Participatory mapping

Parent operational approaches

• Trade-off for MPA Design

Related questions

• Q 8 - How to identify and analyze the main conflict area that may arise if we need to expand marine protected areas in response to sensitive habitats, ecological connectivity or other valuable ecological as

• Q 11 - How to integrate socio-econonomic objectives in assessment of existing MPA (network) and identification of new MPAs?

• Q 12 - How to evaluate cumulative impacts in MSP and MPA?

• Q 13 - How to evaluate trade-offs in MSP and MPA designation process?

• Q 14 - How to assess compatibility of maritime uses and MPA conservation objectives? How to prioritize uses?

• Q 26 - How to take OECM into consideration in MSP where no legal instruments are in place?

• Q 27 - Are there good practices of MPA-MSP integration in terms of governance?

• Q 34 - How to achieve the strict protection area target of 10% by 2030 in marine areas?

• Q 45 - How to assess economic impacts of conservation measures?

• Q 46 - Hot to identify compensation measures and how to assess their effectiveness?

• Q 54 - How to anticipate and address climate change within MPA?

• Q 61 - How can reliability/accuracy of the spatial data for MPA identification be improved?

• Q 63 - How to deal with knowledge gaps on socio-economic data, including the spatial dimension?

• Q 64 - How to deal with knowledge gaps on impacts of maritime activities, including cumulative impacts?

Description

Trade-off for MPA Design

Guidelines for applying trade-off methodology for MPA Design to be described here.

Source

Gutierrez D., Calado H., De Bruyn A., et al., (2024). Trade-offs method for protection and restoration in MSP – ESE3 (Deliverable – D4.3., under the WP4 of MSP4BIO project (GA n° 101060707)).

Participatory mapping

Technological advances, including those related to mapping, have progressed further in terrestrial regions than marine ones. Combining spatial data collected through participatory mapping methods with ecological data is valuable for understanding the marine environment (Seijo et al., 2021). This approach enables the identification of priority management areas, facilitates the assessment of the alignment of mapped values with planning proposals, and provides tangible evidence of conflicts among specific stakeholder groups (Seijo et al., 2021).

Participatory mapping is pivotal in MSP, particularly Marine Protected Areas (MPA), because it fosters robust stakeholder engagement (Seijo et al., 2021). This inclusive approach empowers local communities and stakeholders to actively share their insights, values, and preferences, enriching the planning and management processes (Loerzel et al., 2017). Through collaborative map-based exercises, participants can pinpoint areas of high ecological or cultural significance, identify potential conflicts,and collectively envision sustainable solutions. These mapped insights provide the foundation for constructing scenarios reflecting various trade-offs and synergies among land uses and marine activities. The engagement of stakeholders not only enhances the effectiveness of MSP and MPA initiatives but also promotes local understanding, support, and legitimacy.

The development of scenarios, driven by participatory mapping, provides a structured framework to assess potential impacts, balance conflicting objectives, and make informed decisions that prioritise sustainable resource management (Calado et al., 2021). This integration of stakeholder input ensures that the resulting scenarios are accurate and align with the diverse values and priorities of the local communities involved. By actively involving stakeholders in mapping exercises, diverse perspectives and local knowledge are incorporated, enriching the scenario-creation process. By incorporating diverse perspectives, participatory mapping becomes a powerful tool for creating more inclusive and sustainable marine resource management strategies (Loerzel et al., 2017).

Through participatory mapping, resource managers can gain improved decision-making capabilities to assess whether to monitor marine quality, implement measures to mitigate or reduce threats, initiate restoration activities, or strategically redirect management efforts to alternative areas (Loerzel et al., 2017). By including climate change perception, it is possible to get some impressions on the area and support leaders on decisions for adaptive management.

Integrating participatory mapping into MSP facilitates a comprehensive understanding and representation of Ecosystem Services. Local knowledge and preferences related to cultural, provisioning, regulating, and supporting services are captured spatially by engaging stakeholders in mapping exercises. This participatory approach identifies key areas of ecological and social significance and visualises trade-offs and synergies among services. The spatial representation of ES through participatory mapping becomes a crucial tool for decision-makers, allowing them to align conservation and development goals with the sustainable use of marine resources. The collaborative mapping process ensures that the diverse perspectives of stakeholders are considered, promoting a holistic and inclusive approach to managing marine ecosystems and their associated services within the MSP framework.

Edit online (for developers only)