Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Addressing poaching in marine protected areas through voluntary surveillance and enforcement


Poaching renders many of the world’s marine protected areas ineffective. Because enforcement capacity is often limited, managers are attempting to bolster compliance by engaging the latent surveillance potential of fishers. However, little is known about how fishers respond when they witness poaching. Here, we surveyed 2,111 fishers living adjacent to 55 marine protected areas in seven countries and found that 48% had previously observed poaching. We found that the most common response was inaction, with the primary reasons being: (1) conflict avoidance; (2) a sense that it was not their responsibility or jurisdiction; and (3) the perception that poaching was a survival strategy. We also quantified how institutional design elements or conditions were related to how fishers responded to poaching, and highlight ways in which fishers can be engaged while mitigating risks. These include emphasizing how poaching personally affects each fisher, promoting stewardship and norms of personal responsibility and poverty alleviation to reduce the need for fishers to poach for survival.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Maps of the 55 study sites across the world.
Fig. 2: The responses of the fishers to observed poaching.
Fig. 3: Reasons for inaction.
Fig. 4: Relationships between institutional design elements and the voluntary enforcement actions of the fishers.


  1. 1.

    Kelleher, G., Bleakley, C. & Wells, S. (eds) A Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas Vol. 3 (World Bank, 1995).

  2. 2.

    Mora, C. et al. Coral reefs and the global network of marine protected areas. Science 312, 1750–1751 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Rife, A. N., Erisman, B., Sanchez, A. & Aburto-Oropeza, O. When good intentions are not enough … Insights on networks of "paper park" marine protected areas. Conserv. Lett. 6, 200–212 (2013).

  4. 4.

    McClanahan, T. R. Is there a future for coral reef parks in poor tropical countries? Coral Reefs 18, 321–325 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Lundquist, C. J., & Granek, E. F. Strategies for successful marine conservation: integrating socioeconomic, political, and scientific factors. Conserv. Biol. 19, 1771–1778 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Byers, J. E., & Noonburg, E. G. Poaching, enforcement, and the efficacy of marine reserves. Ecol. Appl. 17, 1851–1856 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Gill, D. A. et al. Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of marine protected areas globally. Nature 543, 665–669 (2017).

  8. 8.

    Public urged to report suspected illegal fishing and help protect the Reef. GBRMPA (15 December 2016).

  9. 9.

    Green, E. K. Judging the effectiveness of anti-poaching hotlines. J. Rural Soc. Sci. 31, 1–15 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Kohn, S. M. Monetary rewards for wildlife whistleblowers: a game-changer in wildlife trafficking detection and deterrence. Environ. Law Report. 46, 10054–10070 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Cinner, J. E. et al. Transitions toward co-management: the process of marine resource management devolution in three east African countries. Glob. Environ. Change 22, 651–658 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Cinner, J. E., & McClanahan, T. R. A sea change on the African coast? Preliminary social and ecological outcomes of a governance transformation in Kenyan fisheries. Glob. Environ. Change 30, 133–139 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Defenders of the earth: Global killings of land and environmental land defenders in 2016 Global Witness (2017).

  14. 14.

    Henrich, J. et al. Costly punishment across human societies. Science 312, 1767–1770 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Rustagi, D., Engel, S. & Kosfeld, M. Conditional cooperation and costly monitoring explain success in forest commons management. Science 330, 961–965 (2010).

  16. 16.

    Hofstede, G. Culture’s Consequences (Sage, Beverly Hills, 1980).

  17. 17.

    Ting-Toomey, S. Intimacy expressions in three cultures: France, Japan, and the United States. Int. J. Intercult. Rel. 15, 29–46 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M. & Kemmelmeier, M. Rethinking individualism and collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychol. Bull. 128, 3–72 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Afflerbach, J. C., Lester, S. E., Dougherty, D. T. & Poon, S. E. A global survey of "TURF-reserves", Territorial Use Rights for Fisheries coupled with marine reserves. Glob. Ecol. Conserv 2, 97–106 (2014).

  20. 20.

    Mulder, L. B., van Dijk, E., De Cremer, D. & Wilke, H. A. M. Undermining trust and cooperation: the paradox of sanctioning systems in social dilemmas. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 42, 147–162 (2006).

  21. 21.

    Chen, X. P., Pillutla, M. M. & Yao, X. Unintended consequences of cooperation inducing and maintaining mechanisms in public goods dilemmas: sanctions and moral appeals. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 12, 241–255 (2009).

  22. 22.

    Decaro, D. A., Janssen, M. A. & Lee, A. Synergistic effects of voting and enforcement on internalized motivation to cooperate in a resource dilemma. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 10, 511–537 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Arias, A., Cinner, J. E., Jones, R. E. & Pressey, R. L. Levels and drivers of fishers’ compliance with marine protected areas. Ecol. Soc. 20, 19 (2015).

  24. 24.

    Abrahamse, W. & Steg, L. Social influence approaches to encourage resource conservation: a meta-analysis. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1773–1785 (2013).

  25. 25.

    Alexander, S. M., Armitage, D., & Charles, A. Social networks and transitions to co-management in Jamaican marine reserves and small-scale fisheries. Glob. Environ. Change 35, 213–225 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Mbaru, E. K., & Barnes, M. L. Key players in conservation diffusion: using social network analysis to identify critical injection points. Biol. Conserv. 210, 222–232 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Matthies, E., Klöckner, C. A., & Preißner, C. L. Applying a modified moral decision making model to change habitual car use: how can commitment be effective? Appl. Psychol. 55, 91–106 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Tyler, T. R. Social justice: outcome and procedure. Int. J. Psychol. 35, 117–125 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 86, 278–321 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Barrett-Howard, E. & Tyler, T. R. Procedural justice as a criterion in allocation decisions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50, 296–304 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Lind, E. A. & Tyler, T. R. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice (Springer, 1988).

  32. 32.

    Cinner, J. E. et al. Winners and losers in marine conservation: fishers’ displacement and livelihood benefits from marine reserves. Soc. Nat. Resour. 27, 994–1005 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Gurney, G. G., Pressey, R., Cinner, J., Pollnac, R., & Campbell, S. J. Integrated conservation and development: evaluating a community-based marine protected area project for equality of socioeconomic impacts. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 370, 20140277 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    De Cremer, D. Procedural and distributive justice effects moderated by organizational identification. J. Manag. Psychol. 20, 4–13 (2005).

  35. 35.

    Tyler, T. R. Why People Cooperate (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 2010).

  36. 36.

    McSkimming, M. J., & Berg, B. L. Motivations for citizen involvement in a community crime prevention initiative: Pennsylvania’s TIP (Turn in a Poacher) program. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 13, 234–242 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Lippert, R., & Wilkinson, B. Capturing crime, criminals and the public’s imagination: assembling crime stoppers and CCTV surveillance. Crime Media Cult. 6, 131–152 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Bursik, R. J. & Grasmick, H. G. Neighborhoods and Crime: The Dimensions of Effective Community Control (Lexington Books, Maryland, 1993).

  39. 39.

    Report to The Nations on Occupational Fraud and Abuse (ACFE, 2014).

  40. 40.

    Cox, M., Arnold, G. & Villamayor, S. A review of design principles for community-based natural resource management. Ecol. Soc. 15, 38 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Turner, R. A. et al. Trust, confidence, and equity affect the legitimacy of natural resource governance. Ecol. Soc. 21, 18 (2016).

  42. 42.

    Halpern, D. Social Capital (Polity, Cambridge, 2005).

  43. 43.

    Jones, N., & Clark, J. R. A. Social capital and climate change mitigation in coastal areas: a review of current debates and identification of future research directions. Ocean Coast. Manage. 80, 12–19 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Gutiérrez, N. L., Hilborn, R. & Defeo, O. Leadership, social capital and incentives promote successful fisheries. Nature 470, 386–389 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    McConney, P., & Pena, M. Capacity for (co)management of marine protected areas in the Caribbean. Coast. Manage. 40, 268–278 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Pomeroy, R. S., & Berkes, F. Two to tango: the role of government in fisheries co-management. Mar. Policy 21, 465–480 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    McClanahan, T. R., Graham, N. A. J., Wilson, S. K., Letourneur, Y. & Fisher, R. Effects of fisheries closure size, age, and history of compliance on coral reef fish communities in the western Indian Ocean. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 396, 99–109 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Levi, M., Sacks, A. & Tyler, T. Conceptualizing legitimacy, measuring legitimating beliefs. Am. Behav. Sci. 53, 354–375 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Gurney, G. G. et al. Poverty and protected areas: an evaluation of a marine integrated conservation and development project in Indonesia. Glob. Environ. Change 26, 98–107 (2014).

  50. 50.

    Davis, K. J. et al. Why are fishers not enforcing their marine user rights? Environ. Resour. Econ. 67, 661–681 (2017).

  51. 51.

    Cinner, J. E. et al. Comanagement of coral reef social-ecological systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 5219–5222 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Gurney, G. G. et al. Participation in devolved commons management: multiscale socioeconomic factors related to individuals’ participation in community-based management of marine protected areas in Indonesia. Environ. Sci. Policy 61, 212–220 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Bergseth, B. J., Williamson, D. H., Russ, G. R., Sutton, S. G. & Cinner, J. E. A social-ecological approach to assessing and managing poaching by recreational fishers. Front. Ecol. Environ. 15, 67–73 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Pan, Y., & Jackson, R. T. Ethnic difference in the relationship between acute inflammation and serum ferritin in US adult males. Epidemiol. Infect. 136, 421–431 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Gelman, A. & Hill, J. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2007).

  56. 56.

    Cinner, J., Marnane, M. J., Mcclanahan, T. R. & Almany, G. R. Periodic closures as adaptive coral reef management in the Indo-Pacific. Ecol. Soc. 11, 31 (2006).

Download references


Funding for this project was provided by the Australian Research Council through their Centre of Excellence Program, a Future Fellowship (J.E.C.) and by the Pew Charitable Trust, through a Pew Fellowship in Marine Conservation (J.E.C.). We thank T. M. Daw, A. Mukminin, A. L. Rabearisoa, A. Wamukota, N. Jiddawi, S. Hamed, R. Lahari, I. Muly, S. Wanyoni and J. Kuange for assistance with data collection and storage; and D. James for support and insightful comments.

Author information




B.J.B. and J.E.C. conceived the study. B.J.B. led the manuscript. B.J.B. and G.G.G. developed and implemented the analyses. All authors contributed data and made substantial contributions to the text.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brock J. Bergseth.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–4, Supplementary References

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bergseth, B.J., Gurney, G.G., Barnes, M.L. et al. Addressing poaching in marine protected areas through voluntary surveillance and enforcement. Nat Sustain 1, 421–426 (2018).

Download citation


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing