Coastal Management, 34:183198, 2006

Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0892-0753 print / 1521-0421 online
DOI: 10.1080/08920750600567234

Fishers Needs in Marine Protected Area Zoning:

A Case Study from Thailand

KRISTIN E. LUNN
PHILIP DEARDEN
Marine Protected Areas Research Group
Department of Geography
University of Victoria
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Conserving marine ecosystems, while ensuring the livelihood needs of communities,

is a challenge for protected area managers worldwide. Multiple-use zoning can help
to balance human uses with conservation goals. Developing effective zoning plans
requires information on the condition and uses of marine resources and the conflicts
among them. Through interviews and participant observation, we investigated resi-
dents reliance on nearshore fisheries in Ko Chang Marine National Park, a desig-
nated no-take area in eastern Thailand. Approximately 25% of households de-
pended on fishing as their main source of income, with boat owners earning aver-
age net wages of 768 US$/day in small-scale fisheries. Apparently unaware of
restrictions on resource use, small-scale fishers reported working in 95% of the
parks marine waters. Understanding the needs and usage patterns of small-scale
fishers will help to inform management and zoning plans for Ko Chang and provide
a valuable example for other parks in the region.

Keywords marine conservation, multiple-use zoning, no-take zones, small-scale fisheries

Received 21 December 2004; accepted 2 January 2006.

The authors thank the fishers and residents of Ko Chang for their help and support. They are
grateful to Tom Reimchen, Cliff Robinson, and Surachet Chettamart for their insightful advice,
and to Weerasak Yingyuad, Kullatida Muangkhum, Anurak Loogon, Ekkawit Wongsrisung, and
Anukorn Boutson for their assistance in the field. The authors appreciate the institutional support
of the University of Victoria, Kasetsart University, the National Research Council of Thailand,
the Royal Forest Department of Thailand, the Department of Fisheries, and the Southeast Asian
Fisheries Development Centre, and especially Pongboon Pongtong, Apiwat Sretarugsa, and Sitthichai
Seereesongsaeng for their roles in the project. They are thankful for the financial support of the
Canadian International Development Agency, the University of Victorias Centre for Asia-Pacific
Initiatives, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and PADIs Project
AWARE. Many thanks to Ole Heggen, Jason Miller, and Ian OConnell for their invaluable
technical assistance, and to Marie-Annick Moreau, Michele-Lee Moore, and two anonymous re-
viewers for their helpful comments on previous drafts of this manuscript.
Address correspondence to Kristin E. Lunn, Department of Geography, University of Victoria,
P.O. Box 3050, Victoria, British Columbia, V8W 3P5, Canada. E-mail: klunn@office.geog.uvic.ca

183
184 K. E. Lunn and P. Dearden

Introduction
More than 4,000 marine and coastal protected areas have now been established world-
wide (Chape et al., 2003). Marine protected areas (MPAs) are defined by the World
Conservation Union (IUCN) as area[s] of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with
[their] overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which
ha[ve] been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the en-
closed environment (Kelleher, 1999, xi). Under this broad definition, MPAs are de-
signed to meet a variety of environmental and socioeconomic goals, including the pro-
tection of commercial and non-commercial marine species, the generation of tourism
revenue, the conservation of critical habitats and ecosystem processes, and the creation
of educational and research opportunities (Salm et al., 2000).
Many MPAs have, however, failed to achieve their management objectives. A global
assessment showed, for instance, that only 10% of the worlds MPAs were reaching
their goals in the mid-1990s (Kelleher et al., 1995). A separate poll of managers, non-
governmental staff, and researchers working in tropical MPAs revealed that only 35%
of respondents thought the parks in which they worked were successful in attaining
management goals (Alder, 1996). Low success rates have often been attributed to inad-
equate consultation and involvement of local communities during the planning and decision-
making processes (e.g., White, 1986; Kelleher et al., 1995; Laffoley, 1995; Wells and
White, 1995; Alder, 1996; White et al., 2002). With many user groups relying on ma-
rine ecosystems for their livelihoods and sustenance, stakeholders needs often come
into direct conflict with each other and with the conservation of marine habitats, biodiversity,
and ecological processes (Dixon et al., 1993).
Subsistence and commercial fishers comprise one of the most prominent user groups
of marine systems, with an estimated 23 million people collecting their main source of
income from marine capture fisheries worldwide (FAO, 2002). Small-scale fisheries have
been said to account for as much as 99% of global fishing labor, clearly serving an
invaluable role in the economy of coastal communities (Berkes et al., 2001). Marine
products, furthermore, provide a critical supply of animal protein; indeed, small-scale
fisheries are thought to account for 40% of the worlds marine fish catch destined for
human consumption (FAO, 1998). Despite their many benefits to humans, marine fish-
eries can lead to declines in the size and number of targeted fish and invertebrates,
reductions in species richness, and the degradation of marine habitats (Russ, 1991; Jennings
& Polunin, 1996; Hall, 1999; Jackson et al., 2001; Sinclair & Valdimarsson, 2003).
MPAs are a common mechanism for trying to accomplish conservation objectives
while still allowing for economic development. Reconciling different uses is, however,
challenging, particularly when the usage patterns of different stakeholder groups overlap
and differential regulations lead to animosity among users (e.g., Bunce et al., 1999;
Suman et al., 1999; Gladstone, 2000; Oracion et al., 2005). Multiple-use zoning has
emerged as one way of achieving several objectives within a single park and helping to
ease current and potential conflicts among user groups (Kelleher, 1999; Agardy, 2000;
Villa et al., 2002). Zoning plans are used to delineate zones where particular human
activities are and are not allowed within a given MPA, resulting in a spatial separation
of different resource uses that buffer fully no-take and/or no-access areas (Kelleher,
1999). Developing successful zoning schemes requires information on the biophysical
characteristics of the area, the activities of and conflicts among user groups, and the
conflicts among users and their environments (Laffoley, 1995). Zoning plans, built on a
combination of social and environmental information, have now been developed for
many MPAs worldwide (e.g., Great Barrier Reef Marine Park; Day, 2002).
 Fishers Needs in MPA Zoning 185

Initiatives to coordinate and facilitate the development of an effective MPA net-

work are already underway for Southeast Asia (e.g., World Commission on Protected
Areas Southeast Asia Working Group), a region characterized by its rich marine biodiversity
(Briggs, 2005). With a growing interest in the ecological and socioeconomic benefits of
establishing MPAs, Thailand has gazetted 26 Marine National Parks (MNPs), each de-
signed to maintain natural integrity and encourage biological research, public education,
and recreation (RFD, 2002). Thailands MNPs are legislated as fully no-take areas
under the National Parks Act of 1961, with fishing activities prohibited from operating
within any area of the parks (Chettamart & Emphandhu, 2002). The Department of
Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DWPC)1 maintains official responsibility for governing
the nations protected areas, and public participation in natural resource management is
now mandated under the Thai Constitution (Rajani, 2002). Monitoring and management
of the countrys MNPs has, however, been described as weak, a problem mainly at-
tributed to a lack of qualified government personnel, inadequate funds, and conflicting
resource uses (UP-MSI et al., 2002).
Thailand has encountered many of the same park management issues as other coun-
tries worldwide, including poor compliance to local regulations and mounting conflicts
among user groups (Chettamart & Emphandhu, 2002). Ko Chang MNP is a large MPA
located off the eastern coast of Thailand that is subject to rapid and increasing tourism
development, but is also home to an extensive local fishing industry. General zonings
have already been suggested for the MNP, based mainly on the analysis of recreational
patterns (Roman, 2004). The purpose of this study was to provide greater understanding
of the importance and spatial distribution of small-scale fishers as an input to an inte-
grated zoning plan in the future. In particular, we describe (i) the involvement of park
residents in small-scale fisheries and their management, (ii) the local value and impor-
tance of these fisheries, (iii) the locations of fishing grounds, and (iv) the conflicts be-
tween small-scale fishers and other user groups (e.g., dive operators, large-scale fishers).
Quantifying small-scale fishers reliance on park resources, and documenting their per-
spectives on tourists use of the park, will help to develop a practical management strat-
egy for this park and, furthermore, to identify potential research needs and governance
requirements for other parks in the region.

Methods
Study Site

The Ko Chang MNP consists of 47 islands, located off the coast of Trat province in
eastern Thailand (Figure 1). Encompassing government-owned lands and nearshore wa-
ters up to 3 km from shore, the Ko Chang MNP currently includes 650 km of land and
sea. Coral reefs cover 5 km of the park, being found mainly along the sheltered coasts
of the MNPs small islands (DoF, 1999). Residents of the Ko Chang MNP live prima-
rily on the parks largest islandKo Changwith only one community on Ko Maisi
Yai. Since its designation in 1982, the Ko Chang MNP has officially been closed to all
forms of resource extraction (Chettamart & Emphandhu, 2002). Little investment has
been made by the authorities to outline these regulations to park residents and small-
scale fisheries have continued to operate, virtually unmonitored, within the boundaries
of the park. Park managers have instead focused intense effort on developing the areas
tourism opportunities; owing to a successful marketing scheme, the Ko Chang MNP
attracted more than 450,000 tourists in 2002, an increase of nearly 20% over the previous
186 K. E. Lunn and P. Dearden

Figure 1. Map of Ko Chang Marine National Park in Thailands Trat province (courtesy of
O. Heggen).
 Fishers Needs in MPA Zoning 187

year (TAT, 2002). Concentrated mainly on the western coast of the island, tourism
operations on Ko Chang offer snorkeling, diving, boating, fishing, elephant riding, and
other tour packages to their domestic and international clients. Roman (2004) estimated
that roughly 30,000 people/year participated in organized snorkel trips to the MNPs
coral reefs, in addition to 9,000 organized dives being sold. Weather conditions in the
area vary among the wet and dry seasons, lasting from MaySeptember and October
April, respectively.

Data Collection and Analysis

Data were collected by the first author during two excursions to the Ko Chang archi-
pelago in MayJuly 2002 (wet season) and JanuaryMarch 2003 (dry season). Informa-
tion was collected using a combination of semi-structured interviews and participant
observation. Data were gathered predominantly about small-scale fisheries, defined as
those in which boat owners and their crew operated longtail or flat-bed boats less than
15 m in size. Unlike industrial fisheries, small-scale fishing boat owners tended to en-
gage family members as crew on their boats, and occasionally employed younger fishers
within their communities to work as crewmates. The types of gear used in this fleet
were, furthermore, distinct from the equipment used in medium- and large-scale opera-
tions (see gear description in Eiamsa-Ard & Amornchairojkul, 1997).
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with village heads (or phoo yai, as the
elected leaders are known in Thai), selected small-scale fishers, and government offi-
cials from the Department of Fisheries (DoF) and the Department of Wildlife and Plant
Conservation (DWPC). Interviewees were found by asking village heads to identify key
fishers within each community, and then asking these key fishers to suggest other poten-
tial interviewees (i.e., snowball sampling; see description in Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Interview respondents, covering a range of ages and experience levels, were all boat
owners, rather than crew members, as these fishers were more knowledgeable about
their boats income, costs, and fishing grounds. Unless otherwise specified, the term
fisher is used throughout the text to describe boat owners, rather than hired crew.
Interviews were conducted in Thai through English-speaking Thai interpreters, and re-
sponses were recorded in notebooks during the interviews. Interviews ranged in length
from roughly 20 min to 2 h, depending on respondents availability and willingness to
continue answering questions.
Interview questions depended on the type of respondent. To gather demographic
and socioeconomic information about fishing communities within the park, village heads
were asked about: (i) the total number of households in their village, (ii) the main live-
lihood activities for village residents, (iii) the percentage of fishing households in their
village, and (iv) the types of small-scale fishing activities in which park residents par-
ticipated. During our visits to each village, the number of boats operating in each fishery
was counted by observing the gear onboard small-scale fishing vessels. Small-scale fish-
ers were asked about: (i) their involvement in local fisheries and their management, (ii)
their fishing grounds (e.g., seasonal variation in fishing sites, restrictions on access), (iii)
their income (e.g., daily earnings and costs), (iv) any conflicts among different fisheries
(e.g., shrimp/crab) or industrial sectors (e.g., fishing/tourism), and (v) their impressions
of the growing tourism industry on Ko Chang (e.g., involvement and outlook). Govern-
ment officials from the DoF and the DWPC were asked about fishing regulations and
enforcement practices in the parks coastal areas. Given the variability of the sample
sizes for each data collection method, and the fact that not all fishers were asked or
188 K. E. Lunn and P. Dearden

could answer every interview question, sample sizes (n) are reported throughout the text
and refer to the number of fishers who provided information; sample sizes were notably
lower for questions that were asked later in the interview schedule, as respondents
interest and willingness to respond often declined with time. Where values are reported
as the percentage of respondents, n refers to the total sample size of respondents for
that question. Fishers income and costs were converted to U.S. dollars (US$) from Thai
Bhat (B) using an exchange rate of 1B to 0.0234 US$, the average rate between May 1,
2002 and May 1, 2003.
Building on the qualitative information provided in interviews, fishing grounds were
mapped using a stakeholder-driven methodology adapted from OConnell (2003) and a
technology-based approach relying on Global Positioning System (GPS) data, allowing
for the cross-validation among data sets. Participants for the mapping exercises were
chosen from the pool of interview respondents. Interviewees who clearly understood
paper maps and could identify reference points within the park were asked to physically
sketch the locations of their fishing grounds, while anyone willing to take a hand-held
GPS unit on their boat was asked to do so; some fishers participated in both activities.
Participants selected for the community mapping exercise were supplied with 1:228,000
paper maps of the park, simplified from the Royal Thai Governments (RTG) 1:50,000
topographic maps of the area, in order to draw the locations of popular fishing sites for
local fishers (including themselves). The base map and fishers drawings of fishing grounds
were then digitized as individual layers in Geographic Information System (GIS) soft-
ware (ArcMap module of ArcGIS) and referenced to the Universal Transverse Mercator
(UTM) system. Individual data layers were converted into raster format, making fishing
activity either present or absent for each two-dimensional data cell. Layers were
overlaid using the raster calculator function, with the resulting map showing concentra-
tions of fishing activity within the parks boundaries. As a way of cross-checking the
information provided through the community mapping approach, hand-held GPS units
(Garmin 12) were fixed to the fishing boats of willing fishers and set to record the
UTM coordinates of the fishing boats every 2 min during the course of fishers 12 day
collection trips.2 Spatially referenced data were then downloaded to a portable computer
using GPS Utility 4.04.6 (Freeware Edition) software and added as separate layers in the
GIS file; the resulting map showed the fishing tracks of all participating fishers.

Results
Study Participants
Interviews were conducted with 64 small-scale fishing boat owners, 8 village heads, 2
DoF staff, and 2 DWPC staff in the Ko Chang MNP. Twenty-seven fishers were in-
volved in the community mapping exercise, whereas 52 fishers took GPS units on indi-
vidual fishing trips. Observations of the number of small-scale boats suggested that 123
and 187 boats worked in this fleet during the dry and wet seasons, respectively. Inter-
views were therefore conducted with roughly 34% of boat owners, sketched maps col-
lected from 14%, and GPS tracklog data gathered from 28% of the total number of
small-scale boat owners operating out of villages within the park.

Participation of Park Residents in Marine Fisheries

Residents of the Ko Chang MNP participated in various small- and large-scale fishing
activities throughout the year. Interview responses from village heads suggested that 25
 Fishers Needs in MPA Zoning 189

30% of the total number of households in the park were involved in fisheries as their
main source of year-round employment (Table 1). Small-scale fishers worked in the
coastal gill net, crab trap, hook-and-line, krill scoop net, reef fish trap, shellfish glean-
ing, shrimp trammel net, small trawl net, and squid trap fisheries, whereas large-scale
fishers were involved mainly in the anchovy purse seine and squid cast net fisheries.
Although none of the respondents knew of any restrictions on small-scale fishing within
the park, six interviewees did report that government officials enforced regulations on
large-scale boats. Small-scale fishers were, as a result, the main consumptive users of
the park, at least during daylight hours.3
Small-scale fishers reported working in one to four fisheries throughout the year.
More than half of the fishing respondents worked in two fisheries, alternating between
these fisheries intra- or inter-seasonally; the remaining 31%, 13%, and 5% participated
in one, three, and four fisheries, respectively (n = 64). Village heads identified shrimp
trammel netting, squid trapping, crab trapping, reef fish trapping, fish gill netting, and
hook-and-line fishing as the primary fisheries for park residents (Table 1), making these
fisheries the focus of our investigations. Shrimp fishing was the primary activity for
small-scale fishers, with 27% and 76% of the total number of boats operating in this
fishery during the dry and wet seasons. Crab fishers made up much of the remaining
fleet, with 24% of the total operating in this fishery during the dry season and 17% in
the wet season. Gill net, hook-and-line, reef fish trap, and squid trap fishers comprised
an average 12.5 2.1% and 2.0 2.2% of the boats during the dry and wet seasons,
respectively. Village heads commented that fishers from all 10 communities participated
in shrimp trammel net fishing during the wet season, whereas participation in other
fisheries was limited to 4-6 villages each (Table 1).

Value and Importance of Small-Scale Fisheries to Park Residents

Small-scale fisheries serve as an important source of market and subsistence income to
residents of the Ko Chang MNP. Small-scale boat owners earnings and costs varied
among fisheries, with average net incomes ranging from 300 to 2900 B/day (768 US$)
(Table 2). Because crew members were usually boat owners relatives, they were not
typically paid for their labor. Non-familial crew members reportedly earned 40200 B/
day (15 US$), or an average of 121 72 B/day (3 US$), according to 6 boat owners in
the crab, shrimp, and squid fisheries. Fishers collected the majority of their market earn-
ings from target catches, with highly sought after species such as groupers, shrimp, and
crab, selling for 50620 B/kg (115 US$/kg), 100400 B/kg (29 US$/kg), and 40200
B/kg (15 US$/kg), respectively. Non-target species were usually kept for food or sold
cheaply as bait, aquaculture feed, or fertilizer for crops, adding to the value of small-
scale fisheries in the area. Boat owners reported fishing costs included fuel, bait, equip-
ment replacement, and crew members salaries (when needed). Irregular expenses such
as the purchase and maintenance of fishers boats were, however, difficult for respon-
dents to estimate and were therefore not included in our analysis. Fishers actual net
earnings were, as a result, probably lower than the values reported here, particularly for
larger operations relying on expensive equipment such as the flat-bed crab boats.
More than three-quarters of small-scale fishing respondents worked in the industry
on a full-time basis (n = 54). Part-time fishers in the small-scale fleet also worked in
agriculture, tourism, and/or retail sales, among the main income sources for communi-
ties in the Ko Chang area (see Table 1). Even fishers who considered themselves to be
full-time fishers would, however, occasionally engage in other livelihood activities if
 Table 1
Summary of information provided by village heads and residents about the demographics of villages
and the livelihood activities of community members
% Fishing Main types of small-scale fisheries
Residentss livelihood activities householdsb
Total no. Shrimp Fish Hook- Reef
households Retail Wet Dry trammel Squid Crab gill and- fish No.

190
Villagesa in village Fisheries Agriculture sales Tourism season season net trap trap net line trap sourcesc

Aow Chom 8 X 100 100 YR 2d

Aow Supparod/ 150 X X X 25 25 WS YR YR YR YR 3

Khlong Son

Aow Yiemen 40 X 100 N/A WS 2d

Bangbao 105 X X 70 5 WS DS DS DS YR 3

Chek Bae 71 X X 20 20 WS DS YR DS YR 2

Dan Kao/ 120 X X 20 20 WS DS YR YR 5

Dan Mai/
Lamtakien
 Haad Sai 120 X X 15 0 WS 1
Khao/Kai Be/
Khlong Prao

Salak Khok 63 X X 50 50 YR YR YR 6

Salak Phet 130 X X 50 50 WS YR YR DS YR 4

Than Mayom 45 X X 10 10 WS YR DS 2

WS = wet season, DS = dry season, YR = year-round.

a
Villages sharing the same elected leader (or phoo yai) were counted together in this study.
b
The percentage of fishing households accounts for small- and large-scale fishers that earn the majority of their year-round income from fishing.
c
The number of sources given in this column included only people who commented specifically on village demographics and not all of the people interviewed in each village.
d
Aow Chom and Aow Yiemen did not have elected leaders because both communities were established as temporary fishing villages. Information about these villages was, thus,
provided only by local residents.

191
 192

Table 2
Income and costs for artisanal fishers working in the Ko Chang area, based on interviews with fishers

Gross income Fuel costs Crew wages Bait Gear replacement Net income
Small-scale fisheries (B/boat/d) n (B/boat/d) n (B/boat/d) n (B/boat/d) n (B/boat/d)c n (B/boat owner/d)

Coastal fish gill net 350 300 5 39 9 7 00 4 N/A 12 6 4 300

Crab trap
Longtail boats 520 140 4 45 0 3 00 6 32 21 9 20 13 10 420

192
Flat-bed boatsb 4500 2 450 2 740 2 250 2 130 2 2900
Hook-and-linea 590 210 3 110 48 4 00 3 ? ? 480
Shrimp trammel net 790 250 11 160 130 12 49 71 14 N/A 130 68 3 450
Squid trap 1000 250 5 370 140 12 6 15 7 N/A 56 8 2 570
K. E. Lunn and P. Dearden

a
Although hook-and-line fishers could not provide information about bait or equipment costs over any unit of time, these costs appeared to be negligible and
were therefore counted as zero in this analysis.
b
Given the low sample size for flat-bed boats, the values provided are simply mid-points of the two respondents answers.
c
Gear replacement costs were standardized to daily costs, by considering the cost of equipment and the frequency with which equipment needed to be replaced.
 Fishers Needs in MPA Zoning 193

such opportunities arose; 15% of fishers reported working in the tourism industry (typi-
cally taking tourists to diving and snorkeling destinations on their boats), 4% engaged in
agricultural activities, and 4% worked in land-based construction, in addition to fishing
(n = 26).

Use of Nearshore Fishing Grounds

To earn an income and collect food for their families and friends, small-scale fishers
gathered fish and invertebrate species from nearshore fishing grounds, usually located
very close to their own villages. Despite official regulations prohibiting resource use
within the park, small-scale fishers from Ko Chang were found to work throughout the
protected area. An overlay of the 27 maps drawn by participants of the mapping exer-
cise showed that, together, fishers reported small-scale fishing activity in approximately
95% of the parks marine area (see Figure 2a). Fishing activity was, according to this
map overlay, concentrated in the southern and western portions of the Ko Chang MNP,
where as many as 52% (or 14) of the 27 participating fishers reported that the area was
used for small-scale fishing. The tracklog data, collected from GPS units attached to
fishers boats, supported reports that local fishers worked predominantly within the pro-
tected area (see Figure 2b). Although fishers were aware of the areas status as a na-
tional park, interview respondents did not realize that this designation had any implica-
tions for small-scale fishing boats. When asked if there were any legislated or customary
restrictions on access to nearshore fishing grounds, small-scale respondents reported only
that large-scale fishing boats were prohibited from operating within the park.

(a) (b)

Figure 2. Map of Ko Chang MNP, with (a) showing the locations of key fishing grounds drawn
by 27 small-scale fishers from the park, and (b) displaying the GPS data points recorded during
52 fishing trips with resident fishers. Note that the polygon around the islands represents the
MNP boundary.
194 K. E. Lunn and P. Dearden

Inter-Fishery and Inter-Sectoral Relationships

In the Ko Chang area, small-scale fishers reported that their main conflicts were a result
of large-scale fishers use of nearshore fishing grounds, and occasionally due to other
small-scale fishers activities. Small-scale fishers in the squid and crab trap fisheries told
us that when large-scale boats (equipped with pair trawls, purse seines, push nets, and
otter board trawls) operated close to shore, they frequently destroyed small-scale fishers
traps (n = 9). This conflict has, according to two crab trappers, diminished in recent
years, as the trawl and trap fishers have begun communicating by radio about the loca-
tions of their fishing sites. Two crab fishers also noted that it was difficult to deploy
their traps during the rainy season, when shrimp trammel nets were scattered throughout
their nearshore fishing grounds. The importance of spatially separating fishing activities
was further noted by a village head, who reported that residents of his village tended to
work close to home in order to avoid conflicts with fishers from nearby villages. Similar
conflicts among fishers have been noted elsewhere in Southeast Asia (Oracion et al.,
2005). Shrimp trammel net, hook-and-line, and coastal finfish gill net fishers did not
note any conflicts with participants in other large- or small-scale fisheries.
Small-scale fishing respondents were generally supportive of increased tourism op-
portunities in the area. Interviewees identified several benefits to the increase in tourism,
including secured local markets for selling their catches (n = 6), new earning opportuni-
ties from taking tourists on snorkeling and diving trips to nearby islands (n = 5), and
allowing tourists to stay at their homes (n = 1), and improved roads and docks around
the island (n = 1). Only one reef trap fisher noted any concern about the increase in
tourism, telling us that tourists and dive operators had occasionally cut the mesh on his
traps. Apart from this reef fisher, none of the other respondents who discussed their
involvement in and opinions of tourism in the MNP (n = 21) noted any prior problems
with tourists or dive operators; ten respondents did say that the risk of conflict was low
because they worked far away from shore and not in areas where dive tourism was
concentrated (i.e., near coral reefs).

Discussion
Many residents of the Ko Chang MNP were found to depend on nearshore, small-scale
fisheries for their market and subsistence income. Local fisheries provided more than a
quarter of the households on Ko Chang and nearby islands of the marine park with their
main source of year-round income, and furthermore secured local peoples access to
protein-rich seafood. Indeed many small-scale boat owners in the Ko Chang area earned
higher daily wages than the national household average, which was recently estimated at
13,418 B/month (314 US$) (NSO, 2001), or roughly 670 B/day (16 US$) if employees
worked an average 20 days/month. Fishers gave lower valued, edible fish and inverte-
brates to their friends and family, adding to the informal income generated from local
fisheries. In addition to local fishers, user groups such as non-resident fishers, marine
product processors, and distributors also earned income from capture fisheries operating
within the park. Accounting for user groups current subsistence and market income will
be essential for devising practical and effective management strategies for the Ko Chang
area. Although monetary compensation schemes have been proposed elsewhere (Hatcher,
1998), this strategy is unlikely to be effective in Thailand, where government officials
were already voicing concerns about the prohibitive costs of enforcing restrictions through-
out the park.
 Fishers Needs in MPA Zoning 195

Assessing the potential of alternative approaches, such as multiple-use zoning, re-

quires information about the spatial usage patterns of park residents and other resource
users. By using participatory mapping and GIS/GPS technologies, we found that small-
scale fishers did indeed work within the parks boundaries. Information collected through
the community mapping approach yielded valuable insight into the year-round practices
of participating fishers and other members of their fleet, whereas GPS tracklog data was
used to corroborate this information. Although the GPS/GIS component of the study
involved more fishers than the community mapping exercise, the latter likely provided
more comprehensive information about the fleets activities because respondents were
asked to sketch the locations of popular fishing grounds, not only for themselves but
also for other fishers in the park. The GPS approach was further limited by the number
of fishing trips that could be observed and the timescale during which the data were
collected. Fishers were often uncomfortable taking us, or the GPS units, on their boats
when the weather was rough, and thus the GPS data were gathered predominantly dur-
ing the dry season. Sketched maps were, however, designed to capture the usage pat-
terns of all fisheries, including the large fleet of shrimp trammel net fishers that operated
mostly on the west and south coasts of the island during the wet season. Similar partici-
patory methodologies have been used elsewhere to map the fishing patterns and poten-
tial conflicts among fisheries (e.g., central Thailand, Anuchiracheeva et al., 2003).
When combined with the large and rapidly expanding tourism industry around Ko
Chang, on-going fishing activity within the park could lead to future issues among ma-
rine user groups, particularly if their spatial usage patterns were to overlap. Marine
tourism activities have so far been concentrated on coral reef habitats located at the
northern tip of Ko Chang, along the islands west coast, and on the east side of Ko
Rang (Roman, 2004). Few fishers were found, however, to operate around reef habitats,
with only 213% of the small-scale fleet involved in the live reef fish industry through-
out the year. Interviewees suggested, however, that local interest in this lucrative indus-
try could be mounting. Although respondents generally had positive comments about
the local boom in tourism, and current activity patterns suggested little overlap between
these industries, surveys of foreign and domestic tourists suggested that the number and
diversity of fish on the archipelagos reefs was already an area of minor concern for
managers (Roman, 2004), one that has the potential to spark conflict between reef fish-
ers and tour operators. Already, polled tourists considered the presence of active fishing
gear and/or ghost traps to be among the top five factors leading to dissatisfaction on
their snorkeling trips (Roman, 2004). Adopting a formal zoning plan to separate sustain-
able uses into different zones could help to achieve the parks objectives, while mitigat-
ing future conflicts within and among reef-based industries.
Fully protecting certain areas of the Ko Chang MNP, while managing the remaining
area for sustainable small-scale fishing and tourism activities, offers a great deal of
promise for re-balancing the goals of the park. Because small-scale fisheries have been
linked to declines in fish and invertebrate abundance and diversity, placing restrictions
on fishing activities without enforcing these regulations for small-scale boats will do
little to achieve the Ko Chang MNPs main goal of conserving the areas natural integ-
rity. Coral reef fishes with long life spans, slow growth rates, and low natural mortality
and recruitment have been shown to be especially vulnerable to fishing pressure (Russ
& Alcala, 1998). Short-lived invertebrate species such as squid and shrimp, on the other
hand, might be capable of sustaining higher levels of fishing effort, and thus could be
permitted on a monitored basis within general use zones. In the Gulf of Thailand, for
196 K. E. Lunn and P. Dearden

example, cephalopod stocks have remained viable in spite of large-scale trawl fisheries
(Christensen, 1998). Designating no-take zones around the MNPs coral reefs could
help to conserve local biodiversity, protect species most vulnerable to exploitation (e.g.,
groupers, snappers), encourage marine tourism opportunities, and alleviate future con-
flicts among stakeholders. Indeed even small no-take zones have been shown to pro-
vide high levels of protection, as documented for 70 reserves all at least 0.002 km in
size (Halpern, 2003). Large-scale fishing boats should continue to be excluded from the
MNP, as these boats are capable of operating further offshore at fishing grounds outside
the park and, in the case of several gear types (e.g., trawl nets), lead to inevitable incon-
sistencies with the parks conservation goals.
Despite their dependence on nearshore waters, small-scale fishers in the area were
clearly not consulted about the establishment of the Ko Chang MNP and its implications
for local users, as fishers continued to work unknowingly within the park. Although
public participation in resource management is now required under the Thai Constitu-
tion, Chettamart and Emphandhu (2002) note that there is still no workable mechanism
to allow full-fledged local participation in marine park management. Resident fishers
have, however, maintained good relationships with park officials at Ko Chang, and therefore
a high level of public participation in management could be achieved. Fishers accep-
tance of, and compliance with, park regulations will likely hinge on their involvement in
the process and their increased understanding of the fisheries and conservation benefits
of such areas, for instance as outlined by Russ et al. (2004) in the Philippines.
Fishers continued dependence on fishing inside the boundaries of Ko Chang MNP
underscores the need for increased monitoring, management, and public awareness if the
park is to be successful in reaching its conservation, tourism, research, and educational
objectives. Because small-scale fishers were limited by the small size and engine power
of their boats, fishing territories could be expected to remain relatively consistent through
time as has been documented elsewhere (e.g. Begossi, 2001). Fishers activity patterns
could, therefore, be collated with tourism and underwater census data (Roman, 2004) to
develop a draft marine park zoning plan (in conjunction with local stakeholders) that
could assist in preventing future conflicts and achieving multiple objectives. Given the
biological richness of the Southeast Asian seas, and the growing attention on developing
an effective network of MPAs in the region, the suggestions proposed for the Ko Chang
MNP could have implications for other parks in Thailand and lead to increased steward-
ship of the regions marine ecosystems.

Notes
1. The Department of Wildlife and Plant Conservation came into existence in 2002, follow-
ing an extensive restructuring of the Royal Thai Government. Prior to 2002, the Marine National
Parks Division fell under the Royal Forest Department. Today, marine protected areas are man-
aged under the newly established Department of Wildlife and Plant Conservation, rather than the
Royal Forest Department.
2. Longer trips could not be observed using this approach because of the limited battery life
of the GPS units. Because only hook-and-line fishers and flat-bed crab boat operators took trips
longer than 2 days (see Lunn & Dearden, in press), these were the only fisheries to be affected
by the limitations of the GPS-dependent approach.
3. Anchovy purse seine and squid cast net fishers worked overnight, employing luring lights
to attract their target species. Large-scale fishing boats could, as a result, be seen from shore, and
from our field observations were operating (at least partly) within park boundaries.
 Fishers Needs in MPA Zoning 197

References
Agardy, T. 2000. Information needs for marine protected areas: Scientific and societal. Bulletin of Marine
Science 66(3):875888.
Alder, J. 1996. Have tropical marine protected areas worked? An initial analysis of their success. Coastal
Management 24:97114.
Anuchiracheeva, S., H. Demaine, G. P. Shivakoti, and K. Ruddle. 2003. Systematizing local knowledge
using GIS: Fisheries management in Bang Saphan Bay, Thailand. Coastal Management 46:1049
1068.
Begossi, A. 2001. Mapping spots: Fishing areas or territories among islanders of the Atlantic Forest (Brazil).
Regional Environmental Change 2(1):112.
Berkes, F., R. Mahon, P. McConney, R. B. Pollnac, and R. Pomeroy. 2001. Managing small-scale fisheries:
Alternative directions and methods. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
Briggs, J. C. 2005. Coral reefs: Conserving the evolutionary sources. Biological Conservation 126:297
305.
Bunce, L., K. Gustavson, J. Williams, and M. Miller. 1999. The human side of reef management: A case
study analysis of the socioeconomic framework of Montego Bay Marine Park. Coral Reefs 18:369
380.
Chape, S., S. Blyth, L. Fish, P. Fox, and M. Spalding. 2003. 2003 United Nations List of Protected Areas.
Gland and Cambridge: IUCN and UNEP-WCMC.
Chettamart, S., and D. Emphandhu. 2002. Experience with coastal and marine protected area planning and
management in Thailand. In Environmental Protection and Rural Development in Thailand: Chal-
lenges and Opportunities, ed. P. Dearden, 113136. Bangkok: White Lotus Press.
Christensen, V. 1998. Fishery-induced changes in a marine ecosystem: Insight from models of the Gulf of
Thailand. Journal of Fish Biology 53(Supp. A):128142.
Day, J. C. 2002. ZoningLessons from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Ocean & Coastal Manage-
ment 45(23):139156.
Dixon, J. A., L. Fallon Scura, and T. vant Hof. 1993. Meeting ecological and economic goals: Marine
parks in the Caribbean. Ambio 22(2):117125.
DoF. 1999. Coral reef maps in Thai waters. Bangkok: Fisheries Resources Management Project, Depart-
ment of Fisheries.
Eiamsa-Ard, M., and S. Amornchairojkul. 1997. The marine fisheries of Thailand, with emphasis on the
Gulf of Thailand Trawl Fishery. In Status and management of tropical coastal fisheries in Asia, eds.
G. Silvestre and D. Pauly, 8595. Manila: International Centre for Living Aquatic Resources Manage-
ment.
FAO. 1998. Integrated coastal area management and agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, FAO Guidelines.
Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
FAO. 2002. The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations.
Gladstone, W. 2000. The ecological and social basis for management of a Red Sea marine-protected area.
Ocean & Coastal Management 43:10151032.
Hall, S. J. 1999. The effects of fishing on marine ecosystems and communities. Oxford: Blackwell Science.
Halpern, B. S. 2003. The impact of marine reserves: Do reserves work and does size matter? Ecological
Applications 13(Supp. 1):S117S137.
Hatcher, B. G. 1998. Can marine protected areas optimize fishery production and biodiversity preservation
in the same ecosystem? Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 50:493502.
Jackson, J. B. C., M. X. Kirby, W. H. Berger, K. A. Bjorndal, L. W. Botsford, B. J. Bourque, R. H.
Bradbury, R. Cooke, J. Erlandson, J. A. Estes, T. P. Hughes, S. Kidwell, C. B. Lange, H. S. Lenihan,
J. M. Pandolfi, C. H. Peterson, R. S. Steneck, M. J. Tegner, and R. R. Warner. 2001. Historical
overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293:629638.
Jennings, S., and N. V. C. Polunin. 1996. Impacts of fishing on tropical reef ecosystems. Ambio 25(1):
4449.
Kelleher, G. 1999. Guidelines for marine protected areas. Gland and Cambridge: IUCN.
Kelleher, G., C. Bleakley, and S. Wells. 1995. A global representative system of marine protected areas.
Washington: The World Bank.
Laffoley, D. 1995. Techniques for managing marine protected areas: Zoning. In Marine protected areas:
Principles and techniques for management, ed. S. Gubbay, 103118. London: Chapman & Hall.
Lunn, K. E., and P. Dearden. 2006. Monitoring small-scale marine fisheries: An example from Thailands
Ko Chang Archipelago. Fisheries Research 77(1):6071.
198 K. E. Lunn and P. Dearden

Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods, 2nd
ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
NSO. 2001. Statistical Yearbook Thailand. Bangkok: National Statistical Office.
OConnell, I. J. 2003. Towards the design of spatial decision support for stakeholder-driven collaborative
land valuation in non-urban areas. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Victoria.
Oracion, E. G., M. L. Miller, and P. Christie. 2005. Marine protected areas for whom? Fisheries, tourism
and solidarity in a Philippine Community. Ocean & Coastal Management 48:393410.
Rajani, M. R. B. 2002. Thailand Country Report on the MAB Programme Activities to the 17th UNESCO/
MAB ICC Meeting. Bangkok: Royal Forest Department.
RFD. 2002. Map and Guidelines: Marine National Parks of Thailand. Bangkok: Royal Forest Department.
Roman, G. 2004. Zoning as a tool to manage tourism in protected areas: A case study of Mu Koh Chang
National Marine Park, Thailand. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Victoria.
Russ, G. R. 1991. Coral reef fisheries: Effects and yields. In The ecology of fishes on coral reefs, ed. P. F.
Sale, 601635. San Diego: Academic Press Inc.
Russ, G. R., and A. C. Alcala. 1998. Natural fishing experiments in marine reserves 19831993: Roles of
life history and fishing intensity in family responses. Coral Reefs 17:399416.
Russ, G. R., A. C. Alcala, A. P. Maypa, H. P. Calumpong, and A. T. White. 2004. Marine reserve benefits
local fisheries. Ecological Applications 14:597606.
Salm, R. V., J. Clark, and E. Siirila. 2000. Marine and coastal protected areas: A guide for planners and
managers. Washington: IUCN.
Sinclair, M., and G. Valdimarsson, eds. 2003. Responsible risheries in the marine ecosystem. Rome: Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and CABI Publishing.
Suman, D., M. Shivlani, and J. W. Milon. 1999. Perceptions and attitudes regarding marine reserves: A
comparison of stakeholder groups in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Ocean & Coastal
Management 42:10191040.
TAT. 2002. Tourism in Trat Province: A briefing document for cabinet ministers. Ko Chang: Tourism
Authority of Thailand.
UP-MSI, ABC, ARCBC, DENR, and ASEAN. 2002. Marine protected areas in southeast Asia. Los Banos:
ASEAN Regional Centre for Biodiversity Conservation, Department of Environment and Natural Re-
sources.
Villa, F., L. Tunesi, and T. Agardy. 2002. Zoning marine protected areas through spatial multiple-criteria
Analysis: The case of the Asinara National Marine Reserve of Italy. Conservation Biology 16(2):515
526.
Wells, S., and A. T. White. 1995. Involving the community. In marine protected areas: Principles and
techniques for management, ed. S. Gubbay, 6184. London: Chapman & Hall.
White, A. T. 1986. Marine reserves: How effective as management strategies for Philippine, Indonesian,
and Malaysian coral reef environments? Ocean Management 10(2):137159.
White, A. T., C. A. Courtney, and A. Salamanca. 2002. Experience with marine protected area planning
and management in the Philippines. Coastal Management 30:126.