Using existing scientific capacity to set targets for ecosystem-based management: A Puget Sound case study

Samhouri, Jameal F.; Levin, Phillip S.; James, Christopher; Kershner, Jessi; Williams, Greg D.

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.12.002

Cited by 44 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 80 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a result, solutions to cumulative problems are often deemed unpalatable, their ownership is dismissed as someone else's remit (Therivel and Ross 2007), and economic interests easily outweigh environmental interests (e.g., Adelle and Weiland 2012). A variety of methods exist for setting indicator targets relative to reference levels or other baselines, nonlinear stressor-response relationships, and social norms 38 (e.g., Samhouri et al 2011); but there are also a variety of challenges, as Samhouri et al (2011) described with reference to marine-ecosystem targets for Puget Sound. For example, it is difficult to calibrate present ecosystem form or function to a historic or spatial reference condition in which human impacts were absent.…”

Section: Table 2 (Concluded)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The outcome of this subjectivity is that VECs are often included only if significantly impacted by the undertaking(s) being appraised, so environmental components that are incrementally affected in a minor way are excluded, and deaths by a thousand cuts can continue unabated (Bérubé 2007). Social norms define what is generally excepted within a given cultural setting, and can be quantified statistically from survey data (Samhouri et al 2011). more, the appropriate spatial and temporal scale for a given CEA depends on the subject of the CEA appraisal, and on selected VECs and indicators, among other factors; however, chosen surrogate indicators may not be predictable enough to be used in CEA scenario models, and ecological indicators that can be modeled with suitable precision may not be relevant to local VECs. Objective thresholds for the significance of effects are elusive given ambiguity of the term threshold, and the fuzziness of sustainability goals (McCold and Saulsbury 1996;Bérubé 2007;Ball et al 2013).…”

Section: Table 2 (Concluded)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It would also greatly simplify evaluations of CEA performance. Furthermore, beneficial spin-offs outside of CEA would accrue, because targets remove ambiguity from well-intended but vague policy statements, which facilitates strategic planning and provides antecedents for complementary laws and regulations (Samhouri et al 2011). …”

Section: Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cumulative effects assessment: theoretical underpinnings and big problems

Jones

2016

Environ. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cumulative effects assessment (CEA) is a sub-discipline of environmental impact assessment that is concerned with appraising the collective effects of human activities and natural processes on the environment. Aspirations for CEA have been expressed by many authors since 1969, when the foundation of environmental appraisal was laid by the US National Environmental Policy Act. This paper's purposes are (i) to review aspirations for CEA, relative to current practice; and (ii) to fully explain and critique the logic that connects CEA's operational steps and underlying philosophies. A literature review supports the following statements: Some conceptualizations emphasize the delivery of information to support decision making as the key purpose of CEA; others deem collaboration, debate, and learning as most important. Consensus on CEA's operational steps has been reached, but each step requires practitioners to make analytical decisions (e.g., about the scope of issues to include or the time horizon to consider) and objective rules for how to approach those decisions are lacking. Numerical methods for assessing cumulative effects are largely available, meaning that CEA's biggest problems are not scientific. CEA cannot succeed without substantive public engagement, monitoring, and adaptive management. CEA is best undertaken regionally, rather than project-byproject. CEA and planning are complementary, and should be merged. In its most enlightened form, CEA is a useful tool for ensuring that human undertakings ultimately conform to Earth's finite biosphere, but current practice falls short of the ideal, and CEA's logical derivation is not entirely sound. As regards CEA's big problems, sustainability has not been defined clearly enough to make criteria for judging the significance of cumulative effects indisputable; legal, regulatory, and institutional frameworks are poorly aligned for CEA; and objective criteria for judging the adequacy of CEA's scope, scale, and thresholds do not exist, which makes the question of how to provide general guidance to practitioners intractable. Recommendations call for sustainability goals to be clearly expressed as measurable targets. Furthermore, precaution in human enterprise should be exercised by avoiding, minimizing, restoring, and offsetting negative cumulative effects. CEA can assist by quantifying and optimizing trade-offs.Key words: environmental impact assessment, planning, environmental management, sustainability, conceptual model, precautionary principle.Résumé : L'évaluation des effets cumulatifs (EEC) est une sous-discipline de l'évaluation de l'impact sur l'environnement qui porte sur l'évaluation des effets collectifs des activités humaines et des processus naturels sur l'environnement. De nombreux auteurs ont exprimé leurs aspirations quant à l'EEC depuis 1969, le moment où les fondements de l'évaluation environnementale ont été jetés par le « National Environmental Policy Act » aux États-Unis. Les buts de cette étude sont (i) d'examiner les aspirations quant à...

show abstract

Section: Table 2 (Concluded)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Table 2 (Concluded)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cumulative effects assessment: theoretical underpinnings and big problems

Jones

2016

Environ. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thresholds are derived from pressure-response relationships and are akin to LD 50 in toxicology studies where at some point along a pressure gradient (chemical or otherwise) organisms experience a median negative impact (Samhouri et al, 2010). Ecosystem thresholds can help to develop non-arbitrary targets and guide management actions that avoid unwanted shifts in ecosystem state (Samhouri et al, 2011;Foley et al, 2015). Already, there are a number of international efforts that aim to conduct EBM in shared marine spatial domains including the European Union Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Palialexis et al, 2014;Bigagli, 2015;Tam et al, in press) and the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Living Marine Resources (Constable et al, 2000;Constable, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Apples to Oranges: Common Trends and Thresholds in Anthropogenic and Environmental Pressures across Multiple Marine Ecosystems

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ecosystem-based management (EBM) in marine ecosystems considers impacts caused by complex interactions between environmental and anthropogenic pressures (i.e., oceanographic, climatic, socio-economic) and marine communities. EBM depends, in part, on ecological indicators that facilitate understanding of inherent properties and the dynamics of pressures within marine communities. Thresholds of ecological indicators delineate ecosystem status because they represent points at which a small increase in one or many pressure variables results in an abrupt change of ecosystem responses. The difficulty in developing appropriate thresholds and reference points for EBM lies in the multidimensionality of both the ecosystem responses and the pressures impacting the ecosystem. Here, we develop thresholds using gradient forest for a suite of ecological indicators in response to multiple pressures that convey ecosystem status for large marine ecosystems from the US Pacific, Atlantic, sub-Arctic, and Gulf of Mexico. We detected these thresholds of ecological indicators based on multiple pressures. Commercial fisheries landings above approximately 2-4.5 t km −2 and fisheries exploitation above 20-40% of the total estimated biomass (of invertebrates and fish) of the ecosystem resulted in a change in the direction of ecosystem structure and functioning in the ecosystems examined. Our comparative findings reveal common trends in ecosystem thresholds along pressure gradients and also indicate that thresholds of ecological indicators are useful tools for comparing the impacts of environmental and anthropogenic pressures across multiple ecosystems. These critical points can be used to inform the development of EBM decision criteria.

show abstract

“…Threshold responses to anthropogenic stressors are thus good bases for environmental decision-making because they provide opportunities for managers to set non-arbitrary targets and to maximize ecosystem return on management investment [5][6][7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Embracing thresholds for better environmental management

Kelly

Erickson

Mease

et al. 2015

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three decades of study have revealed dozens of examples in which natural systems have crossed biophysical thresholds (‘tipping points’)—nonlinear changes in ecosystem structure and function—as a result of human-induced stressors, dramatically altering ecosystem function and services. Environmental management that avoids such thresholds could prevent severe social, economic and environmental impacts. Here, we review management measures implemented in ecological systems that have thresholds. Using Ostrom's social–ecological systems framework, we analysed key biophysical and institutional factors associated with 51 social–ecological systems and associated management regimes, and related these to management success defined by ecological outcomes. We categorized cases as instances of prospective or retrospective management, based upon whether management aimed to avoid a threshold or to restore systems that have crossed a threshold. We find that smaller systems are more amenable to threshold-based management, that routine monitoring is associated with successful avoidance of thresholds and recovery after thresholds have been crossed, and that success is associated with the explicit threshold-based management. These findings are powerful evidence for the policy relevance of information on ecological thresholds across a wide range of ecosystems.

show abstract

Using existing scientific capacity to set targets for ecosystem-based management: A Puget Sound case study

Cited by 44 publications

References 80 publications

Cumulative effects assessment: theoretical underpinnings and big problems

Cumulative effects assessment: theoretical underpinnings and big problems

Comparing Apples to Oranges: Common Trends and Thresholds in Anthropogenic and Environmental Pressures across Multiple Marine Ecosystems

Embracing thresholds for better environmental management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About