Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosystem services to inform marine spatial planning
TL;DR: In this article, an ecosystem service tradeoff analysis framework is presented for marine spatial planning and marine ecosystem-based management, which can reveal inferior management options, demonstrate the benefits of comprehensive planning for multiple interacting services over managing single services, and identify compatible services that provide win-win management options.
About: This article is published in Marine Policy.The article was published on 2013-03-01 and is currently open access. It has received 262 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Marine spatial planning & Ecosystem-based management.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: The framework is used to assess potential conflicts among offshore wind energy, commercial fishing, and whale-watching sectors in Massachusetts and identify and quantify the value from choosing optimal wind farm designs that minimize conflicts among these sectors.
Abstract: Marine spatial planning (MSP) is an emerging responsibility of resource managers around the United States and elsewhere. A key proposed advantage of MSP is that it makes tradeoffs in resource use and sector (stakeholder group) values explicit, but doing so requires tools to assess tradeoffs. We extended tradeoff analyses from economics to simultaneously assess multiple ecosystem services and the values they provide to sectors using a robust, quantitative, and transparent framework. We used the framework to assess potential conflicts among offshore wind energy, commercial fishing, and whale-watching sectors in Massachusetts and identify and quantify the value from choosing optimal wind farm designs that minimize conflicts among these sectors. Most notably, we show that using MSP over conventional planning could prevent >$1 million dollars in losses to the incumbent fishery and whale-watching sectors and could generate >$10 billion in extra value to the energy sector. The value of MSP increased with the greater the number of sectors considered and the larger the area under management. Importantly, the framework can be applied even when sectors are not measured in dollars (e.g., conservation). Making tradeoffs explicit improves transparency in decision-making, helps avoid unnecessary conflicts attributable to perceived but weak tradeoffs, and focuses debate on finding the most efficient solutions to mitigate real tradeoffs and maximize sector values. Our analysis demonstrates the utility, feasibility, and value of MSP and provides timely support for the management transitions needed for society to address the challenges of an increasingly crowded ocean environment.
349 citations
Cites background from "Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosyste..."
...The efficiency frontier, although familiar to economists, has seldom been applied to marine resource management (4)....
[...]
...In simple terms, MSP distributes sectors among their highest-value locations with the lowest intersectoral conflicts (4, 9)....
[...]
...A wind farm also may affect coastal viewshed and property values (4), and its submarine infrastructure may affect fish more than we assumed....
[...]
...A second barrier to MSP is that the science for assessing and communicating tradeoffs among human uses of the ocean, and identifying strategies to mediate these tradeoffs, has been slow to catch up with policy opportunities emerging from efforts to implement ecosystem-based management, MSP, and marine protected areas (4)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors synthesize the growing body of literature on ecosystem services relationships and identify the following four main study objectives: identification and characterization of co-occurrences of ES, identification of drivers that shape ES relationships, exploration of biophysical constraints of landscapes and limitations to their multifunctionality, and support of environmental planning, management and policy decisions.
Abstract: Ecosystem services (ES), the benefits that humans obtain from nature, are of great importance for human well-being. The challenge of meeting the growing human demands for natural resources while sustaining essential ecosystem functions and resilience requires an in-depth understanding of the complex relationships between ES. These conflicting (‘trade-offs’) or synergistic (‘synergies’) relationships mean that changes in one ES can cause changes in other ES. By synthesizing the growing body of literature on ES relationships, we identified the following four main study objectives: (i) the identification and characterization of co-occurrences of ES, (ii) the identification of drivers that shape ES relationships, (iii) the exploration of biophysical constraints of landscapes and limitations to their multifunctionality, and (iv) the support of environmental planning, management and policy decisions. For each of these objectives we here describe the key concepts, including viewpoints of different disciplines, and highlight the major challenges that need to be addressed. We identified three cross-cutting themes being relevant to all four main types of studies. To help guiding researchers towards more systematic analyses of ES trade-offs and synergies, we conclude with an outlook on suggested future research priorities.
258 citations
TL;DR: It is shown that equity tends to trade off nonlinearly with the potential to achieve conservation objectives, such that similar conservation outcomes can be possible with greater equity, to a point.
Abstract: Triple-bottom-line outcomes from resource management and conservation, where conservation goals and equity in social outcomes are maximized while overall costs are minimized, remain a highly sought-after ideal. However, despite widespread recognition of the importance that equitable distribution of benefits or costs across society can play in conservation success, little formal theory exists for how to explicitly incorporate equity into conservation planning and prioritization. Here, we develop that theory and implement it for three very different case studies in California (United States), Raja Ampat (Indonesia), and the wider Coral Triangle region (Southeast Asia). We show that equity tends to trade off nonlinearly with the potential to achieve conservation objectives, such that similar conservation outcomes can be possible with greater equity, to a point. However, these case studies also produce a range of trade-off typologies between equity and conservation, depending on how one defines and measures social equity, including direct (linear) and no trade-off. Important gaps remain in our understanding, most notably how equity influences probability of conservation success, in turn affecting the actual ability to achieve conservation objectives. Results here provide an important foundation for moving the science and practice of conservation planning-and broader spatial planning in general-toward more consistently achieving efficient, equitable, and effective outcomes.
234 citations
Cites background from "Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosyste..."
...S1), as is seen with trade-offs among ecosystem services (10, 30)....
[...]
...As in other trade-off assessments (5, 6, 30), finding the frontier does not then prescribe a single correct solution but instead presents the range of options, all optimal, that represent the trade-off between stated goals....
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, the authors explored the reality of marine spatial planning, drawing on 12 case studies around Europe, employing a structured qualitative empirical approach, concluding that top-down processes tend to dominate, more participative platforms tending to be disconnected by design from executive decision-making, despite growing indications that the target for Good Environmental Status (GES) by 2020 is unlikely to be met.
196 citations
Cites background from "Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosyste..."
...It could be argued that the effectiveness of MSP’ing is focused on achieving optimum trade-offs between a diversity of ecological, economic and social objectives [1,19], this being one of the main overall aims of many conceptual and policy frameworks for MSP’ing, but the reality of the case studies is that they were driven primarily by a particular priority objective, and effectiveness was thereby mainly assessed by the fulfilment of the priority objective in question....
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, the authors propose that the process of making management decisions for ecosystem services comprises five core steps: identification of the problem and its social-ecological context; specification of objectives and associated performance measures; defining alternative management actions and evaluating the consequences of these actions; assessment of trade-offs and prioritization of alternative management action; and making decision.
188 citations
Cites background from "Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosyste..."
...Trade-offs Managing for the sustainable and efficient provision of multiple interacting ecosystem services is challenging as alternatives undertaken to deliver one service may divert resources from alternative actions that could deliver other services (Lester et al., 2013)....
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors have estimated the current economic value of 17 ecosystem services for 16 biomes, based on published studies and a few original calculations, for the entire biosphere, the value (most of which is outside the market) is estimated to be in the range of US$16-54 trillion (10^(12)) per year, with an average of US $33 trillion per year.
Abstract: The services of ecological systems and the natural capital stocks that produce them are critical to the functioning of the Earth's life-support system. They contribute to human welfare, both directly and indirectly, and therefore represent part of the total economic value of the planet. We have estimated the current economic value of 17 ecosystem services for 16 biomes, based on published studies and a few original calculations. For the entire biosphere, the value (most of which is outside the market) is estimated to be in the range of US$16-54 trillion (10^(12)) per year, with an average of US$33 trillion per year. Because of the nature of the uncertainties, this must be considered a minimum estimate. Global gross national product total is around US$18 trillion per year.
18,139 citations
"Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosyste..." refers background in this paper
..., food production versus aesthetic 31 value) and provide natural capital that is essential to human welfare [13]....
[...]
Book•
01 Jan 1976TL;DR: In this article, a confused decision maker, who wishes to make a reasonable and responsible choice among alternatives, can systematically probe his true feelings in order to make those critically important, vexing trade-offs between incommensurable objectives.
Abstract: Many of the complex problems faced by decision makers involve multiple conflicting objectives. This book describes how a confused decision maker, who wishes to make a reasonable and responsible choice among alternatives, can systematically probe his true feelings in order to make those critically important, vexing trade-offs between incommensurable objectives. The theory is illustrated by many real concrete examples taken from a host of disciplinary settings. The standard approach in decision theory or decision analysis specifies a simplified single objective like monetary return to maximise. By generalising from the single objective case to the multiple objective case, this book considerably widens the range of applicability of decision analysis.
8,895 citations
State Street Corporation1, University of California, Santa Barbara2, University of Hawaii at Manoa3, Stanford University4, Arizona State University5, Wildlife Conservation Society6, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill7, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration8, Environmental Defense Fund9, Ocean Conservancy10, The Nature Conservancy11, University of Maine12, University of British Columbia13
TL;DR: This article developed an ecosystem-specific, multiscale spatial model to synthesize 17 global data sets of anthropogenic drivers of ecological change for 20 marine ecosystems and found that no area is unaffected by human influence and that a large fraction (41%) is strongly affected by multiple drivers.
Abstract: The management and conservation of the world's oceans require synthesis of spatial data on the distribution and intensity of human activities and the overlap of their impacts on marine ecosystems. We developed an ecosystem-specific, multiscale spatial model to synthesize 17 global data sets of anthropogenic drivers of ecological change for 20 marine ecosystems. Our analysis indicates that no area is unaffected by human influence and that a large fraction (41%) is strongly affected by multiple drivers. However, large areas of relatively little human impact remain, particularly near the poles. The analytical process and resulting maps provide flexible tools for regional and global efforts to allocate conservation resources; to implement ecosystem-based management; and to inform marine spatial planning, education, and basic research.
5,365 citations
Dalhousie University1, University of Wyoming2, Plymouth Marine Laboratory3, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences4, Stockholm University5, University of California, Santa Barbara6, Scripps Institution of Oceanography7, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute8, Stanford University9, University of California, Davis10, University of British Columbia11
TL;DR: The authors analyzed local experiments, long-term regional time series, and global fisheries data to test how biodiversity loss affects marine ecosystem services across temporal and spatial scales, concluding that marine biodiversity loss is increasingly impairing the ocean's capacity to provide food, maintain water quality, and recover from perturbations.
Abstract: Human-dominated marine ecosystems are experiencing accelerating loss of populations and species, with largely unknown consequences. We analyzed local experiments, long-term regional time series, and global fisheries data to test how biodiversity loss affects marine ecosystem services across temporal and spatial scales. Overall, rates of resource collapse increased and recovery potential, stability, and water quality decreased exponentially with declining diversity. Restoration of biodiversity, in contrast, increased productivity fourfold and decreased variability by 21%, on average. We conclude that marine biodiversity loss is increasingly impairing the ocean's capacity to provide food, maintain water quality, and recover from perturbations. Yet available data suggest that at this point, these trends are still reversible.
3,672 citations
"Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosyste..." refers background in this paper
...Fisheries over-exploitation is widely regarded as the primary cause of recently publicized 176 fisheries collapses [23, 52]....
[...]
...47 Balancing the delivery of a range of services is particularly critical for coastal and ocean 48 ecosystems, which face growing human populations, increasing associated impacts, and 49 declining ecosystem services [22-24]....
[...]
TL;DR: The analysis suggests that management based on recent data alone may be misleading, and provides minimum estimates for unexploited communities, which could serve as the 'missing baseline' needed for future restoration efforts.
Abstract: Serious concerns have been raised about the ecological effects of industrialized fishing1, 2, 3, spurring a United Nations resolution on restoring fisheries and marine ecosystems to healthy levels4. However, a prerequisite for restoration is a general understanding of the composition and abundance of unexploited fish communities, relative to contemporary ones. We constructed trajectories of community biomass and composition of large predatory fishes in four continental shelf and nine oceanic systems, using all available data from the beginning of exploitation. Industrialized fisheries typically reduced community biomass by 80% within 15 years of exploitation. Compensatory increases in fast-growing species were observed, but often reversed within a decade. Using a meta-analytic approach, we estimate that large predatory fish biomass today is only about 10% of pre-industrial levels. We conclude that declines of large predators in coastal regions5 have extended throughout the global ocean, with potentially serious consequences for ecosystems5, 6, 7. Our analysis suggests that management based on recent data alone may be misleading, and provides minimum estimates for unexploited communities, which could serve as the ‘missing baseline’8 needed for future restoration efforts.
2,864 citations
"Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosyste..." refers background in this paper
...Fisheries over-exploitation is widely regarded as the primary cause of recently publicized fisheries collapses [23,52]....
[...]