Next Article in Journal
Dietary Composition of Big Head Croaker, Collichthys lucidus, in the Early Stage of the “10-Year Fishing Ban” Policy
Previous Article in Journal
A New Record and Three Redescriptions of Rissoinidae from China’s Hainan Island, with the First Presentation of Two Mitochondrial Genomes in the Family Rissoinidae
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Fishes
Volume 10
Issue 5
10.3390/fishes10050192
fishes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Fisheries’ Economic Impacts from the Rezoning of the Multi-Use Moreton Bay Marine Park

by
Sean Pascoe
1,*,
Louisa Coglan
2,
Marjoleine Roos
1,
Toni Cannard
1,
Gabriela Scheufele
1,
Amar Doshi
3 and
Isabel Haro
3
1
CSIRO Environment, Queensland Biosciences Precinct, St Lucia, QLD 4067, Australia
2
QUT, School of Economics and Finance, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia
3
Natural Capital Economics, Fortitude Valley, QLD 4006, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fishes 2025, 10(5), 192; https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10050192
Submission received: 19 March 2025 / Revised: 12 April 2025 / Accepted: 18 April 2025 / Published: 23 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Fishery Economics, Policy, and Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Marine protected areas (MPAs) have been implemented globally to protect marine habitats and enhance biodiversity, often displacing commercial and recreational fishing activities previously occurring in the area. While the ecological impacts of MPAs have been the subject of considerable attention, the economic impacts on the displaced sectors have generally received less consideration. In this study, we examine the impacts of increasing the proportion of fully protected area within a coastal MPA—the Moreton Bay Marine Park in Queensland, Australia—on the economic performance of the fisheries operating in the area. This MPA is relatively unique as it is located adjacent to a major metropolitan area and, hence, heavily used for a range of activities. Analysis of commercial catch data suggests that the commercial fishery has been less impacted than expected by the loss of available area, although this result varies by species. Comparing fishing activity in the Bay with that in adjacent regions (assumed to reflect the counterfactual), we find evidence of strong improvements in fishery performance of the prawn trawl fleet, no significant change in fish net and line fisheries, and a small but significant decline in the performance of crab fishers. The impact on recreational fishing is uncertain as other external factors obfuscate the impacts of the rezoning.
Keywords:
marine protected areas; partially protected areas; fishery impacts; Moreton Bay Marine Park
Key Contribution: When managed appropriately, conservation gains in marine parks may be achieved without loss of economic benefits to fisheries.

1. Introduction

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are well established management tools to protect marine habitats and enhance biodiversity [1]. MPAs often also provide marine ecosystem services such as coastal protection (e.g., buffering against storms and erosion), and cultural services related to tourism and recreation [2,3]. MPAs may also provide benefits in terms of fish biomass provisioning services through protecting stocks with subsequent spillover of fish from the protected to unprotected areas, although the extent of this spillover is variable and MPA specific [4,5].
MPAs are primarily established to protect marine habitats and associated marine life from fishing, either recreational or commercial, although 69% of MPAs are still partially open to some form of fishing activity [6]. Zones within MPAs generally fall into one of two categories: fully protected areas (FPAs) and partially protected areas (PPAs). FPAs typically focus on a narrower set of benefits (e.g., ecological restoration) through restriction of harvesting and other direct uses. PPAs allow for some continual economic and social benefit from direct use, such as limited commercial or recreational activities or restricted access for Indigenous communities, while still ensuring protection of key marine habitats. Multiple FPAs and PPAs can be designated within a marine ecosystem or habitat, creating a protected area network across the ecosystem.
While these PPAs provide economic and social benefits, this comes at the cost of reduced conservation benefits. Hence, the implementation of MPAs and their associated PPAs as a management tool to safeguard habitat and aquatic resources is underpinned by a tension to balance environmental, economic, and social values of the multiple current and potential future users.
Australia has the second largest MPA network in the world, although 75% of the total area included in the network is partially protected [7]. Empirical analyses of the trade-offs between conservation, economic, and social outcomes of MPAs in Australia are limited, with most focus given to assessing the conservation benefits derived from removing fishing pressure from key habitats [8]. From a fisheries’ economic perspective, displaced fishing effort may result in reduced economic performance of the displaced fleets if they are forced to operate in less productive areas [9,10,11]. Increased concentration of fishing pressure in the more limited open areas may also result in greater localized resource depletion [9]. More recent studies, however, have suggested that the negative effects on fisheries of effort displaced from MPA development may have been overstated [12,13].
In this study, we add to the existing limited evidence base of the fisheries’ economic impacts associated with introduction of MPAs by considering the economic-related impacts of the rezoning of the Moreton Bay Marine Park (MBMP) in southeast Queensland, Australia (Figure 1), on the fisheries operating within the region. The proximity of the Bay to a major metropolitan area (Brisbane—the third largest city in Australia) means that the MBMP has a high recreational use value as well as a significant conservation value. Activities such as recreational fishing, boating, and scuba diving are undertaken by local residents and visitors to the region [14]. In addition, the Bay has an active commercial fishing fleet, providing fresh seafood (prawns, crabs, and fish) to Brisbane and beyond.
The MBMP covers 3400 km2, stretching 125 km from the bottom of the Sunshine Coast in the north to the top of the Gold Coast in the south (see https://parks.desi.qld.gov.au/parks/moreton-bay (accessed on 12 April 2025)). MBMP was established in 1993, but less than 1% was initially designated as no-take zones. In 2009, this area increased to 16%, with other restrictions placed on fishing in other zones. The major goal of this increase in protection of critical habitats and species was to enhance species abundance, biodiversity, food webs, and, ultimately, the Bay’s overall health and resilience to environmental pressures [15,16]. It was anticipated that positive outcomes within the no-take zones would trigger cascading influences on connected and surrounding fished areas through spillover effects [17,18].
A series of guiding principles for the rezoning were developed with a range of ecological, economic, and social objectives [15]. These principles recognized the multiple uses of the Bay and aimed at maximizing the ecological outcomes while ensuring the final selection of zones recognized the social, economic, cultural, and environmental costs and benefits. This also involved minimizing the impact of zoning on human interactions with the MBMP including access, activities, values, and aspirations [15].
Over the last 15 years, extensive ecological monitoring has been undertaken to understand the effects of the rezoning on the habitats and biodiversity in the Bay. These assessments have largely identified increases in marine biodiversity within the no-take zones consistent with experiences in other parts of the world [19,20], with evidence of increased populations of key commercial species within the protected areas [21] and spillover into areas adjacent to these no-take zones [22]. In contrast, there have been few evaluations of the economic and social impacts, which is a consistent with the approach adopted across other MPAs in Australia.
The MBMP is currently undergoing a review to assess whether changes to the zoning arrangements are required to better meet its objectives set by the Queensland government. In this study, we consider the impacts on commercial and recreational fishing through an analysis of fisheries’ catch and effort data in the period before and after the rezoning of the MBMP in 2009. While detailed information on economic performance is not available, changes in catch rates and activity levels provide insight into how economic performance has likely changed over time [23].

2. Materials and Methods

The analysis was undertaken in two stages. First, a review of previous studies on the economic impacts of the MBMP rezoning was undertaken. These focus primarily on published journal articles, with most studies undertaken before the rezoning (with expectations of its outcome) or in early stages of the rezoning. No recent studies on the economic impact of the rezoning have been published.
Second, we used commercial fishery level catch and effort information to assess how the different fisheries components performed before and after the implementation of the MBMP rezoning. While some quantitative economic performance measures are available for a small number of recent years (i.e., 2017–2018 to 2020–2021) [24], these were insufficient to provide information on the impact of the MBMP rezoning, and they are also available for only some fishing activities. As a result, proxy indicators of economic performance based on catch rates were applied.
Catch, vessel numbers, and days fished information over the period from 2000 to 2023 for vessels and fisheries operating in MBMP, as well as the adjoining regions immediately north (Sunshine Coast) and south (Gold Coast) were extracted from the QFISH [25] database (https://qfish.fisheries.qld.gov.au/ (accessed on 12 April 2025)). The key measures outside MBMP were used to provide a counterfactual baseline against which changes within MBMP could be assessed, following best practice recommended by Albers and Ashworth [26].
While not directly measuring economic performance, changes in these measures are generally correlated with changes in economic performance [23], providing an indication as to the impact of the rezoning on the economic performance of the fleet. Linear regression approaches were applied to assess whether the trend in these key measured within the MPA varied from those outside the MPA, and basic statistical approaches (i.e., t-tests) were undertaken to assess whether there was any significant difference in the values before and after the rezoning of the MPA.
Similarly, we used data from previous recreational fisheries surveys [27,28] to assess how recreational fishing opportunities have changed since the rezoning of the MBMP. Given the relatively few data points available for recreational fishing, a statistical analysis was not possible, so the results are presented graphically.

3. Results

3.1. Review of Previous Studies

Previous studies on the economic impact of the rezoning of the Moreton Bay Marine Park are limited, with most undertaken prior to the rezoning. Studies contemporary with the rezoning in 2009 suggested that the economic impact of the rezoning on fisheries was expected to be substantial and negative. While only reducing the available fishing grounds by 15%, around 25% of the commercial fishing fleet (mostly net and line boats) were actively fishing in these areas [22]. This fishing effort moved to other (open) areas in the Bay following the rezoning, which, presumably, were less productive or more costly to access (based on the revealed behavior of the fishing fleet). van de Geer et al. [29] found that industry expectations of income reductions due to loss of fishing grounds compared to income prior to the 2009 rezoning averaged around 22%. A post-implementation survey of fishers provided an updated stated impact of around 23% reduction in income each on average, consistent with expectations. Fishers attributed this reduction in income to a combination of loss of productive fishing ground, higher costs to access new fishing grounds, and increased crowding on the remaining (open) grounds [29].
A $15 million structural adjustment package was implemented to offset the loss of access and associated income to some extent [30], with 119 licenses being bought out [22]. While some of these licenses were inactive at the time (i.e., latent licenses), they were believed to represent roughly a quarter of the gross value of commercial take in the Bay [11].
The potential for spillover effects from the new no-take (“green”) zones to increase catch rates by the commercial fishers longer term was uncertain. Evidence of an increase in crab and fish abundance within the new green zones was found within the first three years post-rezoning, although changes in abundance outside the zones (i.e., the spillover effect) were not observed over this same period [31]. However, recapture data in an earlier study in Moreton Bay found at least some spillover effects outside no-take zones for crab species [32].
Increased activity by recreational fishers along the borders of the no-take zones, however, suggested that some localized spillover impacts may have occurred [22]. This pattern of fishing the edge of the marine parks is a well-known behavior [33] and makes it difficult to determine the quantum of spillover that is occurring. Pascoe et al. [34] estimated that even limited spillover effects may increase non-market economic benefits to recreational fishers, with an estimated 5–12% increase in benefits expected (valued at between $1.3 m and $2.5 million a year).

3.2. Changes in Commercial Fishing Activity

The total number of commercial vessels operating in Moreton Bay decreased over much of the decade prior to the rezoning of the MBMP. While 119 licenses were bought out in 2008 [11] to offset the potential loss of fishing area, the number of vessels actively operating in the fishery had already decreased by 132 over the preceding eight years. As a result, many of these surrendered licenses were latent (i.e., unused). Only 32 fewer vessels operated in 2009 than 2008, representing 13% of the active licenses. The removal of latent licenses, however, was still beneficial as it prevented fishers with active licenses that were removed through the structural adjustment program from re-entering the fishery by purchasing a latent license. Since 2009, the number of line, net, and pot licenses active in Moreton Bay has continued to decline, although the number of active otter trawl licenses has remained at around the 2009 level (Figure 2a).
Fishing effort in terms of number of days fished has also declined since 2009 for all fleets, with net and pot boats having a similar rate of decline before and after the rezoning of the MBMP (Figure 2b).
The fishing industry is subject to a range of other pressures that affect prices and costs, which in turn may also affect the level of activity. Comparing fishing activity inside and outside the MBMP provides an indication of the potential effects of these other drivers on fishing activity and allows for a better understanding of potential contribution of the rezoning of the park on changes in this activity. For example, non-Moreton Bay trawl license activity also declined over the same period of the data but continued to decline post 2009 (Figure 3). A simple linear regression model (Table 1) suggests that an additional 1.6 trawlers operate in the MBMP for each year since the rezoning than might otherwise have operated (based on the trend in non-Moreton Bay licenses). That is, in 2023, an additional 24 licenses were operating in Moreton Bay that might otherwise not be operating based on the trends in the broader fishery.
A similar comparison is more difficult for the other fleet types. Otter trawlers target the same main species (prawns) inside and outside Moreton Bay (with many having the ability to move in and out of Moreton Bay based on relative economic conditions). However, other fleet types tend to catch different species outside Moreton Bay, particularly net and line fleets and, hence, would be subject to different environmental and economic conditions depending on where they fish. Potting boats, while also targeting different species outside Moreton Bay, are more limited in the range of species they can target. A comparison of active potting license numbers inside and outside Moreton Bay suggests that the change in license numbers was not impacted by the MBMP rezoning (Figure 4, Table 2). That is, the number of Moreton Bay licenses remained proportional with the non-Moreton Bay fleet only.

3.3. Changes in Commercial Fishing Performance

Catch and effort information from the QFISH database (https://qfish.fisheries.qld.gov.au/ (accessed on 12 April 2025)) were used to estimate how catch per unit of effort changed as a result of the MBMP rezoning. Catch per day and per boat fluctuated substantially from 2000 to 2022 (Figure 5). Average catch per vessel did decrease for crab (pot) and prawn trawl vessels in 2010, in line with the findings of van de Geer et al. [29]. In contrast, catch per vessel increased slightly for line and net boats targeting fish species.
However, catch rates—both on a per day basis and per vessel basis—fluctuated substantially over the period of the data, reflecting potential environmental influences or, on a per boat basis, incentives created by changes in prices and costs. Comparing the catch rates over the periods 2000–2008 and 2009–2022 (Table 3), crab catch rates declined following the rezoning on a per day basis but were not significantly different on a per boat basis (i.e., catch per boat before and after the rezoning were not significantly different when considering the natural fluctuations in these rates). Similarly, fish catch rates were not significantly different before or after the rezoning compared by both per day and per boat (Table 3). Apparent differences between periods in this case (e.g., between 2018 and 2023 in the case of fish catch per day) may be more reflective of factors other than the effect of the MBMP rezoning (e.g., changes in environmental variables or stock abundance not related to the rezoning of the MBMP).
In contrast, prawn catch rates increased significantly on both the per day and the per boat basis after the no-take zones were implemented in 2009 (Table 3). The extent to which this is a result of a reduction in excess capacity in the fleet, due to the structural adjustment package, or a spillover effect due to the increase in protection areas is unclear. However, it is likely that it is mostly a result of the former than the latter.
At the species level, prawn catches fluctuated from year to year (Figure 6). Banana prawn catches peaked in 2011 and 2017 due to flooding conditions in the Brisbane River, contributing to the higher average catch rates post 2009. Catches of endeavour, eastern king, and tiger prawns fluctuated around the pre-2009 average, with a slight decrease in eastern king prawn catch in recent years (i.e., post 2019). Catches of “other” prawns (e.g., bay prawns, greasy prawns) initially increased after 2009 but have decreased consistently since around 2013. The extent to which this decrease can be attributed to the rezoning of the MBMP is uncertain given the catches remained above pre-2009 levels up to 2017.

3.4. Changes in Recreational Fishing Activity

Estimates of total recreational fishing participation are undertaken on an irregular basis through a state-wide recreational fishing survey, e.g., [27,35]. Since the rezoning of the MBMP, three surveys have been undertaken in 2010, 2013, and 2019; of which outcomes can be compared to the outcomes of one pre-rezoning survey conducted in 2000.
The estimated number of days fished in the MBMP in 2010 was lower than in 2000, but similar declines were experienced in other Queensland waters (Figure 6). Comparing these values, however, is complicated given the substantial time gap between snap-shot surveys. Between the 2010 and 2013 surveys, days fished in MBMP declined slightly, as did fishing effort in other parts of Queensland, but less so than in the adjacent regions (i.e., Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast) (Figure 7). However, between 2013 and 2019, the estimated number of days fished in Moreton Bay declined by 65%, while days fished in the adjacent regions increased by over 200%.
What has driven these relative changes is uncertain. Catch rates in Moreton Bay remained relatively high (in terms of number of fish caught per day) between 2000 and 2010, suggesting no significant negative impact on catch rates immediately following the rezoning of the MBMP (Figure 8). In contrast, catch rates declined over the same period in the adjacent and other regions, suggesting the rezoning may have contributed to higher catch rates in the MBMP. However, catch rates in MBMP declined between 2013 and 2019 to comparable levels with other regions. By 2019, catch rates in all regions were relatively similar, suggesting that catch rates were not responsible for the shift in the number of days fished in the Bay between 2013 and 2019.
More recent trends in fishing activity in Moreton Bay are available through the “boat ramp survey” program, which counts the number of boat-trailers in the car park at a boat ramp per day and provides yearly averages [28]. Although this series of surveys does not capture activity before the rezoning of the MBMP it provides an indication of more recent trends in activity. This is assumed to reflect recreational fishing activity using boats but does not capture shore-based activity.
The average number of trailers observed in Moreton Bay per day during each survey has overall declined by close to one boat-trailer each year since 2016. An overall slower decline in trailer numbers has been seen at other Queensland boat ramps (Figure 9). The extent to which this greater rate of decline can be attributed to the rezoning of the MBMP is uncertain and is more likely to reflect a range of other factors related to the broader Brisbane population and the range of other recreational activities available. Also, not all trailers are used for recreational fishing as boating is also a popular activity in Moreton Bay, with only two thirds of vessel operators in Moreton Bay engaging in recreational fishing [14].

4. Discussion

4.1. Impacts of Rezoning in MBMP on Commercial Fisheries

The impact of the rezoning on the commercial fishing industry in Moreton Bay is not clear as a range of other changes have also occurred in the area that may also impact economic performance. Expectations of income reductions of around 22% as a result of loss of fishing grounds prior to the 2009 rezoning in-part instigated the implementation of a structural adjustment to offset this loss [29]. The effect of this was fewer licenses available to operate in the Bay, although the active license numbers in Queensland, in general, were also declining due to economic pressures (e.g., prices and costs).
In the absence of a time-series of detailed economic information, changes in economic performance need to be inferred from other measures. Fisheries’ economic performance is a function of catch, effort, prices received, and costs of fishing. Prices and costs are impacted by a wide range of factors. For example, prices for products sold in the domestic market are a function not just of landings from Moreton Bay, but also landings of the same or substitute species elsewhere, as well as imported fish and crustaceans. Costs, particularly fuel costs, are also influenced by global economic conditions. Hence, changes in economic outcomes may be due to a range of factors unrelated to the rezoning of the MBMP. In contrast, changes in catch rates are potentially directly impacted by the rezoning, as fishers displaced from new green zones are required to relocate their fishing effort to potentially less productive areas, or areas where competition for the resource is greater. Consequently, these measures provide an indication of the effects of the rezoning on changes in economic performance but should not be viewed in isolation from other factors.
The simple analysis in this study suggests that the number of prawn trawlers operating in the Bay post rezoning may have been higher than the counterfactual based on trends in the rest of Queensland, while the number of line and potting licenses may have been similar with or without the MBMP. Changes in catch rates of prawns were also statistically significantly higher post rezoning, although this is more likely to be due to the two major flood events that occurred in 2011 and 2017 that had a positive impact on the banana prawn component of prawn catches within the Bay. Catches of fish and crabs were not significantly different post rezoning than their previous average levels, despite the ecological finding that mud crab abundance had increased [31].
Assessing the magnitude of the economic impact of these changes in the fleets is not possible due to the lack of economic surveys undertaken in the region in earlier years. van de Geer et al. [29] suggested that fishing revenues were expected to decrease immediately following the rezoning. Such a decrease is not supported by the catch and effort information provided in this review, although it may have occurred due to changes in prices and costs that are not related to the MBMP. Separating out the effects of price change, cost change, and productivity change on fleet economic performance requires a time series of economic information that is not available (i.e., through profit decomposition, e.g., [36]).

4.2. Impacts of Rezoning in MBMP on Recreational Fisheries

Identifying the impacts of the MBMP rezoning on recreational fisheries is also complex. Pascoe et al. [34] estimated that spillover effects from the no-take zones may increase non-market economic benefits to recreational fishers by around 5–12%. While catch rates were higher in Moreton Bay in 2010 compared to other Queensland regions, evidence of an increase is limited, and these perceived gains diminished by 2019. This suggests that recreational fisheries management and other drivers affecting recreational fishing participation may have played a larger role in changes in the fishery than the rezoning of the MBMP. Determining an appropriate counterfactual is difficult with the limited data available.

4.3. Ecological Impacts and Potential Spillover Effects

Fisheries’ impacts are inextricably linked with ecological impacts; without improvement in the carrying capacity of the Bay the fisheries will not be able to improve given the reduced fishing grounds. Previous reviews of ecological outcomes suggest that the biophysical objectives and ecosystem integrity have benefited from the rezoning. Most previous research on the effect of no-take zones in the MBMP has focused on changes in abundance and ecological function of fish and crustacean species.
From these studies, the removal of fishing by no-take zones in the MBMP has been shown to be effective in increasing abundance of key harvested fish and fish diversity in coral reefs [37,38,39], seagrass meadows [32,40,41], and mangroves [42], but not particularly in other habitats (e.g., estuaries [43], rocky reefs [31,44], and surf zones [45]). Data collected between 2009 and 2011 revealed increased catch rates and mean size of yellowfin bream and mud crabs within “old” inshore no-take zones compared to “new” no-take zones, and to fished areas, including similar habitat types [31]. Over the same period, catch rates and mean weight of snapper steeply increased in the “new” inshore no-take zone at St Helena Island [31]. Sand crabs, however, did not seem to respond to the protection over several years by inshore no-take zones [31].
Although there exists some evidence for spillover from no-take zones of targeted species within the MBMP [21,32,40], the impact of this on fishery performance remains largely unclear. Also, it remains uncertain how fishing pressure outside protected zones affects no-take zone performance; many species, particularly highly mobile species such as elasmobranchs, can move outside the boundaries of no-take zones during tidal, diel, or seasonal migrations, enduring risk from fishing [46,47]. As such, an accurate evaluation of the full potential of no-take zones in the MBMP on species populations, species communities, and potential spillover effects, including those of interest for fisheries, requires further future monitoring and research efforts.

4.4. Impacts of Rezoning in MBMP on Other Users

While the economic analysis has focused on the catches of recreational and commercial fisheries, users of the MBMP often state other factors that affect their benefits. Over half of the boaters in the MBMP visit the MBMP to appreciate the natural beauty of the area, experience nature, and for therapeutic reasons (e.g., relaxation and improved mental health) [14]. Similarly, Jones et al. [48] found that over 93% of respondents to their survey valued experiences and interactions with nature as the key benefit of their use of the Bay and the surrounding waterways, while 70% held deep appreciation for the natural beauty of the area. Hence, the MBMP may have produced other benefits to other users, or additional benefits to recreational fishers beyond just their catch.
Similarly, other economic activities are undertaken in the Bay (e.g., dolphin-watching tours and scuba-diving businesses). These other activities are not directly impacted by the closure of areas to fishing and hence are assumed to be either unimpacted or enhanced if biodiversity improves (e.g., improved opportunities for scuba diving). Information on changes in these other activities, however, is unavailable.

4.5. Comparison with Other Studies

Economic analyses of fishery-related impacts of MPAs and PPAs have received little attention over the last decade [26], with more attention given to how fishers respond to area closures (e.g., location choice) than the impact on the fishery per se [26]. This may be a result of limited economic information on fisheries performance in many cases, but also the time required before economic trends can be observed given the propensity for external economic and environmental conditions to result in often substantial interannual variability in economic outcomes. In this study, sufficient time has passed since the rezoning of MBMP to examine trends, even though the impacts of these other factors may still obfuscate the results.
The results of our study, namely that economic impacts from MPAs are mixed, are not dissimilar to the limited number of similar studies elsewhere. For example, Rees et al. [49] found that revenues of trawlers and static gear boats (e.g., pots) increased substantially outside of the Lyme Bay MPA in the UK following the introduction of fishing restrictions. However, when considering the additional fishing costs associate with fishing outside the closed areas, profitability of the trawl sector was estimated to have declined [50]. Cook et al. [51] found that most (88%) fishers experienced a decrease in incomes following the introduction of California’s statewide MPA network, where their traditional fishing grounds were subsequently closed. In contrast, Mascia et al. [52] found that MPAs had little impact on fisher incomes in most of the 21 case study MPAs examined, although a small number of instances where increases or decreases in incomes were observed. Similarly, Blampied et al. [53] found little impact (positive or negative) on Jersey (Channel Islands) fishers immediately following the introduction of two MPAs in their waters, but concluded that more time may be required to observe any changes attributable to the MPAs. Other studies [12,13] have found net economic benefits to fisheries arising from improved stock conditions due to the MPAs.
A key differential of our study compared to these previous studies was the use of a counterfactual to assess economic performance change, namely performance in adjacent regions not impacted by the MBMP. This reduces, although does not eliminate, the effects of other exogenous variables on economic performance, such as input and output prices (that may impact the level of fishing effort) and environmental fluctuations.

5. Conclusions

The rezoning of Moreton Bay Marine Park (MBMP) had the multiple objectives of improving conservation and environmental values while also enhancing benefits from the use of the Bay by the local community. To this end, minimizing the impact on commercial and recreational fishing (if not enhancing these sectors) was a key consideration.
In terms of achieving the original ecological and economic objectives, the rezoning of the MBMP appears to have improved the ecology of the Bay with minimal (negative or positive) impact on recreational and commercial fishing. While there is no strong evidence that the MBMP improved commercial and recreational fishing (i.e., due to spillover effects), there is equally no evidence that the rezoning of the MBMP resulted in additional costs to these sectors.
These results suggest that appropriately planned conservation objectives can be realized through the use of MPAs and embedded PPAs with minimal negative impacts on fisheries and potentially improvements in some cases.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: S.P. and L.C.; Methodology: S.P., M.R., T.C. and L.C.; Formal analysis: S.P.; Writing—original draft preparation: S.P., M.R. and T.C.; Writing—review and editing: S.P., M.R., T.C., L.C., G.S., A.D. and I.H.; Funding acquisition: L.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study was funded by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC Project No 2021-064).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethics approval for the study was obtained from the CSIRO Social Sciences and Human Research Ethics Committee (058/24).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data used in the study are publicly available.

Acknowledgments

The project team would like to thank Nicola Udy, Michele Perry, and others from the Queensland Department of Environment, Science and Innovation (QDESI), for their assistance with the study. We would also like to thank the reviewers for their useful comments on the earlier version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Grorud-Colvert, K.; Sullivan-Stack, J.; Roberts, C.; Constant, V.; Costa, B.H.E.; Pike, E.P.; Kingston, N.; Laffoley, D.; Sala, E.; Claudet, J.; et al. The MPA Guide: A framework to achieve global goals for the ocean. Science 2021, 373, eabf0861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. OECD. Marine Protected Areas: Economics, Management and Effective Policy Mixes; OECD: Paris, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  3. Pham, T.T.T. Tourism in marine protected areas: Can it be considered as an alternative livelihood for local communities? Mar. Policy 2020, 115, 103891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Di Lorenzo, M.; Guidetti, P.; Di Franco, A.; Calò, A.; Claudet, J. Assessing spillover from marine protected areas and its drivers: A meta-analytical approach. Fish Fish. 2020, 21, 906–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Costello, M.J. Evidence of economic benefits from marine protected areas. Sci. Mar. 2024, 88, e080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Turnbull, J.W.; Johnston, E.L.; Clark, G.F. Evaluating the social and ecological effectiveness of partially protected marine areas. Conserv. Biol. 2021, 35, 921–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Roberts, K.E.; Hill, O.; Cook, C.N. Evaluating perceptions of marine protection in Australia: Does policy match public expectation? Mar. Policy 2020, 112, 103766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. GPhillips, A.C.; Ogier, E.; Dutton, I.; Barrett, N.; Krueck, N.C.; Hartmann, K. The ambiguous role of partially protected marine protected areas in Australia: Results from a systematic literature review. PLoS ONE 2025, 20, e0307324. [Google Scholar]
  9. Vaughan, D. Fishing effort displacement and the consequences of implementing Marine Protected Area management—An English perspective. Mar. Policy 2017, 84, 228–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Stevenson, T.C.; Tissot, B.N.; Walsh, W.J. Socioeconomic consequences of fishing displacement from marine protected areas in Hawaii. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 160, 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sen, S. Developing a framework for displaced fishing effort programs in marine protected areas. Mar. Policy 2010, 34, 1171–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Costello, M.J. Fully protected Marine Protected Areas do not displace fisheries. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2024, 121, e2412543121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. McDonald, G.; Bone, J.; Costello, C.; Englander, G.; Raynor, J. Global expansion of marine protected areas and the redistribution of fishing effort. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2024, 121, e2400592121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Martin, V. Recreational Boaters’ Use and Values of Moreton Bay 2022; University of Queensland: Brisbane, Australia, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  15. Queensland Government. Moreton Bay Marine Park—Scientific Guiding Principles; Department of National Parks, Sport and Racing: Brisbane, Australia, 2007.
  16. Bengtsson, J.; Angelstam, P.; Elmqvist, T.; Emanuelsson, U.; Folke, C.; Ihse, M.; Moberg, F.; Nyström, M. Reserves, resilience and dynamic landscapes. AMBIO A J. Hum. Environ. 2003, 32, 389–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Babcock, R.C.; Shears, N.T.; Alcala, A.C.; Barrett, N.S.; Edgar, G.J.; Lafferty, K.; Mcclanahan, T.R.; Russ, G.R. Decadal trends in marine reserves reveal differential rates of change in direct and indirect effects. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 18256–18261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mumby, P.J.; Dahlgren, C.P.; Harborne, A.R.; Kappel, C.V.; Micheli, F.; Brumbaugh, D.R.; Holmes, K.E.; Mendes, J.M.; Broad, K.; Sanchirico, J.N. Fishing, trophic cascades, and the process of grazing on coral reefs. Science 2006, 311, 98–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Corelli, V.; Boerder, K.; Hunter, K.L.; Lavoie, I.; Tittensor, D.P. The biodiversity adaptation gap: Management actions for marine protected areas in the face of climate change. Conversat. Lett. 2024, 17, e13003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. O’Hara, C.C.; Frazier, M.; Halpern, B.S. At-risk marine biodiversity faces extensive, expanding, and intensifying human impacts. Science 2021, 372, 84–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Pillans, S.; Pillans, R.; Johnstone, R.; Kraft, P.; Haywood, M.; Possingham, H.P. Effects of marine reserve protection on the mud crab Scylla serrata in a sex-biased fishery in subtropical Australia. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2005, 295, 201–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kenyon, R.A.; Babcock, R.C.; Dell, Q.; Lawrence, E.; Moeseneder, C.; Tonks, M.L. Business as usual for the human use of Moreton Bay following marine park zoning. Mar. Freshw. Res. 2018, 69, 277–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Pascoe, S.; Curtotti, R.; Hoshino, E.; McWhinnie, S.; Schrobback, P. Use of catch and effort data to monitor trends in economic performance in fisheries. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2024, 81, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. BDO EconSearch. Economic and Social Indicators for Queensland’s Commercial Fisheries in 2021/22; Fisheries Queensland: Brisbane, Australia, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  25. QDAF. QFish; Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries: Brisbane, Australia, 2024.
  26. Albers, H.J.; Ashworth, M.F. Economics of Marine Protected Areas: Assessing the Literature for Marine Protected Area Network Expansions. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2022, 14, 533–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. QDAF. Queensland Recreational Fishing Survey Dashboard; QDAF: Brisbane, Australia, 2024.
  28. QDAF. Boat Ramp Survey Dashboard; QDAF: Brisbane, Australia, 2024.
  29. van de Geer, C.; Mills, M.; Adams, V.M.; Pressey, R.L.; McPhee, D. Impacts of the Moreton Bay Marine Park rezoning on commercial fishermen. Mar. Policy 2013, 39, 248–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. DERM. Final Public Benefit Test Report for the Marine Parks (Moreton Bay) Zoning Plan 2008; Department of Environment and Resource Management: Brisbane, Australia, 2008.
  31. Haywood, M.D.; Pillans, R.; Babcock, R.; Lawrence, E.; Darnell, R.; Burridge, C.; Dennis, D.; Donovan, A.; Cheers, S.; Pendrey, R. Changes in fish and crab abundance in response to the Moreton Bay Marine Park rezoning. In Moreton Bay Quandamooka & Catchment: Past, Present and Future; Tibbetts, I., Rothlisberg, P., Neil, D., Homburg, T., Brewer, D., Arthington, A., Eds.; The Moreton Bay Foundation: Brisbane, Australia, 2019; pp. 593–614. [Google Scholar]
  32. Pillans, S. Effectiveness of No-Take Marine Reserves in Moreton Bay, Subtropical Australia, Centre for Marine Studies. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ohayon, S.; Granot, I.; Belmaker, J. A meta-analysis reveals edge effects within marine protected areas. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 5, 1301–1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Pascoe, S.; Doshi, A.; Dell, Q.; Tonks, M.; Kenyon, R. Economic value of recreational fishing in Moreton Bay and the potential impact of the marine park rezoning. Tour. Manag. 2014, 41, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Teixeira, D.; Janes, R.; Webley, J. 2019/20 Statewide Recreational Fishing Survey Key Results; Fisheries Queensland: Brisbane, Australia, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  36. Walden, J.B.; Lee, M.-Y.; O’Donnell, C.J. Profits, prices and productivity in a common pool fishery. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2022, 104, 1540–1560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Olds, A.D.; Connolly, R.M.; Pitt, K.A.; Maxwell, P.S. Habitat connectivity improves reserve performance. Conserv. Lett. 2012, 5, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yabsley, N.A.; Olds, A.D.; Connolly, R.M.; Martin, T.S.; Gilby, B.L.; Maxwell, P.S.; Huijbers, C.M.; Schoeman, D.S.; Schlacher, T.A. Resource type influences the effects of reserves and connectivity on ecological functions. J. Anim. Ecol. 2016, 85, 437–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Olds, A.D.; Pitt, K.A.; Maxwell, P.S.; Connolly, R.M. Synergistic effects of reserves and connectivity on ecological resilience. J. Appl. Ecol. 2012, 49, 1195–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pillans, S.; Ortiz, J.-C.; Pillans, R.D.; Possingham, H.P. The impact of marine reserves on nekton diversity and community composition in subtropical eastern Australia. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 136, 455–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Henderson, C.J.; Olds, A.D.; Lee, S.Y.; Gilby, B.L.; Maxwell, P.S.; Connolly, R.M.; Stevens, T. Marine reserves and seascape context shape fish assemblages in seagrass ecosystems. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2017, 566, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Goodridge Gaines, L.A.G.; Olds, A.D.; Henderson, C.J.; Connolly, R.M.; Schlacher, T.A.; Jones, T.R.; Gilby, B.L. Linking ecosystem condition and landscape context in the conservation of ecosystem multifunctionality. Biol. Conserv. 2020, 243, 108479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gilby, B.L.; Olds, A.D.; Yabsley, N.A.; Connolly, R.M.; Maxwell, P.S.; Schlacher, T.A. Enhancing the performance of marine reserves in estuaries: Just add water. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 210, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Terres, M.A.; Lawrence, E.; Hosack, G.R.; Haywood, M.D.; Babcock, R.C. Assessing habitat use by Snapper (Chrysophrys auratus) from baited underwater video data in a coastal marine park. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0136799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Ortodossi, N.L.; Gilby, B.L.; Schlacher, T.A.; Connolly, R.M.; Yabsley, N.A.; Henderson, C.J.; Olds, A.D. Effects of seascape connectivity on reserve performance along exposed coastlines. Conserv. Biol. 2018, 33, 580–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kramer, D.L.; Chapman, M.R. Implications of fish home range size and relocation for marine reserve function. Environ. Biol. Fishes 1999, 55, 65–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Weeks, R.; Green, A.L.; Joseph, E.; Peterson, N.; Terk, E. Using reef fish movement to inform marine reserve design. J. Appl. Ecol. 2017, 54, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Jones, N.A.; Ross, H.; Shaw, S.; Witt, K.; Pinner, B.; Rissik, D. Values towards waterways in south east Queensland: Why people care. Mar. Policy 2016, 71, 121–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rees, S.E.; Ashley, M.; Evans, L.; Mangi, S.; Sheehan, E.V.; Mullier, T.; Rees, A.; Attrill, M.J. An evaluation of the social and economic impact of a Marine Protected Area on commercial fisheries. Fish. Res. 2021, 235, 105819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mangi, S.C.; Rodwell, L.D.; Hattam, C. Assessing the Impacts of Establishing MPAs on Fishermen and Fish Merchants: The Case of Lyme Bay, UK. Ambio 2011, 40, 457–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Cook, S.; Richmond, L.; Chang, J.; Sayce, K.; Bonkoski, J.; Chen, C.; Enevoldsen, J.; Fisher, R.; Chin, D.; Kia, M. Marine protected areas and fishing community well-being: An example from statewide socioeconomic monitoring of the California MPA network. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2024, 254, 107199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Mascia, M.B.; Claus, C.A.; Naidoo, R. Impacts of Marine Protected Areas on Fishing Communities. Conserv. Biol. 2010, 24, 1424–1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Blampied, S.R.; Sheehan, E.V.; Attrill, M.J.; Binney, F.C.T.; Rees, S.E. The socio-economic impact of Marine Protected Areas in Jersey: A fishers’ perspective. Fish. Res. 2023, 259, 106555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Fishes 10 00192 g001
Figure 1. Moreton Bay Marine Park, Queensland, Australia.
Figure 1. Moreton Bay Marine Park, Queensland, Australia.
Fishes 10 00192 g001
Fishes 10 00192 g002
Figure 2. Number of (a) active fishing licenses and (b) days fished in Moreton Bay Marine Park. The vertical dashed line represents the point at which rezoning occurred.
Figure 2. Number of (a) active fishing licenses and (b) days fished in Moreton Bay Marine Park. The vertical dashed line represents the point at which rezoning occurred.
Fishes 10 00192 g002
Fishes 10 00192 g003
Figure 3. Number of active otter trawl licenses.
Figure 3. Number of active otter trawl licenses.
Fishes 10 00192 g003
Fishes 10 00192 g004
Figure 4. Number of active fishing licenses: potting licenses.
Figure 4. Number of active fishing licenses: potting licenses.
Fishes 10 00192 g004
Fishes 10 00192 g005
Figure 5. (a) Catch per day and (b) catch per vessel in MBMP, 2000–2023. The vertical dashed line represents the point at which rezoning occurred.
Figure 5. (a) Catch per day and (b) catch per vessel in MBMP, 2000–2023. The vertical dashed line represents the point at which rezoning occurred.
Fishes 10 00192 g005
Fishes 10 00192 g006
Figure 6. Total prawn catch by species in MBMP, 2000–2023. The vertical dashed line represents the point at which rezoning occurred.
Figure 6. Total prawn catch by species in MBMP, 2000–2023. The vertical dashed line represents the point at which rezoning occurred.
Fishes 10 00192 g006
Fishes 10 00192 g007
Figure 7. Recreational days fished in MBMP and elsewhere, 2000–2019. Source: QDAF [27].
Figure 7. Recreational days fished in MBMP and elsewhere, 2000–2019. Source: QDAF [27].
Fishes 10 00192 g007
Fishes 10 00192 g008
Figure 8. Catch rates in MBMP and elsewhere, 2000–2019. Source: QDAF [27].
Figure 8. Catch rates in MBMP and elsewhere, 2000–2019. Source: QDAF [27].
Fishes 10 00192 g008
Fishes 10 00192 g009
Figure 9. Average trailer numbers at boat ramps, Moreton Bay, 2016–2024. Source: QDAF [28].
Figure 9. Average trailer numbers at boat ramps, Moreton Bay, 2016–2024. Source: QDAF [28].
Fishes 10 00192 g009
Table 1. Linear regression of the number of Moreton Bay otter trawl licenses against non-Moreton Bay licenses.
Table 1. Linear regression of the number of Moreton Bay otter trawl licenses against non-Moreton Bay licenses.
VariableCoefficientsStandard Errort-StatisticPr (t)
Intercept18.548.672.144.4%
Non-Moreton Bay licenses0.190.028.290.0%
Years of park operation1.620.453.620.2%
R Square0.79
Adjusted R Square0.77
Table 2. Linear regression of Moreton Bay potting licenses against non-Moreton Bay licenses.
Table 2. Linear regression of Moreton Bay potting licenses against non-Moreton Bay licenses.
VariableCoefficientsStandard Errort-StatisticPr (t)
Intercept−35.2239.94−0.8839%
Non-Moreton Bay licenses0.260.083.111%
Years of park operation0.671.440.4665%
R Square0.79
Adjusted R Square0.78
Table 3. Catch rates pre (2000–2008) and post (2009–2023) rezoning.
Table 3. Catch rates pre (2000–2008) and post (2009–2023) rezoning.
2000–20082009–2023
MeanSt DevMeanSt Devt-StatProb
Catch per day (kg/day)
Crabs49.511.9241.841.962.801%
Prawns93.978.23166.1710.16−5.520%
Fish253.8112.84286.4119.08−1.4217%
Catch per boat (kg/boat)
Crabs4183.47295.853530.52233.901.7310%
Prawns6895.29499.709179.79791.95−2.442%
Fish9377.50537.568721.46454.830.9336%
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pascoe, S.; Coglan, L.; Roos, M.; Cannard, T.; Scheufele, G.; Doshi, A.; Haro, I. Fisheries’ Economic Impacts from the Rezoning of the Multi-Use Moreton Bay Marine Park. Fishes 2025, 10, 192. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10050192

AMA Style

Pascoe S, Coglan L, Roos M, Cannard T, Scheufele G, Doshi A, Haro I. Fisheries’ Economic Impacts from the Rezoning of the Multi-Use Moreton Bay Marine Park. Fishes. 2025; 10(5):192. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10050192

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pascoe, Sean, Louisa Coglan, Marjoleine Roos, Toni Cannard, Gabriela Scheufele, Amar Doshi, and Isabel Haro. 2025. "Fisheries’ Economic Impacts from the Rezoning of the Multi-Use Moreton Bay Marine Park" Fishes 10, no. 5: 192. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10050192

APA Style

Pascoe, S., Coglan, L., Roos, M., Cannard, T., Scheufele, G., Doshi, A., & Haro, I. (2025). Fisheries’ Economic Impacts from the Rezoning of the Multi-Use Moreton Bay Marine Park. Fishes, 10(5), 192. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10050192

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop