Italian marine reserve effectiveness: Does enforcement matter?

Trajectories and magnitude of change in coral reef fish populations in Philippine marine reserves: a meta-analysis

“…When reserves were partitioned according to enforcement capacity in this study, density of exploited fishes was significantly higher in well-enforced reserves than those in less-enforced reserves, similar to the previous findings of Walmsley and White (2003) and Samoilys et al (2007) in central Philippines and of Guidetti et al (2008) in Italy. In fact, density of exploited fishes in less-enforced reserves significantly declined after years of protection, suggesting the prevalence of poaching.…”

“…These include the population size and species composition at the onset of protection and the life history characteristics of the fish species under consideration (Hutchings 2000;Jennings 2001), reserve age, size, spacing and habitat structural complexity Hastings and Botsford 2003;Russ et al 2005;Claudet et al 2008;Graham et al 2008), and the magnitude of reduction of fishing mortality in the reserve as a function of enforcement (Russ 2006;Guidetti et al 2008). Top-trophic level species (e.g., piscivores) are preferentially fished, and thus expected to respond positively with protection because of the elimination (or reduction) of fishing mortality in the reserves (Roberts 1997;Jennings 2001;Russ 2006).…”

“…Top-trophic level species (e.g., piscivores) are preferentially fished, and thus expected to respond positively with protection because of the elimination (or reduction) of fishing mortality in the reserves (Roberts 1997;Jennings 2001;Russ 2006). The pattern of response (i.e., reserve effects) of top-trophic level species is expected to correlate positively with the age, size, and enforcement capacity of the reserves under consideration Russ 2006;Guidetti et al 2008;Claudet et al 2008). On the contrary, nonexploited prey species in the reserves are expected to have minimal response or even respond negatively due to concomitant increase in predation pressure (Pinnegar et al 2002;Graham et al 2003).…”

Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features

“…Even within well-designed MPAs, populations of marine species can respond quite differently to prohibitions on fishing as a consequence of species-specific factors such as mobility, larval dispersal, fecundity, longevity, indirect interactions among species, environmental context, and overall level of exploitation before protection 5,6 . To assess the extent to which MPAs fulfil their ecological potential, we used a database unprecedented in geographic scale to investigate how conservation value, characterized by ecological response of fish communities within MPAs, is affected by the cumulative effects of five key planning and management features: (1) degree of fishing permitted within MPAs; (2) level of enforcement; (3) MPA age; (4) MPA size; and (5) presence of continuous habitat allowing unconstrained movement of fish across MPA boundaries [6][7][8][9][10] . Although previous studies have considered these factors independently, this is the first study, to our knowledge, that considers them simultaneously, using data collected globally with standardized methods.…”

From measuring outcomes to providing inputs: Governance, management, and local development for more effective marine protected areas

“…Required management actions might include reducing levels of extraction, establishing extractive and no-take zones, shifting the focus of fishing effort, reducing destructive gear use and destructive fishing practice, controlling outside access, and effectively enforcing regulations [48,73,96,139,180]. Effective enforcement of regulations is broadly recognized as an essential aspect of any form of open or limited access pool of resources [124,155], including marine protected areas [181]. Roberts [182] argues that MPAs are effective tools for fisheries management but that "Benefits can be quickly dissipated by targeted fishing.…”