Ecological criteria for evaluating candidate sites for marine reserves

Roberts, Callum M., Andelman, Sandy, Branch, George, Bustamante, Rodrigo H., Castilla, Juan Carlos, Dugan, Jenifer, Halpern, Benjamin S., Lafferty, Kevin D., Leslie, Heather, Lubchenco, Jane, McArdle, Deborah, Possingham, Hugh P., Ruckelshaus, Mary and Warner, Robert R. (2003) Ecological criteria for evaluating candidate sites for marine reserves. Ecological Applications, 13 sp1: 199-214. doi:10.1890/1051-0761(2003)013[0199:ECFECS]2.0.CO;2

Attached Files (Some files may be inaccessible until you login with your UQ eSpace credentials)
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
UQ64535_OA.pdf Full text (open access) application/pdf 165.07KB 0

Author Roberts, Callum M.
Andelman, Sandy
Branch, George
Bustamante, Rodrigo H.
Castilla, Juan Carlos
Dugan, Jenifer
Halpern, Benjamin S.
Lafferty, Kevin D.
Leslie, Heather
Lubchenco, Jane
McArdle, Deborah
Possingham, Hugh P.
Ruckelshaus, Mary
Warner, Robert R.
Title Ecological criteria for evaluating candidate sites for marine reserves
Journal name Ecological Applications   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 1051-0761
Publication date 2003-01-01
Sub-type Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
DOI 10.1890/1051-0761(2003)013[0199:ECFECS]2.0.CO;2
Open Access Status File (Publisher version)
Volume 13
Issue sp1
Start page 199
End page 214
Total pages 16
Place of publication Washington
Publisher Ecological Society of America
Language eng
Subject C1
270702 Marine and Estuarine Ecology (incl. Marine Ichthyology)
770307 Marine protected areas
Abstract Several schemes have been developed to help select the locations of marine reserves. All of them combine social, economic, and biological criteria, and few offer any guidance as to how to prioritize among the criteria identified. This can imply that the relative weights given to different criteria are unimportant. Where two sites are of equal value ecologically; then socioeconomic criteria should dominate the choice of which should be protected. However, in many cases, socioeconomic criteria are given equal or greater weight than ecological considerations in the choice of sites. This can lead to selection of reserves with little biological value that fail to meet many of the desired objectives. To avoid such a possibility, we develop a series of criteria that allow preliminary evaluation of candidate sites according to their relative biological values in advance of the application of socioeconomic criteria. We include criteria that,. while not strictly biological, have a strong influence on the species present or ecological processes. Out scheme enables sites to be assessed according to their biodiversity, the processes which underpin that diversity, and the processes that support fisheries and provide a spectrum of other services important to people. Criteria that capture biodiversity values include biogeographic representation, habitat representation and heterogeneity, and presence of species or populations of special interest (e.g., threatened species). Criteria that capture sustainability of biodiversity and fishery values include the size of reserves necessary to protect viable habitats, presence of exploitable species, vulnerable life stages, connectivity among reserves, links among ecosystems, and provision of ecosystem services to people. Criteria measuring human and natural threats enable candidate sites to be eliminated from consideration if risks are too great, but also help prioritize among sites where threats can be mitigated by protection. While our criteria can be applied to the design of reserve networks, they also enable choice of single reserves to be made in the context of the attributes of existing protected areas. The overall goal of our scheme is to promote the development of reserve networks that will maintain biodiversity and ecosystem functioning at large scales. The values of eco-system goods and services for people ultimately depend on meeting this objective.
Keyword Ecology
Biodiversity Conservation
Ecosystem Functioning
Ecosystem Services
Fisheries Management
Marine Reserve Selection
Reserve Evaluation Criteria
Reserve Networks
Coral-reef Fishes
Food Webs
Biological Diversity
Threatened Status
Global Fisheries
Kelp Detritus
Q-Index Code C1
Additional Notes This document is a journal review.

Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 189 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus Article
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Wed, 15 Aug 2007, 05:13:32 EST