School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Kensington Campus, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
Evolution and Ecology Research Center, University of New South Wales, BEES, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
Conserv Biol. 2021 Jun;35(3):921-932. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13677. Epub 2021 Jan 14.
Marine protected areas (MPAs) are a primary tool for the stewardship, conservation, and restoration of marine ecosystems, yet 69% of global MPAs are only partially protected (i.e., are open to some form of fishing). Although fully protected areas have well-documented outcomes, including increased fish diversity and biomass, the effectiveness of partially protected areas is contested. Partially protected areas may provide benefits in some contexts and may be warranted for social reasons, yet social outcomes often depend on MPAs achieving their ecological goals to distinguish them from open areas and justify the cost of protection. We assessed the social perceptions and ecological effectiveness of 18 partially protected areas and 19 fully protected areas compared with 19 open areas along 7000 km of coast of southern Australia. We used mixed methods, gathering data via semistructured interviews, site surveys, and Reef Life (underwater visual census) surveys. We analyzed qualitative data in accordance with grounded theory and quantitative data with multivariate and univariate linear mixed-effects models. We found no social or ecological benefits for partially protected areas relative to open areas in our study. Partially protected areas had no more fish, invertebrates, or algae than open areas; were poorly understood by coastal users; were not more attractive than open areas; and were not perceived to have better marine life than open areas. These findings provide an important counterpoint to some large-scale meta-analyses that conclude partially protected areas can be ecologically effective but that draw this conclusion based on narrower measures. We argue that partially protected areas act as red herrings in marine conservation because they create an illusion of protection and consume scarce conservation resources yet provide little or no social or ecological gain over open areas. Fully protected areas, by contrast, have more fish species and biomass and are well understood, supported, and valued by the public. They are perceived to have better marine life and be improving over time in keeping with actual ecological results. Conservation outcomes can be improved by upgrading partially protected areas to higher levels of protection including conversion to fully protected areas.
海洋保护区 (MPAs) 是管理、保护和恢复海洋生态系统的主要工具，但全球 69%的海洋保护区仅部分受到保护（即允许某种形式的捕捞）。尽管完全保护区的效果有充分的记录，包括鱼类多样性和生物量的增加，但部分保护区的效果仍存在争议。在某些情况下，部分保护区可能会带来好处，也可能出于社会原因而有必要，但社会成果往往取决于保护区能否实现其生态目标，从而将其与开放区域区分开来，并证明保护的成本是合理的。我们评估了澳大利亚南部 7000 公里海岸线上的 18 个部分保护区、19 个完全保护区和 19 个开放区的社会认知和生态效果。我们使用混合方法，通过半结构化访谈、现场调查和珊瑚礁生活（水下视觉普查）调查收集数据。我们根据扎根理论分析定性数据，使用多元和单变量线性混合效应模型分析定量数据。在我们的研究中，与开放区相比，部分保护区在社会或生态方面没有任何优势。部分保护区的鱼类、无脊椎动物和藻类并不比开放区多；沿海使用者对其了解甚少；与开放区相比，其吸引力不大；也不被认为比开放区有更好的海洋生物。这些发现与一些大规模元分析形成了重要的对比，后者的结论是部分保护区在生态上是有效的，但这一结论是基于更狭隘的衡量标准得出的。我们认为，部分保护区在海洋保护中是一种误导，因为它们制造了一种保护的假象，消耗了稀缺的保护资源，但与开放区相比，几乎没有或没有带来任何社会或生态收益。相比之下，完全保护区的鱼类种类和生物量更多，并且受到公众的理解、支持和重视。它们被认为具有更好的海洋生物，并且随着时间的推移，实际的生态结果表明其在不断改善。通过将部分保护区升级为更高水平的保护，包括转换为完全保护区，可以提高保护成果。
