Jump to content

Course:EOSC270/2023/Human Impacts through Marine Protected Areas

From UBC Wiki

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) - Why They Matter

Plastic pollution - one of the many threats that MPAs aim to address -- (CarolinePowerPhotography)

What is the problem?

Marine environments around the world are facing increasing pressure due to a range of human activities. A marine protected area (MPA) is a designated section of the ocean where governments place limits on human actions, such as banning fishing or entry[1]. These protections exist because oceans and the species within them are under significant threat.

Human actions such as overfishing, pollution, and coastal development have disrupted marine ecosystems. Overfishing reduces fish populations faster than they can recover, while pollution and waste degrade water quality and harm marine life[1]. In addition, global climate change alters ocean temperatures and acidity which further stresses already vulnerable ecosystems. As a result, many species of marine organisms have experienced sharp population declines.

Thus, MPAs are implemented to protect marine habitats and combat the many threats they face. When human pressures such as overfishing and habitat destruction are reduced, marine ecosystems can gradually rebuild their natural balance to improve biodiversity and build resilience against challenges such as climate change. While all MPAs are established with the long-term conservation of nature in mind[2], MPAs can have varying goals depending on where they are situated[3]. For example, MPAs around the Galápagos are focused around protecting habitats and species biodiversity, while MPAs situated in Nova Scotia, Canada, are geared towards resource sustainability and healthy fishing populations[3].

MPAs have four levels of protection, which range from fully protected, highly protected, lightly protected, to minimally protected. Fully protected MPAs impose the strictest regulations, prohibiting all extractive and destructive activities. Highly protected areas allow very limited human activity while still prioritizing conservation[4]. Lightly protected MPAs permit more regulated uses, such as controlled fishing, while minimally protected areas have the fewest restrictions and allow most human activities under general guidelines[4]. To maximize the effectiveness of MPAs, there has been increasing emphasis on developing standardized frameworks for MPA design and management to ensure consistency in protection levels and monitoring across regions[5]. Through long-term, standardized approaches, MPAs are positioned to deliver measurable conservation outcomes by supporting sustained ecological recovery and marine management strategies moving forward[5].

Canadian MPAs impact on marine ecosystems

There are currently 16 MPAs under the Oceans Act, which protects approximately 600,000km² of Canada's costal and marine areas.[6] Canada has been taking measurable initiatives in collaboration with Indigenous nations, the original caretakers of the land, to use MPAs as a tool to protect vulnerable ecosystems and conserve biodiversity.

Ridgeia Tubeworms that are protected under the Tang.ɢ̱wan – ḥačxwiqak – Tsig̱is MPA (UW/Interactive Oceans)

One of the most notable MPAs from Canada being the Tang.ɢ̱wan – ḥačxwiqak – Tsig̱is (TḥT) MPA established in 2024.[7] This MPA, spanning over 133,017km², is just off the coast of Vancouver Island and protects the dense network of Endeavour hydrothermal vents and seamounts. These habitats host endemic species that are particularly vulnerable to anthropogenic impacts such as rapid climate change, which can stress and endanger the organisms in these areas. Additional human impacts such as deep-sea mining and excessive commercial fishing can greatly impact habitats of organisms in the area; therefore, limiting and banning these activities under MPA guidelines, like the TḥT, is crucial for biodiversity conservation. Furthermore, the TḥT MPA positively impacts and protects hydrothermal-specific organisms like the Ridgeia Tubeworm (Ridgeia piscesae) as they heavily rely on the chemoautotrophic bacteria specific to these hydrothermal vent habitats and are particularly vulnerable to changes, including geological and anthropogenic changes.[8]

While, Canada's efforts towards marine conservation is a step towards protecting ecosystems, several conservation researchers and critics strongly suggest a wholistic approach with the initiatives that Canada has committed to. Researchers recommend that authorities focus on national coordination to avoid redundancy because viewing conservation from a nationally perspective, as opposed to provincial or regional, has the most effective biodiversity conservation.[9] Further, there are urges to consider that specific focus on biodiversity prioritization efforts are far more important than spatial scales. Research on land conservation indicates that prioritizing land independently protects 33.2% less species in comparison to a national approach,[10] and this concept of national coordination can be applicable to increasing effectiveness of marine conservations like MPAs as well. Overall, while Canada's projects of establishing MPAs have positive impacts, the outcome of these initiatives can only fully be maximized if proper regulations and efforts are put in place.

Public opinion on MPAs

General Statistics

A survey conducted with 1665 Canadians aged 18 or above from March 20 to April 4, 2019, showed very strong support for MPAs.[11] However, when initially conducting the survey, only 42% have heard of MPAs beforehand, mostly those whose careers rely on the ocean. When told about the 30% protection by 2030 plan, 58% strongly support with only 8% opposition. The top reason for supporting MPAs with 27% of those who support MPAs is to protect ocean wildlife and/or habitat from destruction and/or depletion. Overall, 97% of the surveyed support MPAs once they know what they were, with 65% being strong supporters mostly from Atlantic Provinces and Territories.[11]

Opposition to MPA development

Image of a snow crab in a dark environment
Snow crabs are one of the species that the Funk Island Deep Enclosure aims to protect - (Wikimedia Commons)

There are modest variations of opinion among regions and demographics, fishermen whose livelihoods are impacted by MPA development raise concerns about how it will affect the fishing industry.[11] In October 2025, FFAW (Fish Food and Allied Workers union) of Newfoundland said that MPAs are targeting the fishing industry and that "harvesters are becoming frustrated with a lack of any measurement of the conservation impacts of the existing MPA closures", [12] specifically citing the example of the Funk Island Deep Closure – a 7,274-square-kilometer MPA in the Atlantic Ocean intended to protect bottom habitat for Atlantic cod... [But instead] overrun it with predators of snow crab [instead of protecting it]."Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag The snow crab fishery in the Atlantic is one of the largest fisheries in Canada in terms of economic value, comprised of First Nations and Indigenous groups, so the reduction of catch due to increase of predation will hinder economic activity and well being.[13]

Shaping MPA development

The development of the Laurentian Channel MPA in 2017 was met with some concessions, its original proposed borders changed to avoid prime fishing areas, off limit areas reduced after lobbying by the industry. Along with that, drilling was permitted for 88% of the MPA - increased to 98% of the MPA when directional drilling, and shipping allowed through the waters.[14] These concessions have received a backlash of over 70,000 public comments objecting to oil and gas exploration in MPAs, which lead to policy change for MPAs created henceforth; the MPA Protection Standard.[15]

The MPA Protection Standard was established on April 25, 2019, starting with the Laurentian Channel MPA. It applies new rules on limiting or banning oil and gas exploration, development, and production, mineral exploration and exploitation, disposal at sea of waste and other matter, dumping of fill, deposit of deleterious drugs and pesticides, and enhanced restrictions on vessel discharges, and bottom trawling for any new MPAs created after it's establishment, with older MPAs evaluated on a case by case basis.[16]

Comparison with policies from other countries

The United Kingdom

The United Kingdom oversees a total marine area of 5,879,220 km2, with the government claiming to protect 66% (3,902,518 km2) of the territory[1]. A total of 178 MPAs exist in English waters[17], encompassing both the UK mainland and coastal waters, as well as territories such as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. The legal foundations of the MPAs are enshrined by the Marine and Coastal Access Act (MCAA), which is designed to comprehensively modernize the protection of UK's marine environment[18]. This is achieved by implementing structural reforms across four main areas:

  1. Establishing centralized governing bodies
  2. Streamlining marine licensing and planning
  3. Updating sustainable practices for fisheries
  4. Expanding conservation zones

The United States

The United States oversees a total marine area of 12,205,918 km2[3]. Around 1,700 MPAs exist in the US and it's territories, encompassing 32% of all marine territories (3,909,143 km2). They are legally protected by the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), which allows for the designation and protection of marine environments with special national significance[19]. The NMSA focuses around 4 main reforms:

  1. Regulating sanctuary protections and treatment
  2. Updating management plans for each sanctuary
  3. Assessing civil penalties for violation of the NMSA
  4. Requiring federal agencies to undergo consultations prior to taking actions that impact sanctuary resources

Notably Controversies

The United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada have faced scrutiny from independent monitoring organizations regarding the efficacy of their MPAs. Specifically, many groups report inconsistencies between the protections claimed by the governments, and the actual conversation that occurs on their respective waters.

Remote Area Protections

The largest criticism levied on the US and UK governments is the usage of remote areas to claim a greater amount of protection whilst ignoring mainland waters. As such, while the UK claims that they are meeting their goal of 30% land and ocean protections[20], the protections in many areas that are in need of protecting are in fact quite bare, while remote areas where no significant human activity occurs are the most protected. In 2025, the environmental organization, Greenpeace UK, wrote "Less than 0.1% of UK's seas are fully or highly protected"[4], indicating the troubling lack of oversight over many of the UK MPAs. Other independent organizations found that the US claims of protecting 32% of their waters was also exaggerated. 99% of US protected waters that are fully/highly protected were found to be in remote areas[5]. 96% of all total MPAs in the US are located in the central Pacific Ocean[5]. Only 1.9% of the US coastline was found to be lightly protected, with none of the coastline meeting the threshold for fully or lightly protected status.[3]

Legal Loopholes

In the UK, legal loopholes written into the legislation surrounding MPAs also allow for the destruction of marine environments under the guise of protections. UK MPAs are designated to protect specific features of the marine system instead of the entire ecosystem[21]. In 2023, a report written by Oceana found that UK's offshore MPAs were subjected to over 33,000 hours of bottom trawling in 2023.[22] This is due to any vessel with a commercial fishing license being allowed to fish anywhere in UK waters by default[23]. Even with MPA restrictions, the MPA itself does not revoke licenses to operate, allowing commercial fishing to continue en masse. On top of this, even when restrictive byelaws are passed, they only protect a specific feature of the marine environment, invasive fishing practices can still happen adjacent to the protected feature, inevitably disrupting the ecosystem in the area[4].

In the US, under the NMSA, whenever a new sanctuary is created, the right to draft fishing rules around the sanctuary first go through the Regional Fisheries Management Council.[24] This council includes a large amount of fishing industry representatives, leading to a maintaining of the status quo and allowing for most fishing in the MPAs. Most of the US coastline, which is only lightly protected, allow for moderate/significant extraction and commercial fishing. This has resulted in invasive practices such as bottom trawling to remain legal across the US[25].

The Canadian government uses the classification of 'Marine Refuge' to meet international protection targets while circumventing the stricter regulations for MPAs outlined in the Ocean's Act.[26] While MPAs, under the Ocean's Act, are mandated to prioritize biodiversity, marine refuges simply protect certain fish species[27], whilst ignoring the general ecosystem. This means that while fishing of certain species are banned, extractive activities such as oil drilling are still allowed in the area, leading to massive ecosystem disruption[26]. As well, the Canadian Government counts the entire marine refuge area as contributions to its national and global conservation targets so long as active drilling has not begun. In the event that active drilling does begin, the borders of the marine refuge are redrawn to only exclude the area of industrial activity, allowing the government to continue counting the rest of the refuge towards its protection goals despite being impacted by the activity[26]. In 2019, Fisheries and Oceans Canada implemented a Marine Protection Standard (MPS) to ban invasive activities in MPAs created after the implementation[28]. Of the 16 MPAs that exist in Canada, 11 were established prior to April 2019, meaning only 5 MPAs in Canada are currently held to the MPS.[29]

Impact of the Policies

After assessment by the Marine Conservation Institute, based on the MPA guidelines, Canada was found to only be fully or highly protecting 0.2% of their marine territories[30], while the US and UK were found to be protecting 0% of their main marine waters[1][3].

Measurable Ecosystem Changes

In the Pacific Ocean, where the US has enacted strict protections, higher fish biomass was found in the surrounding area of the MPA. In a 100 nautical mile radius, bigeye tuna catches increased by 0.5 per 1000 hooks, up from the mean of 4.3 catches per 1000 hooks prior to the establishment of the MPA[31]. Yellow tuna catches increased by 0.6 per 1000 hooks, up from the mean of 1 catch per 1000 hooks previously as well[31]. General fish catches increased by 1.9 per 1000 hooks, up from the mean of 23.6 catches per 1000 hooks previously.[31] However, a similar increase in biomass was not found in mainland coastlines where protections are much more lax and unenforced.[31]

Meanwhile, in the UK, only 10% of MPAs are properly monitored, with only 3% of MPAs having a high level of confidence in their assessment findings[32]. This is primarily due to the feature-based structure of UK MPAs, which make monitoring the network as a whole extremely difficult[33]. As such, no conclusive evidence could be found on the efficacy of UK MPAs. However, due to the fact that invasive procedures such as bottom trawling have been allowed to continue in the UK MPAs[4], it is likely that there have been no meaningful benefits in biodiversity or fish biomass since MPA inception.

Comparing with the Past

Since 2015, the majority of US expansion of protected marine territories has come from increasing protections in the Pacific Ocean. Prior to the establishment of the Papahānaumokuākea monument in 2016, there was an estimated 2,036,762 km2 of marine protected territories in the US[5]. Today there exists 3,909,143 km2[3]. However, despite claims to being properly protected, most of the US coast remains largely unprotected[3].

The UK has also began to transition from the feature-based system in 2015 to a new class of MPAs called Highly Protected Marine Areas (HMPAs) in 2023[34]. Unlike previous MPAs, HMPAs specifically prohibit extractive, destructive, and depositional activities in the area, ensuring a more cohesive protection of the ecosystem[34]. 3 HMPAs have been set up in Allonby Bay, North East of Farnes Deep, and Dolphin Bay[34]. While it is unclear yet whether these newer protections will measurably improve the surrounding ecosystem, the hope is that newer protections will allow for these ecosystems to return to their natural state overtime.

The future of MPAs in Canada

Current Progress

Canada is entering a transitional phase in it's approach to MPAs, on a local and global scale there is increasing pressure to expand coverage and improve the effectiveness of protection. Furthermore, the Canadian government committed to protecting 25% of its marine and coastal territory by 2025, and they fell short of this target.[35] As of 2026, the 16 current Canadian MPAs only account for 10% of its marine territory and total marine protection is only at ~15%.[35] This shortcoming has raised concerns about the pace of MPA implementation and whether current protected areas are meeting conservation goals.

Areas of Interest in Canada

In order to address this disparity, there is now eight new Areas of Interest (AOIs) designated as candidates for future MPAs across different regions of Canada. These consist of Southampton Island in the Arctic Ocean, the Eastern Shore Islands, Fundian Channel–Browns Bank, Northern Gulf of St. Lawrence, Shediac Valley, and the St. Lawrence Estuary in the Atlantic Ocean, as well as Race Rocks and Kitkatla Inlet on the Pacific coast.[36] As a collective, these AOIs represent close to 117,308 km2 of newly protected areas. However, that means if all these areas were implemented as MPAs today, they would only expand Canada's total protected marine territory by ~2%. This shows us that the current expansion plans are not sufficient to meet long term conservation targets.

Marine Protected Networks - The Great Bear Sea Project

A key consideration for future MPA development is the efficacy of interconnected networks of marine protection compared to isolated MPAs. One of the most prominent examples of marine protection networks is the Great Bear Sea initiative along the coast of British Columbia. This project is a large-scale conservation effort focusing on protecting the Northern Shelf Bioregion through a network of marine protected areas managed by the BC government in partnership with 17 First Nations groups[37]. Unlike the traditional idea of single-site MPAs, the network system being developed aims to keep habitats ecologically connected by protecting migratory routes and enhancing resilience to environmental disturbances.[38] This initiative also represent the growing shift towards properly including Indigenous voices in matters of environmental knowledge and stewardship, as their relationship to the land is much deeper than most.

Improvements for MPAs

In addition, there are several ways that the general effectiveness of MPAs in Canada could be improved through policy changes. Many existing MPAs allow for some level of resource extraction which limits the area's ecological recovery, emphasizing the importance of increasing the proportion of fully protected, no-take areas.[39] Another critical area is strengthening monitoring and enforcement because so much illegal fishing activity goes on in them, particularly in remote areas with limited to no patrols. Moreover, there is a growing concern that current MPA planning does not take into account how ocean conditions and species distributions will change as global temperatures continue to rise.[37] The proposed solution is to design MPAs as non-static areas that shift according to changing ocean temperatures and prioritize climate-resilient habitats, or climate sanctuaries. Lastly, the MPA design process has been repeatedly criticized for being slow and convoluted, for example the Great Bear Sea project has been under development for over 20 years. To accelerate conservation efforts, Canada needs to streamline the implementation process, tighten protection regulations, and design adaptable, ecologically significant MPAs.

What Will the Future Hold?

Overall, the future of MPAs in Canada will depend on whether the government is willing to commit to serious change over a short time span. Expanding the total marine area under protection is important, but more important is the quality and effectiveness at which it is done. Networks of marine protection areas designed to be adaptable to changing ocean conditions and more accurately model real-world ecosystem interactions are perfect examples of this. Marine ecosystems will continue to face increasing pressure from human activity and climate change, thus a more strategic and interconnected approach to marine conservation is required to achieve long-term sustainability goals.[40]

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 National Geographic Society. (2024). Importance of marine protected areas. Retrieved from https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/importance-marine-protected-areas/ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name ":0" defined multiple times with different content
  2. ↑ Government of Canada, F. and O. C. (2021). Government of Canada. Retrieved from https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/mpa-zpm/info-eng.html
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 National Geographic Society. (2024). Importance of marine protected areas. Retrieved from https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/importance-marine-protected-areas/ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name ":1" defined multiple times with different content
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Marine Conservation Institute. (n.d.). Levels of protection. The MPA Guide. https://mpa-guide.protectedplanet.net/explore/levels-of-protection/by-level Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name ":2" defined multiple times with different content
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Beaty, F., Brown, K. H. T., Braun, J., Diggon, S., Hartley, E., Heidt, A., Maddin, H., Maloney, A., Martone, R., McDougall, C., Reid, M., Robb, C., Rubidge, E., Short, C., & Worsley, K. (2024). From design to implementation: Lessons from planning the first marine protected area network in Canada. Marine Policy, 170, 106360. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOL.2024.106360 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name ":3" defined multiple times with different content
  6. ↑ Government of Canada, F. and O. C. (2026). Government of Canada. Retrieved from https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/mpa-zpm/index-eng.html
  7. ↑ Government of Canada, F. and O. C. (2025). Government of Canada. Retrieved from https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/mpa-zpm/tht/index-eng.html
  8. ↑ Wang, M., Ruan, L., Liu, M., Liu, Z., He, J., Zhang, L., Wang, Y., Shi, H., Chen, M., Yang, F., Zeng, R., He, J., Guo, C., & Chen, J. (2023). The genome of a vestimentiferan tubeworm (Ridgeia piscesae) provides insights into its adaptation to a deep-sea environment. BMC genomics, 24(1), 72.
  9. ↑ Eckert, I., Brown, A., Caron, D., Riva, F., & Pollock, L. J. (2023). 30×30 biodiversity gains rely on national coordination. Nature communications, 14(1), 7113. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-42737-x
  10. ↑ Eckert, I., Brown, A., Caron, D., Riva, F., & Pollock, L. J. (2023). 30×30 biodiversity gains rely on national coordination. Nature communications, 14(1), 7113. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-42737-x
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 “Public Opinion on Marine Protected Areas.” Https://Wwf.ca/Wp-Content/Uploads/2020/09/Public-Opinion-On-Marine-Protected-Areas_Environics_May-2019.Pdf, 2019, wwf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Public-Opinion-on-Marine-Protected-Areas_Environics_May-2019.pdf. Accessed 10 Apr. 2026.
  12. ↑ Withers, Paul. “Canada to Ban Industrial Activities inside Marine-Protected Areas.” CBC, 25 Apr. 2019, www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/canada-to-ban-industrial-activities-1.5109635. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.
  13. ↑ Government of Canada. “Snow Crab.” Www.dfo-Mpo.gc.ca, 19 Dec. 2016, www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/profiles-profils/snow-crab-crabe-neiges-atl-eng.html
  14. ↑ Gies, Erica. “Canada’s New Marine (Less) Protected (than It Could Have Been) Area | Hakai Magazine.” Hakai Magazine, 2017, hakaimagazine.com/news/canadas-new-marine-less-protected-it-could-have-been-area/. Accessed 10 Apr. 2026.
  15. ↑ Wang, M., Ruan, L., Liu, M., Liu, Z., He, J., Zhang, L., Wang, Y., Shi, H., Chen, M., Yang, F., Zeng, R., He, J., Guo, C., & Chen, J. (2023). The genome of a vestimentiferan tubeworm (Ridgeia piscesae) provides insights into its adaptation to a deep-sea environment. BMC genomics, 24(1), 72. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-023-09166-y
  16. ↑ Government of Canada. “Marine Protected Areas (MPA) Protection Standard.” Www.dfo-Mpo.gc.ca, 1 Feb. 2023, www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/mpa-zpm/protection-standard-norme-protection-eng.html. Accessed 11 Apr. 2026.
  17. ↑ "Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)". gov.uk. March 13, 2023.
  18. ↑ Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. United Kingdom: Thomas Reuters. November 12, 2009.
  19. ↑ National Marine Sanctuaries Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq. Available at: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title16/chapter32
  20. ↑ "UK Marine Protected Area network statistics". jncc.uk.gov. July 5, 2023.
  21. ↑ Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (2022). Biodiversity marine target: Detailed evidence report. UK Government.
  22. ↑ Oceana UK (2024). Death by a Thousand Cuts: Bottom-trawl Fishing in UK Offshore Marine Protected Areas.
  23. ↑ Fisheries Act 2020, c. 22. UK Parliament.
  24. ↑ National Marine Sanctuaries Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq.
  25. ↑ Sullivan-Stack, J., et al. (2022). A Scientific Synthesis of Marine Protected Areas in the United States: Status and Recommendations. Frontiers in Marine Science.
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 26.2 Gies, Erica (3 May 2019). "Canada Has New Rules Governing Its Marine Protected Areas. Do They Go Far Enough?" Hakai Magazine.
  27. ↑ Fisheries and Oceans Canada. "Marine refuges". Government of Canada.
  28. ↑ Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society British Columbia (CPAWS BC). "CPAWS report finds BC’s Marine Protected Areas need urgent strengthening".
  29. ↑ Fisheries and Oceans Canada. "Marine protected areas". Government of Canada.
  30. ↑ "Marine Protection Atlas - Canada". mpatlas. 13 March, 2026. Check date values in: |date= (help)
  31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 31.2 31.3 Medoff, S., Lynham, J., and Raynor, J. (2022). "Spillover benefits from the world's largest fully protected MPA". Science, 378 (6617). doi:10.1126/science.abn0098.
  32. ↑ Howell Marine Consulting (2025). Review and Evaluation of the Marine Protected Area networks in England and Northern Ireland. Office for Environmental Protection. p. 5.
  33. ↑ Howell Marine Consulting (2025). Review and Evaluation of the Marine Protected Area networks in England and Northern Ireland. Office for Environmental Protection. p. 75.
  34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 34.2 Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs. "Highly Protected Marine Areas (HPMAs)". GOV.UK.
  35. ↑ 35.0 35.1 Government of Canada, F. and O. C. (2026). Government of Canada. Retrieved from https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/mpa-zpm/index-eng.html
  36. ↑ Government of Canada, F. and O. C. (2021). Government of Canada. Retrieved from https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/aoi-si/index-eng.html.
  37. ↑ 37.0 37.1 Rubidge, E. M., Robb, C. K., Thompson, P. L., McDougall, C., Bodtker, K. M., Gale, K. S. P., Ban, S., Tayler Brown, K. H., Sahanatien, V., Ouchi, S., Friesen, S. K., Ban, N. C., Hunter, K. L., Pena, A., Holdsworth, A., & Martone, R. (2024). Evaluating the design of the first marine protected area network in Pacific Canada under a changing climate. Facets, 9, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1139/FACETS-2023-0126
  38. ↑ Grorud-Colvert, K., Claudet, J., Tissot, B. N., Caselle, J. E., Carr, M. H., Day, J. C., Friedlander, A. M., Lester, S. E., de Loma, T. L., Malone, D., & Walsh, W. J. (2014). Marine protected area networks: Assessing whether the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. PLoS ONE, 9(8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102298
  39. ↑ Sala, E., & Giakoumi, S. (2018). No-take marine reserves are the most effective protected areas in the ocean. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 75(3), 1166–1168. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsx059
  40. ↑ Eckert, I., Brown, A., Caron, D., Riva, F., & Pollock, L. J. (2023). 30×30 biodiversity gains rely on national coordination. Nature communications, 14(1), 7113. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-42737-x
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:EOSC270/2023/Human_Impacts_through_Marine_Protected_Areas&oldid=891998"