Menus Subscribe Search

Follow us


Setting Targets in the Ocean Health Index

• September 13, 2011 • 4:00 AM

Measuring success requires knowing where you want to be, and so a raft of targets is being developed for the nascent Ocean Health Index.

Almost a month after his plane plunged into the Pacific, U.S. Army Air Force bombardier Louie Zamperini was weary of sharks circling his life raft. As Laura Hillenbrand details in her New York Times bestseller Unbroken, dozens of sharks were tracking Zamperini’s every move, waiting for him to fall in the water and become their next meal. That was in 1943.

Since then, the number of sharks in the world’s ocean has declined by as much as 90 percent, and being adrift at sea isn’t quite as scary a prospect as it would have been three-quarters of a century ago.

So, which ocean is the healthy one — Zamperini’s shark-infested waters, or the one where more than 70 million sharks are harvested annually for soup?

In order to know if the health of the ocean is good or bad, getting better or getting worse, we have to know what our targets are. Targets are points of reference for assessing current ocean status, and they depend on personal perspective. Catching fewer fish is good for conserving biodiversity, but bad for food security and fishermen. An increase in coastal tourism may be good for local economies, but bad for working waterfronts.

Assessing health in light of these often-conflicting desires requires setting targets; developing reasonable targets has been one of the foremost challenges in creating the Ocean Health Index. Before we get too deep into the issue of perspective, why bother setting ocean health targets at all? First, it’s important to clarify exactly what a healthy ocean looks like. Clarity is essential for science, and equally essential for communicating beyond the scientific arena. It forces us to choose targets that are scientifically defensible. Quantifiable targets can provide policymakers with the raw materials to create ocean regulations that have teeth.

In addition, by bringing the endgame into focus, ocean health targets make it possible to track progress toward recovery in less healthy places and celebrate successes in others. Think about your reaction if your doctor told you that you need to lower your cholesterol, but didn’t give you a target number to shoot for. Would you be motivated to make lifestyle changes? Not likely. How would you know if you were making significant gains? You wouldn’t. These same issues apply to measuring ocean health.

So what are we aiming for? What do Ocean Health Index targets look like?

Simple questions, complicated answers. We have defined targets that are ambitious, yet achievable, conditions in a healthy ocean. Two examples include a biodiversity target to reduce the number of species listed as threatened and endangered, and a target for marine livelihoods that strives to maintain or increase the number of jobs, job quality, and economic revenue in marine sectors.

[class name="dont_print_this"]

About the Project!

Ocean health means different things to different people, and current assessments of ocean health focus predominantly on the state of the natural environment. The Ocean Health Index project was founded by Conservation International, The National Geographic Society, New England Aquarium, and the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis. The project aims to develop a set of indicators that describe ocean health according to how people benefit from and affect marine ecosystems. Here are the articles Miller-McCune.com has published on the subject:

The Making of the Ocean Health Index

Ocean Index Navigates Between the Politic, the Pristine

Setting Targets in the Ocean Health Index

Three Reasons for Creating a Single Ocean Health Index

Ocean Health Index Accounts for Human Benefits

Ocean Health Index: The Audacity of Necessity[/class]

Our focus on achievement is intentional, and contrasts with an alternative approach which would have framed the Ocean Health Index around limits, or what to avoid. It’s analogous to Zamperini deciding to focus on getting rescued while he was adrift at sea, rather than choosing to make his goal not dying. Sometimes a simple mental shift can make a big difference. A focus on targets is much more constructive than a focus on avoiding negatives.

The example targets above for biodiversity and marine livelihoods put into practice the notion that a healthy ocean is not a pristine ocean, empty of human beings. We have embraced the idea that people are central to creating and maintaining a healthy ocean. It allows us to establish targets that are ecologically and socially realistic.

The Ocean Health Index evaluates the current status of each benefit against its target. There are 10 benefits, each with several subcategories. For instance, one of the things people desire from the ocean is food, and food can be obtained from both wild fisheries and aquaculture, so there will be separate targets for each.

The targets for each benefit come in two flavors. One measures the current status of a particular benefit compared to the best possible value. This type of target is similar to human health targets, such as keeping our cholesterol under 200 or maintaining a normal body temperature of 98.6 F. For example, fishing too much — or not much at all — can, in the long run, lead to lower catches than would fishing just the right amount. Fish too much and you might not leave enough adults in the water to populate the next generation; some stocks will not replenish themselves as quickly as they could. Fish too little and you’re not catching as many fish as you could. So the Ocean Health Index relies on a target of harvesting the maximum sustainable amount of seafood from wild fisheries in any particular place.

The other type of target measures current ocean condition relative to where we’ve been. This is similar to the targets we think of for the economy. For example, what is the value of the GDP relative to last year, or what is the Dow Jones Industrial Average today relative to where it was last week? In the case of the Ocean Health Index, for example, we compare the historical capacity of mangroves and other coastal habitats to regulate climate through carbon storage 30 years ago to their capacity to do so today.

As we mentioned above, setting targets has been a challenge because people enjoy and use the ocean in so many different ways. To address this issue, we have designed “selfish” targets for the Ocean Health Index. That is, we define what is to be achieved for each ocean benefit one at a time. The target for sustainable seafood is not mindful of the target for maintaining biodiversity. The target for maintaining biodiversity is set without concern for the desired state of coastal economies. And so on.

Some of our peers have argued that targets set one at a time reveal a fatal flaw because ocean benefits don’t exist in isolation. In fact, our approach embraces this idea. We know that the different choices we make about how to manage the ocean have costs and benefits. Necessary trade-offs emerge in the Ocean Health Index because what’s good for achieving a target for one part of ocean health might not be so good for another part. Communicating this push and pull of different ocean uses as plainly as possible has been a cornerstone in our work. The solution we’ve decided upon is not a perfect one, but it is the best we can do given current scientific understanding.

In addition, the target-setting approach we’re using is not as strange as it may seem at first blush-we see it all the time in reports on economic indicators. Targets for all of them are defined to encourage growth. However, it is usually the case that not every economic indicator can increase at the same time. If new home sales decline, the fraction of occupied rental properties will increase. Similarly in the Ocean Health Index, if tourism and recreation attain target levels in a particular place, chances are that water quality will not achieve its target because of the pollutants associated with coastal development.

Measuring ocean health requires knowing where you want to be, and recognizing that not everybody will feel similarly. To answer the question of which ocean is the healthy one — Zamperini’s ocean, teeming with sharks, or an ocean that is (seemingly) safer for people to swim in, the answer is definitively both. The Ocean Health Index allows these tensions to materialize organically and transparently.

And, while Zamperini (or our mothers) are never likely to believe that it is healthy for us to swim in an ocean teeming with sharks, we may be able to convince them that some people probably feel otherwise.

The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or its agencies.

Sign up for the free Miller-McCune.com e-newsletter.

“Like” Miller-McCune on Facebook.

Follow Miller-McCune on Twitter.

Add Miller-McCune.com news to your site.

Subscribe to Miller-McCune

Jameal Samhouri, Karen McLeod and Ben Halpern
Jameal Samhouri is a research fishery biologist at the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (a part of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Karen McLeod is director of science for Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea. Ben Halpern is the director of the Center for Marine Assessment and Planning, project coordinator at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis and Research Biologist at University of California, Santa Barbara.

More From Jameal Samhouri, Karen McLeod and Ben Halpern

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Recent Posts


September 30 • 10:09 AM

Trust Is Waning, and Inequality May Be to Blame

Trust in others and confidence in institutions is declining, while economic inequality creeps up, a new study shows.


September 30 • 8:00 AM

The Psychology of Penmanship

Graphology: It’s all (probably) bunk.



September 30 • 6:00 AM

The Medium Is the Message, 50 Years Later

Five decades on, what can Marshall McLuhan’s Understanding Media tell us about today?


September 30 • 4:00 AM

Grad School’s Mental Health Problem

Navigating the emotional stress of doctoral programs in a down market.


September 29 • 1:21 PM

Conference Call: Free Will Conference


September 29 • 12:00 PM

How Copyright Law Protects Art From Criticism

A case for allowing the copyright on Gone With the Wind to expire.


September 29 • 10:00 AM

Should We Be Told Who Funds Political Attack Ads?

On the value of campaign finance disclosure.


September 29 • 8:00 AM

Searching for a Man Named Penis

A quest to track down a real Penis proves difficult.


September 29 • 6:00 AM

Why Do So Many People Watch HGTV?

The same reason so many people watch NCIS or Law and Order: It’s all a procedural.


September 29 • 4:00 AM

The Link Between Depression and Terrorism

A new study from the United Kingdom finds a connection between depression and radicalization.


September 26 • 4:00 PM

Fast Track to a Spill?

Oil pipeline projects across America are speeding forward without environmental review.


September 26 • 2:00 PM

Why Liberals Love the Disease Theory of Addiction, by a Liberal Who Hates It

The disease model is convenient to liberals because it spares them having to say negative things about poor communities. But this conception of addiction harms the very people we wish to help.


September 26 • 1:21 PM

Race, Trust, and Split-Second Judgments


September 26 • 9:47 AM

Dopamine Might Be Behind Impulsive Behavior

A monkey study suggests the brain chemical makes what’s new and different more attractive.


September 26 • 8:00 AM

A Letter Becomes a Book Becomes a Play

Sarah Ruhl’s Dear Elizabeth: A Play in Letters From Elizabeth Bishop to Robert Lowell and Back Again takes 900 pages of correspondence between the two poets and turns them into an on-stage performance.


September 26 • 7:00 AM

Sonic Hedgehog, DICER, and the Problem With Naming Genes

Wait, why is there a Pokemon gene?


September 26 • 6:00 AM

Sounds Like the Blues

At a music-licensing firm, any situation can become nostalgic, romantic, or adventurous, given the right background sounds.


September 26 • 5:00 AM

The Dark Side of Empathy

New research finds the much-lauded feeling of identification with another person’s emotions can lead to unwarranted aggressive behavior.



September 25 • 4:00 PM

Forging a New Path: Working to Build the Perfect Wildlife Corridor

When it comes to designing wildlife corridors, our most brilliant analytical minds are still no match for Mother Nature. But we’re getting there.


September 25 • 2:00 PM

Fashion as a Inescapable Institution

Like it or not, fashion is an institution because we can no longer feasibly make our own clothes.


September 25 • 12:00 PM

The Fake Birth Mothers Who Bilk Couples Out of Their Cash by Promising Future Babies

Another group that’s especially vulnerable to scams and fraud is that made up of those who are desperate to adopt a child.


September 25 • 10:03 AM

The Way We QuickType


Follow us


Trust Is Waning, and Inequality May Be to Blame

Trust in others and confidence in institutions is declining, while economic inequality creeps up, a new study shows.

Dopamine Might Be Behind Impulsive Behavior

A monkey study suggests the brain chemical makes what's new and different more attractive.

School Counselors Do More Than You’d Think

Adding just one counselor to a school has an enormous impact on discipline and test scores, according to a new study.

How a Second Language Trains Your Brain for Math

Second languages strengthen the brain's executive control circuits, with benefits beyond words.

Would You Rather Go Blind or Lose Your Mind?

Americans consistently fear blindness, but how they compare it to other ailments varies across racial lines.

The Big One

One company, Amazon, controls 67 percent of the e-book market in the United States—down from 90 percent five years ago. September/October 2014 new-big-one-5

Copyright © 2014 by Pacific Standard and The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.