Rating of ocean health shows 'room for improvement'

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Buddha12, Aug 16, 2012.

  1. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    CORVALLIS, Ore. – An international group of more than 30 researchers today gave a score to every coastal nation on their contribution to the health of the world's oceans, which showed the United States as being slightly above average, and identified food provision, tourism and recreation as leading concerns.

    The analysis, published in the journal Nature, scored each nation on a 0-100 scale in 10 separate categories such as clean water, biodiversity, food provision, carbon storage, coastal protection, coastal economies and others.

    In this "Ocean Health Index," the world received an average score of 60. The U.S. was at 63.

    This is one of the first comprehensive analyses to evaluate the global oceans in so many critical aspects, including natural health and the human dimensions of sustainability. But it's meant less to be a conclusion, the authors said, and more a baseline that can help track either improvements or declines in ocean health going into the future.

    "When we conclude that the health of the oceans is 60 on a scale of 100, that doesn't mean we're failing," said Karen McLeod, an ecologist at Oregon State University, director of science at COMPASS, and one of several lead authors on the study.

    "Instead, it shows there's room for improvement, suggests where strategic actions can make the biggest difference, and gives us a benchmark against which to evaluate progress over time," she said. "The index allows us to track what's happening to the whole of ocean health instead of just the parts."

    The scores ranged from 36 to 86, with the highest ratings going to Jarvis Island, an uninhabited and relatively pristine coral atoll in the South Pacific Ocean. Many countries in West Africa, the Middle East and Central America scored poorly, while higher ratings went to parts of Northern Europe, Canada, Australia and Japan.

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-08/osu-roo081312.php
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. scheherazade Northern Horse Whisperer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,798
    I would be interested in seeing the actual numbers assigned to the various criteria, how each one was weighted and the scores by each country that this article makes reference to. Do you have a link to that by any chance?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. scheherazade Northern Horse Whisperer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,798
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. scheherazade Northern Horse Whisperer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,798
    Rather interesting to have a look at this data and wonder how some of the rankings were arrived at. Interesting (to me at least) that using their site search produced no results for 'radiation', 'nuclear radiation' or 'pollution'. Perhaps they have different terms for these parameters...

    Presumably I am missing something here, being a technically 'dummy'.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    Maybe this woman can help you, just write to her and ask, you never know.

    mailto:karen.mcleod@oregonstate.edu
     
  9. Dr Mabuse Percipient Thaumaturgist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    714
    We killed a good portion the Gulf of Mexico recently. We've over fished and polluted so much of the rest. Seems kind of an absurdly high number to me.
     
  10. Gregg Schaffter Registered Member

    Messages:
    85
    It really depends on the areas where the oil spread and how far deep the oil went. It also depends on amount of oil per square mile(what ever measurement). Though the numbers seem higher than I thought.
     

Share This Page