4.6 Article

A framework for categorizing the interactions of offshore windfarms and fisheries

期刊

ICES JOURNAL OF MARINE SCIENCE
卷 79, 期 6, 页码 1711-1718

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/icesjms/fsac118

关键词

ecological impacts; fisheries; social impacts; spatial; temporal; windfarms

资金

  1. KDES indirect funds
  2. RG National Oceanic, and Atmospheric Administration award [NA14OAR4320158]
  3. National Science Foundation [CBET-2137701]
  4. GF indirect

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The offshore windfarm industry and fisheries industry conflict due to differing approaches to the marine environment, lack of mutual understanding, significant money at stake, and values placed on marine conservation. A framework is needed to standardize and quantify scientific data in order to facilitate effective communication.
The offshore windfarm industry has great potential for sustainable energy but requires space. The ability of fisheries to harvest within these windfarms varies. This has created a conflict between these two industries and discussions are hampered by differing approaches to the marine environment, a lack of understanding of what each industries requires, the significant money at stake, and the values the public place on marine conservation. To characterize, standardize, and quantify the scientific data addressing these concerns requires a framework. The framework should categorize data on spatial scales of 1 cm(2) to 1 km(2) (individual turbines/fishing vessels), 1-1000 km(2) (companies), and >1000 km(2) (regions), and by their ecological, economic, cultural, and institutional impacts. The framework should be repeated over temporal scales of the windfarm: pre-development (1-3 years), construction (1-2 years), post-construction (20-40 years), and decommission. Balancing the metrics used to describe the two industries will allow people to communicate clearly in an organized systematic way, hopefully resulting in a continuing supply of sustainable sea food and renewable energy to an increasingly hungry world.

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

4.6
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