Literature DB >> 18325043

Striking a balance between biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic viability in the design of marine protected areas.

C J Klein1, A Chan, L Kircher, A J Cundiff, N Gardner, Y Hrovat, A Scholz, B E Kendall, S Airamé.   

Abstract

The establishment of marine protected areas is often viewed as a conflict between conservation and fishing. We considered consumptive and nonconsumptive interests of multiple stakeholders (i.e., fishers, scuba divers, conservationists, managers, scientists) in the systematic design of a network of marine protected areas along California's central coast in the context of the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative. With advice from managers, administrators, and scientists, a representative group of stakeholders defined biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic goals that accommodated social needs and conserved marine ecosystems, consistent with legal requirements. To satisfy biodiversity goals, we targeted 11 marine habitats across 5 depth zones, areas of high species diversity, and areas containing species of special status. We minimized adverse socioeconomic impacts by minimizing negative effects on fishers. We included fine-scale fishing data from the recreational and commercial fishing sectors across 24 fisheries. Protected areas designed with consideration of commercial and recreational fisheries reduced potential impact to the fisheries approximately 21% more than protected areas designed without consideration of fishing effort and resulted in a small increase in the total area protected (approximately 3.4%). We incorporated confidential fishing data without revealing the identity of specific fisheries or individual fishing grounds. We sited a portion of the protected areas near land parks, marine laboratories, and scientific monitoring sites to address nonconsumptive socioeconomic goals. Our results show that a stakeholder-driven design process can use systematic conservation-planning methods to successfully produce options for network design that satisfy multiple conservation and socioeconomic objectives. Marine protected areas that incorporate multiple stakeholder interests without compromising biodiversity conservation goals are more likely to protect marine ecosystems.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18325043     DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00896.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  26 in total

1.  Communicating marine reserve science to diverse audiences.

Authors:  Kirsten Grorud-Colvert; Sarah E Lester; Satie Airamé; Elizabeth Neeley; Steven D Gaines
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2010-04-28       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Incorporating recreational users into marine protected area planning: a study of recreational boating in British Columbia, Canada.

Authors:  Darcy L Gray; Rosaline Canessa; Rick Rollins; C Peter Keller; Philip Dearden
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2010-06-12       Impact factor: 3.266

3.  Evolving science of marine reserves: new developments and emerging research frontiers.

Authors:  Steven D Gaines; Sarah E Lester; Kirsten Grorud-Colvert; Christopher Costello; Richard Pollnac
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2010-10-26       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Determining the feasibility of establishing new multiple-use marine protected areas in Chile.

Authors:  Felipe Vásquez-Lavín; Jeanne W Simon; Ximena Paz-Lerdón
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 5.129

5.  Achieving the triple bottom line in the face of inherent trade-offs among social equity, economic return, and conservation.

Authors:  Benjamin S Halpern; Carissa J Klein; Christopher J Brown; Maria Beger; Hedley S Grantham; Sangeeta Mangubhai; Mary Ruckelshaus; Vivitskaia J Tulloch; Matt Watts; Crow White; Hugh P Possingham
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-03-25       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Using ecological null models to assess the potential for marine protected area networks to protect biodiversity.

Authors:  Brice X Semmens; Peter J Auster; Michelle J Paddack
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-01-27       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Spatial heterogeneity in fishing creates de facto refugia for endangered Celtic Sea elasmobranchs.

Authors:  Samuel Shephard; Hans Gerritsen; Michel J Kaiser; David G Reid
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-14       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Prioritizing land and sea conservation investments to protect coral reefs.

Authors:  Carissa J Klein; Natalie C Ban; Benjamin S Halpern; Maria Beger; Edward T Game; Hedley S Grantham; Alison Green; Travis J Klein; Stuart Kininmonth; Eric Treml; Kerrie Wilson; Hugh P Possingham
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-08-30       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Setting expected timelines of fished population recovery for the adaptive management of a marine protected area network.

Authors:  Katherine A Kaplan; Lauren Yamane; Louis W Botsford; Marissa L Baskett; Alan Hastings; Sara Worden; J Wilson White
Journal:  Ecol Appl       Date:  2019-07-26       Impact factor: 6.105

10.  Avoiding costly conservation mistakes: the importance of defining actions and costs in spatial priority setting.

Authors:  Josie Carwardine; Kerrie A Wilson; Matt Watts; Andres Etter; Carissa J Klein; Hugh P Possingham
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2008-07-02       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.