AIS and VMS Ensemble Can Address Data Gaps on Fisheries for Marine Spatial Planning

Spatially explicit records of fishing activities’ distribution are fundamental for effective marine spatial planning (MSP) because they can help to identify principal fishing areas. However, in numerous case studies, MSP has ignored fishing activities due to data scarcity. The vessel monitoring system (VMS) and the automatic identification system (AIS) are two commonly known technologies used to observe fishing activities. However, both technologies generate data that have several limitations, making them ineffective when used in isolation. Here, we evaluate both datasets’ limitations and strengths, measure the drawbacks of using any single dataset and propose a method for combining both technologies for a more precise estimation of the distribution of fishing activities. Using the Baltic Sea and the North Sea–Celtic Sea regions as case studies, we compare the spatial distribution of fishing effort from International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES) VMS data and global fishing watch AIS data. We show that using either dataset in isolation can lead to a significant underestimation of fishing effort. We also demonstrate that integrating both datasets in an ensemble approach can provide more accurate fisheries information for MSP. Given the rapid expansion of MSP activities globally, our approach can be utilised in data-limited regions to improve cross border spatial planning.

[1]  Andrea Belardinelli,et al.  Assessing the fishing footprint using data integrated from different tracking devices: Issues and opportunities , 2016 .

[2]  Kilian M. Stehfest,et al.  Mapping fisheries for marine spatial planning: gear-specific vessel monitoring system (VMS), marine conservation and offshore renewable energy , 2014 .

[3]  Thomas Kirk Sørensen,et al.  Estimating seabed pressure from demersal trawls, seines, and dredges based on gear design and dimensions , 2016 .

[4]  T. Schulze,et al.  Integration of fisheries into marine spatial planning: Quo vadis? , 2017 .

[5]  C. Ulrich,et al.  The value of commercial fish size distribution recorded at haul by haul compared to trip by trip , 2020 .

[6]  H. Possingham,et al.  Addressing transboundary conservation challenges through marine spatial prioritization , 2018, Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

[7]  Gerjan J. Piet,et al.  VMStools: Open-source software for the processing, analysis and visualisation of fisheries logbook and VMS data , 2012 .

[8]  S. Rogers,et al.  Human activities in UK offshore waters: an assessment of direct, physical pressure on the seabed , 2007 .

[9]  Wim G.M. Bastiaanssen,et al.  First results from Version 7 TRMM 3B43 precipitation product in combination with a new downscaling–calibration procedure , 2013 .

[10]  V Stelzenmüller,et al.  Assessment of a Bayesian Belief Network-GIS framework as a practical tool to support marine planning. , 2010, Marine pollution bulletin.

[11]  Natalie C. Ban,et al.  Systematic marine conservation planning in data-poor regions: Socioeconomic data is essential , 2009 .

[12]  Julian Koch,et al.  The SPAtial EFficiency metric (SPAEF): multiple-component evaluation of spatial patterns for optimization of hydrological models , 2018 .

[13]  Stefano Cataudella,et al.  VMSbase: An R-Package for VMS and Logbook Data Management and Analysis in Fisheries Ecology , 2014, PloS one.

[14]  H. Fock,et al.  Fisheries in the context of marine spatial planning: Defining principal areas for fisheries in the German EEZ , 2008 .

[15]  Gianna Fabi,et al.  Mapping change in bottom trawling activity in the Mediterranean Sea through AIS data , 2018, Marine Policy.

[16]  Regional marine spatial planning – The data collection and mapping process , 2014 .

[17]  O. R. Eigaard,et al.  Bottom trawl fishing footprints on the world’s continental shelves , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[18]  Ibon Galparsoro,et al.  Decision support tools in marine spatial planning: Present applications, gaps and future perspectives , 2017 .

[19]  Carrie V. Kappel,et al.  A Global Map of Human Impact on Marine Ecosystems , 2008, Science.

[20]  Michel J. Kaiser,et al.  A comparison of VMS and AIS data: the effect of data coverage and vessel position recording frequency on estimates of fishing footprints , 2018 .

[21]  Patrik Jonsson,et al.  Competition for marine space: modelling the Baltic Sea fisheries and effort displacement under spatial restrictions , 2015 .

[22]  N. Polunin,et al.  Mapping inshore fisheries: Comparing observed and perceived distributions of pot fishing activity in Northumberland , 2015 .

[23]  Barbara A. Block,et al.  Tracking the global footprint of fisheries , 2018, Science.