Abstract
Partially protected areas are now the dominant global form of spatial management aimed at preserving ecosystem integrity and managing human use. However, most evaluations of their efficacy use only a narrow set of conservation indicators that reflect a fraction of ways in which protection can succeed or fail. In this paper, we examine three case studies of partially protected coral reef fishery systems to evaluate benefits and risks of their use as a management tool. We use data from community-based management arrangements in three Pacific Island countries to demonstrate three vignettes of how partial protection can boost fisheries production, enhance the ease with which fishers catch their prey, and alter the composition of fisheries yields. These changes in fisheries productivity, catchability, and vulnerability under partial protection carry substantial benefits for fishers. However, they also carry significant risks for ecosystems and fisheries livelihoods unless adaptively managed so as to confer the short to medium term benefits in resource performance without risking longer term sustainability.
Highlights
IntroductionA critical need of the 21st Century is to balance the preservation of nature with its sustainable use (Halpern et al 2013)
Protected areas are the dominant global form of spatial management aimed at preserving ecosystem integrity and managing human use
The difference in target species productivity between the Partially protected areas (PPAs) included in this study and open-access areas is 0.42 kg ha−1 day−1, or a 65% increase in productivity, which may indicate the potential increase in rates of extraction, from partial protection
Summary
A critical need of the 21st Century is to balance the preservation of nature with its sustainable use (Halpern et al 2013). Protected areas limiting resource extraction have become a popular tool for the management of terrestrial, marine, and inland aquatic systems (Joppa and Pfaff 2011, Edgar et al 2014, Visconti et al 2015). Full closures (where extractive activities, and even access, are prohibited) can confer substantial benefits for biodiversity conservation over time (Joppa and Pfaff 2011, Edgar et al 2014), they can carry substantial costs. These costs may be high in the short term and in areas where people’s livelihoods and food security are dependent on the resources within those boundaries (Ferraro and Hanauer 2011, Brockington and Schmidt-Soltau 2017). In many instances the total exclusion of people from an area and a total ban on using resources upon which they rely is neither politically nor economically feasible and may incur substantial socioeconomic costs (Halpern et al 2013)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
