Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFortnam, M
dc.contributor.authorChaigneau, T
dc.contributor.authorEvans, L
dc.contributor.authorBastian, L
dc.date.accessioned2023-11-14T12:08:19Z
dc.date.issued2023-08-27
dc.date.updated2023-11-14T11:52:35Z
dc.description.abstractMounting evidence suggests that win-wins are elusive and trade-offs are the norm in marine conservation development practice. The status quo involves trade-offs, and any change brought to ecosystems, economies and societies will alter the distribution of costs and benefits, creating other winners and losers among ecosystem services, sectors and people. While studies are increasingly acknowledging the prevalence of trade-offs, this article analyses how practitioners working for conservation development agencies consider, facilitate and make trade-off decisions a priori and post hoc when designing and implementing marine conservation development programmes in Southeast Asia. We find that these practitioners recognize both substantive trade-offs, which are diverse social and ecological trade-offs resulting from their programmes, and process trade-offs, related to how they design programmes, including between their prioritization of different locations; between strategic relationships; and between the efficacy, equity and sustainability of projects. Existing decision support tools only capture a limited range of substantive (mainly ecological) trade-offs, however, and are not widely used. Typically, social trade-offs are not systematically assessed. Instead, they are implicitly identified by participants and beneficiaries voicing their concerns during consultation processes. Importantly, whether a trade-off is then deemed acceptable is not determined through transparent assessment of trade-offs and principles of equity or justice but by the uneven political power of stakeholders to project their values in decision-making processes. The article concludes that practitioners should facilitate inclusive, transparent and systematic identification and deliberation of the social acceptability of multidimensional trade-offs, and formulate response options to avoid or minimize adverse consequences. Tackling trade-offs in this way has the potential to make invisible trade-offs visible and improve the sustainability and legitimacy of marine conservation development programmes while promoting the interests of the most marginalized in efforts to achieve the sustainable development goals. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipGlobal Challenges Research Funden_GB
dc.format.extent1636-1648
dc.identifier.citationVol. 5, No. 5, pp. 1636-1648en_GB
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10530
dc.identifier.grantnumberNE/P021107/1en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/134529
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0002-0874-216X (Chaigneau, T)
dc.identifierScopusID: 36932980200 (Chaigneau, T)
dc.identifierResearcherID: AAM-2491-2020 (Chaigneau, T)
dc.identifierORCID: 0000-0003-0816-8572 (Evans, L)
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherWileyen_GB
dc.rights© 2023 The Authors. People and Nature published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.en_GB
dc.subjectconservation developmenten_GB
dc.subjectdecision-makingen_GB
dc.subjectjusticeen_GB
dc.subjectmarine governanceen_GB
dc.subjecttrade-offsen_GB
dc.titlePractitioner approaches to trade‐off decision‐making in marine conservation developmenten_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2023-11-14T12:08:19Z
dc.identifier.issn2575-8314
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available from Wiley via the DOI in this record. en_GB
dc.descriptionDATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT: The study collected qualitative data during 13 semi-structured interviews. The data have not been archived because participants were informed (in participant information sheets and consent forms) that all research data would be destroyed 5 years after the termination of the Blue Communities programme.en_GB
dc.identifier.journalPeople and Natureen_GB
dc.relation.ispartofPeople and Nature, 5(5)
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2023-06-08
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2023-08-27
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2023-11-14T12:04:50Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2023-11-14T12:08:25Z
refterms.panelBen_GB
refterms.dateFirstOnline2023-08-27


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2023 The Authors. People and Nature published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © 2023 The Authors. People and Nature published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.