An assessment of the effectiveness of in-situ signagein multiple-use marine protected areas in providinginformation to different recreational users

Carol L. Martin a,n, Salim Momtaz a, Alan Jordan b, Natalie A. Moltschaniwskyj a

a School of Environmental & Life Sciences, University of Newcastle, PO Box 127, Ourimbah, NSW 2258, Australiab Department of Primary Industries, Port Stephens Fisheries Institute, Locked Bag 1, Nelson Bay, NSW 2315, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 10 October 2014Received in revised form19 January 2015Accepted 1 March 2015

Keywords:Marine protected areasEnvironmental educationInterpretive/informative signageIn-situ signage

a b s t r a c t

In-situ signage is a cost effective environmental education tool used in marine protected area (MPA)management, and the design and location of signage is crucial to attract the attention of targeted audiences.The implementation of multiple-use MPAs increases the challenges of communicating awareness of MPAboundaries and permitted activities. Currently, little is known about how effective signage in multiple-useMPAs is in communicating information to stakeholders that will promote supportive attitudes andbehaviours towards MPAs. This study evaluated the usefulness of in-situ signage in an existing multiple-use MPA, to determine if signs pertaining to the MPA captured the attention of recreational users, andprovided adequate information. Structured interviews with recreational fishers, divers, and other users, wereused to determine users' awareness of being in an MPA, their awareness of management objectives andassociated zoning scheme, together with levels of agreement or disagreement on whether or not current in-situ signage adequately communicates information about the MPA. It was evident that the types andaccessibility of in-situ signs in the MPA may not be effective at capturing the attention of intended audiencesand providing relevant information, with the exception of signs located at the dive site, due to their design,size, and placement. Awareness differed among the three user groups, together with their views on theeffectiveness of signage. Many recreational fishers believed existing signage was inadequate and unclear, andexpressed frustrations with the complexity of zoning rules and location of their boundaries. Based on thisstudy, recommendations about the presentation, content, and placement of signage relative to access points,and information required by MPA users, is provided.

& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are used worldwide as a manage-ment tool to address adverse impacts of anthropogenic activities bycontrolling the types of recreational and commercial activities allowedin specific marine areas [16,18]. MPAs are established through consu-ltation with stakeholders and often aim to address societal, politicaland ecological objectives. These objectives can vary and include cons-ervation of marine biodiversity, restoration of marine habitats, protec-tion of threatened species, fisheries management, and opportunitiesfor public appreciation and enjoyment [2,25,18]. Multiple-use MPAsare a widely used type of MPA that aim to both conserve biodiversityand accommodate the demands of multiple-users in coastal areas. Thisis achieved through the use of zoning to allocate resources spatially tovarious users, combined with a range of permitted and restricted act-ivities [14]. In Australia, multiple-use MPAs (marine parks) are free to

use and are generally divided into several management zones that areeither ‘no-take’, or allow specific activities. Hence, each zone has obje-ctives that focus on conservation, sustainable fishing (commercial and/or recreational), and opportunities for public enjoyment ([23]; [15]).Multiple-use MPAs are more challenging and costly to manage thanMPAs which are entirely no-take because of increased compliance andenforcement costs associated with complex zoning designs [9]. Com-pliance with regulations is paramount to an MPA's success [20] andcan be optimized through education and awareness managementstrategies [27].

Educational and awareness strategies, including the use of signage,can play a key role in MPA management if implemented effectively[1,5,7], and are more cost effective than enforcement, and have agreater impact on the community when raising awareness of an MPAand promoting positive attitudes and behaviours [1,19]. Well-markedzone boundaries, and use of signage as a passive means of commu-nicating complex information about multiple-use MPAs, are both imp-ortant management tools to increase stakeholders' knowledge andunderstanding of management zones and increase voluntary compli-ance [21,27]. In-situ interpretive/informative signage can be effective

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Marine Policy

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.03.0020308-597X/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

n Corresponding author. Tel.: þ61 416772239.E-mail address: Carol.Martin@uon.edu.au (C.L. Martin).

Marine Policy 56 (2015) 78–85

if well-designed and written, and has the ability to communicate aconsistent message to numerous people in a fixed location, 24 h a day,which can be viewed at visitors' convenience ([33]; [13]). They canengage visitors, whilst communicating messages to the reader toinfluence stakeholder knowledge, values, and attitudes, thereby play-ing an important role in encouraging positive environmental attitudesand behaviours towards natural resources [8]. Careful consideration ofthe design, intended audiences, and location of signage in multiple-used MPAs is crucial to optimize its effectiveness, since visitor resp-onse to a general non-targeted approach to signage varies accordingto their motivations and intentions for visiting natural areas [6,17].Visitors whose recreational activities are non-exploratory (e.g. swim-ming, relaxation, fishing) may be less receptive to interpretive mess-ages with conservation themes and are less inclined to pay muchattention, compared to visitors whose recreational activities are explo-ratory (e.g. diving, walking, photography, bird watching), and who aremore likely to be influenced by conservation messages [6,17]. Inparticular, when targeting recreational fishers specific signage isrequired to effectively communicate relevant messages that addresstheir interests, and encourage voluntary compliance with manage-ment objectives and regulations [6].

The use of interpretive and informative signage in multiple-useMPAs is essential to raise awareness, communicate information aboutzoning and associated permitted/restricted activities, and to encou-rage greater understanding and support for MPAs in general. How-ever, there is limited evaluation on the effectiveness of signage inmultiple-use MPAs, although there is evidence that signage is largelyignored or overlooked by visitors and fishers ([22,10,26]). Despitesignage at key entry points to MPAs indicating their protected status,unlawful collecting of organisms and fishing was frequentlyobserved, particularly in the absence of active enforcement [22].Signage about MPAs can confuse visitors [10] and signage isfrequently overlooked despite their quantity and location [26].This suggests the design and location of signage used in MPAsrequires greater attention to optimize their effectiveness, which ifdone well has the potential to attract the attention of numerousvisitors to raise awareness and communicate important informationand messages.

This research aims to explore the effectiveness of in-situ signageused in an existing Australian multiple-use MPA that are designed toprovide relevant information to a variety of recreational users. Thisaim was achieved by evaluating the usefulness of in-situ signage, andusing questionnaires to determine recreational users' awareness ofbeing in an MPA, and their awareness of management objectives andassociated zoning scheme, together with levels of agreement ordisagreement on whether or not current in-situ signage pertaining tothe MPA adequately communicates information about the MPA.

2. Methods

Port Stephens-Great Lakes Marine Park (PSGLMP) is located in theHunter Region of New South Wales (NSW), Australia, and wasdeclared in 2005. It extends from the mean high water mark to thethree nautical mile limit of NSW waters, and covers an area ofapproximately 980 km² of marine and estuarine habitats, includingtwo rivers and lakes, with their creeks and tributaries to the limit oftidal influence ([24], p. v). This is a multiple-use marine park, dividedinto four management zones; no-take sanctuary, habitat protection,general use, and special purpose zones, which vary in size and havedifferent management objectives and regulations. Visitors to themarine park do not pay an access fee. This study focused on thesouthern end of the Port Stephens area, which lies within a shelteredtidal influenced estuary with shoreline access at many public andprivate points, including beaches, jetties, and boat ramps (Fig. 1).

This study took an inductive approach that sought to makeobservations and develop explanations as the research evolved, whichis a common feature of social science research [11]. The studyconsisted of two components: (i) an evaluation of signage, and (ii)an assessment of respondents' awareness of being in an MPA, awar-eness of management objectives, zoning scheme and boundaries,together with levels of agreement or disagreement on whether ornot current signage pertaining to the MPA adequately communicatedinformation about the MPA. A visual evaluation of in-situ signageidentified the different types of interpretive and informative signsinstalled in the marine park in 2005 at boat ramps, jetties, and a

Fig. 1. Map showing survey sites in the study area only of Port Stephens-Great Lakes Marine Park. Signage was located at sites indicated with a star (Taylors Beach, SoldiersPoint, Fly Point, Little Beach, Shoal Bay and Fingal Bay). NB. This map does not represent the entire area of the marine park.

C.L. Martin et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 78–85 79

popular shore-based diving site. Photographs were taken to record thetypes and location of signs present throughout the study area (Fig. 1).Each sign was subjectively evaluated using the criteria outlined inTable 1 adapted from Tilden's interpretive principles [32], and criteriaused by the US Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation [33].

Face-to-face structured interviews were conducted using a struc-tured standardized questionnaire developed with closed questionsand fixed responses. The questionnaire was pilot tested (n¼20) priorto commencing sampling to ensure questions were unambiguous andclearly worded, and necessary changes and improvements were made.Demographic questions were designed to elicit data about respon-dents (e.g. age, residential postcode, level of education). Core questionsaddressed respondents' awareness of being in an MPA, their aware-ness of management objectives, associated zoning scheme regulationsand boundaries, together with their agreement or disagreement to the

following statement: "signage/buoys regarding rules/regulations andboundaries of different management zones is adequate, clear and easyto understand." Responses to the statement were scored using a dicho-tomous scale of “agree, disagree”. Additional comments relating tosignage and management zone boundary markers made by respon-dents during interviews were also recorded.

Random sampling was not possible in this study since the aimwas to interview people relevant to the research, i.e. those who wererecreational users of PSGLMP. Therefore, non-probability purposivesampling was utilized in which recreational users in the MPA wereapproached by the researcher and invited to participate in the survey.Non-probability sampling methods are commonly used in qualitativeresearch. However, due to the problem of generalization, a limitationof these methods is that they do not allow definitive findings to bemade [11]. The risk of both interviewer effect and interviewer bias

Table 1Criteria used to evaluate effectiveness of signage pertaining to Port Stephens-Great Lakes Marine Park.

Criteria

Intrigue Does the sign capture attention? Yes/NoInformation Does the sign convey information and knowledge about the MPA? Yes/NoInfluence Does the sign encourage support/compliance for the MPA? Yes/NoGraphics Are design, font size, style, and colours, used effectively for optimal effect? Yes/NoAccessibility Is the sign located in key areas for optimal effect? Yes/No

(Adapted from [32], p. 9; [33], p. 33–34)

Table 2Description of the seven different types of interpretive and informative signs used in Port Stephens-Great Lakes Marine Park to explain the MPA, and results of the evaluationaccording to the criteria outlined in Table 1.

Format Type Size (cm)width byheight

Brief description Sites CRITERIA

Intrigue Information Influence Graphics Accessibility

A Interpretive 240�120 Very large general sign, located in information shelters.Contained maps and detailed information about PSGLMP, itsfeatures and management objectives; including zoning scheme,permitted/restricted activities, penalties for non-compliance, andrationale behind MPAs (Fig. 2).

SoldiersPoint

N Y Y N N

LittleBeach

N Y Y N N

ShoalBay

N Y Y N Y

B Informative 80�50 Medium-sized sign targeting fishers, contained detailed mapsand important information on permitted/restricted activities inthe different management zones that affect fishers' activities(Fig. 3).

TaylorsBeach

N Y Y N N

FingalBay

N Y Y N N

C Interpretive 110�77 Large sign targeting divers/snorkelers. Contained detailedinformation about the sanctuary zone and associated marine life,together with colourful photographs and a symbol depicting nofishing to communicate fishing/collecting is prohibited.

Fly Point Y Y Y Y Y

D Informative 40�60 Basic sign alerting readers to location of sanctuary zones usingminimal text simply stating “sanctuary zone - no fishing orcollecting”. Additional smaller text advised readers to obtain auser guide for further information on restricted/permittedactivities. No information on penalties for non-compliance.

Fly Point N N N Y YLittleBeach

N N N Y N

E Informative 11.5�25 Basic sign, designed to alert readers to locations of sanctuaryzones using minimal text and symbol to depict no fishing.Provided details of penalties for non-compliance “minimum $500fine and seizure of fishing gear' (Fig. 4).

Fly Point N Y Y Y NLittleBeach

N Y Y Y N

F Informative 40�30 Basic sign targeting fishers using minimal text simply stating “nofishing from beach” and “penalties apply”. Simple effective designwith appropriate font style/size/colours that has potential toencourage compliance (Fig. 4).

TaylorsBeach

Y Y Y Y N

LittleBeach

Y Y Y Y N

G Informative 40�60 Sign designed to alert water craft users about how to behavearound marine animals. Contained useful information toencourage positive behaviours to minimise potential harm. Gooddesign and graphics, with large bold heading to capture attention.

LittleBeach

Y Y Y Y N

TaylorsBeach

Y Y Y Y N

C.L. Martin et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 78–8580

was minimized by using the same researcher to conduct all inter-views, thereby ensuring the introduction and interview process wasconsistent. Prior to commencing interviews, a rapport was estab-lished between respondents and the researcher by explaining whatthe study was about and assuring respondents of their anonymityand confidentiality of information provided by them, which can helpencourage honesty in their responses [28]. Respondents were alsoadvised there were no right or wrong answers, and the researcherwas interested in obtaining their genuine opinions. Additionally, thequestionnaire did not ask any sensitive questions, and there was noreal reason for respondents not to give honest answers. Respondentswere also informed of their right to withdraw from the interview atany time if they felt uncomfortable; and oral consent was obtained inaccordance with human ethics procedures (Protocol no. H-2013-0057). Sampling occurred over a five month period; April to August2013 (austral autumn and winter), and participants were approachedat four public access boat ramp sites, a popular shore-based divingsite, a popular marina, and general recreational areas that includedbeaches, and waterfront parks.

A total of 166 people from recreational stakeholder groups;recreational fishers, divers and other non-specific users, completedthe questionnaire. Responses to survey questions were coded anddata were analysed using frequency tables, contingency tables to lookfor patterns of association, and Chi-square tests for independence toexplore associations between the three recreational user groups andlevels of awareness/unawareness and agreement/disagreement. Posthoc standardized residuals were used to determine differences inproportions between the user groups.

3. Results

Seven types of in-situ signs pertaining to PSGLMP (Table 2) wereidentified in the study site at Taylors Beach, Soldiers Point, Fly Point,Little Beach, Shoal Bay and Fingal Bay (Fig. 1); all of which used textwritten in English to communicate messages. Some areas in thestudy site did not contain any signage relating to PSGLMP (George

Reserve, Corlette Point, Dutchmans Bay, Nelson Bay Marina, andShoal Bay beach; Fig. 1). One primary large sign (Format A) (Table 2;Fig. 2) provided detailed information about PSGLMP, and had thecapacity to encourage support and positive behaviours towards theMPA. Although this sign was very large in size, it did not stand outvisually to capture attention and interest as content was formattedusing small font sizes and unsuitable colours; making the signdifficult to read from a distance. For instance, the PSGLMP headingdid not alert visitors to the MPA, and small font sizes meantimportant information for fishers, about penalties for non-compli-ance, was difficult to find. Two of these types of signs were located intwo high use boat ramp areas, installed in information shelterspositioned adjacent to boat trailer reversing bays that were situatedabove boat ramp access points (Fig. 2). Consequently, this sign wasonly visible to drivers of vehicles moving boats to and from boatramps access points, and could be easily overlooked. No fishers wereobserved reading these signs during visits to these sites, and onefisher visiting PSGLMP for the first time indicated he had not seenthe sign and was unaware that he was in an MPA.

A medium-sized sign, primarily targeting fishers, was located attwo other boat ramp areas in the study site (Format B) (Table 2;Fig. 3), which communicated simplified information about man-agement zones and permitted and restricted activities, as well ashelpful information on zone markers indicating zone boundaries.A relatively large sign (Format C) (Table 2), targeting divers andsnorkelers, was installed adjacent to a popular shore-based divingaccess point (Fly Point) in a sanctuary zone (i.e. no-take) area. Thissign was positioned to capture the attention of its intendedaudience and contained detailed information about the sanctuaryzone. Numerous people were observed reading this sign. Foursmaller signs relating to PSGLMP were installed at various loca-tions within the study site (Formats D, E, F & G) (Table 2). A basicsign alerted readers to locations of sanctuary zones (Format D;Table 2), and was located next to the previously mentioned sign(Format C) at the shore-based diving access point. It emphasisedfishing and collecting restrictions, and encouraged compliance insanctuary zones. This sign was also located on one of two public

Fig. 2. The Format A sign present at Soldiers Point boat ramp in Port Stephens-Great Lakes Marine Park, identifying the content on each side of the sign, and its positionrelative to the boat ramp and reversing area.

C.L. Martin et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 78–85 81

jetties at Little Beach adjacent to a sanctuary zone in a beach area)where fishing and collecting was prohibited, except from theconfines of the two jetties and the beach area in between thejetties. However, positioning of this sign on the jetty meant it wasnot always be noticed. For instance, one fisher new to the area,commented he had not seen this sign whilst he fished from thejetty on which this sign was installed.

Another sign designed to alert readers to the locations of sanctuaryzones was affixed to posts in car park areas adjacent to sanctuaryzones in the study site (Format E) (Table 2; Fig. 4). The information andgraphics would facilitate compliance with park regulations but thevery small size of this sign meant it could be easily overlooked. Oneinterviewee noted that four of these signs (affixed to posts approxi-mately one metre in height in the car park area at a beach) were oftenobscured from view by parked vehicles, and people would fish fromthe beach adjacent to the sanctuary zone where fishing was prohib-ited. A further small sign (Format F) (Table 2; Fig. 4) was affixed toposts with the Format E signs (Fig. 4), and was designed to alert fishersthat fishing was prohibited from the beach area adjacent to thesanctuary zone. However, no further information about the exactnature of penalties for non-compliance, together with its small size

and positioning, meant this sign was obscured by parked vehicles.Another sign, designed to alert water craft users it is an offence underthe National Parks & Wildlife Act, 1974 to approach marine animalscloser than 50m (Format G) (Table 2) was also found in two locationsat the study site. Although this sign may capture attention and conveyinformation to encourage positive behaviour and compliance, it waspoorly positioned at both locations. For instance, at Little Beach, a highuse boat ramp area, this signwas positioned away from the boat rampitself, directly facing drivers of vehicles using a trailer reversing bay.

Of the 166 participants who completed the questionnaire 79 wererecreational fishers, 45 were divers, and 42 were other non-specificrecreational users. Most respondents were 35–54 years old (50%),had technical and further education (TAFE), trade, or universityqualifications (67%), and resided in the Port Stephens and surround-ing Hunter Region areas (64%). Two groups of respondents wereidentified based on their place of residence; 37% resided locally, inthe immediate Port Stephens area, and 63% resided outside this area.The majority of recreational fishers did not live locally (68%). Over80% of respondents were aware they were in an MPA (Table 3), butthe proportion of people's awareness of being in an MPA differedamong the three user groups (χ²¼13.8, df 2, p¼0.001). Over 30% ofother non-specific recreational users were unaware of being in anMPA compared tor12% of recreational fishers and divers that wereunaware (Table 3). Local or non-local residency was not a factor inawareness of being in an MPA (χ²¼2.7, df 1, p¼0.098).

The majority of all respondents were aware of sanctuary zoneregulations (75%) and location of the zone boundaries (60%). Mostrespondents were also aware of habitat protection zone regulations(68%), and just over half of all respondents (53%) were aware of theirboundaries. Similar results were found for respondents' awareness ofgeneral use zone regulations (68%) and location of boundaries (52%).Fewer respondents were aware of special purpose zone regulations(51%) and location of boundaries (37%). However, there were differ-ences in levels of awareness and unawareness among the three usergroups. Overall, other users were least aware of the different manage-ment zones and associated boundaries compared to fishers and divers.Divers were the most aware of sanctuary zone regulations and bou-ndaries, while fishers were the most aware of habitat protection,general use and special purpose zone regulations and boundaries(Table 4). Almost three quarters of all respondents stated they wereaware of the three main management objectives of PSGLMP; toconserve biodiversity, marine habitats and maintain ecological pro-cesses (73%), to provide for ecologically sustainable commercial andrecreational uses of the marine park (70%), and to provide opportu-nities for public appreciation, understanding and enjoyment of themarine park (72%). However, there were differences in the levels ofawareness among the three user groups. Between 72% and 74% offishers, and 82% and 89% of divers, were aware of the three manage-ment objectives, compared to only 55% of the other users group(Table 4). Divers were the most aware of all three managementobjectives (Table 4).

Most respondents (70%) disagreed with the statement, “Signage/buoys regarding rules/regulations and boundaries of different manage-ment zones is adequate, clear and easy to understand", but theproportion of people that disagreed or agreed with this statement

Fig. 3. Photograph of signs installed at Taylors Beach boat ramp access point in PortStephens-Great Lakes Marine Park showing the position amongst other signage ofan important Format B sign targeting fishers that outlines permitted and restrictedactivities in the MPA, together with penalties for non-compliance.

Fig. 4. Photograph of signs affixed to posts in Little Beach boat trailer car park area:Format E sign (top) and Format F sign (bottom).

Table 3Percentage of total respondents and respondents in each user group who wereaware, or unaware, of being in the Port Stephens-Great Lakes Marine Park. (Numberin bold denote a significant difference).

Awareness of being in MPA Aware Unaware

All respondents (n¼166) 84 16Recreational fishers (n¼79) 89 11Divers (n¼45) 93 7Other users (n¼42) 67 33

C.L. Martin et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 78–8582

differed among the three user groups (χ²¼9.5, df 2, p¼0.009).The number of divers who agreed with the statement was almostdouble what was expected, while almost half the expectednumber of other users agreed (Fig. 5). There was no evidencethat local and non-local residents differed in their response to thestatement (χ²¼0.5, df 1, p¼0.48). Additional, undirected com-ments made during interviews concerned accessibility of infor-mation about PSGLMP and were mostly made by fishers. Theseincluded; “there were not enough signs/buoys around'; “manyexisting signs/buoys were unclear and confusing”; and that“signage in many instances went unnoticed”.

4. Discussion

The signage evaluation in this study identified that the types andaccessibility of in-situ signage relating to PSGLMP while effective atcommunicating with divers, were less effective at capturing theattention of the recreational fishers and the other users group. As aresult signage may not be providing information likely to encouragesupport and compliance by users, particularly recreational fishers.There was an absence of signage in some areas, and where present acombination of inappropriate design, size and positioning of signagedid not appear to facilitate engagement of recreational fishers. Incontrast, signage targeting divers was designed to capture theirattention and provide information relevant to their activities, therebyencouraging support and compliance. In comparison to divers, therecreational fishers and other users believed signage was inadequate.Fishers in particular, often expressed frustrations with the complexityof regulations in different management zones, and they indicatedthere was a lack of signage explaining this. This has the potential toincrease non-compliance, and is one of the challenges associatedwith managing multiple-use MPAs with complex zoning designs [9].

Most recreational users in this study were aware of being in anMPA, and of the management objectives and zoning scheme regula-tions and boundaries of the PSGLMP, suggesting communicationstrategies employed by park management such as signage, internetbased and locally available zoning guides and other education materialhas been successful. However, there were differences in levels ofawareness among the three recreational user groups that appear to berelated to the activities within the marine park they were undertaking.Compared to recreational fishers and divers, other users were lessaware of being within an MPA; possibly due to the absence of signageand access to information about PSGLMP around beaches and

foreshore parks [26,29]. In contrast, divers and recreational fisherswere more aware of being in an MPA and of management objectivesand associated zoning scheme. This may be because they have accessto additional information about MPAs through activity-related orga-nizations and publications, and are often attracted by publicity aboutthe MPA, rather than the information provided by signage [4,3,12]. It islikely that signage, which has an expense associated with it, may needto specifically target divers and recreational fishers who explicitly visittheMPA to pursue their recreational activities [31]. In contrast to manyterrestrial protected areas, access to NSW Marine Parks is free andaccessible from multiple locations, which not only limits fundingavailable to management, but also limits methods of communicatinginformation about the marine park.

Many signs in the study site, with the exception of signs located atthe dive site, were assessed as being poorly designed and positioned totarget keys stakeholders such as recreational fishers. For instance, theprimary sign used to communicate detailed information about theMPA (Format A) was installed in boat ramp areas adjacent to trailerreversing bays, which suggests it was primarily aimed at fishers.However, it was unlikely to attract fishers' attention and communicatevaluable information due to its poor design and positioning directlynext to boat trailer reversing bays, which meant it can be overlookedbecause driver attention is focused on reversing trailers down to theboat ramp. This sign contained a lot of detailed information aboutPSGLMP, which may be unsuitable for an area where fishers are trying

Table 4The percentage of all respondents in each user groups (recreational fishers, divers, other users), that were aware (yes) or unaware (no) of the regulations and location ofboundaries of the different management zones, and management objectives of Port Stephens-Great Lakes Marine Park (n¼166). Numbers in bold denote significantdifferences among the three user groups. df¼2 for all χ² tests.

Awareness of regulations: χ² value, P value Fishers(n¼79)

Divers(n¼45)

Other users(n¼42)

Yes No Yes No Yes No

Sanctuary zone rules/regulations 27.4, po0.001 81% 19% 91% 9% 45% 55%Location of sanctuary zones 23.4, po0.001 67% 33% 76% 24% 29% 71%Habitat protection zone regulations 13.7, p¼0.001 77% 23% 73% 27% 45% 55%Location of habitat protection zone 13.8, p¼0.001 63% 37% 58% 42% 29% 71%General use zone regulations 27.1, po0.001 80% 20% 78% 22% 36% 64%Location of general use zones 18.5, po0.001 58% 42% 67% 33% 24% 76%Special purpose zone regulations 17.4, po0.001 66% 34% 49% 51% 26% 74%Location of special purpose zones 14.4, po0.001 50% 50% 38% 62% 14% 86%

Awareness of management objectives: χ² value, P value Yes No Yes No Yes No

To conserve biodiversity, marine habitats and maintain ecological processes. 12.7, p¼0.002 74% 26% 89% 11% 55% 45%To provide for ecologically sustainable commercial and recreational uses of the marine park. 7.8, p¼0.021 72% 28% 82% 18% 55% 45%To provide opportunities for public appreciation, understanding and enjoyment of the marine park. 10.7, p¼0.005 73% 27% 86% 14% 55% 45%

Fig. 5. Percentage of respondents in each user group: recreational fishers (n¼79);divers (n¼44), other users (n¼41), who disagreed (black) or agreed (grey) with thestatement: “Signage/buoys regarding rules/regulations and boundaries of differentmanagement zones is adequate, clear and easy to understand” relating to PortStephens-Great Lakes Marine Park (no response¼2).↑indicates more thanexpected, and↓indicates less than expected numbers of respondents as determinedfrom a chi-square test that examined the null hypothesis that the number ofrespondents who agreed or disagreed with the statement was independent of usercategory.

C.L. Martin et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 78–85 83

to access and exit boat ramps as quickly as possible. Recreationistsengaged in non-exploratory activities (i.e. fishers) are less likely to beinfluenced by conservation messages embedded in signage thanexploratory recreationists (i.e. divers) [6,17], who are more inclinedto think of these areas as places to observe nature, and be supportiveof management objectives and practices. In contrast, fishers are moreinclined to view protected areas as places to enjoy outdoor activities,and are less likely to be supportive of management objectives andpractices, which they feel may impact on their fishing activities [6].Thus, different types of education and signage are required forrecreational fishers [6], as it is important that fishers have access toregulatory information that encourages voluntary compliance. Whilean appropriate sign targeting fishers was identified in the study site(Format B), it was assessed as too small and poorly positioned tocapture their attention.

Improved design and positioning of signs targeting recreationalfishers should be amanagement goal since their activities are themostimpacted by MPAs, and fisher compliance is vital for improving theconservation benefits of the area [20]. The majority of recreationalfishers in this study believed signs and buoys were inadequate, sugg-esting this user group struggles to locate or understand signs/buoysrelating to the MPA. This was also reflected in additional commentsmade during interviews, and is an important finding that may affectfisher support and compliance, and has been highlighted in otherresearch on PSGLMP [27,34]. Inadequate marker buoys on the water,and lack of signage at boat ramps and beaches, does make it difficultfor fishers to identify marine zone boundaries [31], furthermore, sig-nage often goes unnoticed by first time visitors [26]. In this study,fisher belief that signage was inadequate may be a function of the lackof accessibility to appropriate signage; particularly that targeting fis-hers at boat ramps. Lack of signage and access to information at boatramps and beaches has been attributed to fishers' lack of knowledgeabout MPAs [31].

A number of improvements can be made to the design andlocation of signage identified in this study, to target specific audiencesand increase accessibility. Specific guidelines and principles relating tothe creation of effective interpretive/informative signs is critical ([8], p.508). However, the open access nature of PSGLMP (both private andpublic entry points) makes it impossible to install signage at allpotential access points. In this instance, the most effective approachto raising overall public awareness of PSGLMP in this study site is toerect a large billboard sign adjacent to the only main roadway into thePort Stephens area. This has the potential to communicate to vastnumbers of people (both visitors and residents) they are entering anMPAwhere restrictions apply, and a user guide should be obtained forfurther information. Recently, marine park zoning summary brochureshave been made available at several boat ramp signs in PSGLMP, andthese have been consistently accessed (L.Erskine pers.comm.).

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, this study found the types and accessibility of in-situsignage in the MPA may not be effective at capturing the attention ofintended audiences and in providing relevant information, with theexception of signs located at the dive site, due to inappropriate designand location. Lack of adequate and effective signage may account forother recreational users being more unaware of the MPA in comparisonto recreational fishers and divers, and may also account for the manyrecreational fishers who believed signage was inadequate and unclear.Improvements in the design and location of existing signage in PSGLMPare required to increase communication of information. Well-designedand positioned signage is a cost effective long-term method of com-municating a consistent message to numerous people. Careful con-sideration of intended audiences is vital in the design and location ofsignage in MPAs to achieve optimal effect, since response to signage

varies among stakeholders according to their motivations for visitingthe MPA. Signage must be periodically monitored and evaluated to ens-ure effective communication to targeted audiences is achieved. Marineparks are an important tool in educating the public about MPAs andappropriate signage in relevant areas can help communicate rationalefor MPAs and increase awareness of these areas.

However, signage is only one aspect of environmental education,and will compliment a broader environmental education programthat implements a range of educational strategies to raise awarenessof MPAs, and the need for sustainable use of coastal and marineresources. Well educated stakeholder groups have a better under-standing of the rationale behind MPAs and are more likely to complywith regulations and contribute to the long-term success of an MPA[30]. In particular, fishers may require more active types of environ-mental education. The authors recognize the possibility that thestudy was confounded by not accounting for other possible sourcesof information, other than signage, to which the participants mayhave had access. Prior to developing improved signage designs, orcommencing an educational program, it is necessary to assess theexisting knowledge and attitudes of MPA stakeholders, and wherethey obtain information about the MPA from.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the recreational fishers, diversand other recreational users of the Port Stephens-Great Lakes MarinePark for their participation in this research.

References

[1] Alder J. Costs and effectiveness of education and enforcement, Cairns sectionof the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Environ Manag 1996;20:541–51.

[2] Agardy T, Bridgewater P, Crosby MP, Day J, Dayton PK, Kenchington R.Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marineprotected areas Aquat Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst 2003;13:353–67.

[3] Arin T, Kramer RA. Divers' willingness to pay to visit marine sanctuaries: anexploratory study. Ocean Coast Manag 2002;45:171–83.

[4] Badalamenti F, Ramos AA, Voultsiadou JL, Sánchez Lizaso JL, D'Anna G, PiptoneC, et al. Cultural and socio-economic impacts of Mediterranean marineprotected areas. Environ Conserv 2000;27:110–25.

[5] Ballantyne R, Hughes K. Measure twice, cut once: developing a research basedinterpretative signs checklist. Aust J Environ Educ 2003;19:15–25.

[6] Ballantyne R, Packer J, Beckman E. Targeted interpretation: exploring relation-ships among visitors' motivations, activities, information needs and prefer-ences. J Tour Stud 1998;9:14–25.

[7] Ballantyne R, Packer J, Hughes K. Tourists'support for conservation messagesand sustainable practices in wildlife tourism experiences. Tour Manag2009;30:658–64.

[8] Ballantyne, R, Packer, K, Moscardo, G. Interpretive signs: talking to visitorsthrough text. In: Griffin T, Harris R, editors, Current research, future strategies� bridging uncertainty, Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference of the AsiaPacific Tourism Association, July 6�9, University of Technology Sydney,Australia; 2003. pp. 500�514.

[9] Ban NC, Adams V, Pressey RL, Hicks J. Promise and problems for estimatingmanagement costs of marine protected areas. Conserv Lett 2011;4:241–52.

[10] Blayney C, Wescott G. Protecting marine parks in reality: the role of regionaland local communication programs. Aust J Environ Manag 2004;11:126–8.

[11] Bryman A. Social research methods. 4th ed.. Oxford: Oxford University Press;2012.

[12] Fabinyi M. Dive tourism, fishing and marine protected areas in the CalamainesIslands, Philippines. Mar Pol 2008;32:898–904.

[13] Government of the Province of Nova Scotia. Tourism development: how-toguide outdoor interpretive signage � your guide to connecting people andplace; 2011. Retrieved from: ⟨http://www.gov.ns.ca/econ/tourism/docs/interpretive_guide.pdf⟩.

[14] Gubbay, S. Marine protected areas and zoning in a system of marine spatialplanning: a discussion paper for WWF-UK; 2005. Retrieved from: ⟨http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/zoning_mpa__msp.pdf⟩.

[15] Hickie S. Managing recreation, conservation and economy: a critical appraisalof the New South Wales Marine Parks Amendment Act 2008. Environ Plan LawJ 2009;26:61–74.

[16] Hoffmann E, Pèrez-Ruzafa A. Marine protected areas as a tool for fisherymanagement and ecosystem conservation: an introduction. ICES J Mar Sci2009;66:1–5.

C.L. Martin et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 78–8584

[17] Hughes M, Saunders AM. Interpretation, activity participation, and environ-mental attitudes of visitors to Penguin Island, Western Australia. Soc NatResour 2005;18:611–24.

[18] Jennings S. The role of marine protected areas in environmental management.ICES J Mar Sci 2009;66:16–20.

[19] Leisher C, Mangubhai S, Hess S, Widodo H, Soekirman T, Tjoe A, et al.Measuring the benefits and costs of community education and outreach inmarine protected areas. Mar Pol 2012;36:1005–11.

[20] McCook, LJ, Ayling, T, Cappo, M, Choat, JH, Evans, RD, De Freitas, DM, et al.Adaptive management of the Great Barrier Reef: a globally significantdemonstration of the benefits of networks of marine reserves. In: Proceedingsof the National Academy of Sciences; August, 2010.

[21] Mascia MB. The human dimension of coral reef marine protected areas: recentsocial science research and its policy implications. Conserv Biol 2003;17:630–2.

[22] Murray, SN, Gibson-Denis, T, Kido, JS, Smith, JR. Human visitation and thefrequency and potential effects of collecting on rocky intertidal populations insouthern California marine reserves. California Cooperative Oceanic FisheriesInvestigations, 40; 1999. p. 1000�106. Retrieved from: ⟨http://www.calcofi.org/publications/calcofireports/v40/Vol_40_Murray_etal.pdf⟩.

[23] NSW Marine Parks Authority. Developing a representative system of marineprotected areas in NSW – an overview. NSW Marine Parks Authority MarineProtected Areas Strategy Working Group. Canberra: Heartland Publishing;2001.

[24] NSW Marine Parks Authority. Port Stephens – Great Lakes marine parkoperational plan. Sydney: NSW Marine Parks Authority; 2010.

[25] Pomeroy, RS, Mascia, MB, Pollnac, RB. Marine protected areas: the socialdimension. In: FAO Expert Workshop on Marine Protected Areas and FisheriesManagement: Review of Issues. Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations, Rome; 2006. p. 149�181.

[26] Porter C, Wescott G. Recreational use of a marine protected area: PointLonsdale, Victoria. Aust J Environ Manag 2004;11:201–11.

[27] Read AD, West RJ, Haste M, Jordan A. Optimizing voluntary compliance in marineprotected areas: a comparison of recreational fishers and enforcement officerperspectives using multi-criteria analysis. J Environ Manag 2011;92:2558–67.

[28] Ruane JM. Essentials of research methods: a guide to social science research.Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing; 2005.

[29] Saenz-Arroyo, A,Torre, J, Bourillon, L, Kleiberg, M. A community-based marinereserve network in North-western Mexico. In: Proceedings of the Symposiumand Workshop of the North American Marine Protected Areas Network.Loreto, Baja California Sur, México. North American Commission for Environ-mental Cooperation; 2005. pp. 1�19. Retrieved from: ⟨http://www.cec.org⟩.

[30] Stamieszkin K, Wielgus J, Gerber LR. Management of a marine protected areafor sustainability and conflict resolution: lessons from Loreto Bay NationalPark (Baja California Sur, Mexico). Ocean Coast Manag 2009;52:449–58.

[31] Taylor N, Buckenham B. Social impacts of marine reserves in New Zealand. SciConserv 2003;217:1–58.

[32] Tilden F. Interpreting our heritage. 3rd ed.. Chapel Hill, NC: University of NorthCarolina Press; 1977.

[33] US Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation. Reclamation: managingwater in the West � sign guidelines for planning, designing, fabricating,procuring, installing and maintaining signs for outdoor public use areas; 2006.Retrieved from: ⟨http://www.usbr.gov/recreation/publications/signguide2006.pdf⟩.

[34] Voyer M, Gladstone W, Goodall H. Understanding marine park opposition: therelationships between social impacts, environmental knowledge and motiva-tion to fish. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 2014;24:441–62.

C.L. Martin et al. / Marine Policy 56 (2015) 78–85 85