Assessing the sensitivity of habitats to fishing: from seabed maps to sensitivity maps^a

Abstract

In the Welsh part of the Irish Sea, a method was developed for assessing the sensitivity of different seabed habitats to existing fishing activities, across a range of potential fishing intensities. The resistance of 31 habitats and their associated biological assemblage to damage by 14 categories of fishing activity were assessed along with the rate at which each habitat would recover following impact (resilience). Sensitivity was scored based on a combination of the resistance of a habitat to damage and its subsequent rate of recovery. The assessments were based, wherever possible, on scientific literature, with expert judgement used to extrapolate results to habitat and gear combinations not directly examined in the published literature. The resulting sensitivity matrices were then subject to further peer review at a series of workshops. Following consensus on the habitat sensitivity, these data were combined with the most resolved sea-floor habitat maps. These habitat sensitivity maps can help inform the development of site-specific management plans, as well as having a place in spatial planning and aiding managers in developing dialogue with other stakeholders. A case study of their application is provided.

Estimating the sustainability of towed fishing‐gear impacts on seabed habitats: a simple quantitative risk assessment method applicable to data‐limited fisheries

“…Eno et al . ). These non‐quantitative, typically non‐spatial, approaches provide estimates of relative levels of susceptibility or potential risk, but have limited ability to assess sustainability.…”

“…Stobutzki, Miller & Brewer 2001) and often, expert judgment was used for scoring (e.g. Eno et al 2013). These non-quantitative, typically nonspatial, approaches provide estimates of relative levels of susceptibility or potential risk, but have limited ability to assess sustainability.…”

Response of benthic fauna to experimental bottom fishing: A global meta‐analysis

“…Significant progress has been made with describing the footprint of bottom fishing activity in many fisheries (Eigaard et al., ) but substantial work is also needed to estimate the impact and recovery resulting from different gear and habitat combinations (Pitcher et al., ). Several environmental risk assessments for the effects of fishing (ERAEF), such as the “likelihood‐consequence” approach (Fletcher et al., ), the “susceptibility‐resilience” approach (Stobutzki, Miller, & Brewer, ) and “expert judgement” (Eno et al., ; O'Boyle & Jamieson, ; Smith, Fulton, Hobday, Smith, & Shoulder, ) have relied on qualitative estimates of relative levels of susceptibility or potential risk, limiting their ability to assess the sustainability of fishing impacts. Spatial and quantitative environmental risk assessment approaches that are based on the differences in sensitivity of different seabed habitats, and the spatial distribution of habitats and fishing activity are alternative approaches, but have been less commonly implemented due to the paucity of sensitivity and habitat data (but see Hiddink et al., ; Pitcher et al., , ).…”

A decision-support tool to facilitate discussion of no-take boundaries for Marine Protected Areas during stakeholder consultation processes

“…VAs have been used to identify vulnerable areas in need of protection (Eno et al, 2013;Stelzenmüller et al, 2010), as well as to triage species by their vulnerability to key stressors (Chin et al, 2010;Patrick et al, 2010;Stobutzki et al, 2001). We adapted a vulnerability assessment that follows a widely accepted logic framework (Füssel & Klein, 2006;Patrick et al, 2010;Stobutzki et al, 2001).…”