Stakeholder perceptions of offshore ecosystem services

Harte Research Institute

A report to Exxon

Mobil Corporation

STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS OF

OFFSHORE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS OF OFFSHORE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..2

I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3

II. Offshore Ecosystem Services Workshops ........................................................................................... 5

i. Houston Workshop ....................................................................................................................... 5

ii. Tampa Workshop ......................................................................................................................... 8

iii. Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 11

III. Discussion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….13

IV. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 14

V. References ......................................................................................................................................... 16

VI. Appendix ........................................................................................................................................... 17

Suggested Citation

Yoskowitz, D., C. Carollo, and C. Santos. Stakeholder Perceptions of Offshore Ecosystem Services. Harte

Research Institute. March 2014. 18 pages.


2

Executive Summary

Summary of Offshore Ecosystem Services Workshops

Preserving the ability of the environment to provide valued ecosystem services is one of the overall

objectives of environmental management. International standards and policies are being developed to

meet this goal, but often lack a structured framework for engaging stakeholders in the decision-making

process. In particular, the integration of ecosystem services into the management of deep-water marine

systems has been limited by the absence of organized forums where stakeholder groups can

communicate their values and expectations, and where the input provided by stakeholders can be used

to determine ecosystem services priorities as perceived by the wider ocean user community.

To begin closing this gap, the Harte Research Institute, with active engagement and support from

ExxonMobil, held two stakeholder workshops on September 29th, 2013 in Houston, Texas and on

November 21st, 2013 in Tampa, Florida. The workshops were designed to engage participants in a

discussion on ecosystem services provided by the deepwater Gulf, and to facilitate the relative valuation

(or ranking) of offshore ecosystem services using a non-monetary valuation scheme (Relative Valuation

of Multiple Ecosystem Services Index/RESVI approach). Stakeholders that participated in the workshops

included representatives from commercial and recreational fishing, oil and gas, diving, aquaculture,

wind energy, pipeline industry, federal agencies, and non-government organizations. Both workshops

were held independently of each other, i.e., participants did not overlap between the two workshops,

and results from the first workshop were not shared during the second workshop prior to completion of

the valuation exercise.

The following important findings were made during the workshops:

Stakeholders took a holistic approach, i.e., recognized the importance of multiple ecosystem

services instead of assigning value only to those services that were closely related to their

respective constituents.

Both workshops yielded similar results, with food, raw materials, and recreation being among

the top three ranked ecosystem services.

Stakeholders in both workshops distinguished between direct (provisioning and cultural) and

indirect (regulating and supporting) services.

There was a preference among stakeholders to rank only the direct services, as these are the

services directly used by stakeholders.

Stakeholders further expressed that the role of indirect services needed to be considered when

designing monitoring and/or mitigation measures to ensure the sustainability of the direct

services.

The workshop results provide a first step toward defining and understanding priority ecosystem services

in the deepwater Gulf as perceived by the wider ocean user community. Future steps will depend on

the willingness of all stakeholders, including industries, scientists and government entities, to share into

collaborative efforts that ensure the sustainability of ecosystem services for all ocean users.


3

I. Introduction

Ecosystem services are generally defined as the contributions from ecosystems that support, sustain,

and enrich human life (Yoskowitz 2010). They can directly (e.g., fish harvesting) or indirectly (e.g., algal

growth for fish food) benefit humans and comprise both living and non-living resources. These services

are the result of various ecosystem structures, functions, and processes that exist and can be measured

independently of humans. Several services are easily valued and linked to human well-being such as

food exploitation; however, many other services such as waste or biological regulation are less clearly

valued or understood.

Ecosystem services that humans benefit from must be considered in decision-making together with their

intrinsic values and conservation ethics in order to foster a sense of responsibility and greater

understanding of trade-offs with immediate and long-term consequences. To do this, it is necessary to

understand what services are provided by different ecosystems and how they contribute to human well-

being. Besides, human actions affect both human well-being and ecosystem functions, requiring a

combination of ecology and economics to identify changes in the provision and value of ecosystem

services.

The offshore ecosystem (Open Ocean) comprises the largest ecosystem on Earth but is the one we know

the least about. It can be divided into several different zones based upon depth; for this workshop we

considered three main zones: the euphotic or surface zone (0 – 200 m depth), the pelagic zone (water

column below 200 m), and benthic or seafloor zone (on or near the ocean floor). The euphotic, pelagic,

and benthic zones are parts of a single, multifaceted system which is linked to the rest of the world by

matter, energy, and biodiversity exchanges. Many of the services provided by the offshore ecosystem

illustrate the links between the deep sea and human well-being. Many of the services provided by the

offshore ecosystem illustrate the links between the deep sea, through Earth’s surface to the

atmosphere. For example, photosynthesis links the deep sea and the atmosphere (through

phytoplankton that produces about 50% of the oxygen made available by plant life), and sea and land

through the aquatic food web (primary productivity, secondary productivity, fish populations and

fisheries).

To begin the conversation about Gulf of Mexico offshore ecosystem services, the Harte Research

Institute, with support from ExxonMobil, held two workshops with stakeholders on September 29th in

Houston, Texas and on November 21st in Tampa, Florida. Workshop participants engaged in a discussion

about the Gulf of Mexico, its role in providing ecosystem services, and the interconnection between the

offshore environment and human well-being. Defining and understanding the services provided by the

Gulf of Mexico is an essential first step in informing decision-making and gauging the overall resilience of

the Gulf.

Specifically, the goals of the workshops were to:

1) Identify relevant ecosystem services that are or can occur in the Gulf;


4

2) Quantify, in non-monetary terms, the relative importance of offshore ecosystem services.

Attendees included representatives from commercial and recreational fishing, oil and gas, diving,

aquaculture, wind energy, pipeline industry, federal agencies, and NGOs. The number of participants in

each workshop was approximately 14, an appropriate size to benefit a group discussion and maintain

focus on the workshop goals. The results of these workshops will be used to advance our understanding

of the importance of offshore services and how we might go about better measure their present and

future provision and value.

Prior to the workshops, stakeholders were presented with the following ecosystem services list (Table

1).

Table 1: List of Offshore Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem Functions and Services Description Examples

Supportive functions and

structures

Ecological structures and functions that are essential to the delivery of

ecosystem services

Net primary production Conversion of sunlight to biomass Algal growth

Dispersal of organisms Seed and larval transport Larvae dispersal by currents

Habitat The location organisms use Spawning grounds

Regulating services Maintenance of essential ecological processes and life support for humans

Gas regulation Regulation of the atmospheric

and oceanic chemical composition

Downwelling of oxygen, carbon

burial

Climate regulation Regulation of global climate processes Heat transfer and storage

Biological regulation Species interactions Preventing species invasions

Waste/pollutant regulation Removal or breakdown of non-nutrients Dilution of human waste, oil

Nutrient regulation Maintenance of major nutrients Preventing harmful algal

blooms

Provisioning services Provision of natural resources and raw materials

Food Human consumption of organisms Fish via commercial or

subsistence

harvesting

Raw materials Fuel and energy Oil and natural gas, wind/wave

Genetic resources Genetic resources Temperature stable compounds,

oil

dispersing compounds

Medicinal resources Substances for use in pharmaceuticals Anti-cancer products

Cultural services Enhancing emotional, psychological, and cognitive well-being

Recreation Rest, refreshment, and recreation Boating; Diving, Fishing

Science and education Scientific and educational enhancement Field studies; Reference areas

Spiritual and historic Spiritual or historic information Ship wrecks

Source: Modified from Farber, S., R. Costanza, D.L. Childers, J. Erickson, K. Gross, M. Grove, C.S. Hopkinson, J. Kahn, S. Pincetl, A. Troy, P. Warren, and M. Wilson (2006). Linking Ecology and Economics for Ecosystem Management. BioScience, 56, 121-133


5

II. Offshore Ecosystem Services Workshops

i. Houston Workshop

On September 26th the first Offshore Ecosystem Services (ES) Workshop took place in Houston, Texas.

There were a total of ten stakeholders representing different industries (recreational and commercial

fishing, oil and gas, and wind energy), a federal agency (NOAA), and three NGOs (Coastal Conservation

Association, Gulf of Mexico Foundation, and Ocean Conservancy); in addition, four Harte Research

Institute researchers facilitated the workshop.

After a brief introduction, attendees were given a list of fifteen ES (table 1) and were asked to rank

those services using a non-monetary valuation scheme, specifically, the Relative Valuation of Multiple

Ecosystem Services Index (RESVI) approach (Jordan, et al., 2010). This exercise entailed answering the

question: “If we give you $1, how would you spend it to ensure the continued provision or enhancement

of ES?” Participants could either assign the $1 to one ecosystem service alone or divide it among as

many ecosystem services as desired. By doing this, the relative value of each ES is stated. Below are the

results of this first RESVI exercise (Table 2).

Table 2: Houston Workshop RESVI 1 Results

Ecosystem Services Sum Number of votes (max. 10)

Food $1.83 10

Raw Materials $1.20 9

Recreation $1.07 9

Habitat $0.92 8

Climate Regulation $0.79 8

Gas Regulation $0.71 8

Dispersal of Organisms $0.59 7

Net Primary Production $0.54 5

Waste/Pollutant Regulation $0.48 6

Science and Education $0.45 7

Medicinal Resources $0.38 6

Nutrient Regulation $0.30 5

Biological Regulation $0.29 5

Genetic Resources $0.27 5

Spiritual and Historic $0.18 4

Food, raw materials, recreation, and habitat were the ecosystem services more highly ranked by

stakeholders. This was expected since stakeholders tend to value the services more directly enjoyed by

humans. Contrarily, nutrient regulation, biological regulation, genetic resources, and spiritual and

historic were the ES less ranked; perhaps because they are not directly used by stakeholders and the

need for such services is not as obvious. Overall, stakeholders used their $1 dollar to rank multiple

services rather than one service alone. Out of fifteen ecosystem services that could be valued,


6

stakeholders divided their dollar among five to fifteen services, showing that they consider important a

suite of ecosystem services. This was unknown prior to the workshop. It was unclear whether

stakeholders would perhaps represent their industry by voting on one service only, or if they would

represent a broader view and value a wider range of ES.

In the discussion that followed, stakeholders argued about the relevant ES provided by the Gulf of

Mexico. It was the overall opinion that supportive services were the natural services needed for other

more direct services, such as provisioning and cultural, to occur. There is interaction among all services

so that the presence/absence of indirect services (supportive and regulating) influence the

present/absence of more direct services (provisioning and cultural). As an example, the provision of

food is highly dependent on the provision of other services such as habitat, biological interactions, and

net primary production. There needs to be a balance among all services so that the excessive

exploration of one does not compromise the provision of others.

After the discussion participants were tasked with the refinement of the offshore ES list followed by a

new RESVI exercise. The services transportation, aesthetics, and existence were added and genetic and

medicinal resources were combined into biochemical products. For the second RESVI exercise,

participants believed that only the more direct services should be valued, since the more indirect

services were a condition for such services to exist. Thus, eleven ES were included in RESVI 2: food, raw

materials, biochemical products, transportation, existence, recreation, spiritual and historic, aesthetics,

science and education, waste/pollutant regulation, and nutrient regulation. Below are the results of the

exercise (Table 3).

Table 3: Houston Workshop RESVI 2 Results

Ecosystem Services Sum Number of votes

Food $2.14 10


Recreation $1.16 9

Transportation $1.06 9



Biochemical Products $0.69 7


Existence $0.39 7


Aesthetics $0.11 3

Once again food, raw materials, and recreation were the more highly ranked services. Some participants

mentioned that if the same exercise were to be carried out with 100 different stakeholders, these same

services would be at the top given their direct relation with human well-being. Transportation came in

fourth followed by science and education and waste/pollutant regulation. It is clear that the top services


7

are more directly related to human well-being and easy to understand, thus having a higher relative

value. More abstract and subjective services such as existence, spiritual and historic, and aesthetics,

although considered, have a lower relative value.

The last exercise was to identify where the provision of ecosystem services occurs in the different

offshore zones: euphotic (0 – 200 m depth), pelagic (water column below 200 m), and benthic or sea

floor (on or near the ocean floor). A diagram illustrating the different zones was provided to

stakeholders (Figure 1) along with an explanation of what each zone entailed. Table 4 shows the results

of this exercise.

Figure 1: Offshore Ecosystem Services and Water Column Zones

According to the stakeholders at the workshop, the zone providing more ecosystem services is the

photic zone (eleven), followed by the sea floor (nine) and the pelagic zone (seven). The services waste

and nutrient regulation, food, raw materials, biochemical products, science and education, and

existence are provided by the three zones. Transportation, recreation, and aesthetics were believed to

be provided by one zone only, the photic/surface zone.


8

Table 4: Assigning ES to Water Column Zones- Houston Workshop

Ecosystem Services Zone

Photic/ Surface Pelagic Sea Floor

Waste/Pollutant Regulation x x x

Nutrient Regulation x x x

Transportation x

Food x x x

Raw Materials x x x

Biochemical Products x x x

Recreation x

Aesthetics x

x

Science and Education x x x

Spiritual and Historic x

Existence x x x

Number of Services 11 7 8

ii. Tampa Workshop

The workshop in Tampa, Florida followed the same format as the one in Houston so that results could

be easily compared. There were a total of nine stakeholders and four Harte Research Institute

researchers. Stakeholders represented recreational and commercial fishing, aquaculture, pipeline

industry, diving industry, oil and gas, one NGO (Conservational International) and two federal agencies

(NOAA and BOEM). As with the previous workshop, the first RESVI exercise was done shortly after the

introduction. Below are the results of that first exercise.

As expected, food and raw materials were the services more highly ranked followed closely by habitat.

Recreation came in seventh place after more indirect services such as net primary production and gas

regulation. This came as a surprise since stakeholders tend to value more highly direct services rather

than indirect services.

Overall, stakeholders divided their $1 dollar among multiple services rather than valuing one service

alone. Out of fifteen ecosystem services, stakeholders divided their $1 among five to fifteen services.

This shows that participants were aware of the overall importance of all ecosystem services including

the more indirect ones that are not enjoyed directly by humans; again, this was also shown by the

higher relative value assigned to net primary production and gas regulation than to recreation.


9

Table 5: Tampa Workshop RESVI 1

Ecosystem Services Sum Number of votes

Food $1.6 9


Habitat $1.03 9

Net Primary Production $0.78 8


Gas Regulation $0.59 7

Recreation $0.59 7


Climate Regulation $0.425 6

Biological Regulation $0.39 5


Medicinal Resources $0.33 5

Genetic Resources $0.22 4


Dispersal of Organisms $0.17 4

Following this exercise, stakeholders proceeded with a discussion about the definition of ecosystem

services and the refinement of the current ES list. The initial definition of ecosystem services was slightly

modified to include the words direct and indirect; thus, “ecosystem services are the direct and indirect

contributions from the Gulf of Mexico marine and coastal ecosystems that support, sustain, and enrich

human life.” Concerning the ES list, stakeholders believed indirect ecosystem services (supportive and

regulating) are needed for direct ecosystem services to occur. Therefore, the ecosystem services used

for RESVI 2 were modified and only direct services were included in the exercise. Transportation was

added as a service and genetic and medicinal resources were combined into derivative resources.

Spiritual and historic was changed to aesthetic and cultural, thus as with the previous group, aesthetics

was included in the refined list of offshore ES. The results of RESVI 2 are shown in table 6.

Food and raw materials were the most highly valued services. Recreation moved up and it became the

third most highly valued ecosystem service; that was expected since some stakeholders were

representing sectors such as recreational fishing and diving industry and in general most people

recognize recreation as an important service. Science and education came in fourth followed by

derivative resources, aesthetic and cultural, and transportation. A recurring topic during the discussion

was whether or not man-made structures could be included as a service-provider or as an example of

the service habitat. More specifically, oil platforms provide habitat for fish and in return are used by

many fishermen and divers; one could even argue that without platforms there would not be a place for

diving in certain coastal areas of the Gulf. So how can stakeholders communicate to decision-makers the

recreational importance of such infrastructure and should they be included in management decisions

concerning natural resources in the Gulf?


10

Table 6: Tampa Workshop RESVI 2

Ecosystem Services SUM Count

Food $2.7 9


Recreation $1.086 9


Derivative Resources $0.82 8

Aesthetic and Cultural $0.816 9

Transportation $0.73 7

Food and raw materials were the most highly valued services. Recreation moved up and it became the

third most highly valued ecosystem service; that was expected since some stakeholders were

representing sectors such as recreational fishing and diving industry and in general most people

recognize recreation as an important service. Science and education came in fourth followed by

derivative resources, aesthetic and cultural, and transportation. A recurring topic during the discussion

was whether or not man-made structures could be included as a service-provider or as an example of

the service habitat. More specifically, oil platforms provide habitat for fish and in return are used by

many fishermen and divers; one could even argue that without platforms there would not be a place for

diving in certain coastal areas of the Gulf. So how can stakeholders communicate to decision-makers the

recreational importance of such infrastructure and should they be included in management decisions

concerning natural resources in the Gulf?

The last exercise included assigning the provision of ecosystem services to the different water column

zones. Table 7 shows the results of such exercise.

Table 7: Assigning ES to Water Column Zones- Tampa Workshop

Ecosystem Services Zone

Photic/ Surface Pelagic Sea Floor

Food x x x

Raw Materials x

x

Transportation x

x

Recreation x

x

Science and Education x x x

Aesthetics and Cultural x

x

Derivative Resources x x x

Number of Services 7 3 7

According to stakeholders, the zones providing all seven ecosystem services are the photic zone and the

sea floor (seven) followed by the pelagic zone (three); the illustration of each zone is shown in Figure 1.

The services food, science and education, and derivative resources are provided by the three zones, and


11

all the other services are provided by both the photic zone and sea floor (according to stakeholders);

similar results were found in the previous workshop.

iii. Summary

Both workshops followed the same format so that results could be compared and in fact results were

very similar. For simplicity purposes, the Houston workshop will be called group 1 and the Tampa

workshop will be called group 2.

Table 8: Summary of the RESVI 1 results for both Workshops

Ecosystem Services Combined

ranking Houston ranking

Tampa ranking

Food 1 1 1

Raw Materials 2 2 2

Habitat 3 4 3

Recreation 4 3 7

Gas Regulation 5 6 6

Net Primary Production 6 8 4

Climate Regulation 7 5 9

Science and Education 8 10 5

Waste/Pollutant Regulation 9 9 8

Dispersal of Organisms 10 7 15

Nutrient Regulation 11 12 11

Medicinal Resources 12 11 12

Biological Regulation 13 13 10

Genetic Resources 14 14 13

Spiritual and Historic 15 15 14

Comparing results for the first RESVI exercise (RESVI 1), food and raw materials were the services more

highly valued in both groups. Habitat was also highly valued, being fourth in group 1 and third in group

2. The services whose relative value differed between both groups were recreation, net primary

production, climate regulation, science and education, and dispersal of organisms; all other services had

very similar results. Recreation was the fourth most highly valued service in group 1, and in group 2 it

was in a surprising seventh place. The reason for this is unclear, but maybe since its importance is so

obvious, stakeholders decided to value other services more highly or even abstained from assigning a

portion of their $1 to it. Net primary production and science and education were more highly valued in

group 2, while climate regulation and dispersal of organisms had a higher value in group 1 (Table 8).

Another way to analyze the results is by adding up the dollar values assigned to each ecosystem service

in both groups. By doing so, food, raw materials, habitat, and recreation are the top four services and


12

biological regulation, genetic resources, and spiritual and historic the bottom three services. Table 8

summarizes the results of RESVI 1 for both groups by showing the relative value of each ecosystem

service.

For the second RESVI exercise (RESVI 2), the list of ecosystem services was slightly different between

groups; therefore the direct comparison was only possible for some ecosystem services. Table 9 shows

the ES list included in RESVI 2 for both groups. Food, raw materials, recreation, science and education,

and transportation are present in both groups. Biochemical products and derivative products have

different names, but both include medicinal and genetic resources thus are comparable. In group 1,

aesthetics and spiritual and historic are separated and in group 2 they are put together with the name

aesthetic and cultural. Lastly, existence, waste/pollutant regulation, and nutrient regulation are only

included in group 1.

Table 9: Offshore Ecosystem Services included in RESVI 2

Offshore ES for Group 1 (Houston) Offshore ES for Group 2 (Tampa)

Food Food

Raw Materials Raw Materials

Recreation Recreation

Science and Education Science and Education

Transportation Transportation

Biochemical Products Derivative Resources

Aesthetics Aesthetic and Cultural

Spiritual and Historic

Existence n/a

Waste/Pollutant Regulation n/a

Nutrient Regulation n/a

When comparing results, food, raw materials, and recreation were the top three ecosystem services in

both groups. Transportation’s relative value differed between groups being more highly valued in group

1 (fourth) than in group 2 (7th). Science and education had similar value in both groups as did derivative

resources and biochemical products (5th and 7th place respectively).

By summing up the results, food, raw materials, and recreation are still at the top; science and

education and transportation come fourth and fifth respectively, followed by derivative or biochemical

products, and aesthetic and cultural (which includes spiritual and historic and aesthetics from group 1).

Waste/pollutant regulation, nutrient regulation, and existence come next mostly because they were

included only in group 1.

Since the most relevant offshore services were identified and their relative value determined, the next

step is to identify appropriate indicators so that the provision of such services can be monitored and/or

enhanced.


13

Table 10: Summary of RESVI 2 for both Workshops

Ecosystem Services Combined

Ranking Houston Ranking

Tampa Ranking

Food 1 1 1

Raw Materials 2 2 2

Recreation 3 3 3

Science and Education 4 5 4

Transportation 5 4 7

Derivative/Biochemical Resources 6 7 5

Aesthetic and Cultural (Spiritual and Historic, Aesthetics) 7 10/11 6

Waste/Pollutant Regulation 8 6 n/a

Nutrient Regulation 9 8 n/a

Existence 10 9 n/a

III. Discussion

For the first time in the Gulf of Mexico region a formal process was undertaken to both discuss deep

water ecosystem services and carry out a relative ranking with regional stakeholders that represented a

variety of organizations from oil and gas industry and the federal government to NGOs and recreational

fishing and diving.

At both workshops the participants took a holistic approach, i.e., recognized the importance of multiple

ecosystem services instead of limiting their ranking to those services most closely related to their

particular constituent. Prior to the workshops, there was a concern that the sector stakeholders might

bias their ranking, thus providing contrasting results in the two workshops due to the industries and

organizations that had been invited to attend. However, instead of inevitably ranking higher the service

pertaining or related to their specific sector, the stakeholders made an effort to fully consider the values

of the different open water ecosystem services, hence providing comparable results.

The workshop results ranked food, raw materials, and recreation as the top three offshore ecosystem

services. The consistency of the results is an indication of how the regional stakeholder community at

large might rank the services and provides us with a strong basis to move forward with the next steps

despite the limited number of workshops held in the region. Several stakeholder groups were

represented at the two workshops, thus making the results more robust.

Stakeholders in both workshops distinguished between direct (provisioning and cultural) and indirect

(regulating and supporting) services. Indirect services were considered as part of nature’s structure,

function, and dynamics, a requisite for a healthy ecosystem, and keystone for other services to

occur. Instead, direct services were considered as those goods and services that can be directly

consumed or enjoyed by people.


14

As these services are directly used by stakeholders, the predominant opinion was that only the direct

services should be ranked in a relative valuation exercise. To avoid “double-counting” the indirect

services, which contribute to the provision of the direct services, the final ranking only took into

consideration what stakeholders defined as direct services.

Stakeholders also felt that the role of indirect services needed to be considered when designing

monitoring and/or mitigation measures to ensure the sustainability of the direct services. This set the

stage for potential interdisciplinary and multi-stakeholders collaboration for the measurement of deep

water ecosystem services through the measurement of ecosystem functions that produce direct

services.

IV. Conclusion

In conclusion, the results from these two workshops show that the most valued offshore ecosystem

services are food, raw materials, and recreation. This can be helpful when trying to prioritize ecosystem

services for decision-making or when trying to find indicators for monitoring the sustainable provision of

such services. According to stakeholders, food is provided by the three water column zones (photic,

pelagic, and sea floor), raw materials is provided by the three zones in group 1 and by two in group 2

(photic zone and sea floor), and recreation is provided by both the photic and sea floor.

To link back these direct services to those more indirect, the indirect services needed for the provision

of food, raw materials, and recreation are net primary production, dispersal of organisms, habitat,

biological regulation, waste/pollutant regulation, nutrient regulation, and gas regulation. Table 11 shows

these results in more detail.

In summary, defining and understanding the services provided by the Gulf of Mexico is an essential first

step in informing decision-making and gauging the overall resilience of the Gulf. Now that the top three

offshore ecosystem services were identified, where do we go from here? It is important to track changes

of these ecosystem services and ensure their long-term provision. For that to happen, a long-term

monitoring process is necessary and understanding the linkages between direct and indirect services can

help identify the relevant indicators to be included in the monitoring process. Additional research is

needed to improve the knowledge of how the offshore ecosystem produces these ecosystem services

and scientists and stakeholders need to be engaged in this process so that a better understanding is

attained. There needs to be a two-way communication between stakeholders and scientists; a way in

which stakeholders can provide their input and a way in which scientists can communicate the

importance of ecosystem services, by for example including the socio-economic impacts to society of

such services.


15

Table 11: Link between Direct Services and the Indirect Services

Direct Ecosystem Services Indirect Services needed

Food

Net Primary Production

Dispersal of Organisms

Habitat

Biological Regulation

Nutrient Regulation

Gas Regulation

Raw Materials (Oil and gas)

Recreation

Net Primary Production

Dispersal of Organisms

Habitat

Biological Regulation

Nutrient Regulation

Gas Regulation

These two workshops initiated the conversation about the relevant ecosystem services provided by the

Gulf of Mexico. The three more valued offshore ecosystem services were identified and their link to

indirect ecosystem services was established. The next step is to identify important indicators to initiate

the long-term monitoring of such services and improve the overall understanding of how the offshore

ecosystem produces ecosystem services.


16

V. References

Armstrong, C.W., Foley, N., Tinch, R., van den Hove, S., 2010. Ecosystem goods and services of the deep sea. Hotspot Ecosystem Research and Man’s Impact on European Seas. Deliverable D6 2, 68. Jordan, S.J., Hayes, S.E., Yoskowitz, D., Smith, L.M., Summers, J.K., Russell, M., Benson, W.H. 2010. Accounting for Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability: Linking Ecosystem Services to Human Well-Being. Environmental Science & Technology 44, 1530–1536. Yoskowitz, D., Plantier-Santos, C., Carollo, C. 2012. Integrating Ecosystem Services into Restoration Decisions for the Gulf of Mexico: Workshop Proceedings. Harte Research Institute. August. 22 pages


17

VI. Appendix

Stakeholder List

Houston Workshop

Stakeholder Groups Participant

Coastal Conservation Association Troy Williamson

Recreational Fishing Captain Scott Hickman

Commercial Fishing Michael Miglini

Oil and Gas Gary H. Isaksen

Oil and Gas Daniel C. Easley

Third party contractor Paul Kelly

Ocean Conservancy Chris Robbins

Gulf of Mexico Foundation Quenton Dokken

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Becky Allee

Wind Energy Research John Pappas

Tampa Workshop

Stakeholder Groups Participant

Recreational Fishing Captain Michael Colby

Commercial Fishing/Seafood Industry Bob Gill

Aquaculture Industry / Mote Marine Laboratory Kevan L. Main

Pipeline Industry Fred DeLoach

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Bill Causey

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Megan Biven

Diving Industry Jim Copeland

Oil and Gas Sandra Werner

Conservancy International Debra Zeyen



Cristina Carollo

Carlota Santos

Travis Washburn

David Yoskowitz

Stakeholder perceptions of offshore ecosystem services

Documents

Transcript of Stakeholder perceptions of offshore ecosystem services