Pub Date : 2020-11-28DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2021.1846156
B. Muffley, S. Gaichas, G. DePiper, R. Seagraves, S. Lucey
Abstract Resource managers worldwide are being asked to consider the ecosystem while making management decisions. Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) provides a flexible framework for addressing ecosystem considerations in decision making. The US Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) adapted the IEA approach and implemented a structured decision framework to address species, fleet, habitat, and climate interactions as part of their Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) in 2016. The Council’s EAFM decision framework first uses risk assessment to prioritize fishery-ecosystem interactions for consideration. The Council’s 2017 EAFM risk assessment identified a range of ecological, social, and management objectives or risk elements. Development of a conceptual model to identify key environmental, ecological, social, economic, and management linkages for a high-priority fishery is the second step in the framework. The Council identified summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) as a high-risk fishery and finalized an EAFM conceptual model that considers high-risk factors and ecosystem elements in 2019. The Council used the conceptual model to identify three priority summer flounder management questions (recreational data uncertainty, recreational discards, and distribution shifts) to be considered for quantitative management strategy evaluation, the third step in the EAFM framework and set to begin in 2020. Finally, as strategies are implemented, outcomes are monitored and the process is adjusted, and/or other priorities identified in the risk assessment can be addressed. The Council’s rapid progress in implementing EAFM resulted from an extensive, positive, and collaborative process between managers, stakeholders, and scientists. Collaboration helps build trust and buy-in from all participants and is essential to IEA and to the success of EAFM.
{"title":"There Is no I in EAFM Adapting Integrated Ecosystem Assessment for Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management","authors":"B. Muffley, S. Gaichas, G. DePiper, R. Seagraves, S. Lucey","doi":"10.1080/08920753.2021.1846156","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846156","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Resource managers worldwide are being asked to consider the ecosystem while making management decisions. Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) provides a flexible framework for addressing ecosystem considerations in decision making. The US Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) adapted the IEA approach and implemented a structured decision framework to address species, fleet, habitat, and climate interactions as part of their Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) in 2016. The Council’s EAFM decision framework first uses risk assessment to prioritize fishery-ecosystem interactions for consideration. The Council’s 2017 EAFM risk assessment identified a range of ecological, social, and management objectives or risk elements. Development of a conceptual model to identify key environmental, ecological, social, economic, and management linkages for a high-priority fishery is the second step in the framework. The Council identified summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus) as a high-risk fishery and finalized an EAFM conceptual model that considers high-risk factors and ecosystem elements in 2019. The Council used the conceptual model to identify three priority summer flounder management questions (recreational data uncertainty, recreational discards, and distribution shifts) to be considered for quantitative management strategy evaluation, the third step in the EAFM framework and set to begin in 2020. Finally, as strategies are implemented, outcomes are monitored and the process is adjusted, and/or other priorities identified in the risk assessment can be addressed. The Council’s rapid progress in implementing EAFM resulted from an extensive, positive, and collaborative process between managers, stakeholders, and scientists. Collaboration helps build trust and buy-in from all participants and is essential to IEA and to the success of EAFM.","PeriodicalId":50995,"journal":{"name":"Coastal Management","volume":"49 1","pages":"90 - 106"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2020-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846156","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47425801","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-27DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2021.1846165
Marysia Szymkowiak, S. Kasperski
Abstract The incorporation of human dimensions into ecosystem-based fisheries management has largely focused on metrics of economic welfare. Yet researchers have demonstrated the variety of well-being that is derived from fisheries as well as the need for localized and collaborative scientific efforts that result in appropriately contextualized metrics. This article presents the results of a project intended to address these needs and inform the North Pacific fisheries management process with a set of indicators that are related to multiple dimensions of human well-being and links to fisheries participation. The article showcases a mechanism of applying a well-being framework and participatory methods to develop locally relevant quantitative indicators for one of the most highly engaged fishing communities in Alaska - Sitka. These indicators can be used to track how fishery shocks may reverberate through social systems and affect fishing communities. Furthermore, the discussion of the multifaceted well-being indicators presents information on local values and complex dynamics between community well-being and fisheries that are difficult to conceptualize and integrate into management decisions. Ultimately, this work can facilitate a more comprehensive incorporation of human dimensions into ecosystem-based frameworks in fisheries management, contextualizing that expansion within locally relevant narratives that engage stakeholders in resource management.
{"title":"Sustaining an Alaska Coastal Community: Integrating Place Based Well-Being Indicators and Fisheries Participation","authors":"Marysia Szymkowiak, S. Kasperski","doi":"10.1080/08920753.2021.1846165","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846165","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The incorporation of human dimensions into ecosystem-based fisheries management has largely focused on metrics of economic welfare. Yet researchers have demonstrated the variety of well-being that is derived from fisheries as well as the need for localized and collaborative scientific efforts that result in appropriately contextualized metrics. This article presents the results of a project intended to address these needs and inform the North Pacific fisheries management process with a set of indicators that are related to multiple dimensions of human well-being and links to fisheries participation. The article showcases a mechanism of applying a well-being framework and participatory methods to develop locally relevant quantitative indicators for one of the most highly engaged fishing communities in Alaska - Sitka. These indicators can be used to track how fishery shocks may reverberate through social systems and affect fishing communities. Furthermore, the discussion of the multifaceted well-being indicators presents information on local values and complex dynamics between community well-being and fisheries that are difficult to conceptualize and integrate into management decisions. Ultimately, this work can facilitate a more comprehensive incorporation of human dimensions into ecosystem-based frameworks in fisheries management, contextualizing that expansion within locally relevant narratives that engage stakeholders in resource management.","PeriodicalId":50995,"journal":{"name":"Coastal Management","volume":"49 1","pages":"107 - 131"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2020-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846165","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47189472","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-18DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2021.1846110
C. Harvey, D. Fluharty, M. Fogarty, P. Levin, S. Murawski, F. Schwing, R. Shuford, C. Kelble, M. Monaco
Abstract In response to calls for marine ecosystem-based management (EBM), the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) developed a multidisciplinary science support framework called integrated ecosystem assessment (IEA). The IEA framework and a national NOAA program for implementing that framework were the culmination of many efforts in the 2000s. At a recent workshop, five leaders from the early days of NOAA IEA development participated in a panel to discuss the history of the framework and program, and to provide recommendations for future work. Panelists intended IEA to be a call to action for scientists and agencies to support EBM, and they designed the framework to be adaptable, scalable, and non-prescriptive so that it could be applied to a range of issues. Panelists emphasized the complementary nature of the processes, tools, and products that make up IEA efforts, and also stressed the need to adapt the IEA approach to shifting management and governance structures. Finally, panelists offered a range of recommendations for future development of the IEA approach, including: (1) broadening the stakeholder base; (2) developing objectives and reference points in partnership with end-users; (3) increasing diversity of IEA practitioners to better reflect the communities that IEA serves; (4) increasing development of readily updatable, real-time products; (5) carefully assessing and prioritizing the demands placed on IEA practitioners; (6) increasing collaboration across disciplines and resource sectors; (7) seeking opportunities to engage with emerging governance structures; and (8) strengthening support for IEA by effectively communicating its stories.
{"title":"The Origin of NOAA’s Integrated Ecosystem Assessment Program: A Retrospective and Prospective","authors":"C. Harvey, D. Fluharty, M. Fogarty, P. Levin, S. Murawski, F. Schwing, R. Shuford, C. Kelble, M. Monaco","doi":"10.1080/08920753.2021.1846110","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846110","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In response to calls for marine ecosystem-based management (EBM), the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) developed a multidisciplinary science support framework called integrated ecosystem assessment (IEA). The IEA framework and a national NOAA program for implementing that framework were the culmination of many efforts in the 2000s. At a recent workshop, five leaders from the early days of NOAA IEA development participated in a panel to discuss the history of the framework and program, and to provide recommendations for future work. Panelists intended IEA to be a call to action for scientists and agencies to support EBM, and they designed the framework to be adaptable, scalable, and non-prescriptive so that it could be applied to a range of issues. Panelists emphasized the complementary nature of the processes, tools, and products that make up IEA efforts, and also stressed the need to adapt the IEA approach to shifting management and governance structures. Finally, panelists offered a range of recommendations for future development of the IEA approach, including: (1) broadening the stakeholder base; (2) developing objectives and reference points in partnership with end-users; (3) increasing diversity of IEA practitioners to better reflect the communities that IEA serves; (4) increasing development of readily updatable, real-time products; (5) carefully assessing and prioritizing the demands placed on IEA practitioners; (6) increasing collaboration across disciplines and resource sectors; (7) seeking opportunities to engage with emerging governance structures; and (8) strengthening support for IEA by effectively communicating its stories.","PeriodicalId":50995,"journal":{"name":"Coastal Management","volume":"49 1","pages":"9 - 25"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2020-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846110","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46456684","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-09DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2021.1846155
Kimberly Bastille, Sean B Hardison, L. Dewitt, Jennifer M. Brown, J. Samhouri, S. Gaichas, S. Lucey, K. Kearney, Ben Best, Scott Cross, S. Large, E. Spooner
Abstract Integrated ecosystem assessments (IEAs) compile and use indicators, risk assessments, and other analyses to address regional policy needs at varying spatial scales. Although approaches to implementing IEAs are context-specific, challenges in data acquisition, management, processing, analysis, and communication are universal. By embracing open science, in which scientific data, methods, and products are made publicly accessible, along with the ever-expanding tools facilitating open science, IEA practitioners will be better equipped to address these challenges. Here, we provide a snapshot of the state of open science practices in IEAs on-going across the United States. We show that open science has improved the flexibility, reproducibility, and efficiency of the scientific workflows within the IEA framework. Although the initial time investment necessary for developing open science workflows may appear daunting, we show that the subsequent returns provided by the efficient and transparent development of IEA products are worth the effort. By improving the implementation of IEAs, open science tools and principals have the potential to further Ecosystem Based Management (EBM) worldwide.
{"title":"Improving the IEA Approach Using Principles of Open Data Science","authors":"Kimberly Bastille, Sean B Hardison, L. Dewitt, Jennifer M. Brown, J. Samhouri, S. Gaichas, S. Lucey, K. Kearney, Ben Best, Scott Cross, S. Large, E. Spooner","doi":"10.1080/08920753.2021.1846155","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846155","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Integrated ecosystem assessments (IEAs) compile and use indicators, risk assessments, and other analyses to address regional policy needs at varying spatial scales. Although approaches to implementing IEAs are context-specific, challenges in data acquisition, management, processing, analysis, and communication are universal. By embracing open science, in which scientific data, methods, and products are made publicly accessible, along with the ever-expanding tools facilitating open science, IEA practitioners will be better equipped to address these challenges. Here, we provide a snapshot of the state of open science practices in IEAs on-going across the United States. We show that open science has improved the flexibility, reproducibility, and efficiency of the scientific workflows within the IEA framework. Although the initial time investment necessary for developing open science workflows may appear daunting, we show that the subsequent returns provided by the efficient and transparent development of IEA products are worth the effort. By improving the implementation of IEAs, open science tools and principals have the potential to further Ecosystem Based Management (EBM) worldwide.","PeriodicalId":50995,"journal":{"name":"Coastal Management","volume":"49 1","pages":"72 - 89"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2020-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08920753.2021.1846155","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42227293","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-11-01DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2020.1845585
Guillermo Gómez, Samantha Farquhar, Henry Bell, Eric S. Laschever, S. Hall
Abstract World tuna catches reached 5.2 million metric tons in 2018, more than doubling since the early 1990s, primarily due to the introduction of Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs). The widespread use of drifting FADs has increased the economic efficiency of the fleet by making it easier to aggregate and locate tuna schools, but at a high ecological cost, including: significant catches of juvenile tunas; bycatch of endangered, threatened and protected species; and “ghost fishing,” marine pollution, and sensitive habitat destruction by abandoned FADs. Recent analysis indicates that most deployed FADs are eventually lost, stolen, beached, or abandoned, continuing their destructive impacts. This paper examines the legal regime, market forces, and other factors that frame FAD use. We demonstrate that, because deployed FADs are legally considered to be fishing, when they drift into closed areas or otherwise contravene national or international agreements or regulations, they are Illegal, Unreported, and/or Unregulated (IUU); vessels using such FADs are therefore IUU. We suggest that introducing a transparent FAD ownership tracking system and requiring FAD owners to mitigate their impacts could substantially improve the effectiveness of tuna Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) and redirect market incentives to properly support tuna management.
{"title":"The IUU Nature of FADs: Implications for Tuna Management and Markets","authors":"Guillermo Gómez, Samantha Farquhar, Henry Bell, Eric S. Laschever, S. Hall","doi":"10.1080/08920753.2020.1845585","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2020.1845585","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract World tuna catches reached 5.2 million metric tons in 2018, more than doubling since the early 1990s, primarily due to the introduction of Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs). The widespread use of drifting FADs has increased the economic efficiency of the fleet by making it easier to aggregate and locate tuna schools, but at a high ecological cost, including: significant catches of juvenile tunas; bycatch of endangered, threatened and protected species; and “ghost fishing,” marine pollution, and sensitive habitat destruction by abandoned FADs. Recent analysis indicates that most deployed FADs are eventually lost, stolen, beached, or abandoned, continuing their destructive impacts. This paper examines the legal regime, market forces, and other factors that frame FAD use. We demonstrate that, because deployed FADs are legally considered to be fishing, when they drift into closed areas or otherwise contravene national or international agreements or regulations, they are Illegal, Unreported, and/or Unregulated (IUU); vessels using such FADs are therefore IUU. We suggest that introducing a transparent FAD ownership tracking system and requiring FAD owners to mitigate their impacts could substantially improve the effectiveness of tuna Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) and redirect market incentives to properly support tuna management.","PeriodicalId":50995,"journal":{"name":"Coastal Management","volume":"48 1","pages":"534 - 558"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08920753.2020.1845585","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44686363","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-24DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2020.1823669
Taylor Goelz, A. Scheld, Troy W. Hartley, I. Carboni
Abstract Many “wicked” natural resources management problems today are utilizing more collaborative methods of decision making. Through involving stakeholders in decision-making, resource managers can induce engagement and support for final decisions and prevent future conflict. Additionally, participation is thought to yield increased group cohesion, where stakeholders better understand each other’s perspectives. Cohesion is essential for collaborative processes to develop a collective vision for management of the resource. While development of cohesion within collaborative decision-making processes has been discussed, changes in cohesion have not been quantitatively demonstrated or described during these processes. Using longitudinal social network analysis models, we illustrate changes in cohesion during OysterFutures, a participatory modeling process in the Chesapeake Bay. Results showed cohesion development was not homogeneous; structural network factors and stakeholder group co-membership impacted the overall group cohesion. This article concludes with a discussion on the value of temporal social network analysis and areas for future research.
{"title":"Understanding Structural Factors and Actor Attributes That Impact the Development of Cohesion within a Participatory Modeling Process","authors":"Taylor Goelz, A. Scheld, Troy W. Hartley, I. Carboni","doi":"10.1080/08920753.2020.1823669","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2020.1823669","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Many “wicked” natural resources management problems today are utilizing more collaborative methods of decision making. Through involving stakeholders in decision-making, resource managers can induce engagement and support for final decisions and prevent future conflict. Additionally, participation is thought to yield increased group cohesion, where stakeholders better understand each other’s perspectives. Cohesion is essential for collaborative processes to develop a collective vision for management of the resource. While development of cohesion within collaborative decision-making processes has been discussed, changes in cohesion have not been quantitatively demonstrated or described during these processes. Using longitudinal social network analysis models, we illustrate changes in cohesion during OysterFutures, a participatory modeling process in the Chesapeake Bay. Results showed cohesion development was not homogeneous; structural network factors and stakeholder group co-membership impacted the overall group cohesion. This article concludes with a discussion on the value of temporal social network analysis and areas for future research.","PeriodicalId":50995,"journal":{"name":"Coastal Management","volume":"48 1","pages":"577 - 600"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2020-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08920753.2020.1823669","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44047204","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-22DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2020.1823667
Sarah Stafford
Abstract This study uses data from shoreline modification permit applications in Gloucester County, Virginia to provide insights into how coastal managers can encourage the use of living shorelines over shoreline armoring. The data show that shorelines are more likely to be modified on properties with high neighboring property values and properties threatened by hurricane storm surge and high wave energy, while modifications are less likely in conservation areas and areas with high percentages of natural cover and agricultural use. Compared to armoring, living shorelines are more likely in FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas and following recent flooding experiences but are less likely to be installed following an FEMA disaster declaration. Property owners are also significantly more likely to install a specific modification if their neighbors have already installed that modification. Based on these results, coastal managers may be able to increase the effectiveness of interventions to reduce shoreline modification by targeting unmodified high value properties in residential areas with high wave energy. To encourage property owners to install living shorelines over armoring, the results suggest that coastal managers should target properties with armored neighbors or properties in business zones and should develop interventions directly following significant storm events.
{"title":"Encouraging Living Shorelines over Shoreline Armoring: Insights from Property Owners Choices in the Chesapeake Bay","authors":"Sarah Stafford","doi":"10.1080/08920753.2020.1823667","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2020.1823667","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study uses data from shoreline modification permit applications in Gloucester County, Virginia to provide insights into how coastal managers can encourage the use of living shorelines over shoreline armoring. The data show that shorelines are more likely to be modified on properties with high neighboring property values and properties threatened by hurricane storm surge and high wave energy, while modifications are less likely in conservation areas and areas with high percentages of natural cover and agricultural use. Compared to armoring, living shorelines are more likely in FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas and following recent flooding experiences but are less likely to be installed following an FEMA disaster declaration. Property owners are also significantly more likely to install a specific modification if their neighbors have already installed that modification. Based on these results, coastal managers may be able to increase the effectiveness of interventions to reduce shoreline modification by targeting unmodified high value properties in residential areas with high wave energy. To encourage property owners to install living shorelines over armoring, the results suggest that coastal managers should target properties with armored neighbors or properties in business zones and should develop interventions directly following significant storm events.","PeriodicalId":50995,"journal":{"name":"Coastal Management","volume":"48 1","pages":"559 - 576"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2020-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08920753.2020.1823667","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42413205","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-25DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2020.1802197
M. Valdés-Pizzini
The Caribbean zeitgeist is dominated by the critical importance of climate change, sea level rise and the increment in the number, strength and impact of hurricanes engulfing the region. The intern...
{"title":"Making Sense out of Coastal Peoples and Fishers' Responses to Extreme Natural Events in the Caribbean","authors":"M. Valdés-Pizzini","doi":"10.1080/08920753.2020.1802197","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2020.1802197","url":null,"abstract":"The Caribbean zeitgeist is dominated by the critical importance of climate change, sea level rise and the increment in the number, strength and impact of hurricanes engulfing the region. The intern...","PeriodicalId":50995,"journal":{"name":"Coastal Management","volume":"48 1","pages":"349 - 353"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2020-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08920753.2020.1802197","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46004445","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-18DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2020.1803563
Lucia Fanning, R. Mahon
Abstract The perception by many that governing arrangements for the global ocean commons are fragmented and dysfunctional may be an unnecessary barrier to tangible progress aimed at sustainably reaping the benefits of the ‘Blue Economy’. A recent review of the governance of the global ocean identified 191 governance arrangements for issues affecting transboundary marine resources. We suggest that instead of simply bemoaning the status quo as being fragmented, the opportunity exists to put in place a holistic multilevel global framework for governing the world’s ocean, building on the strengths of existing arrangements. The United Nations could play a leadership role in providing the mechanism and resources needed to facilitate this.
{"title":"Governance of the Global Ocean Commons: Hopelessly Fragmented or Fixable?","authors":"Lucia Fanning, R. Mahon","doi":"10.1080/08920753.2020.1803563","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2020.1803563","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The perception by many that governing arrangements for the global ocean commons are fragmented and dysfunctional may be an unnecessary barrier to tangible progress aimed at sustainably reaping the benefits of the ‘Blue Economy’. A recent review of the governance of the global ocean identified 191 governance arrangements for issues affecting transboundary marine resources. We suggest that instead of simply bemoaning the status quo as being fragmented, the opportunity exists to put in place a holistic multilevel global framework for governing the world’s ocean, building on the strengths of existing arrangements. The United Nations could play a leadership role in providing the mechanism and resources needed to facilitate this.","PeriodicalId":50995,"journal":{"name":"Coastal Management","volume":"48 1","pages":"527 - 533"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2020-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08920753.2020.1803563","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45948995","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-08-17DOI: 10.1080/08920753.2020.1803572
Abril Montijo-Galindo, A. Ruiz-Luna, Miguel Betancourt Lozano, R. Hernández-Guzmán
Abstract The likely increase in extreme rainfall events (ERE) due to climate change, particularly associated with tropical storms and hurricanes, threatens coastal communities worldwide. A model based on socioeconomic and environmental indicators was used to assess and categorize vulnerability to ERE at the municipal level, in Sinaloa, a coastal state of northwest Mexico. Coastal vulnerability was assessed based on a system of indicators, integrated into five criteria within two higher categories: response capacity (Economic conditions, Social development, and Living standards), and severity (Geographic exposure and Risk intensifiers). From a preliminary set of 25 indicators, three of them were selected by criterion using the Delphi method, and their values were later standardized from 0 (low) to 1 (high) on a vulnerability scale. Both criteria and indicators were weighted following an analytical hierarchical process (AHP), resulting in the main determinants of vulnerability being Geographic exposure (0.43) and Economic conditions (0.34). This first approach to a vulnerability assessment using standardized values showed that Guasave (to the north) and Escuinapa (to the south) are the most vulnerable municipalities, scoring >9.0 (with 15 being the maximum score). In contrast, Culiacán and San Ignacio, both central municipalities, ranked as the least vulnerable (<5.5). A further analysis using the integral vulnerability index (IVI) corroborated Guasave (3.73) and Escuinapa (3.15) as the most vulnerable, discarding latitudinal changes as a possible promotor of vulnerability. Although the coastal population was the main determinant of vulnerability (median = 0.57), other indicators associated with severity as well as response capacity were responsible for the increase in IVI scores. This study highlights the need for an integrated vulnerability analysis to support public policies and the decision-making process to protect coastal communities from environmental climate change.
{"title":"A Multicriteria Assessment of Vulnerability to Extreme Rainfall Events on the Pacific Coast of Mexico","authors":"Abril Montijo-Galindo, A. Ruiz-Luna, Miguel Betancourt Lozano, R. Hernández-Guzmán","doi":"10.1080/08920753.2020.1803572","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2020.1803572","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The likely increase in extreme rainfall events (ERE) due to climate change, particularly associated with tropical storms and hurricanes, threatens coastal communities worldwide. A model based on socioeconomic and environmental indicators was used to assess and categorize vulnerability to ERE at the municipal level, in Sinaloa, a coastal state of northwest Mexico. Coastal vulnerability was assessed based on a system of indicators, integrated into five criteria within two higher categories: response capacity (Economic conditions, Social development, and Living standards), and severity (Geographic exposure and Risk intensifiers). From a preliminary set of 25 indicators, three of them were selected by criterion using the Delphi method, and their values were later standardized from 0 (low) to 1 (high) on a vulnerability scale. Both criteria and indicators were weighted following an analytical hierarchical process (AHP), resulting in the main determinants of vulnerability being Geographic exposure (0.43) and Economic conditions (0.34). This first approach to a vulnerability assessment using standardized values showed that Guasave (to the north) and Escuinapa (to the south) are the most vulnerable municipalities, scoring >9.0 (with 15 being the maximum score). In contrast, Culiacán and San Ignacio, both central municipalities, ranked as the least vulnerable (<5.5). A further analysis using the integral vulnerability index (IVI) corroborated Guasave (3.73) and Escuinapa (3.15) as the most vulnerable, discarding latitudinal changes as a possible promotor of vulnerability. Although the coastal population was the main determinant of vulnerability (median = 0.57), other indicators associated with severity as well as response capacity were responsible for the increase in IVI scores. This study highlights the need for an integrated vulnerability analysis to support public policies and the decision-making process to protect coastal communities from environmental climate change.","PeriodicalId":50995,"journal":{"name":"Coastal Management","volume":"48 1","pages":"623 - 642"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2020-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/08920753.2020.1803572","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48800552","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：