Assessing the quality of data required to identify effective marine protected areas Frances J. Peckett n , Gillian A. Glegg, Lynda D. Rodwell Centre for Marine and Coastal Policy Research, Marine Institute, Plymouth University, Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK article info Article history: Received 12 June 2013 Received in revised form 30 July 2013 Accepted 9 September 2013 Available online 9 October 2013 Keywords: Data quality Marxan Marine protected areas Marine and coastal conservation planning Marine biodiversity Decision support tools abstract This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of currently available substrate data to designate marine reserves to meet conservation objectives. The case study site is Lyme Bay (approx. 2460 km 2 ), in the western English Channel. An area of 240 km 2 in Lyme Bay was designated ‘closed to bottom dredging’ in July 2008 with the aim of protecting reefs which are an important habitat for Eunicella verrucosa (pink sea fan). The effects of using different substrate data resolution on the selection of sites to protect a range of biotopes using the Marxan package are determined. The effect of including a closed area on the efficiency of a marine reserve network is also investigated. Findings suggest that substrate data did not capture the biodiversity of the area and that using no data at all was equally effective. If low resolution data are all that are available then other options, such as expert opinion, or other data, such as activity use information could be used instead. Including a predefined closed area into the analysis led to an increase in area required to meet conservation goals using high resolution biotope data. It also increased the area of the reserve using the three substrate layers with no increase in protection for biotopes. This suggests that when designing networks of marine protected area sites, including current protected areas may be inefficient, resulting in larger areas being protected with no increased conservation of marine biodiversity. Policy makers must be prepared to adapt management in light of these findings and be aware of the shortcomings of the data available for use in marine conservation planning. & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction With the growing human pressures on the marine environ- ment there has been recognition by many governments of the need to protect the marine environment. This is demonstrated by numerous national and international commitments to the con- servation of marine biodiversity such as the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) [1], the European Union's (EU) Natura 2000 network under the EU Habitats Directive [2] and UK's Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 [3]. A common theme in the implementation of such protection is the designation of marine protected areas (MPAs) as a tool for conservation. These may be identified for a number of reasons including protection of one or a number of species, habitats or biotopes. The UK has created the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 [3] to introduce a framework for marine and coastal management in the UK, to balance among other aspects the growing needs of conservation, energy and resource extraction. The Act provides tools to designate a network of marine conservation zones (MCZ), which are marine protected areas with varying levels of protec- tion, for the conservation of rare, threatened or representative habitats and species. The MCZs will, in conjunction with the Natura 2000 sites, fulfil the UK's commitment, agreed under a number of international declarations including the World Summit for Sustainable Development 2002, the OSPAR Convention (1992) and EU directives, to designate an ecologically coherent network of Marine Protected Areas by 2012. The OSPAR Convention requires the UK to protect and conserve the marine environment and to manage human activities that can have an adverse impact on particular declining or threatened marine species [4]. biodiversity actions plans (BAPs) were created by the European Union as a response to its commitments under the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity and the UK has produced these for the protection of particular (or significant or threatened) species and habitats. Systematic conservation planning is a structured, quantitative approach to the planning of both single MPAs and networks of reserves; it can be used to identify reserve networks that capture the most biodiversity whilst reducing area or other costs, and it will, in theory, allow for the more effective protection of biodi- versity [5,6]. Within a network other MPAs in the surrounding area should be considered in the selection of new sites [7]. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol Marine Policy 0308-597X/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.09.013 n Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 1752 584956; fax: þ44 1752 584950. E-mail addresses: Frankie.peckett@plymouth.ac.uk (F.J. Peckett), G.Glegg@plymouth.ac.uk (G.A. Glegg), Lynda.Rodwell@plymouth.ac.uk (L.D. Rodwell). Marine Policy 45 (2014) 333–341