ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2021
Evaluating the social and ecological effectiveness of partially protected marine areas.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The ambiguous role of partially protected marine protected areas in Australia: Results from a systematic literature review.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- Guiding stakeholder negotiations in data-poor coastal planning with open-access spatial data.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
- Environmental and Protection Effects of Shark-Companion Associations Across Three Ocean Basins.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Marine protected areas marginally offset anthropogenic declines in tropical reef fish contributions to nature and people.Nature ecology & evolution · 2026Article
- Marine protected areas for dive tourism.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Conservation of fish diversity in protected sites and adjacent fishing areas of the Southern Mexican Pacific Ocean.PloS one · 2025Article
- The socioeconomic and environmental niche of protected areas reveals global conservation gaps and opportunities.Nature communications · 2024Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Fully protected Marine Protected Areas do not displace fisheries.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Article
- Assessing the multiple benefits of partially protected marine protected areas in Australia: A systematic review protocol.PloS one · 2023Article
- Glimmers of hope in large carnivore recoveries.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Maximizing regional biodiversity requires a mosaic of protection levels.PLoS biology · 2021Article
- Employing CRISPR/Cas Technology for the Improvement of Potato and Other Tuber Crops.Frontiers in plant science · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.