The attributes of co-management include the incorporation of traditional and scientific knowledge into management, the pivotal role played by local stakeholders leading to increased Proteases inhibitor empowerment for local communities and reduced enforcement costs, and the creation of partnerships across organizations at various scales which helps to mitigate against local and macro level uncertainties [89] and [111]. Legitimacy and support are gained through the sharing of power and participation [107]. Yet co-management also faces challenges related to increased bureaucracy, funding uncertainty, time commitments, local capacity and willingness to participate, and achievement of

an appropriate balance of governmental and community input and control [120], [139] and [155]. McConney and Pena [156] recommend that attention is paid to building and supporting the capacity for co-management. Co-management could be seen as a critical

response to the failures of the top-down regime. Yet Singleton [121] notes the potential irony of the current focus on creating systems of co-management when she comments: “It would be unfortunate if the search for an alternative to one-size-fits-all, top-down regulatory styles resulted in rigidly proscribed processes of incorporating diverse actors into MPA processes—a sort of new orthodoxy of collaborative practice”. Institutional diversity and a mixture of top-down, bottom-up, and community-based incentive approaches, Jones et al. [37] suggest, MK2206 are the most effective approach to MPA

governance and the level of co-management should be designed to fit the socio-political context. Where communities are involved there is also a general convergence around the creation of multiple-use MPAs that incorporate a no-take zone [24], [94], [96] and [157]. Since the creation of strict no-take MPAs is often met with opposition by affected fishers, Perera and de Vos [149] suggest that high levels of resource dependency in the developing world may make the creation of exclusive reserves untenable. However, no-take zones may be a necessary part of providing the full extent of ecological and socio-economic benefits to the individuals whose livelihoods depends on the quality of the natural base [5]. In order mafosfamide to achieve the most benefit for different user groups and to reduce conflict, the creation of zones for different user groups may also be required [4], [68] and [158]. In spite of the general convergence around co-management and multiple-use MPAs containing no-take areas, there are scenarios where other formats such as privately owned and managed reserves or Entrepreneurial MPAs [90] or marine extractive reserves [96] may produce the most successful outcomes for both conservation and communities within a particular context.