Marine protected areas (MPAs) are a primary tool for the stewardship, conservation, and restoration of marine ecosystems, yet 69% of global MPAs are only partially protected (i.e., are open to some form of fishing). Although fully protected areas have well-documented outcomes, including increased fish diversity and biomass, the effectiveness of partially protected areas is contested. Partially protected areas may provide benefits in some contexts and may be warranted for social reasons, yet social outcomes often depend on MPAs achieving their ecological goals to distinguish them from open areas and justify the cost of protection. We assessed the social perceptions and ecological effectiveness of 18 partially protected areas and 19 fully protected areas compared with 19 open areas along 7000 km of coast of southern Australia. We used mixed methods, gathering data via semistructured interviews, site surveys, and Reef Life (underwater visual census) surveys. We analyzed qualitative data in accordance with grounded theory and quantitative data with multivariate and univariate linear mixed-effects models. We found no social or ecological benefits for partially protected areas relative to open areas in our study. Partially protected areas had no more fish, invertebrates, or algae than open areas; were poorly understood by coastal users; were not more attractive than open areas; and were not perceived to have better marine life than open areas. These findings provide an important counterpoint to some large-scale meta-analyses that conclude partially protected areas can be ecologically effective but that draw this conclusion based on narrower measures. We argue that partially protected areas act as red herrings in marine conservation because they create an illusion of protection and consume scarce conservation resources yet provide little or no social or ecological gain over open areas. Fully protected areas, by contrast, have more fish species and biomass and are well understood, supported, and valued by the public. They are perceived to have better marine life and be improving over time in keeping with actual ecological results. Conservation outcomes can be improved by upgrading partially protected areas to higher levels of protection including conversion to fully protected areas.

中文翻译：

---

评估部分受保护海域的社会和生态效益

海洋保护区 (MPA) 是管理、保护和恢复海洋生态系统的主要工具，但 69% 的全球 MPA 仅受到部分保护（即对某种形式的捕鱼开放）。尽管完全保护区的成果有据可查，包括鱼类多样性和生物量的增加，但部分保护区的有效性仍存在争议。部分保护区在某些情况下可能会带来好处，并且出于社会原因可能是必要的，但社会结果往往取决于海洋保护区实现其生态目标，以将其与开放区域区分开来并证明保护成本的合理性。我们评估了 18 个部分保护区和 19 个完全保护区与澳大利亚南部 7000 公里海岸沿线的 19 个开放区域的社会认知和生态效益。我们使用混合方法，通过半结构化访谈、现场调查和珊瑚礁生命（水下视觉普查）调查收集数据。我们根据扎根理论分析定性数据，并使用多元和单变量线性混合效应模型分析定量数据。在我们的研究中，相对于开放区域，我们发现部分保护区没有社会或生态效益。部分保护区没有比开阔地区更多的鱼类、无脊椎动物或藻类；沿海用户知之甚少；并不比开放区域更具吸引力；并没有被认为比开放区域拥有更好的海洋生物。这些发现为一些大规模荟萃分析提供了一个重要的对比，这些荟萃分析得出的结论是部分保护区在生态上是有效的，但基于更窄的措施得出这一结论。我们认为，部分保护区在海洋保护中扮演了红鲱鱼的角色，因为它们造成了保护的错觉，消耗了稀有的保护资源，但对开放区域几乎没有或根本没有社会或生态收益。相比之下，完全保护区拥有更多的鱼类和生物量，并且受到公众的充分理解、支持和重视。人们认为它们拥有更好的海洋生物，并且随着时间的推移不断改善以与实际生态结果保持一致。通过将部分保护区升级到更高级别的保护，包括转变为完全保护区，可以改善保护成果。相比之下，拥有更多的鱼类和生物量，并为公众所熟知、支持和重视。人们认为它们拥有更好的海洋生物，并且随着时间的推移不断改善以与实际生态结果保持一致。通过将部分保护区升级到更高级别的保护，包括转变为完全保护区，可以改善保护成果。相比之下，拥有更多的鱼类和生物量，并为公众所熟知、支持和重视。人们认为它们拥有更好的海洋生物，并且随着时间的推移不断改善以与实际生态结果保持一致。通过将部分保护区升级到更高级别的保护，包括转变为完全保护区，可以改善保护成果。