Browsing by Author "Sullivan-Stack, Jenna"
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- Assessments of expected MPA outcomes can inform and improve biodiversity conservation: Case studies using The MPA GuidePublication . Sullivan-Stack, Jenna; Ahmadia, Gabby N.; Andradi-Brown, Dominic A; Barron, Alexandra; Brooks, Cassandra M.; Claudet, Joachim; Horta e Costa, Barbara; Estradivari, null; Field, Laurel C.; Giakoumi, Sylvaine; Gonçalves, Emanuel; Groulx, Natalie; Harris, Jean; Jessen, Sabine; Johnson, Steven Mana'oakamai; MacCarthy, Jessica; Maricato, Guilherme; Morgan, Lance; Nalven, Katharine Bear; Nocito, Emily S.; Pike, Elizabeth P; Sala, Enric; Tardin, Rodrigo; Villagomez, Angelo; Wright, Kendyl; Grorud-Colvert, KirstenGlobal, regional, and national targets have been set to protect and conserve at least 30 % of the ocean by 2030, in recognition of the important benefits of healthy ocean ecosystems, including for human well-being. Many of these targets recognize the importance of the quality, not just quantity, of areas that are included in the 30 %, such as marine protected areas (MPAs). For example, the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Global Biodiversity Framework Target 3 calls for areas to be effectively conserved and managed, ecologically representative, well-connected, and equitably governed. Protecting a percent area is not the sole goal – protection must be effective and equitable. To better understand the quality of biodiversity conservation afforded, in addition to the quantity of area protected, we looked at MPAs across 13 studies that used The MPA Guide and related tools to track Stage of Establishment and Level of Protection as measures of expected biodiversity conservation outcomes across diverse locations, scales, and cultural, political, and conservation contexts. We show that standardized assessments of MPA quality can help to (1) evaluate and improve existing MPAs; (2) plan new MPAs; (3) compare the quality of MPA protection across various scales; (4) track MPA quality, including progress towards coverage targets; (5) enable clear communication and collaboration, and (6) inform actions needed to achieve policy targets and their underlying environmental and social goals, among others. We share common opportunities, challenges, and recommendations for tracking MPA quality at various scales, and using these quality assessments to measure progress towards global targets.
- Marine protected areas stage of establishment and level of protection are good predictors of their conservation outcomesPublication . Horta e Costa, Barbara; Benito-Abelló, Carmela de; Pike, Elizabeth; Turnbull, John; MacCarthy, Jessica; Harasta, Nikki; Fragkopoulou, Eliza; Roessger, Julia; Sullivan-Stack, Jenna; Grorud-Colvert, Kirsten; Gill, David; Morgan, Lance; Gonçalves, Emanuel J.; Zupan, Mirta; Gonçalves, Jorge M.S.; Claudet, JoachimDespite the importance of active management and strong protection in driving marine protected areas (MPA) performance, coverage area remains the sole indicator for global targets. To assess whether conservation quality lags behind quantity, we conducted a global meta-analysis of 123 MPAs. We show that MPAs’ Levels of Protection and Stages of Establishment are reliable proxies for MPAs’ ecological outcomes; hence, they are good candidates for tracking MPA quality. Actively managed MPAs have significantly higher fish density and biomass than non-protected surrounding areas, while MPAs that are only implemented do not. The effectiveness of actively managed MPAs can be maximized if they are fully or highly protected. Lightly and minimally protected areas that are only implemented can deliver negative outcomes. Our findings highlight the important interplay between stages and levels as developed in the MPA Guide and support the need to include both in conservation targets to track not only MPA quantity but also quality.
- Ocean protection quality is lagging behind quantity: Applying a scientific framework to assess real marine protected area progress against the 30 by 30 targetPublication . Pike, Elizabeth P; MacCarthy, Jessica; Hameed, Sarah; Harasta, Nikki; Grorud-Colvert, Kirsten; Sullivan-Stack, Jenna; Claudet, Joachim; Horta e Costa, Barbara; Gonçalves, Emanuel J.; Villagomez, Angelo; Morgan, LanceThe international community set a global conservation target to protect at least 30% of the ocean by 2030 (“30 × 30”) to reverse biodiversity loss, including through marine protected areas (MPAs). However, varied MPAs result in significantly different conservation outcomes, making MPA coverage alone an inadequate metric.We used TheMPA Guide framework to assess the the world’s largest 100 MPAs by area, representing nearly 90% of reported global MPA coverage and 7.3% of the global ocean area, and analyzed the distribution of MPA quality across political and ecological regions. A quarter of the assessed MPA coverage is not implemented, and one-third is incompatible with the conservation of nature. Two factors contribute to this outcome: (1) many reported MPAs lack regulations or management, and (2) some MPAs allow high-impact activities. Fully and highly protected MPAs account for one-third of the assessed area but are unevenly distributed across ecoregions in part because some nations have designated large, highly protected MPAs in their overseas or remote territories. Indicators of MPA quality, not only coverage, are needed to ensure a global network of MPAs that covers at least 30% of the ocean and effectively safeguards representative marine ecosystems from destructive human activities.
- Ocean protection quality is lagging behind quantity: Applying a scientific framework to assess real marine protected area progress against the 30 by 30 targetPublication . Pike, Elizabeth P; MacCarthy, Jessica M. C.; Hameed, Sarah; Harasta, Nikki; Grorud-Colvert, Kirsten; Sullivan-Stack, Jenna; Claudet, Joachim; Horta e Costa, Barbara; Gonçalves, E.J.; Villagomez, Angelo; Morgan, LanceThe international community set a global conservation target to protect at least30% of the ocean by 2030 (“30 × 30”) to reverse biodiversity loss, includingthrough marine protected areas (MPAs). However, varied MPAs result in sig-nificantly different conservation outcomes, making MPA coverage alone aninadequate metric. We used The MPA Guide framework to assess the the world’slargest 100 MPAs by area, representing nearly 90% of reported global MPA cov-erage and 7.3% of the global ocean area, and analyzed the distribution of MPAquality across political and ecological regions. A quarter of the assessed MPAcoverage is not implemented, and one-third is incompatible with the conserva-tion of nature. Two factors contribute to this outcome: (1) many reported MPAslack regulations or management, and (2) some MPAs allow high-impact activi-ties. Fully and highly protected MPAs account for one-third of the assessed areabut are unevenly distributed across ecoregions in part because some nations havedesignated large, highly protected MPAs in their overseas or remote territories.Indicators of MPA quality, not only coverage, are needed to ensure a global net-work of MPAs that covers at least 30% of the ocean and effectively safeguardsrepresentative marine ecosystems from destructive human activities