Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Cambridge Prisms: Coastal Futures logoLink to Cambridge Prisms: Coastal Futures
. 2026 Jun 8;4:e18. doi: 10.1017/cft.2026.10034

Temporal dimensions in marine spatial closures

Erendira Aceves-Bueno 1,✉, Matthew Lauer 2, Emilie Lindkvist 3, Olivia K Isbell 4, Bonnie Basnett 4, Yutian Fang 4, Liliana Sierra Castillo 5, Amy Hudson Weaver 6, Stuart Fulton 7, Jean Wencélius 8, Steven D Gaines 4, Anastasia CE Quintana 5
PMCID: PMC13375839  PMID: 42490926

Abstract

The permanent closure of large marine areas is often regarded as an effective strategy for conserving marine biodiversity. However, implementing large permanent closures can be difficult in many small-scale fisheries systems, where communities depend heavily on marine resources for their livelihoods and food security, and where issues of equity and access must be carefully considered. Around the world, many coastal communities instead rely on temporary closures – areas that open and close over time – to balance ecological recovery with ongoing use. Despite their prevalence and potential, these dynamic approaches remain conceptually underdeveloped compared to permanent marine-protected areas. This article calls for a reevaluation of marine management’s prevailing focus on space by bringing time to the forefront of analysis. We introduce a framework that distinguishes two key temporal dimensions – duration and cyclicity – to clarify how different temporal designs shape ecological, social and governance outcomes. Within this framework, cyclicity captures how closures and openings alternate over time, including the relative balance between periods of access and closure (i.e., the access ratio). Drawing on diverse examples where temporary management is implemented, this framework lays the groundwork for developing more formal theory and comparative evidence about how temporal strategies can align ecological recovery with livelihood dynamics in resource-dependent systems.

Keywords: adaptive management, community-based conservation, fisheries co-management, marine protected areas, marine spatial planning

Impact statements

Efforts to conserve the ocean often emphasize permanently protected areas, while many coastal communities also use time itself as a tool for stewardship. Around the world, fishers temporarily close and reopen fishing grounds to allow ecosystems to recover while sustaining their livelihoods. Despite their prevalence, scientific attention to these temporary closures has been limited – and existing studies have largely focused on their ecological effects. This overlooks the fact that such practices are often deeply rooted in social relations, cultural traditions and local governance systems – features that can enhance the long-term sustainability of fisheries management. This study introduces a framework that helps researchers analyze the temporal dimensions of these systems – how long closures last and how access is distributed over time – revealing how social and ecological processes interact through time. By bringing these dimensions together, the framework expands the foundation for comparative research and fosters a more complete understanding of the diverse ways people and communities care for the ocean.

Introduction

The ocean is increasingly managed through spatially explicit policy tools such as marine spatial planning and marine-protected areas (MPAs). MPAs are widely considered an effective management tool for preventing the overexploitation of marine resources (Green et al., 2009; Gaines et al., 2010; Sala et al., 2021). These closures are designated areas where fishing and other activities are restricted or prohibited and aim to protect sensitive habitats, preserve biodiversity and allow fish populations to recover from overfishing. Several studies have revealed evidence of the effectiveness of large permanent fully protected areas for marine biodiversity protection, where restrictions on fishing and other activities are banned in perpetuity (McLeod et al., 2009; Grorud-Colvert et al., 2021; Sala et al., 2021). Large permanent fully protected areas have gained further support with the rise of the “30×30” initiative, where the goal is to protect at least 30% of the world’s oceans by the year 2030 (Pike et al., 2024; Robinson et al., 2024; Villasenor-Derbez et al., 2024). Although there is no consensus within the conservation community about what level of protection this target should entail (Stephenson et al., 2025; Henneker et al., 2026), the growing recognition of the importance of marine management and the need to restore and preserve marine ecosystems have led to increased advocacy for permanent closures as a means to achieve sustainable fisheries and safeguard marine biodiversity (Viana et al., 2024).

However, in regions where livelihoods and food security depend directly on marine resources, the permanent closure of large fishing areas is often impractical and the effectiveness of MPAs has been the subject of considerable debate (De Santo, 2013; Rife et al., 2013; Hilborn, 2018; Hilborn et al., 2022). MPAs also commonly operate better when there is a well-funded state apparatus or a non-governmental organization that can enforce the area, but in many coastal areas where these well-funded systems do not exist, MPAs can become “paper parks” existing only on paper with low compliance, highlighting the broader challenge of ensuring that management initiatives persist and remain effective over time (Rife et al., 2013; Pienkowski et al., 2026). The lack of local buy-in with top-down imposed MPAs can also lead to issues of justice and equity (De Santo, 2013; Bennett et al., 2021; Grorud-Colvert et al., 2021).

To address the challenges associated with MPAs, efforts have focused on both governance and spatial design. In addition to promoting more inclusive governance approaches, such as adaptive co-management (Bown et al., 2013), experts have worked extensively on refining the spatial configuration of MPAs. Optimizing elements like size, spacing, shape and connectivity is intended to enhance ecological resilience, reduce vulnerability to poaching and increase stakeholder support by securing fisheries benefits (Green et al., 2009; McLeod et al., 2009; Gaines et al., 2010). These approaches are often implemented alongside regulations on fishing activities (e.g., gear restrictions or species-specific rules), underscoring that spatial design is rarely independent from the types of activities being managed.

Crucially, most of these efforts do not engage in a comprehensive exploration of temporal aspects of protection. Area-based fisheries management and conservation measures are often conceptualized along three interrelated dimensions: space (where management occurs), time (when restrictions apply) and activity (what human actions are regulated, such as gear types or fishing practices). Existing ABMT typologies provide a useful foundation for organizing these dimensions across marine management systems (Hilborn et al., 2022), but they generally treat temporal aspects as categorical rather than structural, limiting systematic comparison across different temporal designs. The literature has also historically emphasized the regulation of activities through gear restrictions, quotas and effort controls and the spatial design of interventions such as MPAs and marine spatial planning. In contrast, far less attention has been given to the temporal dimension of protection. Instead, permanency is often positioned as the standard for achieving management goals such as the 30x30 initiative, neglecting the broader diversity of temporary management approaches (Dudley, 2008; Wenzel et al., 2020; Pike et al., 2024). This tendency includes Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs) which must be “ongoing and for the long-term” – a definition that remains open to interpretation and may, in some contexts, include non-permanent measures while still implying extended protection (IUCN WCPA Task Force on OECMs, 2019). Together, these approaches reflect a broader paradigm in global marine management that emphasizes fixed spatial protections while treating time as static or secondary.

Yet, temporal management is neither new nor marginal. In the Global North, fisheries management has long relied on seasonal closures, rotational harvests and real-time restrictions to regulate fishing effort and protect spawning periods. In many parts of the Global South, however, communities have long practiced non-permanent closures, whether spatially fixed or shifting, rooted in local stewardship traditions, often serving broader socio-ecological and cultural objectives. These practices represent a rich but underexplored dimension of temporary marine management (Johannes, 1978).

Research on these tools has focused primarily on ecological outcomes, examining both their benefits and potential downsides (Hart, 2003; Micheli et al., 2012; Lewison et al., 2015; Little et al., 2015; Munguía-Vega et al., 2015; Plagányi et al., 2015; Chen and Hastings, 2023). Importantly, much of the existing literature examines temporal closures primarily as fisheries management instruments – typically seasonal or effort-control measures designed to protect spawning periods or regulate harvest. While these approaches are widespread and well documented, they represent only one form of temporal marine governance. In many parts of the world, communities also implement temporary closures that pursue broader socio-ecological goals, including biodiversity conservation, ecosystem stewardship and the maintenance of cultural traditions. These diverse examples of temporal fisheries management highlight the importance of studying not only ecological outcomes but also the socio-cultural and political dimensions of temporary marine management.

Non-permanent spatial marine resource management has a long history across Pacific Island regions. Across the Indo-Pacific, communities have widely implemented periodically harvested closures, a form of rotational or temporary closure used to manage coral reef fisheries and support multiple ecological and socio-economic (Bartlett et al., 2009; Carvalho et al., 2019a; Cinner et al., 2006; Cohen et al., 2013; Cohen and Foale, 2013; Jupiter et al., 2017. These systems are particularly prevalent in Melanesia, where customary marine tenure and traditional ecological knowledge enable communities to adaptively manage reef resources through periodic closures and pulse harvesting strategies (Goetze et al., 2018). Specific local governance systems illustrate this broader pattern. In Papua New Guinea, communities with strong tenure rights implement periodic closures that can generate ecological and fisheries benefits under certain conditions (Cinner et al., 2006; Bartlett et al., 2009; Cohen et al., 2013; Cohen and Foale, 2013; Jupiter et al., 2017). In French Polynesia, communities are implementing temporary management forms called rāhui – closures historically established for ritual or social purposes that have increasingly been adapted for conservation and fisheries management (Bambridge et al., 2019; Oliver, 2019; Filous et al., 2021). Contemporary rāhui vary in objectives and design, but typically involve periodic openings during a multi-year closure period, after which they may expire or be extended (Bambridge et al., 2019; Oliver, 2019).

Similarly, in the Western Indian Ocean, temporary octopus closures have been reintroduced across several communities (Oliver et al., 2015; Silas et al., 2022; Dudayev et al., 2023). These closures last for defined periods each year, temporarily banning octopus fishing and culminating in coordinated, celebratory harvests. Their predictable annual timing and strong local participation enhance food security, livelihoods and community cohesion. Some communities also adjust the location or boundaries based on socio-ecological feedbacks (Wosu, 2019; Drury O’Neill et al., 2024).

Another example is found in Mexico, where “Zonas de Refugio” (fish refuges, in English) are fixed-term closures, typically lasting 5 years, during which fishing can be entirely prohibited. Initiated by small-scale fishers and non-governmental organizations following a 2007 fisheries law reform, they are intended to allow stock recovery (Quintana and Basurto, 2021). Fixed-term closures are also used elsewhere; for instance, in New Zealand, they can last for up to 2 years (Gnanalingam and Hepburn, 2015).

Despite their global relevance, temporary marine closures and the temporal dimensions of marine management they represent, have received far less attention in the literature than the spatial dimensions associated with permanent closures. A key challenge is the conceptual ambiguity of “temporary,” which groups diverse practices – seasonal bans, event-triggered closures, rotational systems and traditional time-bound regimes – under a single label. This broad categorization obscures how temporal design shapes not only ecological but also governance and social outcomes. Disentangling these effects requires explicit consideration of how temporal dynamics interact with spatial configurations and the regulation of activities, which are often deeply intertwined in practice. To address this gap, we introduce a conceptual framework focused on key temporal dimensions of marine closures. The framework clarifies distinctions between permanent and temporary systems, refines the language used to describe temporal strategies and helps identify avenues for future research. While our primary contribution is to advance understanding about temporal dimensions, we explicitly situate this framework within the broader space–time–activity paradigm and highlight the need for future empirical work to account for variation in regulated activities when evaluating the outcomes of temporary closures. Our goal is not to present temporary closures as a panacea, but to provide a framework for more precisely evaluating how spatial and temporal configurations shape marine management in resource-dependent communities, including how these approaches can complement other management strategies.

Key temporal characteristics of marine closures

The term “temporary closures” is an umbrella concept, grouping together distinct management approaches and hindering both research and practice. To address this ambiguity, we propose a simple, yet powerful framework that distinguishes two key temporal characteristics: system duration and cyclicity (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

A flowchart classifying marine closures based on expiration and cyclicity. See long description.

Open in a new tab

Temporal classification of marine closures based on system duration and cyclicity. This framework distinguishes closures by whether they are time-bound (designed to expire or be reassessed after a set period) or non-time-bound (intended to persist indefinitely), and by whether they follow a cyclical pattern (with alternating open and closed periods) or are non-cyclical (remaining consistently closed or open). Cyclical closures can also be characterized by their access ratio – the proportion of time that resources are accessible to users – which reflects the intended balance between ecological protection and stakeholder use (Figure 2).

Figure 1. long description.

System duration refers to whether closures are intended to be time-bound, with a defined expiration, or non-time-bound, designed to persist indefinitely. Time-bound closures, such as Mexico’s 5-year fish refuges, may be extended following evaluation, allowing for adaptive redesign based on outcomes. This deliberate, time-limited structure enables flexibility and iterative learning in management (Quintana and Basurto, 2021). System duration strategies are underpinned by enduring institutions – formal or informal – that provide the governance foundation for their implementation (Ostrom’s “constitutional rules”) (Ostrom 2012). For example, Mexico’s fish refuges are supported by the 2007 General Law of Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture. Thus, while institutions persist, our definition of time-bound refers specifically to operational rules – the in-practice arrangements – rather than the underlying legal or normative structures.

Cyclicity is a second key temporal dimension we have identified that describes crucial temporal characteristics of closures. Cyclical closure strategies involve a predetermined or ad hoc sequence of opening and closing periods of harvesting, whereas non-cyclical closures are designed to be closed indefinitely and not reopen for harvesting once established. The most well-known cyclical closures are seasonal closures, where a management area is designed to alternate between states of protection and access. A cyclical management system introduces periodic access to resources for resource users and can be designed to help align ecological and social rhythms.

Cyclical closures can be further assessed through their access ratio – the proportion of time resources are available to users (Figure 2). This ratio shapes social and ecological outcomes: well-timed closures can support species recovery and fishery sustainability, while extended access may lead to overfishing, and limited access may reduce community support. In our framework, we emphasize access ratio primarily in the context of cyclical closures, where the proportion of open and closed periods is intentionally designed to align ecological and social objectives. Nonetheless, access ratio can also be applied more broadly to any temporary closure, including event-triggered or non-cyclical systems, to describe the realized proportion of time that resources are accessible. In these cases, the ratio emerges from management responses rather than deliberate design, but it still provides a useful comparative measure across diverse closure strategies.

Figure 2.

A four-panel diagram defining the access ratio for marine closures using square wave graphs to represent temporal fishing access. See long description.

Open in a new tab

Access ratio in cyclical marine closures. This figure illustrates the concept of the access ratio, which describes the temporal dynamics of cyclical closures. Panel A defines the components of the access ratio, including the durations of open and closed periods within a time frame (T). Panels B–D provide examples of closures with access ratios of 30%, 60% and 90%, respectively, demonstrating varying proportions of fishing access within a given period. While the access ratio is inspired by the concept of duty cycles in engineering, it does not require strictly repetitive patterns as those shown in these examples; the lengths of open and closed periods can vary dynamically across time frames, potentially reflecting adaptive management strategies.

Figure 2. long description.

System duration, cyclicity and access ratio can help distinguish key temporal characteristics of management systems lumped together as “temporary closures” (Figure 3). For example, in French Polynesia, rāhui practices vary widely: On Maiao and Rapa Iti, the rāhui are cyclical, non-time-bound with eventual shifting zones. In Teahupo’o, the rāhui was initially designed as time-bound but non-cyclical, spatially fixed for a period of 3 years. In Papara and Tautira, rāhui are also time-bound but allow for cyclical openings within that period. While in the Western Indian Ocean, octopus closures are designed as non-time-bound, and cyclical, typically involving months-long closures followed by short harvest periods. Conventional trigger closures can be characterized by our framework as non-cyclical, time-bound measures activated in response to management or conservation concerns (Gullestad et al., 2015; Little et al., 2015; Bisack and Magnusson, 2021).

Figure 3.

Two-panel step graph comparing fishery access and closure periods for Papara rāhui and Madagascar octopus closures. See long description.

Open in a new tab

Representation of the access ratio (red line) applied to select case studies. Access periods represent the length of time that communities have access to fishing. Closure periods represent the length of time communities cannot access the fishery. To enhance pattern recognition, the duration of cycles of each example is not depicted on the same timescale; instead, the specific durations are stated in years (Y), months (MO) and days. The figure highlights differences in access-to-closure ratios for the following cases: a) Papara rāhui and b) octopus closures in Madagascar.

Figure 3. long description.

Our framework positions time as a fundamental design axis, offering precise vocabulary to uncover the nuanced trade-offs obscured by the broad “temporary” label.

Future research directions

By highlighting key temporal attributes of marine closures, our framework reveals new research directions and underscores how variations in system duration and cyclicity influence socio-ecological trade-offs and management outcomes. We have identified four focal areas of research to guide and motivate future inquiry. These include (a) ecological and fisheries sustainability; (b) governance, equity and participation; (c) adaptability and learning; and (d) economic resilience (Table 1).

Table 1.

Major research areas and associated questions examining the ecological, social, governance and economic dimensions of area-based marine management through a temporal lens, explicitly incorporating activity (e.g., gear, effort and targeting behavior) and additional mediating variables (e.g., governance capacity, market dynamics and ecological heterogeneity) that condition outcomes across systems

Table 1. long description.

Potential research questions Hypotheses Variables of interest
a. Fisheries sustainability
How does the synchronization of access regimes with species’ ecological traits (e.g., mobility, recovery time) influence fisheries outcomes and fisher perceptions? Synchronizing access regimes with species’ ecological traits enhances fisheries outcomes and strengthens fisher engagement by providing timely and visible benefits.
  • Temporal design: duration; cyclicity
  • Species life-history traits: mobility; recovery rate
  • Activity (key mediating variable): gear selectivity; effort allocation; targeting behavior
  • Spatial structure: distribution of stocks/habitats
  • Social outcomes: fisher perceptions
  • Additional mediating variables: governance capacity; enforcement strength; market dynamics; ecological heterogeneity
How do different access ratios interact with gear selectivity, habitat sensitivity and species life histories to determine whether temporary closures generate ecosystem-wide benefits beyond stock-specific recovery? Variations in access ratios, gear selectivity, habitat sensitivity and species life histories significantly influence whether temporary closures yield ecosystem-wide benefits beyond stock-specific recovery.
  • Access ratio
  • Activity (key mediating variable): gear selectivity; effort allocation; targeting behavior influencing response to access design
  • Ecological structure: habitat sensitivity; species life histories
  • Spatial structure: habitat configuration
  • Additional mediating variables: governance enforcement capacity; market conditions; ecological heterogeneity
How does temporal access to fisheries affect recovery and trophic interactions across different levels of marine food webs? Periodic human access to marine closures can mimic the ecological role of top predators by regulating prey populations, but it may also limit the recovery of high trophic level species that are slower to rebound. Therefore, the effects of closure timing on ecological recovery are predicted to vary across trophic levels, reflecting the dual role of humans as resource users and functional predators.
  • Temporal design: duration; cyclicity; access ratio
  • Ecological structure: trophic level structure; species recovery rates
  • Activity (key mediating variable): fishing pressure (effort; gear type; targeting intensity)
  • Spatial structure: food-web structure
  • Additional mediating variables: ecosystem productivity; climate variability; governance enforcement strength
b. Governance, equity and participation
How do the duration of closures and the proportion of time resources are accessible (access ratios) influence community perceptions of fairness, equity and governance legitimacy? Closures that balance sufficient protection for resource sustainability with predictable and meaningful access opportunities are expected to enhance perceptions of governance legitimacy. Communities are likely to perceive rules as fair and equitable when access ratios allow sustainable harvests of key targeted species and when allocation rules are transparent and inclusive. Conversely, closures with very restrictive access or poorly communicated rules may undermine perceptions of fairness and equity, even if ecological outcomes are positive.
  • Temporal design: duration; access ratio; cyclicity
  • Governance design: rule transparency
  • Activity (key mediating variable): gear restrictions; effort rules shaping access outcomes
  • Spatial design: allocation of access
  • Social outcomes: equity
  • Additional mediating variables: enforcement capacity; institutional trust; market dependence
How do time-bound and cyclical marine closures influence local agency? Time-bound and cyclical closures enhance local agency by requiring communities to actively monitor resources and make decisions about openings and extensions. Unlike permanent closures, which can lead to user disengagement, these temporary management strategies provide regular feedback on ecological outcomes, enabling adaptive responses. Consequently, communities involved in managing time-bound or cyclical closures are expected to demonstrate higher participation, more informed decision-making and greater capacity to adjust management practices based on observed ecological changes.
  • Temporal design: duration; cyclicity; access ratio
  • Governance process: participatory governance structure
  • Activity (key mediating variable): gear/effort regulation shaping agency outcomes
  • Spatial design: exclusivity
  • Additional mediating variables: governance history; institutional capacity; community cohesion
How can the design of time-bound and cyclical marine closures support the restoration or revitalization of pre-colonial, community-based governance systems? Time-bound and cyclical closures, by reflecting flexible, context-specific rules for resource use, can reinforce or revive pre-colonial governance practices that emphasized local stewardship and communal decision-making. By aligning closure timing with ecological cycles and community needs, these management strategies may strengthen local institutions, encourage participatory rule-making and restore customary norms.
  • Temporal design: duration; cyclicity; access ratio
  • Institutional context: customary tenure systems; governance traditions
  • Activity (key mediating variable): rules on gear use; effort constraints shaping customary alignment
  • Spatial structure: territorial governance boundaries
  • Additional mediating variables: cultural continuity; institutional legitimacy; enforcement capacity
How does participatory decision-making in reopening or extending marine closures influence cooperation, compliance and long-term stakeholder engagement? When communities are actively involved in decisions to reopen or extend closures, participatory processes are likely to foster higher compliance, cooperation and sustained engagement. Inclusive decision-making enhances perceived legitimacy and fairness, aligning management rules with local knowledge and priorities. In contrast, top-down decisions that limit community input are expected to reduce compliance and weaken long-term stakeholder engagement, even if ecological goals are achieved.
  • Governance process: participation level; decision-making structure
  • Temporal flexibility: opening/closing rules; access ratio adjustment
  • Activity (key mediating variable): effort and gear rules shaping compliance responses
  • Additional mediating variables: institutional trust; enforcement capacity; communication quality
Under what ecological and social conditions do time-bound and cyclical closures generate tangible benefits that enhance fisher compliance, governance legitimacy and long-term support? Time-bound and cyclical closures that align with ecological cycles and community harvesting rhythms are expected to deliver greater benefits, enhancing fisher compliance, perceptions of legitimacy and long-term support, whereas misaligned closures are less likely to generate these social outcomes. For example, closures that allow openings according to the best market conditions will render higher benefits and support.
  • Temporal alignment: duration; cyclicity; access ratio
  • Ecological conditions: productivity; variability
  • Market dynamics: price conditions; timing incentives
  • Activity (key mediating variable): gear use; effort intensity; targeting behavior
  • Social outcomes: compliance; legitimacy; support
  • Additional mediating variables: governance capacity; enforcement strength; spatial visibility of benefits
c. Uncertainty and learning
Do time-bound and cyclical marine closures increase resource users’ awareness of environmental variability and stock conditions? Time-bound and cyclical closures, by requiring repeated engagement with management decisions and adaptive timing of access, encourage resource users to monitor environmental fluctuations and stock conditions more closely. Users participating in cyclical or temporary management systems are predicted to be more responsive to ecological signals, more aware of governance challenges and more likely to comply with rules compared to those in permanent or non-cyclical closures, where engagement is less frequent and feedback loops are weaker.
  • Temporal structure: cyclicity; duration; access ratio
  • Feedback structure: frequency of closures/openings
  • Activity (key mediating variable): fishing effort; monitoring behavior
  • Spatial variability: stock distribution
  • Additional mediating variables: governance responsiveness; environmental variability
Does the adaptive flexibility of time-bound marine closures enhance social-ecological resilience to environmental and social change? Time-bound closures enhance resilience by allowing the periodic reassessment and adjustment of management rules in response to ecological and social changes. Systems with flexible, adaptive closure durations are expected to better maintain ecological sustainability, support community livelihoods and respond to shocks, compared to non-time-bound closures, which may be less responsive to changing conditions.
  • Temporal flexibility: adjustability of duration; cyclicity; access ratio
  • Ecological variability
  • Activity (key mediating variable): adaptive effort behavior; gear adjustments
  • Spatial dynamics: redistribution of effort
  • Additional mediating variables: institutional adaptability; climate shocks; market volatility
Can time-bound closures act as experimental or transitional measures that facilitate the adoption of broader or longer-term marine management strategies? Time-bound closures provide a flexible, low-risk platform for testing management strategies. When these closures demonstrate ecological and social benefits – such as improved stock recovery or positive community engagement – they increase the likelihood of adoption of longer-term or more extensive management measures. Therefore, successful implementation and outcomes of time-bound closures are predicted to serve as steppingstones that inform and support the design of subsequent, more permanent management interventions.
  • Temporal design: duration; cyclicity; access ratio
  • Experimental structure: trial design; phased implementation
  • Activity (key mediating variable): regulated effort and gear constraints shaping experimentation outcomes
  • Spatial scope: coverage of management experiment
  • Additional mediating variables: learning mechanisms; governance feedback loops; institutional capacity
How do observed ecological, economic and social outcomes, as well as community perceptions of success, influence learning and the future design of marine closures? Perceptions of success by local communities will play a stronger role in shaping future closure design and management decisions than objectively observed ecological or economic outcomes. Closures perceived as beneficial – through visible resource recovery, equitable access or tangible community benefits – are more likely to inform adaptive redesign and continued compliance, whereas closures that achieve ecological or economic goals but are not recognized as successful by users may have limited influence on future management choices.
  • Perceived outcomes: ecological; economic; social perceptions
  • Temporal design: duration; cyclicity
  • Activity (key mediating variable): fishing outcomes linked to effort and gear use
  • Spatial visibility: distribution of benefits
  • Additional mediating variables: communication channels; governance trust; enforcement credibility
d. Economic resilience
How do time-bound versus permanent marine closures influence the intergenerational distribution of ecological and economic benefits under current and climate change conditions? Under current environmental conditions, permanent closures are expected to provide higher benefits to future generations by ensuring long-term protection of resources. However, when considering climate change and environmental variability, time-bound closures that allow adaptive management may achieve higher long-term benefits by enabling adjustments to shifting ecological conditions. Therefore, the fairness of intergenerational cost and benefit distribution depends on both closure duration and the capacity for adaptive management in response to environmental change.
  • Temporal design: duration (permanent vs. time-bound); cyclicity
  • Climate variability
  • Activity (key mediating variable): effort allocation; gear use; targeting strategies
  • Spatial persistence: resource distribution over time
  • Additional mediating variables: governance enforcement; market structure; ecological productivity
How does the timing and predictability of harvest opportunities influence fishers’ economic resilience? Scheduled and predictable harvests enhance fishers’ economic resilience by allowing them to align fishing effort with favorable market conditions, optimize income and plan livelihoods around resource availability. In contrast, unpredictable or ad hoc access may limit economic opportunities, increase risk and reduce overall resilience, even if ecological outcomes are positive.
  • Temporal predictability: cyclicity; access ratio
  • Market timing: price cycles; demand patterns
  • Activity (key mediating variable): effort allocation; gear use
  • Spatial access: distribution of fishing opportunities
  • Additional mediating variables: fuel costs; institutional constraints; market volatility
Under what design conditions do time-bound and cyclical closures support both economic benefits for fishers and long-term management outcomes? Time-bound and cyclical closures will achieve a balance between economic benefits and management goals when they are aligned with the ecological traits of target species – such as reproductive cycles, mobility and vulnerability – and when fishing during open periods is carefully managed to minimize broader ecosystem impacts. Closures that match species’ biological rhythms and enforce sustainable harvest practices are predicted to allow stock recovery while providing predictable economic returns, whereas misaligned or poorly regulated closures may compromise either management or economic objectives.
  • Temporal alignment: cyclicity; duration; access ratio
  • Species traits: reproductive cycles; mobility; vulnerability
  • Activity (key mediating variable): harvest strategies; gear restrictions; effort control
  • Spatial structure: habitat overlap
  • Additional mediating variables: enforcement capacity; market incentives; ecological productivity
Can rotational (cyclical) closures be designed to optimize both ecological recovery and the economic well-being of fishing communities? Rotational closures that are timed to align with ecological recovery periods and favorable market conditions can simultaneously enhance fish stock resilience and improve economic outcomes for fishers. By distributing access spatially and temporally, rotational closures may also reduce inequities between communities, ensuring more equitable opportunities to benefit from harvesting while maintaining long-term ecosystem health. In contrast, poorly timed or uniform closures may either compromise ecological recovery or fail to provide meaningful economic benefits, limiting both sustainability and community support.
  • Temporal structure: rotation schedule; cyclicity, access ratio
  • Spatial structure: rotation pattern across areas
  • Activity (key mediating variable): redistribution of effort across space and time
  • Ecological outcomes: recovery rates
  • Additional mediating variables: enforcement capacity; habitat heterogeneity; market incentives
Open in a new tab

Ecological and fisheries sustainability

Most research on ecological outcomes has focused on permanent closures, showing that large non-time-bound closures can lead to strong conservation benefits, while small closures in networks can lead to conservation and fisheries benefits (e.g., Green et al., 2009; Gaines et al., 2010; Sala et al., 2021). However, studies of time-bound or cyclical closures have primarily emphasized their role as fisheries management tools. A substantial body of work demonstrates that periodically harvested closures can provide fisheries benefits, particularly for fast-growing or moderately vulnerable species, by increasing biomass before harvest or improving catch efficiency (Cohen and Foale, 2013; Goetze et al., 2016, 2018; Carvalho et al., 2019a; Keith et al., 2020). However, evidence that these systems consistently deliver long-term biodiversity conservation outcomes remains limited, especially for highly vulnerable or long-lived species, and there is concern of overharvest events during open periods (Goetze et al., 2016, 2018).

Despite these concerns, and the limited empirical evidence supporting the effectiveness of temporary closures in achieving management goals, emerging research suggests that time-bound closures can contribute to ecologically meaningful outcomes and may serve as valuable complements to other management tools, including permanent MPAs. For example, studies at Isla Natividad, Mexico, where a fish refuge was designed to expire after a fixed period, found that protection helped maintain the genetic diversity of exploited fish populations and may enhance resilience to environmental stressors (Micheli et al., 2012; Munguía-Vega et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2022). Although these studies do not explicitly label the site as a temporary closure, it operates under a time-bound management regime (Villaseñor-Derbez et al., 2019), illustrating how temporal design can shape ecological outcomes. Similarly, fishing cooperatives in the Mexican Caribbean have implemented time-bound closures to protect Nassau grouper (Epinephelus striatus) spawning sites (Fulton et al., 2018). These examples indicate that, although management outcomes from temporary closures are not as thoroughly documented as those from permanent MPAs, the potential for carefully timed closures to simultaneously support fisheries and ecological objectives represents a fruitful avenue for research.

Management strategies can incorporate both non-time-bound and cyclical closures, using flexibility to balance management goals with socio-cultural needs. Cyclical, time-bound closures, for example, can be timed to biological rhythms – such as spawning periods – allowing sustainable harvesting while supporting management outcomes. Most studies have focused on species-specific recovery, showing that such closures can enhance stock biomass, abundance and fishery yields across diverse life histories, fishing scenarios and spatio-temporal patterns (Game et al., 2009; Carvalho et al., 2019b; Chen and Hastings, 2023). While non-time-bound MPAs can also protect highly vulnerable or slow-recovering species (Gnanalingam and Hepburn, 2015), specific access ratios in temporal closures can protect short-lived species during critical reproductive periods (Cohen and Foale, 2013). Yet, the ecosystem-level and trophic effects of time-bound or cyclical management remain largely underexplored (Table 1). The access ratio influences not only target stock recovery but also habitat resilience, predator–prey interactions and bycatch survival. Periodic human access can alter top-down trophic dynamics, and the use of unselective gear or pulse fishing may disproportionately affect slow-recovering species (Goetze et al., 2016). Considering gear selectivity, habitat sensitivity and species life histories can help identify thresholds where temporary closures provide broader ecological benefits while balancing fisheries objectives.

Future research should also explore how the synchronization of access regimes with ecological conditions influences fisheries outcomes and fisher behavior. MPAs can support stock recovery, but benefits depend on species mobility and larval dispersal (Planes et al., 2009). These challenges in observing benefits, can limit community support. In contrast, time-bound closures offer an alternative for low-mobility species, enabling stock buildup during closures and immediate harvest upon reopening. These visible gains could enhance community benefits and long-term engagement (Table 1).

Governance, equity and participation

Balancing effective marine management with community engagement remains a central challenge. Non-time-bound closures are often favored for their simplicity – requiring primarily spatial decisions on size and location – which facilitates monitoring and enforcement (Smallhorn-West et al., 2020). While sometimes implemented through co-management, these closures often prioritize biodiversity conservation over sustained local use (Day et al., 2019). When not designed with a community-centered perspective, they can suffer from low community buy-in (De Santo et al., 2011; Bennett and Dearden, 2014). Moreover, their spatial boundaries and regulations are often designed to persist over long time horizons, which may not always align with the evolving needs, values and livelihoods of coastal communities, even though many non-time-bound MPAs undergo periodic management reviews (McClanahan et al., 2006).

Time-bound and cyclical closures could offer a more temporally responsive framework aligning the rhythms of human and non-human systems in settings where permanent MPAs face significant challenges. These approaches allow for periodic harvest and reassessment, and have the potential to foster deeper stakeholder engagement (Cinner et al., 2019; Quintana et al., 2021).

For example, in French Polynesia, rāhui are reemerging across the archipelagos and demonstrate strong adaptive potential. Traditionally, rāhui involved time-bound harvesting bans (usually a few years) imposed by chiefs who controlled defined coastal territories that extended into marine zones (Bambridge et al., 2019). Today, these closures take more diverse forms and are appealing to fishers since they lower the stakes of the initial decision to participate. Unlike long-term closures that are typically designed to persist for extended periods (although many are periodically reviewed), time-bound systems like many rāhui allow communities to “try out” management measures without forfeiting the possibility of future access (Fabre et al., 2021). This feature aligns with diffusion of innovations theory, which posits that practices that can be tested on a limited basis (“trialability”) are more likely to be adopted because users can assess their benefits and risks before committing to long-term change, an idea increasingly used to explain the spread of conservation initiatives (Mascia and Mills, 2018) Similarly, in Mexico, time-bound closures have been shown to align with local ecological knowledge and are typically established through collaboration between communities and relevant authorities (Quintana et al., 2021; Quintana and Basurto, 2021). The flexibility to revisit and adjust management decisions seems to offer a practical governance advantage in that stakeholder participation is required, which can reinforce stewardship among fishers by fostering a sense of ownership (Quintana and Basurto, 2021).

Future research could help reveal the unique adaptive governance dynamics of time-bound closures and the differences between cyclical and non-cyclical schemes with varying access ratios. In both French Polynesia and Mexico, the periodic decision points – whether to open a rāhui or renew a fish refuge – appear to create spaces where stakeholders frequently encounter and must negotiate one another’s knowledge, priorities and uncertainties. These are not just moments of administrative review; they instead seem to encourage platforms for adaptive governance, where the rules of engagement, who decides, who benefits and on what grounds, are not fixed, but actively shaped through practice (Quintana et al., 2021). More research could elucidate the extent to which and under what configurations time-bound and cyclical closures spawn new forms of social coordination. Rather than entrenching a static management regime, these systems are intrinsically responsive, enabling a kind of governance that adapts over time through stakeholder engagement and governance feedback.

Uncertainty, learning and adaptive management

Uncertainty is a defining challenge in marine resource management, underscoring the need for strategies that can mitigate risks while remaining responsive to changing ecological and social conditions. Non-time-bound closures embody a precautionary approach, offering insurance against environmental shocks and prioritizing long-term population recovery when regeneration timelines are uncertain – an attribute that is critical for biodiversity conservation (Hopkins et al., 2020). In contrast, temporal closures enable more timely reassessment and adjustment. While reassessment is also possible within permanent MPAs, their fixed nature may constrain the integration of emerging ecological information or limit responsiveness to changing conditions.

Temporary closures, including time-bound and cyclical closures, offer a dynamic management framework with the potential to support observation, adjustment and learning – key elements for managing uncertainty in complex marine systems. By allowing periodic reopening of protected areas, these approaches create opportunities for stakeholders to observe ecological responses, evaluate management outcomes and iteratively refine management strategies. Because reopening periods are anticipated, fishers may become more engaged in monitoring ecological signals and assessing the results of protection, while scientists, managers and fishers can exchange observations and interpretations during these cycles. Studies of temporary closures in small-scale fisheries suggest that these iterative processes can foster participation, strengthen compliance and generate feedbacks that shape subsequent management decisions (e.g., Oliver et al., 2015; Jupiter et al., 2017; Cinner et al., 2019). In some cases, the outcomes of temporary closures have prompted communities to rethink and modify their management arrangements. For instance, results from a multi-year closure in Mexico led local fishers to expand the protected area and extend the duration of protection (Quintana et al., 2021; Quintana and Basurto, 2021). Similar adaptive responses have been observed elsewhere: in both French Polynesia and Madagascar, initial closure arrangements evolved as fishers witnessed tangible benefits. In some cases, rāhui remained in place longer than originally planned, and fishers from Madagascar who had previously been skeptical came to support spatial restrictions after experiencing the positive effects of short-term octopus closures (Oliver et al., 2015; Fabre et al., 2021). While these cases illustrate how temporary closures can facilitate experiential learning and build support for management interventions, it remains unclear how consistently such adaptive processes emerge across different socio-ecological contexts or whether they translate into more effective management outcomes at broader scales. It is also important to note that closure periods are not strict statistical “controls”: income and other benefits from open periods can influence behavior and outcomes during subsequent closures, creating temporal spillovers that shape ecological and social dynamics. Further comparative research is therefore needed to determine when and under what conditions time-bound closures foster institutional learning and adaptive redesign. Further comparative research is therefore needed to determine when and under what conditions time-bound closures foster institutional learning and adaptive redesign. In particular, future studies should examine how the timing and repetition of these closures shape learning processes and adaptive capacity, which are critical for managing ecological and social uncertainty.

Economic resilience

Time-bound and cyclical closures introduce a distinct economic dimension that warrants deeper investigation. A key area for future research is the temporal distribution of costs and benefits. While permanent, non-time-bound closures can generate substantial ecological and economic benefits, including increased fish stocks, catch volumes and tourism opportunities (Costello et al., 2024), time-bound and cyclical closures offer additional flexibility by allowing scheduled harvesting. This scheduling can help communities balance resource use across short-term livelihood needs and longer-term management goals, supporting more equitable intergenerational trade-offs in contexts where local livelihoods depend on predictable access to resources (Oliver et al., 2015; Silas et al., 2022).

Research is needed to explore how such closures can alleviate the financial burdens often associated with marine conservation by offering predictable, high-value harvest opportunities. These mechanisms may serve as economic buffers, functioning similarly to savings accounts – allowing fishers to “store” biomass and extract it when most needed or when market conditions are favorable. The case of Baja California, where cooperatives drew on sea urchin and abalone reserves to offset pandemic-related losses, illustrates the potential for time-bound strategies to enhance economic resilience (Villaseñor-Derbez et al., 2023).

Future studies should examine how these temporal dynamics influence fishers’ willingness to comply, the sustainability of harvest cycles and the broader economic feasibility of cyclical closures in variable market and ecological conditions.

Conclusion

Non-time-bound closures, such as traditional MPAs, treat permanence as the only effective structuring of time, overlooking the diversity of marine management strategies worldwide. Understanding how temporal factors, duration and cyclicity, interact with spatial design is essential for effective fisheries management. Our framework highlights these temporal dynamics, offering new directions for research on adaptive management. As climate change and other pressures intensify, flexible, time-bound strategies may become increasingly important for supporting sustainable fisheries and resilient socio-ecological systems. A clearer temporal typology of closures can reveal which designs perform best under different ecological and social conditions, enabling more context-sensitive management and research.

Long descriptions

Table 1. Long description

Major research areas and associated questions examining the ecological, social, governance, and economic dimensions of area-based marine management through a temporal lens, explicitly incorporating activity (e.g., gear, effort and targeting behavior) and additional mediating variables (e.g., governance capacity, market dynamics and ecological heterogeneity) that condition outcomes across systems.

Navigate back to Table 1..

Figure 1. Long description

A hierarchical flowchart begins with a top central question box: Does the closure system expire?

Two paths branch downward from this question:

1. The left path, labeled No, leads to a dark blue box: Non-time bound intended to be permanent. Below this, a secondary question box asks: Will fishing be allowed in this closure intermittently?

- A Yes branch leads to a teal box labeled Cyclical.

- A No branch leads to a teal box labeled Non-cyclical.

2. The right path, labeled Yes, leads to a dark blue box: Time bound has expiration date. Below this, the same secondary question box asks: Will fishing be allowed in this closure intermittently?

- A Yes branch leads to a teal box labeled Cyclical.

- A No branch leads to a teal box labeled Non-cyclical.

Navigate back to Figure 1..

Figure 2. Long description

The diagram is organized into two main sections.

Top section, Panel A: A red square wave graph plotted against a horizontal arrow labeled Time. The low state of the wave is labeled Closure and the high state is labeled Access. A horizontal bracket below one full cycle of the wave (one high and one low segment) is labeled Period, T.

Bottom section, Panels B through D: Three side-by-side square wave graphs showing different duty cycles.

- The left graph is labeled 30 percent and shows narrow peaks with wide troughs, indicating short access periods relative to closures.

- The middle graph is labeled 60 percent and shows peaks that are slightly wider than the troughs, indicating access periods that exceed closure periods.

- The right graph is labeled 90 percent and shows very wide peaks with extremely narrow troughs, indicating nearly continuous access with very brief closure intervals.

Navigate back to Figure 2..

Figure 3. Long description

The image consists of two panels, B and C, showing a red line that steps between an upper Access level and a lower Closure level.

Panel B, titled Rahui Papara, shows a long initial Access period. The line then drops to the Closure level for a duration labeled 2020 4 Y. It rises briefly to the Access level for a duration labeled 2024 1 Day, before dropping back to the Closure level for a duration labeled 2024 3 Y.

Panel C, titled Octopus Closure Madagascar, shows a repeating cyclical pattern. The line starts at the Access level, then drops to the Closure level for 3 M in 2015. It rises back to Access for 9 M O. This cycle repeats twice more, with 3 M closures in 2016 and 2017, each followed by a 9 M O access period. The horizontal segments for access and closure in this panel are of uniform length relative to each other.

Navigate back to Figure 3..

Open peer review

To view the open peer review materials for this article, please visit http://doi.org/10.1017/cft.2026.10034.

Data availability statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Author contribution

E.A.B. and M.L. led the conceptualization of the manuscript. E.A.B. prepared the original draft of the manuscript. A.Q. oversaw the project coordination. Funding acquisition was secured by A.Q., S.G., M.L., A.H.W., E.L., J.W., S.F. and E.A.B. Investigation was conducted by all authors. Visualization was carried out by E.A.B., O.I., B.B. and M.L. All authors contributed to reviewing and editing the manuscript and approved the final version for publication.

Financial support

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF 20–579 Dynamics of Integrated Socio-Environmental Systems; Grant Number 2206739).

Competing interests

The authors declare none.

AI declaration

AI tools (ChatGPT, OpenAI) were used to assist with translation between English and Spanish and to refine sections written by second-language English and Spanish speakers. All ideas, analyses and interpretations are those of the authors.

References

  1. Bambridge T, Gaulme F, Montet C and Paulais T (2019) Communs et océan. Le rahui en polynésie. Papeete: Au Vent des Iles. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bartlett CY, Manua C, Cinner J, Sutton S, Jimmy R, South R, Nilsson J and Raina J (2009) Comparison of outcomes of permanently closed and periodically harvested coral reef reserves. Conservation Biology 23(6), 1475–1484. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01293.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bennett NJ and Dearden P (2014) Why local people do not support conservation: Community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand. Marine Policy 44, 107–116. 10.1016/j.marpol.2013.08.017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bennett NJ, Katz L, Yadao-Evans W, Ahmadia GN, Atkinson S, Ban NC, Dawson NM, De Vos A, Fitzpatrick J, Gill D, Imirizaldu M, Lewis N, Mangubhai S, Meth L, Muhl E-K, Obura D, Spalding AK, Villagomez A, Wagner D, White A and Wilhelm A (2021) Advancing social equity in and through marine conservation. Frontiers in Marine Science 8, 711538. 10.3389/fmars.2021.711538. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bisack KD and Magnusson GM (2021) Spatial management to reduce entanglement risk to North Atlantic right whales in fishing gear: A case study of U.S. northeast lobster fishery 2002–2009. Frontiers in Marine Science 8, 540966. 10.3389/fmars.2021.540966. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bown NK, Gray TS and Stead SM (2013) Co-management and adaptive co-management: Two modes of governance in a Honduran marine protected area. Marine Policy 39, 128–134. 10.1016/j.marpol.2012.09.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Carvalho PG, Jupiter SD, Januchowski-Hartley FA, Goetze J, Claudet J, Weeks R, Humphries A and White C (2019a) Optimized fishing through periodically harvested closures. Journal of Applied Ecology 56(8), 1927–1936. 10.1111/1365-2664.13417. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Carvalho PG, Jupiter SD, Januchowski-Hartley FA, Goetze J, Claudet J, Weeks R, Humphries A and White C (2019b) Optimized fishing through periodically harvested closures. Journal of Applied Ecology 56(8), 1927–1936. 10.1111/1365-2664.13417. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen R and Hastings A (2023) Advantages and disadvantages of rotating spatial closures for managing fisheries. Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Research 2, 0002. 10.34133/olar.0002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cinner J, Marnane MJ, McClanahan TR and Almany GR (2006) Periodic closures as adaptive coral reef management in the Indo-Pacific. Ecology and Society 11(1), art31. 10.5751/ES-01618-110131. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Cinner JE, Lau JD, Bauman AG, Feary DA, Januchowski-Hartley FA, Rojas CA, Barnes ML, Bergseth BJ, Shum E, Lahari R, Ben J and Graham NAJ (2019) Sixteen years of social and ecological dynamics reveal challenges and opportunities for adaptive management in sustaining the commons. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116(52), 26474–26483. 10.1073/pnas.1914812116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cohen PJ and Foale SJ (2013) Sustaining small-scale fisheries with periodically harvested marine reserves. Marine Policy 37, 278–287. 10.1016/j.marpol.2012.05.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Cohen PJ, Cinner JE and Foale S (2013) Fishing dynamics associated with periodically harvested marine closures. Global Environmental Change 23(6), 1702–1713. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.08.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Costello, M. J. (2024). Evidence of economic benefits from marine protected areas. Sci. Mar, 88(1), 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  15. Day J, Dudley N, Hockings M, Holmes G, Laffoley D, Stolton S, Wells S and Wenzel L (2019) Guidelines for Applying the IUCN Protected Area Management Categories to Marine Protected Areas, 2nd Edn. Switzerland: IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature. [Google Scholar]
  16. De Santo EM (2013) Missing marine protected area (MPA) targets: How the push for quantity over quality undermines sustainability and social justice. Journal of Environmental Management 124, 137–146. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. De Santo EM, Jones PJS and Miller AMM (2011) Fortress conservation at sea: A commentary on the Chagos marine protected area. Marine Policy 35(2), 258–260. 10.1016/j.marpol.2010.09.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Drury O’Neill E, Daw TM, MWAMBAO, Mwaipopo RN and Lindkvist E (2024) The complexity of compliance—Diverse responses to octopus fishery closures in Zanzibar. People and Nature 6(6), 2543–2563. 10.1002/pan3.10742. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Dudayev R, Hakim LL and Rufiati I (2023) Participatory fisheries governance in Indonesia: Are octopus fisheries leading the way? Marine Policy 147, 105338. 10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105338. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Dudley N (2008) Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2008.PAPS.2.en. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Fabre P, Bambridge T, Claudet J, Sterling E and Mawyer A (2021) Contemporary rāhui: Placing indigenous, conservation, and sustainability sciences in community-led conservation. Pacific Conservation Biology 27(4), 451–463. 10.1071/PC20087. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Filous A, Lennox RJ, Beaury JP, Bagnis H, Mchugh M, Friedlander AM, Clua EEG, Cooke SJ, Fuller TK and Danylchuk AJ (2021) Fisheries science and marine education catalyze the renaissance of traditional management (rahui) to improve an artisanal fishery in French Polynesia. Marine Policy 123, 104291. 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104291. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Fulton S, Caamal-Madrigal J, Aguilar-Perera A, Bourillón L and Heyman WD (2018) Marine conservation outcomes are more likely when fishers participate as citizen scientists: Case studies from the Mexican Mesoamerican reef. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice 3(1), 7. 10.5334/cstp.118. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Gaines SD, White C, Carr MH and Palumbi SR (2010) Designing marine reserve networks for both conservation and fisheries management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(43), 18286–18293. 10.1073/pnas.0906473107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Game ET, Bode M, McDonald-Madden E, Grantham HS and Possingham HP (2009) Dynamic marine protected areas can improve the resilience of coral reef systems. Ecology Letters 12(12), 1336–1346. 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01384.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Gnanalingam G and Hepburn C (2015) Flexibility in temporary fisheries closure legislation is required to maximise success. Marine Policy 61, 39–45. 10.1016/j.marpol.2015.06.033. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Goetze J, Langlois T, Claudet J, Januchowski-Hartley F and Jupiter SD (2016) Periodically harvested closures require full protection of vulnerable species and longer closure periods. Biological Conservation 203, 67–74. 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.08.038. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Goetze JS, Claudet J, Januchowski-Hartley F, Langlois TJ, Wilson SK, White C, Weeks R and Jupiter SD (2018) Demonstrating multiple benefits from periodically harvested fisheries closures. Journal of Applied Ecology 55(3), 1102–1113. 10.1111/1365-2664.13047. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Green A, Smith SE, Lipsett-Moore G, Groves C, Peterson N, Sheppard S, Lokani P, Hamilton R, Almany J, Aitsi J and Bualia L (2009) Designing a resilient network of marine protected areas for Kimbe Bay, Papua New Guinea. Oryx 43(4), 488–498. 10.1017/S0030605309990342. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Grorud-Colvert K, Sullivan-Stack J, Roberts C, Constant V, Horta E, Costa B, Pike EP, Kingston N, Laffoley D, Sala E, Claudet J, Friedlander AM, Gill DA, Lester SE, Day JC, Gonçalves EJ, Ahmadia GN, Rand M, Villagomez A, Ban NC, Gurney GG, Spalding AK, Bennett NJ, Briggs J, Morgan LE, Moffitt R, Deguignet M, Pikitch EK, Darling ES, Jessen S, Hameed SO, Di Carlo G, Guidetti P, Harris JM, Torre J, Kizilkaya Z, Agardy T, Cury P, Shah NJ, Sack K, Cao L, Fernandez M and Lubchenco J (2021) The MPA guide: A framework to achieve global goals for the ocean. Science 373(6560), eabf0861. 10.1126/science.abf0861. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Gullestad P, Blom G, Bakke G and Bogstad B (2015) The “Discard Ban Package”: Experiences in efforts to improve the exploitation patterns in Norwegian fisheries. Marine Policy 54, 1–9. 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.09.025. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Hart DR (2003) Yield and biomass-per-recruit analysis for rotational fisheries, with an application to the Atlantic Sea scallop (Placopecten magellanicus). Fishery Bulletin 101(1), 44–57. [Google Scholar]
  33. Henneker CR, Hinchliffe G and Jarvis RM (2026) Achieving 30×30: How different nations report their contributions to international marine conservation targets. npj Ocean Sustainability 5(1), 13. 10.1038/s44183-025-00177-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Hilborn R (2018) Are MPAs effective? ICES Journal of Marine Science 75(3), 1160–1162. 10.1093/icesjms/fsx068. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Hilborn R, Agostini VN, Chaloupka M, Garcia SM, Gerber LR, Gilman E, Hanich Q, Himes-Cornell A, Hobday AJ, Itano D, Kaiser MJ, Murua H, Ovando D, Pilling GM, Rice JC, Sharma R, Schaefer KM, Severance CJ, Taylor NG and Fitchett M (2022) Area-based management of blue water fisheries: Current knowledge and research needs. Fish and Fisheries 23(2), 492–518. 10.1111/faf.12629. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Hopkins CR, Burns NM, Brooker E, Dolman S, Devenport E, Duncan C and Bailey DM (2020) Evaluating whether MPA management measures meet ecological principles for effective biodiversity protection. Acta Oecologica 108, 103625. 10.1016/j.actao.2020.103625. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. IUCN-WCPA Task Force on OECMs (2019) Recognising and Reporting Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures. IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature. 10.2305/iucn.ch.2019.patrs.3.en [DOI]
  38. Johannes RE (1978) Traditional marine conservation methods in Oceania and their demise. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 9(1), 349–364. 10.1146/annurev.es.09.110178.002025. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Jupiter SD, Epstein G, Ban NC, Mangubhai S, Fox M and Cox M (2017) A social–ecological systems approach to assessing conservation and fisheries outcomes in Fijian locally managed marine areas. Society & Natural Resources 30(9), 1096–1111. 10.1080/08941920.2017.1315654. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Keith DM, Sameoto JA, Keyser FM and Ward-Paige CA (2020) Evaluating socio-economic and conservation impacts of management: A case study of time-area closures on Georges Bank. PLoS One 15(10), e0240322. 10.1371/journal.pone.0240322. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Lewison R, Hobday AJ, Maxwell S, Hazen E, Hartog JR, Dunn DC, Briscoe D, Fossette S, O’Keefe CE, Barnes M, Abecassis M, Bograd S, Bethoney ND, Bailey H, Wiley D, Andrews S, Hazen L and Crowder LB (2015) Dynamic ocean management: Identifying the critical ingredients of dynamic approaches to ocean resource management. Bioscience 65(5), 486–498. 10.1093/biosci/biv018. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Little AS, Needle CL, Hilborn R, Holland DS and Marshall CT (2015) Real-time spatial management approaches to reduce bycatch and discards: Experiences from Europe and the United States. Fish and Fisheries 16(4), 576–602. 10.1111/faf.12080. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Mascia MB and Mills M (2018) When conservation goes viral: The diffusion of innovative biodiversity conservation policies and practices. Conservation Letters 11(3), e12442. 10.1111/conl.12442. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. McClanahan TR, Marnane MJ, Cinner JE and Kiene WE (2006) A comparison of marine protected areas and alternative approaches to coral-reef management. Current Biology 16(14), 1408–1413. 10.1016/j.cub.2006.05.062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. McLeod E, Salm R, Green A and Almany J (2009) Designing marine protected area networks to address the impacts of climate change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7(7), 362–370. 10.1890/070211. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Micheli F, Saenz-Arroyo A, Greenley A, Vazquez L, Espinoza Montes JA, Rossetto M and De Leo GA (2012) Evidence that marine reserves enhance resilience to climatic impacts. PLoS One 7(7), e40832. 10.1371/journal.pone.0040832. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Munguía-Vega A, Sáenz-Arroyo A, Greenley AP, Espinoza-Montes JA, Palumbi SR, Rossetto M and Micheli F (2015) Marine reserves help preserve genetic diversity after impacts derived from climate variability: Lessons from the pink abalone in Baja California. Global Ecology and Conservation 4, 264–276. 10.1016/j.gecco.2015.07.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Oliver DL (2019) Ancient Tahitian Society. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. 10.2307/j.ctvp2n5ds. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Oliver TA, Oleson KLL, Ratsimbazafy H, Raberinary D, Benbow S and Harris A (2015) Positive catch & economic benefits of periodic octopus fishery closures: Do effective, narrowly targeted actions ‘Catalyze’ broader management? PLoS One 10(6), e0129075. 10.1371/journal.pone.0129075. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Ostrom E (2012) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. 10.1017/CBO9780511807763. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Pienkowski T, Clark M, Mascia MB, Rivera-Hechem MI, Gelcich S, Cook CN, Watrobska CM, Jagadish A and Mills M (2026) Conservation abandonment is a policy blind spot. Nature Ecology & Evolution 10(1), 14–17. 10.1038/s41559-025-02910-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Pike EP, MacCarthy JMC, Hameed SO, Harasta N, Grorud-Colvert K, Sullivan-Stack J, Claudet J, Horta E, Costa B, Gonçalves EJ, Villagomez A and Morgan L (2024) Ocean protection quality is lagging behind quantity: Applying a scientific framework to assess real marine protected area progress against the 30 by 30 target. Conservation Letters 17(3), e13020. 10.1111/conl.13020. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Plagányi ÉE, Skewes T, Murphy N, Pascual R and Fischer M (2015) Crop rotations in the sea: Increasing returns and reducing risk of collapse in sea cucumber fisheries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(21), 6760–6765. 10.1073/pnas.1406689112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Planes S, Jones GP and Thorrold SR (2009) Larval dispersal connects fish populations in a network of marine protected areas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(14), 5693–5697. 10.1073/pnas.0808007106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Quintana ACE and Basurto X (2021) Community-based conservation strategies to end open access: The case of fish refuges in Mexico. Conservation Science and Practice 3(1), e283. 10.1111/csp2.283. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Quintana ACE, Giron-Nava A, Urmy S, Cramer AN, Domínguez-Sánchez S, Rodríguez-Van Dyck S, Aburto-Oropeza O, Basurto X and Weaver AH (2021) Positive social-ecological feedbacks in community-based conservation. Frontiers in Marine Science 8, 652318. 10.3389/fmars.2021.652318. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Rife AN, Erisman B, Sanchez A and Aburto-Oropeza O (2013) When good intentions are not enough … insights on networks of “paper park” marine protected areas. Conservation Letters 6(3), 200–212. 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00303.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Robinson JG, LaBruna D, O’Brien T, Clyne PJ, Dudley N, Andelman SJ, Bennett EL, Chicchon A, Durigan C, Grantham H, Kinnaird M, Lieberman S, Maisels F, Moreira A, Rao M, Stokes E, Walston J and Watson JE (2024) Scaling up area-based conservation to implement the global biodiversity framework’s 30x30 target: The role of nature’s strongholds. PLoS Biology 22(5), e3002613. 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002613. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Sala E, Mayorga J, Bradley D, Cabral RB, Atwood TB, Auber A, Cheung W, Costello C, Ferretti F, Friedlander AM, Gaines SD, Garilao C, Goodell W, Halpern BS, Hinson A, Kaschner K, Kesner-Reyes K, Leprieur F, McGowan J, Morgan LE, Mouillot D, Palacios-Abrantes J, Possingham HP, Rechberger KD, Worm B and Lubchenco J (2021) Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate. Nature 592(7854), 397–402. 10.1038/s41586-021-03371-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Silas MO, Kishe MA, Mgeleka SS, Kuboja BN, Ngatunga BP and Matiku P (2022) The octopus fishing closures positively impact human wellbeing and management success; case of Tanzania. Ocean & Coastal Management 217, 106022. 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.106022. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Smallhorn-West PF, Weeks R, Gurney G and Pressey RL (2020) Ecological and socioeconomic impacts of marine protected areas in the South Pacific: Assessing the evidence base. Biodiversity and Conservation 29(2), 349–380. 10.1007/s10531-019-01918-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Smith A, Aguilar JD, Boch C, De Leo G, Hernández-Velasco A, Houck S, Martinez R, Monismith S, Torre J, Woodson CB and Micheli F (2022) Rapid recovery of depleted abalone in Isla Natividad, Baja California, Mexico. Ecosphere 13(3), e4002. 10.1002/ecs2.4002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Stephenson F, Horta E, Costa B, Addamo AM, Bueno P, Costello MJ, Dudley N, Eskuche-Keith PA, Fox HE, Gill D, Gordó-Vilaseca C, Grorud-Colvert K, Klein C, Moore PJ, Morgan LE, Nalven KB, Paredes F, Pike EP, Rao M, Sullivan-Stack J, Weiskel HSW, Wenzel L, Wells S and Claudet J (2025) Quality of marine protected areas is critical to achieving global biodiversity targets. npj Ocean Sustainability 4(1), 63. 10.1038/s44183-025-00169-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Viana DF, Gill D, Zvoleff A, Krueck NC, Zamborain-Mason J, Free CM, Shepon A, Grieco D, Schmidhuber J, Mascia MB and Golden CD (2024) Sustainable-use marine protected areas to improve human nutrition. Nature Communications 15(1), 7716. 10.1038/s41467-024-49830-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Villaseñor-Derbez JC, Aceves-Bueno E, Fulton S, Suarez A, Hernández-Velasco A, Torre J and Micheli F (2019) An interdisciplinary evaluation of community-based TURF-reserves. PLoS One 14(8), e0221660. 10.1371/journal.pone.0221660. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Villaseñor-Derbez JC, Fulton S, Hernández-Velasco A and Amador-Castro IG (2023) Biomass accrual benefits of community-based marine protected areas outweigh their operational costs. Frontiers in Marine Science 10, 1180920. 10.3389/fmars.2023.1180920. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  67. Villasenor-Derbez JC, Costello C and Plantinga AJ (2024) A market for 30x30 in the ocean. Science 384(6701), 1177–1179. 10.1126/science.adl4019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Wenzel L, D’Iorio M, Wahle C, Cid G, Cannizzo Z and Darr K (2020) Marine Protected Areas 2020: Building Effective Conservation Networks. NOAA. Retrieved from www.marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov+ [Google Scholar]
  69. Wosu A (2019) Access and institutions in a small-scale octopus fishery: A gendered perspective. Marine Policy 108, 103649. 10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103649. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Camb Prism Coast Futur. doi: 10.1017/cft.2026.10034.pr2

Review: Temporal dimensions in marine spatial closures — R0/PR2

Anonymous

Summary

The paper calls for a greater focus on temporal management in marine conservation by introducing a framework for understanding temporary marine closures through three temporal dimensions: duration, cyclicity, and access ratio. It is very well written, and I agree that temporary closures can be very useful and important for fisheries management. There is also a clear gap in research on their effectiveness and role in broader conservation strategies and the framework presented here does have the potential to help address this.

However, the current framing creates a false dichotomy between temporary closures and permanent no-take areas, when they are in fact complementary tools already being used across the world for different primary objectives—conservation of biodiversity and fisheries management. By presenting temporal closures as a replacement for MPAs, the manuscript comes across as biased, generally highlighting only the positives of temporal closures and the negatives of MPAs. This issue is exacerbated by poor referencing, with many claims lacking any supporting evidence.

However, I believe most of these issues can be fixed relatively easily and the manuscript would be much stronger if it presented temporal closures as a complementary tool within the broader marine management toolkit. I see no reason why temporal closures can’t be one of the many strategies an MPA can offer—and they are already being used in conjunction across the world. Additionally, the unsupported claims could be reframed as research gaps that the manuscript aims to highlight and encourage further work on. With these adjustments, the paper could become a valuable contribution to the field.

Major

I recommend avoiding the false dichotomy of temporary closures versus no-take areas. We should encourage a combination of both. While very large permanent closures can be challenging and inequitable, smaller no-take areas—especially when forming networks—offer significant benefits. Therefore, I would avoid statements suggesting they are rarely feasible (e.g., lines 4–8). There is substantial evidence that networks of well-designed, fully protected areas can provide fisheries and nutritional benefits to communities. I would avoid claims that they cannot work where people rely on marine resources (e.g., in the abstract and discussion).

I agree that temporary closures receive less attention and research, so focusing on this gap is valuable. However, arguing for one approach over the other is problematic because temporary closures will never match the long-term biodiversity conservation benefits of permanent closures. Temporary closures are very useful as a fisheries management tool and should be presented as complementary rather than competing. There benefits for conservation are not as well understood and this should be the research gap that is pointed out.

Paragraph 66–74: Either clarify that you are referring only to very large fully protected areas (with a definition or example) or, as suggested above, emphasize how common temporal closures are globally yet remain poorly understood.

Introduction: I think the authors need to highlight that temporal closures are primarily used as a fisheries management tool. While you can discuss their conservation potential, they are widely used for fisheries management around the world, and this point is somewhat missing. Currently, the introduction emphasizes biodiversity conservation, but the body focuses on fisheries management, creating confusion and suggesting that relevant literature may have been overlooked.

Line 189–190: The statement about conservation benefits is not entirely accurate and needs references. Temporary closures tend to provide short-term fisheries benefits for less vulnerable (e.g., fast-growing) species, but evidence of long-term biodiversity conservation benefits is currently rare and poorly supported. Add a balanced, referenced statement acknowledging this. Some suggested references:

• https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13417

• https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13047

• https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.08.038

• https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.05.010

• https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0240322

Section 187: The authors do not discuss negatives here, such as the tendency for overharvesting after closures. Again, a more balanced approach is needed.

Line 233–237: MPAs are rarely static, with most having management plans and zoning schemes that are periodically reviewed. I would avoid framing this as “one is flexible, the other is not.” Instead, note that temporal closures may allow for timelier reassessment, as reassessment is not absent from MPAs. Similarly, for line 262, say “more responsive” rather than implying MPAs are completely static. For lines 271–272, delete the sentence suggesting MPAs lack adaptive management, as they are critical for identifying ecological insights by providing areas relatively free of anthropogenic impacts.

Line 269–271:

How are temporary closures immune to these issues? Isn’t this the point of a precautionary approach—to provide insurance against environmental shocks? This should be framed as a positive rather than a negative.

Line 273–282:

Incorporate references or examples to support claims in this paragraph.

Lines 283–291:

Avoid using a single example to make broad claims (e.g., that time-bound closures “lead to more responsive and effective management over time”). Instead, present the example as promising case study, then highlight the research gap (“we don’t know if this applies elsewhere or at scale”), and then make the future research recommendation (as you do in lines 289–291).

Lines 296–299 and 302–304:

These statements lack evidence. Permanent closures can provide significant tourism benefits, so they are not necessarily a “sacrifice from current generations.” In fact, there is little evidence of economic costs, even for fisheries, and more evidence of benefits. A more balanced and referenced approach is needed. Suggested reference:

• https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.05417.080

Line 314–315: I don’t think temporary closures have a primary goal of biodiversity conservation—but they are being used extensively for fisheries management. If you want to argue for inclusion into the 30 x 30, you will need to provide concrete evidence of biodiversity conservation targets and benefits, so I think the distinction made by the 30x30 initiative is understandable. Why not reference fisheries-related targets that align better with your argument, such as Target 5 (Sustainable Harvesting of Wild Species) or Target 10 (Sustainable Fisheries Management)?

Minor

Instead of permanent closures I recommend referencing the MPA Guide here and using their proposed terminology throughout. For example, the sentence at Line 57–60: could use “fully protected areas.” https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.abf0861

Line 60: I suggest adding another reference here, given that you state “several” at the start of the sentence.

Line 70: You use the term “scholars” but only cite one paper without presenting a counterargument. There is now substantial evidence that MPAs provide spillover, particularly larval spillover, which can offset displacement (e.g., https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/sciadv.adt0216). Another important point is that temporal closures also suffer from displacement issues, potentially without the benefit of spillover to offset this, as they are rarely in place long enough to build up large, old, fecund individuals.

Paragraph 101–111: I recommend revising this paragraph to discuss broader regions rather than just two countries, as periodic closures are used widely. Two useful papers for this are below; the Carvalho paper includes a helpful map:

https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13417

https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13047

Line 161: Use “well-timed closures” rather than “openings.”

Line 193: Follow-up studies in 2012? Were these not permanent reserves? Also, evidence of resilience remains somewhat inconclusive, even for fully protected areas, so one study is insufficient to support this statement. I recommend removing this altogether, as it is not essential for the purpose of this study.

Line 198: I don’t see why this needs to be framed as one or the other. I suggest changing this to emphasize the need for flexibility in using both permanent and cyclical closures as part of the management toolkit. As you note, cyclical closures allow alignment with biological rhythms, and the example of a spawning aggregation above is a good illustration.

Line 203–204: Change “best suited” to “can also protect,” as they protect broader biodiversity and thus provide benefits to both.

Line 210: This needs a reference, e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.08.038

Line 216–220: I recommend removing the time argument here, as time-bound closures face the same issue. However, the “visibility” of benefits is a very valid point, and you could even add that this visibility might help build support for permanent closures, as fishers can see the buildup of fish during a harvest.

Figure 1: I’m not sure what this figure is demonstrating. Are readers expected to be familiar with what is happening in each country?

Camb Prism Coast Futur. doi: 10.1017/cft.2026.10034.pr3

Review: Temporal dimensions in marine spatial closures — R0/PR3

Anonymous

This article represents an important contribution to the literature and is very close to ready for publication. I have several content-related comments, several other minor suggestions (e.g., word-smithing and idea flow, Table and Figure suggestions, and a few typos).

Content-related comments:

- In my work with area-based fisheries management I am familiar with a tripartite framework with three dimensions: space, time, and activity. Your article focuses in on the distinctions between space and time, given that space dimension has been more heavily emphasized compared to the time dimension. But it seems that the activity dimension is almost completely sidelined in the framing of the article, with choice of gear mentioned as a sidenote related to “how access is managed.” It is completely fine and important that your article focuses on bringing the time dimension more fully to light with respect to space, but it would help to:

o A. More fully position your work in the larger conversation to explicitly acknowledge that “activity” has been the most widely studied, with “space-time” a more recent area of focus… and that your work specifically targets the most under-investigated aspect: time.

o B. Explicitly acknowledge the complexity of the activity dimension as a factor that needs to be controlled for in research on temporary closures, to support teasing out the role of the time dimension from the intertwined dimensions of space and activity. You have started to acknowledge this complexity in your discussion of gear choices on Lines 159-164 and 207-213, but more directly integrating the three dimensions of space, time and activity in the framing of your article and in the proposed research questions would help make this framework more useful in application. As it currently stands, as a reader I am left thinking, “well, yes, it’s great to focus on time but there is infinite diversity of what kinds of gears might be used across contexts so it would be hard to discern any meaningful results without actively integrating the activity dimension in the framing of the research questions.”

- Another lingering question that would be good for you to explicitly is whether you are primarily dealing with closures that remain in the same space (potentially expanding/shifting but largely in the same location) or if your framework is inclusive of more dynamic ocean management in which the space would change alongside variable time constraints.

- To help clarify the above points, and strengthen the contribution of this framework, here are specific suggestions:

o Clearly position your work in relation to other typologies of ABMTs. You could use “Hilborn et al., 2022. Area-based management of blue water fisheries: Current knowledge and research needs. Fish and Fisheries, 23: 492-518.” You have already cited this article, but not in the sense of clarifying how your framework fits into and potentially helps to augment / refine this larger framework of ABMT types. Perhaps you could even suggest a revised version of the overall Hilborn typology (p. 499) that would more effectively integrate the axes you are teasing out in this article?

o Add a column in Table 1 that identifies specific variables of interest for each research question, including dimensions of activity and space where relevant. For example, the second research question under Fisheries Sustainability could list the following variables of interest: [Activity (gear selection), Habitat sensitivity, Species life histories]

o Consider whether activity needs to be incorporated in most/all of the research questions as a confounding variable. And consider adding a specific example of how you would integrate the activity dimension, e.g., how would you build the influence of varied activities into research on designing a best-fit access ratio? Or e.g., to operationalize the 5th question under Governance, Equity and Participation (Under what ecological and social conditions do time-bound and cyclical closures generate tangible benefits that enhance fisher compliance, governance legitimacy, and long-term support?). And perhaps there needs to be a research question to IDENTIFY additional mediating variables that play similar roles to the activity dimension that would also need to be taken into account to truly separate out the influence of time-bound and cyclical marine closures?

Wording, idea flow,

- Lines 12-15: It seems that there are really only two temporal dimensions you identify (axes of duration and cyclicity) and that access ratio is an element of cyclicity. Should you revise the abstract to rephrase the following sentence to remove the suggestion that there are three distinct temporal dimensions? Relevant excerpt: “We introduce a framework that distinguishes three key temporal dimensions—duration, cyclicity, and access ratio—to clarify how different temporal designs shape not only ecological, but also social, and governance.”

- Impact Statement (Lines 37-49): You note this elsewhere in the article, but I suggest you consider including a statement in the impact statement section that fisheries management approaches which are integrated with social relations, cultural traditions, and local governance systems are more likely to be sustainable over a longer-term…

- Lines 87-89: Suggestion for clarifying language: “This limitation is also present in discussions around Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures...” Or maybe limitation is the wrong word... perhaps default? or tendency? (Here is the original excerpt: “This includes Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs) which must be “ongoing and for the long-term” (IUCN WCPA Task Force on OECMs, 2019).”)

- New and reordered paragraph (Lines 91-100): First, I suggest a new paragraph begin at “Yet, temporal management… (Line 91).” Second, the flow of ideas in the next few sentences could be improved. I offer you a suggested revised paragraph, with a few notes afterward: “Yet, temporal management is neither new nor marginal: in the Global North, fisheries have long used seasonal closures, rotational harvests, and real-time restrictions; in the Global South, communities have long practiced non-permanent closures rooted in local stewardship traditions, representing a rich but underexplored dimension of temporary marine management. Research on these tools has primarily focused on ecological outcomes, examining both their benefits and potential downsides (e.g., Hart...). However, diverse examples of current temporal fisheries management around the world highlight the importance of studying not only ecological outcomes, but also the socio-cultural and political dimensions of temporary marine conservation.”

o Note 1: Suggested moving “research on these tools” down after the subsequent sentence “In many regions... underexplored dimension of temporary marine management.”

o Note 2: The way it was written originally, it seemed like you’re saying research on ecological outcomes has primarily focused on the application of these tools in the Global North... but then in subsequent paragraphs you cite lots of research on outcomes of temporary closures in the Pacific Islands, Indian Ocean, and Mexico... in my suggested re-write of the flow of this paragraph I just said “research has focused on ecological outcomes,” and the reordering removes the suggestion that that is mainly the case in the Global North. If you agree, you may want to update the list of citations that follows “Hart et al.” to ensure it includes examples of ecological research from both Global North and Global South.

o Note 3: In my suggested revision I included “socio-cultural and political dimensions” in the final sentence – does that fit, or would you like to keep “social and cultural”?)

Typos:

- Lines 127-128: In the sentence, “This broad categorization obscures how temporal design shapes not only ecological, but also governance, social outcomes,” should the end say “governance and social outcomes”? Something seems missing and I think the comma is a typo.

- Recurring: Do you want to use the Roman Numeral “I” instead of “1” when referring to Table 1? You have used “Table I” throughout the text, but in the Table itself uses “1”.

- Figure 3 typo: In the visual portion of Figure, 3, it appears that 2019 (3Y) is repeated in the Papara portion of the figure and I am wondering if the second one should say “2021: 3Y” or "2022: 3Y' instead? (But 2019 to 2024 doesn’t allow for two distinct periods of 3 years, so I am confused...)

Figure / Table Suggestions:

- Figure 1 / Access Ratios: I included a comment above suggesting that you may want to update the abstract to refer only to two temporal dimensions, since access ratio appears to be a subsidiary concept. This is my understanding because the caption of Figure 1 clearly states that the classification you are proposing is based on TWO dimensions: System duration and Cyclicity, and that access ratio is a sub-attribute of these larger dimensions. If that is NOT the case – if you envision access ratio as a third temporal dimension (as you stated in the abstract), then you would instead want to update the caption here and clarify how all three dimensions interact at a high level. (Note: You have also listed only two dimensions in the introductory statement for Future research directions – Line 181, and in the Conclusion – Line 317.

- Table 1: I suggest breaking Table 1 into four distinct tables with research questions for each area of research. This would allow you to eliminate the first column of the table that is currently blank much of the time. It would also allow for easier placement of the Tables in the article. (Also, referring back to the Typo list – do you want to refer to Table 1 as “Table I” or “Table 1”? If you end up adding more tables as suggested, would you refer to them with roman numerals or numbers?)

Camb Prism Coast Futur. doi: 10.1017/cft.2026.10034.pr4

Review: Temporal dimensions in marine spatial closures — R0/PR4

Matthew Clark 1

Matt Clark; University of Sydney; Thriving Oceans Hub.

This is a really nice paper and I thank the authors and editor(s) for the opportunity to review. The authors formally define three important aspects of temporary marine closures—duration, cyclicity, and access ratio—to refine our language and thinking about marine conservation. I agree with the authors that refining our thinking and lexicon will enable both better comparative studies. I would even expand this to argue that the ideas presented in this paper can also enable better development of formal theory, both in analytic and computational modelling. My main critique of the paper is that it would be nice to see some reflection on this from the authors. I can imagine a small sub-discipline of purely theoretical papers looking at how these various aspects relate to social and ecological dynamics and associated outcomes. I would really appreciate the authors’ thoughts on what this corpus might look like.

My only other substantial critique, which is really not all that substantial, is that I don’t buy the notion that access ratio only applies to cyclical closures. I give more detail below referencing the lines where it appears in the text. This comment also has bearing on figure 1.

Again, this is a nice paper and I would like to see it published after some slight modifications and further reflections on how better defining these concepts can help us build better theory in conservation; something that is much needed in my opinion, as we escape the trappings of being a “crisis discipline.”

There are two sets of line numbers on the document; I am referencing the numbers in blue

Line 15: “Implemented” might be better here as “flourishing” is a bit value laden.

Line 38: This is more stylistic, but I don’t really see the clause after “yet” in this line to be at odds with the first.

Line 53: “MSP” is an unnecessary acronym to introduce as it is never used again in the manuscript. Suggest removing “(MSP)”.

Lines 71-74: I know this sentence is intended to capture broad strokes, but paper parks are an issue in Global North countries too. For example, there is very little enforcement across Australia’s entire MPA network, including in the Great Barrier Reef.

Line 75: I wouldn’t say this is just state-imposed MPAs. Conservation projects run by NGOs have historically had lots of issues with elite capture and community-led programs can have issues with gender representation (e.g., men running the program make the closure in areas where women are more likely to go).

Line 87: You might mention that in conservation, the impermanence/discontinuation of protections is becoming a “hot topic” of study. E.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-025-02910-5

*This citation is self-referential; please do not feel obligated to include.

Line 87: Missing date in citation.

Line 92-93: You might mention the recently proposed mobile MPAs here - https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aaz9327

Line 124: This sentence makes it sound like you’re talking about the closures/areas themselves, rather than the temporal aspect(s) of closures vs the spatial aspect(s).

Line 140: I get that access ratio only applies to cyclical systems, but maybe good to just include access ratio at the end of this sentence too as to introduce all three concepts together (as in the abstract).

Line 155: This is a non-specific comment, so apologies if it’s annoying, but in Fiji there are cyclical rotational closures that are opened in the event of a hurricane to help people buffer the shock. I’m wondering if that still counts here given that you use the word “never”.

Line 159: I’m not convinced that access ratio only applies to cyclical systems. For event-triggered temporary closures there will still be an access ratio in practice, even if it may or may not be an intentional aspect of the closure system. Certainly in conducting comparative work (as this paper nicely sets up!), one could study the differing access ratios of various event-triggered closure systems. The period would be more difficult to define (as in fig 2), but the issue is not insurmountable; and as you say in the fig 2 caption “it does not require strictly repetitive patterns as those shown in these examples; the lengths of open and closed periods can vary dynamically across time frames, potentially reflecting adaptive management strategies.”

Line 245: Maybe not necessary to cite, but this aligns with a key insight from Diffusion of Innovations theory, which posits that “trialability” of innovations is more likely to lead to their uptake. There is even some work on DOI in conservation. See here: https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/conl.12442

Line 273-282: Just something for the authors to think about: this paragraph positions open/closure periods as a sort of experimental approach where differences in times of opening and times of closure can be compared. But I would think that there are some temporal spillovers, where income from the open period is relied upon during the closure period, for example. Either here or elsewhere, I might caution against the comparison of open/closure periods as a sort of experiment where the impacts of closures can be assessed using the open periods as a control.

Figure 1: I find this figure a bit overly complicated/confusing. As mentioned above, I don’t think access ratio only applies to cyclical closures. If the authors agree, the figure will have to be redesigned anyway, which I think would be for the best.

Camb Prism Coast Futur. doi: 10.1017/cft.2026.10034.pr5

Recommendation: Temporal dimensions in marine spatial closures — R0/PR5

Editor: Stacy Jupiter1

General comments: I am in agreement with the reviewers that a revised version of the manuscript will add to the literature and discourse on area-based management with clear attention to the reviewers’ queries. Reviewer 1 recommends a reframing such that temporary closures are not set up against permanent no-take closures as an either/or dichotomy. I agree with their suggestion that permanent no-take closures and temporary closures are complementary tools being used for different primary objectives – though I would argue that temporary closures are not always used for purely fisheries management objectives. Reframing around a broader set of “management” objectives, instead of focusing as explicitly on “conservation” may help – to that end, I would suggest replacing the term “conservation” with “management” throughout. Revisions should also address Reviewer 2’s concerns about more attention to the activity dimension of area-based fisheries management and how this can vary greatly across different types of temporary closures.

Specific comments:

Lines 60-62: Note that there is no consensus on the nature of this 30% protection within the conservation community, with some groups advocating for fully or highly protected, while others maintain it is at the discretion of Parties to the CBD to make this determination.

Line 89: There is still a lot left for interpretation regarding what qualifies as “ongoing and for the long-term”. The authors should recognize that under some circumstances (e.g., non-time bound, cyclical, low access ratio) there may be a compelling case for counting biodiversity benefits of temporary closures against national and international commitments, but this will not necessarily hold for all temporary closures. A discussion of these differences and nuances is likely to be beyond the scope of this paper.

Camb Prism Coast Futur. doi: 10.1017/cft.2026.10034.pr6

Decision: Temporal dimensions in marine spatial closures — R0/PR6

Editor: Tom Spencer1

No accompanying comment.

Camb Prism Coast Futur. doi: 10.1017/cft.2026.10034.pr8

Review: Temporal dimensions in marine spatial closures — R1/PR8

Matthew Clark 1

My remaining comments are mostly just about language:

Line 1 - I find it a bit weird to start the abstract by saying essentially “in theory large permanent closures are the best”, when the focus of this paper is on how we can use a better set of concepts to develop evidence and theory to help us do conservation better. It seems like “theory” in this opening sentence is being used in a colloquial sense rather than to mean formal scientific theory. But, then in the manuscript you present you briefly touch on the benefits of your framework for “theory” in a more formal sense. For example, this framework could be used to develop formal theory of how duration and cyclicity can be better timed with adjacent seasonal agricultural resources to smooth incomes in resource-dependent economies. This might be a very effective way to conserve marine biodiversity in practice. On this same note, it’s odd to say that something is viewed a certain way in theory. Are the authors referring to specific theoretical work on fishers' perceptions of biodiversity conservation?

In addition to the semantic bit, I actually don’t agree with this sentiment. Large permanent closures are increasingly viewed as a highly INEFFECTIVE strategy for some species/contexts. I think you could just as easily say that because large contiguous protected areas are difficult to monitor, high resolution, dynamic management is viewed as the most effective strategy for conserving biodiversity (in specific cases) (see: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aar3001).

Overall, I apologize for being long-winded but would just encourage the authors to think a bit more carefully about what they’re trying to say with this opening line of the paper.

Figure 1 - Maybe put “intended to be permanent” and “has expiration date” in parentheses to make clear that they are meant to be extra explanation of what’s meant by the “non-time bound” and “time bound” labels.

Also, it seems a little off to say that the closure is intended to be harvested. It’s the resources that are harvested and the closure is opened. Maybe the white boxes should say something like “is the closure ever opened?” or something similar.

Camb Prism Coast Futur. doi: 10.1017/cft.2026.10034.pr9

Review: Temporal dimensions in marine spatial closures — R1/PR9

Anonymous

Great work incorporating review comments -- the paper looks great! My only very minor thought is that you may want to double check whether there are any places in the text where the presentation of system duration, cyclicity, and access ratio continue to present them as three temporal dimensions rather than access ratio as a sub-element of cyclicity. (E.g, Lines 51. And the R1 version may include the old (original) abstract at the top, but the original list of three dimensions, so double check that the abstract is updated!

Camb Prism Coast Futur. doi: 10.1017/cft.2026.10034.pr10

Recommendation: Temporal dimensions in marine spatial closures — R1/PR10

Editor: Stacy Jupiter1

Overall, the queries to the original submission have been satisfactorily addressed. I would encourage the authors to make very minor final changes as per the reviewers' comments prior to final acceptance.

Camb Prism Coast Futur. doi: 10.1017/cft.2026.10034.pr11

Decision: Temporal dimensions in marine spatial closures — R1/PR11

Editor: Tom Spencer1

No accompanying comment.

Camb Prism Coast Futur. doi: 10.1017/cft.2026.10034.pr13

Recommendation: Temporal dimensions in marine spatial closures — R2/PR13

Editor: Stacy Jupiter1

The authors have responded well to the additional quite minor comments from the two reviewers. I recommend moving this forward to publication.

Camb Prism Coast Futur. doi: 10.1017/cft.2026.10034.pr14

Decision: Temporal dimensions in marine spatial closures — R2/PR14

Editor: Tom Spencer1

No accompanying comment.

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Data Availability Statement

    Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

    Articles from Cambridge Prisms: Coastal Futures are provided here courtesy of Cambridge University Press

    RESOURCES