Marine protected areas (MPAs) are vital to marine conservation, but their coverage and distribution is insufficient to address declines in global biodiversity and fisheries. In response, many countries have committed through the Aichi Target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity to conserve 10% of the marine environment through 'ecologically representative' and 'equitably managed' MPAs by 2020. The rush to fulfill this commitment has raised concerns on how efforts to increase MPA coverage will affect other elements of Target 11, including representation and equity. We used a Philippines case study to assess and compare three alternative MPA planning approaches for biodiversity representation and equitable distribution of costs to small-scale fishers. MPAs in an 'opportunistic approach' were identified and supported by coastal communities. A 'donor-assisted approach' utilised local knowledge to select MPAs through a national-scale and donor-assisted conservation project. A 'systematic conservation planning approach' identified MPA locations through the spatial prioritization software 'Marxan with Zones' to achieve biodiversity objectives with minimal and equitable costs to fishers. The opportunistic approach was ineffective at representing biodiversity and resulted in inequitable costs to fishers. MPAs selected through the donor-assisted approach affected fishers disproportionately but provided near-optimal representation of a study region extent. With approximately the same MPA coverage, the systematic approach was the only approach that achieved all representation targets with minimal and equitable costs to fishers. Our results demonstrate the utility of systematic conservation planning to address key elements of Target 11 and highlight opportunities and pitfalls for planning MPAs in similar contexts. Article impact statement: Systematic conservation planning is more effective than ad hoc or donor approaches at deriving representative and equitable protected areas. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

中文翻译：

---

评估将基于社区的海洋保护区扩大为社会公平和生态代表性网络的方法

海洋保护区 (MPA) 对海洋保护至关重要，但其覆盖范围和分布不足以应对全球生物多样性和渔业的下降。作为回应，许多国家已通过《生物多样性公约》的爱知目标 11 承诺到 2020 年通过“具有生态代表性”和“公平管理”的海洋保护区保护 10% 的海洋环境。急于兑现这一承诺引起了人们的关注增加 MPA 覆盖面的努力将如何影响目标 11 的其他要素，包括代表性和公平性。我们使用菲律宾案例研究来评估和比较三种替代海洋保护区规划方法，以实现生物多样性代表和向小规模渔民公平分配成本。海洋保护区的“机会主义方法” 得到沿海社区的认同和支持。“捐助者协助方法”利用当地知识，通过全国范围的捐助者协助保护项目来选择海洋保护区。“系统保护规划方法”通过空间优先排序软件“Marxan with Zones”确定了海洋保护区的位置，以实现生物多样性目标，同时对渔民的成本最低且公平。机会主义方法在代表生物多样性方面无效，并导致渔民的成本不公平。通过捐助者协助的方法选择的海洋保护区对渔民的影响不成比例，但提供了研究区域范围的近乎最佳的代表。具有大致相同的 MPA 覆盖范围，系统方法是实现所有代表目标的唯一方法，同时对渔民的成本最低且公平。我们的结果证明了系统保护规划在解决目标 11 的关键要素方面的实用性，并突出了在类似背景下规划海洋保护区的机会和陷阱。文章影响声明：在获得具有代表性和公平的保护区方面，系统的保护规划比临时或捐助者方法更有效。本文受版权保护。版权所有。在获得具有代表性和公平的保护区方面，系统的保护规划比临时或捐助者的方法更有效。本文受版权保护。版权所有。在获得具有代表性和公平的保护区方面，系统的保护规划比临时或捐助者的方法更有效。本文受版权保护。版权所有。