The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Why local people do not support conservation: Community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand
Open accessAbstract
Conservation success is often predicated on local support for conservation which is strongly influenced by perceptions of the impacts that are experienced by local communities and opinions of management and governance. Marine protected areas (MPAs) are effective conservation and fisheries management tools that can also have a broad array of positive and negative social, economic, cultural, and political impacts on local communities. Drawing on results from a mixed-methods study of communities on the Andaman Coast of Thailand, this paper explores perceptions of MPA impacts on community livelihood resources (assets) and outcomes as well as MPA governance and management. The area includes 17 National Marine Parks (NMPs) that are situated near rural communities that are highly dependent on coastal resources. Interview participants perceived NMPs to have limited to negative impacts on fisheries and agricultural livelihoods and negligible benefits for tourism livelihoods. Perceived impacts on livelihoods were felt to result from NMPs undermining access to or lacking support for development of cultural, social, political, financial, natural, human, physical, and political capital assets. Conflicting views emerged on whether NMPs resulted in negative or positive marine or terrestrial conservation outcomes. Perceptions of NMP governance and management processes were generally negative. These results point to some necessary policy improvements and actions to ameliorate: the relationship between the NMP and communities, NMP management and governance processes, and socio-economic and conservation outcomes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries
Ellis, F. (2000) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198296959.001.0001 · Cited by 3,999
Cited by
Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation
Bennett, N. J., Roth, R., Klain, S. C., Chan, K., Christie, P., Clark, D. A., Cullman, G., Curran, D., Durbin, T. J., Epstein, G., et al. (2017) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006 · Cited by 1,254
Self-citationUsing perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management
Bennett, N. J. (2016) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.12681 · Cited by 908
Self-citationCo-productive agility and four collaborative pathways to sustainability transformations
Chambers, J. M., Wyborn, C., Klenk, N. L., Ryan, M., Serban, A., Bennett, N. J., Brennan, R., Charli-Joseph, L., Fernández-Giménez, M. E., Galvin, K. A., et al. (2022) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102422 · Cited by 292
Self-citationKhan, N. A., Choudhury, J. K., Rashid, A. Z. M. M., Siddique, M. R. H., & Sinha, K. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su142214885 · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Bennett, N. J., & Dearden, P.
- Venue
- Marine Policy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-02
- Volume
- 44
- Pages
- 107-116
- ISSN
- 0308-597X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2104863350
- Cited by
- 897
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 69.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Why local people do not support conservation: Community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.08.017
- The paper
- Bennett, N. J., & Dearden, P. (2014). Why local people do not support conservation: Community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand. Marine Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.08.017
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.