What are the local impacts of energy systems on marine ecosystem services: a systematic map protocol

Environmental Evidence

Joana Nunes¹  Tara Hooper¹  Nicola Beaumont¹  Ana M Queirós¹  Eleni Papathanasopoulou¹ 

[1]Plymouth Marine Laboratory, Plymouth, UK

关键词: Ecosystem service classifications;    Human health and well-being;    Ecosystem Processes;    Ecosystem functions;    Habitats;    Biodiversity;    Ecosystem service impacts;    Ecosystem impacts;    Energy systems;   

Others  :  1092975
DOI  :  10.1186/2047-2382-3-26

 received in 2014-04-08, accepted in 2014-09-26,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG) and its impact on the climate has resulted in many international governments committing to reduce their GHG emissions. The UK, for example, has committed to reducing its carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. Suggested ways of reaching such a target are to increase dependency on offshore wind, offshore gas and nuclear. It is not clear, however, how the construction, operation and decommissioning of these energy systems will impact marine ecosystem services, i.e. the services obtained by people from the natural environment such as food provisioning, climate regulation and cultural inspiration.

Research on ecosystem service impacts associated with offshore energy technologies is still in its infancy. The objective of this review is to bolster the evidence base by firstly, recording and describing the impacts of energy technologies at the marine ecosystems and human level in a consistent and transparent way; secondly, to translate these ecosystem and human impacts into ecosystem service impacts by using a framework to ensure consistency and comparability. The output of this process will be an objective synthesis of ecosystem service impacts comprehensive enough to cover different types of energy under the same analysis and to assist in informing how the provision of ecosystem services will change under different energy provisioning scenarios.

Methods

Relevant studies will be sourced using publication databases and selected using a set of selection criteria including the identification of: (i) relevant subject populations such as marine and coastal species, marine habitat types and the general public; (ii) relevant exposure types including offshore wind farms, offshore oil and gas platforms and offshore structures connected with nuclear; (iii) relevant outcomes including changes in species structure and diversity; changes in benthic, demersal and pelagic habitats; and changes in cultural services. The impacts will be synthesised and described using a systematic map. To translate these findings into ecosystem service impacts, the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) and Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) frameworks are used and a detailed description of the steps taken provided to ensure transparency and replicability.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Papathanasopoulou et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]UNFCCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change background information. 1992. Available from http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/6031.php webcite
• [2]UNFCC: Kyoto Protocol. 1997. Available from: http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/6031.php webcite
• [3]HM Government: Climate Change Act 2008. London; 2008. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/pdfs/ukpga_20080027_en.pdf webcite
• [4]DECC: UK Renewable Energy Road Map. London; 2011. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48128/2167-uk-renewable-energy-roadmap.pdf webcite
• [5]DECC: The Carbon Plan – Reducing Greenhouse gas Emissions. London; 2011. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-carbon-plan-reducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions--2 webcite
• [6]DECC: Nuclear. London; 2012. http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/nuclear/nuclear.aspx webcite
• [7]Skeate ER, Perrow MR, Gilroy JJ: Likely effects of construction of Scroby Sands offshore wind farm on a mixed population of harbour Phoca vitulina and grey Halichoerus grypus seals. Mar Pollut Bull 2012, 64:872-881.
• [8]Warwick PE, Cundy AB, Croudace IW, Bains MED, Dale AA: The uptake of iron-55 by marine sediment, macroalgae, and biota following discharge from a nuclear power station. Environ Sci Technol 2001, 35(11):2171-2177.
• [9]Fabi G, Grati F, Puletti M, Scarcella G: Effects on fish community induced by installation of two gas platforms in the Adriatic Sea. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2004, 273:187-197.
• [10]Hooper T, Austen M: Tidal barrages in the UK: Ecological and social impacts, potential mitigation, and tools to support barrage planning. Renewable Sustainble Energy Rev 2013, 23:289-298.
• [11]Venables D, Pidgeon NF, Parkhill KA, Henwood KL, Simmons P: Living ith nuclear power: Sense of place, proximity, and risk perceptions in local host communitiies. J Environ Psychol 2012, 32:371-383.
• [12]UK National Ecosystem Assessment: The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC; 2011.
• [13]DEFRA: Ecosystem Services. 2013. Available from https://www.gov.uk/ecosystems-services webcite
• [14]Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Washington: Island Press; 2005.
• [15]Haines-Young R, Potschin M: CICES Version 4: Response to consultation. London; 2012. http://cices.eu webcite
• [16]Fleiss JL: Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull 1971, 76(5):378-382.
• [17]Ashley MC, Mangi SC, Rodwell LM: The potential of offshore windfarms to act as marine protected areas – a systematic review of current evidence. Mar Policy 2014, 45:301-309.
• [18]Doerr ED, Doerr VAJ, Davies MJ: Does structural connectivity facilitate dispersal of native species in Australia’s fragmented terrestrial landscapes? CEE protocol 08–007 (SR 44). Collaboration Environ Evid 2008. http://www.environmentalevidence.org/SR44.html webcite