Examining the "governance fit" of a marine protected area using a social wellbeing approach in Bluefields, Jamaica

Coastal communities in small island developing states are highly vulnerable to environmental change (e.g., sea level rise, biodiversity loss) and degradation (e.g., pollution, habitat destruction). Yet, for members of these... [ view full abstract ]

Coastal communities in small island developing states are highly vulnerable to environmental change (e.g., sea level rise, biodiversity loss) and degradation (e.g., pollution, habitat destruction). Yet, for members of these communities, natural capital is a key source of livelihood (e.g., fisheries, tourism). Current policy decisions aimed at achieving long-term conservation of coastal-marine resources may overlook the short-term trade-offs suffered by coastal communities—for example, the potential social-ecological impact of a marine protected area (MPA) on a small-scale fishery. Such policies utilize a one-size-fits-all approach to conservation that may lead to the decline of wellbeing in coastal communities, and subsequently to low compliance, conflict, and a failure to meet policy goals. This paper assesses the “governance fit” of an MPA in Bluefields, Jamaica using a social wellbeing approach (i.e., the material, relational, and subjective components of wellbeing). I conducted 42 semi-structured interviews, six focus groups, and 78 structured surveys to examine: 1) nesting and networks of governing institutions (e.g., complexity, redundancy); 2) analytical deliberation amongst actors (e.g., inclusiveness, interaction, diversity); 3) institutional variety (e.g., mix of institutional types, multiplicity of rules); and 4) how these insights can enhance the governance of protected areas in coastal communities. Findings from this case study highlight that: 1) institutions are reasonably complex, since the MPA was driven by bottom-up processes that involved a high degree of self-organization within the community; 2) there are opportunities to enhance analytical deliberation, as some actors feel excluded from decision-making; and 3) while there is a mixture of institutional types, some of these partnerships (e.g., public-private) lead to issues of trust amongst actors in the community (e.g., perceived conflicts of interest).