Presentation Abstract
Cumulative impact mapping can be a useful tool for marine spatial planning because the results can identify discrete areas in which ecosystems, habitats, or species are most affected by stressors associated with human activities. This information can help planners and managers prioritize areas for management, identify pristine areas for protection and degraded areas for restoration, and can be included as a cost layer in tradeoff analyses. A key challenge in using cumulative impact mapping in marine spatial planning is the issue of identifying appropriate thresholds for distinguishing the status of areas. To date, the interpretation of cumulative impact mapping model results and presentation of cumulative impact maps has been purely a scientific exercise. Defining states of the ecosystem, based on cumulative impact maps, requires identification of the thresholds or transition points between conditions. For example, the IUCN’s three conditions for biodiversity (cities and farms, shared lands, and large wild areas) could be applied to the ocean using cumulative impact mapping results. Thresholds are by definition a delineation between states, and the selection of these thresholds can be affected by differences in community and stakeholder values and perceptions. We will explore how different threshold definitions affect the maps of cumulative impact in the Salish Sea and invite conference participants to consider which areas they consider “wild” and which are degraded, and what this might mean for marine spatial planning.
Session Title
Marine Spatial Planning in the Salish Sea
Conference Track
Governance, Management & Funding
Conference Name
Salish Sea Ecosystem Conference (2020 : Online)
Document Type
Event
SSEC Identifier
2020_abstractID_4217
Start Date
21-4-2020 9:00 AM
End Date
22-4-2020 4:45 PM
Genre/Form
presentations (communicative events)
Subjects – Topical (LCSH)
Ecological mapping--Salish Sea (B.C. and Wash.); Spatial ecology--Salish Sea (B.C. and Wash.); Marine spatial planning--Salish Sea (B.C. and Wash.)--Planning
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
Identifying cumulative impact thresholds: implications for marine spatial planning
Cumulative impact mapping can be a useful tool for marine spatial planning because the results can identify discrete areas in which ecosystems, habitats, or species are most affected by stressors associated with human activities. This information can help planners and managers prioritize areas for management, identify pristine areas for protection and degraded areas for restoration, and can be included as a cost layer in tradeoff analyses. A key challenge in using cumulative impact mapping in marine spatial planning is the issue of identifying appropriate thresholds for distinguishing the status of areas. To date, the interpretation of cumulative impact mapping model results and presentation of cumulative impact maps has been purely a scientific exercise. Defining states of the ecosystem, based on cumulative impact maps, requires identification of the thresholds or transition points between conditions. For example, the IUCN’s three conditions for biodiversity (cities and farms, shared lands, and large wild areas) could be applied to the ocean using cumulative impact mapping results. Thresholds are by definition a delineation between states, and the selection of these thresholds can be affected by differences in community and stakeholder values and perceptions. We will explore how different threshold definitions affect the maps of cumulative impact in the Salish Sea and invite conference participants to consider which areas they consider “wild” and which are degraded, and what this might mean for marine spatial planning.
