4.7 Article

An appraisal of systematic conservation planning for Pacific Ocean Tropical Islands coastal environments

期刊

MARINE POLLUTION BULLETIN
卷 165, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.112131

关键词

Pacific Ocean Tropical Islands; Spatial planning; Marine protected area; Aichi conservation target; Coral reef; Fishery

资金

  1. MANA (Management of Atolls) project [ANR-16-CE32-0004]
  2. PANGEA project (Delegation a la Recherche de Polynesie francaise) [06575/MED]
  3. Sorbonne Universite

向作者/读者索取更多资源

SCP in Pacific Ocean Tropical Islands studies mainly focused on biodiversity representation objectives, with opportunity costs for fishers being the most frequent cost factor, and a transition from simple to complex scenarios to address climate change impacts. However, there are data quality issues and some island features are still being ignored.
Systematic Conservation Planning (SCP) offers concepts and toolboxes to make spatial decisions on where to focus conservation actions while minimizing a variety of costs to stakeholders. Thirty-four studies of Pacific Ocean Tropical Islands were scrutinized to categorize past and current types of applications. It appeared that scenarios were often built on a biodiversity representation objective, opportunity costs for fishers was the most frequent cost factor, and an evolution from simple to sophisticated scenarios followed the need to maximize resilience and connectivity while mitigating climate change impacts. However, proxies and models were often not validated, pointing to data quality issues. Customary management by local communities motivated applications specific to the Pacific region, but several island features remained ignored, including invertebrate fishing, ciguatera poisoning and mariculture. Fourteen recommendations are provided to enhance scenarios? robustness, island specificities integration, complex modelling accuracy, and better use of SCP for island management.

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

4.7
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