CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 139Coastal and Marine ManagementSustainable Development and Environmental PolicyMarine and fisheries research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.

Patterns and Emerging Trends in Global Ocean Health

Open access
Halpern, Benjamin S., Longo, Catherine, Lowndes, Julia S. Stewart, Best, Benjamin D., Frazier, Melanie, Katona, Steven K., Kleisner, Kristin M., Rosenberg, Andrew A., Scarborough, Courtney, Selig, Elizabeth R.·2015·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0117863PMC PMC4361765
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

International and regional policies aimed at managing ocean ecosystem health need quantitative and comprehensive indices to synthesize information from a variety of sources, consistently measure progress, and communicate with key constituencies and the public. Here we present the second annual global assessment of the Ocean Health Index, reporting current scores and annual changes since 2012, recalculated using updated methods and data based on the best available science, for 221 coastal countries and territories. The Index measures performance of ten societal goals for healthy oceans on a quantitative scale of increasing health from 0 to 100, and combines these scores into a single Index score, for each country and globally. The global Index score improved one point (from 67 to 68), while many country-level Index and goal scores had larger changes. Per-country Index scores ranged from 41-95 and, on average, improved by 0.06 points (range -8 to +12). Globally, average scores increased for individual goals by as much as 6.5 points (coastal economies) and decreased by as much as 1.2 points (natural products). Annual updates of the Index, even when not all input data have been updated, provide valuable information to scientists, policy makers, and resource managers because patterns and trends can emerge from the data that have been updated. Changes of even a few points indicate potential successes (when scores increase) that merit recognition, or concerns (when scores decrease) that may require mitigative action, with changes of more than 10-20 points representing large shifts that deserve greater attention. Goal scores showed remarkably little covariance across regions, indicating low redundancy in the Index, such that each goal delivers information about a different facet of ocean health. Together these scores provide a snapshot of global ocean health and suggest where countries have made progress and where a need for further improvement exists.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0117863

Cites

17 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig 1 Global scores for the Ocean Health Index. Maps of overall Index scores for each reporting region (left panels) and global Index and goal scores (right panels) for newly calculated 2013 values (bottom panels) and recalculated 2012 values using updated methods and data (top panels). Colors in all cases indicate score values.
Fig 1 Global scores for the Ocean Health Index. Maps of overall Index scores for each reporting region (left panels) and global Index and goal scores (right panels) for newly calculated 2013 values (bottom panels) and recalculated 2012 values using updated methods and data (top panels). Colors in all cases indicate score values.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 2 Index and goal scores for representative countries and territories for 2013. Examples shown include three of the top five highest-scoring regions in the world, the three lowest scoring regions, and regions of potential interest.
Fig 2 Index and goal scores for representative countries and territories for 2013. Examples shown include three of the top five highest-scoring regions in the world, the three lowest scoring regions, and regions of potential interest.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 3 Change in Index and goal scores. Maps of the absolute difference of 2013 scores minus 2012 scores for each region for the overall Index (top panel) and four goals and sub-goals (bottom panels). Maps for all goals and sub-goals are presented in Figs. A-B in S1 File.
Fig 3 Change in Index and goal scores. Maps of the absolute difference of 2013 scores minus 2012 scores for each region for the overall Index (top panel) and four goals and sub-goals (bottom panels). Maps for all goals and sub-goals are presented in Figs. A-B in S1 File.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 4 Relationship between Ocean Health Index scores and potential predictor variables. Scores per region are compared to A) human development index (HDI) scores, B) country-level population (natural log-transformed), and C) country-level gross domestic product (GDP, natural log-transformed).
Fig 4 Relationship between Ocean Health Index scores and potential predictor variables. Scores per region are compared to A) human development index (HDI) scores, B) country-level population (natural log-transformed), and C) country-level gross domestic product (GDP, natural log-transformed).CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 5 Correlation matrix of per-country pairwise goal scores. Two-letter codes in the diagonal are goal labels (FP = food provision, AO = artisanal fishing opportunity, NP = natural products, CS = carbon storage, CP = coastal protection, LE = coastal livelihoods and economies, TR = tourism and recreation, SP = sense of place, CW = clean water, and BD = biodiversity). Values in the upper right are the correlation coefficients for each comparison, with larger font size indicating stronger significance of the result. Plots in lower left are scatterplots of the data with locally-weighted polynomial regression (LOWESS) fits shown in red.
Fig 5 Correlation matrix of per-country pairwise goal scores. Two-letter codes in the diagonal are goal labels (FP = food provision, AO = artisanal fishing opportunity, NP = natural products, CS = carbon storage, CP = coastal protection, LE = coastal livelihoods and economies, TR = tourism and recreation, SP = sense of place, CW = clean water, and BD = biodiversity). Values in the upper right are the correlation coefficients for each comparison, with larger font size indicating stronger significance of the result. Plots in lower left are scatterplots of the data with locally-weighted polynomial regression (LOWESS) fits shown in red.CC BY · PubMed Central

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Show all 19 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. BS Halpern, 2013, Reply to Branch et al, Nature, 495, E7

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 139

Related

Metadata

Authors
Halpern, B. S., Longo, C., Lowndes, J. S. S., Best, B. D., Frazier, M., Katona, S. K., Kleisner, K. M., Rosenberg, A. A., Scarborough, C., & Selig, E. R.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
  • National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (US)
  • Duke University (US)
  • Conservation International (US)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • Union of Concerned Scientists (US)
Corresponding author
Halpern, Benjamin S.
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2015-03-16
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
e0117863
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0117863
PMC
PMC4361765
OpenAlex
W2163939760
Cited by
139
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6
FWCI
38.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • David and Lucile Packard Foundation
  • Oak Foundation
  • National Geographic Society
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Coastal and Marine Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Sustainable Development and Environmental Policy
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Marine and fisheries research
Keywords
Ocean Health Index, ocean health, marine ecosystem health, coastal countries, marine policy, coastal economy, natural products
MeSH terms
Conservation of Natural Resources, Fisheries, Oceans and Seas, Ecosystem, Internationality, Ecological and Environmental Phenomena

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