The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ecosystem service tradeoff analysis reveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses
Open accessAbstract
Marine spatial planning (MSP) is an emerging responsibility of resource managers around the United States and elsewhere. A key proposed advantage of MSP is that it makes tradeoffs in resource use and sector (stakeholder group) values explicit, but doing so requires tools to assess tradeoffs. We extended tradeoff analyses from economics to simultaneously assess multiple ecosystem services and the values they provide to sectors using a robust, quantitative, and transparent framework. We used the framework to assess potential conflicts among offshore wind energy, commercial fishing, and whale-watching sectors in Massachusetts and identify and quantify the value from choosing optimal wind farm designs that minimize conflicts among these sectors. Most notably, we show that using MSP over conventional planning could prevent >$1 million dollars in losses to the incumbent fishery and whale-watching sectors and could generate >$10 billion in extra value to the energy sector. The value of MSP increased with the greater the number of sectors considered and the larger the area under management. Importantly, the framework can be applied even when sectors are not measured in dollars (e.g., conservation). Making tradeoffs explicit improves transparency in decision-making, helps avoid unnecessary conflicts attributable to perceived but weak tradeoffs, and focuses debate on finding the most efficient solutions to mitigate real tradeoffs and maximize sector values. Our analysis demonstrates the utility, feasibility, and value of MSP and provides timely support for the management transitions needed for society to address the challenges of an increasingly crowded ocean environment.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Metropolis, N., & Ulam, S. (1949) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1949.10483310 · Cited by 6,474
Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services
Worm, B., Barbier, E. B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J. E., Folke, C., Halpern, B. S., Jackson, J. B. C., Lotze, H. K., Micheli, F., Palumbi, S. R., et al. (2006) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1132294 · Cited by 4,544
Self-citation
Cited by
The performance and potential of protected areas
Watson, J. E. M., Dudley, N., Segan, D. B., & Hockings, M. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature13947 · Cited by 2,397
Marine defaunation: Animal loss in the global ocean
McCauley, D. J., Pinsky, M. L., Palumbi, S. R., Estes, J. A., Joyce, F. H., & Warner, R. R. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1255641 · Cited by 1,305
Dynamic ocean management: defining and conceptualizing real-time management of the ocean
Maxwell, S. M., Hazen, E. L., Lewison, R. L., Dunn, D. C., Bailey, H., Bograd, S. J., Briscoe, D. K., Fossette, S., Hobday, A. J., Bennett, M., et al. (2015) · Marine Policy · doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2015.03.014 · Cited by 504
Lewison, R., Hobday, A. J., Maxwell, S., Hazen, E., Hartog, J. R., Dunn, D. C., Briscoe, D., Fossette, S., O'Keefe, C. E., Barnes, M., et al. (2015) · BioScience · doi:10.1093/biosci/biv018 · Cited by 249
De Santo, E. M. (2013) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.01.033 · Cited by 209
Metadata
- Authors
- White, C., Halpern, B. S., & Kappel, C. V.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2012-03-05
- Volume
- 109
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 4696-4701
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2124255358
- Cited by
- 405
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 113.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Ecosystem service tradeoff analysis reveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1114215109
- The paper
- White, C., Halpern, B. S., & Kappel, C. V. (2012). Ecosystem service tradeoff analysis reveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114215109
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.