Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29267364›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Accounting for tourism benefits in marine reserve design.

Daniel F Viana, Benjamin S Halpern, Steven D Gaines

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Daniel F VianaBren School of Environmental Science & Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6000-2011
Benjamin S HalpernBren School of Environmental Science & Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, United States of America.
Steven D GainesBren School of Environmental Science & Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Marine reserve design often considers potential benefits to conservation and/or fisheries but typically ignores potential revenues generated through tourism. Since tourism can be the main source of economic benefits for many marine reserves worldwide, ignoring tourism objectives in the design process might lead to sub-optimal outcomes. To incorporate tourism benefits into marine reserve design, we develop a bioeconomic model that tracks tourism and fisheries revenues through time for different management options and location characteristics. Results from the model show that accounting for tourism benefits will ultimately motivate greater ocean protection. Our findings demonstrate that marine reserves are part of the optimal economic solution even in situations with optimal fisheries management and low tourism value relative to fisheries. The extent of optimal protection depends on specific location characteristics, such as tourism potential and other local amenities, and the species recreational divers care about. Additionally, as tourism value increases, optimal reserve area also increases. Finally, we demonstrate how tradeoffs between the two services depend on location attributes and management of the fishery outside marine reserve borders. Understanding when unavoidable tradeoffs will arise helps identify those situations where communities must choose between competing interests.

Indexed as

Marine BiologyTravelBiodiversityConservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemModels, Biological

Identifiers

PMID29267364
PMCPMC5739484

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.