Ocean & Coastal Management 145 (2017) 72e81

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management

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

Review

An assessment of marine protected areas as a marine management

strategy in Southeast Asia: A literature review
Khairunnisa Ahmad Kamil*, Atakelty Hailu, Abbie Rogers, Ram Pandit
Agricultural and Resource Economics (ARE), UWA School of Agriculture and Environment, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Perth,
Western Australia 6009, Australia

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

Article history: The establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) is seen as a chosen strategy in managing marine
Received 22 September 2016 resources in Southeast Asia (SEA). The region has some of the most extensive coastline and diverse coral
Received in revised form reef ecosystems that remain highly threatened. The need to protect these areas is definite, but estab-
2 April 2017
lishment of a MPA often involves conflicts with its stakeholders that highly depend on the ecosystem.
Accepted 21 May 2017
This paper reviews 32 studies that evaluated the MPA strategy implemented in various SEA countries
since the 1980's to the present. The objective of this paper is to determine the effectiveness of the MPA
strategy within the context of SEA. Biological, socioeconomic and governance indicators provided by The
Keywords:
Marine protected areas
World Conservation Union (IUCN) were used in this paper as measures of MPA effectiveness. It was found
Marine parks that the MPA strategy may be ideally suited for some areas but may also be inappropriate for others. The
Southeast Asia three indicators are highly related to each other in determining a MPA success. An integrated study of
Marine management these three aspects is believed to provide greater knowledge for future implementation of MPAs.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
2. Background of previous evaluation studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3. IUCN guideline for MPA evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.1. Biophysical indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.2. Socioeconomic indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
3.3. Governance indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4. Recommendations and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Marine protected areas in SEA reviewed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

1. Introduction throughout the year and the formation of unique natural assets.
Woodruff (2010) explains that SEA's shallow warm water contrib-
Southeast Asia (SEA) countries are blessed with rich natural utes to 30% of the world's coral reefs being located in the region,
resources and biodiversity. This is mainly due to their geographic and the greatest diversity of reef-associated fauna in the world. The
and geological location which allows for a hot and humid climate SEA region has come to be known as the global centre of biodiver-
sity as far as coral reef fish, molluscs and crustaceans are concerned,
a nomination that is attributed to 100,000 km2 of coral reefs in the
* Corresponding author. region (Burke et al., 2012) (Fig. 1). This region also is home to the
E-mail addresses: 21173297@student.uwa.edu.au (K. Ahmad Kamil), atakelty.
most diverse mangrove forests and the second most diverse sea-
hailu@uwa.edu.au (A. Hailu), abbie.rogers@uwa.edu.au (A. Rogers), ram.pandit@
uwa.edu.au (R. Pandit).
grass beds in the world (Wilkinson et al., 2006). Marine waters

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.05.008
0964-5691/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 K. Ahmad Kamil et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 145 (2017) 72e81
surrounding the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia are within The
Coral Triangle Region which is home to 3000 coral reef fish; twice
the number of other world fishes all together (Burke et al., 2012).
The richness of the marine ecosystem in this region supports
millions of people. For instance, at least 350 million people live
within 50 km from the shoreline and depend on the coastal and
marine ecosystem not only for food but also for other economic and
cultural resources (Clifton et al., 2010). The value of fisheries around
the coral reefs of the region was estimated at $2.4 billion a year
(Burke et al., 2002). In addition, the potential tourism values of
these resources are substantial with some estimates showing that
the value of a square kilometre of healthy coral reef in the SEA
region is in the range of US$23,100 to US$270,000 a year (Burke
et al., 2002).
With these diverse functions and values, the marine ecosystems
of the region are consistently under pressure and a great degree of
threats (Burke et al., 2002). Wilkinson et al. (2006) observes that
50e80% of its mangrove forests are already destroyed, that its
seagrass beds have suffered similar losses, while 48% of coral reefs
in the region are under high to very high threat. The consequences
of these threats are not limited to biodiversity value losses but
extend to the health, safety and economy of the region (Wilkinson
et al., 2006).
Realising the potential loss from degraded marine ecosystems,
SEA nations are looking at various management strategies to
effectively manage their coastal resources. One of these strategies is
looking at conserving important habitat, and establishing these
areas as a Marine Protected Area (MPA) where activities conducted
in these areas are restricted. Most of these areas are closed from any
extractive activities through total closure or limited entry. The MPA
strategy is currently considered to be the best approach by many
governments, and SEA countries are seen to be keen to adopt the
strategy (Marine Protected Areas in Southeast Asia, 2002). These
countries have committed under the UN Convention on Biological
Diversity to the objective of expanding marine protected areas to
10% of the world oceans by the year 2020 (http://www.cbd.int/
Fig. 1. The map of Southeast Asia and the Coral Triangle region. Source: Maritime Institute of Malaysia (http://www.mima.gov.my/v2/mobile.php?m¼posts&c¼shw_
details&id¼317&slug¼latest-post).
73
2010-target/).
Although this strategy is believed to be an effective measure, in
the SEA region, only 14% of 332 marine parks are rated as effectively
managed (Burke et al., 2002). Therefore, it is crucial that this MPA
strategy is continuously evaluated, as suggested by the Manage-
ment Effectiveness Initiative (MEI) of The World Conservation
Union (IUCN), where evaluation studies of MPAs are identified as
important for improving the effectiveness of management efforts
and to optimize related human and financial resource allocation
outcomes (Pomeroy et al., 2005).
Few evaluation studies have already been conducted across the
SEA region to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the MPA
strategy. Some studies have looked at the impact of the strategy in
terms of biological aspects such as changes in number of fish or
coral cover (Najib and Ahmad, 2002; Russ et al., 2004). Some
studies have focused on governance aspects including management
frameworks and enforcement effectiveness (Alder et al., 1994; Mills
et al., 2010). Many more have focused on socioeconomic aspects,
particularly economic valuation (Mohd Salleh et al., 2011;
Seenprachawong, 2003). The significant attention given to the so-
cioeconomic aspects may be a reflection of the close relationship
between the marine ecosystem and its people. It may also imply the
interest of SEA countries in the economic benefits of the strategy.
This paper reviews 32 studies that evaluated more than 35 MPAs
across SEA to understand issues that relate to the success or failure
of the strategy (Appendix 1). Studies are reviewed systematically by
using the IUCN's guidelines for MPA evaluation which separate
indicators into three primary categories: biophysical, socioeco-
nomic, and governance (Pomeroy et al., 2007). Below, the evalua-
tion studies are reviewed with recommendations made for future
research.
2. Background of previous evaluation studies
All 32 studies that are discussed in this paper are available on-
line. The search was performed between October 2012 and April
74 K. Ahmad Kamil et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 145 (2017) 72e81
2015. Keywords including marine park, marine protected area,
conservation and Southeast Asia were used to find relevant studies.
A study was selected if it evaluated a MPA or MPAs in Southeast
Asia, or it discussed positive/negative impacts of MPAs in its
narration. Old and new studies are included to compare the nature
and focus of studies over a range of time.
Among the earliest of studies on the effectiveness of MPAs in
SEA is that of White (1986) where several protected and non-
protected areas in the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia are
compared. Besides this study, there were very few studies con-
ducted during the 1980s and 1990s period (Alder, 1996; White and
Palaganas, 1991) (Fig. 2). The literature expanded in the 21st cen-
tury, with a shift in focus from biological and governance to so-
cioeconomic aspects. This may be an indication of a change in the
emphasis among local authorities.
Further, it was found that most of the evaluation studies of MPAs
in SEA focused on the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia (Christie,
2005; Gina Elliott, 2001; Najib and Ahmad, 2002; Russ et al., 2004;
Yacob et al., 2007) (Fig. 3). This is likely due to the fact that these
countries have the highest number of MPAs and possess the biggest
coral reefs in the region. These countries were also experiencing
rapid economic growth in recent decades, which may have
strengthened the relationship between economic development and
degradation of marine ecosystems, and thus the need for better
management.
However, evaluation studies in the earlier years were generally
done separately. It hinders comparison between places, and mini-
mises the possibility to learn from each other's experiences. By the
end of the century, the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas
(WCPA) realised the need to have a guideline for the evaluation
studies of MPAs. In 2004, a guidebook was produced for the pur-
pose (Pomeroy et al., 2007).
3. IUCN guideline for MPA evaluation
The guideline for MPA evaluation came as a product from the
initiative between The IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas
under its marine biome programme (WCPA Marine) and the World
Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) to support MPAs, their managers and
constituents (Pomeroy et al., 2005, 2007).
The guideline has various objectives with a final aim to support
adaptive management of MPAs. It introduces evaluation indicators
from various aspects of management effectiveness: biophysical,
Fig. 2. Reviewed studies from the year 1986e2014.
socio-economic, and governance. A total of 42 indicators were
classified into the three aspects based on a thorough process of
research, expert review, field testing and revision (Pomeroy et al.,
2005). The availability of this guideline will help managers of
MPAs to learn from each other's experiences. However, managers
using the guideline have to bear in mind its limitation. It should be
regarded only as a complement to other methods for evaluating
MPA's effectiveness (Pomeroy et al., 2005). It is not written for
scientific research purposes and is framed in simplistic terms.
There is no evidence that this guideline has been applied to
MPAs in Southeast Asia in the scientific literature. However, it is
believed that MPA evaluation processes are continuously carried
out in the region. Our review includes evaluation studies found in
the scientific literature, whether or not they follow the IUCN's
guideline. The IUCN's guideline is used here to systematically
identify what is already done in SEA, learn from the experiences of
other marine protected areas, and finally identify what is needed in
future studies.
3.1. Biophysical indicators
Biophysical aspects should be among the most important in-
dicators used to determine the success or failure of an MPA strategy
because conserving the biophysical aspects of the ecosystem is the
primary objective and the basis for most other values around these
natural resources. However, the number of studies focusing on this
aspect is relatively few (Table 1). Collectively, studies on biophysical
aspects of MPAs in SEA cover most of the indicators in the IUCN's
guideline. Most of these studies look at the impact of protected area
in terms of ‘Focal species abundance’ (B1). No studies proceed into
the next step of assessment to determine the size and age of the
species (B2) to see future sustainability. There were also no studies
done on the more complex recruitment success (B5) and food web
integrity (B6) outcomes. In short, most of the indicators being
studied are direct ‘one-time’ benefit indicators that do not really
reflect future or dynamic outcomes. Another important point
shown in Table 1 is that most of the studies have findings marked
with positive signs, i.e. the MPA strategy is generally found to be
effective in terms of improving biophysical aspects of an ecosystem.
From the studies, MPAs were found to be effective in increasing
the number of fish within protected areas (Christie, 2004, 2005;
Russ et al., 2004). Perhaps the best success story is the one re-
ported by Russ et al. (2004), when the biomass of two families of
 K. Ahmad Kamil et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 145 (2017) 72e81
Fig. 3. Reviewed studies based on countries.
Table 1
Biophysical indicators studied in Southeast Asia.
Biophysical indicators
B1 Focal B2 Focal B3 Habitat
species species distribution
abundance population and
structure complexity
Christie, 2005 þ þ
Christie, 2004 ± þ
Garces et al., 2013 þ ±
Musa, 2003
Najib and Ahmad, 2002
Russ et al., 2004 þ þ
White, 1986 þ þ
White and Palaganas, 1991 e
þ: positive impact, ¡: negative impact, ±: some positive impact in one of the study sites and some negative impact at another site/some positive impact at some point of time
and some negative impact at another point of time/no changes.
reef fish had tripled in a well-protected no-take reserve of the Apo
Island in the Philippines. It was also evident that biomass of these
fish was higher nearer to the reserve. Catch per unit effort (CPUE)
also increased both inside and outside the study area. Results from
other studies such as those by Christie (2004, 2005) had also shown
improvements in the number of target fish within protected areas,
but without the evidence of spill-over effects to areas outside of the
MPAs. In another example, a study by Garces et al. (2013) generally
found a higher density of fish in three MPAs in the Philippines, but
lesser total biomass due to smaller sizes of fish. Therefore, the re-
turn on fishing effort of the area was found to be lower than the
baseline case since the measure looks at total fish biomass.
The research also shows that, besides changes in the density or
biomass of fishes, there were improvements in coral cover and
other ecosystem elements. For instance, Christie (2004) studied
areas including San Salvador Island, Twin Rocks, and Balicasag Is-
land in the Philippines, and the Bunaken National Park of Indonesia,
which had all shown an improved coral substrate over the years. It
is also reported in Christie (2005) that hard coral cover in both
MPAs studied was recovered. In another study, Garces et al. (2013)
suggests that changes in coral cover are varied between three MPAs
that were studied: generally no changes but with some reduction in
dead coral cover inside the MPA and an increase in live coral cover
outside the MPA. In a cross-sectional study of 13 MPAs in the
Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia, White (1986) conducted a
75
B4 Composition B5 Recruitment B6 Food B7 Type, level, B8 B9 Area B10 Area under
and structure of success within web and return on Water showing no or reduced
the community the community integrity fishing effort quality signs of human impact
recovery
þ þ þ ±
±
e
±
þ
þ
detailed evaluation study of coral substrate of the areas including
broken and dead coral, siltation, unusual algal growth, accumula-
tion of debris and other extraordinary conditions. The study found
that areas with the most destructed habitat are those that are not
remote, highly used and unprotected. The establishment of MPAs
could also contribute to other biological benefits. These include an
improvement in water quality as recorded in the study by Musa
(2003). The sensitive area of Pulau Sipadan, Malaysia rejuvenated
after the area was established as a Marine Park.
Although there are several biological successes recorded, there
have also been some differences in the how some of the research
has been conducted. For instance, the very encouraging assessment
of a MPA by Russ et al. (2004) was carried out 18 years after the MPA
was established while the study by Garces et al. (2013) evaluates
changes after four years. A study by White and Palaganas (1991)
also recorded a decline in total coral cover and number of chaeto-
dontid species within five years. As suggested by Najib and Ahmad
(2002), the marine park strategy will have positive or negative
impacts only after a certain period, thus a fair judgement should not
be made without considering an appropriate time frame. Besides
the temporal aspect, it is also important to consider an appropriate
spatial perspective. Looking back at the study by Musa (2003), it
was reported that although the MPA strategy managed to restore
the beauty of Pulau Sipadan, it had also caused negative ‘spill-over’
effects to nearby Pulau Mabul. When Pulau Sipadan was closed
76 K. Ahmad Kamil et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 145 (2017) 72e81
from any hotel developments, neighbouring Pulau Mabul received
a huge interest from tourists and tourism developers. In fact, boats
transporting tourists between Pulau Mabul and Pulau Sipadan are
believed to have contributed to more water pollution near Pulau
Mabul (Musa, 2003).
Another important lesson from previous studies is the rela-
tionship between biological successes and other factors. For
instance, the successes recorded in White (1986) linked the effec-
tiveness of protected areas with factors such as good education
programs for the local community, legal enforcement support from
local and national officials, and scientific and recreational interests
in the MPA. This is also evident in the study by Russ et al. (2004)
where the MPA strategy was well executed and the local commu-
nity benefited from the tourism making them less reliant on fishing
for livelihood. In studies that reported negative changes such as in
White and Palaganas (1991), it was found that the MPA strategy
was not effective because of enforcement problems towards the
illegal and destructive fishing activities of migrant fishermen.
Another study by Christie (2004) reported that the number and
diversity of marine species in Balicasag Island, Philippines reduced
when a community-based MPA was taken over by the central
government. The strategy had led to lower community support
when the government gave way to tourism development. It shows
that biological benefits of MPA can be jeopardized with changes or
issues in socioeconomic or governance aspects.
3.2. Socioeconomic indicators
Although biophysical implications should be the most impor-
tant aspect to be considered in evaluation studies, socioeconomic
factors are believed to be the primary determinant of an MPA's
success or failure (Leisher et al., 2012). Concurrently, many of the
socioeconomic indicators in the IUCN's guideline are aimed at
measuring how receptive locals are towards the implementation of
MPAs (Table 2).
Among the three types of indicators specified by the IUCN's
guideline, socioeconomic is the most studied aspect in SEA. Most of
the IUCN's socioeconomic indicators are covered in evaluation
studies of MPAs in the region. Many of these studies considered
more than one socioeconomic indicator because most of them can
be measured simultaneously. Most of the indicators look at per-
ceptions. Therefore, actual information can possibly be acquired
through interviews, and is relatively easier to implement than field
measurements. Nevertheless, some of the indicators studied are
descriptive in nature and do not compare the situation before and
after MPA's implementation, thus cannot be considered as a posi-
tive or negative change. Instead, most of the studies use subjective
evaluations. Looking across different studies, the MPA strategy was
found to have both positive and negative socioeconomic impacts.
On the positive side, the establishment of MPAs in Malaysia has
provided better employment options to the local community
generating higher income (Islam et al., 2013; Mohd Salleh et al.,
2011). Mohd Salleh et al. (2011) also reported that the establish-
ment of Pulau Redang Marine Park and Pulau Tioman Marine Park
of Malaysia had led to improvements in terms of community
infrastructure and business (S11). There was also a sign of
improvement in terms of human health (S8). This is an indirect
benefit of a MPA: the development of the area also advanced health
facilities (Mohd Salleh et al., 2011). The establishment of MPAs has
also increased the level of understanding or awareness of human
impacts on marine resources (S3) (Garces et al., 2013; Leisher et al.,
2012). The strategy led to gains in positive perceptions among lo-
cals in some of the MPAs studied. For instance, locals in the Mabini,
Batangas (Anilao) of the Philippines believe that fish populations
and coral reef conditions have improved since the area became an
MPA (Christie, 2005). They also believe that there is an increase in
the number of large predator species and threatened species,
including turtles and dolphins (Christie, 2005). In Indonesia, after
five years of implementation and about US$1.02 million in invest-
ment, education and outreach programs have managed to increase
positive attitudes and knowledge among the Raja Ampat MPA's
communities (S13, S14) (Leisher et al., 2012).
Beyond the physical and direct benefit of the MPA strategy, there
are many other benefits of the MPA strategy that are not directly
observed. Although the IUCN's guideline only intends to look at the
perception of non-market and non-use value, the actual economic
valuation studies have investigated a wider set of parameters. For
instance, it is estimated that ecotourism in Pulau Payar Marine Park,
Malaysia, is worth US$55.7 million (Department of Marine Park,
2011). A study on the Mu Ko Similan Marine National Park of
Thailand puts a value of between US$932,940 to US$2.1 million per
annum as an economic benefit from scuba diving activities (Adsafu-
Adjaye and Tapsuwan, 2008). Looking at entrance fees alone, po-
tential annual revenue to protect the ecosystem at three Philippines
islands (Anilao, Mactan Island, Alona Beach) is estimated at US$3.5-
US$1 million. Further, the value of tourism in Balinao, Philippines is
estimated at US$4.7 million per year (Ahmed et al., 2007).
Ecotourism operators in Pulau Redang Marine Park, Malaysia,
generate an estimated net benefit of US$3.3 million a year (Yacob
et al., 2007). There are many other studies that estimate the eco-
nomic value of MPAs to justify the socioeconomic benefits of the
strategy (Arabamiry et al., 2013; Arin and Kramer, 2002; Pham
et al., 2005; Seenprachawong, 2003; Shamsul, 2012; Subade,
2007; Svensson et al., 2008). Without doubt, the establishment of
a MPA generates economic benefits.
Although the establishment of MPAs has generated economic
benefits, it is suggested that a very small proportion of this benefit
has actually been contributed back to the local economy. For
instance, ecotourism in North Sulawesi, Indonesia did not
contribute back to the protection programs since there was no
entrance fee and revenues are actually gained by regional and
foreign tour companies (Ross and Wall, 1999). In addition, a study
using economic multiplier methods by Yacob et al. (2007) suggests
that tourism revenues in Pulau Redang Marine Park in Malaysia are
hardly contributing to the local economy as only a third of the
benefits remain in the country due to ‘leakage’ to international
airlines and tour operators, and an even smaller proportion of the
revenue remains in Pulau Redang. In addition, some studies have
reported about local community concerns regarding the increasing
price of goods and social problems due to the arrival of tourists to
the islands (Mohd Salleh et al., 2011).
Thus, benefits from MPAs may involve some serious trade-offs.
What is more disturbing is that these trade-offs often involve the
welfare of locals. For instance, locals might be forced into migration
because of reduced job opportunities, as was the case for the Pulau
Tinggi Marine Park of Malaysia (Manaf et al., 2011). In some cases,
governments have attempted to address these effects by providing
help, such as subsiding rents for those wanting to open up busi-
nesses (e.g. shops), but these alternative business or employment
opportunities might not work well if there are less visitors coming
to the area because of the MPA or if initial increases in tourism are
not sustained over time (Manaf et al., 2011). There have also been
concerns regarding the land ownership since landowners might be
forced to sell their land to continue living. Locals on the Andaman
Coast of Thailand are reported to have negative perceptions about
their National Marine Parks because of adverse effects on fishing
and harvesting communities, and the limited benefits to those
involved in tourism except for some elite groups (Bennett and
Dearden, 2014). At the same time, encroachment into protected
areas can become a problem when locals feel that they do not have
Table 2
Socioeconomic indicators studied in Southeast Asia.

Socioeconomic indicators

S1 Local S2 Local S3 Level of S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16
marine values understanding Perceptions Perceptions Perceptions Material Quality Household Household Community Number Stakeholder Distribution Percentage Changes in
resource and of human of seafood of local of non- style of of income occupational infrastructure and knowledge of formal of conditions
use beliefs impacts on availability resource market and life human distribution structure and business nature of natural knowledge stakeholder of ancestral
patterns about resources harvest non-use health by source of history to group in and
marine value markets community leadership historical
resources positions sites/
features/

K. Ahmad Kamil et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 145 (2017) 72e81
monuments

Arabamiry et al., þ
2013
Arin and Kramer, þ
2002
Adsafu-Adjaye þ
and Tapsuwan,
2008
Bennett and  
Dearden, 2014
Christie, 2005 þ ±
Christie, 2004 ±
Garces et al., 2013 ± þ  þ ✓ ✓
Gina Elliott, 2001  ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓  ✓
Islam et al., 2013 
Leisher et al., 2012 þ þ þ
Manaf et al., 2011  ✓ ✓ 
Mohd Salleh et al., þ þ þ
2011
Pham et al., 2005 þ
Ross and Wall,  þ ±   ±
1999
Seenprachawong, þ
2003
Shamsul, 2012 þ
Subade, 2007 þ
Svensson et al., þ
2008
White, 1986 ±
Yacob, 2009 þ
Yacob et al., 2007 ✓ þ þ
Yeo, 2004 þ

þ: positive impact, ¡: negative impact, ±: some positive impact at one of the study sites and some negative impact at another site/some positive impact at some point of time and some negative impact at another point of time/
no changes, ✓: indicator being studied has neither a positive nor negative impact.

77
78 K. Ahmad Kamil et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 145 (2017) 72e81

any other alternatives as happened in Bunaken National Park,

dissemination to
Indonesia (Ross and Wall, 1999).

G16 Degree of
information

stakeholder
compliance
The establishment of MPAs caused serious conflicts between

encourage
local communities and authorities in several areas. These dis-
agreements emerged as locals felt undermined with overly


✓
restrictive laws, by the lack of employment alternatives, and by

Enforcement
tourism operators who hijacked opportunities (Alder, 1996;

enforcement coverage
Christie, 2004; Gina Elliott, 2001). Gina Elliott (2001) reports of

G14 Clearly G15


✓
many locals' concerns about the management effectiveness of
Wakatobi National Park, Indonesia. Most of them believe that their

procedures
defined
traditional activities (fishing, coral gleaning, etc.) have insignificant
impact on the ecosystem, but attribute negative impacts to out-

þ
✓
siders who use destructive fishing methods. However, the

monitoring and
involvement in
enforcement of outside fishers and foreign fishing companies using

enforcement
surveillance,
G13 Level of
stakeholder
cyanide and other fishing methods is hard to control as it involves
safety issues (e.g. because of gun threats). These conflicts between


local communities and the authorities can affect the effectiveness
of a MPA. Lack of support from locals in Balicasag Island of the

&satisfaction in
Philippines had effects on biodiversity benefits. Wilkinson et al.

management
participation
G12 Level of
stakeholder

process &
(2006) concludes that MPAs produce fruitful results only when

activities
collaborative and community-based management strategies take


place.

participation
stakeholders
G11 Level of

provided to
The evidence discussed above confirms the importance of so-

training
cioeconomic effects to the success of MPAs. The evidence also
points to the importance of governance issues in the evaluation of

in

þ
MPAs effectiveness.
Proportion of
stakeholders

sustainable
trained in
3.3. Governance indicators
G10

use
G9 Degree of

There are several studies in SEA that look at governance in- stakeholders
interaction

managers
between

þ: positive impact, ¡: negative impact, ✓: indicator that is being studied but is neither a positive nor negative impact.
dicators to determine MPA's effectiveness (Table 3). However, some
and

of these studies tend to look at an MPA network and not at a case

✓
study or a few MPAs (Mills et al., 2010; Ticco, 1995). These studies
organization(s)
G8 Existence
and activity

community

may not be included in Appendix 1, but lessons from these studies

level of

are included in the text.

In general, the objective of governance studies is to identify

✓

✓
G7 Existence

research and

weaknesses in current management approaches and related bio-

of scientific
application

logical and socioeconomic impacts. Many of these studies are not

input

looking at positive or negative changes before and after the

and


✓

establishment of MPA thus are not marked with positive or nega-

G6 Availability

administrative
and allocation

tive signs in Table 3. For instance, no positive or negative signs can

resources

be assigned to any studies for indicator G1 (Level of resource con-

of MPA

flict) since the level of resource conflict are described in the studies


but there are no baseline studies to relate the conflict with the
legislation
adequacy
Existence

enabling

establishment of MPA. Other than that, governance indicators are

found to be both positive and negative for studied MPAs in SEA.
and
G5

of


✓

In these governance studies, it was found that most of the

and regulation
understanding
of MPA rules

studies are trying to evaluate the effectiveness of MPAs by looking

G4 Local

at the management approach of the area. In general, this can be

classified as centralized, community-based, and collaborative
þ

management. The management approach adopted in an area is

and adoption

management
Governance indicators studied in Southeast Asia.

G3 Existence

highly influenced by the socio-political circumstances, history, and

the current socio-economic context (Christie and White, 2007).
plan
of a

These approaches have been proven to produce different outcomes


þ

þ
✓

(Christie, 2004; Wilkinson et al., 2006). For instance, Christie and

management
G2 Existence
of a decision
making and

White (2007) compare and provide examples, weaknesses and

body

benefits of different approaches of MPA management. The study

þ


þ

þ
þ
✓

concludes that some approaches are suitable in some areas but are
G1 Level

resource
conflict

probably risky for other areas. For example, the establishment of

Governance Indicators

the National Integrated Protected Areas System (NIPAS) in the

of

✓
✓

Philippines has strengthened some protected areas, but eroded

Mills et al., 2010
White, 2007
Christie, 2004

Newman and

Palaganas,
Garces et al.,

White, 1986

management of well-known and successful community-based

Glaser et al.,
Christie and
Alder et al.,

LeDrew,

White and

MPAs such as those in Apo Island.

1994

2013

2010

2005

1991
Table 3

There has been a transition from a community-based to a more

centralized management of MPAs based on scientific grounds. Mills
 K. Ahmad Kamil et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 145 (2017) 72e81
et al. (2010) suggest that site-based community initiatives can be
easier to implement but neglect complementary and functionally
connected areas. A more centralized management is needed to
ensure functional connectivity of areas. Mills et al. (2010) also
suggest that through various previous studies, a single large reserve
is preferred to several small reserves based on ecological consid-
erations (e.g. larval dispersal). Christie and White (2007) also
recommend network MPAs to ensure genetic connectivity and
spill-over impact. Socially, it also encourages learning and coordi-
nated administration and planning. However, the transition from
community-based to a more centralized management has caused a
backlash by locals in a few MPAs in SEA. In one study, the biological
benefits in Balicasag Island, Philippines were believed to have been
threatened when former supporters of a once community-based
MPA resorted to poaching after the central government took over
the MPA and built a resort, sharing most of the revenues generated
with the new business owners (Christie, 2004).
It should be noted, however, that difficulties in the transition
period from community-based MPAs to a more centralized man-
agement does not mean that the former is always better. In a
community-based MPA in San Salvador, the Philippines, there have
been complaints that the advocates are unwilling in sharing re-
sponsibility and being too hard on enforcing the law (Christie,
2004). On the other hand, it is very important that the stake-
holders have a sense of ownership to continue their support in
management (Alder et al., 1994). There is also a conflict in Twin
Rocks, the Philippines, between resort owners and locals. Mis-
trusting locals who used to support community-based MPAs are
now angry when business owners, who are usually more affluent
and politically-connected to local officials are given the priority in
benefiting from the area (Christie, 2004).
Although there are several issues in community-based MPAs,
many SEA countries seem to prefer smaller reserves due to social
and economic constraints, including easier enforcement and a
more equitable distribution of costs and benefits between com-
munities (Mills et al., 2010). Therefore, there are also a few other
cases where the management change has been from centralized
management to a community-based approach (Glaser et al., 2010;
Newman and LeDrew, 2005). The management of Bunaken Na-
tional Park is changing due to political reform and the decentral-
ization process in Indonesia, as noted by Newman and LeDrew
(2005) who discuss the usefulness of integrating community
knowledge and scientific information for a better management of
the MPA.
Another study by Glaser et al. (2010) is looking at the manage-
ment of Spermonde Archipelago, Indonesia. The management of
this area is implemented under The Coral Reef Rehabilitation and
Management (COREMAP) program by the Ministry of Marine Af-
fairs and Fisheries, Indonesia. In its ‘decentralization and acceler-
ation phase’, the program aims to support active local participation
in the hierarchical society of Indonesia. From the study, it was
found that the participation of locals in decision making is very low
and they are restricted in accessing the resources. Locals were
consulted during the establishment of no-take areas but then it
only involves a few locals. The COREMAP programs support a lot of
other activities including providing loans for start-up business for
alternative livelihood, grants to build infrastructure and facilities,
conservation/mitigation measures, or capacity building. However,
many of these facilities were found to be misused. In addition, there
are issues of time and resource constraints to participatory imple-
mentation, and the law and rules are not widely known or enforced
on regular basis (Glaser et al., 2010).
Another issue that relates governance indicators to the perfor-
mance of MPAs is that of compensation. This issue arises when
those involved in commercial fishing and coastal development do
79
not compensate displaced local fishers (Alder et al., 1994). A study
by White and Palaganas (1991) reported issues in the grant of
fishing permits for outsiders in Tubbataha Reef National Marine
Park, Philippines. Although locals were allowed to fish without
permits, they complained that outsiders have easy access to per-
mits at cheap prices. Further, there was no limitation on the permit
and restrictions on illegal and destructive fishing methods were not
enforced.
In conclusion, whatever approach is taken in managing an MPA
– whether it is traditional, community-based or some other more
complex formal institutional framework – there are many short-
comings in the implementation. Glaser et al. (2010) suggests
embedding local knowledge in more formal management in order
to have a better MPA. Further, it is important to manage MPAs in an
ecologically meaningful scale without undermining stakeholder
commitment and the institutional capacity of the area (Christie and
White, 2007).
4. Recommendations and conclusion
Burke et al. (2002) reported that about 14% of MPAs in SEA were
rated as effectively managed, compared to only 10e12% worldwide.
However, MPAs in SEA are primarily concerned with the protection
of coral reef ecosystems which are reported to be the most severely
threatened, but only 17% of these are protected within MPAs (Burke
et al., 2011). By comparison, in Australia 75% of coral reefs are
protected within MPAs (Burke et al., 2011). This urges SEA countries
to not only cover larger areas with MPAs, but more importantly to
ensure the MPAs are effective.
The above review on the effectiveness of Marine Protected Area
strategy in Southeast Asia concludes that the strategy has both
positive and negative impacts. Biological, socioeconomic and
governance indicators are needed for a comprehensive evaluation.
The literature shows that the three indicators are related to each
other. Biological benefits depend strongly on how stakeholders
perceive the strategy, and their perceptions depend so much on
how the area is managed. Therefore, multidisciplinary research is
needed as each MPA always has complementary objectives that
relate to tourism, habitat protection and fisheries sustainability
(Garces et al., 2013). In reality, beside White (1986), Christie (2004,
2005) and Garces et al. (2013), all of the other studies reviewed here
are either looking at biophysical or socio-economic or governance
aspects independently.
The issue with studying the three aspects separately is the fact
that the impacts from any management strategy occur simulta-
neously for each aspect. For instance, the MPA strategy in a coral
ecosystem may limit fishing effort in the area thus protecting fish
stock. However, the MPA status also reflects the special value of the
area, which in turn attracts tourists. The increasing number of
tourists may later affect the corals, and concurrently fish stock that
depends on the corals. This complex feedback between environ-
mental and socioeconomic aspects needs to be understood using a
broader set of criteria. This review recommends an integrated study
to consider simultaneous impacts from the MPA strategy. Inte-
grated studies are yet to be implemented in evaluating the MPA
strategy in SEA. The integrated studies may contribute to the
establishment of a better MPA as it provides an illustration on how
the ecosystem works in reality.
From these various evaluation studies of MPAs, there are also
many important lessons that can be picked up. It is important for
SEA countries to continue to evaluate their MPAs and try to include
a more comprehensive set of biophysical, socioeconomic and
governance indicators into the study. It is also important for SEA
countries to compare studies from other parts of the world. Most
evaluation studies on SEA are qualitative studies with stakeholder
80 K. Ahmad Kamil et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 145 (2017) 72e81

surveys and interviews commonly applied (Christie, 2004; Gina
Elliott, 2001; Manaf et al., 2011). There are also several studies
that assessed secondary data from published documents to deter-
mine the effectiveness of the MPA strategy. Quantitative studies
such as underwater visual census and scuba surveys are less
common (Christie, 2004; Russ et al., 2004). Evaluation studies in
SEA also often focus on socioeconomic aspects which is not in
accordance to the worldwide setting where most of the papers are
focusing on the biological impacts of a marine park, especially at
improving fisheries (Apostolaki et al., 2002; Dayton et al., 2002)
and protecting the ecosystem (Kevin et al., 2008; Ticco, 1995).
While the focus on socio-economic aspects in SEA may reflect the
high dependence of local people on the marine ecosystem, it is
recommended that SEA countries start to consider other aspects
which are also important.
It is beneficial to have regional cooperation, and following the
guideline provided by the IUCN can contribute to a better under-
standing of MPA issues. Following the same guideline may en-
courages knowledge and experience sharing between SEA
countries. Finally, it is also important that this information is shared
with local stakeholders in a simple framework so that they un-
derstand the benefits of MPAs and are more receptive towards the
strategy.
Acknowledgement
This research was funded by Postgraduate Research Fund, Uni-
versity of Western Australia (PG10100053).
Appendix 1. Marine protected areas in SEA reviewed.

Author Marine protected areas Indicators

Biology Socio-economic Governance

Malaysia
Arabamiry et al., 2013 Pulau Perhentian Marine Park ✓
Islam et al., 2013 Pulau Perhentian Marine Park ✓
Manaf et al., 2011 Pulau Tinggi Marine Park ✓
Mohd Salleh et al., 2011 Pulau Redang Marine Park ✓
Pulau Tioman Marine Park ✓
Musa, 2003 Pulau Sipadan Marine Park ✓
Najib and Ahmad, 2002 Pulau Payar Marine Park ✓
Shamsul, 2012 Pulau Redang Marine Park ✓
Yacob, 2009 Pulau Payar Marine Park ✓
Pulau Redang Marine Park ✓
Yacob et al., 2007 Pulau Redang Marine Park ✓
Yeo, 2004 Pulau Payar Marine Park ✓
Thailand
Adsafu-Adjaye & Tapsuwan, 2008 Mu Ko Similan National Park ✓
Seenprachawong, 2003 Phi Phi National Marine Park ✓
Bennett and Dearden, 2014 Andaman Coast (17 National Marine Parks) ✓
Philippines
Arin and Kramer, 2002 Anilao, Batangas ✓
Mactan Island, Cebu ✓
Alona Beach, Bohol ✓
Christie, 2005 Mabini, Batangas ✓ ✓
Christie, 2004 San Salvador Island ✓ ✓ ✓
Twin Rocks ✓ ✓ ✓
Balicasag Island ✓ ✓ ✓
Christie and White, 2007 Philippines (3 MPAs)
Garces et al., 2013 Calamianes Island ✓ ✓
Russ et al., 2004 Apo Islands ✓
Subade, 2007 Tubbataha Reefs UNESCO Heritage Site ✓
White, 1986 Apo Island ✓ ✓
Sumilon Island ✓ ✓
Moalboal, Cebu ✓ ✓
Sombrero Island ✓ ✓
Apo Reefs ✓ ✓
Calauit Island ✓ ✓
White and Palaganas, 1991 Tubbataha Reef National Marine Park ✓
Indonesia
Alder et al., 1994 Kepulauan Seribu ✓
Bunaken-Manado Tua ✓
Taka Bone Rata National Parks ✓
Christie, 2005 Bunaken National Park ✓
Glaser et al., 2010 Spearmonde Archipelago ✓
Gina Elliott, 2001 Wakatobi National Park ✓
Leisher et al., 2012 Raja Ampat MPA ✓
Newman and LeDrew, 2005 Bunaken National Park ✓
Ross and Wall, 1999 North Sulawesi ✓
White, 1986 Bali Barat ✓ ✓
Vietnam
Pham et al., 2005 Hon Mun Marine Protected Area ✓
Svensson et al., 2008 Hotel Managed Marine Reserve, Whale Island Resort ✓
 K. Ahmad Kamil et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 145 (2017) 72e81 81

References Biodiversity Conservation, Department of Environment and Natural Resources,

Los Ban ~ os, Philippines, p. 142, 10 maps.
Mills, M., Pressey, R.L., Weeks, R., Foale, S., Ban, N.C., 2010. A mismatch of scales:
Adsafu-Adjaye, J., Tapsuwan, S., 2008. A contingent valuation study of scuba diving
challenges in planning for implementation of marine protected areas in the
benefits: case study in Mu Ko Similan Marine National Park, Thailand. Tour.
Coral Triangle. Conserv. Lett. 3 (5), 291e303.
Manag. 29 (6), 1122e1130.
Musa, G., 2003. An over-exploited scuba-diving paradise? An analysis of tourism
Ahmed, M., Umali, G.M., Chong, C.K., Rull, M.F., Garcia, M.C., 2007. Valuing recrea-
impact, diver satisfaction, and management priorities. In: Garrod, B., Wilson, J.C.
tional and conservation benefits of coral reefsdthe case of Bolinao, Philippines.
(Eds.), Marine ecotourism: Issues and Management Priorities. Cromwell Press,
Ocean Coast. Manag. 50 (1e2), 103e118.
Great Britain.
Alder, J., 1996. Have tropical marine protected areas Worked? An initial analysis of
Najib, R., Ahmad, A., 2002. Experiences, Issues & Challenges in the Management of
their success. Coast. Manag. 24 (2), 97e114.
Marine Parks in Malaysia. Paper Presented at the National Workshop on Pro-
Alder, J., Sloan, N.A., Uktolseya, H., 1994. A comparison of management planning
tected Areas Management. Direction for The Future, Kuala Lumpur.
and implementation in three Indonesian marine protected areas. Ocean Coast.
Newman, C.M., LeDrew, E., 2005. Towards community- and scientific-based infor-
Manag. 24 (3), 179e198.
mation integration in marine resource management in Indonesia: Bunaken
Apostolaki, P., Milner-Gulland, E. J., McAllister, M. K., & Kirkwood, G. P. (2002).
National Park case study. Environ. J. 33 (1), 5e24.
Modelling the effects of establishing a marine reserve for mobile fish species.
Pham, K.N., Tran, V.H.S., Cesar, H., 2005. Economic valuation of the Hon mun marine
(59), 405e415. Retrieved from http://cjfas.nrc.ca.
protected area: lessons for other marine parks in Vietnam. In: PREM Working
Arabamiry, S., Rahim, K.A., Radam, A., Khademfar, M., 2013. Choice modelling stated
paper.
preference valuation technique in perhentian island marine park environ-
Pomeroy, R.S., Watson, L.M., Parks, J.E., Cid, G.A., 2005. How is your MPA doing? A
mental goods. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 4 (6), 179e188.
methodology for evaluating the management effectiveness of marine protected
Arin, T., Kramer, R.A., 2002. Divers' willingness to pay to visit marine sanctuaries: an
areas. Ocean Coast. Manag. 48 (7e8), 485e502.
exploratory study. Ocean Coast. Manag. 45 (2e3), 171e183.
Pomeroy, R.S., Parks, J.E., Watson, L.M., 2007. How Is Your MPA Doing? a Guidebook
Bennett, N.J., Dearden, P., 2014. Why local people do not support conservation:
of Natural and Social Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected Area Man-
community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, gover-
agement Effectiveness. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
nance and management in Thailand. Mar. Policy 0.
Ross, S., Wall, G., 1999. Evaluating ecotourism: the case of North Sulawesi,
Burke, L., Selig, E., Spalding, M., 2002. Reefs at Risk in Southeast Asia (Pp. 72). World
Indonesia. Tour. Manag. 20 (6), 673e682.
Resources Institute, United States of America.
Russ, G.R., Alcala, A.C., Maypa, A.P., Calumpong, H.P., White, A.T., 2004. Marine
Burke, L., Reyta, K., Spalding, M., Perry, A., 2011. Reefs at Risk Revisited (pp.114).
reserve benefits local fisheries. Ecol. Appl. 14 (2), 597e606.
World Resources Institute, United States of America.
10e12 July 2011 Mohd Salleh, N.H., Othman, R., Sarmidi, T., Darawi, Z., 2011.
Burke, L., Reyta, K., Spalding, M., Perry, A., 2012. Reefs at Risk Revisited in the Coral
A comparison of local community sustainability of livelihood: a case study in
Triangle (pp.72). World Resources Institute, United States of America.
Redang and Tioman Islands, Malaysia. In: Paper Presented at the Business
Christie, P., 2004. Marine protected areas as biological successes and social failures
Innovation and Technology Management (APBITM), 2011 IEEE International
in Southeast Asia. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 42, 155e164.
Summer Conference of Asia Pacific.
Christie, P., 2005. Observed and perceived environmental impacts of marine pro-
Seenprachawong, U., 2003. Economic valuation of coral reefs at phi phi islands,
tected areas in two Southeast Asia sites. Ocean Coast. Manag. 48 (3e6),
Thailand. Int. J. Glob. Environ. Issues 3 (1), 104e114.
252e270.
Shamsul, B.R., 2012. The Use of Choice Modelling in Assessing Tourists Destinations:
Christie, P., White, A.T., 2007. Best practices for improved governance of coral reef
a Case Study of Redang Marine Park (RMP) Malaysia. PhD. Newcastle University,
marine protected areas. Coral Reefs 26 (4), 1047e1056.
UK. Retrieved from. http://hdl.handle.net/10443/1770.
Clifton, J., Unsworth, R.K.F., Smith, D.J., 2010. Marine Research and Conservation in
Subade, R.F., 2007. Mechanisms to capture economic values of marine biodiversity:
the Coral Triangle: the Wakatobi National Park. Nova Science Publishers, Inc,
the case of Tubbataha Reefs UNESCO World Heritage Site, Philippines. Mar.
New York.
Policy 31 (2), 135e142.
Dayton, P.K., Sala, E., Tegner, M.K., Thrush, S., 2002. Marine reserves: parks, base-
Svensson, P., Rodwell, L.D., Attrill, M.J., 2008. Hotel managed marine reserves: a
lines, and fishery enhancement. Bull. Mar. Sci. 66 (3), 617e634.
willingness to pay survey. Ocean Coast. Manag. 51 (12), 854e861.
Department of Marine Park, 2011. Investigating the total economic value of eco-
Ticco, P.C., 1995. The use of marine protected areas to preserve and enhance marine
tourism in Pulau payar marine park. Retrieved from. http://www.dmpm.nre.
biological diversity: a case study approach. Coast. Manag. 23 (4), 309e314.
gov.my/files/Final%20Report.pdf.
White, A.T., 1986. Marine reserves: how effective as management strategies for
Garces, L.R., Pido, M.D., Tupper, M.H., Silvestre, G.T., 2013. Evaluating the manage-
Philippine, Indonesian and Malaysian coral reef environments? Ocean. Manag.
ment effectiveness of three marine protected areas in the Calamianes Islands,
10 (2), 137e159.
Palawan Province, Philippines: process, selected results and their implications
White, A.T., Palaganas, V.P., 1991. Philippine Tubbataha reef national marine park:
for planning and management. Ocean Coast. Manag. 81 (0), 49e57.
status, management issues, and proposed plan. Environ. Conserv. 18 (02),
Gina Elliott, B.M.B.W.I.A.M.S.W., 2001. Community participation in marine pro-
148e157.
tected area management: Wakatobi national park, Sulawesi, Indonesia. Coast.
Wilkinson, C., Caillaud, A., DeVantier, L., South, R., 2006. Strategies to reverse the
Manag. 29 (4), 295e316.
decline in valuable and diverse coral reefs, mangroves and fisheries: the bottom
Glaser, M., Baitoningsih, W., Ferse, S.C.A., Neil, M., Deswandi, R., 2010. Whose sus-
of the J-Curve in Southeast Asia? Ocean Coast. Manag. 49 (9e10), 764e778.
tainability? Topedown participation and emergent rules in marine protected
Woodruff, D.S., 2010. Biogeography and conservation in Southeast Asia: how 2.7
area management in Indonesia. Mar. Policy 34 (6), 1215e1225.
million years repeated environmental fluctuation affect today's pattern and
Islam, G.M.N., Noh, K.M., Yew, T.S., Noh, A.F.M., 2013. Assessing environmental
future of the remaining refugial-phase biodiversity. Biodiver. Conserv. 19 (0),
damage to marine protected area: a case of Perhentian Marine Park in Malaysia.
919e941.
J. Agric. Sci. 5 (8), 132e141.
Yacob, M.R., Shuib, A., Mamat, M.F., Radam, A., 2007. Local economics benefits of
Kevin, J.G., Sarah, F.J., Cantu-Salazar, L., Cruz-Pinon, G., 2008. The ecological per-
ecotourism development in Malaysia: the case of Redang island marine park.
formance of protected areas. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 39, 93e113.
Int. J. Econ. Manag. 1 (3), 365e386.
Leisher, C., Mangubhai, S., Hess, S., Widodo, H., Soekirman, T., Tjoe, S., …,
Yacob, M.R., 2009. A contingent valuation study of marine parks ecotourism: The
Sanjayan, M., 2012. Measuring the benefits and costs of community education
case of Pulau Payar and Pulau Redang in Malaysia. J. of Sustain. Dev. 2 (2),
and outreach in marine protected areas. Mar. Policy 36 (5), 1005e1011.
95e105.
Manaf, A.A., Samsuddin, M., Omar, M., 2011. Marine park gazettement impacts on
Yeo, B.H., 2004. The Recreational Benefits of Coral Reefs: A Case Study of Pulau Payar
Pulau Tinggi community in mersing, Johor. J. Trop. Mar. Ecosyst. 1, 35e43.
Marine Park. ICLARM.
Marine Protected Areas in Southeast Asia, 2002. UP-MSI, ABC, ARCBC, DENR,
ASEAN. Marine Protected Areas in Southeast Asia. ASEAN Regional Centre for