All names, views and claims expressed in this report are solely those of the authors and do not represent those of the PICES Organization, nor those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. [...] What will be the consequences of projected coastal ecosystem changes and what is the predictability and uncertainty of forecasted changes? It is important to bear in mind that the concept of MES, and ES generally, involves the flow of benefits society receives from the natural environment and does not embody human behavioral effects on the natural systems (represented by the “pressures” in Figure. [...] 1.2 Comparison of the growth of the general ecosystem services literature and the coastal and marine ecosystem service literature, 1999–2019. [...] The increasing specificity leads to increasingly detailed descriptions of ES, with the lowest levels indicative of the specific uses of the ES by people (similar in function to the “beneficiary” dimension of the FEGS). [...] It will be driven by the study goals and characteristics of the human and natural systems involved (e.g., temporal and spatial scale), the composition and expertise of those conducting the application, political feasibility, data availability, and time and resource constraints.
Authors
Related Organizations
- Pages
- 258
- Published in
- Canada
Table of Contents
- Acknowledgements 6
- Executive Summary 8
- 1 Marine Ecosystem Services: Concepts and Classifications 12
- Daniel K. Lew 12
- 1.1 Introduction 12
- 1.2 Growth in scholarly research on MES and ecosystem services generally 15
- 1.3 Marine ecosystem services: Definitions and classifications 16
- 1.3.1 Classifying ecosystem services 19
- 1.3.2 Types of marine ecosystem services 22
- 1.4 Summary and road map 26
- 1.5 References 26
- 2 Assessing Marine Ecosystem Services in the North Pacific: An Overview of Approaches 37
- Daniel K. Lew1, Kirsten Leong2, Sarah E. Dudas3, Kieran Cox4, Alohi Nakachi2,5, Rebecca Ingram2, and Jonathan Fisk2 37
- 2.1 Introduction 37
- 2.2 Ecological assessment 38
- 2.2.1 Monitoring ecological marine ecosystem services 40
- 2.2.1.1 Measuring ecological MES 42
- 2.2.1.2 Mapping ecological MES 44
- 2.2.1.3 Modelling ecological MES 45
- 2.2.1.4 Forecasting ecological MES 46
- 2.2.1.5 Ecosystem services and resilience 46
- 2.3 Economic assessment 47
- 2.3.1 Economic values of market and non-market goods 48
- 2.3.2 Measuring economic values of MES 49
- 2.3.2.1 Market valuation approaches 49
- 2.3.2.2 Non-market valuation approaches 50
- 2.3.2.3 Revealed preference methods 51
- 2.3.2.4 Stated preference methods 52
- 2.3.2.5 Benefits transfer/Environmental value transfer 52
- 2.3.2.6 Economic valuation of MES 54
- 2.4 Sociocultural assessment 54
- 2.4.1 Assessment approaches 56
- 2.4.1.1 Quantitative assessments 56
- 2.4.1.2 Qualitative assessments 58
- 2.4.1.3 Applied mixed methods 60
- 2.4.2 Discussion 61
- 2.5 Discussion 63
- 2.6 References 64
- 3 Aquaculture-related Ecosystem Services in PICES Member Countries 86
- Kevin D. Ray1,2, Gisele Magnusson3, Yuhang Liu4, Hiroki Wakamatsu5, Claire Cazorla3, Adam Colilli3, Rosemary Kosaka2, Daniel K. Lew6, Jingmei Li4, Wei Liu7, Meng Su4, and Ziyan Wang8 86
- 3.1 Introduction 86
- 3.1.1 Overview of ecosystem services and aquaculture 86
- 3.1.2 General literature search methodology 88
- 3.1.3 Overview of findings 89
- 3.2 Canadian case studies 90
- 3.2.1 Aquaculture production in Canada 90
- 3.2.2 Literature search structure and results 92
- 3.2.3 Review of studies 93
- 3.2.4 Shellfish nutrient studies 94
- 3.2.5 Other studies of ecosystem services 95
- 3.2.6 Concluding remarks 96
- 3.3 Chinese case studies 96
- 3.3.1 Introduction 96
- 3.3.2 Literature search 98
- 3.3.2.1 Provisioning services 101
- 3.3.2.2 Regulatory services 102
- 3.3.2.3 Cultural services 104
- 3.3.2.4 Methods for the valuation of mariculture ecosystem services 105
- 3.3.2.5 Assessment results 106
- 3.3.2.6 Conclusions of the assessment 107
- 3.3.3 Concluding remarks 107
- 3.3.3.1 Summary of findings 107
- 3.3.3.2 Suggestions for future research 108
- 3.4 Japanese case studies 109
- 3.4.1 Introduction 109
- 3.4.2 Literature search methodology 111
- 3.4.2.1 Manual searches 112
- 3.4.2.2 Country-specific keyword search 112
- 3.4.3 Results 112
- 3.4.4 Discussion 114
- 3.5 U.S. case studies 115
- 3.5.1 Aquaculture production in the U.S. 115
- 3.5.2 Literature search methodology 117
- 3.5.3 Results 119
- 3.5.3.1 Bioextraction 119
- 3.5.3.2 Shellfish 120
- 3.5.3.3 Kelp 121
- 3.5.3.4 Nitrogen cycling 122
- 3.5.3.5 Effects on other species (supporting services) 124
- 3.5.3.6 Cultural services 127
- 3.5.4 Concluding remarks 128
- 3.6 Overall conclusions and gap analysis 129
- 3.7 References 132
- 4 Perceptions and Use of Marine Ecosystem Service Values in Decision-Making in Three PICES Member Countries: Canada, China, and the United States of America 145
- Gisele M. Magnusson1, Kristy Wallmo2, Jingmei Li 3,4, Julia Brewer1, Daniel K. Lew5, Meng Su4, Jing-Zhu Shan3, and Na Wang4 145
- 4.1 Ecosystem services and decision making 145
- 4.2 Canada’s marine ESV survey 146
- 4.2.1 ESV in marine management and decision making 146
- 4.2.2 Survey design and implementation 147
- 4.2.3 Sampling and response 148
- 4.2.4 Results 148
- 4.2.4.1 Respondent characteristics 148
- 4.2.4.2 Familiarity and experience with ESV 151
- 4.2.4.3 Importance of specific ESV to work 152
- 4.2.4.4 Opinions related to ESV 156
- 4.2.5 Concluding remarks 158
- 4.3 China’s marine ESV survey 158
- 4.3.1 ESV in marine management and decision making 158
- 4.3.2 Survey design and implementation 159
- 4.3.3 Sampling and response 160
- 4.3.4 Results 160
- 4.3.4.1 Respondent characteristics 160
- 4.3.4.2 Knowledge and use of ESV 160
- 4.3.4.3 Application of ESV 162
- 4.3.4.4 How ESV is used 162
- 4.3.4.5 Factors limiting utilization of nonuse values 163
- 4.3.5 Concluding remarks 164
- 4.4 USA’s marine ESV survey 164
- 4.4.1 ESV in marine management and decision making 164
- 4.4.2 Survey design and implementation 165
- 4.4.3 Sampling and response 166
- 4.4.4 Results 166
- 4.4.4.1 Respondent characteristics 166
- 4.4.4.2 Familiarity with ecosystem services and ecosystem service values 168
- 4.4.4.3 Usefulness of specific coastal and marine ecosystem service values 170
- 4.4.4.4 Application of ESV information in policy and management 173
- 4.4.4.5 General opinions about ESV information usage, need, and limitations 176
- 4.4.5 Concluding remarks 178
- 4.5 Overall conclusions 181
- 4.6 References 182
- Appendix 1 214
- WG 41 Terms of Reference 214
- Appendix 2 215
- WG 41 Membership 215
- Appendix 3 217
- Workshop/Session Summaries and Meeting Reports from Past Annual Meetings Related to WG 41 217
