A pan-Arctic assessment of the status of marine social-ecological systems

Abstract

Marine social-ecological conditions in the Arctic are rapidly changing. With many transboundary issues, such as shifting ranges of fisheries, biodiversity loss, sea ice retreat, economic development and pollution, greater pan-Arctic assessment and co-management are necessary. We adapted the Ocean Health Index (OHI) to compile pan-Arctic data and evaluate ocean health for nine regions above the Arctic Circle to assess the extent to which pan-Arctic assessment is possible and identify broad social-ecological trends. While the quality and availability of data varied, we assessed and scored nine OHI goals, including the pressures and resilience measures acting upon them. Our results show the Arctic is sustainably delivering a range of benefits to people, but with room for improvement in all goals, particularly tourism, fisheries, and protected places. Successful management of biological resources and short-term positive impacts on biodiversity in response to climate change underlie these high goal scores. The OHI assesses the past and near-term future but does not account for medium-and long-term future risks associated with climate change, highlighting the need for ongoing monitoring, dynamic management, and strong action to mitigate its anticipated effects. A general increase in and standardisation of monitoring is urgently needed in the Arctic. Unified assessments, such as this one, can support national comparisons, data quality assessments, and discussions on the targeting of limited monitoring capabilities at the most pressing and urgent transboundary management challenges, which is a priority for achieving successful Arctic stewardship.

Towards integrated knowledge of climate change in Arctic marine systems: a systematic literature review of multidisciplinary research

“…For instance, global or regional climate models can be combined with data (both quantitative and qualitative) on ecological and social dynamics to understand SES responses to climate change, as in Tyler et al (2007), who studied how reindeer pastoralism may be impacted by climate change in northern Norway. More recently, an Arctic Ocean Health Index (AOHI) has been developed to assess social-ecological status of marine regions across the Arctic (Burgass et al 2019). Although the AOHI is a promising first attempt to quantify the status of marine SES at a pan-Arctic scale, this kind of assessment is currently limited by the scarcity of primary data (Larsen et al 2014;Burgass et al 2019).…”

Changes in ocean health in British Columbia from 2001 to 2016

“…The structure of the Ocean Health Index framework is well-documented for global [4,5] (see also www.ohi-science.org/ohi-global), regional [6], national [8][9][10], and other subnational assessments [11]. This OHIBC assessment adheres to the same general structure, briefly outlined below, with goals and reference points tailored to BC-specific interests, values, and available data, as expected and encouraged for any regional OHI assessment [7].…”

“…OHI integrates measures of current status of a wide range of goals and objectives for healthy oceans, along with pressures to those goals and resilience measures designed to improve their status [4]. OHI's increasingly wide application at global [4,5] (see also www.ohiscience.org/ohi-global), regional [6,7], national [8][9][10], and subnational [11] levels suggests a broadly recognized need for an inclusive, quantitative, and replicable tool for assessing the state of our oceans [12]. However, aside from the global assessment that has been repeated annually since 2012, OHI assessments have been single snapshots in time, focusing only on spatial variation among regions within the study area.…”

Polar bear denning distribution in the Canadian Arctic

“…Spatio-temporal declines in sea ice have been linked to shifts in ice-adapted species' foraging (Sciullo et al 2017), distribution , movement (Yurkowski et al 2016), and reproduction . Many sea ice changes (e.g., reduced duration, extent, thickness) that are considered negative for Arctic wildlife may allow increased human access and industrial development (Burgass et al 2018). The combination of habitat loss and increased disturbance can have negative consequences for wildlife if not managed (e.g., Polfus et al 2011;Plante et al 2018).…”