Same Space, Different Standards: A Review of Cumulative Effects Assessment Practice for Marine Mammals

被引:6
作者
Hague, Emily L. [1 ]
Sparling, Carol E. [2 ]
Morris, Ceri [3 ]
Vaughan, Duncan [4 ]
Walker, Rebecca [4 ]
Culloch, Ross M. [5 ]
Lyndon, Alastair R. [1 ]
Fernandes, Teresa F. [1 ]
McWhinnie, Lauren H. [1 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Heriot Watt Univ, Inst Life & Earth Sci, Ctr Marine Biodivers & Biotechnol, Edinburgh, Scotland
[2] Univ St Andrews, Scottish Oceans Inst, Sea Mammal Res Unit, St Andrews, Scotland
[3] Nat Resources Wales, Bangor, Wales
[4] Nat England, Cty Hall, Worcester, England
[5] Queens Univ Belfast, Sch Nat & Built Environm, Belfast, North Ireland
[6] Univ Victoria, Dept Geog, Victoria, BC, Canada
关键词
cumulative effects assessment (CEA); cumulative impact assessment (CIA); anthropogenic activities; management policy and practice; marine mammals; maritime industry; IMPACT ASSESSMENT; POPULATION CONSEQUENCES; HARBOR SEALS; WIND FARMS; DISTURBANCE; CHALLENGES; OPPORTUNITIES; CONSERVATION; INFORMATION; WILDLIFE;
D O I
10.3389/fmars.2022.822467
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Marine mammals are vulnerable to a variety of acute and chronic anthropogenic stressors, potentially experiencing these in isolation, successively and/or simultaneously. Formal assessment of the likely impact(s) of the cumulative effects of multiple stressors on a defined population is carried out through a Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA), which is a mandatory component of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process in many countries. However, for marine mammals, the information required to feed into CEA, such as thresholds for disturbance, frequency of multiple (and simultaneous) exposures, interactions between stressors, and individual variation in response, is extremely limited, though our understanding is slowly improving. The gaps in knowledge make it challenging to effectively quantify and subsequently assess the risk of individual and population consequences of multiple disturbances in the form of a CEA. To assess the current state of practice for assessing cumulative effects on marine mammals within UK waters, 93 CEAs were reviewed across eleven maritime industries. An objective framework of thirteen evaluative criteria was used to score each assessment on a scale of 13-52 (weak - strong). Scores varied significantly by industry. On average, the aquaculture industry produced the lowest scoring CEAs, whilst the large offshore windfarm industry (>= 20 turbines) scored highest, according to the scoring criteria used. There was a significant increase in scores over the sample period (2009-2019), though this was mostly attributed to five industries (cable, large and small offshore wind farms, tidal and wave energy). There was inconsistency in the language used to define and describe cumulative effects and a lack of routinely applied methodology. We use the findings presented here, along with a wider review of the literature, to provide recommendations and discussion points aimed at supporting the standardisation and improvement of CEA practice. Although this research focused on how marine mammals were considered within UK CEAs, recommendations made are broadly applicable to assessments conducted for other receptors, countries and/or environments. Adoption of these proposals would help to ensure a more consistent approach, and would aid decision-makers and practitioners in mitigating any potential impacts, to ensure conservation objectives of marine mammal populations are not compromised.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 98 条
  • [1] Perspectives on Driving Changes in Project-based Cumulative Effects Assessment for Biodiversity: Lessons from the Canadian Experience
    Alves Dibo, Ana Paula
    Noble, Bram F.
    Sanchez, Luis Enrique
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2018, 62 (05) : 929 - 941
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2012, P MTGS AC, DOI [10.1121/1.4772738, DOI 10.1121/1.4772738]
  • [3] Improving policies and instruments to address cumulative impacts of small hydropower in the Amazon
    Athayde, Simone
    Duarte, Carla G.
    Gallardo, Amarilis L. C. F.
    Moretto, Evandro M.
    Sangoi, Luisa A.
    Dibo, Ana Paula A.
    Siqueira-Gay, Juliana
    Sanchez, Luis E.
    [J]. ENERGY POLICY, 2019, 132 : 265 - 271
  • [4] Current global risks to marine mammals: Taking stock of the threats
    Avila, Isabel C.
    Kaschner, Kristin
    Dormann, Carsten F.
    [J]. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2018, 221 : 44 - 58
  • [5] Valued ecosystem components for watershed cumulative effects: An analysis of environmental impact assessments in the South Saskatchewan River watershed, Canada
    Ball, Murray A.
    Noble, Bram F.
    Dube, Monique G.
    [J]. INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT, 2013, 9 (03) : 469 - 479
  • [6] Assessment of cumulative human pressures on a coastal area: Integrating information for MPA planning and management
    Batista, Marisa I.
    Henriques, Sofia
    Pais, Miguel P.
    Cabral, Henrique N.
    [J]. OCEAN & COASTAL MANAGEMENT, 2014, 102 : 248 - 257
  • [7] Baxter W., 2001, IMPACT ASSESS PROJ A, V19, P253, DOI DOI 10.3152/147154601781766916
  • [8] Berube M., 2007, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, V25, P101, DOI 10.3152/146155107X197913
  • [9] Impact assessment: Eroding benefits through streamlining?
    Bond, Alan
    Pope, Jenny
    Morrison-Saunders, Angus
    Retief, Francois
    Gunn, Jill A. E.
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW, 2014, 45 : 46 - 53
  • [10] Methods for Monitoring for the Population Consequences of Disturbance in Marine Mammals: A Review
    Booth, Cormac G.
    Sinclair, Rachael R.
    Harwood, John
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN MARINE SCIENCE, 2020, 7