Skip header and navigation

2 records – page 1 of 1.

Catching the right wave: evaluating wave energy resources and potential compatibility with existing marine and coastal uses.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature119059
Source
PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e47598
Publication Type
Article
Date
2012
Author
Choong-Ki Kim
Jodie E Toft
Michael Papenfus
Gregory Verutes
Anne D Guerry
Marry H Ruckelshaus
Katie K Arkema
Gregory Guannel
Spencer A Wood
Joanna R Bernhardt
Heather Tallis
Mark L Plummer
Benjamin S Halpern
Malin L Pinsky
Michael W Beck
Francis Chan
Kai M A Chan
Phil S Levin
Stephen Polasky
Author Affiliation
The Natural Capital Project, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America. ckim3@stanford.edu
Source
PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e47598
Date
2012
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Algorithms
British Columbia
Conservation of Natural Resources
Decision Support Techniques
Electricity
Environment
Fisheries - statistics & numerical data
Humans
Oceans and Seas
Renewable Energy - economics
Software
Water Movements
Abstract
Many hope that ocean waves will be a source for clean, safe, reliable and affordable energy, yet wave energy conversion facilities may affect marine ecosystems through a variety of mechanisms, including competition with other human uses. We developed a decision-support tool to assist siting wave energy facilities, which allows the user to balance the need for profitability of the facilities with the need to minimize conflicts with other ocean uses. Our wave energy model quantifies harvestable wave energy and evaluates the net present value (NPV) of a wave energy facility based on a capital investment analysis. The model has a flexible framework and can be easily applied to wave energy projects at local, regional, and global scales. We applied the model and compatibility analysis on the west coast of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada to provide information for ongoing marine spatial planning, including potential wave energy projects. In particular, we conducted a spatial overlap analysis with a variety of existing uses and ecological characteristics, and a quantitative compatibility analysis with commercial fisheries data. We found that wave power and harvestable wave energy gradually increase offshore as wave conditions intensify. However, areas with high economic potential for wave energy facilities were closer to cable landing points because of the cost of bringing energy ashore and thus in nearshore areas that support a number of different human uses. We show that the maximum combined economic benefit from wave energy and other uses is likely to be realized if wave energy facilities are sited in areas that maximize wave energy NPV and minimize conflict with existing ocean uses. Our tools will help decision-makers explore alternative locations for wave energy facilities by mapping expected wave energy NPV and helping to identify sites that provide maximal returns yet avoid spatial competition with existing ocean uses.
Notes
Cites: Mar Environ Res. 2010 Jun;69(5):374-8120138659
Cites: Mar Environ Res. 2009 Oct;68(4):151-719560811
Cites: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Mar 20;109(12):4696-70122392996
Cites: PLoS One. 2012;7(1):e3003122253865
PubMed ID
23144824 View in PubMed
Less detail

Global priorities for marine biodiversity conservation.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature105341
Source
PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e82898
Publication Type
Article
Date
2014
Author
Elizabeth R Selig
Will R Turner
Sebastian Troëng
Bryan P Wallace
Benjamin S Halpern
Kristin Kaschner
Ben G Lascelles
Kent E Carpenter
Russell A Mittermeier
Author Affiliation
Betty and Gordon Moore Center for Science and Oceans, Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia, United States of America.
Source
PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e82898
Date
2014
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Animals
Biodiversity
Climate
Conservation of Natural Resources - economics
Fishes - physiology
Geography
Human Activities
Humans
Internationality
Oceans and Seas
Species Specificity
Water Pollution
Abstract
In recent decades, many marine populations have experienced major declines in abundance, but we still know little about where management interventions may help protect the highest levels of marine biodiversity. We used modeled spatial distribution data for nearly 12,500 species to quantify global patterns of species richness and two measures of endemism. By combining these data with spatial information on cumulative human impacts, we identified priority areas where marine biodiversity is most and least impacted by human activities, both within Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ). Our analyses highlighted places that are both accepted priorities for marine conservation like the Coral Triangle, as well as less well-known locations in the southwest Indian Ocean, western Pacific Ocean, Arctic and Antarctic Oceans, and within semi-enclosed seas like the Mediterranean and Baltic Seas. Within highly impacted priority areas, climate and fishing were the biggest stressors. Although new priorities may arise as we continue to improve marine species range datasets, results from this work are an essential first step in guiding limited resources to regions where investment could best sustain marine biodiversity.
Notes
Cites: Nature. 2000 Feb 24;403(6772):853-810706275
Cites: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Jul 9;110(28):E2602-1023803854
Cites: Science. 2002 Aug 9;297(5583):950-312169718
Cites: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Oct 14;100(21):12223-814526101
Cites: Nature. 2005 Aug 18;436(7053):1016-916107848
Cites: Science. 2006 Jun 23;312(5781):1806-916794081
Cites: Science. 2006 Jul 7;313(5783):58-6116825561
Cites: Science. 2006 Nov 3;314(5800):787-9017082450
Cites: Curr Biol. 2008 Jan 8;18(1):1-818164201
Cites: Science. 2008 Feb 15;319(5865):948-5218276889
Cites: Science. 2008 Jul 25;321(5888):560-318653892
Cites: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 May 25;107(21):9707-1120448197
Cites: Science. 2010 May 28;328(5982):1164-820430971
Cites: PLoS One. 2010;5(8):e1211020689850
Cites: Nature. 2010 Aug 26;466(7310):1098-10120668450
Cites: PLoS One. 2010;5(12):e1514321151994
Cites: PLoS One. 2011;6(1):e1461321297949
Cites: PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e1935621573162
Cites: PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e1965321625431
Cites: PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e2065721701684
Cites: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Aug 16;108(33):13600-521808012
Cites: PLoS Biol. 2011 Aug;9(8):e100112721886479
Cites: Science. 2011 Nov 4;334(6056):652-522053045
Cites: Proc Biol Sci. 2013 Mar 7;280(1754):2012267923303544
Cites: PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e5624523457533
Cites: Science. 2002 Feb 15;295(5558):1280-411847338
PubMed ID
24416151 View in PubMed
Less detail