https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2347-2321
Registered Report Protocol
20 Apr 2023: Phillips GAC, Krueck N, Ogier E, Barrett N, Dutton I, et al. (2023) Assessing the multiple benefits of partially protected marine protected areas in Australia: A systematic review protocol. PLOS ONE 18(4): e0284711. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0284711 View registered report protocol
Figures
Abstract
Marine protected areas (MPAs) are an important tool in helping to protect biodiversity in the oceans. Recent ratification of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) has ensured that globally we are committed to effectively protecting 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030, in MPAs. In Australia there is considerable interest in the potential benefits that partially protected areas (PPAs) may provide. However, a consistent definition of a PPA is currently lacking, and urgently needed to conduct quantitative analyses of PPAs. We conducted a systematic literature review to understand the current knowledge surrounding PPAs and their potential benefits. We define a PPA, characterise PPA implementation in Australia, and present results for the outcomes of PPAs in terms of ecological, economic, and social indicators. Our review suggests that although 45% of Australia’s marine environment is within MPAs, 61% of MPAs provide only partial protection. The Northern Territory (100%), New South Wales (81%), and Queensland (79.8%) have the highest percentage of MPAs that are partially protected, compared to Tasmania which has the smallest percentage of partially protected MPAs (13.12%). Tasmania also has the smallest percentage cover of MPAs (6.49% state waters). Most PPA management plans did not contain quantifiable Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to be able to effectively monitor the progress of these PPAs against the stated outcomes. We find the benefits of PPAs to be ambiguous: PPAs generally provide benefits when compared to ‘open’ ocean, however this is not a consistent result. There are no PPAs that provide greater overall benefits when compared to fully protected MPAs. Only one state (South Australia) and the Commonwealth (Australian Marine Parks) are collecting publicly available baseline data to facilitate quantitative monitoring of PPAs. Contrary to fisheries management, there were no plans of action if the declared MPAs and PPAs failed to meet their declared objectives and goals. Some PPAs within Australia appear to be incompatible with conservation priorities according to the recent “MPA Guide” classification framework. This study highlights the need for clearer management rationale and plans for PPAs in Australia, as these comprise the majority of MPAs in Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone.
Citation: Phillips GAC, Ogier E, Dutton I, Barrett N, Krueck NC, Hartmann K (2025) The ambiguous role of partially protected marine protected areas in Australia: Results from a systematic literature review. PLoS ONE 20(1): e0307324. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307324
Editor: Vitor Hugo Rodrigues Paiva, MARE – Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, PORTUGAL
Received: February 19, 2024; Accepted: July 2, 2024; Published: January 7, 2025
Copyright: © 2025 Phillips et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All metadata collected, references reviewed, and references produced by the BOOLEAN query are available from the Open Science Framework database: https://osf.io/k2tgh/?view_only=b249a90de7b34931b1064aeba82dd6d3.
Funding: We acknowledge the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) as funding this project through the Australian Government (FRDC Project 2021-070). All authors received funding as part of this project. The FRDC has had no role in developing the protocol or writing the paper. he funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. https://www.frdc.com.au/project/2021-070.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Marine biodiversity declines are a global concern. Protecting areas of the ocean from destructive and extractive activities in marine protected areas (MPAs) is an important tool to help address this problem. MPAs should aid in effective conservation as they are areas of the ocean that are managed with the primary goal of protecting ecosystems and conserving biodiversity, while allowing for the potential for sustainable use of resources [1]. MPAs are classified according to their level of protection from destructive or extractive practices to strict protection from all activities. MPAs where no activities are allowed (even entering the area may be banned) are often termed ‘no-take’, ‘no-entry’ or ‘fully protected’ MPAs. Under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) protected area management categories system (IUCN Cat.) these MPAs fall in categories I, II and III. In contrast, MPAs that do allow extraction of resources are often referred to as “partially protected areas” (IUCN Cat. IV, V, and VI [1]).
Fully protected (no-take, and no-entry) MPAs prohibit all extractive activities (fishing, mining, and oil and gas exploration or extraction) to primarily conserve marine ecosystems and biodiversity [2]. Fully protected MPAs may also block access to the area (e.g., pink zones within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park [3]). Fully protected MPAs potentially provide the greatest biodiversity benefits for marine ecosystems [4, 5], however these areas prohibit access for activities that could derive direct economic benefits from a particular area, such as sustainable extraction through fishing or mining of resources; offshore windfarms [6]; non-extractive tourism activities; and the use of resources for social reasons or based on Indigenous uses (such as use of marine resources for traditional ceremonies). Fully protected MPAs allow the realisation of non-use social and economic benefits (hereafter referred to an indirect benefits) in addition to biodiversity benefits. These include socio-ecological benefits from the ecosystem being undisturbed (also known as existence value); economic benefits from increased fisheries productivity; and the potential economic and social benefits arising from protection of natural capital afforded by an MPA that future generations may have an interest in using in unanticipated ways or continuing to protect (also known as bequest and option values). These values are encapsulated within the total economic value framework [7] and flows of benefits from ecosystems which are assigned value are described in the ecosystem services assessment framework [8, 9]. Importantly, fully protected and no access MPAs also serve as natural reference areas for research needed to inform marine management, including both sustainable fisheries management as well as biodiversity conservation planning, and impacts of climate change on the marine environment [10].
The IUCN established a global goal to effectively protect at least 30% of the world’s biodiversity on land, in rivers and lakes, and in the ocean by 2030. This is also known as the “30 x 30” goal. The IUCN 30 x 30 conservation targets have recently been ratified in the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) at the fifteenth Conference of Parties (COP-15) in December 2022 [11]. There are three main objectives to the framework: 1) to protect and conserve biodiversity, ecosystems, and genetic resources; 2) to promote the sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services; and 3) to ensure the equitable sharing of benefits derived from the use of genetic resources. Additionally, there are 23 “action-oriented” targets, two of which relate directly to marine protection. These two targets (Targets 2 and 3) state that”30% of degraded habitats must be under effective restoration, and 30% of the earth (land, water bodies, and marine environments separately) must be effectively conserved and managed by 2030, adding to the “30 x 30” goals. Australia has recently re-announced its commitment to the 30 x 30 IUCN goals by signing the GBF, by way of response to the release of the marine chapter of Australia’s State of the Environment report that outlines effective protection is required for Australia’s marine environment [12]. In practice, these commitments mean that 30% of Australia’s waters are aimed to be under effective conservation management by 2030: they will be protected from all forms of destructive extractive activities, with implemented management plans outlining the goals of protection, and methods to monitor the effectiveness of protection.
As of May 2023, 8.26% of the ocean is within the boundaries of either implemented (80.5%) or proposed MPAs (19.5%). However, only 2.9% of the ocean is within fully, or highly protected MPAs [13]. As we approach 2030, MPA coverage is increasing, even if the level of protection and management within MPAs worldwide varies widely, thereby introducing inconsistencies in the overall effectiveness to biodiversity conservation [2]. The placement and local size of MPAs is also crucial to their success. If most MPAs are placed in areas of low economic interest or low biodiversity function [14], the stated benefits to species and ecosystems under the GBF may not be achieved, even if the IUCN 30 x 30 goals are met on paper. Similarly, if MPAs are small relative to the movement distances of resident species they aim to protect from certain threats, specifically fishing, MPAs may not contribute effectively to the population recovery and biodiversity conservation goals under the GBF [15–18].
In Australia, as in the rest of the world, many new, and large, fully protected MPAs are situated in offshore areas that are of low economic interest and may not reflect areas of high biodiversity Bond and Jamieson 2022; Devillers et al. 2015) [19, 20]. This is because implementation and maintenance of fully protected MPAs in remote or difficult to access areas generally leads to fewer conflicts with other marine stakeholders [14]. Fully protected MPAs proposed within inshore, highly biodiverse areas can lead to difficult trade-offs between multiple user groups, and often become highly politicised debates. Therefore, worldwide, there is considerable interest in implementing MPAs that allow for multiple uses including some extraction of resources. A global synthesis (albeit in 2015) suggested that the majority (95%) of MPAs worldwide allow some form of extractive use [21]. These ‘partially protected areas’ (PPAs) are attractive to decision makers as they may reduce conflict by allowing users to sustainably remove marine resources from MPAs (e.g., by allowing fishing, both commercial, recreational, and traditional/indigenous), and provide opportunities to test and apply allocation/access policies to determine which forms of use best meet social, ecological and/or economic objectives. There is increasing interest in the use of PPAs in the marine environment [22]. Allowing fishing in an MPA (thereby creating a PPA), may reduce the likelihood of fisheries effort shift into smaller spatial areas, thereby potentially reducing the risk of localised depletions of fisheries species [23, 24]. If activities are restricted, the ecosystem should still be more protected than ‘open’ waters, if permitted activities are consistent with biodiversity values [25].
In this systematic literature review, we have three objectives. We start by firstly defining PPAs and providing a characterisation of PPA implementation across Australia. Second, we classify Australian PPAs under both IUCN guidelines and the more recent MPA Guide classification system [2]. Third, we assess the current understanding of the a) theoretical, and b) quantified benefits of PPAs within Australia through both peer-reviewed scientific literature, and relevant government publications. We then conclude with a discussion of our findings in the context of global MPA implementation strategies and present some recommendations and ideas for improving marine resource management both in Australia, and globally.
Methods
Literature search strategy
We used protocols for performing systematic literature reviews [26–31] to design the BOOLEAN search terms used in this study and published a systematic literature review protocol [32] that outlines our methods in detail. Briefly, two main literature searches were performed—the first, a search of peer-reviewed scientific literature was performed within the Web of Science Core Collection. The second, a search of Australian State and Territory Government legislation, was performed within the relevant databases (S1 Table). Search terms for legislative documents were based on those used by a previously published paper that was looking at the drivers of protected area development in Australia [33]. We modified these search terms to include the phrases ‘marine protected area’ and ‘partially protected area’ as relevant search terms. The search terms and operators used in both searches were chosen as to not include words that could bias the results such as “benefits” or “disadvantages”. We tested the search terms and refined the terms so that they produced literature relevant to our research questions (e.g. we included terms such as “marine protected area” so that the search results did not include research in terrestrial and freshwater systems). The final BOOLEAN search terms used, and the databases searched are provided in S1 Table.
Not all legislative instruments are publicly available in Australia. For example, there are departmental policy documents which may be used to inform or guide the management of marine resources, but these are not always published or publicly available. We elected not to use such documents within this paper so that this study could be repeated later by anyone, rather than just those that have access to a potentially biased, and hard to access selection of internal government documentation.
We also performed directed searches on the Departmental websites of all Australian jurisdictions (including the Commonwealth) for data on MPAs and their management to allow us to characterise the current state of PPA implementation in Australia (S1 Table). We utilised publicly available data published on these webpages, the IUCN webpages for definitions of MPAs, and The MPA Guide [2] and website associated with The Guide for additional information [34].
The search was conducted in English as the scope of the literature review was limited to Australia, and Australian territories, and, as outlined in the protocol [32] we limited the searches to the previous 11 years (2011–2022). This timeframe was selected to ensure that we were looking at the most recent studies and management ideas within this field of research. This timeframe is of particular interest to marine resource managers as many spatial management tools have been implemented in these years in response to the Aichi Target 11 (10% of the world’s oceans being protected by 2020). This timeframe also only includes MPAs that are defined under the current IUCN definitions (which were defined in 2008 [1]).
Peer-reviewed literature—Article screening
The initial search of the literature produced 3396 articles. Articles were selected for in-depth reviewing by first reading every title in the returned articles and marking those articles for which the titles were considered to contain information relevant to the review. This was completed within the Web of Science interface, and articles that were marked were placed into a folder for further screening. Once all articles were screened by title, the next step was to read the titles and abstracts of the articles that had gone through the first screening process. Articles that were considered to contain relevant information for the literature review were marked and placed in a second folder within the Web of Science interface. These articles (212) were then read more extensively. Of the final 212 articles, 150 were rejected for final in-depth review as the content was not specifically about the costs and benefits of PPA implementation in Australia in the marine environment. For example, articles that were removed from the review at this point included articles only relating to no take MPAs (with no consideration of PPAs), articles concerned with terrestrial protected areas, and articles primarily concerning fisheries management areas. A PRISMA diagram (Fig 1) outlines the selection decision making process. One report investigating socio-cultural dimensions of MPA effectiveness in South Australia [35] was downloaded directly from a departmental website and is recorded in the PRISMA diagram in the right-hand side (articles identified using other methods). This report was downloaded as there was a published scientific paper that came up in the literature search and we wanted to have information from the primary document too. All relevant information for articles screened (title, authors, journal date published), the decisions made regarding an article (rejected, accepted), and the stage at which this decision was made (initial screening (titles); secondary screening (title and abstract); final screening and review (detailed reading of the paper)); and reasoning behind the decision to reject or accept the article in the review, were recorded in Excel spreadsheets.
The figure was generated using PRISMA2020 –an online Shiny app (https://estech.shinyapps.io/prisma_flowdiagram/) developed for systematic literature reviews that is compliant with PRISMA techniques [39]. Accessed May 2024.
We also trialled the use of the R package ‘Revtools’ in assisting screening the papers, as this was suggested as a quicker and more systematic process than manual sifting using the Web of Science Core Collection interface when our systematic protocol [32] was reviewed. However, we quickly found Revtools to provide a similar service to that of the WoS interface, with no added efficiencies, and so we retained our original method of using the Web of Science Core Collection interface to collect references, screen them, and save resulting queries, and articles.
Metadata and data extracted
As described in the protocol [32], the following metadata and data were collected (titles, authors etc. were only collected once, the rest of the time the papers were referred to by their number assigned to them when downloading papers) and stored in Excel spreadsheets:
- Person screening the document.
- Article DOI
- Article type (e.g. peer-reviewed publication or legislative document)
- Article title
- Article authors
- State / Territory / area of Australia the study or legislation/policy is based.
- Protection classification of MPAs within article or legislation (based on The MPA Guide (27)
- Aspects of MPA studied if relevant (e.g. social consequences of implementing an MPA)
- Fisheries management and/or fisheries relevant regulations within MPA?
- Parks or conservation relevant regulations within MPA?
- Indigenous agreements or management regulations within MPA?
- Monitoring plan in place?
- What is being monitored? And how?
- Analyses of monitoring data?
- Outcome of monitoring / MPA implementation?
- This relates to whether the MPA is delivering on the goals it has specified.
- Is MPA listed and visible on https://mpatlas.org/?
- Have there been any major changes to management of the PPA over time (if the PPA has been established for more than 10 years (i.e. prior to 2011))?
- What are these changes?
Literature search—Legislation
The Australian legislation database was screened using the BOOLEAN search terms outlined in S1 Table. Legislative documents were then screened to include any relating to marine protected areas and partially protected areas (if named directly). We also searched State and Commonwealth government department webpages to find publicly available policies or directions that may not be included in legislation, that related to MPAs in Australia. We used these searches to find information on management plans, and levels of protection associated with marine protected areas (to identify those that would be classified as PPAs), the intended benefits by declaration and management, and any available studies that may have been used to a) declare these protected areas, or b) monitor the effectiveness of PPAs in achieving intended benefits. We also screened websites for any information relating to the goals and predicted outcomes of MPAs in Australia, with a particular focus on PPAs.
Categorisation of PPAs in Australia
All information on PPAs that was collected from the peer-reviewed literature and legislative documents (including policies and directions) was used to provide information on the current state of PPAs within Australia’s marine environment. We define a PPA within this paper, using information from The MPA Guide [2] and IUCN definitions for MPAs. Using our definition of a PPA, which can be applied globally, we identified Australia’s PPAs, and quantified their spatial extent, and the proportion of MPAs that are considered PPAs in Australia. These results are provided in Table 1 and the implications of these results are discussed in context with the primary and secondary research questions that this literature review attempts to answer. Additionally, we used data available from the Commonwealth Government [37] to characterise the extent (in km2) of MPA, PPA, and no-take MPA coverage across different jurisdictions, along with the percentage cover of jurisdictional water that these MPAs cover (Table 2).
IUCN categories I-III represent no-take MPAs (shaded blue), and categories IV-VI represent PPAs.
Extractive activities permitted are aggregated to each PPA name in the individual jurisdictions for conciseness. Industrial fishing is defined in The MPA Guide [2] as vessels > 12 m in length, which use towed or dragged gears. We have interpreted this as commercial trawling for benthic organisms such as scallops, prawns, or benthic fishes, as these fishing activities have the potential to have extensive ecological impacts if not well-managed, the vessels are generally > 12 m in length, and therefore the activities are incompatible with MPAs (as outlined in The MPA Guide [2].
Mapping the current state of PPAs in Australia
We used geospatial data provided to the Commonwealth Government by State and Commonwealth departments in Australia, and our definition of a PPA to create a map of PPAs found within Australian waters. Data for marine protected area boundaries are publicly available and can be downloaded from the Collaborative Australian Protected Areas Database (CAPAD; https://fed.dcceew.gov.au/datasets/collaborative-australian-protected-areas-database-capad-2022-marine/). Australian jurisdictional boundaries are publicly available and sourced from Geosciences Australia (based on the Geocentric Datum of Australia 2020, GDA2020). Mapping was completed using spatial package sf [38, 39] within the R Programming Framework [38, 39]. All data are publicly available, and access to the data is via the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) licence model:–CC By 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Results
In Australia, the understanding of the effectiveness and potential impact of partially protected areas in the marine environment (PPAs) is poor. The peer-reviewed literature we covered within this review provided varying results that were difficult to summarise due to a lack of congruency relating to indicators studied, and how these indicators were related to the PPA management plans.
The lack of understanding of the effectiveness of PPAs in Australia stems from three issues: 1) The lack of publicly-accessible management plans that have clear objectives and goals for PPAs (alongside no-take MPAs); 2) The lack of before-after-control-impact frameworks within analyses of the impact of PPAs; 3) The vast number and variety of PPAs in Australia, with no centralised or aggregated databases that collate both data collected on economic, social, cultural, and ecological metrics, and goals and objectives relating to the data. These issues are compounded by the limited resources available to monitor PPA performance; this is not a uniquely Australian problem [40, 41].
The results are structured to answer some of the secondary questions first, before summarising the results of the literature review. This structure provides clarity as to what a marine PPA is, before summarising the literature relating to marine PPAs in Australia.
1. Partially protected area (PPA) definition
Our study had several secondary questions that helped us answer the primary research question. Our first result was to provide a definition of a PPA that can be applied globally as there are no consistent definitions of PPAs in the literature. Our definition was based on information in The MPA Guide (REF MPA GUIDE) and the IUCN categories [1] and is used for the purposes of this study.
We define a partially protected area as:
A partially protected area (hereafter PPA) in the marine space is a marine protected area (MPA), or spatial zone within an MPA Network, where extractive activities are permitted. PPAs may incorporate management rules and regulations relating to sustainable exploitation of resources within the MPA but are primarily regulated through conservation-based policy and legislation. PPAs are equivalent to IUCN MPA classifications IV, V, and VI.
Within the IUCN classifications and The MPA Guide, there are references to ‘industrial’ fishing. Within The MPA Guide, the definition for ‘industrial’ fishing is “vessels > 12 m using towed or dragged gears”, and other incompatible activities are oil and gas exploration, mining, and fishing with dynamite or poison [2]. The IUCN definitions for a MPA allow for the ‘sustainable use of marine resources’ and do not include specific types of gear. Here we have used The MPA Guide definition when categorising activities that are incompatible with MPAs, and hence, PPAs.
2. Current state of PPA implementation within Australian waters
Within Australia, 45% of jurisdictional waters are declared to be within marine protected areas (MPAs) [37], either within State or Territory waters, or within the network of Commonwealth Marine Parks (waters outside State waters, but within Australia’s national waters, Table 2). This includes MPAs in Australia’s external territories such as the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Christmas Island, and Heard and McDonald Islands. Using our definition of PPAs, most of Australia’s MPAs (61%) are PPAs, making up a total of 28% of Australian waters (compared to 18% of Australia’s waters in no-take MPAs) [37].
Using our definition of a PPA, all Australian jurisdictions contain PPAs (Table 1; [37]). In all jurisdictions, conservation-based agencies declare and manage park zonation, and fisheries agencies enforce fisheries regulations within the zones. The Northern Territory (100%), New South Wales (81%), and Queensland (79.8%) have the highest percentage of MPAs that are partially protected, while Tasmania has the lowest percentage of MPAs that are partially protected (13.12%)–and is also the state with the smallest percentage cover of MPAs (6.49% state waters, Table 1).
We collated the data used to produce a map of PPA implementation in Australia (Fig 2, For individual state maps, see S1–S8 Figs). In Table 2 we outline the PPA zone names, the declared IUCN category in the Collaborative Australian Protected Areas Database (CAPAD) [37], and the relevant MPA Guide category. All categories of MPAs in The MPA Guide are found in Australia (Table 2). Of the 28 PPA zone categories we defined (separated by jurisdiction), 8 zone categories were highly protected, 9 lightly protected, 3 minimally protected, and 8 PPA zone categories were incompatible (Table 2).
Dark blue areas are highly protected, light green areas are lightly protected, dark green areas are minimally protected, and grey areas are incompatible with the definitions of MPAs as categorised by The MPA Guide. All data relating to MPAs are sourced from the Collaborative Australian Protected Area Database (CAPAD) dataset for 2022 [36]. Australian jurisdictional boundaries are publicly available and sourced from Geosciences Australia (based on the Geocentric Datum of Australia 2020, GDA2020). All data are publicly available, and access to the data is via the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) licence model:–CC By 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Within the network of Australian Marine Parks (Commonwealth waters), all zones are considered PPAs, except “Pink zones” (Preservation Zones; IUCN Ia) found within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP), and “Green Zones” (IUCN II) for which there are no issued permits for limited impact research or traditional uses (Table 2). We found all ‘General Use’ zones, or IUCN Category VI PPAs in Australia (except Victoria) were incompatible with the definitions of MPAs in The MPA Guide as they allowed some form of destructive activity, for example trawling, petroleum exploration and mining (Table 2). This equates to approximately 1,186,075.64 km2, or 13.3% of Australia’s EEZ (using area of IUCN Category VI as declared in the CAPAD database, Table 1), and 29.5% of the area of MPAs in Australia.
3. The stated goals of PPAs in Australia (including fair access to resources, implementation priorities, and management changes)
Several of our secondary questions were related to understanding the stated goals of PPAs in Australia, how they have been implemented (e.g. primarily for conservation or fisheries); and whether management plans had well defined goals and objectives [32] Most of Australia’s MPAs (including PPAs) have published publicly available management plans, however there are many that are old, or have not been updated for several years (Table 3). For those PPAs where management plans have been published, only South Australia and New South Wales have management plans with quantifiable key performance indicators (KPIs). Quantifiable KPIs could also be included in plans as ‘STAR’-type goals (Specific, Timely, Action-oriented, and Realistic), or SMART goals—specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound. Western Australian MPAs had some quantifiable KPIs, and Tasmania had KPIs only for Macquarie Island Marine Park. However, this management plan was last updated in 2006, and the KPIs within this plan only relate to biodiversity indicators [42].
The webpages of government departments tasked with managing MPAs and PPAs in Australia all contained mission statements stating a commitment to protecting biodiversity without stating what biodiversity related to (e.g., species, or ecosystems). Additional commitments are stated for achieving social and economic goals for these MPA networks without a) defining what these goals are, or b) how they will achieve them, beyond using positive trajectory words such as ‘improve’ or ‘increase’. All webpages also have statements to include Indigenous or Aboriginal knowledge into management plans, or to work towards providing access to resources for Indigenous people, however there were no stated KPIs that would allow for documentation or monitoring of whether these goals have been achieved. This is in direct contrast to other forms of marine resource management, such as fisheries management, where there are well-established performance-based approaches to sustainable management, such as Harvest Strategies [43, 44]
Within MPA management plans in Australia there are statements relating to fair access to marine resources, without detailing how this will occur, how access will be monitored, and without defining criteria relating to success or failure. Only the Commonwealth MPAs (Parks Australia) have used implementation plans as well as management plans.
The stated goals of PPAs in Australia all cite conservation benefits as the primary objective of the area, with sustainable use as a secondary objective. This aligns well with the IUCN category definitions [1].
4. The potential benefits for PPAs in Australia, and are these being realised?
Results from the literature review were ambiguous as to whether PPAs provide overall benefits or not. The only consistent result in the scientific literature was that there were no studies suggesting PPAs were worse than ‘open’ areas in terms of biological, economic, or social variables. Open areas of the ocean in this case are areas that are not included within MPA boundaries; however, they are still managed under other legislation, including but not limited to, fisheries legislation. Most studies evaluated success or otherwise of MPAs (fully protected MPAs or PPAs) in relation to highly specific biological variables with no clear link to the management plans or stated management goals (biological, social and/or economic) of these areas. Most of these biological studies were quantitative studies of fish populations inside and outside partially protected areas (PPAs), thereby testing the direct biological benefits, and potential indirect economic and social benefits of PPAs (in terms of increased biomass of specific species). Few studies mentioned the impact of the age of MPAs on their results. No studies directly quantified economic benefits or otherwise of PPAs compared to fully protected MPAs or ‘open’ ocean. Six studies used survey data to understand how PPAs impacted social indicators and a further three studies contained recommendations relating to increased use of social indicators in PPA implementation and increasing stakeholder engagement when designing or integrating MPAs into existing legislative frameworks. The rest of this section discusses in detail the biological, social, and economic impacts of PPAs.
Biological impacts of PPAs.
Biological variables were the most likely to be studied in the literature (56 out of 62 papers and one report reviewed), while 10 papers investigated social indicators. One paper [46] investigated both the social and ecological indicators within PPAs. The biological impacts of PPAs in the marine environment are highly variable, and the outcomes appear to depend on what is monitored, how it is monitored, and where the study takes place. There was no consistency in results between studies, except for studies relating to Australasian snapper (Chrysophryus auratus) where protection was positively related to abundance. Depending on the species studied, PPAs had neutrally positive effects (no difference to fully protected MPAs), neutrally negative effects (no difference to open areas), positive effects (PPAs provide benefits compared to fully protected MPAs, or benefits compared to ‘open’ areas), or negative effects (PPAs do not provide benefits compared to fully protected MPAs).
Four studies showed that fully protected MPAs lead to larger, and greater numbers of snapper than in PPAs and ‘open’ areas [47–50]. The response to reduced fishing pressure is thought to be quick (2–3 years; [48]), however the effect of PPAs themselves on snapper was mixed, with three studies showing no difference between PPAs and ‘open’ ocean [48, 49, 51], and one study showing PPAs benefited snapper over ‘open’ ocean [50].
In addition to there being no consistency in results between the studies in this literature review, there was little consistency in the methods used to test the benefits of protection in the marine environment. Population numbers (absolute values) or indices of abundance were commonly used to compare individual species or groups of fish species between fully protected MPAs, PPAs, and ‘open’ areas. However, species were chosen mainly on their commercial importance (e.g., [50–57]), or high socio-ecological value (‘charismatic’ species, e.g. [58–60]) and importantly, results were not consistent between studies. One study suggested their results were confounded by a recruitment event [55], whereas most did not take this into account when comparing data from different spatial zones.
Most studies did not contain baseline data or use counterfactual testing to identify whether the impacts seen were due to management changes, or simply spatial differences between sites. Before-after-control-impact analysis (BACI) is an imperfect, but potentially valuable tool to understand the impacts of management changes within the marine environment. This is especially true when considering managed populations [61] and studies investigating the effects of PPAs in Australia would have benefited from this approach.
One study investigated the changes to recreational catches of several fish species after the implementation of a PPAs that allowed recreational-only catch (recreation only fishery, ROF), and found increases in recreational catch and effort (approx. 2% increase in total recreational fishing effort) between six and eight years after the removal of commercial fishing for that species in the PPA [62]. Trends in length, length greater than Legal Minimum Length (LML), and the proportion of fish greater than LML were higher in the ROF compared to the non-ROF [62]. However, none of these trends were significant, and this was attributed to the short time frame of the study after management changes were implemented. Plectropomus leopardus (common coral trout) were found to be smaller [52, 63] and less bold [64] within PPAs compared to fully protected MPAs. Another study found some fish species had decreased abundance and length within PPAs that allowed trawling, compared to PPAs that had no trawling, however this trend was not universal even within the study, and the authors concluded that the benefits of PPAs are equivocal [56].
Commercially important fish species tended to benefit from some form of MPA (whether partially, or fully protected), and there was a trend towards increased biomass or mean length with an increase in MPA status (e.g. fish were largest, and/or most abundant in fully protected MPAs compared PPAs, compared to ‘open’ ocean), similar to results from global studies [5]. However, this trend was not consistent throughout all studies. Abundance of large fish in the ocean around Australia appears to have declined over time, regardless of whether found within an NTMR or PPA [65], although declines were less within PPAs (18%) compared to fished areas (36%), suggesting PPAs provide protection to large, commercially targeted fish [50, 65, 66], although in one paper this trend was not significant [67].
Unexploited species mainly showed ‘neutrally positive’ benefits in PPAs compared to fully protected MPAs (e.g. there were no significant differences in parameters measured between PPAs and fully protected MPAs), but also showed positive benefits in PPAs compared to fully protected MPAs if fish fauna diversity was used as a metric [68]. In one paper, a positive impact of PPA implementation was demonstrated for a population of critically endangered seahorses in PPAs compared to fully protected MPAs [69], which was attributed to the probability that seahorse predator abundance in the fully protected MPAs had increased since MPA implementation. One study [70] found that PPAs performed similarly to fully protected MPAs when relative numbers of endemic, near endemic, or protected species were used as an index for MPA “success”. Three studies found that PPAs may provide greater benefits than fully protected MPAs to highly mobile species such as sharks [58, 60], or predatory birds, particularly if the ‘open’ areas of ocean were well managed [59].
Biodiversity (using a new metric, zeta diversity) was found to be less stable within PPAs and ‘open’ areas compared to fully protected MPAs, with no greater improvements within PPAs compared to ‘open’ areas [71]. However, the result was no longer consistent (biodiversity was similar in PPAs, ‘open’ areas, and fully protected MPAs) when alpha and beta diversity (traditional metrics for measuring biodiversity) were used as biodiversity metrics as opposed to zeta diversity [71]. In fact, PPAs contained similar biodiversity to both fully protected MPAs and ‘open’ areas in three studies [49, 66, 71]. Similarly, although biomass and abundance of fish were found to be higher in fully protected MPAs than fished areas, (PPAs) in 12 studies [48–51, 54, 55, 63, 65, 72–75]), this was only true when looking at targeted fish (e.g. commercial or recreationally important species, although see [74]). The results were heterogenous across MPAs, and not consistent among species [51, 54, 66, 72, 76, 77]. For example, Lethrinids were lower in numbers in PPAs compared to fully protected MPAs, whereas Epinephelus spp. (Serranidae) increased in numbers in PPAs compared to fully protected MPAs [72].
Heterogeneity in results across years is not necessarily related to management type [51], suggesting other factors are influencing fish abundance in specific years, like recruitment pulses [55], similar to results from broader studies on the impacts of natural processes (cyclones, and cyclone frequency) on MPA effectiveness [78]. Surveys of fish abundance on PPAs and fully protected MPAs before, during, and after a ‘catastrophic flooding event’ in 2011, showed fished reefs (PPAs) did not recover as quickly as unfished reefs (fully protected MPAs) within Moreton Bay Marine Park [79].
In estuarine reserves, some species of fish increased in abundance in PPAs but not in fully protected MPAs, whereas others (estuary perchlet and blue catfish) were found in higher abundances in fully protected MPAs compared to PPAs [80]. Two studies [67, 81] found no evidence of differences in fish community composition or taxonomic diversity between fully protected MPAs and PPAs, even when using trait-based multi-metrics [67]. Two other studies found fauna diversity to be higher in PPAs compared to fully protected MPAs [68, 82].
There was no effect of protection (either PPA or NTMR) on non-fisheries target species, as expected [49, 73]. Two studies [48, 49] found there to be no differences between PPAs and reference or ‘open’ ocean at protecting Australasian snapper populations. Another paper studied a range of species using survey data, and reported that there were similar numbers of fish, invertebrates, and algae within PPAs as in the ‘open’ ocean [46]. The same study [46] suggested there were no apparent additional social benefits to PPAs either [46]. This study did not consider the social benefits of still being allowed to fish or access the area compared to being prohibited from entering the area (no entry, fully protected MPA), or accessing the area for recreational fishing, for example.
Two studies suggested that species caught as bycatch (not targeted, but still retained by fishers) gain protection in PPAs, showing an increased abundance and mean length compared to ‘open’ areas [53, 63]. However, the level of response to protection was found to be related to the level of fishing pressure prior to the MPA establishment [53]. Luderick, (Girella tricuspidata) were shown to be significantly larger and more abundant in PPAs (reserves within Jervis Bay Marine Park network, established in 1998, that allow commercial fishing), however, these results were not consistent across all reserves in the same network [76].
Where fully protected MPAs were found to increase fish assemblages (in terms of biomass and diversity), this was not homogenous across all fully protected MPAs in a network [51, 66, 72], with sometimes only one NTMR area within the network accounting for the majority of increased biomass and diversity [66].
Only three studies investigated fauna other than fish [83–85], and these studies disagreed on the benefits of PPAs compared to fully protected MPAs. One study [83] found species diversity (of octocorals) to be higher in PPAs compared to highly protected MPAs, whereas another study investigating the biomass of all major trophic groups found PPAs to contain significantly less biomass than fully protected MPAs [84]. The final study [85] compared macroalgal coverage on coral reefs between PPAs and fully protected MPAs and found there to be no difference in algal cover that could be attributed to MPA implementation. None of these studies compared data collected during the study to data prior to establishment of the different protected areas.
In this literature review we did not find strong evidence to link the degree of partial protection to targeted fish length distributions [86], or abundance [51]. This was surprising, given the considerable evidence that well enforced fisheries closures impact both length distributions and abundance of targeted fish species (e.g., [87]). One study, however, showed that PPAs allowing trawling had larger and more abundant fish than ‘general use’ PPAs [56], while another study showed no difference in sea snake abundance in trawled and non-trawled PPAs [88], a particularly interesting result, considering sea snakes are common bycatch in the trawl fishery in Queensland [89]. One study showed species had higher biomass inside sanctuary zones that allow shore-based fishing, compared to other PPAs that allow more types of fishing [86]. Again, these results were only for certain species of fish (smaller bycatch species), and no difference was found between the biomass of targeted species in sanctuary zones allowing shore-based fishing (technically no longer a sanctuary zone—see Table 2), and PPAs allowing more types of fishing [86], and no data were collected prior to implementation of the zoning arrangements. Additionally, PPAs were shown to increase sustainable yields of commercially targeted sex-changing fish [90], and have the potential to provide as many ecological benefits as fully protected MPAs when habitats are well connected within an MPA network [91].
When comparing a PPA (closed to spearfishing for 12.5 years) with ‘open’ ocean or ‘control’ areas, one harvested fish species (Cheilodactylus fuscus, red morwong) was in higher density in the PPA compared to the ‘control’ areas, whereas another species (Acanthopagrus australis, yellow-fin bream) had higher population densities in the PPA shallow waters (< = 3.5 m) but not in deeper waters within the PPA (4–12 m) [92]. However, these differences did not extend to densities of small or legal-sized fishes, highly mobile species, or lesser-targeted species [92]. These differences could be due to the accessibility of the fish to recreational spearfishers in shallow waters outside the PPA, and possibly highlight variability in the species targeted by spearfishers (e.g. the red morwong may be less attractive to spearfishers compared to the yellow-fin bream). These differences are important to characterise and understand prior to implementation of specific rules relating to resource extraction within PPAs or MPAs.
Interestingly, sometimes fish assemblages were more accurately predicted by other variables that were not considered in other studies. For example, one study, [93], found that the most significant predictor variable for fish assemblage was fur seal activity, and not sea surface temperature, wave action, or management type (e.g. MPA implementation). Fish assemblages were significantly different inside sanctuary zones, with 119% and 45% more fish, and 49% and 19% more species of fishes inside sanctuary zones compared to PPAs [93]. On average, 34% more fish were found on shallow reefs inside sanctuary zones compared to outside, however when fur seal activity was included in models, these differences were no longer significant [93] highlighting the complexities of attempting to model ecosystems. Similarly, another study found reef complexity to be a strong predictor of fish abundance, and this was a stronger relationship on fished vs. unfished reefs [94]. In this study, the ‘unfished’ reefs are not ‘unfished’, as they still allow trolling, and therefore should be considered PPAs.
Behavioural interactions between species, although markers of healthy ecosystems, something that MPA management plans aim for, were only studied in one paper. The paper investigated important cleaner interactions on PPAs and fully protected MPAs and found the time cleaner wrasse (Labroides dimidiatus) spent interacting with clients was less on PPA reefs than NTMR reefs [95], however these results were confounded with differences in species, and size of species cleaned on each reef type [95].
Few studies mentioned the importance of the length of establishment of the MPA that they were investigating, despite this being a key factor in MPA success [5]. However, those studies that did account for timeframes post-establishment, suggested that fish were quick (2–12.5 years) to respond to partial protection (e.g. fishing) [48, 62, 92].
Social impacts of PPAs.
The scientific literature was equivocal regarding the social benefits or impacts of PPAs. As with the biological impacts, there was limited congruency with regards to methods of measuring social impact of PPAs, making it difficult to summarise results. There were nine studies that fulfilled the criteria to be included in this review, one of these studies investigated both social and environmental impacts of PPAs [46]. The paper found there to be no positive direct social benefits of PPAs compared to fully protected MPAs, as the benefits of these areas were unclear to the public, or there was a general overestimation of the protection that PPAs provided [46, 96]. However, they did find that PPAs provided more indirect social benefits than the ‘open’ ocean [46] The same study suggests that social benefits to MPAs are limited to indirect benefits, including increased understanding or awareness of an area; the attractiveness of the area; “human usage”; and those arising from the perception of the success (“better marine life”) and/or level of protection of the area. The study showed that fully protected areas had twice as many SCUBA divers, 3.5 times as many snorkelers, slightly more (0.2 times) boating activities, and “almost no people” fishing compared to open areas, with no differences seen between open areas and PPAs. While these statistics show that more people are found within fully protected MPAs, this does not suggest that PPAs provide no benefits—as there were similar numbers of people fishing in PPAs compared to ‘open’ areas, thereby providing additional spatial area for social benefits (compared to if the area was closed to fishing), and thus addressing a threat to community benefit (lack of access; [97]).
There were three studies that investigated the familiarity, or knowledge of the existence of PPAs and MPAs [96, 98–101] as opposed to the direct impacts of PPA implementation within Australia. The knowledge and familiarity of PPAs, the zoning, and permitted activities within PPAs, is linked to how well MPAs are supported [98]. Higher levels of support or knowledge of PPAs and their impacts was shown to have knock-on positive impacts relating to levels of support of fully protected MPAs [99, 102].
One paper suggested that PPAs provide indirect social benefits that enhance ecological conservation outcomes, as by having PPAs, people are more likely to be satisfied with their access to marine resources, or space, and therefore respect the sanctuary zones (fully protected MPAs; [102]). The study highlighted that people were found to have two conflicting ‘worldviews’: 1) marine areas need protection and therefore fully protected MPAs are the ‘ideal’ form of management; and 2) coasts are places of social interaction and community use, therefore traditional and cultural use of the resources should be maintained and prioritised. Within PPAs, non-extractive social benefits arising from access to these areas also include surfing, snorkelling, and diving [103]. To achieve ‘harmony’ between these two worldviews, the authors suggest that the most valued aspects of the marine environment, including the coastline, should be maintained, and protected, with consideration given for the definition of ‘protection’. The authors also suggest that PPAs allow communities access to the marine environment for social interaction and resource extraction (primarily fishing), and are therefore important in helping achieve equitable outcomes, if fully protected MPAs are still present to satisfy the first worldview [102].
One paper investigated the direct impact of PPAs on people’s social wellbeing and found that negative impacts of an MPA network (including PPA zones) were restricted to extractive users (mainly recreational fishers), with an increase in negative psychological factors, such as fear, stress, betrayal, and discrimination being reported most frequently by fishers [100].
Economic impacts of PPAs.
Within the scientific literature for Australia, there were no studies investigating the direct or indirect economic impact of PPAs. Four studies have investigated socio-economic impacts of MPAs, and have comprised: (a) an assessment of the regional economic impact of one specific MPA [104], (b) the socio-economic impact of part of a MPA management planning process (e.g. Solitary Islands Management Plan [105]), (c) an investigation as part of advocacy for marine parks [106] and / or (d) a study as part of a long term process of understanding the human dimensions of protected area use [107]. Although the data are not exclusively from non-PPAs, it was not possible to distinguish what aspects were related to PPAs.
Discussion
The results of our systematic literature review are equivocal with regards to the potential benefits of marine partially protected areas (PPAs) in Australia. In the scientific primary literature, there were few published studies that directly tested the impacts of partial protection, and most of these studies only tested the impact on ecological indicators. This was despite marine protected areas (MPAs), and those that are PPAs, being set up with the aim of providing economic and social benefits alongside ecological benefits. No peer-reviewed literature had studied the direct or indirect economic benefits of these areas, and only nine studies had incorporated social indicators in their assessment of PPAs. We found there were few published studies in the primary literature with rigorous evidence on the impact of PPAs (or fully protected MPAs), and there was a lack of trophic groups studied, other than those important for commercial or recreational fishing activities. This finding is comparable to the review by Fraser et al. [108], that investigated the impact of fully protected MPAs compared to PPAs within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP). Additionally, the policy context of PPA establishment, and management, including extractive activities permitted (e.g., commercial, or recreational fishing) was not mentioned in any study, despite this being a considerable driver of MPA implementation in Australia.
Of critical importance is the lack of accounting for timeframes post-MPA establishment within the peer-reviewed studies in this review. Most studies did not acknowledge the impact of the time of establishment on their results, despite this being a key factor driving MPA success [5]. Of note is that those studies that did account for timeframes post-establishment, suggest species can be quick (2–12.5 years) to respond to partial protection, particularly if they are common fisheries species [48, 62, 92].
Despite Australia’s MPA management plans stating that MPAs will have benefits not just ecologically, but also socially and economically, there was only one peer reviewed study that had examined more than just one indicator of success [46] in PPAs. The study investigated the social and ecological effectiveness of PPAs and found that there were no ecological or social benefits. However, a limited set of social indicators were applied (increased attractiveness of PPAs for human usage relative to fully protected MPAs and increased positive perception of MPAs of all types) and did not use standardised approaches to measuring human usage levels. Our review highlights the need for improved identification of social and economic objectives (relevant to diverse stakeholders), matching KPIs, and robust assessment frameworks.
A recent report on the social and economic benchmark indicators of MPAs [109], identifies potential indicators for social and economic success for MPAs in Australia (based on the Commonwealth MPAs—the Australian Marine Parks), and these methods should be evaluated as to their effectiveness across PPAs within state and territory jurisdictional waters, alongside other methods for estimating economic benefits of MPAs [110]. Considering the extensive data collection from commercial and recreational fishers across Australia, that for the most part has been collected pre- and post-establishment of MPAs and PPAs, this is clearly an area where future research could provide some further insights into the potential social and economic benefits of PPAs in Australia. There are also emerging opportunities for assessment of the benefits of temporary fisheries and research closures (e.g. Elephant Rock and North Bay Rock Lobster Research Areas, Tasmania [111]).
In general, commercially-important species (most commonly, Australasian snapper–Chrysophrys auratus) appear to be the most likely to benefit from PPAs [48, 57, 72, 92], however within most studies, baseline data were lacking, making it hard to disentangle the effects of MPA regulations (and therefore the existence or not of a PPA), natural variability in population dynamics, fisheries management actions, and basic spatial differences between the NTMR and PPA that were being compared. No studies explicitly controlled for these effects in either their experimental design, or statistical analyses, but some studies acknowledged that population dynamics (e.g. a recent spawning event) may have influenced their results [55]. Whether snapper disproportionately benefit from PPAs compared to other commercially important (fisheries) species is difficult to evaluate without similar numbers of studies on other commercially important (fisheries) species, especially as there were some studies that suggested PPAs were no better than ‘open’ areas for snapper [49]. Additionally, some species responded positively to fully protected MPAs (with increased biomass), due to fisheries management actions, not just MPA zoning [108, 112].
Management plans
Management plans with quantifiable KPIs would allow marine resource managers to understand a) when goals were met, not met, exceeded, or whether the management plan was failing; b) what data are required to assess the effectiveness of the PPA; and c) what management levers or actions could be used to change the trajectory of biodiversity, economic, social, or Indigenous values within a PPA. An example of a review of terrestrial management plans, and their included KPIs, and associated SMART goals (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Timebound) could be applied to marine management plans within Australia [113]. Our search for management plans for MPAs in Australia highlighted the varying maturity of marine management in different jurisdictions, probably at least partially attributable to shifts in priorities in funding for conservation planning and management (Table 3). Some jurisdictions have MPA management plans with KPIs that are clear and provide ways of monitoring progress against the objectives and goals of the management plan (e.g., Western Australia, South Australia, some Australian Marine Parks, Table 3). However, in all these plans, there are no action plans if the goals are not met—this appears to be a clear gap in effective management of MPAs, especially if compared to, for example, harvest strategies for commercially important fishery species where action plans must be documented and implemented when species are judged to be at various levels of virgin (unexploited) biomass [43]. In this regard there are also opportunities for better integration of fisheries data with protected area management data.
Future of analysing potential benefits of PPAs
Although this systematic literature review did not find equivocal evidence for the impact of PPAs on ecosystems, social, or economic indicators, these areas may still provide a range of benefits. Part of the issue in a lack of results are that marine management zones have been loosely categorised into three broad categories of zoning in most studies. These are no-take marine reserves (fully protected MPAs), partially protected areas (PPAs), and areas outside MPAs (termed ‘open’ ocean). This coarse level of categorisation ignores the complexity of management arrangements within MPAs, whereas in PPAs there are multiple possibilities for extractive activities, all with potentially different impacts on social, economic, and ecological indicators. Additionally, the ocean surrounding MPAs (‘open’ ocean) in Australia is not without restrictions—all jurisdictional aquatic water is covered by legislation that permits or excludes various activities, including the extraction of marine resources.
To fully understand the impact of management arrangements (whether within MPAs or outside), more targeted and systematic data collection is required for pre-determined indicators for ecological, social (including cultural), and economic health (or success). Prior to collecting data, we need to understand more broadly the underlying mechanisms that may contribute to ecological, social, and economic change within MPAs, to allow for viable and robust hypothesis-driven research. Additionally, inclusion of Other Effective Conservation Measures (OECMs) in assessing the benefits of marine management strategies is imperative to a comprehensive understanding of partially protecting areas of the ocean in Australia. This is because there is evidence that OECMs have the potential to be as effective (and sometimes more effective than MPA management) at meeting conservation objectives [114, 115].
The study has highlighted that it is essentially very difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of PPAs by any set of biological, social, or economic metrics as a broad group, as individual PPAs have been set up with differing goals and objectives, and allow for a variety of uses, and levels of resource extraction. For example, a PPA within an MPA network may have been set up to protect a specific species, whereas another may have been set up to facilitate the harvest of another species. Future studies on the effectiveness of PPAs therefore should measure their effectiveness against the management plans and intended goals of the specific PPA, which would require a greater level of policy maturity than is present in most Australian jurisdictions at present. Understanding the impact of PPA declaration and implementation on fisheries restrictions inside MPAs and the alternative (whether fisheries management impacts the declaration of PPAs) would be interesting to understand. For example, two questions could be a) Are fisheries restrictions inside PPAs altered to reflect conservation outcomes (e.g. restricted catch and/or size limits compared to areas outside PPAs)?; and b) Does fisheries management become more precautionary after the declaration of PPAs in order to help achieve conservation outcomes? The answers to these questions would help understand the potential impacts of PPAs on overall marine resource management (and conversely the effects of PPAs on fisheries management outcomes). Several PPAs in Australia have been set up as ‘habitat protection zones’ with the primary goal of protecting sensitive benthic habitats from fishing practices where gear is dragged along the benthos, and/or cause irreversible destruction of the sea floor. More impactful management analyses would be to conduct experiments to compare the health of the benthos in these habitat protection zones to comparable habitat outside the PPA using BACI- based analyses.
An important new category of marine protection and stewardship instrument in Australia are Indigenous Protected Areas (IPA) within Sea Country [116]. These areas have evolved from specifically being centred around indigenous land tenure to include multiple tenures, and the marine space (Sea Country). These areas are indigenous-driven, collaborative, and provide models for a protected area governance framework that can support contemporary management of MPAs and the marine space in general. Currently there are limited data available on the impact(s) of IPA implementation in Sea Country around Australia [117], and they are not considered within the Nationally Representative Marine Protected Areas (NRMPA) within the CAPAD database [37], however this is something that should be considered in future implementations of this systematic review.
Since completing this systematic literature review, we have been advised by employees within various State and Commonwealth jurisdiction government departments that data do exist on specific parameters relating to ecological, social, and economic effectiveness of PPAs in Australia. Additionally, there are reports that address some of the issues within this review. However, the objectives of this systematic review included opportunities for replication in the future, including the search parameters and primary focus on peer-reviewed scientific literature. However, we will continue to work with State and Commonwealth agencies to aggregate reports and data platforms to make these available to the public, other researchers, and after direction from the project Steering Committee to the other jurisdiction’s agencies. This will facilitate collaboration between university researchers, managers, and between jurisdictions, which is imperative considering the dynamic nature of marine species and the evolving nature of marine resource governance at all levels (see Australia’s National Sustainable Ocean Plan—[118]).
We encourage other researchers to repeat our systematic review in the future, to allow for further time that may provide clarity on the impact of PPAs in Australia. This will require well designed BACI studies to account for the wide range of PPAs and the activities permitted within them.
Conclusions
Despite the caveats and study limitations, this study highlights the need for clearer management rationale and more explicit plans for marine protected areas (MPAs) in Australia, and in-particular for partially protected areas (PPAs) as these comprise the majority of MPAs in Australia’s EEZ. With increasing competition for Australia’s ocean space and the diversity of management approaches that have evolved that seek to provide for diverse management objectives there is a critical need for the specific and relative contributions and effectiveness of MPAs and PPAs to be systematically evaluated.
Data and management plans for PPAs need to be available firstly for transparency of marine management, and secondly for researchers to use, to allow systematic evaluations of PPA effectiveness against the specific management objectives of a particular PPA. Assessments of effectiveness of PPAs should be completed within meaningful time scales, and there should be plans for assessments to occur at regular intervals, with transparent reporting against objectives, and action plans for what to do if PPAs are not meeting their objectives. Examples of this work beginning in Australia are the Science Plan under the Commonwealth Government, and the Management Evaluation, Reporting, and Improvement (MERI) framework for the Australian Marine Park network [119]. State of the Environment Reports, particularly with a focus on Australia’s Marine Estate [12] have also made some contributions in this regard but these should draw from a more systematic and comprehensive database.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Databases used in the systematic literature search, and the corresponding BOOLEAN search terms applied in the search, and the date the search was performed.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307324.s001
(DOCX)
S1 Fig. Australian Marine Parks: Partially protected areas (PPAs) categorised by this study using The MPA Guide categorisation system [2], based on data reported to the Australian Government.
All data relating to MPAs data are sourced from the Collaborative Australian Protected Area Database (CAPAD) dataset for 2022 [37]. Australian jurisdictional boundaries are publicly available and sourced from Geosciences Australia (based on the Geocentric Datum of Australia 2020, GDA2020). Mapping was completed using spatial package sf [38,39] within the R Programming Framework [120]. All data are publicly available, and access to the data is via the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) licence model:–CC By 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307324.s002
(TIF)
S2 Fig. New South Wales (NSW) PPAs categorised by this study using The MPA Guide categorisation system [2], based on data reported to the Australian Government.
All data relating to MPAs data are sourced from the Collaborative Australian Protected Area Database (CAPAD) dataset for 2022 [37]. Australian jurisdictional boundaries are publicly available and sourced from Geosciences Australia (based on the Geocentric Datum of Australia 2020, GDA2020). Mapping was completed using spatial package sf [38,39] within the R Programming Framework [120]. All data are publicly available, and access to the data is via the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) licence model:–CC By 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307324.s003
(DOCX)
S3 Fig. Northern Territory (NT) PPAs categorised by this study using The MPA Guide categorisation system [2], based on data reported to the Australian Government.
All data relating to MPAs data are sourced from the Collaborative Australian Protected Area Database (CAPAD) dataset for 2022 [37]. Australian jurisdictional boundaries are publicly available and sourced from Geosciences Australia (based on the Geocentric Datum of Australia 2020, GDA2020). Mapping was completed using spatial package sf [38,39] within the R Programming Framework [120]. All data are publicly available, and access to the data is via the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) licence model:–CC By 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307324.s004
(TIF)
S4 Fig. Western Australian (WA) PPAs categorised by this study using The MPA Guide categorisation system [2], based on data reported to the Australian Government.
All data relating to MPAs data are sourced from the Collaborative Australian Protected Area Database (CAPAD) dataset for 2022 [37]. Australian jurisdictional boundaries are publicly available and sourced from Geosciences Australia (based on the Geocentric Datum of Australia 2020, GDA2020). Mapping was completed using spatial package sf [38,39] within the R Programming Framework [120]. All data are publicly available, and access to the data is via the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) licence model:–CC By 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307324.s005
(TIF)
S5 Fig. South Australian (SA) PPAs categorised by this study using The MPA Guide categorisation system [2], based on data reported to the Australian Government.
All data relating to MPAs data are sourced from the Collaborative Australian Protected Area Database (CAPAD) dataset for 2022 [37]. Australian jurisdictional boundaries are publicly available and sourced from Geosciences Australia (based on the Geocentric Datum of Australia 2020, GDA2020). Mapping was completed using spatial package sf [38,39] within the R Programming Framework [120]. All data are publicly available, and access to the data is via the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) licence model:–CC By 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307324.s006
(TIF)
S6 Fig. Victorian (VIC) PPAs categorised by this study using The MPA Guide categorisation system [2], based on data reported to the Australian Government.
All data relating to MPAs data are sourced from the Collaborative Australian Protected Area Database (CAPAD) dataset for 2022 [37]. Australian jurisdictional boundaries are publicly available and sourced from Geosciences Australia (based on the Geocentric Datum of Australia 2020, GDA2020). Mapping was completed using spatial package sf [38,39] within the R Programming Framework [120]. All data are publicly available, and access to the data is via the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) licence model:–CC By 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307324.s007
(TIF)
S7 Fig. Tasmanian (TAS) PPAs categorised by this study using The MPA Guide categorisation system [2], based on data reported to the Australian Government.
All data relating to MPAs data are sourced from the Collaborative Australian Protected Area Database (CAPAD) dataset for 2022 [37]. Australian jurisdictional boundaries are publicly available and sourced from Geosciences Australia (based on the Geocentric Datum of Australia 2020, GDA2020). Mapping was completed using spatial package sf [38,39] within the R Programming Framework [120]. All data are publicly available, and access to the data is via the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) licence model:–CC By 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307324.s008
(TIF)
S8 Fig. Queensland (QLD) PPAs categorised by this study using The MPA Guide categorisation system [2], based on data reported to the Australian Government.
All data relating to MPAs data are sourced from the Collaborative Australian Protected Area Database (CAPAD) dataset for 2022 [37]. Australian jurisdictional boundaries are publicly available and sourced from Geosciences Australia (based on the Geocentric Datum of Australia 2020, GDA2020). Mapping was completed using spatial package sf [38,39] within the R Programming Framework [120]. All data are publicly available, and access to the data is via the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) licence model:–CC By 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307324.s009
(TIF)
Acknowledgments
We wish to acknowledge and thank three anonymous referees for their extensive constructive feedback on this manuscript. Their insightful comments improved the quality and structure of the paper immensely.
References
- 1.
Day J, Dudley N, Hockings M, Holmes G, Laffoley D, Stolton S, et al. Guidelines for Applying the IUCN Protected Area Management Categories to Marine Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland; 2012. www.iucn.org/pa_guidelines
- 2. Grorud-Colvert K, Sullivan-Stack J, Roberts C, Constant V, Horta E Costa B, Pike EP, et al. The MPA guide: A framework to achieve global goals for the ocean. Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science; 2021. pmid:34516798
- 3.
Australian Government: Department of Climate Change E the E and W. Australia’s Marine Parks, Parks Australia, Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment, and Water. 30 May 2023.
- 4. Lester SE, Halpern BS, Grorud-Colvert K, Lubchenco J, Ruttenberg BI, Gaines SD, et al. Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: A global synthesis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2009;384: 33–46.
- 5. Edgar GJ, Stuart-Smith RD, Willis TJ, Kininmonth S, Baker SC, Banks S, et al. Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features. Nature. 2014;506: 216–220. pmid:24499817
- 6. Lloret J, Wawrzynkowski P, Dominguez-Carrió C, Sardá R, Molins C, Gili JM, et al. Floating offshore wind farms in Mediterranean marine protected areas: a cautionary tale. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 2023.
- 7. Costanza R, de Groot R, Farberll S, Grassot M, Hannon B, Limburg K, et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. 1997;387: 253–260.
- 8.
Department of Climate Change Energy the Environment and Water. https://eea.environment.gov.au/accounts/ocean-accounts/national-ocean-ecosystem-account.
- 9.
Haines-Young R, Potschin M. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. www.cices.eu. 2018.
- 10. Hanns BJ, Haggitt T, Shears NT. Marine protected areas provide unfished reference information to empirically assess fishery status. Biol Conserv. 2022;276.
- 11.
UN Environment Programme. Decision adopted by the Conference of Parties to The Convention on Biological Diversity: 15/4. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. 2022. https://www.cbd.int/conferences/post20202CBD/WG8J/11/7,CBD/SBSTTA/23/9,CBD/SBSTTA/24/12andCBD/SBI/3/21,respectively.
- 12.
Trebilco R, Fischer M, Hunter C, Hobday A, Thomas L, Evans K. Australia state of the environment 2021: marine, independent report to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. 2021.
- 13.
UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. Awww.protectedplanet.net. 30 May 2023.
- 14. Margules CR, Pressey RL. Systematic conservation planning. Nature. 2000;405: 243–253. Available: www.nature.com pmid:10821285
- 15. Ohayon S, Granot I, Belmaker J. A meta-analysis reveals edge effects within marine protected areas. Nat Ecol Evol. 2021;5: 1301–1308. pmid:34226700
- 16. Kramer DL, Chapman MR. Implications of fish home range size and relocation for marine reserve function. Environ Biol Fishes. 1999;55: 65–79.
- 17. Krueck NC, Legrand C, Ahmadia GN, Estradivari, Green A, Jones GP, et al. Reserve Sizes Needed to Protect Coral Reef Fishes. Conservation Letters. Wiley-Blackwell; 2018.
- 18. Krueck NC. Marine conservation across protected area boundaries. Nat Ecol Evol. 2021;5: 1203–1204. pmid:34226699
- 19. Bond T, Jamieson A. The extent and protection of Australia’s deep sea. Mar Freshw Res. 2022.
- 20. Devillers R, Pressey RL, Grech A, Kittinger JN, Edgar GJ, Ward T, et al. Reinventing residual reserves in the sea: Are we favouring ease of establishment over need for protection? Aquat Conserv. 2015;25: 480–504.
- 21.
Costello MJ, Ballantine B. Biodiversity conservation should focus on no-take Marine Reserves: 94% of Marine Protected Areas allow fishing. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. Elsevier Ltd; 2015. pp. 507–509.
- 22. Andradi-Brown DA, Veverka L, Amkieltiela , Crane NL, Estradivari , Fox HE, et al. Diversity in marine protected area regulations: Protection approaches for locally appropriate marine management. Front Mar Sci. 2023;10.
- 23. Stevenson TC, Tissot BN, Walsh WJ. Socioeconomic consequences of fishing displacement from marine protected areas in Hawaii. Biol Conserv. 2013;160: 50–58.
- 24. Halpern BS, Gaines SD, Warner RR. Confounding effects of the export of production and the displacement of fishing effort from marine reserves. Ecological Applications. 2004;14: 1248–1256.
- 25.
Edgar GJ. Marine protected areas need accountability not wasted dollars. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. John Wiley and Sons Ltd; 2017. pp. 4–9.
- 26.
Foo YZ, O’Dea RE, Koricheva J, Nakagawa S, Lagisz M. A practical guide to question formation, systematic searching and study screening for literature reviews in ecology and evolution. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. British Ecological Society; 2021. pp. 1705–1720.
- 27. Haddaway NR, Macura B, Whaley P, Pullin AS. ROSES Reporting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: Pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Environ Evid. 2018;7.
- 28. Haddaway NR, Bethel A, Dicks L V., Koricheva J, Macura B, Petrokofsky G, et al. Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them. Nature Ecology and Evolution. Nature Research; 2020. pp. 1582–1589. pmid:33046871
- 29. Haddaway NR, Kohl C, Rebelo Da Silva N, Schiemann J, Spök A, Stewart R, et al. A framework for stakeholder engagement during systematic reviews and maps in environmental management. Environ Evid. 2017;6.
- 30. Pullin AS, Stewart GB. Guidelines for systematic review in conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology. 2006. pp. 1647–1656. pmid:17181800
- 31.
Page MJ, Mckenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.
- 32. Phillips GAC, Krueck N, Ogier E, Barrett N, Dutton I, Hartmann K. Assessing the multiple benefits of partially protected marine protected areas in Australia: A systematic review protocol. PLoS One. 2023;18. pmid:37079655
- 33. Yin M, Techera EJ. A critical analysis of marine protected area legislation across state and territory jurisdictions in Australia. Mar Policy. 2020;118.
- 34.
The MPA Guide. https://mpa-guide.protectedplanet.net. 2023.
- 35.
Clarke B, Thurstan R, Yates KL. An investigation into the socio-cultural dimension of determining MPA effectiveness Encounter Marine Park, South Australia Final Report Prepared for: Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Adelaide. 2016.
- 36. Haddaway NR, Page MJ, Pritchard CC, McGuinness LA. PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2022;18. pmid:36911350
- 37.
Department of Climate Change Energy the Environment and Water. Collaborative Australian Protected Areas Database (CAPAD). 2022.
- 38.
Pebesma E, Bivand R. Spatial Data Science: With Applications in R. Spatial Data Science: With Applications in R. 2023; 1–300.
- 39. Pebesma E. Simple features for R: Standardized support for spatial vector data. R Journal. 2018;10: 439–446.
- 40. Giakoumi S, McGowan J, Mills M, Beger M, Bustamante RH, Charles A, et al. Revisiting “success” and “failure” of marine protected areas: A conservation scientist perspective. Front Mar Sci. 2018;5: 345517.
- 41. Gill DA, Mascia MB, Ahmadia GN, Glew L, Lester SE, Barnes M, et al. Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of marine protected areas globally. Nature 2017 543:7647. 2017;543: 665–669. pmid:28329771
- 42.
Parks and Wildlife Service Department of Tourism Arts and the Environment. Macquarie Island Nature Reserve and World Heritage Area Management Plan. Hobart; 2006.
- 43.
of Agriculture D, Resources W. Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy Framework for applying an evidence-based approach to setting harvest levels in Commonwealth fisheries Second Edition. 2018.
- 44.
Sloan S, Smith T, Gardner C, Croswaite K, Triantafillos L, Jeffriess B, et al. National Guidelines to Develop Fishery Harvest Strategies. 2014. https://figshare.utas.edu.au/articles/report/National_Guidelines_to_Develop_Fishery_Harvest_Strategies/23197919
- 45.
Parks and Wildlife Service D of NR and the E. https://parks.tas.gov.au/be-involved/have-your-say/maria-island-management-plan-review. 2024.
- 46. Turnbull JW, Johnston EL, Clark GF. Evaluating the social and ecological effectiveness of partially protected marine areas. Conservation Biology. 2021;35: 921–932. pmid:33448038
- 47. Malcolm HA, Ferrari R. Strong fish assemblage patterns persist over sixteen years in a warming marine park, even with tropical shifts. Biol Conserv. 2019;232: 152–163.
- 48. Malcolm HA, Schultz AL, Sachs P, Johnstone N, Jordan A. Decadal changes in the abundance and length of snapper (Chrysophrys auratus) in subtropical marine sanctuaries. PLoS One. 2015;10. pmid:26061036
- 49. Knott NA, Williams J, Harasti D, Malcolm HA, Coleman MA, Kelaher BP, et al. A coherent, representative, and bioregional marine reserve network shows consistent change in rocky reef fish assemblages. Ecosphere. 2021;12.
- 50. Harasti D, Williams J, Mitchell E, Lindfield S, Jordan A. Increase in relative abundance and size of snapper Chrysophrys auratus within partially-protected and no-take areas in a temperate marine protected area. Front Mar Sci. 2018;5.
- 51. Malcolm HA, Jordan A, Creese RG, Knott NA. Size and age are important factors for marine sanctuaries: evidence from a decade of systematic sampling in a subtropical marine park. Aquat Conserv. 2016;26: 1090–1106.
- 52. Payet SD, Lowe JR, Mapstone BD, Pratchett MS, Sinclair-Taylor TH, Taylor BM, et al. Comparative demography of commercially important species of coral grouper, Plectropomus leopardus and P. laevis, from Australia’s great barrier reef and Coral Sea marine parks. J Fish Biol. 2020;97: 1165–1176. pmid:32785930
- 53. Malcolm HA, Williams J, Schultz AL, Neilson J, Johnstone N, Knott NA, et al. Targeted fishes are larger and more abundant in ‘no-take’ areas in a subtropical marine park. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2018;212: 118–127.
- 54. Harasti D, Davis TR, Mitchell E, Lindfield S, Smith SDA. A tale of two islands: Decadal changes in rocky reef fish assemblages following implementation of no-take marine protected areas in New South Wales, Australia. Reg Stud Mar Sci. 2018;18: 229–236.
- 55. Bornt KR, McLean DL, Langlois TJ, Harvey ES, Bellchambers LM, Evans SN, et al. Targeted demersal fish species exhibit variable responses to long-term protection from fishing at the Houtman Abrolhos Islands. Coral Reefs. 2015;34: 1297–1312.
- 56. Pryor SH, Schultz AL, Malcolm HA, Smith SDA. Partial protection disallowing trawling has conservation benefits in a subtropical marine park. Ocean Coast Manag. 2020;183.
- 57. Rees SE, Ashley M, Evans L, Mangi S, Sheehan E V., Mullier T, et al. An evaluation of the social and economic impact of a Marine Protected Area on commercial fisheries. Fish Res. 2021;235.
- 58. Frisch AJ, Rizzari JR. Parks for sharks: human exclusion areas outperform no-take marine reserves. Front Ecol Environ. 2019;17: 145–150.
- 59. Mason C, Alderman R, McGowan J, Possingham HP, Hobday AJ, Sumner M, et al. Telemetry reveals existing marine protected areas are worse than random for protecting the foraging habitat of threatened shy albatross (Thalassarche cauta). Divers Distrib. 2018;24: 1744–1755.
- 60. Birkmanis CA, Partridge JC, Simmons LW, Heupel MR, Sequeira AMM. Shark conservation hindered by lack of habitat protection. Glob Ecol Conserv. 2020;21.
- 61. Kerr LA, Kritzer JP, Cadrin SX. Strengths and limitations of before-After-control-impact analysis for testing the effects of marine protected areas on managed populations. ICES Journal of Marine Science. 2019;76: 1039–1051.
- 62. Gray CA, Chapman MG, Underwood AJ, Rotherham D. Spatial management of estuarine fisheries resources: Do recreational-only fished estuaries provide conservation to harvested species? Rev Fish Biol Fish. 2022;32: 1123–1140.
- 63. Shedrawi G, Harvey ES, McLean DL, Prince J, Bellchambers LM, Newman SJ. Evaluation of the effect of closed areas on a unique and shallow water coral reef fish assemblage reveals complex responses. Coral Reefs. 2014;33: 579–591.
- 64. Bergseth BJ, Williamson DH, Frisch AJ, Russ GR. Protected areas preserve natural behaviour of a targeted fish species on coral reefs. Biol Conserv. 2016;198: 202–209.
- 65. Edgar GJ, Ward TJ, Stuart-Smith RD. Rapid declines across Australian fishery stocks indicate global sustainability targets will not be achieved without an expanded network of ‘no-fishing’ reserves. Aquat Conserv. 2018;28: 1337–1350.
- 66. Turnbull JW, Shah Esmaeili Y, Clark GF, Figueira WF, Johnston EL, Ferrari R. Key drivers of effectiveness in small marine protected areas. Biodivers Conserv. 2018;27: 2217–2242.
- 67. Coleman MA, Bates AE, Stuart-Smith RD, Malcolm HA, Harasti D, Jordan A, et al. Functional traits reveal early responses in marine reserves following protection from fishing. Divers Distrib. 2015;21: 876–887.
- 68. Hammerton Z, Bucher D, Page A. The influence of protection and temperature on subtropical reef fish assemblages in Cape Byron Marine Park. Aquat Conserv. 2019;29: 1623–1635.
- 69. Harasti D, Martin-Smith K, Gladstone W. Does a no-take marine protected area benefit seahorses? PLoS One. 2014;9. pmid:25137253
- 70. Rees MJ, Knott NA, Davis TR, Davis AR, Gudge S, Neilson JM, et al. Temporal stability in a protected and isolated fish community within marine parks surrounding Lord Howe Island. Reg Stud Mar Sci. 2021;48.
- 71. Pettersen AK, Marzinelli EM, Steinberg PD, Coleman MA. Impact of marine protected areas on temporal stability of fish species diversity. Conservation Biology. 2022;36. pmid:34342040
- 72. Cresswell AK, Langlois TJ, Wilson SK, Claudet J, Thomson DP, Renton M, et al. Disentangling the response of fishes to recreational fishing over 30 years within a fringing coral reef reserve network. Biol Conserv. 2019;237: 514–524.
- 73. Goetze JS, Wilson S, Radford B, Fisher R, Langlois TJ, Monk J, et al. Increased connectivity and depth improve the effectiveness of marine reserves. Glob Chang Biol. 2021;27: 3432–3447. pmid:34015863
- 74. Soler GA, Edgar GJ, Thomson RJ, Kininmonth S, Campbell SJ, Dawson TP, et al. Reef fishes at all trophic levels respond positively to effective marine protected areas. PLoS One. 2015;10. pmid:26461104
- 75. Butcher PA, Boulton AJ, Macbeth WG, Malcolm HA. Long-term effects of marine park zoning on giant mud crab Scylla serrata populations in three Australian estuaries. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2014;508: 163–176.
- 76. Ferguson AM, Harvey ES, Knott NA. Herbivore abundance, site fidelity and grazing rates on temperate reefs inside and outside marine reserves. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. 2016;478: 96–105.
- 77. Edgar GJ, Barrett NS. An assessment of population responses of common inshore fishes and invertebrates following declaration of five Australian marine protected areas. Environ Conserv. 2012;39: 271–281.
- 78. De’Ath G, Fabricius KE, Sweatman H, Puotinen M. The 27-year decline of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef and its causes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109: 17995–17999. pmid:23027961
- 79. Olds AD, Pitt KA, Maxwell PS, Babcock RC, Rissik D, Connolly RM. Marine reserves help coastal ecosystems cope with extreme weather. Glob Chang Biol. 2014;20: 3050–3058. pmid:24849111
- 80. Gilby BL, Olds AD, Yabsley NA, Connolly RM, Maxwell PS, Schlacher TA. Enhancing the performance of marine reserves in estuaries: Just add water. Biol Conserv. 2017;210: 1–7.
- 81. Quaas Z, Harasti D, Gaston TF, Platell ME, Fulton CJ. Influence of habitat condition on shallow rocky reef fish community structure around islands and headlands of a temperate marine protected area. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2019;626: 1–13.
- 82. Whitmarsh SK, Fairweather PG, Brock DJ, Miller D. Nektonic assemblages determined from baited underwater video in protected versus unprotected shallow seagrass meadows on Kangaroo Island, South Australia. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2014;503: 205–218.
- 83. Althaus F, Williams A, Alderslade P, Schlacher TA. Conservation of marine biodiversity on a very large deep continental margin: how representative is a very large offshore reserve network for deep-water octocorals? Divers Distrib. 2017;23: 90–103.
- 84. Soler GA, Edgar GJ, Stuart-Smith RD, Smith ADM, Thomson RJ. Moving beyond trophic groups: evaluating fishing-induced changes to temperate reef food webs. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2018;587: 175–186.
- 85. Gilby BL, Maxwell PS, Tibbetts IR, Stevens T. Bottom-Up Factors for Algal Productivity Outweigh No-Fishing Marine Protected Area Effects in a Marginal Coral Reef System. Ecosystems. 2015;18: 1056–1069.
- 86. McLaren BW, Langlois TJ, Harvey ES, Shortland-Jones H, Stevens R. A small no-take marine sanctuary provides consistent protection for small-bodied by-catch species, but not for large-bodied, high-risk species. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. 2015;471: 153–163.
- 87.
Marks C, Fields R, Field J, Miller R, Beyer S, Sogard S, et al. Changes in size composition and relative abundance of fishes in central California after a decade of spatial fishing closures. 2015. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282818244
- 88. Udyawer V, Cappo M, Simpfendorfer CA, Heupel MR, Lukoschek V. Distribution of sea snakes in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: Observations from 10 yrs of baited remote underwater video station (BRUVS) sampling. Coral Reefs. 2014;33: 777–791.
- 89.
Queensland Government. Fisheries Queensland Species of Conservation Interest (SOCI) quarterly reports from 2006. 2023.
- 90. Chan NCS, Connolly SR, Mapstone BD. Effects of sex change on the implications of marine reserves for fisheries. Ecological Applications. 2012;22: 778–791. pmid:22645810
- 91. Olds AD, Connolly RM, Pitt KA, Maxwell PS. Habitat connectivity improves reserve performance. Conserv Lett. 2012;5: 56–63.
- 92. Curley BG, Glasby TM, Curley AJ, Creese RG, Kingsford MJ. Enhanced numbers of two temperate reef fishes in a small, partial-take marine protected area related to spearfisher exclusion. Biol Conserv. 2013;167: 435–445.
- 93. Kelaher BP, Tan M, Figueira WF, Gillanders BM, Connell SD, Goldsworthy SD, et al. Fur seal activity moderates the effects of an Australian marine sanctuary on temperate reef fish. Biol Conserv. 2015;182: 205–214.
- 94. Wilson SK, Babcock RC, Fisher R, Holmes TH, Moore JAY, Thomson DP. Relative and combined effects of habitat and fishing on reef fish communities across a limited fishing gradient at Ningaloo. Mar Environ Res. 2012;81: 1–11. pmid:22925735
- 95. Silvano RAM, Tibbetts IR, Grutter AS. Potential effects of fishing on cleaning interactions in a tropical reef. Coral Reefs. 2012;31: 1193–1198.
- 96. Tuohy P, Cvitanovic C, Shellock RJ. Understanding visitor awareness and knowledge of marine parks: Insights from the Ningaloo Coast, Australia. Ocean Coast Manag. 2022;227.
- 97. Gollan N, Voyer M, Jordan A, Barclay K. Maximising community wellbeing: Assessing the threats to the benefits communities derive from the marine estate. Ocean Coast Manag. 2019;168: 12–21.
- 98. Haensch J, Wheeler SA, McWhinnie S. Community attitudes towards marine parks in South Australia. Mar Policy. 2022;139.
- 99. McNeill A, Clifton J, Harvey ES. Specialised recreational fishers reject sanctuary zones and favour fisheries management. Mar Policy. 2019;107.
- 100. McNeill A, Clifton J, Harvey ES. Attitudes to a marine protected area are associated with perceived social impacts. Mar Policy. 2018;94: 106–118.
- 101. Yates KL, Clarke B, Thurstan RH. Purpose vs performance: What does marine protected area success look like? Environ Sci Policy. 2019;92: 76–86.
- 102. Voyer M, Gollan N, Barclay K, Gladstone W. “It’s part of me”; understanding the values, images and principles of coastal users and their influence on the social acceptability of MPAs. Mar Policy. 2015;52: 93–102.
- 103. Smallwood CB, Beckley LE, Moore SA. Influence of Zoning and Habitats on the Spatial Distribution of Recreational Activities in a Multiple-Use Marine Park. Coastal Management. 2012;40: 381–400.
- 104.
Department of Biodiversity Conservation and Attractions. Economic contribution of Ningaloo: one of Australia’s best kept secrets. 2020.
- 105.
Australia. Environment Australia. Solitary Islands Marine Reserve (Commonwealth Waters) management plan. Environment Australia, Dept. of the Environment and Heritage; 2001.
- 106.
Australian Marine Conservation Society. Managing our Big Blue Backyard: The role of marine parks in Australia. 2024.
- 107.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. https://research.csiro.au/seltmp/. 2023.
- 108. Fraser KA, Adams VM, Pressey RL, Pandolfi JM. Impact evaluation and conservation outcomes in marine protected areas: A case study of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Biol Conserv. 2019;238.
- 109.
Navarro M, Langlois TJ, Burton M, Hegarty A, Aston C, Kragt ME, et al. Social and economic benchmarks of the Australian Marine Parks. Report to the National Environmental Science Program, Marine Biodiversity Hub. The University of Western Australia. 2021.
- 110. Davis KJ, Vianna GMS, Meeuwig JJ, Meekan MG, Pannell DJ. Estimating the economic benefits and costs of highly-protected marine protected areas. Ecosphere. 2019;10.
- 111.
Elephant Rock and North Bay Rock Lobster Research Areas open to recreational potting | Fishing Tasmania. [cited 24 May 2024]. https://fishing.tas.gov.au/news-events/elephant-rock-and-north-bay-rock-lobster-research-areas-open-to-recreational-potting
- 112. Hopf JK, Jones GP, Williamson DH, Connolly SR. Synergistic Effects of Marine Reserves and Harvest Controls on the Abundance and Catch Dynamics of a Coral Reef Fishery. Current Biology. 2016;26: 1543–1548. pmid:27185553
- 113.
Conservation Commission of Western Australia. Key Performance Indicators, Conservation. Kensington; 2016. www.conservation.wa.gov.au.
- 114. Estradivari , Agung MF, Adhuri DS, Ferse SCA, Sualia I, Andradi-Brown DA, et al. Marine conservation beyond MPAs: Towards the recognition of other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) in Indonesia. Mar Policy. 2022;137.
- 115.
Gurney GG, Adams VM, Álvarez-Romero JG, Claudet J. Area-based conservation: Taking stock and looking ahead. One Earth. Cell Press; 2023. pp. 98–104.
- 116. Rist P, Rassip W, Yunupingu D, Wearne J, Gould J, Dulfer-Hyams M, et al. Indigenous protected areas in Sea Country: Indigenous-driven collaborative marine protected areas in Australia. Aquat Conserv. 2019;29: 138–151.
- 117. Austin BJ, Vigilante T, Cowell S, Dutton IM, Djanghara D, Mangolomara S, et al. The Uunguu Monitoring and Evaluation Committee: Intercultural Governance of a Land and Sea Management Programme in the Kimberley, Australia. Ecological Management and Restoration. 2017;18: 124–133.
- 118.
Department of Climate Change Energy the Environment and Water. Australia’s National Sustainable Ocean Plan. In: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/marine/sustainable-ocean-plan#:~:text=Australia%20is%20developing%20a%20national,year%20and%20supports%20462%2C000%20jobs. 2023.
- 119.
Australian Government Department of Climate Change Energy the Environment and Water. Monitoring, Evaulation, Reporting and Improvement (MERI) framework. 2022.
- 120.
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna Austraia: R Foundation for Statistical Computing <https://www.R-project.org/>.; 2024.