Enforce protected area restrictions and regulations
-
Overall effectiveness category Awaiting assessment
-
Number of studies: 2
View assessment score
Hide assessment score
How is the evidence assessed?
-
Effectiveness
not assessed -
Certainty
not assessed -
Harms
not assessed
Study locations
Supporting evidence from individual studies
A replicated, site comparison study in 2014 at nine coral reef sites in Sanya Bay, Hainan, China (Huang et al. 2017) found that areas with greater enforcement of restrictions had similar coral cover to protected areas with low enforcement, but lower cover than unprotected areas with no enforcement. Coral cover was similar in protected areas with high enforcement (10%) and low enforcement (10%) and also similar to an unprotected area with high enforcement (8%). The highest cover was in an unprotected area with no enforcement (36%). In 2014, nine sites were selected that varied in management (privately managed or not) and protection status (protected vs unprotected). Privately managed areas were managed by three different companies for tourism (including diving, snorkelling and other water sports) and protected areas were established in 1990. At each site, three 50 m transects were surveyed at each of two depths (2–3 m and 6–8 m), with photographs taken 25 times along each transect using evenly spaced quadrats (50 × 50 cm). Levels of enforcement were determined through recording response time of management authorities following entry into the area and recording the number of fishing boats and fishers in the area. High enforcement areas were managed privately and had fewer fishing boats and fishers (average of 0, response time of enforcement 17–36 minutes) than low enforcement areas managed by local government (fishing boats: 1, fishers: 4, response time of enforcement >2 h).
Study and other actions testedA replicated, site comparison study in 2009–2013 in 16 coral reef sites along the Belize Barrier Reef, Belize (Cox et al. 2017) found that sites with greater enforcement of fishing restrictions had similar coral cover compared to sites with lower or no enforcement. Coral cover was similar in areas where enforcement was considered good (21%), moderate (15%), inadequate (19%) or absent (20%). In addition, cover was similar across sites with different protection (fully protected: 20%, some fishing restrictions: 18%, no protection: 21%) and did not change due to time since protection started (see paper for details). Sixteen sites were selected (15−18 m depth) and classified based on the level of enforcement of restrictions. Enforcement was classified as good (regular patrols and satisfactory compliance), moderate (regular patrols but some poaching and insufficient legal outcomes), inadequate (irregular patrols, greater poaching, insufficient legal outcomes, and a high level of concern from the local community) or absent. Each site was monitored in May and June in 2009, 2010, 2012, and 2013 via six 10 m transects, spaced around 10 m apart. Coral cover was recorded, and corals were identified to species level.
Study and other actions tested
Where has this evidence come from?
List of journals searched by synopsis
All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:
Coral Conservation
Coral Conservation - Published 2024
Coral synopsis