California Marine Life Protection Research Articles

An equilibrium model for predicting the efficacy of marine protected areas in coastal environments

Quantitative models of marine protected area (MPA) proposals can be used to compare outcomes given current biological knowledge. We used a model of a linear coastline, with 200 discrete cells each spanning 1.6 km of coast. This model is used to evaluate alternative proposals for marine protected area networks, predicting equilibrium changes in abundances and harvests while accounting for dispersal of larvae and older fish, changes in fecundity with reduced mortality in reserves, impacts of displaced fishing effort on abundances outside reserves, and compensatory (stock–recruitment) changes in postsettlement juvenile survival. The model demonstrates that modest dispersal rates of older fish can substantially reduce abundance within protected areas compared with predictions from models that ignore such dispersal. The strength of compensatory improvements in postsettlement juvenile survival is the most critical factor in determining whether a reserve network can rescue populations from the impacts of severe overharvesting. We use the model to compare specific alternative proposals for protected area networks along the California coast, as mandated through California's Marine Life Protection Act, and show that achieving the goals of the Act depends primarily on the fisheries management regulations outside of protected areas and that the size and configuration of MPAs has little impact.

Comparing Policy Networks: Marine Protected Areas in California

While most of the network literature focuses on information and advice networks, there is increasing interest—particularly among Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) scholars—on ally networks and coordination networks. This article asks two basic questions: First, do information, ally, and coordination networks overlap with each other? Second, and drawing from the ACF, do policy core beliefs structure the interactions in ally, coordination, and advice/information networks? We pursue these research questions in the context of the California Marine Life Protection Act process. We find that ally and coordination networks overlap slightly more than information/advice networks and that policy core beliefs do a better job of predicting ally and coordination networks than advice/information networks. Thus, we show that ally networks can provide a useful proxy for coordination networks to identify advocacy coalitions.

Editor's Notes

This issue of the Policy Studies Journal focuses on advice, influence and control as they bear on public policy and governance. Our first pair of articles considers the matter of neutral competence in the provision of advice to policy makers. Since the seminal work of such scholars as Herbert Kaufman and Hugh Heclo, the possibility and efficacy of neutral policy analysis and advice has been widely discussed. Some have argued that in practice analysis is merely a fig leaf to cover naked political interest. Others counter that neutral analysis can (and should be) achieved through appropriate institutional design and inculcation of proper norms. In this issue, David Weimer makes the case that development of neutral competence in policy analysis is more readily achieved in legislative than executive agencies. In parliamentary systems, where legislative and executive functions are combined, a variety of “tools” are offered to foster neutral competence. William West, in our second article, is less optimistic that neutral competence can be achieved and sustained. Retracing the intellectual debate, West identifies the challenges to neutrality and argues that being effective requires giving up some degree of neutrality. We expect to see more on this debate in future issues of the Journal. The third paper tackles the thorny problem of shaping and sustaining difficult reform initiatives in public agencies. How is it that stakeholders reach conclusions about the kind of reform that should be pursued? What kinds of conditions or resources foster sustained efforts to achieve reform? Melissa Marschall and Paru Shah focus on the implications of variation in “civic capacity” within stakeholder communities for continued reform efforts in school systems, and find—among other conclusions—that mayoral leadership may be essential in achieving reasonable levels of stakeholder consensus on appropriate reforms. Chris Weible and Paul Sabatier focus on networks within policy subsystems, and the degree to which networks defined by alliances, coordination and informing/advising overlap. Using the case of California marine life protection issue as a case, Weible and Sabatier find that there is substantial overlap across ally and coordination networks. Not only are these networks more tightly linked, they are also better predicted by “core beliefs” of the policy subsystem players. The remainder of this issue consists of a set of four papers all of which address the problem of “public governance.” These papers were submitted to the PSJ as a set, though of course (as is true of all papers published in this journal) each survived rigorous, independent peer review. While each stands on its own, collectively they provide an impressive demonstration of cutting edge of scholarship on the mechanisms by which governments control the behaviors of public agencies. The scope of the papers is reflected in the countries (Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, and the US), agencies (prisons, local building administration, and the US Coast Guard), and methods (case study, statistical, and formal approaches) employed. The set is prefaced by a summary paper by Hill et al evaluating the state of the literature on governance mechanisms in the US and EU, and sketching a “logic of governance” by which assessments of governance is facilitated. Public governance is defined to mean “regimes of laws, rules, judicial decisions, and administrative practices that constrain, prescribe, and enable the provision of publicly-supported goods and services.” As editors, we are particularly pleased with this set in that although each paper stands along in making a substantive contribution, the value of the collection is nevertheless much greater than that of the sum of the parts.