Impacts of Marine Protected Areas on Fishing Communities

Abstract: Marine protected areas (MPAs) are a popular conservation strategy, but their impacts on human welfare are poorly understood. To inform future research and policy decisions, we reviewed the scientific literature to assess MPA impacts on five indicators of human welfare: food security, resource rights, employment, community organization, and income. Following MPA establishment, food security generally remained stable or increased in older and smaller MPAs. The ability of most fishing groups to govern MPA resources changed. Increased resource rights were positively correlated with MPA zoning and compliance with MPA regulations. Small sample sizes precluded statistical tests of the impacts of MPAs on employment, community organization, and income. Our results demonstrate that MPAs shape the social well‐being and political power of fishing communities; impacts (positive and negative) vary within and among social groups; and social impacts are correlated with some—but not all—commonly hypothesized explanatory factors. Accordingly, MPAs may represent a viable strategy for enhancing food security and empowering local communities, but current practices negatively affect at least a minority of fishers. To inform policy making, further research must better document and explain variation in the positive and negative social impacts of MPAs.     

Effectiveness of protected areas for vertebrates based on taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity

Establishing protected areas is the primary goal and tool for preventing irreversible biodiversity loss. However, the effectiveness of protected areas that target specific species has been questioned for some time because targeting key species for conservation may impair the integral regional pool of species diversity and phylogenetic and functional diversity are seldom considered. We assessed the efficacy of protected areas in China for the conservation of phylogenetic diversity based on the ranges and phylogenies of 2279 terrestrial vertebrates. Phylogenetic and taxonomic diversity were strongly and positively correlated, and only 12.1–43.8% of priority conservation areas are currently protected. However, the patterns and coverage of phylogenetic diversity were affected when weighted by species richness. These results indicated that in China, protected areas targeting high species richness protected phylogenetic diversity well overall but failed to do so in some regions with more unique or threatened communities (e.g., coastal areas of eastern China, where severely threatened avian communities were less protected). Our results suggest that the current distribution of protected areas could be improved, although most protected areas protect both taxonomic and phylogenetic diversity.     

Considering connections between Hollywood and biodiversity conservation

Cinema offers a substantial opportunity to share messages with a wide audience. However, there is little research or evidence about the potential benefits and risks of cinema for conservation. Given their global reach, cinematic representations could be important in raising awareness of conservation issues and species of concern, as well as encouraging greater audience engagement due to their heightened emotional impact on viewers. Yet there are also risks associated with increased exposure, including heightened visitor pressure to environmentally sensitive areas or changes to consumer demand for endangered species. Conservationists can better understand and engage with the film industry by studying the impact of movies on audience awareness and behavior, identifying measurable impacts on conservation outcomes, and engaging directly with the movie industry, for example, in an advisory capacity. This improved understanding and engagement can harness the industry's potential to enhance the positive impacts of movies featuring species, sites, and issues of conservation concern and to mitigate any negative effects. A robust evidence base for evaluating and planning these engagements, and for informing related policy and management decisions, needs to be built.     

Understanding the effects of different social data on selecting priority conservation areas

Conservation success is contingent on assessing social and environmental factors so that cost‐effective implementation of strategies and actions can be placed in a broad social–ecological context. Until now, the focus has been on how to include spatially explicit social data in conservation planning, whereas the value of different kinds of social data has received limited attention. In a regional systematic conservation planning case study in Australia, we examined the spatial concurrence of a range of spatially explicit social values and land‐use preferences collected using a public participation geographic information system and biological data. We used Zonation to integrate the social data with the biological data in a series of spatial‐prioritization scenarios to determine the effect of the different types of social data on spatial prioritization compared with biological data alone. The type of social data (i.e., conservation opportunities or constraints) significantly affected spatial prioritization outcomes. The integration of social values and land‐use preferences under different scenarios was highly variable and generated spatial prioritizations 1.2–51% different from those based on biological data alone. The inclusion of conservation‐compatible values and preferences added relatively few new areas to conservation priorities, whereas including noncompatible economic values and development preferences as costs significantly changed conservation priority areas (48.2% and 47.4%, respectively). Based on our results, a multifaceted conservation prioritization approach that combines spatially explicit social data with biological data can help conservation planners identify the type of social data to collect for more effective and feasible conservation actions.     

Scale Mismatches,Conservation Planning,and the Value of Social‐Network Analyses

Many of the challenges conservation professionals face can be framed as scale mismatches. The problem of scale mismatch occurs when the planning for and implementation of conservation actions is at a scale that does not reflect the scale of the conservation problem. The challenges in conservation planning related to scale mismatch include ecosystem or ecological process transcendence of governance boundaries; limited availability of fine‐resolution data; lack of operational capacity for implementation; lack of understanding of social‐ecological system components; threats to ecological diversity that operate at diverse spatial and temporal scales; mismatch between funding and the long‐term nature of ecological processes; rate of action implementation that does not reflect the rate of change of the ecological system; lack of appropriate indicators for monitoring activities; and occurrence of ecological change at scales smaller or larger than the scale of implementation or monitoring. Not recognizing and accounting for these challenges when planning for conservation can result in actions that do not address the multiscale nature of conservation problems and that do not achieve conservation objectives. Social networks link organizations and individuals across space and time and determine the scale of conservation actions; thus, an understanding of the social networks associated with conservation planning will help determine the potential for implementing conservation actions at the required scales. Social‐network analyses can be used to explore whether these networks constrain or enable key social processes and how multiple scales of action are linked. Results of network analyses can be used to mitigate scale mismatches in assessing, planning, implementing, and monitoring conservation projects. Discordancia de Escalas, Planificación de la Conservación y el Valor del Análisis de Redes Sociales