Guidance for implementation of integrated ecosystem assessments: a US perspective

Abstract

Ecosystem-based management (EBM) has emerged as a basic approach for managing human activities in marine ecosystems, with the aim of recovering and conserving marine ecosystems and the services they deliver. Integrated ecosystem assessments (IEAs) further the transition of EBM from principle to practice by providing an efficient, transparent means of summarizing the status of ecosystem components, screening and prioritizing potential risks, and evaluating alternative management strategies against a backdrop of environmental variability. In this paper, we draw upon lessons learned from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's IEA programme to outline steps required for IEA implementation. We provide an overview of the conceptual framework for IEAs, the practical constraints that shape the structure of individual IEAs, and the uses and outcomes of IEAs in support of EBM.

Marine ecosystem regime shifts: challenges and opportunities for ecosystem-based management

“…Following Levin et al [14], we define an IEA as a formal synthesis and quantitative analysis of information on relevant natural and socio-economic factors in relation to specified ecosystem management goals. Ideally, an IEA uses approaches that determine the likelihood that ecological or socio-economic properties of systems will move beyond or return to acceptable bounds as defined by resource managers and policy makers [11]. IEAs provide a transparent means of summarizing the status of ecosystem components, screening and prioritizing potential risks and evaluating alternative management strategies against a backdrop of environmental conditions.…”

“…IEAs provide a transparent means of summarizing the status of ecosystem components, screening and prioritizing potential risks and evaluating alternative management strategies against a backdrop of environmental conditions. To this end, IEAs must (i) identify ecosystem attributes and human activities of concern; (ii) develop and test indicators and reference levels that reflect key ecosystem attributes and human activities; (iii) explore the susceptibility of an indicator to natural or human threats as well as the ability of the indicator to return to its previous state after being perturbed and (iv) evaluate the potential different management strategies to influence the status of key ecosystem components and the pressures that affect these ecosystem components [11,14].…”

Comparing Apples to Oranges: Common Trends and Thresholds in Anthropogenic and Environmental Pressures across Multiple Marine Ecosystems

“…This study examined four Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs: Alaska-Eastern Bering Sea, California Current, Northeast US and northern Gulf of Mexico) that are part of NOAA's IEA program (Levin et al, 2009(Levin et al, , 2014. Each LME is a distinct type of marine ecosystem (Figure 1) and these LMEs collectively represent not only latitudinal, bathymetric, productivity, and exploitation gradients, but also encapsulate a wide range of variable habitats and taxa groups useful for contrasts (Murawski et al, 2010).…”

“…They are the backbone for research on conservation and sustainability of living marine resources in many marine management contexts including the European Union Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Rogers et al, 2010;Palialexis et al, 2014;Shephard et al, 2015;Tam et al, in press), Integrated Ecosystem Assessments (IEAs; Levin et al, 2009Levin et al, , 2014, and Indicators for the Seas (IndiSeas; Bundy et al, 2010;Shin et al, , 2012. Examining suites of indicators is an important facet of EBM, because they can act as proxies for functional, structural, and resilience attributes of ecosystems.…”

“…Entire frameworks (e.g., Jennings, 2005;Kelble et al, 2013;Levin et al, 2014) have been developed describing the range of responses of indicators to a suite of pressures. Pressure variables that impact marine ecosystems span a wide range of scientific disciplines.…”