Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of marine protected areas globally

  • Nature volume 543, pages 665669 (30 March 2017)
  • doi:10.1038/nature21708
  • Download Citation


Marine protected areas (MPAs) are increasingly being used globally to conserve marine resources. However, whether many MPAs are being effectively and equitably managed, and how MPA management influences substantive outcomes remain unknown. We developed a global database of management and fish population data (433 and 218 MPAs, respectively) to assess: MPA management processes; the effects of MPAs on fish populations; and relationships between management processes and ecological effects. Here we report that many MPAs failed to meet thresholds for effective and equitable management processes, with widespread shortfalls in staff and financial resources. Although 71% of MPAs positively influenced fish populations, these conservation impacts were highly variable. Staff and budget capacity were the strongest predictors of conservation impact: MPAs with adequate staff capacity had ecological effects 2.9 times greater than MPAs with inadequate capacity. Thus, continued global expansion of MPAs without adequate investment in human and financial capacity is likely to lead to sub-optimal conservation outcomes.

  • Subscribe to Nature for full access:



Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.


  1. 1.

    & Making waves: The science and politics of ocean protection. Science 350, 382–383 (2015)

  2. 2.

    UNEP-WCMC & IUCN. Protected Planet Report 2016 (United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 2016)

  3. 3.

    Secretariat of the CBD. Aichi Target 11. Decision X/2. Convention on Biological Diversity (2011)

  4. 4.

    UN. United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources. (2016)

  5. 5.

    et al. Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: a global synthesis. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 384, 33–46 (2009)

  6. 6.

    , & Impacts of marine protected areas on fishing communities. Conserv. Biol. 24, 1424–1429 (2010)

  7. 7.

    et al. Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features. Nature 506, 216–220 (2014)

  8. 8.

    , & Discovering factors that influence the success of community-based marine protected areas in the Visayas, Philippines. Ocean Coast. Manage. 44, 683–710 (2001)

  9. 9.

    , , & Integrating simultaneous prosocial and antisocial behavior into theories of collective action. Sci. Adv. 2, e1501220 (2016)

  10. 10.

    in Marine Reserves: A Guide to Science, Design, and Use (eds & ) 164–186 (Island Press, 2004)

  11. 11.

    . et al. Marine reserves as linked social-ecological systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 18262–18265 (2010)

  12. 12.

    et al. How Are Our MPAs Doing? Challenges in assessing global patterns in marine protected area performance. Coast. Manage. 42, 207–226 (2014)

  13. 13.

    Counterfactual thinking and impact evaluation in environmental policy. New Dir. Eval. 2009, 75–84 (2009)

  14. 14.

    et al. Integrating impact evaluation in the design and implementation of monitoring marine protected areas. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 370, 20140275 (2015)

  15. 15.

    Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990)

  16. 16.

    , , & ‘Organization Science’: A new prospective to assess marine protected areas effectiveness. Ocean Coast. Manage. 116, 443–448 (2015)

  17. 17.

    . et al. Evaluating Effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas 2nd edn (International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 2006)

  18. 18.

    et al. Measuring impact of protected area management interventions: current and future use of the Global Database of Protected Area Management Effectiveness. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 370, 20140281 (2015)

  19. 19.

    et al. Marine reserves: size and age do matter. Ecol. Lett. 11, 481–489 (2008)

  20. 20.

    & Biological responses in marine no-take reserves versus partially protected areas. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 367, 49–56 (2008)

  21. 21.

    , , & A comparison of marine protected areas and alternative approaches to coral-reef management. Curr. Biol. 16, 1408–1413 (2006)

  22. 22.

    . et al. Comanagement of coral reef social-ecological systems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 5219–5222 (2012)

  23. 23.

    & Linking management effectiveness indicators to observed effects of protected areas on fire occurrence in the Amazon rainforest. Conserv. Biol. 27, 155–165 (2013)

  24. 24.

    et al. Human, oceanographic and habitat drivers of central and western Pacific coral reef fish assemblages. PLoS One 10, e0120516 (2015)

  25. 25.

    et al. Effects of reduced water quality on coral reefs in and out of no-take marine reserves. Conserv. Biol. 30, 142–153 (2016)

  26. 26.

    , , , & Distance from a fishing community explains fish abundance in a no-take zone with weak compliance. PLoS One 10, e0126098 (2015)

  27. 27.

    & Measuring the difference made by conservation initiatives: protected areas and their environmental and social impacts. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 370, 20140270 (2015)

  28. 28.

    , , & The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515, 67–73 (2014)

  29. 29.

    World Borders Dataset. (2016)

  30. 30.

    IUCN and UNEP-WCMC. The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA). (United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2015)

  31. 31.

    et al. Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool: Reporting progress in Protected areas sites; second edition (World Bank/WWF Forest Alliance and WWF, 2007)

  32. 32.

    . & Score Card to Assess Progress in Achieving Management effectiveness goals for Marine Protected Areas (Prepared for the World Bank, 2004)

  33. 33.

    NOAA. NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program MPA Management Assessment Checklist (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2010)

  34. 34.

    & Ongoing global biodiversity loss and the need to move beyond protected areas: a review of the technical and practical shortcomings of protected areas on land and sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 434, 251–266 (2011)

  35. 35.

    Design sensitivity and efficiency in observational studies. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 105, 692–702 (2010)

  36. 36.

    Multivariate and propensity score matching. J. Stat. Softw. 42, 1–52 (2011)

  37. 37.

    , & Long-distance migration: evolution and determinants. Oikos 103, 247–260 (2003)

  38. 38.

    et al. Larval dispersal and movement patterns of coral reef fishes, and implications for marine reserve network design. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 90, 1215–1247 (2015)

  39. 39.

    , & Spillover from marine reserves and the replenishment of fished stocks. Environ. Conserv. 36, 268–276 (2010)

  40. 40.

    et al. Rapid increase in fish numbers follows creation of World’ s largest marine reserve network. Curr. Biol. 18, 514–515 (2006)

  41. 41.

    & Marine reserves have rapid and lasting effects. Ecol. Lett. 5, 361–366 (2002)

  42. 42.

    & Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects of marine reserves. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 448–455 (2003)

  43. 43.

    R Development Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing, version 3.2.3. (2015)

  44. 44.

    & Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. J. Econ. Surv. 22, 31–72 (2008)

  45. 45.

    An overview of rbounds: an R package for Rosenbaum bounds sensitivity analysis with matched data. (2010)

  46. 46.

    , & Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 15, 651–674 (2006)

  47. 47.

    , & An introduction to recursive partitioning: rationale, application, and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging, and random forests. Psychol. Methods 14, 323–348 (2009)

  48. 48.

    , , & A new variable importance measure for random forests with missing data. Stat. Comput. 24, 21–34 (2012)

  49. 49.

    , , & Package ‘Party’: A Laboratory for Recursive Partytioning. R package version 3.1-128. (2015)

  50. 50.

    & Linear and nonlinear mixed-effects models, R package version 3.1-128. (2016)

Download references


This research was supported by the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) under funding received from the National Science Foundation DBI-1052875, as part of the working group: Solving the Mystery of Marine Protected Area (MPA) Performance: Linking Governance, Conservation, Ecosystem Services and Human Well Being. D.A.G. was jointly supported by postdoctoral fellowships from the Luc Hoffmann Institute and SESYNC. We thank the following data providers: Atlantic Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment (AGRRA) contributors and data managers, Conservation International, Healthy Reefs Initiative, I. Williams (NOAA Coral Reef Ecosystem Program), NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program, K. Knights (Global Database for Protected Area Management Effectiveness), G. Edgar and R. Stuart-Smith (Reef Life Surveys), The Nature Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Society, and the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. We also thank other members of the SESYNC MPA Pursuit team: A. Agrawal, G. Cid, A. Henshaw, I. Nur Hidayat, W. Liang, P. McConney, M. Nenadovic, J. E. Parks, B. Pomeroy, C. Strasser and M. Webster, and P. Marchand of SESYNC for scientific support. We acknowledge GEF, USAID, and the many other funders who supported authors’ time and data collection. This is contribution no. 9 of the research initiative Solving the Mystery of MPA Performance.

Author information

Author notes

    • David A. Gill

    Present addresses: Moore Center for Science, Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia 22202, USA; George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia 22030, USA.


  1. National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC), Annapolis, Maryland 21401, USA

    • David A. Gill
  2. Luc Hoffmann Institute, World Wildlife Fund International, 1196 Gland, Switzerland

    • David A. Gill
  3. Moore Center for Science, Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia 22202, USA

    • Michael B. Mascia
  4. World Wildlife Fund US, Washington DC 20037, USA

    • Gabby N. Ahmadia
    • , Louise Glew
    •  & Helen E. Fox
  5. Department of Geography, Florida State University, Florida 32306, USA

    • Sarah E. Lester
  6. Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, University of Queensland, St Lucia Campus, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia

    • Megan Barnes
  7. Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management, University of Hawaii, Honolulu HI 96822, USA

    • Megan Barnes
  8. ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia

    • Ian Craigie
  9. Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York 10460, USA

    • Emily S. Darling
  10. Department of Marine & Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08901, USA

    • Christopher M. Free
    •  & Olaf P. Jensen
  11. Conservation Science Group, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK

    • Jonas Geldmann
  12. Center for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen E, Denmark

    • Jonas Geldmann
  13. NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, USA

    • Susie Holst
  14. Indo-Pacific Division, The Nature Conservancy, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817, USA

    • Alan T. White
  15. Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Beaufort, North Carolina 28516, USA

    • Xavier Basurto
  16. Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK

    • Lauren Coad
  17. Centre for International Forestry Research, Bogor (Barat) 16115, Indonesia

    • Lauren Coad
  18. Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Hawaii 96744, USA

    • Ruth D. Gates
  19. The Natural Capital Project, Stanford University, 371 Serra Mall, Stanford, California 94305-5020, USA

    • Greg Guannel
  20. Marine Spatial Ecology Lab, School of Biological Sciences and ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, The University of Queensland, St Lucia Campus, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia

    • Peter J. Mumby
  21. UNEP – World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK

    • Hannah Thomas
  22. CBER – University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK

    • Sarah Whitmee
  23. WCPA-SSC Joint Task Force on Biodiversity and Protected Areas, International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Quebec J9B 1T3, Canada

    • Stephen Woodley
  24. National Geographic Society, Washington DC 20036, USA

    • Helen E. Fox


  1. Search for David A. Gill in:

  2. Search for Michael B. Mascia in:

  3. Search for Gabby N. Ahmadia in:

  4. Search for Louise Glew in:

  5. Search for Sarah E. Lester in:

  6. Search for Megan Barnes in:

  7. Search for Ian Craigie in:

  8. Search for Emily S. Darling in:

  9. Search for Christopher M. Free in:

  10. Search for Jonas Geldmann in:

  11. Search for Susie Holst in:

  12. Search for Olaf P. Jensen in:

  13. Search for Alan T. White in:

  14. Search for Xavier Basurto in:

  15. Search for Lauren Coad in:

  16. Search for Ruth D. Gates in:

  17. Search for Greg Guannel in:

  18. Search for Peter J. Mumby in:

  19. Search for Hannah Thomas in:

  20. Search for Sarah Whitmee in:

  21. Search for Stephen Woodley in:

  22. Search for Helen E. Fox in:


H.E.F. and M.B.M. conceived the study. D.A.G. led the analysis and data compilation with the assistance of H.E.F., M.B.M., G.N.A., L.G., S.E.L., M.B., I.C., E.S.D., C.M.F., J.G., S.H., O.P.J., L.C., G.G., P.J.M, H.T., S.W. and S.W. C.M.F. prepared the maps. D.A.G., H.E.F., M.B.M., G.N.A., L.G. and S.E.L. wrote the manuscript with the input of all the other authors.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David A. Gill.

Reviewer Information Nature thanks A. Rosenberg, B. Worm and the other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    This file contains Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Tables 1-10 and additional references.This file was replaced on 29 March 2017 to add a reference.

CSV files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Data 1

    This file contains the MPA management assessment data, a subset of which was used in the analysis.

  2. 2.

    Supplementary Data 2

    This file contains the MPA fish biomass response ratio data, a subset of which was used in the analysis.


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.