Identifying common pressure pathways from a complex network of human activities to support ecosystem‐based management

Abstract

The marine environment is heavily exploited, but unintentional consequences cause wide-ranging negative effects to its characteristics. Linkage frameworks (e.g., DPSIR [driver-pressure-state-impact-response]) are commonly used to describe an interaction between human activities and ecological characteristics of the ecosystem, but as each linkage is viewed independently, the diversity of pressures that affect those characteristics may not be identified or managed effectively. Here we demonstrate an approach for using linkages to build a simple network to capture the complex relationships arising from multiple sectors and their activities. Using data-analysis tools common to ecology, we show how linkages can be placed into mechanistically similar groups. Management measures can be combined into fewer and more simplified measures that target groups of pressures rather than individual pressures, which is likely to increase compliance and the success of the measure while reducing the cost of enforcement. Given that conservation objectives (regional priorities) can vary, we also demonstrate by way of a case study example from the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, how management priorities might change, and illustrate how the approach can be used to identify sectors for control that best support the conservation objectives.

Cumulative effects assessment: proof of concept marine mammals

“…Significant progress has been made toward linking human activities to ecosystem impact with the definition and evaluation of the array of sector-pressure-state combinations or "impact chains", although the resulting network of interactions can be complex (Knights et al, 2013); Tamis et al, 2016; see illustration of impact chains in Figure 2). …”

“…• FP7 ODEMM (Options for Delivering Ecosystem-based Marine Management) where an Ecological (or environmental) risk assessment (ERA) was developed (see (Breen et al, 2012;Knights et al, 2013;Piet et al, 2015;2017) • H2020 AQUACROSS (Knowledge, Assessment, and Management for AQUAtic Biodiversity and…”

A Catalogue of Marine Biodiversity Indicators

“…A second pressure group that was targeted by a high number of indicators was related to physical loss, interference with hydrographical processes, and physical damage to marine habitats. These reflect the abrasion pressures caused by demersal fishing and aggregate dredging, but also silting, smothering, and increase of turbidity due to coastal and underwater constructions (e.g., Knights et al, 2013;Oesterwind et al, 2016;. A third group of indicators are able to reflect the effects caused by contamination and fishing (i.e., removal) pressures.…”

Using an Ecosystem Approach to complement protection schemes based on organism-level endpoints

“…nac, 2009;Bréchignac et al, 2012;Doi et al, 2005;Fuma et al, 2003;Hinton and Bréchignac, 2005). Methods for managing indirect effects and for detecting adverse changes in ecosystems before they become severe are now being developed (Forbes and Calow, 2013;Knights et al, 2013;Scheffer et al, 2009 …”

“…Though methods exist to measure and to model interactions, there has not been widespread use of these tools (Forbes and Calow, 2013;Knights et al, 2013;Scheffer et al, 2009;Wootton, 1994). In contrast to the field situation where the net impacts of contamination are implicitly considered in the ecosystem approach, modelling and prediction of ecosystem effects may need to explicitly consider ecosystem complexity or be able to model emergent properties of ecosystems (Forbes and Calow, 2013).…”