IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/marpol/v46y2014icp61-67.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

One hundred-fold difference between perceived and actual levels of marine protection in New Zealand

Author

Listed:
  • Eddy, Tyler D.

Abstract

Anthropogenic threats to the global marine environment are increasing, and the Convention of Biological Diversity has set a target of 10% global ocean protection by 2020. Social factors are an important component of coastal marine protected area and no-take marine reserve creation. In order to understand social factors influencing marine reserve creation in New Zealand, public surveys were conducted in 2005 and 2011 about marine protection and threats to the marine environment (Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone). These results are compared to an experts' opinion survey of threats to the New Zealand marine environment, and actual marine protection levels. Generally, the New Zealand public identified similar New Zealand originated threats to the marine environment as those identified by experts, in contrast to expert identified global threats originating from climate change, which were minimally identified by the public. Experts identified that shallow, coastal waters were under greater threat than deep water habitats. On average, the New Zealand public thought that ~30% of New Zealand’s marine environment was protected by no-take marine reserves, and that 36% should be protected, while in fact only 0.3% is protected by no-take marine reserves. There is considerable potential for publicly driven marine protection initiatives in New Zealand with sufficient awareness, education, and outreach programs to better inform New Zealanders about actual marine protection levels. The results of this study are globally important, as similar knowledge gaps about marine environmental issues have been identified in the United States and the United Kingdom.

Suggested Citation

  • Eddy, Tyler D., 2014. "One hundred-fold difference between perceived and actual levels of marine protection in New Zealand," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 61-67.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:46:y:2014:i:c:p:61-67
    DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.01.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X14000062
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.01.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Banks, Simon A. & Skilleter, Greg A., 2010. "Implementing marine reserve networks: A comparison of approaches in New South Wales (Australia) and New Zealand," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 197-207, March.
    2. Eddy, Tyler D. & Pitcher, Tony J. & MacDiarmid, Alison B. & Byfield, Tamsen T. & Tam, Jamie C. & Jones, Timothy T. & Bell, James J. & Gardner, Jonathan P.A., 2014. "Lobsters as keystone: Only in unfished ecosystems?," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 275(C), pages 48-72.
    3. Fletcher, Stephen & Potts, Jonathan S. & Heeps, Carolyn & Pike, Kate, 2009. "Public awareness of marine environmental issues in the UK," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 370-375, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Basurko, Oihane C. & Gabiña, Gorka & Andrés, Marga & Rubio, Anna & Uriarte, Ainhize & Krug, Iñigo, 2015. "Fishing for floating marine litter in SE Bay of Biscay: Review and feasibility study," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 103-112.
    2. Rabia Yahia Meddah & Tarik Ghodbani & Rachida Senouci & Walid Rabehi & Lia Duarte & Ana Cláudia Teodoro, 2023. "Estimation of the Coastal Vulnerability Index Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making: The Coastal Social–Ecological System of Rachgoun, Western Algeria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-28, August.
    3. Guest, Haley & Lotze, Heike K. & Wallace, Douglas, 2015. "Youth and the sea: Ocean literacy in Nova Scotia, Canada," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 98-107.
    4. Eleiton, Nalumu Elizabeth & Corless, Rebecca. & Hynes, Stephen, 2015. "Public Perceptions of Marine Environmental Issues: A Review," Working Papers 262590, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alexis Gutierrez & Thomas F. Thornton, 2014. "Can Consumers Understand Sustainability through Seafood Eco-Labels? A U.S. and UK Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(11), pages 1-23, November.
    2. Frisch, L.C. & Mathis, J.T. & Kettle, N.P. & Trainor, S.F., 2015. "Gauging perceptions of ocean acidification in Alaska," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 101-110.
    3. Basurko, Oihane C. & Gabiña, Gorka & Andrés, Marga & Rubio, Anna & Uriarte, Ainhize & Krug, Iñigo, 2015. "Fishing for floating marine litter in SE Bay of Biscay: Review and feasibility study," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 103-112.
    4. Rabia Yahia Meddah & Tarik Ghodbani & Rachida Senouci & Walid Rabehi & Lia Duarte & Ana Cláudia Teodoro, 2023. "Estimation of the Coastal Vulnerability Index Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making: The Coastal Social–Ecological System of Rachgoun, Western Algeria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-28, August.
    5. Neilson, Alasdair, 2018. "Considering the importance of metaphors for marine conservation," MarXiv rhefa, Center for Open Science.
    6. Eleiton, Nalumu Elizabeth & Corless, Rebecca. & Hynes, Stephen, 2015. "Public Perceptions of Marine Environmental Issues: A Review," Working Papers 262590, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    7. Anjula Gurtoo, 2015. "Citizen Participation in Governmental Decision Making in Japan: A Review," Working Papers EMS_2015_06, Research Institute, International University of Japan.
    8. Stevens, T.F. & Sheehan, E.V. & Gall, S.C. & Fowell, S.C. & Attrill, M.J., 2014. "Monitoring benthic biodiversity restoration in Lyme Bay marine protected area: Design, sampling and analysis," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 310-317.
    9. Guest, Haley & Lotze, Heike K. & Wallace, Douglas, 2015. "Youth and the sea: Ocean literacy in Nova Scotia, Canada," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 98-107.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:46:y:2014:i:c:p:61-67. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.