Modelling framework to evaluate societal effects of ecosystem management.

The ecosystem effects of different management options can be predicted through models that simulate the ecosystem functioning under different management scenarios. Optimal management strategies are searched by simulating different management (and other, such as climate) scenarios and finding the management measures that produce desirable results. The desirability of results is often defined through the attainment of policy objectives such as good environmental/ecological status. However, this often does not account for societal consequences of the environmental status even though the consequences can be different for different stakeholder groups. In this work we introduce a method to evaluate management alternatives in the light of the experiential value of stakeholder groups, using a case study in the Baltic Sea. We use an Ecopath with Ecosim model to simulate the ecosystem responses to management and climate scenarios, and the results are judged based on objectives defined based on a stakeholder questionnaire on what aspects of the ecosystem they value or detest. The ecosystem responses and the stakeholder values are combined in a Bayesian decision support model to illustrate which management options bring the highest benefits to stakeholders, and whether different stakeholder groups benefit from different management choices. In the case study, the more moderate climate scenario and strict fisheries and nutrient loading management brought the highest benefits to all stakeholders. The method can be used to evaluate and compare the effects of different management alternatives to various stakeholder groups, if their preferences are known.

Integrating diverse model results into decision support for good environmental status and blue growth.

Sustainable environmental management needs to consider multiple ecological and societal objectives simultaneously while accounting for the many uncertainties arising from natural variability, insufficient knowledge about the system's behaviour leading to diverging model projections, and changing ecosystem. In this paper we demonstrate how a Bayesian network- based decision support model can be used to summarize a large body of research and model projections about potential management alternatives and climate scenarios for the Baltic Sea. We demonstrate how this type of a model can act as an emulator and ensemble, integrating disciplines such as climatology, biogeochemistry, marine and fisheries ecology as well as economics. Further, Bayesian network models include and present the uncertainty related to the predictions, allowing evaluation of the uncertainties, precautionary management, and the explicit consideration of acceptable risk levels. The Baltic Sea example also shows that the two biogeochemical models frequently used in future projections give considerably different predictions. Further, inclusion of parameter uncertainty of the food web model increased uncertainty in the outcomes and reduced the predicted manageability of the system. The model allows simultaneous evaluation of environmental and economic goals, while illustrating the uncertainty of predictions, providing a more holistic view of the management problem.

Cost-efficiency assessments of marine monitoring methods lack rigor-a systematic mapping of literature and an end-user view on optimal cost-efficiency analysis.

Global deterioration of marine ecosystems, together with increasing pressure to use them, has created a demand for new, more efficient and cost-efficient monitoring tools that enable assessing changes in the status of marine ecosystems. However, demonstrating the cost-efficiency of a monitoring method is not straightforward as there are no generally applicable guidelines. Our study provides a systematic literature mapping of methods and criteria that have been proposed or used since the year 2000 to evaluate the cost-efficiency of marine monitoring methods. We aimed to investigate these methods but discovered that examples of actual cost-efficiency assessments in literature were rare, contradicting the prevalent use of the term "cost-efficiency." We identified five different ways to compare the cost-efficiency of a marine monitoring method: (1) the cost-benefit ratio, (2) comparative studies based on an experiment, (3) comparative studies based on a literature review, (4) comparisons with other methods based on literature, and (5) subjective comparisons with other methods based on experience or intuition. Because of the observed high frequency of insufficient cost-benefit assessments, we strongly advise that more attention is paid to the coverage of both cost and efficiency parameters when evaluating the actual cost-efficiency of novel methods. Our results emphasize the need to improve the reliability and comparability of cost-efficiency assessments. We provide guidelines for future initiatives to develop a cost-efficiency assessment framework and suggestions for more unified cost-efficiency criteria.