Rapid prioritization of marine ecosystem services and ecosystem indicators

Werner, Sandra R.; Spurgeon, James; Isaksen, Gary H.; Smith, Joseph P.; Springer, Nina; Gettleson, David A.; N'guessan, L.; Dupont, Jennifer

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2014.03.020

Cited by 26 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The global oceans contribute to human wellbeing by providing marine ecosystem services including food, income, cultural services, recreation, carbon storage, and storm protection (Rashid et al, 2005;Baskett and Halpern, 2009;Palumbi et al, 2009;Lau, 2013;B€ orger et al, 2014;Werner et al, 2014). The ability of the oceans to continue providing these essential ecosystem services is in jeopardy due to anthropogenic impacts that include climate change, fishing pressures, coastal development, land-based pollution, and recreation (Worm et al, 2006;Halpern et al, 2008Halpern et al, , 2012Doney et al, 2012;Halpern et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marine conservation finance: The need for and scope of an emerging field

Bos

Pressey

Stoeckl

2015

Ocean & Coastal Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marine conservation finance: The need for and scope of an emerging field

Bos

Pressey

Stoeckl

2015

Ocean & Coastal Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Spatial results provided novel insights on the distribution of threats to MES and therefore to the risk of reduction, loss or impairment of the MES provisioning capacity of a particular habitat or combination of habitats. From a planning perspective, the produced results can be considered as highly integrative to the CEA and MUC outputs, as they incorporate societal values into the analysis (Maron et al, 2017), can more efficiently delineate protection priorities (Werner et al, 2014) and support the design of restoration plans (Allan et al, 2013) for coastal areas or habitats (e.g. Cymodocea beds) subjected to highest threat from anthropogenic stressors (Fig.…”

Section: Overall Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Addressing cumulative effects, maritime conflicts and ecosystem services threats through MSP-oriented geospatial webtools

Menegon

Depellegrin

Farella

et al. 2018

Ocean & Coastal Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Addressing cumulative effects, maritime conflicts and ecosystem services threats through MSPoriented geospatial webtools. AbstractTo solve conservation and planning challenges in the marine environment, researchers are increasingly developing geospatial tools to address impacts of anthropogenic activities on marine biodiversity. The paper presents a comprehensive set of built-in geospatial webtools to support Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) and environmental management objectives implemented into the Tools4MSP interoperable GeoPlatform. The webtools include cumulative effects assessment (CEA), maritime use conflict (MUC) analysis, MSFD pressure-driven CEA and a CEA-based marine ecosystem service threat analysis (MES-Threat) . The tools are tested for the Northern Adriatic (NA) Sea, one of the most industrialized sea areas of Europe using a case study driven modelling strategy. Overall results show that coastal areas within 0-9 nm in the Gulf of Trieste, Grado-Marano and Venice lagoon and Po Delta outlet are subjected to intense cumulative effects and high sea use conflicts mainly from port activities, fishery, coastal and maritime tourism and maritime shipping. Linking MES into CEA provided novel information on locally threatened high MES supporting and provisioning habitats such Cymodocea beds and infralittoral fine sands, threats to cultural MES are most pronounced in coastal areas. Results are discussed for their geospatial relevance for regional planning, resource management and their applicability within MSP and environmental assessment. 45 50 55 60 65 70 75

show abstract

“…Drakou et al, ) along with protocols for prioritizing ecosystem services (e.g. Werner et al, ). As needed, these tools and the classification can be used to weigh up different conservation options, especially when trade‐offs are necessary.…”

Section: Classifying Aquatic Ecosystem Services For Habitat Conservationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This programme should complement current monitoring and include ecological and sociological variables to assess successful provision of desired ecosystem services. Rapid prioritization methods (Werner et al, ) may be useful to identify indicators and guide their monitoring and analysis.…”

Section: Conclusion and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating ecosystem services into conservation strategies for freshwater and marine habitats: a review

Boulton

Ekebom

Gíslason

2016

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT1. Over the last two decades, there has been increasing public and political recognition of society's dependency upon natural habitat complexity and ecological processes to sustain provision of crucial ecosystem services, ranging from supplying potable water through to climate regulation. How has the ecosystem-services perspective been integrated into strategies for aquatic habitat conservation?2. Literature on conservation of diverse freshwater and marine habitats was reviewed to assess the extent to which past and current strategies specifically targeted ecosystem services, and considered ecosystem functions, potential trade-offs and social issues when formulating protection measures for conserving aquatic habitats.3. Surprisingly few published examples exist where comprehensive assessment of ecosystem services supported development of conservation plans. Seldom were aquatic habitat conservation objectives framed in terms of balancing trade-offs, assessing social values and evaluating suites of ecosystem services under different strategies. Time frames for achieving these objectives were also rarely specified. There was no evidence for fundamental differences between marine and freshwater habitats with respect to their ecosystem services that should be considered when setting targets for their conservation.4. When an ecosystem-service perspective is used for setting objectives in aquatic habitat conservation, the following actions are recommended: (1) explicitly listing and evaluating full suites of ecosystem services to be conserved; (2) identifying current and future potential trade-offs arising from conservation; (3) specifying time frames within which particular strategies might protect or enhance desired services; and (4) predicting how different proposed strategies might affect each ecosystem function, service flow and public benefit.5. This approach will help ensure that less-apparent ecosystem services (e.g. regulating, supporting) and their associated ecosystem functions receive adequate recognition and protection in aquatic conservation of freshwater and marine habitats. However, conservation objectives should not focus solely on protecting or enhancing ecosystem services but complement current strategies targeting biodiversity and other conservation goals.

show abstract

Rapid prioritization of marine ecosystem services and ecosystem indicators

Cited by 26 publications

References 11 publications

Marine conservation finance: The need for and scope of an emerging field

Marine conservation finance: The need for and scope of an emerging field

Addressing cumulative effects, maritime conflicts and ecosystem services threats through MSP-oriented geospatial webtools

Integrating ecosystem services into conservation strategies for freshwater and marine habitats: a review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About