Abstract
Spatial closures are widely used in marine conservation and fisheries management and it is important to understand their contribution to achieving management objectives. Many previous evaluations of closed area effects have used before-after comparisons, which, without controlling for a full range of factors, cannot ascribe changes in fleet behaviour to area closures per se. In this study we used a counterfactual approach to disentangle the effect of two closed areas on fishing location from other competing effects on the behaviour of the Indian Ocean tuna purse seine fishery. Our results revealed an inconsistent effect of the one of the closed areas between years, after taking into account the influence of environmental conditions on fleet behaviour. This suggests that the policy of closing the area per se was not the main driver for the fleet allocating its effort elsewhere. We also showed a marked difference in effect between the two closed areas resulting from their different locations in the fishery area. These findings highlight the need to account for other key fleet behavioural drivers when predicting or evaluating the contribution of area closures to achieving conservation and fishery management objectives.