4.7 Article

Towards an understanding of the spatial relationships between natural capital and maritime activities: A Bayesian Belief Network approach

期刊

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
卷 40, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101034

关键词

Ecosystem-based management; Socio-economic activities; Ecosystem service cascade; Marine spatial planning; Blue Growth

资金

  1. European Commission [2013-0237]
  2. VAPEM project - Fisheries and Aquaculture Directorate of the Basque Government
  3. CapNat project - Biodiversity Foundation, of the Ministry for the Ecological Transition)
  4. UNSW Scientia PhD scholarship scheme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Economic activities are dependent upon natural capital (NC), which are responsible for 'Ecosystem Services' (ES). Understanding dependencies on NC provides insight into the ecosystem's capacity to maintain and develop activities into the future. To determine 'NC dependencies', we present a framework linking maritime activities (bottom trawling, artisanal fisheries, aquaculture and tourism) to their demand for ES and further, to the NC components responsible for their production. The framework was operationalised using a spatially-explicit Bayesian Belief Network (BBN), using the Basque coast (SE Bay of Biscay) to illustrate our approach, in identifying trends in the strength and spatial distribution of NC dependencies. For example, benthic trawling was dependent on sedimentary habitats, with 'moderate' to 'high' dependency of 52% of the study area. The model can also extrapolate NC dependencies to a larger area where the activity currently does not operate, where benthic trawling was estimated to have higher utilisation of ES in deeper waters. When NC dependencies are combined with economic and legislative factors, the current spatial distribution of the activity can be explained, and the potential socio-economic impacts of management decisions could be predicted. The integrative approach contributes towards ecosystem-based spatial planning.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据