Recent pace of change in human impact on the world's ocean.

Humans interact with the oceans in diverse and profound ways. The scope, magnitude, footprint and ultimate cumulative impacts of human activities can threaten ocean ecosystems and have changed over time, resulting in new challenges and threats to marine ecosystems. A fundamental gap in understanding how humanity is affecting the oceans is our limited knowledge about the pace of change in cumulative impact on ocean ecosystems from expanding human activities - and the patterns, locations and drivers of most significant change. To help address this, we combined high resolution, annual data on the intensity of 14 human stressors and their impact on 21 marine ecosystems over 11 years (2003-2013) to assess pace of change in cumulative impacts on global oceans, where and how much that pace differs across the ocean, and which stressors and their impacts contribute most to those changes. We found that most of the ocean (59%) is experiencing significantly increasing cumulative impact, in particular due to climate change but also from fishing, land-based pollution and shipping. Nearly all countries saw increases in cumulative impacts in their coastal waters, as did all ecosystems, with coral reefs, seagrasses and mangroves at most risk. Mitigation of stressors most contributing to increases in overall cumulative impacts is urgently needed to sustain healthy oceans

From Creating Spaces for Civic Discourse to Creating Resources for Action

In this paper, we investigate the role of technology to address the concerns of a civil society group carrying out community-level consultation on the allocation of £1 million of community funds. We explore issues of devolved decision-making through the evaluation of a sociodigital system designed to foster deliberative virtues. We describe the ways in which this group used our system in their consultation practices. Our findings highlight how they adopted our technology to privilege specific forms of expression, ascertain issues in their community, make use of and make sense of community data, and create resources for action within their existing practices. Based on related fieldwork we discuss the impacts of structuring and configuring tools for ‘talk-based’ consultation in order to turn attention to the potential pitfalls and prospects for designing civic technologies that create resources for action for civil society

The Baltic Health Index (BHI) : Assessing the social–ecological status of the Baltic Sea

1. Improving the health of coastal and open sea marine ecosystems represents a substantial challenge for sustainable marine resource management, since it requires balancing human benefits and impacts on the ocean. This challenge is often exacerbated by incomplete knowledge and lack of tools that measure ocean and coastal ecosystem health in a way that allows consistent monitoring of progress towards predefined management targets. The lack of such tools often limits capabilities to enact and enforce effective governance. 2. We introduce the Baltic Health Index (BHI) as a transparent, collaborative and repeatable assessment tool. The Index complements existing, more ecological-oriented, approaches by including a human dimension on the status of the Baltic Sea, an ecosystem impacted by multiple anthropogenic pressures and governed by a multitude of comprehensive national and international policies. Using a large amount of social–ecological data available, we assessed the health of the Baltic Sea for nine goals that represent the status towards set targets, for example, clean waters, biodiversity, food provision, natural products extraction and tourism. 3. Our results indicate that the overall health of the Baltic Sea is suboptimal (a score of 76 out of 100), and a substantial effort is required to reach the management objectives and associated targets. Subregionally, the lowest BHI scores were measured for carbon storage, contaminants and lasting special places (i.e. marine protected areas), albeit with large spatial variation. 4. Overall, the likely future status of all goals in the BHI averaged for the entire Baltic Sea is better than the present status, indicating a positive trend towards a healthier Baltic Sea. However, in some Baltic Sea basins, the trend for specific goals was decreasing, highlighting locations and issues that should be the focus of management priorities. 5. The BHI outcomes can be used to identify both pan-Baltic and subregional scale management priorities and to illustrate the interconnectedness between goals linked by cumulative pressures. Hence, the information provided by the BHI tool and its further development will contribute towards the fulfilment of the UN Agenda 2030 and its Sustainability Development Goals

Priorities for synthesis research in ecology and environmental science

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the National Science Foundation grant #1940692 for financial support for this workshop, and the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) and its staff for logistical support.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Priorities for synthesis research in ecology and environmental science

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the National Science Foundation grant #1940692 for financial support for this workshop, and the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) and its staff for logistical support.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Welcoming More Participation in Open Data Science for the Oceans

Open science is a global movement happening across all research fields. Enabled by technology and the open web, it builds on years of efforts by individuals, grassroots organizations, institutions, and agencies. The goal is to share knowledge and broaden participation in science, from early ideation to making research outputs openly accessible to all (open access). With an emphasis on transparency and collaboration, the open science movement dovetails with efforts to increase diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging in science and society. The US Biden-Harris Administration and many other US government agencies have declared 2023 the Year of Open Science, providing a great opportunity to boost participation in open science for the oceans. For researchers day-to-day, open science is a critical piece of modern analytical workflows with increasing amounts of data. Therefore, we focus this article on open data science-the tooling and people enabling reproducible, transparent, inclusive practices for data-intensive research-and its intersection with the marine sciences. We discuss the state of various dimensions of open science and argue that technical advancements have outpaced our field's culture change to incorporate them. Increasing inclusivity and technical skill building are interlinked and must be prioritized within the marine science community to find collaborative solutions for responding to climate change and other threats to marine biodiversity and society

Incorporating public priorities in the Ocean Health Index: Canada as a case study.

The Ocean Health Index (OHI) is a framework to assess ocean health by considering many benefits (called 'goals') provided by the ocean provides to humans, such as food provision, tourism opportunities, and coastal protection. The OHI framework can be used to assess marine areas at global or regional scales, but how various OHI goals should be weighted to reflect priorities at those scales remains unclear. In this study, we adapted the framework in two ways for application to Canada as a case study. First, we customized the OHI goals to create a national Canadian Ocean Health Index (COHI). In particular, we altered the list of iconic species assessed, added methane clathrates and subsea permafrost as carbon storage habitats, and developed a new goal, 'Aboriginal Needs', to measure access of Aboriginal people to traditional marine hunting and fishing grounds. Second, we evaluated various goal weighting schemes based on preferences elicited from the general public in online surveys. We quantified these public preferences in three ways: using Likert scores, simple ranks from a best-worst choice experiment, and model coefficients from the analysis of elicited choice experiment. The latter provided the clearest statistical discrimination among goals, and we recommend their use because they can more accurately reflect both public opinion and the trade-offs faced by policy-makers. This initial iteration of the COHI can be used as a baseline against which future COHI scores can be compared, and could potentially be used as a management tool to prioritise actions on a national scale and predict public support for these actions given that the goal weights are based on public priorities

Recent pace of change in human impact on the world's ocean.

Humans interact with the oceans in diverse and profound ways. The scope, magnitude, footprint and ultimate cumulative impacts of human activities can threaten ocean ecosystems and have changed over time, resulting in new challenges and threats to marine ecosystems. A fundamental gap in understanding how humanity is affecting the oceans is our limited knowledge about the pace of change in cumulative impact on ocean ecosystems from expanding human activities - and the patterns, locations and drivers of most significant change. To help address this, we combined high resolution, annual data on the intensity of 14 human stressors and their impact on 21 marine ecosystems over 11 years (2003-2013) to assess pace of change in cumulative impacts on global oceans, where and how much that pace differs across the ocean, and which stressors and their impacts contribute most to those changes. We found that most of the ocean (59%) is experiencing significantly increasing cumulative impact, in particular due to climate change but also from fishing, land-based pollution and shipping. Nearly all countries saw increases in cumulative impacts in their coastal waters, as did all ecosystems, with coral reefs, seagrasses and mangroves at most risk. Mitigation of stressors most contributing to increases in overall cumulative impacts is urgently needed to sustain healthy oceans

BW-DCE weighing across five regions for constituent goals or subgoals of the Canadian Ocean Health Index.

<p>Weights are represented as the height of each band, as estimated by discrete choice model coefficients (see <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0178044#sec002" target="_blank">Methods</a> for details), and the overall Index score is indicated at the top of each region. Similar letters above the overall Index indicate that the indices differed in less <5% of simulated cases. BC: British Columbia, Prairies: Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan, ON: Ontario, QC: Quebec, Atlantic: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland. Goal and subgoal codes are as in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0178044#pone.0178044.g003" target="_blank">Fig 3</a>.</p