Socio-economic factors boosting the effectiveness of marine protected areas: A Bayesian network analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marine protected areas (MPAs) represent an example of nature-based solutions for the conservation and sustainable management of marine biodiversity. Despite the number of MPAs growing worldwide, many of them fail to achieve their goals, sometimes up to the point of becoming the so-called ``paper parks��: protected areas without real protection or enforcement that are virtually non-existent in terms of their effectiveness in achieving the ecological and socioeconomic goals for which they have been set up. Following the Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Agreement (COP 15), the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, and the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction treaty, global MPA coverage should increase substantially in the coming years. Hence, identifying the factors that contribute to raising the effectiveness of MPAs is pivotal to informing their planning and management. Our study introduces a model based on the Bayesian network that allows testing how different socioeconomic factors (e.g., stakeholder involvement, increased communication and enforcement) can impact the effectiveness of MPAs. The system is a user-friendly decision-support tool to quantify the contribution of each factor in the creation of a successful MPA, thus narrowing the gap between science and decision-making. We modelled the evolution of the effectiveness of MPAs under three contrasting policy-relevant scenarios based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change frameworks. Our results indicate that the highest and lowest the effectiveness of MPAs is achieved under the ``global sustainability�� and ``national enterprise�� scenarios, respectively. Our work sheds light on the complexity of the interactions among the different factors underpinning the effectiveness of MPAs and supports the growth process of MPAs at the global level on the pathway towards the sustainable exploitation of marine living resources.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".