Quantitative environmental risk assessments in the context of marine spatial management: current approaches and some perspectives

Marine spatial planning (MSP) requires spatially explicit environmental risk assessment (ERA) frameworks with quantitative or probabilistic measures of risk, enabling an evaluation of spatial management scenarios. ERAs comprise the steps of risk identification, risk analysis, and risk evaluation. A...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:ICES journal of marine science 2015-03, Vol.72 (3), p.1022-1042
Hauptverfasser: Stelzenmueller, V, Fock, H O, Gimpel, A, Rambo, H, Diekmann, R, Probst, W N, Callies, U, Bockelmann, F, Neumann, H, Kroncke, I
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1042
container_issue 3
container_start_page 1022
container_title ICES journal of marine science
container_volume 72
creator Stelzenmueller, V
Fock, H O
Gimpel, A
Rambo, H
Diekmann, R
Probst, W N
Callies, U
Bockelmann, F
Neumann, H
Kroncke, I
description Marine spatial planning (MSP) requires spatially explicit environmental risk assessment (ERA) frameworks with quantitative or probabilistic measures of risk, enabling an evaluation of spatial management scenarios. ERAs comprise the steps of risk identification, risk analysis, and risk evaluation. A review of ERAs in in the context of spatial management revealed a synonymous use of the concepts of risk, vulnerability and impact, a need to account for uncertainty and a lack of a clear link between risk analysis and risk evaluation. In a case study, we addressed some of the identified gaps and predicted the risk of changing the current state of benthic disturbance by bottom trawling due to future MSP measures in the German EEZ of the North Sea. We used a quantitative, dynamic, and spatially explicit approach where we combined a Bayesian belief network with GIS to showcase the steps of risk characterization, risk analysis, and risk evaluation. We distinguished 10 benthic communities and 6 international fishing fleets. The risk analysis produced spatially explicit estimates of benthic disturbance, which was computed as a ratio between relative local mortality by benthic trawling and the recovery potential after a trawl event. Results showed great differences in spatial patterns of benthic disturbance when accounting for different environmental impacts of the respective fleets. To illustrate a risk evaluation process, we simulated a spatial shift of the international effort of two beam trawl fleets, which are affected the most by future offshore wind development. The Bayesian belief network (BN) model was able to predict the proportion of the area where benthic disturbance likely increases. In conclusion, MSP processes should embed ERA frameworks which allow for the integration of multiple risk assessments and the quantification of related risks as well as uncertainties at a common spatial scale.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/icesjms/fsu206
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1709762901</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1701492613</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-c39cefa23fc677306e980f2a1b201350955fb3e4bd0d4bce0d5bf6ebb2af088d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNUctOwzAQtBBIlMKVs49c2tpxXuaGKl5SJYQE58hx1tQlcYLXqeDIn-Oo_QAuu6PV7OxjCLnmbMmZFCurAXcdrgyOCctPyCxWs4VMSnk64SxdCC7kOblA3DHGijRnM_L7OioXbFDB7oGC21vfuw5cUC31Fj-pQgTEqYLUOhq2QHXvAnwH2hvaKW8dUBxif-zolFMfMJFvqR69j4CqYfC90ltAqlxDse-ADuBxAD3NxEtyZlSLcHXMc_L-cP-2flpsXh6f13ebhRZpFmKUGoxKhNF5UQiWgyyZSRSvE8ZFFk_NTC0grRvWpLUG1mS1yaGuE2VYWTZiTm4OunGdrxEwVJ1FDW2rHPQjVrxgssgTGdX-QeWpTHIuInV5oGrfI3ow1eBt_MpPxVk12VIdbakOtog_vGqHpA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1701492613</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Quantitative environmental risk assessments in the context of marine spatial management: current approaches and some perspectives</title><source>Access via Oxford University Press (Open Access Collection)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Stelzenmueller, V ; Fock, H O ; Gimpel, A ; Rambo, H ; Diekmann, R ; Probst, W N ; Callies, U ; Bockelmann, F ; Neumann, H ; Kroncke, I</creator><creatorcontrib>Stelzenmueller, V ; Fock, H O ; Gimpel, A ; Rambo, H ; Diekmann, R ; Probst, W N ; Callies, U ; Bockelmann, F ; Neumann, H ; Kroncke, I</creatorcontrib><description>Marine spatial planning (MSP) requires spatially explicit environmental risk assessment (ERA) frameworks with quantitative or probabilistic measures of risk, enabling an evaluation of spatial management scenarios. ERAs comprise the steps of risk identification, risk analysis, and risk evaluation. A review of ERAs in in the context of spatial management revealed a synonymous use of the concepts of risk, vulnerability and impact, a need to account for uncertainty and a lack of a clear link between risk analysis and risk evaluation. In a case study, we addressed some of the identified gaps and predicted the risk of changing the current state of benthic disturbance by bottom trawling due to future MSP measures in the German EEZ of the North Sea. We used a quantitative, dynamic, and spatially explicit approach where we combined a Bayesian belief network with GIS to showcase the steps of risk characterization, risk analysis, and risk evaluation. We distinguished 10 benthic communities and 6 international fishing fleets. The risk analysis produced spatially explicit estimates of benthic disturbance, which was computed as a ratio between relative local mortality by benthic trawling and the recovery potential after a trawl event. Results showed great differences in spatial patterns of benthic disturbance when accounting for different environmental impacts of the respective fleets. To illustrate a risk evaluation process, we simulated a spatial shift of the international effort of two beam trawl fleets, which are affected the most by future offshore wind development. The Bayesian belief network (BN) model was able to predict the proportion of the area where benthic disturbance likely increases. In conclusion, MSP processes should embed ERA frameworks which allow for the integration of multiple risk assessments and the quantification of related risks as well as uncertainties at a common spatial scale.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1054-3139</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1095-9289</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsu206</identifier><language>eng</language><subject>Belief networks ; Disturbances ; Management ; Marine ; Risk ; Risk analysis ; Risk assessment ; Trawls</subject><ispartof>ICES journal of marine science, 2015-03, Vol.72 (3), p.1022-1042</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-c39cefa23fc677306e980f2a1b201350955fb3e4bd0d4bce0d5bf6ebb2af088d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-c39cefa23fc677306e980f2a1b201350955fb3e4bd0d4bce0d5bf6ebb2af088d3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,27928,27929</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Stelzenmueller, V</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fock, H O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gimpel, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rambo, H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diekmann, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Probst, W N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Callies, U</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bockelmann, F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neumann, H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kroncke, I</creatorcontrib><title>Quantitative environmental risk assessments in the context of marine spatial management: current approaches and some perspectives</title><title>ICES journal of marine science</title><description>Marine spatial planning (MSP) requires spatially explicit environmental risk assessment (ERA) frameworks with quantitative or probabilistic measures of risk, enabling an evaluation of spatial management scenarios. ERAs comprise the steps of risk identification, risk analysis, and risk evaluation. A review of ERAs in in the context of spatial management revealed a synonymous use of the concepts of risk, vulnerability and impact, a need to account for uncertainty and a lack of a clear link between risk analysis and risk evaluation. In a case study, we addressed some of the identified gaps and predicted the risk of changing the current state of benthic disturbance by bottom trawling due to future MSP measures in the German EEZ of the North Sea. We used a quantitative, dynamic, and spatially explicit approach where we combined a Bayesian belief network with GIS to showcase the steps of risk characterization, risk analysis, and risk evaluation. We distinguished 10 benthic communities and 6 international fishing fleets. The risk analysis produced spatially explicit estimates of benthic disturbance, which was computed as a ratio between relative local mortality by benthic trawling and the recovery potential after a trawl event. Results showed great differences in spatial patterns of benthic disturbance when accounting for different environmental impacts of the respective fleets. To illustrate a risk evaluation process, we simulated a spatial shift of the international effort of two beam trawl fleets, which are affected the most by future offshore wind development. The Bayesian belief network (BN) model was able to predict the proportion of the area where benthic disturbance likely increases. In conclusion, MSP processes should embed ERA frameworks which allow for the integration of multiple risk assessments and the quantification of related risks as well as uncertainties at a common spatial scale.</description><subject>Belief networks</subject><subject>Disturbances</subject><subject>Management</subject><subject>Marine</subject><subject>Risk</subject><subject>Risk analysis</subject><subject>Risk assessment</subject><subject>Trawls</subject><issn>1054-3139</issn><issn>1095-9289</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNUctOwzAQtBBIlMKVs49c2tpxXuaGKl5SJYQE58hx1tQlcYLXqeDIn-Oo_QAuu6PV7OxjCLnmbMmZFCurAXcdrgyOCctPyCxWs4VMSnk64SxdCC7kOblA3DHGijRnM_L7OioXbFDB7oGC21vfuw5cUC31Fj-pQgTEqYLUOhq2QHXvAnwH2hvaKW8dUBxif-zolFMfMJFvqR69j4CqYfC90ltAqlxDse-ADuBxAD3NxEtyZlSLcHXMc_L-cP-2flpsXh6f13ebhRZpFmKUGoxKhNF5UQiWgyyZSRSvE8ZFFk_NTC0grRvWpLUG1mS1yaGuE2VYWTZiTm4OunGdrxEwVJ1FDW2rHPQjVrxgssgTGdX-QeWpTHIuInV5oGrfI3ow1eBt_MpPxVk12VIdbakOtog_vGqHpA</recordid><startdate>20150301</startdate><enddate>20150301</enddate><creator>Stelzenmueller, V</creator><creator>Fock, H O</creator><creator>Gimpel, A</creator><creator>Rambo, H</creator><creator>Diekmann, R</creator><creator>Probst, W N</creator><creator>Callies, U</creator><creator>Bockelmann, F</creator><creator>Neumann, H</creator><creator>Kroncke, I</creator><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7U1</scope><scope>7U2</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H95</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150301</creationdate><title>Quantitative environmental risk assessments in the context of marine spatial management: current approaches and some perspectives</title><author>Stelzenmueller, V ; Fock, H O ; Gimpel, A ; Rambo, H ; Diekmann, R ; Probst, W N ; Callies, U ; Bockelmann, F ; Neumann, H ; Kroncke, I</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c345t-c39cefa23fc677306e980f2a1b201350955fb3e4bd0d4bce0d5bf6ebb2af088d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Belief networks</topic><topic>Disturbances</topic><topic>Management</topic><topic>Marine</topic><topic>Risk</topic><topic>Risk analysis</topic><topic>Risk assessment</topic><topic>Trawls</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Stelzenmueller, V</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fock, H O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gimpel, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rambo, H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Diekmann, R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Probst, W N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Callies, U</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bockelmann, F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neumann, H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kroncke, I</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Risk Abstracts</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 1: Biological Sciences &amp; Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>ICES journal of marine science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Stelzenmueller, V</au><au>Fock, H O</au><au>Gimpel, A</au><au>Rambo, H</au><au>Diekmann, R</au><au>Probst, W N</au><au>Callies, U</au><au>Bockelmann, F</au><au>Neumann, H</au><au>Kroncke, I</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Quantitative environmental risk assessments in the context of marine spatial management: current approaches and some perspectives</atitle><jtitle>ICES journal of marine science</jtitle><date>2015-03-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>72</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>1022</spage><epage>1042</epage><pages>1022-1042</pages><issn>1054-3139</issn><eissn>1095-9289</eissn><abstract>Marine spatial planning (MSP) requires spatially explicit environmental risk assessment (ERA) frameworks with quantitative or probabilistic measures of risk, enabling an evaluation of spatial management scenarios. ERAs comprise the steps of risk identification, risk analysis, and risk evaluation. A review of ERAs in in the context of spatial management revealed a synonymous use of the concepts of risk, vulnerability and impact, a need to account for uncertainty and a lack of a clear link between risk analysis and risk evaluation. In a case study, we addressed some of the identified gaps and predicted the risk of changing the current state of benthic disturbance by bottom trawling due to future MSP measures in the German EEZ of the North Sea. We used a quantitative, dynamic, and spatially explicit approach where we combined a Bayesian belief network with GIS to showcase the steps of risk characterization, risk analysis, and risk evaluation. We distinguished 10 benthic communities and 6 international fishing fleets. The risk analysis produced spatially explicit estimates of benthic disturbance, which was computed as a ratio between relative local mortality by benthic trawling and the recovery potential after a trawl event. Results showed great differences in spatial patterns of benthic disturbance when accounting for different environmental impacts of the respective fleets. To illustrate a risk evaluation process, we simulated a spatial shift of the international effort of two beam trawl fleets, which are affected the most by future offshore wind development. The Bayesian belief network (BN) model was able to predict the proportion of the area where benthic disturbance likely increases. In conclusion, MSP processes should embed ERA frameworks which allow for the integration of multiple risk assessments and the quantification of related risks as well as uncertainties at a common spatial scale.</abstract><doi>10.1093/icesjms/fsu206</doi><tpages>21</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1054-3139
ispartof ICES journal of marine science, 2015-03, Vol.72 (3), p.1022-1042
issn 1054-3139
1095-9289
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1709762901
source Access via Oxford University Press (Open Access Collection); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Belief networks
Disturbances
Management
Marine
Risk
Risk analysis
Risk assessment
Trawls
title Quantitative environmental risk assessments in the context of marine spatial management: current approaches and some perspectives
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-16T13%3A53%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Quantitative%20environmental%20risk%20assessments%20in%20the%20context%20of%20marine%20spatial%20management:%20current%20approaches%20and%20some%20perspectives&rft.jtitle=ICES%20journal%20of%20marine%20science&rft.au=Stelzenmueller,%20V&rft.date=2015-03-01&rft.volume=72&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=1022&rft.epage=1042&rft.pages=1022-1042&rft.issn=1054-3139&rft.eissn=1095-9289&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/icesjms/fsu206&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1701492613%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1701492613&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true