Large Scale Marine Protected Areas for Biodiversity Conservation Along a Linear Gradient: Cooperation, Strategic Behavior or Conservation Autarky?
- 607 Downloads
In this paper we investigate effects of overlap in species between ecosystems along a linear gradient on the location of marine protected areas (MPAs) under full cooperation, strategic behavior and conservation autarky. Compared to the full cooperation outcome, both strategic behavior and conservation autarky lead to under-investment in biodiversity protection. Under strategic behavior, however, we observe the additional problem of “location leakage” i.e. countries invest less in species protected by others. Conservation autarky eliminates location leakage; in ecosystems with partly overlapping species compositions at country borders it even induces MPAs that are too large from a global perspective. We also find that, in our setting of a linear gradient without migrating species, countries focus their conservation efforts on species unique to their own country and that these species are relatively well protected compared to common species.
KeywordsBioeconomic modeling Biodiversity conservation Game theory Marine protected areas Marine reserves Reserve site selection Linear setting
Marine protected area
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
- Beattie A, Sumaila UR, Christensen V, Pauly D (2002) A model for the bioeconomic evaluation of marine protected area size and placement in the North Sea. Nat Resour Model 18: 413–437Google Scholar
- Beaumont NJ, Austen MC, Atkins JP, Burdon D, Degraer S, Dentinho TP, Derous S, Holm P, Horton T, van Ierland EC, Marboe AH, Starkey DJ, Townsend M, Zarzycki T (2007) Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity: implications for the ecosystem approach. Mar Pollut Bull 54: 253–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bode M, Probert W, Turner WR, Wilson KA, Venter O (2011) Conservation planning with multiple organizations and objectives. Conserv Biol 25: 295–304Google Scholar
- Convention on Biological Diversity (2010) COP 10 Decisions. http://www.cbd.int/decisions/cop/?m=cop-10. Cited 11-11-2011
- Hannesson R (1998) Marine reserves: what would they accomplish?. Mar Resour Econ 13: 159–170Google Scholar
- Haupt RL, Haupt SE (2004) Practical genetic algorithms. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
- Ruijs A, Janmaat J (2007) Chasing the spillovers: locating protected areas in a trans-boundary fishery. Land Econ 83: 6–22Google Scholar
- Sanchirico JN (2004) Designing a cost-effective marine reserve network: a bioeconomic metapopulation analysis. Mar Resour Econ 19: 41–65Google Scholar
- Sumaila UR (1998) Bioeconomics and the ecopath/ecosim framework. In: Pauly D (ed) Use of Ecopath with Ecosim to evaluate strategies for sustainable exploitation of multispecies resources. Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, VancouverGoogle Scholar