Action

Establish community-based coral reef management

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

Study locations

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects of establishing community-based coral reef management. One study was in Kenya and Tanzania, and one was in Kenya.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

  • Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, site comparison in Kenya and Tanzania found that community managed areas had similar diversity of hard coral species compared to protected areas managed by the government.

POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES)

  • Abundance/Cover (2 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in Kenya and Tanzania and Kenya found that community managed areas had similar coral cover compared to government managed areas.

OTHER (1 STUDY)

  • Human behaviour (1 study): One study in Kenya and Tanzania found that in a community managed area there was a decrease in the amount of blast fishing over time.

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 1996 and 2003–2004 in 12 marine areas in coastal Kenya and Tanzania (McClanahan et al. 2006) found that areas with community-based coral reef management with a history of destructive fishing had similar coral cover and diversity compared to Marine Protected Areas with no fishing. Coral cover was similar in community-managed sites (1996, before bleaching: 24 cm/m; 2004, post-bleaching: 28 cm/m) compared to protected sites (1996, before bleaching: cover 22 cm/m; 2004, post-bleaching: 32 cm/m). The diversity of hard coral species was also similar between community-managed sites (1996, before bleaching: 12 coral species/90 m transect; 2004, post-bleaching: 13) compared to protected sites (1996, before bleaching: 12; 2004, post-bleaching: 13). Community enforcement reduced dynamite fishing from 180 blasts/month in 1995 to <5/month in 2003. Coral reef sites of similar aspects (four small collaborative managed reefs in the Mtang’ata Community Managed Area and three separate sites in Marine Protected Areas with no fishing) were compared and included Malindi, Watamu and Mombasa Marine National Parks. The Mtang’ata collaborative managed area reefs were included in 1994 as recognition of the degradation due to dynamite fishing and illegal mangrove cutting and to enhance the well-being of the coastal communities by improving management. Communities were surveyed using nine 10-m line transects/site with benthic biota >3 cm in length classified into nine gross categories; hard coral were further identified to genus.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, site comparison study in 2011 at six sites off the coast of Kenya (Humphries et al. 2014) found that areas with community-based management had similar coral cover compared to government-managed no-take zones and fished areas. Coral cover did not vary based on management type and was 26 and 46% in community closures, 20 and 27% in Government closures and 7 and 35% in fished areas. Two community-managed areas were closed to fishing in 2005 and 2010. Two government closures were protected since 1968 and 1991. Two fished areas were fished intensively with a range of gear (including spearguns, nets, traps). Coral cover was surveyed using randomly placed 10 m transects (nine transects/site). 

    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