What all of these studies and broader more integrative studies confirm is the importance of considering community livelihoods, particularly when “no-take” MPAs are employed, as well as governance and management for the success of MPAs [22], [45], [46] and [47]. The Bleomycin sustainable livelihoods literatures provided a frame of reference for our research and analysis. Sustainable livelihoods frameworks proposed by Carney [33], DFID [72], Scoones [34] and Ellis [35] suggest that there

are a number of micro to macro-level contextual factors – including trends and shocks as well as policies, institutions, and processes – that transform and mediate access to assets and have impacts on livelihood strategies or portfolios and the resultant socio-economic and environmental outcomes (Fig. 1). Central to the sustainable livelihoods frameworks are a number of capitals or assets that are the platform for livelihood strategies. These assets include natural, social, human, physical, financial,

cultural, and political capitals – definitions of each provided in Table 2. In the context of this framework, a marine protected area can be seen as a social institution that is comprised of a series of laws, policies and processes that are enacted by various levels of government (as well as private sector and civil society actors) through applied governance and management. It has been suggested elsewhere that the SL framework is useful as a tool for analyzing the impacts of protected areas on livelihood outcomes and assets learn more and the role of protected area policies, institutions, and processes (i.e., management and governance) in producing these outcomes with the ultimate Methane monooxygenase goal of improving conservation practice [73] and [74]. Since the sustainable livelihoods literatures provided little guidance on management and governance, literatures on protected areas governance [23] and [36] and management

[22] and [37] were also used when analyzing results of this study. Good governance is promoted through legitimacy, transparency, accountability, inclusiveness or participation, fairness or equity, integration or coordination, capability, and adaptability. Effective MPA management requires adequate capacity and resources, effective communication of rules and regulations (e.g., boundaries), extensive programs of education and outreach, participatory processes of creation and management structures, consideration of the values of all stakeholders, relationships built on trust, coordination with other management institutions, integration of scientific and traditional knowledge, and mechanisms for conflict resolution and to ensure transparency and accountability. Effective management also relies on monitoring, evaluation and adaptation of actions based on a management plan. Seven communities, situated near 4 different MPAs, were chosen for the purposes of this study.