































Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 3 (2): 59–82, July 2020 

 
RESEARCH PAPER 
 

Role of Marine National Park for Sustainable 
Livelihoods of Artisan Fisherfolk: A Case Study of 
MNP, Jamnagar 
 

Rohit Magotra,  Pushkar Pandey,  Mohit Kumar,  Mohit Kumar 

Gupta,  Asha Kaushik,  and Jyoti Parikh  
 
Abstract: Over the past few decades, marine conservation has become a global 
concern due to increasing anthropogenic activities in the vicinity of coastal areas, 
which has led to the development of the concept of Marine Protected Areas 
(MPAs) for the conservation of marine ecology and its biodiversity. Conservation 
and acceptance of MPAs can only be achieved if coastal communities and 
fisherfolk are included as significant stakeholders because MPAs have direct 
relevance to their livelihood. To capture their acceptance towards the Gulf of 
Kachchh Marine National Park (MNP), Jamnagar, artisanal fisherfolk fishing in and 
around the MNP were surveyed to determine whether the presence of a well-
managed MNP has any positive effects on the adjacent fishing communities since 
its establishment. The survey was carried out at six sites along the coast of southern 
Gulf of Kachchh (Sachana, Jodiya, Sikka, Salaya, Arambada, and Bet Dwarka) using 
structured questionnaires. The findings showed that the total fish catch was 
observed to increase over the years, but there has been a perceived decline in total 
catch in recent years. Similarly, while the total fish catch data recorded an increasing 
trend, discussions with the fisherfolk revealed a sharp decline in ―catch per unit 

                                                           
 Integrated Research and Action for Development (IRADe), C-80, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, 
New Delhi 110017, India; r.magotra@irade.org. 

 IRADe; pandeypushkar989@gmail.com. 

 IRADe; mohitk@irade.org.  


 IRADe; mohitgupta@irade.org. 


 IRADe; akaushik@irade.org. 

 IRADe; jparikh@irade.org. 

Copyright © Magotra, Pandey, Kumar, Gupta, Kaushik and Parikh 2020. Released under 
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC 4.0) 
by the author.  

Published by Indian Society for Ecological Economics (INSEE), c/o Institute of Economic 
Growth, University Enclave, North Campus, Delhi 110007.  

ISSN: 2581-6152 (print); 2581-6101 (web). 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v3i2.118 

https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v3i2.118


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [60] 

 

effort‖ in recent years. Fisherfolk from all the study sites showed interest in the 
development of the MNP and were keen to be involved in conservation planning 
and the management of the MNP. 

Keywords: Gulf of Kachchh, Marine National Park (MNP), Fisherfolk, Sustainable 
Livelihood, Community Based Management. 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Establishing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in coastal and marine 
environments is considered essential for the conservation and protection of 
coastal and marine biodiversity. MPAs are governed by policy regulations 
that are meant to restrict and regulate human activities within a predefined 
area. As stated by the International Union for Conservation of Nature 
(IUCN) General Assembly in 1988, an MPA is ―an area of intertidal or sub-
tidal terrain together with its overlying water and associated flora, fauna, 
historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other 
effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment‖ 
[Resolution 17.38 of the IUCN General Assembly, 1988, reaffirmed in 
Resolution 19.46 (1994)]. 

Though they are mandated by government regulations, the success of an 
MPA depends on its acceptance by local stakeholders such as fisherfolk 
(Klein et al. 2008). In particular, the active participation of local stakeholders 
in the management and governance of MPAs greatly aids their functioning 
(Klein et al. 2008; Gleason et al. 2010). Examples from around the world 
show that MPAs were more successful in strengthening and protecting local 
marine biodiversity when their management strategy changed from a 
governmental, top–down approach to a co-management system involving 
locals along with the government (Alcala and Russ 2006; Uychiaoco et al. 
2005). In addition, research also shows that excluding local stakeholders 
leads to the loss of trust and support among locals, thus consigning the 
MPA to failure (Himes 2003). However, MPAs are usually established by 
the government without consulting the locals. Therefore, it is important to 
periodically assess the role of MPAs in the lives of local stakeholders such 
as artisanal fisherfolk and their acceptance of MPAs as government 
institutions. 

In this paper, we report the perceptions and opinions of the most 
important stakeholders in the Gulf of Kachchh Marine National Park and 
Sanctuary (MNP&S)—fisherfolk—about its establishment and impact in 
the Gulf of Kachchh (GoK), Gujarat, India. The GoK is a semi-enclosed 
basin located between the 20° 15’ N and 23° 35’ N latitudes and the 68° 15’ 



[61] Rohit Magotra, Pushkar Pandey, Mohit Kumar, Mohit Kumar Gupta, Asha Kaushik, Jyoti Parikh 

 

Figure 1: Location of Gulf of Kachchh Marine National Park and Sanctuary 

 

Source: Office of the Chief Conservator of Forests, Marine National Park, 
Jamnagar 

and 70° 22’ E longitudes. It is one of two highly energetic, macro-tidal 
systems of the north-eastern Arabian Sea, where tidal ranges may go up to 
7.2 m (Vethamony and Babu 2010). The southern coast of the GoK was 
first declared a Marine Sanctuary (MS) in 1980, and then some parts of it 
were made a Marine National Park (MNP) in 1982 to provide more 
protection to its marine ecology (Singh 2003). The MNP spans 162.89 sq 
km, whereas the MS covers an area of 457.92 sq km (see Figure 1). 
Administratively, the MNP&S stretches across the Jamnagar, Morbi, and 
Devbhumi Dwarka districts. There are 42 islands along the southern coast 
of the GoK, of which 37 islands fall in the MNP area and the remaining 
five islands under the MS area. 

 

2. HYPOTHESIS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 

In this study, we investigate the hypothesis that establishing the MNP&S 
along the southern coast of the GoK is a sustainable option and is 
acceptable to local fishing communities. The objectives of the study are 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [62] 

 

 to assess how fisherfolk living along the southern coast of the GoK 
perceive the MNP&S;  

 to examine perceived changes in marine life resulting from the 
establishment of the MNP&S, by means of a social survey of 
fisherfolk; and  

 to assess, based on local perceptions, attitudes, knowledge, and 
resource-use patterns, the positive and negative impacts of the 
MNP&S on the fishing community.  

 

3. LITERATURE REVIEW 

MPAs can help in managing and conserving coastal and marine biodiversity 
if they are accepted by local communities. It is, therefore, important that 
local stakeholders—like fisherfolk—are consulted about such 
establishments. Locals can significantly contribute to making MPAs 
successful by providing historical catch trends, information about 
traditional practices, and data on changes in the local environment (Jentoft 
2000; Himes 2003).  

The literature from around the world shows that engaging with local people 
helps build trust in the government management of MPAs (Beaumont 
1997; Himes 2003; Alcala and Puss 2006). In addition, involving local 
communities can help increase the ease and cost-effectiveness of MPA 
maintenance (Uychiaoco et al. 2005). Indeed, studies have shown that 
fishers are keen to participate in such endeavours and have a negative 
reaction to being excluded from decision-making (Pita et al. 2010). Further, 
Hamilton (2012) shows a high level of acceptance of MPAs among 
fisherfolk in Cambodia and the Philippines, while Mascia et al. (2010) 
demonstrate that MPAs affect the social well-being and political power of 
fishers by providing food security and control over the governance of local 
marine resources. 

Mascia et al. (2010) reviewed the impact of MPAs across 11 countries on 
five aspects of fisherfolk’s welfare: food security, resource rights, 
employment, community organization, and income. They found that MPAs 
affect the social well-being and political power of fishers by providing food 
security and control over the governance of local marine resources. They 
examined the data of 70 fishing subgroups from 20 MPAs located in 11 
countries and reported that ―Following MPA establishment, food security 

generally remained stable or increased (df = 2, 2 = 12.46; p = 0.002), but it 

declined for 16% of the fishing subgroups‖ (1426). They concluded that 



[63] Rohit Magotra, Pushkar Pandey, Mohit Kumar, Mohit Kumar Gupta, Asha Kaushik, Jyoti Parikh 

 

MPAs may be a viable strategy for empowering local communities and 
enhancing their food security; however, the study showed that their social 
impact varies within and among different groups and subgroups.  

In India, Karnad et al. (2014) surveyed 342 fisherfolk in two states—154 
from 39 villages in Maharashtra and 188 from 23 villages in Tamil Nadu—
to examine the perceptions of fisherfolk about the state of fish stocks and 
current fishing practices and management strategies in the country. They 
reported that a majority of the fisherfolk surveyed—90% in Maharashtra 
and 83% in Tamil Nadu—perceived declines in total catch due to which 
they have modified their fishing practices. They found that the socio-
economic characteristics of fisherfolk, like income and experience, 
influenced their perception of the state of fishery in the country. They 
concluded, ―The convoluted interactions between ineffective community 
and state regulations guiding their actions has prevented fishermen from 
developing successful models of sustainable fisheries management‖ (218). 

Sridhar (2017) studied the MPAs in India and highlighted the challenges in 
managing fisheries in such protected areas. She noted: 

The challenges of managing fisheries is not uncomplicated by any means. 
Traditional management systems based on restricting activities work well only 
where fishing communities are an integral part of the monitoring and enforcing 
mechanisms. The idea of intense resource-use was not organic to traditional 
fisher communities. There is an active effort to promote such a perspective 
from the hinterland (significantly through technology upgradation schemes of 
the state). These rapid technological advancements in fisheries and a noticeable 
systemic breakdown within the fishing communities make conformity to rules 
difficult. Only where fishing communities are better organised and the level of 
awareness and political representation greater have these communities been 
able to enforce some form of rules (traditional or official).  

 

4. STUDY AREA 

Of the various coastal states of India, Gujarat has the second-longest 
coastline (Rajawat et al. 2015) and is endowed with a bounty of natural 
resources. Two of the three gulf regions of the country lie in this state. The 
southern coast of the GoK, in particular, boasts a diversity of coastal and 
marine life. However, this region has been heavily exploited for human 
development activities dating back to the 1930s, when coral mining began 
(Magotra et al. 2017). Subsequent development in this region includes the 
establishment of Bedi Port in 1933, a unit of Tata Chemicals Ltd., along the 
coast in Mithapur village in 1937, Digvijay Cement Company at Sikka in 
1940, Sikka Port in 1949, and Navlakhi Port in 1955. These occurrences led 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [64] 

 

to the clearing of large tracts of mangroves for the creation of salt pans in 
1970 and the laying of the subsea pipeline of the Indian Oil Corporation 
Ltd. (IOCL) in 1978 (Magotra et al. 2017). These activities took a heavy toll 
on marine life in the region, and realizing its importance, the state 
government declared some parts of this coast a marine sanctuary in 1980. 
In 1982, the area of the MS was expanded, and some parts were declared an 
MNP to provide them with more protection. Overall, the MNP&S includes 
118.32 sq km of reserved forests, 347.90 sq km of unclassified forests, and 
98.20 sq km of Indian territorial waters (Biswas 2009). The Forest 
Department of Gujarat manages the whole area. 

This region supports a variety of marine biodiversity due to the availability 
of a range of habitats, viz. coral reefs, mangrove forests, sandy beaches, 
mudflats, creeks, rocky coasts, seagrass beds, etc. The region is home to 108 
species of algae, 70 species of sponges, 72 species of hard and soft corals, 
more than 200 species of fishes, 27 species of prawns, 30 species of crabs, 4 
species of seagrass, 3 species of sea turtles, 3 species of sea mammals, over 
200 species of molluscs, 94 species of water birds, 78 species of birds, 92 
species of bivalves, 55 species of gastropods, and more (Magotra et al. 
2017). Diverse habitats cater to the needs of thousands of species, 
providing them with suitable shelter and sustenance.  

The two major coastal ecosystems of this MNP are mangroves and coral 
reefs. The total area of reefs in the MNP is 443.49 sq km, whereas 
mangroves occupy approximately 173 sq km (Kumar et al. 2017). These 
coral reefs are of immense importance and provide a range of goods and 
services that benefit the people and environment. As per an economic 
valuation by the Gujarat Ecological Commission (GEC), the total estimated 
annual value of the benefits from coral reefs (mainly in the MNP in the 

GoK region) is ₹220.024 crore (Dixit et al. 2010).  

This area supports a diverse range of fishes. The vast intertidal mudflats 
also support traditional fishing operations using indigenously developed 
gear (Biswas 2009). In 2005–2006, the average value of the marine fish 

landed in Jamnagar (₹52.33) was over 70% higher than the average value of 

the catch for Gujarat (₹30.36) (Biswas 2009). During 2005–2006, Jamnagar 
contributed 10.01% of the total marine fish production in the state (Biswas 
2009), and during the decade of 2004–2005 and 2014–2015, the district 
contributed 9.73% of the total share of the state (Sharma et al. 2016). 

There are 110 villages along the southern coast of the GoK, which 
administratively fall under the Jamnagar, Morbi, and Devbhumi Dwarka 
districts of Gujarat. Of these 110 villages, 56 coastal villages were selected 



[65] Rohit Magotra, Pushkar Pandey, Mohit Kumar, Mohit Kumar Gupta, Asha Kaushik, Jyoti Parikh 

 

Figure 2: Study sites of primary surveys  

 

Source: Authors and Google Earth 

for the World Bank–funded Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) 
Project launched in 2010. Its primary focus is capacity-building of local 
communities for the protection, conservation, and regeneration of 
mangroves of MNP&S (GEC 2009). 

Based on the socio-economic information collected under the ICZM 
project and provided to us by the Office of the Gulf of Kachchh Marine 
National Park, we selected six villages located along the coast in the vicinity 
of the MNP—Sachana, Jodiya, Sikka, Salaya, Arambada, and Bet Dwarka 
(see Figure 2). Village selection was based on occupational structure, i.e., we 
chose villages with good fishing populations. We have provided the socio-
economic details of the selected villages, along with their occupation-wise 
involvement, in Table 1. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [66] 

 

Table 1: Socio-economic details of the villages selected for the primary survey 

Village name Total 
house-
holds 

Total population Occupation-wise households 

Male Female Total Agri-
culture 

Animal 
husbandry 

Fishing Saltpans Agriculture 
and animal 
husbandry 

Misc.  Other 
work 

Sachana 602 2, 292 2, 266 4, 558 107 12 405 0 0 68 10 

Sikka 150 626 424 1, 050 0 0 150 0 0 0 0 

Jodiya 600 1, 147 1, 053 2, 200 0 0 350 0 0 232 18 

Salaya 600 1, 900 2, 100 4, 000 0 0 600 0 0 0 0 

Arambada 750 2, 241 2, 259 4, 500 64 15 358 63 8 148 94 

Bet Dwarka 407 1, 609 1, 338 2, 947 0 0 407 0 0 0 0 

Source: Office of the Chief Conservator of Forests, Marine National Park, Jamnagar 

 

 



[67] Rohit Magotra, Pushkar Pandey, Mohit Kumar, Mohit Kumar Gupta, Asha Kaushik, Jyoti Parikh 

 

5. QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN AND SURVEY METHODOLOGY 

We used a structured survey adapted from the literature (Hamilton 2012) 
and edited for site-specificity, with inputs from the Marine National Park 
Forest Department, Jamnagar, which added more detailed information 
(presented in the Annexure). The survey included open- and close-ended 
questions on household demographics, attitudes, awareness, and resource 
use. Focus group discussions (FGDs) were also held to gain a deeper 
understanding of the related issues. FGDs involved a discussion with 
fisherfolk belonging to one village and provided a glimpse of the common 
understanding of most of the fisherfolk of that village regarding MNP-
related issues. It was a form of qualitative investigation where questions 
related to MNP were asked to find out about the perceptions, attitudes, 
beliefs, opinions, and ideas of fisherfolk. 

The questionnaire was divided into two sections: Section (A), which sought 
general information about the fisherfolk, including their basic profiles (such 
as their age, fishing methods, and the species they caught most frequently); 
and Section (B), which sought their opinions on the perceived impact of the 
MNP and their willingness to be involved in the management process. Most 
questions in Section (B) used a Likert scale answering system, with options 
ranging from ―Strongly Disagree‖ to ―Strongly Agree‖. Other questions had 
categorical answers, such as ―Yes‖ or ―No‖. We calculated an attitude score 
for each respondent based on their responses to the questions. 

We tabulated the responses from Section (A) to show the mean and 
standard deviation of continuous data and the frequencies of occurrence (as 
percentages) of categorical data. We also tabulated data from Section (B) to 
show the percentage of each response to each question. In this study, we 
present categorical responses as ―Yes‖, ―No‖, and ―Maybe‖, in which 
―Maybe‖ and ―Don’t know‖ responses are combined. We measured ordinal 
responses on a five-point Likert scale ranging from ―Strongly agree‖ to 
―Strongly disagree‖ and then reduced it to a three-point Likert scale due to 
the small sample size; this contained only the responses ―Agree‖, ―Neutral‖ 
(neither agree nor disagree), and ―Disagree‖. We present the Likert scale 
responses as percentages of each response from the fishers surveyed at each 
study site. 

We carried out these surveys with the support of the Forest Department at 
Jamnagar, a local translator, the village-level fishing community head, and 
social scientists from the Office of the Marine National Park, Jamnagar. We 
chose fisherfolk randomly at all six sites along the coast and in landing 
centres. We conducted surveys opportunistically, as the fisherfolk could 
only be contacted in the morning, during the low tide. It took roughly 15–



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [68] 

 

20 minutes to complete each survey. We surveyed a total of 35 fisherfolk 
each in Sachana, Jodiya, Salaya, Okha, and Arambada taluka, and 24 in 
Sikka. Thus, we surveyed a total of 199 fisherfolk in the MNP&S. 

 

6. RESULTS 

We have summarized the information about the socio-economic 
backgrounds of the surveyed fisherfolk in Table 2. The mean age of all the 
surveyed fisherfolk was 43.5 years.  

The mean age of surveyed fisherfolk ranged from 48 to 39 years in each of 
the sites. The mean number of years of experience ranged from 23 to 49.83 
years. The traditional knowledge of fisherfolk is useful for successfully 
managing the MPA. The age of fishers can influence their actions and 
perceptions, including their opinions towards the management of their 
fishery (Tzanatos et al. 2006). Older and more experienced fishers may have 
better knowledge about coastal and marine resources than younger 
individuals. Therefore, we attempted to include a greater number of older 
and experienced fishermen. The fishing gear that they operated varied from 
one site to another; fixed bag nets, boat seines, and hooks and lines were 
common across all the sites, whereas in Salaya, our survey showed that 
most fisherfolk (45.71%) use trawl longlines for fishing. There were 
significant overlaps between the species they caught—at all sites, fisherfolk 
caught prawns, pomfret, blue fish, and crabs.  

Most fisherfolk we surveyed across the six study sites did not have any 
occupation or sources of income outside of fishing. Of all the fisherfolk we 
surveyed in Salaya, Sachana, and Bet Dwarka, 2.86% informed us that apart 
from fishing activities, they did have other sources of income. In the other 
sites, the participants reported that they had no other income sources. 

The mean boat length varied across sites: it was 26 m in Sachana, 36.46 m 
in Arambada, 35.09 m in Salaya, 25.77 m in Jodiya, 31.42 m in Sikka, and 
38.6 m in Bet Dwarka. We found that the mean boat power was much 
higher in Salaya (84.86 HP),1 Sikka (94.75 HP), Bet Dwarka (61.3 HP), and 
Arambada (54.03 HP) than in Sachana (39 HP) and Jodiya (17.10 HP). The 
mean distance that fisherfolk travelled to reach the fishing grounds was 79.7 
km in Salaya, 56.88 km in Sikka, 46.81 km in Jodiya, 42.44 km in Bet 
Dwarka, 39.16 km in Arambada, and 36.23 km in Sachana. It seems that the 
fisherfolk at Salaya and Sikka used more powerful boats as they had to go 
further into the ocean to catch the fish. This indicates the dwindling 
availability of fish near the coast in Salaya and Sikka.  

                                                           
1 HP = Horse Power. 



[69] Rohit Magotra, Pushkar Pandey, Mohit Kumar, Mohit Kumar Gupta, Asha Kaushik, Jyoti Parikh 

 

 

Table 2: Primary survey findings 

Village 
Sachana  
(n = 35) 

Salaya  
(n = 35) 

Jodiya  
(n = 35) 

 Sikka  
(n = 24) 

Bet Dwarka  
(n = 35) 

Arambada  
(n = 35) 

Socio-economic characteristics 

 
Mean (Std. 

Dev.) 
% 

Mean (Std. 
Dev.) 

% 
Mean (Std. 

Dev.) 
% 

Mean (Std. 
Dev.) 

% 
Mean (Std. 

Dev.) 
% 

Mean (Std. 
Dev.) 

% 

Age (years) 39 (14.82) – 
43.6 

(10.23) 
– 

41.69 
(13.08) 

– 
46.21 
(9.09) 

– 
48  

(8.86) 
– 

40.69 
(9.67) 

– 

Experience 
fishing 
(years) 

23 (14.13) – 
29.74 
(9.98) 

– 
26.49 

(12.81) 
– 

32.17 
(8.20) 

– 
33.4 

(14.5) 
– 

23.80 
(7.12) 

– 

Any other 
occupation 

– 2.86 – 2.86 – 0 – 0 – 2.86 – 0 

Fishing characteristics 

 
Mean (Std. Dev.) Mean (Std. Dev.) Mean (Std. Dev.) Mean (Std. Dev.) Mean (Std. Dev.) Mean (Std. Dev.) 

Boat length 
(m) 

26 (4.02) 35.09 (8.19) 25.77 (3.40) 31.42 (4.05) 38.6 (19.6) 36.46 (12.72) 

Boat power 
(HP) 

39 (28.71) 84.86 (21.29) 17.90 (14.41) 94.75 (7.30) 61.3 (50.7) 54.03 (42.66) 

Source: Authors 

Note: % signifies frequency of occurrence 

 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [70] 

 

 

...continued 

Village 
Sachana  
(n = 35) 

Salaya  
(n = 35) 

Jodiya  
(n = 35) 

 Sikka  
(n = 24) 

Bet Dwarka  
(n = 35) 

Arambada  
(n = 35) 

Fishing methods 

 
% % % % % % 

Fixed bag net 65.71 68.57 82.86 – 42.86 25.71 

Boat seine 31.43 11.43 62.86 – – – 

Drift net 
 

8.57 – – – – 

Gillnet (large) 
 

– 71.43 100.00 57.14 68.57 

Gillnet (small) 
 

68.57 31.43 – – 8.57 

Hooks and line 
 

11.43 5.71 70.83 34.29 5.71 

Ring seine 
 

– – – – – 

Traps 25.71 – 11.43 – – – 

Trawl longlines 
 

45.71 – 8.33 – – 

Scoop net 
 

– – – – – 

Other – – – – – – 

Fishing operations 

 
Mean (Std. 

Dev.) 
Mean (Std. 

Dev.) 
Mean (Std. 

Dev.) 
Mean (Std. 

Dev.) 
Mean (Std. 

Dev.) 
Mean (Std. 

Dev.) 

Distance from coast (km) 36.23 (13.54) 79.7 (46.65) 46.81 (33.35) 56.88 (14.43) 42.44 (33.07) 39.16 (32.60) 

Times per week 4.11 (1.12) 4.26 (0.98) 4.77 (1.73) 4.33 (0.82) 4.8 (1.18) 4 (1.16) 

Source: Authors 
Note: % signifies frequency of occurrence 



[71] Rohit Magotra, Pushkar Pandey, Mohit Kumar, Mohit Kumar Gupta, Asha Kaushik, Jyoti Parikh 

 

 

...continued 

Village 
Sachana  
(n = 35) 

Salaya  
(n = 35) 

Jodiya  
(n = 35) 

 Sikka  
(n = 24) 

Bet Dwarka  
(n = 35) 

Arambada  
(n = 35) 

Species present in catch 

 % % % % % % 

Prawns 14.29 97.14 45.71 41.67 77.14 82.86 

Shrimps – – – – – 60.00 

Pomfret 94.29 97.14 91.43 50.00 – 42.86 

Crab – 11.43 85.71 37.50 57.14 17.14 

Bluefish (surmai) 48.57 25.71 14.29 33.33 45.71 51.43 

Lobster – 8.57 80 – 42.86 25.71 

Threadfish (Dara fish) 42.86 – – – 5.71 25.71 

Dutia 5.71 – 8.57 – – 8.57 

Bombay duck (bumbla) – – – 8.33 20.00 40.00 

Other clupeids (palli) – – – – 14.29 8.57 

Kuth 8.57 14.29 – – – – 

Sak – – – – 8.57 – 

Catfish – – – – 48.57 – 

Goldfish 40.00 – 17.14 8.33 22.86 11.43 

Tuna – – – – 5.71 – 

Source: Authors 
Note: % signifies frequency of occurrence 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [72] 

Figure 3: Fisherfolk’s opinions about the MNP&S 

Source: Authors 
Figure 3 shows that a large percentage of fisherfolk are aware of the MNP; 
however, a significant minority (a mean of 35.34%) are not aware of the 
MNP and its importance. This highlights the failure of the regulating body 
to generate awareness among the general public living along the coast. 
During the survey, our team provided a brief description of the MNP to the 
respondents and their families, especially those who were not aware of its 
benefits. We asked respondents who were aware of the MNP: ―Is the 
establishment of a marine national park/marine protected area a good 
thing?‖ About 98.10% of fisherfolk across all the study sites responded 
positively to the question, with 100% positive responses in Salaya and 
Sikka. But in Jodiya, some 5.71% of fisherfolk were not happy with 
mangrove plantation activities because mangrove roots trap sediments, 
which block creeks and prevent fish from entering; this means that the 
fisherfolk have to venture out into the open ocean for fishing. The 
fisherfolk’s opinions on sedimentation due to mangroves do not reveal 
antagonism towards the MNP; rather, the fisherfolk suggested that the 
concerned regulatory body should work on removing excess sedimentation 
that is blocking the creeks. 

 

 

 



[73] Rohit Magotra, Pushkar Pandey, Mohit Kumar, Mohit Kumar Gupta, Asha Kaushik, Jyoti Parikh 

 

Figure 4: Descriptive statistics on survey statements designed to quantify fisherfolk’s opinions about the MNP 

 

Source: Authors 

Note: We measured responses to statements on a five-point Likert scale and subsequently reduced it to a three-point Likert 
scale: Disagree (D), Neutral/neither agree nor disagree (N), and Agree (A). 

 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [74] 

Figure 4 shows that when questioned about the impact of the MNP on the 
volume of catch and diversity of fish species caught, there were significant 
differences between the responses of the fisherfolk from each study site. 
Most fisherfolk from all six sites (ranging from 63% to 83%) agreed that the 
establishment of the MNP has increased the volume of their catch. Only in 
Bet Dwarka, 49% of fisherfolk responded that they had not found any 
different types of fish species in their catch because their fishing operations 
were not active near the MNP area; they go further out to sea, far from the 
MNP area, to fish. This should be a matter of concern for the MNP 
authorities as fishermen have to move out of the coastal belt for fishing, 
which may pose more risks for them. MNP authorities should take 
measures to increase the diversity and abundance of fish species near the 
coastal area of Bet Dwarka. 

Most of the fisherfolk we surveyed—91% in Sachana, 100% in Sikka, 100% 
in Salaya, 100% in Arambada, 89% in Bet Dwarka, and 77% in Jodiya—felt 
that mangroves, coral reefs, and seagrasses are important for fishing and 
fish growth in coastal areas.  

Fisherfolk reported positive relations with the Forest Department in all the 
areas surveyed. A small fraction (6% in Sachana and 6% in Bet Dwarka) 
reported conflicts with the Forest Department regarding the 
mismanagement of the monitoring activities of the MNP, the fishing gear 
that neighbouring villagers used, and the patrolling activities of the Indian 
Coast Guard near the coast in Bet Dwarka. 

There were significant differences in the responses of fisherfolk regarding 
the presence of conflicts with the industries operating along the coast in 
southern GoK. Fisherfolk in all the areas we surveyed reported negative 
relationships with the industries because of their polluting production 
processes and the dumping of their wastes into the sea, which cause a 
reduction in fish catch around the coast. According to them, industrial 
growth benefits some people, but it should not pollute the environment. 
We found that 86% of the fisherfolk we surveyed in Salaya and 92% in 
Sikka reported that due to the establishment of industries along the coast, 
the condition of fish and marine life has deteriorated over a period of three 
decades, affecting catch size, fish size, and weight. However, in Bet Dwarka 
and Arambada, only 23% and 34% of fisherfolk, respectively, responded 
negatively to the establishment of industries; this could be because they 
have adapted to the changes. According to them, large industries have been 
operating there for the last 60–70 years, and people living in their vicinity 
know that they will rarely find fish within 1–2 km of these industries.  



[75] Rohit Magotra, Pushkar Pandey, Mohit Kumar, Mohit Kumar Gupta, Asha Kaushik, Jyoti Parikh 

 

Table 3: Fisherfolk’s opinions about the state of resources 

% response in 
Bet 

Dwarka 
Salaya Jodiya Sikka Sachana 

Aram-
badha 

In the last five 
years, compared 
to 10–15 years 
ago, I’ve noticed a 
difference in the 
catch 

Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N 

Number of (most 
fished species in) 
the catch 

91 9 97 3 86 29 100 0 71 29 83 17 

Size of (most 
fished species in) 
the catch 

86 14 97 3 77 23 100 0 77 23 83 17 

Number of 
species present in 
the catch 

80 20 83 17 77 23 88 12 71 29 91 9 

Source: Authors 

Table 3 shows the fisherfolk’s opinions about the state of fisheries in and 
around the MNP. We gathered opinions from all the study sites, comparing 
changes that the fisherfolk had noticed in the last five years to those they 
had seen over 10–15 years. Most fisherfolk reported that they had noticed a 
difference in the state of marine resources over the last 10–15 years. The 
most common response to a perceived change in the number of fish was 
―Yes‖; most fisherfolk reported an increase in the fished species present in 
their catch (ranging from 71% in Sachana to 100% in Sikka), the sizes of 
the most targeted species (ranging from 77 % to 100%) and the number of 
different species caught (71% to 91%) (see Table 3). All fisherfolk who 
reported that they had noticed a difference in the state of resources felt that 
there had been better resources 10–15 years ago. Reasons may vary from 
area to area; for example, in Sachana, most respondents identified industrial 
pollution as the major threat to fish in and around their fishing area and the 
use of small nets by big trawlers from Salaya village as the reason for a 
decrease in the number of fish and size of their catch. Biswas (2009, 26) 
also noted similar observations: ―Traditional fishers point out that trawler 
owners are often able to use political and money power to escape penalties. 
In most places, traditional fishers identified trawling as one of the key 
reasons for the depletion of fish stocks and destruction of their gear. In the 
industrialized coastal belt, oil and chemical contamination, salt works and 
increasing port activity were stated as the reasons for declining catches‖. 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [76] 

 

Most fisherfolk in all six study sites stated that they had been asked to 
change their fishing methods and gear (63% in Bet Dwarka, 86% in Salaya, 
77% in Jodiya, 100% in Sikka, 86% in Arambada, and 89% in Sachana). The 
Department of Fisheries has prohibited them from using small nets for 
fishing because they capture too many small fish that are not big enough to 
eat; the catch is therefore wasteful, as these small fish will not have the 
opportunity to grow large enough to provide a good meal or a good price. 
Though 86% of the fisherfolk surveyed in Salaya said that they have been 
asked to stop fishing with small nets, most still use them. During the 
survey, we observed that fisherfolk from the neighbouring villages, like 
Sachana and Jodiya, also responded negatively to the Salaya villagers’ use of 
small fishing nets, and demanded that they be banned indefinitely. 

Most fisherfolk (ranging from 89% in Bet Dwarka to 100% in Sachana) 
claimed that they were not aware of any of the MNP’s management 
strategies. However, almost all of them (94% in Bet Dwarka, 94% in Jodiya, 
and 100% in Arambada, Salaya, Sikka, and Sachana) were keen on being 
involved in conservation and management planning procedures. Fishing 
community residents at all six sites responded positively and said that they 
were ready to support the government in any kind of conservation 
activities, but being among the key stakeholders, fisherfolk and the fishing 
community want to be consulted and involved in the preparation of any 
management or conservation plan. 

 

7. DISCUSSIONS 

The hypothesis we investigated in our survey concerned fisherfolk’s 
acceptance of an MNP, based on a survey of fisherfolk at six sites along the 
coast. The results showed the differences in fisherfolk’s attitudes towards 
the MNP and highlighted factors that influenced their opinions. The small 
sample size (35 in Sachana, 35 in Jodiya, 24 in Sikka, 35 in Salaya, 35 in 
Arambada, and 35 in Bet Dwarka) was the main limitation of this study. 
However, the study does provide some insights into fisherfolk’s opinions 
and acceptance of MPAs—like MNPs—at all the sites we surveyed, and 
may act as a pilot that could aid the design of more comprehensive research 
in the future. Any future studies should aim to collect data from a larger 
sample size of fishers for more robust statistical outputs.  

The fishers at all the sites in our survey were concerned about better MNP 
management to help conserve coral reefs and mangroves. According to the 
fisherfolk, while the total fish catch has shown an overall increasing trend 
over the years, there has been a decline in their ―catch per unit effort‖ in 



[77] Rohit Magotra, Pushkar Pandey, Mohit Kumar, Mohit Kumar Gupta, Asha Kaushik, Jyoti Parikh 

 

recent years. This is mainly owing to the overall environmental degradation 
of fishing areas due to rapid industrial development and the construction of 
breakwaters for ports, jetties, and single point mooring (SPM) stations.  

The planning, implementation, and management of any MPA is dependent 
on stakeholders’ opinions on conservation. There is a need to pay adequate 
attention to gaining the acceptance of those dependent on the resources in 
that area. A high level of acceptance of the MNP is important for effective, 
community-based management and conservation. Attempts to conserve the 
ecology of this marine area could become ineffective if the regulator has 
low levels of support from artisanal fisherfolk and other related 
stakeholders. Our survey observations suggest that fisherfolk with little or 
no knowledge about MNPs are ready to support it and be part of its 
planning and management, so that conservation efforts do not affect fishing 
activities. Results from our survey also indicate that most respondents—an 
average of 98.10% from all surveyed sites—felt that an MPA or MNP is 
good for the marine ecosystem and for their livelihoods; this is likely due to 
the fisherfolk having already seen the benefits of the Jamnagar MNP 
reflected in their catches. Though ―catch per unit effort‖ has declined, an 
overall increasing trend has been perceived. The decline was noticed 
because of industrial pollution and big trawlers. As a legally protected area, 
these activities should be strictly regulated in the MNP. However, at 
present, these activities are not strictly regulated. The fisherfolk further 
suggested that they would like to be involved in the management or 
conservation planning of the MNP. 

 

8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  

We found similarities and differences in the responses of fisherfolk from 
each study site. The widespread acceptance of MNPs or MPAs in all study 
sites is encouraging. Our survey shows that fisherfolk from all six study 
sites support MNPs or MPAs as a conservation management strategy as 
long as they feel that their fishing activities will not be affected. The 
MNP&S in GoK is an economic and ecological hotspot; its establishment 
has certainly slowed down ecological exploitation and contributed to the 
conservation of biodiversity. Without the creation of the MNP&S, this 
fragile ecosystem might have been at risk of endangerment or even 
extinction. Fisherfolk livelihoods might also have been compromised in its 
absence.  

One possible trade-off of setting up an MPA along the southern coast of 
GoK is the restriction it may pose to uncontrolled resource utilization. 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [78] 

 

Earlier, extensive utilization of mangroves and coral reefs led to a 
significant reduction in the area of these two important coastal ecosystems 
(Kumar et al. 2017). However, their degradation has been controlled 
substantially after the area was declared ―legally protected‖ (Kumar et al. 
2017). Still, one of the major reasons for the loss of biodiversity in fishing 
catches and the fall in catch size is the degradation of ecological support 
structures, such as coral reefs and mangroves. The Central Marine Fisheries 
Research Institute (CMFRI) has indicated that the most conspicuous 
change in resource composition over the years was the replacement of 
quality fish like pomfret and large sciaenid and penaeid prawns with lower-
value fish such as ribbon fishes, threadfin breams, carangids, non-penaeid 
prawns, and smaller crabs (Mohanraj et al. 2009). Therefore, conserving 
mangroves and coral reefs will eventually help increase the biodiversity and 
the number of fishes in the MNP. Another possible trade-off could be that 
the fisheries in the GoK are managed so that local fishing as well as open 
water fishing are practised, and certain areas are regulated to create nursery 
areas for fish by creating protective mangroves and coral reefs (Singh 2003). 
This could, however, propel fisherfolk to fish at greater distances in the 
open ocean, putting them at greater risk. Some fishermen in Jodiya also 
complained that mangrove plantation activities have resulted in the 
blocking of creeks, so fisherfolk have to move further out to sea to fish. 

Although the fisherfolk had mixed views about some aspects of the MNP 
(such as the issues causing conflict), in general, they welcomed it and 
acknowledged the benefits they had received from it in the past. Fisherfolk 
at all six sites favoured community-based management of MNPs or MPAs. 
Effective management and local involvement are important for optimal 
success, and community-based management may be the method favoured 
by small, artisanal fishing communities in other areas. 

The Forest Department should increase the involvement of local 
communities and village panchayats by assigning them roles and 
responsibilities in the management and conservation framework of the 
MPA. This will also decrease conflicts among local communities and other 
stakeholders. The Forest Department should ensure effective participation 
of local communities in management and conservation activities, such as 
mangrove planting, considering the understanding and knowledge that 
communities have about their ecosystems and how their economic activities 
relate to their social environment. Local people should be made aware of 
types of mangroves, the environmental conditions required for their 
planting, and their contribution to the water table. Local communities 
should not be used just as labour; rather, they should be trained in 
mangrove planting and be involved in the long term, so that after planting 



[79] Rohit Magotra, Pushkar Pandey, Mohit Kumar, Mohit Kumar Gupta, Asha Kaushik, Jyoti Parikh 

 

they will be able to take care of the mangroves. The department and the 
local community must have a dialogue on the ecosystem services that the 
mangroves provide. 

We received positive opinions about awareness campaigns from fisherfolk 
in all our study areas. During FGDs, fisherfolk suggested that there is a 
need for more awareness campaigns among fishing villages so that wrongful 
fishing methods can be stopped to increase the fish production in and 
around the MNP. The Forest Department should consider organizing more 
awareness campaigns. 

This study provides lessons and inputs on the perceived importance and 
value of the MNP&S. Future work should include studies with larger 
sample sizes to investigate the opinions of fisherfolk living in the vicinity of 
MPAs, not only in Gujarat, but also in other states of India that have 
MNPs. This can provide important policy inputs for promoting the co-
existence of economic and ecological hotspots. These two hotspots can co-
exist, if rules of co-existence can be sharpened, followed, and strictly 
monitored. This requires capacity-building of fisherfolk and institutions that 
work with them on a regular basis. Strict guidelines and monitoring 
mechanisms need to be in place. International protocols that could be 
adjusted to local situations should be the starting point. 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

This paper is part of the project, ―Review of Status of Marine National 
Park, Jamnagar: Evolving a Vision Statement for Management of MNP‖, 
funded by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change 
(MoEFCC), Government of India, vide grant no. No. 22-3/06-CS. The 
authors of this study acknowledge the support and cooperation of Gujarat 
state forest officials, the MoEFCC, the Government of India, and other 
city-level officials of Jamnagar City. We would like to express our deep 
gratitude to J. R. Bhatt, Advisor, MoEFCC, Government of India; S. C. 
Pant, Ex-PCCF, Gujarat Forest Department; H. S. Singh, IFS, Ex-
Conservator of Forests, Gulf of Kachchh Marine National Park; and Bharat 
Pathak, Former Director, GEER Foundation, Gandhinagar. We also 
acknowledge the support provided by Shyamal Tikadar, the then 
Conservator of Forests, Gulf of Kachchh Marine National Park, for 
permitting us to visit the MNP for our survey and for providing us relevant 
data and a map of the MNP as shown in Figure 1. 

 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [80] 

 

REFERENCES 

Alcala, Angel C., and Garry R. Russ. 2006. ―No-take Marine Reserves and Reef 
Fisheries Management in the Philippines: A New People Power Revolution.‖ 
Ambio 35 (5): 245–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/05-a-054r1.1. 

Beaumont, Julia. 1997. ―Community Participation in the Establishment and 
Management of Marine Protected Areas: A Review of Selected International 
Experience.‖ South African Journal of Marine Science 18 (1): 333–340. 
https://doi.org/10.2989/025776197784161009. 

Biswas, Nilanjana 2009. ―Gulf of Kutch Marine National Park and Marine Wildlife 
Sanctuary: A Case Study.‖ International Collective in Support of Fishworkers, 
Chennai, India. Accessed November 9, 2019. 
http://aquaticcommons.org/2077/1/Kutch.pdf.  

Dixit, Arun Mani, Pushpam Kumar, Lalit Kumar, Kinjal D. Pathak, and M. I. Patel. 
2010. ―Economic Valuation of Coral Reef Ecosystem in Gulf of Kachchh.‖ 
Gujarat Ecology Commission, Gandhinagar. 
http://www.geciczmp.com/Data/Sites/1/docs/ebooks/economic-valuation-of-
coralreef-systems-in-gulf-of-kachchh.pdf.  

GEC, 2009. Draft Detailed Project Report for Component: A, Coastal Resources Conservation 
& Management. Gandhinagar, Gujarat: Gujarat Ecology Commission. 
http://www.geciczmp.com/Data/Sites/1/docs/project-documents/detailed-
project-report.pdf. 

Gleason, Mary, Scott McCreary, Melissa Miller-Henson, John Ugoretz, Evan Fox, 
Matt Merrifield, Will McClintock, Paulo Serpa, and Kathryn Hoffman. 2010. 
―Science-based and Stakeholder-driven Marine Protected Area Network Planning: 
A Successful Case Study from North Central California.‖ Ocean & Coastal 
Management 53: 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2009.12.001.  

Hamilton, Mark. 2012. ―Perceptions of Fishermen towards Marine Protected Areas 
in Cambodia and the Philippines.‖ Bioscience Horizons 5: 1–24. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/biohorizons/hzs007.  

Himes, Amber H. 2003. ―Small-scale Sicilian Fisheries: Opinions of Artisanal 
Fishers and Sociocultural Effects in Two MPA Case Studies.‖ Coastal Management 
31: 389–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920750390232965.  

Jentoft, Svein. 2000. ―The Community: A Missing Link of Fisheries Management.‖ 
Marine Policy 24: 53–59. 

Karnad, Divya, Mayuresh Gangal, and Krithi K. Karanth. 2014. ―Perceptions 
Matter: How Fishers’ Perceptions Affect Trends of Sustainability in Indian 
Fisheries.‖ Oryx 48 (2): 218–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605312001251. 

Klein, Carissa J., A. Chan, L. Kircher, A. J. Cundiff, N. Gardner, Y. Hrovat, 
A. Scholz, B. E. Kendall, and S. Airamé. 2008. ―Striking a Balance between 
Biodiversity Conservation and Socioeconomic Viability in the Design of Marine 
Protected Areas.‖ Conservation Biology 22 (3): 691–700. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00896.x.  

http://dx.doi.org/10.1579/05-a-054r1.1
https://doi.org/10.2989/025776197784161009
http://aquaticcommons.org/2077/1/Kutch.pdf
http://www.geciczmp.com/Data/Sites/1/docs/ebooks/economic-valuation-of-coralreef-systems-in-gulf-of-kachchh.pdf
http://www.geciczmp.com/Data/Sites/1/docs/ebooks/economic-valuation-of-coralreef-systems-in-gulf-of-kachchh.pdf
http://www.geciczmp.com/Data/Sites/1/docs/project-documents/detailed-project-report.pdf
http://www.geciczmp.com/Data/Sites/1/docs/project-documents/detailed-project-report.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2009.12.001
https://doi.org/10.1093/biohorizons/hzs007
https://doi.org/10.1080/08920750390232965
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605312001251
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00896.x


[81] Rohit Magotra, Pushkar Pandey, Mohit Kumar, Mohit Kumar Gupta, Asha Kaushik, Jyoti Parikh 

 

Kumar, Mohit, Rohit Magotra, Jyoti Parikh, and A. S. Rajawat. 2017. ―Changing 
Landscape of Marine National Park and Sanctuary, Gulf of Kachchh: Ecological 
Assessment of Mangroves and Coral Reefs.‖ Proceedings of the National Academy of 
Sciences, India, Section A Physical Sciences 87: 889-900. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40010-017-0457-3.  

Magotra, Rohit, Mohit Kumar, Pushkar Pandey, Asha Kaushik, Sonali Vyas, Mohit 
Kumar Gupta, and Jyoti Parikh. 2017. Review of Status of Marine National Park, 
Jamnagar and Evolving a Vision Statement for Management of MNP. New Delhi: 
Integrated Research and Action for Development. 
https://irade.org/MNP%20Report_revised%2008-03-2019_LowRes.pdf. 

Mascia, Michael B., Anne Claus, and Robin Naidoo. 2010. ―Impacts of Marine 
Protected Areas on Fishing Communities.‖ Conservation Biology 24 (5): 1424–1429. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01523.x.  

Mohanraj, Govindaraj, K. V. Somasekharan Nair, Pillaru K. Asokan, and 
Shubhadeep Ghosh 2009. ―Status of Marine Fisheries in Gujarat with Strategies for 
Sustainable and Responsible Fisheries.‖ Asian Fisheries Science 22 (1): 285–296. 
http://eprints.cmfri.org.in/id/eprint/5734.  

Pita, Cristina, Graham J. Pierce, and Ioannis Theodossiou. 2010. ―Stakeholders’ 
Participation in the Fisheries Management Decision-making process: Fishers’ 
Perceptions of Participation.‖ Marine Policy 34 (5): 1093–1102. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.03.009.  

Sharma, H., M. Swain, M. and S. S. Kalamkar. 2016. Evaluation and Assessment of 
Economic Losses on Account of Inadequate Post-Harvest Infrastructure Facilities for Fisheries 
Sector in Gujarat. Anand: Agro-Economic Research Centre, Sardar Patel University. 
https://spuvvn.edu/academics/academic_centres/agro_economic_centre/researc
h_studies/163.%20AERC%20Gujarat%20Fishery%20Report%20Final%20March
%202016%20ok.pdf. 

Singh, H. S. 2003. ―Marine Protected Areas in India.‖ Indian Journal of Marine Sciences 
32 (3): 226–233. http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/4271.  

Sridhar, Aarthi. 2017. ―Marine Parks in India – A Case for Maritime 
Environmentalism.‖ Current Conservation. Accessed November 14, 2019. 
https://www.currentconservation.org/issues/marine-parks-in-india-a-case-for-
maritime-environmentalism/. 

Rajawat, A. S., H. B. Chauhan, R. Ratheesh, S. Rode, R. J. Bhanderi, M. Mahapatra, 
M. Kumar, R. Yadav, S. P. Abraham, S. S. Singh, et al. 2015. ―Assessment of 
Coastal Erosion along the Indian Coast on 1:25,000 Scale using Satellite Data of 
1989–1991 and 2004–2006 Time Frames.‖ Current Science India 109: 347–353. 
https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-8-119-2014. 

Uychiaoco, A. J., H. O. Arceo, S. J. Green, M. T. De La Cruz, P. A. Gaite, and P. 
M. Aliño. 2005. ―Monitoring and Evaluation of Reef Protected Areas by Local 
Fishers in the Philippines: Tightening the Adaptive Management Cycle.‖ Biodiversity 
and Conservation 14 (11): 2775–2794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-005-8414-x.  

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40010-017-0457-3
https://irade.org/MNP%20Report_revised%2008-03-2019_LowRes.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01523.x
http://eprints.cmfri.org.in/id/eprint/5734
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2010.03.009
https://spuvvn.edu/academics/academic_centres/agro_economic_centre/research_studies/163.%20AERC%20Gujarat%20Fishery%20Report%20Final%20March%202016%20ok.pdf
https://spuvvn.edu/academics/academic_centres/agro_economic_centre/research_studies/163.%20AERC%20Gujarat%20Fishery%20Report%20Final%20March%202016%20ok.pdf
https://spuvvn.edu/academics/academic_centres/agro_economic_centre/research_studies/163.%20AERC%20Gujarat%20Fishery%20Report%20Final%20March%202016%20ok.pdf
http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/4271
https://www.currentconservation.org/issues/marine-parks-in-india-a-case-for-maritime-environmentalism/
https://www.currentconservation.org/issues/marine-parks-in-india-a-case-for-maritime-environmentalism/
https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-8-119-2014
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-005-8414-x


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [82] 

 

Vethamony, P. and M. T. Babu. 2010. ―Physical Characteristics of Gulf of 
Kachchh: A Review.‖ Indian Journal of Geo-Marine Sciences 39 (4): 497–503. 
http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/10795.  

http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/10795

