PICE S SCIENTIFIC REPORT No. 6 5, 2024 - Report of Working Group 41 on

Table of Contents

• Acknowledgements 6
• Executive Summary 8
• 1 Marine Ecosystem Services: Concepts and Classifications 12
• Daniel K. Lew 12
• 1.1 Introduction 12
• 1.2 Growth in scholarly research on MES and ecosystem services generally 15
• 1.3 Marine ecosystem services: Definitions and classifications 16
• 1.3.1 Classifying ecosystem services 19
• 1.3.2 Types of marine ecosystem services 22
• 1.4 Summary and road map 26
• 1.5 References 26
• 2 Assessing Marine Ecosystem Services in the North Pacific: An Overview of Approaches 37
• Daniel K. Lew1, Kirsten Leong2, Sarah E. Dudas3, Kieran Cox4, Alohi Nakachi2,5, Rebecca Ingram2, and Jonathan Fisk2 37
• 2.1 Introduction 37
• 2.2 Ecological assessment 38
• 2.2.1 Monitoring ecological marine ecosystem services 40
• 2.2.1.1 Measuring ecological MES 42
• 2.2.1.2 Mapping ecological MES 44
• 2.2.1.3 Modelling ecological MES 45
• 2.2.1.4 Forecasting ecological MES 46
• 2.2.1.5 Ecosystem services and resilience 46
• 2.3 Economic assessment 47
• 2.3.1 Economic values of market and non-market goods 48
• 2.3.2 Measuring economic values of MES 49
• 2.3.2.1 Market valuation approaches 49
• 2.3.2.2 Non-market valuation approaches 50
• 2.3.2.3 Revealed preference methods 51
• 2.3.2.4 Stated preference methods 52
• 2.3.2.5 Benefits transfer/Environmental value transfer 52
• 2.3.2.6 Economic valuation of MES 54
• 2.4 Sociocultural assessment 54
• 2.4.1 Assessment approaches 56
• 2.4.1.1 Quantitative assessments 56
• 2.4.1.2 Qualitative assessments 58
• 2.4.1.3 Applied mixed methods 60
• 2.4.2 Discussion 61
• 2.5 Discussion 63
• 2.6 References 64
• 3 Aquaculture-related Ecosystem Services in PICES Member Countries 86
• Kevin D. Ray1,2, Gisele Magnusson3, Yuhang Liu4, Hiroki Wakamatsu5, Claire Cazorla3, Adam Colilli3, Rosemary Kosaka2, Daniel K. Lew6, Jingmei Li4, Wei Liu7, Meng Su4, and Ziyan Wang8 86
• 3.1 Introduction 86
• 3.1.1 Overview of ecosystem services and aquaculture 86
• 3.1.2 General literature search methodology 88
• 3.1.3 Overview of findings 89
• 3.2 Canadian case studies 90
• 3.2.1 Aquaculture production in Canada 90
• 3.2.2 Literature search structure and results 92
• 3.2.3 Review of studies 93
• 3.2.4 Shellfish nutrient studies 94
• 3.2.5 Other studies of ecosystem services 95
• 3.2.6 Concluding remarks 96
• 3.3 Chinese case studies 96
• 3.3.1 Introduction 96
• 3.3.2 Literature search 98
• 3.3.2.1 Provisioning services 101
• 3.3.2.2 Regulatory services 102
• 3.3.2.3 Cultural services 104
• 3.3.2.4 Methods for the valuation of mariculture ecosystem services 105
• 3.3.2.5 Assessment results 106
• 3.3.2.6 Conclusions of the assessment 107
• 3.3.3 Concluding remarks 107
• 3.3.3.1 Summary of findings 107
• 3.3.3.2 Suggestions for future research 108
• 3.4 Japanese case studies 109
• 3.4.1 Introduction 109
• 3.4.2 Literature search methodology 111
• 3.4.2.1 Manual searches 112
• 3.4.2.2 Country-specific keyword search 112
• 3.4.3 Results 112
• 3.4.4 Discussion 114
• 3.5 U.S. case studies 115
• 3.5.1 Aquaculture production in the U.S. 115
• 3.5.2 Literature search methodology 117
• 3.5.3 Results 119
• 3.5.3.1 Bioextraction 119
• 3.5.3.2 Shellfish 120
• 3.5.3.3 Kelp 121
• 3.5.3.4 Nitrogen cycling 122
• 3.5.3.5 Effects on other species (supporting services) 124
• 3.5.3.6 Cultural services 127
• 3.5.4 Concluding remarks 128
• 3.6 Overall conclusions and gap analysis 129
• 3.7 References 132
• 4 Perceptions and Use of Marine Ecosystem Service Values in Decision-Making in Three PICES Member Countries: Canada, China, and the United States of America 145
• Gisele M. Magnusson1, Kristy Wallmo2, Jingmei Li 3,4, Julia Brewer1, Daniel K. Lew5, Meng Su4, Jing-Zhu Shan3, and Na Wang4 145
• 4.1 Ecosystem services and decision making 145
• 4.2 Canada’s marine ESV survey 146
• 4.2.1 ESV in marine management and decision making 146
• 4.2.2 Survey design and implementation 147
• 4.2.3 Sampling and response 148
• 4.2.4 Results 148
• 4.2.4.1 Respondent characteristics 148
• 4.2.4.2 Familiarity and experience with ESV 151
• 4.2.4.3 Importance of specific ESV to work 152
• 4.2.4.4 Opinions related to ESV 156
• 4.2.5 Concluding remarks 158
• 4.3 China’s marine ESV survey 158
• 4.3.1 ESV in marine management and decision making 158
• 4.3.2 Survey design and implementation 159
• 4.3.3 Sampling and response 160
• 4.3.4 Results 160
• 4.3.4.1 Respondent characteristics 160
• 4.3.4.2 Knowledge and use of ESV 160
• 4.3.4.3 Application of ESV 162
• 4.3.4.4 How ESV is used 162
• 4.3.4.5 Factors limiting utilization of nonuse values 163
• 4.3.5 Concluding remarks 164
• 4.4 USA’s marine ESV survey 164
• 4.4.1 ESV in marine management and decision making 164
• 4.4.2 Survey design and implementation 165
• 4.4.3 Sampling and response 166
• 4.4.4 Results 166
• 4.4.4.1 Respondent characteristics 166
• 4.4.4.2 Familiarity with ecosystem services and ecosystem service values 168
• 4.4.4.3 Usefulness of specific coastal and marine ecosystem service values 170
• 4.4.4.4 Application of ESV information in policy and management 173
• 4.4.4.5 General opinions about ESV information usage, need, and limitations 176
• 4.4.5 Concluding remarks 178
• 4.5 Overall conclusions 181
• 4.6 References 182
• Appendix 1 214
• WG 41 Terms of Reference 214
• Appendix 2 215
• WG 41 Membership 215
• Appendix 3 217
• Workshop/Session Summaries and Meeting Reports from Past Annual Meetings Related to WG 41 217