Case Study 1
Capo Carbonara Marine Protected Area: Participatory Zoning for Ecological and Visitor Management
Location: South-eastern Sardinia, within the municipality of Villasimius
Theme: Marine conservation, visitor pressure, governance and adaptive zoning
Why it matters: A practical example of integrating ecological evidence, stakeholder participation and spatial regulation in a high-value coastal tourism setting.
Capo Carbonara Marine Protected Area is located off the south-eastern coast of Sardinia, near Villasimius. The area combines marine habitats, beaches, coastal landscapes, boating activity, diving, recreation and a tourism economy strongly concentrated around the summer season.
Marine protected areas are often presented as fixed conservation zones. In practice, their effectiveness depends on whether boundaries, zoning rules and permitted activities remain appropriate as ecological conditions, visitor patterns, local economies and regulatory requirements change.
Under the EU-funded Blue4All project, the Capo Carbonara management authority initiated a participatory process to revise its zoning system. The process involved the MPA management team, scientific experts, the Municipality of Villasimius, local stakeholders and representatives of relevant user groups. The European Commission’s case-study documentation describes the approach as combining ecological priorities, spatial data, socio-economic considerations and public consultation.[water.europa]
| Management element | Relevance to the case |
|---|---|
| Ecological evidence | Identifies habitats, species, sensitive zones and conservation priorities |
| Spatial analysis | Maps current and potential uses, including areas of ecological sensitivity and human activity |
| Stakeholder participation | Brings together public authorities, residents, tourism operators, fishers, recreational users and scientific expertise |
| Zoning revision | Adjusts spatial rules to balance protection, access and permitted activities |
| Socio-economic assessment | Recognises that conservation measures affect local livelihoods, visitor experience and business activity |
| Adaptive governance | Treats management as a process that can respond to new evidence and changing conditions |
The significance of this case lies not in a claim that participatory zoning automatically resolves competing interests. Rather, it shows a more credible approach to the management of coastal tourism pressure than either unrestricted access or purely top-down restriction.
For destination management, the case offers several lessons.
First, marine tourism requires spatial governance. Boat movement, anchoring, diving, fishing, swimming, guided activities and coastal access all have location-specific effects. Generic destination promotion cannot manage these interactions.
Second, stakeholder participation is not a substitute for ecological limits. Scientific evidence, habitat condition and conservation obligations remain essential. Participation can, however, improve the practical legitimacy of decisions, reveal patterns of use not captured in administrative data and help develop rules that are more likely to be understood and followed.
Third, zoning should be connected to visitor information, access management, mooring systems, enforcement, monitoring and local economic opportunities. A boundary on a map is not sufficient if visitors and operators lack clear guidance, if compliance cannot be monitored or if alternative lower-impact activity is not supported.
Finally, the case demonstrates that biodiversity protection and destination quality can reinforce one another. A well-managed marine area can support ecological integrity, safer and clearer visitor access, environmental education, local guiding, research and a stronger sense of place. The management objective is not maximum use of every marine area, but the appropriate use of each area in relation to its ecological condition and social context.
Evidence limitation: The participatory rezoning process is documented as an ongoing management initiative. Before final publication, the paper should verify the revised zoning decision, implementation timetable, monitoring indicators, enforcement arrangements and measured ecological or socio-economic outcomes.