Ocean & Coastal Management 74 (2013) 24e33

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Adapting stakeholder processes to region-specific challenges in marine protected

area network planning
Evan Fox a, *, Eric Poncelet a, b, Darci Connor a, Jason Vasques c,1, John Ugoretz d, 2, Scott McCreary a, e,
Dominique Monié a, Michael Harty b, Mary Gleason a, f
a
Marine Life Protection Act Initiative, California Natural Resources Agency, 1416 Ninth St., Suite 1311, Sacramento, CA 95814, USA
b
Kearns & West, Inc., 475 Sansome Street, Suite 570, San Francisco, CA 94111, USA
c
California Department of Fish and Game, 350 Harbor Blvd., Belmont, CA 94002, USA
d
California Department of Fish and Game, 1933 Cliff Drive, Suite 9, Santa Barbara, CA 93109, USA
e
CONCUR, Inc., 1832 Second St., Berkeley, CA 94710, USA
f
The Nature Conservancy, 99 Pacific St., Suite 200G, Monterey, CA 93950, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Marine protected area (MPA) network planning in California was conducted over the course of nearly
Available online 25 July 2012 seven years through implementation of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA). State agency and contract
staff collaborated through a publiceprivate partnership called the MLPA Initiative (Initiative), supporting
regional groups of stakeholders in crafting MPA network proposals for consideration by the MLPA Blue
Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) and ultimately the California Fish and Game Commission. To design a statewide
network, the Initiative divided California’s 1770 km coastline into five “study regions” for sequential
planning, each with a separate “regional stakeholder group” (RSG) consisting of fishermen, conserva-
tionists, recreational users, and others with intimate knowledge of the area, who were tasked with
proposing alternative MPA network designs. Each study region presented a different set of factors that
needed to be considered by Initiative staff in designing the overall stakeholder planning process.
Furthermore, as planning for each study region was completed, a formal “lessons learned” evaluation was
conducted that informed process design in subsequent study regions. Thus, designing a statewide MPA
network through regional MPA planning processes presented the opportunity and challenge of adapting
the stakeholder process design to both regional differences and lessons learned over time. This paper
examines how differences in regional characteristics and lessons learned influenced three important
elements of the stakeholder process, including convening the stakeholders, managing stakeholder
engagement, and integrating input from managing state agencies. The fundamental structure and unique
management characteristics of the Initiative were essential in facilitating adaptation of these process
elements over time. The California MLPA Initiative provides a case study in process flexibility to address
changing contexts and a model for similar coastal and marine spatial planning processes.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Stakeholder engagement is central to successful marine pro-

tected area (MPA) network planning, as well as broader coastal and
marine spatial planning (Gilliland and Laffoley, 2008; Pomeroy and
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 650 387 9306.
Douvere, 2008). There are many ways to involve stakeholders, and
E-mail addresses: evanwfox@gmail.com (E. Fox), eponcelet@kearnswest.com
(E. Poncelet), darciconnor@gmail.com (D. Connor), jason.vasques@gmail.com approaches vary depending on planning requirements and regional
(J. Vasques), john.ugoretz@navy.mil (J. Ugoretz), scott@concurinc.net characteristics (Halpern et al., 2012; Leslie, 2005). Furthermore, the
(S. McCreary), dominiquemonie@gmail.com (D. Monié), jmharty@kearnswest.com context of any environmental planning process influences both the
(M. Harty), mgleason@tnc.org (M. Gleason). process design and outcomes (Beierle and Cayford, 2002; Broad and
1
Current address: The Coral Reef Alliance, 351 California Street, Suite 650, San
Sanchirico, 2008; Dalton, 2006; NRC, 2008; Tuler and Webler,
Francisco, CA 94104, USA.
2
Current address: NAVAIR Sustainability Office, Code 52F00ME, B.53A, 575 I 2010).Thus, planning processes involving stakeholders and imple-
Avenue, Suite 1, Point Mugu, CA 93042, USA. mented across wide-ranging and varied geographies must have the

0964-5691/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.07.008
 E. Fox et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 74 (2013) 24e33
capacity to identify unique regional characteristics and adapt to
different and changing contexts. This capacity for adapting the
planning process should be fostered at a fundamental level by
maintaining a flexible management structure and incorporating
lessons learned from previous planning efforts.
Multi-stakeholder, collaborative public policy processes can be
beneficial for both governments and citizens, helping to build trust
and legitimacy, and leading to more informed policy and imple-
mentation decisions (Daniels and Walker, 2001; Glasbergen, 1998;
Gray, 1989; Irvin and Stansbury, 2004; Long and Arnold, 1995;
O’Leary, 1995; Stern and Hicks, 2000; Weible et al., 2004;
Wondolleck and Yaffee, 2000). There are also challenges,
including difficulties in providing adequate representation for large
and heterogeneous communities, managing representation of so-
called special interest groups, setting accurate expectations
regarding the influence of stakeholder input on final decisions, and
ensuring that stakeholder contributions are well-informed
(Bingham, 1986; Dukes, 2001; Irvin and Stansbury, 2004;
McCloskey, 1996; O’Leary, 1995).
Despite these challenges, collaborative public processes have
been utilized to varying degrees in MPA planning around the world
(e.g. Christie and White, 2007; White and Vogt, 2000). In Southern
California’s Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, stake-
holders participated in a Marine Reserves Working Group process,
striving toward consensus in designing a network of MPAs (Airamé
et al., 2003). This process was modeled largely on a stakeholder-
based process used in Florida to develop MPAs within the Florida
Keys National Marine Sanctuary (Cowie-Haskell and Delaney, 2003;
USDOC, 2000; Suman et al., 1999). The process differed from one
used to rezone areas within Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park, where agency representatives drafted potential MPA network
designs and incorporated feedback from computer models, scien-
tists, and thousands of written and verbal public comments gath-
ered using a variety of strategies (Osmond et al., 2010).
California’s Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative provides
yet another model for how to engage stakeholders in a collabora-
tive public planning process. California’s MLPA, a law enacted in
1999, directed the State to reevaluate and redesign its existing
system of MPAs to create a statewide network that meets six
ecosystem-based goals (Kirlin et al., 2013; Gleason et al., 2013). In
2004, the MLPA Initiative (Initiative), a publiceprivate partnership,
was launched to assist the state in implementing the MLPA (Kirlin
et al., 2013). The Initiative created a process to redesign California’s
existing MPAs3 through regional planning efforts. California’s state
waters were divided into five study regions, four of which have
underdone planning and implementation of MPAs to date.4 The
process design gave stakeholders a key role in crafting and
proposing MPAs (see Gleason et al., 2010 for a detailed example of
one of the regional processes).
In each study region, individuals representing diverse interests
were appointed to a Regional Stakeholder Group (RSG). The role of
each RSG was to produce alternative (i.e., multiple) MPA proposals,
with each proposal including proposed boundaries and regulations
for an array of MPAs that together addressed the goals of the MLPA,
and formed a regional component of the statewide MPA network.
These MPA proposals were forwarded to the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task
Force (BRTF), a five to eight member group appointed in each study
region for their public policy experience and professional expertise.
3
MPA designations used by the MLPA Initiative are defined in the California
Marine Managed Areas Improvement Act (MMAIA, PRC 36600 et seq), and include
no-take areas, as well as limited take areas.
4
Planning for the fifth and final study region, San Francisco Bay, was under
consideration at the time of publication and is not discussed in this paper.
25
The BRTF reviewed proposals from the RSG and forwarded a range
of alternatives, including a preferred alternative, to the formal
decision-making body, the California Fish and Game Commission
(Commission, see Kirlin et al., 2013, for further description of
these entities). The BRTF had the flexibility to forward entire RSG
proposals, modify parts of proposals, or craft new alternatives.
Each proposal was also reviewed by a Science Advisory Team
(SAT) relative to science-based design guidelines (Saarman et al.,
2013). Through this process, the RSG-developed proposals had
significant influence on the MPA network designs ultimately
delivered by the BRTF to the Commission for decision making and
implementation.
The Initiative process utilized many best practices for successful
stakeholder engagement. It allowed for a high level of stakeholder
participation (Gopnik et al., 2012; Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008),
incorporated active public involvement and positive participant
interactions (Dalton, 2005; Sayce et al., 2013), and utilized skilled
facilitation and pursuit of mutual gains (Gleason et al., 2010; Reed,
2008). The Initiative was also committed to self-evaluation and
improvement, including widely available “lessons learned” reports
generated for each regional process (NRC, 2008).
MLPA Initiative study regions were planned sequentially,
allowing adaptation to the process in response to specific chal-
lenges within each of the four study regions,5 recommendations
from lessons learned reports generated from prior study regions,6
and real-time assessment of issues by Initiative staff throughout
each process. This approach allowed for process variations between
study regions, as well as mid-process adjustments. This paper
focuses on how changes in context, including regional differences
and lessons learned, affected the design of the stakeholder process
for three specific elements of the process that varied the most
between study regions: convening the stakeholders, managing
stakeholder engagement, and integrating input from managing
state agencies into the stakeholder-driven MPA design process.
2. Designing the stakeholder process
The Initiative stakeholder process design was influenced by the
need to balance the pursuit of core ecosystem protection goals of
the MLPA, build cross-interest7 support for MPA proposals, and
obtain meaningful public involvement, while also following an
aggressive timeline. The MLPA stipulates that MPA network plan-
ning consider diverse stakeholders, including both extractive (e.g.,
fishing) and non-extractive ocean users. Importantly, the appointed
stakeholders were not charged with coming to consensus on one
proposal but rather encouraged to develop multiple alternative
proposals. The Initiative followed two previous, unsuccessful
attempts to implement the MLPA in the early 2000s (described in
Fox et al., 2013), and the successfully completed Channel Islands
MPA planning process (Airamé et al., 2003). Lessons learned from
these earlier efforts further supported an emphasis on cross-
interest stakeholder engagement and a commitment to an open
and transparent public process (Gleason et al., 2010; Kirlin et al.,
2013; Weible et al., 2004).
The RSG process had the same basic structure throughout the
four MLPA Initiative study regions, though specific details varied.
5
The MLPA Initiative process, including its component groups, has been char-
acterized as a “learning enterprise,” as described in Harty and John (2008).
6
A lessons learned report for the fourth coastal study region had not been
prepared at the time of publication.
7
“Cross-interest support” here refers to the development of agreement among
diverse stakeholders whose uses and values of the marine environment might
conflict with each other; for example, spear fishermen and underwater
photographers.
26 E. Fox et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 74 (2013) 24e33

Following appointment to the RSG, stakeholders worked together
in small, staff-supported groups to develop multiple MPA proposals
over the course of about one year (see Tables 1 and 2). RSG
members were encouraged to integrate ideas from a range of
interest groups, and received input from stakeholder member
constituencies and the general public, as well as feedback from
scientists, policy-makers, state resource managers, and Initiative
staff.
MPA proposals were developed iteratively, with multiple rounds
of feedback and revisions (as recommended by NRC, 2008). Each
round of proposal development consisted of several meetings and
resulted in one or more new or revised proposals from each work
group. The general public was also offered the opportunity to
submit MPA proposals and ideas, which were integrated into
proposals developed by the RSG. Adhering to science and feasibility
design guidelines for MPAs (Gleason et al., 2010; Saarman et al.,
2013), considering wide-ranging feedback (e.g., potential socio-
economic consequences), and bridging differences between
interest groups was challenging, and hundreds of hours were
dedicated to the RSG process by both stakeholders and staff (see
Gleason et al., 2013). In each of the study regions, RSG proposals
typically improved relative to science and feasibility design
guidelines in each successive round. It is important to note,
however, that overall compliance with science and feasibility
guidelines varied between study regions (Carr et al., 2010; Gaines,
2009; Gleason et al., 2013; Saarman et al., 2013). The BRTF
reviewed the proposals after each round, and at the conclusion of
the RSG process proposals were presented to the BRTF for final
consideration, potential revision, and ultimate submittal to the
Commission for decision-making.
The RSG process was designed and supported by Initiative staff,
including both California state employees and private contractors
with expertise in facilitation, planning, policy, outreach, geographic
information systems, decision support tools, biology, fisheries
management and other relevant skills. Initiative staff responsibili-
ties for managing the RSG process included: vetting publically
nominated RSG members before they were appointed by decision-
makers; creating a timeline of meetings and key milestones;
managing and facilitating meetings; and coordinating the flow of
information, including communication among stakeholders, non-
agency scientists, decision makers, managing agencies, and
members of the public.
Analyses of the stakeholder process provided here have been
conducted by Initiative staff and thus represent a participanteob-
server perspective; this descriptive account is supplemented,
where possible, with statistics from independent, post-process
lessons learned reports (Harty and John, 2006, 2008; Harty, 2010;
Raab, 2006; McCreary and Poncelet, 2006). This paper provides
both a first-hand summary and reflection on events within the
stakeholder process, as well as preliminary evaluation of the effi-
cacy of the process designs that were employed in each study
region.
3. Study region characteristics and challenges
MPA network planning for the four open coast study regions
completed to date has been conducted sequentially, starting with
the central coast study region, followed by the north central coast
study region, the south coast study region, and the north coast
study region (see Table 1, Gleason et al., 2010; Kirlin et al., 2013).
California is a large, geographically and culturally diverse state and
each of the completed four study regions presented unique char-
acteristics and challenges for planning process design.
The Initiative started in October 2004, and after eight months of
pre-planning, a central coast RSG was convened. The central coast
study region was identified by the BRTF as the pilot study region in
part because of its relatively good science capacity, strong infor-
mation base, and stakeholders knowledgeable of marine resource
management issues. Significant conflict between extractive and
non-extractive stakeholders pervaded the seven-month RSG
portion of the planning process, which resulted in alternative MPA
proposals with limited cross interest support and few common
MPA configurations (e.g., proposed boundaries and regulations)
among the proposals. The BRTF used those stakeholder proposals to
develop and forward to the Commission a separate preferred
alternative proposal, attempting to balance among competing
interests.
As the central coast MPAs were adopted into regulation in early
2007, the stakeholder planning process in the north central coast
study region was initiated. MPA network planning in this study

Table 1
MLPA study regions: each of the four MLPA study regions had unique characteristics, which presented different challenges for MPA network planning. As the MLPA Initiative
progressed, staff adapted the RSG processes based on these varying characteristics, as well as lessons learned.

Central coast North central coast South coast North coast

Regional Pigeon Point in San Mateo Alder Creek in Mendocino Point Conception in Oregon border to Alder
boundaries County to Point Conception County to Pigeon Point in Santa Barbara County Creek in Mendocino County
in Santa Barbara County San Mateo County, including to the Mexican border,
the Farallon Islands including the Channel
Islands
RSG process June 2005eDecember 2005 May 2007eApril 2008 Sept. 2008eDec. 2009 Sept. 2009eDec. 2010
timeframea
Area of state 2,227 km2 (860 mi2) 1,979 km2 (764 mi2) 6,089 km2 (2,351 mi2) 2,660 km2 (1,027 mi2)
waters
(sq. miles)b
Population 2,019,741 2,288,339 16,439,096 241,255
(# people/study
region)
Existing MPAs 12 MPAs (3.8%) 13 MPAs (3.5%) 42 MPAs (7.7%) 5 MPAs (0.3%)
(# existing state
MPAs, % of study
region)
Notable regional Pilot project, which tested First study region to benefit Large, diverse population Cohesive communities and
considerations the new MLPA Initiative from lessons learned analyses and number of coastal significant, organized presence
model resource users of coastal tribes and tribal
communities
a
These dates reflect the length of the stakeholder portion of the overall MPA planning process.
b
Totals include area offshore of islands, which in the South Coast accounted for 1288 mi2 (w55% of the region).
 E. Fox et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 74 (2013) 24e33
region benefited from the lessons learned evaluation from the
central coast (Harty and John, 2006; Raab, 2006; McCreary and
Poncelet, 2006), a growing list of tested process tools and meth-
odologies, achievement of stated objectives in the central coast, and
overall momentum of the Initiative itself (Gleason et al., 2010). The
length of the RSG process was extended for the north central coast,
allowing for more overlap between the RSG process and the BRTF
process of making final recommendations to the Commission.
Stakeholders in the north central coast study region were
successful in generating alternative MPA proposals that included
a greater number of common MPA configurations than the central
coast, with many individual MPA designs garnering significant
cross-interest stakeholder support.
The characteristics of the south coast study region, where
planning began in late 2008, were substantially different than the
previous two study regions. The south coast was geographically
expansive (70% larger than the two previous study regions
combined, when offshore islands are included), with diverse ocean
uses, myriad policy issues, and over 17 million people living within
80 km of the ocean (Schiff et al., 2002). Government agencies at all
levels, including the U.S. Department of Defense, demonstrated
greater interest in participating in MPA planning, and meetings
were often attended by hundreds of members of the general public.
South coast MPA network planning benefitted from an even longer
stakeholder engagement phase, with increased opportunities for
dialog between policy makers, scientists, stakeholders, and
members of the public throughout the BRTF decision-making
process. The south coast process also benefited from an improved
web-based decision support system (Merrifield et al., 2013) and
more extensive resources dedicated to public engagement (Sayce
et al., 2013). Despite these advantages, many stakeholders only
supported designs created by members of their own interest group
for much of the process, and demonstrated unwillingness to inte-
grate designs from other interest groups. As a result, alternative
MPA proposals in the south coast shared similar geographies, but
retained key design differences (e.g., specific proposed boundaries
and regulations).
In late 2009, MPA planning began in the north coast study
region, where barely one-quarter of a million people live in rela-
tively isolated communities and challenging ocean conditions limit
coastal access and fishing (MLPA Initiative, 2010). North coast
communities are generally close-knit and are broadly interested in
local issues. In addition, there are 20 federally recognized Native
American tribes as well as many non-federally recognized tribes
and tribal communities located within the study region. RSG
members expressed a desire for greater community inclusion in
MPA planning, placed a strong emphasis on working toward
a unified proposal, and ultimately forwarded a single proposal for
north coast MPAs to the BRTF.
4. Adaptations to the stakeholder process
Over the course of nearly seven years, elements of the RSG
process were adapted in response to the unique characteristics of
each study region, as well as lessons learned from previous study
regions. There were three elements of process design where
changes in regional characteristics and feedback from lessons
learned evaluations resulted in significant process adaptations:
convening the stakeholders, managing stakeholder engagement,
and integrating input from managing state agencies.
4.1. Convening the stakeholders
To convene the RSGs, Initiative staff established key selection
criteria to be met by prospective RSG members and advertised
27
widely for RSG nominations. Initiative staff reviewed the nomina-
tions, conducted confidential interviews with most of the nomi-
nees, and made recommendations to the Director of CDFG and the
Chair of the BRTF for the study region, who were responsible for
appointing the RSG members.
Challenges faced while convening the RSG were common to all
study regions and fell into two broad categories: representation
and group management. RSGs needed to be small enough so that
members could engage in effective and efficient deliberations, but
large enough to represent the diversity of views and interests of the
region. The RSG members also had to demonstrate a willingness to
strive for mutual gains solutions and engage in joint problem
solving across interests (Harty, 2010).
To have credibility with the public, the RSGs had to represent
key interests in the study region. However, in all of the study
regions, more people were nominated than could be appointed to
the RSG. This was complicated by the fact that stakeholder
constituencies scrutinized the nomination process and protested
the potential representation of their interests by other stake-
holders. For example, in the south coast study region, lobster
fishermen from Santa Barbara did not feel well represented by
lobster fisherman from San Diego, and recreational spear fisherman
did not feel represented by recreational private boaters or kayak
anglers.
4.1.1. Adaptive strategies for convening stakeholders
In order to address these challenges, Initiative staff pursued
three main strategies, including adapting the RSG selection process
to: a) allow flexibility in the size of the RSG among study regions, b)
manage the overall balance between extractive and non-extractive
stakeholder representatives on the RSGs, and c) promote appoint-
ment of collaborative stakeholders willing to pursue mutual gains
across interests.
First, Initiative staff intentionally varied the size of the RSGs based
on the needs of each study region. The RSG sizes ranged from 64
appointed stakeholders on the south coast to 34 on the north coast
(Table 2). Initiative staff recommended a larger south coast RSG in
response to the region’s large geographic area, population size, and
number and diversity of ocean users. Initiative staff recommended
a smaller and more manageable RSG size in the north coast, which
had the smallest population density and number of ocean users.
To help manage the larger RSGs in the central, north central, and
south coast processes, Initiative staff established a structure of
“primary” and “alternate” members who represented similar
interests. Initiative staff established ground rules that allowed all
RSG members to contribute to developing of MPA proposals, but
primary members had a larger role in group discussions and
process decisions. For example, primary RSG members participated
in straw votes that were utilized throughout the stakeholder
process to gauge support for different MPA designs. Alternate RSG
members were provided the opportunity to confer with their
primaries prior to any votes, and when primary members were
unable to attend, alternates were seated at the main table and
voted. In the less populous north coast, where there were fewer
stakeholder constituencies and where tribal members expressed
significant concern over having some tribal representatives serving
as alternates to others, Initiative staff modified this approach to
have only primary members (and no alternates).
A second key adaptive strategy was to seek an overarching
balance between extractive and non-extractive ocean users, which
included using a “rolling” approach to RSG member appointments.
Initiative staff were attentive to public feedback received after
initial appointments were made, which included negative reactions
toward perceived gaps in stakeholder representation and political
pressure to increase the representation of key constituencies.
28 E. Fox et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 74 (2013) 24e33
In some cases, Initiative staff responded by recommending strategic
adjustments to RSG membership.
A third adaptive strategy was to expand the RSG selection
criteria to include experience and ability in collaboration and
negotiation, and a willingness to pursue mutual gains. This adap-
tation was made following the central coast study region, which
was characterized by strongly positional bargaining behavior and
a relative unwillingness to collaborate across interests by a large
portion of the RSG. Following the central coast process, most
nominees and all appointees for subsequent study regions were
interviewed by neutral facilitators and evaluated by senior Initia-
tive staff. In some cases, otherwise well-qualified nominees familiar
with the study region and respected by their broader constituen-
cies were not recommended for appointment due to concerns over
their ability to collaborate across interests.
4.1.2. Outcomes of strategies for convening stakeholders
Strategies used to determine RSG size, relative representation of
interests, and capacity for collaboration in each study region resul-
ted in RSGs that were fairly well balanced and manageable, and
generally able to communicate and generate cross-interest
proposals. These strategies were less effective in the south coast,
which was characterized by a large and diverse set of extractive users
and more limited willingness to generate collaborative products.
Representation of interests was perceived by RSG members to
be most balanced on the north central coast and least balanced on
the south coast. In post process surveys, 44% of stakeholders
characterized the RSG as “well balanced” in the north central coast,
as compared to 16% and 22% on the central coast and south coast
respectively. Conversely, 45% of south coast stakeholders charac-
terized the RSG as “poorly balanced,” as compared to 32% and 22%
on the central coast and north central coast (Harty, 2010). Improved
effectiveness of meeting management and quality of collaborative
engagement in the north central coast study region were reflected
in post-process surveys, which indicated a higher level of stake-
holder satisfaction with the RSG process, in comparison to other
study regions (Harty, 2010).
In the south coast, the strategy of expanding the size of the RSG
introduced difficulties in promoting cross-interest collaboration.
Over half of the south coast RSG members indicated the level of
cross-interest collaboration to be “very low” or “somewhat low” in
post-process interviews (Harty, 2010). Expansion of the south coast
RSG after initial appointments was influenced in part by lobbying to
increase both the number and diversity of fishing representation on
the RSG due to the study region’s number and variety of
commercial and recreational fisheries. Initiative staff recom-
mended additional extractive user appointees, which uninten-
tionally resulted in an imbalance between extractive and non-
extractive users when compared to the previous study regions.
Post-process interviews with members of the south coast RSG
revealed that the lack of numerical parity between interest groups
negatively influenced perceptions about cross-interest collabora-
tion and overall satisfaction with the process (Harty, 2010). The
numerical advantage of extractive users may have contributed to
some stakeholders engaging in block voting and refraining from
collaborating across interests and seeking mutual gains. Difficulties
were exacerbated by dissatisfaction of some RSG members with the
system of primary and alternative representatives, and requests for
more equal treatment of all participants in the process, further
emphasizing imbalances between interests.
4.2. Managing stakeholder engagement
Managing engagement of the RSG in developing MPA network
proposals required overcoming at least five significant challenges.
First, each study region was complex in terms of its specific
ecological and socioeconomic conditions, diversity of ocean uses,
and variety of stakeholder interests involved. Second, the entire
process was driven by a complex suite of policy, regulatory, and
scientific guidance provided by the MLPA, the California Master
Plan for MPAs (CDFG, 2008), the BRTF, the SAT, and responsible
resources management agencies. Third, each RSG had a limited
amount of time, ranging from 7 to 14 months, to develop alterna-
tive MPA proposals. Fourth, RSG members entered the process with
varying levels of trust for each other, knowledge of the study region
(e.g., ocean uses and ecological characteristics), and willingness and
ability to collaborate across interests. Finally, the entire Initiative
was the focus of intense political scrutiny by high profile organi-
zations, lobbyists, and members of the public outside the RSG who
had a strong desire to influence the outcome of MPA planning and
learned how to better utilize process design weaknesses over the
course of the four study regions.
4.2.1. Adaptive strategies for managing stakeholder engagement
In order to manage engagement of the RSG in a manner that
addressed challenges in each study region, Initiative staff instituted
several adaptive strategies, including: a) iterative rounds of MPA
proposal development, b) a mix of different meeting formats, c)
flexible organization of assigned RSG working groups, and d)
integration of proposals from groups external to the formal RSG
process. These strategies were supplemented with an increasing
emphasis on engaging the broader public over the course of the
four study regions (Sayce et al., 2013).
First, each study region followed an iterative process for MPA
proposal development, incorporating multiple rounds of MPA
design, evaluation, feedback, and redesign (Gleason et al., 2010). In
the central coast, Initiative staff provided the RSG with two rounds
to develop its proposals in the 7-month time frame. Based on
lessons learned from the central coast, Initiative staff designed the
subsequent study region processes to have three proposal devel-
opment rounds and a longer time frame for planning (12e16
months, see Table 1). The iterative process was intended to
provide RSG members with evaluations of their draft proposals
relative to science and feasibility design guidelines, build trust
among stakeholders, increase awareness of constituencies’ key
interests, and allow development of improved cross-interest
proposals (Gleason et al., 2010). Iterative MPA planning was
further facilitated by the use of MarineMap, a decision support-tool
that allowed stakeholders to collaboratively develop MPA designs
both within and outside of formal meetings, and provided imme-
diate feedback on how well prospective MPAs met various guide-
lines (Merrifield et al., 2013).
Second, Initiative staff used a mix of meeting formats, tailored to
specific process needs and dynamics. Among these were formal
meetings with the full RSG, work sessions, and homework groups,
each of which was designed to achieve different objectives. Formal
RSG meetings were managed by Initiative staff and scheduled to
support presentations, discussions, and decisions requiring full
group participation. All formal meetings offered the opportunity for
public comment, and were webcast, videotaped, and made part of
the public record of the process. This format was used for infor-
mation sharing, joint-fact-finding, and presentation of guidance
and evaluation results. Work sessions were also managed by
Initiative staff and typically focused on work group discussions
within breakout groups. Work sessions were intended as the
primary opportunity to explore creative ideas, overcome chal-
lenges, and develop MPA proposals. Homework groups generally
involved informal, task-focused, ad hoc work groups that met as
needed and involved relatively little or no Initiative staff support.
Homework groups provided a forum for accomplishing work
 E. Fox et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 74 (2013) 24e33 29

Table 2
Stakeholder process design: MLPA Initiative staff adjusted the composition of RSG work groups for each study region. The RSGs were generally divided into three groups (with
the exception of the north coast), with the focus of each group being either extractive, non-extractive, or cross-interest objectives. In some cases, RSG members were allowed to
self-select their groups and in other cases MLPA Initiative staff assigned groups. The number of iterative MPA planning rounds also varied between study regions.

Rounds of MPA 1st round 2nd round 3rd round Result

proposal development
Central coast RSG - 3 work groups - 3 work groups, N/A 3 proposals forwarded to
(56 Members) - Self-selected including a new Blue Ribbon Task Force
“middle” group (BRTF) for consideration
- Self-selected
North central coast - 3 work groups Same work groups - 3 work groups 3 proposals forwarded to
RSG (45 members) - Cross-interest as 1st round - Extractive, BRTF for consideration
- Appointed cross-interest,
non-extractive
- Self-selected
South coast RSG - 3 work groups Same work groups - 3 work groups 3 proposals forwarded to
(64 members) - Cross-interest as 1st round - Extractive, BRTF for consideration
- Appointed cross-interest,
non-extractive
- Appointed based
on both expressed
preference and
negotiating style
North coast RSG - Community - 2 work groups Single group Single unified proposal
(34 members) MPA arrays - Cross-interest forwarded to BRTF for
- Appointed consideration

during the weeks between formal RSG meetings and work sessions,
and sometimes involved individuals from outside the RSG.
A third, related adaptive strategy was to establish work groups
within the broader RSG. The work group approach was designed to
create conditions conducive to open sharing and testing of creative
ideas, face-to-face negotiations, building trust and stakeholder
relationships, and development of cross-interest MPA proposalsda
task that is typically easier in a group of 10e20 than in a group of
40e60. Each study region differed with regard to the number of
work groups in each round of proposal development, whether RSG
members were appointed to the work groups or self-selected, and
whether work groups were cross-interest or single-interest (see
Table 2).
Polarization of stakeholders in the central coast study region
served as an impetus for developing a more refined work group
approach. In the central coast, Initiative staff directed RSG members
to self-select into work groups due to the relatively short duration
of the RSG planning process and initial difficulties encountered in
efforts to develop cross-interest proposals. Three distinct groups
formed by the end of the process: a large group focused primarily
on non-extractive interests, another large group focused primarily
on extractive interests, and a smaller non-aligned group formed
late in the second round of planning that tried to integrate ideas
from the other two groups. This polarization resulted in challenges
for the BRTF in working with CDFG staff to craft a preferred alter-
native proposal to submit to the Commission.
MLPA Initiative staff sought to increase the level of collaboration
across interests after the central coast study region by appointing
RSG members to cross-interest work groups for the early rounds of
MPA proposal development. To ensure that RSG members and their
constituents would be able to support at least one of the final MPA
proposals, Initiative staff designed work groups to be interest-
specific during the third round of proposal development in the
north central coast and south coast study regions. Three work
groups were formed, including a non-extractive-oriented work
group, an extractive-oriented work group, and a “middle” cross-
interest work group with a balance of interests. In the north
central coast, Initiative staff allowed the RSG members to self-select
into these work groups, with the largest fraction opting to partic-
ipate in the “middle” group. In the south coast study region, which
was characterized by strategic use of block voting in the first two
rounds, Initiative staff prescribed the composition of the round 3
work groups in order to prevent strategic efforts to dominate the
outcomes of the “middle” group. A still different approach was
adopted in the north coast, where cross-interest work groups were
assigned in round 2, and the RSG was allowed to operate as a single
group in round 3.
A fourth adaptive strategy allowed for incorporation of ideas for
MPA proposals from members of the public outside of the RSG.
Initiative staff established an “external proposal” process that was
implemented in all four study regions, although Initiative staff
varied the timing and duration of external group participation
based on study region characteristics. In the central, north central,
and south coast study regions, 3e5 external groups submitted MPA
proposals during the early rounds of MPA planning, concurrent
with RSG development of MPA proposals. In these cases, RSG
members were asked to compare external proposals to RSG
proposals and integrate concepts from external proposals where
appropriate.
In the north coast study region, Initiative staff supported 8
external groups in developing MPA proposals for round 1 prior to
convening the RSG, due in part to the study region’s smaller pop-
ulation and the relatively larger proportion of the public following
the Initiative. The RSG was not convened until round 2, drawing
members from many of the external groups, and was asked to use
round 1 external proposals as a starting point. After round 1,
external groups no longer had a formal role in the process, but
many participants remained involved as active members of the
public if they were not appointed to the RSG.
4.2.2. Outcomes of strategies for stakeholder engagement
An iterative process design, extended planning timeline, and use
of multiple meeting formats enabled the RSGs to better understand
and integrate both regional context and various forms of guidance
into MPA proposals. Strategic use of work group formats and
opportunities for integrating external proposals appeared to
promote collaboration amongst disparate interest groups and hel-
ped to involve broader constituencies. Most RSG proposals included
cross-interest MPA designs, which often had more support than
single-interest designs. Cross-interest MPA designs were often
30 E. Fox et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 74 (2013) 24e33
included in multiple proposals, increasing overlap among final
proposals in each study region.
Moreover, strategies for incorporating external MPA ideas
brought pertinent information and new design concepts into the
RSG process. Inviting external submissions also seemed to diffuse
potential assertions of exclusion of any groups from the Initiative
process. In some cases, the BRTF incorporated these external
designs into its final MPA recommendations to the Commission.
Input from external groups and the public helped define complex
choices between meeting MPA design guidelines and addressing
local concerns, informed RSG discussions and BRTF deliberations in
problematic geographies, and appeared to build broader support
and buy-in for the final MPA proposals, thereby reducing the
number of unresolved issues left for the BRTF or Commission to
address at the end of the process. Careful attention to the chal-
lenges of engaging non-RSG members of the public promoted
a more inclusive public process that offered multiple, substantive
opportunities for input (Sayce et al., 2013).
Outcomes of the north coast RSG process were perhaps the most
distinct of all the study regions, as the process resulted in a single
proposal for MPAs, rather than multiple alternative MPA proposals
as in other study regions. The final RSG proposal fell short of
meeting the science design guidelines8 compared to the other
study regions (Gleason et al., 2013), although it likely had the
highest degree of local community support (Webler and van Over,
2011). Greater numerical representation of extractive interests
compared to non-extractive interests on the north coast RSG may
have contributed to the shortfalls in meeting science design
guidelines. In addition, more central incorporation of external
groups in round 1 of the north coast process may have resulted in
entrenchment around external proposals, as RSG members resisted
substantially modifying the initial MPA designs. Due in part to this
dynamic, the north coast RSG put forward fewer new ideas in
rounds 2 and 3 to address gaps in meeting design guidelines,
compared to other study regions.
4.3. Integrating input from managing state agencies
State resource management agencies, which include CDFG and
the California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR) are
responsible for implementing and managing the statewide
network of MPAs.9 The roles of these two agencies in the Initiative
process evolved over the course of seven years, creating challenges
for addressing the unique needs of each agency in implementing
and managing the statewide MPA network.
CDFG bears primary responsibility for proposing MPAs for
possible designation to the Commission under the MLPA, whereas
CDPR works to “.advise and assist in the preparation of the master
plan.”10. While both agencies have responsibilities for MPAs
under state law, only CDFG was a signatory to the two MOUs
establishing the Initiative process (see Kirlin et al., 2013).
Although both CDFG and CDPR are under the umbrella of the
California Natural Resources Agency, their mandates are
8
Evaluations by the SAT of the RSG proposal revealed that for twelve key habi-
tats, six were not adequately replicated and ten fell short of adequate spacing
guidelines. In addition, no MPAs were proposed in the preferred size range in the
north coast (Bjorkstedt, 2011).
9
The Marine Managed Areas Improvement Act (MMAIA, PRC 36600 et seq.)
provides CDFG with the statute authority to implement and manage state marine
reserves, state marine conservation areas and state marine recreational manage-
ment areas established for hunting purposes (PRC 36725(f)(1)). CDPR is also
authorized to manage these types of MPAs, along with state marine parks and state
marine cultural preservation areas that are within the CDPR system (PRC
36725(f)(2)).
10
Fish and Game Code 2855(b)(1).
fundamentally distinct and sometimes conflicting. CDFG is charged
with managing natural resources and habitats both for their
ecological value and for human use and enjoyment. In fulfilling this
mandate, CDFG focuses on the management of living resources and
habitats for all uses including commercial, recreational, and
scientific. CDPR is charged with providing for the health, inspira-
tion, and education of Californians by helping to preserve biodi-
versity, protect natural and cultural resources, and create
opportunities for recreation. In fulfilling its mandate, CDPR
concentrates on marine areas adjacent to existing terrestrial park
units and generally focuses on protecting natural living and cultural
resources and creating opportunities for recreation in the absence
of commercial uses. Balancing these management mandates in the
context of meeting the goals of the MLPA and considering stake-
holder input and concerns proved difficult. The differing manage-
ment mandates led to tension in how each agency approached
meeting the goals of the MLPA and sometimes resulted in con-
flicting guidance to the RSGs.
Furthermore, MPAs designed through the Initiative needed to be
enforceable, with regulations, boundaries, and other characteristics
that facilitated effective state agency management. Guidelines for
enforceability (e.g. straight boundary lines) often made it difficult
for stakeholders to propose MPAs that both met science design
guidelines and minimized potential socioeconomic impacts.
Balancing these management needs in an RSG-driven process was
often problematic and frustrating for the stakeholders, as well as
agency and other Initiative staff.
4.3.1. Adaptive strategies for integrating state agency input
The Initiative approach was adapted over time to move both
CDFG and CDPR from the role of directly creating MPA designs to
the role of providing guidance and advice to the RSGs (Table 3).
Consistent with the language in the MLPA, the first MLPA Initiative
MOU gave CDFG the responsibility to amend and modify proposals
and submit to the Commission a final proposal.11 This mechanism
allowed CDFG to balance management needs with stakeholder
input. However, as CDFG’s role under the MLPA was not well
understood by the central coast RSG or the general public, this step
was perceived as undermining the stakeholders’ work. Ultimately,
the central coast MPAs finally adopted by the Commission were
informed both by the BRTF recommendations and the recommen-
dations of CDFG.
In an effort to increase public support and process legitimacy,
the second MOUdwhich was developed for the subsequent three
study regionsdrequired CDFG to provide input and analysis of MPA
proposals generated by the RSG, but specifically eliminated its role
in developing or modifying proposals. CDFG’s revised role was to
attend all RSG meetings as Initiative staff and provide guidance and
information throughout the iterative design process, including
a feasibility analysis that focused on the enforceability of the
proposed MPAs, public understanding of the boundaries and
regulations, and whether or not the proposed MPAs had clearly
defined objectives.
In the central coast study region, the role of CDPR was to provide
scientific expertise along with other marine science experts on the
SAT, as described in MLPA. To better achieve their own agency
interests, CDPR declined to participate on the North Central Coast
SAT and instead joined the north central coast process as a member
of the RSG. This effort placed CDPR at the negotiation table and in
a position to influence the design of MPAs. However, the resulting
RSG proposals did not represent CDPR’s interests well for several
11
MOU dated Aug. 27, 2004.
 E. Fox et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 74 (2013) 24e33 31

Table 3
Role of state agencies. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR) had varied roles in the MLPA Initiative
process over the course of four study regions. CDFG was on MLPA Initiative staff and participated in the SAT throughout the process. CDFG only generated its own MPA proposal
in the central coast study region. CDPR participated on the SAT for most study regions, except for the north central coast, when it participated on the RSG. CDPR was on MLPA
Initiative staff for the last two study regions.

Regional stakeholder group Central coast North central coast South coast North coast
Role of state agencies Initiative Staff (CDFG) Initiative Staff (CDFG) Initiative Staff (CDFG, CDPR) Initiative Staff (CDFG, CDPR)
RSG (None)a RSG (CDPR)a RSG (none)a RSG (none)a
SAT (CDFG, CDPR) SAT (CDFG) SAT (CDFG, CDPR) SAT (CDFG, CDPR)
CDFG prepared preferred
alternative
a
CDFG participated in all RSGs as a seated co-chair of the groups, but did not propose MPAs and engage in negotiations in the same way as stakeholder representatives.

reasons: (1) it was difficult to balance CDPR’s interests with science
guidelines, CDFG guidelines, and socioeconomic needs, (2) CDPR
negotiators were challenged in clearly expressing their interests to
the RSG, and (3) CDPR lacked a consistent negotiating strategy.
CDPR was forced to recommend alternative proposals for specific
MPAs at the end of the RSG process and expressed concerns over
their lack of input into the final plans, even though they had
participated in RSG meetings. Similarly frustrated, other stake-
holders expressed confusion over the intended role of CDPR on the
RSG (Harty and John, 2008).
For the south and north coast study regions, CDPR joined the
Initiative as staff, did not sit on the RSG, and re-joined the SAT. This
allowed CDPR to better provide guidance to the RSG and share their
expertise regarding development of science guidelines for each
study region in a manner similar to CDFG. For these two study
regions, CDPR developed design guidelines separate from CDFG’s
design guidelines and conducted its own analysis of MPA proposals
relative to those design guidelines for each iterative round of
proposal development.
4.3.2. Outcomes of strategies for integrating state agency input
Changing state agency roles from developing MPA proposals to
providing input and feedback on RSG proposals appeared to reduce
criticism of agency involvement that resulted from late-stage
development of agency proposals, though it did not necessarily
improve the perceived value of agency input.12 While this change
created additional challenges for balancing management needs, the
development of agency design guidelines and an iterative process
allowed agency needs and interests to be more clearly expressed,
understood, and addressed.
Due to fundamental differences in agency mandates as well as
differing perspectives regarding use of MPAs as a management tool,
CDFG and CDPR often diverged on how to meet the MLPA goals. In
the south coast and north coast study regions, agency concerns and
needs were expressed at a more equitable level, but resulted in
tensions between the agencies’ mandates and conflicting guidance
to the RSG. While responsibilities under the MLPA were clear,
broader management authorities of the two agencies were more
ambiguous, adding to confusion about their appropriate roles in the
process. Better cross-agency coordination before and during the
RSG process and more clear direction from the California Natural
Resources Agency might have helped mitigate these issues. While
fundamental differences in their mandates made reconciliation of
agency guidance difficult in some cases, Commission decision
makers seemed to be adequately informed of the differences and
were able to resolve some of them at a policy level when desig-
nating MPAs for each region.
1 2
In fact, perceived helpfulness of CDFG in post-process interviews declined
between the north central coast and south coast process (though helpfulness of
information provided by staff as a whole also declined) (Harty, 2010).
5. Conclusion
The approach of using an appointed RSG to create alternative
MPA proposals in each study region was required in the MLPA
Initiative MOU and reflected best practices and lessons learned
from previous attempts to implement the MLPA and other public
participant-based planning processes (see Dalton, 2005; Gleason
et al., 2010; Osmond et al., 2010; Reed, 2008). While the
stakeholder-driven MPA design process remained generally
consistent over nearly seven years of MPA planning in each of the
four study regions, the process details were adjusted and adapted
in response to challenges associated with the unique characteristics
of each study region and lessons learned from previous study
regions. Flexibility to adapt the process over time helped to ensure
that the full statewide public planning effort could be completed.
Three key conclusions may be drawn from the adaptive strate-
gies described above. First, the varying number, composition, and
interests of stakeholders across regions made selection of an
effective and representative stakeholder group challenging, and
made context-specific stakeholder group selection as important as
its ongoing management. This conclusion is supported by existing
literature (Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008; Reed, 2008), and provides
insight into the significant effort and resources utilized to
adequately represent key interests, mitigate potentially uncon-
structive strategic behavior, and create opportunities for mean-
ingful negotiations across interests. Emphasis on including an equal
number of extractive and non-extractive stakeholders, and a focus
on identifying and appointing collaborative individuals who were
committed to achieving the group’s charge of developing alterna-
tive MPA proposals were useful criteria in pursuing these ends.
Second, promoting collaborative engagement among diverse
stakeholder interests in a way that allows for integration of large
amounts of information is a significant process design challenge
(Koontz and Thomas, 2006) and is further complicated by appli-
cation in different regional contexts. An adaptive and flexible iter-
ative process that involves varied meeting formats and engagement
opportunities in both single- and multiple-interest settings, and
provides mechanisms for integration of “external” ideas from the
broader public (per Dalton, 2006; Gopnik et al., 2012; Tuler and
Webler, 1999), is useful in addressing this challenge.
Finally, agency input should be balanced with public participa-
tion (per Rowe and Frewer, 2005), where public perceptions of the
managing agency’s involvement are monitored and considered
(Halvorsen, 2006; Suman et al., 1999). The roles, mandates, and
responsibilities of both lead and coordinating agencies should be
clear (per Reed, 2008), and agency input should be integrated in
a manner that does not create the perception of undermining or
negating stakeholder efforts.
In part due to these adaptive strategies, four MLPA Initiative
regional stakeholder processes have been completed. RSGs in each
study region provided MPA network proposals that informed final
decisions by the Commission, resulting in an MPA network that
32 E. Fox et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 74 (2013) 24e33
encompasses 16% of state waters. To date, MPAs have adopted in all
four open coast study regions (Gleason et al., 2013).
The adaptive quality of the process was itself promoted by key
characteristics of the Initiative. For example, senior Initiative staff
encouraged a culture of adaptation and flexibility, made possible in
part by the availability of adequate funds through a publiceprivate
partnership (Fox et al., 2013). This support allowed Initiative staff to
pursue key adaptive strategies when they had the potential to
mitigate process challenges. In addition, the iterative nature of the
Initiative, both within and between study regions, allowed Initia-
tive staff to examine the efficacy of the planning process, identify
weaknesses, and make continual improvements. This capability for
learning was further enabled by the retention of key Initiative staff
members from one study region to the next, which allowed insti-
tutional knowledge to be retained, even as the overall composition
of Initiative staff changed over time.
Perhaps the most important characteristic that allowed the
Initiative to adapt to evolving contexts over time was a strong
commitment to self-evaluation and lessons learned, through both
formal and informal channels. Post-process surveys and interviews
conducted by independent consultants helped to identify issues
and shortcomings that could be addressed in subsequent study
regions. In addition, Initiative staff’s commitment to making
adjustments based on continual RSG member and public feedback
allowed for mid-process as well as inter-regional corrections. Any
similar large-scale public planning process, including imple-
mentation of the United States National Ocean Policy, would benefit
from careful attention to variation in regional contexts and
appropriate process adaptations. Where processes are iterative,
formal lessons learned analyses can inform adaptive strategies that
improve performance over time.
Ethical Statement
The authors assert that the attached manuscript is an original
work, has not been published before, and has not been submitted
for publication elsewhere. All authors have substantively contrib-
uted to analysis and writing of this manuscript and have agreed to
submit the manuscript to Ocean and Coastal Management.
Acknowledgments
EF, EP, DC, SM, DM, MH, and MG worked for the MLPA Initiative
under the direction of the Blue Ribbon Task Force and the Executive
Director of the MLPA Initiative, which received funding from the
Resources Legacy Fund Foundation. The authors wish to thank all
stakeholders directly and indirectly involved in the Initiative
throughout the course of the process for their tireless efforts and
contributions to building an improved statewide network of MPAs.
References
Airamé, S., Dugan, J.E., Lafferty, K.D., Leslie, H.M., McArdle, D.A., Warner, R.R., 2003.
Applying ecological criteria to marine reserve design: a case study from the
California Channel Islands. Ecological Applications 13, S170eS184.
Beierle, T.C., Cayford, J., 2002. Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Envi-
ronmental Decisions. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
Bingham, G., 1986. Resolving Environmental Disputes: a Decade of Experience. The
Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC.
Bjorkstedt, E., 2011. Habitat, size, and spacing evaluations of BRTF recommended
MPA proposals for the MLPA North Coast Study Region. In: Presentation to the
California Fish and Game Commission and the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force,
February 2, 2011, Sacramento, CA. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/
northcoastproposals/habitat_powerpoint.pdf (accessed 22.09.11).
Broad, K., Sanchirico, J.N., 2008. Local perspectives on marine reserve creation in the
Bahamas. Ocean & Coastal Management 51, 763e771.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 2008. California Master Plan for
Marine Protected Areas. Approved February, 2008. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/
mlpa/masterplan.asp (accessed 22.09.11).
Carr, M.H., Saarman, E.T., Caldwell, M.R., 2010. The role of “rules of thumb” in
science-based environmental policy: California’s Marine Life Protection Act as
a case study. Stanford Journal of Law, Science, and Policy. http://www.stanford.
edu/group/sjlsp/cgi-bin/articles/index.php (accessed 22.09.11).
Christie, P., White, A.T., 2007. Best practices for improved governance of coral reef
marine protected areas. Coral Reefs 26 (4), 1047e2056.
Cowie-Haskell, B.D., Delaney, J.M., 2003. Integrating science into the design of the
Tortugas Ecological Reserve. Marine Technology Society Journal 37 (1), 68e79.
Dalton, T.M., 2005. Beyond biogeography: a framework for involving the public in
planning of U.S. marine protected areas. Conservation Biology 19 (5),
1392e1401.
Dalton, T.M., 2006. Exploring participants’ views of participatory coastal and marine
resource management processes. Coastal Management 34 (4), 351e367.
Daniels, S.E., Walker, G.B., 2001. Working through Environmental Conflict: The
Collaborative Learning Approach. Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT.
Dukes, E.F., 2001. Integration in environmental conflict. Conflict Resolution Quar-
terly 19 (1), 103e115.
Fox, E., Miller-Henson, M., Ugoretz, J., Weber, M., Gleason, M., Kirlin, J., Caldwell, M.,
Mastrup, S., 2013. Enabling conditions to support marine protected area
network planning: California's Marine Life Protection Act Initiative as a case
study. Ocean & Coastal Management 74, 14e23.
Gaines, S., 2009. Size and spacing evaluations of the round 3 SCRSG MPA proposals
for the MLPA south coast study region. In: Presentation to the MLPA Blue
Ribbon Task Force, October 20, 2009, Long Beach, CA. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/
mlpa/pdfs/agenda_102009g1.pdf (accessed 22.09.11).
Gilliland, P.M., Laffoley, D., 2008. Key elements and steps in the process of devel-
oping ecosystem-based marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 32, 787e796.
Glasbergen, P., 1998. The question of environmental governance. In: Glasbergen (Ed.),
Co-operative Environmental Governance: Publiceprivate Agreements as a Policy
Strategy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 1e18.
Gleason, M.G., McCreary, S., Miller-Henson, M., Ugoretz, J., Fox, E., Merrifield, M.,
McClintock, W., Serpa, P., Hoffmann, K., 2010. Science-based and stakeholder-
driven marine protected area network planning: a successful case study from
north-central California. Ocean & Coastal Management 53, 52e68.
Gleason, M., Fox, E., Ashcraft, S., Vasques, J., Whiteman, E., Serpa, P., Saarman, E.,
Caldwell, M., Frimodig, A., Miller-Henson, M., Kirlin, J., Ota, B., Pope, E.,
Weber, M., Wiseman, K., 2013. Designing a network of marine protected areas
in California: achievements, costs, lessons learned, and challenges ahead. Ocean
& Coastal Management 74, 90e101.
Gopnik, M., Fieseler, C., Cantral, L., McClellan, K., Pendleton, L., Crowder, L., 2012.
Coming to the table: early stakeholder engagement in marine spatial planning.
Marine Policy 36 (5), 1139e1149.
Gray, B., 1989. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems.
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Halpern, B.S., Diamond, J., Gaines, S., Gelcich, S., Gleason, M., Jennings, S., Lester, S.,
Mace, A., McCook, L., McLeod, K., Napoli, N., Rawson, K., Rice, J., Rosenberg, A.,
Ruckelshaus, M., Saier, B., Sandifer, P., Sholtz, A., Zivian, A., 2012. Near-term
priorities for the science, policy and practice of coastal and marine spatial
planning (CMSP). Marine Policy 36 (1), 198e205.
Halvorsen, K.E., 2006. Critical next steps in research on public meetings and envi-
ronmental decision making. Human Ecology Review 13 (2), 150e160.
Harty, J.M., 2010. Marine Life Protection Act Initiative: South Coast Regional Stake-
holder Group Online Survey and Lessons Learned. http://environmentalpolicy.
ucdavis.edu/files/cepb/SCRSG%20Report%20FINAL.pdf (accessed 22.09.11).
Harty, J.M., John, D., 2006. Report on Lessons Learned from the Marine Life
Protection Act Initiative. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/agenda_090606d.
pdf (accessed 22.09.11).
Harty, J.M., John, D., 2008. Report on Lessons Learned from the Marine Life
Protection Act Initiative: North Central Coast Study Region. http://www.dfg.ca.
gov/mlpa/pdfs/agenda_110408a.pdf (accessed 22.09.11).
Irvin, R.A., Stansbury, J.S., 2004. Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth
the effort? Public Administration Review 64 (1), 55e65.
Kirlin, J., Caldwell, M., Gleason, M., Weber, M., Ugoretz, J., Fox, E., Miller-Henson, M.,
2013. California's Marine Life Protection Act Initiative: supporting imple-
mentation of legislation establishing a statewide network of marine protected
areas. Ocean & Coastal Management 74, 3e13.
Koontz, T.M., Thomas, C.W., 2006. What do we know and need to know about the
environmental outcomes of collaborative management? Public Administration
Review 66 (6), 111e121.
Leslie, H.M., 2005. A synthesis of marine conservation planning approaches.
Conservation Biology 19 (6), 1701e1713.
Long, F.J., Arnold, M.B., 1995. The Power of Environmental Partnerships. Harcourt
Brace & Company, Fort Worth, TX.
McCloskey, M., May 13, 1996. The skeptic: collaboration has its limits. High Country
News, 7.
McCreary, S., Poncelet, E., 2006. Marine Life Protection Act Initiative Central Coast Project
Facilitator’s Report. Prepared for John Kirlin, Executive Director, MLPA Initiative.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/agenda_090606f.pdf (accessed 25.10.11).
Marine Life Protection Act Initiative (MLPA Initiative), April 29, 2010. California
Marine Life Protection Act Initiative Regional Profile of the North Coast Study
Region (Alder Creek to the CaliforniaeOregon Border). http://www.dfg.ca.gov/
mlpa/ncprofile.asp (accessed 22.09.11).
Merrifield, M., McClintock, W., Burt, C., Fox, E., Serpa, P., Steinback, C., Gleason, M.,
2013. MarineMap: a web-based platform for collaborative marine protected
area planning. Ocean & Coastal Management 74, 67e76.
 E. Fox et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 74 (2013) 24e33
National Research Council (NRC), 2008. Public participation in environmental
assessment and decision making. Panel on public participation in environmental
assessment and decision making. In: Dietz, Thomas, Stern, Paul C. (Eds.),
Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change. Division of Behavioral
and Social Sciences and Education. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
O’Leary, R., 1995. Environmental mediation: what do we know and how do we
know it? In: Blackburn, J.W., Bruce, W.M. (Eds.), Mediating Environmental
Conflicts: Theory and Practice. Quorum Books, Westport, CT, pp. 17e35.
Osmond, M., Airame, S., Caldwell, M., Day, J., 2010. Lessons for marine conservation
planning: a comparison of three marine protected area planning processes.
Ocean & Coastal Management 53 (2), 41e51.
Pomeroy, R., Douvere, F., 2008. The engagement of stakeholders in the marine
spatial planning process. Marine Policy 32, 816e822.
Raab, J., 2006. Evaluation of the Central Coast Regional Stakeholder Group Process.
Raab Associates, Ltd., Boston, MA. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/agenda_
090606e.pdf (accessed 22.09.11).
Reed, M., 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a liter-
ature review. Biological Conservation 141, 2417e2431.
Rowe, G., Frewer, L.J., 2005. A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science,
Technology, & Human Values 30 (2), 251e290.
Saarman, E., Gleason, M., Ugoretz, J., Airame, S., Carr, M., Fox, E., Frimodig, A., Mason, T.,
Vasques, J., 2013. The role of science in supporting marine protected area network
planning and design in California. Ocean & Coastal Management 74, 45e56.
Sayce, K., Shuman, C., Connor, D., Reisewitz, A., Pope, E., Miller-Henson, M.,
Poncelet, E., Monie, D., Owens, B., 2013. Beyond traditional stakeholder
engagement: public participation roles in California's statewide marine pro-
tected area planning process. Ocean & Coastal Management 74, 57e66.
Schiff, K.C., Weisberg, S.B., Raco-Rands, V., 2002. Inventory of ocean monitoring in
the Southern California Bight. Environmental Management 26 (6), 871e876.
All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
33
Stern, A.J., Hicks, T., 2000. The Process of Business/Environmental Collaborations:
Partnering for Sustainability. Quorum Books, Westport, CT.
Suman, D., Shivlani, M., Milon, J., 1999. Perceptions and attitudes regarding
marine reserves: a comparison of stakeholder groups in the Florida
Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Ocean & Coastal Management 42,
1019e1040.
Tuler, S., Webler, T., 1999. Voices from the forest: what participants expect of
a public participation process. Society and Natural Resources 12, 437.
Tuler, S., Webler, T., 2010. How preferences for public participation are linked to
perceptions of the context, preferences for outcomes, and individual charac-
teristics. Environmental Management 46 (4), 254e267.
U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC), 2000. Strategy for Stewardship: Tortugas
Ecological Reserve Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Final
Supplemental Management Plan, 310 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration/National Ocean Service/Office of National Marine Sanctuaries,
Silver Spring, MD, USA. http://www.fknms.nos.noaa.gov/regs/FinalFSEIS.pdf
(accessed 22.09.11).
Webler, T., van Over, B., 2011. Participants’ Perceptions of Communication in the
North Coast MLPA Process. Project Report. Social and Environmental Research
Institute, Greenfield, MA. http://www.seri-us.org/pubs/MLPA1Report.pdf
(accessed 01.04.12), 24 pp.
Weible, C., Sabatier, P.A., Lubell, M., 2004. A comparison of a collaborative and top-
down approach to the use of science in policy: establishing marine protected
areas in California. The Policy Studies Journal 32 (2), 187e207.
White, A., Vogt, H., 2000. Philippine coral reefs under threat: lessons learned after
25 years of community-based reef conservation. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40,
537e550.
Wondolleck, J.M., Yaffee, S.L., 2000. Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from
Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Island Press, Washington, DC.