Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/24527
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | O’Leary, BC | - |
dc.contributor.author | Copping, JP | - |
dc.contributor.author | Mukherjee, N | - |
dc.contributor.author | Dorning, SL | - |
dc.contributor.author | Stewart, BD | - |
dc.contributor.author | McKinley, E | - |
dc.contributor.author | Addison, PFE | - |
dc.contributor.author | Williams, C | - |
dc.contributor.author | Carpenter, G | - |
dc.contributor.author | Righton, D | - |
dc.contributor.author | Yates, KL | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2022-05-03T15:28:15Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2021-06-11 | - |
dc.date.available | 2022-05-03T15:28:15Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2021-06-11 | - |
dc.identifier | 13 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | O’Leary, B.C., Copping, J.P., Mukherjee, N., Dorning, S.L., Stewart, B.D., McKinley, E., Addison, P.F.E., Williams, C., Carpenter, G., Righton, D. and Yates, K.L. (2021) 'The nature and extent of evidence on methodologies for monitoring and evaluating marine spatial management measures in the UK and similar coastal waters: a systematic map',Environmental Evidence, 10 (1), pp. 1 - 23. doi: 10.1186/s13750-021-00227-x. | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/24527 | - |
dc.description | Availability of data and materials: All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its additional files]. Supplementary Information: Additional file 1. ROSES form for systematic maps. Available at: https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1186%2Fs13750-021-00227-x/MediaObjects/13750_2021_227_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx. Additional file 2. List of peer-reviewed and grey literature sources searched. Available at: https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1186%2Fs13750-021-00227-x/MediaObjects/13750_2021_227_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx. Additional file 3. List of articles included, unobtainable and excluded at full text screening with reasons for exclusion. Available at: https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1186%2Fs13750-021-00227-x/MediaObjects/13750_2021_227_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx. Additional file 4. Full coded meta-data for primary and secondary systematic maps. Available at: https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1186%2Fs13750-021-00227-x/MediaObjects/13750_2021_227_MOESM4_ESM.xlsx. | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Background: Anthropogenic degradation of marine ecosystems is widely accepted as a major social-ecological problem. The growing urgency to manage marine ecosystems more effectively has led to increasing application of spatial management measures (marine protected areas [MPAs], sectoral [e.g. fishery] closures and marine spatial planning [marine plans]). Understanding the methodologies used to evaluate the effectiveness of these measures against social, economic, and ecological outcomes is key for designing effective monitoring and evaluation programmes. Methods: We used a pre-defined and tested search string focusing on intervention and outcome terms to search for relevant studies across four bibliographic databases, Google Scholar, 39 organisational websites, and one specialist data repository. Searches were conducted in English and restricted to the period 2009 to 2019 to align with current UK marine policy contexts. Relevant studies were restricted to UK-relevant coastal countries, as identified by key stakeholders. Search results were screened for relevance against pre-defined eligibility criteria first at title and abstract level, and then at full text. Articles assessed as not relevant at full text were recorded with reasons for exclusion. Two systematic map databases of meta-data and coded data from relevant primary and secondary studies, respectively, were produced. Review findings: Over 19,500 search results were identified, resulting in 391 relevant primary articles, 33 secondary articles and 49 tertiary reviews. Relevant primary articles evaluated spatial management measures across a total of 22 social, economic and ecological outcomes; only 2.8% considered all three disciplines, with most focused exclusively on ecological (67.8%) or social (13.3%) evaluations. Secondary articles predominately focused on ecological evaluations (75.8%). The majority of the primary and secondary evidence base aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of MPAs (85.7% and 90.9% respectively), followed by fisheries closures (12.5%; 3.0%) with only 1.8% of primary, and 6.1% of secondary, articles focused on marine plans or on MPAs and fisheries closures combined. Most evaluations reported within primary articles were conducted for a single site (60.4%) or multiple individual sites (32.5%), with few evaluating networks of sites (6.9%). Secondary articles mostly evaluated multiple individual sites (93.9%). Most (70.3%) primary articles conducted principal evaluations, i.e. basic description of effects; 29.4% explored causation; and 0.3% undertook benefit evaluations. Secondary articles predominately explored causation (66.7%) with the remainder conducting principal evaluations. Australia (27.4%), the USA (18.4%) and the UK (11.3%) were most frequently studied by primary articles, with secondary articles reporting mostly global (66.7%) or European (18.2%) syntheses. Conclusions: The systematic map reveals substantial bodies of evidence relating to methods of evaluating MPAs against ecological outcomes. However, key knowledge gaps include evaluation across social and economic outcomes and of overall merit and/or worth (benefit evaluation), as well as of: marine plans; networks of sites; real-time, temporary or seasonal closures; spatial management within offshore waters, and lagoon or estuary environments. Although the evidence base has grown over the past two decades, information to develop comprehensive evaluation frameworks remains insufficient. Greater understanding on how to evaluate the effectiveness of spatial management measures is required to support improved management of global ocean resources and spaces. | en_US |
dc.description.sponsorship | This work is funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC, Innovation grant reference: NE/S016015/1). SLD was supported by funding from the Marshall Scholarship. DR’s time was supported by funding from the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) through grant ENG 2162 (MARMATE: Marine management tool for evaluating conservation evidence). KLY is supported by a NERC Knowledge Exchange Fellowship (NE/P00668X/1). | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 1 - 23 | - |
dc.format.medium | Electronic | - |
dc.language | English | - |
dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
dc.publisher | BioMed Central | en_US |
dc.rights | Copyright The Author(s) 2021. Rights and permissions: Open Access. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. | - |
dc.rights.uri | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | - |
dc.subject | fishery closures | en_US |
dc.subject | fishery exclusion zones | en_US |
dc.subject | no-take zones | en_US |
dc.subject | marine management | en_US |
dc.subject | marine protected areas | en_US |
dc.subject | marine reserves | en_US |
dc.subject | marine spatial planning | en_US |
dc.subject | maritime planning | en_US |
dc.subject | MPAs | en_US |
dc.subject | policy evaluation | en_US |
dc.title | The nature and extent of evidence on methodologies for monitoring and evaluating marine spatial management measures in the UK and similar coastal waters: a systematic map | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-021-00227-x | - |
dc.relation.isPartOf | Environmental Evidence | - |
pubs.issue | 1 | - |
pubs.publication-status | Published | - |
pubs.volume | 10 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 2047-2382 | - |
Appears in Collections: | Dept of Social and Political Sciences Research Papers |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
FullText.pdf | 4.94 MB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License