Action

Enforce protected area restrictions and regulations

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    not assessed
  • Certainty
    not assessed
  • Harms
    not assessed

Study locations

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluation the effects of enforcing protected area restrictions and regulations on corals. One study was in China, and one was in Belize.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (O STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

  • Abundance/Cover (2 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in China and Belize found that areas with high levels of enforcement had similar coral cover compared to areas with lower levels of enforcement.

OTHER (1 STUDY)

  • Human behaviour (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in China found that areas with high levels of enforcement had fewer fishing boats and fishers and lower response times by authorities compared to areas with low levels of enforcement.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. 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 tested
  2. A 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
Please cite as:

Thornton A., Morgan, W.H., Bladon E.K., Smith R.K. & Sutherland W.J. (2024) Coral Conservation: Global evidence for the effects of actions. Conservation Evidence Series Synopsis. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Coral Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Coral Conservation
Coral Conservation

Coral Conservation - Published 2024

Coral synopsis

What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 22

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the Evidence Champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust