, Volume 42, Issue 8, pp 997–1009 | Cite as

Determining the Feasibility of Establishing New Multiple-Use Marine Protected Areas in Chile

  • Felipe Vásquez-Lavín
  • Jeanne W. Simon
  • Ximena Paz-Lerdón


This paper evaluates the feasibility of establishing a multiple-use marine protected area. The methodology was applied to evaluate three proposed sites in Chile with diverse conservation needs, social stress and poverty levels, and different economic activities (small-scale fishing, heavy industry, and mining activities). We use two broad categories for the evaluation: socio-economic and political–institutional. The methodology uses a combination of secondary data with personal interviews, workshops, and focus groups with stakeholders (e.g., fishermen, unions, politicians, social organizations) from different political, social, and economic backgrounds to characterize current and potential natural and social resources and to evaluate in an ordinal scale the feasibility of establishing the protected area. The methodology allows us to correctly identify the challenges faced in each site and can be used to develop appropriate strategies for balancing economic, social, and environmental objectives. This methodology can be replicated to evaluate the feasibility of other marine or terrestrial protected areas.


Protected Coastal Marine Areas Feasibility Sustainable development Governance 



We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the project “Análisis de factibilidad de proyectos de réplicas de áreas marinas de conservación” (Comisión Nacional del Medio Ambiente, CONAMA, 2010). Felipe Vásquez Lavín also acknowledge financial support from the Scientific Millennium Initiative of the Chilean Ministry of Economics, Promotion and Tourism under Project NS 100007.

Supplementary material

13280_2013_455_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (80 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 80 kb)


  1. Bess, R., and R. Rallapudi. 2007. Spatial conflicts in New Zealand fisheries: The rights of fishers and protection of the marine environment. Marine Policy 31: 719–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burke, L., and J. Maidens. 2005. Arrecifes en peligro en el Caribe. Reef at risk in the Caribbean, 84. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
  3. Camus, P.A. 2001. Biogeografía marina de Chile continental. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 74: 587–617 (in Spanish).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Castilla, J.C. 1986. ¿Sigue existiendo la necesidad de establecer parques y reservas marítimas en Chile? Revista Ambiente y Desarrollo II: 53–63 (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  5. Centro de Estudios Ambientales de la Universidad de Concepción (EULA). 2009. Informe Final Expediente Técnico para la Solicitud del AMCP-MU Sitio Prioritario Península de Hualpén. Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, Santiago (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  6. Chrislip, D., and C. Larson. 1994. Collaborative leadership how citizens and civic leaders can make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Comisión Nacional del Medio Ambiente- Gobierno de Chile (CONAMA). 2005. Política Nacional De Áreas Protegidas (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  8. Evans, P. 1996. Government action, social capital and development: Reviewing the evidence on synergy. World Development 24: 1119–1132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Feeny, D., F. Berkes, B. McCay, and J.M. Acheson. 1990. The tragedy of the commons twenty-two years later. Human Ecology 18: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Foell, J., E. Harrison, and R.L. Stirrat. 1999. Participatory approaches to natural resource management: The case of coastal zone management in the Puttalam District, Sri Lanka. Summary findings of DFID-funded research project No. R6977. University of Sussex, United Kingdom, 1999.Google Scholar
  11. Forest, N.B. 1998. Assessment of coastal regulations and implementation: Case study of Roatán, Bay Island Honduras. Coastal Management Journal 26: 125–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gaymer C., C. Dumont, and W.U. Stotz. 2007. Evaluación de línea base de las reservas marinas “Isla Chañaral” e “Isla Choros-Damas”. Proyecto Fondo de Investigación Pesquera (FIP) N° 2006-56 (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  13. Global Environmental Facility (GEF)-United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2005. Conservación de la Biodiversidad de Importancia Mundial a lo Largo de la Costa Chilena. Documento Proyecto número 40493, UNDP (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  14. Gordon, H.S. 1954. The economic theory of a common-property resource: The fishery. Journal of Political Economy 62: 124–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Green, A., S.E. Smith, G. Lipsett-Moore, C. Groves, N. Peterson, S. Sheppard, P. Lokani, R. Hamilton, et al. 2009. Designing a resilient network of marine protected areas for Kimbe Bay, Papua New Guinea. Oryx 43: 488–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grimble, R., and K. Wellard. 1996. Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: A review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agricultural Systems 55: 173–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kelleher, G. 1999. Guidelines for marine protected areas. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klein, C., A. Chain, L. Kircher, A.J. Cundiff, N. Gardner, Y. Hrovat, A. Scholz, B. Kendall, et al. 2008. Striking a balance between biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic viability in the design of marine protected areas. Conservation Biology 22: 691–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McCrea-Strub, A., D. Zeller, U.R. Sumaila, J. Nelson, A. Balmford, and D. Pauly. 2011. Understanding the cost of establishing marine protected areas. Marine Policy 35: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moreno-Bonilla, M., R. De Andrade, and A. Cabezas. 2009. Proyecto Conservación de la Biodiversidad de Importancia Mundial a lo Largo de la Costa Chilena: Logros, lecciones y desafíos para la conformación del Subsistema de Áreas Marinas Protegidas en Chile. Memorias I Congreso Nacional de Áreas Protegidas, Bogotá (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  22. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ostrom, E. 1998. A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action: Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 1997. American Political Science Review 92: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ostrom, E. 2005. Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Ostrom, E., and T.K. Ahn. 2003. Foundations of social capital. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  26. Pauly, D., V. Christensen, S. Guenette, T.J. Pitcher, R. Sumaila, C. Walters, R. Watson, and D. Zeller. 2002. Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature 418: 689–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. PISCO (Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans). 2007. La Ciencia de las Reservas Marinas (2da Edición, Versión para Latinoamérica y el Caribe), 22 (in Spanish).
  28. Pomeroy, R.S., L.M. Watson, J.E. Parks, and G.A. Cid. 2005. How is your MPA doing? A methodology for evaluating the management effectiveness of marine protected areas. Ocean and Coastal Management 48: 485–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Promar Pacífico Ltda. 2009a. Informe Técnico de Sustentabilidad AMCP- MU Península de Mejillones: Elaboración de plan de gestión para el sitio marino costero Península de Mejillones. Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, Santiago (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  30. Promar Pacífico Ltda. 2009b. Informe Técnico AMCP- MU Punta Patache. Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, Santiago (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  31. Ramírez, L.F., D. Alonso, C. Segura-Quintero, R. Moreno, S. Mendoza, J. Maldonado, A.P. Castro, L.A. Calero, et al. 2009. Viabilidad de una red de áreas marinas protegidas, Caribe colombiano. Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras (INVEMAR), Santa Marta (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  32. Rockloff, S.F., and S. Lockie. 2004. Participatory tools for coastal zone management: Use of stakeholder analysis and social mapping in Australia. Journal of Coastal Conservation 10: 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sale, P.F., R.K. Cowen, B.S. Danilowicz, G.P. Jones, J.P. Kritzer, K.C. Lindeman, S. Planes, N.V.C. Polunin, et al. 2005. Critical science gaps impede use of no-take fishery. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 20: 74–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Salm, R.V., J. Clark, and E. Siirila. 2000. Marine and coastal protected areas: A guide for planners and managers, 371. Washington, DC: IUCN.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Servicio Nacional de Pesca (SERNAPESCA). 2006. Anuario Estadístico de Pesca y Acuiculturaaño 2006. Chile (in spanish)Google Scholar
  36. Sierralta, L., R. Serrano, J. Rovira, and C. Cortés. 2011. Las áreas protegidas de Chile. Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, Santiago (in Spanish).Google Scholar
  37. Stefansson, G., and A.A. Rosenberg. 2005. Combining control measures for more effective management of fisheries under uncertainty: Quotas, effort limitation and protected areas. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 360: 133–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sullivan-Sealey, K., and G. Bustamante. 1999. Setting geographic priorities for marine conservation in Latin America and the Caribbean. Arlington: The Nature Conservancy.Google Scholar
  39. Vásquez, F., J.C. Castilla, S. Gelcich, M.A. Quiroga, P. Carrasco, X. Paz, and J. Riquelme. 2008. Evaluación económica de los activos ambientales presentes en la red de reservas marinas decretadas en el país bajo la Ley General de Pesca y Acuicultura. Proyecto Fondo de Investigación Pesquera (FIP) N° 2008-56 (in Spanish).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Felipe Vásquez-Lavín
    • 1
  • Jeanne W. Simon
    • 2
  • Ximena Paz-Lerdón
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Business and Economics, Universidad del Desarrollo and Research Nucleus on Environmental and Resource Economics-MSI, Department of EconomicsUniversidad de ConcepciónConcepciónChile
  2. 2.Departamento de Administración Pública y Ciencia PolíticaUniversidad de ConcepciónConcepciónChile
  3. 3.School of Business and Economics, Universidad Católica de la Santísima ConcepciónConcepciónChile

Personalised recommendations