Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33448038›Full record

ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2021

Evaluating the social and ecological effectiveness of partially protected marine areas.

John W Turnbull, Emma L Johnston, Graeme F Clark

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guiding stakeholder negotiations in data-poor coastal planning with open-access spatial data.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Protection efforts have resulted in ~10% of existing fish biomass on coral reefs.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  9. Fully protected Marine Protected Areas do not displace fisheries.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

John W TurnbullSchool of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Kensington Campus, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8935-1012
Emma L JohnstonSchool of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Kensington Campus, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2117-366X
Graeme F ClarkSchool of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Kensington Campus, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0230-6631

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

EcosystemFisheriesAnimalsBiomassConservation of Natural ResourcesFishesSouth Australiaadministración ambientaláreas completamente protegidasáreas marinas protegidasáreas parcialmente protegidasenvironmental stewardshipfully protected areasmarine protected areasmétodos mixtosmixed methodspartially protected areassistemas socioecológicossocial-ecological systems完全保护区海洋保护区混合方法环境管理社会生态系统部分保护的保护区

Identifiers

PMID33448038
PMCPMC8248084

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.