LETTER Understanding Characteristics that Define the Feasibility of Conservation Actions in a Common Pool Marine Resource Governance System Morena Mills 1,2 , Robert L. Pressey 2 , Natalie C. Ban 2 , Simon Foale 2 , Shankar Aswani 3 , & Andrew T. Knight 4 1 Global Change Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia 2 Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia 3 Department of Anthropology, University of California at Santa Barbara, CA 93106-3210, USA 4 Division of Ecology and Evolution, Imperial College London, Silwood Park Campus, Imperial College London, Buckhurst Road, Ascot, Berkshire, SL5 7PY, UK Keywords Systematic conservation planning; spatial prioritization; coastal ecosystems; fisheries management; resource management; marine; Solomon Islands. Correspondence Morena Mills, Global Change Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia. Tel: +61 7 3365 1264; Fax: +3346 3299. E-mail: morena.mills@uq.edu.au Received 12 September 2012 Accepted 11 March 2013 Editor Derek Armitage doi: 10.1111/conl.12025 Abstract Effective conservation requires people to make choices about how they in- teract with the environment. Social characteristics influence the likelihood of establishing conservation actions with strong compliance (hereafter “feasibil- ity”), but are rarely considered in conservation planning. Our study makes two contributions to understand feasibility. First, we explicitly test the associations between social characteristics and the presence and form of resource manage- ment. Second, we compare the ability of different types of data to elucidate feasibility. We use Ostrom’s (2007) thinking on social–ecological systems and literature on resource management in Melanesia to create a context-specific framework to identify social characteristics that influence feasibility for conser- vation management. We then apply this framework and test for associations between the presence and form of management on one hand and social char- acteristics on the other, using data collected at different resolutions. We found that conservation feasibility was associated with characteristics of the gover- nance system, users, and the social, economic, and political setting. Villages with different forms of management were more similar to each other socially than to villages without management. Social data collected at the resolution of households accounted for over double the variation in the form and presence of management compared to data at the resolution of villages. Our methods can be adapted to conservation planning initiatives in other socioeconomic settings. Introduction Conservation goals are achieved through diverse con- servation actions, including spatial management to reg- ulate extractive uses of natural resources. Although it is commonly acknowledged that social characteristics influence the likelihood of establishing long-term con- servation actions with strong compliance (hereafter “fea- sibility”) (Mascia 2003), these characteristics are rarely considered in conservation planning (Cowling et al. 2004; Polasky 2008). The spatial prioritization component of systematic conservation planning (hereafter “systematic assessment”) guides spatial and temporal decisions about conservation actions that achieve conservation goals by considering conservation value and threat cost-effectively (Pressey & Bottrill 2009). To date, social context has mostly been incorporated into systematic assessments as threats or costs (e.g., Ando et al. 1998; Margules & Pressey 2000; Wilson et al. 2007; Ban & Klein 2009). A more nuanced approach to planning with social characteris- tics can identify areas where conservation is feasible, potentially reducing misspending on areas where social characteristics (e.g., low willingness) will inhibit effec- tive action (Knight et al. 2010). Planning regions would 418 Conservation Letters 6:6 November/December (2013) 418–429 Copyright and Phtocopying: C 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.