Protecting marine life also benefits the people in the area, research shows

Protecting coastal areas of the ocean from fishing, mining and other human activities, he said, could also help people who live nearby a new study published in the journal Nature Sustainability.

The area studied is the Mesoamerican coral reef system, which extends about 600 miles from southern Mexico to Honduras off the eastern coast of Central America.

To compare fish populations between protected and unprotected areas, the study authors analyzed existing surveys of more than 80 fish species conducted by the regional Healthy Reefs for Healthy People initiative from 2005 to 2018. They found that fish were 27 percent more abundant in fully protected areas than in unprotected areas. Fish populations in these protected zones remained stable or increased over time.

People who lived near these areas had better food security and greater family wealth, the study found. “The most important finding for me is that marine protected areas can provide these co-benefits” for both humans and fish, said Steven Canty, an environmental scientist at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History and one of the study’s authors.

The ecosystem is home to more than 60 species of corals and 500 species of fish. Critically endangered animals such as the saltwater crocodile and loggerhead turtle live around the reef. About two million people live on the coast, with local economies closely linked to the reef.

This study focused on Guatemala and Honduras, but countries worldwide are creating more marine protected areas. Last year, about 190 countries signed a United Nations agreement to protect 30 percent of the planet’s land and oceans by 2030 in a bid to halt biodiversity loss. The United States did not participate, but President Biden separately issued an executive order to protect 30 percent of the country’s land and waters.

Scientists, policymakers, industries and communities have spent years debating whether marine protected areas are working as intended to sustain fish populations, and whether these areas are helping or harming their human neighbors. The new study supports the idea that marine protected areas, at least those with strict fishing bans, also benefit the health and wealth of local people, even in a region where people have traditionally depended on fishing for their livelihoods.

“We’re still wrestling with some of these fundamental questions — not just in this region, but elsewhere — about what works and what doesn’t work in conservation,” said Justin Nowakowski, a conservation biologist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center and the lead author of the study.

Like other coral reefs, this ecosystem is threatened by climate change and overfishing. Rising ocean temperatures are causing corals to “bleach” and die and leave the creatures vulnerable to disease.

The ocean is currently the hottest on record at this time of year. While climate change remains a long-term challenge for this reef and others, tackling fisheries could put some strain on the ecosystem, the authors said.

The oldest marine protected areas in the Mesoamerican Reef were established in the 1970s and 1980s, and more than 40 protected areas now cover half of the region’s coastal waters. But fishing is not strictly prohibited in all areas; some simply set limits on how many boats are allowed to catch, or ban certain types of fishing gear.

The researchers dug into socioeconomic data from surveys conducted by the United States Agency for International Development in Guatemala and Honduras. They found that children in communities within 10 kilometers or six miles of marine protected areas were about 40 percent less likely to suffer stunted growth from malnutrition, compared to children who lived further away.

Using a wealth index created by other researchers who analyzed USAID surveys, the scientists also found that households near the fully protected areas had 33 percent more wealth than households further away, even though most families in the region are still relatively poor by global standards.

“Statistically, it’s a very strong study,” said Natalie Ban, a professor of marine ethnoecology at the University of Victoria, who was not involved in this research. Not many researchers have studied the effects of marine protected areas on humans on this large scale, she said. What Dr. However, what was not clear from this article is why and how protected areas in the Mesoamerican Reef led to health and welfare benefits for the local population.

Dr. Nowakowski cautioned that his team’s study provided a “20,000-foot view” of marine protected areas in this reef, and that more research needs to be done in nearby communities to figure out how to limit fishing in certain areas could lead to more resources for local people. Proponents of marine protected areas argue that the greater fish populations of the protected areas “overflow” to adjacent areas where fishing is allowed and ultimately lead to greater catches for fishermen, or that increased biodiversity can help communities develop ecotourism industries and alternative sources of income .

Dr. Canty said he and his colleagues found evidence that newer marine protected areas, created with more input and leadership from local communities, outperformed older areas he said were “imposed” by federal governments.

Ultimately, marine protected areas with strict fishing bans “are not a panacea,” said Dr. Nowakowski. Rather, these areas are a potential tool in a larger toolbox that includes other conservation strategies, such as catch limits, seasonal fishing and leaving female fish with eggs, he explained.