Assessing the State of Coupled Social-Ecological Modeling in Support of Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management in the United States

Abstract

There has been a proliferation of coupled social-ecological systems (SES) models created and published in recent years. However, the degree of coupling between natural and social systems varies widely across the different coupled models and is often a function of the disciplinary background of the team conducting the research. This manuscript examines models developed for and used by NOAA Fisheries in support of Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) in the United States. It provides resource managers and interdisciplinary scientists insights on the strengths and weaknesses of the most commonly used SES models: end-to-end models, conceptual models, bioeconomic models, management strategy evaluations (MSEs), fisher behavior models, integrated social vulnerability models, and regional economic impact models. These model types are not unique to the literature, but allow us to differentiate between one-way coupled models – where outputs from one model are inputs into a second model of another discipline with no feedback to the first model, and two-way coupled models – where there are linkages between the natural and social system models. For a model to provide useful strategic or tactical advice, it should only be coupled to the degree necessary to understand the important dynamics/responses of the system and to create management-relevant performance metrics or potential risks from an (in)action. However, one key finding is to not wait to integrate! This paper highlights the importance of “when” the coupling happens, as timing affects the ability to fully address management questions and multi-sectoral usage conflicts that consider the full SES for EBFM or ecosystem based management (EBM) more generally.

Using an EBFM lens to guide the management of marine biological resources under changing conditions

“…Last but not least, understanding ocean exploitation as a socioecological system in which resources, users, and government entities are fundamentally interconnected is necessary for fully implementing EBFM (Ostrom, 2009). EBFM could benefit from the use of ecological models (Table 1) to simultaneously address the ecological and human dimensions (henceforth referred to as coupled socioecological system models) (Kasperski et al, 2021). A lot of work still needs to be done in this field as, until now, the majority of indicators used to account for the human dimension mostly relate to economic objectives associated with fisheries (e.g.…”

Nested Socio-Ecological Maps as a Spatial Planning Instrument for Estuary Conservation and Ecosystem-Based Management

“…In this context, the role of the present approach is identifying vulnerable components that can be further analyzed considering indirect interactions between human activities and target species through impacts on interacting species. The second limitation is that the proposed approach is a one-way coupled socioecological model, which limits the type of questions that the model can answer (Kasperski et al, 2021). Here, outputs from anthrotope model are inputs into the ecotope model with no feedback to the first model.…”

Integrating human dimensions in decadal-scale prediction for marine social–ecological systems: lighting the grey zone

“…Modellers "should not wait to integrate" social and ecological model components (Kasperski et al, 2021). Kasperski et al (2021) note that the timing of coupling the natural and social systems is crucial, as it influences the capacity of the model to address management questions and tradeoffs among users.…”

“…Modellers "should not wait to integrate" social and ecological model components (Kasperski et al, 2021). Kasperski et al (2021) note that the timing of coupling the natural and social systems is crucial, as it influences the capacity of the model to address management questions and tradeoffs among users. If such coupling/integration occurs from the project design and scoping phase, there is greater capacity for models to fully consider the social-ecological system.…”