SynthesisPloS one2025
The ambiguous role of partially protected marine protected areas in Australia: Results from a systematic literature review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Habitat and local factors influence fish biomass recovery in marine protected areas.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Marine protected areas (MPAs) are an important tool in helping to protect biodiversity in the oceans. Recent ratification of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) has ensured that globally we are committed to effectively protecting 30% of the world's oceans by 2030, in MPAs. In Australia there is considerable interest in the potential benefits that partially protected areas (PPAs) may provide. However, a consistent definition of a PPA is currently lacking, and urgently needed to conduct quantitative analyses of PPAs. We conducted a systematic literature review to understand the current knowledge surrounding PPAs and their potential benefits. We define a PPA, characterise PPA implementation in Australia, and present results for the outcomes of PPAs in terms of ecological, economic, and social indicators. Our review suggests that although 45% of Australia's marine environment is within MPAs, 61% of MPAs provide only partial protection. The Northern Territory (100%), New South Wales (81%), and Queensland (79.8%) have the highest percentage of MPAs that are partially protected, compared to Tasmania which has the smallest percentage of partially protected MPAs (13.12%). Tasmania also has the smallest percentage cover of MPAs (6.49% state waters). Most PPA management plans did not contain quantifiable Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to be able to effectively monitor the progress of these PPAs against the stated outcomes. We find the benefits of PPAs to be ambiguous: PPAs generally provide benefits when compared to 'open' ocean, however this is not a consistent result. There are no PPAs that provide greater overall benefits when compared to fully protected MPAs. Only one state (South Australia) and the Commonwealth (Australian Marine Parks) are collecting publicly available baseline data to facilitate quantitative monitoring of PPAs. Contrary to fisheries management, there were no plans of action if the declared MPAs and PPAs failed to meet their declared objectives and goals. Some PPAs within Australia appear to be incompatible with conservation priorities according to the recent "MPA Guide" classification framework. This study highlights the need for clearer management rationale and plans for PPAs in Australia, as these comprise the majority of MPAs in Australia's Exclusive Economic Zone.
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.