Knowledge, Attitudes And Perceptions Of Management .

3y ago
6.57 MB
183 Pages
Last View : 1m ago
Last Download : 4m ago
Upload by : Aydin Oneil

Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS-08-06Knowledge, Attitudes and Perceptions ofManagement Strategies and Regulations of theFlorida Keys National Marine Sanctuary byCommercial Fishers, Dive Operators, andEnvironmental Group Members: A BaselineCharacterization and 10-year ComparisonU.S. Department of CommerceNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNational Ocean ServiceOffice of Ocean and Coastal Resource ManagementOffice of National Marine SanctuariesSeptember 2008

About the Marine Sanctuaries Conservation SeriesThe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Ocean Service (NOS)administers the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS). Its mission is to identify,designate, protect and manage the ecological, recreational, research, educational,historical, and aesthetic resources and qualities of nationally significant coastal andmarine areas. The existing marine sanctuaries differ widely in their natural andhistorical resources and include nearshore and open ocean areas ranging in size fromless than one to over 5,000 square miles. Protected habitats include rocky coasts, kelpforests, coral reefs, sea grass beds, estuarine habitats, hard and soft bottom habitats,segments of whale migration routes, and shipwrecks.Because of considerable differences in settings, resources, and threats, each marinesanctuary has a tailored management plan. Conservation, education, research,monitoring and enforcement programs vary accordingly. The integration of theseprograms is fundamental to marine protected area management. The MarineSanctuaries Conservation Series reflects and supports this integration by providing aforum for publication and discussion of the complex issues currently facing the sanctuarysystem. Topics of published reports vary substantially and may include descriptions ofeducational programs, discussions on resource management issues, and results ofscientific research and monitoring projects. The series facilitates integration of naturalsciences, socioeconomic and cultural sciences, education, and policy development toaccomplish the diverse needs of NOAA’s resource protection mandate.

Knowledge, Attitudes and Perceptions of ManagementStrategies and Regulations of the Florida Keys NationalMarine Sanctuary by Commercial Fishers, Dive Operators,and Environmental Group Members: A BaselineCharacterization and 10-year ComparisonManoj Shivlani1Vernon R. Leeworthy2Thomas J. Murray1Daniel O. Suman3Flavia Tonioli31. Thomas J. Murray & Associates, Inc.2. NOAA, National Ocean Service, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries3. University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric ScienceU.S. Department of CommerceCarlos M. Gutierrez, SecretaryNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationVADM Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr. (USN-ret.)Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and AtmosphereNational Ocean ServiceJohn H. Dunnigan, Assistant AdministratorSilver Spring, MarylandSeptember 2008Office of National Marine SanctuariesDaniel J. Basta, Director

DISCLAIMERReport content does not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Office ofNational Marine Sanctuaries or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement orrecommendation for use.REPORT AVAILABILITYElectronic copies of this report may be downloaded from the Office of National MarineSanctuaries web site at Hard copies may be availablefrom the following address:National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationOffice of National Marine SanctuariesSSMC4, N/ORM621305 East-West HighwaySilver Spring, MD 20910COVERPaige Gill. Commercial lobster vessel and dive boat.Reef Relief. Reef Relief visitor booth.SUGGESTED CITATIONShivlani, M., Leeworthy V.R., Murray, T.J., Suman, D.O., and F. Tonioli. 2008.Knowledge, Attitudes and Perceptions of Management Strategies and Regulations of theFlorida Keys National Marine Sanctuaries by Commercial Fishers, Dive Operators, andEnvironmental Group Members: A Baseline Characterization and 10-year Comparison.Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS-08-06. U.S. Department of Commerce,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of National MarineSanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. 170 pp.CONTACTDr. Vernon R. (Bob) LeeworthyChief EconomistOffice of National Marine Sanctuaries1305 East West Highway, SSMC4, 11th floorSilver Spring, MD 20910Telephone: (301) 713-7261Fax: (301) 713-0404E-mail:

ABSTRACTThis research is part of the Socioeconomic Research & Monitoring Program for theFlorida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS), which was initiated in 1998. In1995-96, a baseline study on the knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of proposedFKNMS management strategies and regulations of commercial fishers, dive operatorsand on selected environmental group members was conducted by researchers at theUniversity of Florida and the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School of Atmosphericand Marine Science (RSMAS). The baseline study was funded by the U.S. Man and theBiosphere Program, and components of the study were published by Florida Sea Grantand in several peer reviewed journals. The study was accepted into the SocioeconomicResearch & Monitoring Program at a workshop to design the program in 1998, andworkshop participants recommended that the study be replicated every ten years. The 10year replication was conducted in 2004-05 (commercial fishers) 2006 (dive operators)and 2007 (environmental group members) by the same researchers at RSMAS, while theUniversity of Florida researchers were replaced by Thomas J. Murray & Associates, Inc.,which conducted the commercial fishing panels in the FKNMS. The 10-year replicationstudy was funded by NOAA’s Coral Reef Conservation Program.The study not only makes 10-year comparisons in the knowledge, attitudes andperceptions of FKNMS management strategies and regulations, but it also establishesnew baselines for future monitoring efforts. Things change, and following the principlesof “adaptive management”, management has responded with changes in the managementplan strategies and regulations. Some of the management strategies and regulations thatwere being proposed at the time of the baseline 1995-96 study were changed before themanagement plan and regulations went into effect in July 1997. This was especially truefor the main focus of the study which was the various types of marine zones in the draftand final zoning action plan. Some of the zones proposed were changed significantly andsubsequently new zones have been created.This study includes 10-year comparisons of socioeconomic/demographic profiles of eachuser group; sources and usefulness of information; knowledge of purposes of FKNMSzones; perceived beneficiaries of the FKNMS zones; views on FKNMS processes todevelop management strategies and regulations; views on FKNMS zone outcomes; viewson FKNMS performance; and general support for FKNMS. In addition to new baselineinformation on FKNMS zones, new baseline information was developed for spatial use,investment and costs-and-earnings for commercial fishers and dive operators, and viewson resource conditions for all three user groups. Statistical tests were done to detectsignificant changes in both the distribution of responses to questions and changes in meanscores for items replicated over the 10-year period.i

Key findings: Over the 10-year period, there was the hypothesized convergence in stakeholderattitudes, perceptions and beliefs about FKNMS outcomes and support for theFKNMS.There exists greater support for FKNMS across a variety of aspects among thecommercial fishing community, with a shift from a highly negative position tomajority/plurality support or neutral position (approximately equal percentages ofsupport and non-support).There is a need for greater outreach and education efforts to members of localenvironmental groups.There has been increased use of the FKNMS zones by dive operators, especiallythe Sanctuary Preservation Areas.Either a majority or plurality of each of the three user groups support the FKNMSzones as currently established, except commercial fishers for the EcologicalReserves (ERs). There has been a significant shift by commercial fishers over the10-year period towards support for the FKNMS zones; however, a plurality stilldoes not support the ERs.A majority or plurality of dive operators and environmental group memberssupport more FKNMS zones of all types. An overwhelming majority ofcommercial fishers is against any more FKNMS zones of any type.Either a majority or plurality of all three user groups believes that the FloridaKeys has benefited both the environment and economy of the Florida Keys.A majority of dive operators believes that the Sanctuary Preservation Areas(SPAs) have reduced conflicts between user groups. This was a significantchange from expectations in the baseline.None of the user groups believe that the FKNMS zones have been effective inrestoring coral reefs in the Florida Keys to what they use to be, but the usergroups understand that the conditions of the coral reefs are driven by many factorsoutside the control of the FKNMS.Across all three user groups, only two of eight items assessed were rated ashaving improved in condition since the establishment of the FKNMS (“Mooringbuoys” and “Vessel groundings”). The avoidance of vessel groundings was oneof the main impetuses of creating the FKNMS.There was no resource condition rated as having gotten worse by any of the threeuser groups since establishment of the FKNMS. Most items received scores inthe neutral or no change status.KEY WORDSSocioeconomic monitoring, knowledge, attitudes, perceptions, management strategies,regulations, commercial fishers, dive operators, environmental group members, marinezones, spatial useii

Table of Contents123Introduction . 1Stakeholder groups in the FKNMS . 4Methodology. 53.1 Commercial fisher survey methodology . 73.2 Dive operator survey methodology . 83.3 Environmental group survey methodology . 104 Results . 114.1 Commercial fisher survey results . 114.1.1 Commercial fisher survey general information . 114.1.2. Commercial fisher survey economic information . 144.1.3. Commercial fisher survey fishery information . 174.1.4. Commercial fisher survey attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs . 504.1.5. Commercial fisher survey views on enforcement . 634.1.6. Commercial fisher survey discussion. 644.2 Dive operations survey results . 674.2.1 Dive operations survey general information . 684.2.2 Dive operations survey economic information . 694.2.3 Dive operator survey trip information . 724.2.5 Dive operator survey discussion . 1044.3 Environmental group survey results . 1074.3.1 Environmental group survey general information . 1074.3.2 Environmental group survey attitudes, perceptions, and beliefs . 1114.3.3 Environmental group survey discussion . 1245 References . 1276 Appendices . 1306.1 Appendix 1: Commercial fisher survey instrument . 1316.2 Appendix 2: Dive operator survey instrument . 1436.3 Appendix 3: Environmental group member survey instrument . 1536.4 Appendix 4: Environmental group member survey plan . 1596.5 Appendix 5: Comparison of Last Stand and Reef Relief members’ views on theFKNMS process and outcomes . 167iii

List of TablesTable 1: Commercial fisher population and sample . 8Table 2: Commercial fisher response rates . 8Table 3: Dive operation population and sample . 9Table 4: Commercial fisher socio-demographic information . 14Table 5: Commercial fisher vessel and gear costs . 15Table 6: Commercial fisher operating costs . 16Table 7: Commercial fisher 2004-05/2005 effort (trips) . 18Table 8: Commercial fisher 2004-05/2005 landings . 19Table 9: Commercial fisher 2004-05/2005 average trip costs . 20Table 10: Commercial fisher 2004-05/2005 season landings by area . 23Table 11: Commercial fisher 2004-05/2005 season landings by area - Upper Keys. 24Table 12: Commercial fisher 2004-05/2005 season landings by area - Middle Keys . 24Table 13: Commercial fisher 2004-05/2005 season landings by area - Lower Keys . 25Table 14: Percentage of commercial fishers fishing around FKNMS zones – based ontotal sample . 48Table 15: Percentage of commercial fishers fishing around FKNMS zones – based onparticipants in each fishery . 49Table 16: Commercial fisher FKNMS sources of information . 51Table 17: Commercial fisher views on the FKNMS process . 53Table 18: Commercial fishers' views on FKNMS zone purpose and beneficiaries. 55Table 19: Commercial fisher views on the outcomes of FKNMS zones . 58Table 20: Commercial fisher views on FKNMS performance . 62Table 21: Commercial fisher views on resource conditions in the FKNMS . 63Table 22: Commercial fisher views on fishery violations and enforcement . 64Table 23: Dive operator demographic information . 68Table 24: Dive operator vessel costs and characteristics and employee information. 70Table 25: Dive operator annual operating costs in 2005 . 71Table 26: FKNMS dive survey trip costs . 72Table 27: FKNMS dive survey total trips, average trips, and average divers per trip. 73Table 28: FKNMS dive operations FKNMS zone trips and divers in 2005 . 74Table 29: Dive operator survey sources of information . 90Table 30: Dive operator survey perceptions on FKNMS processes . 92Table 31: Dive operators’ views on FKNMS zone purpose and beneficiaries . 94Table 32: Dive operator views on FKNMS zone outcomes . 96Table 33: Dive operator views on the effects of the FKNMS . 100Table 34: Dive operators’ views on FKNMS resource conditions . 103Table 35: Dive operators' views on resource conditions inside FKNMS zones . 104Table 36: Environmental group survey distribution by region . 108Table 37: Environmental group survey member affiliation. 109Table 38: Environmental group survey member activities . 110Table 39: Environmental group survey sources of information . 111Table 40: Environmental group survey information source usefulness. 112Table 41: Environmental group survey perceptions on FKNMS processes . 114iv

Table 42: Environmental group member views on FKNMS zone purpose andbeneficiaries . 116Table 43: Environmental group member views on FKNMS zone outcomes . 118Table 44: Environmental group member views on the effects of the FKNMS . 121Table 45: Environmental group members' views on FKNMS resource conditions . 123v

List of FiguresFigure 1: Draft Management Plan FKNMS zones . 2Figure 2: Final Management Plan FKNMS zones . 3Figure 3: Study area and regions . 7Figure 4: FKNMS fishing areas . 22Figure 5: Commercial fisher spiny lobster landings . 26Figure 6: Commercial fisher spiny lobster landings - Upper Keys . 27Figure 7: Commercial fisher lobster landings - Middle Keys. 28Figure 8: Commercial fisher spiny lobster landings - Lower Keys . 29Figure 9: Commercial fisher stone crab landings . 31Figure 10: Commercial fisher stone crab landings - Upper Keys . 32Figure 11: Commercial fisher stone crab landings - Middle Keys . 33Figure 12: Commercial fisher stone crab landings - Lower Keys . 34Figure 13: Commercial fisher reef fish landings . 36Figure 14: Commercial fisher reef fish landings - Upper Keys . 37Figure 15: Commercial fisher reef fish landings - Middle Keys . 38Figure 16: Commercial fisher reef fish landings - Lower Keys . 39Figure 17: Commercial fisher pelagics landings . 41Figure 18: Commercial fisher pelagics landings - Upper Keys . 42Figure 19: Commercial fisher pelagics landings - Middle Keys . 43Figure 20: Commercial fisher pelagics landings - Lower Keys .

Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series ONMS-08-06. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, Silver Spring, MD. 170 pp. CONTACT Dr. Vernon R. (Bob) Leeworthy Chief Economist Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 1305 East West Highway, SSMC4, 11th floor

Related Documents:

3 European attitudes Public attitudes to biomass cofiring 7 The attitudes of Europeans to climate change and mitigation technologies have been reviewed by Fernando (2006) with data mainly from Eurobarometer reports. The attitudes of citizens of all the countries in the EU on a variety of subjects are regularly published in these reports. The .

A Qualitative Study of Retired Olympic Athletes Michelle Pannor Silver Self-perceptions about aging have implications for health and well-being; however, less is known about how these perceptions influence adaptation to major life transitions.The goal of this study was to examine how high-performance athletes' perceptions

IV. RESULTS The results of the study are presented in two parts: teachers' perceptions and students' perceptions on the use of Quipper School as online platform for extended EFL learning. A. Teachers' Perceptions on the Use of Quipper School The teachers were asked to inform how they perceive about some aspects regarding the implementation of Quipper

range of robot off-task actions. In contrast to past work on inter-actions with robot curiosity, which have been unconcerned with human perceptions, the current study gauges human perceptions of a robot running a program modeled on curiosity and examines how an autonomous robot's behaviors influence those perceptions. 2 RELATED WORK

PERCEPTIONS OF THE NIKE SPORTS BRAND By Delwyn Harlon Pillay Reg No: 210515889 A dissertation submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of . brand recall and brand recognition 117 Table 6.6 Chi-Square: Consumers perceptions of sports brands 118 Table 6.7 Chi- Square: Celebrity endorsements on consumers' perceptions of .

Despite these varied attitudes toward aspects such as effectiveness in development and success, Petoskey and Ramakrishna (2002) posit that the employee’s perceptions of an organisation’s development effectiveness is significantly impacted by its organisational relationships, decision-making processes, and the leadership style it has adopted. To pinpoint and explain these perceptions, this .

The European Perceptions of Climate Change project (EPCC) provides insights into public attitudes towards climate change and energy transitions across France, Germany, Norway and the United Kingdom. In an initial report, the project detailed the socio-political context1 relevant to understanding perceptions of climate change in each of these .

IYCF Infant and Young Child Feeding IYCN Infant and Young Child Nutrition KABP Knowledge, Attitudes, Beliefs and Practices KAP Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices KDHS Kenya Demographic Health Surveys KIIs Informed Key Interviews MAD Minimum Acceptable Diet MDD Minimum Dietary Diversity