2021
DOI: 10.1038/s41559-021-01502-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A meta-analysis reveals edge effects within marine protected areas

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The MPAs included in this study were proposed with an emphasis on fishery conservation objectives, using economic criteria related to the sustainable use of fisheries resources to evaluate MPA management and attending to the fishermen's interests to gain their acceptance. Although significant, the increase of biomass of target species and catches in the studied MPAs outside their boundaries is low (Tabarca and Cabo de Palos; Vandeperre et al 2011) or undocumented (e.g., San Antonio, Serra Gelada, Cabo Tin ˜oso), with an explicit ''edge effect'' (Ohayon et al 2021) that undermines the productive capacities of MPAs to regenerate the exploited fishery resources due to their small size. Furthermore, the lack of actual positive and sustained impact on the catches of the affected fishermen would explain the interest in establishing objectives to improve those catches and would be the cause of the fishermen's low satisfaction with the managers when resolving conflicts because these improvements in catches never materialized.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…The MPAs included in this study were proposed with an emphasis on fishery conservation objectives, using economic criteria related to the sustainable use of fisheries resources to evaluate MPA management and attending to the fishermen's interests to gain their acceptance. Although significant, the increase of biomass of target species and catches in the studied MPAs outside their boundaries is low (Tabarca and Cabo de Palos; Vandeperre et al 2011) or undocumented (e.g., San Antonio, Serra Gelada, Cabo Tin ˜oso), with an explicit ''edge effect'' (Ohayon et al 2021) that undermines the productive capacities of MPAs to regenerate the exploited fishery resources due to their small size. Furthermore, the lack of actual positive and sustained impact on the catches of the affected fishermen would explain the interest in establishing objectives to improve those catches and would be the cause of the fishermen's low satisfaction with the managers when resolving conflicts because these improvements in catches never materialized.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…The socioeconomic principles were aimed at maximizing benefits while minimizing conflicts and costs to stakeholders (e.g., Fernandes et al, 2009;Gaines et al, 2010;Gleason et al, 2010;Ban et al, 2011;Green et al, 2014). The shape-area principles are commonly used to reduce threats' potential (i.e., edge effects) in the zoning design (Roberts et al, 2001;Roberts et al, 2003;Ohayon et al, 2021). These principles were followed so that the MPA could achieve four main goals that were initially co-defined and validated by the participants of the participatory process: 1) Protection of marine biodiversity; 2) Promotion of local and small-scale sustainable fisheries; 3) Promotion of sustainable tourism; 4) Promotion of ocean literacy.…”
Section: Zoning Principlesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, the shape-area principles were intended to consider the different protection levels, their areas, and corresponding shape while trying to minimize the potential threats inside the most protected areas ('edge effect') (Roberts et al, 2003;Fernandes et al, 2009;Ohayon et al, 2021). These were defined to: f. maximize compactness and reduce the border exposure/ edge effect;…”
Section: Shape-area Principlesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations