CHAPTER ONE

Introduction to MarineManaged AreasRay Hilborn1School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Box 355020, Seattle,Washington, 98195, USA1Corresponding author: e-mail address: hilbornr@gmail.com

Contents

1. Introduction 21.1 Background history of MPAs 21.2 Objectives 4

2. Models and Theory 63. Empirical Data 84. Conclusions 9References 11

Abstract

No issue in marine conservation and management seems to have generated as muchinterest, and controversy as marine protected areas (MPAs). In the past 30 years, a sub-stantial scientific literature on the subject has developed, international agreements haveset targets for proportion of the sea to be protected, and hundreds of millions of dollarshave been spent on research and advocacy for MPA establishment. While the objectivesof MPAs are diverse, few studies evaluate the success of MPAs against stated objectives.It is clear that well-enforced MPAs will protect enough fish from exploitation that withinreserves abundance increases, fish live to be larger, and measures of diversity are higher.What is much more poorly understood is the impacts of reserve establishment on areasoutside reserves. Theory suggests that when stocks are seriously overfished outsidereserves, the yield and abundance outside the reserves may be increased by spilloverfrom the reserve. When stocks are not overexploited, reserve establishment will likelydecrease the total yield. The chapters in this volume explore a broad set of case studiesof MPAs, their objectives and their outcomes.

Keywords: Marine protected areas, MPAs, Closed areas, Spatially explicit management,Fisheries management, Marine reserves

Advances in Marine Biology, Volume 69 # 2014 Elsevier LtdISSN 0065-2881 All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800214-8.00001-3

1

1. INTRODUCTION

This chapter is intended to review a bit of history of MPAs and set the

stage for the case studies in this volume. It is very much a personal perspec-

tive and is certainly not intended to be a thorough literature review.

1.1. Background history of MPAsClosed areas have always been a part of fisheries management. Traditional

fishing practices in the Western Pacific as documented by Johannes

(1978) and others almost always included areas that were closed to protect

spawning or juveniles. Johannes highlights marine tenure as the underlying

concept of traditional fisheries management in the Pacific, and later, in his

list of methods used, closures are mentioned as the first and most ubiquitous

method. McClenachan and Kittinger (2013) describe traditional fishing

practices in Hawaii and also found that closed areas were one of the most

common elements of fisheries management by the Polynesians.

In western fisheries management, too, closed areas have been an integral

part of the toolkit. Areas closed to protect such critical habitats as spawning or

juvenile-rearing areas are documented as far back as the nineteenth century

(FisheryBoard of Scotland, 1895).Management of salmon inAlaska has relied

primarily on permanently closing most areas to fishing and regulating harvest

through short-termopenings of some specific areas (Clark et al., 2006).How-

ever, most other western fisheries management has relied on closing areas

for specific species with specific gears only, while few areas were designated

as permanently closed to all fishing—that is, there were few no-take areas.

However, beginning in the 1990s, a movement began to set aside signif-

icant areas of the ocean as permanent no-take areas. A review of the scientific

literature shows that papers published with ‘marine reserve’ or ‘marine

protected area’ in the title or abstract (Fig. 1.1) were rare before the

1990s, became more frequent around 2000, and rose to 270 in 2013.

The development of the MPA literature in the 1990s and 2000s was

often supported by major funding from US Foundations and NGOs advo-

cating the establishment of MPAs and reflected an increasing concern about

the state of marine ecosystems:

In light of the declining catches and failure of many marine fisheries, biologistsdissatisfied with the effectiveness of current management practices have recentlyadvocated the use of harvest refuges as a potentially effective strategy forprotecting and/or enhancing harvestable stocks.

Carr and Reed (1993)

2 Ray Hilborn

However, it was not only the perceived failure of the management of marine

fisheries that provided impetus for the MPA movement but also a broader

concern with the state of the oceans in general. At the AAAS meeting in

2001, a group of 161 marine scientists released a consensus statement on

the need for marine reserves that began

The declining state of the oceans and the collapse of many fisheries have created acritical need for new and more effective management of marine biodiversity,populations of exploited species and overall health of the oceans. Marine reservesare a highly effective but under-appreciated and under-utilized tool that can helpalleviate many of these problems.

The idea that MPAs are an effective way to manage fisheries was widely

accepted. For instance, ‘What reserves offer that other management tools

cannot is an ability to control fishing rates in a manner that is relatively easy

to enforce and requires relatively little scientific information (Nowlis and

Friedlander, 2005)’. Clearly, any tool that is effective and easy, and, best

of all, requiring little scientific information would be irresistible.

Between 2007 and 2009, US Foundations and NGOs spent

$250,000,000 per year onmarine conservation with much of this supporting

research on MPAs and advocating for their establishment (California

Environmental Associates, 2012; Fig. 4.1). This is the only period where

such numbers are available but such funding has been going on since the

1990s. These efforts have indeed been very successful in many countries.

International agreements, through the Convention on Biodiversity,

accepted a target of 10% of the ocean to be designated as MPAs by 2020.

19790

50

100

150

200

250

300

1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997

Year

Num

ber

of p

ape

rs

2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Figure 1.1 The number of papers published each year with ‘marine reserve’ or ‘marineprotected area’ in the title or abstract.

3Introduction

The United States and Australia in particular declared large areas of their

economic zones to be so protected. In the United States, primarily in Alaska

and in the Western Pacific, over two-thirds of the economic zones were

qualified as MPAs because of the prohibition of bottom trawling.

A key characteristic of the MPA movement is that it has largely been

driven by concerns of biodiversity, and that its advocates have come almost

exclusively from the marine biology community. Little attention has been

paid, however, to the broader implications of potentially restricting food

production and food security or how it might affect people (Hilborn,

2013). Perhaps most worrying, though, is that establishing MPAs seems

to have become an end in itself, the benefits being so self-evident that

any careful statement of objectives or evaluation was clearly unnecessary.

This self-evident nature of benefits is clearly reflected in the second sentence

of the 2001 consensus statement: ‘Marine reserves are a highly effective but

under-appreciated and under-utilized tool that can help alleviate many of

these problems’. The assertion that marine reserves are ‘highly effective

. . . (and) can help alleviate many of these problems’ needs to be critically

assessed, and to do that we need to look at their objectives.

1.2. ObjectivesProtected areas can provide many benefits to marine ecosystems that can

include (1) protection of biodiversity, (2) more tourism, (3) more fish pro-

duction and better yields, (4) providing reference sites for evaluating human

impacts and (5) providing a safety net of resources for times of need. The

traditional practices discussed earlier were generally meant to enhance fish

production and provide a safety net. Protecting spawning and/or juvenile

habitat can have clear benefits through preserving the fish stocks and there-

fore were commonly included as part of fisheries management systems; they

can be ‘traditional’ or associated with a centralised governmental manage-

ment of fish resources.

The oceans are indeed under a broad range of threats including climate

change, ocean acidification, pollution, loss of coastal habitat for breeding

grounds, land-based runoff of sediments, overfishing and destructive fishing

practices (Sutherland et al., 2012). MPAs, because they can only address

overfishing and destructive fishing practices, have their limits as a manage-

ment tool. The great threats of climate change, ocean acidification,

pollution and land-based impacts are immune to MPAs. Furthermore,

where the MPAs are being established is usually related to the current

4 Ray Hilborn

distribution of habitats, and those appear to be changing along with the

global climate.

A key driver of theMPAmovement was the litany of clear fisheries man-

agement failures leading to the collapse of a number of fisheries in the 1990s,

most dramatically that of the northern cod (Gadus morhua) fishery of

Newfoundland. The fisheries management systems of the 1990s were obvi-

ously failing to protect many fish stocks, and the advocates of MPAs suggested

that fish yields would be improved by their establishment. The document

‘The Science of Marine Reserves’ (Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies

of Coastal Oceans, 2002) stated that reserves boost the productivity of

fisheries outside their boundaries and argued that benefits to fisheries would

be maximised if 40% of the total area was closed to fishing.

The push for MPAs was centred in the west coast of the United States,

where the David and Lucile Packard Foundation provided tens of millions of

dollars in support for research and advocacy. Most of the academics who led

the MPA movement were located on the west coast, the National Science

Foundation’s National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis

(NCEAS) in Santa Barbara provided a nexus for the scientific and advocacy

work, and two programmes to establish MPAs were implemented in

California. In the first of these programmes, a set of marine reserves in

the Channel Islands of Southern California was established in 2003, and

it was argued that MPAs would provide strong benefits to fisheries. Later,

a much more extensive set of reserves was established along the entire

California coast, and I participated in the science advice teams for part of

that process.

By the late 2000s, the arguments had fundamentally changed. The sci-

ence teams were explicitly told that the establishment of reserves was not

to be considered part of the fisheries management system, but that theMPAs

were established primarily for the purpose of biodiversity. This reflects,

I believe, a major change in the focus of much of the MPA advocacy move-

ment, at least in those countries that have effective fisheries management sys-

tems, and stems from a general recognition that in many countries fisheries

management has changed significantly since the 1990s and that the current

management systems can, and do, effectively protect fish stocks.

As context for the chapters in this volume, I would like to review what

we now know about the impact of MPAs on a range of objectives including

the abundance of fish, the functioning of ecosystems and the provision of

food security. First, I will discuss what we know from models then what

we have learned from empirical analysis.

5Introduction

2. MODELS AND THEORY

Models have been used to evaluate the impacts of closed areas on abun-

dance and potential fish yield at least since Beverton and Holt’s classic 1957

book (Beverton and Holt, 1957). In section 10.2, they explore the impact

on yield and abundance of protecting portions of the population from fishing.

The subject appeared to lie dormant until the 1990s with the exception of

Sluczanowski (1984), who explored rotational harvest strategies using models

similar to Beverton andHolt. In the 1990s and early 2000s, a substantial num-

ber of modelling papers were published including Polacheck (1990),

DeMartini (1993), Sumaila (1998), Guenette and Pitcher (1999), Maury

and Gascuel (1999), Dahlgren and Sobel (2000), Jennings (2000), Mangel

(2000), Pezzey et al. (2000) and Stockhausen et al. (2000).

Gerber et al. (2003) provided a review of 34 models that had been pub-

lished. They found that all but one were single-species models, most

assumed uniform distribution of larvae between closed and open areas, most

assumed that density dependence happened post-dispersal, most assumed no

age structure and sedentary adults and most were deterministic models with

permanent closed areas.

Emerging from the models available up to 2003 were four conclusions

(Botsford et al., 2003). (1) The effects on yield per recruit of adding reserves

are essentially the same as increasing the size limit. (2) The effect on yield of

adding reserves is practically the same as decreasing fishing mortality. (3)

Reserves for preserving biodiversity are most effective for species with

low rates of juvenile and adult movement, while reserves for fishery man-

agement are most effective for species with intermediate rates of adult move-

ment. (4) Larger fractions of coastline in reserves are required for species

with longer dispersal.

The key result in terms of benefiting fisheries yield was that when fishing

mortality rates were in the range that produced maximum sustainable yields,

there were no fishery benefits. When fishing mortality rates were signifi-

cantly above those that produce maximum sustainable yields, then fisheries

yields can be improved by protected areas. The key missing elements from

models of up to 2003 were multispecies evaluations, explicit models of fleet

movement and profitability and spatially explicit models that could represent

habitat variation.

Hilborn et al. (2006) provided a spatially explicit model of a coastline

with vessel movement and consideration of fisheries regulations and

6 Ray Hilborn

demonstrated that appropriate catch regulation always provided better yield

outcomes than any MPA pattern. Walters et al. (2007) provided the spatially

explicit models that could be used to evaluate proposed MPA designs that

included site-specific habitat information and a dynamic fleet movement

model. This approach was extended by Costello et al. (2010) who included

multispecies models and explicit larval dispersal models based on models of

oceanic currents and larval behaviour. Both theWalters and Costello models

have the potential for source–sink dynamics—that is where particularly

good habitats generate much of the production of larvae that can then

migrate to habitats suitable for growth but not for reproduction. The

source–sink dynamics provide a circumstance where even when fishing

mortality rates are well regulated outside reserves, fish yields can be

improved by specific patterns of MPA location—specifically by closing

the most productive ‘source’ habitats. The historical use of closed areas

for protection of spawning and juvenile rearing was, in essence, the recog-

nition of source–sink dynamics.

These more recent models demonstrate several results that are perhaps

surprising. While it is almost always the case that abundance of fish will

increase inside the reserves if fishing is indeed stopped, depending on

how fisheries are regulated outside the reserves, total abundance may actu-

ally decline when reserves are implemented when the displaced effort ends

up overexploiting stocks outside the reserves. Much of the early literature

emphasised that MPAs, if properly sized, could provide the same fishery

benefits as catch regulation. However, the size has to be exactly tuned to

the dispersal of the fish, and with multiple species, it is usually impossible

for the reserve(s) to be the right size for each species. For species that move

little, fisheries benefits will be maximised with small reserves, but for highly

dispersive species, reserves must be much larger. Large reserves essentially

lock up biomass of low-dispersal species and reduce potential fishery yield.

Fisheries management tools that are species specific can be muchmore effec-

tive at managing mixed fisheries than no-take areas. For instance, Branch

and Hilborn (2008) showed that the individual vessel quotas in the British

Columbia demersal fishery provided incentives for the fishing vessels to be

very site specific in their fishing locations, thereby allowing them to avoid

species for which there was little quota.

A key feature of no-take areas is that they will increase fishing pressure

outside reserves, often called displacement. The naıve vision of lots of large

fish inside reserves did not consider the consequences of more fishing pres-

sure elsewhere and the negative consequences of this displacement. A key

7Introduction

question in any reserve design or evaluation is whether the benefits inside

reserves are more than offset the negative impacts of extra fishing pressure

outside reserves (Fogarty and Botsford, 2007). When stocks are seriously

overfished, the extra pressure outside the reserves appears to be far more than

compensated by the benefits inside reserves, but when stocks are not over-

fished, the opposite appears to be the case. I believe that the MPA advocacy

movement strongly believed that almost all fisheries were overexploited so

that it would be highly likely that the fisheries would benefit from the

reserves.

3. EMPIRICAL DATA

As mentioned earlier, NCEAS provided the nexus of activity among

marine ecologists in MPA science and advocacy, and especially with a series

of papers regarding what is known about MPA impact on abundance inside

reserves. Halpern and Warner (2002) provided the first meta-analysis of

changes within reserves, showing that density of individuals, total fish bio-

mass, average size and diversity indices were higher inside reserves than out-

side. An obvious concern about such comparisons is that the abundance

outside the reserves will be affected by effort displacement. Later papers

(Halpern, 2003; Lester et al., 2009) expanded the analysis to include before

and after comparisons. A recent paper by authors largely outside the NCEAS

network (Edgar et al., 2014) identified five conditions under which reserves

were most likely to increase abundance of fish inside reserves, and these

include (1) the reserves are no-take, (2) there is effective enforcement, (3)

the MPAs have been in place for a significant period of time, (4) the MPAs

are large and (5) the MPAs are isolated either by distance or by habitat bar-

riers. Of course increased abundance inside reserves is a necessary condition

for almost all objectives of reserves, but it does not indicate that there are any

benefits outside.

I believe we can say with confidence that the empirical data show that

MPAs will increase the abundance of targeted fish species inside the reserves

if most of the above conditions are met. But empirical data are lacking on the

impact of reserve implementation on abundance of fish outside reserves and

the impact of reserves on fisheries yields. While there are some individual

studies, there has not yet been a meta-analysis of those impacts, and the dif-

ficulties of experimental design may be very hard to overcome. If abundance

rises both inside and outside reserves, was this due to the MPA spillover or

was there a change in environmental conditions? For instance, Roberts et al.

8 Ray Hilborn

(2001) showed data on abundance inside and outside, before and after, from

St. Lucia. Abundance increased after reserve implementation both inside and

outside, but more inside roughly tripling on the inside and doubling on the

outside. However, abundance on the outside and on the inside increased in

the first year, something that could not have been due to increased abun-

dance inside and spillover when dealing with fish species that do not mature

until they are several years old (Hilborn, 2002).

One of the most convincing studies for fishery benefits is found in

Kerwath et al. (2013) who have data not only from inside and outside

reserves and before and after implementation, but also from other, similar

sites that are at quite a distance and where no reserves have been

established—presumably the best control possible. Catch and catch per unit

effort (CPUE) near the MPA increased after MPA establishment, but did

not increase at more distant sites, and unlike the Roberts study, the increase

in outside the reserves was not instantaneous but took several years to

develop.

Hamilton et al. (2010) presented preliminary evaluations of the Channel

Islands marine reserves established in California, and these results were very

consistent with models. The fisheries outside the reserves are well regulated,

and the abundance of target species inside increased after the reserves were

established, whereas they decreased outside. Their analysis did not compute

total abundance, but it appears that total abundance of target species likely

decreased or stayed the same after reserve establishment. This paper only had

data for the first few years after reserve establishment so caution is need in

interpreting the results.

4. CONCLUSIONS

Closed areas, both permanent and temporary, are a significant tool in

marine resource management but, before reserves are implemented, objec-

tives need to be clearly defined and an evaluation framework established.

For those who see MPAs as an end in itself, it is important that they be per-

manent. But if we consider MPAs as a tool to achieve social objectives, we

must evaluate what has happened against the objectives of the programme

and be prepared to change theMPA design whichmight involvemoving the

MPA, or expanding or reducing their size.

We need to also consider the cost of implementing, enforcing and

monitoring reserves as opposed to other possible expenditures that can yield

the same benefits. A key lesson from the Marine Life Protection Act in

9Introduction

California and much experience in the developing world is that you must

consult with user groups (Weible, 2008). This consultation is very expen-

sive, the MLPA process in California, for example, costs tens of millions

of dollars. Indeed, the State of California alone could not have afforded

the process, and in the end, the many years of meetings, consultation and

analysis were largely funded by the same foundations that had funded the

initial advocacy that led to the passage of the law. The programme officer

of the US Foundation told me recently that after reviewing the expenditures

on MPAs, it was clear that the money would have been more effectively

spent on improving fisheries management.

We need to abandon the acceptance of MPAs as an end in itself with the

sole objective to increase abundance inside reserves. More case studies of

reserves are needed to evaluate the range of objectives and the performance

of the MPAs against those objectives. Peter Kareiva and others (Kareiva and

Marvier, 2012; Kareiva et al., 2011) have argued that conservation needs to

move beyond protected areas as the central tool and protects biodiversity in

areas that people use by working with resource-dependent communities.

The vehement rejection of these ideas by many in the conservation commu-

nity (Soule, 2013) reflects a divide found in both marine and terrestrial

conservation.

What follows in this collection is a major step in this direction. These

papers consider the range of possible objectives and most attempt to evaluate

the performance of the MPAs accordingly.

I would like to close this introduction with two quotes that, while more

than a decade old, seem just as relevant today.

The rush to implement MPAs has set the stage for paradoxical differences of opin-ions in the marine conservation community. The enthusiastic prescription of sim-plistic solutions to marine conservation problems risks polarization of interests andultimately threatens bona fide progress in marine conservation. The blanketassignment and advocacy of empirically unsubstantiated rules of thumb in marineprotection creates potentially dangerous targets for conservation science. Clarity ofdefinition, systematic testing of assumptions, and adaptive application of diverseMPA management approaches are needed so that the appropriate mix of variousmanagement tools can be utilized, depending upon specific goals and conditions.Scientists have a professional and ethical duty to map out those paths that aremost likely to lead to improved resource management and understanding ofthe natural world, including the human element, whether or not they are conve-nient, politically correct or publicly magnetic. The use of MPAs as a vehicle for pro-moting long-term conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity is inneed of focus, and both philosophical and applied tune ups.

Agardy et al. (2003)

10 Ray Hilborn

Marine reserves, together with other fishery management tools, can help achievebroad fishery and biodiversity objectives, but their use will require careful planningand evaluation. Mistakes will be made, and without planning, monitoring andevaluation, we will not learn what worked, what did not, and why. If marinereserves are implemented without case by case evaluation and appropriate mon-itoring programs, there is a risk of unfulfilled expectations, the creation of disincen-tives, and a loss of credibility of what potentially is a valuable management tool.

Hilborn et al. (2004)

REFERENCESAgardy, T., Bridgewater, P., Crosby, M.P., Day, J., Dayton, P.K., Kenchington, R.,

Laffoley, D.,Mcconney, P.,Murray, P.A., Parks, J.E., Peau, L., 2003. Dangerous targets?unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas. Aquat. Conserv.13, 353–367.

Beverton, R.J.H., Holt, S.J., 1957. On the Dynamics of Exploited Fish Populations. HerMajesties Stationary Office, London.

Botsford, L.W., Micheli, F., Hastings, A., 2003. Principles for the design of marine reserves.Ecol. Appl. 13(Suppl.), S25–S31.

Branch, T.A., Hilborn, R., 2008. Matching catches to quotas in a multispecies trawl fishery:targeting and avoidance behavior under individual transferable quotas. Can. J. Fish.Aquat. Sci. 68, 1435–1446.

California Environmental Associates, 2012. Charting a Course to Sustainable Fisheries. SanFrancisco California. Available at, http://www.packard.org/what-were-learning/resource/charting-a-course-to-sustainable-fisheries/.

Carr, M.H., Reed, D.C., 1993. Conceptual issues relevant to marine harvest refuges—examples from temperate reef fishes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50, 2019–2028.

Clark, J.H., Mcgregor, A., Mecum, R.D., Krasnowski, P., Carroll, A.M., 2006. The com-mercial salmon fishery in Alaska. Alaska Fish. Res. Bull. 12, 1–146.

Costello, C., Rassweiler, A., Siegel, D., De Leo, G., Micheli, F., Rosenberg, A., 2010. Thevalue of spatial information in MPA network design. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.107, 18294–18299.

Dahlgren, C.P., Sobel, J., 2000. Designing a Dry Tortugas ecological reserve: how big is bigenough? . . . to do what? Bull. Mar. Sci. 66, 707–719.

Demartini, E.E., 1993. Modeling the potential for fishery reserves for managing pacific coralreef fishes. Fish. Bull. 91, 414–427.

Edgar, G.J., Stuart-Smith, R.D., Willis, T.J., Kininmonth, S., Baker, S.C., Banks, S.,Barrett, N.S., Becerro, M.A., Bernard, A.T.F., Berkhout, J., Buxton, C.D.,Campbell, S.J., Cooper, A.T., Davey, M., Edgar, S.C., Forsterra, G., Galvan, D.E.,Irigoyen, A.J., Kushner, D.J., Moura, R., Parnell, P.E., Shears, N.T., Soler, G.,Strain, E.M.A., Thomson, R.J., 2014. Global conservation outcomes depend on marineprotected areas with five key features. Nature 506, 216–220.

Fishery Board of Scotland, 1895. Fourteenth Annual Report of the Fishery Board ofScotland. House of Commons Parliamentary Papers Online. ProQuest Information andLearning Company. http://www.proquest.com/products-services/House-of-Commons-Parliamentary-Papers.html.

Fogarty, M.J., Botsford, L., 2007. Population connectivity and spatial management of marinefisheries. Oceanography 20, 112.

Gerber, L.R., Botsford, L.W., Hastings, A., Possingham, H.P., Gaines, S.D., Palumbi, S.R.,Andelman, S.J., 2003. Population models for marine reserve design: a retrospective andprospective synthesis. Ecol. Appl. 13, S47–S64.

11Introduction

Guenette, S., Pitcher, T.J., 1999. An age-structured model showing the benefits of marinereserves in controlling overexploitation. Fish. Res. 39, 295–303.

Halpern, B.S., 2003. The impact of marine reserves: do reserves work and does reserve sizematter? Ecol. Appl. 13, S117–S137.

Halpern, B.S.,Warner, R.R., 2002. Marine reserves have rapid and lasting effects. Ecol. Lett.5, 361–366.

Hamilton, S.L., Caselle, J.E., Malone, D.P., Carr, M.H., 2010. Incorporating biogeographyinto evaluations of the channel islands marine reserve network. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.U. S. A. 107, 18272–18277.

Hilborn, R., 2002. Marine reserves and fisheries management. Science 295, 1233–1234.Hilborn,R., 2013. Environmental cost of conservation victories. Proc.Natl. Acad. Sci.U. S. A.

110, 9187.Hilborn, R., Stokes, K., Maguire, J.J., Smith, T., Botsford, L.W., Mangel, M., Orensanz, J.,

Parma, A., Rice, J., Bell, J., Cochrane, K.L., Garcia, S., Hall, S.J., Kirkwood, G.P.,Sainsbury, K., Stefansson, G., Walters, C., 2004. When can marine reserves improvefisheries management? Ocean Coast. Manage. 47, 197–205.

Hilborn, R., Micheli, F., De Leo, G.A., 2006. Integrating marine protected areas with catchregulation. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 63, 642–649.

Jennings, S., 2000. Patterns and prediction of population recovery in marine reserves. Rev.Fish Biol. Fish. 10, 209–231.

Johannes, R.E., 1978. Traditional marine conservation methods inOceania and their demise.Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 9, 349–364.

Kareiva, P., Marvier, M., 2012. What is conservation science. Bioscience 62, 962–969.Kareiva, P., Lalasz, R., Marvier, M., 2011. Conservation in the anthropocene: beyond

solitutude and fragility. In: Shellenberger, M., Nordhaus, T. (Eds.), Love Your Monster:Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene. Breakthrough Institute, Oakland, CA.

Kerwath, S.E., Winker, H., Gotz, A., Attwood, C.G., 2013. Marine protected area improvesyield without disadvantaging fishers. Nat. Commun. 4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms3347.

Lester, S.E., Halpern, B.S., Grorud-Colvert, K., Lubchenco, J., Ruttenberg, B.I., Gaines, S.D.,Airame, S.,Warner,R.R., 2009. Biological effects within no-takemarine reserves: a globalsynthesis. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 384, 33–46.

Mangel, M., 2000. Irreducible uncertainties, sustainable fisheries and marine reserves.Evol. Ecol. Res. 2, 547–557.

Maury, O., Gascuel, D., 1999. SHADYS (‘simulateur halieutique de dynamiques spatiales’), aGIS based numerical model of fisheries. Example application: the study of a marineprotected area. Aquat. Living Resour. 12, 77–88.

Mcclenachan, L., Kittinger, J.N., 2013. Multicentury trends and the sustainability of coralreef fisheries in Hawai’i and Florida. Fish Fish. 14, 239–255.

Nowlis, J.S., Friedlander, A., 2005a. Marine reserve function and design for fisheries man-agement. In: Norse, E.A., Crowder, Larry B. (Eds.), In: Marine Conservation Biology:The Science of Maintaining the Sea’s Biodiversity, vol. 22. Island Press, Washington,DC, pp. 280–301.

Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans, 2002. Science of MarineReserves. http://www.piscoweb.org.

Pezzey, J.C.V., Roberts, C.M., Urdal, B.T., 2000. A simple bioeconomic model of a marinereserve. Ecol. Econ. 33, 77–91.

Polacheck, T., 1990. Year round closed areas as a management tool. Nat. Resour. Model.4, 327–354.

Roberts, C.M., Bohnsack, J.A., Gell, F., Hawkins, J.P., Goodridge, R., 2001. Effects ofmarine reserves on adjacent fisheries. Science 294, 1920–1923.

12 Ray Hilborn

Sluczanowski, P.R., 1984. A management-oriented model of an abalone fishery whose sub-stocks are subject to pulse fishing. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 41, 1008–1014.

Soule, M.E., 2013. The “New Conservation”. Conserv. Biol. 27, 895–897.Stockhausen, W.T., Lipcius, R.N., Hickey, B.M., 2000. Joint effects of larval dispersal, pop-

ulation regulation, marine reserve design, and exploitation on production and recruit-ment in the Caribbean spiny lobster. Bull. Mar. Sci. 66, 957–990.

Sumaila, U.R., 1998. Protected marine reserves as fisheries management tools: a bio-economic analysis. Fish. Res. 37, 287–296.

Sutherland, W.J., Aveling, R., Bennun, L., Chapman, E., Clout, M., Cote, I.M.,Depledge, M.H., Dicks, L.V., Dobson, A.P., Fellman, L., 2012. A horizon scan of globalconservation issues for 2012. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 12–18.

Walters, C.J., Hilborn, R., Parrish, R.H., 2007. An equilibrium model for predicting theefficacy of marine protected areas in coastal environments. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.64, 1009–1018.

Weible, C.M., 2008. Caught in a maelstrom: implementing California marine protectedareas. Coast. Manag. 36, 350–373.

13Introduction