TEXT MARKED WITH A STAR STILL IS IN PROGRESS...Take one of them and write stuff up!
Background:
The concept of a Marine Protected Area (MPA) is exceptionally broad and may defined as follows:
"Any area of the coastal zone or open ocean conferred some level of protection for the purpose of management of use of resources or protection of vulnerable or threatened habitats or species." (Agardy 1997)
Both among the general population and in the scientific community, it is very difficult to find people who oppose the idea of MPAs in principle. Indeed a recent study conducted by the Ocean Conservancy found that 95% of the comments made during a recent hearing on MPAs in Californiawere supportive of the protection (Hahn 2007).
The specific issue to be addressed in this proposal is that of No-Take Areas, or Marine Reserves. No-Take Reserves are designated areas of the ocean where exploitative or extractive uses are prohibited indefinitely (Guenette, Pitcher, & Walters 2000). Fundamentally, Marine Reserves possess attributes that set them apart from traditional marine management. Well-designed Marine Reserves are proactive, rather than reactive; they act as an "insurance policy" against inaccuracies in science and policy, as well as against natural variability inherent in ecosystems. In another sense, setting aside regions of the ocean is akin to diversely investing one's assets for future growth and improved stability. Since they are ecosystem-based, Marine Reserves do not require large amounts of difficult-to-acquire, quantitative, species-specific data to be effective. At least from a purely scientific and ecological perspective, No-Take Zones are undoubtedly effective at achieving their goals. (PROVIDE HYPERLINK TO "BENEFITS")
One of the major problems with the current application of Marine Reserves is one of scale. As it stands today, roughly 0.7% of the world ocean is protected in some way, and far less is covered by strict No-Take regulations (Pauly 2007) (for comparison, consider that 11.5% of global land area is protected in some way (UNEP 2007)). Furthermore, the rate at the human ability to exploit the oceans is growing far outstrips the overall growth rate of MPAs (Pauly 2007). It should be emphasized that established protected areas and areas of regulation are a reasonable beginning; indeed, existing schemes such as effort and technological restrictions are critical to maximizing the effectiveness of Marine Reserves. But it is most critical to note that what we have today is simply not enough to make a globally significant difference...expansion and continued development is an absolute necessity.
Of course, proper policy is about more than just science; there is a significant and often all-important social component to consider as well. It is precisely the stricter restrictions associated with Marine Reserves that have made their establishment so controversial. There is the mere discussion of closing off areas of the ocean is often enough to put fishermen and other interested parties up in arms (Agardy, et. al. 2003). For any policy to succeed, it must be able to gain a certain measure of public support; in other words, it must be demonstrated that the benefits outweigh the costs on all relevant timescales. At the same time, any plan must consider the mundane, but very real problems of establishment, maintenance, and enforcement.
Hence, the challenge before us is two-fold. The first goal is to, as quickly as possible, expand existing MPAs into a broad, enforceable network of Marine Reserves that cover a significant proportion of the world ocean. But equally important is that a fundamental part of any proposal must be an attempt to maximize its public acceptability. How might this exceedingly delicate balance between ecology and society be achieved? Read On...
(Hyperlink to ACTUAL PROPOSAL)
Benefits of No-Take Zones:
Ecological Enhancement within the Reserve:
Over several decades of experience, areas where such stricter limitations have been in effect have shown some of the most dramatically positive ecological results of any management scheme. This benefit can be realized through the protection of relatively pristine areas. For example, studies in No-Take areas of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park by Evans and Russ (2004) shows that the biomass of certain fish species has been maintained at levels up to several orders of magnitude higher than in nearby fished areas.
Marine Reserves have also been shown to facilitate the recovery of severely damage ecosystems. For instance, large sections of Georges Bank off the coast of Massachusetts were closed to fishing in 1995. Hermen, Collie, and Valentine (2003) began noting "steady and marked increase...in production" within a few years after the closure. In general, signs of recovery can appear quickly, sometimes within 2-5 years of the establishment of a No-Take Area and tend to persist for as long as protections remain in effect (Gell & Roberts 2003). Furthermore, the benefits of No-Take Zones are inherently ecosystem-based; that is, they are seen generally across a broad taxonomic range of organisms as well as the state of the non-living habitat (Gell & Roberts 2003).
These types of positive ecological results of No-Take zones have been seen around the globe, and are well documented in the scientific literature and well accepted by the scientific community.
The "Spillover Effect:"
One of the most interesting aspects of Marine Reserves is the so-called "Spillover Effect," by which improved biomass and diversity within the reserves enhances nearby fisheries and ecosystems. Beginning with the work of Roberts, et. al. (1997), the existence of such an effect has been noted and studies for nearly a decade. In particular, he noted that the dispersal of pelagic larvae from protected areas enhanced the productivity of "downstream" regions and made them more resilient to change. There are numerous documented examples of spillover benefits, from all parts of the world, ranging from the closed area off Cape Canaveral in Florida (Johnson, Funicelli, & Bohnsack 1999) to the examples in the Philippines (Russ, Alcala, & Maypa 2003) and off the coasts of Kenya and Tanzania (McClanahan, Verheij, & Maina 2006).
Although there is only limited long-term evidence of spillover, such evidence has increasing, especially as longer-term data has become available (R.A. Abesamis et al., 2006). Abesamis, et. al. (2006) proposes that a shallow "decreasing gradient of abundance of targeted fish across a no-take reserve boundary" is evidence for spillover. For instance, if population increases inside a reserve, some of the fish might move away from the more population-dense areas because of resource competition. However, local environmental characteristics can also influence an abundance gradient, since population is usually higher in areas with more resources and in complex habitats (R.A. Abesamis et al., 2006). One study on abundance gradients of fish across the boundaries of protected areas near two small Philippine Islands (which used a control section without a reserve) found that three of four reserve boundaries had shallow gradients of decreasing abundance. Although habitat factors could not explain the cases where there was sharp decline in abundance across the boundary, the evidence, in general suggests the existence of spillover in many cases (R. A. Abesamis et al., 2006).
Another example of tangible evidence for dispersal around marine protected areas was an experiment in which 90 blue cod were tagged and released at four sites, two of which were in and two of which were next to Long Island (R.G. Cole et al., 2000). Fewer resightings of tagged fish occurred in the reserve than outside, but the resights in the reserve were larger on average than those outside (R.G. Cole et al., 2000). The smaller number of resights in marine reserves than in fished areas, despite the absence of fishing in the protected areas, suggests that blue cod migrate longer distances in reserve sites than in fished areas; this evidence supports the claim that blue cod will grow to larger sizes in marine reserves and, through spillover, help supply nearby fisheries through spillover (R.G. Cole et al., 2000).
As part of increasing evidence of spillover in general, it is strongly predicted that protected areas will allow the spillover for certain important species. For example, several studies in New Zealand suggest that a small number of spiny lobsters in a population will migrate large distances (R. J. Davidson et al., 2002). Based on this evidence, it is likely that marine protected areas can protect a signification percentage of the population of spiny lobsters and also provide spillover from the reserve (R. J. Davidson et al., 2002). Another study in the Western Mediterranean using catch and effort data about lobster, as well as data from tagged lobsters released in the reserve, suggests that the declining density gradient of lobster is caused by lobsters migrating away from the reserve (Goñi et al. 2006). While it is possible that other factors could have caused the density gradient, because of lobsters' general inability to move long distances compared to the size of the reserve and its overfished status, the establishment of the protected area there probably caused increased export and spillover (Goñi et al. 2006).
*Providing a Scientific Baseline:
No-Take Reserves have significant value for research in that they provide a control against which the changes outside can be compared. Long-established marine reserves provide a baseline healthy ecosystem that cannot be fully duplicated with other methods such as mathematical modeling. Areas closed due to fisheries declines produce can very important data for establishing the effectiveness of Marine Reserves in facilitating recovery of fisheries and ecosystems (Hermens, Collie, & Valentine 2003).
Economics:
Despite common assertions to the contrary, Marine Reserves can have significant economic benefits to society, in particular, the assurance of long-term, sustainable fisheries. On of the unfortunate short-term effects of marine reserves is the displacement of fishermen due to the reduction of fishable waters, the higher levels of congestion, and potential competition. However, in the long run, the establishment of a network of protected areas will inevitably create "optimal harvesting area[s]" with "higher resource rents" (Grafton, Komas, & Pham 2006) under controlled fishing rates. Our particular proposal is designed to mitigate the short term costs, while attempting to ensure that enough of the ocean is protected so that the future potential can be realized.
But perhaps even more exciting are the beneficial economic effects of Marine Reserves to tourism and other non-exploitative activities. According to the NationalMarineProtectedAreasCenter(1995-1996), the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and other marine-related parks and refuges provide an "estimated total tourist contribution to the economy of over 60 percent." Considering the scale of tourism in areas such as the Florida Keys, this is a truly significant percentage. Myriad activities such as scuba diving, wildlife watching, boating, surfing, and snorkeling are part of this large and growing industry.
Oftentimes, revenues derived from non-extractive uses compare favorably with other more damaging uses of the ocean. For example, consider that whale watching globally generates more than 1 billion USD in revenue per year (Greenpeace 2007a). For Iceland, in particular, whale-watching alone generated around 8.5 million USD per year in revenue, as compared to an average of 3.5-4 million USD from whaling in the years before the IWC moratorium (Greenpeace 2003). In acknowledgement of these economic realities, in 2007, Iceland announced that it would no longer be issuing commercial whale-hunting quotas (Greenpeace 2007b)
*Education:
Education is easily promoted through MPAs. Bringing awareness through tourism is a fantastic form of mass education. School age kids can be educated with field trips to the MPA and school age kids is where the future of our oceans lie. In addition to the fact that kids often bring what they learned from school trips home with them. MPAs make it easier to increase public access to information about marine areas. Visitor centers, museums, and tourist boat trips are how knowledge of the fishery problem will become public.
Indeed, physical access to the reserve is not even necessary for educational benefits. Another major educational benefit is that MPAs are a great resource for collecting research data and excellent areas to set up oceanic laboratories. MPAs are capable of uniting marine research like the Ecological Characterization Project undertaken by the National Marine Protected Areas Center. The information about the project can be found at <http://mpa.gov/pdf/national-system/wcp-eco-character-june9.pdf>. MPAs are capable of great research feats and simply need to be used accordingly.
(Website used for information: <http://mpa.gov/science_analysis/science_analysis.html>) (needs to be properly cited)
A 10% Plan for Marine Reserves:
We propose that covering 10% of the world oceans with no-take reserves is a reasonable middle ground between social and scientific concerns. Specifically, we note that this is the most conservative coverage amount that has been shown to result in a considerable ecological benefit. We contend that providing a clear and explicit goal is important in several respects: Firstly, it provides concrete target around which a reasonable and expedient timeline can be structured (Ballatine 1991). Secondly, a well-defined goal provides reassurance that the goal is not to eventually close off the entire ocean (Ibid). In other words, this proposal is a commitment to an "upper bound" unless clear evidence indicates 10% is not enough. In this way, we seek to minimize the impacts of the proposal on human culture and economics, while strongly emphasizing that non-trivial investment today is needed for the sake of the future.
In addition, we acknowledge that such a proposal for Marine Reserves must be part of a broader, global effort for improved sustainability in fisheries and in general. It is essential that Marine Reserves be used in conjunction with more traditional management methods, such as gear restrictions, quotas, etc. (Hyperlink to EXTERNAL SOLUTION PAGES, i.e TECHNOLOGY). Such a system would zone a much larger proportion of the oceans as MPAs, with varying degrees of protection, with the No-Take Reserves acting as the core of the system. Modeling by Guenétte, et. al (2000) has provided strong evidence that substantial benefits can be derived from relatively small closed areas (between 10-20% of the study area), but only as long as they are strategically located and augmented by other management methods. Real-world experience with existing marine reserves has confirmed that the most convincing evidence of large-scale ecological benefit begins to appear when at least 10% of a given ocean area is protected (Gell & Roberts 2003).
As for acceptability, consider that around 11.5% of global surface area currently falls under some type of state-designated protection (UNEP 2006). These data imply that a comparable level of coverage for the oceans is not an unrealistic target. Even considering that the coverage by each country is uneven, there is clear global precedent for conservation, with diverse regions such as Central America, East Asia, Southern Africa, Europe, Australia, and North America all exceeding the global average (UNEP 2006). Given the proper motivation through education, social development programs, and the like, it is very conceivable that this 10% proposal could become broadly acceptable (Ballantine 1991).
Selecting Locations for the Reserves:
Given the conservative coverage area targets, clear thought must be given to maximizing the impact of each unit of ocean area protected. We emphasize that it is not the size of individual sanctuaries that is the most important matter, but rather the global scale of coverage (Guenétte, et. al. 2003). There are several general principles that should be followed when selecting locations for marine reserves. To properly function as a buffer against external exploitation, the 10% of ocean area must include a representative sample of habitats and ecosystems should be protected (Ballantine 1991). Particular emphasis should be placed on protecting especially fragile, unique, or threatened ecosystems. Furthermore, multiple examples of each habitat type should be protected to insure against localized disturbances. Finally, individual Marine Reserves should be set up in mutually reinforcing networks to maximize there influence. Such systems rely on knowledge of the physical processes in play in a given area, especially the activity of advective and convective current systems (Johnson, Funicelli, & Bohnsack 1999 and Ballantine 1991).
Although the No-Take Zones in this proposal are intended to primarily target entire ecosystems, we acknowledge that there are biological or economic situations in which a certain organism is of particular importance. In such cases, an understanding of the relevant biology and ecology is critically important. For example, key life stages or migration routes of the target species can be protected by careful placement of reserves (Robichaud & Rose 2004). A land-based analogy is the protection of bird nesting sites and reserves for migratory birds, respectively. When setting up marine reserves, it is also important to consider potential ecological barriers that will prevent the occurrence of spillover, and therefore reduce the ability of the protected area to enhance adjacent fisheries. For instance, one study in the Turks and Caicos Islands found that numerous shallow sand habitats enclosed a population of conch, reducing its spillover into nearby areas (A. Tewfik and C. Bene, 2003).
Of course, there are also the practical matters of cost and enforceability that must be factored into any setup of marine protected areas. Creating a layout for Marine reserves that optimizes these numerous biological, physical, and social factors is a complex issue. Fortunately, there exist several environmental modeling packages such as Marxan (Possingham, Ball, & Andleman 2000), ResNet, and C-Plan that use stochastic statistical methods to optimize these parameters. Naturally, these types of algorithms are effective only given proper data, so continued emphasis on the collection of scientific data is essential. (Hyperlink to EXTERNAL FURTHER RESEARCH PAGE).
Management and Enforcement:
In principle, there is nothing wrong with an international approach to marine management. Indeed, if some international organization can provide a "vision" and moral support, it would be extremely beneficial. (Provide Hyperlink to external INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION) However, we contend that the details of implementation are most effectively handled on a national or regional basis. Many states have strongly established legislative and financial machinery to mandate and fund the creation of MPAs, something lacked by virtually all current international bodies.
Also consider that most nations have preexisting infrastructure related to land-based conservation areas that can be expanded and adapted to meet the needs of operating MPAs. Indeed, many nations have currently operational systems of Marine Sanctuaries that could be expanded to meet a 10% goal. For instance, the scope of existing enforcement agencies, such as the National Park Service can be expanded to cover MPAs. Often, it may be effective to extend land-based protected areas offshore, unifying the operation of several diverse protected areas (Consider, for example, the pairing of Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary off the coast of Massachusettsand the Cape Cod National Seashore). Continuing to using the United States as an example, comprehensive legislation such as the National Marine Sanctuaries Act already exists (16 United States Code § 1431). Although this is a very good beginning, such legislation does have significant room for improvement. In particular, the process for creating new Marine Sanctuaries needs to be streamlined, and less emphasis should be placed on the proving the benefits of reserves as compared with other management strategies (Ibid). In particular, the legislation also needs to be expanded to explicitly mandate the creation of more reserves towards a 10% goal.
A major challenge in developing Marine Protected areas is the enforcement of the regulations of the reserves. Once established, the borders should be relatively constant and the restrictions well-publicized, to avoid confusion among those wanting to fish near the areas. Most violations of Marine Protected Areas are committed close to the borders, so the boats have a chance to leave quickly and dispute that they were ever in the area. Technology can serve as a great help in monitoring Marine Protected Areas. One possibility is to require GPS-based transponders on all boats to ensure they do not cross protected borders. Other technological possibility is satellite-based remote sensing. Relevant management authorities can then use data from such sources to pinpoint violators and the locations in which infringement occurs. One interesting extension would international sharing of enforcement data, which would allow in principle for broader and more effective enforcement.
There are also simple, non-technological ways to limit the number of violations of Marine Protected Areas. One method is to properly size Marine Protected Areas, preventing scales that exceed the capabilities of the work force monitoring it. Also, and perhaps most critically, it is important to promote a local sense of support for the Marine Protected Areas. This creates a form of peer surveillance in which fishers outside of the protected areas will mutually enforce the statutes as well (Jones 2004). In practice, an effective system of peer surveillance has been shown to be the most effective enforcement method for any management practice (Russ, Alcala, & Maypa 2003). This fact again highlights the fact general acceptance of these reserves is a key factor in their success.
*Funding:
*Examples:
CHINAThe Status Quo:-A developing country with long coastline (18,000 km) and large fish demand.
-Freshwater resources rank 6 in the world, but the resources per capita is only one four of the world's average due to large population.(1) GDP*:* $10.17 trillion (2006 est.)
Political style: communism, strict government control.
108 marine nature reserves at different levels have been established, with a total area of 7.69 million hectares. [2] Among these reserves, 30 are at provincial level, more than 60 at national level and others at county level. All endangered marine species are covered. [3]
Chinahas established legal management system for marine resource protection. It's general principle is "conservation first, appropriate exploitation and sustaintable development". "Procedures for the administration of marine reserves" is the policy for marine reserve. [4]
Problems:
1.) The efficiency of the management system constrains protection.
The system is devided into national level, provincial level and municipal level, and above each level, there are many departments in charge of the management. Various departments have their own management structure and funding sources. Each department is only actively developing part of the department's protected areas, which leads to competition between departments, redundant construction, fragmentation and overall inefficiency. Whether at the national level or in the provincial and municipal levels, it is difficult to achieve the unity of the construction of protected areas planning.
2.) The contradictions between Protection and Development
As a developing country with large fish demand, the contradiction is notable. Unlike inland nature reserves, marine reserves are divided into different areas for protection and exploitation. Though the main goal is protection, it is confliction to exploitation somewhat.
3.) Most protected areas do not have adequate funding, so protection and management is difficult to implement.
The central government only supports national level reserves. Funding for other reserves comes from local government. Because of this, some of the underdevelopment region is not capable to operate effective management. Most of the funds are only for basic facilitates, but rarely for scientific research. Independent scientific research in these areas is very limited. Due to the lack of operational funds, the hard conditions and the high cost of management, the effectiveness of the management of marine reserves is therefore greatly reduced.
4.) The overall layout of marine reserves stays to be improved
China's state-level distribution of marine nature reserve is extremely uneven; concentrated distribution is a very prominent phenomenon: There are seven national level marine reserves in the northeast side of the Bohai Strait; eight in the southwest of the Beibu Bay and Hainan Island; but only nine along the long coastline from Shandong to Guangdong.
Suggestions:
Based partially on a report from China's Oceanic Administration Institute of Marine Development Strategy---an official department doing research and supplying suggestions and strategies to the government
1.) Adjustment of management system of marine reserves
The system needs to be changed in future. All of the reserves must be under the central government's control, not the local government's. But for short period, it is not that applicable. The temporary solution would be: setting up a team with members from all the departments in charge of marine reserves now. Its goal is connecting all the departments to make the management more effective and practical.
2.) The overall objective of development of marine nature reserve should explicitly include conservation and development.
The goal must be clear in the regulations and policies. Both the local people and the region's economic interests and the natural ecological protection should be taken into consideration.
(1) As to China's rapid tourism development, the institute proposes to research to develop the marine nature reserves into eco-tourism spots and improve the development of tourism management capacity.
(2) Utilizing the research within the reserves to help develop ecological aquaculture of surrounding communities.
3.) The sources of funding can be both government budget and private sources.
As to reserves especially for endangered species, the government is responsible for the full cost of the reserves' operation; for reserves under local government's control, the government departments at all levels should actively encourage various ways to raise operating funds, and offer necessary assistance, guidance and management. For example, allowing private investment protection on the premise of abidance to the government policy.
4.) Setting up more marine reserves
As a developing country, it is hard to manage marine reserves. So the main point is developing reserves in areas with high species diversity and endangered species. Other possible solutions may be developing provincial level reserves into national ones.
Abesamis R. A., Russ G. R., Alcala A. C. (2006).Gradients of abundance of fish across no-take marine reserve boundaries: evidence from Philipine coral reefs. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 16: 349-371.
Agardy, M. T. (1997). Marine Protected Areas and Ocean Conservation. San Diego,California: Academic Press
Agardy, M.T., Bridgewater, P., Crosby, M. P., Day, J., et. al. (2003) Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas. Aquatic Conservation, 13(4), 1-15.
Ballantine, W. J. (1991). Marine Reserves for New Zealand. Warkworth, New Zealand: UniversityofAuckland, Leigh Marine Laboratory. 11 October 2006. China opens marine life biodiversity protection center. Xinhua General News Service.
Cole R. G., Villouta E., Davidson R. J. (2000). Direct evidence of limited dispersal of the reef fish Parapercis colias (Pinguipedidae) within a marine reserve and adjacent fish areas. Aquatic conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 10: 421-436.
Davidson R. J., Villouta E., Cole R. G., Barrier R. G. F. (2002). Effects of marine reserve protection on spiny lobster (Jasus edwardsii) abundance and size at Tonga IslandMarine Reserve,New Zealand. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 12: 213-227.
Evans, R. D., Russ, G. R. (2004). Larger biomass of targeted reef fish in no-take marine reserves on the Great Barrier Reef. Aquatic Conservation, 14(5): 505-519.
Gell, F. R. and Roberts, C. M. (2003). The Fisheries Effects of Marine Reserves and Fisheries Closures. Washington,DC: World Wildlife Fund.
Goñi R., Quetglas A., Reñones O. (2006). Spillover of spiny lobsters Palinurus elephas from a marine reserve to an adjoining fishery. Marine Ecology Progress Series 308: 207-219.
Grafton, R. Q., Kompas, T., and Pham, V. H. (2006). The Economic Payoffs from Marine Reserves: Resource Rents in a Stochastic Environment. Economic Recrod 82(259): 469-480.
Greenpeace. (2007a) Whale Watching and Marine Sanctuaries. Retrieved 17 November 2007. <www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/campaigns/oceans/whales/whale-watching-sanctuary>.
Greenpeace. (2007b). Iceland Stops Commercial Whale Hunt. Retrieved 17 November 2007. <www.greenpeace.org/international/news/iceland-ends-commercial-whale-240807>.
Greenpeace. (2003) Icelandic Whaling.. Retrieved 17 November 2007. <www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/oceans/whaling/icelandic-whaling>.
Guenétte, S., Pitcher T. J., Walters C. J. (2000). The Potential of Marine Reserves for the management of Northern Cod in Newfoundland. Bulletin of Marine Science_,_ 66(3): 831-852.
Hahn, S. (2007, October 17) Historic new protections could save our shores. Metroactive (Santa Cruz,CA) online edition. <www.metroactive.com/metro/10.17.07/news2-0742.html>.
Hermsen, J. M., Collie, J. S., Valentine, P. C. (2003). Mobilefishing gear reduces benthic megafaunal production on Georges Bank_._ Marine Ecology Progress Series 260: 97-108.
Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China. (1998). The Development of China's Marine Programs.
Johnson D. R., Funicelli N. A. , Bohnsack J. A. (1999). Effectiveness of an Existing Estuarine No-Take Fish Sanctuary within the Kennedy Space Center, Florida. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19(2): 436-453.
Jones, P. (2004). Collective Action Problems Posed by No-Take Zones. London,United Kingdom: Remax House.
Liu Y., Qiu J. Problems and possible solutions of our country's marine reserves. National Oceanic Administration Institute of Marine Development Strategy
McClanahan, T. R., Verheij, E., Maina, J. (2006) Comparing the management effectiveness of a marine park and a multiple-use collaborative fisheries management area in East Africa. Aquatic Conservation 16: 147-165.
National Marine Protected AreasCenter. (2006) Archives-What MPAs Provide the Nation. Retrieved 17 Nov. 2007. <http://mpa.gov/helpful_resources/archives/benefits.html#social>.
Pauly, D. (2007) Lecture. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,MA. Possingham, H.P., Ball, I. R., Andleman, S. (2000). Mathematical methods for identifying representative reserve networks. Quantitative Methods for Conservation Biology. New York,New York: Springer-Verlag.
Roberts, C.M, et al. (1997). Effects of Marine Reserves on Adjacent Fisheries. Science 294:1920-1923.
Robichaud, D., Rose, G. A. (2004) Migratory behavior and range in Atlantic Cod: inference from a century of tagging. Fish and Fisheries 5: 185-214.
Russ, G. R., Alcala, A. C., Maypa, A.P.(2003).Spillover from marine reserves: The case of Naso vlamingii at ApoIsland, The Philippines. Marine Ecological Progress Series 264: 15-20.
Tewfik A., Benen C. (2003). Effects of natural barriers on the spillover of a marine mollusc: implications for fisheries reserves. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 13: 473-488.
United Nations Environment Program. (2006) UNEP World Database on Protected Areas. Retrieved 11 November 2007. <http://www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/>.
Xue, G. (2005). China And International Fisheries Law And Policy.