Presentation Abstract
Cumulative effects assessments are increasingly required for resource management, marine spatial planning, and ecosystem-based management. A key step in a cumulative effects assessment is to determine the vulnerability of ecosystem components to stressors, which can be achieved through a vulnerability assessment. However, not all studies define vulnerability in the same way, which can lead to variable and incompatible results. For example, while many cumulative impact mapping studies use expert-derived scoring based on the variables of spatial scale, frequency, trophic impact, percentage change, and recovery time (e.g., Teck et al 2010), others, such as DFO’s Ecological Risk Assessment Framework (O et al 2015), use area, depth, temporal extent, intensity, frequency, acute change, chronic change, and recovery. In order to evaluate whether assessment outcomes vary based on the vulnerability criteria used, we synthesized vulnerability assessments, and compared rankings to examine commonalities and differences. We then explored how the definition and calculation of vulnerability and the goal of the assessment may have affected the rankings of habitats, species, and stressors. This comparison of vulnerability definitions and ranking across different assessments will advance the understanding of cumulative effects and the management of the risk of stressors, and inform our work to create a vulnerability matrix specifically for Canada’s coasts. The refinement of vulnerability assessments will be a key component in future cumulative effects assessments.
Session Title
Track: Governance, Management & Funding – Posters
Conference Track
Governance, Management & Funding
Conference Name
Salish Sea Ecosystem Conference (2020 : Online)
Document Type
Event
SSEC Identifier
2020_abstractID_3894
Start Date
21-4-2020 9:00 AM
End Date
22-4-2020 4:45 PM
Genre/Form
conference proceedings; presentations (communicative events)
Subjects – Topical (LCSH)
Cumulative effects assessment (Environmental assessment)--Salish Sea (B.C. and Wash.); Marine ecology--Salish Sea (B.C. and Wash.)
Geographic Coverage
Salish Sea (B.C. and Wash.)
Rights
Copying of this document in whole or in part is allowable only for scholarly purposes. It is understood, however, that any copying or publication of this document for commercial purposes, or for financial gain, shall not be allowed without the author's written permission.
Type
Text
Language
English
Format
application/pdf
Included in
Fresh Water Studies Commons, Marine Biology Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons
A comparison of the vulnerability of marine ecosystems to anthropogenic stressors
Cumulative effects assessments are increasingly required for resource management, marine spatial planning, and ecosystem-based management. A key step in a cumulative effects assessment is to determine the vulnerability of ecosystem components to stressors, which can be achieved through a vulnerability assessment. However, not all studies define vulnerability in the same way, which can lead to variable and incompatible results. For example, while many cumulative impact mapping studies use expert-derived scoring based on the variables of spatial scale, frequency, trophic impact, percentage change, and recovery time (e.g., Teck et al 2010), others, such as DFO’s Ecological Risk Assessment Framework (O et al 2015), use area, depth, temporal extent, intensity, frequency, acute change, chronic change, and recovery. In order to evaluate whether assessment outcomes vary based on the vulnerability criteria used, we synthesized vulnerability assessments, and compared rankings to examine commonalities and differences. We then explored how the definition and calculation of vulnerability and the goal of the assessment may have affected the rankings of habitats, species, and stressors. This comparison of vulnerability definitions and ranking across different assessments will advance the understanding of cumulative effects and the management of the risk of stressors, and inform our work to create a vulnerability matrix specifically for Canada’s coasts. The refinement of vulnerability assessments will be a key component in future cumulative effects assessments.
