Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28542394›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

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

Rémi M Daigle, Philippe Archambault, Benjamin S Halpern, Julia S Stewart Lowndes, Isabelle M Côté

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

5 authors.

Rémi M DaigleInstitut des Sciences de la Mer, Université du Québec à Rimouski, Rimouski, Québec, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8832-4189
Philippe ArchambaultInstitut des Sciences de la Mer, Université du Québec à Rimouski, Rimouski, Québec, Canada.
Benjamin S HalpernNational Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, United States of America.
Julia S Stewart LowndesNational Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California, United States of America.
Isabelle M CôtéDepartment of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

Environmental HealthHealth PrioritiesOceans and SeasPublic OpinionAmerican Indian or Alaska NativeCanadaConservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemHumansSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID28542394
PMCPMC5443542

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.