{"database":"biostudies-literature","file_versions":[],"scores":null,"additional":{"submitter":["Gill DA"],"funding":["National Science Foundation (NSF)","Waitt Foundation (WF)","Danish Independent Research Council","Arnhold UC Santa Barbara- Conservation International Climate Solutions Collaborative","David H Smith Conservation Fellowship","Waitt Foundation","National Science Foundation"],"pagination":["e2313205121"],"full_dataset_link":["https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC10927568"],"repository":["biostudies-literature"],"omics_type":["Unknown"],"volume":["121(10)"],"pubmed_abstract":["Marine protected areas (MPAs) are widely used for ocean conservation, yet the relative impacts of various types of MPAs are poorly understood. We estimated impacts on fish biomass from no-take and multiple-use (fished) MPAs, employing a rigorous matched counterfactual design with a global dataset of >14,000 surveys in and around 216 MPAs. Both no-take and multiple-use MPAs generated positive conservation outcomes relative to no protection (58.2% and 12.6% fish biomass increases, respectively), with smaller estimated differences between the two MPA types when controlling for additional confounding factors (8.3% increase). Relative performance depended on context and management: no-take MPAs performed better in areas of high human pressure but similar to multiple-use in remote locations. Multiple-use MPA performance was low in high-pressure areas but improved significantly with better management, producing similar outcomes to no-take MPAs when adequately staffed and appropriate use regulations were applied. For priority conservation areas where no-take restrictions are not possible or ethical, our findings show that a portfolio of well-designed and well-managed multiple-use MPAs represents a viable and potentially equitable pathway to advance local and global conservation."],"journal":["Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America"],"pubmed_title":["A diverse portfolio of marine protected areas can better advance global conservation and equity."],"pmcid":["PMC10927568"],"funding_grant_id":["0165-00018B","DBI-1052875","-"],"pubmed_authors":["Lester SE","Mascia MB","Darling ES","Geldmann J","Mesa-Gutierrez R","Free CM","Edgar GJ","Reich BJ","Fox HE","Pfaff A","Mumby PJ","Gill DA","Ahmadia G","Veverka L","Iversen E","Warmuth LM","Yang S","Trung Le D","Andradi-Brown DA"],"additional_accession":[]},"is_claimable":false,"name":"A diverse portfolio of marine protected areas can better advance global conservation and equity.","description":"Marine protected areas (MPAs) are widely used for ocean conservation, yet the relative impacts of various types of MPAs are poorly understood. We estimated impacts on fish biomass from no-take and multiple-use (fished) MPAs, employing a rigorous matched counterfactual design with a global dataset of >14,000 surveys in and around 216 MPAs. Both no-take and multiple-use MPAs generated positive conservation outcomes relative to no protection (58.2% and 12.6% fish biomass increases, respectively), with smaller estimated differences between the two MPA types when controlling for additional confounding factors (8.3% increase). Relative performance depended on context and management: no-take MPAs performed better in areas of high human pressure but similar to multiple-use in remote locations. Multiple-use MPA performance was low in high-pressure areas but improved significantly with better management, producing similar outcomes to no-take MPAs when adequately staffed and appropriate use regulations were applied. For priority conservation areas where no-take restrictions are not possible or ethical, our findings show that a portfolio of well-designed and well-managed multiple-use MPAs represents a viable and potentially equitable pathway to advance local and global conservation.","dates":{"release":"2024-01-01T00:00:00Z","publication":"2024 Mar","modification":"2025-04-21T15:27:55.118Z","creation":"2025-04-21T15:27:55.118Z"},"accession":"S-EPMC10927568","cross_references":{"pubmed":["38408235"],"doi":["10.1073/pnas.2313205121"]}}