Case 1: Marxan — with and without
marine fish targets or fishing effort

Caution: The results of these examples, like all similar model outputs, provide decision support for managers and other stakeholders and should never be assumed to represent final results or “the answer.”

In this case we ran Marxan scenarios with and without marine fish targets and fishing effort. Most marine regional assessments have not incorporated marine fish targets except some limited life stage data such as spawning aggregation sites. Therefore including marine fish targets offers a new perspective to regional conservation priority setting. We set out to examine the following question:

  • How does including marine fish targets and fishing effort in regional assessments affect joint priorities?

The maps below illustrate how site selection changes when marine fish and fishing effort is included in Marxan. There was a 70{2a5d6d1706341671d74cd9e261e7084f344be5d0ac8e3cb469aaa53c623578a6} shift in site location when fishery data were added to the biodiversity data. This represents a significant shift in overall location well above the typical variability between similar Marxan scenarios. These results should not be mistaken as meeting both biodiversity and fishery objectives in the Pacific Northwest Coast, but represent important implications when both are considered quantitatively.

Case 1: Marxan

FishSubregions
Biodiversity conservation planning without the inclusion of marine fish targets or fishing effort.

FishMarxNo

Biodiversity conservation planning with the inclusion of marine fish and fishing.

FishMarxYes

Download PDF