|Variable Component Type||Governance System|
|Theme||Biophysical (learn about themes)|
|Question||Does the marine protected area protect an ecologically coherent area (i.e., limited or protected by deep water or sand) within no-take zones?|
|Select Options||1 Low, 2 Medium, 3 High|
|Importance||MPAs with clear physical delineation of habitats, such as an area of deep water (>25m) or a large expanse of sand from MPAs with shallow reef habitat extending to fished areas (“isolation”) has been found to be a categorical factor that has a strong influence on an increase in fish community level biomass and richness metrics (Edgar et al. 2014). This may be because compliance may be higher in these MPAs because they are well demarcated and readily recognised by fishers and more easily policed than coastlines with complicated mosaics of zoning.|
This variable was defined by Edgar et al. (2014) and termed ‘isolation’, referring to the degree that the protected/unfished reef habitat is isolated by habitat boundaries from adjacent fished reef, e.g by deeper water (>,25m) or an expanse of sand.
Check to see if this MPA was coded by Edgar et al.(2014) and if so use the ‘isolation’ rank assigned in their paper (column F “isolation” in the Excel Supplementary Material: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7487/extref/nature13022-s1.xlsx
Otherwise rankings to be used are:
Low: shallow (,25 m) reef habitat extends continuously across MPA boundary
Medium: a small (1–20%) percentage of zone boundary breached by continuous shallow reef habitat
High: MPA zone isolated from fishing areas by depth (.25m) or sand barriers of at least 20m width.
Note - if an island is all no take then it is classed as High.
|Sectors||Marine protected areas|
|Ecological effectiveness of MPAs||Yes|
|Raja Ampat Governance System||Medium (2)||Coded as medium as some of the MPAs are all no take, but others aren't. And from the zoning map it appears not all reefs are included within MPAs, e.g. in Mayalilbit the MPA covers a portion of the reef area, and Dampier Strait some there is no clear boundary at the south-east portion of this MPA.|
|GBR Marine Park Act 2004-current||Low (1)||The coastal MPA and GBRMPA are adjacent to the coast and are not separated by deep water or sand.|
|NWHI Monument Act 2006||Low (1)||The Monument boundary extends into deep, pelagic waters so not clearly delineated|
|Wakatobi National Park 2008-current||Medium (2)||The MPA as a whole covers an ecologically coherent area. Some of the no-take zones cover full reefs/atolls (fulfilling this variable), but some no-take zones are only portions of continuous reef, therefore coded as medium.|
|Joint Sanctuary Management Governance System||Low (1)||The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary was coded "Low" by Edgar and these Sanctuaries are is very similar. The sanctuaries compose of a diverse set of bottom habitats and fluctuating depths from bays and estuaries and from shoreline to the continental shelf. These NMS are adjacent to heavily populated coastline, but certain areas are further away, more coherent, and (e.g. Cordell Bank) are more isolated.|
|Seaflower MPA Act 2005||Medium (2)||I would imagine give that it is considerably large. At least this is the case for different habitat types.|
|Svalbard Environmental Protection Act||Low (1)||The Nature Reserves, which protect both land and sea regions, are based more around terrestrial geography (the islands) than on oceanic ecology. Boundaries in the marine zone merely follow 12nm around the islands which are protected.|
|GBR Marine Park Act 1975-1999||Low (1)||The Coastal MPA and GBRMPA are adjacent to land they are not protected by deep water or sand.|
|Galapagos Governance System 1998-current||Low (1)||Edgar coded 3 different parts of the GMR: two as low and one as medium - therefore coded as low here.|
|Macquarie Island Marine Park Management Plan||Low (1)||No-take areas are not clearly distinguished from habitat species management zone on the basis of depth or benthic characteristics.|
|GABMP (Commonwealth Waters) Plan of Management 2000 - 2005 and Management Plan 2005 - 2012||Low (1)||The MMPZ and the BPZ of the GABMP (CW) are not isolated by habitat boundaries. The MMPZ is adjacent to the South Australian GABMP (State) and extends from 3 nautical miles to approximately 12 nautical miles offshore and the BPZ is a 20 nautical miles wide zone that extends to the edge of Australia's Exclusive Economic Zone.|
|Heard Island and McDonald Islands Fishery Management Plan||Not Applicable|
|Heard and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve Management Plan||Low (1)||The MPA is based on CAR principles (being comprehensive, adequate and representative), thus on having a certain percentage of habitats covered. In some areas, it has some coherence (e.g., protecting an entire bank), but in other areas, it has little to no coherence (e.g., MPA boundaries draw as hard lines and squares with on apparent ecologically significance).|
|Cenderwasih governance system||Low (1)||There is no clear deliniation of boundaries- the MPA covers half of a large bay. No-take areas are fairly small but focus on reefs and islands, and so are probably likely visable|
Basic:A basic variable describes essential and basic background information for a component.
Biophysical:Biophysical variables describe just that: important biophysical properties, largely of environmental commons, that are not captured by a more specific theme.
Causation:A variable with this theme describes issues of causality, which is a complex subject. Most basically this theme is associated with variables that describe different types of causation and different types of causes of environmental problems.
Context:contextual variable relates the component with which it associated to the social and/or ecological setting of a particular interaction and/or case.
Ecosystem services:Variables associated with this theme describe factors that affect or describe the provision of important ecosystem services by a natural resource.
Enforcement:Enforcement involves several different processes, including monitoring for violations of rules, sanctioning violators, and conflict resolution mechanisms involved in this process. Variables that relate to any of these processes should be attached to this theme.
External:Variables with this theme relate a component to processes external to the case with which the component is associated.
Heterogeneity:Variables with this theme describe important ways in which the member of an actor group differ from each other.
Incentives: This theme is associated with variables that are not directly related to institutions and rules, but which still play a role in affecting the incentives that commons users have to ameliorate or exacerbate the commons they use.
Institutional-biophysical linkage:This is a sub-theme of the institutions theme, and describes those variables that ask about the relationship between a set of institutions and a biophysical aspect of a commons.
Institutions:Variables with this theme describe the social institutions (rules, property rights) that are used to organize and direct human behavior. It does not include monitoring and enforcement of these institutions, as these are associated with the Enforcement theme.
Knowledge and uncertainty:Variables with this theme describe levels of knowledge that actor groups have regarding a commons, as well as factors that affect how much uncertainty there is in the status and dynamics of that commons.
Leadership:Leaders play an important role in commons management, most traditionally by providing for public goods needed to organize commons users. But there are other possible roles, and variables associated with this theme can relate to any role that a leader might play in an interaction.
Outcomes:This theme is attached to variables that deal with any outcomes that are produced by the actions of relevant actors in an interaction.
Resource renewability:Variables associated with this theme deal with the ability of a natural resource to be highly productive and renewable.
Social capital:Social capital captures the processes that enable the members of an actor group to work effectively together. Variables associated with this theme describe factors that affect or in some way express the level of social capital among members of a group.
Spatial:Variables associated with the Spatial theme describe important spatial patterns or dynamics, such as the spatial heterogeneity of a commons, or whether or not a user group resides within a particular commons.
Technology:This theme is attached to variables that consider the role that technology and infrastructure have in affecting commons outcomes.