings (with meeting reports). Use of operational communication channels	Difficult internal communication, non-existent communication channels, little transparency.	In the scope of the MP and the communication channels between actors are proved to be insufficient as a steering committee was not in place and there wasn’t any regular monitoring and reporting system between the institutions at the time of both assessments

outlines the different answers given in each assessment that caused a decrease in the MEA overall score.

3.3. Interviews

58 respondents were interviewed in December 2022 regarding Gökova’s designation as a SEPA, their perception of marine threats, the inclusiveness of the MP, the public’s opinion of marine conservation efforts, and their preferences for institutions to oversee implementing conservation measures. Discussions on funding for environmental conservation and international cooperation were also addressed during these interviews.

75% of those who answered the questions live in Gökova and its surroundings, and 41 of them live permanently in the region. Moreover, 30% of permanent residents have lived in Gökova for 1–3 years, and the majority for more than 4 years. Notably, 42% (18 people) of the respondents were people who had lived in the study area for more than 10 years. All the respondents stated they knew that Gökova was a SEPA of which 85% were aware of the presence of an MP. 62% of them declared that they had read it. Most of them were academics, employees of public institutions, and NGO representatives. However, the majority of local residents who do not fall into the main categories and fishermen indicated that they were unaware of the existence of an MP and that they were not involved, with the exception of the president of Akyaka Fishing Cooperative, who was involved in the preparation process. 58% of the respondents were aware of the MP at the time of its publication, and the rate of people who think that they expressed their opinions during the creation of the MP was found to be 27%. The majority of these respondents consist of public institutions, local government employees, and NGO representatives. 62% of those who expressed their opinions believe that they had an influence on the decision-making and 31% believe that they are partially influential.

Although there is a general perception that the MP was prepared with a participatory approach, there is a group of around 30% who think otherwise (Figure 3). Understanding this is important in terms of stakeholder participation and informing, and when the profiles of the respondents are examined, 3 of those who think that the process is definitely not participatory consist of people who reside in Gökova and do not belong to any specific group, and 3 of them are public institution employees. The perception of being unlikely to participate is at almost similar levels in every group except NGO representatives. All of the fishermen who gave their opinions think that they are represented at the middle and lower levels. All of those who stated that it was absolutely prepared with a participatory approach were only government officers.

The interviewees were asked the question “who is currently protecting the seas well?” and the graph of the answers received are given in Figure 4. As can be seen in the graph, the majority think that local people do not protect the seas well. As expected, the level of confidence to NGOs was higher than to public institutions and local governmental organizations, due to their visibility as they have been filling the gap for responsible governmental organizations on the ground by enforcement and surveillance activities with their dedicated project grants.

On the other hand, according to the average weights of the institutions presented as an option in the AHP, local public institutions took the first place with the highest value of 0.2965. It is followed by the MoE (0.2759), NGOs (0.2278), and municipalities (0.1997). As can be seen in Figure 5, marine conservation activities are expected to be realised mainly by local and central governmental organisations and municipalities ranked lower than NGOs.

The ability of local public officials to take initiative in conservation activities was asked to be scored on a scale of 1 to 10, and 71% were given a score of 5 or below. Employees of public institutions think that they are not able to take enough initiative. On the other hand, the level of competence in the implementation of the MP of their institutions was given an average of 5 points out of 10.

In the interviews with international funding institutions (based in France and the UK), it was stated that the funds were directed to international and developing countries. To the question “Do you think that the funds provided have an impact on the decision-making processes in the grantee country?”, 1 answered ‘yes’ and 4 answered ‘probably yes’. All representatives from these 3 organizations believe that the funds have a positive impact on marine conservation. Several tools to measure the effectiveness of grants are available in all 3 organizations. The organization’s representatives said they had met at least once with public officials in the countries they supported and felt that these meetings had a positive impact. One of the organization’s representatives added that a tripartite agreement between public authorities, NGOs and funding agencies would be a strengthening element of protection.

4. Conclusions

There are several studies and research on global MPA coverage and management effectiveness, and their number is constantly increasing with commitments and ambitious targets such as Kunming GBF. Most of the global assessments or reviews are being done on desk and rely mainly on available data on platforms such as WDPA and MPA Atlas [48]. However, data would be available to researchers if the respective country reports its data to these platforms and if it is validated. Therefore, most MPAs in Türkiye are not visible on these platforms, which can also be seen as a limiting factor for aspiring researchers who want to conduct a global study, assuming that Türkiye would not be the only example.

It was seen that some of the MP activities could not be carried out as planned by the time of this work. The first steering committee meeting took place in December 2023, three years after the management plan designation shows that even though there is a management plan, that doesn’t mean it’s being implemented. In this case study, it was mainly due to centralized governmental structure and lack of resource mobilization such as sufficient delegation and staff specifically assigned for administering this process. Since the MPs are not legally binding, and lacking a dedicated budget, the governmental organizations are not prioritizing delivering its requisitions. This absence of financial planning undermines the sustainability and efficacy of the proposed activities, as there are no clear mechanisms for funding or resource allocation. Consequently, the management plan does not adequately ensure that the necessary financial resources will be available to support the ongoing implementation and maintenance of the MPA’s objectives. It is strongly argued that the capacity of local structures could be strengthened and that the delegation and financing scheme might be implemented and framed by legislation.

In the scope of this study, a dominant role acquired by a national NGO was evident. Due to the lack of resource mobilization (i.e., human resources, budget, time) an NGO is filling the gap and acting as a co-management body, by raising funds from international donors, doing scientific monitoring in collaboration with the academy, and supporting enforcement bodies with regular patrolling of the NFZs against illegal fishing activities, along with awareness-raising activities, which can be shown as an exemplary co-management practice. This was reflected in the survey results, which indicated a strong level of trust among respondents in the NGO’s performance regarding marine conservation.

However, the ability and duration of NGOs to fill this gap are likely limited to the resources they may acquire. Since they are primarily financed through project grants, there is a need to develop and mobilize sustainable resources. Otherwise, the potential consequence of this and its impact at the global level could be that NGOs leave the region when the projects are completed, damaging the trust created and the effective governance system, even if it was established and well-functioning. Therefore, the resilience of a long-term, functioning mechanism to ensure sustainability is closely linked to mobilization of resources and a thorough financial projection is crucial. Despite the NGO currently have sufficient funding and resources to manage the MPA, MEA showed us that it is not secured for a foreseeable future and there isn’t any sustainable financing mechanism yet. Also, dominance of an NGO carries a risk in case of an internal failure in their organizational structure. The results from the interviews revealed that the community’s preference is for governmental organizations to have the authority and responsibility to implement regulations and perform enforcement, rather than relying solely on an NGO or even municipalities, despite their appreciation for the conservation efforts of these organizations. That would be an important aspect of a community buy-in of marine conservation and relevant regulations.

Our findings are in line with those found in the literature, such as a recent study in Brazil examining managers’ and stakeholders’ perceptions on MPAs management effectiveness [49] where a participatory approach is stated as crucial for an effectively managed PA. Even though, given the relatively small sample size, we found out that two different assessments using the same tool in one year time, the results showed notable differences. The interviews revealed notable differences in perceptions of public officers, co-management bodies and other stakeholders. Since subjective criteria vary according to the interests and perspectives of the evaluators, different results can be reached, as seen in this study. Therefore, this should be taken into consideration in MEAs and other MPA management studies in the future. This could be a result of insufficient communication with the wider community which was evident at the first MP steering committee meeting as well in December 2023. This meeting was closed to the citizens and other NGO representatives other than MCS.

Given the significant variance between the two assessments—one conducted by the co-management bodies and the other by the author two years later—direct comparison was not entirely feasible as the evaluators were changed. A key limitation of this study was the inability to repeat the assessment with the same participants, due to budget constraints and availability of the participants. This is a factor that future research could address. Nevertheless, as one of the study’s primary objectives was to highlight the importance of a participatory approach, the findings from the semi-structured surveys, especially the general perception about the inclusivity in the MP process supported this assumption.

An issue to consider in future studies could be how best to implement an assessment tool taking the wider community perception in consideration, since one of the limitations of this study was the sample size of the interviews due to constraints of time and resources. Therefore, future studies should aim for a larger sampling space and a methodology to analyze perceptions, to be able to develop a dynamic, adaptive management of PAs.

5. Recommendations

Some of the general conclusions and recommendations for policymakers, funding agencies and conservation professionals drawn from the results are as follows:

-

Creating an enabling environment for central governmental organizations’ local units by giving them full authority anchored in relevant legislation and by-laws to implement national conservation policies at the local level,

-

A continuous capacity building plan developed for both central and local government departments,

-

Anchoring MPAs into legislation and ensuring that the MPs are legally binding providing its inclusion into performance assessments of institutions in charge,

-

Including preliminary investigations to determine stakeholders’ perceptions and attitudes into MP preparation workflow,

-

Monitoring and evaluation of each MP carried out regularly and in a timely manner. Providing the transparency of these meetings by announcing the course and sharing the outcomes,

-

Setting joint action and active communication between NGOs and other key stakeholders as a condition to reach grant funding and necessary permissions,

-

Sharing the findings from research and project outputs with the community and other stakeholders on a regular basis and providing an enabling environment for their input,

-

Creating business plans that include alternative revenue streams to ensure the MPAs financial sustainability and anchoring them in MPs budget and action plan,

-

Allocating a certain part of the revenues obtained from the use of natural resources (museum visits, beach sun loungers, umbrella uses, tour boats, etc.) to the institutions and organizations that carry out nature conservation activities and reporting in a transparent manner, visible to citizens,

-

Establishing a common database on the studies carried out in MPAs, encouraging researchers, NGOs and institutions to use this mechanism effectively. Sharing the project and the program outputs, lessons learned, visuals, maps, etc. In this database which would be accessible to encourage citizen science.

-

Future studies should consider integrating more diverse data sources and participatory methodologies, such as conducting interviews with a broader range of stakeholders, and perform reassessment with consistent evaluators to enable meaningful comparisons overtime and minimizing potential bias.

-

Expanding the response options in the assessment tool to include scaled or qualitative responses that can offer a more comprehensive MEA.