Forgot your password?
Document Actions
Human impacts (threats) analysis overview
Word document outlining approach, including tables of threats, human activitites and habitats
Threats Analysis
Carrie Kappel, Rebecca Martone, Ben Halpern, Fiorenza Micheli
Humans derive multiple ecosystem services from marine ecosystems while simultaneously
introducing a suite of anthropogenic stressors. Ecosystem-based management is charged with
addressing multiple users and their associated threats to marine ecosystems. Managing multiple
users and threats of these sectors on marine ecosystems is a difficult task, particularly when
limited funding constrains the number of threats that can be addressed. Many managers lack a
systematic and comprehensive assessment of how vulnerable marine ecosystems are to different
human activities. In addition, values of services derived from human activities and marine
ecosystems generally are not explicitly considered when prioritizing management actions
(though implicit judgments concerning the value of competing activities are often made in the
prioritization process). Given this predicament, managers need a process by which to identify
and prioritize threats from different activities, identify values derived from ecosystems, and
combine both threats and values to prioritize management actions.
The first step is to quantify differences in ecosystem response to human activities. Conducting
such evaluations, however, is enormously difficult because combining tens of threats with as
many different ecosystem types leads to hundreds of threat-ecosystem combinations. Many of
these combinations have not been evaluated empirically, and far fewer have been tested in a
combinatorial way that would allow one to assess the relative importance of any given activity,
particularly over large spatial and temporal scales. Consequently, conservation planners
traditionally assess differences in how threats affect ecosystems by soliciting expert opinion on
these differences and plotting the results on regional maps. This is a valid approach, but the
methods used and the scientific evidence forming the basis for the assessment are not often made
explicit. Thus, it is often impossible to assess the uncertainty of the threat assessments or the
differences in their expected effects on different habitat types and locations. A transparent and
systematic method for collecting expert opinion to describe and document how different human
activities affect marine ecosystems at the global scale has been developed by Halpern et al. (in
review) at NCEAS. This information on the vulnerability of marine habitats to particular threats
is then being used to weight those threats in a global map of marine anthropogenic impacts
(Halpern et al., in prep). Spatially explicit global data layers have been developed to represent a
broad suite of threats and habitats at 1km resolution. Our plan is to apply this method at the
regional scale, using the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) as a case study.
The product of this analysis will be a regional map of relative impacts, based on the human
activities and intensity of associated threats present in a given area, the habitats found there, and
the vulnerability of each habitat to each specific threat. This will provide managers with a
spatially explicit tool with which to identify threats to marine ecosystems across sectors,
determine which ecosystems are heavily impacted by single sectors, and determine which areas
are particularly vulnerable to multiple human activities and possible use conflicts.
Using the MBNMS draft management plan and our own experience in the areawe have expanded
the list of threats Halpern et al. used for the global analysis to include additional threats
particular to the Monterey Bay region (See Table 1). We have also generated an extensive list of
human activities that take place within the Sanctuary and that rely upon or impact marine
ecosystem components to one degree or another (See Table 2). In addition, we have narrowed
the list of marine habitat types to just those that are present in the region (See Table 3). Expert
surveys of the vulnerability of these habitats to the list of threats used in the global analysis have
already been completed, but we may want to conduct additional expert surveys to a) increase
sample size for some habitats, b) capitalize on local knowledge, and c) gain information on the
vulnerability of local habitats to the more specific threats we added to the global list. Expert
surveys may be administered in person or as an online survey.
Identifying the threats to the ecosystem, including which areas are the most heavily impacted or
most vulnerable to threats, and identifying areas of potential use conflict are key first steps to
prioritizing management actions. However, we are aware that other factors influence decision-
making in marine management, such as the value of ecosystem services to different sectors and
the value, in turn, of those sectors to the economy, political reward or penalty for dealing with a
perceived threat, resulting impact on multiple user groups when management action is focused
on a single sector, etc. Current management has only cursorily confronted these issues, while
ecosystem-based management, by definition, is required to tackle them. This will require a
dynamic tool with capacity to integrate both biological and socioeconomic data. An initial static
approach, which by itself would be a significant step forward but a real challenge given current
data availability, would be to develop a map of values associated with ecosystem services and
human activities, either based on literature surveys or empirical data collection. This map of
values could then be used in concert with the map of relative impacts across the region and the
map of areas of potential use conflict to highlight areas where management action may be
effective, e.g. areas of low value, low conflict, but high threat. To make this a more feasible goal,
it may be necessary to narrow the list of human activities for which we try to determine a surface
of values, e.g. focusing on key sectors that experience use conflicts (as identified in the initial
analysis). In addition, it could be possible to further simplify things by focusing on developing
values for different human activities by habitat type (perhaps weighted by distance from
shore/port or other factors), and then apply these values to mapped habitat layers, rather than
trying to get values for every cell in the region.
Ultimately, what is needed is a dynamic way to integrate the goals of management (e.g.
mitigating threats) with the costs and benefits to human users of implementing those
management actions, taking into account how management action is likely to affect delivery of
ecosystem services, human behavior and the value of ecosystem services to human users. As
spatially explicit site selection algorithms develop, it may be possible to conceive of a multi-use,
multi-objective site selection algorithm that could help managers to optimize the use of marine
ecosystems, but this goal is likely far in the future at this point.
We expect that this analysis will:
1. Provide managers with a spatially explicit, transparent tool with which to identify threats
to marine ecosystems and determine which habitats are heavily impacted
2. Develop a method to estimate uncertainty around threats and/or services, to help
managers identify areas where data are needed
3. Allow managers to identify areas of use conflict, areas of high potential return on
investment, and areas where management actions might have minimal negative impacts
on human users.
4. Provide a process with which to integrate vulnerability of habitats to human activities
with values of services (derived from both the biological resources and the human
activities that utilize those resources)
5. Test under what conditions managers might expect use conflicts or greater impacts
Where we need input:
1. Should we conduct additional expert surveys for MBNMS or use current surveys?
2. What are the best sources of data for maps of human activities, particularly those that are
not well represented in the Halpern et al. global analysis?
3. For which human activities would it be feasible to try to develop spatially explicit maps
of the value of different locations or habitats within the region?
4. What framework should be used to integrate the map of values with the map of impacts?
5. Can we make this interactive/dynamic such that if one management decision is applied,
we can update the vulnerability and/or value of other areas or habitats?
What this analysis doesn’t provide:
1. Impact from the interaction between human activities
2. Dynamic model incorporating the effects of management actions
Table 1. Table of threats considered for the MBNMS regional threats analysis.
Factors Involved
Threat
Type Notes
Some examples listed here
Note: Freshwater input is likely to have different effects on
marine ecosystems depending on whether natural input levels salt water diversion - eg
desalinization plant, entrainment
are increased or decreased. Please consider these cases
Freshwater
separately. from power plant
input:
Increase Watershed size, flow rate, channelization hydrological changes
Watershed size, flow rate, dam size/ distribution, agricultural
hydrological changes
Decrease diversion
Note: Sediment input is likely to have different effects on
marine ecosystems depending on whether natural input levels
are increased or decreased. Please consider these cases
Sediment
separately.
input:
Logging, agriculture, urban development, dust input, dam
size/ distribution, flow rate, channelization, mining,
Increase fire/suppression hydrological changes
Watershed size, flow rate, dam size/ distribution, agricultural
Decrease diversion hydrological changes
Nutrient
input:
Into
oligotrophic
systems
Into eutrophic
systems Agriculture, aquaculture, sewage
Pollution:
Atmos. fallout Dust, jet fuel, heavy metals
Point source Point sources of industry, agriculture,
hormones, endocrine-
(organic)
disruptors, urban run-off, sewage, pathogens, mining
thermal pollution
(nonorganic) activities, oil spills
Nonpoint
source Non-point sources of industry, agriculture, hormones,
(organic) endocrine-disruptors, urban run-off, sewage, pathogens,
(nonorganic) mining activities
beach grooming (separate these
as they have different impact
Coastal
levels)
Seawalls, piers, jetties, beach nourishment, sand mining
engineering
also intended to incorporate
Coastal
Land fill, reclamation, dredging building houses
development
noise & light pollution, human
presence (separate out or get rid
Trampling, noise & light pollution, thermal pollution, trash of this category and incorporate
Direct human
input, human activity, coral harvest into ecotourism category?)
impact
Habitat destruction, nutrient input, livestock escapes,
infrastructure effects, etc. from shrimp, tuna salmon, etc.
Aquaculture
Fishing:
use the DFG blocks to figure out
Industrial sp. By fishery type in sanctuary
Demersal
and then put into these
(habitat
destructive) E.g. trawling. Includes bycatch. categories for vulnerability
(non-habitat
destructive) E.g. traps. Includes bycatch.
Industrial
Pelagic (high
bycatch) Nets, long-lines, etc.
(low bycatch) Purse-seine,etc.
Aquarium Live catch for aquarium trade
IUU Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported fishing
Artisanal
(destructive) Blast, cyanide, etc.
kelp harvest, urchins,
mussels/shorebased collecting? -
not industrial demersal or pelagic
and not artisanal and not
(non-
destructive) Collecting,line fishing recreational
Recreational Legal recreation fishing commercial harvest category?
Climate
change:
Sea level Rising sea level
Sea
temperature Increasing sea temperature
Acidification Increasing acidification of seawater
Ozone/UV Increasing ultraviolet exposure
Species
Shipping, aquaculture, aquarium trade, coastal development
invasion
Sewage, urban run-off, aquaculture
Disease
Harmful algal blooms
Algal blooms
Abnormally low oxygen from whatever source
Hypoxia
Ship-based (bilge water, antifouling, waste), toxic/trash waste
Ocean-based
disposal, sound, light, vehicle wrecks, marine debris
pollution
Commercial
Shipping lanes, groundings/ scrapings, related anchoring
activity
Hydrothermal vents, nodule fields, gas/oil development,
Ocean mining diamonds, sand/gravel, large-scale coral mining
Offshore
Oil & gas platforms, windmills
development
Benthic
Pipelines, communications structures
structures
separate them out? (diving vs
other activities? ie whale
watching, land-based nature
viewing, visitation, tidepooling,
Diving, whale watching, nature viewing, related anchorings/
moorings kayaking)
Tourism
Table 2. List of human activities occurring in the MBNMS.
Human Activities
Agriculture
Urban Development
Land-based mining
Ocean-mining
Power plants
LNG plants
Desalinization plants
Commercial fishing
Recreational fishing/collecting
Aquaculture/Mariculture
Commercial harvest
Coastal engineering
Beach nourishment
Beach grooming
Sand mining
Off road vehicles
Tidepooling
Bird watching
Whale watching
Kayaking
Boating
Cruise ships
Diving
Commercial shipping
Seafloor cable/communication
Wind energy
Oil and gas platforms
Research
Education
illegal fishing
artisanal fishing
Dredging
Harbors/Marinas
Beach visitation
Wastewater treatment
Offshore disposal
Air traffic
Bio-prospecting
Hang gliding
Wave/Tidal energy development
Conservation
Table 3. Habitats occurring in the MBNMS.
Intertidal Coastal Deep Ocean Pelagic
Rocky Intertidal Seagrass Soft Benthic (deep) Surface Waters
Intertidal Mud Salt Marsh Soft Slope Deep Waters
Beach Kelp Forest Hard Slope
Rocky Reefs Soft Shelf
Suspension Reefs Hard Shelf
Subtidal Mud Deep Seamounts
Vents
Soft Canyons
Hard Canyons
Carrie Kappel, Rebecca Martone, Ben Halpern, Fiorenza Micheli
Humans derive multiple ecosystem services from marine ecosystems while simultaneously
introducing a suite of anthropogenic stressors. Ecosystem-based management is charged with
addressing multiple users and their associated threats to marine ecosystems. Managing multiple
users and threats of these sectors on marine ecosystems is a difficult task, particularly when
limited funding constrains the number of threats that can be addressed. Many managers lack a
systematic and comprehensive assessment of how vulnerable marine ecosystems are to different
human activities. In addition, values of services derived from human activities and marine
ecosystems generally are not explicitly considered when prioritizing management actions
(though implicit judgments concerning the value of competing activities are often made in the
prioritization process). Given this predicament, managers need a process by which to identify
and prioritize threats from different activities, identify values derived from ecosystems, and
combine both threats and values to prioritize management actions.
The first step is to quantify differences in ecosystem response to human activities. Conducting
such evaluations, however, is enormously difficult because combining tens of threats with as
many different ecosystem types leads to hundreds of threat-ecosystem combinations. Many of
these combinations have not been evaluated empirically, and far fewer have been tested in a
combinatorial way that would allow one to assess the relative importance of any given activity,
particularly over large spatial and temporal scales. Consequently, conservation planners
traditionally assess differences in how threats affect ecosystems by soliciting expert opinion on
these differences and plotting the results on regional maps. This is a valid approach, but the
methods used and the scientific evidence forming the basis for the assessment are not often made
explicit. Thus, it is often impossible to assess the uncertainty of the threat assessments or the
differences in their expected effects on different habitat types and locations. A transparent and
systematic method for collecting expert opinion to describe and document how different human
activities affect marine ecosystems at the global scale has been developed by Halpern et al. (in
review) at NCEAS. This information on the vulnerability of marine habitats to particular threats
is then being used to weight those threats in a global map of marine anthropogenic impacts
(Halpern et al., in prep). Spatially explicit global data layers have been developed to represent a
broad suite of threats and habitats at 1km resolution. Our plan is to apply this method at the
regional scale, using the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) as a case study.
The product of this analysis will be a regional map of relative impacts, based on the human
activities and intensity of associated threats present in a given area, the habitats found there, and
the vulnerability of each habitat to each specific threat. This will provide managers with a
spatially explicit tool with which to identify threats to marine ecosystems across sectors,
determine which ecosystems are heavily impacted by single sectors, and determine which areas
are particularly vulnerable to multiple human activities and possible use conflicts.
Using the MBNMS draft management plan and our own experience in the areawe have expanded
the list of threats Halpern et al. used for the global analysis to include additional threats
particular to the Monterey Bay region (See Table 1). We have also generated an extensive list of
human activities that take place within the Sanctuary and that rely upon or impact marine
ecosystem components to one degree or another (See Table 2). In addition, we have narrowed
the list of marine habitat types to just those that are present in the region (See Table 3). Expert
surveys of the vulnerability of these habitats to the list of threats used in the global analysis have
already been completed, but we may want to conduct additional expert surveys to a) increase
sample size for some habitats, b) capitalize on local knowledge, and c) gain information on the
vulnerability of local habitats to the more specific threats we added to the global list. Expert
surveys may be administered in person or as an online survey.
Identifying the threats to the ecosystem, including which areas are the most heavily impacted or
most vulnerable to threats, and identifying areas of potential use conflict are key first steps to
prioritizing management actions. However, we are aware that other factors influence decision-
making in marine management, such as the value of ecosystem services to different sectors and
the value, in turn, of those sectors to the economy, political reward or penalty for dealing with a
perceived threat, resulting impact on multiple user groups when management action is focused
on a single sector, etc. Current management has only cursorily confronted these issues, while
ecosystem-based management, by definition, is required to tackle them. This will require a
dynamic tool with capacity to integrate both biological and socioeconomic data. An initial static
approach, which by itself would be a significant step forward but a real challenge given current
data availability, would be to develop a map of values associated with ecosystem services and
human activities, either based on literature surveys or empirical data collection. This map of
values could then be used in concert with the map of relative impacts across the region and the
map of areas of potential use conflict to highlight areas where management action may be
effective, e.g. areas of low value, low conflict, but high threat. To make this a more feasible goal,
it may be necessary to narrow the list of human activities for which we try to determine a surface
of values, e.g. focusing on key sectors that experience use conflicts (as identified in the initial
analysis). In addition, it could be possible to further simplify things by focusing on developing
values for different human activities by habitat type (perhaps weighted by distance from
shore/port or other factors), and then apply these values to mapped habitat layers, rather than
trying to get values for every cell in the region.
Ultimately, what is needed is a dynamic way to integrate the goals of management (e.g.
mitigating threats) with the costs and benefits to human users of implementing those
management actions, taking into account how management action is likely to affect delivery of
ecosystem services, human behavior and the value of ecosystem services to human users. As
spatially explicit site selection algorithms develop, it may be possible to conceive of a multi-use,
multi-objective site selection algorithm that could help managers to optimize the use of marine
ecosystems, but this goal is likely far in the future at this point.
We expect that this analysis will:
1. Provide managers with a spatially explicit, transparent tool with which to identify threats
to marine ecosystems and determine which habitats are heavily impacted
2. Develop a method to estimate uncertainty around threats and/or services, to help
managers identify areas where data are needed
3. Allow managers to identify areas of use conflict, areas of high potential return on
investment, and areas where management actions might have minimal negative impacts
on human users.
4. Provide a process with which to integrate vulnerability of habitats to human activities
with values of services (derived from both the biological resources and the human
activities that utilize those resources)
5. Test under what conditions managers might expect use conflicts or greater impacts
Where we need input:
1. Should we conduct additional expert surveys for MBNMS or use current surveys?
2. What are the best sources of data for maps of human activities, particularly those that are
not well represented in the Halpern et al. global analysis?
3. For which human activities would it be feasible to try to develop spatially explicit maps
of the value of different locations or habitats within the region?
4. What framework should be used to integrate the map of values with the map of impacts?
5. Can we make this interactive/dynamic such that if one management decision is applied,
we can update the vulnerability and/or value of other areas or habitats?
What this analysis doesn’t provide:
1. Impact from the interaction between human activities
2. Dynamic model incorporating the effects of management actions
Table 1. Table of threats considered for the MBNMS regional threats analysis.
Factors Involved
Threat
Type Notes
Some examples listed here
Note: Freshwater input is likely to have different effects on
marine ecosystems depending on whether natural input levels salt water diversion - eg
desalinization plant, entrainment
are increased or decreased. Please consider these cases
Freshwater
separately. from power plant
input:
Increase Watershed size, flow rate, channelization hydrological changes
Watershed size, flow rate, dam size/ distribution, agricultural
hydrological changes
Decrease diversion
Note: Sediment input is likely to have different effects on
marine ecosystems depending on whether natural input levels
are increased or decreased. Please consider these cases
Sediment
separately.
input:
Logging, agriculture, urban development, dust input, dam
size/ distribution, flow rate, channelization, mining,
Increase fire/suppression hydrological changes
Watershed size, flow rate, dam size/ distribution, agricultural
Decrease diversion hydrological changes
Nutrient
input:
Into
oligotrophic
systems
Into eutrophic
systems Agriculture, aquaculture, sewage
Pollution:
Atmos. fallout Dust, jet fuel, heavy metals
Point source Point sources of industry, agriculture,
hormones, endocrine-
(organic)
disruptors, urban run-off, sewage, pathogens, mining
thermal pollution
(nonorganic) activities, oil spills
Nonpoint
source Non-point sources of industry, agriculture, hormones,
(organic) endocrine-disruptors, urban run-off, sewage, pathogens,
(nonorganic) mining activities
beach grooming (separate these
as they have different impact
Coastal
levels)
Seawalls, piers, jetties, beach nourishment, sand mining
engineering
also intended to incorporate
Coastal
Land fill, reclamation, dredging building houses
development
noise & light pollution, human
presence (separate out or get rid
Trampling, noise & light pollution, thermal pollution, trash of this category and incorporate
Direct human
input, human activity, coral harvest into ecotourism category?)
impact
Habitat destruction, nutrient input, livestock escapes,
infrastructure effects, etc. from shrimp, tuna salmon, etc.
Aquaculture
Fishing:
use the DFG blocks to figure out
Industrial sp. By fishery type in sanctuary
Demersal
and then put into these
(habitat
destructive) E.g. trawling. Includes bycatch. categories for vulnerability
(non-habitat
destructive) E.g. traps. Includes bycatch.
Industrial
Pelagic (high
bycatch) Nets, long-lines, etc.
(low bycatch) Purse-seine,etc.
Aquarium Live catch for aquarium trade
IUU Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported fishing
Artisanal
(destructive) Blast, cyanide, etc.
kelp harvest, urchins,
mussels/shorebased collecting? -
not industrial demersal or pelagic
and not artisanal and not
(non-
destructive) Collecting,line fishing recreational
Recreational Legal recreation fishing commercial harvest category?
Climate
change:
Sea level Rising sea level
Sea
temperature Increasing sea temperature
Acidification Increasing acidification of seawater
Ozone/UV Increasing ultraviolet exposure
Species
Shipping, aquaculture, aquarium trade, coastal development
invasion
Sewage, urban run-off, aquaculture
Disease
Harmful algal blooms
Algal blooms
Abnormally low oxygen from whatever source
Hypoxia
Ship-based (bilge water, antifouling, waste), toxic/trash waste
Ocean-based
disposal, sound, light, vehicle wrecks, marine debris
pollution
Commercial
Shipping lanes, groundings/ scrapings, related anchoring
activity
Hydrothermal vents, nodule fields, gas/oil development,
Ocean mining diamonds, sand/gravel, large-scale coral mining
Offshore
Oil & gas platforms, windmills
development
Benthic
Pipelines, communications structures
structures
separate them out? (diving vs
other activities? ie whale
watching, land-based nature
viewing, visitation, tidepooling,
Diving, whale watching, nature viewing, related anchorings/
moorings kayaking)
Tourism
Table 2. List of human activities occurring in the MBNMS.
Human Activities
Agriculture
Urban Development
Land-based mining
Ocean-mining
Power plants
LNG plants
Desalinization plants
Commercial fishing
Recreational fishing/collecting
Aquaculture/Mariculture
Commercial harvest
Coastal engineering
Beach nourishment
Beach grooming
Sand mining
Off road vehicles
Tidepooling
Bird watching
Whale watching
Kayaking
Boating
Cruise ships
Diving
Commercial shipping
Seafloor cable/communication
Wind energy
Oil and gas platforms
Research
Education
illegal fishing
artisanal fishing
Dredging
Harbors/Marinas
Beach visitation
Wastewater treatment
Offshore disposal
Air traffic
Bio-prospecting
Hang gliding
Wave/Tidal energy development
Conservation
Table 3. Habitats occurring in the MBNMS.
Intertidal Coastal Deep Ocean Pelagic
Rocky Intertidal Seagrass Soft Benthic (deep) Surface Waters
Intertidal Mud Salt Marsh Soft Slope Deep Waters
Beach Kelp Forest Hard Slope
Rocky Reefs Soft Shelf
Suspension Reefs Hard Shelf
Subtidal Mud Deep Seamounts
Vents
Soft Canyons
Hard Canyons