Assessing the potential of an artisanal fishing co-management in the Marine Protected Area of Torre Guaceto (southern Adriatic Sea, SE Italy)

  • Published source details Guidetti P., Bussotti S., Pizzolante F. & Ciccolella A. (2010) Assessing the potential of an artisanal fishing co-management in the Marine Protected Area of Torre Guaceto (southern Adriatic Sea, SE Italy). Fisheries Research, 101, 180-187.


This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Allow only small-scale, traditional (artisanal) fishing

Action Link
Marine Fish Conservation
  1. Allow only small-scale, traditional (artisanal) fishing

    A site comparison study in 2005–2008 of an area of rocky and sandy seabed in the Adriatic Sea off the southeast coast of Italy (Guidetti et al. 2010) found that the ‘buffer’ zone of a marine protected area fished only by artisanal commercial fishers for three years using trammel nets, resulted in higher catch rates of five of seven commercial fish species compared to unprotected fished areas outside. Catch rates varied between years but were overall higher inside the buffer zone than outside for: striped red mullet Mullus surmuletus (inside: 5–17, outside: 1–3 kg/km net/d ); large-scaled scorpionfish Scorpaena scrofa (inside: 5–7, outside: 0–1 kg/km net/d); peacock wrasse Symphodus tinca (inside: 2–3, outside: 0–1 kg/km net/d); common pandora Pagellus erythrinus (inside: 1–2, outside: 0–1 kg/km net/d) and common dentex Dentex dentex (inside: 1–2, outside: 0–1 kg/km net/d). Common seabream Pagrus pagrus and forkbeard Phycis phycis catches were similar (inside: 0–5, outside: 0–1 kg/km net/d). From January 2005 to July 2008, artisanal commercial fishing catches (exclusively using trammel nets) were monitored inside the buffer zone (1,885 ha, artisanal commercial fishing permitted since 2005 under a co-management protocol with local fishers) and in surrounding no-take zones (352 ha) in the Torre Guaceto Marine Protected Area (all fishing banned in the entire area from 2001–2005). Catch rates of the most important species (those contributing most to the differences between areas) were compared from 217 deployments inside the buffer zone and 66 outside over three years.

    (Summarised by: Chris Barrett/Natasha Taylor)

Output references
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 19

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust