Measuring Management Success for Protected Species: Looking beyond Biological Outcomes

Bisack, Kathryn D.; Magnusson, Gisele M.

doi:10.3389/fmars.2016.00061

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While those early critiques may have contributed to encouraging many countries to standardize mapping and decision-making processes (Guarinello et al, 2010;e.g., Buhl-Mortensen et al, 2015), judgment calls are still being made (Lengyel et al, 2008;Levin et al, 2014); the inconsistency in the use of different methods is still considered a challenge for decision-making and the development of robust conservation and management measures (Crossman et al, 2012;Gjerde et al, 2016). The most important outcome of standardization is arguably the comparability of the resulting maps (Howell, 2010;Davies et al, 2015) which enables, for instance, the systematic identification of priority conservation targets based on common criteria (Laffoley and Hiscock, 1993;Edgar et al, 2008), comparisons across geographic areas , and multi-temporal assessments as verification process to ensure that conservation objectives are reached (Bisack and Magnusson, 2016;Wells et al, 2016).…”

Section: Supervised/unsupervised Examplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To better understand how we can achieve such complex integration of variables, more research and data are needed (Broderick, 2015;Buhl-Mortensen et al, 2015;Hilário et al, 2015), in addition to cross-disciplinary collaborations that will improve the quantity and quality of information available for decision-making (Lent, 2015;Bisack and Magnusson, 2016). A promising endeavor in that vein is the Ecological Marine Units (EMUs) project (Sayre et al, 2017), which offers a baseline three-dimensional global map of marine ecosystems.…”

Section: Data Selection and Fitness For Usementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

On the Use of Maps and Models in Conservation and Resource Management (Warning: Results May Vary)

Lecours

2017

Front. Mar. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation planning and management typically require accurate and spatially explicit data at scales that are relevant for conservation objectives. In marine conservation, these data are often combined with spatial analytical techniques to produce marine habitat maps. While marine habitat mapping is increasingly used to inform conservation efforts, this field is still relatively young and its methods are rapidly evolving. Because conservation efforts do not always specify standards or guidelines for the production of habitat maps, results can vary dramatically. As representations of real environmental characteristics, habitat maps are highly sensitive to how they are produced. In this review paper, I present four concepts that are known to cause variation in spatial representation and prediction of habitats: the methodology used, the quality and scale of the data, and the choice of variables in regards to fitness for use. I then discuss the potential antinomy associated with the use of habitat maps in conservation: while habitat maps have become an invaluable tool to inform and assist decision-making, maps of the same area built using different methods and data may provide dissimilar representations, thus providing different information and possibly leading to different decisions. Exploring the theories and methods that have proved effective in terrestrial conservation and the spatial sciences, and how they can be integrated in marine habitat mapping practices, could help improve maps used to support marine conservation efforts and result in more reliable products to inform conservation decisions. Having a strong, consistent, transparent, repeatable, and science-based protocol for data collection and mapping is essential for effectively supporting decision-makers in developing conservation and management plans. The development of user-friendly tools to assist in the application of such protocol is crucial to a widespread improvement in practices. I discuss the potential to use interactive and collaborative Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to encourage the conservation and management community, from data collectors and mapmakers to decision-makers, to move toward a digital resilience and to develop such science-based protocol. Until standards and protocols are developed, habitat maps should always be interpreted with care, and the methods and metadata associated with their production should always be explicitly stated.

show abstract

Section: Supervised/unsupervised Examplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Data Selection and Fitness For Usementioning

confidence: 99%

On the Use of Maps and Models in Conservation and Resource Management (Warning: Results May Vary)

Lecours

2017

Front. Mar. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bycatch of marine megafauna is also defined by their social, economic, and political contexts Bisack and Magnusson, 2016). Integrating the economic factors and dimensions of bycatch into ecology-focused studies illustrates one key example of supporting complexity-awareness, moving bycatch from a one-dimensional (ecological) to a two-dimensional domain (ecological-economic).…”

Section: Beyond Bycatch Ecology: Integrating Economics In Support Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

Embracing Complexity and Complexity-Awareness in Marine Megafauna Conservation and Research

Lewison¹,

Johnson²,

Verutes³

2018

Front. Mar. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation of marine megafauna is nested within an intricate tapestry of multiple ocean resource uses which are, in turn, embedded in a dynamic and complex ecological ocean system that varies and shifts across a wide range of spatial and temporal scales. Marine megafauna conservation is often further complicated by contemporaneous, and sometimes competing, social, economic, and ecological factors and related management objectives. Advances in emerging technologies and applications, such as remotely-sensed oceanographic data, animal-based telemetry, novel computational analyses, innovations in structured decision making, and stakeholder engagement and policy are supporting complex systems and complexity-aware approaches to megafauna conservation and research. Here we discuss several applications that focus on megafauna fisheries bycatch and exemplify how complex systems and complexity-aware approaches that inherently acknowledge and account for the complexity of ocean systems can advance megafauna conservation and research. Emerging technologies, applications and approaches that embrace, rather than ignore, complexity can drive innovation and success in megafauna conservation and research.

show abstract

“…Faced with these challenges, shery managers often apply mitigation measures that either reduce the number of traps and vertical lines, or set guidelines on opening and closing a shery to minimize spatiotemporal overlap between peak periods of protected species occurrence in shing grounds and shing activities [15][16][17][18][19][20][21] . However, development and enactment of risk mitigation of protected species often does not include a risk assessment to assess the economic viability of the shery facing enhanced mitigation 22 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revenue loss due to whale entanglement mitigation and fishery closures

Seary

Santora

Tommasi

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whale entanglements with fishing gear, exacerbated by changing environmental conditions, pose significant risk to whale populations. Management tools used to reduce entanglement risk, for example temporary area restrictions on fishing, can have negative economic consequences for fishing communities. Balancing whale protection with sustaining productive fisheries is therefore a challenge experienced worldwide. In the California Current Ecosystem, ecosystem indicators have been used to understand the environmental dynamics that lead to increased whale entanglement risk in a lucrative crab fishery. However, an assessment of socio-economic risk for this fishery, as in many other regions, is missing. We estimate retrospectively the losses from ex-vessel revenue experienced by commercial Dungeness crab fishers in California during two seasons subject to whale entanglement mitigation measures. In the 2020 fishing season, our results suggest total revenues would have been $14.4 million higher in the Central Management Area of California in the absence of closures and other disturbances. In the 2019 fishing season, our results suggest ex-vessel revenues would have been $9.4 million higher in the Central Management Area and $0.3 million higher in the Northern Management Area. Our evaluation should motivate the development of strategies which maximize whale protection whilst promoting productive, sustainable and economically-viable fisheries.

show abstract

Measuring Management Success for Protected Species: Looking beyond Biological Outcomes

Cited by 8 publications

References 15 publications

On the Use of Maps and Models in Conservation and Resource Management (Warning: Results May Vary)

On the Use of Maps and Models in Conservation and Resource Management (Warning: Results May Vary)

Embracing Complexity and Complexity-Awareness in Marine Megafauna Conservation and Research

Revenue loss due to whale entanglement mitigation and fishery closures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About