Natalie C. Ban

Climate change is affecting the ocean, altering the biogeography of marine species. Yet marine protected area (MPA) planning still rarely incorporates projected species range shifts. We used the outputs of species distribution models fitted with biological and climate data as inputs to identify trends in occurrence for marine species in British Columbia (BC), Canada. We assessed and compared two ways of incorporating climate change projections into MPA planning. First, we overlaid 98 species with modelled distributions now and by the mid-21st century under two contrasting (“no mitigation” and “strong mitigation”) climate change scenarios with existing Provincial marine parks in BC, to ask which species could overlap with protected areas in the future. Second, we completed a spatial prioritization analysis using Marxan with the projected future species ranges as inputs, to ask where priority regions exist for the 98 marine species. We found that many BC marine parks will lose species in both climate scenarios that we analyzed, and that protecting 30% of important marine species will be challenging under the “no mitigation” climate change scenario. Challenges included the coarse resolution of the data and uncertainty in projecting species range shifts.

Marine protected area networks (MPANs) are promised as tools for protecting biodiversity and contributing to sustainable development. The variety of expected social‐ecological outcomes associated with MPANs underscores a need to consider ecological, economic, governance, and social dimensions in MPAN design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. However, little is known about how these four dimensions are considered or shaped by objectives. We conducted an online survey with MPAN managers, technical staff, and academics from across the globe (77 survey responses that described 48 MPANs located in 59 countries). Our findings confirmed that most MPANs have various co‐occurring, potentially conflicting objectives. MPANs with biodiversity and societal objectives considered attributes (e.g., human well‐being and economic distribution, institutional partnerships, and network‐specific ecological attributes) among all dimensions, with greater frequency than MPANs with only biodiversity objectives. Nonetheless, ecological attributes were always perceived as important irrespective of the MPAN objective. Reaching synergies between the multiple dimensions of MPANs can be challenging if dimensions get overlooked in MPAN evaluations. Identifying the important attributes considered in MPANs offers insight into the practice of MPAN design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation and can help improve MPAN success.