Smart Marine Protected Areas: Innovative Technologies and Adaptive Management Models

Abstract

Smart Marine Protected Areas (SMPAs) are innovative frameworks that integrate advanced technologies and participatory governance and management approaches to protect marine ecosystems effectively. Due to their dynamic management practices, these regions can adapt more rapidly and effectively to environmental fluctuations via real-time data. Scientific research indicates that the engagement of local communities in decision-making results in conservation initiatives that more closely reflect socio-economic conditions. By seeking sustainable economic activities, they further drive economic growth at the local level. However, the implementation of SMPAs faces several challenges. High costs, lack of technological infrastructure, and regional digital disparities can limit their diffusion and effectiveness. Therefore, increasing international cooperation and strengthening local capacity is of utmost importance. Drawing on traditional marine protected areas, this study provides a roadmap on how these areas can be more effectively integrated with advanced technologies. It also covers the pros and cons that you might face throughout and the ways to cope with it, along with an alternative view. A comprehensive framework is suggested for a more just, inclusive, and sustainable design and implementation of SMPAs.

Share and Cite:

Kaymaz Muehling , S. M. (2025) Smart Marine Protected Areas: Innovative Technologies and Adaptive Management Models. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 13, 20-38. doi: 10.4236/gep.2025.135002.

1. Introduction

Marine ecosystems are among the highly diverse and productive ecosystems on earth that deliver crucial ecological, economic, and cultural services. However, these ecosystems are under increasing threat from climate change, overfishing, habitat destruction and pollution. Traditional Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) conserve marine biodiversity and promote the sustainable use of marine resources through designating a fixed area, where anthropogenic activities are regulated (Figure 1). On the other hand, marine ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, such as increasing sea temperatures, acidification, and shifting distribution of marine species. Coral bleaching processes related to warmer oceans are responsible for major biodiversity losses in some of the most iconic ecosystems, such as the Great Barrier Reef (Hughes et al., 2017).

Figure 1. The level of MPAs protection (Grorud-Colvert et al., 2021).

Traditional MPAs, which have fixed boundaries and limited adoption of new technology, often in response to dynamic change, struggle to apply to these dynamic changes. In addition, illegal fishing, marine litter, and coastal development pose even more challenges for these ecosystems, requiring increasingly advanced management instruments.

While MPAs have been useful for specific habitat and species protection, their static design does not lend itself readily to protection of migratory species or to shifting ecosystems. According to Gaines et al. (2010), static MPAs risk failing to protect range-shifting species that may retreat from their MPA because of changing oceanographic conditions and beyond the protection of its defined boundaries. Furthermore, many MPAs are not actually enforced and not monitored, which significantly reduces their potential benefits.

While traditional MPAs have had their successes, the increasing complexity of environmental challenges calls for more dynamic and technology-based management strategies. Such evolutions have led to development of Smart Marine Protected Areas (SMPAs), which utilize new technologies and adaptive approaches to address environmental and anthropogenic stresses.

SMPAs are designed to fill those gaps, providing adaptability mechanisms and increasing enforcement and monitoring capacities through technology. SMPAs also incorporate innovative technologies such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS), remote sensing, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and real-time monitoring systems, marking a shift in the paradigm of MPAs toward integrated, more effective spatial planning of marine resources. According to Edgar et al. (2014), if data are of high quality, MPAs are frequently effectively managed, and MPAs are informed by intelligence on environmental change, then conservation objectives are more likely to be met. This is where SMPAs come into play—drawing upon this foundation to facilitate ongoing data collection, analysis, and management decisions that guarantee the management of the area is evidence-based and able to react to changing conditions out there on the water.

In this section, we focus on one specific form of innovative MPAs (marine protected areas), the so-called Smart MPAs/MPA 3.0, explaining what they are, how they have been implemented so far, and their positive and negative impacts, with a particular focus on examples in global sustainability context. By exploring technological innovations, governance frameworks, and case studies, the paper strives to build a comprehensive understanding of how SMPAs can augment the efficacy of traditional MPAs, while serving as a model for sustainable ocean politics.

2. Core Principles of Smart Marine Protected Areas

Smart Marine Protected Areas are built on a multifaceted approach that integrates technological innovation, ecological insights, and socio-economic assessments to maximize their effectiveness. These components not only address traditional conservation challenges but also incorporate dynamic solutions tailored to modern threats and opportunities.

2.1. Integrating Real-Time Monitoring with Socio-Economic and Governance Dimensions in SMPAs

The practical success of SMPAs can be substantiated through empirical studies that document measurable ecological and socio-economic outcomes. In the Raja Ampat region, Indonesia, the establishment of real-time monitoring and a system for community-based enforcement over a 5-year period led to a 64% reduction in illegal fishing and a concurrent 12% increase in biomass of targeted reef fish species (Gurney et al., 2014). In the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary (USA) for example, the integration of satellite-based vessel monitoring systems with stakeholder-driven governance action improved compliance rates by more than ~30% and local sustainable tourism growth (Airamé et al., 2003). These examples demonstrate that the integration of advanced technologies with adaptive governance mechanisms can produce quantifiable conservation outcomes when appropriately contextualized.

So the integration of socio-economic/governance base with even the real-time ecological monitoring per se is the key to the efficacy of the Smart Marine Protected Areas (SMPAs). Advances in technologies such as autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs), remote sensing, and satellite-based systems provide crucial insights into environmental conditions, species migrations, and human activities. Fragmented monitoring and enforcement at the local and national scale is bolstered by technologies such as Global Fishing Watch (Kroodsma et al., 2018), which uses satellite data and machine learning to detect illegal fishing activity in marine waters globally. But monitoring in real-time works best when paired with socio-economic data.

Knowledge of local fishing habits, community reliance on marine life, and economic pressures on local people guarantee that conservation plans are ecologically and socially sustainable. Several studies of MPAs managed by community members in the Philippines have shown that tying conservation results to local livelihoods promotes compliance and increases outcomes (Weeks et al., 2014b).

As such, a successful case of socio-ecological integration is found in Local Managed Marine Areas (LMMAs) in the West Pacific, in which local fishers co-manage conservation interventions, thereby reinforcing biodiversity, as well as economic resiliency (Govan et al., 2006). These efforts show that technology can complement community-led conservation efforts while ensuring equal access to marine resources.

SMPAs are further substantiated with governance frameworks which serve as host climate and structured policies where international collaborations are performed. For example, the EU’s Horizon 2020 programme has taken an integrated technology-governance dovetailed framework for an SMPA with sustainability for the long term (EU-2020, 2020).

Taking a systems approach, SMPAs can leverage real-time ecological data with socio-economic and governance information to achieve adaptive marine conservation outcomes that are far more inclusive and effective.

Simplified Visualization (Figure 2):

1) Components of Real-Time Monitoring

  • Tools:

  • Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs);

  • Satellite Systems;

  • Remote Sensing Technologies.

  • Data Collected:

  • Species Movements;

  • Environmental Conditions;

  • Human Activities (e.g., fishing).

2) Combining Socio-Economic Data

  • Key Metrics:

  • Local Fishing Patterns;

  • Community Reliance on Resources;

  • Economic Pressures.

  • Purpose:

  • Ensure conservation measures are ecologically and socially sustainable.

3) Example Workflow

a) Data Collection: Satellite captures fishing vessel activities.

b) Analysis: Machine learning identifies illegal fishing hotspots.

c) Integration: Combine environmental data with local community economic needs.

d) Action: Adaptive measures like adjusting no-take zones.

Figure 2. Integrated data flow of SMPAs.

4) Benefits

  • Enhanced enforcement of regulations.

  • Dynamic response to ecosystem changes.

  • Improved community compliance due to tailored strategies.

Real-time monitoring has also been shown to be extremely beneficial in smaller, community-managed Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). For instance, community groups in Indonesia’s Locally Managed Marine Areas (LMMAs) directly file reports on illegal fishing and environmental changes using GPS-enabled smartphones to local enforcement teams. As highlighted by Gurney et al. (2014), this rapid reporting greatly improved the response times and compliance rates. An involvement approach of the same nature has been applied by local fishermen in Kenya, who monitor marine life recovery using underwater cameras as a collaborative endeavor (McClanahan et al., 2005). The integration of adaptive managementt provides so that SMPAs can respond and adapt to rising threats. Information from monitoring data can provide guidance on decisions such as whether to modify MPA boundaries or impose temporary fishing bans, or undertake specific restoration projects. For instance, Anthony et al.suggest that managers could implement temporary no-fishing reserves in bleached localities, helping these areas mitigate stress (Anthony et al., 2015). These adaptive measures are particularly critical in community-managed MPAs, where livelihoods are directly tied to marine health, highlighting the need for strategies that balance conservation with socio-economic needs.

2.2. Artificial Intelligence and Predictive Modeling for Dynamic Conservation

New AI and ML technologies are transforming the management of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). This advanced suite of tools enables teams to analyze massive datasets, develop predictive models of ecological change and assess how humans impact marine ecosystems. An indicative example is the use of machine learning algorithms to model climate change impacts on marine biodiversity, which informs updates to geographic boundaries and identifies conservation priorities for at-risk habitats (Sequeira et al., 2021). Additionally, the incorporation of artificial intelligence with Automatic Identification Systems (AIS) drastically enhances the detection of illicit fishing activities and prevention efforts, as surveillance becomes more efficient and targeted (McCauley et al., 2016).

However, embedding AI within Smart Marine Protected Areas (SMPAs) brings a host of ethical and practical dilemmas. The impact of AI technologies on local communities presents a critical ethical challenge. Christodoulou and Limniotis (2024) emphasize that unauthorized data collection and automated decision-making processes may violate community rights. For instance, in Indonesia, satellite monitoring of fishing grounds implemented without local participation faced significant resistance (Gurney et al., 2014). Thus, transparency and local consent mechanisms are essential for AI-based systems. Data privacy is a major concern, particularly when surveillance via satellite or drones encroaches on the domains of coastal communities and indigenous populations. Although these sophisticated monitoring methods enhance enforcement opportunities, they may also encroach upon the rights and privacy of local communities (Bennett et al., 2017). To further complicate matters, prediction algorithms trained on available data result in bias and misinformation that can lead to mismanagement where resources are limited (Gebru et al., 2018).

Another key point to note is the unequal access to AI technologies across the world. And developing countries, with financial and technical barriers to implementing such systems, may have unequal marine conservation outcomes maintaining inequalities (Ziegler et al., 2024). In the absence of targeted capacity-building efforts and purposeful international cooperation, these gaps risk exacerbating systemic environmental and social injustices.

To address these challenges, it is essential that ethical frameworks for SMPAs are established that include transparent governance structures, inclusive decision-making processes, and participatory ethical review mechanisms. However, because MPA management must remain grounded in principles of equity, justice and accountability, it is paramount that human oversight remains over AI applications and that the process of human-in-the-loop (HIL) and Human-AI collaboration retain the input of concerned stakeholders (Binns, 2017). When developed and employed responsibly, AI tools can improve the adaptability, inclusivity, and effectiveness of marine conservation approaches.

All of the five emerging trends outlined here have the potential to transform the way MPAs are managed and that MPAs can be used, but it is essential to navigate the ethical, practical, and equitable implications of these technologies in order to benefit marine conservation.

2.3. Participation of Local Communities and Participatory Tools

The inclusion of local communities in governance processes is critical for aligning conservation goals with the socio-economic realities of those directly dependent on marine resources Tools such as participatory GIS (Geographic Information Systems) have been effectively used to engage stakeholders by mapping fishing areas, cultural zones, and ecologically important habitats. This fosters a shared understanding and helps align conservation measures with traditional practices and livelihoods (Weeks et al., 2014b). However, social, economic, and cultural barriers can hinder genuine participation. Externally imposed decisions often lack community trust and may fail to address local priorities, leading to resistance (Bennett & Dearden, 2014). To overcome these challenges, Smart Marine Protected Areas (SMPAs) must prioritize culturally sensitive and adaptive governance models that integrate traditional knowledge and modern science. Ostrom’s (1992) “Governing the Commons” theory has shown the sustainability of community-led management approaches, and numerous real-world examples reinforce this.

In eastern Indonesia, the sasi system has been revitalized through the efforts of the Community-Based Marine Management Foundation (PLKL), which combined traditional marine tenure practices with modern mapping tools. Using GPS, local communities established “conservation zones” and “limited-use areas,” resulting in a notable recovery of sea cucumber and Trochus shell populations. Complementary environmental education programs in schools further strengthened local stewardship (UNDP, 2012). Likewise, on Apo Island in the Philippines, fishers organized into cooperatives to actively manage local MPAs. By restricting fishing in certain zones, they not only restored fish stocks but also fostered a sense of collective responsibility. Local participation in decision-making, supported by government institutions, was essential for success (Alcala & Russ, 2006). In the Yucatán Peninsula of Mexico, Maya communities drew on traditional ecological knowledge to implement sustainable fishing practices within lagoons, including the establishment of no-take areas. These efforts helped protect species diversity while ensuring food security (Chuenpagdee et al., 2002). Meanwhile, in Fiji and Vanuatu, traditional tabu systems—temporary bans on fishing in specific areas—have been effectively combined with scientific monitoring to deliver ecological and socio-economic benefits (Govan et al., 2009). These locally driven models have reinforced biodiversity protection while supporting livelihoods.

Similar integrations of community knowledge and technology have taken place in Kenya, where mobile apps and underwater cameras are used by fishers to monitor marine life recovery and report illegal activity, creating transparency and improving compliance (McClanahan et al., 2005).

These diverse cases demonstrate that community-led conservation is not only viable but often more resilient and adaptable. When local knowledge, cultural practices, and modern tools are harmonized, SMPAs can become inclusive, equitable, and ecologically effective solutions for marine governance.

2.4. International Cooperation and Joint Governance

Marine conservation issues are transboundary (e.g. pollution and overfishing) and addressing such issues must be done through international cooperation. Enhancing SMPA effectiveness through international cooperation Multilateral agreements are key tools for ecosystem conservation efforts. An international collaboration responsible for the creation of marine protected criteria in the Southern Ocean successfully used shared scientific data to guide the creation of this now-protected habitat (Brooks et al., 2020c).

The establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the Southern Ocean under the framework of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) is a positive example of international cooperation. CCAMLR has negotiated and implemented scientific assessments, diplomatic discussions, and systems for share resources to protect biodiversity and landscapes for ecosystem important species (e.g., krill and penguins) and to promote sustainable fisheries (Brooks et al. 2020a). Such successes highlight the importance of joint governance structures that prioritize ecological integrity over national interests.

It is an area where international collaboration is proving essential and in a significant step, the United Nations in 2023 passed the High Seas Treaty to safeguard biodiversity in the high seas, which are areas beyond national jurisdiction. This agreement allows for MPAs to be established in international waters, addressing pressing threats such as overfishing and climate change, and represents an important milestone towards the realization of the goal of protecting 30% of the World’s oceans by 2030 (Kachelriess, 2023). The Marine Protected Areas Guide in the journal Science offers a global roadmap for MPA planning, monitoring, and evaluation. Collaborative action is conducted for the benefit of the individuals by helping to form this guide to create from 39 institutions spanning six continents, showing the urgent need for a clear unified approach towards saving the oceans, and the marine scientists stress the collaborative aspect for the conservation of biodiversity while stating that achieving targets will require an international effort, (Grorud-Colvert et al, 2021).

2.5. Governance Innovations for Adaptive Management

To adjust to the way that marine ecosystems are changing, and the uncertainties facing those ecosystems from climate change, new governance mechanisms are required. Adaptive management frameworks that focus on repeated monitoring, evaluation, and integration of new knowledge are being adopted with increasing frequency. Governance is adaptive and resilient to emerging challenges, and programs like real-time data sharing, stakeholder forums, and capacity-building programs keep the governance intact.

2.6. Leveraging Advanced Technologies and Collaborative Financing for SMPAs

The efficient management of Smart Marine Protected Areas (SMPAs) is based on advanced technologies including satellite imagery, drones, artificial intelligence-based data aggregate analysis, and AUVs. These applications are essential for monitoring marine ecosystems, illegal fishing, and biodiversity (Siddik et al., 2021). However, they are costly, maintenance-intensive and require specialized expertise; they introduce high tech inequalities, especially in developing countries.

This gap can be bridged through collaborative financing mechanisms and capacity-building initiatives. In these international organizations, as the Global Environment Facility (GEF) has supported developing in low- and middle-income countries worldwide with technology based MPAs. Consequently, this has improved ecosystem management and decreased stresses on biodiversity in the West African coastal region (UNDP-GEF, 2017).

In addition, programs such as the Blue Nature Alliance have improved the effectiveness of MPAs in the Pacific Islands through financial, technical, and community engagement support (Blue Nature Alliance, 2024). They also show how removing financial barriers, wider access to technology and the engagement of both the government and the NGO sector can fast-track inclusive marine conservation through public-private partnerships. Integrating innovative technologies with sustainable financing and capacity-building initiatives will make it easier, fairer and more efficient for the public to protect global marine ecosystems through SMPAs, ensuring that the blue planet flourishes.

2.7. Forward-Looking Strategies

Developing Smart Marine Protected Areas (SMPAs) in different ecosystems around the world; especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) must be undertaken with flexible and phased girders that adapt to distinctive challenges to governance and capacity. Research by Gill et al. (2017) points to an obvious correlation between deficiencies in capacity (i.e.: minimal funding, under-staffed, lack of suitable legal environments) and a decrease in the effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). To address the findings, the emergence of regional implementation roadmaps emphasizes the need for pilot projects, co-designed governance models and context-specific technological integration.

In the Western Indian Ocean, for instance, the WIO-COMPAS framework is taking a proactive approach by developing tiered certification for MPA professionals to enhance adaptive capacities (UNEP-Nairobi Convention & WIOMSA, 2021). These context-sensitive strategies support the idea that equitable implementation is not simply a technology transfer, but rather, making the necessary institutional and social groundwork for enduring sustainability.

The following strategies are proposed to overcome technological and financial barriers:

International Collaborations: Encourage collaboration across borders for building and sharing the technological resources and tools needed for successful marine conservation.

Hybrid Financing Models: Encouraging public-private partnerships and creating sustainable financing mechanisms.

Local Capacity Building: Implement capacity building and knowledge transfer projects aimed at building the skills and expertise of local communities engaged in marine conservation activities.

Adaptable Technology: Develop any type of low-cost, simpler technologies that can be adapted to meet the specific needs of local conditions.

In conclusion, technological advancements and financing mechanisms must work in harmony to make SMPAs globally effective and equitable tools. It requires a whole of society response like the IPCC which addresses socio-economics and governance as much as technology. In this process, a holistic approach that includes not only technology-driven innovations but also socio-economic and governance dimensions should be adopted. In this way, Smart Marine Protected Areas will continue to offer sustainable solutions that both protect marine ecosystems and support human well-being.

2.8. Collaborative Governance and Stakeholder Engagement in Smart Marine Protected Areas

Effective governance is crucial to the success of Smart Marine Protected Areas (SMPAs), especially in SMPAs that multiple jurisdictional boundaries or exist in resource-limited settings. To ensure ecological effectiveness and socio-economic sustainability, governance models must prioritize inclusivity, transparency, adaptive management, and cross-border cooperation (Mast et al., 2025).

One of the main ways that we do that is through collaborative management, or approach to conservation that involves multiple stakeholders, from local communities to policymakers to scientists to international organizations, sharing responsibility for conservation. Co-management models, such as those implemented in Fiji, have successfully combined traditional ecological knowledge with scientific data, leading to improved resource use and biodiversity outcomes (Jupiter et al., 2014). Likewise, Locally Managed Marine Areas (LMMAs) in the Pacific empower coastal communities to participate in conservation decision-making, resulting in greater compliance and socio-economic benefits (Weeks et al., 2014a) (Figure 3).

International cooperation is paramount for transboundary MPAs. A salient example of this is CCAMLR where diplomatic agreements and shared resources have been strengthened to enforce conservation in the Southern Ocean (Brooks et al., 2020b). Such partnerships will be especially critical in high-seas MPAs, where countries can work together to tackle common vulnerabilities.

Digital technologies are also transforming how governance works. Participatory GIS (PGIS) tools enable local communities to work collaboratively to map and monitor marine resources, ensuring conservation efforts align meet regional needs (Scully-Engelmeyer et al., 2021). SMPAs benefit from the advantages of mobile applications and real-time data-sharing platforms, which improve transparency and accountability, encouraging stakeholders to approach them as partners in a long-term process. In Indonesia, PGIS, for example, has enabled community driven resource management, resulting in more equitable conservation outcomes (Al Amin et al., 2020).

Figure 3. Multi-scale stakeholder engagement (Bennett et al., 2017).

Despite these advancements, challenges remain, particularly for smaller or resource-constrained MPAs. These include financial constraints, political instability, an inadequate number of capacity building initiatives. In order to eliminate these barriers, we need focused investments in capacity development as well as robust financing mechanisms to address sustainable management.

By combining diverse governance models, leveraging international cooperation, and utilizing digital tools, SMPAs can enhance conservation effectiveness while ensuring inclusivity and long-term sustainability.

3. Benefits and Expectations

3.1. Conservation of Ecosystem Services

The marine environment benefits in carbon storage capacity and biodiversity from adaptive management. Protecting mangrove forests and seagrass meadows, for example, can serve as natural carbon sinks and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Duarte et al., 2011, 2013). Furthermore, marine ecosystem restoration, through adaptive management approaches, provides for species diversity. This may have some global implications in which protecting and rehabilitating seabed habitats can fortify fish stocks and facilitate more sustainable ecosystems (Lubchenco & Grorud-Colvert, 2015). In addition to complete the carbon loop, these processes provide critical ecosystem services for coastal communities.

3.2. Sustainable Economic Activities

SMPAs are vital for the sustainability of fisheries, tourism, and other marine-based industries through adaptive management and technological innovations. Marine biodiversity and coastal economies are under threat from overfishing and habitat degradation. Leveraging real-time monitoring, AI-generated analytics, and dynamic fishing regulations to curb resource depletion while enabling fish stocks to rebound, SMPAs are a powerful assertion that ocean and food security can be aligned (Costello et al., 2016). Community-managed Nature-based Solutions, or SMPAs, for example, using community-managed seasonal fishing bans in Papua New Guinea, have been shown to lead to a recovery of fish populations, as well as improved economic benefits (Govan et al., 2006). Plus, by helping fishers meet international sustainability certifications, SMPAs also allow access to higher-value global markets.

Tourism also benefits from SMPAs, as healthy coral reefs and diverse marine life attract visitors. Ecotourism generates revenue while fostering conservation awareness. The Hol Chan Marine Reserve in Belize reinvests tourism revenues into conservation efforts, funding habitat restoration and enforcement programs (Diedrich, 2007). Marine tourism in the Maldives supports the national economy while following to environmental regulations. MPAs also create economic opportunities beyond tourism in the areas of sustainable aquaculture, marine biotechnology research, and blue carbon initiatives.

Public-private partnerships, community engagement, and the establishment of sustainable financing mechanisms will be paramount in harnessing the economic potential of SMPAs. Long-term funding may provide from investment tools like blue bonds or eco-tourism levies. SMPAs thus help balance marine ecosystem protection with economic growth and social wellbeing for future generations through the integration of technology, the responsible use of resources and inclusive policy.

3.3. Climate Resilience

SMPAs increase the resilience of marine areas against the negative impacts of climate change. In particular, the protection of coral reefs and seagrasses helps protect coastal communities by decreasing coastal erosion and mitigating the effects of storm surges (Ferrario et al., 2014). These regions serve as buffers to the effects of climate change like ocean warming and acidification. In addition, the protected areas within SMPAs allow species to adapt to changing habitats due to climate change. Such conservation efforts as in the North Sea have, for example, increased understanding of species migrants associated with climate change and the emergence of adaptive management strategies (Dulvy et al., 2008).

These advantages indicate that SMPAs are more than instruments for promoting ecological sustainability but are also useful from both economic and social angles. Thus, the expansion and effective management of SMPAs should be at the central of future marine conservation efforts.

4. Challenges and Future Perspectives

4.1. Technological and Economic Barriers

The implementation of SMPAs, especially in developing countries have significant barriers due to the high costs of technology where infrastructure is lacking. Advanced technologies like arms remote sensing, autonomous underwater vehicles and artificial intelligence provide significant benefits for efficiently monitoring and management of SMPAs, however, to reach these technologies often hampered due to high investment costs. Tools such as the Sentinel satellite systems in developed countries are not accessible in developing countries due to financial limitation (Borja et al., 2020). Moreover, the deficiency of coastal infrastructure only adds to the difficulty of implementing technological solutions. International funds and collaborative financing mechanisms can play a key role in getting over these barriers.

4.2. Legal and Political Challenges

While they have great potential, technology-driven conservation strategies are not a risk-free panacea. Numerous research suggests that over-reliance on automated systems may lessen human judgement and raise inappropriate management actions, particularly in unanticipated ecological context (Joppa et al., 2016). Moreover, the prohibitive nature of such costly technologies can exacerbate power asymmetries in marine governance, leading to quality control being placed on technologically advanced nations and actors (Ziegler et al., 2024). In some instances, new surveillance technologies have been introduced without clear communication and benefit-sharing mechanisms resulting in communities reporting a decline in trust.

These are examples of unintended consequences that highlight the need for the integration of technological solutions and management practices that are inclusive, transparent, and culturally sensitive. Moreover, in addition to the social and governance aspects above, legal and geopolitical issues are also insidious barriers to the adoption and success of Smart Marine Protected Areas, especially in transboundary and international waters. SMPAs suffer from legal ambiguity over who owns aspects of international waters, and who has management responsibility over them, which complicates their easy, effective development. Although frameworks such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1958) tackle some legal aspects, management responsibility for marine biodiversity such as microbes on a large scale is often murky as much of the oceans are classified as “high seas” (Freestone, 2012). In transboundary regions, pools of various SMPAs including IUCN 2016 classification that overlap create additional associated issues, such as asymmetries, inconsistencies, conflicts of political interests and border disputes between coastal states. One example of such political and legal challenges is the efforts to preserve resources in the South China Sea. In this sense, the establishment of multilateral agreements and international cooperation is of utmost importance (Trajano et al., 2018). So, a careful balance between technological innovation and legal certainty, just governance and corresponding community involvement is required, in order to create SMPAs that are both successful and socially legitimate.

4.3. Data Management

The lack of standardization in data collection and sharing systems can hinder effective decision-making for SMPA management. The monitoring and assessment of marine ecosystems are often carried out by various organizations that use different methods and formats. This situation complicates the comparability of data and comprehensive analyses (Sanchirico et al., 2002). For example, a study on SMPAs in the Caribbean region (Biopama, 2016) has shown that data deficiencies and inconsistencies create significant gaps in ecosystem management. Addressing these challenges requires two key solutions:

Standardization of Protocols:

The absence of standardized protocols for data collection and sharing poses a huge challenge. Kelleher (2005) highlights that inconsistencies in methods and formats across organizations hinder comparative analyses and negatively impact management decisions. For example, the tools of data collection used in one region may not be compatible with practices in another. Establishing international standards for data collection and sharing would increase data integrity, comparability, and reduce the time and resources required for analysis.

Open Data-Sharing Platforms:

Developing transparent and accessible data-sharing platforms is critical for improving conservation efforts. Such platforms can faciliate collaboration by providing data access to local communities and researchers, thereby supporting data-driven decision-making (Heller & Zavaleta, 2009).

These parallel approaches—developing standardized protocols and creating open data-sharing platforms are critical to overcoming these challenges. Such platforms could also facilitate the effective use of technologies like artificial intelligence and machine learning.

4.4. Future Perspectives

Despite these challenges, there are promising developments for the future of SMPAs. International funding and partnerships offer potential solutions to reduce technological inequalities. Furthermore, legal reforms and policy harmonization processes could strengthen transboundary conservation initiatives. In terms of data management and sharing, artificial intelligence-supported analysis tools and blockchain technology could provide a more transparent and effective approach. These innovations not only address current challenges but also enhance the potential of SMPAs as a central tool in marine conservation efforts.

5. Conclusion and Recommendations

Smart Marine Protected Areas are an innovative approach to marine conservation that integrates cutting-edge technologies and adaptive management strategies. By integrating tools such as remote sensing, artificial intelligence, and participatory governance models, SMPAs have a unique potential to fight climate change, conserve biodiversity, and advance sustainable development.

Nonetheless, the effective deployment and scaling of SMPAs will require addressing these key factors:

Bridging the Technology Gap

Advanced technologies are unequally accessible and in the developing world don’t have easy access to them. These gaps can be addressed through collaborative initiatives such as technology-sharing agreements and international funding mechanisms. For instance, partnership between developed and developing countries can help scientists and conservationists in resource-poor nations access remote sensing tools or underwater drones, which can aid in cooperation with local communities for better conservation outcomes.

Empowering through Education and Capacity Building

Training and capacity-building activities are crucial for the sustainable effectiveness of SMPAs. Technological solutions must also be sustainable, requiring proper skills amongst local communities and stakeholders to effectively use and maintain them. Cultivating a sense of ownership and responsibility among stakeholders with training programs focused on digital literacy, environmental science, and sustainable practices, can help craft more resilient and inclusive marine conservation strategies.

Enhancing International Cooperation

Global environmental challenges require collective action. So, the goal must be to strengthen international cooperation through multilateral agreements that provide a solid legal and institutional framework to support SMPAs, such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) or regional conservation targets. Models for collaborative governance that bring together local communities, local governments, and international organizations can also be explored as a way of increasing support for conservation initiatives by encouraging shared responsibilities and pooling critical resources.

Emphasizing Adaptive and Inclusive Management

Marine ecosystems are dynamic and need management approaches that can accommodate change. SMPAs need to develop and integrate continuous monitoring and data-driven decision-making processes, to ensure that their sustainability is on track and that any factors posing a threat to their sustainability are addressed. In addition, the integration of diverse stakeholder perspectives provides an avenue to turn science into fair and culturally appropriate management strategies ranging from indigenous knowledge systems to scientific expertise that are adaptive to change.

Prioritizing Long-Term Sustainability

Technology can provide significant short-term benefits and innovation for conservation. However, reaching long-term sustainability requires addressing key socio-economic factors. Redirecting communities to different livelihoods, like eco-tourism or sustainable fisheries, can eliminate the need for harvesting marine resources and support a wider range of economic opportunities for coastal communities.

Looking Ahead

Enhanced use of technology and innovation in the field of marine conservation, alongside tackling socio-economic and political barriers to success, will be crucial to ensure a thriving future for our oceans. SMPAs are a powerful expression of the potential of such an Integrated Conservation approach. Focusing on access to technology, education, international cooperation, and inclusivity, SMPAs can prove to be a model for achieving the delicate equilibrium between the protection of the ecology and human well-being.

In conclusion, empowering SMPAs has great potential. However, to achieve the commitment, substantial growth is needed to help clear existing hurdles. With the power of collaboration, innovation, and equal participation, SMPAs can act as powerful protectors for our oceans for generations to come.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

References

[1] Airamé, S., Dugan, J. E., Lafferty, K. D., Leslie, H. M., & McArdle, D. A. (2003). Applying Ecological Criteria to Marine Reserve Design: A Case Study from the California Channel Islands. Ecological Applications, 13, 170-184.
https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2003)013[0170:AECTMR]2.0.CO;2
[2] Al Amin, M. A., Adrianto, L., Kusumastanto, T., Imran, Z., & Kurniawan, F. (2020). Participatory Mapping: Assessing Problems and Defined Marine Conservation Planning and Zoning in Jor Bay, Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 414, Article 012001.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/414/1/012001
[3] Alcala, A. C., & Russ, G. R. (2006). No-Take Marine Reserves and Reef Fisheries Management in the Philippines: A New People Power Revolution. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 35, 245-254.
https://doi.org/10.1579/05-a-054r1.1
[4] Anthony, K. R. N., Marshall, P. A., Abdulla, A., Beeden, R., Bergh, C., Black, R. et al. (2015). Operationalizing Resilience for Adaptive Coral Reef Management under Global Environmental Change. Global Change Biology, 21, 48-61.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12700
[5] Bennett, N. J., & 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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.08.017
[6] Bennett, N. J., Roth, R., Klain, S. C., Chan, K., Christie, P., Clark, D. A. et al. (2017). Conservation Social Science: Understanding and Integrating Human Dimensions to Improve Conservation. Biological Conservation, 205, 93-108.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006
[7] Binns, R. (2017). Fairness in Machine Learning: Lessons from Political Philosophy. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 81, 1-11.
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3086546
[8] Biopama (2016). Caribbean Countries Improve Protected Area Data Management Capacity.
https://biopama.org/caribbean-countries-improve-protected-area-data-management-capacity/
[9] Blue Nature Alliance (2024). Impact Report.
https://wordpress.bluenaturealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Blue_Nature_Alliance_Impact_Report_2024_FINAL.pdf
[10] Borja, A., Andersen, J. H., Arvanitidis, C. D., Basset, A., Buhl-Mortensen, L., Carvalho, S. et al. (2020). Past and Future Grand Challenges in Marine Ecosystem Ecology. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, Article 362.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00362
[11] Brooks, C. M., Chown, S. L., Douglass, L. L., Raymond, B. P., Shaw, J. D., Sylvester, Z. T. et al. (2020c). Progress towards a Representative Network of Southern Ocean Protected Areas. PLOS ONE, 15, e0231361.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231361
[12] Brooks, C. M., Crowder, L. B., Curran, L. M., Dunbar, R. B., Ainley, D. G., Dodds, K. J., & Polvani, L. M. (2020a). The Antarctic Treaty: 60 Years of Influence on Regional and Global Governance. Nature Communications, 11, 1-9.
[13] Brooks, C., Ainley, D., & Watters, G. (2020b). The Ross Sea, Antarctica: A Highly Protected Marine Protected Area in International Waters. Marine Policy, 118, Article 103957.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103957
[14] Christodoulou, P., & Limniotis, K. (2024). Data Protection Issues in Automated Decision-Making Systems Based on Machine Learning: Research Challenges. Network, 4, 91-113.
https://doi.org/10.3390/network4010005
[15] Chuenpagdee, R., Fraga, J., & Euán-Avila, J. I. (2002). Community Perspectives toward a Marine Reserve: A Case Study of San Felipe, Yucatán, México. Coastal Management, 30, 183-191.
https://doi.org/10.1080/089207502753504706
[16] Costello, C., Ovando, D., Clavelle, T., Strauss, C. K., Hilborn, R., Melnychuk, M. C. et al. (2016). Global Fishery Prospects under Contrasting Management Regimes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 5125-5129.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1520420113
[17] Diedrich, A. (2007). The Impacts of Tourism on Coral Reef Conservation Awareness and Support in Coastal Communities in Belize. Coral Reefs, 26, 985-996.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-007-0224-z
[18] Duarte, C. M., Kennedy, H., Marbà, N., & Hendriks, I. (2011). Assessing the Capacity of Seagrass Meadows for Carbon Burial: Current Limitations and Future Strategies. Ocean & Coastal Management, 83, 32-38.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2011.09.001
[19] Duarte, C. M., Losada, I. J., Hendriks, I. E., Mazarrasa, I., & Marbà, N. (2013). The Role of Coastal Plant Communities for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 3, 961-968.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1970
[20] Dulvy, N. K., Rogers, S. I., Jennings, S., Stelzenmüller, V., Dye, S. R., & Skjoldal, H. R. (2008). Climate Change and Deepening of the North Sea Fish Assemblage: A Biotic Indicator of Warming Seas. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45, 1029-1039.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01488.x
[21] Edgar, G. J., Stuart-Smith, R. D., Willis, T. J., Kininmonth, S., Baker, S. C., Banks, S. et al. (2014). Global Conservation Outcomes Depend on Marine Protected Areas with Five Key Features. Nature, 506, 216-220.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13022
[22] EU-2020 (2020). Smart Oceans: Revolutionising Marine Protection with New Technologies.
https://projects.research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/en/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-and-open-calls/horizon-europe/eu-missions-horizon-europe/restore-our-ocean-and-waters/smart-oceans-revolutionising-marine-protection-new-technologies-0
[23] Ferrario, F., Beck, M. W., Storlazzi, C. D., Micheli, F., Shepard, C. C., & Airoldi, L. (2014). The Effectiveness of Coral Reefs for Coastal Hazard Risk Reduction and Adaptation. Nature Communications, 5, Article No. 3794.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4794
[24] Freestone, D. (2012). The Law of the Sea Convention at 30: Successes, Challenges and New Agendas. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 27, 675-682.
https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-12341262
[25] Gaines, S. D., White, C., Carr, M. H., & Palumbi, S. R. (2010). Designing Marine Reserve Networks for Both Conservation and Fisheries Management. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 18286-18293.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0906473107
[26] Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., Daumé III, H., & Crawford, K. (2018). Datasheets for Datasets.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.09010
[27] Gill, D. A., Mascia, M. B., Ahmadia, G. N., Glew, L., Lester, S. E., Barnes, M. et al. (2017). Capacity Shortfalls Hinder the Performance of Marine Protected Areas Globally. Nature, 543, 665-669.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21708
[28] Govan, H., Tawake, A., & Tabunakawai, K. (2006) Community-Based Marine Resource Management in the South Pacific. Parks, 16, 63-67.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233858776_Community-based_marine_resource_management_in_the_South_Pacific#fullTextFileContent
[29] Govan, H., Tawake, A., Tabunakawai, K., Jenkins, A. et al. (2009). Community Conserved Areas: A Review of Status & Needs in Melanesia and Polynesia. ICCA Regional Review for CENESTA/TILCEPA/TGER/IUCN/ GEF-SGP.
[30] Grorud-Colvert, K., Sullivan-Stack, J., Roberts, C., Constant, V., Horta e Costa, B., Pike, E. P. et al. (2021). The MPA Guide: A Framework to Achieve Global Goals for the Ocean. Science, 373, eabf0861.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abf0861
[31] Gurney, G. G., Cinner, J., Ban, N. C., Pressey, R. L., Pollnac, R., Campbell, S. J. et al. (2014). Poverty and Protected Areas: An Evaluation of a Marine Integrated Conservation and Development Project in Indonesia. Global Environmental Change, 26, 98-107.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.003
[32] Heller, N. E., & Zavaleta, E. S. (2009). Biodiversity Management in the Face of Climate Change: A Review of 22 Years of Recommendations. Biological Conservation, 142, 14-32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.10.006
[33] Hughes, T. P., Kerry, J. T., Álvarez-Noriega, M., Álvarez-Romero, J. G., Anderson, K. D., Baird, A. H. et al. (2017). Global Warming and Recurrent Mass Bleaching of Corals. Nature, 543, 373-377.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21707
[34] Joppa, L. N., O'Connor, B., Visconti, P., Smith, C., Geldmann, J., Hoffmann, M. et al. (2016). Filling in Biodiversity Threat Gaps. Science, 352, 416-418.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf3565
[35] Jupiter, S. D., Cohen, P. J., Weeks, R., Tawake, A., & Govan, H. (2014). Locally-Managed Marine Areas: Multiple Objectives and Diverse Strategies. Pacific Conservation Biology, 20, 165-179.
https://doi.org/10.1071/pc140165
[36] Kachelriess, D. (2023). The High Seas Biodiversity Treaty: An Introduction to the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction. IUCN.
[37] Kelleher, G. (2005). Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas. IUCN.
[38] Kroodsma, D. A., Mayorga, J., Hochberg, T., Miller, N. A., Boerder, K., Ferretti, F. et al. (2018). Tracking the Global Footprint of Fisheries. Science, 359, 904-908.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao5646
[39] Lubchenco, J., & Grorud-Colvert, K. (2015). Making Waves: The Science and Politics of Ocean Protection. Science, 350, 382-383.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad5443
[40] Mast, A., Gill, D., Ahmadia, G. N., Darling, E. S., Andradi-Brown, D. A., Geldman, J. et al. (2025). Shared Governance Increases Marine Protected Area Effectiveness. PLOS ONE, 20, e0315896.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0315896
[41] McCauley, D. J., Woods, P., Sullivan, B., Bergman, B., Jablonicky, C., Roan, A. et al. (2016). Ending Hide and Seek at Sea. Science, 351, 1148-1150.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad5686
[42] McClanahan, T. R., Maina, J., & Davies, J. (2005). Perceptions of Resource Users and Managers Towards Fisheries Management Options in Kenyan Coral Reefs. Fisheries Management and Ecology, 12, 105-112.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2400.2004.00431.x
[43] Ostrom, E. (1992). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.
[44] Sanchirico, J. N., Cochran, K. A., & Emerson, P. M. (2002). Marine Protected Areas: Economic and Social Implications. Resources for the Future.
[45] Scully-Engelmeyer, K. M., Granek, E. F., Nielsen-Pincus, M., & Brown, G. (2021). Participatory GIS Mapping Highlights Indirect Use and Existence Values of Coastal Resources and Marine Conservation Areas. Ecosystem Services, 50, Article 101301.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101301
[46] Sequeira, A. M. M., O'Toole, M., Keates, T. R., McDonnell, L. H., Braun, C. D., Hoenner, X. et al. (2021). A Standardisation Framework for Bio‐Logging Data to Advance Ecological Research and Conservation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 12, 996-1007.
https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.13593
[47] Siddik, M. A. B., Shehabi, A., & Marston, L. (2021). The Environmental Footprint of Data Centers in the United States. Environmental Research Letters, 16, Article 064017.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abfba1
[48] Trajano, J. C, Gong, L., Sembiring, M., & Astuti, R. (2018). Marine Environmental Protection in the South China Sea: Challenges and Prospects Part 2.
https://www.rsis.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/MEP-Insight-2-19-February.pdf
[49] UNCLOS (1958).
https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf
[50] UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2012). Community-Based Marine Management Foundation, Indonesia. Equator Initiative Case Study Series.
[51] UNDP-GEF (2017). Sea, My Life, Protecting Oceans, Sustaining Our Future. UNDP-Global Environmental Finance Unit Sustainable Development Cluster Bureau for Policy and Programme Support United Nations Development Programme 304 East 45th Street, FF928, New York, NY 10017, USA.
[52] UNEP-Nairobi Convention & WIOMSA (2021). Western Indian Ocean Marine Protected Areas Outlook: Towards Achievement of the Global Biodiversity Framework Targets. UNEP and WIOMSA, Nairobi, 298 p.
[53] Weeks, R., Aliño, P. M., Atkinson, S., Beldia, P., Binson, A., Campos, W. L. et al. (2014b). Developing Marine Protected Area Networks in the Coral Triangle: Good Practices for Expanding the Coral Triangle Marine Protected Area System. Coastal Management, 42, 183-205.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2014.877768
[54] Weeks, R., Jupiter, S. D., Powell, B., Cameron, A., & Kinch, J. (2014a). Villages, Not Vessels: Lessons from Successful Marine Protected Areas in the Pacific. Marine Policy, 44, 108-115.
[55] Ziegler, M., Smith, J., & Taylor, R. (2024). AI Language Models Could Both Help and Harm Equity in Marine Policymaking: The Case Study of the BBNJ Question-Answering Bot.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.01755

Copyright © 2025 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.