The ‘Paper Park Index’: Evaluating Marine Protected Area effectiveness through a global study of stakeholder perceptions

Relano, Veronica; Pauly, Daniel

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105571

Cited by 13 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 84 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The number of large marine paper parks, that is, MPAs that exist on paper but are not properly regulated, has increased in recent years due to the expansion of unrealistic and idealistic conservation targets and a rising global pressure to protect large percentages of the ocean (Agardy et al, 2016; Relano & Pauly, 2023). However, the focus on protecting a certain percentage of the ocean encourages the prioritization of political over ecological decision‐making (Agardy et al, 2011; De Santo, 2013), and capturing this percentage in huge, remote MPAs that require little to no management investment has led to large, ineffective MPAs becoming common (Agardy et al, 2016; Relano & Pauly, 2023).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta‐analysis examining how fish biodiversity varies with marine protected area size and age

Hollitzer,

May,

Blowes

2023

Ecosphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are a well‐established conservation practice worldwide, but their effectiveness in protecting or replenishing fish biodiversity remains uneven. Understanding the patterns of this heterogeneity is central to general guidelines for MPA design and can ultimately provide guidance on how to maximize MPA potential. Here, we examine associations between the degree of protection, duration of protection, and protected area size, with fish biodiversity inside of protected areas relative to that of sites nearby, but outside of protected areas. We quantitatively synthesize 116 published estimates of species richness from 72 MPAs and 38 estimates of Shannon entropy from 21 MPAs. We show that species richness is on average 18% (95% CIs: 10%–29%) higher in protected areas than in areas open to fishing; on average, Shannon entropy is 13% (95% CIs: −2% to 31%) higher within protected areas relative to outside. We find no relationship between the degree and duration of protection with the ratio of species richness inside versus outside of protected areas; both fully and partially protected areas contribute to the accumulation of species inside of protected areas, and protected areas of all ages contribute similarly on average to biodiversity conservation. In contrast to our expectations, increasing protected area size was associated with a decreased ratio of species richness sampled at sites inside versus outside of the protected area, possibly due, for example, to insufficient enforcement and/or low compliance. Finally, we discuss why meta‐analyses such as ours that summarize effect sizes of local scale biodiversity responses, that is, those at a single site, can only give a partial answer to the question of whether larger protected areas harbor more species than comparable unprotected areas.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta‐analysis examining how fish biodiversity varies with marine protected area size and age

Hollitzer,

May,

Blowes

2023

Ecosphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In other words, MSP is envisioned as a benchmark for the development of the ecosystem-based approach (EBA) in marine space related to, e.g., green and blue infrastructure projects via the effective use of different stages of the MSP process, e.g., the scoping, developing, assessment, implementation, and follow-up stages, in marine space zoning, e.g., within the Baltic Sea zone [24]. The use of EBA could be key to marine conservation efforts, especially in areas with MPAs, since it enables the development and use of the 'Paper Park Indices' to identify potential 'paper parks' or ineffective MPAs [51], the evaluation of regional and global coral bleaching risks [15] and the mapping of critical benthic habitats, e.g., in the Canary Islands [20]. This perspective clearly yields results, e.g., in Taiwan, multipurpose marine protected areas (MPAs) that integrate underwater cultural heritage (UCH) and ecological heritage have been developed as sustainable marine resource management approaches [12], [23]; in Senegal, traditional knowledge and practices have been integrated into formal marine management structures [16].…”

Section: Why Msp?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At the regional level, key stakeholders may include regional commercial sheries [83]; regional management organizations; conservationists, e.g., in the tourism and wildlife sector [82]; and regional sheries management organizations (RFMOs), e.g., the South Paci c Regional Fisheries Management Organization (SPRFMO) and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), among others [93]; regional bodies, e.g., the EU [22]; and the Caribbean [94]. Some of the stakeholders in the BE context include aquaculture producers, tourism operators and recreational industry users; shipping companies; oil and gas; mariculture; transport and infrastructure; governance (local, provincial, and national government) [21], [29], [95]; national/regional media actors [50]; and civil servants [51].…”

Section: Regional/national-level Stakeholdersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the viability of Stakeholders’ Engagement in Marine Spatial Planning and its Implications for a Sustainable Blue Economy

Lukambagire,

Baker,

Manianga

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marine spatial planning (MSP) is the key to attaining global ocean sustainability targets related to the blue economy (BE) and inclusive tapping of ocean resources. Although there has been robust progress in promoting MSP, e.g., in the European Union (EU), most countries have yet to develop comprehensive strategies focused on MSP, which could affect fragile ecosystems and vulnerable livelihoods that are already affected by anthropogenic impacts and natural/environmental pressures. Even within the EU, comprehensive MSPs have been developed only in individual countries or specific maritime zones. One of the gaps identified in the literature is related to the limited knowledge of stakeholder engagement in the MSP process. Our study tries to bridge this gap, and we used a mixed research approach—i.e., systematically reviewed 86 articles on MSP—and conducted a key informant interview intending to identify what type of stakeholders or which stakeholders are needed in the MSP process; how, when, and where could they be involved; and how could they impact a sustainable blue economy? The findings revealed that MSP is a systematic process in which different stakeholders are needed at different levels at different temporal and spatial scales. In addition, the approach used to involve stakeholders is required to be based on a given region's governance targets in that region. The study revealed that marine resource user conflicts that hamper sustainable governance and the use of blue economy resources could be solved through MSP. The approach for stakeholder engagement that we bring to the fore in this study could help in the design of more effective participatory conservation interventions that meet ocean sustainability targets.

show abstract

“…to tourism or aquaculture), -there were no data on fishing inside or outside the MPA before or after MPA creation, -some fishing was still allowed in the MPA, as Yet, many MPAs are poorly funded to properly manage and enforce full protection of biodiversity; i.e. too many are "paper parks" (Relano and Pauly 2023). Were more MPAs better planned, funded and consequently managed, we would likely see more widespread benefits to biodiversity, including fisheries and people (Fig.…”

Section: Rebuttal Of Criticismsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence of economic benefits from marine protected areas

Costello

2024

Sci. mar.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marine protected areas (MPAs) have been used for biodiversity conservation for decades. However, critics argue that evidence of their economic benefits is weak, particularly with regard to fisheries. This continued opposition to MPAs for fisheries slows progress towards conservation targets and undermines the economic and ecological sustainability of the oceans. This paper provides 48 examples of fishery-related and 31 of tourism-related economic benefits in 25 and 24 countries, respectively. There was no evidence of net costs of MPAs to fisheries anywhere. Fishery benefits included increased fish stocks, catch volumes, catch per unit effort, fecundity and larval export, and larger fish and lobsters. Well-designed and enforced MPAs provide sustainable benefits for fishing communities and even sub-optimally designed MPAs can provide economic advantages. MPAs represent one of the best strategies for maintaining the sustainable exploitation of marine resources.

show abstract

The ‘Paper Park Index’: Evaluating Marine Protected Area effectiveness through a global study of stakeholder perceptions

Cited by 13 publications

References 84 publications

A meta‐analysis examining how fish biodiversity varies with marine protected area size and age

A meta‐analysis examining how fish biodiversity varies with marine protected area size and age

Assessing the viability of Stakeholders’ Engagement in Marine Spatial Planning and its Implications for a Sustainable Blue Economy

Evidence of economic benefits from marine protected areas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About