Research advances and gaps in marine planning: towards a global database in systematic conservation planning

Jorge G. Álvarez-Romeroa,*, Morena Millsb,c, Vanessa M. Adamsa,b,d, Georgina G. Gurneya, Robert L. Presseya, Rebecca Weeksa, Natalie C. Bane, Jessica Cheoka, Tammy E. Daviese,f, Jon C. Daya, Mélanie A. Hamela, Heather M. Leslieg, Rafael A. Magrisa,h, Collin J. Storliei

a Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia

b School of Biological Sciences and Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia

c Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Berkshire SL5 7PY, United Kingdomd Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW 2109, Australiae School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, PO Box 1700, STN CSC, Victoria BC, Canadaf BirdLife International, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, United Kingdomg Darling Marine Center and School of Marine Sciences, University of Maine, Walpole ME 04573, USAh Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation, Brazilian Ministry of Environment, Brasilia DF

70670-37, Brazili eResearch Centre, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia

Emails: JGAR: jorge.alvarez.romero@gmail.com; MM: m.mills@imperial.ac.uk; VMA: vanessa.adams@mq.edu.au; GGG: georgina.gurney@gmail.com; RLP: bob.pressey@jcu.edu.au; RW: rebecca.weeks@jcu.edu.au; NCB: nban@uvic.ca; JC: jessica.cheok@my.jcu.edu.au; TED: tammy.davies@birdlife.org; JCD: jon.day@my.jcu.edu.au; MAH: melanie.hamel@my.jcu.edu.au; HML: heather.leslie@maine.edu; RAM: rafael.jcu@gmail.com; CJS: collin.storlie@jcu.edu.au

*Corresponding author: Jorge G. Álvarez-Romero; address: ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia; telephone: +61 (07) 4781 6517; e-mail: jorge.alvarez.romero@gmail.com

1

1

23456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354

Abstract

Systematic conservation planning (SCP) has increasingly been used to prioritize marine conservation actions, including the design of new protected areas to achieve high-level conservation objectivestargets. Over the last 10 years, the number of marine SCP studies has increased exponentially, yet there is no structured or reliable way of to finding information on methods, trends, and progress. The rapid growth in methods and marine applications warrants an updated analysis of the literature, as well as reflection on the need for continuous and systematic documentation of SCP exercises in general. To address theise gaps, we developed a database to document SCP exercises and populated it with all 155 marine SCP studies exercises found in the primary literature. Based on our review, we provide an update on global advances and trends in marine planningSCP literature. We found accelerating growth in the number of marine SCP studies over the past decade, with increasing consideration of socioeconomic variables, land-sea planning, and ecological connectivity. While many several studies aimed to inform conservation decisions, we found little evidence of input from stakeholder participationpractitioners. There are important gaps in geographic coverage and little correspondence with areas most threatened. Five countries lead most studies, but their networks suggest potential for capacity -building through collaborations. The varying quality and detail in documentation of studies confirmed the limiteds opportunities to develop and assess the application of best -practice in conservation planningprinciples. A global database to track the development, implementation, and impact of SCP applications iscan thus provide numerous benefitsnecessary. Our database constitutes an important step towards the development of a centralized repository of information on planning exercises and can serve several roles to advance SCP theory and practice: it facilitates assessing geographic coverage and gaps; scientists and practitioners can access information on trends and statistics in the use of data, methods, and applications; reviewers and editors of journals can assess whether studies have covered important literature and developments; donors and non-government organizations can identify regions needing further work; and practitioners and policy-makers can learn from previous plans.

Highlights

The number of marine conservation planning studies is growing exponentially.

Socioeconomics, land-sea planning and connectivity are current key research areas.

Evidence of stakeholder participationinput from practitioners is weak despite alleged policy relevance.

Studies have limited geographic coverage and correspondence with threatened areas.

A Ffew countries lead marine SCP with extensive international collaboration networks lead marine SCP.

A global database to track development, implementation and impact of SCP is needed.

Keywords

Aichi biodiversity targets; Integrated land-sea planning; Marine conservation planning; Marine protected areas; Marine spatial planning; Systematic conservation planning

2

555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081

828384858687888990919293949596

979899

100101102103104105106107

1. Introduction

Following the target set by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to conserve at least 10% of coastal and marine areas globally, notable progress has been made by countries to expand their marine protected area (MPA) systems (Juffe-Bignoli et al., 2014). Protected areas now cover around 6.973.9% of the total extent of the world’s oceans, corresponding to almost 16.0310% of marine environments within national jurisdictions and 0.21.18% of the high seas (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2018). International policy targets and the growing recognition of a marine biodiversity crisis (McCauley et al., 2015) indicate that the number and total extent of MPAs will increase further, perhaps significantly, during the next few decades (Boonzaier and Pauly 2016). However, only a small proportion of MPAs are fully protected (e.g. through strict marine reserves), which can limit their effectiveness in achieving conservation objectives (Boonzaier and Pauly 2016). Further, there is concern that the push for quantity is undermining quality (Pressey et al., 2015), with new MPAs tending to concentrate in residual parts of the oceans where there is limited potential for extractive uses and least need for protection (Devillers et al., 2015). Although the spirit of the 10% target is to protect places that would otherwise be threatened, there is a risk that countries are gaming international targets by adding still more residual MPAs. The challenge is making expansion of MPA systems count in terms of biodiversity conservation and other planning objectives (Spalding et al., 2016).

In general, the effectiveness of MPAs in halting biodiversity loss has been limited (Edgar et al., 2014) and their contribution to other objectives, including improving livelihoods and fisheries management has been variable (Garcia et al., 2013; Hilborn et al., 2004). Thus, careful planning of new MPAs (Spalding et al., 2016) and other spatially explicit coastal and marine management strategies, preferably within existing planning frameworks (e.g. linking MPAs to Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management: Cicin-Sain and Belfiore 2005; and Marine Spatial Planning: Stelzenmüller et al., 2013), is critical to ensure conservation benefit is maximized (Klein et al., 2015). Systematic conservation planning (SCP), which takes into account both ecological and socioeconomic aspects of conservation, provides a robust and transparent approach to spatial allocation of conservation priorities, given limited resources (Margules and Pressey 2000). Consequently, SCP is widely regarded as best practice for identifying conservation priorities (Groves and Game 2016; Pressey and Bottrill 2009) and will continue to play a key role in guiding the expansion of MPA systems that are effective for biodiversity conservation (Ban et al., 2013).

Overall, the field of SCP is in explosivecontinues to growth, with rapidly increasing publications (Kukkala and Moilanen 2013; Moilanen et al., 2009), hundreds of applications world-wide (Ban et al., 2009; Groves and Game 2016), and substantial influence achieved with governments and non-government organizations (Kareiva et al., 2014; Taylor et al., 2014). In particular, the number of studies added to the marine SCP literature has increased significantly over the past 10 years (Ban and Klein 2009; Kukkala and Moilanen 2013; Magris et al., 2014), including numerous exercises aiming to inform the creation of new MPAs (e.g. Álvarez-Romero et al., 2018; Green et al., 2009; Weeks and Jupiter 2013). This accelerating output of marine SCP methods and applications demands an updated analysis of the literature, as well as reflection on the need for continuous and systematic documentation of SCP applications in general.

Conservation scientists and practitioners struggle to access and keep track of advances in SCP science (e.g. frameworks, methods, tools, models), and are commonly unaware of the existence or details of previous planning exercises within their region or those undertaken in similar biophysical and/or socioeconomic contexts (Álvarez-Romero et al., 2013; Micheli et al., 2013). Likewise, policy-makers are commonly unaware of conservation planning exercises undertaken within their jurisdictions, and require technical guidance to support new planning initiatives prompted by national and international conservation targets, such as those under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (CBD 2016). Furthermore, documentation of planning processes is highly variable in terms of quality, detail, and terminology, making it difficult to find, summarize, keep up to date, and learn from past studies. In addition, given the long period from the start of planning processes to the (usually incremental) implementation of conservation actions (Pressey et al., 2013), tracking progress of plans becomes nearly impossible. While the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) provides reasonably up-to-date access to basic information about existing protected areas (Juffe-Bignoli et al., 2014), albeit with some limitations (Visconti et al., 2013), an analogous repository describing the details of

3

108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161

planning exercises processes to supporting the design and implementation of protected areas is missing. Furthermore, while there is a recognized gap between research and implementation in SCP (Knight et al., 2008), understanding how to more effectively make that transition requires systematic and continuous monitoring (Mascia et al., 2014b; McIntosh et al., 2016).

Here we provide an update on global advances and trends in marine SCP research and discuss the need for and potential benefits of a global database to keep track of SCP research and applications, which we demonstrate by reviewing and providing an update on global advances and trends in marine SCP and related research. Based on our review of marine studies, wWe summarize progress and gaps in the primary literature on marine SCP through the exploration of five key aspects: recent advances and emerging trends; geographic coverage and gaps; expertise and knowledge sharing; application of best-practice planning principles; and development, implementation, and impact of studies. We conclude with a discussion on next steps, in particular regarding the consolidation development of a global database that contains all the SCP exercises, is widely accessible, and can be regularly updated.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Database structure

Based on key SCP frameworks (i.e. Groves et al., 2002; Lehtomäki and Moilanen 2013; Pressey and Bottrill 2009), we developed a prototype database to systematically document marine SCP exercises. These frameworks broadly reflect the diversity of planning approaches and processes underlying current SCP science and practice. The database currently has contains 85 112 fields and includes information on planning goals and objectives, geographic scope and location, targeted features, methods and decision-support tools, planning units, threats to features, stakeholder participation, planning outputs, and approaches to incorporating ecological connectivity, climate change, and socioeconomic considerations (Figure S1). To ensure consistency of coding across fields, we drew upon relevant reviews and key papers (e.g. Álvarez-Romero et al., 2011; Ban and Klein 2009; Magris et al., 2014; Pomeroy and Douvere 2008) to develop clear definitions of the database fields (see review on SCP concepts by Kukkala and Moilanen 2013). We populated the database with all peer-reviewed papers on marine SCP published before 2016 (details below). Our prototype focused on peer-reviewed literature, thus oOur findings are therefore represent the marine planning processes within the scientific literatureconstrained by studies included. For the same reason, details of stakeholder participation and the intended or actual links to implementation were often absent or vague, and subject to a range of interpretations.

Among the strengths of SCP is transparency in decision-making. To this end, our the database structure encourages standardized reporting that captures all majorkey aspects of studies to increase transparency, consistency, and comparability of information, including repeatable methods and justification of decisions made (e.g. why certain planning units were used). Standardized reporting can also provide a simple method for reviewers and editors of peer-reviewed literature to ensure that studies meet basic quality criteria and that the methods are repeatable. Our structured approach to document SCP studies thereforethus responds to calls for transparency, openness, and reproducibility in conservation science generally (Parker et al., 2016). For practitioners wishing to use the database as a learning tool, standardization ensures that methods are well documented to allow comparability, expedite systematic reviews, and facilitate their adaptation to new study areas and types of problems. Further, Sstandardized reporting can also provide a simple method forhelp reviewers and editors of peer-reviewed literature to ensure that SCP studies meet basic quality criteria and that the methods are repeatable.

2.2. Review of marine SCP studies

For the purposes of this paper, we focused on marine planning exercises following a SCP approach, sensu Margules and Pressey (2000), to guide the spatial allocation of conservation priorities given limited resources (Pressey and Bottrill 2009). We documented exercises that met the following four criteria: 1. defined explicit conservation objectives; 2. identified spatially explicit conservation areas (i.e. places where some form of

4

162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176

177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215

spatially explicit management, ranging from strict reservation to off-reserve management, is undertaken to contribute to conservation objectives); 3. identified marine conservation areas (including coastal ecosystems) and/or terrestrial or freshwater conservation areas with potential downstream benefits for marine ecosystems (i.e. explicit marine conservation goalsobjectives); and 4. prioritized spatially using some form of optimization that accounted for complementarity between priority conservation areas and/or actions.

We searched ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus, and Google Scholar using different combinations of search terms based on three criteria, which resulted in a good compromise between the number, relevance, and completeness of search results: (1.) optimization tool/method (we searched for prioritization algorithms or tools known to be used in SCP, e.g. Marxan, Zonation, C-Plan); (2.) intervention/action (i.e. marine priority, marine protected area, marine reserve, marine zoning); and (3.) analysis units (i.e. planning unit, analysis unit, cell). These terms were searched for only in English-language documents inclusive of journal papers and conference proceedings spanning the period from 1998 (first documented marine SCP study) to 2015, inclusive. If the research articles were focused on applied marine planning exercises and had associated reports, we also searched those reports.

Our search produced a set of references that was comprehensive (no relevant reference known to authors was omitted) and accurate (the number of studies not meeting the selection criteria was relatively low) set of references. In total, we identified 259 documents referring to marine SCP exercises, 20 corresponding to reviews and 239 documenting planning exercises (183 academic and 56 reports). A more detailed revision review of the documents showed that 30 planning exercises were documented in multiple papers and/or reports (identified based on the authors, planning domain, and details on prioritization analyses), thus leaving 180 unique planning exercises. After excluding planning exercises documented only in the gray literature, we retained 163 peer-reviewed papers (plus 20 associated reports), which we used to fully document 155 marine SCP exercises (hereafter ‘studies’); some studies were documented in multiple papers (Table S1).

We focused on the primary literature because we aimed to undertake a systematic and thorough analysis to identify research gaps and trends. Our analysis would have been compromised if we had included the gray literature because we would have beenonly be able to review only those in English, Spanish, and Portuguese (given our research team’s language proficiency) and gray literature is often not available online. The database containing all the information from the reviewed marine planning exercises is available on request documented and stored inthrough the Tropical Data Hub (tropicaldatahub.org), which further directs users to thewith a open-access beta version of a web-based application tool that allows geographic and thematic queries of the documented marine SCP studies (database.conservationplanning.org), that will which will be extended to allow exploring documented marine studies and updating and entering of new planning exercises forthcoming.

2.3. Trends in marine SCP studies

We analyzed the cumulative number of studies per year that incorporated selected aspects of SCP, including socioeconomic costs, climate change, ecological connectivity, and land-sea linkages. These aspects were selected because they are recognized as critical to planning and, consequently, are increasingly incorporated into SCP. Regarding representation of socioeconomic costs, we separated studies that estimated costs monetarily from those that used other surrogates, such as distance to nearest land. Monetary estimations of cost are suggested to be more appropriate for incorporating socioeconomic considerations in planning (Naidoo et al., 2006), and tend to require more sophisticated analyses and information than other surrogates (Ban and Klein 2009). Making this distinction allowed a more nuanced analysis of trends in incorporating socioeconomic data into planning.

Likewise, following Magris et al. (2014), we separated papers that had adjusted plans to account for ecological connectivity using generic design criteria (e.g. size and spacing) and all others, including those employing more sophisticated, ecologically informed strategies and methods, such as analysis of dynamics. Given that consideration of climate change in the design of marine SCP is very recent, we did not have enough information to analyze trends. Studies identified as following a land-sea planning approach were identified as those that had explicitly adjusted designs to account for land-sea linkages (Álvarez-Romero et al.,

5

216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270

2011). For example, studies prioritizing marine areas only (e.g. designing MPAs) were included if spatial configuration was adjusted to account for land-based threats (e.g. away from river plumes) or to maintain ecological links among different realms (e.g. protect species occupying habitats in marine and freshwater or terrestrial realms). Plans prioritizing terrestrial areas for management or protection to minimize impacts on marine ecosystems (e.g. reducing sedimentation in coastal-marine areas) were also considered in this category.

2.4. Geographic coverage and leading planning countries

We analyzed the geographic spread of marine SCP studies using the boundaries of the Marine Ecoregions of the World (MEOW) (Spalding et al., 2007), which are delimited by Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs). The MEOW provides a biogeographic classification system of the world's coasts and shelves, and is widely used to measure progress in marine conservation, such as coverage by protected areas (Juffe-Bignoli et al., 2014). Our country-based analyses were undertaken by linking countries with EEZs overlapping the planning domain. For our gap analysis based on MEOW boundaries, we counted the number of plans that overlapped each MEOW., henceHence, the presence of studies in a MEOW does not indicate that the whole ecoregion was analyzed. Global studies were excluded from MEOW and country-based analyses. We used the latest assessment of human impacts on the world’s oceans (Halpern et al., 2015) to calculate average human impact per MEOW, which was then contrasted with the level of planning (i.e. number of studies) per MEOW.

Planning expertise at a country level was identified through the affiliation of the lead author of each study based on the assumption that the institution of the leading scientist is likely providing most of the scientific expertise and infrastructure to undertake the research, and hence the implicit contribution of the host country (specifically in regards to scientific expertise) to planning in other countries. However, we recognize that, in some cases, planning exercises are led by multiple organizations and that the lead author of a peer-reviewed publication may not have led the study. Further, we should emphasizeacknowledge that studies are not necessarily funded by the country where the lead author was based or in response to national policies of either the country where the lead author was based or that was the subject of the plan.

2.5. Mapping planning networks

We used UCINET network analysis software (Borgatti et al., 2002) to draw and analyze the planning networks at country and regional levels. For country-level networks, we associated countries with studies if the planning domain included any portion of their corresponding EEZ. The size of nodes was represented using the total extent of the EEZ of each country, including overseas territories. This was considered an indicator of the potential level of interest (and possibly, also investment) in marine planning in each country. To explore the potential link between interest in planning and the state of ocean health, we color-coded nodes (i.e. countries) by each country’s level of Ocean Health Index, in particular that regarding coastal livelihoods and economies (Halpern et al., 2012). In contrast with our assessment at the MEOW level, we used the Ocean Health Index because it was calculated at the country level. To assess the relative contribution of regions to marine planning, we used Eigenvector centrality (Borgatti et al., 2002). This centrality metric is useful because the centrality of a node is a function of the centralities of its neighbors; thus, it provides information onf the importance of a node (i.e. region) inwithin the global network (in this case in terms of planning).

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Recent advances and emerging trends in marine conservation planning

While once lagging behind terrestrial planning in innovation and borrowing heavily from methods developed on land (Álvarez-Romero et al., 2011; Leslie 2005), over the past 10 years the theory and practice of marine SCP have advanced rapidly and innovatively to inform actions to mitigate the growing threats to marine ecosystems (Halpern et al., 2012; McCauley et al., 2015). Since the most recent review of marine planning exercises (Leslie 2005), hundreds of publications on marine SCP have appeared in the academic and gray literature, adding new concepts, planning frameworks, and methods (Groves and Game 2016; Kukkala and

6

271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324

Moilanen 2013). Our review revealed an exponential increase in marine SCP over the past 15 years, with over 160 papers in the primary literature (Table S1) and an increased rate of publication (~22 papers per year) over the last five years (Figure 1). A particular focus has been guidance for expanding systems of MPAs, sensu Kelleher and Kenchington (1992). The database (section 3.6) will provide a powerful tool for conservation practitioners to access and keep track of advances in marine SCP science (e.g. frameworks, methods, tools), as well as to explore and learn from planning exercises within their area of interest or those undertaken in comparable biophysical and/or socioeconomic contexts.

Our review demonstrates that the marine SCP literature has advanced on many fronts (Figure 2a). Increasingly, Aattention has been concentrated onis being given to socioeconomic considerations (Ban and Klein 2009), land-sea planning (Álvarez-Romero et al., 2011) and, more recently, on to ecological connectivity and climate change (Magris et al., 2014). Other topics gaining traction but proceeding more slowly included marine zoning (e.g. Klein et al., 2009), planning for pelagic ecosystems (e.g. Game et al., 2009), and dynamic oceanographic processes (e.g. Grantham et al., 2011). Advances in these aspects of planning have resulted in new methods and tools that can help planners to design more robust MPA systems that can be effective in achieving conservation goals under current and future cumulative threats (e.g. land-based pollution, global warming).

Approximately 62% of the studies analyzed included socioeconomic costs. The dates of two key reviews on the importance of incorporating costs in conservation (Naidoo et al., 2006) and marine SCP in particular (Ban et al., 2009) are shown indicated in Figure 2b. These reviews indicated reflect a growth in the knowledge base on socioeconomic factors, which was a necessary precursor to including this type of data into planning (Gurney et al., 2015). Following publication of these reviews, there was an increase in the number of studies that include socioeconomic factors, suggesting a broader understanding of their importance in marine planning. Studies considering costs included those based on monetary economic data represented in monetary terms (18%) and those using other data as surrogates of costs (44%), such as distance to nearest land, population density, and fishing effort. Improving methods to incorporate social and economic considerations in marine SCP will ensure that new MPAs are not only robust from an ecological perspective, but can also support implementation (e.g. facilitating compliance and providing benefits to people affected by their implementation). In this regard, our database allows planners to explore and learn from studies undertaken in similar socioeconomic contexts when designing new MPA systems.

Among the studies reviewed, 55 (35%) related to applied planning exercises or suggested the potential application of their results to inform conservation decisions in the study areas. However, 33% of these studies did not provide any evidence of stakeholder participation in the planning process. Studies that did involve stakeholders documented a range of types and levels of participation (see Day 2017; Pomeroy and Douvere 2008), including keeping informing stakeholders informed (16%), consultation (20%), dialogue (11%), concertation (e.g. jointly define objectives and actions) (7%), and negotiation (13%). Although this apparently limited stakeholder participation was likely related to our focus on the peer-reviewed literature, it is still concerning given that numerous studies make claims regarding the relevance of their findings to inform managementon-ground conservation actions. We argue that planning exercisesSCP studies developed without any input from stakeholdersconservation practitioners, despite academic focus, can limit the potential application and validity of findings,; particularly by using limitations include inadequate information, unrealistic assumptions, and methods that are difficult to replicate. Indeed, successful marine planning initiatives, such as the rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, have shown that, to strengthen and legitimize planning, stakeholder engagement needs to be truly participatory, occur throughout the planning process, and have a real influence on the final outcome (Day 2017). In this sense, Tthe observed paucity in stakeholder participation in the marine SCP literature may provide further some evidence of the broader and well known research-implementation gap (Jarvis et al., 2015; Knight et al., 2008).

Connectivity, climate change, and land-sea linkages became more prominent in marine studies after 2010 (Figure 2a). Among these topics, connectivity has increased most rapidly, with more than twice the number of studies published in comparison with climate change and land-sea linkages. In Figure 2c, the date of two important reviews regarding marine ecological connectivity (Cowen and Sponaugle 2009) and the design of marine reserve networks (Almany et al., 2009) are also marked. Both reviews seemed to coincide with an

7

325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379

increase in marine studies that consider ecological connectivity, indicating a broader awareness of its importance to designing marine reserve networks and the availability of data and tools to model connectivity. With the growth in this fundamental knowledge base, the number of studies that incorporated connectivity beyond generic design principles (e.g. size, spacing) continued to increase (see Magris et al., 2014). Keeping up to date with novel topics and rapidly changing methods (e.g. how to design well-connected marine reserve networks, including under ocean warming) is thus critical for practitioners aiming to design effective MPAs. 3.2. Geographic coverage and gaps in marine planning studies

Identifying gaps in the distribution of planning exercises can help direct future research and planning efforts, particularly when gaps coincide with high-biodiversity areas under threat. New planning initiatives can learn from exercises developed in the same area or in similar geographical or socioeconomic contexts, and thus build on associated expertise and knowledge. Further, a comparison of SCP exercises with existing MPAs can help to identify opportunities to implement new MPAs (e.g. providing data and preliminary analyses), refine ongoing planning initiatives by adaptive management, or improve zoning of existing MPAs to accommodate revised or new conservation objectives. In cases where extensive planning has not led to implementation, spatial analysis of SCP exercises can also help to understand why this could be the case.Exploring past planning initiatives can also help to identify approaches, methods, and conditions leading to successful planning processes, and ultimately to develop and use best-practice planning principles.

A spatial exploration of the distribution of marine SCP studies (Figure 3) indicates that more than half (55%) of the marine ecoregions of the world (MEOW) (Spalding et al., 2007), defined within Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ), have no planning exercises recorded in the primary literature. Of those ecoregions with studies, about 13% have only one exercise recorded. Planning studies in the high seas are almost absent: our review identified only two global studies focused on marine mammals and one focused on the Northeast Atlantic (Table S1). Furthermore, the presence of studies in a MEOW does not indicate that the whole ecoregion was analyzed; thus, the actual gap in geographic extent of marine studies is probably bigger. Adding gray literature could would provide information to refine identification of areas that have not been the focus of had any planning exercises.

Marine SCP studies are notably concentrated within a few areasSome marine areas have a notable concentration of studies (Figure 3a), including the Northern European Seas, Mediterranean Sea, Coral Triangle, Tropical Southwestern Pacific, and Temperate Northern Pacific, as well as the coasts of South Africa, Australia, Chile, and the USA. Within these areas, certain ecoregions have a particularly high concentration of studies (hereafter ‘planning hotspots’), including the Western Mediterranean, Ionian Sea, Palawan/North Borneo (a.k.a. Sulu-Sulawesi Seascape), Eastern Philippines, Papua, Bismarck Sea, Great Barrier Reef, Fiji Islands, Northern California, and the Oregon, Washington, and Vancouver Coast and Shelf. In some instances, planning hotspots match the implementation of actions, such as the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) Marine Park re-zoning in Australia (Fernandes et al., 2005), the MPA network in California’s State waters implemented under the Marine Life Protection Act in the United States (Gleason et al., 2013), the community-based re-design of MPAs in the Kubulau District in Fiji (Weeks and Jupiter 2013), and an ongoing process to design and implement an MPA network in Kimbe Bay in Papua New Guinea (Green et al., 2009). Other planning hotspots, such as the Mediterranean (Micheli et al., 2013) and the Gulf of California (Álvarez-Romero et al., 2013) illustrate cases where information and outputs from previous planning exercises have been used in subsequent planning initiatives (e.g. Álvarez-Romero et al., 2018).

The distribution of planning hotspots could be partially explained by the existence of legal mandates to revise or designate MPAs (e.g. GBR, Australia: Fernandes et al., 2005; California State Waters, USA: Gleason et al., 2013; Mediterranean Sea: Micheli et al., 2013), the presence of international conservation NGOs (e.g. Papua New Guinea: Green et al., 2009; Fiji: Weeks and Jupiter 2013), international commitments to undertake planning in biodiversity hotspots (e.g. Coral Triangle Initiative: coraltriangleinitiative.org), availability of information from previous planning exercises or research, and their geographic proximity to countries with organizations with expertise in SCP (Figure 3a). Fully understanding the factors underlying the observed

8

380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401402403404405406407408409410411412413414415416417418419420421422423424425426427428429430431432

patterns would require a comprehensive analysis (including gray literature) and input from planners, which would be facilitated by the consolidation of a global SCP database.

An additional factor that may might be contributing to the observed pattern is the strong focus of marine studies on tropical ecosystems such as coral reefs (Figure S2). However, our expectation that planning could also be triggered in response to overlaps between marine ecosystems and adverse impacts of human activities (Halpern et al., 2015) is not supported by our findings, except for a few cases (e.g. Mediterranean Sea, Eastern Philippines; Figure 3b). In some instances, areas with relatively low to moderate levels of impact, such as the GBR and the western coast of South America, had a disproportionally large number of studies. Some marine areas with very high impacts coincided with ecoregions with no studies, or very few, including the Lusitanian Province (i.e. South European Atlantic Shelf, Saharan Upwelling, and Azores Canaries Madeira ecoregion), West and South Indian Shelf, South China Sea, and Eastern Caribbean. Although adding gray literature to our analysis might reduce the discrepancy between planning activity and impact hotspots, our findings call for increased attention to threatened areas where little marine SCP research has been undertaken.

3.3. Expertise and knowledge sharing in marine planning

Understanding where planning has occurred and where there is expertise in SCP is critical for advancing marine conservation. Our analysis shows that research institutions or organizations from five countries have led the majority (~80%) of marine studies (i.e. Australia, USA, Canada, United Kingdom, and South Africa; Figure 4a). This finding is consistent with a previous analysis of SCP literature (Kukkala and Moilanen 2013) and suggests there are organizations with strong resources and expertise in SCP within these countries. Organizations leading marine SCP studies in these five countries have also developed studies in other countries. In particular, Australian organizations have led more studies overseas than domestically (60% of all studies led by Australian organizations are for parts of other EEZs; Figure 4b).

As expected, none of the top five countries appear to plan much in each other’s EEZs (Figure 4a), probably because they are self-sufficient in terms of SCP research capacities and have better access, networks, and data to plan within their own jurisdictions. However, their networks, extending over 80 countries (Figure 4a, Figure S3), suggest the potential for capacity building through collaboration with organizations from these countries. In particular, Australian organizations have contributed significantly to developing methods and tools that are widely used in SCP (Ban et al., 2013; Moilanen et al., 2009), which further explains the role of Australia as an important “marine SCP hub” (Figure S3, Figure S4). For example, the Marxan conservation planning software, developed to support the rezoning of the GBR Marine Park (Lewis et al., 2003), was used in 56% of all studies in our database (64% when including Marxan relatives). Along the same lines, the GBR planning hotspot illustrates the importance of some regions in supporting the development of best practices in marine planning more generally; studies describing the GBR Marine Park initial zoning and rezoning (see Fernandes et al., 2005 and referenced studies) have been cited >1000 650 times.

Mapping the “planning networks” reveals the current and potential roles that some countries could have in sharing expertise and building planning capacities (Figure 5, Figure S3). A country-level network shows the central role of organizations from the above-mentioned five countries, plus another four countries (France, Greece, Israel, and Sweden) with central positions in the network (Figure 5a). It also shows countries of common interest, where organizations from multiple countries have invested resources and expertise in marine SCP research (e.g. Philippines, Malaysia, Mexico, Belize) and countries where there is potential for collaboration (e.g. between Australia and the USA in countries part ofwithin the Coral Triangle). Also notable is the bridging position that organizations from Australia, Canada, and the USA have in this network, particularly in terms of creating brokering links with countries in the Pacific, Northern European Seas, and the Caribbean and Central America, respectively.

Representing countries using the extent of their EEZs (size of nodes) shows some agreement between marine SCP research effort (outgoing arrows) and extent of marine jurisdictions (Pearson correlation coefficient between EEZ size and out-degree is 0.642, p < 0.0001) (Figure 5a). In contrast, the health of marine waters (i.e. Ocean Health Index: Halpern et al., 2012) within EEZs (color of nodes) does not seem to reflect planning

9

433434435436437438439440441442443444445446447448449450451452453454455456457458459460461462463464465466467468469470471472473474475476477478479480481482483484485486

effort (Pearson correlation coefficient between ocean health and in-degree is 0.074, p = 0.495). However, some countries with relatively low ocean health indices have more studies, as represented by the number of incoming arrows (e.g. Fiji, Greece, Indonesia, Mexico, Philippines). These results may further call the attention of some countries regarding the need to increase investments in marine SCP to support the expansion of their protected area systems.

From the perspective of multi-national regions, Australia-New Zealand (NZ) and North America, and to a lesser extent Europe, play a central role in the global marine SCP research network, acting as planning hubs (Figure 5b). In particular, the links of Australia-NZ and North America are strong, respectively, with South-East Asia (closer to Australia-NZ) and the Caribbean (closer to North America), respectively. These links can be partially explained by the proximity (and government priorities) of Australia to the Coral Triangle, and by investment, mainly from the USA, in marine planning in the Caribbean and, more recently, in the Coral Triangle. The link between Australia-NZ and the Pacific Islands is also relatively strong. As expected, Europe shows closer links with Africa and the Middle East than the other main providers of marine SCP expertise. Studying regional networks can help us understand the formation of coalitions that support SCP in different areas and inform the creation of new alliances to support future planning, particularly in areas where little planning has been undertaken in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

3.4. Application of best-practice planning principles

The development and use of best practices and planning principles can be facilitated by: 1. knowing which data and methods (e.g. approaches to setting objectives and using cost data, decision-support software, planning units) have been utilized in previous planning exercises; 2. understanding the rationale for methodological choices; and 3. mapping relationships between specific methods, and planning contexts and, ultimately, conservation outcomes. Achieving these goals requires developing and maintaining a centralized repository for continuous and systematic documentation of all SCP exercises, successful or otherwise, such as the global database described here.

Our review shows major differences in the quality and level of detail in documentation of methods in marine SCP, greatly limiting the opportunities to develop and assess the application of best-practice planning principles. While most studies in our database provided information on the planning goals and objectives, the conservation features targeted, and the basic aspects of analysis (e.g. planning units, spatial extent, software used), it was common for other factors that influenced identification of priority areas to be unreported. These factors include full descriptions and sources of data sets, spatial and thematic resolution of data, and calibration settings of optimization software (Ardron et al., 2010). Below we exemplify an assessment of application of best-practice planning principles by analyzing the relationships between planning-unit size, spatial extent of planning area, and the resolution of data used in marine planning.

Choice of planning-unit size and shape has a strong influence on prioritization outputs. Understanding decisions made in past planning processes can be informative in aiding future decisions on planning-unit size and configuration, which are not trivial, and are highly context-specific (Lewis et al., 2003; Pressey and Logan 1998). Reviewed marine studies varied in the type of planning units used (e.g. 56% of studies used square grids; 24% hexagons; 26% irregular), but notably almost a third of studies (28%) provided no rationale for their choice of planning-unit size and/or shape. Where a rationale was explicitly stated (72% of studies, Table 1), we identified seven factors that influenced this decision. In many instances planning-unit size was conceived as a trade-off between two or more factors, such as ecological relevance and implementation feasibility (e.g. Beger et al., 2007). Spatial data resolution and implementation feasibility were the most commonly stated considerations, perhaps unsurprisingunsurprisingly, given that these reasons are among “best-practice” recommendations (Ardron et al., 2010; Pressey and Logan 1998). For studies that reported both planning-unit size and the resolution of data used in planning (68%), planning units were always larger than the coarsest spatial resolution of data used in planning (Figure 6a).

Our exploration of planning units in marine studies shows that larger planning units were generally used for larger planning regions (Figure 6b), presumably to avoid lengthy computations with prioritization software, or to accommodate coarser resolutions of data. Despite recent increases in computational capacity, limitations

10

487488489490491492493494495496497498499500501502503504505506507508509510511512513514515516517518519520521522523524525526527528529530531532533534535536537538539540541

on the ability of algorithms to identify optimal solutions remain; Marxan, for example, will struggle to identify optimal solutions for >50,000 planning units (Ardron et al., 2010). Therefore, documenting and understanding the choice of planning-unit size remain relevant, especially when software is used in real-time negotiations and processing time is a critical consideration (Game et al., 2011; Pressey et al., 2009).

Considerations related to ecological adequacy (e.g. edge-effects, population viability) were infrequently considered in decisions relating to planning-unit size (Table 1). However, these might bewere accounted for in other different ways in some marine SCP studiesin the reviewed studies, for example by using design criteria for size and spacing of MPAs (e.g. Fernandes et al., 2005). Similarly, very few studies (2%) considered the thematic resolution of data (i.e. the number of features, such as habitat types, defined and mapped per unit areaspatial resolution at which features were represented in datasets used in planning). Where features have high thematic resolution, smaller planning units provide greater spatial efficiency in achieving representation targets (e.g. Lewis et al., 2003); however, if planning units are small relative to mapped feature polygons they will mostly be homogeneous and indistinguishable by indices of value or contribution (Pressey and Logan 1998).

Several studies used planning units that aligned with those used in previous or complementary planning processes to facilitate comparison of prioritization outputs, promote continuity of planning, or to comply with existing regulations applicable to planning (e.g. European Union guidelines on the use of a Pan European Grid for spatial planning: Mazor et al., 2013). This highlights further benefits of developing a global database (discussed below), including building on earlier planning in the same region and increasing the relevance of academic studies by using planning units that align with those used in applied planning processes.

3.5. Development, implementation, and impact of studies

Tracking the development, implementation, and impact of planning exercises is critical to understanding and improving conservation practice. However, tracking progress and impact is often difficult and costly (Juffe-Bignoli et al., 2016; Mascia et al., 2014a). Major barriers to tracking progress include difficulties in finding and accessing existing planning exercises (both within the peer-reviewed and gray literatures) and high variability in terms of quality, detail, and approaches used to document planning processes and outcomes (Kukkala and Moilanen 2013), thus hampering impact assessments. Furthermore, assessments of the impacts of implementing actions resulting from planning exercises are infrequent (Bottrill and Pressey 2012; McIntosh et al., 2016), and tend to emphasize biological indicators over socioeconomic ones, although this is changing (Groves and Game 2016). While our focus on the primary literature has several limitations, we explore below some potential applications of a global SCP database to track progress towards impact.

As expected, given our focus on peer-reviewed studies, most studies did not aim to inform conservation interventions directly, but even those suggesting links with applied planning exercises provided limited information to assess their influence on management decisions (notable examples include those described in section 3.2). Given these challenges, the development of a global SCP database could serve as a central repository, where all planning exercises for a region can be documented in a transparent and comparable way, from planning goals to actions, to facilitate tracking progress from the design to implementation phases. Consistent reporting of planning methods, inputs, and outputs can facilitate assessment of progress in planning and implementation for a given region (e.g. technical innovations, stakeholder engagement, plan refinements), implementation and, eventually, conservation outcomes for a given region, butand can also be useful for planners working in similar biophysical and/or socioeconomic contexts.

A closer look at the studies from California, USA (documented in our database), exemplifies how a global SCP database can help to track progress in the development and implementation of plans within a region. Here we refer to ‘plans’ as the spatial outputs of planning exercises (e.g. maps identifying conservation priorities). Under the auspices of the California Marine Life Protection Act of 1999 (hereafter the MLPA), a network of MPAs was systematically planned and implemented in California State waters over a 10-year period. The MLPA required California to re-evaluate all existing MPAs, which had been planned in an ad hoc manner and were largely viewed as ineffective (Gleason et al., 2013). Twelve publications in the database

11

542543544545546547548549550551552553554555556557558559560561562563564565566567568569570571572573574575576577578579580581582583584585586587588589590591592593594595

report on the scholarship and applications of knowledge that helped to inform different aspects of the MLPA process, from early stages to implementation (Table S3). Among these are some documenting the planning process itself (e.g. Fox et al., 2013; Gleason et al., 2010; Gleason et al., 2013). More recent studies refer to the MLPA process and build on the knowledge generated during this process to develop new methods to evaluate and improve the MPA network design. For example, White et al. (2014) leveraged biological data and models generated though the MLPA to refine considerations of ecological connectivity in marine planning. Other California studies in the database focused on how to more meaningfully integrate socioeconomic considerations into planning (e.g. Halpern et al., 2013; Klein et al., 2009).

Key Additional sources of information on the MLPA (and marine planning in California more broadly) are not yet part of the database, due to our initial focus on marine SCP peer-reviewed publications. In particular, documents from the government agency that led the MLPA effort (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, CDFW) are a critical source of data on the process, including concurrent development and application of science through to design of the network (CFGD 2008). Bringing this gray literature into the database will provide a much more complete picture of the processes and decisions that enabled the design and implementation of California’s MPA network. Moreover, now that the MLPA process has advanced to implementation, the focus is on management and monitoring of the networks. Addition of implementation documentation like that developed by the CDFW to guide network management (CDFW 2016) would follow the extension of the database to include gray literature. Supplementing the database with information about implementation and monitoring will be critical for tracking the outcomes and impacts associated with planning exercises in the oceans and elsewhere.

3.6. Next steps: consolidation of a global SCP database

Our marine database provides comprehensive and consistent coverage of the primary literature on marine SCP, and constitutes an important step towards the development of a centralized repository of key information on planning exercises worldwide. Designed to facilitate additional the documentation of gray literatureSCP exercises in general, the database can be further adaptedeasily adapted to also include terrestrial and freshwater SCP applications (Figure S1). Consolidating a global database can significantly improve the information available about planning exercises, thus allowingallow tracking of their progress to implementation, and as well as informinging new planning initiatives. Our review exemplifies some applications of the database, such as: finding previous planning exercises and informing geographic analyses; finding expertise and seeking advice; improving scholarship and mapping planning trends; developing methods and supporting research; and tracking progress and, eventually, assessing impact. However, the potential contributions of the suggested database to science and practice are diverse (Table 2), as are the ways in which the information contained in the database could be obtained and analyzed (Table 3).

Future improvements should include enriching the information about stakeholder participation to include lessons learned about which stakeholders to involve in planning (and when and how), to facilitate planning and implementation in different contexts (e.g. Day 2017; Fox et al., 2013). Likewise, documentation of planning outputs can be enriched by providing functionality to match and compare the configuration of initial designs with the implementation of conservation actions, such as protected areas registered in the World Database of Protected Areas (WDPA) (Juffe-Bignoli et al., 2014). Currently the marine SCP database contains basic information about the people individuals and organizations leading marine studies, but this can be expanded to develop a global directory of experts in conservation planning, which can be a valuable resource to organizations aiming to assess past planning initiatives or develop new ones.

The proposed global SCP database is intended to be an open-access resource, such that case studies can be entered and updated by planners themselves. Opening up the database to inputs from scientists and practitioners will increase its coverage and currency, and require a centralized validation process, including correspondence with contributors. This process could include automated and periodic reminders sent to planners to enquire about revisions or implementation of case studies already included in the database or new exercises. Collaboration with key international organizations (e.g. UNEP’s World Conservation Monitoring Centre, CBD’s Subsidiary Body on Scientific Technical and Technological Advice, Society for Conservation Biology, IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas and Species Survival Commission) will be essential

12

596597598599600601602603604605606607608609610611612613614615616617618619620621622623624625626627628629630631632633634635636637638639640641642643644645646647648649650

to reach the international community for support and to encourage organizations and countries to include and update their plans. These collaborations will also be needed to assemble the expertise and resources required to consolidate the database, including updating and creating new modules, as well as securing hosting and maintenance arrangements (Juffe-Bignoli et al., 2016). Furthermore, journal editors can contribute to this effort by referring authors to the database and encouraging them to enter their case studies as part of the publication process (e.g. similar to existing requirements to make data available online).

Our review of recent advances and emerging trends in marine conservation planning demonstrates the capacity of SCP scholars and practitioners to incorporate complexities as relevant knowledge becomes available in the literature (e.g. climate change and connectivity: Magris et al., 2014). Documenting novel approaches in a global SCP database as they emerge can thus facilitate and expedite such developments. Further, efforts to narrow the planning-implementation gap (Jarvis et al., 2015; Knight et al., 2008) would benefit from better understanding of where planning has led to on-ground actions (or not), and information about the governance, socioeconomic, and political conditions under which plans have been developed (Fox et al., 2012; Pomeroy and Douvere 2008). For example, understanding how planning processes are adjusted to work under legal “head of power” or other binding commitments (e.g. local cultural protocols) can facilitate effective implementation (Day 2017).

As discussed above, an overarching aim of compiling and analyzing previous planning exercises is to help practitioners and policy-makers to transition from protected-area coverage to conservation impact as a measure of planning success (Bottrill and Pressey 2012; Pressey et al., 2015). Increasing the database coverage to include plans associated with on-ground actions will allow analyzing planning outcomes to identify the conditions and characteristics of planning processes leading to successful conservation interventions. Importantly, including information about monitoring will be essential to systematically document ecological and socioeconomic impacts of planning exercises. This will require collaborationsng with scientists and practitionersthose working in the field of conservation evidence (conservationevidence.com) and building on current efforts in recording impacts (McIntosh et al., 2016; McIntosh et al., 2017).

4. Conclusions

The marine SCP primary literature is growing exponentially, but major gaps remain. Our review shows several gaps in the geographic coverage of studies, with less than half of the MEOW with recorded studies (most of these with only one study) and very few including areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). In particular, ABNJ, comprising 6461% of the world’s oceans, offer an unparalleled opportunity to take adopt a systematic approach to MPA design . A new UN Treaty, currently under development, would be ideally placed to codify SCP to achieve biodiversity conservation objectives efficiently and effectively (Ban et al., 2014). Further, there is a geographic mismatch between areas where planning is urgently needed (e.g. highly levels of threatened) and where it is undertaken, thus highlighting the need to calling for expanding applied SCP research into more threatened areas. New research can build on existing expertise and networks of leading planning countries, thus opening further opportunities for capacity building and knowledge transfer. Importantly, just as protected-area coverage does not necessarily equate to impact, coverage alone does not indicate adequacy of planning exercises, which vary in their reliability and impact in guiding conservation actions. Indeed, very extensive studies based on highly generalized data (e.g. Pompa et al., 2011) might have some indicative value, but are unlikely to guide appropriate on-ground actions.

Exploring past marine SCP studies revealed major differences in the quality and level of detail in documentation of methods and conditions under which planning is undertaken. Inconsistent documentation of planning processes, rationales for decisions, and outcomes greatly limits the opportunities to advancing SCP scholarship and to develop and assess the application of best-practice planning principles. Building on and improving existing knowledge requires comprehensive and consistent documentation of planning methods that are accessible, replicable, and placed in within biophysical, socioeconomic, and political contexts. This is particularly important for conservation practitioners looking for practical guidance on applied marine planning. Given the ongoing growth in marine SCP applications and development of technically complex

13

651652653654655656657658659660661662663664665666667668669670671672673674675676677678679

680681682683684685686687688689690691692693694695696697698699700701702703704

methods and models to support planning, systematic documentation of planning processes and outcomes is essential. Advancing SCP scholarship thus requires SCP practitioners to better document their decisions and rationales for making them. This Better documentation and opportunities for learning will minimize the inefficiencies of “re-inventing the wheel” or using unsuitable methods for a given planning context. Our marine database is the first step in developing a global SCP database, which, we argue, is necessary to track the ongoing development, implementation, and impact of SCP applications. The proposed global SCP database is timely and can therefore support the international community in achieving the CBD’s Aichi biodiversity targets, and the revised targets after 2020., in several ways, including by: directing future planning efforts through the identification of gaps in the distribution of planning exercises; identifying approaches, methods, and conditions leading to successful planning processes; learning from exercises developed under similar contexts and building on associated expertise; synthesizing information about planning approaches and rationale for methodological choices; and facilitating the development and use of best practices and planning principles. The database can also help to track progress from the design through to implementation phases by providing a platform that can facilitate transparent and systematic assessment of planning initiatives. We propose that a global SCP database can play a critical role in advancing conservation planning theory and practice, thus facilitating more effective area-based conservation initiatives with real benefits for biodiversity and human well-being.

Acknowledgements

We thank Madeleine (Bottrill)C. McKinnon, Stephanie R. Januchowski-Hartley, and Piero Visconti for their very helpful comments and suggestions that improved earlier versions of the database. We also thank Emma J. McIntosh for her valuable ideas and comments, and Laura Richardson for her help with the database. JGAR gratefully acknowledges support from Mexico’s Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACyT) and the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (ARC-CoE). GGG, JC, JCD, MAH, MM, RLP, RAM and RW acknowledge the support of the ARC-CoE. NCB and TED were supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. We thank James Cook University’s eResearch Centre for supporting the development of the website hosting the marine SCP database. Finally, Wwe thank the hundreds of conservation scientists and practitioners who have inspired and enabled us to gather and synthesize the planning exercises that constitute the core of this project.

References

Almany, G., Connolly, S., Heath, D., Hogan, J., Jones, G., McCook, L., Mills, M., Pressey, R. and Williamson, D., 2009. Connectivity, biodiversity conservation and the design of marine reserve networks for coral reefs. Coral Reefs 28, 339-351.

Álvarez-Romero, J.G., Pressey, R.L., Ban, N.C., Vance-Borland, K., Willer, C., Klein, C.J. and Gaines, S.D., 2011. Integrated land-sea conservation planning: the missing links. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 42, 381-409.

Álvarez-Romero, J.G., Pressey, R.L., Ban, N.C., Torre-Cosío, J. and Aburto-Oropeza, O., 2013. Marine conservation planning in practice: lessons learned from the Gulf of California. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 23, 483-505.

Álvarez-Romero, J.G., Munguía-Vega, A., Beger, M., Mancha-Cisneros, M.d.M., Suárez-Castillo, A.N., Gurney, G.G., Pressey, R.L., Gerber, L.R., Morzaria-Luna, H.N., Reyes-Bonilla, H., Adams, V.M., Kolb, M., Graham, E.M., VanDerWal, J., Castillo-López, A., Hinojosa-Arango, G., Petatán-Ramírez, D., Moreno-Baez, M., Godínez-Reyes, C.R. and Torre, J., 2018. Designing connected marine reserves in the face of global warming. Global Change Biology 0, 1-27.

Ardron, J.A., Possingham, H.P. and Klein, C.J., 2010. Marxan Good Practices Handbook. Pacific Marine Analysis and Research Association, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Ban, N.C., Hansen, G.J.A., Jones, M. and Vincent, A.C.J., 2009. Systematic marine conservation planning in data-poor regions: socioeconomic data is essential. Marine Policy 33, 794-800.

Ban, N.C. and Klein, C.J., 2009. Spatial socioeconomic data as a cost in systematic marine conservation planning. Conservation Letters 2, 206-215.

14

705706707708709710711712713714715716717718719720721722723

724725726727728729730731732733734735736

737738739740741742743744745746747748749750751752753754755756757758

Ban, N.C., Januchowski-Hartley, S.R., Álvarez-Romero, J.G., Mills, M., Pressey, R.L., Linke, S. and De Freitas, D.M., 2013. Marine and freshwater conservation planning: from representation to persistence, In Conservation Planning: Shaping the Future. eds L. Craighead, C. Convis, pp. 175-217. Esri Press, Redlands, CA.

Ban, N.C., Bax, N.J., Gjerde, K.M., Devillers, R., Dunn, D.C., Dunstan, P.K., Hobday, A.J., Maxwell, S.M., Kaplan, D.M., Pressey, R.L., Ardron, J.A., Game, E.T. and Halpin, P.N., 2014. Systematic Conservation Planning: A Better Recipe for Managing the High Seas for Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use. Conservation Letters 7, 41-54.

Beger, M., McKenna, S.A. and Possingham, H.P., 2007. Effectiveness of surrogate taxa in the design of coral reef reserve systems in the Indo-Pacific. Conservation Biology 21, 1584-1593.

Boonzaier, L. and Pauly, D., 2016. Marine protection targets: an updated assessment of global progress. Oryx 50, 27-35.

Borgatti, S., Everett, M. and Freeman, L., 2002. UCINET 6 for Windows: Software for social network analysis (Version 6.102). Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.

Bottrill, M.C. and Pressey, R.L., 2012. The effectiveness and evaluation of conservation planning. Conservation Letters 5, 407-420.

CBD, 2016. Report on the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice on its Twentieth Meeting, In 13th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. pp. 1-133. Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Cancun, Mexico.

CDFW, 2016. California Marine Life Protection Act: Master Plan for Marine Protected Areas (Final Draft). California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Monterey, CA.

CFGD, 2008. California Marine Life Protection Act: Master Plan for Marine Protected Areas. California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG), Monterey, CA.

Cicin-Sain, B. and Belfiore, S., 2005. Linking marine protected areas to integrated coastal and ocean management: A review of theory and practice. Ocean & Coastal Management 48, 847-868.

Cowen, R.K. and Sponaugle, S., 2009. Larval dispersal and marine population connectivity. Annual Review of Marine Science 1, 443-466.

Day, J.C., 2017. Effective public participation is fundamental for marine conservation—lessons from a large-scale MPA. Coastal Management 45, 470-486.

Devillers, R., Pressey, R.L., Grech, A., Kittinger, J.N., Edgar, G.J., Ward, T. and Watson, R., 2015. Reinventing residual reserves in the sea: are we favouring ease of establishment over need for protection? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 25, 480-504.

Edgar, G.J., Stuart-Smith, R.D., Willis, T.J., Kininmonth, S., Baker, S.C., Banks, S., Barrett, N.S., Becerro, M.A., Bernard, A.T. and Berkhout, J., 2014. Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features. Nature 506, 216-220.

Fernandes, L., Day, J., Lewis, A., Slegers, S., Kerrigan, B., Breen, D., Cameron, D., Jago, B., Hall, J., Lowe, D., Innes, J., Tanzer, J., Chadwick, V., Thompson, L., Gorman, K., Simmons, M., Barnett, B., Sampson, K., De'ath, G., Mapstone, B., Marsh, H., Possingham, H., Ball, I., Ward, T., Dobbs, K., Aumend, J., Slater, D. and Stapleton, K., 2005. Establishing representative no-take areas in the Great Barrier Reef: large-scale implementation of theory on marine protected areas. Conservation Biology 19, 1733-1744.

Fox, E., Miller-Henson, M., Ugoretz, J., Weber, M., Gleason, M., Kirlin, J., Caldwell, M. and Mastrup, S., 2013. Enabling conditions to support marine protected area network planning: California's Marine Life Protection Act Initiative as a case study. Ocean & Coastal Management 74, 14-23.

Fox, H.E., Mascia, M.B., Basurto, X., Costa, A., Glew, L., Heinemann, D., Karrer, L.B., Lester, S.E., Lombana, A.V., Pomeroy, R.S., Recchia, C.A., Roberts, C.M., Sanchirico, J.N., Pet-Soede, L. and White, A.T., 2012. Reexamining the science of marine protected areas: linking knowledge to action. Conservation Letters 5, 1-10.

Game, E.T., Grantham, H.S., Hobday, A.J., Pressey, R.L., Lombard, A.T., Beckley, L.E., Gjerde, K., Bustamante, R., Possingham, H.P. and Richardson, A.J., 2009. Pelagic protected areas: the missing dimension in ocean conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24, 360-369.

Game, E.T., Lipsett-Moore, G., Hamilton, R., Peterson, N., Kereseka, J., Atu, W., Watts, M. and Possingham, H., 2011. Informed opportunism for conservation planning in the Solomon Islands. Conservation Letters 4, 38-46.

15

759760761762763764765766767768769770771772773774775776777778779780781782783784785786787788789790791792793794795796797798799800801802803804805806807808809810811812

Garcia, S.M., Gascuel, D., Henichart, L.M., Boncoeur, J., Alban, F. and De Monbrison, D., 2013. Marine protected areas in fisheries management: synthesis on the state of the art, p. 83 pp. Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission, Dakar, Senegal.

Gleason, M., McCreary, S., Miller-Henson, M., Ugoretz, J., Fox, E., Merrifield, M., McClintock, W., Serpa, P. and Hoffman, K., 2010. Science-based and stakeholder-driven marine protected area network planning: a successful case study from north central California. Ocean & Coastal Management 53, 52-68.

Gleason, M., Fox, E., Ashcraft, S., Vasques, J., Whiteman, E., Serpa, P., Saarman, E., Caldwell, M., Frimodig, A. and Miller-Henson, M., 2013. Designing a network of marine protected areas in California: achievements, costs, lessons learned, and challenges ahead. Ocean & Coastal Management 74, 90-101.

Grantham, H.S., Game, E.T., Lombard, A.T., Hobday, A.J., Richardson, A.J., Beckley, L.E., Pressey, R.L., Huggett, J.A., Coetzee, J.C., van der Lingen, C.D., Petersen, S.L., Merkle, D. and Possingham, H.P., 2011. Accommodating dynamic oceanographic processes and pelagic biodiversity in marine conservation planning. PLoS ONE 6, e16552.

Green, A., Smith, S.E., Lipsett-Moore, G., Groves, C., Peterson, N., Sheppard, S., Lokani, P., Hamilton, R., Almany, J., Aitsi, J. and Bualia, L., 2009. Designing a resilient network of marine protected areas for Kimbe Bay, Papua New Guinea. Oryx 43, 488-498.

Groves, C.R., Jensen, D.B., Valutis, L.L., Redford, K.H., Shaffer, M.L., Scott, J.M., Baumgartner, J.V., Higgins, J.V., Beck, M.W. and Anderson, M.G., 2002. Planning for biodiversity conservation: putting conservation science into practice. Bioscience 52, 499-512.

Groves, C.R. and Game, E.T., 2016. Conservation Planning: Informed Decisions for a Healthier Planet. Roberts and Company Publishers, Greenwood Village, Colorado.

Gurney, G.G., Pressey, R.L., Ban, N.C., Álvarez-Romero, J.G., Jupiter, S. and Adams, V.M., 2015. Efficient and equitable design of marine protected areas in Fiji through inclusion of stakeholder-specific objectives in conservation planning. Conservation Biology 29, 1378–1389.

Halpern, B.S., Longo, C., Hardy, D., McLeod, K.L., Samhouri, J.F., Katona, S.K., Kleisner, K., Lester, S.E., O/'Leary, J., Ranelletti, M., Rosenberg, A.A., Scarborough, C., Selig, E.R., Best, B.D., Brumbaugh, D.R., Chapin, F.S., Crowder, L.B., Daly, K.L., Doney, S.C., Elfes, C., Fogarty, M.J., Gaines, S.D., Jacobsen, K.I., Karrer, L.B., Leslie, H.M., Neeley, E., Pauly, D., Polasky, S., Ris, B., St Martin, K., Stone, G.S., Sumaila, U.R. and Zeller, D., 2012. An index to assess the health and benefits of the global ocean. Nature 488, 615-620.

Halpern, B.S., Klein, C.J., Brown, C.J., Beger, M., Grantham, H.S., Mangubhai, S., Ruckelshaus, M., Tulloch, V.J., Watts, M. and White, C., 2013. Achieving the triple bottom line in the face of inherent trade-offs among social equity, economic return, and conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 6229-6234.

Halpern, B.S., Frazier, M., Potapenko, J., Casey, K.S., Koenig, K., Longo, C., Lowndes, J.S., Rockwood, R.C., Selig, E.R., Selkoe, K.A. and Walbridge, S., 2015. Spatial and temporal changes in cumulative human impacts on the world's ocean. Nature communications 6, 7615.

Hilborn, R., Stokes, K., Maguire, J.-J., Smith, T., Botsford, L.W., Mangel, M., Orensanz, J., Parma, A., Rice, J., Bell, J., Cochrane, K.L., Garcia, S., Hall, S.J., Kirkwood, G.P., Sainsbury, K., Stefansson, G. and Walters, C., 2004. When can marine reserves improve fisheries management? Ocean & Coastal Management 47, 197-205.

Jarvis, R.M., Borrelle, S.B., Breen, B.B. and Towns, D.R., 2015. Conservation, mismatch and the research–implementation gap. Pacific Conservation Biology 21, 105-107.

Juffe-Bignoli, D., Burgess, N., Bingham, H., Belle, E., de Lima, M., Deguignet, M., Bertzky, B., Milam, A., Martinez-Lopez, J. and Lewis, E., 2014. Protected Planet Report 2014. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.

Juffe-Bignoli, D., Brooks, T.M., Butchart, S.H.M., Jenkins, R.B., Boe, K., Hoffmann, M., Angulo, A., Bachman, S., Böhm, M., Brummitt, N., Carpenter, K.E., Comer, P.J., Cox, N., Cuttelod, A., Darwall, W.R.T., Di Marco, M., Fishpool, L.D.C., Goettsch, B., Heath, M., Hilton-Taylor, C., Hutton, J., Johnson, T., Joolia, A., Keith, D.A., Langhammer, P.F., Luedtke, J., Nic Lughadha, E., Lutz, M., May, I., Miller, R.M., Oliveira-Miranda, M.A., Parr, M., Pollock, C.M., Ralph, G., Rodríguez, J.P., Rondinini, C., Smart, J., Stuart, S., Symes, A., Tordoff, A.W., Woodley, S., Young, B. and Kingston, N., 2016. Assessing the cost of global biodiversity and conservation knowledge. PLoS ONE 11, e0160640.

Kareiva, P., Groves, C. and Marvier, M., 2014. The evolving linkage between conservation science and practice at The Nature Conservancy. Journal of Applied Ecology 51, 1137-1147.

16

813814815816817818819820821822823824825826827828829830831832833834835836837838839840841842843844845846847848849850851852853854855856857858859860861862863864865866

Kelleher, G. and Kenchington, R. eds., 1992. Guidelines for Establishing Marine Protected Areas: A Marine Conservation and Development Report. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Klein, C.J., Steinback, C., Watts, M., Scholz, A.J. and Possingham, H.P., 2009. Spatial marine zoning for fisheries and conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8, 349-353.

Klein, C.J., Brown, C.J., Halpern, B.S., Segan, D.B., McGowan, J., Beger, M. and Watson, J.E.M., 2015. Shortfalls in the global protected area network at representing marine biodiversity. Scientific Reports 5, 17539.

Knight, A.T., Cowling, R.M., Rouget, M., Balmford, A., Lombard, A.T. and Campbell, B.M., 2008. Knowing but not doing: selecting priority conservation areas and the research-implementation gap. Conservation Biology 22, 610-617.

Kukkala, A.S. and Moilanen, A., 2013. Core concepts of spatial prioritisation in systematic conservation planning. Biological Reviews 88, 443-464.

Lehtomäki, J. and Moilanen, A., 2013. Methods and workflow for spatial conservation prioritization using Zonation. Environmental Modelling & Software 47, 128-137.

Leslie, H.M., 2005. Synthesis of marine conservation planning approaches. Conservation Biology 19, 1701-1713.

Lewis, A., Slegers, S., Lowe, D., Muller, L., Fernandes, L. and Day, J., 2003. Use of spatial analysis and GIS techniques to rezone the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, In Coastal GIS Workshop. pp. 7-8.

Magris, R.A., Pressey, R.L., Weeks, R. and Ban, N.C., 2014. Integrating connectivity and climate change into marine conservation planning. Biological Conservation 170, 207-221.

Margules, C.R. and Pressey, R.L., 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405, 243-253.Mascia, M.B., Pailler, S., Thieme, M.L., Rowe, A., Bottrill, M.C., Danielsen, F., Geldmann, J., Naidoo, R.,

Pullin, A.S. and Burgess, N.D., 2014a. Commonalities and complementarities among approaches to conservation monitoring and evaluation. Biological Conservation 169, 258-267.

Mascia, M.B., Pailler, S., Thieme, M.L., Rowe, A., Bottrill, M.C., Danielsen, F., Geldmann, J., Naidoo, R., Pullin, A.S. and Burgess, N.D., 2014b. Commonalities and complementarities among approaches to conservation monitoring and evaluation. Biological Conservation 169, 258-267.

Mazor, T., Giakoumi, S., Kark, S. and Possingham, H.P., 2013. Large-scale conservation planning in a multinational marine environment: cost matters. Ecological Applications 24, 1115-1130.

McCauley, D.J., Pinsky, M.L., Palumbi, S.R., Estes, J.A., Joyce, F.H. and Warner, R.R., 2015. Marine defaunation: animal loss in the global ocean. Science 347.

McIntosh, E.J., McKinnon, M.C., Pressey, R.L. and Grenyer, R., 2016. What is the extent and distribution of evidence on effectiveness of systematic conservation planning around the globe? A systematic map protocol. Environmental Evidence 5, 1-13.

McIntosh, E.J., Pressey, R.L., Lloyd, S., Smith, R.J. and Grenyer, R., 2017. The Impact of Systematic Conservation Planning. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 42, 677-697.

Micheli, F., Levin, N., Giakoumi, S., Katsanevakis, S., Abdulla, A., Coll, M., Fraschetti, S., Kark, S., Koutsoubas, D., Mackelworth, P., Maiorano, L. and Possingham, H.P., 2013. Setting priorities for regional conservation planning in the Mediterranean Sea. PLoS ONE 8, e59038.

Moilanen, A., Possingham, H. and Wilson, K.A., 2009. Spatial conservation prioritization: past, present, and future, In Spatial Conservation Prioritization: Quantitative Methods and Computational Tools. eds A. Moilanen, K. Wilson, H. Possingham, pp. 260-268. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Ferraro, P.J., Polasky, S., Ricketts, T.H. and Rouget, M., 2006. Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21, 681-687.

Parker, T.H., Main, E., Nakagawa, S., Gurevitch, J., Jarrad, F. and Burgman, M., 2016. Promoting transparency in conservation science. Conservation Biology, n/a-n/a.

Pomeroy, R. and Douvere, F., 2008. The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process. Marine Policy 32, 816-822.

Pompa, S., Ehrlich, P.R. and Ceballos, G., 2011. Global distribution and conservation of marine mammals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, 13600-13605.

Pressey, R.L. and Logan, V.S., 1998. Size of selection units for future reserves and its influence on actual vs targeted representation of features: a case study in western New South Wales. Biological Conservation 85, 305-319.

Pressey, R.L. and Bottrill, M.C., 2009. Approaches to landscape- and seascape-scale conservation planning: convergence, contrasts and challenges. Oryx 43, 464-475.

17

867868869870871872873874875876877878879880881882883884885886887888889890891892893894895896897898899900901902903904905906907908909910911912913914915916917918919920921

Pressey, R.L., Watts, M., Barrett, T.W. and Ridges, M.J., 2009. The C-Plan conservation planning system: origins, applications, and possible futures, In Spatial Conservation Prioritization: Quantitative Methods and Computational Tools. eds A. Moilanen, H. Possingham, K. Wilson, pp. 211-234. Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.

Pressey, R.L., Mills, M., Weeks, R. and Day, J.C., 2013. The plan of the day: managing the dynamic transition from regional conservation designs to local conservation actions. Biological Conservation 166, 155-169.

Pressey, R.L., Visconti, P. and Ferraro, P.J., 2015. Making parks make a difference: poor alignment of policy, planning and management with protected-area impact, and ways forward. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 370, 1-19.

Spalding, M.D., Fox, H.E., Halpern, B.S., McManus, M.A., Molnar, J., Allen, G.R., Davidson, N., Jorge, Z.A., Lombana, A.L., Lourie, S.A., Martin, K.D., McManus, E., Molnar, J., Recchia, C.A. and Robertson, J., 2007. Marine ecoregions of the world: a bioregionalization of coastal and shelf areas. Bioscience 57, 573-583.

Spalding, M.D., Meliane, I., Bennett, N.J., Dearden, P., Patil, P.G. and Brumbaugh, R.D., 2016. Building towards the marine conservation end-game: consolidating the role of MPAs in a future ocean. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 26, 185-199.

Stelzenmüller, V., Lee, J., South, A., Foden, J. and Rogers, S.I., 2013. Practical tools to support marine spatial planning: a review and some prototype tools. Marine Policy 38, 214-227.

Taylor, M., Fitzsimons, J., Sattler, P., Gamblin, P., Turner, J., Douglass, L. and Beaver, D., 2014. Building nature's safety net 2014: a decade of protected area achievements in Australia. WWF Australia, Sydney.

UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2018. Marine Protected Planet [On-line]. United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Cambridge, UK. Available at: www.protectedplanet.net

Visconti, P., Di Marco, M., Álvarez-Romero, J.G., Januchowski-Hartley, S.R., Pressey, R.L., Weeks, R. and Rondinini, C., 2013. Effects of errors and gaps in spatial data sets on assessment of conservation progress. Conservation Biology 27, 1000-1010.

Weeks, R. and Jupiter, S.D., 2013. Adaptive comanagement of a marine protected area network in Fiji. Conservation Biology 27, 1234-1244.

White, J.W., Schroeger, J., Drake, P.T. and Edwards, C.A., 2014. The value of larval connectivity information in the static optimization of marine reserve design. Conservation Letters 7, 533-544.

18

922923924925926927928929930931932933934935936937938939940941942943944945946947948949950951952

Tables and figure legends

Table 1. Factors cited as rationale for choice of planning-unit size

Factor (% of studies) Description

Spatial resolution of data (47%) Planning-unit size was determined by the spatial resolution of ecological and/or socioeconomic datasets used in planning. In several instances, planning units were defined by the grid cells used in ecological (e.g. connectivity) models.

Thematic resolution of data (2%) Planning-unit size was defined relative to the thematic resolution at which features were represented in datasets used in planning, e.g. smaller planning units were used in sections of the planning area with greater spatial heterogeneity (number of thematic categories per unit area).

Implementation feasibility (19%) Planning units were aligned with property or administrative boundaries or designed to be similar to the size of existing marine protected areas or fisheries management units.

Ecological adequacy (5%) Planning-unit size was determined by information on species’ ecological requirements, e.g. home ranges.

Ecological relevance (13%) Planning units were defined as ecologically meaningful units, e.g. reefs, sub-catchments, bays or estuaries.

Aligning with other planning processes (11%)

Studies sought to align planning units with those used in previous or parallel planning processes to facilitate comparison of outputs; some regions (e.g. California, European Union) have standardized units for planning and/or management.

Computational efficiency (13%) Planning unit-size was determined by a requirement for computational efficiency: increasing size reduces the number of planning units in a defined region, reducing processing time.

19

953954955956

957

Table 2. Potential contributions of the SCP database to science, policy, and practice

Key users

Contribution Description Scientists Practitioners, policy-makers

Reviewers, editors

Find previous planning exercises

Compile studies that have covered study areas, or areas with similar characteristics, and review data and methods.

Inform geographic analyses

Identify areas where planning has already happened or is needed (e.g. coverage of ecosystems/species, threat mitigation) and links between conservation actions (e.g. protected areas) and plans.

Find expertise and seek advice

Identify people and organizations with expertise in aspects of conservation planning and geographic areas.

Profile topics Assemble studies relevant to particular topics or problems, such as estimating opportunity costs of conservation, incorporating connectivity and climate change, and considering land-sea linkages, to generate knowledge and build capacity.

Review planning tools

Assess applications and capabilities of tools (e.g. prioritization software) relative to requirements.

Improve scholarship and map trends

Identify research gaps, emerging trends, and novel approaches, and reduce repetition of previous studies.

Develop methods and support research

Download and summarize information (e.g. datasets) for specific research questions or reviews (e.g. definition of planning units, setting objectives).

Inform planning Inform decision-making with an efficient and unbiased platform for best-practice recommendations and evidence-based approaches.

Track progress and assess impact

Find revisions of plans or assess the degree of implementation by searching the relevant location and, ultimately, assess impact of implemented actions.

Update information

Inform database users of new studies or earlier studies that are not yet in the database.

Standardize reporting

Propose standard formats for documenting planning processes, including supplementary information on aspects of input data and details of parameters in spatial analysis, thereby increasing transparency and comparability.

Improve policy Refine conservation targets or approaches to measuring progress in conservation based on emerging methods and critical analyses of policy formulations.

20

958959

960

Table 3. Ways of interacting with the SCP database

Interaction with database DescriptionBrowse or search Browse or search the database based on planning stages, topics, keywords, regions,

timeframes, organizations, etc.

Extract statistics and trends Run predefined queries/reports for specified dates and particular locations and extents of planning regions to summarize global, regional, and local trends in data, software, analytical methods, and applications.

Explore associations Explore associations (simple and complex) between key variables (e.g. size of planning units and extent of planning region).

Generate maps Generate maps: Explore, query, and combine with other live map services published through standard map servers (e.g. World Database on Protected Areas) and a collection of shapefiles included in the database.

Input information Input new (or update existing) information (e.g. case studies, new research papers, updated software manuals, experts).

21

961962

963

Figure 1. Cumulative number of marine SCP studies

The first study recorded in marine SCP literature dates back towas published in 1998 (Table S1)., with In the first five years recording of the record, there was a slow growth in the number of studies (~1 paper per year) and with a more rapid increase from 2003 (associated with development of Marxan software) and a continuous increase in the publication rate over the past 10 years.

22

964

965966967968969

Figure 2. Chronological trends in coverage of broad topics in marine conservation planning

(a) Cumulative proportion of marine SCP studies that consider costs, climate change, connectivity, and land-sea linkages. (b) Cumulative number of studies that incorporate costs using economic monetary data ($) and other data as proxies for costs (e.g. distance to nearest land, population density); arrows point to the dates of key reviews regarding the importance of incorporating costs in conservation planning (Naidoo et al., 2006) and marine SCP in particular (Ban et al., 2009). (c) Cumulative number of studies that incorporate connectivity based on design principles (e.g. size, spacing) and other more advanced approaches (e.g. optimized configuration of marine reserves networks to maintain larval connectivity); arrow points to the date of two key reviews on marine connectivity and design of marine reserve networks (Almany et al., 2009; Cowen and Sponaugle 2009).

23

970

971972973974975976977978979980981

Figure 3. Geography of marine SCP studies and marine cumulative impacts

(a) Number of marine SCP studies led by organizations from different countries (in the lightest shade are countries with no organizations recorded as leading any studies) and number of studies undertaken per marine ecoregion (MEOW: www.worldwildlife.org/pages/marine-ecoregions-of-the-world). (b) Number of studies undertaken within the EEZ of the corresponding country and average cumulative impact per MEOW from Halpern et al. (2015) (www.nceas.ucsb.edu/globalmarine), which includes impacts to marine ecosystems from fishing, climate change, and ocean- and land-based stressors. Maps were created using ArcGIS 10.3.1 by ESRI (www.esri.com/arcgis/about-arcgis).

24

982

983984985986987988989990991

Figure 4. Geography of marine SCP studies and planning countries

(a) Number of marine SCP studies led by organizations from different countries (in the lightest shade are countries with no organizations recorded as leading any studies) with links to ecoregions covered by those studies (thickness of lines represents number of studies undertaken in the corresponding ecoregion) and number of studies undertaken per marine ecoregion (MEOW: www.worldwildlife.org/pages/marine-ecoregions-of-the-world). (b) Number of studies lead by organizations within (blue) and outside (orange) the Exclusive Economic Zones of their corresponding countries. The map was created using ArcGIS 10.3.1 by ESRI (www.esri.com/arcgis/about-arcgis).

25

992

993994995996997998999

10001001

Figure 5. Links between planning countries and regions

(a) Country-level planning networks: nodes represent countries hosting organizations that lead marine SCP studies (nodes with outgoing arrows) and/or countries where planning was undertaken (nodes with incoming arrows). Node size represents the extent of each country’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Node color represents the relative health of each country’s marine ecosystems as per the coastal livelihoods and economies component of the Ocean Health Index (Halpern et al., 2012). The thickness/tone of ties (arrows) represents the strength of the links between countries based on the number of studies that countries have undertaken in linked countries. Countries are labelled using ISO codes: Australia (AUS), Belize (BLZ), Canada (CAN), Fiji (FJI), France (FRA), Greece (GRC), Indonesia (IDN), Israel (ISR), Malaysia (MYS), Mexico (MEX), Philippines (PHL), South Africa (ZAF), Sweden (SWE), United Kingdom (GBR), and United States of America (USA); see Table S2 for full list of countries and attributes. (b) Region-level planning networks: nodes represent the aggregated version of the country-level planning network; countries were grouped following geographical regions, but further subdivided to retain some of the connections shown in Ppanel (a); China and Japan are shown individually because of their unique links to North America and Australia-NZ. The size of the nodes represents the Eigenvector centrality (Borgatti et al., 2002) which provides information about the importance of a node (i.e. region) in the global network; the thickness of ties represents the sum of country-level ties.

26

1002

100310041005100610071008100910101011101210131014101510161017101810191020

Figure 6. Planning-unit size in relation to two other planning variables

Mean size of planning units in marine SCP studies plotted against (a) spatial resolution of the (coarsest) data used in planning, and (b) the total planning region extent.

27

1021

1022102310241025