Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas

Tundi Agardy, Peter Bridgewater, Michael P. Crosby, Jon Day, Paul K. Dayton, Richard Kenchington, Dan Laffoley, Patrick McConney, Peter A. Murray, John E. Parks, Lelei Peau

    Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

    325 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    1. While conservationists, resource managers, scientists and coastal planners have recognized the broad applicability of marine protected areas (MPAs), they are often implemented without a firm understanding of the conservation science - both ecological and socio-economic - underlying marine protection. The rush to implement MPAs has set the stage for paradoxical differences of opinions in the marine conservation community. 2. The enthusiastic prescription of simplistic solutions to marine conservation problems risks polarization of interests and ultimately threatens bona fide progress in marine conservation. The blanket assignment and advocacy of empirically unsubstantiated rules of thumb in marine protection creates potentially dangerous targets for conservation science. 3. Clarity of definition, systematic testing of assumptions, and adaptive application of diverse MPA management approaches are needed so that the appropriate mix of various management tools can be utilized, depending upon specific goals and conditions. Scientists have a professional and ethical duty to map out those paths that are most likely to lead to improved resource management and understanding of the natural world, including the human element, whether or not they are convenient, politically correct or publicly magnetic. 4. The use of MPAs as a vehicle for promoting long-term conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity is in need of focus, and both philosophical and applied tune ups. A new paradigm arising out of integrated, multi-disciplinary science, management and education/outreach efforts must be adopted to help promote flexible, diverse and effective MPA management strategies. Given scientific uncertainties, MPAs should be designed so one can learn from their application and adjust their management strategies as needed, in the true spirit of adaptive management. 5. It is critical for the conservation community to examine why honest differences of opinion regarding MPAs have emerged, and recognize that inflexible attitudes and positions are potentially dangerous. We therefore discuss several questions - heretofore taken as implicit assumptions: (a) what are MPAs, (b) what purpose do MPAs serve, (c) are no-take MPAs the only legitimate MPAs, (d) should a single closed area target be set for all MPAs, and (e) how should policymakers and conservation communities deal with scientific uncertainty?

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)353-367
    Number of pages15
    JournalAquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
    Volume13
    Issue number4
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Jul 2003

    Fingerprint

    protected area
    conservation areas
    uncertainty
    advocacy
    outreach
    ecological economics
    adaptive management
    natural resource management
    socioeconomics
    education
    resource management
    managers
    polarization
    biodiversity
    resource

    Cite this

    Agardy, T., Bridgewater, P., Crosby, M. P., Day, J., Dayton, P. K., Kenchington, R., ... Peau, L. (2003). Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 13(4), 353-367. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.583
    Agardy, Tundi ; Bridgewater, Peter ; Crosby, Michael P. ; Day, Jon ; Dayton, Paul K. ; Kenchington, Richard ; Laffoley, Dan ; McConney, Patrick ; Murray, Peter A. ; Parks, John E. ; Peau, Lelei. / Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas. In: Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 2003 ; Vol. 13, No. 4. pp. 353-367.
    @article{5ca9aa1f4a1d4274bad374569797f698,
    title = "Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas",
    abstract = "1. While conservationists, resource managers, scientists and coastal planners have recognized the broad applicability of marine protected areas (MPAs), they are often implemented without a firm understanding of the conservation science - both ecological and socio-economic - underlying marine protection. The rush to implement MPAs has set the stage for paradoxical differences of opinions in the marine conservation community. 2. The enthusiastic prescription of simplistic solutions to marine conservation problems risks polarization of interests and ultimately threatens bona fide progress in marine conservation. The blanket assignment and advocacy of empirically unsubstantiated rules of thumb in marine protection creates potentially dangerous targets for conservation science. 3. Clarity of definition, systematic testing of assumptions, and adaptive application of diverse MPA management approaches are needed so that the appropriate mix of various management tools can be utilized, depending upon specific goals and conditions. Scientists have a professional and ethical duty to map out those paths that are most likely to lead to improved resource management and understanding of the natural world, including the human element, whether or not they are convenient, politically correct or publicly magnetic. 4. The use of MPAs as a vehicle for promoting long-term conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity is in need of focus, and both philosophical and applied tune ups. A new paradigm arising out of integrated, multi-disciplinary science, management and education/outreach efforts must be adopted to help promote flexible, diverse and effective MPA management strategies. Given scientific uncertainties, MPAs should be designed so one can learn from their application and adjust their management strategies as needed, in the true spirit of adaptive management. 5. It is critical for the conservation community to examine why honest differences of opinion regarding MPAs have emerged, and recognize that inflexible attitudes and positions are potentially dangerous. We therefore discuss several questions - heretofore taken as implicit assumptions: (a) what are MPAs, (b) what purpose do MPAs serve, (c) are no-take MPAs the only legitimate MPAs, (d) should a single closed area target be set for all MPAs, and (e) how should policymakers and conservation communities deal with scientific uncertainty?",
    keywords = "'No take' marine reserve, Biodiversity, Conservation, Marine protected area, Multiple-use marine protected area, Sustainable use",
    author = "Tundi Agardy and Peter Bridgewater and Crosby, {Michael P.} and Jon Day and Dayton, {Paul K.} and Richard Kenchington and Dan Laffoley and Patrick McConney and Murray, {Peter A.} and Parks, {John E.} and Lelei Peau",
    year = "2003",
    month = "7",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1002/aqc.583",
    language = "English",
    volume = "13",
    pages = "353--367",
    journal = "Aquatic Conservation (Print)",
    issn = "1052-7613",
    publisher = "John Wiley & Sons",
    number = "4",

    }

    Agardy, T, Bridgewater, P, Crosby, MP, Day, J, Dayton, PK, Kenchington, R, Laffoley, D, McConney, P, Murray, PA, Parks, JE & Peau, L 2003, 'Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas', Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 353-367. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.583

    Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas. / Agardy, Tundi; Bridgewater, Peter; Crosby, Michael P.; Day, Jon; Dayton, Paul K.; Kenchington, Richard; Laffoley, Dan; McConney, Patrick; Murray, Peter A.; Parks, John E.; Peau, Lelei.

    In: Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, Vol. 13, No. 4, 01.07.2003, p. 353-367.

    Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas

    AU - Agardy, Tundi

    AU - Bridgewater, Peter

    AU - Crosby, Michael P.

    AU - Day, Jon

    AU - Dayton, Paul K.

    AU - Kenchington, Richard

    AU - Laffoley, Dan

    AU - McConney, Patrick

    AU - Murray, Peter A.

    AU - Parks, John E.

    AU - Peau, Lelei

    PY - 2003/7/1

    Y1 - 2003/7/1

    N2 - 1. While conservationists, resource managers, scientists and coastal planners have recognized the broad applicability of marine protected areas (MPAs), they are often implemented without a firm understanding of the conservation science - both ecological and socio-economic - underlying marine protection. The rush to implement MPAs has set the stage for paradoxical differences of opinions in the marine conservation community. 2. The enthusiastic prescription of simplistic solutions to marine conservation problems risks polarization of interests and ultimately threatens bona fide progress in marine conservation. The blanket assignment and advocacy of empirically unsubstantiated rules of thumb in marine protection creates potentially dangerous targets for conservation science. 3. Clarity of definition, systematic testing of assumptions, and adaptive application of diverse MPA management approaches are needed so that the appropriate mix of various management tools can be utilized, depending upon specific goals and conditions. Scientists have a professional and ethical duty to map out those paths that are most likely to lead to improved resource management and understanding of the natural world, including the human element, whether or not they are convenient, politically correct or publicly magnetic. 4. The use of MPAs as a vehicle for promoting long-term conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity is in need of focus, and both philosophical and applied tune ups. A new paradigm arising out of integrated, multi-disciplinary science, management and education/outreach efforts must be adopted to help promote flexible, diverse and effective MPA management strategies. Given scientific uncertainties, MPAs should be designed so one can learn from their application and adjust their management strategies as needed, in the true spirit of adaptive management. 5. It is critical for the conservation community to examine why honest differences of opinion regarding MPAs have emerged, and recognize that inflexible attitudes and positions are potentially dangerous. We therefore discuss several questions - heretofore taken as implicit assumptions: (a) what are MPAs, (b) what purpose do MPAs serve, (c) are no-take MPAs the only legitimate MPAs, (d) should a single closed area target be set for all MPAs, and (e) how should policymakers and conservation communities deal with scientific uncertainty?

    AB - 1. While conservationists, resource managers, scientists and coastal planners have recognized the broad applicability of marine protected areas (MPAs), they are often implemented without a firm understanding of the conservation science - both ecological and socio-economic - underlying marine protection. The rush to implement MPAs has set the stage for paradoxical differences of opinions in the marine conservation community. 2. The enthusiastic prescription of simplistic solutions to marine conservation problems risks polarization of interests and ultimately threatens bona fide progress in marine conservation. The blanket assignment and advocacy of empirically unsubstantiated rules of thumb in marine protection creates potentially dangerous targets for conservation science. 3. Clarity of definition, systematic testing of assumptions, and adaptive application of diverse MPA management approaches are needed so that the appropriate mix of various management tools can be utilized, depending upon specific goals and conditions. Scientists have a professional and ethical duty to map out those paths that are most likely to lead to improved resource management and understanding of the natural world, including the human element, whether or not they are convenient, politically correct or publicly magnetic. 4. The use of MPAs as a vehicle for promoting long-term conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity is in need of focus, and both philosophical and applied tune ups. A new paradigm arising out of integrated, multi-disciplinary science, management and education/outreach efforts must be adopted to help promote flexible, diverse and effective MPA management strategies. Given scientific uncertainties, MPAs should be designed so one can learn from their application and adjust their management strategies as needed, in the true spirit of adaptive management. 5. It is critical for the conservation community to examine why honest differences of opinion regarding MPAs have emerged, and recognize that inflexible attitudes and positions are potentially dangerous. We therefore discuss several questions - heretofore taken as implicit assumptions: (a) what are MPAs, (b) what purpose do MPAs serve, (c) are no-take MPAs the only legitimate MPAs, (d) should a single closed area target be set for all MPAs, and (e) how should policymakers and conservation communities deal with scientific uncertainty?

    KW - 'No take' marine reserve

    KW - Biodiversity

    KW - Conservation

    KW - Marine protected area

    KW - Multiple-use marine protected area

    KW - Sustainable use

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0042850517&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1002/aqc.583

    DO - 10.1002/aqc.583

    M3 - Review article

    VL - 13

    SP - 353

    EP - 367

    JO - Aquatic Conservation (Print)

    JF - Aquatic Conservation (Print)

    SN - 1052-7613

    IS - 4

    ER -