The evolution of marine

protected areas (MPAs):

the North Adriatic case
Monica Camuffo, Stefano Soriani and Gabriele Zanetto
Ca Foscari University, Venice, Italy
Abstract
Purpose This study seeks to consider the recent evolution of the Italian policy in the eld of marine
protected areas (MPAs). In particular, it aims to point out the increasing role played by Italian regions
in establishing and managing MPAs. This evolution is to be described by focusing attention on the
North Adriatic case.
Design/methodology/approach After a brief introduction on the legislative framework, points of
weakness and strength of the Italian experience in the eld of MPAs are discussed. Different initiatives
for promoting and implementing an MPA strategy are analyzed through the North Adriatic case
study, pointing out the increasing role played by the regions in the design and implementation of
protection policies.
Findings The analysis shows how regions direct greater attention to the involvement of the public
and economic sector in the design and implementation of protection policies, and to the denition of
more exible management tools. This element clearly conrms the general and overall tendency
towards more regional-based forms of environmental policy, even in coastal and marine affairs.
However, in order to improve the environmental gains and implement sustainable forms of economic
development, these regional initiatives should be better linked to a more comprehensive coastal zone
management framework, which is still lacking. From this perspective, a national strategy for the
Italian coast system could strongly contribute to increasing the role and effectiveness of regional
initiatives aimed at protecting coastal and marine ecosystems.
Originality/value The North Adriatic case shows the growing need for integrated policies in
different scale projects, enhancing the involvement of local communities toward their own territory.
Keywords Marine biology, Seas, Italy
Paper type Case study
Introduction
Marine protected areas have been established mainly to address biodiversity loss in
coastal and marine environment, increasing the abundance and/or biomass of target
species or allowing the recovery of more natural population with positive effects on
local shery through biomass exportation to surrounding non protected areas;
however, they should be also regarded as fundamental experiences of participatory
planning and management, integrated with a social and economic framework at
broader scale to ensure their sustainability (Cicin-Sain and Belore, 2005).
At the same time, their institution might be considered a proxy of scientic and
ethical concerns for the wider and most effective conservation of marine ecosystems,
including their populations and habitats, the processes that sustain them and the
functions they provide (Ojeda-Mart nez et al., 2009).
The different MPAs conditions of protection in the Mediterranean and all over the
world vary widely depending on the countries and their cultural and political
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1477-7835.htm
The evolution of
marine protected
areas
59
Received 30 March 2010
Revised 12 May 2010
Accepted 12 June 2010
Management of Environmental
Quality: An International Journal
Vol. 22 No. 1, 2011
pp. 59-71
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
1477-7835
DOI 10.1108/14777831111098480
peculiarities. This heterogeneity is also shown in their management and, therefore, in
the effects of such management. Theoretically, the protection of MPAs can range from
areas strictly managed for science or wilderness values, where many activities such as
shing are excluded, to areas managed more broadly for the quantied sustainable use
of natural resources and ecosystems (Table I). Yet, it is evident that MPAs have been
sited mostly at intrinsically ecological rich places, often already not interested by
human activities, as for example in the Mediterranean Sea.
The result is a very large number of small reserves, mostly along the coast. As
noted in the research of IUCN on Mediterranean MPAs (Ameer et al., 2008), the
distribution of all Mediterranean Sea habitats and biomes are not represented inside
the system of MPAs, and the distance among them is too wide to provide larval
exchange for most marine organisms.
As several authors point out (see, as an example, Laffoley, 2008), it is necessary to
create an ecological network of MPAs fully integrated in their management,
interconnected and well distributed geographically to protect biodiversity of a whole
ecoregion and provide ecosystem services for people inhabiting it.
Against this background, the recent experience would come to conrm the
importance of some critical issues: the relation among the management structure and
the different stakeholders, the integration of MPAs on sectoral planning, their role as
laboratory for the sustainability.
The collaboration with local community and key stakeholders is fundamental to
reach these aims, while often overlapping interests in the same area provide
uncoordinated solutions or superimposed restrictions that can foster conicts and
illegal actions. The differences in expectations and perceptions among stakeholders
can be dramatically different, as Mangi and Austen (2008) point out in their study in
some south European MPAs. Fishers and government ofcials ranked in the opposite
way the aims of a protected area showing the basis of a strong contraposition that
weakens the role of the MPAs. This lead to other critical aspects during the
management of MPAs: researches and management activities are mostly biologically
based (Fletcher and Smith, 2007) and rarely plans integrate concerns related to
IUCN category Main objective
IA. Strict nature reserve Managed mainly for science
IB. Wilderness area Managed mainly for the protection of wilderness
qualities
II. National park Managed mainly for ecosystem protection and
recreation
III. Natural monument Managed mainly for conservation of specic natural
features
IV. Habitat/species management area Managed mainly for conservation through
management interventions
V. Protected landscape/seascape Managed mainly for landscape/seascape
conservation and recreation
VI. Managed resource protected area Managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural
ecosystems and resources
Source: IUCN (1994)
Table I.
IUCN protected area
management categories
MEQ
22,1
60
biological and ecological variables with socio-economical and governability ones
(Garcia-Charton et al., 2008). Overall there are very few examples of integration of
MPAs with specic sectoral planning or wider plans for the integrated coastal and
marine management, which contributes to extend also to the social economic aspects
the isolation and lack of connections of the protected zones.
Italian marine protected areas
National Law 979/1982 (the so-called Law for the defence of the sea) was the rst
Italian law on the protection of marine environment, introducing in the Italian
legislation several important European instruments as the 1976/170/EEC directive and
dening an organic frame on marine protection. The two main aspects it deals with are
shing activities and marine reserves. The law introduces marine reserves providing a
protection instrument aiming to overcome terrestrial parks problems such as conicts
with local communities or different users. Therefore, marine reserves have been
dened as multiple purpose protection areas, with the introduction of the zoning
system: thus, in a marine reserve, there are strictly protected areas (A zone)
characterized by the exclusion of most of the human activities which are surrounded
by other areas (B and C zones) where the use of the resources is partially allowed.
However, marine reserves can be identied and established only by the Ministry of
Environment and thus they are the expression of centralized decisions.
The role of the national government on environmental protection was reafrmed by
the national Law 394/1991, which can be considered as the second milestone for marine
protection in Italy. The law was introduced after ten years during which initiatives for
marine protection bloomed both in relation with Law 979/1982 and many regional
initiatives. It provides a framework for marine and terrestrial national parks and reserves.
Nowadays Italian MPAs system includes tools as marine reserves and marine parks
(according to the national Laws 979/1982 and 394/1991) that aim to protect the whole
marine ecosystem, but also other protection measures specically oriented to the
protection of biological resources (zone di tutela biologica hereafter referred as
Biological resources Protection Areas (BPAs)).
The biological resources protection areas were introduced in 1965 by Law 963/1965
to preserve and increase the productivity of the alieutic resources, not only with
prohibitions but with a different management. Currently they are receiving more
interest because of their possible connection with NATURA2000 network and of the
growing role of regional governments in the alieutic management.
The marine reserves and parks are multiple-use management protected areas that
aim to achieve reasonable uses consistent with conservation. Along the Italian
coastline 25 marine reserves and parks are currently established, whose size ranges
from 8 to more than 50,000 ha. It has also been established as an International
Sanctuary for the Protection of Mediterranean Marine Mammals, also known as the
Pelagos Sanctuary. It encompasses over 87,500 sq. km of the north-western
Mediterranean Sea, extending between south-eastern France, Monaco, north-western
Italy and northern Sardinia, and surrounding Corsica and the Tuscan Archipelago
(Notarbartolo di Sciara et al., 2008) (Table II).
Marine parks and reserves include one or more no-take/no-access zones (according
to the Italian law, A zones) surrounded by buffer zones (B and C zones) where the
restrictions to human uses progressively decrease.
The evolution of
marine protected
areas
61
As it is possible to note from the table, the surfaces protected by each marine reserve or
park are very different and some of them probably too small to be ecologically
signicant, but what is even more problematic is the relation among the no-take areas
(A zone) and the other areas (B and C). For example, in the MPA of Isola di Ustica
only 0.4 percent of the reserve surface is the area where only research activities are
allowed (A zone), in open contrast with the current ecological models suggesting that
the size of each MPA zone should be scaled to maximize the size of the no-take area in
relation to the buffer and economical development zones (Garcia-Charton et al., 2008).
The presence of a specic management plan is necessary in all the typology of
marine protected areas recognized by the Italian law, but this element represents a
weak point for most of them. Law 979/1982 introduced a fundamental instrument for
the management of the protected areas, the so-called Piano del Parco (Plan of the
Park): once it is established, it acts as a national law, and is superimposed to regional or
local plans. This is a useful instrument for the MPAs because it offers the opportunity
to integrate different sectoral plans and plans acting at different scales. This tool can
avoid specic interests of local stakeholders from frustrating the conservation aims; at
the same time, however, it can be perceived by local communities as an external
imposition that may generate several unsolved conicts, which in turn can result in
illegal activities inside the MPAs, very often difcult to be monitored and controlled.
Name Total surface (ha) Establishment (year)
Portono 346 1998
Riserva Naturale Marina di Miramare 120 1986
Cinque Terre 2,726 1997
Secche di Torpaterno 1,387 2000
Isola dellAsinara 10,732 2002
Isola di Ventotene 2,799 1997
Capo Caccia Isola Piana 2,631 2002
Penisola di Sinis Isola di Mal Ventre 25,673 1997
Capo Carbonara 8,598 1999
Isola di Ustica 15,951 1986
Capo Gallo Isola delle Femmine 2,173 2002
Isole Egadi 53,992 1989
Isole Pelagie 3,230 2002
Parco Sommerso di Baia 1,766 2002
Parco Sommerso di Gaiola 416 2002
Punta Campanella 1,539 1997
Isole Tremiti 1,466 1989
Torre Guaceto 2,227 1991
Porto Cesareo 16,654 1997
Capo Rizzato 14,721 1991
Isole Ciclopi 623 1989
Plemmirio 2,500 2004
Tavolara Punta Coda Cavallo 15,357 1997
Isola di Berteggi 8 2007
Regno di Nettuno 4,600 2007
Note: The Pelagos Sanctuary is not included
Table II.
Marine parks and
reserves currently
established according to
the Laws 979/1982 and
349/1991
MEQ
22,1
62
In Italian protected areas this problem is quite common and it can be related also to the
lack of participatory approaches, education and communication programs, both in the
phase of establishment of the protected area and in its management (Guidetti et al.,
2008). Protected areas affect different communities and stakeholders with specic
interests and perspectives in the marine environment. The perception of the marine
environment and of the role of the marine protected areas become thus very relevant
issues, which should be considered for a successful management of those areas.
Another contradictory aspect in Italian MPAs is their relation with tourism. The
opportunities offered by protected areas to local communities on this eld are often
regarded as the main reason for the promotion of new protectionist initiatives. In these
cases, MPAs are marketed and promoted as a lever for improving the image of the
resort in the tourist market, but sometimes this function prevails on the environment
protection and sustainable management. The effects of tourism are not always easily
predictable and sometimes dubious concessions are given to promote development
projects. This is particularly the case of recreational boating, which very often
represents a signicant threat for marine ecosystems. To this regard, in 2007 a protocol
for the Sustainable development of recreational boating in MPAs was signed by the
Italian Association of MPAs, the environmental associations, the Ministry of
Environment and the Ministry of Transport, and by the Association of Shipyards. This
protocol was endorsed by the Italian government in the same year, and it provides
guidelines for MPAs in the eld of recreational navigation. In particular, the protocol
aims to promote the development of new sustainable ships (hybrid engines, more
environmentally-friendly antifouling paints, etc.) (Moschini, 2009).
The combined action of the above mentioned factors, together with a lack of proper
strategy for MPAs at national level, have resulted in weak enforcement, also for older
marine reserves and parks (as Egadi and Ciclopi islands, both established in 1989).
Other different forms of marine protection are currently growing, thanks to a new
sensibility in the eld of biodiversity protection also promoted by the EU through its
Habitat directive (92/43/EEC). The Habitat directive requires the selections of Special
Areas of Conservations (SAC) for the protection of habitats and species of community
importance. These areas, together with the special protection areas (SPAs) provided by
the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC), form the European NATURA2000 conservation
network.
Many NATURA2000 sites are currently established along Italian coasts. This can
be considered an important result, useful for the promotion of coastal zone integrated
protection: in fact, each site should have a specic management plan and other
measures, which correspond to the ecological requirements of the natural habitat types
and the species of community interest. According to the EU nature directives, the
conservation objectives should be met taking account of economic, social, cultural,
regional and recreational requirements. This means that activities in these sites are not
forbidden but they need a previous assessment of the possible impacts on the protected
species and habitats. This assessment should be applied also to plans and programs
that could affect the area.
Protected areas in the North Adriatic Sea
The Adriatic Sea is an interesting example of semi-enclosed sea. It is connected with
the rest of the Mediterranean Sea by the 70 km-wide Otranto straits. The Adriatic Sea
The evolution of
marine protected
areas
63
washes seven countries: Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Albania and Greece. Geographical position, climatic characteristics, low salinity and
bathymetry contribute to determine many different ecosystems and three
biogeographic areas: north, central and south Adriatic.
The North Adriatic area lies on the continental shelf with an average depth of 30
meters. Together with the Central Adriatic, it collects 1/3 of all the continental fresh
water of the Mediterranean Sea and 80 percent of pollutants of the Adriatic. The
western side is characterized by sandy coasts interrupted by lagoons, while the eastern
coast has many channels, small islands, submerged reefs and rocky shores that
abruptly drop in the depths. In a relative small area is thus present a high biodiversity
in habitats and benthonic fauna (Tagliapietra, 2005).
The conformation of the basin and the dynamism of the territories overlooking it
have contributed to make North Adriatic an emblematic case of the growing economic
importance of the sea (Soriani, 2003) and of the risks and impacts connected to it. In
fact, in the North Adriatic sea there are several direct uses such as marine transport,
offshore platforms, submarine cables, hydrocarbon survey, shing, aquaculture, army
exercises, scientic research and tourism, as well as indirect uses (like urban and
industrial draining and run-off), often conicting among them. Moreover, the area can
be considered as one of the most threatened ecosystems in the world because of the
pollution and the overexploitation of its natural resources.
Since mid-1980 the area has shown many environmental conicts, caused by the
decreased quality of coastal waters and ecosystems. These conicts (Soriani, 2003)
have highlighted the need for new protection policies.
However, such a complicated situation has not been addressed by timely and
articulated protection actions. On the contrary, if we observe the geographical
distribution of marine parks and reserves in Italy, we can notice a comparatively lower
presence of protected areas in the Adriatic sea.
This situation is conrmed also if compared to the rest of the Mediterranean Sea: the
IUCN report (Ameer et al., 2008) shows that only 12 percent of the MPAs of the
Mediterranean Sea have been established in the Adriatic Sea, despite the huge amount
of habitats and the socio-economic relevance of the area (Figures 1 and 2).
Only one marine reserve is present in the North Adriatic area (Miramare) and
because of its physical characteristics (high rocky coast), it is not fully representative of
the Italian side of the North Adriatic ecosystems (lagoons, sandy littorals), but it should
be considered an exceptional ecosystem, also from a landscape point of view.
This situation seems to conrm that also for the design and implementation of
Italian marine protected areas greater attention has been paid to those coastal and
marine areas characterized by outstanding landscape values. In fact, in Italy the
conservation debate has developed giving much emphasis on aesthetic values (Zanetto
et al., 1996) and they are still maintaining a relevant role in the nature protection
discourse (Benton and Short, 1999).
Moreover, the lack of a diffuse ocean citizenship (as dened by Fletcher and Potts,
2007) is reected also in Italy in the difculties to understand the marine environment
and the measures for its protection. As a point of fact, the very nature of marine
ecosystems and their constitutive characteristics make it very often difcult to develop
social awareness on the importance of conservation policies.
MEQ
22,1
64
Figure 1.
Italian MPAs
The evolution of
marine protected
areas
65
Figure 2.
Italian North Adriatic
BPAs, MPAs and
NATURA2000 sites
MEQ
22,1
66
The situation in the Adriatic Sea, and more specically in its northern part, is
completely different if considering all the protection measures present in Italian
legislation. Today, 13 BPAs have been established by the Ministry of Agricultural,
Food and Forestry Policies, mostly following indication of local population or local
NGOs. Observing their geographical distribution, it is possible to note that more than
50 percent (8/13) of the proclaimed areas are in the Adriatic Sea.
BPAs do not prescribe any restriction to the navigation and do not prohibit shing
completely. According to the law, they do not require any form of active management,
local population involvement and the development of policies aimed at promoting
sustainable tourism, but many BPAs are in fact running these activities.
BPAs should be formally established by the national government, but as underlined
before, in the last few years a stronger role in their implementation was assigned to the
Regions. Veneto Region is explanatory of that: the regional Law 15/2007 valorized the
role of BPAs, proposing them as multi-purpose MPAs; as a point of fact, these
initiatives aim, besides the conservation of the alieutic resources, to a whole
environmental protection through environmental education, no-take areas, areas with
controlled access, areas for diving and shing, and to promote a socio-economic
development compatible with the marine environment.
Relevant examples are the two BPAs of the Veneto coast: Tenue di Chioggia and
Tegnu` e di Porto Falconera. Both were created under the pressure of environmental
and divers associations and citizens that for many years, besides collecting
environmental data to prove the relevance of the areas, were involved in disseminating
information and supporting environmental education programs.
In north Adriatic the term tegnu` e refers to submarine rocky substrates scattered in
the sandy or muddy seabed, characterized by extraordinary benthonic biocenosis. The
rst report of these rocky outcrops on the bottom of the Adriatic goes back to 1792, the
year in which Giuseppe Olivi (Olivi, 1792) used the term tegnu` e in his Zoologia
Adriatica to indicate that they hold and break the shermens nets.
The presence of rocky outcrops off the seaside village of Caorle was conrmed by
the scientic community since 1969 (Stefanon, 1969). Several theories were applied to
explain their origin, and currently the most credited one proposes that their rocky cores
have been formed over the centuries as a result of the cementing of muddy sandy
sediments, by the precipitation of carbonates on beach sediments or after the ascent of
methane from the sea bottom through the sediments themselves (Stefanon and Zuppi,
2000). Methane came most likely from the microbial decomposition of fossil plant
material. The biocenoses are slightly different from the classic coralligenuous one,
being the faunal component always dominant (Casellato et al., 2007). Several biological
studies conducted in the tegnu` e of the Gulf of Venice have revealed a high diversity of
species and the presence of many species currently rare in the Italian seas (e.g. Mizzan,
1992). Thanks to their irregular prole, they limit the use of trawl shing and thus they
are still able to preserve the habitat of many marine invertebrates and to act as nursery
for many species of shes. However, the growing resistance of the nets and of the
power of shing boat engines, the dumping of waste, the damaging because of anchors
and the pollution are endangering them.
Since the end of the 1980s, the divers club of Caorle began to propose the creation of
a marine reserve to protect some outcrops in front of the city. In order to have shers
support, they discussed with them to select some tegnu` e particularly endangered but
The evolution of
marine protected
areas
67
not always utilized for shing. In 1997, after collecting several geological and
bio-ecological information about the area, they submitted a formal request for the
institution of a marine reserve to the Minister of Environment, but although the area
fullled all the law requirements to be designed as protected area and despite the
repeated requests, no action was taken by the Minister. The association decided then to
concentrate the actions on dissemination and tourism valorization, involving all the
local schools, many local actors, promoting lessons, expositions and videos to avoid the
loosing of the local knowledge and to enhance the diffusion of scientic researches on
the Tegnu` e (Camuffo, 2001). As a consequence, the divers association, supported by the
local shers, the municipality, part of the tourism actors and by other environmental
associations, made several requests also to the regional institutions. These requests
were eventually recognized by the regional government in 2004 (Regional Decree
2060/07) and conrmed by the national government in the same year.
Discussion
The Italian MPAs system has developed thanks to two important legislative
measures, L.979/1982 and L.394/1991. These laws introduced important principles and
tools, such as the zoning principle, the concept of sustainable use of environmental
resources and the Piano del Parco. In particular, these laws were basic steps in the
process of development and strengthening of new public (and institutional) attitudes
towards the coastal and marine environment.
However, that (state-based) phase has shown many relevant weak points. The
organizational weakness has prevented the coherent implementation of principles and
goals, leaving them largely on paper. Moreover, the centralization of the decisions
prevented from establishing new protected areas and sometimes also from accepting
the older ones.
It has to be noted also that these laws stressed the need to balance economic and
environmental goals, but rarely these aspects were fully recognized. This lack of
attention in social and economic implications of both established and establishing
MPAs for the most important sectors (tourism and shing) has often resulted in social
conict and last-minute problems.
At the same time, in some cases the opposite situation has occurred with MPAs
considered merely as a means to promote the image of a coastal resort in the tourist
market, with few environmental benets.
To this, it must be added the scanty coordination and the lack of connections with
other coastal initiatives and policies, to the extent that MPAs have often resulted as
isolated and exceptional elements.
Against this background, the national marine protected areas in the North Adriatic
Sea are in very problematic conditions. First, established MPAs affect only a very
limited coastal and marine area; secondly, the specic ecological features of the Italian
side of the Adriatic especially in its northern part are not included in any form of
national protection; moreover, MPAs have not been effective enough until now in the
protection of ecological and environmental values because of the social and economic
complexity of the Adriatic.
However, the promotion and implementation of new protection measures on the
basis of EU approaches have recently improved the situation. Moreover, thanks to
the re-contextualization during the late-1990s of a particular tool (BPAs) introduced in
MEQ
22,1
68
the Italian legislative framework in 1965, greater attention has been placed on
sustainability perspectives in the management of biotic resources.
In particular, several Adriatic Regions 1990s initiatives have focused on new
strategies to combine economic and environmental goals through the involvement of
local associations and communities. In this perspective, the setting up of a new marine
protected area is now perceived and promoted more and more as a sort of process of
organizational learning, through which new management capabilities and tools are
developed, monitored and assessed.
The positive results it has recently brought about derive from regional
governments dynamic and pragmatic role: as a matter of fact they answered very
quickly to the changing social perception of the sea and of the coast, and to a wider
attention to the problems of sustainability by the most important stakeholders.
However, in order to improve the environmental gains and to make them coherent with
sustainable strategies of economic development, these regional initiatives should be
considered and promoted as well within a more comprehensive (national and
international) coastal zone management framework. In this perspective, the poor
implementation of integrated coastal managements approaches and tools in the Italian
administrative and political system has not contributed until now to exploit the
potential role of MPAs in protection and sustainable management of coastal and
marine ecosystems.
Thanks to the Mediterranean Protocol for ICZM ( January 2008), Italian
governments commitment to the topic will hopefully increase, allowing to consider
protection initiatives within their most appropriate context. Moreover, the regions
experience conducted in the frame of BPAs activating the collaboration of different
actors might become an exemplar reference point for the diffusion and implementation
of ICZM programs. At the same time, activating these virtuous paths might help
strengthening the collaboration among countries too, especially in the case of several
countries overlooking a semi-closed basin, like the Adriatic Sea.
References
Ameer, A., Gomei, M., Maison, E. and Piante, C. (2008), Status of Marine Protected Areas in the
Mediterranean Sea, IUCN, Malaga and WWF, p. 152.
Benton, L.M. and Short, J.R. (1999), Environmental Discourse and Practice, Blackwell, Oxford.
Camuffo, M. (2001), La gestione di un bene ambientale ed il problema della sua rappresentazione
scientica e vernacolare (Management of an environmental resources and the problem of
its different representations), Masters thesis in Environmental Science, Ca Foscari
University, Venezia, available at: www.istitutoveneto.it/venezia/documenti/tesi_laurea_
dott/tesi_camuffo/tesi_camuffo.htm
Casellato, S., Masiero, L., Sichirollo, E. and Soresi, S. (2007), Hidden secrets of the Northern
Adriatic: Tegnue, peculiar reefs, Central European Journal of Biology, Vol. 2 No. 1,
pp. 122-36.
Cicin-Sain, B. and Belore, S. (2005), Linking marine protected areas to integrated coastal and
ocean management: a review of theory and practice, Ocean and Coastal Management,
Vol. 48, pp. 847-68.
Fletcher, S. and Potts, J. (2007), Ocean citizenship: an emergent geographical concept, Coastal
Management, Vol. 35, pp. 511-24.
The evolution of
marine protected
areas
69
Fletcher, S. and Smith, H.D. (2007), Geography and coastal management, Coastal Management,
Vol. 35, pp. 419-27.
Garcia-Charton, J.A., Perez-Ruzafa, A., Marcos, C., Claudet, J., Badalamenti, F.,
Benedetti-Cecchi, L., Falcon, J.M., Milazzo, M., Schembri, P.J., Stobart, B., Vandeperre, F.,
Brito, A., Chemello, R., Dimech, M., Domenici, P., Guala, I., Le Direach, L., Maggi, E. and
Planes, S. (2008), Effectiveness of European Atlanto-Mediterranean MPAs: do they
accomplish the expected effects on populations, communities and ecosystems?, Journal
for Nature Conservation, Vol. 16, pp. 193-221.
Guidetti, P., Milazzo, M., Bussotti, S., Molinari, A., Murenu, M., Pais, A., Spano`, N., Balzano, R.,
Agardy, T., Boero, F., Carrada, G., Cattaneo-Vietti, R., Cau, A., Chemello, R., Greco, S.,
Manganaro, A., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Russo, G. and Tunesi, L. (2008), Italian marine
reserve effectiveness: does enforcement matter?, Biological Conservation, Vol. 141,
pp. 699-709.
IUCN (1994), Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories, IUCN, Gland, CNPPA with
the assistance of WCMC, p. 261.
Laffoley, D. dA. (Ed.) (2008), Towards Networks of Marine Protected Areas. The MPA Plan of
Action for IUCNs World Commission on Protected Areas, IUCN WCPA, Gland, p. 28.
Mangi, S.C. and Austen, M.C. (2008), Perception of stakeholders towards objectives and zoning
of marine-protected areas in southern Europe, Journal for Nature Conservation, Vol. 16,
pp. 271-80.
Mizzan, L. (1992), Malacocenosi e faune associate in due stazioni alto adriatiche a substrati
solidi, Boll. Mus. Civ. St. Nat., Vol. 41, Venezia, pp. 7-54.
Moschini, R. (Ed.) (2009), Aree protette e nautica sostenibile, Editrice ETS, Pisa, p. 176.
Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Agardy, T., Hyrenbach, D., Scovazzi, T. and Van Klaveren, P. (2008),
The Pelagos sanctuary for Mediterranean marine mammals, Aquatic Conserv: Mar.
Freshw. Ecosyst., Vol. 18, pp. 367-91.
Ojeda-Mart nez, C., Gimenez Casalduero, F., Bayle-Semperea, J.T., Barbera Cebrian, C., Valle, C.,
Sanchez-Lizaso, J.C., Forcada, A., Sanchez-Jerez, P., Mart n-Sosa, P., Falcon, J.M., Salas, F.,
Graziano, M., Chemello, R., Stobart, B., Cartagena, P., Perez-Ruzafa, A., Vandeperre, F.,
Rochel, E., Planes, S. and Brito, A. (2009), A conceptual framework for the integral
management of marine protected areas, Ocean and Coastal Management, Vol. 52 No. 2,
pp. 89-101.
Olivi, G. (1792), Zoologia Adriatica, Reale Accademia Sc. Lettere Arti, Bassano, p. 334.
Soriani, S. (Ed.) (2003), Larticolazione territoriale dello spazio costiero. Il caso dellAlto Adriatico,
Editrice Cafoscarina, Venezia, p. 228.
Stefanon, A. (1969), The role of beachrock on the study of the evolution of the North Adriatic
Sea, Mem. Biogeogr. Adriat., Vol. 8, pp. 79-87.
Stefanon, A. and Zuppi, G.M. (2000), Recent carbonate rock formation in the Northern Adriatic
Sea: hydrogeological and geotechnical implications, Hydrogeologie, Vol. 4, pp. 3-10.
Tagliapietra, D. (2005), Le caratteristiche dellAlto Adriatico, pp. 24-32, Proceedings of the
1st Congress Diving and Environment (Subacquea and Ambiente): le tegnue di Chioggia,
Chioggia 17-18/09/2005.
Zanetto, G., Vallerani, F. and Soriani, S. (1996), Nature, Environment, Landscape: European
Attitudes and Discourses in the Modern Period, The Italian Case, 1920-1970, Quaderni del
Dipartimento di Geograa, Padova.
MEQ
22,1
70
About the authors
Monica Camuffo is a post-doctoral researcher in the Department of Environmental Sciences (Ca
Foscari University, Venice). She got her doctoral degree in Environmental Sciences in 2004. Her
researches are based on Environmental Education, focusing in particular on its role in
Environmental Management and Assessment. She currently teaches Environmental Education
at Ca Foscari University. Monica Camuffo is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
camonic@unive.it
Stefano Soriani is Associate Professor of Geography in the Department of Environmental
Sciences (Ca Foscari University, Venice), member of the Steering Committee of AGEI
(Associazione dei Geogra Italiani) and Secretary of the Commission on Marine Geography of
the International Geographical Union. He currently teaches Environmental Politics and
Integrated Coastal Zone Management. His main elds of research include urban waterfront
redevelopment and urban marketing, port development and maritime transportation, the societal
and economic implications of Integrated Coastal Zone Management programmes.
Gabriele Zanetto is Professor of Economic and Political Geography in the Department of
Environmental Sciences (Ca Foscari University, Venice). His researches focus on the theory of
the organization of the territory and its environmental, economic and cultural aspects, with
particular attention to Venice, its lagoon and the Veneto Region. He is the author of over 200
publications and a member of the main geographic institutions and of the Ateneo Veneto. He has
held several managerial roles, whereas his administrative duties include the co-foundation of the
Interdepartmental Centre on Sustainable Development in the Mediterranean CESD/IDEAS,
which he has directed since 2005.
The evolution of
marine protected
areas
71
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints