TY - JOUR
T1 - Modelling marine protected areas
T2 - Insights and hurdles
AU - Fulton, Elizabeth A.
AU - Bax, Nicholas J.
AU - Bustamante, Rodrigo H.
AU - Dambacher, Jeffrey M.
AU - Dichmont, Catherine
AU - Dunstan, Piers K.
AU - Hayes, Keith R.
AU - Hobday, Alistair J.
AU - Pitcher, Roland
AU - Plagányi, Éva E.
AU - Punt, André E.
AU - Savina-Rolland, Marie
AU - Smith, Anthony D.M.
AU - Smith, David C.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved.
PY - 2015/10/12
Y1 - 2015/10/12
N2 - Models provide useful insights into conservation and resource management issues and solutions. Their use to date has highlighted conditions under which no-take marine protected areas (MPAs) may help us to achieve the goals of ecosystem-based management by reducing pressures, and where they might fail to achieve desired goals. For example, static reserve designs are unlikely to achieve desired objectives when applied to mobile species or when compromised by climate-related ecosystem restructuring and range shifts. Modelling tools allow planners to explore a range of options, such as basing MPAs on the presence of dynamic oceanic features, and to evaluate the potential future impacts of alternative interventions compared with ‘noaction’ counterfactuals, under a range of environmental and development scenarios. The modelling environment allows the analyst to test if indicators and management strategies are robust to uncertainties in how the ecosystem (and the broader human-ecosystem combination) operates, including the direct and indirect ecological effects of protection. Moreover, modelling results can be presented at multiple spatial and temporal scales, and relative to ecological, economic and social objectives. This helps to reveal potential ‘surprises’, such as regime shifts, trophic cascades and bottlenecks in human responses. Using illustrative examples, this paper briefly covers the history of the use of simulation models for evaluating MPA options, and discusses their utility and limitations for informing protected area management in the marine realm.
AB - Models provide useful insights into conservation and resource management issues and solutions. Their use to date has highlighted conditions under which no-take marine protected areas (MPAs) may help us to achieve the goals of ecosystem-based management by reducing pressures, and where they might fail to achieve desired goals. For example, static reserve designs are unlikely to achieve desired objectives when applied to mobile species or when compromised by climate-related ecosystem restructuring and range shifts. Modelling tools allow planners to explore a range of options, such as basing MPAs on the presence of dynamic oceanic features, and to evaluate the potential future impacts of alternative interventions compared with ‘noaction’ counterfactuals, under a range of environmental and development scenarios. The modelling environment allows the analyst to test if indicators and management strategies are robust to uncertainties in how the ecosystem (and the broader human-ecosystem combination) operates, including the direct and indirect ecological effects of protection. Moreover, modelling results can be presented at multiple spatial and temporal scales, and relative to ecological, economic and social objectives. This helps to reveal potential ‘surprises’, such as regime shifts, trophic cascades and bottlenecks in human responses. Using illustrative examples, this paper briefly covers the history of the use of simulation models for evaluating MPA options, and discusses their utility and limitations for informing protected area management in the marine realm.
KW - Counterfactual
KW - MPA
KW - Modelling
KW - Spatial management
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84944089092&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1098/rstb.2014.0278
DO - 10.1098/rstb.2014.0278
M3 - Review article
C2 - 26460131
AN - SCOPUS:84944089092
SN - 0962-8436
VL - 370
JO - Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
JF - Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
IS - 1681
ER -