Use of satellite data for modelling food availability and survival of marine fish larvae

A modelling scheme is described which uses satellite retrieved sea-surface temperature and chlorophyll-a to derive monthly zooplankton biomass estimates in the eastern North Atlantic; this forms part of a bio-physical model of inter-annual variations in the growth and survival of larvae and post-larvae of mackerel (Scomber scombrus). The temperature and chlorophyll data are incorporated first to model copepod (Calanus) egg production rates. Egg production is then converted to available food using distribution data from the Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR) Survey, observed population biomass per unit daily egg production and the proportion of the larval mackerel diet comprising Calanus. Results are validated in comparison with field observations of zooplankton biomass. The principal benefit of the modelling scheme is the ability to use the combination of broad scale coverage and fine scale temporal and spatial variability of satellite data as driving forces in the model; weaknesses are the simplicity of the egg production model and the broad-scale generalizations assumed in the raising factors to convert egg production to biomass.

Valuing the health benefits of physical activities in the marine environment and their importance for marine spatial planning

The marine environment provides a number of services which contribute to human well-being including the provision of food, regulation of climate and the provision of settings for cultural gains. To ensure these services continue to be provided, effective management is required and is being strategically implemented through the development of marine spatial plans. These plans require an understanding of the costs and benefits associated with alternative marine uses and how they contribute to human well-being. One benefit which is often difficult to quantify is the health benefit of engaging with the marine environment. To address this, the research develops an approach which can estimate the contribution aquatic physical activities makes to quality adjusted life years (QALYs) in monetary and non-monetary terms. Using data from the Health Survey for England, the research estimates that physical activities undertaken in aquatic environments at a national level provides a total gain of 24,853 QALYs. A conservative estimate of the monetary value of a QALY gain of this magnitude is £176 million. This approach provides estimates of health benefits which can be used in more comprehensive impact assessments, such as cost-benefit analysis, to compare alternative marine spatial plans. The paper concludes by discussing future steps.

Valuing the health benefits of physical activities in the marine environment and their importance for marine spatial planning

The marine environment provides a number of services which contribute to human well-being including the provision of food, regulation of climate and the provision of settings for cultural gains. To ensure these services continue to be provided, effective management is required and is being strategically implemented through the development of marine spatial plans. These plans require an understanding of the costs and benefits associated with alternative marine uses and how they contribute to human well-being. One benefit which is often difficult to quantify is the health benefit of engaging with the marine environment. To address this, the research develops an approach which can estimate the contribution aquatic physical activities makes to quality adjusted life years (QALYs) in monetary and non-monetary terms. Using data from the Health Survey for England, the research estimates that physical activities undertaken in aquatic environments at a national level provides a total gain of 24,853 QALYs. A conservative estimate of the monetary value of a QALY gain of this magnitude is £176 million. This approach provides estimates of health benefits which can be used in more comprehensive impact assessments, such as cost-benefit analysis, to compare alternative marine spatial plans. The paper concludes by discussing future steps.

Making modelling count - increasing the contribution of shelf-seas community and ecosystem models to policy development and management

Marine legislation is becoming more complex and marine ecosystem-based management is specified in national and regional legislative frameworks. Shelf-seas community and ecosystem models (hereafter termed ecosystem models) are central to the delivery of ecosystem-based management, but there is limited uptake and use of model products by decision makers in Europe and the UK in comparison with other countries. In this study, the challenges to the uptake and use of ecosystem models in support of marine environmental management are assessed using the UK capability as an example. The UK has a broad capability in marine ecosystem modelling, with at least 14 different models that support management, but few examples exist of ecosystem modelling that underpin policy or management decisions. To improve understanding of policy and management issues that can be addressed using ecosystem models, a workshop was convened that brought together advisors, assessors, biologists, social scientists, economists, modellers, statisticians, policy makers, and funders. Some policy requirements were identified that can be addressed without further model development including: attribution of environmental change to underlying drivers, integration of models and observations to develop more efficient monitoring programmes, assessment of indicator performance for different management goals, and the costs and benefit of legislation. Multi-model ensembles are being developed in cases where many models exist, but model structures are very diverse making a standardised approach of combining outputs a significant challenge, and there is a need for new methodologies for describing, analysing, and visualising uncertainties. A stronger link to social and economic systems is needed to increase the range of policy-related questions that can be addressed. It is also important to improve communication between policy and modelling communities so that there is a shared understanding of the strengths and limitations of ecosystem models.