Diversity in marine protected area regulations: Protection approaches for locally appropriate marine management

Frontiers in Marine Science

Marine Science

Charlotte Gough¹  Nicole L. Crane²  Helen E. Fox³  Jordan Goetze⁴  Sarah E. Lester⁵  David Gill⁶  Marianne Teoh⁷  Shauna L. Mahajan⁸  Nils C. Krueck⁹  Dominic A. Andradi-Brown^1,10  Laura Veverka^1,10  Gabby N. Ahmadia^1,10  John Rulmal^1,11 

[1] Blue Ventures, Conservation, Level 2 Annex, Omnibus Business Centre, London, United Kingdom;Cabrillo College, Natural and Applied Sciences, Aptos, CA, United States;One People One Reef, Soquel, CA, United States;Coral Reef Alliance, San Francisco, CA, United States;Department of Biodiversity, Marine Science Program, Biodiversity and Conservation Science, Conservation and Attractions, Kensington, WA, Australia;School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia;Department of Biological Science, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, United States;Duke University Marine Laboratory, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Beaufort, NC, United States;Fauna & Flora International, Phnom Penh, Cambodia;Global Science, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC, United States;Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS), University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia;Ocean Conservation, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC, United States;One People One Reef, Soquel, CA, United States;

关键词: marine protected area (MPA);    partial protection;    fisheries regulation;    marine management;    biodiversity targets;    MPA;   

DOI  :  10.3389/fmars.2023.1099579

 received in 2022-11-15, accepted in 2023-01-19,  发布年份 2023

来源: Frontiers

【 摘 要 】

Globally, marine protected area (MPA) objectives have increasingly shifted from a primary focus on maintaining ecosystems through prohibiting extractive activities, to more equitable approaches that address the needs of both people and nature. This has led to MPAs with a diverse array of fisheries restrictions and recent debate on the type of restrictions that contribute to achieving biodiversity goals. Here we use a global dataset of 172 MPAs (representing 31 nations) alongside nine detailed case study MPAs (from Australia, Belize, Cambodia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Indonesia, Madagascar, Solomon Islands, and United States of America), including partially protected areas that allow regulated fishing, to illustrate the many diverse pathways that some MPAs have adopted to protect biodiversity and safeguard the rights and well-being of resource-dependent coastal communities. We group MPAs based on their restrictions and explore four key insights emerging from these groupings using our nine case studies: (i) MPAs use highly diverse approaches to regulate fisheries; (ii) partially protected areas can address gaps in regional fisheries management; (iii) devolving resource management rights to communities influences the chosen fisheries restrictions; and (iv) state-governed MPAs can use highly tailored fisheries restrictions to increase equity in access. We find that partially protected MPAs can offer effective and equitable pathways for biodiversity conservation if tailored to local context. Rather than focusing primarily on fully protected areas for achieving new global MPA targets, we recommend countries use a blend of locally-appropriate protection levels – from fully protected areas to partially protected MPAs to achieve positive biodiversity outcomes.

【 授权许可】

Unknown   
Copyright © 2023 Andradi-Brown, Veverka, Amkieltiela, Crane, Estradivari, Fox, Gill, Goetze, Gough, Krueck, Lester, Mahajan, Rulmal, Teoh and Ahmadia