Assessing the multiple benefits of partially protected marine protected areas in Australia: A systematic review protocol
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: There is global pressure to protect more of the world's oceans, primarily to protect biodiversity, and to fulfill the "30 by 30" goal set by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) that has recently been ratified under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework at the fifteenth Conference of Parties (COP-15). Fully protected marine protected areas (MPAs) provide the highest level of protection for biodiversity from destructive or extractive practices and may limit access to the area itself. Fully protected MPAs (also commonly referred to as 'no-take MPAs') ban all fishing activities, thereby removing the realisation of direct economic and social benefits from resource extraction within these areas. However, fully protected MPAs can still act as source of productivity to surrounding areas, while also providing an important scientific reference role for off-reserve management thereby providing indirect economic and social outcomes, as well as biodiversity benefits. Sustainable marine resource management strives to achieve 'triple-bottom line' benefits, where economic, social, and biodiversity benefits are maximised in managed areas of the ocean. Implementing 'partially protected' areas (PPAs) in areas of high biodiversity value (i.e., inshore, productive areas of the ocean) that allow for some extractive activities, may allow us to supplement fully MPAs to meet IUCN conservation goals, while maximising social and economic benefits. However, our current understanding lacks explicit quantitative assessments of whether and how PPAs can benefit (or otherwise) biodiversity, while also providing economic and social benefits. This study provides a method to systematically review the scientific and legislative literature to understand how PPAs may contribute to conserving biodiversity while also providing social and economic benefits to Australia. METHODS AND EXPECTED OUTPUTS: The implementation of partially protected areas (PPAs) requires careful consideration of many potentially competing factors, and an understanding of the types of partial protection already in place in a region. We have developed a systematic literature review protocol focussing on the primary research question: "What is the current state of partially protected area (PPA) implementation across Australian marine areas?". The aim of the review is to provide marine resource managers with a comprehensive overview of PPAs in Australia, including associated goals and stated management strategies to achieve these goals, and a methodological approach that may be utilised globally. The review protocol was designed by the research team for a Fisheries Resource and Development Corporation (FRDC) strategic research grant and will seek input from a project steering committee for the project on aggregation of the initial results. The steering committee is made up of stakeholders from a wide range of backgrounds and interests, covering marine conservation, fisheries management, Indigenous values, and academic research in Australia. Multiple academic databases, alongside Australian Federal, State, and Territory legislation and related policies will be reviewed using Boolean keyword search strings for both academic databases and relevant grey literature. Results from eligible documents will be compiled and insights from the review collated to provide information on the status of PPA implementation in Australia.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,055 | 0,080 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,013 | 0,011 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,017 | 0,011 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,025 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».