WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAYS
Researchers assessed 32 Sri Lankan marine protected zones against protection categories, governance and pressures. Seven were judged incompatible with biodiversity conservation, seven minimally protected, 13 lightly protected and five highly protected; none qualified as fully protected under the study's framework. Threats and management capacity varied strongly among sites.
WHY IT MATTERS / OUR READ
The useful metric is not how many polygons appear on a map but what rules, staffing, enforcement and surrounding seascape pressures allow those areas to accomplish. Protection quality is a management variable, not a binary designation.
CAVEATS / UNCERTAINTY
The assessment applies a protection and management framework; it is not a national before-after analysis of fish, coral or other population trends. Different legal categories serve different purposes, so the labels should not be read as a simple ranking of every conservation outcome.
SOURCE
Conservation Science and Practice · Original evidence
View original evidence ↗