Karen L. McLeod

An index to assess the health and benefits of the global ocean

The ocean plays a critical role in supporting human well-being, from providing food, livelihoods and recreational opportunities to regulating the global climate. Sustainable management aimed at maintaining the flow of a broad range of benefits from the ocean requires a comprehensive and quantitative method to measure and monitor the health of coupled human–ocean systems. We created an index comprising ten diverse public goals for a healthy coupled human–ocean system and calculated the index for every coastal country. Globally, the overall index score was 60 out of 100 (range 36–86), with developed countries generally performing better than developing countries, but with notable exceptions. Only 5% of countries scored higher than 70, whereas 32% scored lower than 50. The index provides a powerful tool to raise public awareness, direct resource management, improve policy and prioritize scientific research.

Guiding ecological principles for marine spatial planning

The declining health of marine ecosystems around the world is evidence that current piecemeal governance is inadequate to successfully support healthy coastal and ocean ecosystems and sustain human uses of the ocean. One proposed solution to this problem is ecosystem-based marine spatial planning (MSP), which is a process that informs the spatial distribution of activities in the ocean so that existing and emerging uses can be maintained, use conflicts reduced, and ecosystem health and services protected and sustained for future generations. Because a key goal of ecosystem-based MSP is to maintain the delivery of ecosystem services that humans want and need, it must be based on ecological principles that articulate the scientifically recognized attributes of healthy, functioning ecosystems. These principles should be incorporated into a decision-making framework with clearly defined targets for these ecological attributes. This paper identifies ecological principles for MSP based on a synthesis of previously suggested and/or operationalized principles, along with recommendations generated by a group of twenty ecologists and marine scientists with diverse backgrounds and perspectives on MSP. The proposed four main ecological principles to guide MSP--maintaining or restoring: native species diversity, habitat diversity and heterogeneity, key species, and connectivity--and two additional guidelines, the need to account for context and uncertainty, must be explicitly taken into account in the planning process. When applied in concert with social, economic, and governance principles, these ecological principles can inform the designation and siting of ocean uses and the management of activities in the ocean to maintain or restore healthy ecosystems, allow delivery of marine ecosystem services, and ensure sustainable economic and social benefits.

Confronting the challenges of implementing marine ecosystem-based management

Many services provided by coastal and marine ecosystems are in decline. Awareness of these declines and the need to improve existing management has led to a shift toward ecosystem-based approaches to marine management and conservation, both in the US and elsewhere. Marine ecosystem-based management (EBM) involves recognizing and addressing interactions among different spatial and temporal scales, within and among ecological and social systems, and among stakeholder groups and communities interested in the health and stewardship of coastal and marine areas. We discuss some overarching principles of marine EBM and highlight key challenges facing implementation. We then recommend ways in which natural and social scientists can advance implementation of ecosystem-based approaches in the oceans by addressing key research needs, building interdisciplinary scientific capacity, and synthesizing and communicating scientific knowledge to policy makers, managers, and other stakeholders.

Placing marine protected areas onto the ecosystem-based management seascape

The rapid increase in the science and implementation of marine protected areas (MPAs) around the world in the past 15 years is now being followed by similar increases in the science and application of marine ecosystem-based management (EBM). Despite important overlaps and some common goals, these two approaches have remained either separated in the literature and in conservation and management efforts or treated as if they are one and the same. In the cases when connections are acknowledged, there is often little assessment of if or how well MPAs can achieve specific EBM goals. Here we start by critically evaluating commonalities and differences between MPAs and EBM. Next, we use global analyses to show where and how much no-take marine reserves can be expected to contribute to EBM goals, specifically by reducing the cumulative impacts of stressors on ocean ecosystems. These analyses revealed large stretches of coastal oceans where reserves can play a major role in reducing cumulative impacts and thus improving overall ocean condition, at the same time highlighting the limitations of marine reserves as a single tool to achieve comprehensive EBM. Ultimately, better synergies between these two burgeoning approaches provide opportunities to greatly benefit ocean health.

Ecosystems in Action: Lessons from Marine Ecology about Recovery, Resistance, and Reversibility

ABSTRACT The study of ecosystems in action, by measuring ecosystem recovery from disturbance, resistance to alterations, and the reversibility of ecosystem changes, highlights features of natural communities that contribute to resilience. Examples from marine intertidal and subtidal communities document the importance of species redundancy and complementarity in resistance and recovery, and they also show why recovery potential and resistance can differ from place to place within the same ecosystem. Whether a change is considered reversible may depend on the timescale of interest, and on whether fundamental new ecological processes have taken hold after a disturbance. By focusing on recovery, resistance, and reversibility as key components of resilience, marine ecologists have provided a much-needed empirical database about the response of the living world to human-mediated change.

Sea sick? Setting targets to assess ocean health and ecosystem services

The benefits provided by a healthy ocean are receiving increasing attention in policy and management spheres. A fundamental challenge with assessing ocean health and ecosystem services is that we lack a scientific framework for expressing ecosystem conditions quantitatively in relation to management goals. Here we outline and operationalize a conceptual framework for identifying meaningful reference points and quantifying the current ecosystem state relative to them. The framework requires clear articulation of management goals and is built on a review of current scientific understanding and assessment of data availability. It develops a structured approach for choosing among three classes of reference points, including: (1) functional relationships that establish the ocean state that can be produced and sustained under different environmental conditions, (2) time series approaches that compare current to previous capacities to obtain a particular ocean state in a specific location, and (3) spatial reference points that compare current capacities to achieve a desired ocean state across regional (or, if necessary, global) scales. We illustrate this general framework through the lens of ocean health defined in terms of a coupled social-ecological system, with examples from fisheries, marine livelihoods, and water quality in the USA. Assessment of ocean health and ecosystem services can be significantly influenced by the choice of indicators used to track changes in a management goal, the type of reference point selected, and how one measures the distance of the current state from the reference point. This framework provides flexible, standardized methods for evaluating ocean health and ecosystem services that can advance important components of ecosystem-based management, including marine spatial planning, ecosystem service valuation, and integrated ecosystem assessments.

COMPASS: navigating the rules of scientific engagement.

COMPASS shares a decade of experience in helping scientists become effective leaders by navigating a path from outreach to meaningful engagement with journalists and policymakers.

Assessing the Health of the U.S. West Coast with a Regional-Scale Application of the Ocean Health Index

Management of marine ecosystems increasingly demands comprehensive and quantitative assessments of ocean health, but lacks a tool to do so. We applied the recently developed Ocean Health Index to assess ocean health in the relatively data-rich US west coast region. The overall region scored 71 out of 100, with sub-regions scoring from 65 (Washington) to 74 (Oregon). Highest scoring goals included tourism and recreation (99) and clean waters (87), while the lowest scoring goals were sense of place (48) and artisanal fishing opportunities (57). Surprisingly, even in this well-studied area data limitations precluded robust assessments of past trends in overall ocean health. Nonetheless, retrospective calculation of current status showed that many goals have declined, by up to 20%. In contrast, near-term future scores were on average 6% greater than current status across all goals and sub-regions. Application of hypothetical but realistic management scenarios illustrate how the Index can be used to predict and understand the tradeoffs among goals and consequences for overall ocean health. We illustrate and discuss how this index can be used to vet underlying assumptions and decisions with local stakeholders and decision-makers so that scores reflect regional knowledge, priorities and values. We also highlight the importance of ongoing and future monitoring that will provide robust data relevant to ocean health assessment.

How Good Science and Stories Can Go Hand‐In‐Hand

HEATHER M. LESLIE,∗† ERICA GOLDMAN,‡ KAREN L. MCLEOD,§ LEILA SIEVANEN,† HARI BALASUBRAMANIAN,∗∗††† RICHARD CUDNEY-BUENO,†† AMANDA FEUERSTEIN,‡‡ NANCY KNOWLTON,‡‡ KAI LEE,†† RICHARD POLLNAC,§§ AND JAMEAL F. SAMHOURI∗∗∗ ∗Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, U.S.A. †Center for Environmental Studies, Brown University, Box 1943, Providence, RI 02912, U.S.A. ‡COMPASS, 9523 Clement Road, Silver Spring, MD 20910, U.S.A. §COMPASS, Department of Zoology, Oregon State University, 3029 Cordley Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331-2914, U.S.A. ∗∗Conservation International, 2011 Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA 22202, U.S.A. ††The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, 300 2nd Street, Los Altos, CA 94022, U.S.A. ‡‡Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. §§Department of Marine Affairs, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881, U.S.A. ∗∗∗National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Conservation Biology Division, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Boulevard E., Seattle, WA 98112, U.S.A. †††EcoAdvisors, 1758 Henry Street, Halifax NS, B3H 3K6 Canada