آیا استفاده از منابع دریایی و فعالیت های غیر مصرفی با همدیگر سازگار هستند؟ آنالیز جهانی از مقررات منابع دریایی
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|16550||2012||9 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 7959 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
|شرح||تعرفه ترجمه||زمان تحویل||جمع هزینه|
|ترجمه تخصصی - سرعت عادی||هر کلمه 90 تومان||12 روز بعد از پرداخت||716,310 تومان|
|ترجمه تخصصی - سرعت فوری||هر کلمه 180 تومان||6 روز بعد از پرداخت||1,432,620 تومان|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Marine Policy, Volume 36, Issue 5, September 2012, Pages 1096–1104
Marine reserves are places where wildlife and habitats are protected from extractive and depositional uses of the sea. Although considered to be the pinnacle in marine conservation, many permit non-consumptive activities with little or no regulation. This paper examines the potential impacts of 16 non-consumptive activities including scuba diving, sailing, scientific research and motor boating, and how they might compromise the conservation objectives of marine reserves. Examination of 91 marine reserves from 36 countries found little agreement or consistency in what non-consumptive activities are permitted in marine reserves and how they are regulated. The two most common activities allowed without regulation were swimming (mentioned in 80% of marine reserves and allowed in 63% of these) and kayaking (mentioned in 85%, allowed in 53%). Scuba diving was mentioned in 91% and allowed without regulation in 41%. A risk score for the likely level of threat to wildlife and/or habitats that each activity could produce was then assigned based on effects reported in the literature. The risk analysis suggests that motor boating and activities which include or require it have a high potential to negatively impact wildlife and habitats if inadequately managed. Hence protection against extractive or depositional activities alone is insufficient to secure the high standard of protection usually assumed in marine reserves. For this to be achieved activities typically considered as benign must receive appropriate management, especially with increasing recreational use.
Marine habitats and species are affected by a multitude of human impacts including fishing, pollution, habitat destruction and introduced species, among others . As a result, in many places species have declined in abundance, diversity has decreased and habitat complexity has been reduced . Marine reserves, sites that are protected from extractive and depositional activities, are increasingly seen as a way to help address many of these impacts  and  and have been shown to effectively protect biodiversity and enable ecosystem recovery ,  and . Currently, marine reserves protect just a fraction of the world's oceans, calculated at 0.1% in 2007 , whilst wider, multiple-use marine protected areas cover 1.6% of the global ocean surface . Yet despite their limited extent, marine reserves are widely seen as the ‘pinnacle of protection’ for marine life and as a way to provide resilience against future stressors such as climate change . Marine reserves have been variously defined  and , but their usual aim is to prohibit extractive or depositional activities and to maintain or recover the ecosystem(s) to a natural state in which marine life can thrive and natural processes dominate ecosystem dynamics ,  and . Ballantine  states that the aim of marine reserves is to “maintain (or restore) the intrinsic biodiversity and natural processes [within the marine environment]. No fishing is permitted or any removal of material. No dredging, dumping, construction or any other direct disturbance is allowed”. Lubchenco et al.  defined fully protected marine reserves as “areas of the ocean completely protected from all extractive and destructive activities”. In New Zealand marine reserves are “specified areas of the sea and foreshore that are managed to preserve them in their natural state as the habitat of marine life for scientific study […]. Within a marine reserve, all marine life is protected and fishing and the removal or disturbance of any living or non-living marine resource is prohibited, except as necessary for permitted monitoring or research. This includes dredging, dumping or discharging any matter or building structures” . In Australia the term ‘marine reserve’ is used to define “an area of sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means” . In Wales in the United Kingdom, the establishment of marine reserves which will be known as ‘highly protected marine conservation zones’ is currently underway. These are defined as “sites that are protected from extraction and deposition of living and non-living resources, and all other damaging or disturbing activities” . Damaging activities are defined as “acts that potentially result in permanent or temporary physical harm or injury to species, or cause permanent or temporary alteration to natural features within the marine environment”. Disturbing activities are defined as “acts that interfere with the normal functioning of populations beyond the natural variability of the ecosystem” . Some marine reserve equivalents, such as IUCN Strict Nature Reserves and Wilderness Areas, and the Australian Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Preservation Zones restrict public access. However, the scope for creating such ‘no use’ zones is extremely limited, so it has generally been taken for granted that non-consumptive activities be allowed (i.e. activities which do not result in extraction of a resource or deposition of materials). Many marine reserves positively encourage such uses, which are often recreational or educational, and so many marine reserves play an important economic and social role. However, this creates a potential problem in that, unless suitably managed, some non-consumptive activities have the potential to cause significant environmental damage, especially in marine reserves with high visitation and/or highly sensitive features . To determine which non-consumptive activities are compatible with the goal of complete ecosystem protection a better understanding of the potential impacts of non-consumptive activities is required. This would allow marine managers to make decisions as to whether marine reserves that allow certain non-consumptive uses are protected enough to deliver demanding conservation objectives. This study examines what non-consumptive activities or uses are prohibited or allowed within marine reserves or their equivalents from across the world, and how permitted activities are regulated. Risks to wildlife associated with the various managed or unmanaged activities are assessed across a spectrum of intensity of use, and management options to improve compatibility with full ecosystem protection are discussed.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Marine reserves are generally assumed to provide the pinnacle of protection against extractive and depositional activities that damage marine life. However, some activities traditionally considered benign have the potential to damage marine reserves yet are commonly allowed with little or no regulation. Most are associated with recreational use and thereby help generate revenue for marine reserves and provide benefits for wider communities . However, if marine reserves are to provide the strong protection they are intended to provide, any allowable activity needs careful management consideration. Without it, simply stopping extractive or depositional activities may be insufficient to achieve demanding marine reserve conservation goals. In this respect, the survey revealed a major disconnect between the intended conservation outcomes of marine reserves and their management. Importantly managers need to consider, and possibly mitigate particularly subtle forms of disturbance or damage that may be caused by human activities. For example, some forms of disturbance described may have effects at spatial scales or over periods of time that are not easily observed by typical research studies. Another possibility is that disturbance could affect an animal's natural behaviour without making it appear stressed  and , or affect particularly sensitive organisms or features within a marine reserve. In view of the high standards of protection intended for marine reserves, a precautionary approach is appropriate when making decisions about the level and type of activities that should be allowed or regulated within a marine reserve. Scientific reference areas, where all human activity with the exception of scientific monitoring is banned, could also provide comparison sites by which to judge the changing conditions of features within marine reserves where non-consumptive activities continue to occur, for example, Preservation Zones within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park . Bearing in mind the caveats discussed in this paper, most non-consumptive activities practised within marine reserves can be compatible if practised in their ‘low impact’ form, with appropriate management. The exceptions are jet skiing, water skiing and catch and release angling, all of which undermine high levels of protection. To ensure compatibility, operation of motor boats within marine reserves needs careful regulation, including use for scuba diving, snorkelling, wildlife observation and scientific research. Ultimately marine managers have to make difficult decisions about what to allow or not allow in marine reserves and this may include placing limits on visitor numbers for permitted activities and prohibiting some activities altogether—notably the more damaging ones identified in this paper. Such actions may be unpopular, but without them, non-consumptive activities may limit the potential of marine reserves to recover or maintain sensitive ecosystems and wildlife. That said, it is impossible to eliminate all impacts associated with non-consumptive uses. In view of this and the extra conservation benefits of restricting almost all human access (e.g. Robbins et al.  found that no-entry zones in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park were easier to enforce than no-take zones, thereby potentially providing greater protection to reef shark populations), planners may want to consider the inclusion of such strict protection zones in marine protected area networks wherever it is feasible to do so.