CSAFE

The implementation of marine protected areas, such as marine reserves and customary fishing areas, is considered an important step toward advancing ecosystem-based management (EBM), but has proven difficult due to resistance from well-organized fishing interests. This raises the question of how the values of less well-organised parties can be brought into the political decision-making process. We summarise the results of a discrete choice survey of the general public in New Zealand that elicits willingness to make tradeoffs among taxes and four socio-ecological attributes: biodiversity, maintenance of Maori customary practices, and restrictions on commercial and recreational fishing. We apply cluster analysis, which provides information about political 'market shares' of respondent preferences, and derive estimates of average public willingness to pay for various policy scenarios. Both analyses reveal broad-scale support for conservation of biodiversity and cultural practices, providing quantifiable input from the public in the process of marine space reallocation.

i Acknowledgements iv Table of contents v List of tables vi List of figures viii Abbreviations ix Glossary of Māori terms x Chapter 1 General introduction 1 Chapter 2 Towards marine spatial allocation and ecosystem-based management: A potential application of choice experiments 9 Chapter 3 People, profit and the environment: Conflicting goals and values surrounding spatial allocations of near-shore marine management in New Zealand 27 Chapter 4 Public preferences for management of near-shore marine ecosystems: A choice experiment in New Zealand 63 Chapter 5 Public willingness to pay for near-shore marine biodiversity and ecosystem services in New Zealand 101 Chapter 6 Implications for policy and issues for future research 133 References 146 Appendices 163

There is considerable interest in New Zealand in establishing "Customary Management Areas" (taiāpure and mātaitai) and Marine Reserves to support Māori cultural practices and restore declining biodiversity and fish stocks. Allocation of near-shore marine areas for these management systems potentially benefits the larger public, but it has often been vigorously opposed by recreational and commercial fishers. This paper reports estimates of the relative values held by the public toward four potentially conflicting uses of near-shore marine areas. These estimates come from a web-based choice survey completed by 1055 respondents recruited from throughout New Zealand. The response rate was especially high at 60%. We present results weighted to the characteristics of the population and test the results against a variety of well-known sources of survey bias. Scenario development suggests that some reallocation of near-shore marine areas to any of the management systems under discussion alternative to the status quo is likely to yield a welfare gain. A combination of marine reserves and taiāpure is most preferred. The exercise supports the use of discrete choice experiments to provide crucial information about difficult-to-quantify public values for aspects of management of near-shore marine areas, such as proposed taiāpure, mātaitai, or marine reserves.

The implementation of marine protected areas, such as marine reserves and customary fishing areas, is considered an important step toward advancing ecosystem-based management (EBM), but has proven difficult due to resistance from well-organized fishing interests. This raises the question of how the values of less well-organised parties can be brought into the political decision-making process. We summarise the results of a discrete choice survey of the general public in New Zealand that elicits willingness to make tradeoffs among taxes and four socio-ecological attributes: biodiversity, maintenance of Maori customary practices, and restrictions on commercial and recreational fishing. We apply cluster analysis, which provides information about political 'market shares' of respondent preferences, and derive estimates of average public willingness to pay for various policy scenarios. Both analyses reveal broad-scale support for conservation of biodiversity and cultural practices, providing quantifiable input from the public in the process of marine space reallocation.

Ecosystem-based management (EBM) is a holistic approach that is most reliable for achieving sustainability of complex, coupled social-ecological systems. An EBM approach to marine fisheries can be put in practice by implementing marine reserves and Customary Protection Areas (CPAs) in addition to conventional fishing regulations (input and output controls). Marine reserves are "no-take" areas where all fishing is completely banned; whereas CPAs provide a flexible mechanism that enables local indigenous people and communities to enact responsibilities and protect their long-term interests. Spatial conflicts between these additional management tools with existing uses (especially fishing) and between the tools themselves have been a major obstacle to practical application of EBM. This has resulted in conflicts of interest and a "race for space" for prime sites chosen for marine reserves and CPAs. This thesis reports analyses of testimony from forty interviews and four focus groups involving key stakeholders to two case-study marine ecosystems in New Zealand. The results show that polarisation of goals and values, the race for space, and social conflicts have actually been induced by perceived declines in fish stocks and biodiversity. Marine reserves are perceived to be more reliable than CPAs (Taiāpure and Mātaitai) for protecting existing and restoring declining biodiversity and fish stocks. Biodiversity is highly coveted for its own intrinsic value and for long-term human benefits. However, Māori have vigorously opposed marine reserves due to the concern over the cumulative loss of traditional fishing grounds, the loss of opportunity to gain control over these areas, and the threat to cultural practices. Recreational and commercial fishers have opposed any greater restriction that has potential to accumulatively threaten their fishing. These fishers tend to support taiāpure in a way that forms a coalition with its proponents to make more effective opposition to a marine reserve that has greater impact on fishing. Impact assessment tests are insufficient for making sound decisions about the allocation of space in marine areas. Therefore, information about the large public"s preferences for the trade-offs between reductions in current uses and a greater chance of achieving sustainability induced by implementation of marine reserves and/or CPAs are needed. First of all, I sincerely thank my main supervisor (Professor Henrik Moller) and cosupervisors (Dr Paul Thorsnes and Dr Viktoria Kahui) for their encouragement and help throughout this study, for challenging discussions on research design and interpretation and for rigorous scrutiny of conference presentations and manuscripts of every chapter of this thesis. I also thank members of the Centre of Sustainability (CSAFE) at the University of Otago for their critiques on my choice survey and for hosting me with a warm and wonderful office space. Ms Fiona Stirling and Mr Samnang Uys helped pre-test the choice survey. Mr James Inger helped complete an Excel macro that saved significant time for estimating willingness to pay (Chapter 5). I would like to extend my gratitude to all interviewees and survey respondents for their participation in this research which was authorised by Human Ethics Committee Permit 07/099 (September 2011) and a Department of Economics Human Ethics Approval (July 2012). My study was made possible by a University of Otago PhD scholarship. CSAFE, the Department of Economics and Te Tiaki Mahinga Kai (TMK), a MBIE (FRST) and Ngāi Tahu funded project, made financial contributions to enable data collection and my participation in conferences. I also thank 1000Minds for offering a free access to the software for my research and Smile City for offering a discounted cost for the choice survey as a partial sponsorship of my research. I am indebted to my wife (Mrs Baroda Neth) and our children (Barnett Barom Chhun and Somonyroth Chhun) whose patience allowed my utmost commitment to this research. They inspired me in every respect. I dedicate my heartfelt thanks to my parents (Mr Sokrang Chhun and Mrs Eng Teng), parents in law (Dr Barom Neth and Mrs Bohakny Sar), aunt (Mrs Sokhun Chhun), uncle-in-law (Mr Peang Chan), all siblings, relatives, friends, and colleagues for their wonderful encouragement and support. Finally, I thank all people who helped support my wife, sons and myself during this hard timeparticularly Professor Henrik

There is considerable interest in New Zealand in establishing "Customary Management Areas" (taiāpure and mātaitai) and Marine Reserves to support Māori cultural practices and restore declining biodiversity and fish stocks. Allocation of near-shore marine areas for these management systems potentially benefits the larger public, but it has often been vigorously opposed by recreational and commercial fishers. This paper reports estimates of the relative values held by the public toward four potentially conflicting uses of near-shore marine areas. These estimates come from a web-based choice survey completed by 1055 respondents recruited from throughout New Zealand. The response rate was especially high at 60%. We present results weighted to the characteristics of the population and test the results against a variety of well-known sources of survey bias. Scenario development suggests that some reallocation of near-shore marine areas to any of the management systems under discussion alternative to the status quo is likely to yield a welfare gain. A combination of marine reserves and taiāpure is most preferred. The exercise supports the use of discrete choice experiments to provide crucial information about difficult-to-quantify public values for aspects of management of near-shore marine areas, such as proposed taiāpure, mātaitai, or marine reserves.