Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Ecosystem-Service Scaling Techniques to Evaluate the Benefits of Marine Debris Removal

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While knowledge of the ecological impacts of marine debris is continually advancing, methods to evaluate the comparative scale of these impacts are less well developed. In the case of costly environmental restoration in marine and coastal environments, quantifying and comparing the ecological impacts of diverse forms of ecosystem injuries can facilitate a more efficient selection of restoration projects. This article proposes evaluating marine debris removal projects in an ecological service equivalency analysis framework that can be used to compare marine debris removal to other types of environmental restoration. Drawing on existing spatial and temporal data with respect to marine debris impacts on habitats and resources, we demonstrate how resource managers and organizations involved in marine debris removal can quantify the ecological service benefits of a removal project and use it to comparatively select between projects based on present value ecological benefits. This valuation can be useful in natural resource damage assessment restoration selection, and for directing limited funds to marine debris removal projects which produce the greatest gains in ecological services. This ecological scaling framework is applied to a seagrass injury case study to demonstrate its application for scaling marine debris removal as compensatory restoration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. All dollar values reported in this paper have been adjusted to 2021 values using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U).

  2. The HaBREM approach is a similar habitat-based assessment technique that can be applied to the measurement of impacts from marine debris, however the scaling metric applied is some objective measure of habitat productivity rather than the degree of ecological services provided. Additional discussion can be found in Baker et al. (2020).

  3. A description of the choice of the discount rate in HEA and REA can be found in Julius (1999).

  4. REAs also can incorporate reproductive services, losses, and effects. For an example and discussion, see USFWS (2016).

  5. Marine debris also has the potential to provide habitat enhancement in some areas by serving as hard bottom substrate (Havens et al. 2008). A full accounting of ecological service changes must net out all losses and gains.

  6. Most studies to date have focused on ghost fishing impacts rather than the degradation of traps in their entirety.

  7. We use the age of derelict gear recovered as a lower bound for injury duration. Additional research is needed to quantify the time it takes for a trap to degrade to the point at which ghost fishing impacts end.

  8. We use this assumption for purposes of demonstrating the application of HEA to derelict fishing gear impacts. Additional research is needed to quantify the time it takes for a trap to degrade to the point at which habitat impacts end.

  9. An important component of ecological service equivalency analysis is the known or equivalent value between different habitats and resources impacted. The analysis presented here assumes an equivalent ecological value between salt marsh and seagrass habitat, as well as the species and life stage affected by ghost fishing in each (e.g., terrapins and mammals in salt marsh, and fish and crustaceans in seagrass). Assuming that these habitats and fauna are fungible (i.e., exchangeable) but not of equal value, an additional scaling factor can be introduced to account for the relative value of each.

  10. Calculation: 0.21 DSAYs per salt marsh-wire trap / 0.05 DSAYs per seagrass-wood trap = 4.2 seagrass-wood traps removed to equal the benefits of one salt marsh-wire trap removal.

  11. Calculation: 0.21 DSAYs per salt marsh-wire trap / 0.07 DSAYs per seagrass-wire trap = 3 seagrass-wire traps removed to equal the benefits of one salt marsh-wire trap removal.

  12. Calculation: 26.1 DAYs per seagrass-wire trap / 1.9 DAYs per saltmarsh-wire trap = 13.7 saltmarsh-wire traps removed to equal the benefits of one seagrass-wire trap removal.

  13. This approach takes into account the interaction between the duration and intensity of marine debris impacts, but it does not distinguish between the relative value of individuals affected by a ghost fishing trap in a salt marsh (e.g., terrapins and mammals) and in seagrass (e.g., crabs and fish), but assumes they are fungible. An additional scaling factor can be introduced to account for this difference in value if it is known.

  14. There are many considerations of site location necessary when determining the most suitable restoration site. On-site and in-kind restoration has the greatest chance of providing equivalent ecological services to those that were lost (see our discussion of the “equivalent-value assumption” in the introduction). However, off-site restoration may be preferred to minimize costs or the improve the probability of restoration success. See Ruhl et al., 2008 for a discussion of the Section 404 Compensatory Mitigation Program established by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps.

  15. The duration of restoration benefits is often truncated by other environmental stressors, including climate change, sea level rise, invasive species, or other types of habitat destruction.

  16. This calculation only includes the habitat benefits of marine debris removal and does not include any calculation of the ghost fishing benefits, since those are not directly relatable to the hypothetical seagrass injury.

  17. Calculated by dividing the high-cost range of the seagrass planting project ($15,470) by the number of traps needed to be removed to compensate for the injury (427).

  18. This accounts for the time-value of killed lobsters, as described in section 2. Since the life history of lobsters is not included in the analysis, this term can also be interpreted as “discounted-lobsters.”

References

  • Antonelis K, Huppert D, Velasquez D, June J (2011) Dungeness crab mortality due to lost traps and a cost–benefit analysis of trap removal in Washington State waters of the Salish Sea. North Am J Fish Manag 31(5):880–893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arthur C, Friedman S, Weaver J, Van Nostrand D, Reinhardt J (2020) Estimating the benefits of derelict crab trap removal in the Gulf of Mexico. Estuaries Coasts 43(7):1821–1835

  • Baker M, Domanski A, Hollweg T, Murray J, Lane D, Skrabis K, DiPinto L (2020) Restoration scaling approaches to addressing ecological injury: the habitat-based resource equivalency method. Environ Manag 65(2):161–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayraktarov E, Saunders MI, Abdullah S, Mills M, Beher J, Possingham HP, Lovelock CE (2016) The cost and feasibility of marine coastal restoration. Ecol Appl 26(4):1055–1074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergstrom P (2006) Species selection success and costs of multi-year, multi-species submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) planting in Shallow Creek, Patapsco River, Maryland. Seagrass Restoration: Success, Failure and the Costs of Both, eds SF Treat and RR III Lewis (Valrico, FL: Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.) 49–58

  • Bilkovic DM, Havens K, Stanhope D, Angstadt K (2014) Derelict fishing gear in Chesapeake Bay, Virginia: Spatial patterns and implications for marine fauna. Mar Pollut Bull 80(1–2):114–123

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bilkovic DM, Slacum Jr HW, Havens KJ, Zaveta D, Jeffrey CF, Scheld AM, Stanhope D, Angstadt K, Evans JD (2016) Ecological and Economic Effects of Derelict Fishing Gear in the Chesapeake Bay 2015/2016 Final Assessment Report

  • Brown J, Macfadyen G (2007) Ghost fishing in European waters: Impacts and management responses. Mar Policy 31(4):488–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browne MA, Underwood AJ, Chapman MG, Williams R, Thompson RC, van Franeker JA (2015) Linking effects of anthropogenic debris to ecological impacts. Proc R Soc B: Biol Sci 282(1807):2014–2929

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruggeman DJ, Jones ML, Lupi F, Scribner KT (2005) Landscape equivalency analysis: methodology for estimating spatially explicit biodiversity credits. Environ Manag 36(4):518–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler CB, Matthews TR (2015) Effects of ghost fishing lobster traps in the Florida Keys. ICES J Mar Sci 72(suppl_1):i185–i198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacela D, Lipton J, Beltman D, Hansen J, Wolotira R (2005) Associating ecosystem service losses with indicators of toxicity in habitat equivalency analysis. Environ Manag 35(3):343–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark R, Pittman SJ, Battista TA, Caldow C (2012) Survey and impact assessment of derelict fish traps in St. Thomas and St. John, US Virgin Islands

  • Dawes CJ, Andorfer J, Rose C, Uranowski C, Ehringer N (1997) Regrowth of the seagrass Thalassia testudinum into propeller scars. Aquat Bot 59(1–2):139–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derraik JG (2002) The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a review. Mar Pollut Bull 44(9):842–852

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Desvousges WH, Gard N, Michael HJ, Chance AD (2018) Habitat and resource equivalency analysis: a critical assessment. Ecol Econ 143:74–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duffield J, Neher C, Patterson D (2021) Estimating compensation ratios for tribal resources within a habitat equivalency framework. Ecol Econ 179:106862

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunford RW, Ginn TC, Desvousges WH (2004) The use of habitat equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments. Ecol Econ 48(1):49–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erzini K, Monteiro CC, Ribeiro J, Santos MN, Gaspar M, Monteiro P, Borges TC (1997) An experimental study of gill net and trammel net ‘ghost fishing’ off the Algarve (southern Portugal). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 158:257–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca MS, Julius BE, Kenworthy WJ (2000) Integrating biology and economics in seagrass restoration: How much is enough and why? Ecol Eng 15(3–4):227–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca MS, Whitfield PE, Judson Kenworthy W, Colby DR, Julius BE (2004) Use of two spatially explicit models to determine the effect of injury geometry on natural resource recovery. Aquat Conserv: Mar Freshw Ecosyst 14(3):281–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca MS (2006) Wrap-up of seagrass restoration: success, failure and lessons about the costs of both. Seagrass Restoration: Success, Failure and the Costs of Both, eds SF Treat and RR III Lewis (Valrico, FL: Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.) 169–175

  • Gall SC, Thompson RC (2015) The impact of debris on marine life. Mar Pollut Bull 92(1–2):170–179

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gilardi KV, Carlson-Bremer D, June JA, Antonelis K, Broadhurst G, Cowan T (2010) Marine species mortality in derelict fishing nets in Puget Sound, WA and the cost/benefits of derelict net removal. Mar Pollut Bull 60(3):376–382

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gilman E, Chopin F, Suuronen P, Kuemlangan B (2016) Abandoned, lost and discarded gillnets and trammel nets: methods to estimate ghost fishing mortality, and the status of regional monitoring and management. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, (600), I

  • Giordano S, Lazar J, Bruce D, Little C, Levin D, Slacum Jr HW, Dew-Baxter J, Methratta L, Wong D (2010) Quantifying the Effects of Derelict Fishing Gear in the Maryland Portion of Chesapeake Bay. Final Report to the NOAA Marine Debris Program. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Silver Spring, MD

  • Guillory V (1993) Ghost fishing by blue crab traps. North Am J Fish Manag 13(3):459–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammerstrom KK, Kenworthy WJ, Whitfield PE, Merello MF (2007) Response and recovery dynamics of seagrasses Thalassia testudinum and Syringodium filiforme and macroalgae in experimental motor vessel disturbances. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 345:83–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson DA, Britney EM, Earle CJ, Stewart TG (2013) Adapting habitat equivalency analysis (HEA) to assess environmental loss and compensatory restoration following severe forest fires. For Ecol Manag 294:166–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Havens KJ, Bilkovic DM, Stanhope D, Angstadt K, Hershner C (2008) The effects of derelict blue crab traps on marine organisms in the lower York River, Virginia. North Am J Fish Manag 28(4):1194–1200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey CF, Havens KJ, Slacum HW, Bilkovic DM, Zaveta D, Scheld AM, Willard S, Evans JD (2016) Assessing Ecological and Economic Effects of Derelict Fishing Gear: a Guiding Framework. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary. https://doi.org/10.21220/V50W23

  • Johnston MW, Purkis SJ, Dodge RE (2015) Measuring Bahamian lionfish impacts to marine ecological services using habitat equivalency analysis. Mar Biol 162(12):2501–2512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Julius B (1999) Discounting and the Treatment of Uncertainty in Natural Resource Damage Assessment. NOAA Technical Paper 99-1 https://casedocuments.darrp.noaa.gov/northeast/athos/pdf/NOAA%201999.pdf Accessed 14 March 2019

  • June, J (2007) A cost-benefit analysis of derelict fishing gear removal in Puget Sound, Washington. Natural Resources Consultants, Report prepared for the Northwest Straits Foundation, Seattle

  • Kaiser MJ, Bullimore B, Newman P (1997) Catches in ghost fishing set nets. Oceanographic Lit Rev 6(44):626

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenworthy WJ, Fonseca MS, Whitfield PE, Hammerstrom KK (2002) Analysis of seagrass recovery in experimental excavations and propeller-scar disturbances in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. J Coastal Res 37:75–85

  • Kim TG, Opaluch J, Moon DSH, Petrolia DR (2017) Natural resource damage assessment for the Hebei Spirit oil spill: An application of Habitat Equivalency Analysis. Mar Pollut Bull 121(1–2):183–191

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kirsch KD, Barry KA, Fonseca MS, Whitfield PE, Meehan SR, Kenworthy WJ, Julius BE (2005) The Mini-312 Program—an expedited damage assessment and restoration process for seagrasses in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. J Coastal Res 40:109–119

  • Laist DW (1987) Overview of the biological effects of lost and discarded plastic debris in the marine environment. Mar Pollut Bull 18(6):319–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leggett CG, Scherer N, Haab TC, Bailey R, Landrum JP, Domanski A (2018) Assessing the economic benefits of reductions in marine debris at Southern California beaches: a random utility travel cost model. Mar Resour Econ 33(2):133–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis CF, Slade SL, Maxwell KE, Matthews TR (2009) Lobster trap impact on coral reefs: Effects of wind‐driven trap movement. NZ J Mar Freshw Res 43(1):271–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis RR, Marshall MJ, Bloom SA, Hodgson AB, Flynn LL (2006) Evaluation of the success of seagrass mitigation at Port Manatee, Tampa Bay, Florida. Valrico: Lewis Environmental Services

  • Li JM, Wang XL (2012) A model based on the resource equivalency analysis method to evaluate marine ecological damage by oil spill. Marine Sciences

  • Lord-Boring C, Zelo IJ, Nixon ZJ (2004) Abandoned vessels: impacts to coral reefs, seagrass, and mangroves in the US Caribbean and pacific territories with implications for removal. Mar Technol Soc J 38(3):26–35

  • Maselko J, Bishop G, Murphy P (2013) Ghost fishing in the Southeast Alaska commercial Dungeness crab fishery. North Am J Fish Manag 33(2):422–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masompour Y, Gorgin S, Pighambari SY, Karimzadeh G, Babanejad M, Eighani M (2018) The impact of ghost fishing on catch rate and composition in the southern Caspian Sea. Mar Pollut Bull 135:534–539

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Matsuoka T, Nakashima T, Nagasawa N (2005) A review of ghost fishing: scientific approaches to evaluation and solutions. Fish Sci 71(4):691

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mcllgorm A, Campbell HF, Rule MJ (2011) The economic cost and control of marine debris damage in the Asia-Pacific region. Ocean Coast Manag 54(9):643–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeese PL, Kruer CR, Kenworthy WJ, Schwarzschild AC, Wells P, Hobbs J, (2006) Topographic restoration of boat grounding damage at the Lignumvitae Submerged Land Management Area. Seagrass Restoration: Success, Failure and the Costs of Both, eds. SF Treat and RR III Lewis (Valrico, FL: Lewis Environmental Services, Inc.) 131–146

  • Milon JW, Dodge RE (2001) Applying habitat equivalency analysis for coral reef damage assessment and restoration. Bull Mar Sci 69(2):975–988

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsch WJ, Wilson RF (1996) Improving the success of wetland creation and restoration with know‐how, time, and self‐design. Ecol Appl 6(1):77–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakashima T, Matsuoka T (2004) Ghost-fishing ability decreasing over time for lost bottom-gillnet and estimation of total number of mortality. Bull Japan Soc Sci Fisher (Japan) 70(5):728–737

  • Nakashima T, Matsuoka T (2005) Ghost-fishing mortality and fish aggregation by lost bottom-gillnet tangled around fish aggregation device. Bull Japan Soc Sci Fisher (Japan) 71(2):178–187

  • National Research Council (2013) Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. National Academies Press

  • Newman S, Watkins E, Farmer A, ten Brink P, Schweitzer JP (2015) The economics of marine litter. Marine Anthropogenic Litter. Springer, Cham, 367–394

  • NOAA (2019) Marine Debris Clearinghouse. https://clearinghouse.marinedebris.noaa.gov/. Accessed 02/06/2022

  • Pavanelli DD, Voulvoulis N (2019) Habitat Equivalency Analysis, a framework for forensic cost evaluation of environmental damage. Ecosyst Serv 38:100953

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penn T, Tomasi T (2002) Calculating resource restoration for an oil discharge in Lake Barre, Louisiana, USA. Environ Manag 29(5):691–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roach B, Wade WW (2006) Policy evaluation of natural resource injuries using habitat equivalency analysis. Ecol Econ 58(2):421–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruhl JB, Salzman J, Goodman I (2008) Implementing the New Ecosystem Services Mandate of the Section 404 Compensatory Mitigation Program-A Catalyst for Advancing Science and Policy. Stetson L Rev 38:251

    Google Scholar 

  • Sancho G, Puente E, Bilbao A, Gomez E, Arregi L (2003) Catch rates of monkfish (Lophius spp.) by lost tangle nets in the Cantabrian Sea (northern Spain). Fish Res 64(2–3):129–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos MN, Saldanha HJ, Gaspar MB, Monteiro CC (2003) Hake (Merluccius merluccius L., 1758) ghost fishing by gillnets off the Algarve (southern Portugal). Fish Res 64(2–3):119–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scemama P, Levrel H (2016) Using habitat equivalency analysis to assess the cost effectiveness of restoration outcomes in four institutional contexts. Environ Manag 57(1):109–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheld AM, Bilkovic DM, Havens KJ (2016) The dilemma of derelict gear. Sci Rep. 6(1):1–7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Scheld AM, Bilkovic DM, Havens KJ (2021) Evaluating optimal removal of derelict blue crab pots in Virginia, US. Ocean Coast Manag 211:105735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheavly SB, Register KM (2007) Marine debris and plastics: environmental concerns, sources, impacts and solutions. J Polym Environ 15(4):301–305

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stelfox M, Hudgins J, Sweet M (2016) A review of ghost gear entanglement amongst marine mammals, reptiles and elasmobranchs. Mar Pollut Bull 111(1–2):6–17

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thur SM (2007) Refining the use of habitat equivalency analysis. Environ Manag 40(1):161–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uhrin AV, Fonseca MS, DiDomenico GP (2005) Effect of Caribbean Spiny Lobster Traps on Seagrass Beds of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary: Damage Assessment and Evaluation of Recovery. Am Fisher Soc Symposium 41:579–588

  • Uhrin AV, Holmquist JG (2003) Effects of propeller scarring on macrofaunal use of the seagrass Thalassia testudinum. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 250:61–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uhrin AV, Schellinger J (2011) Marine debris impacts to a tidal fringing-marsh in North Carolina. Mar Pollut Bull 62(12):2605–2610

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Uhrin AV, Matthews TR, Lewis C (2014) Lobster trap debris in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary: distribution, abundance, density, and patterns of accumulation. Mar Coast Fish 6(1):20–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USFWS (2016) “Appendix C: Resource Equivalency Analysis (REA) Models.” Draft Midwest Wind Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan

  • Valdez SR, Zhang YS, van der Heide T, Vanderklift MA, Tarquinio F, Orth RJ, Silliman BR (2020) Positive ecological interactions and the success of seagrass restoration. Front Mar Sci 7:91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viehman S, Thur SM, Piniak GA (2009) Coral reef metrics and habitat equivalency analysis. Ocean Coast Manag 52(3–4):181–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wellman E, Sutton-Grier A, Imholt M, Domanski A (2017) Catching a wave? A case study on incorporating storm protection benefits into Habitat Equivalency Analysis. Mar Policy 83:118–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitaker JD (1979) Abandoned crab trap study. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department

  • Whitfield PE, Kenworthy WJ, Hammerstrom KK, Fonseca MS (2002) The role of a hurricane in the expansion of disturbances initiated by motor vessels on seagrass banks. J Coastal Res 37:86–99

  • Zafonte M, Hampton S (2007) Exploring welfare implications of resource equivalency analysis in natural resource damage assessments. Ecol Econ 61(1):134–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao Q, Bai J, Huang L, Gu B, Lu Q, Gao Z (2016) A review of methodologies and success indicators for coastal wetland restoration. Ecol Indic 60:442–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zieman JC (1976) The ecological effects of physical damage from motor boats on turtle grass beds in southern Florida. Aquat Bot 2:127–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the NOAA Marine Debris Program’s support for the inception and formulation of the original project, as well as review of the manuscript. We are also thankful for helpful review and comments from Amy V. Uhrin, Jason Murray, Mary Baker, session participants at the Sixth International Marine Debris Conference, and three anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Enduring Econometrics, 1455 NW Leary Way Ste. 400, Seattle, WA, 98107, United States

    Adam Domanski

  2. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Program Analysis Branch, 1335 East West Highway, Silver Spring, MD, 20910, USA

    Amanda L. Laverty

Authors
  1. Adam Domanski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amanda L. Laverty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam Domanski.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Domanski, A., Laverty, A.L. Ecosystem-Service Scaling Techniques to Evaluate the Benefits of Marine Debris Removal. Environmental Management 70, 64–78 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-022-01636-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-022-01636-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation