Effects of management objectives and rules on marine conservation outcomes

• Natalie C. Ban
• Emily S. Darling
• Georgina G. Gurney
• Whitney Friedman
• Stacy D. Jupiter
• W. Peni Lestari
• Irfan Yulianto
• Sinta Pardede
• Sukma A. R. Tarigan
• Puji Prihatiningsih
• Sangeeta Mangubhai
• Waisea Naisilisili
• Sirilo Dulunaqio
• Josheena Naggea
• Ravaka Ranaivoson
• Vera N. Agostini
• Gabby Ahmadia
• Jessica Blythe
• Stuart J. Campbell
• Joachim Claudet
• Courtney Cox
• Graham Epstein
• Estradivari
• Margaret Fox
• David Gill
• Amber Himes‐Cornell
• Harry Jonas
• Elizabeth Mcleod
• Nyawira A. Muthiga
• Tim McClanahan

Abteilungen

Küstenressourcen

Abstract

Understanding the relative effectiveness and enabling conditions of different area-based management tools is essential for supporting efforts that achieve positive biodiversity outcomes as area-based conservation coverage increases to meet newly set international targets. We used data from a coastal social–ecological monitoring program in 6 Indo-Pacific countries to analyze whether social, ecological, and economic objectives and specific management rules (temporal closures, fishing gear-specific, species-specific restrictions) were associated with coral reef fish biomass above sustainable yield levels across different types of area-based management tools (i.e., comparing those designated as marine protected areas [MPAs] with other types of area-based management). All categories of objectives, multiple combinations of rules, and all types of area-based management had some sites that were able to sustain high levels of reef fish biomass—a key measure for coral reef functioning—compared with reference sites with no area-based management. Yet, the same management types also had sites with low biomass. As governments advance their commitments to the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the target to conserve 30% of the planet's land and oceans by 2030, we found that although different types of management can be effective, most of the managed areas in our study regions did not meet criteria for effectiveness. These findings underscore the importance of strong management and governance of managed areas and the need to measure the ecological impact of area-based management rather than counting areas because of their designation.

• DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14156

Zitiere diese Aktivität

@article{Ban2023,
  Title = {Effects of management objectives and rules on marine conservation outcomes},
  Author = {Ban, Natalie C. and Darling, Emily S. and Gurney, Georgina G. and Friedman, Whitney and Jupiter, Stacy D. and Lestari, W. Peni and Yulianto, Irfan and Pardede, Sinta and Tarigan, Sukma A. R. and Prihatiningsih, Puji and Mangubhai, Sangeeta and Naisilisili, Waisea and Dulunaqio, Sirilo and Naggea, Josheena and Ranaivoson, Ravaka and Agostini, Vera N. and Ahmadia, Gabby and Blythe, Jessica and Campbell, Stuart J. and Claudet, Joachim and Cox, Courtney and Epstein, Graham and Estradivari and Fox, Margaret and Gill, David and Himes‐Cornell, Amber and Jonas, Harry and Mcleod, Elizabeth and Muthiga, Nyawira A. and McClanahan, Tim},
  Editor = {},
  Journal = {Conservation Biology},
  Year = {2023},
  Volume = {37},
  Doi = {10.1111/cobi.14156},
  Abstract = {Understanding the relative effectiveness and enabling conditions of different area-based management tools is essential for supporting efforts that achieve positive biodiversity outcomes as area-based conservation coverage increases to meet newly set international targets. We used data from a coastal social–ecological monitoring program in 6 Indo-Pacific countries to analyze whether social, ecological, and economic objectives and specific management rules (temporal closures, fishing gear-specific, species-specific restrictions) were associated with coral reef fish biomass above sustainable yield levels across different types of area-based management tools (i.e., comparing those designated as marine protected areas [MPAs] with other types of area-based management). All categories of objectives, multiple combinations of rules, and all types of area-based management had some sites that were able to sustain high levels of reef fish biomass—a key measure for coral reef functioning—compared with reference sites with no area-based management. Yet, the same management types also had sites with low biomass. As governments advance their commitments to the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the target to conserve 30% of the planet's land and oceans by 2030, we found that although different types of management can be effective, most of the managed areas in our study regions did not meet criteria for effectiveness. These findings underscore the importance of strong management and governance of managed areas and the need to measure the ecological impact of area-based management rather than counting areas because of their designation.},
}

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Ban, Natalie C.
AU  - Darling, Emily S.
AU  - Gurney, Georgina G.
AU  - Friedman, Whitney
AU  - Jupiter, Stacy D.
AU  - Lestari, W. Peni
AU  - Yulianto, Irfan
AU  - Pardede, Sinta
AU  - Tarigan, Sukma A. R.
AU  - Prihatiningsih, Puji
AU  - Mangubhai, Sangeeta
AU  - Naisilisili, Waisea
AU  - Dulunaqio, Sirilo
AU  - Naggea, Josheena
AU  - Ranaivoson, Ravaka
AU  - Agostini, Vera N.
AU  - Ahmadia, Gabby
AU  - Blythe, Jessica
AU  - Campbell, Stuart J.
AU  - Claudet, Joachim
AU  - Cox, Courtney
AU  - Epstein, Graham
AU  - Estradivari
AU  - Fox, Margaret
AU  - Gill, David
AU  - Himes‐Cornell, Amber
AU  - Jonas, Harry
AU  - Mcleod, Elizabeth
AU  - Muthiga, Nyawira A.
AU  - McClanahan, Tim
TI  - Effects of management objectives and rules on marine conservation outcomes
T2  - Conservation Biology
PY  - 2023
VL  - 37
DO  - 10.1111/cobi.14156
AB  - Understanding the relative effectiveness and enabling conditions of different area-based management tools is essential for supporting efforts that achieve positive biodiversity outcomes as area-based conservation coverage increases to meet newly set international targets. We used data from a coastal social–ecological monitoring program in 6 Indo-Pacific countries to analyze whether social, ecological, and economic objectives and specific management rules (temporal closures, fishing gear-specific, species-specific restrictions) were associated with coral reef fish biomass above sustainable yield levels across different types of area-based management tools (i.e., comparing those designated as marine protected areas [MPAs] with other types of area-based management). All categories of objectives, multiple combinations of rules, and all types of area-based management had some sites that were able to sustain high levels of reef fish biomass—a key measure for coral reef functioning—compared with reference sites with no area-based management. Yet, the same management types also had sites with low biomass. As governments advance their commitments to the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the target to conserve 30% of the planet's land and oceans by 2030, we found that although different types of management can be effective, most of the managed areas in our study regions did not meet criteria for effectiveness. These findings underscore the importance of strong management and governance of managed areas and the need to measure the ecological impact of area-based management rather than counting areas because of their designation.
ER  - 

Details

Forschungs-Spektrum