4.3 Editorial Material

Contextualizing ecological performance: Rethinking monitoring in marine protected areas

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/aqc.3381

关键词

biodiversity targets; conservation evaluation; human pressure; marine parks; marine reserves; ocean

向作者/读者索取更多资源

1. The global extent of marine protected areas (MPAs) has increased rapidly in the last decade, and monitoring and evaluation are now required for effective and adaptive management of these areas. 2. We classify monitoring in MPAs into four categories and identify a critically important, but undervalued category: human pressure monitoring that targets human activities and their impacts. 3. Human pressure monitoring is fundamental for interpreting the results of ecological performance monitoring and for evaluating MPA management effectiveness. The consequences of ecological performance monitoring that show unsuccessful MPA performance while falsely assuming successful mitigation of human pressures could jeopardize MPA performance analysis and adaptive management, and thus be worse than not monitoring at all. 4. Human pressure monitoring enables using MPAs as reference areas where the effects of global or regional pressures (e.g. climate change) can be disentangled from the effects of local human activities, as well as to minimize the shifting baseline phenomenon in defining healthy stocks. These benefits cannot be realized without active human pressure monitoring integrated into an adaptive management cycle that ensures effective MPA protection. 5. In the absence of human pressure monitoring, all ecological monitoring within MPAs falls in the ambient monitoring category: monitoring that is not intended to measure conservation outcomes. 6. We discuss the implications for monitoring programme design and provide a structure for decision-makers on how to prioritize monitoring activities within MPAs that place greater emphasis onimprovingMPAs as biodiversity conservation tools overprovingMPA performance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据