Motivations for community participation in marine protected areas governance systems

1 Introduction

Although the oceans host most of the planet's biodiversity (Relano and Pauly, 2023; Sala et al., 2021), they are experiencing degradation and significant biodiversity loss (Maestro et al., 2019). Declines in marine biodiversity have sparked global concern, leading to increased commitments to establish MPAs (Ban et al., 2017; Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010). MPAs are being established as a major tool to safeguard marine habitats, species, and ecosystem functions from human pressures (Kirkman et al., 2021; Villaseñor-Derbez et al., 2022). The 2003 Fifth World Parks Congress highlighted the crucial role of MPAs in conserving biodiversity and promoting sustainable development while noting the significant disparity between marine (1%) and terrestrial (12%) protected areas (Maestro et al., 2019). Furthermore, the 2014 Sixth World Parks Congress reaffirmed that the marine environment remains one of the least protected ecosystems, with human impact on the oceans continuing to escalate (Maestro et al., 2019). International frameworks like the UN's Sustainable Development Goal 14 (Life Below Water) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), including its post-2020 global biodiversity framework, have shaped the global agenda for marine conservation. All these frameworks emphasize the importance of MPAs in protecting biodiversity (Charles et al., 2016; Peer et al., 2022) and promoting governance systems that enable the effective participation of coastal communities, fishers, and other ocean users in the planning, design, and implementation of MPAs (Charles et al., 2016). To this end, countries have established MPAs to fulfill international obligations, particularly to meet the CBD's Aichi Biodiversity Target 11, which calls for the conservation of at least 10% of coastal and marine areas through a well-connected system of protected areas by 2020, a goal also reflected in SDG 14.5 (Claudet et al., 2020; Gall and Rodwell, 2015; Kirkman et al., 2021). The United Nations Environment Programme (2022), through the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, also sets ambitious targets, including ensuring that by 2030, at least 30% of all ecosystems, especially those important for biodiversity, are effectively conserved and managed through protected areas and other conservation measures. According to Di Cintio et al. (2023), the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, and the Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) are driving a rapid expansion of MPAs worldwide. Currently, about 3.4%−5% of the global oceans are protected, but further increases are needed to meet global targets (Gall and Rodwell, 2015; Juffe-Bignoli et al., 2014).

The establishment of new MPAs is likely to continue in the future, though with increasing concerns regarding their conservation (Ferreira et al., 2021; Woodcock et al., 2017) and governance outcomes. The term MPAs is a common generic term used to describe protected marine spaces, although different jurisdictions may refer to them as marine reserves, protected marine areas, no-take zones, fish boxes or fishery closure areas, marine sanctuaries, ocean sanctuaries, marine parks, marine conservation areas, ocean preserves, as well as special areas of conservation or sites of special scientific interest (Hoyt, 2009; Marcos et al., 2021; Pérez-Ruzafa et al., 2019). In certain regions, MPAs are appreciated and celebrated for their effectiveness in protecting diverse habitats and providing ecological benefits, showcasing the value of conservation efforts in preserving marine ecosystems (Peer et al., 2022). Although ecological protection is still seen as the fundamental objective of MPAs worldwide, it is acknowledged that, for coastal resource management, MPAs and marine conservation to be successful, social elements, governance issues, people, and human dimensions must be considered (Charles et al., 2016; Hogg et al., 2017; Kirkman et al., 2021). Achieving effective MPA outcomes require greater consideration of the human dimension, as many current marine conservation initiatives still inadequately integrate the broad social and human factors necessary for successful MPAs (Di Cintio et al., 2024; Ison et al., 2021). These factors include appropriate governance, public engagement, and the integration of communities' knowledge systems (Christie et al., 2017). Edifying this observation, Butt et al. (2018) and Mannan et al. (2020) argue that effective coastal management requires integrated, participatory approaches that actively involve communities in planning, management, monitoring, evaluation, and post-implementation analysis of conservation outcomes. Involving communities, especially by integrating their traditional knowledge, adds the human dimension to coastal management and fosters community ownership of the process (Addo and Addo, 2016). Traditional ecological knowledge is anchored in the approaches of ethnoscience and human ecology, and these approaches are increasingly emphasizing the need to address contemporary challenges affecting resource conservation, resource management, and sustainable development (Berkes, 2008).

Marine governance has often followed a top-down approach, failing to adequately involve locals in decision-making, leading to exclusionary conservation practices that undermine local rights and interests (O'Connor et al., 2024). The creation of MPAs often carries inherent conflict potential due to a disconnect between conservation objectives and economic development goals, leading to disagreements with local users over the designation and management of these protected areas (Rangel et al., 2025). The key challenge is how to regulate the use of natural resources to ensure their long-term sustainability and economic viability (Ostrom, 1990). Although state regulation and privatization have often been promoted as solutions, neither approach has been consistently successful, while some communities have effectively managed resources through locally developed governance institutions over extended periods (Ostrom, 1990). This highlights the importance of collaborative environmental governance, where people, institutions, and communities work together, adapt, and learn continuously in response to changing conditions and uncertainty to achieve sustainable resource management (Armitage et al., 2008). Hence, one way to potentially increase the effectiveness of marine reserves is to implement and/or strengthen community-based management (CBM) (Marriott et al., 2021; Ostrom, 1990; Smallhorn-West et al., 2019) since low support and low priority given by communities are among the main barriers to MPA effectiveness (Giglio et al., 2019; Mascia et al., 2010). The effectiveness of MPAs is also influenced by human behavior, particularly from communities, which can significantly impact their conservation outcomes and management success (Ghate and Roy, 2024; Jiang et al., 2024). Pomeroy and Douvere, (2008) defines a community as a social group of marine resources users who do not live in a single geographical unit but have different interests based on age, gender, class, ability, ethnicity, and economic factors. However, (Bennett et al. 2019) also defines a community in the context of natural resource governance as people or persons whose livelihoods and wellbeing are dependent on local biophysical environment or directly experiencing the social and livelihood impacts of conservation interventions. The concept “community” is therefore narrower than the broader notion of “public” which encompasses all individuals, organizations, and institutions with an interest in environmental decision-making. The study focuses specifically on community participation because it seeks to understand the experiences and perspectives of those most directly affected by MPA governance. This is the definition adopted by this study. Using inclusive and transparent participatory processes that engage communities from the outset to co-design, co-implement, and co-manage MPAs can effectively balance biodiversity protection with communities' needs, leading to more sustainable and effective conservation outcomes (Rangel et al., 2025; Villaseñor-Derbez et al., 2022).

MPAs and the communities that depend on them are complementary and essential to one another, which is why they are often considered a coupled social-ecological system that warrants research (Ghate and Roy, 2024; Jiang et al., 2024). According to Gall and Rodwell (2015), two of the six factors that are consistently linked to MPA effectiveness are community engagement and governance. Based on the Convention on Biological Diversity's Aichi Target 11, effective and equitable governance and management are essential for protected areas, indicating that merely designating a protected area is insufficient (Schéré et al., 2021). However, many MPAs fail to achieve their conservation objectives due to inadequate stakeholder engagement, particularly the limited involvement of communities throughout all phases of MPA development, as stakeholders are often only given opportunities to react to finalized plans rather than actively participate in the process (Mannan et al., 2020; Schéré et al., 2021). Therefore, recent efforts in MPA management have shifted toward promoting inclusive practices and collaborative governance, recognizing the importance of community involvement (Katikiro et al., 2021). Equity concerns may seem less urgent or apparent in marine contexts because MPAs typically do not displace communities from their places/homes but rather restrict access to and use of marine spaces and resources (Schéré et al., 2021). Nevertheless, these restrictions can significantly affect local livelihoods and resource access, underscoring the importance of inclusive and participatory governance approaches for achieving equitable and effective MPA management.

While in some regions MPAs are celebrated for their effectiveness in protecting diverse habitats and providing ecological benefits, in others they face various challenges. Across the 27 reviewed MPA sites worldwide, failure to achieve ecological objectives was largely attributed to inadequate stakeholder engagement, identified as the most critical factor influencing MPA success (Giakoumi et al., 2018). According to Gall and Rodwell (2015), two of the six factors that are consistently linked to MPA effectiveness are community engagement and governance. Traditionally, marine governance has often followed a top-down approach, whereby decisions regarding conservation planning, management, and resource use are primarily made by governments, external experts, or conservation agencies with limited involvement of communities in decision-making, leading to exclusionary conservation practices that undermine local rights and interests (O'Connor et al., 2024). The creation of MPAs often carries inherent conflict potential due to a disconnect between conservation objectives and economic development goals, which can lead to disagreements with local users over the designation and management of these protected areas (Rangel et al., 2025). Hence, one way to potentially increase the effectiveness of marine reserves is to implement and/or strengthen community-based management (CBM) (Marriott et al., 2021), since low support and low priority given by communities are among the main barriers to MPA effectiveness (Giglio et al., 2019). Community here refers to a social group of marine resources users who do not live in a single geographical unit but have different interests based on age, gender, class, ability, ethnicity, and economic factors (Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008). Using inclusive and transparent participatory processes that engage communities from the outset to co-design, co-implement, and co-manage MPAs can effectively balance biodiversity protection with communities' needs, leading to more sustainable and effective conservation outcomes (Rangel et al., 2025; Villaseñor-Derbez et al., 2022).

MPAs and the communities dependent on them are complementary and essential to one another, which is why they are frequently considered a coupled social-ecological system that warrants research (Ghate and Roy, 2024; Jiang et al., 2024). Gall and Rodwell (2015) identified community engagement and governance as two of the six key factors consistently associated with the effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Based on the CBD's Aichi Target 11, effective and equitable governance and management are essential for protected areas, indicating that merely designating a protected area is insufficient (Schéré et al., 2021). The primary aspect of procedural equity is the active involvement of all relevant stakeholders in the designation, implementation, and management of protected areas. However, many MPAs fail to meet their conservation objectives due to inadequate stakeholder engagement (especially communities) throughout all MPA development phases (Schéré et al., 2021). Therefore, recent efforts in MPA governance have shifted toward promoting inclusive practices and collaborative governance, recognizing the importance of community involvement (Katikiro et al., 2021). Equity concerns may seem less urgent or apparent in marine contexts because MPAs typically do not displace communities from their places/homes but rather restrict access to and use of marine spaces and resources (Schéré et al., 2021). However, these restrictions can still significantly affect livelihoods, cultural practices, and access rights, particularly for resource-dependent coastal communities. This highlights the need for MPA governance approaches that explicitly address equity, inclusion, and participation.

While community engagement through participation is frequently incorporated into many MPA processes, the quality and nature of stakeholder participation and its influence on governance outcomes remain poorly understood (O'Connor et al., 2024). Community participation has emerged as a valuable approach in MPA management, garnering significant global research attention, with a notable surge in studies on community participation in MPAs in recent years (Ghate and Roy, 2024; Jiang et al., 2024). Jiang et al. (2024) further note that, while recent years have seen a rise in studies on community involvement in MPAs, there remains a notable absence of comprehensive, systematic reviews on this topic. This is partly due to the fragmented and siloed nature of research across multiple fields. Some review studies have examined related aspects of MPAs, including participatory or citizen science in MPAs (O'Connor et al., 2024), socio-economic factors enhancing MPA effectiveness (Di Cintio et al., 2023), local residents' views on management, governance, and surrounding development inputs of MPAs, as well as their ecological and socioeconomic outcomes (Enthoven, 2025), key metrics for measuring MPA performance (Gallacher et al., 2016), community participation in Asian biosphere reserves (Jaafar et al., 2025), public opinion on Australian MPAs (Raabe et al., 2024), stakeholder engagement in marine and coastal fisheries (Schwermer et al., 2020), and bibliometric trends in community engagement in MPAs (Jiang et al., 2024). However, despite the growing recognition of community participation in MPA management and the increasing research attention it has received (Ghate and Roy, 2024; Jiang et al., 2024), and several literature reviews on MPAs, there remains a lack of studies synthesizing findings on the quality and nature of community participation in MPAs using the SPAF. Given the foregoing background, a comprehensive systematic literature review is warranted to synthesize existing knowledge, identify gaps, and inform best practices on community participation in MPAs guided by the SPAF. This study therefore seeks to: (i) identify the reasons for public participation or limited participation in MPA processes; (ii) examine the participatory methods used; (iii) evaluate levels of public participation and influence across reviewed MPAs; and (iv) examine factors affecting community participation.

1.1 Theoretical framework: stakeholder participation assessment framework

SPAF (Figure 1) was designed to guide stakeholder engagement in Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) and MPAs. It is a comprehensive framework developed around the fundamental theoretical elements of participation: the reasons for participation in MSP/MPAs (why), the participants involved in the MSP/MP governance processes (who), the timing of participation in each phase of the MSP/MPA project (when), and the methods and strategies for facilitating participation (how) and evaluation of the levels of public participation (Quesada-Silva et al., 2019). It is designed for use by researchers or consultants seeking an objective understanding of the decisions regarding the level of involvement encouraged by the MSP and MPA authorities.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Keywords and database

The study examined the nature, extent, and factors affecting community participation in MPAs, through a systematic literature review guided by the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The PRISMA approach follows a predetermined scientific approach and is accompanied by a protocol (Garg et al., 2024). The PRISMA guidelines ensure that the study follows a structured, standardized protocol for identifying, screening, assessing eligibility, and extracting peer-reviewed articles from the chosen databases, thereby encouraging transparency and reliability (Garg et al., 2024; Mutanda and Nhamo, 2024). Peer-reviewed articles were obtained from Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science (WoS) databases. Other databases, such as PubMed and IEEE Xplore, were not included because they are more specialized in biomedical and engineering fields and were considered less relevant to the governance and social science focus of this review. Google Scholar was also included because it is freely accessible (Teixeira da Silva, 2024) and has been regarded as reliable, with good coverage across disciplines, especially in the humanities and social sciences, where WoS and Scopus are known to be weak (Martín-Martín et al., 2018). Google Scholar provides broad citation coverage but also includes non-peer-reviewed materials, such as theses and unpublished documents (Gerasimov et al., 2024; Martín-Martín et al., 2018). Scopus and WoS are generally regarded as reliable sources of peer-reviewed scholarly literature for systematic reviews and citation analyses (Garg et al., 2024; Garg et al., 2021; (Pranckutė, 2021)). Combining these three data sources results in a more thorough coverage of diverse geographic locations (Odoi-Yorke, 2024) and disciplines (Kumpulainen and Seppänen, 2022). Keywords such as “community participation,” “stakeholder engagement,” “stakeholder involvement,” “stakeholder participation,” “stakeholder collaboration,” “public engagement,” “public involvement,” “stakeholder consultation,” “co-management,” “adaptive co-management,” “collaborative governance,” “community-based management,” “marine protected area,” “marine reserve,” “marine conservation,” “marine park” were used. Appendix A provides detailed search strings for the article types used, the chosen disciplines, and the keywords. The keywords were developed through a process that combined: (i) core concepts derived from the study topic and objectives; (ii) terminology commonly used in the broader marine governance and conservation literature, and (iii) terms identified through preliminary scoping searches and previous review studies on participatory and collaborative marine conservation governance.

2.2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Refined searches in the WoS, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases yielded 354, 557, and 50 articles, respectively. Scopus and Web of Science were our primary databases, while Google Scholar was a supplementary database used to identify additional or missed studies; hence, the limited number of articles from the latter. So, this review was not dependent on Google Scholar but on those two databases. The final search for articles was conducted on 27 April 2026 (during the revision stage of the manuscript). A search was conducted across the title, abstract, and keywords. A total of 961 articles in Research Information Systems (RIS) file format were imported into Covidence for further screening. Of the 961 articles, Covidence identified 446 duplicates. This meant that 515 articles were retained for abstract and full-text screening. Articles that did not address the research objectives, book chapters, and theoretical or review papers were removed during the abstract and full-text screening. A total of 68 articles were retained for the final systematic literature review. Table 1 complements the search strings (Appendix A) by providing more detail on the exclusion and inclusion criteria adopted in this study.

Table 1. The grounds for the inclusion and exclusion of articles.

2.3 Data analysis

A total of 68 articles were extracted from Covidence software and uploaded into Atlas.ti 25 software for analysis. Segments of interest (quotations) were created from the articles, and each segment was coded. Coding of the segments of interest was done manually. The quotations and codes were generated concurrently. A quotation is a selected segment of the source data (text, audio, image, video, or PDF) that is marked because it is meaningful for your analysis, whilst a code is a label that is applied to one or more quotations to represent an idea (Mutanda and Nhamo, 2026). The study employed both deductive and inductive coding across the 68 articles. Codes that emerged from the data were guided by the objectives and dimensions of the SPAF (Table 2). The authors first discussed how deductive coding would be conducted based on the SPAF dimensions (Figure 1). As deductive coding was conducted, the authors also agreed to conduct inductive coding, especially for ideas emerging in the literature but not part of the SPAF framework. After individual coding, the authors refined and harmonized the codes, producing code groups that led to the main themes of this study (Table 2).

Table 2. Coding framework used to synthesize findings from 68 reviewed studies.

To analyse the conceptual rationales, or theoretical lenses, for adopting and explaining stakeholder participation, the study employed an inductive thematic analysis of the reviewed literature. Reported motivations for participation were systematically coded and grouped into broader conceptual categories based on recurring patterns and meanings emerging from the data. Through this process, three dominant perspectives were identified: management, ethical, and social learning. Code-document and co-occurrence analyses were conducted to better understand the relationships among emerging issues affecting community participation in MPAs. To examine the degree of stakeholder participation and the level of stakeholder influence, this study adopted the public participation framework (Figure 2) proposed by Luyet et al. (2012) and the Queensland Government (2014). It provides a clear and widely recognized continuum of participation ranging from one-way information sharing to stakeholder empowerment.

The framework was selected because it enables systematic assessment of the depth of stakeholder engagement and the level of influence stakeholders have in MPA governance processes. During data analysis, the term “community” was treated as a general category only when studies referred collectively to community members without specifying stakeholder subgroups. Where studies specifically identified groups such as artisanal fishers, recreational fishers, women, or tourism operators, these were coded separately to minimize double-counting. Each stakeholder category was therefore counted once per study based on the terminology and distinctions used in the reviewed literature.

Figure 3 shows the results from every stage of the search and screening of the article's abstracts and full-text articles.

3 Results

3.1 Why is stakeholder participation promoted in MPA governance processes?

In this study, governance refers to institutional arrangements, decision-making processes, and stakeholder interactions that shape how MPAs are conceptualized, designed, created, and managed, including issues of participation and enforcement. Table 3 shows the reasons why MPA authorities adopt public participation. It also presents different conceptual rationales, or theoretical lenses, for adopting and explaining stakeholder participation in MPA governance. These diverse set of motivations can broadly be grouped into management, ethical, and social learning perspectives. The ethical perspective is based on normative principles such as fairness, rights, equity, and inclusion. Ethical motivations emerged as the most dominant perspective overall as participation was promoted to capture local views, traditions, and indigenous knowledge, foster ownership of MPAs, empower local people through recognition of their rights, minimize negative impacts on livelihoods and economic activities, and encourage co-management arrangements. The management perspective views stakeholder participation as a tool to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of MPA management. Management-oriented motivations were strongly associated with improving the effectiveness of conservation and governance processes. Frequently cited reasons included helping enforce MPA regulations, increasing awareness and positive attitudes toward MPAs, gathering information for management purposes, informing stakeholders, and enabling the state to achieve conservation objectives. Public participation in MPA governance processes is not just for ethical reasons, but also to comply with legal requirements. The social learning perspective sees participation as a process of knowledge exchange, learning, and mutual understanding among stakeholders. The social learning perspective highlighted the need to promote participation in knowledge exchange, collective learning, and capacity development. Stakeholder participation was linked to strengthening local capacities, increasing involvement in scientific projects, creating opportunities for shared learning, and supporting livelihood and employment opportunities connected to MPAs.

Table 3. Reasons and conceptual rationales for adopting public participation.

Note: Cells with a grey background indicate that the rationale aligns with the respective conceptual perspective (management, ethical, or social learning) identified in the reviewed studies.

The Sian Ka'an Biosphere Reserve demonstrated one of the broadest motivations for stakeholder participation, adopting five key rationales for public engagement in MPA governance processes. These include building rapport with local fishers and resource users, fostering community ownership of the MPA, involving communities in co-management arrangements, resolving conflicts and misunderstandings, and supporting the achievement of conservation objectives. Similarly, the Banco Chinchorro Biosphere Reserve adopted four major motivations for public participation in MPA governance. Public engagement was promoted to build rapport with local fishers and resource users, foster local ownership of the MPA, involve communities in co-management processes, and support the achievement of conservation objectives. The California MPAs also reflected multiple motivations for stakeholder participation, adopting four key rationales for engagement. Participation was encouraged to gather data for management purposes, give back to fishery resources, support participation in scientific projects, and promote attitude change and awareness regarding MPA goals. Likewise, the Qimei Fisheries Conservation Zone adopted four motivations for stakeholder engagement in MPA processes. Participation was promoted to build local capacity, support enforcement and compliance with MPA regulations, gather management-related data, and facilitate participation in scientific projects. However, there is relatively limited emphasis on conflict resolution and livelihood enhancement, participation in scientific projects, and capacity building, suggesting that participatory governance in many MPAs may still be more consultative than genuinely collaborative or knowledge co-production.

3.2 Who was involved in MPA governance processes?

Figure 4 shows some of the targets for public participation set by MPA authorities across different marine parks, and the results indicate that stakeholder participation in MPA processes is heavily concentrated among groups directly dependent on marine and coastal resources. The community emerged as the most engaged group, as noted in 36 reviewed articles. Many studies treated the “community” as a homogeneous category without clearly distinguishing the different stakeholder groups within it. Again, stakeholder engagement appears to be centered on actors with recognized economic or subsistence relationships to marine resources. Fishers/anglers rank second, in 34 reviewed articles, though artisanal fishers were more dominant, followed by recreational fishers. Although fishers are often part of the broader community, stakeholder categories were coded according to how they were explicitly identified and differentiated in the original studies. Figure 4 further shows a comparatively narrow diversity of participants involved in MPA processes. While some socially differentiated groups were included, participation remains uneven across stakeholder categories. Other groups were mentioned in 11 or fewer reviewed articles, indicating a lack of the “difference approach” in public participation, whereby diverse stakeholder identities, interests, and vulnerabilities are explicitly recognized and accommodated within MPA participatory processes. Only one reviewed article reported youth participation in marine park processes, while women were similarly represented in only one study. There is limited inclusion of women and youths despite the growing global emphasis on inclusive and equitable governance. The findings also show a low representation of small-scale business operators and secondary value-chain actors such as fish processors, brokers, and traders, despite their dependence on marine resources for income generation.

3.3 When are communities involved in public participation?

MPA governance processes encompass various stages, including conception and planning, park designation and establishment, park operations and administration (O'Connor et al., 2024). Conception and planning cover problem identification, stakeholder consultation, and site identification. Designation and establishment combine the siting/designation of MPAs, park creation, implementation, legal declaration, boundary demarcation, initial setup, and operationalization of the park. The last stage is park operations and administration. This combines park implementation, park operations/administration, day-to-day management and enforcement of park regulations, and ecological and socio-economic monitoring. Table 4 shows that stakeholder participation was incorporated across three stages of MPA governance processes, although the extent and consistency of engagement varied considerably between MPAs. Communities are mainly engaged during park designation and establishment, and park implementation and management when support for enforcement and operational management is needed, rather than when fundamental decisions about conservation goals, boundaries, or governance systems are first established during the conception stage. Despite the widespread global advocacy for early stakeholder involvement, the study shows that relatively fewer MPAs involved stakeholders during the conception and planning phases than during later stages of the MPA process. The findings also reveal considerable variation in the depth of participation across different MPAs. Only the Sian Ka'an Biosphere Reserve, Done Shwe Than, Ha'ena Community-Based Subsistence Fishing Area, Pyin Bu Gyi, Soufriere Marine Management Area, Minarzos Marine Reserve of Fishing Interest, Min Kaung Se, and the Banco Chinchorro Biosphere Reserve, Ye Aye MPA, engaged communities in all three stages of the MPA processes.

Table 4. Community engagement in the MPA governance stages.

Note: Grey shading indicates the presence of documented community engagement at the respective MPA governance stage as reported in the reviewed publication.

3.4 Participatory methods used in MPA governance processes

Table 5 presents the participatory methods used by various MPAs across the 68 reviewed articles. These are strategies for involving communities in MPA governance processes, including park conception and planning, park designation and establishment, and park operations and administration. The findings suggest that public participation in MPA processes was dominated by conventional informative and consultative approaches rather than deeply collaborative or power-sharing mechanisms. Public hearings, community committees, advisory groups, workshops, and written public submissions emerged as among the most widely used methods across different MPAs. Another key finding is that many MPAs rely on committees, associations, and advisory groups, as these participatory methods recognize the importance of maintaining ongoing engagement platforms rather than depending solely on one-off participatory methods. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in Australia exemplifies an MPA committed to enhancing effective public participation through an exceptional range of participatory methods (10). Similarly, the California MPAs in the USA follow suit with five participatory methods. Slightly above half of the MPAs in Table 5 used only one method to engage the public in MPA processes. Nine out of the 41 MPAs adopted three participatory methods.

Table 5. Participatory methods adopted by MPAs.

Public hearings, citizen science, biodiversity monitoring, and written public submissions (in that order) were the most popular methods for engaging communities. The findings also show a heavy reliance on knowledge-oriented and collaborative methods, particularly citizen science, biological monitoring, mapping exercises, and capacity-building activities. The use of mapping exercises, citizen science, and biodiversity monitoring to engage the public aims to build a new generation of “citizen scientists” from the communities. The results further show that some MPAs, such as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and the California MLPA, adopted highly diverse, multi-layered participation strategies that included both traditional face-to-face engagement and modern communication technologies. However, there is limited adoption of digital and online participation tools, as many MPAs rely almost entirely on traditional engagement approaches. MPAs such as Mimiwhangata Marine Reserve, Portugal MPAs, Sian Ka'an Biosphere Reserve, Savu Sea National Marine Park, and Banco Chinchorro Biosphere Reserve adopted methods that promoted informative and collaborative participation. The use of IKS remains relatively limited despite the increasing recognition of indigenous and local knowledge in conservation governance. Only three MPAs were identified as integrating IKS into MPA processes. Overall, public participatory methods being adopted strongly emphasized informative and consultative participation and limited emphasis on collaborative, empowerment-oriented, or stakeholder-led MPA governance.

Figure 5 shows the popularity of public participatory methods across reviewed MPAs. The results indicate that public participation in MPA governance relied more heavily on active participatory approaches than passive forms of engagement. An important study finding is the strong popularity of citizen science projects and biological monitoring activities in many MPAs, indicating that communities are not merely seen as information recipients but also as important stakeholders in environmental monitoring and knowledge production. Nearly half of the participatory methods are passive, i.e., they involve communities receiving information from MPA authorities without the opportunity to provide their own inputs. The continued dominance of passive participation methods, such as written public submissions, brochures, media announcements, and public awareness campaigns, demonstrates that although participatory governance is evolving, many MPAs still adopt public engagement to tick boxes rather than to empower the public.

3.5 Participatory methods and the degree of stakeholder influence

Figure 6 shows the levels of public participation strategies across reviewed MPAs, ranging from information (one-way engagement), consultation (limited two-way engagement), involvement (mutual exchange and learning, but the implementer retains control), collaboration (partnership in decision-making and actions), to empowerment (the public has final decision-making authority). Most MPAs used informative methods (public hearings, radio interviews, briefings, printed or online media awareness tools) rather than empowerment-oriented methods (working group meetings, citizen science or biological monitoring, capacity-building activities). This is followed by consultative methods (community committees, public hearings, workshops) that promoted limited two-way engagement, as the MPA authorities could use or disregard the community's input.

The number of participatory methods used declines rapidly as one moves to strategies that promote higher levels of public engagement in MPAs. Despite widespread global calls for collaborative, empowerment-oriented conservation projects, genuinely empowering methods of public participation have remained relatively limited. The level of public participation was also examined from the public and authors' perspectives (Figure 7). The findings further show that the highest number of publications reported that the public and authors found the participatory methods used by MPAs to be highly informative (Di Franco et al., 2020; Hogg et al., 2017), consultative (Day, 2017; Thiha et al., 2023) and zero publications mentioned the presence of empowerment in MPA governance processes. Two publications indicated that communities participated as workers (Azzahra et al., 2023) and in some voluntary activities within the MPAs (Ballad et al., 2021).

3.6 Challenges affecting public participation in MPA governance processes

Figure 8 shows that participation challenges occurred across all stages of the MPA governance process (conception and planning; park designation and establishment; and park operations and administration). The findings further reveal significant challenges related to the limited consideration of indigenous and local knowledge, limited participation in enforcement and protection of MPAs, and limited participation in educational awareness initiatives within MPAs. The study's findings indicate that participation limitations were most pronounced in operational activities and managerial aspects of MPAs, leading to an imbalance between participatory rhetoric and communities' actual participation in core MPA governance structures and processes.

The results also reveal limited representation and inclusion of affected communities in MPA participation processes and in the integration of local knowledge into formal MPA decision-making. Figure 8 further shows that institutional and political barriers, such as weak legislative support, inadequate political commitment, limited funding for participatory MPA governance, and political interference, constitute significant constraints on stakeholder engagement.

4 Discussion

This study examined community participation in MPA governance processes. The key finding of this study is that, while many MPAs demonstrate varying motivations for engaging the public in MPA processes, the dominant drivers are ethical engagement, community input, and compliance with legal requirements. The first two drivers challenge the traditionally adopted, centralized, government-led, top-down approaches to community engagement, in which MPA authorities dominate decision-making processes with limited local input, often resulting in inadequate incorporation of local and context-specific knowledge and restricted community involvement across different phases of MPA governance (Halik et al., 2018). Ethical engagement and the capture of local input foster a sense of ownership among communities, which can subsequently enhance the legitimacy of MPA management, provided that engagement is not superficial and is supported by genuine efforts to incorporate community perspectives into management. However, in many cases, community input is solicited primarily to fulfill procedural or legal requirements rather than to promote meaningful participation, causing such participatory processes to be perceived as box-checking exercises that do little to redistribute power and may even reinforce existing inequalities (O'Connor et al., 2024). Fishers in the Litoral Norte MPA in Portugal reported that they were not properly consulted before the area's designation and that the public hearings organized by MPA managers during implementation were largely symbolic, held only to meet formal requirements (Rodrigues et al., 2024). While this study shows varied reasons for public engagement in MPA processes, especially ethical engagement drivers, their effectiveness should be critically evaluated. The purpose of public engagement should go beyond compliance and ethical engagement “tick boxes” to ensure that local voices are meaningfully incorporated into MPA processes, decisions, and policies rather than merely rubber-stamped and conforming to them. Researchers should continuously evaluate the engagement practices adopted to identify strengths, weaknesses, and areas for improvement in participatory models, thereby enhancing outcomes for both MPAs and the communities that depend on or are affected by them.

This study's findings show that while communities are the most engaged group in MPA processes, they are treated as a homogeneous group because the “difference approach” to marine governance has not been adopted. It is important to avoid the assumption that a community functions as a uniform entity, as diverse interests often exist within it, influenced by variations in gender, ability, class, age, ethnicity, and economic status (Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008). Engagement must ensure the representation of disadvantaged groups, and the process should not marginalize or discriminate against any demographic or societal segment (Yet et al., 2022). Considering communities as a homogeneous group or singular entity can overlook the unique perspectives, interests, contributions, priorities, and needs of various demographics and groups, particularly marginalized groups in marine spaces, such as women, people with disabilities, and youth. Conservation typically involves individuals with different connections to the marine environment, necessitating the involvement of diverse groups with distinct interests, identities, varying degrees of agency, and influence over various aspects of the system (Ison et al., 2021). Since the potential effects of MPAs are not evenly distributed across society, it is crucial to fairly consider all perspectives, including those of minority groups, to ensure a socially just and equitable approach to establishing and managing MPAs (Voyer et al., 2011). Stakeholder categorization should be conducted through transparent and inclusive processes involving MPA managers, policymakers, and affected communities to ensure that diverse interests, knowledge systems, and power relations are adequately recognized, particularly given that participation opportunities and influence are not equally distributed among stakeholders (Schéré et al., 2023). Recognizing and respecting individual rights is essential to good governance, and the lack of these rights can be concerning to many, particularly marginalized local groups whose voices are always disregarded. While various national policies and legal documents emphasize the importance of identifying and involving the public, these frameworks do not offer a practical framework for implementing this involvement (Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008). MPA authorities who are genuine about public participation should not rely on voluntary participation and self-selection but must adopt procedures that systematically seek to identify all demographics and sections of society, including the already marginalized (Schwermer et al., 2020; Yet et al., 2022). MPA authorities should conduct stakeholder analysis using an intersectional approach that recognizes overlapping identities, interests, and vulnerabilities among stakeholders to ensure that participation processes are inclusive, representative, and equitable (Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008). Following stakeholder identification, participatory processes should create inclusive deliberative platforms that bring diverse stakeholder groups together through dialogue, negotiation, and collaborative decision-making while ensuring that marginalized voices are not overshadowed by more powerful actors. However, sustaining stakeholder participation is difficult because people perceive the benefits of MPAs differently (Kageyama et al., 2024). The scholars further emphasize that, while including more groups can present additional challenges, excluding/missing certain stakeholders could lead to long-term problems. Therefore, it is crucial to strike a balance in the final subgroups of the community to ensure they are neither too few to overlook important members of society nor too many to complicate or delay the process.

Communities are primarily engaged during MPA park designation and establishment processes, with comparatively less involvement during the initial park conception and planning, and park operations and administration stages, suggesting uneven participation across the MPA governance stages. Nine MPAs involved communities across all stages of the MPA processes. These include the Banco Chinchorro Biosphere Reserve, Sian Ka'an Biosphere Reserve, Done Shwe Than, Ha‘ena Community-Based Subsistence Fishing Area, Min Kaung Se, Minarzos Marine Reserve of Fishing Interest, Pyin Bu Gyi, Soufriere Marine Management Area, and Ye Aye. Di Cintio et al. (2024) support this, noting that many MPAs do not meet their objectives because of the minimal emphasis placed on the limited involvement of fishers throughout various stages, from planning to management. Public engagement should not be a one-time event, but a continuous process if the community's buy-in and cooperation are to be sustained. Stakeholders should be involved throughout the MSP process, not just allowed to react to a finalized plan (Mannan et al., 2020). Edifying this observation, Pomeroy and Douvere (2008) suggest that public participation should occur early, frequently, and consistently throughout the life cycle of Marine Spatial Planning and MPA processes. A study by Gall and Rodwell (2015) found that the lack of local involvement after the planning phase led to a loss of social capital built during that phase, and the public expressed a desire for their engagement to extend into the implementation phase of the Marine Conservation Zones. The planning phase is essential for collaboratively establishing priorities and goals; the implementation phase focuses on executing the plan, while the post-implementation phase provides an opportunity to evaluate its successes (Mannan et al., 2020). This study findings further show that, while two MPAs employ a variety of participatory methods, over half use only one method for public engagement. Considering the diverse actors and demographic groups in the marine space and their unique perspectives, interests, priorities, and needs, a “one size fits all” approach and a single model of community engagement in MSP, including MPA processes, are not viable (Mannan et al., 2020). This complex system may require various innovative approaches to public engagement and to get a deeper understanding of the social components and interests of different demographics and sections of society (Ison et al., 2021; Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008).

Another key finding is that public hearings, citizen science (especially biodiversity monitoring), and written submissions, in that order, are the most popular methods for engaging communities in MPAs. However, nearly half of the participatory methods used fall into the passive category, while the active methods adopted vary in the degree of community engagement. The prominence of the three participatory methods as popular ways to engage communities suggests recognition of the importance of capturing and incorporating community input throughout the MPA governance processes. However, if there is a preference for one method, potential challenges to community participation will emerge. Public meetings or hearings often become platforms where a vocal minority dominates the discussion, leading to frustration among both the community and the meeting organizers (Day et al., 2022). Using written submissions only may inadvertently favor those who are more literate or learned, thereby marginalizing less empowered and older community members. Public participation is critical but not adequate to achieve MSP and MPA goals and objectives without the adoption of participatory methods that empower people with knowledge and skills in order to actively participate in MSP and MPA processes (Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008). Study findings further reveal that 13 MPAs primarily use informative participatory methods, resulting in limited one-way engagement. This confirms findings by Hogg et al. (2017) that, at higher levels of stakeholder participation, 55% of the fishers and divers disagreed that it existed. When communities are only informed, rather than actively involved in decision-making, it diminishes their buy-in, sense of ownership, and responsibility for MPA conservation efforts, which are critical to the long-term success of the MPAs. Under these conditions, communities lack the power to ensure their views are heard by powerful actors, as restricted participation offers little follow-through or “muscle” to effect change in the status quo (Arnstein, 1969).

The findings also show a rapid decline in the use of higher-order public participatory methods that foster collaboration and empower communities. However, Twichell et al. (2018) state that processes that promote higher-quality participation have been demonstrated to lead to more effective environmental decision-making. O'Connor et al. (2024) advocate for the use of participatory science methods that extend well beyond conventional techniques. These methods can actively involve communities, amplify local voices and expertise, enhance scientific learning through partnerships, and empower communities by delegating authority. Marine citizen science can equip communities with community-based monitoring and research skills to monitor mangroves, track marine pollution, conduct fisheries monitoring, and evaluate ecosystem health. The 68 reviewed articles in this study revealed that MPA governance processes are characterized by challenges such as limited community representation, limited incorporation of indigenous and local knowledge systems, restricted community involvement in enforcement and protection activities, and minimal participation in educational and awareness initiatives. These limitations weaken local ownership, trust, stewardship, and long-term compliance with MPA conservation objectives. However, the review also identified several examples of more inclusive and collaborative practices. Some MPAs incorporated Indigenous Knowledge Systems, citizen science, community advisory groups, working groups, co-management arrangements, and capacity-building initiatives to promote stronger stakeholder engagement and knowledge exchange. In a few cases, communities were involved across multiple stages of the MPA process, reflecting more sustained, collaborative governance. These examples demonstrate that while participation challenges remain widespread, emerging best practices can strengthen inclusivity, local ownership, and long-term conservation effectiveness.

5 Conclusion and recommendations

This study examined communities' participation in MPA governance processes and found that while the need for community input, buy-in, and legal compliance are the key drivers of public engagement, active participation remains limited. One challenge arises from viewing communities as homogeneous groups, despite their diverse interests and perspectives, influenced by factors such as ability, age, gender, ethnicity, and economic status. Genuine, long-term engagement is also affected by a fragmented approach to community engagement, which is often limited to specific stages of the MPA governance process. This approach treats community participation as an event rather than a process, resulting in limited, episodic, and long-term engagement in MPA governance and its goals. The study noted that many MPAs rely on passive, participatory methods that reinforce existing inequalities between MPA authorities and communities, thereby disempowering them. Building on the findings of this study, MPA authorities should adopt collaborative, empowering participatory models that institutionalize co-management arrangements, with communities involved in decision-making, enforcement, and monitoring. Second, stakeholder engagement should be grounded in stakeholder analysis to identify the different groups within the community that depend on MPAs, ensuring that the entire MPA governance process incorporates diverse local voices and knowledge, particularly those of marginalized groups (women, youth, and people with disabilities) and indigenous groups. This will ensure that participation is representative and equitable, rather than relying on voluntary participation and self-selection, which often excludes less visible groups. Public participation should employ a range of participatory methods tailored to different stakeholder groups and contexts and should be embedded across all stages of the MPA governance process. There is a need to strengthen capacity building through marine citizen science programs so that communities can acquire and transfer skills beyond MPA management, including biodiversity monitoring, fisheries assessments, and marine pollution tracking. Continuous engagement in all MPA processes should be adopted if MPA authorities are to go beyond promoting community buy-in but meet conservation targets. Finally, MPA authorities should therefore work with academia to develop, refine, and reform public engagement practices if conservation goals are to be met.

5.1 Limitations of the study

The review was limited to English-language publications, potentially excluding relevant studies from non-English-speaking regions. Future reviews could address this limitation by incorporating multilingual searches and translation-assisted screening approaches.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/focsu.2026.1808210/full#supplementary-material

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Footnotes

Edited by: Natasa Maria Vaidianu, Ovidius University, Romania

Reviewed by: Constance M. Schéré, King's College London, United Kingdom

Valentina Rossi, National Research Council Italy, Italy