Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27928037›Full record

ReviewProceedings. Biological sciences2016

Valuing biodiversity and ecosystem services: a useful way to manage and conserve marine resources?

Rachel D Cavanagh, Stefanie Broszeit, Graham M Pilling, Susie M Grant, Eugene J Murphy, Melanie C Austen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. A fast-moving target: achieving marine conservation goals under shifting climate and policies.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2020
    Article
  3. Understanding and bridging the conservation-genetics gap in marine conservation.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2019
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Biodiversity in the Anthropocene: prospects and policy.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Rachel D CavanaghBritish Antarctic Survey, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ET, UK rcav@bas.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-2474-9716
Stefanie BroszeitPlymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, The Hoe, Plymouth PL1 3DH, UK.
Graham M PillingThe Pacific Community (SPC), B.P. D5, 98848 Noumea Cedex, New Caledonia.
Susie M GrantBritish Antarctic Survey, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ET, UK.
Eugene J MurphyBritish Antarctic Survey, High Cross, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ET, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7369-9196
Melanie C AustenPlymouth Marine Laboratory, Prospect Place, The Hoe, Plymouth PL1 3DH, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Valuation of biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES) is widely recognized as a useful, though often controversial, approach to conservation and management. However, its use in the marine environment, hence evidence of its efficacy, lags behind that in terrestrial ecosystems. This largely reflects key challenges to marine conservation and management such as the practical difficulties in studying the ocean, complex governance issues and the historically-rooted separation of biodiversity conservation and resource management. Given these challenges together with the accelerating loss of marine biodiversity (and threats to the ES that this biodiversity supports), we ask whether valuation efforts for marine ecosystems are appropriate and effective. We compare three contrasting systems: the tropical Pacific, Southern Ocean and UK coastal seas. In doing so, we reveal a diversity in valuation approaches with different rates of progress and success. We also find a tendency to focus on specific ES (often the harvested species) rather than biodiversity. In light of our findings, we present a new conceptual view of valuation that should ideally be considered in decision-making. Accounting for the critical relationships between biodiversity and ES, together with an understanding of ecosystem structure and functioning, will enable the wider implications of marine conservation and management decisions to be evaluated. We recommend embedding valuation within existing management structures, rather than treating it as an alternative or additional mechanism. However, we caution that its uptake and efficacy will be compromised without the ability to develop and share best practice across regions.

Indexed as

BiodiversityConservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemOceans and Seasconservationecosystem-based managementecosystem servicesmarine biodiversitymarine resource managementvaluation

Identifiers

PMID27928037
PMCPMC5204147

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.