Cumulative impact assessment for ecosystem-based marine spatial planning

Hammar, Lena Marmstål; Molander, Sverker; Pålsson, Jonas; Crona, Jan Schmidtbauer; Carneiro, Gonçalo; Johansson, Thomas B.; Hume, Duncan; Kågesten, Gustav; Mattsson, Daniel; Törnqvist, Oscar; Zillén, Lovisa; Mattsson, Martin; Bergström, Ulf; Perry, Diana; Caldow, Chris; Andersen, Jesper H.

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139024

Cited by 58 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the reliability of using the global scores for regional applicability is unclear, more promising approaches use expert judgement to derive specific vulnerabilities (e.g. Hammar et al, 2020;Korpinen et al, 2013), when finer-scale and higher-quality data are not available. We have included in our analysis high-resolution spatial data representing historical temperature variation (i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A blueprint for securing Brazil's marine biodiversity and supporting the achievement of global conservation goals

Magris

Costa

Ferreira

et al. 2020

Diversity and Distributions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: As a step towards providing support for an ecological approach to strengthening marine protected areas (MPAs) and meeting international commitments, this study combines cumulative impact assessment and conservation planning approach to undertake a large-scale spatial prioritization. Location: Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of Brazil, Southwest Atlantic Ocean. Methods: We developed a prioritization approach to protecting different habitat types, threatened species ranges and ecological connectivity, while also mitigating the impacts of multiple threats on biodiversity. When identifying priorities for conservation, we accounted for the co-occurrence of 24 human threats and the distribution of 161 marine habitats and 143 threatened species, as well as their associated vulnerabilities. Additionally, we compared our conservation priorities with MPAs proposed by local stakeholders. Results: We show that impacts to habitats and species are widespread and identify hot spots of cumulative impacts on inshore and offshore areas. Industrial fisheries, climate change and land-based activities were the most severe threats to biodiversity. The highest priorities were mostly found towards the coast due to the high cumulative impacts found in nearshore areas. As expected, our systematic approach showed a better performance on selecting priority sites when compared to the MPAs proposed by local stakeholders without a typical conservation planning exercise, increasing the existing coverage of MPAs by only 7.9%. However, we found that proposed MPAs still provide some opportunities to protect areas facing high levels of threats. Main conclusions: The study presents a blueprint of how to embrace a comprehensive ecological approach when identifying strategic priorities for conservation. We advocate protecting these crucial areas from degradation in emerging conservation efforts is key to maintain their biodiversity value. | 199 MAGRIS et Al.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A blueprint for securing Brazil's marine biodiversity and supporting the achievement of global conservation goals

Magris

Costa

Ferreira

et al. 2020

Diversity and Distributions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These changes with inherent uncertainty can be simulated by the Symphony CIA tool using scenario‐based modelling. Simulations involve adding, increasing and reducing pressure maps and adjusting sensitivity scores in accordance with MSP guidance (Hammar et al., 2020). For example, where MSP indicates rerouting of ship traffic the pressures from shipping, such as underwater noise, oil spill and propeller‐induced turbidity, are removed or reduced from one area and added or increased in the area of the new route.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In order to demonstrate how seascape connectivity can be addressed during such scenario-based modelling, MSP-related change to mussel connectivity impact (C Mytilus , Equations 3 and 4) was calculated using the Symphony CIA tool with MSP scenario assumptions set as for the 2019 plan iteration (Hammar et al, 2020).…”

Section: Modelling Msp-related Change To Mussel Connectivity Impactmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…CIA has proven particularly apt in support of spatially oriented policy instruments such as ecosystem‐based marine spatial planning (MSP; Depellegrin et al., 2017; Fernandes et al, 2017). In Sweden, scenario‐based CIA has recently been applied to evaluate the expected environmental outcome of MSP as an integrated component of the planning process (Hammar et al., 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This data layer of national coverage was previously produced with a Species Distribution Model where occurrence data (5,061 training sites, 573 test sites) were fitted (AUC > 0.8) to environmental layers of salinity, bathymetry, hard bottom, wave exposure and seabed slope using a General Additive Model(Guisan et al, 2017). Probability of mussel bed occurrence was classified into absence (pixel value = 0), >10% predicted cover (pixel value = 30) and observed mussel reef (pixel value = 100;Hammar et al, 2020).Following the general procedure demonstrated in Section 2.2, the cumulative impact on blue mussel (I Mytilus ) in each grid cell was calculated and multiplied with mussel source probability (p sourceMytilus ) and sink probability (p sinkMytilus ) based on the connectivity matrix (CM), thus generating values for mussel source impact (I sourceMytilus )…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Combining seascape connectivity with cumulative impact assessment in support of ecosystem‐based marine spatial planning

Jonsson

Hammar

Wåhlström

et al. 2020

Journal of Applied Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cumulative impact assessment (CIA) is a promising approach to guide marine spatial planning (MSP) and management. One limitation of CIA is the neglect of seascape connectivity, which may spread the impact of localized pressures to ambient areas, e.g. through lost dispersal and recruitment of organisms. We here, for the first time, incorporate seascape connectivity into a traditional CIA model using a connectivity matrix, exemplified by dispersal of propagules estimated through biophysical modelling. Two connectivity impacts are identified: the source impact represents downstream areas losing recruits because of reduced larval dispersal from sites affected by the pressure, and the sink impact represents loss of recruits originating from upstream areas prevented from settlement in the site affected by the local pressure. By including seascape connectivity in the Swedish MSP‐guiding CIA tool Symphony we demonstrate how to practically account for remote effects of local environmental impact. Our example on blue mussel shows how reducing mussel fitness in a given area may have impacts on mussels far from the acting pressures. Overall, results indicate that connectivity impact for blue mussels plays a minor role in most areas, <10% of the ordinary cumulative impact. However, in some smaller areas, e.g. on offshore banks and the Danish Straits, seascape connectivity may increase ordinary cumulative impact with 20%–30%. In an example of scenario‐based CIA analyses of MSP projections, we demonstrate how impacts of particular management actions, e.g. shipping rerouting and wind power developments, can be tracked far from the original area of influence. Depending on the dispersal ability of ecosystem components, a local pressure may impact a considerable area through seascape connectivity, transgressing management units and national borders. Although the mean connectivity impact may be modest for a single ecosystem component, the consideration of seascape connectivity across multiple ecosystem components may significantly alter the mapping of cumulative impact and the assessment of different MSP scenarios. Synthesis and applications. Our extension of Cumulative Impact Assessment offers a new method for mapping and practically integrating seascape connectivity with ecosystem‐based MSP and other spatial instruments for policy making, such as marine protected areas.

show abstract

Groundtruthing cumulative impact assessments with biodiversity data: Testing indicators and methods for marine ecosystem condition assessments in South Africa

Smit,

Sink,

Shannon

et al. 2024

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accurate assessments of ecosystem condition are needed to inform management processes such as systematic conservation planning and protected area expansion, marine spatial planning and other effective area‐based conservation measures. Yet measuring the condition of dynamic and often largely inaccessible marine ecosystems is extremely difficult and presents a global challenge. Broad‐scale cumulative impact assessments have been used in South Africa as a proxy for marine ecosystem condition in national assessments and reporting because the data are more readily available, and knowledge exists on the impacts of various human activities (or pressures) on marine ecosystems. While useful for national reporting, assessments based on in situ ecological data are also needed at finer scales relevant to management. Applying the HELCOM BEAT approach, this study used in situ ecological data to identify potential methods and indicators that can be applied in South Africa to conduct integrated ecosystem assessments and to assess the suitability of current cumulative impact assessments as a proxy for condition. Aggregated fish indicators demonstrated greater sensitivity to varying human pressures compared with benthic community indicators, with responsiveness differing by location. Notably, site‐level differences in empirical condition emerged that broad‐scale cumulative assessments often missed. The study thus highlighted the varying suitability of cumulative impact scores as proxies for condition, indicating their reliability for fish communities. However, this is also dependent on the pressure types included, the biotic indicators used and the area of focus. Conservation decisions based solely on cumulative impact scores could misrepresent the actual condition of the environment, which makes it difficult to make management decisions, especially at finer scales. As such, conservation initiatives need to be regionally adapted to effectively address the unique pressures and conditions of each area and should be tailored to account for fine‐scale variability, instead of adopting a one‐size‐fits‐all approach.

show abstract

Cumulative impact assessment for ecosystem-based marine spatial planning

Cited by 58 publications

References 23 publications

A blueprint for securing Brazil's marine biodiversity and supporting the achievement of global conservation goals

A blueprint for securing Brazil's marine biodiversity and supporting the achievement of global conservation goals

Combining seascape connectivity with cumulative impact assessment in support of ecosystem‐based marine spatial planning

Groundtruthing cumulative impact assessments with biodiversity data: Testing indicators and methods for marine ecosystem condition assessments in South Africa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About