Figure 1.
Proposed framework for incorporating multiple activities and threats into marine conservation planning.
These show the steps followed in the case study presented in this paper that encompasses Israel's entire Mediterranean territorial waters.
Figure 2.
Biodiversity features and fishing effort in Israel's Mediterranean Sea territorial waters; a) species richness of 166 biodiversity features (species and geomorphologic features), b) combined fishing effort (entangling nets, longliners, purse seiners and trawlers), where the blue areas (no effort) are restricted fishing areas; marine reserves, military areas and aquaculture.
Table 1.
Four zones for Israel's territorial waters that restrict and permit different activities.
Figure 3.
A map of the activities of Israel's Mediterranean territorial waters included in this study.
Table 2.
Four planning scenarios that were examined using Marxan and Marxan with Zones for Israel's territorial Mediterranean waters.
Table 3.
Results showing average opportunity cost for 1,000 Marxan runs for each planning scenario.
Figure 4.
Selection frequency output maps (shows the percentage of times a planning unit was selected when run in Marxan 1000 times) from Marxan with Zones for each Zone and each zoning scenario.
All scenarios meet biodiversity targets. The dashed black lines represent the proposed marine reserve system by Israel's Nature and Parks Authority [45]. The certainty map expresses the level of certainty/agreement of planning units selected (either highly selected for no-take areas or low selection) across all planning scenarios. Therefore, the higher the percentage of certainty means there is more agreement between scenarios.
Figure 5.
Selection frequency output maps (shows the percentage of times a planning unit was selected when run in Marxan 1000 times) from Marxan with Zones for each Zone and each zoning scenario.
For the Benthic Protection Zone and Economic Zone the three scenarios are a) Basic Zoning, b) Intermediate Zoning, c) Complex Zoning. For the Exploration Zone the two scenarios are a) Intermediate Zoning and b) Complex Zoning.
Table 4.
Spearman rank correlation (ρ) of the similarity between the selection frequency outputs of each planning scenario.
Figure 6.
Marxan best solution outputs (the reserve configuration that best reduces opportunity cost and meets biodiversity targets from 1000 Marxan runs) for each planning scenario.
The four colours designate the four types of zones (see Table 1).
Figure 7.
The trade-off between meeting biodiversity targets and maintaining economic objectives for each zoning scenario.
(a) biodiversity targets are met when the fishery targets (percentage of annual fishery revenue) are less than 93% (7% revenue loss) in the Basic Zoning scenario (three zones and six activities), less than 88% (12% revenue loss) in the Intermediate Zoning B scenario (four zones and seven activities), and less than 85% (15% revenue loss) is the Complex Zoning scenario (four zones and ten activities), (b) biodiversity targets are met when hydrocarbon operations (leased and licensed expected revenue) are less than ≤95% (5% revenue loss) in the Intermediate Zoning scenario and less than 94% (6% revenue loss) in the Complex Zoning scenario.