Ecosystem service tradeoff analysis reveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses

Abstract

Marine spatial planning (MSP) is an emerging responsibility of resource managers around the United States and elsewhere. A key proposed advantage of MSP is that it makes tradeoffs in resource use and sector (stakeholder group) values explicit, but doing so requires tools to assess tradeoffs. We extended tradeoff analyses from economics to simultaneously assess multiple ecosystem services and the values they provide to sectors using a robust, quantitative, and transparent framework. We used the framework to assess potential conflicts among offshore wind energy, commercial fishing, and whalewatching sectors in Massachusetts and identify and quantify the value from choosing optimal wind farm designs that minimize conflicts among these sectors. Most notably, we show that using MSP over conventional planning could prevent >$1 million dollars in losses to the incumbent fishery and whale-watching sectors and could generate >$10 billion in extra value to the energy sector. The value of MSP increased with the greater the number of sectors considered and the larger the area under management. Importantly, the framework can be applied even when sectors are not measured in dollars (e.g., conservation). Making tradeoffs explicit improves transparency in decision-making, helps avoid unnecessary conflicts attributable to perceived but weak tradeoffs, and focuses debate on finding the most efficient solutions to mitigate real tradeoffs and maximize sector values. Our analysis demonstrates the utility, feasibility, and value of MSP and provides timely support for the management transitions needed for society to address the challenges of an increasingly crowded ocean environment.ecosystem-based management | efficiency frontier | multisector planning | bioeconomic model | renewable energy Coastal waters around the world are experiencing increasing demand for their diverse human benefits, or ecosystem services. Demand comes from existing sectors, such as fishing and transportation, that seek to expand their activities and emerging sectors, such as renewable energy and offshore aquaculture. The need to coordinate these human uses to reduce impacts across sectors is prompting calls for ecosystem-based coastal and marine spatial planning (MSP) (1). In the United States, Executive Order 13547 mandates this approach to marine resource management, and many US states and other countries have recently passed legislation emphasizing MSP (e.g., ref. 2).Despite mounting interest in MSP, it has been difficult to implement for at least two reasons (3). First, user groups are wary of negative effects of regulatory changes to the status quo, and they legitimately ask for evidence that MSP will generate improvements. Evidence of benefits could include increased management efficiency, greater stakeholder involvement, and outcomes that better achieve management goals. Here, we illustrate how singleand multisector management decisions affect sector values and how MSP (i.e., coordinated multisectoral planning for reducing sector conflicts and increasin...

The feasibility of offshore aquaculture and its potential for multi-use in the North Sea

“…Marine spatial planning (MSP) is a key tool to balance sector interests and achieve sustainable use of marine resources in line with the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (EC 2008;Maes et al 2012). The aim of MSP is to make the trade-offs in marine resource use and sector values explicit (White et al 2012). Such approaches have not yet been applied to planning of mussel culture and multi-use development in the North Sea.…”

The tradeoff and synergy between ecosystem services in the Grain-for-Green areas in Northern Shaanxi, China

“…For example, the purposeful removal of vegetation for cultivation increases soil erosion and overgrazing by animal husbandry causes land cover and soil degradation. Finding out how ESs interactions change as land use and management changes may help avoid unnecessary losses by focusing on finding the most efficient solutions to mitigate the tradeoffs or to enhance synergism and maximize the desirable values (White et al, 2012). Identifying the tradeoffs and synergies among ESS is likely to improve ecosystem-based management practices and strengthen the decision-making processes to achieve specific objectives (Carreno et al, 2012).…”

“…The preservation of ecosystems services has proven to have positive effects on habitats and species conservation status on a European scale with statistical models playing an important role in Maes et al's (2012) study. By extending spatially explicit tradeoff analyses from economic value based on marine spatial planning, White et al (2012) developed a policy window method to indicate sector value flows and prevalent spatial conflicts over marine ESs. For quantitatively accessing the consequences of different forest management options in terms of benefits and tradeoffs among multiple objectives, an ecosystem functional framework is now available (Bradford and D'Amato, 2012).…”

Does landscape-scale conservation management enhance the provision of ecosystem services?

“…Although a number of recent reviews have highlighted the need for landscape-scale analyses of ecosystem services, to understand spatial variability in their production and flow (Anton et al 2010;de Groot et al 2010;Balmford et al 2011), the spatial analysis of ecosystem services is still at a relatively early stage (Martinez-Harmsincreased rigour in methodologies (Crossman, Bryan, et al 2013). Examples of recent studies include analyses of the impacts of land-use change on ecosystem services at national (Eigenbrod et al 2009), regional (Grêt-Regamey et al 2008Li et al 2010;Liu et al 2010;Swetnam et al 2010) and catchment (Martinez et al 2009) scales, as well as investigations designed to support spatial planning and management decisions both in terrestrial (Egoh et al 2008;Petz & van Oudenhoven 2012) and marine environments (White et al 2012). However, few previous studies have explicitly considered the potential impact of landscapescale approaches to biodiversity conservation on the provision of ecosystem services.…”