Developing expert scientific consensus on the environmental and societal effects of marine artificial structures prior to decommissioning.
Knights, AM
Lemasson, AJ
Firth, LB
Bond, T
Claisse, J
Coolen, JWP
Copping, A
Dannheim, J
De Dominicis, M
Degraer, S
Elliott, M
Fernandes, PG
Fowler, AM
Frost, M
Henry, L-A
Hicks, N
Hyder, K
Jagerroos, S
Jones, DOB
Love, M
Lynam, CP
Macreadie, PI
Marlow, J
Mavraki, N
McLean, D
Montagna, PA
Paterson, DM
Perrow, M
Porter, J
Russell, DJF
Bull, AS
Schratzberger, M
Shipley, B
van Elden, S
Vanaverbeke, J
Want, A
Watson, SCL
Wilding, TA
Somerfield, P
- Publisher:
- Elsevier
- Publication Type:
- Journal Article
- Citation:
- J Environ Manage, 2024, 352, pp. 119897
- Issue Date:
- 2024-02-14
Open Access
Copyright Clearance Process
- Recently Added
- In Progress
- Open Access
This item is open access.
Full metadata record
| Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Knights, AM | |
| dc.contributor.author | Lemasson, AJ | |
| dc.contributor.author | Firth, LB | |
| dc.contributor.author | Bond, T | |
| dc.contributor.author | Claisse, J | |
| dc.contributor.author | Coolen, JWP | |
| dc.contributor.author | Copping, A | |
| dc.contributor.author | Dannheim, J | |
| dc.contributor.author | De Dominicis, M | |
| dc.contributor.author | Degraer, S | |
| dc.contributor.author | Elliott, M | |
| dc.contributor.author | Fernandes, PG | |
| dc.contributor.author | Fowler, AM | |
| dc.contributor.author | Frost, M | |
| dc.contributor.author | Henry, L-A | |
| dc.contributor.author | Hicks, N | |
| dc.contributor.author | Hyder, K | |
| dc.contributor.author | Jagerroos, S | |
| dc.contributor.author | Jones, DOB | |
| dc.contributor.author | Love, M | |
| dc.contributor.author | Lynam, CP | |
| dc.contributor.author | Macreadie, PI | |
| dc.contributor.author | Marlow, J | |
| dc.contributor.author | Mavraki, N | |
| dc.contributor.author | McLean, D | |
| dc.contributor.author | Montagna, PA | |
| dc.contributor.author | Paterson, DM | |
| dc.contributor.author | Perrow, M | |
| dc.contributor.author | Porter, J | |
| dc.contributor.author | Russell, DJF | |
| dc.contributor.author | Bull, AS | |
| dc.contributor.author | Schratzberger, M | |
| dc.contributor.author | Shipley, B | |
| dc.contributor.author | van Elden, S | |
| dc.contributor.author | Vanaverbeke, J | |
| dc.contributor.author | Want, A | |
| dc.contributor.author | Watson, SCL | |
| dc.contributor.author | Wilding, TA | |
| dc.contributor.author | Somerfield, P | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2024-11-06T02:34:45Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2023-12-19 | |
| dc.date.available | 2024-11-06T02:34:45Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2024-02-14 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | J Environ Manage, 2024, 352, pp. 119897 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0301-4797 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1095-8630 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10453/181773 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Thousands of artificial ('human-made') structures are present in the marine environment, many at or approaching end-of-life and requiring urgent decisions regarding their decommissioning. No consensus has been reached on which decommissioning option(s) result in optimal environmental and societal outcomes, in part, owing to a paucity of evidence from real-world decommissioning case studies. To address this significant challenge, we asked a worldwide panel of scientists to provide their expert opinion. They were asked to identify and characterise the ecosystem effects of artificial structures in the sea, their causes and consequences, and to identify which, if any, should be retained following decommissioning. Experts considered that most of the pressures driving ecological and societal effects from marine artificial structures (MAS) were of medium severity, occur frequently, and are dependent on spatial scale with local-scale effects of greater magnitude than regional effects. The duration of many effects following decommissioning were considered to be relatively short, in the order of days. Overall, environmental effects of structures were considered marginally undesirable, while societal effects marginally desirable. Experts therefore indicated that any decision to leave MAS in place at end-of-life to be more beneficial to society than the natural environment. However, some individual environmental effects were considered desirable and worthy of retention, especially in certain geographic locations, where structures can support improved trophic linkages, increases in tourism, habitat provision, and population size, and provide stability in population dynamics. The expert analysis consensus that the effects of MAS are both negative and positive for the environment and society, gives no strong support for policy change whether removal or retention is favoured until further empirical evidence is available to justify change to the status quo. The combination of desirable and undesirable effects associated with MAS present a significant challenge for policy- and decision-makers in their justification to implement decommissioning options. Decisions may need to be decided on a case-by-case basis accounting for the trade-off in costs and benefits at a local level. | |
| dc.format | Print-Electronic | |
| dc.language | eng | |
| dc.publisher | Elsevier | |
| dc.relation.ispartof | J Environ Manage | |
| dc.relation.isbasedon | 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119897 | |
| dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | |
| dc.subject.classification | Environmental Sciences | |
| dc.subject.mesh | Humans | |
| dc.subject.mesh | Ecosystem | |
| dc.subject.mesh | Consensus | |
| dc.subject.mesh | Oil and Gas Fields | |
| dc.subject.mesh | Environment | |
| dc.subject.mesh | Climate | |
| dc.subject.mesh | Humans | |
| dc.subject.mesh | Consensus | |
| dc.subject.mesh | Environment | |
| dc.subject.mesh | Ecosystem | |
| dc.subject.mesh | Climate | |
| dc.subject.mesh | Oil and Gas Fields | |
| dc.subject.mesh | Humans | |
| dc.subject.mesh | Ecosystem | |
| dc.subject.mesh | Consensus | |
| dc.subject.mesh | Oil and Gas Fields | |
| dc.subject.mesh | Environment | |
| dc.subject.mesh | Climate | |
| dc.title | Developing expert scientific consensus on the environmental and societal effects of marine artificial structures prior to decommissioning. | |
| dc.type | Journal Article | |
| utslib.citation.volume | 352 | |
| utslib.location.activity | England | |
| pubs.organisational-group | University of Technology Sydney | |
| pubs.organisational-group | University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Science | |
| pubs.organisational-group | University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Science/School of Life Sciences | |
| utslib.copyright.status | open_access | * |
| dc.rights.license | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | |
| dc.date.updated | 2024-11-06T02:34:42Z | |
| pubs.publication-status | Published | |
| pubs.volume | 352 |
Abstract:
Thousands of artificial ('human-made') structures are present in the marine environment, many at or approaching end-of-life and requiring urgent decisions regarding their decommissioning. No consensus has been reached on which decommissioning option(s) result in optimal environmental and societal outcomes, in part, owing to a paucity of evidence from real-world decommissioning case studies. To address this significant challenge, we asked a worldwide panel of scientists to provide their expert opinion. They were asked to identify and characterise the ecosystem effects of artificial structures in the sea, their causes and consequences, and to identify which, if any, should be retained following decommissioning. Experts considered that most of the pressures driving ecological and societal effects from marine artificial structures (MAS) were of medium severity, occur frequently, and are dependent on spatial scale with local-scale effects of greater magnitude than regional effects. The duration of many effects following decommissioning were considered to be relatively short, in the order of days. Overall, environmental effects of structures were considered marginally undesirable, while societal effects marginally desirable. Experts therefore indicated that any decision to leave MAS in place at end-of-life to be more beneficial to society than the natural environment. However, some individual environmental effects were considered desirable and worthy of retention, especially in certain geographic locations, where structures can support improved trophic linkages, increases in tourism, habitat provision, and population size, and provide stability in population dynamics. The expert analysis consensus that the effects of MAS are both negative and positive for the environment and society, gives no strong support for policy change whether removal or retention is favoured until further empirical evidence is available to justify change to the status quo. The combination of desirable and undesirable effects associated with MAS present a significant challenge for policy- and decision-makers in their justification to implement decommissioning options. Decisions may need to be decided on a case-by-case basis accounting for the trade-off in costs and benefits at a local level.
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Download statistics for the last 12 months
Not enough data to produce graph