Display options
Share it on

Sci Total Environ. 2018 Jan 15;612:1132-1140. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.289. Epub 2017 Sep 08.

A risk-based approach to cumulative effect assessments for marine management.

The Science of the total environment

Vanessa Stelzenmüller, Marta Coll, Antonios D Mazaris, Sylvaine Giakoumi, Stelios Katsanevakis, Michelle E Portman, Renate Degen, Peter Mackelworth, Antje Gimpel, Paolo G Albano, Vasiliki Almpanidou, Joachim Claudet, Franz Essl, Thanasis Evagelopoulos, Johanna J Heymans, Tilen Genov, Salit Kark, Fiorenza Micheli, Maria Grazia Pennino, Gil Rilov, Bob Rumes, Jeroen Steenbeek, Henn Ojaveer

Affiliations

  1. Thünen Institute of Sea Fisheries, Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: [email protected].
  2. Institute of Marine Science (ICM-CSIC), Passeig Marítim de la Barceloneta, n° 37-49, 08003 Barcelona, Spain.
  3. Department of Ecology, School of Biology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.
  4. Université Côte d'Azur, CNRS, FRE 3729 ECOMERS, Parc Valrose 28, Avenue Valrose, 06108 Nice, France; ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
  5. University of the Aegean, Department of Marine Sciences, Mytilene, Greece.
  6. Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.
  7. Department of Limnology and Bio-Oceanography, University of Vienna, Althanstrasse 14, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
  8. Blue World Institute of Marine Research and Conservation, Croatia.
  9. Thünen Institute of Sea Fisheries, Hamburg, Germany.
  10. Department of Palaeontology, University of Vienna, Althanstrasse 14, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
  11. National Center for Scientific Research, PSL Research University, CRIOBE, USR 3278 CNRS-EPHE-UPVD, Perpignan, France; Laboratoire d'Excellence CORAIL, France.
  12. Division of Conservation Biology, Vegetation and Landscape Ecology, University of Vienna, Rennweg 14, 1030 Vienna, Austria.
  13. SAMS, Scottish Marine Institute, Oban, Argyll PA371QA, UK.
  14. Department of Biodiversity, Faculty of Mathematics, Natural Sciences and Information Technologies, University of Primorska, Slovenia.
  15. ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; NESP Threatened Species Hub, Centre for Biodiversity & Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia.
  16. Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford University, USA.
  17. Instituto Español de Oceanografía, Centro Oceanográfico de Murcia, C/Varadero 1, San Pedro del Pinatar, 30740 Murcia, Spain.
  18. National Institute of Oceanography, Israel Oceanographic and Limnological Research (IOLR), PO Box 8030, Haifa 31080, Israel.
  19. Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences (RBINS), Operational Directorate Natural Environment (OD Nature), Marine Ecology and Management (MARECO), Gulledelle 100, 1200 Brussels, Belgium.
  20. Ecopath International Initiative (EII), Barcelona, Spain.
  21. University of Tartu, Estonian Marine Institute, Tartu, Estonia.

PMID: 28892857 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.289

Abstract

Marine ecosystems are increasingly threatened by the cumulative effects of multiple human pressures. Cumulative effect assessments (CEAs) are needed to inform environmental policy and guide ecosystem-based management. Yet, CEAs are inherently complex and seldom linked to real-world management processes. Therefore we propose entrenching CEAs in a risk management process, comprising the steps of risk identification, risk analysis and risk evaluation. We provide guidance to operationalize a risk-based approach to CEAs by describing for each step guiding principles and desired outcomes, scientific challenges and practical solutions. We reviewed the treatment of uncertainty in CEAs and the contribution of different tools and data sources to the implementation of a risk based approach to CEAs. We show that a risk-based approach to CEAs decreases complexity, allows for the transparent treatment of uncertainty and streamlines the uptake of scientific outcomes into the science-policy interface. Hence, its adoption can help bridging the gap between science and decision-making in ecosystem-based management.

Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Risk management process; Science-policy interface; Standardized framework; Terminology; Tools; Uncertainty

Publication Types