Near-term priorities for the science, policy and practice of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP)

Halpern, Benjamin S.; Diamond, Jordan; Gaines, Steve; Gelcich, Stefan; Gleason, Mary; Jennings, Simon; Lester, Sarah E.; Mace, Amber J.; McCook, Laurence; McLeod, Karen L.; Napoli, Nicholas; Rawson, Kit; Rice, Jake; Rosenberg, Andrew A.; Ruckelshaus, Mary; Saier, Bettina; Sandifer, Paul A.; Scholz, Astrid; Zivian, Anna

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2011.05.004

Cited by 127 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The spatially explicit tradeoff analysis we conducted for Massachusetts Bay demonstrates the viability and value of strategic ecosystembased MSP for informing and rationalizing the often entrenched debates around spatial allocation of marine resources, focusing them on objective conflicts and identifying efficient solutions for improving management outcomes. Such a demonstration of the value-added from MSP over sectoral management has been highlighted as one of the most pressing needs for helping move MSP forward in the United States and elsewhere (11). Inertia is a strong force, and when the costs of non-MSP outcomes are undefined, it is easy for decision-makers to succumb to the notion that MSP planning is too difficult or unnecessary.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

White

Halpern

Kappel

2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

360

234

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

White

Halpern

Kappel

2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

360

234

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…ecological modeling | reserve network design | spatial ecology S patially explicit fisheries management has garnered considerable attention in recent years, and this trend is likely to increase as more focus is placed on marine spatial planning (1,2). Some forms of spatial management simply prohibit fishing in certain locations, using tools such as no-take marine protected areas (MPAs).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Marine protected areas and the value of spatially optimized fishery management

Rassweiler

Costello²,

Siegel³

2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

126

120

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a growing focus around the world on marine spatial planning, including spatial fisheries management. Some spatial management approaches are quite blunt, as when marine protected areas (MPAs) are established to restrict fishing in specific locations. Other management tools, such as zoning or spatial user rights, will affect the distribution of fishing effort in a more nuanced manner. Considerable research has focused on the ability of MPAs to increase fishery returns, but the potential for the broader class of spatial management approaches to outperform MPAs has received far less attention. We use bioeconomic models of seven nearshore fisheries in Southern California to explore the value of optimized spatial management in which the distribution of fishing is chosen to maximize profits. We show that fully optimized spatial management can substantially increase fishery profits relative to optimal nonspatial management but that the magnitude of this increase depends on characteristics of the fishing fleet and target species. Strategically placed MPAs can also increase profits substantially compared with nonspatial management, particularly if fishing costs are low, although profit increases available through optimal MPA-based management are roughly half those from fully optimized spatial management. However, if the same total area is protected by randomly placing MPAs, starkly contrasting results emerge: most random MPA designs reduce expected profits. The high value of spatial management estimated here supports continued interest in spatially explicit fisheries regulations but emphasizes that predicted increases in profits can only be achieved if the fishery is well understood and the regulations are strategically designed.ecological modeling | reserve network design | spatial ecology S patially explicit fisheries management has garnered considerable attention in recent years, and this trend is likely to increase as more focus is placed on marine spatial planning (1, 2). Some forms of spatial management simply prohibit fishing in certain locations, using tools such as no-take marine protected areas (MPAs). In other cases, regulations may have a more nuanced effect on the spatial pattern of fishing. Examples of these more flexible approaches include spatial zoning of fleet access (3), spatially localized gear restrictions (4, 5), and spatially explicit catch quotas (6). In addition to regulation-based approaches, spatial user rights can also affect the distribution of fishing effort (7). These varied tools have all been suggested to improve fisheries outcomes by changing the spatial pattern of harvesting. Such spatial management can take advantage of heterogeneity in the seascape by protecting populations that are key sources of larvae (8) or by tuning harvest regulations in response to local life-history parameters (9).Spatial management is not without its challenges. Spatial approaches often require or at least benefit from spatially explicit data about the environment, biology, and fishery (e.g., ref. 10)...

show abstract

“…Although the responsibility for MSP lies at the national level and addresses maritime activities in a nation's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), a transnational, subregional, and even a regional sea perspective is called for when maritime activities and/or their effects cross national borders (Gee et al 2011). This creates considerable challenges for the planning process and stakeholder consultation (e.g., Argardy et al 2011, Maritime Spatial Planning in the North Sea 2012, Halpern et al 2012, Jentoft and Knol 2014. However, it also provides challenges for assessing effects on the marine environment given the requirement under the MSFD to achieve GES at subregional and http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol20/iss1/art64/ regional sea scales (Articles 3[2] and 3 [9]).…”

Section: The Policy Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marine spatial planning and Good Environmental Status: a perspective on spatial and temporal dimensions

Gilbert¹,

Alexander²,

Sardá³

et al. 2015

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The European Union Marine Strategy Framework Directive requires the Good Environmental Status of marine environments in Europe's regional seas; yet, maritime activities, including sources of marine degradation, are diversifying and intensifying in an increasingly globalized world. Marine spatial planning is emerging as a tool for rationalizing competing uses of the marine environment while guarding its quality. A directive guiding the development of such plans by European Union member states is currently being formulated. There is an undeniable need for marine spatial planning. However, we argue that considerable care must be taken with marine spatial planning, as the spatial and temporal scales of maritime activities and of Good Environmental Status may be mismatched. We identify four principles for careful and explicit consideration to align the requirements of the two directives and enable marine spatial planning to support the achievement of Good Environmental Status in Europe's regional seas.Key Words: DPSWR; Good Environmental Status; marine spatial planning; maritime spatial planning; spatial scale temporal scale THE POLICY CONTEXT Global and regional assessments confirm that the capacity of our ocean ecosystems to continue to deliver ecosystem services that underpin human well-being is declining because of human activities (e. The EU is drafting a directive on MSP specifically to give cross-border cooperation a firm legal footing (European Commission 2013). Although the responsibility for MSP lies at the national level and addresses maritime activities in a nation's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), a transnational, subregional, and even a regional sea perspective is called for when maritime activities and/or their effects cross national borders (Gee et al. 2011). This creates considerable challenges for the planning process and stakeholder consultation (e.g., Argardy et al. 2011, Maritime Spatial Planning in the North Sea 2012, Halpern et al. 2012, Jentoft and Knol 2014. However, it also provides challenges for assessing effects on the marine environment given the requirement under the MSFD to achieve GES at subregional and 9]). We address effects on the marine environment by examining the spatial and temporal dimensions of both GES and MSP.We examine the role of MSP in an ecosystem approach and MSP's potential contributions to achieving GES. We aim to assess whether mismatches of spatial and temporal scales between MSP and marine ecosystems might constrain this role and these contributions. The methodology is based on the Driver Pressure State Welfare Response (DPSWR) framework (Cooper 2013). Findings are illustrated by two case studies representing aspects of traditional and emerging sea use. We use DPSWR to provide a context for MSP in an ecosystem approach to achieve GES. We then compare the spatial and temporal scales of MSP and GES. We identify a number of principles that require explicit consideration by MSP. These principles address the specific focus of our work; namely, the spatial an...

show abstract

Near-term priorities for the science, policy and practice of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP)

Cited by 127 publications

References 23 publications

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

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

Marine protected areas and the value of spatially optimized fishery management

Marine spatial planning and Good Environmental Status: a perspective on spatial and temporal dimensions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About