This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Provided for non-commercial research and educational use only. Not for reproduction, distribution or commercial use.
This article was originally published in the Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, second edition, the copy attached is provided by Elsevier for the author’s benefit and for the benefit of the author’s institution, for non-commercial research
and educational use. This includes without limitation use in instruction at your institution, distribution to specific colleagues, and providing a copy to your institution’s administrator.
All other uses, reproduction and distribution, including without limitation commercial reprints, selling or licensing copies or access, or posting on open internet sites, your personal or institution’s website or repository, are prohibited.
For exceptions, permission may be sought for such use through Elsevier’s permissions site at:
Guerry Anne D., Ruckelshaus Mary H., Plummer Mark L., and Holland Dan (2013) Modeling Marine Ecosystem Services. In: Levin S.A. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, second edition, Volume 5, pp. 329-346. Waltham, MA:
Modeling Marine Ecosystem ServicesAnne D Guerry and Mary H Ruckelshaus, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USAMark L Plummer and Dan Holland, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Seattle, WA, USA
r 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
GlossaryEcosystem services Wide array of benefits that ecosystems
and their biodiversity confer on humanity.
Marine Broadly defined to include coastal (on land,
within a narrow fringe adjacent to saltwater), intertidal,
nearshore, and open ocean.
Production function approach An approach that models
ecosystem services as the relationship between ecological
cyclopedia of Biodiversity, Volume 5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-3847
and human inputs (e.g., the structure and functions of an
ecological system, human labor and capital) and outputs
valued by humans.
Valuation Act of estimating or setting the value of
something,
Value Relative worth, merit, or importance. Can be
measured in various ways, including but not limited to
monetary metrics.
Introduction to Marine Ecosystem Services two that inhibit the division of cancer cells grown in the la-
Humans have always benefited from marine ecosystems,
enjoying resources such as seafood and opportunities for ac-
tivities like recreation and marine transportation. These eco-
systems also provide indirect benefits by sequestering carbon
and playing key roles in the regulatory processes of other
global cycles. Benefits derived from these systems are broadly
characterized as the ecosystem services provided by marine
ecosystems. As identified by the Millennium Ecosystem As-
sessment (MA) (2005b), marine ecosystem services span four
major categories: provisioning, regulating, cultural, and sup-
porting services (Table 1). Broad assessments of marine and
coastal ecosystems services based on the MA can be found in
Agardy et al. (2005) and the United Nations Environment
Program (2006), as well as other synthesis documents (e.g.,
Peterson and Lubchenco, 1997). Costanza (2000), Patterson
and Glavovic (2008), and Wilson and Liu (2008) also provide
useful overviews of these services, as do descriptions of the
particular services provided by fish populations (e.g., Holm-
lund and Hammer, 1999), coral reef ecosystems (e.g., Moberg
and Folke, 1999) and mangroves (e.g., Ronnback, 1999).
Among the four types of marine ecosystem services, pro-
visioning services such as food from capture fisheries, aqua-
culture, and wild foods are the most obvious and easily
valued. About 80 million tons of fish were landed in marine
capture fisheries worldwide in 2009, and fish account for ap-
proximately 16% of the annual animal protein consumption
by humans (FAO Fisheries Department, 2010). Globally, more
than 1.5 billion people rely on fish for almost 20% of their
animal protein. On average, each person living in 2009 ate
17.2 kg of fish (including fish from aquaculture; the pro-
portion from capture fisheries alone is difficult to calculate
given nonfood uses of wild fish) (FAO Fisheries Department,
2010). Other provisioning services include timber and fiber
from mangroves and seagrass beds, and biochemicals for
cosmetics and food additives. The potential also exists for
developing novel natural products from marine species with
medical applications (Carte, 1996). For example, researchers
recently found that three marine species collected from off-
shore oil and gas platforms in California’s Santa Barbara
Channel had potential for biomedical applications, including
boratory (Schmitt et al., 2006). In addition, the ocean may
become an important energy source: biofuels from algae and
power generation from wave and tidal energy have potential
for more widespread use. And finally, the world’s oceans
provide the highways for the global shipping trade.
Marine systems also provide a wide range of regulating
services. As vividly highlighted by the human losses wrought
by the 2005 hurricanes on the US Gulf Coast, coastal and
estuarine wetlands have value for their ability to reduce storm
surge elevations and wave heights (Danielsen et al., 2005;
Travis, 2005). Other regulating services provided by marine
systems include the transformation, detoxification, and se-
questration of wastes (Peterson and Lubchenco, 1997). And
‘‘blue carbon’’ – the role oceans can play as carbon sinks – is a
service that is gaining interest (Nellemann et al., 2009).
Human societies have always been drawn to the oceans,
which have proven to be a rich source of cultural services. In
1995, an estimated 39% of the world’s population lived with
100 km of a coast (Burke et al., 2001). In the US, people love
to live near the ocean; one study predicts average increases of
3600 people a day moving to coastal counties through 2015
(Culliton, 1998). Coastal tourism is a key component of many
economies around the world and is one of the fastest growing
and most profitable sectors of tourism (United Nations
Fiber production Mangrove wood, seagrass fiberBiomass fuel production Mangrove wood, biofuel from algaeMaintenance of aquatic systems Shipping, tidal turbinesGeneration of genetic resources Individual salmon stocks, marine diversity for bioprospectingProduction of biochemicals, natural medicines, and
pharmaceuticalsAntiviral and anticancer drugs from sponges, carrageenans from seaweed
Regulating servicesClimate regulation Major role in global CO2 cycleWater regulation Natural stormwater management by coastal wetlands and floodplainsErosion regulation Nearshore vegetation stabilizes shorelinesWater purification and waste treatment Uptake of nutrients from sewage wastewater, detoxification of PAHs by marine
microbes, sequestration of heavy metalsDisease regulation Natural processes may keep harmful algal blooms and waterborne pathogens in
checkPest regulation Grazing fish help keep algae from overgrowing coral reefsPollination/Assistance of external fertilization Innumerable marine species require seawater to deliver sperm to eggNatural hazard regulation Coastal and estuarine wetlands and coral reefs protect coastlines from storms
Cultural servicesProvision of conditions that support or enhance ethical
values (nonuse)Spiritual fulfillment derived from estuaries, coastlines, and marine waters
Provision of conditions that support or enhanceexistence values (nonuse)
Belief that all species are worth protecting, no matter their direct value tohumans
Provision of recreation and ecotourism opportunities(consumptive and nonconsumptive uses)
Supporting servicesNutrient cycling Major role in carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur cyclesSoil formation Many salt-marsh surfaces vertically accrete; eelgrass slows water and traps
sedimentPrimary production Significant portion of global net primary productivityWater cycling Most of Earth’s water is in oceans; they are central to the global water cycle
Source: Adapted from Guerry A, Plummer M, Ruckelshaus M, and Harvey C (2011) Ecosystem service assessments for marine conservation. In: Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts T, Daily
G, and Polasky S (eds.) Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
330 Modeling Marine Ecosystem Services
Author's personal copy
linked to the rate of evolution and therefore the ability to
adapt to a changing climate (Pergams and Kareiva, 2009).
Since the MA, much work has been done in developing
and applying new methodologies to model, map, and value
ecosystem services (e.g., UNEP and IOC-UNESCO, 2009;
Kareiva et al., 2011; UK National Ecosystem Assessment, 2011).
A great deal of the original MA was focused on terrestrial
systems, but new workFand new political contextsFhave
sparked the expansion of an ecosystem services framework to
marine systems. For example, the UK recently completed a
groundbreaking, countrywide assessment of both terrestrial
and marine ecosystem services and their value (Stokstad, 2011;
UK National Ecosystem Assessment, 2011). Although agri-
cultural production has increased between 1950 and the pre-
sent, landings of fish and shellfish from UK waters have
declined since the 1960s from almost 900,000 t to slightly
more than 500,000 t in 2008 (UK National Ecosystem As-
sessment, 2011). Protection of UK coastlines from storm-
induced flooding and erosion has declined in response to a
10% loss of natural habitats such as dunes, kelps, seagrasses
and marshes over the past 60 years (UK National Ecosystem
Assessment, 2011).
The MA and subsequent assessments have raised awareness
of ecosystem services, the explicit human dependence on
them, and the threatened status of many of them. Bringing
ecosystem services into the active management of terrestrial
and marine ecosystems, however, requires more than just a
catalog of services and their total values. More pragmatic is the
assessment of the ecological and economic consequences of
management activities in particular places. An understanding
of how changes in ecosystems are likely to lead to changes
in ecosystem services can most clearly provide information to
decision makers. Modeling marine ecosystem services can play
an important role in providing such insights.
Foundations
Marine ecosystems provide both great opportunities and
challenges for the application of the framework of ecosystem
Modeling Marine Ecosystem Services 331
Author's personal copy
services. The concept of ecosystem services has a long history
but has seen a relatively recent resurgence of interest from
ecologists, economists, and conservation practitioners. Be-
cause ecosystem services are reviewed elsewhere in this vol-
ume, we focus here on the conceptual frameworks and
methodologies that pertain to marine applications, as well as
the challenges facing these applications.
Why Model Marine Ecosystem Services?
Models are important tools for examining the dynamic na-
tures of and interconnections among the biophysical and
human elements of marine ecosystems. They provide a way of
exploring future scenarios that lie outside the range of past
experiences, as well as possible unexpected consequences of
policy actions. An ecosystem services framework provides
important insights into the challenge of pursuing ecosystem-
based management. Ecosystem services are the currencies
through which the consequences of ecosystem change flow to
people. Using such a framework, ecosystem services and their
values can be used as a set of metrics for assessing alternative
management interventions and their potential impacts on
economic or social well-being.
Models of ecosystems that incorporate both biophysical
and human components can present policy makers with an
enormous set of potential indicators for gauging the changes
brought about by policies. Ecosystem services – the ‘‘ecological
endpoints’’ of the system that are directly connected
to human well-being (Boyd, 2007) – can provide a guide for
winnowing this set down. In the context of ecosystem mod-
eling, such a framework avoids the potential problem of
double counting the value of ‘‘intermediate’’ ecological elem-
ents (e.g., forage fish) that support other ‘‘endpoint’’ elements
with direct value (e.g., fishery harvests) because the value of
the intermediate elements are embedded in the value of the
endpoints (Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007).
Ecosystem models that focus on ecosystem services also
provide the opportunity to overcome problems arising from
traditional management in the marine realm, which generally
proceeds sector by sector, with distinct bodies making isolated
decisions. These single-sector decisions often affect a broad set
of ecosystem services, many of which are outside the scope of
their authority. As a result, there has been little effort to con-
sider the ways in which single decisions impact the full suite of
things people care about and need.
Using an ecosystems services framework can highlight
trade-offs among multiple objectives so that decisions to re-
solve those trade-offs can be made transparently. Increasingly,
scientists and managers are pointing to links between diver-
sity, productivity, and resilience attributes of marine systems
and their response to human interventions in conserving,
harvesting, and regulating marine ecosystem services (Liu
et al., 2007a; Levin and Lubchenco, 2008; Murawski et al.,
2009; Chan and Ruckelshaus, 2010). Our ability to model and
assess trade-offs among objectives of multiple management
sectors (e.g., fisheries, wave or wave energy, recreation) and
ecosystem services (e.g., value of fishery landings, kilowatt
hours of energy generated, revenue from recreational activ-
ities) is needed in order to inform more complex cases
of ecosystem-based management that can accommodate a
broader suite of actors (Foley et al., 2010).
Pioneering efforts to use the framework of ecosystem ser-
vices to understand the connections between activities in one
sector and their impacts on others are underway in the marine
environment. Decision makers at various levels of government
from around the globe, including the Interagency Ocean
Policy Task Force (IOPTF) (2010), the European Commission
(2010), and the recently approved UN Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Ser-
vices (IPBES) have recognized that new approaches are needed
to ensure the sustainability of benefits people derive from
oceans and coasts (UN General Assembly (UNGA), 2010).
Among these parties, there is currently a great deal of em-
phasis on marine (or ‘‘maritime’’) spatial planning. This ap-
proach to comprehensive management of marine and coastal
systems analyzes current and anticipated uses, identifies areas
most suitable for particular activities, and provides a process
to better determine how oceans are used and protected now
and for future generations (Douvere and Ehler, 2009; Ehler
and Douvere, 2009). Ecosystem services provide a framework
and a common language for this type of planning process,
allowing agencies and private interests to articulate their goals
transparently using common terms and to better understand
how their decisions interact with those of other users and
activities.
Connecting Social and Ecological Systems
Several related conceptual frameworks provide the context
within which ecosystem service information is critical to
understanding feedbacks between humans and ecosystem
conditions in marine and other environments. One of the
most important is the notion that humans are an integral part
of ecosystems, and so ecosystem models should encompass
their behavior (Holland et al., 2010). Similarly, the theory of
complex adaptive systems encompasses humans as parts of
coupled systems and presents humans as participating in the
dynamics of the system (Levin, 1998; Levin and Lubchenco,
2008). The production of ecosystem services involves a com-
bination of ecological functions and human actions and val-
ues (Figure 1). In the marine environment, for example,
marine ecosystems have fish populations that offer oppor-
tunities for commercial and recreational harvests, two of the
most valuable services derived from these systems. The human
action of harvest, however, is what transforms the potential
ecological supply into the actual provision of the ecosystem
service (Tallis et al., 2011). Human values in the form of the
demand for seafood, the valuation of recreation, and the costs
of commercial harvest or recreational angling all determine
the value of these services.
Building models to account for the humans who interact
with or are affected by an ecological system can therefore
provide fundamental insights into the provision and value of
ecosystem services. Simple economic models can focus on
individual decisions to use more or less of a marine resource,
for example. An ecological change that makes it harder to
harvest fish is likely to produce a lower level of effort that can
be modeled in a simple framework of the demand for that
Figure 1 The production of ecosystem services involves a combination of ecological functions and human actions and values. Recreationalfishing as an ecosystem service, for example, depends on the healthy functioning of natural systems that support fish populations. The humanaction of harvest transforms the potential ecological supply into the actual provision of the ecosystem service.
332 Modeling Marine Ecosystem Services
Author's personal copy
activity. More complicated models involve complex decisions
about where and when to fish, which species to fish for, and so
forth (e.g., Sanchirico and Wilen,1999; Wilen et al., 2002).
Similarly, human behavior has more latitude to make adjust-
ments over longer periods of time, and so modeling short-run
versus long-run behavior of a system can account for such
differences (Holland and Brazee, 1996). As they mature,
models of marine ecosystem services can include how humans
interact with biophysical components of the system and can
incorporate realistic mechanisms for changing those inter-
actions based on economic and other incentives. We include
some examples of these kinds of truly linked human and
biophysical models in the ‘‘Production Function Modeling’’
section.
The coupled social–ecological systems model developed by
Ostrom (2009) is one key conceptual framework that includes
interactions between biophysical and social systems. Much of
the focus of research guided by this conceptual model is to
identify relevant attributes for understanding the dynamics
of a coupled social–ecological system (e.g., the lobster fishery
in Maine and its fishing community) and the effects of dif-
Table 2 Decision support tools for use in marine environments, with particular attention to: marine applications, spatial mapping of ecosystem services, capacity to analyze trade-offs betweenservices, and the level of technical expertise needed to use the tool
Decision support tool/developer Description Marine applications Spatial mapping ofecosystemservices
Analysis ofecosystem servicetrade-offs
Level of technicalexpertise neededa
Artificial Intelligence for EcosystemServices (ARIES)
Basque Center for Climate Change (BC3);University of VermontFGund Institutefor Ecological Economics, ConservationInternational, and Earth Economics
ARIES is a suite of web-accessibleapplicationsFincluding probabilisticBayesian models, machine learning,and pattern recognitionF used toassess the provision, use, and flow ofecosystem services. ARIES maps boththe sources of ecosystem services andtheir users, along with the flows fromecosystems to users.
ARIES has been used to assesssubsistence fisheries and coastal stormregulation in Madagascar.
Yes Yes 2, 3
AtlantisCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organization (CSIRO) Marineand Atmospheric Research
Atlantis is a three-dimensional, spatiallyexplicit model that incorporatesbiogeochemical dynamics and fishingbehavior. Submodels cover food-webrelations, hydrographic processes, andfisheries.
Atlantis has been used to evaluaterestructuring of Southeastern Australiafishing fleets, the NOAA IntegratedEcosystem Assessment for theCalifornia Current, the MarineStewardship Council Forage FishHarvest Guidelines, and groundfish fleetimpacts on protected marine mammalsin the California Current.
No Yes 3
Coastal ResilienceThe Nature Conservancy, University of
Southern Mississippi, and University ofCalifornia, Santa Barbara
Coastal Resilience is a spatial planningand action approach that integratesappropriate coastal hazard, ecological,and socioeconomic information within aparticular geography. The CoastalResilience approach is to map sea-levelrise and other coastal hazards, naturalresources, and human communities atrisk and display this information via aninternet mapping application that is adata viewer, data discovery tool, and afuture scenario mapper.
Coastal Resilience has been used for dataexploration with the New York StateEmergency Management Office andlocal towns and villages on Long Islandand the Connecticut shores.
No No 2
338M
odelingM
arineEcosystem
Services
Author's personal copy
Cumulative ImpactsNational Center for Ecological Analysis
and Synthesis (NCEAS), University ofCalifornia, Santa Barbara, and StanfordUniversity
The Cumulative Impacts model usesspatial data and expert opinion toassess the ecological consequences of17 types of human activities. Byoverlaying maps of human activitiesand ecosystem vulnerabilities, thismodel produces a cumulative mappingof ecological impacts.
Cumulative Impacts has been used in acoarse global analysis and in theCalifornia Current and the northwesternHawaiian Islands.
No No 2
InVESTThe Natural Capital ProjectFStanford
University, World Wildlife Fund, TheNature Conservancy, and the Universityof Minnesota
InVEST is composed of a number ofmodels for assessing flows of andchanges in different ecosystem servicesincluding, but not limited to, carbonstorage, wave energy, recreation,fishery production, erosion control,habitat quality, water quality, croppollination, and timber production.InVEST is a toolbox in ArcGIS and runson both spatial and nonspatial physical,biological, and economic data andinformation. (An ArcGIS-independentversion is forthcoming.)
InVEST has been used for marineapplications in Canada (west coast ofVancouver Island) and Belize, and forland–sea connections in Puget Sound,Galveston Bay, and Chesapeake Bay(US). In addition, it is being used inclimate adaptation planning and toinform restoration in the Gulf of Mexicoand in Monterey Bay (both US).
Yes Yes 1, 3
Marine MapMarineMap ConsortiumFUniversity of
California, Santa Barbara, The NatureConservancy, and EcoTrust
MarineMap is a web-based decisionsupport toolkit to support marinespatial planning processes. The toolkitincludes a spatial data viewer anddesign tools that allow users tonetworks of prospective marineprotected areas. The application alsoallows users to share their proposalswith others and evaluate their proposalsagainst goals defined in the course ofany planning process.
MarineMap has been used for theCalifornia MLPA Initiative and theOregon Territorial Sea Planning process(US).
No Yes 1
Marxan with zonesUniversity of Queensland Marxan is a program for identifying
combinations of sites to createconservation networks such as marineprotected areas. The program allowsthe user to set biodiversity and other
Marxan has been applied to MarineZoning in Saint Kitts and Nevis and toexamine four types of protected areasin the context of California’s Marine LifeProtection Act.
No Yes 2, 3
(Continued )
Modeling
Marine
EcosystemServices
339
Author's personal copy
Table 2 Continued
Decision support tool/developer Description Marine applications Spatial mapping ofecosystemservices
Analysis ofecosystem servicetrade-offs
Level of technicalexpertise neededa
targets for one or more zones and thenfind the set of sites that meets thosetargets while minimizing the cost of thenetwork.
AFORDable futures MIMES is a multiscale integrated suite ofmodels that incorporate stakeholderinput and a variety of data sets toassess trade-offs among multipleecosystem services. The modelssimulate ecological and socioeconomicsystems and their interactions, and theycalculate the values of ecosystemservices for different scenarios.
MIMES is being used by theMassachusetts Ocean Partnership toexamine the trade-offs betweendifferent sectors in spatial planning andto model ecosystem service values atmultiple scales.
Yes Yes 2, 3
Multipurpose Marine Cadastre (MMC)Bureau of Ocean Energy Management,
Regulation and Enforcement(BOEMREFformerly MineralsManagement Service) and NOAACoastal Services Center
Originally developed to support theassessment of offshore energyprojects, MMC is a web-basedgeospatial data viewer containing morethan 80 data layers from a variety ofsources that each can be turned on oroff or queried one at a time. The userhas the ability to draw lines and otherfeatures, create buffers, and performother geospatial actions.
MMC has been used for reviews of oceanenergy projects in Northern Californiaand the outer continental shelf offMassachusetts, and by the Mid-AtlanticRegional Council on the Ocean tosupport marine spatial planning efforts.
No No 1
aLevels of technical expertise (when more than one level is listed the tool has capabilities that require varying levels of expertise):
1. Minimal training or technical expertise.
2. Minimal training and expertise but process objectives must be set in advance.
3. Expert users.
Source: Adapted from Center for Ocean Solutions (2011) Decision Guide: Selecting Decision Support Tools for Marine Spatial Planning. Stanford, CA: The Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University.
340M
odelingM
arineEcosystem
Services
Author's personal copy
Input data (Reflect scenarios) Marine InVEST modelsModel outputs
(Ecosystem services and values)
Terrestrial systems
Habitatrisk
Carbon Carbonsequestered
Ecosystemservices
Valuatione.g.
Value ofcarbon
sequestered
Value ofcaptured
wave energy
Value ofavoided
damages
Expendituresdue to
recreationactivity
Net presentvalue of
finfish andshellfish
Energycaptured
AvoidedArea flooded/
eroded
Visitationrates
Landedbiomass
Harvestedbiomass
Wave energy
Coastalprotection
Recreation
Fishery
Aestheticquality
Aquaculture
Waterquality
Bio-physical
Sce
nario
s
Bathymetry and topography
Speciesdistribution
Oceanography
Habitat type
Socio-economic
Population density
Demographics
Aquaculture operation costs
Property values
3
5
7
1 8
6
2
4
9
Figure 2 Marine InVEST evaluates how alternative scenarios yield changes in the flow of ecosystem services. First, one translates managementor climate scenarios into input data. Inputs include spatially explicit biophysical and socioeconomic information. Next, one feeds input maps intomodels that predict the delivery of services across the seascape. Intermediate effects of management choices and climate on the flow of servicescan be evaluated in terms of risks to habitats and changes in water quality. Ecosystem service outputs are expressed in biophysical orsocioeconomic units. Some examples of processes or activities that link the models include (numbers correspond to circled numbers on arrows):(1) flow rate and the movement of sediment, nutrients, toxic waste and bacteria; (2) filtration, flows of waste; (3) limiting fishing grounds; (4)light attenuation, sedimentation; (5) water purification; (6) food supply (shellfish); (7) beachgoing; (8) spawning, rearing; and (9) waveattenuation. Adapted from Guerry AD, Ruckelshaus MH, Arkema KK, et al. (2012) Modeling benefits from nature: using ecosystem services toinform marine spatial planning. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management. doi: 10.1080/21513732.2011.647835.
Modeling Marine Ecosystem Services 341
Author's personal copy
for renewable energy, protection from coastal hazards,
fisheries, recreation, aquaculture, aesthetic views, and more
(Figure 2).
The Multiscale Integrated Models of Ecosystem Services
(MIMES) project represents another attempt to build a suite
of models that assess the values of ecosystem services to
allow managers to understand the dynamics of ecosystem
services, how services are linked to human welfare, and
how the flow of services might change under various man-
agement scenarios in both terrestrial and marine systems
(http://www.uvm.edu/giee/mimes/). MIMES involves a rela-
tively complex approach, simulating ecosystems and socio-
economic systems and the interactions between them. It
calculates values of ecosystem services using marginal cost
pricing. MIMES is currently being used by the Massachusetts
Ocean Partnership to evaluate the trade-offs between different
sectors in marine spatial planning (Center for Ocean Solu-
tions, 2011).
Applications of Marine Ecosystem Service Modelingto Decision Making
Decision contexts for managing ecosystem services in the
sea are varied, so it is to be expected that a mix of quantitative
and qualitative modeling approaches are being developed
and applied to support biodiversity and ecosystem service
management in marine systems. Information needed to
support the methodologies we highlight in the following
sections ranges from observations and empirical data to
modeled ecosystem and social responses, expert opinion and
traditional local knowledge (e.g., Kliskey et al., 2009). Typi-
cally, the time frames of decisions, local technical capacity,
and the nature of information available for each context
dictate the approach employed for ecosystem service model-
ing. We explore four contexts in the following section that
display a wide range of the numbers of services modeled,
quantitative complexity, and types of decisions being made.
annually in recent years) is thought to be responsible for a
substantial increase in productivity of the lobster stock
(Grabowski et al., 2010). The way that the lobster fishery
is managed substantially alters the amount of herring bait
demanded by the fishery, which affects profitability of both
fisheries (Holland et al., 2010) and how those profits are dis-
tributed (Ryan et al., 2010).
Understanding these linkages among the fisheries and the
environment provides useful qualitative insights for resource
managers and stakeholders, and it may be possible to use
this information to improve single-species models and man-
agement advice to account for them as exogenous factors.
Ideally, a linked dynamic set of fishery and environmental
models will be constructed enabling managers to better
understand how changes in one part of the system affect other
parts and how best to react or even manipulate the system.
In addition to evaluating potential management actions or
forecasting future outcomes in the fishery system, models of
the system can also be used to determine which variables and
processes have the most impact on the system. This knowledge
can be used to determine the value of better information and
direct research. Ultimately, this information can be used to
manage these three key fisheries in a systemwide manner that
maximizes the service of provisioning of seafood and the
various benefits that flow from that service (e.g., revenues,
working waterfronts, community identity).
Coastal Zone Management in Belize
Belize is home to a rich diversity of ocean life, coastal habitats,
and the longest barrier reef in the Western hemisphere. Its
people are inextricably linked to the marine environment as a
source of sustenance, inspiration, economic prosperity, and
cultural heritage (Figure 4). Yet rapid development, overfishing,
and population growth threaten local marine ecosystems. In
Figure 4 Belize is home to a rich diversity of marine life; its peoplederive sustenance, inspiration, economic prosperity, and culturalheritage from the marine environment. Mangroves and coral reefs notonly provide protection from storms and serve as a draw forinternational tourism, but also are critical habitats for the spinylobster, a backbone of commercial and artisanal fisheries. Thecommercial fishermen in this picture are from a fleet of dugoutcanoes that work with a traditional sail boat (or ‘‘mother ship’’’) toharvest spiny lobster.
1998, the government created the Coastal Zone Management
Authority and Institute (CZMAI) with the objective of de-
veloping an integrated management plan to guide sustainable
economic growth that is consistent with protection of Belize’s
natural heritage. To date, however, CZMAI has lacked the sci-
entific capacity needed to assess trade-offs among various
marine uses and to demonstrate potential win–wins where
emphasis on one service yields benefits for another.
CZMAI has partnered with the Natural Capital Project to
help create a comprehensive coastal zone management plan
for Belize. The plan will identify new marine protected areas,
locations suitable for coastal development, and strategies such
as payments for ecosystem services (PES) and other market
mechanisms (e.g., catch shares) to support effective imple-
mentation. The partners are using Marine InVEST to forecast
how management strategies and future uses of the marine
environment will likely affect the benefits that nature brings to
people, such as nursery habitat for fisheries, tourism and rec-
reation, coastal protection, and carbon storage. By providing a
platform for stakeholder and agency discussions about trade-
offs and win–win situations, this information is moving the
process beyond sector-specific issues to the development of a
defensible plan.
The first step toward developing a coastal zone plan in-
formed by the science of ecosystem services is to identify and
map current and potential future uses of marine and coastal
environments. Next is to use modeling approaches (in this
case, the InVEST decision support tool) to examine how these
activities affect the ecosystem services most important to
Belizeans. The team is running marine InVEST models, given
future scenarios of marine use, to quantify changes in the
ecosystem services that are most compelling to stakeholders
and government officials. Scenarios under consideration in-
clude explorations of how coastal development and no-take
areas – in addition to climate change – might affect services,
including (1) provision of commercial and artisanal fisheries
for lobster; (2) flooding and erosion protection provided by
mangroves, corals, and seagrasses; and (3) maintenance of
tourism attractions such as snorkeling and diving. Quantita-
tive outputs in biophysical (e.g., biomass of harvested fish,
reduction in land flooded or eroded due to mangroves) and
economic (e.g., net present value of harvest, avoided damages
to property values) units for each service are informing
CZMAI’s coastal planning process.
Modeling of ecosystem services in Belize is helping to ar-
ticulate connections between human activities that are often
considered in isolation to align diverse stakeholders around
common goals and to make implicit decisions explicit. Eco-
system service modeling results have informed early iterations
of the coastal zone plan and will inform the creation of the
final plan in 2012.
Protection and Restoration of Reef Habitats in the CoralTriangle
Klein et al. (2010) used a combination of quantitative mod-
eling and qualitative information to prioritize strategies for
protection and restoration of reef habitats in the coral triangle.
The method is designed to allocate a limited budget to man-
agement and policy interventions that will abate key threats
affecting marine ecosystem objectives. The approach requires
estimates of management costs and opportunity costs of ap-
plying alternative actions; and these estimates are user-gener-
ated, so they can come from expert judgment, models, or
empirical information. The models provide an estimate of the
return on investment for different actions so that the relative
merits of land- and marine-based interventions on marine
ecosystem biodiversity and services can be weighed. This type
of practical approach, where a mix of quantitative and expert
information is used, allows the users to consider both eco-
nomic and ecological criteria in a conservation management
context. For example, for the ecoregions of the coral triangle,
marine-based conservation efforts (e.g., establishment of
MPAs, changes in fishing gear types) were often more cost-
effective at improving marine ecosystem condition than land-
based actions designed to reduce nutrient or sediment runoff.
Putting Offshore Wind in Context in Massachusetts
Like many coastal marine ecosystems, the coast of Massa-
chusetts (US) is crowded with various user groups interested
in using a broad range of ecosystem services. Conflicts among
sectors in their ability to procure different services from
shared, interacting ecosystem resources has prompted calls for
the reduction of conflicts through transparent, integrated
marine spatial planning. In Massachusetts and elsewhere,
offshore wind farms are an emerging, and controversial, ocean
use. Numerous wind farms are under litigation or consider-
ation in the state. Large economic gains and ‘‘green’’ energy are
purported benefits; impacts on marine mammals and fisheries
are some of the potential costs. To explore these issues and
inform the dialogue about this new and emerging use of the
marine environment, White and colleagues (in press) per-
formed a spatially explicit bioeconomic trade-off analysis
among wind energy, fishery, and whale-watching ecosystem
services in Massachusetts Bay. They identified optimal plan-
ning solutions for wind-energy development that minimize
spatial conflicts among sectors and maximize their values.
Solutions that considered all three sectors were significantly
better than single-sector management outcomes. Solutions
were also strongly dependent on the spatial design of the wind
farms and the particular fishery examined. This approach of
quantifying ecosystem service trade-offs in a crowded, multi-
use ecosystem highlights when and how offshore renewable
energy may be developed optimally within the complicated
contexts of coastal ecosystems.
Conclusions
Marine ecosystems around the globe are under increasing
pressure: people rely on them for the delivery of provisioning,
regulating, supporting, and cultural ecosystem services. With
increasing pressure from increasing and redistributing human
populations and from new and emerging uses (e.g., renewable
energy), the ability of these systems to sustainably deliver
the full range of services that people count on and need is not
assured.
Here we have reviewed the services provided by marine
environments, discussed some of the potential audiences
for information about how changes in marine ecosystems
are likely to lead to changes in services, explored critical
differences – both in human and scientific contexts – between
mapping and modeling ecosystem services on land and at sea,
outlined approaches to modeling marine ecosystem services,
and described some examples of how these approaches can
and are being used in real decision making.
Quantifying, mapping, and valuing marine ecosystem ser-
vices have the potential to fundamentally change decision
making in marine and coastal environments. Making explicit
the connections between human activities in one sector and
their effects on a broad range of other sectors leads people to
think about whole ecosystems and to manage them accord-
ingly. Ultimately, results from marine ecosystem service
modeling can help society perceive the critical services oceans
and coasts provide, appropriately value marine natural capital,
and help human communities make better choices about the
use of these life-sustaining environments.
Appendix
List of Courses
1. Marine Ecosystem Services
2. Marine Conservation Biology
3. Marine Ecology
4. Marine Resource Economics
See also: Aquaculture. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.Biodiversity, Human Well-Being, and Markets. Carbon Cycle. Censusof Marine Life. Computer Systems and Models, Use of. EconomicValue of Biodiversity, Measurements of. Economics of the RegulatingServices. Ecosystem, Concept of. Ecosystem Function Measurement,Aquatic and Marine Communities. Ecosystem Function, Principles of.Ecosystem Services. Endangered Marine Invertebrates. EstuarineEcosystems. Evaluation of Ecosystem Service Policies fromBiophysical and Social Perspectives: The Case of China. FishConservation. Mangrove Ecosystems. Marine Conservation in aChanging Climate. Marine Ecosystems, Human Impacts on. MarineEcosystems. Marine Protected Areas: Static Boundaries in a ChangingWorld. Modeling Terrestrial Ecosystem Services. Ocean Ecosystems.Priority Setting for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. ResourceExploitation, Fisheries. The Value of Biodiversity. Valuing EcosystemServices
Anielski M and Wilson SJ (2009) Counting Canada’s Natural Capital: Assessing theReal Value of Canada’s Boreal Ecosystems. Drayton Valley, Alberta: CanadianBoreal Initiative & The Pembina Institute.
Balvanera P, Pfisterer A, Buchmann N, et al. (2006) Quantifying the evidence forbiodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecology Letters 9:1146–1156.
Modeling Marine Ecosystem Services 345
Author's personal copy
Barbier E, Koch E, Siliman B, et al. (2008) Coastal ecosystem-based managementwith nonlinear ecological functions and values. Science 319: 321–323.
Basurto X and Coleman E (2010) Institutional and ecological interplay forsuccessful self-governance of community-based fisheries. Ecological Economics69: 1094–1103.
Beaumont N, Austen M, Atkins J, et al. (2007) Identification, definition andquantification of goods and services provided by marine biodiversity:Implications for the ecosystem approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54: 253–265.
Beaumont NJ, Austen MC, Mangi SC, and Townsend M (2008) Economic valuationfor the conservation of marine biodiversity. Marine Pollution Bulletin 56:386–396.
Bockstael NE, Freeman III AM, Kopp RJ, Portney PR, and Smith VK (2000) Onmeasuring economic values for nature. Environmental Science and Technology34: 1384–1389.
Boyd J (2007) The Endpoint Problem. Resources 165: 26–28.Boyd J and Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystem services? The need for
Brander K (2010) Reconciling biodiversity conservation and marine capture fisheriesproduction. Current Opinions in Environmental Sustainability 2: 416–421.
Burke L, Kura Y, Kassem K, Revenga C, Spalding M, and McAllister D (2001) PilotAnalysis of Global Ecosystems: Coastal Ecosystems. Washington, DC: WorldResources Institute.
Caddy JF (1999) Fisheries management in the twenty-first century: Will newparadigms apply? Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 9: 1–43.
Carpenter S, Caraco N, Correll D, Howarth R, Sharpley A, and Smith V (1998)Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen. EcologicalApplications 8: 559–568.
Carte BK (1996) Biomedical potential of marine natural products. BioScience 46:271–286.
Center for Ocean Solutions (2011) Decision-Guide: Selecting Decision-Suport Toolsfor Marine Spatial Planning. Stanford, CA: The Woods Institute for theEnvironment, Stanford University.
Chan K, Guerry A, Satterfield T, et al. (in press) Integrating ‘‘cultural’’ and ‘‘social’’into ecosystem services: A framework for making decisions about what matters.BioScience.
Chan K and Ruckelshaus M (2010) Characterizing changes in marine ecosystemservices. F1000 Biology Reports 2: 54–60.
Christensen V and Walters C (2004) Ecopath with Ecosim: Methods, capabilitiesand limitations. Ecological Modeling 172: 109–139.
Churchill JH, Runge J, and Chen C (2011) Processes controlling retention ofspring-spawned Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) in the western Gulf of Maine andtheir relationship to an index of recruitment success. Fisheries Oceanography20: 32–46.
Clawson M (1959) Methods of Measuring the Demand and Value of OutdoorRecreation. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Colling A (2001) Ocean Circulation. Milton Keynes, UK: Butterworth Heineman andThe Open University.
Costanza R (2000) The ecological, economic and social importance of the oceans.In: Sheppard CRC (ed.) Seas at the Millenium: An Environmental Evaluation,vol. 3: Global Issues and Processes. New York: Pergamon Press.
Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, et al. (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystemservices and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260.
Costello C and Polasky S (2008) Optimal harvesting of stochastic spatial resources.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 56: 1–18.
Cudney-Bueno R and Basurto X (2009) Lack of cross-scale linkages reducesrobustness of community-based fisheries management. PLoS One 4: e6253.
Culliton T (1998) Population: Distribution, Density, and Growth. National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration. MD: Silver Spring.
Danielsen F, Sorensen M, Olwig M, et al. (2005) The asian tsunami: A protectiverole for coastal vegetation. Science 370: 643.
Day Jr. J, Ko J, Rybczyk J, et al. (2004) The use of wetlands in the MississippiDelta for wastewater assimilation: A review. Ocean and Coastal Management 47:671–691.
deGroot R, Wilson M, and Boumans R (2002) Ecosystem functions, goods andservices: Classification, description and valuation guidelines. EcologicalEconomics 41: 393–408.
Dennison W, Lookingbill T, Carruthers T, Hawkey J, and Carter S (2007) An eye-opening approach to developing and communicating integrated environmentalassessments. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5: 307–314.
Diaz R and Rosenberg R (2008) Spreading dead zones and consequences formarine ecosystems. Science 321: 926–929.
Douvere F and Ehler C (2009) New perspectives on sea use management: Initialfindings from European experience with marine spatial planning. Journal ofEnvironmental Management 90: 77–88.
Ehler C and Douvere F (2009) Mrine spatial planning: A step-by-step approachtoward ecosystem-based management. Paris: UNESCO.
European Commission (2010) Maritime Spatial Planning in the EU: Achievementsand Future Development. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
FAO Fisheries Department (2010) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture.FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. Rome: Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations.
Foley M, Halpern B, Micheli F, et al. (2010) Guiding ecological principles formarine spatial planning. Marine Policy 34: 955–966.
Freeman III AM (1993) The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values:Theory and Methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Fulton EA, Parslow JS, Smith ADM, and Johnson CR (2004a) Biogeochemicalmarine ecosystem models II: The effect of physiological detail on modelperformance. Ecological Modelling 173: 371–406.
Fulton EA, Smith ADM, and Johnson CR (2004b) Biogeochemical marineecosystem models. I: IGBEM – a model of marine bay ecosystems. EcologicalModelling 174: 267–307.
Gleick P (1996) Water resources. In: Schneider S (ed.) Encyclopedia of Climate andWeather, pp. 817–823. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gordon HS (1954) The economic theory of a common-property resource: Thefishery. The Journal of Political Economy 62: 124–142.
Grabowski JH, Clesceri EJ, Gaudette J, Baukus A, Weber M, and Yund PO (2010)Use of herring bait to farm lobsters in the Gulf of Maine. PLoS One 5: e10188.
Groffman P, Baron J, Blett T, et al. (2006) Ecological thresholds: The key tosuccessful environmental management or an important concept with no practicalapplication? Ecosystems 9: 1–13.
Guerry A, Plummer M, Ruckelshaus M, and Harvey C (2011) Ecosystem serviceassessments for marine conservation. In: Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts T, Daily G,and Polasky S (eds.) Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of MappingEcosystem Services. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Guerry AD, Ruckelshaus MH, Arkema KK, et al. (2012) Modeling benefits fromnature: Using ecosystem services to inform marine spatial planning. InternationalJournal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management. doi:10.1080/21513732.2011.647835.
Holland DS and Brazee R (1996) Marine reserves for fisheries management. MarineResource Economics 11: 157–171.
Holland DS, Sanchirico J, Johnston RJ, and Joglekar DP (2010) Economic Analysisfor Ecosystem Based Management: Applications to Marine and CoastalEnvironments. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Hollowed AB, Aydin KY, Essington T, et al. (2011) Experience with quantitativeecosystem assessment tools in the northeast Pacific. Fish and Fisheries 12:189–208.
Holmlund CM and Hammer M (1999) Ecosystem services generated by fishpopulations. Ecological Economics 29: 253–268.
Incze L, Xue H, Wolff N, et al. (2010) Connectivity of lobster (Homarus americanus)populations in the coastal Gulf of Maine: Part II. Coupled biophysical dynamics.Fisheries Oceanography 19: 1–20.
Ingraham MW and Foster SG (2008) The value of ecosystem services provided bythe U.S. National Wildlife Refuge System in the contiguous. U.S EcologicalEconomics 67: 608–618.
Inter-agency Ocean Policy Task Force (IOPTF) (2010) Final Recommendations of theInteragency Ocean Policy Task Force. Washington, DC: Council onEnvironmental Quality.
Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts TH, Daily GC, and Polasky S (eds.) (2011) NaturalCapital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services. Cambridge: OxfordUniversity Press.
Klein C, Ban N, Halpern B, et al. (2010) Prioritizing land and sea conservationinvestments to protect coral reefs. PLoS One 5: e12431.
Kliskey A, Alessa L, and Barr B (2009) Integrating local and traditional ecologicalknowledge. In: McLeod K and Leslie H (eds.) Ecosystem-Based Management forthe Oceans, pp. 145–161. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Knetsch JL (1963) Outdoor recreation demands and benefits. Land Economics 39:387–396.
Koch EW, Barbier EB, Silliman BR, et al. (2009) Non-linearity in ecosystemservices: Temporal and spatial variability in coastal protection. Frontiers inEcology and the Environment 7: 29–37.
Lester SE, McLeod K, Tallis H, et al. (2010) Science in support of ecosystem-basedmanagement for the US West Coast and beyond. Biological Conservation 143:576–587.
346 Modeling Marine Ecosystem Services
Author's personal copy
Levin PS, Fogarty MJ, Murawski SA, and Fluharty D (2009) Integrated ecosystemassessments: Developing the scientific basis for ecosystem-based managementof the ocean. PLoS Biology 7: 23–28.
Levin S (1998) Ecosystems and the biosphere as complex adaptive systems.Ecosystems 1.
Levin S and Lubchenco J (2008) Resilience, robustness, and marine ecosystem-based management. BioScience 58: 1–6.
Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter SR, et al. (2007a) Complexity of coupled human andnatural systems. Science 317: 1513–1516.
Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter SR, et al. (2007b) Coupled human and natural systems.Ambio 36: 639–648.
Mallin MA, Williams KE, Esham EC, and Lowe RP (2000) Effect of humandevelopment on bacteriological water quality in coastal watersheds. EcologicalApplications 10: 1047–1056.
Melillo JM, Mcguire AD, Kicklighter DW, Moore B, Vorosmarty CJ, and Schloss AL(1993) Global climate-change and terrestrial net primary production. Nature 363:234–240.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005a) Ecosystems and Human Well-Being:Scenarios, vol. 2. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005b) Ecosystems and human well-being:Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Mitchell RC and Carson RT (1989) Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: TheContingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Moberg F and Folke C (1999) Ecological goods and services of coral reefecosystems. Ecological Economics 29: 215–233.
Morey E (1981) The demand for site-specific recreation activities: A characteristicsapproach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 8: 345–371.
Murawski SA, Steele J, Taylor P, et al. (2009) Why compare marine ecosystems?ICES Journal of Marine Science 67: 1–9.
Naeem S, Bunker D, and Hector A (2009) Biodiversity, Ecosystem Functioning andHuman Wellbeing: An Ecological and Economic Perspective. New York, NY:Oxford University Press.
Naidoo R, Balmford A, Costanza R, et al. (2008) Global mapping of ecosystemservices and conservation priorities. Proceeding of the National Academy ofSciences 105: 9495–9500.
National Research Council (2005) Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward BetterEnvironmental Decision-Making. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Nellemann C, Corcoran E, Duarte CM, et al. (2009) Blue Carbon. A RapidResponse Assessment. GRID-Arendal: United Nations Environment Programme.
Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325: 419–422.
Palmquist RB (1991) Hedonic methods. In: Braden JB and Kolstad CD (eds.)Measuring the Demand for Environmental Quality, pp. 77–120. Amsterdam:North Holland.
Palmquist RB (2003) Property value models. In: Maler K-G and Vincent JR (eds.)Handbook of Environmental Economics. North Holland: Elsevier.
Palumbi S, Sandifer P, Allan J, et al. (2009) Managing for ocean biodiversity tosustain marine ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7:204–211.
Patterson M and Glavovic B (eds.) (2008) Ecological Economics of the Oceans andCoasts. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Pergams O and Kareiva P (2009) Support services: A focus on genetic diversity. In:Levin S (ed.) The Princeton Guide to Ecology, pp. 642–651. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.
Peterson C and Lubchenco J (1997) Marine ecosystem services. In: Daily G (ed.)Nature’s Services. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Plummer ML (2009) Assessing benefit transfer for the valuation of ecosystemservices. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7: 38–45.
Ricketts T, Daily G, Ehrlich PR, and Michener C (2004) Economic value of tropicalforest to coffee production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ofthe United States of America 101: 12579–12582.
Rodrıguez JP, Beard JTD, Bennett EM, et al. (2006) Trade-offs across space, time,and ecosystem services. Ecology and Society 11: 28.
Ronnback P (1999) The ecological basis for economic value of seafood productionsupported by mangrove ecosystems. Ecological Economics 29: 235–252.
Rosenberger R and Loomis J (2001) Benefit Transfer of Outdoor Recreation UseValues: A Technical Document Supporting the Forest Service Strategic Plan(2000 revision). Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Ryan RW, Holland DS, and Herrera G (2010) Bioeconomic equilibrium in a Bait-constrained fishery. Marine Resource Economics 25: 281–294.
Sainsbury KJ, Punt AE, and Smith A (2000) Design of operational managementstrategies for achieving fishery ecosystem objectives. ICES Journal of MarineScience 57: 731–741.
Samhouri J, Levin P, James CA, Kershner J, and Williams G (2011) Using existingscientific capacity to set targets for ecosystem-based management: A Pugetsound case study. Marine Policy 35: 508–518.
Sanchirico JN and Wilen JE (1999) Bioeconomics of spatial exploitation in a patchyenvironment. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 37:129–150.
Sathirathai S and Barbier EB (2001) Valuing mangrove conservation in southernThailand. Contemporary Economic Policy 19: 109–122.
Schaefer MB (1957) Some considerations of population dynamics and economicsin relation to the management of marine fishes. Journal of the FisheriesResearch Board of Canada 14: 669–681.
Schlesinger W (1991) Biogeochemistry: An Analysis of Global Change. AcademicPress
Schmitt RJ, Jacobs RS, Page HM, et al. (2006) Advancing marine biotechnology:Use of OCS oil platforms as sustainable sources of marine natural products.Santa Barbara, CA: Coastal Research Center, Marine Science Institute, Universityof California.
Scott A (1955) The fishery: The objectives of sole ownership. Journal of PoliticalEconomy 63: 116–124.
Slesnick D (1998) Empirical approaches to the measurement of welfare. Journal ofEconomic Literature 36: 2108–2165.
Smith A, Fulton E, Hobday A, Smith D, and Shoulder P (2007) Scientific tools tosupport the practical implementation of ecosystem-based fisheries management.ICES Journal of Marine Science 64: 633–639.
Smith MD (2008) Bioeconometrics: Empirical modeling of bioeconomic systems.Marine Resource Economics 23: 1–23.
Smith MD, Zhang J, and Coleman FC (2008) Econometric modeling of fisherieswith complex life histories: Avoiding biological management failures. Journal ofEnvironmental Economics and Management 55: 265–280.
Tallis H, Kareiva P, Marvier M, and Chang A (2008) An ecosystem servicesframework to support both practical conservation and economic development.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States ofAmerica 105: 9457–9464.
Tallis H, Lester SE, Ruckelshaus M, et al. (2011) New metrics for managing andsustaining the ocean’s bounty. Marine Policy.
Tallis H, Levin PS, Ruckelshaus M, et al. (2010) The many faces of ecosystem-based management: Making the process work today in real places. MarinePolicy 34: 340–348.
Toman M (1998) Why not to calculate the value of the world’s ecosystem servicesand natural capital. Ecological Economics 25: 57–60.
Travis J (2005) Hurricane Katrina: Scientists’ fears come true as hurricane floodsNew Orleans. Science 309: 1656–1659.
Troy A and Wilson M (2006) Mapping ecosystem services: Practical challenges andopportunities in linking GIS and value transfer. Ecological Economics 60.
UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2011) The UK National EcosystemAssessment: Synthesis of the Key Findings. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC.
UN General Assembly (UNGA) ((2010) Sustainable Development: Report of theGoverning Council of the United Nations Environment Programme on itsEleventh Special Session.
UNEP and IOC-UNESCO (2009) An Assessment of Assessments, Findings of theGroup of Experts. Start Up Phase of a Regular Process for Global Reporting andAssessment of the State of the Marine Environment including Socio-EconomicAspects.
United Nations Environment Program (2006) Marine and Coastal Ecosystems andHuman Wellbeing: A Synthesis Report based on the Findings of the MillenniumEcosystem Assessment. United Nations Environment Program.
White C, Halpern BS, and Kappel CV (in press) Ecosystem service tradeoff analysisreveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses. Proceedingsof the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
Wilen JE, Smith M, Lockwood D, and Botsford L (2002) Avoiding surprises:Incorporating fisherman behavior into management models. Bulletin of MarineScience 70: 553–575.
Wilson MA and Liu S (2008) Evaluating the nonmarket value of ecosystem goodsand services provided by coastal and nearshore marine system. In: PattersonMG and Glavovic BC (eds.) The Ecological Economics of the Oceans andCoasts. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Worm B, Barbier E, Beaumont N, et al. (2006) Impacts of biodiversity loss onocean ecosystem services. Science 314: 787–790.