Marine Protected Areas: Static Boundaries in a Changing World

Marine Protected Areas: Static Boundaries in a Changing World Elizabeth Mcleod, The Nature Conservancy, Austin, TX, USA r 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Glossary Adaptive management Integration of design, management, and monitoring to systematically test assumptions to adapt and learn. Connectivity Natural linkage between marine habitats which occur via larval dispersal and the movements of adults and juveniles. Ecosystem-based management (EBM) Environmental management approach that recognizes the full array of interactions within an ecosystem, including humans, rather than considering single issues, species, or ecosystem services in isolation. EBM focuses on cumulative impacts; multiple objectives; embracing change; linkages between species, ecosystems, societies, economies, and institutions; and learning and adaptation. Ecosystem function Physical, chemical, and biological processes or attributes that contribute to the selfmaintenance of an ecosystem (e.g., nutrient cycling, primary productivity). Ecosystem resilience Ability of an ecosystem to maintain key functions and processes in the face of stresses or pressures, either by resisting or adapting to change; resilient systems are characterized as adaptable, flexible, and able to deal with change and uncertainty. Ecosystem services Benefits people obtain from ecosystems; include the provision of food, water, timber,

Introduction Humans depend on the oceans for food security, shoreline protection, recreational opportunities, cultural heritage, climate regulation, and other services. Despite their tremendous value, the health of the world’s oceans has continued to decline due to human activities such as overfishing, pollution, and climate change (Jackson et al., 2001; Worm et al., 2006; Halpern et al., 2008a). These impacts are leading to ecosystem collapses in all the major coastal and ocean regions of the world (Wilkinson, 2004; Hughes et al., 2005; Jackson, 2008). Over the last several decades, about one-third of coastal and marine habitats, such as mangroves, seagrasses, coral reefs, and salt marshes, have been lost due to human activities (Valiela et al., 2001; Wilkinson, 2004; Duarte et al., 2008; Waycott et al., 2009; Spalding et al., 2010). More than half of the world’s fisheries stocks are fully exploited and producing catches at or close to their maximum sustainable limits, and more than 25% are overexploited, depleted, or recovering from depletion (FAO, 2007). Fundamental changes to ecosystem structure, such as changes in species diversity, population abundance, size structure, sex ratios, habitat structure, trophic dynamics, biogeochemistry, and biological interactions, are occurring

94

fiber, and other resources; the regulation of floods, disease, wastes, and water quality; the support of cultural practices, including recreation, religion, and art; and the maintenance of biological processes through such phenomena as soil formation, photosynthesis, nutrient cycling, and so on. Ecosystem ‘‘goods’’ include food, medicinal plants, construction materials, tourism and recreation, and wild genes for domestic plants and animals. Marine protected area (MPA) Clearly defined geographical space recognized, dedicated, and managed through legal or other effective means to achieve the longterm conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values. Marine reserve Subset of an MPA and an area of ocean completely protected from all extractive and destructive activities. MPA network Collection of individual MPAs operating cooperatively and synergistically – at various spatial scales and with a range of protection levels – to fulfill ecological aims more effectively and comprehensively than individual sites could alone. No-take area Marine area that is permanently or temporarily completely closed for any form of extraction, and where no disturbance of any kind is allowed.

worldwide (Lubchenco et al., 2003). These changes affect marine ecosystem function and have critical implications for people that depend on these ecosystems for goods and services (Lubchenco et al., 1995). Marine protected areas (MPAs) have been identified as one of the most effective tools for conserving marine ecosystems (Kelleher, 1999; Palumbi, 2003). A number of terms are used, often interchangeably, to refer to marine areas that are protected by spatially explicit restrictions, including MPAs, marine reserves, closed areas, harvest refuges, and sanctuaries (Agardi, 2000). In this chapter, an MPA is a ‘‘clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values’’ (Dudley, 2008). A marine reserve is a subset of an MPA and is defined here as ‘‘an area of the ocean completely protected from all extractive and destructive activities’’ (Lubchenco et al., 2003). MPAs may include areas with multiple uses (e.g., fishing, tourism), no-take areas and reserves, or restriction of certain areas to a specific use (e.g., local fishing). MPAs range in size from small marine parks designed to protect endangered or threatened species, unique habitat, or cultural or historical sites to large reserves designed to achieve a range of conservation,

Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, Volume 5

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384719-5.00347-6

Marine Protected Areas: Static Boundaries in a Changing World

social, and economic objectives encompassing different types of protection (Agardi, 2000). Ecological objectives include protection of critical habitats (spawning aggregations, nursery grounds, areas of high biodiversity, and migration routes), maintenance of ecosystem function, and species protection. Socioeconomic objectives include the protection of commercially valuable species, cultural and historic sites, recreation and tourism sites, and sites important for education or research (Salm et al., 2000). If MPAs are well designed and managed, they have the potential to protect and in some cases restore coastal and marine ecosystems and support communities that depend on these ecosystems. MPAs are most effective when combined with other management tools such as integrated coastal management, marine spatial planning (MSP), and fisheries management (Salm et al., 2006; Dudley, 2008). MPAs are vulnerable to activities outside their boundaries (e.g., pollution and unsustainable fishing) that can affect species and ecosystem functions within protected areas (Kaiser, 2005). Therefore, integrated coastal management to control land-based threats such as pollution and sedimentation and other forms of resource management such as fishery management tools (e.g., catch limits, gear restrictions, regulations regarding fishing grounds, fishing seasons; Kaiser, 2005; Keller et al., 2009) are necessary to support the effectiveness of MPAs. MPAs may also be more effective when combined with traditional marine management approaches (McClanahan et al., 2006).

95

cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment’’ (Kelleher, 1999). In 2008, the World Conservation Union defined an MPA as a ‘‘clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values’’ (Dudley, 2008). The explicit reference to conservation for the benefit of people (ecosystem services and cultural values) is highlighted in this latest definition.

Evolution of MPA Objectives

Conservation and fisheries management efforts have evolved over the last decade toward managing systems as opposed to species or specific habitats and managing cumulative impacts. These approaches have been referred to as ecosystem-based management (EBM) and ecosystem approach to fisheries (Rosenberg and McLeod, 2005; Levin and Lubchenco, 2008; Palumbi et al., 2008; FAO, 2010). In these approaches, humans are recognized as critical parts of dynamic ecosystems, and the inclusion of the human dimension is now seen as an essential component of effective conservation. Fisheries management has shifted from a focus on maximum sustainable yield of individual species at a single scale to multispecies stock assessments at multiple scales (Pikitch, 2004). EBM supports ecological processes that maintain resources, recognizing the diverse ecological roles of species and habitats at multiple scales (Graham et al., 2003). MPAs protect geographical areas, species, and their biophysical environments and thus can offer an ecosystem-based approach to conservation or fisheries management (Lubchenco et al., 2003).

Conservation managers have been called on to consider protection of ecosystem function, structure, and integrity in addition to species and habitat protection (Agardy and Staub, 2006). There has been a shift from the conservation of commercially important species to management of functional groups (i.e., collections of species that perform a similar function, regardless of their taxonomic affinities) supporting processes and maintenance of ecosystem services (e.g., fisheries) (Hughes et al., 2005). The view of no-take areas as primarily fisheries management tools has evolved to include other conservation objectives, including managing biodiversity, trophic structure and function, and ecosystem resilience (Hughes et al., 2005). This shift toward managing ecosystem structure, function, and services emphasizes the importance of ecological roles and species interactions (including humans) for maintaining ecosystem resilience. The effectiveness of MPAs is now evaluated based on their impacts on local communities, in addition to ecological impacts. In addition, integrated studies are developing that assess how ecological performance of reserves is related to both socioeconomic characteristics in coastal communities and reserve design (Pollnac et al., 2010). The results of such studies are useful for highlighting the complexities around human dimensions of marine reserves and informing MPA design and management. Ecosystem resilience refers to the ability of an ecosystem to maintain key functions and processes in the face of stresses or pressures, either by resisting or adapting to change (Holling, 1973; Nystro¨m and Folke, 2001). Resilient systems are characterized as adaptable, flexible, and able to deal with change and uncertainty (Hughes et al., 2005); thus resilience has been identified as a critical component of MPA network design and management. Designing and managing networks for resilience provides MPAs with the best chance to recover from or withstand environmental fluctuations or unexpected catastrophes caused by climate change and other human impacts (West and Salm, 2003; Mcleod et al., 2009).

Evolution of MPA Definitions

Evolution of MPA Networks

The shift toward a multiscale, integrated human–ecological system, and process-oriented perspective (Hughes et al., 2005) is evident in the changing views of MPAs and the call for networks of MPAs worldwide. In 1999, an MPA was defined as ‘‘any area of the intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical, and

The conservation community and government agencies have called for the establishment of networks of MPAs worldwide. An MPA network is defined as a ‘‘collection of individual MPAs operating cooperatively and synergistically, at various spatial scales, and with a range of protection levels, in order to fulfill ecological aims more effectively and comprehensively

Systems Approach to Marine Conservation

96

Marine Protected Areas: Static Boundaries in a Changing World

than individual sites could alone’’ (WCPA/IUCN, 2007). MPA networks have also been defined as a ‘‘network of people managing the components of individual MPAs and promoting the network’s viability and longevity’’ (Dudley, 2008). Individual small MPAs may not be effective at conserving biodiversity, fish and invertebrate populations, and the communities that depend on them. Single MPAs large enough to sustain populations and habitats are often impractical due to economic, social, and political constraints (Dudley, 2008). Networks of MPAs have been proposed to help reduce socioeconomic impacts while maintaining conservation and fisheries benefits (PISCO, 2007). Networks are also important for maintaining ecosystem processes and connectivity and supporting ecosystem resilience by spreading the risk of reduced viability of a habitat or community type following a large-scale disturbance or management failures (Keller et al., 2009). The commitment to the establishment of global networks of MPAs has been demonstrated at international meetings such as the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, the World Parks Congress in 2003, and the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2004. The scaling up of individual MPAs to networks demonstrates a systems approach to marine conservation because it allows for the protection of species and habitats in addition to ecological processes, structure, and function.

Evolution of MSP Over the last decade, marine spatial planning (MSP) has been increasingly recognized as a critical tool to achieve EBM (Douvere, 2008). MSP provides an integrated planning framework that moves away from sectoral management to address multiple objectives related to achieving economic and ecological sustainability and the need to reduce conflicts in marine environment (Agardi et al., 2011). MSP has been defined as a ‘‘process of analyzing and allocating parts of the three-dimensional marine spaces to specific uses, to achieve ecological, economic and social objectives that are usually specified through the political process; the MSP process usually results in a comprehensive plan or vision for a marine region’’ (Ehler and Douvere, 2007). More broadly, the purpose of MSP is to balance demands for development with the need to protect the environment (Douvere, 2008). Potential benefits of MSP include a holistic approach that addresses social, cultural, economic, and environmental objectives and thus achieve sustainable development; better integration of marine objectives (both between policies and between different planning levels); improved site selection for development or conservation; a more strategic and proactive approach that delivers long-term benefits; management coordination at the scale of ecosystems as well as political jurisdictions; reduced conflicts among uses in the marine area; and reduced risk of marine activities damaging marine ecosystems, including improved consideration of cumulative effects (Gilliland and Laffoley, 2008; Foley et al., 2010). MSP has been applied to help manage the multiple uses of marine space, particularly in areas where conflicts exist among users and the environment. MSP is central to the management strategy of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia and has also been

applied in other marine areas such as the Florida Keys, Channel Islands, Wadden Sea, North Sea, Irish Sea, and Baltic Sea, among others. MSP is not intended to replace MPAs. MPAs are still recognized as an important tool for managing the marine environment, but they should be considered in the wider context of an MSP strategy that balances the MPAs with economic, social, and biodiversity objectives. By integrating MPA planning in broader MSP and ocean zoning efforts, MSP can help to utilize the benefits of MPAs while avoiding their potential shortcomings (Agardi et al., 2011).

Benefits of MPAs MPAs have the potential to provide a number of benefits to local communities, fisheries, and the marine environment, including (1) conserving biological diversity and ecosystems; (2) protecting critical spawning and nursery habitats; (3) protecting sites with limited human impact to help them recover from stresses; (4) protecting settlement and growth areas for marine species and spillover benefits to adjacent areas; (5) protecting sites for educating the public about marine ecosystems and threats to them; (6) supporting nature-based recreation and tourism; (7) providing control sites as baselines for scientific research; and (8) reducing poverty and increasing the quality of life of adjacent communities (IUCN-WCPA, 2008). Benefits of MPAs – specifically, marine reserves – have been demonstrated through empirical studies for mollusks, crustaceans, and fishes in habitats ranging from coral reefs, kelp forests, temperate continental shelves, estuaries, seagrass beds, and mangroves (Gell and Roberts, 2003). The following four sections outline the ecological and socioeconomic benefits of marine reserves based on global and regional metaanalyses and site-based studies.

Increases in Size, Abundance, Biomass, Diversity, and Increased Reproductive Potential Benefits to marine reserves include increases in abundance, biomass, and diversity of many species within reserve boundaries (Table 1), yet the range of responses to reserve establishment is very large (Lester et al., 2009; Gaines et al., 2010a). Kenchington (1990) identifies several classes of species for which marine reserves may not be effective such as species with planktonic larvae and planktonic or pelagic adults (e.g., most phytoplankton and zooplankton species to pelagic fishes with large home ranges). However, these species may have a stage that depends on a nursery area or spawning site, and they could be protected by a reserve, assuming that other life stages outside the reserve are not overexploited (Allison et al., 1998). Within reserves, individuals can grow larger, live longer, and develop increased reproductive potential and populations increase in size (Bohnsack, 1998). Enhanced production of eggs and larvae within reserves are predicted to result in greater export and settlement of juveniles outside boundaries (Gell and Roberts, 2003). In addition, reserves have helped to restore ecosystem structure and function (Sobel and Dahlgren, 2004; Mumby et al., 2006). However, these benefits do not

Marine Protected Areas: Static Boundaries in a Changing World

Table 1

97

Global and regional meta-analyses of ecological benefits of marine reserves within reserve boundaries

Indicator

Results

Taxonomic group

# Studies/marine reserves analyzed

Source

Biomass

446% increase

Algae, invertebrates, and fishes

124 reserves (global)

Lester et al. (2009)

Density Individual size Species richness Biomass

166% increase 28% increase 21% increase Algae, invertebrates, and fishes

89 studies; 70 reserves (global)

Halpern (2003)

Density Individual size Species richness Biomass

151% increase 29% increase 25% increase Algae, invertebrates, and fishes

30 reserves (global; temperate only) Stewart et al. (2009)

Density Species richness Abundance Species richness Abundance

1.7 times higher 1.5 times higher 25% increase 11% increase

Fishes

19 reserves (global)

Coˆte´ et al. (2001)

3.7 times higher (for target species) No change (nontarget species) 66% increase 2.46 times larger No effect

Fishes

12 studies (global)

Mosquera et al. (2000)

Fishes Fishes

32 reserves (global) 12 reserves (regional – European)

Molloy et al. (2009) Claudet et al. (2008)

Fishes

12 reserves (regional – Mediterranean)

Guidetti and Sala (2007)

Density Density Species richness Biomass Density

352% increase

1.9 times higher

2.1 times greater 1.2 times greater

always occur due to fishers’ behavior in response to reserves, fishing regulations outside the reserve, and the regulations regarding activities within and outside the reserve (Gaines et al., 2010b.)

predation and declines of sea urchin populations that led to a reduction in grazing and subsequent recovery of kelp forests (Shears and Babcock, 2003). Reserves have the potential to provide useful insights into the indirect effects of overfishing on ecosystem structure and function (Babcock et al., 2010).

Benefits to Nontarget Species Recent reviews on the benefits of marine reserves typically focus on benefits to target species as opposed to nontargeted groups such as fish, invertebrates, or algae or corals (Babcock et al., 2010). However, it is important to understand the impacts of reserves on nontarget groups if the goal of protection is to maintain ecosystem structure and function. Studies have documented that nontarget species either do not respond to protection (Jennings et al., 1995; Rakitin and Kramer, 1996) or respond negatively (i.e., reduced abundances in response to increased predation within reserves; McClanahan et al., 1999). Other studies have shown that nontarget habitats improve following protection (Mumby et al., 2005; Shears and Babcock, 2003), where changes in ecosystem structure have been documented due to the restoration of predator populations. For example, in tropical systems, enhanced coral recruitment has occurred following a recovery in herbivores that graze down macroalgae and thus encourage coral settlement (Mumby et al., 2005). In temperate systems in New Zealand, the recovery of lobsters and large fishes led to

Benefits to Adjacent Fisheries The ability of reserves to provide conservation or fisheries benefits to adjacent waters is highly controversial (Gell and Roberts, 2003; Hilborn et al., 2004; Halpern et al., 2010), yet recent research suggests that higher abundances within reserves can lead to spillover of adults to adjacent waters (Roberts et al., 2001; Abesamis and Russ, 2005; Kellner et al., 2008; Perez-Ruzafa et al., 2008; Halpern et al., 2010). Spillover occurs through the net export of adults and juveniles (spillover effect) and propagules (recruitment effect) (Russ, 2002). The spillover effect operates on local scales (hundreds of meters to kilometers for reef fish), whereas the recruitment effect operates at scales of tens of kilometers (scales of dispersal of pelagic larvae; Palumbi, 2001; Russ et al., 2004). Spillover from reserves may result in economic benefits from enhanced fisheries and tourism (White et al., 2008) yet may take decades to develop fully (Roberts et al., 2001; Russ et al., 2004).

98

Marine Protected Areas: Static Boundaries in a Changing World

Long-Term Ecological Benefits Research has shown that fisheries and conservation benefits of marine reserves increase with greater years of protection (Russ et al., 2004; Claudet et al., 2008; Molloy et al., 2009; Selig and Bruno, 2010). To measure the long-term benefits of marine reserves, time-series data are needed to describe ecological changes due to protection and the stability of such changes. Babcock et al. (2010) analyzed data from temperate and tropical marine reserves collected on decadal time scales and found that even though most target species showed initial direct effects (e.g., change in abundance, size of individuals, biomass), their trajectories over time were highly variable. The abundance of some target species continued to increase after protection, whereas some leveled off and others decreased over time. Decreases in abundance were likely due to natural fluctuations, fishing impacts from outside reserves, and increases in predation within reserves. Despite these differences, populations of targeted species were more stable in reserves than fished areas, indicating increased ecological resilience (Babcock et al., 2010). Although some benefits are evident shortly after protection (individuals live longer, mortality rates are lower), other benefits take longer to fully develop, such as increases in reproductive output, biodiversity, and stabilization of communities and ecosystem structure and function. Therefore, understanding that indirect effects (e.g., ecosystemwide recovery) from removal of fishing pressure take time (e.g., 413 years; Babcock et al., 2010) is essential for managers, policy makers, and communities to have realistic expectations of the benefits of marine reserves.

Socioeconomic Benefits Although the ecological benefits of MPAs, particularly marine reserves, are well established, there has been less emphasis on

Table 2

the social and economic benefits to human communities. Further, rigorous policy analyses are lacking that consider the full range of economic costs and benefits of MPAs (Rudd et al., 2003; Pelletier et al., 2005). A limited number of recent assessments review the economic impacts of MPAs but are concentrated in North America, Australia, and Europe (e.g., Carlsen and Wood, 2004; Carter, 2003; KPMG, 2000; Leeworthy and Wiley, 2002; Roncin et al., 2008), thus leaving out areas with the highest tropical marine biodiversity worldwide, such as Southeast Asia and the Pacific. Socioeconomic assessments of the benefits of MPAs typically differentiate between extractive (e.g., fishers) and nonextractive users (e.g., recreational users such as divers, snorkelers, bathers, ecotourists, and sightseers) because these groups are likely to be impacted differently by the MPA (see Table 2 for a summary of the potential social and economic costs and benefits of MPAs for these user groups). For extractive users, adverse impacts from MPA establishment may include loss of access rights to fishing grounds or increased risk due to traveling farther to access alternative fishing grounds. For a reserve to provide fisheries benefits to human communities, the reserve must lead to a net increase in yield (i.e., increases in harvest must be large enough to compensate for the area removed from fishing). The establishment of a marine reserve may actually reduce fishing opportunity and yield if the fisheries are already sustainably managed (Hastings and Botsford, 1999; Sladek-Nowlis and Roberts, 1999; Ralston and O’Farrell, 2008). The implementation of an MPA can increase costs if fewer fish are available due to harvest restrictions; fuel or labor costs are higher due to traveling farther to fishing grounds, and congestion increases in fishing grounds (Rudd et al., 2003). A number of case studies suggest that fishers perceive the costs of MPAs (in terms of lost harvest) as greater than the benefits provided (e.g., from spillover) (Wolfenden et al., 1994; Sant, 1996; Suman et al., 1999).

Summary of potential social and economic benefits and costs of MPAs

Categories

Benefits

Costs

Extractive users (e.g., commercial and recreational fishers)

Increase in catch (and associated income) Enhanced catch variety (greater species variety, greater frequency of older/larger fish)

Decrease in catch (and foregone fishing income) Crowding of displaced effort User conflicts Higher costs associated with choice of fishing location Increase in safety risks

Nonextractive users (e.g., divers, tourists)

Maintain species diversity Greater habitat complexity and diversity Higher density levels of marine species Enhanced recreational opportunities (e.g., scuba, snorkeling) Research opportunities Protection of other ecosystem services (e.g., coastal protection from erosion and storm surge by healthy reefs)

Damage to marine ecosystem Loss of traditional fishing community

Management

Savings in enforcement costs over nonspatial management Revenues derived from charging users of the MPA Scientific knowledge Hedge against uncertain stock assessments

Increase in monitoring and enforcement costs Direct costs of setting up MPA Costs of compensatory measures for displaced activities Foregone income from resource extraction (oil, gas, and mineral exploration, and bio-prospecting) Increased congestion and possibly degraded ecosystem if MPA is not well managed due to increased use

Educational opportunities

Marine Protected Areas: Static Boundaries in a Changing World

By contrast, costs may be lower for fishers due to steady and reliable spillover to adjacent fishing grounds and enhanced catch variety (Sumaila, 1998; Roncin et al., 2008). The fishing benefits of MPAs are challenging to assess because fish mobility between reserves and open areas to fishing are often poorly documented and because MPA benefits to fishers are highly dependent on the level of fishing in open areas (Roncin et al., 2008). Thus, the economic value of spillover depends more on fishers’ behavior and the cost of fishing as opposed to biological factors (Rudd et al., 2003). For nonextractive users, MPAs are likely to improve the quality of the marine ecosystem within the MPA that may be valuable to visitors (Rudd and Tupper, 2002). Because marine reserves support increases in the size and abundance of many species within reserve boundaries (Halpern, 2003) and recreational users such as snorkelers and divers prefer viewing larger and more abundant species (Williams and Polunin, 2000; Rudd and Tupper, 2002), the profitability of recreational and tourism providers may be increased by MPA establishment (Rudd et al., 2002). Although an increase in visitors may increase revenues, too many visitors could adversely affect marine ecosystems within MPAs, particularly when their activities are not well managed. Further, increases in congestion may result in a decline in people’s willingness to pay for wildlife viewing (Rudd and Tupper, 2002). Economic valuations of MPAs provide valuable cost–benefit analyses and also highlight how the benefits of an MPA may be distributed. For example, the economic value of a healthy Great Barrier Reef to Australia is currently estimated to be around $5.5 billion Australian dollars annually and is increasing (McCook et al., 2010). This estimate includes only use values (e.g., jobs, tourism, and fishing) and underestimates the total economic value. The costs associated with zoning and management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park are significantly less than the estimated economic value of the Great Barrier Reef; management costs are consistently less than 1% of the economic returns (McCook et al., 2010). Similarly, in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, the management costs of the conservation program represented only 2% of the total benefits derived from the MPA (Bhat, 2003). In a recent economic analysis of 12 marine reserves in Europe, results suggest that the amount of income generated by fishing and diving in the MPA represents 2.3 times the management costs of the MPA (Roncin et al., 2008). An economic assessment conducted for an MPA in Kenya also demonstrated that the income generated from the MPA was substantially higher than the management and opportunity costs for the park; income from the MPA was $1.6 million annually from tourism and $39,000 from fisheries compared to management and opportunity costs of less than $200,000 (Emerton and Tessema, 2001). Economic benefits from the MPA, such as shoreline protection, marine productivity, wildlife habitat and nursery, and cultural and aesthetic values, were not included in this assessment (Emerton and Tessema, 2001) but would have made the estimate of benefits even greater. The valuation demonstrated that some groups (commercial tourism operators) received the main economic benefits from the MPA, whereas others such as the local fishing communities (which had reduced fishing opportunities) and the park office (responsible for managing the MPA) bore the cost. Such analyses provide valuable indications of the equity of

99

the distribution of MPA benefits that can directly affect compliance and overall protection. In addition to assessing the economic benefits of MPAs, social benefits should also be addressed. Studies have documented the importance of assessing the perception of people affected by MPAs, as their perceptions affect the degree of support or opposition to the MPA, and consequently the effectiveness of protection (Pelletier et al., 2005). A critical social benefit of MPAs is reducing and anticipating conflicts between different user groups. Much of the world’s coastal areas are characterized by conflict between user groups or jurisdictional agencies (Agardi, 2000). For example, recreational use may conflict with shipping and mineral extraction, and commercial and subsistence fishing may conflict with scuba diving and nature-based tourism. In such cases, zoning can be used to accommodate a wide variety of uses and can be used as a tool to settle disputes when they occur (Reynard, 1994; Agardi, 2000). Other social benefits include improving visitors’ satisfaction and increasing public knowledge about marine ecosystems and biodiversity (Pelletier et al., 2005). The potential of MPAs to help alleviate poverty in coastal communities dependent on coral reefs has also been acknowledged (Leisher et al., 2007). It is important to note that although MPAs may achieve their biological objectives, they may fail at achieving their social objectives. Therefore, assessments of the social effects of MPAs are critical to determine their long-term benefits (Christie, 2004).

Global Commitment to MPA Establishment Governments around the world have demonstrated their commitment to conserving coastal and marine ecosystems for the benefit of the communities that depend on them. National leaders have formed regional initiatives to establish networks of MPAs to support fisheries and food security, sustainable tourism, ecosystem services, livelihoods, and cultural heritage (e.g., the Micronesia Challenge, the Caribbean Challenge, the Coral Triangle Initiative, and the Western Indian Ocean Challenge). These Initiatives are critical to building political will to support marine conservation efforts, improved integration with development priorities, and the development of sustainable financing mechanisms (Toropova et al., 2010). The number and areal extent of MPAs has increased dramatically over the last decade; the current global coverage of MPAs has increased 60% over the last three years and more than 150% since 2003 (Chape et al., 2008). Currently, the total number of MPAs worldwide is about 5878 and covers more than 4.2 million km2 of ocean (B1.2% of the global ocean; Toropova et al., 2010). The World Parks Congress in 2003 set a target for conserving 20–30% of the world’s oceans, yet the costs of running a global MPA network have been estimated at $5–19 billion annually (Balmford et al., 2004). Such an effort would require an increase in current areal and financial investment in marine conservation by two orders of magnitude. A recent assessment of the progress toward global marine protection targets identified a mismatch between the resources available and those required to implement and monitor a global network of protected areas (Wood et al., 2008). The authors (Wood et al., 2008) suggest that once a

100

Marine Protected Areas: Static Boundaries in a Changing World

global network is developed, it is likely to be a compromise between quantity (how closely the targets are met) and quality (how well designed and effectively managed the protected areas are).

MPA Effectiveness Despite the increases in the total number of MPAs worldwide, it is essential to assess how well these MPAs are meeting their objectives. According to a recent global analysis, 27% of the world’s coral reefs are located within MPAs, yet only 6% of these are effectively managed (Burke et al., 2011). Further, nearly half of the MPAs worldwide are ineffective at reducing the threat of overfishing (Burke et al., 2011). MPA performance is highly variable (Kelleher et al., 1995; Halpern, 2003), and a number of factors have been identified that limit the effectiveness of MPAs in conserving biodiversity, maintaining fisheries, or providing additional ecosystem services to human communities. Some have suggested that social and political factors, as opposed to biological factors, are the primary determinants of MPA success or failure (Kelleher and Recchia, 1998; McClanahan, 1999; Mascia, 2003; Leisher, 2008). For example, some MPAs are ineffective because the management framework is ignored or not enforced (these are referred to as ‘‘paper parks’’), or they have regulations that are fully and effectively implemented but are insufficient to address the threats within the MPA. Other factors affecting MPA effectiveness include differences in reserve design (e.g., size of no-take and buffer zones; Claudet et al., 2008) or reserve shape (Kramer and Chapman, 1999). The location of MPAs also affects effectiveness; MPAs are often placed in areas where threats are lowest (e.g., large MPAs in remote areas such as the northwest Hawaiian Islands; Burke et al., 2011) and thus may do little to mitigate local threats. MPAs may function more effectively when devolution of authority for MPA development and management occurs (e.g., from national government to local governments, nongovernmental organizations, and resource users; White et al., 2002). Other factors supporting effectiveness of MPAs include adaptive and participatory decision-making arrangements; clearly defined MPA boundaries; clear, easily understood, and easily enforceable rules; legitimacy of rules and regulations; political commitment and leadership; and collaborative MPA management structures linking resources with local interests and knowledge (Mascia, 2003). The result of establishing a reserve in one location is that fishing effort simply moves elsewhere, and the reallocation of fishing efforts can have adverse impacts on species and habitats outside the reserve (Hilborn et al., 2004). In places where fishing systems are effective at protecting stock (e.g., through catch, size, and area limits), it is not clear whether establishing MPAs will provide additional benefits (Hilborn et al., 2004). The effectiveness of reserves also varies due to differential responses of species to protection (Micheli et al., 2004; Molloy et al., 2009). Researchers have noted significantly large increases in abundance of some large-bodied commercially important species following reserve establishment (e.g., Russ and Alcala, 1996; Claudet et al., 2008), yet many species respond less predictably to protection (Mosqueira et al., 2000;

Molloy et al., 2009). Although commonly fished predatory species are likely to benefit from reserve establishment, prey species may decline due to trophic cascades (Micheli et al., 2004; Molloy et al., 2009). Research suggests that MPAs are effective at protecting sedentary species, but they are less effective at preserving highly mobile species that may spend considerable time outside MPA boundaries (Kaiser, 2005), although exceptions have been documented (McCook et al., 2010). Therefore, the scales of adult movement and propagule dispersal can be critical to MPA effectiveness. Empirical studies are needed to clarify the benefits of MPAs to highly mobile species, and innovative management approaches are needed to complement strategically placed MPAs to support them (Gaines et al., 2010b).

Role of MPAs in a Changing World: Rising to the Challenge Climate change impacts are already occurring in coastal and marine ecosystems worldwide and include shifts in ocean current patterns, ecosystem changes (e.g., widespread coral loss from mass bleaching), changes in larval development and transport, and species range shifts and interactions (Wilkinson, 1998; Parmesan and Yohe, 2003; IPCC, 2007; Rosenzweig et al., 2008). MPAs are a core strategy in marine conservation, yet they are geographically fixed and thus poorly suited to accommodate shifts in species ranges and habitats. In addition, most existing MPAs are designed based on current climate conditions. The recognition of their limitations in a changing world has led some to question their relevance as a conservation response in an era of rapid climate change (Arau´jo et al., 2004; Hannah et al., 2007). The ability of MPAs to protect ecosystems and species in the face of climate change and other changes (e.g., increasing global population) is debated (Mora et al., 2006; Graham et al., 2007; McClanahan, 2008; Selig and Bruno, 2010). Some researchers suggest that habitat loss (e.g., coral reefs) in response to climate change, storms, and diseases are unlikely to be mitigated by MPAs (Jameson et al., 2002; Aronson and Precht, 2006; Graham et al., 2008). Site-specific studies have suggested that MPAs do not always protect biodiversity better than unmanaged areas in response to climate impacts (Jones et al., 2004; Graham et al., 2007; McClanahan, 2008). Further, some studies suggest that thermal stress can cause proportionally greater coral mortality of protected than unprotected corals (McClanahan et al., 2007; Graham et al., 2007; Graham et al., 2008; Darling et al., 2010). This may be due to the different coral species composition between protected and unprotected sites (e.g., higher abundance of thermally sensitive corals such as Acropora and Montipora within reserves) (Coˆte´ and Darling, 2010; Darling et al., 2010). Recent global analyses, however, have confirmed that MPAs can be effective in preventing coral loss (coral cover remained constant in MPAs over 38 years, whereas coral cover on unprotected reefs declined; Selig and Bruno, 2010). Surveys in the Bahamas showed significantly higher increases in coral cover in reserve boundaries compared to outside the reserve (Mumby and Harborne, 2010). Mumby and Harborne (2010) suggest that reserves play an important role in increasing coral

Marine Protected Areas: Static Boundaries in a Changing World

reef recovery rates provided that macroalgae have been depleted by more abundant communities of grazers benefiting from reduced fishing pressure, particularly in the Caribbean. Empirical evidence both supports (Lafferty and Behrens, 2005; Mumby et al., 2006; Babcock et al., 2010) and refutes (McClanahan, 2008) the idea that species and habitats within reserves are more resilient than those outside reserve boundaries (Gaines et al., 2010b). Therefore, additional studies are urgently needed to establish the ability of MPAs to support resilience in a variety of habitats and geographic locations and in response to diverse threats. To address the challenge of climate change, conservation practitioners and researchers are applying new tools such as ecological forecasting and climate envelope models to identify sites most likely to protect biodiversity in the future and to assess the ability of reserves and networks to protect species under different climate change scenarios (Arau´jo et al., 2004; Hannah et al., 2007; Hannah, 2008). Researchers have cautioned that the use of these tools is limited by the lack of existing data needed to support the models and uncertainties inherent in climate change projections and most ecological forecasting approaches (Thuiller, 2004; Lawler et al., 2006; Lawler, 2009). Complementing the new tools to support MPA design, major advances in recommendations for MPA and network design have also occurred over the last decade (Roberts et al., 2003; Halpern et al., 2006; Gaines et al., 2010a), particularly recommendations specifically designed to address climate change impacts (Lawler, 2009; Mcleod et al., 2009). Such principles may include the identification and protection of refuges (e.g., sites resistant to climate change impacts; such sites can provide the larvae needed to reseed areas that succumb to coral bleaching), pathways of connectivity that link these refuges with damaged areas, and measures to build redundancy into networks, thereby ameliorating the risk that climate change impacts will result in irrevocable biodiversity loss (West and Salm, 2003; Mcleod et al., 2009). Researchers have suggested that more and larger MPAs will be needed in the future to address climate change impacts (Lawler, 2009). Specific recommendations include increasing the size of existing reserves, adding buffers around existing reserves, and adding larger reserves to reserve networks (Halpin, 1997; Noss, 2001). Establishing more and larger reserves may be insufficient to protect biodiversity and maintain ecosystem services if the reserves are not located in the right places; a more strategic approach involves locating reserves so that they capture the most potential for habitat heterogeneity under a variety of climate scenarios (Lawler, 2009), or in places predicted to escape the brunt of climate change (West and Salm, 2003; Mumby and Steneck, 2008; Mcleod et al., 2009; Coˆte´ and Darling, 2010). In addition, whereas larger MPAs may provide protection for increased and functional groups, they may not be politically, socially, or economically feasible. Research also suggests that large MPAs may be less effective than other traditional management approaches. For example, traditional management regimes in Indonesia and Papua New Guinea involving periodic closures were significantly more effective than national parks with permanent closures – a more than 40% increase in targeted fish biomass within reserves in traditional management regimes compared

101

to less than 2% increase in national parks (McClanahan et al., 2006). McClanahan et al. (2006) note that whereas large MPAs may provide the best protection for species susceptible to overfishing, traditional management approaches may provide the best solution for meeting conservation and community goals and reversing the degradation of reef ecosystems. MPA and zone boundaries should be designed to be flexible in space and time so that they can be expanded or contracted, have seasonal or other fixed time limits, or be moved to different levels of protection to help them meet their objectives in response to future changes. Where habitat shifts are predicted, managers should proactively plan for landward migration, particularly in areas where habitats have the potential to expand (e.g., mangrove migration landward in response to sea-level rise). It is important to identify and protect areas likely to serve as refuges in the future (i.e., predictive protected areas; Herr and Galland, 2009) and also areas that have demonstrated resilience to climate change impacts. Finally, to help MPAs continue to achieve their social, ecological, and economic objectives, adaptive management is essential. Adaptive management refers to the integration of design, management, and monitoring to systematically test assumptions in order to adapt and learn (Salafsky et al., 2001). In the context of MPAs, adaptive management involves the integration of the best available science into MPA strategies and monitoring to systematically test the effectiveness of management methods and refine them over time. Conservation managers should develop management approaches that are flexible and able to incorporate future species and habitat migrations, and they need to apply risk-spreading strategies to ensure the protection of key larvae, species, and habitats. Monitoring should go beyond simply assessing whether current policies are effective (e.g., is biodiversity declining?) and should focus on resolving the underlying causes (e.g., how can we reverse the decline?) (Hughes et al., 2007). Monitoring programs must address thresholds, regime shifts and feedbacks, and the capacity of ecosystems to maintain ecosystem services in response to future changes (Hughes et al., 2007). Understanding how ecosystem services will be affected by climate change is necessary for setting conservation priorities and designing and managing restoration projects (Lawler, 2009). MPAs have a critical role to play in protecting marine ecosystems and the benefits derived from these systems and in securing the communities that depend on them. There may be trade-offs between MPAs designed for biodiversity, sustainable use, and climate change. Therefore, it is important to include risk assessments, scenario planning, and adaptive management approaches that incorporate these potential trade-offs (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2009). To be successful in a changing world, MPAs must strive to achieve the complementary goals of maintaining biodiversity, promoting ecosystem values, and enhancing resilience.

Appendix List of Courses

• •

Applied Ecology and Environmental Management Conservation Biology

102

• • •

Marine Protected Areas: Static Boundaries in a Changing World

Marine Ecosystem Management Marine Protected Areas Fishery Management

See also: Coastal Beach Ecosystems. Conservation Efforts, Contemporary. Corals and Coral Reefs. Ecosystem Function Measurement, Aquatic and Marine Communities. Ecosystem Services. Ethical Issues in Biodiversity Protection. Fish Conservation. Identifying Conservation Priorities Using a Return on Investment Analysis. Mangrove Ecosystems. Marine and Aquatic Communities, Stress from Eutrophication. Marine Conservation in a Changing Climate. Marine Ecosystems. Marine Ecosystems, Human Impacts on. Modeling Marine Ecosystem Services. Natural Reserves and Preserves. Ocean Ecosystems. Pelagic Ecosystems. Resource Exploitation, Fisheries. Role and Trends of Protected Areas in Conservation. Seagrasses. Wetlands Ecosystems. Wetland Creation and Restoration

References Abesamis RA and Russ GR (2005) Density-dependent spillover from a marine reserve: Long term evidence. Ecological Applications 15: 1798–1812. Agardi T (2000) Information needs for marine protected areas: Scientific and societal. Bulletin of Marine Science 66: 875–888. Agardy T, di Sciara GN, and Christie P (2011) Mind the gap: Addressing the shortcomings of marine protected areas through large scale marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 35: 226–232. Agardy T, and Staub, F (2006) Marine protected areas and MPA networks. Network for Conservation Educators and Practitioners, American Museum of Natural History. CD-ROM. Available electronically at: http://research.amnh.org/ biodiversity/ncep Allison GW, Lubchenco J, and Carr MH (1998) Marine reserves are necessary but not sufficient for marine conservation. Ecological Applications 8: S79–S92. Arau´jo MB, Cabeza M, Thuiller W, Hannah L, and Williams PH (2004) Would climate change drive species out of reserves? An assessment of existing reserve-selection methods. Global Change Biology 10: 1618–1626. Aronson RB and Precht WF (2006) Conservation, precaution, and Caribbean reefs. Coral Reefs 25: 441–450. Babcock RC, Shears NT, Alcala AC, et al. (2010) Decadal trends in marine reserves reveal differential rates of change in direct and indirect effects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107: 18256–18261. Balmford A, Gravestock P, Hockley N, McClean N, and Roberts CM (2004) The worldwide costs of marine protected areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101: 9694–9697. Bhat MG (2003) Application of non-market valuation to the Florida Keys marine reserve management. Journal of Environmental Management 67: 315–325. Bohnsack JA (1998) Application of marine reserves to reef fisheries management. Austalian Journal of Ecology 23: 298–304. Burke L, Reytar K, Spalding M, and Perry AL (2011) Reefs at Risk Revisited. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, The Nature Conservancy, World Fish Center, International Coral Reef Action Network, UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre and Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network. Carlsen J and Wood D (2004) Assessment of the Economic Value of Recreation and Tourism in Western Australia’s National Parks, Marine Parks and Forests. Townsville: Sustainable Tourism CRC. Carter DW (2003) Protected areas in marine resource management: Another look at the economics and research issues. Ocean and Coastal Management 46: 439–456. Chape S, Spalding M, and Jenkins M (2008) The World’s Protected Areas. Status, Values, and Prospects in the Twenty-First Century. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Christie P (2004) MPAs as biological successes and social failures in Southeast Asia. In: Shipley JB (ed.) Aquatic Protected Areas as Fisheries Management

Tools: Design, Use, and Evaluation of these Fully Protected Areas, pp. 155–164. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society. Claudet J, Osenberg CW, Benedetti-Cecchi L, et al. (2008) Marine reserves: Size and age do matter. Ecology Letters 11: 481–489. Coˆte´ IM and Darling ES (2010) Rethinking ecosystem resilience in the face of climate change. PLoS Biology 8: e1000438.http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pbio.1000438. Coˆte´ IM, Mosqueira I, and Reynolds JD (2001) Effects of marine reserve characteristics on the protection of fish populations: A meta-analysis. Journal of Fish Biology 59: 178–189. Darling ES, McClanahan TR, and Coˆte´ IM (2010) Combined effects of two stressors on Kenyan coral reefs are additive or antagonistic, not synergistic. Conservation Letters 3: 122–130. Douvere F (2008) The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-based sea use management. Marine Policy 32: 762–771. Duarte CM, Dennison WC, Orth RJW, and Carruthers TJB (2008) The charisma of coastal ecosystems: Addressing the imbalance. Estuarine Coast 31: 233–238. Dudley N (ed.) (2008) Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Ehler C and Douvere F (2007) Visions for a sea change. Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme. IOC Manual and Guides No.48. IOCAM Dossier No. 4. Paris: UNESCO. Emerton L and Tessema Y (2001) Economic Constraints to the Management of Marine Protected Areas: The Case of Kisite Marine National Park and Mpunguti Marine National Reserve, Kenya. Kenya: IUCN Eastern Africa Programme. Foley MM, Halpern BS, and Micheli F (2010) Guiding ecological principles for marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 34: 955–966. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States (FAO) (2007) Report: The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2006. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States (FAO) (2010) Report: The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010. Rome: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. Gaines SD, Lester SE, Grorud-Colvert K, Costello C, and Pollnac R (2010b) The evolving science of marine reserves: New developments and emerging research frontiers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107: 18251–18255. Gaines SD, White C, Carr M, and Palumbi S (2010a) Designing marine reserve networks for both conservation and fisheries management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107: 18286–18293. Gell FR and Roberts CM (2003) Benefits beyond boundaries: The fishery effects of marine reserves. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18: 448–455. Gilliland PM and Laffoley D (2008) Key elements and steps in the process of developing ecosystem-based marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 32: 787–796. Graham NAJ, Evans RD, and Russ GR (2003) The effects of marine reserve protection on the trophic relationships of reef fishes on the Great Barrier Reef. Environmental Conservation 30: 200–208. Graham NAJ, McClanahan TR, MacNeil MA, et al. (2008) Climate warming, marine protected areas and the oceanscale integrity of coral reef ecosystems. PLoS One 3: e3039. Graham NAJ, Wilson SK, Jennings S, et al. (2007) Lag effects in the impacts of mass coral bleaching on coral reef fish, fisheries, and ecosystems. Conservation Biology 21: 1291–1300. Guidetti P and Sala E (2007) Community-wide effects of marine reserves in the Mediterranean Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 335: 43–56. Halpern BS (2003) The impact of marine reserves: Do reserves work and does reserve size matter? Ecological Applications 13: 117–137. Halpern BS, Lester SE, and Kellner JB (2010) Spillover from marine reserves and the replenishment of fished stocks. Environmental Conservation 36: 268–276. Halpern BS, Regan HM, Possingham HP, and McCarthy MA (2006) Accounting for uncertainty in marine reserve design. Ecology Letters 9: 2–11. Halpern BS, Walbridge S, Selkoe KA, et al. (2008a) A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319: 948–952. Halpin PN (1997) Global climate change and natural area protection: Management responses and research directions. Ecological Applications 7: 828–843. Hannah L (2008) Protected areas and climate change. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1134: 201–212. Hannah L, Midgley G, Andelman S, et al. (2007) Protected area needs in a changing climate. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5: 131–138.

Marine Protected Areas: Static Boundaries in a Changing World

Hastings A and Botsford LW (1999) Equivalence in yield from marine reserves and traditional fisheries management. Science 284: 1537–1538. Herr D and Galland GR (2009) The Ocean and Climate Change. Tools and Guidelines for Action. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Hilborn R, Stokes K, Maguire JJ, et al. (2004) When can marine reserves improve fisheries management? Ocean and Coastal Management 47: 197–205. Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 4: 1–23. Hughes TP, Bellwood DR, Folke C, Steneck RS, and Wilson J (2005) New paradigms for supporting the resilience of marine ecosystems. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20: 380–386. Hughes TP, Gunderson LH, Folke C, et al. (2007) Adaptive management of the Great Barrier Reef and the Grand Canyon World Heritage. Ambio 36: 586–592. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007) Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN-WCPA) (2008) Establishing Marine protected area networks – Making it Happen. Washington, DC: IUCNWCPA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Nature Conservancy. Jackson JBC (2008) Ecological extinction and evolution in the brave new ocean. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105: 11458–11465. Jackson JBC, Kirby MX, Berger WH, et al. (2001) Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293: 629–637. Jameson SC, Tupper MH, and Ridley JM (2002) The three screen doors: Can marine ‘‘protected’’ areas be effective? Marine Pollution Bulletin 44: 1177–1183. Jennings S, Grandcourt EM, and Polunin NVC (1995) The effects of fishing on the diversity, biomass and trophic structure of Seychelles’ reef fish communities. Coral Reefs 14: 225–235. Jones GP, McCormick MI, Srinivasan M, and Eagle JV (2004) Coral decline threatens fish biodiversity in marine reserves. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101: 8251–8253. Kaiser MJ (2005) Are marine protected areas a red herring or fisheries panacea? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62: 1194–1199. Kelleher G (1999) Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN – The World Conservation Union. Kelleher G, Bleakley C, and Wells S (1995) Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Kelleher G and Recchia C (1998) Lessons from marine protected areas around the world. Parks 8: 1–4. Keller BD, Gleason DF, Mcleod E, et al. (2009) Climate change, coral reef ecosystems, and management options for marine protected areas. Environmental Management 44: 1069–1088. Kellner JB, Nisbet RM, and Gaines SD (2008) Spillover from marine reserves related to mechanisms of population regulation. Theoretical Ecology 1: 117–127. Kenchington RA (1990) Managing Marine Environments. New York, USA: Taylor and Francis. KPMG Consulting (2000) Economic and Financial Values of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Research Publication 63. Kramer DL and Chapman MR (1999) Implications of fish home range size and relocation for marine reserve function. Environmental Biology of Fishes 55: 65–79. Lafferty KD and Behrens MD (2005) Temporal variation in the state of rocky reefs: Does fishing increase the vulnerability of kelp forests to disturbance? In: Garcelon DK and Schwemm CA (eds.) Proceedings of the Sixth California Islands Symposium, pp. 511–520. Ventura, CA: Institute for Wildlife Studies. Lawler JJ (2009) Climate Change Adaptation Strategies for Resource Management and Conservation Planning. The Year in Ecology and Conservation Biology. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1162: 79–98. Lawler JJ, White D, Neilson RP, and Blaustein AR (2006) Predicting climate induced range shifts: Model differences and model reliability. Global Change Biology 12: 1568–1584. Leeworthy VR and Wiley P (2002) Socioeconomic Impact Analysis of Marine Reserve Alternatives for the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. Silver Spring, MD: NOAA. Leisher C (2008) What Rachel Carson knew about marine protected areas. BioScience 58: 478–479.

103

Leisher C, vanBeukering P, and Scherl LM (2007) Nature’s Investment Bank: How Marine Protected Areas Contribute to Poverty Reduction, 52 pp. Arlington, VA: The Nature Conservancy, Available from: http://conserveonline.org. Lester SE, Halpern BS, Grorud-Colvert K, et al. (2009) Biological effects within notake marine reserves: A global synthesis. Marine Ecology Progress Series 384: 33–46. Levin SA and Lubchenco J (2008) Resilience, robustness, and marine ecosystembased management. BioScience 58: 27–32. Lubchenco J, Allison GW, Navarrete SA, et al. (1995) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: Coastal systems. In: United Nations Environmental Programme (ed.), Global Diversity Assessment, pp. 370–381. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Lubchenco J, Palumbi SR, Gaines SD, and Andelman S (2003) Plugging a hole in the ocean: The emerging science of marine reserves. Ecological Applications 13: S3–S7. Mascia M (2003) The human dimension of coral reef marine protected areas: Recent social science research and its policy implications. Conservation Biology 17: 630–632. McClanahan TR (1999) Is there a future for coral reef parks in poor tropical countries? Coral Reefs 18: 321–325. McClanahan TR (2008) Response of the coral reef benthos and herbivory to fishery closure. Oecologia 155: 169–177. McClanahan TR, Ateweberhan M, Muhando CA, Maina J, and Mohammed MS (2007) Effects of climate and seawater temperature variation on coral bleaching and mortality. Ecological Monographs 77: 503–525. McClanahan TR, Marnane MJ, Cinner JE, and Kiene WE (2006) A comparison of marine protected areas and alternative approaches to coral-reef management. Current Biology 16: 1408–1413. McClanahan TR, Muthiga NA, Kumukuru AT, Machano H, and Kiambo RW (1999) The effects of marine parks and fishing on coral reefs of northern Tanzania. Biological Conservation 89: 161–182. McCook LJ, Ayling T, Cappo M, et al. (2010) Adaptive management of the Great Barrier Reef: A globally significant demonstration of the benefits of networks of marine reserves. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107: 18278–18285. Mcleod E, Salm RV, Green A, and Almany J (2009) Designing marine protected area networks to address the impacts of climate change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7: 362–370. Micheli F, Halpern BS, Botsford LW, and Warner RR (2004) Trajectories and correlates of community change in no-take marine reserves. Ecological Applications 14: 1709–1723. Molloy PP, McLean IB, and Cote IM (2009) Effects of marine reserve age on fish populations: A global meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 743–751. Mora C, Andrefouet S, Costello MJ, et al. (2006) Coral reefs and the global network of marine protected areas. Science 312: 1750–1751. Mosqueira I, Coˆte´ IM, Jennings S, and Reynolds JD (2000) Conservation benefits of marine reserves for fish populations. Animal Conservation 4: 321–332. Mumby PJ, Dahlgren CP, Harborne AR, et al. (2006) Fishing, trophic cascades, and the process of grazing on coral reefs. Science 311: 98–101. Mumby PJ, Foster NL, and Glynn Fahy EA (2005) Patch dynamics of coral reef macroalgae under chronic and acute disturbance. Coral Reefs 24: 681–692. Mumby PJ and Harborne AR (2010) Marine reserves enhance the recovery of corals on Caribbean reefs. PLoS ONE 5: e8657. Mumby PJ and Steneck RS (2008) Coral reef management and conservation in light of rapidly evolving ecological paradigms. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10: 555–563. Noss RF (2001) Beyond Kyoto: Forest management in a time of rapid climate change. Conservation Biology 15: 578–590. Nystro¨m M and Folke C (2001) Spatial resilience of coral reefs. Ecosystems 4: 406–417. Palumbi SR (2001) The ecology of marine protected areas. In: Bertness MD, Gaines SD, and Hay ME (eds.) Marine Community Ecology, pp. 509–530. Sunderland, MD: Sinauer Press. Palumbi SR (2003) Population genetics, demographic connectivity, and the design of marine reserves. Ecological Applications 13: S146–S158. Palumbi SR, McLeod KL, and Grunbaum D (2008) Ecosystems in action: lessons from marine ecology about recovery, resistance, and reversibility. BioScience 58: 33–42. Parmesan C and Yohe G (2003) A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421: 37–42. Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans (PISCO) (2007) The Science of Marine Reserves. (2nd Edition, United States Version) www.piscoweb.org. 22 pp.

104

Marine Protected Areas: Static Boundaries in a Changing World

Pelletier D, Garcı´a-Charton JC, Ferraris J, et al. (2005) Designing indicators for assessing the effects of marine protected areas on coral reef ecosystems: A multidisciplinary standpoint. Aquatic Living Resources 18: 15–33. Perez-Ruzafa A, Martin E, Marcos C, et al. (2008) Modeling spatial and temporal scales for spill-over and biomass exportation from MPAs and their potential for fisheries enhancement. Journal of Nature Conservation 16: 234–255. Pikitch EK, Santora C, Babcock EA, et al. (2004) Ecosystem-based fishery management. Science 305: 346–347. Pollnac R, Christie P, Cinner J, et al. (2010) Marine reserves as linked social–ecological systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107: 18262–18265. Rakitin A and Kramer DL (1996) Effect of a marine reserve on the distribution of coral reef fishes in Barbados. Marine Ecology Progress Series 131: 97–113. Ralston S and O’Farrell MR (2008) Spatial variation in fishing intensity and its effect on yield. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 65: 588–599. Reynard Y (1994) Resolving conflicts for integrated coastal management: The case of Soufrie`re, St. Lucia, Caribbean. Parks and Protected Areas Bulletin 5: 5–7. Roberts CM, Andelman S, Branch G, et al. (2003) Ecological criteria for evaluating candidate sites for marine reserves. Ecological Applications 13: S199–S214. Roberts CM, Bohnsack JA, Gell F, Hawkins JP, and Goodridge R (2001) Effects of marine reserves on adjacent fisheries. Science 294: 1920–1923. Roncin N, Alban F, Charbonnel E, et al. (2008) Uses of ecosystem services provided by MPAs: How much do they impact the local economy? A southern Europe perspective. Journal of Nature Conservation 16: 256–270. Rosenberg AA and McLeod KL (2005) Implementing ecosystem-based approaches to management for the conservation of ecosystem services. Marine Ecology Progress Series 300: 241–296. Rosenzweig C, Karoly D, Vicarelli M, et al. (2008) Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change. Nature 453: 353–357. Rudd MA, Folmer H, and van Kooten GC (2002) Economic evaluation of recreational fishery policies. In: Pitcher TJ and Hollingworth C (eds.) Evaluating Recreational Fisheries: An Ecological, Economic, Social Balance Sheet, pp. 35–52. Oxford: Blackwell Science. Rudd MA and Tupper MH (2002) The impact of Nassau grouper size and abundance on scuba diver site selection. Coastal Management 30: 133–151. Rudd MA, Tupper MH, Folmer H, and van Kooten GC (2003) Policy analysis for tropical marine reserves: Challenges and directions. Fish and Fisheries 4: 65–85. Russ GR (2002) Yet another review of marine reserves as reef fisheries management tools. In: Sale PF (ed.) Coral Reef Fishes: Dynamics and Diversity in a Complex Ecosystem, pp. 421–443. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Russ GR and Alcala AC (1996) Do marine reserves export adult fish biomass? Evidence from Apo Island, central Philippines. Marine Ecology Progress Series 132: 1–9. Russ GR, Alcala AC, Maypa AP, Calumpong HP, and White AT (2004) Marine reserve benefits local fisheries. Ecological Applications 14: 597–606. Salafsky N, Margoluis R, and Redford K (2001) Adaptive Management: A Tool for Conservation Practitioners. Washington, DC: Biodiversity Support Program. Salm RV, Clark JR, and Siirila E (2000) Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: A Guide for Planners and Managers. Washington, DC, USA: IUCN. Salm RV, Done T, and Mcleod E (2006) Marine protected area planning in a changing climate. In: Phinney JT, Hoegh- Guldberg O, Kleypas J, Skirving W, and Strong A (eds.) Coral Reefs and Climate Change: Science and Management. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union. Sant M (1996) Environmental sustainability and the public: Responses to a proposed marine reserve at Jervis Bay, New South Wales, Australia. Ocean and Coastal Management 32: 1–16. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2009). Connecting biodiversity and climate change mitigation and adaptation. Report of the Second Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change, 126 pp. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Selig ER and Bruno JF (2010) A global analysis of the effectiveness of marine protected areas in preventing coral loss. PLoS ONE 5: e9278. Shears NT and Babcock RC (2003) Continuing trophic cascade effects after 25 years of no-take marine reserve protection. Marine Ecology Progress Series 246: 1–16. Sladek Nowlis J and Roberts CM (1999) Fisheries benefits and optimal design of marine reserves. Fisheries Bulletin 97: 604–616. Sobel J and Dahlgren CP (2004) Marine Reserves: A Guide to Science, Design and Use. Washington, DC: Island Press. Spalding M, Kainuma M, and Collins L (2010) World Atlas of Mangroves. London: Earthscan, with International Society for Mangrove Ecosystems, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, The Nature Conservancy, UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, United Nations Scientific and Cultural Organisation, and United Nations University. Stewart GB, Kaiser MJ, Coˆte´ IM, et al. (2009) Temperate marine reserves: Global ecological effects and guidelines for future networks. Conservation Letters 2: 243–253. Sumaila UR (1998) Protected marine reserves as fisheries management tools: A bioeconomic analysis. Fisheries Research 37: 287–296. Suman D, Shivlani M, and Milon JW (1999) Perceptions and attitudes regarding marine reserves: A comparison of stakeholder groups in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Ocean and Coastal Management 42: 1019–1040. Thuiller W (2004) Patterns and uncertainties of species’ range shifts under climate change. Global Change Biology 10: 2020–2027. Toropova C, Meliane I, Laffoley D, Matthews E, and Spalding M. (eds.) (2010) Global Ocean Protection: Present Status and Future Possibilities. Brest, France: Agence des aires marines prote´ge´es; Gland, Switzerland, Washington, DC and New York, USA: IUCN WCPA; Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC; Arlington, USA: TNC; Tokyo, Japan: UNU; New York, USA: WCS. Valiela I, Bowen JL, and York JK (2001) Mangrove forests: One of the world’s threatened major tropical environments. BioScience 51: 807–815. Waycott M, Duarte CM, Carruthers TJB, et al. (2009) Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106: 12377–12381. WCPA/IUCN (2007) Establishing networks of marine protected areas: A guide for developing national and regional capacity for building MPA networks. NonTechnical Summary Report. Washington, DC: IUCN-WCPA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and The Nature Conservancy. West JM and Salm RV (2003) Resistance and resilience to coral bleaching: Implications for coral reef conservation and management. Conservation Biology 17: 956–967. White AT, Salamanca A, and Courtney CA (2002) Experience with marine protected area planning and management in the Philippines. Coastal Management 30: 1–26. White C, Kendall BE, Gaines S, Siegel DA, and Costello C (2008) Marine reserve effects on fishery profit. Ecology Letters 11: 370–379. Wilkinson C (ed.) (1998) Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2004, Vol. 1. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network. Townsville, Australia: Australian Institute of Marine Science. Wilkinson C (ed.) (2004) Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2004, Vol. 1. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network. Townsville, Australia: Australian Institute of Marine Science. Williams ID and Polunin NVC (2000) Differences between protected and unprotected Caribbean reefs in attributes preferred by dive tourists. Environmental Conservation 27: 382–391. Wolfenden J, Cram F, and Kirkwood B (1994) Marine reserves in New Zealand: A survey of community reactions. Ocean and Coastal Management 25: 31–51. Wood LJ, Fish L, Laughren J, and Pauly D (2008) Assessing progress towards global marine protection targets: Shortfalls in information and action. Oryx 42: 1–12. Worm B, Barbier EB, Beaumont N, et al. (2006) Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services. Science 314: 787–790.