4.7 Article

Assessing the quantity and quality of marine protected areas in the Mariana Islands

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MARINE SCIENCE
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmars.2022.1012815

关键词

marine protected areas; marine conservation; Mariana Islands; assessment; 30x30

资金

  1. David and Lucile Packard Foundation
  2. [2021-72277]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study applied the MPA Guide to assess marine protected areas in the Mariana Islands and found that most areas are actively managed and associated with tourism activities. The protected area varies in size depending on jurisdiction, emphasizing the importance of quality, quantity, and scale in determining effective conservation measures.
Marine protected areas (MPAs) are ubiquitous in global ocean conservation and play a pivotal role in achieving local, national, and regional area-based conservation targets. Often, such targets are merely met on paper and lack the political or managerial resources to produce positive conservation outcomes. Here, we apply the MPA Guide - a framework for assessing the quantity and quality of marine protected areas - to Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), two U.S. territories in the Western Pacific. We reviewed the enabling legislation and applicable management documents for all MPAs (n=18). We found that all but three (3) MPAs in the Mariana Islands are actively managed, and these areas are either fully or highly protected - the highest tier of the MPA Guide. Lightly protected areas are associated with high use/high-density tourism activities. Total area protected varies at the jurisdictional scale: 0.83% of Guam's territorial waters (out to 12 nm) and 23.73% of EEZ under some spatial management; CNMI has 20.39% of territorial waters and 25.91% of EEZ in MPAs. These results emphasize the importance of quality, quantity, and scale when determining effective conservation, especially in overlapping and contested jurisdictional authority areas.

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