UN environment 2017

A Guide to Assessing

Coral Reef Resilience
For decision support

N
4 km

Relative resilience potential:high
med-high
med-lowlowA Guide to Assessing

Coral Reef Resilience
For decision support

N
4 km

Relative resilience potential:high
med-high
med-lowlow

Jeffrey Maynard 1,2, Paul Marshall 3,4, Britt Parker 5, Elizabeth Mcleod 6, Gabby Ahmadia 7, Ruben van Hooidonk 8,9,
Serge Planes 2, Gareth J Williams 10, Laurie Raymundo 11, Roger Beeden 12, Jerker Tamelander 13

1 — SymbioSeas (www.symbioseas.org) and the Marine Applied Research Center, Wilmington NC, 28411, USA; 2 — Laboratoire d’Excellence «CORAIL»
USR 3278 CNRS – EPHE, CRIOBE, Papetoai, Moorea, Polynésie Française; 3 — Reef Ecologic (www.reefecologic.org), Townsville QLD 4810, Australia;
4 — Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, University of Queensland; 5 — The Baldwin Group on contract with the NOAA Coral Reef
Conservation Program, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; 6 — The Nature Conservancy, 7707 Vail Valley Dr., Austin, TX 78749;
7 — Oceans, World Wildlife Fund, 1250 24th St., Washington, D.C. 20037, USA; 8 — NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, Ocean
Chemistry and Ecosystems Division, 4301 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, FL 33149, USA; 9 — Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies,
Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, FL 33149, USA;
10 — School of Ocean Sciences, Bangor University, LL59 5AB, UK; 11 — University of Guam Marine Laboratory, UOG Station, Mangilao, GU 96913, USA;
12 — Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville QLD 4810 Australia; 13 — United Nations Environment, Bangkok, Thailand© United Nations Environment Programme, 2017
Published by UN Environment, Nairobi, Kenya
This publication should be cited as:
Maynard, J.A., Marshall, P.A., Parker, B., Mcleod, E., Ahmadia, G., van Hooidonk, R., Planes, S., Williams, G.J., Raymundo, L.,
Beeden, R., Tamelander, J. (2017). A Guide to Assessing Coral Reef Resilience for Decision Support. Nairobi, Kenya:
UN Environment.
Cataloguing-in-Publication entry:
A Guide to Assessing Coral Reef Resilience for Decision Support
ISBN No:
Job No:978-92-807-3650-2
	DEP/2104/BA

Production:	Dieter Tracey (dieter@sciencegraphics.com.au)
Acknowledgements:
The content of this guide builds upon many published papers and reports, as well as on discussions between theauthors and a large number of coral reef scientists and managers. We acknowledge all of those that have contributed todeveloping and applying the concept of assessing reef resilience to support management and conservation decisionmaking. We thank these reviewers for helping improve the Guide: Angelique Brathwaite, Alessandrea Vanzella-Khouri,
Georgina Bustamante, Steve Fletcher, Hazel Thornton, Nicolas Pascal and Chloe Harvey.
Reproduction:
This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit services without special
permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. UN Environment would appreciatereceiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source. No use of this publication may be made for resaleor any other commercial purpose without prior permission in writing from UN Environment. Applications for such permission,
with a statement of the purpose and extent of the reproduction, should be addressed to the Director, Communication Division,
UN Environment, P. O. Box 30552, Nairobi 00100, Kenya.
Disclaimer:
The contents in this publication are solely the opinions of the authors and do not constitute a statement of policy, decisionor position on behalf of UN Environment, NOAA or the US Government. The designations employed and the presentation ofmaterial in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UN Environment concerning
the legal status of any country, territory or city or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers and boundaries.
Mention of a commercial company or product in this document does not imply endorsement by UN Environment. Trademark
names and symbols are used in an editorial fashion with no intention on infringement on trademark or copyright laws.
Photograph credits:
Jerker Tamelander (front cover, page 8 #2 top-left, page 14, page 18, page 24); Roger Beeden (first inset on front cover,page 2 top-left, page 6, page 8 #2 bottom-right, page 8 #3, page 20 right); Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority(third and fourth insets on front cover, page 8 #2 bottom-left, page 8 #9 far left and mid-left, page 13, page 15 top two);
XL Catlin Seaview Survey (page ii); Australian Institute of Marine Science (page 2 top-middle, page 16); Paul Marshall(page 2 top-right and bottom, page 7, page 8 #1, page 9, page 33); Chris Roelfsema (page 4, back cover); Jeffrey Maynard(page 5, page 22); Conchasdiver | Dreamstime (page 8 #2 top-right); Lisa Carne | Marine Photobank (page 8 #2 far left);
Malik Naumann | Marine Photobank (page 8 #6 mid-left, page 15 far left); Alex Wu | Marine Photobank (page 8 #6
mid-right, page 15 bottom mid-right); Junior Libby | PDP (page 8 #6 far right); NASA Scientific Visualization Studio(page 8 #8, page 31); Stephen Lewis (page 8 #9 mid-right); Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators (page 8#9 far-right); Corinn Strickland (page 10); Ed Roberts (page 11); Rafael Ben Ari | Dreamstime (page 12); Steve Spring| Marine Photobank (page 15 bottom mid-left); Ayana Elizabeth Johnson (page 15 bottom far right); National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration (page 20 left); WWF Indonesia (page 23, page 34); Matthew D Potenski | Marine
Photobank (page 32); totajla | fotolia (page 36); Coral Restoration Foundation (page 39).

Contents
Introduction .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 1About this Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
The context for resilience assessments: Coral reefs in times of change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Vulnerability and resilience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
What is a resilience assessment and why go through the process? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Conducting a resilience assessment .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 71

Decide whether to do a resilience assessment, identify pathways of influence, and develop a plan . . . . . . . 92	Select resilience indicators and anthropogenic stressors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3	Collect or compile data for resilience indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4

Analyze data  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

5	Identify key drivers of differences in resilience scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
6

Assess anthropogenic stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

7	Review climate exposure information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
8	Review connectivity information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
9

Formulate management recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

10	Provide data and share results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Conducting resilience assessments regularly  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

References .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 42
Additional resources .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 43
Data sources mentioned in this Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
CNMI resilience assessment technical report and appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
MS-Excel tutorial on Analyzing data for a resilience assessment (process Step 4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
TNC Reef Resilience Toolkit and Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44iA Guide to Assessing Coral Reef Resilience for Decision Support

Coral reefs are losing their resilience. These photos are of a reef near American Samoa in the south Pacific on December of2014 (left) and then two months later (right). The photo on right is representative of the global-scale coral bleaching eventthat took place between 2014 and 2016. Photos: XL Catlin Seaview Survey.

iiIntroduction

Introduction→→ Coral reefs are naturally resilient→→ Reefs are losing their resilience because of pressure from human activities
combined with increasing climate impacts→→ Resilience can readily be assessed→→ Supporting resilience needs to be a management priority→→ Local actions can influence the future resilience of reefs
Coral reef resilience is the capacity of a reef to resist or recover from degradation and maintain provision of
ecosystem goods and services (Mumby et al., 2007).
This resilience helps reefs to resist and recover after major disturbances such as severe tropical storms and mass
bleaching events. Coral reefs are being exposed to these potentially devastating events with greater frequency,
making resilience an increasingly important property.
Yet, through the cumulative impacts of human use and the activities associated with human settlements, coral
reefs are losing their resilience. We are seeing the signs of this all around the world. Examples include regional
declines in coral cover in the Caribbean (Jackson et al. 2014). and widespread conversion of fringing reefs toalgal-covered rubble beds in many areas in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

Maintaining and restoring resilience is now a major focus of most coral reef managers around the world.
A focus on resilience gives us options – and hope – in the face of new and often daunting challenges.
Underpinning this is the fact that local actions can positively influence the future of coral reefs, despite powerfulexternal forces like climate change. As examples, coral recovery from disturbances in Bermuda and the Bahamas has
been greater in recent decades than in other parts of the Caribbean. Differences in recovery rates in the Caribbean
have been partially attributed to establishing and enforcing fishing regulations, especially on key herbivores such as
parrotfish (Jackson et al. 2014). Overall though, the application of resilience theory to management planning and theday-to-day business of coral reef management has been challenging. One of the key stumbling blocks has been thelack of a robust and easily implementable method for assessing coral reef resilience in a way that can inform marine
spatial planning and help to prioritize the implementation of management strategies.
Fortunately, our ability to assess relative resilience of coral reefs has advanced dramatically in recent years,
and we are now at a point where a feasible and useful process can be recommended for use in environmental
planning and management.

This guide is first and foremost intended for the individuals in charge of commissioning, planning, leading orcoordinating a resilience assessment. It also provides a resource for ‘reef managers’ of all kinds, including
decision-makers, environmental planners and managers in coral reef areas, with influence over pressures
affecting coral reefs.
Outreach coordinators and educators working in coral reef areas may also benefit from the Guide, and they canparticipate in parts of the resilience assessment process, but the Guide focuses on the needs of decision-makers
and the scientists who support them.
The guidance presented here represents the culmination of over a decade of experience and builds on ideas firstpresented by West and Salm (2003), Obura and Grimsditch (2009), and McClanahan and coauthors (2012). This
Guide puts into managers’ hands the means to assess, map and monitor coral reef resilience, and the means
to identify and prioritize actions that support resilience in the face of climate change. Previously, resilience toclimate change was rarely formally accounted for in marine spatial and conservation planning processes. We
hope this Guide will help change that!

1

A Guide to Assessing Coral Reef Resilience for Decision Support

About this Guide
The introductory section familiarizes you with resilience and vulnerability concepts and reviews the various
frameworks that are necessary to move from resilience theory to practical application. We help you define thedecision-making contexts that can benefit from resilience assessments, and to clarify the objectives, scope andintended outcomes for your resilience assessment. A 10-step Guide is then presented for anyone who wishes
to use the resilience assessment process to inform planning or management decisions. The guidance draws
on practical experience in applying resilience concepts to coral reef management (see references to case study
examples), and highlights both technical and process considerations for successful delivery of a resilienceassessment project. We begin by reviewing the context for resilience assessments, followed by the considerations
that can help you decide if resilience assessments are right for you.

The context for resilience assessments: Coral reefs in times of change
Coral reefs have persisted in various forms for hundreds of millions of years. Even today we can observe theiramazing ability to resist and recover after devastating events such as hurricanes, crown-of-thorns seastar
outbreaks and mass coral bleaching. Dramatic recovery of coral cover in places like .like Chagos Archipelago(Sheppard et al. 2013), Palau (Golbuu et al. 2007), and western Australia (Depczynski et al. 2013) are vivid
illustrations of the importance of resilience when coral reefs are exposed to major disturbances.
Cyclone damage

2

Crown-of-thorns seastar outbreaks

Coral bleachingThe scale and inexorable progression of climate change can lead to a sense of hopelessness and futility for anyone
engaged in coral reef management. Yet, regional and local actions make a difference. This is exemplified by the
relatively rapid recovery of corals from bleaching in the Chagos Archipelago of the Indian ocean where there are few
human impacts and the ecological processes (e.g., herbivory and coral recruitment) are intact (Graham et al. 2013).

While some of the greatest threats are beyond the direct influence of managers, conservationists andcommunity stewards, reversing the loss of resilience is not.

Vulnerability and resilience→→ Vulnerability of a coral reef is a function of exposure and resilience→→ ‘Exposure’ refers to pressures external to the system, such as effects of climate change→→ Resilience is a product of sensitivity and adaptive capacity→→ Local pressures increase sensitivity of coral reefs to climate change→→ Information on exposure is often publicly available in global datasets→→ Information on local pressures should be collated or collected as part of theresilience assessment→→ Combining exposure and resilience
information helps target actions
In the IPCC’s widely-used vulnerability assessment
framework, vulnerability is the product of exposure,sensitivity and adaptive capacity. Exposure andsensitivity combine to provide an estimate of potential
impact. Adaptive capacity moderates potential
impact to provide a measure of system vulnerability(Turner et al. 2003, Figure 1). Sensitivity and adaptive
capacity are inherent properties of the system that
determine how it responds to exposure. This enables
us to define resilience as the combination of sensitivity
and adaptive capacity in the context of vulnerability(Figure 1, Marshall and Marshall, 2007). Set out thisway, assessing vulnerability can be seen as requiring
information about two key aspects of coral reef
dynamics: exposure and resilience.

Exposure captures current or potential externalpressures. Resilience describes the actual or likely
response of the system upon exposure to thatstress or pressure. A resilient system is more likely
to maintain key functions and sustain provision of
ecosystem goods and services when exposed toexternal pressures.

Exposure

Sensitivity
Resilience
Potential
Impacts

Adaptive
Capacity

Vulnerability
Input
OutputFigure 1. Vulnerability assessment framework usedby the IPCC; vulnerability is a function of exposure to
disturbances (especially those that originate outside thesystem, such as climate-related stresses) and resiliencedescribes how the system (social-ecological) responds(Turner et al. 2003).

3

Introduction

Coral reefs are the marine ecosystem most vulnerable to climate change, and we are currently witnessing
alarming and persistent declines in their health and abundance. Local pressures associated with humansettlements and human uses are reducing the natural resilience of coral reefs. These impacts compromise theability of coral reefs to recover after disturbances, such as coral bleaching events, which are becoming more
frequent and severe as a result of climate change.

A Guide to Assessing Coral Reef Resilience for Decision Support

This conceptualization of resilience helps us focus on what we can do to reduce vulnerability (reduce sensitivity
or increase adaptive capacity), while acknowledging the importance of factors largely beyond our control(exposure to climate-related threats).

On-the-ground actions to support resilience are the key to reducing vulnerability to climate change and giving
coral reefs the best chance of coping with the major challenges ahead.
In the context of management of coral reefs, ‘exposure’ is best used to capture pressures that originate
outside the system, such as climate change-related stresses and extreme events. These are outside thedirect control of individual environmental management agencies. Pressures that can be controlled or
influenced through direct management interventions, such as water quality and overfishing, should beconsidered as aspects of sensitivity. Characterizing local pressures provides an important window into thesensitivity of our coral reef system to external pressures, and provides the basis for identifying the ‘levers’
available to us for building resilience of the system. By measuring both ecological resilience indicatorsand local stress indicators we are able to assess resilience and identify local actions that can makea difference to the condition and trend of coral reefs in the face of un-manageable external pressures
like climate change.
Information on exposure to external pressures associated with climate change is, fortunately, readily available tocoral reef managers. For example, data on exposure to temperatures that trigger coral bleaching are available as
high-resolution (4-km) projections of future bleaching event frequency (van Hooidonk et al., 2016). In this Guide,
we discuss how to combine these projections with resilience assessment results to produce a vulnerability
assessment. We also discuss the importance of ecological connectivity to resilience.

Climate exposure and connectivity information can be combined with resilience assessment results tofurther inform efforts to identify, prioritize and target actions that can support site and system resilience.
In summary, resilience assessments allow decision makers to anticipate change and to focus efforts on
improving the ability of the system to cope with those changes and unpredictable surprises. In the next section
we outline the approach to and benefits from a resilience assessment.

4

Resilience assessments involve measuring or assessing the attributes (‘resilience indicators’) that contribute to
making a coral reef resilient, and also collecting measures of the stress related to human activities that can reduce
reef resilience. Resilience assessments make it possible to map relative resilience in your area of interest, and to
track changes in resilience through time.
By looking at the source of resilience at different locations, and the causes of differences in resilience, managers
and stakeholders can evaluate the potential for management or stewardship actions to improve resilience indifferent areas.
Repeating resilience assessments through time enables us to measure and monitor change in resilience potential
and management progress, in order to allow us to adapt management.
By going through the resilience assessment process, you can:1.

Examine spatial variation in resilience indicators, resilience scores, and anthropogenic stress.

2.

Identify which indicators most account for differences in resilience among sites.

3.

Identify sites that have coral communities likely to be more resilient to climate change and otherhuman stressors

4.

Examine the extent to which reefs with high or low resilience are represented within the various use
zones of an existing MPA or MPA network.

5.

Identify and prioritize management actions or strategies that will reduce stress at the greatest numberof sites, at high resilience sites, and/or at sites that are conservation priorities for other reasons, such as
climate refugia or sites with high biodiversity or cultural value.

6.

Monitor trends in resilience indicators and resilience through time.

Resilience assessments can provide information for environmental planning and a range of management
decisions, including which areas to prioritize for long-term conservation, and where to target efforts to improvewater quality or reduce fishing pressure, among others. Additionally, resilience is increasingly being used as aframing concept, or overarching goal, for coral reef management, making assessing resilience centrally important
to many management efforts.

5

Introduction

What is a resilience assessment and why go through the process?

6

A resilience assessment includes 10 sequential steps (see Figure 2).

Thoughtful design, clear pathways to decision-making, regular engagement with planning and management
agencies as well as local stakeholders, and clear and accessible data and reporting products are theingredients of a successful resilience assessment.
All resilience assessments comprise these 10 steps. The methods used and degree of investment in each step
can be tailored to suit local capacity and resource constraints. Steps 2-10 follow on from the critical first step,which is deciding whether to do a resilience assessment. Deciding involves identifying pathways of influence andcharacterizing benefits, and then planning your assessment and making the case to others, including management
agencies and stakeholders expected to use findings and recommendations.

Importantly, resilience assessments start by identifying the types of management actions the assessment can
influence (Step 1).
The steps that follow build towards steps 9 and 10 when you will formulate management recommendations anddevelop and share final versions of data and reporting products.

Adaptive management of coral reefs in this era of climate change means that the resilience assessment
process is iterative and cyclical.
Reporting on a resilience assessment should involve identifying research gaps and which parts of the process
can be strengthened (i.e., increasing confidence in data used in the assessment through better or different datacollection methods). Filling of research gaps, uncovering new information (e.g., high-resolution connectivity dataor new climate model projections) or identifying new decision-making processes or opportunities (e.g., revisionof existing MPAs) are all reasons to conduct another resilience assessment. The resilience assessment process
is summarized within Figure 2 on p 8. The circle from Step 1 back to Step 1 reflects the possibility you may
conclude ‘Not now’ when evaluating whether a resilience assessment is right for you. We recommend that you
keep open the option to re-visit that decision later (e.g., when new data becomes available indicating changes in
exposure to impacts, or a new opportunity to influence a management decision arises).

7

Step-by-step guide

Conducting a resilience assessment

Not now
1. Decide whether to do a resilience assessment, identify pathways of influence, and plan
• What decision(s) can the assessment inform?
• What management processes or agencies are end users of the assessment findings?
• What resources and capacity will you need?
• Need to plan for: clear pathways to decision uptake, meaningful and regular manager partner andstakeholder engagement, clear and accessible data and reporting products

2. Select resilience indicators and anthropogenic stressors
Resilience indicators:

Anthropogenic stressors:

1. *Resistant coral species 8. Herbivore diversity
1. Nutrients (pollution)
9. Habitat/structural complexity
2. *Coral diversity
2. Sedimentation
10. Mature colonies
3. *Herbivore biomass
3. Physical human impacts
11. Light (stress)
4. *Coral disease
4. Fishing pressure
12. Coral size-class distribution
5. *Macroalgae cover
13. Substrate suitability
6. *Recruitment
7. Temperature variability
At least 6 indicators; include all relevant stressors. Ideally, selected indicators will be of roughly
equal importance and then equally weighted in assessment.

3. Collect or compile data for resilience indicators• Indicators are measured quantitatively• Survey sites using standard methods at all sites• Access remote sensing and reef monitoring data as required• Compile existing data if available from the last 3 years and sites undisturbed

4. Analyze data
Eight steps: (1) normalize data to 0-1 scale, (2) make scale uni-directional (high score =high resilience), (3) optional – weight indicators, (4) average indicator scores for each site,(5) normalize average scores, (6) rank sites from high to low resilience, (7) categorize sites(low to high) based on resilience scores, (8) categorize individual indicator scores from low
to high for each site.
All Islands

5. Identify key drivers of differences in resilience scores

0.2

1.0

0.2

BR

Shallow
Deep
y

sit

r

s

ve

as

CR

e
or
biv
er

0.2
CAP1

0.4

-0.4
-0.4

0.6

0°

HB
MA
CR
CD

-0.2

0

0.2
CAP1

5° S

-0.2

Relative resilience potential:

100 km0.4

high151° E

0

-0.2

0.6

med-low

med-high 153°
lowE

-0.2

17° S
18° S

12° N

19° S
50 km

Cuba

179° E

19.873° N, 155.922° W

Laehou180°

179° W

SHALLOW

1 – Shallow, 1 – Deep

19.873° N, 155.923° W
DEEP

Northern French Polynesia
North Kona is

the origin of the site

name, which means ‘new

23° N

• Ongoing effort during assessment process• Products tailored to target audience and able to support all intended uses
• Broad communication can increase compliance and promote stewardship• Should identify research gaps and parts of assessment with room for improvement

178° E

Relative resilience potential:high
med-high
med-lowN

point’ and refers to a point ofland formed with the 1859
Mauna Loa lava flow.

4 km

Relative Resilience
Depth

low

Rank

Resilience
Score

1/20

Shallow

1/20

Deep

Coral Cover

1.00

0.65

1.00

High (>avg+1 SD)

0.77

Benthic Community
Shallow

Coral
Recruitment

0.79

0.69

1.00

1.00

BleachingResistance

Macroalgae
Cover

1.00

1.00

0.84

Bleaching and Disease

1.00

Med-Low (<avg and >avg - 1 SD)

Herbivore
Biomass

Rugosity

0.14

0.25

0.90

0.82

Low (<avg - 1 SD)

Coral Species

Deep

Coral
Macroalgae
Coralline algae
Other

21° N

Figure 2. Resilience assessment framework.

Coral
Diversity

Med-High (>avg and <avg+1 SD)

16° S

14° N

142° W data144°
W share results
10. Provide
and

CD

0

0.2
0.4
CAP1

MA = Macroalgae Cover
CR = Coral Recruitment TV = Te
BR = Bleaching Resistance CD = Coral Diversity
HB = H

25° N

50 km

TV

BR
CR

10° N

149° E

MA HB

CAP2

0

0.2
CAP1

0.2

10° S

CAP2

8° S

13° N

N
BR TV

Shallow: Leptastrea purpurea, Montipora
capitata, Montipora flabellata, Montipora
patula, Porites compressa, Pocillopoa
damicornis, Porites evermani, Porites lobata,
Pavona maldivensis, Pocillopora meandrina,
Pavona varians
Deep: Fungia scutaria, Leptastrea bewickensis,
Leptastrea incrusta, Leptastrea purpurea,
Montipora capitata, Montipora patula, Porites
compressa, Pocillopoa damicornis, Pavona
duerdeni, Porites evermani, Porites lobata,
Pocillopora meandrina, Pavona varians

Shallow: 48% of the coral colonies were affected by bleaching (mild and severe). 40% of the coral colonies were severely affected by bleaching.

SHALLOW SCORE: HIGH

81° W

0

Rota

• Meet with manager partners and stakeholders• Recommendations may relate to Marine Protected Area zoning or targeted reduction of stressthrough other sectoral actions
100 km• Priority sites have higher relative resilience, or lower relative vulnerability, are greater relative sourcesof fish and coral larvae and not weak sinks, and are exposed to a manageable anthropogenic stress

82° W

-0.2

n=25

9. Formulate management recommendations

26° N

CD

Ru

m

Co

Bio

t

e

en

nc
ta
sis

ae

Re

alg

g

ro

hin

ac

ac
Ble

M

er

se

ov

ea

itm

is

ru

lC
ra

lD
ra

lR
ra

Co

ec

e
or
Sc
e
nc

Co

sil
Re

Co

H

0

0.2

11° N

• Connectivity information can be used to interpret assessment results and help identify
priority targets for management actions• Priority sites will be those that are relatively greater sources and not weak sinks

BR

0

-0.2

-0.2

-0.2

E
122° E
8.118°
Reviewconnectivity
information
Northern Great Barrier Reef
Fiji

Florida Reef Tract, USATV

Tinian200 km124° E

CD
CR
MA

Eastern Papua New Guinea• High-resolution (4-km) climate model projections of bleaching frequency are now publicly
accessible and can vary greatly over local scales.
• Resilience and exposure data can readily be combined to produce a vulnerability assessment• Priority sites will be those that are relative climate refugia (i.e., projected to experience annual
severe bleaching >10 years later than other sites in your area)

122° E

0

CAP2

CAP2

0.4

7. Review climate exposure information

100 km

MA

HB

0.6

ie

• Stressors
be measured quantitatively or assessedSulawesi,
qualitatively
in the field or using
Centralcan
Philippines
Indonesia
monitoring data
• Proxies can be useful; e.g., distance to pollutant sources for water quality• High scores = high stress

0.2

0.8

0

6. Assess anthropogenic stressTV

go

Normalized value• Highly variable indicators have greater influence on resilience score differences• Optional — multivariate analyses can be used to identify indicators strongly associatedwith high and low resilience.

Saipan0.4

n=78

→→ The decision step involves identifying pathways of influence, characterizing thebenefits the assessment may bring, drafting an assessment plan, and making thecase to others→→ Identify the management or policy decisions a resilience assessment can inform,
and the entities that can act on recommendations from the assessment→→ Design your assessment plan by defining the spatial area of interest, planninghow you will conduct each step in the process and estimating the resources andcapacity required→→ Your plan will include regular consultation with end-users and stakeholders toensure a clear path for uptake of the results in decision-making processes.
1. Identifying pathways of influence and characterizing benefits – You first have to determine whether and howcoral reefs and reef-dependent industries and community members will benefit both from assessment findings
and the eventual management outcomes. On p 33 we identify some ways resilience assessments findings
are relevant to management decisions. Could management of coral reefs in your area benefit from any of that
information; i.e., knowing which sites are likely to be more resilient to climate change? Answering this question will
require identifying what decision processes the assessment may influence as well as the management authorities
or stakeholders that can act on assessment findings. Are there obvious upcoming opportunities for resilienceassessment results to inform decision-making, such as establishment, revision or review of a MPA network? Is
a marine spatial planning process planned that can include reef resilience as a consideration? What institutions
have a mandate to take actions that can reduce pressure on coral reefs? Perhaps there is a management planthat already includes addressing water quality and/or fishing pressure – in this case resilience to climate change
information can be used to target planned actions to reduce these stressors. Has a recent coral bleaching eventor other disturbance caused coral reefs to receive an increase in attention by the media or policymakers, and agreater demand for action?

9

Step-by-step guide1 Decide whether to do a resilience assessment, identify
pathways of influence, and develop a plan

A Guide to Assessing Coral Reef Resilience for Decision Support

Attention following bleaching events or other disturbances can arouse interest in resilience assessments.
This is an action-oriented process that has managers and stakeholders proactively collaborating to address
climate change, and can help overcome feelings of helplessness.
Having put thought to how findings of a resilience assessment can be used to strengthen reef management
and the way reefs and people could benefit, you will be ready to draft an assessment plan that can deliver thosebenefits.
2. Drafting an assessment plan – Like any project or management activity, resilience assessments should bedesigned to address clear objectives, have a well-defined scope and a clear vision for desired outcomes.

Having determined what management decisions COULD be informed by a resilience assessment, you now
need to design the assessment so that it DOES inform those decisions.
You will need to determine the optimal timing for starting the assessment, define the spatial area of theassessment, determine whether and how data will be collected or compiled, and identify the types and nature ofdesired data and reporting products. In defining the spatial area, take a moment to consider whether resilience
to climate change is likely to vary among reefs within this area. Homogeneity among all of the recommended
resilience indicators is highly unlikely if your area of interest is larger than a few km. However, if you have reason
to believe resilience indicators do not vary in your area of interest, consider that parts of the resilience assessment
process may still be relevant to management planning in your area. You may decide to only conduct steps
7-10, whereby management recommendations are formulated based on reviews of climate change exposure
information (see Box 3, p 30 on publicly accessible high-resolution (4-km) coral bleaching projections) and/or
connectivity information.

10

Step-by-step guideYou will need to consider all of the remaining 9 steps in the resilience assessment process; these steps canserve as a template for the design of your resilience assessment. How will you conduct each step? What
resources, expertise and capacity are available for the assessment and what resources, expertise and capacity
will you need for each step? In thinking about the Steps, consider whether you should conduct Steps 7 and8 prior to Step 2; i.e., understanding climate exposure and connectivity patterns may lead to insights that
determine whether you do a resilience assessment and, if you proceed, how you determine where to sample, andhow intensively. This suggestion is especially relevant to those working in large reef systems, such as the Great
Barrier Reef in Australia.

Capacity requirements include diving and snorkeling, managing and analyzing quantitative data andqualitative observations, spatial data storage and visualization, graphic design, and written and verbal
communication skills.
Regular engagement with management agencies and other stakeholders is another design consideration. Whowill be involved and when and how will they collaborate, provide input on assessment outputs, and influence
outcomes?
All entities that could act on recommendations that result from a resilience assessment are stakeholders as are
all those expected to comply with any resultant management actions. This means local and regional management
authorities, conservation organizations, industries that use or benefit from reefs and the services that reefs provide,
and all other reef users are potential stakeholders.

All stakeholders expected to act on recommendations or comply with resultant actions should be engaged
early and regularly through the resilience assessment process.

11

A Guide to Assessing Coral Reef Resilience for Decision Support

Stakeholders can help design the resilience assessment by assisting in the selection of indicators or survey
sites. Then, a collaborative approach to discussing and selecting assessment methods can help ensurethat stakeholders understand and have interest in data collection. From that point, stakeholders can help
interpret results, identify and prioritize from among management actions, and provide input to how results arecommunicated and disseminated.
Your resilience assessment can be tailored to your resource constraints and capacity. However, there are a numberof resources designed to support reef managers in conducting resilience assessments.

The Nature Conservancy’s Reef Resilience Network and Toolkit provide access to online tools, case studies ofresilience assessments, and guidance for implementation.
Online webinars and discussion forums can help you find answers to questions and collaborate with or bementored by global experts that have conducted resilience assessments (see Additional Resources section for
more detail).
Remember that the key is for the assessment to inform the management decisions you have identified. You
need to ensure your plan creates a pathway to uptake of the results and the making of those intended decisions.
If conducting the assessment with locally available resources and capacity does not enable you to utilize theidentified influence pathways, you can explore partnerships with other relevant organizations and/or apply for
grant funding.

12The most important part of making the case to others involves clearly explaining how the resilience assessment
process can inform management decisions and that the process will be responsive to end user needs.
We recommend that you use specific examples of the management actions and policies a resilience assessment
will inform as this will help generate the momentum to get started. By being responsive to feedback from intended
end users of resilience assessment findings you also increase their ownership of assessment findings and thelikelihood that recommendations will be turned into management or policy actions.
Assuming you decide to conduct the resilience assessment process, the next step is to select the resilience
indicators and anthropogenic stressors you will assess.

13

Step-by-step guide

3. Making the case to others — You should clearly document both the expected benefits of a resilienceassessment and how your design or plan ensures the assessment can deliver those intended benefits. You willthen be ready to ‘make the case’ for conducting a resilience assessment to superiors, funders and end-users. This
may take place through regular meetings or a workshop specifically for this purpose.

A Guide to Assessing Coral Reef Resilience for Decision Support

2 Select resilience indicators and anthropogenic stressors→→ Resilience indicators provide an indication of the likelihood the site can resist
and recover from disturbances, especially coral bleaching→→ 13 indicators and 4 stressors are recommended for use in resilienceassessments→→ At least 6 of the 13 indicators and all relevant stressors should be included→→ The 6 essential indicators are: Resistant coral species, Coral diversity, Herbivore
biomass, Coral disease, Macroalgae cover, Recruitment→→ Additional indicators can be selected if deemed to be as important to resistanceand recovery as the 6 considered essential
Your resilience assessment will involve measuring or assessing ecological factors that contribute to resistanceand recovery (e.g., bleaching-resistant coral species and coral recruitment) and anthropogenic stressors that
reduce resilience.

Ecological factors that contribute to resistance and recovery are called resilience indicators.

Recommended resilience indicators and anthropogenic stressors
Reef scientists and managers have collaborated to identify and prioritize resilience indicators and anthropogenic
stressors (McClanahan et al. 2012). This effort identified indicators for which there is strong evidence of a linkto the capacity of corals or a coral community to resist impacts or recover from disturbances. Thirty indicators
were rated with respect to perceived importance, strength of scientific evidence and feasibility of assessment/
measurement. Complementary research by Graham et al. (2015) added evidence to the importance of structuralcomplexity (and depth) in understanding recovery after bleaching events in the Seychelles.

Based on these studies and experiences from past resilience assessments, we recommend 13 resilience
indicators and 4 anthropogenic stressors for consideration in your resilience assessment.

14

Resilience indicators:
1.

*Resistant coral species

2.

*Coral diversity

3.

*Herbivore biomass

4.

*Coral disease5.

*Macroalgae cover

6.

*Recruitment

7.

Temperature variability

8.

Herbivore diversity

9.

Habitat/structural complexity

Herbivore biomass

10. Mature colonies
Coral recruitment

11. Light (stress)
12. Coral size-class distribution
13. Substrate suitability

Anthropogenic stressors:
1.

Nutrients (pollution)

2.

Sedimentation3.

Physical human impacts

4.

Fishing pressure

Nutrients

Sedimentation

Physical impacts

Fishing pressure

15

Step-by-step guide

Recommended resilience indicators and anthropogenic stressors are ranked in our list from highest to lowest
perceived importance to resilience (following McClanahan et al. 2012). The first six (*) are considered essential
and will be important to include in nearly all resilience assessments. See Table 1 for descriptions of these
indicators and stressors along with common units.

A Guide to Assessing Coral Reef Resilience for Decision Support

Selecting indicators
As many of the anthropogenic stressors should be measured or assessed as makes sense given the local context(i.e., given which of the four stressors affect reef resilience in your area). While determining which stressors
need to be assessed is likely to be straightforward, selecting ecological resilience indicators is more challenging(see case study examples from assessing resilience in the U.S. Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands andMozambique). Therefore, we offer the following guidance.
Six priority ecological resilience indicators should be included in any resilience assessment (those with anasterisk in the list on p 15). These have been found to be the most important predictors of resilience, andalso the most useful for discerning differences in resilience among sites. Temperature variability can also bevery important. As temperature data are available at 4-km resolution for all coral reef areas from NOAA remotesensing archives, we suggest including temperature variability in assessments (Heron et al. 2016). However,this indicator may not vary significantly within your area of interest (especially if your assessment spans 20
km2 or less); in these cases you can exclude that indicator. Selecting additional indicators requires asking
yourself whether any other indicators in the list are likely to be as important for resistance and resilience as the 6considered essential. If this is the case, those indicators can be added as long as they can be reliably measured
or assessed within available expertise and resources.
At this point, it is important to understand that including as many indicators as possible is not the goal.
The total number of indicators included in an assessment will affect the power that each indicator has todetermine differences among sites in resilience; i.e., the importance of each individual indicator is diluted
with each additional indicator included. Note that you can include more indicators, and can include indicatorsthat you feel are important but much less so than other indicators you are including and can then weight theindicators based on their relative importance. Weighting approaches are reviewed in Box 1 on p 24. You
are likely to find the assessment process easier if you select only indicators you deem to be of roughly equal
importance – i.e., strength of links to resistance and recovery in your area – and then equally weight them.

16Step-by-step guide3 Collect or compile data for resilience indicators→→ Planned use of the results drives the spatial extent of the assessment→→ Sampling intensity needs to capture spatial variation in indicators→→ You may use existing data less than 3 years old provided you do not mix datafrom both before and after a major disturbance→→ Consistent, or at least comparable, methods should be used for each indicatorand stressor at all survey sites→→ Resilience indicators and stressors are considered separately in the assessment→→ Quantitative data are collected or compiled for resilience indicators→→ Quantitative or qualitative data are collected or compiled for anthropogenic stressors
The desired spatial extent of the assessment is the key first consideration in determining your data collection/compilation strategy.
The desired spatial extent of the assessment should be driven by your planned use(s) of the resilience assessment
results. Spatial extent and sampling intensity may both be greater if planning a new MPA or MPA network thanif, for example, you want to determine the relative resilience of sites within a small area adjacent to a proposed
coastal development (see case study examples from Indonesia and Palau). In either case, sites should be surveyed
across the entire area over which you want to conduct the assessment. A sufficient number of sites should besurveyed to capture spatial variation over the sampling area in the resilience indicators you choose to include.
More sites will need to be surveyed where benthic and fish communities are more variable. Fewer sites can besurveyed in areas that have lower benthic and fish community variability. The resilience assessment approachdescribed here can be used at both small and large spatial scales. Where assessments are conducted over large
areas, there may be large gaps between survey sites; there may be anthropogenic stress, climate or connectivity
information (Steps 6, 7 and 8) for these areas that can be used to formulate management recommendations(Step 9). This highlights that for large reef areas, different parts of the area may have different combinations of
information from which you can formulate recommendations.
You may use existing data or may need to collect new data for all or some of the indicators that you select. For thisreason, your sampling strategy may be determined wholly or partially by your local regular monitoring program. You
may conduct your assessment including only those sites regularly surveyed or may supplement by adding sites toincrease spatial coverage. Examples of resilience assessment results are shown in Figure 3 on p 23 from datacollected specifically for an assessment (a) and from data compiled from a long-term monitoring program (b).

It is recommended that all data used be fairly recent (within 3 years) and be considered to be, to the best of
your knowledge, representative of the current spatial variation in the various indicators.
In determining the age of the data you allow to be included, you will need to consider whether disturbances
occurred recently. For example, if conducting an assessment in 2016 and a severe disturbance, such as a cyclone
or major bleaching event, occurred in early 2015, you should include data from 2016 and late 2015 but not from2014 or early 2015.
It is key that the methods for collecting the data for each resilience indicator are standardized across all sites
surveyed, or at least that they are comparable. It is also essential that the methods for the resilience indicators arequantitative rather than qualitative. Resilience is assessed using the resilience indicators only.

17

A Guide to Assessing Coral Reef Resilience for Decision Support

In the analysis, ecological indicators of resilience are separated from anthropogenic stressors that reduce
reef resilience.
Given the separation of ecological resilience indicators from anthropogenic stressors, the stressors can beassessed either quantitatively or qualitatively. Further, several of the stressors may be assessed via useful proxies,
defined by local conditions and knowledge. For example, site accessibility based on average wave height can beused in some areas as a proxy for fishing pressure (e.g., Maynard et al. 2015).
Many methods exist for assessing or measuring the indicators we recommend here. Management agencies
or research institutions working in your area are likely to have a standard suite of methods for monitoring coral
reef benthic and fish communities. We do not recommend any specific set of methods, but present a suite ofpossible methods in Table 1 on p 19. The GCRMN publication Methods for Ecological Monitoring of Coral
Reefs: A Resource for Managers provides detailed descriptions of popularly used survey methods for all of therecommended resilience indicators. There may also be regionally established protocols and recommended
standards, such as in the Caribbean.

18

Resilience
indicators

Description

Possible methods

Common units

Resistant coral species

Proportion of the reef-building coral
community made up by species that havedemonstrated or are thought to be relatively
resistant to thermal coral bleaching (Marshalland Baird 2000; McClanahan et al. 2004).

Timed swims, quadrats, belt transects,
point-intercept transects% of community

Coral diversity

A quantitative measure that reflects how
many different coral species there are ina dataset, while simultaneously taking
into account how evenly the species are
distributed. Common indices express theprobability that two species selected at
random from a community will be different.

Indices: Shannon or Simpson's Index

Unitless

Herbivore biomass

Weight per unit area of herbivorous fish
and invertebrates. Can be inclusive of all
major herbivore functional groups (scrapers,
grazers, excavators, browsers) or canseparate these.

Timed swims, belt transects, stationary
point counts

kg/100m2, g/m²

Coral disease

Proportion of the coral community that is
affected by diseases. You may choose touse a ‘total prevalence’, which combines
all diseases and all corals, or a subset of
diseases or corals to assess effects from aparticular disease or on a particular coral.

Belt transects

Recruitment

Abundance and density of recently settledcorals that are less than 2 years old.

Quadrats#/m²

Temperature variability

Variability of temperatures during thewarm season. Higher variability has been
associated with bleaching resistance.

Remotely sensed, available for all coral
reefs at 4-km resolution from NOAA
remote sensing archives

Unitless

Herbivore diversity

See 'coral diversity' description; same forherbivorous fish and invertebrates. Can also
be assessed as the number of key herbivore
functional groups present at a minimum
abundance (e.g., scrapers, grazers,
browsers and excavators).

Timed swims, belt transects, stationary
point counts

Unitless (diversity
indices), or number
present at a minimum
abundance

Habitat/structuralcomplexity

Three-dimensionality of the substrate andcrack and crevice depth and diversity.
Ratio of reef surface contour distance tolinear distance.

Chain over substratem

Habitat/structuralcomplexity

Three-dimensionality of the substrate andcrack and crevice depth and diversity.
Ratio of reef surface contour distance to a
standard linear distance (often 3 m).

Chain over substratem

Mature colonies

Proportion of the benthic community madeup by long-lived corals (i.e., >10 years old).

Timed swims, belt transects, stationary
point counts

Light (stress)

Amount of light per square meter reaching
the substrate during typical oceanographic
conditions during the warm season.

Requires instrumentation

watts/cm2

Coral size-class
distribution

Evenness of corals within a range of sizeclasses that includes recruits and maturecolonies.

Timed swims, quadrats, belt transects,
point-intercept transects

Unitless

Substrate suitability

Ratio expressing available substrate for coral
recruits as being suitable and unsuitable forcoral settlement.

Timed swims, quadrats, belt transects,
point-intercept transects

Unitless% (of colonies affected;
a 'total prevalence';i.e., all or a subset of
diseases combined)% of community

19

Step-by-step guide

Table 1. A description of the recommended resilience indicators, along with common units, and a list of potential field methods.

A Guide to Assessing Coral Reef Resilience for Decision Support

4 Analyze data
The resilience assessment analysis examines differences in resilience potential (estimated by your resilience
indicators) by comparing all sites included in the assessment.

Resilience is assessed relative to other sites included in the assessment.
Managers or collaborating scientists may want to analyze relative resilience to compare resilience among sites
considered for protection, specific stress reduction measures or to monitor changes in resilience through time.
The ‘relative resilience score’ can be calculated to give us this information. The process for calculating relative
resilience scores is provided in the 8 steps below.

Calculate a Relative Resilience Score
Calculating the relative resilience scores involves 8 steps.
1 – All scores for resilience indicators are normalized to a scale of 0-1.
2 – All scales are made uni-directional, where a high score means highresilience.
3 – (Optional) If weighting indicators, scores are multiplied by a weighting or‘scaling’ factor.
4 – Scores are averaged to produce a raw resilience score.
5 – Average scores are normalized to a scale of 0-1.
6 – Sites are ranked from highest to lowest score.
7 – Sites are categorized into relative ‘low’ to ‘high’ classes.
8 – Scores for indicators are categorized into relative ‘low’ to ‘high’ classes.
An MS Excel-based tutorial is available with data tables that show each of these steps (see “Additional
resources on p 43).
1 — Since resilience indicators are assessed using different units (e.g., g/m2, %, #/m2, etc.) and scales (i.e., they
have different maximum values), the values for all indicators must be converted into a standard scale using aprocess called normalizing. To normalize the data, the values for each indicator are divided by the maximum value
for the indicator.
Example: If the maximum bleaching resistance valueis 64%, then a site with 64% receives a 1 (because 64
divided by 64 is 1) and a site with 60% receives a 0.94
(60 divided by 64); all sites with zeros would receive azero (zero divided by any number is zero).
2 — For most of the resilience indicators (e.g., resistantcoral species, coral diversity, herbivore biomass), ahigh value indicates greater resilience. However, a highvalue for some of the resilience indicators suggests
reduced resilience (e.g., presence of macroalgae andcoral disease). We want to ensure that our scale isuni-directional and that a high score always means
higher relative resilience (what we are aiming for20

Macroalgae cover

Coral disease3 — You then must decide whether the indicators will be equally weighted; i.e., whether they are of equal or nearequal importance to resistance and recovery processes. If so, you would move to Step 4 and do nothing at Step
3. If you are weighting the indicators, the normalized uni-directional scores are multiplied by a weighting factor(mathematically, this is a ‘scaling factor’). Box 1 on p 24 discusses weighting rationale, approaches, and pitfalls.
4 —The normalized, uni-directional (and weighted, if you chose to) scores for the indicators for each survey site are
averaged to produce the raw resilience score for each site.
5 — The raw resilience scores are normalized by dividing by the maximum score. The end result is a score for eachsite that is on a standard 0-1 scale. The final resilience score or value is 1 for the site(s) with the highest relative
resilience and for all others a decimal value (e.g., 0.73) between 0 and 1. This expresses the ‘assessed resilience’of all sites relative to the site with the highest resilience. The higher the score, the higher the relative resilience.
6 — Sites are then ranked from highest to lowest score (see Table 2).
7 — Sites can be categorized into relative classes for resilience, such as low, medium-low, medium-high, and high,following calculating the average and standard deviation of the final normalized resilience scores. These classes
can be set as follows where avg = average and sd = standard deviation:• low (<avg-1sd)• medium-low (>avg-1sd and <avg)• medium-high (>avg and <avg+1sd)• high (>avg+1sd)
In recent case studies, these four classes were used in combination with the colors red (low), orange (mediumlow), yellow (medium-high) and green (high), respectively, to aid in visualizing and interpreting the resilienceassessment results in tables and maps (see Table 2).
8 — The normalized scores for the individual resilience indicators can be categorized into relative classes. Suchclassification, in combination with colors (as described above), as shown in tables (Table 2 on p 22) and maps
(Figure 3 on p 23) can help with comparing assessment results among sites; i.e., answering questions, suchas: which resilience indicators does this high resilience site have medium-high or high scores for? An example
table and map of results from the resilience assessment in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
are shown as Table 2 and Figure 3.  You may find that a resilience indicator hardly varies among the survey sites
and all, or almost all, indicators have similar scores or are categorized into the same relative class. Relatively
homogeneous indicators have little to no bearing on the assessment results. This is because indicators with low
variance do little to distinguish sites from one another (see more details in the next section). You should retain
this indicator in your assessment and present those results since the indicator is thought to be important (i.e., you
decided that in the indicator selection process). Collaborating managers and scientists and stakeholders may beinterested in those results.
An MS Excel-based tutorial is available with data tables that show each of the 8 steps, excepting step 3 asindicators are equally weighted in the tutorial example (See “Additional resources on p 43).

21

Step-by-step guidefrom a management perspective). To address this, the scores for macroalgae and coral disease (if included in theassessment) are subtracted from 1.

A Guide to Assessing Coral Reef Resilience for Decision Support

Table 2. Example resilience assessment table from an intra-island analysis at Rota in the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands (CNMI). Tables similar to that presented here provide a snapshot of the assessment results. Viewers canquickly see and understand relative classifications for the resilience indicators, for example, for the high or low resiliencesites. Colored cells denote low-high relative classifications (green –high, yellow – medium-high, orange – medium-low, andred – low; reversed for stressors with green – low, see Table 4). Scores shown for resilience indicators (light-grey shade)are normalized uni-directional scores (i.e., outputs after steps 1 and 2 of 8). The anthropogenic stressors shown (dark grey
shade) are not included in the calculation of the resilience scores. Indicators and stressor codes are: MA – macroalgae
cover, BR – bleaching resistance, CR – coral recruitment, CD – coral diversity, TV – temperature variability, HB – herbivore
biomass, FA – fishing access, and NS – nutrients and sediments. Table adapted from Maynard et al. (2015).
Site Name

IslandRank

Overall
Rank

Final
RS

Raw
RS

MA

BR

CR

CD

TV

HB

FA

NS

Haiña Point

1

14

1.00

0.88

1.00

0.74

1.00

1.00

0.78

0.21

0.14

0.95

West Harbor_MMT

2

16

0.99

0.87

0.99

0.72

0.89

0.94

0.89

0.22

0.36

0.71

As Dudo_MMT

3

8

0.98

0.87

0.94

0.85

0.64

0.92

0.89

0.40

0.00

0.67

Agatasi

4

31

0.95

0.84

1.00

0.73

0.58

0.95

0.78

0.45

0.17

0.67

Senhanom Wall

5

45

0.93

0.83

0.80

0.71

0.17

0.89

0.86

1.00

0.32

0.67

Coral Gardens_MMT

6

49

0.91

0.82

1.00

0.96

0.03

0.63

0.73

0.98

MPA

0.68

East Wedding Cake

7

39

0.90

0.81

0.96

0.82

0.11

0.89

0.89

0.59

0.33

0.70

Sunset Villa_MMT

8

53

0.89

0.79

0.75

0.64

0.78

0.91

0.92

0.18

0.27

0.73

Mochong

9

47

0.87

0.78

0.46

0.80

0.93

0.98

0.89

0.07

0.12

0.67

Coconut Village

10

51

0.86

0.78

0.63

0.76

0.50

0.98

0.92

0.29

0.22

0.70

Malilok Point

11

64

0.86

0.76

1.00

0.59

0.27

0.96

0.78

0.47

0.19

0.68

Sasanhaya_MMT

12

48

0.86

0.77

0.84

0.78

0.30

0.94

0.89

0.31

0.35

0.83

Teteto

13

67

0.84

0.74

0.94

0.53

0.47

0.88

0.92

0.23

0.23

0.68

Okgok_MMT

14

63

0.84

0.76

0.46

0.85

0.81

0.87

0.73

0.26

0.23

0.69

Honey Gardens

15

60

0.83

0.76

0.90

1.00

0.09

0.53

0.89

0.53

MPA

0.67

Iota Salvage_MMT

16

58

0.82

0.74

0.99

0.77

0.11

0.87

0.92

0.24

0.25

0.68

Harnom Point

17

68

0.80

0.73

0.45

0.78

0.37

0.87

0.86

0.48

0.31

0.67

Cave Museum_MMT

18

69

0.77

0.70

0.65

0.72

0.24

0.96

0.89

0.17

0.31

0.75

Talakhaya_MMT

19

71

0.75

0.68

0.31

0.86

0.58

0.93

0.73

0.12

0.22

0.67

Takta Sagua

20

70

0.74

0.68

0.60

0.85

0.07

0.81

0.89

0.26

MPA

0.67

South I Ch. Park

21

73

0.73

0.67

0.17

0.71

0.51

0.88

0.89

0.30

0.07

0.67

Joanne’s Reef

22

72

0.71

0.66

0.71

0.80

0.00

0.77

0.89

0.22

0.33

0.73

Rota Resort_MMT

23

75

0.71

0.64

0.52

0.57

0.40

0.91

0.92

0.02

0.19

1.00

Sailigai Point

24

78

0.56

0.53

0.00

0.59

0.00

0.89

1.00

0.18

0.30

0.67

Haiña Point

22

Step-by-step guide1000 km 50 km

SAIPANAGUIJANTINIAN

ROTA

a)

GUAM

AUSTRALIA

TinianSaipanRota
Aguijan
N

4 km

b)

Romang
Wetar

Wetan

Babar

Leti
N

INDONESIA

50 km
1000 km

AUSTRALIA

Relative resilience potential:high

med-high

med-low

low

Figure 3. Example map outputs showing relative resilience for sites surveyed specifically for a resilience assessment in
CNMI (a, from Maynard et al. 2015), and from data compiled from long-term monitoring (by WWF staff) at fringing reefsites in the Forgotten Islands of Indonesia (b). The normalized uni-directional scores for resilience indicators can benormalized by dividing by the maximum value for the indicator from any group of sites. Here, the ‘group of sites’ includes
all sites surveyed at all islands. Scores can also be normalized to the values for indicators within smaller groups, such asaround single islands (or in any other distinct area within a management area); see Table 2 for ‘intra-island’ scores andrankings for Rota.
Forgotten Islands

23

A Guide to Assessing Coral Reef Resilience for Decision Support

Box 1 — Weighting indicators
Much evidence suggests that some resilience
indicators have stronger links to resistance andrecovery processes than others. For example, coral
diversity will be a greater predictor of whether a coral
community will resist and/or recover from disturbancethan coral size-class distribution. We suggest thefollowing three options to resolve indicator weighting.
The first describes our recommendation of equallyweighting indicators, which we also described in thesection on selecting indicators, p 16. Two otherapproaches are described for consideration if you areinterested in using differential weighting; these haveequal merit, though the literature review method will beless resource-intensive.
Recommended – Equal weighting: During indicator
selection, you select only those indicators considered in your area to be strong indicatorsof resistance or recovery potential. You may suspect some selected indicators are stronger
indicators than others but may feel evidence is lacking either to support that suspicion or
to enable you to quantify differences in relative importance.
For consideration – For both differential weighting options described below, the normalized unidirectional indicator scores (output of steps 1 and 2 of 8 in section above) are then multipliedby the weighting factors (or ‘scaling factors’) you calculate when deciding weighting.
Review literature – Combined perceived importance scores for the recommended
indicators from McClanahan et al. (2012) (and other recognized articles that may
be available) can be compared for indicators you select. For example, the perceived
importance (to resilience) score for coral diversity is 12.43 and for coral size-class
distribution is 10.08. 12.43 divided by 10.08 = 1.23 meaning that, according to this study,
coral diversity is 1.23 times more important for resistance and recovery processes thancoral size-class distribution is (see methods in Maynard et al. 2015).
Generate consensus view – You could survey close colleagues or experts involved in yourassessment and/or a broader group, asking: which indicator(s) is the strongest indicatorof resistance and/or recovery and which indicator(s) is the weakest? Then, with that
decided, how much stronger of a resilience indicator is the strongest indicator than theweakest? The second question will give you your maximum multiplicative factor. You canthen rank the other indicators and set out their multiplicative factors as between 1 andthe highest multiplier you decided on (see Maynard et al. 2010). Keep in mind in deciding
to weight the indicators that assessments of relative importance of resilience indicators
are likely to be highly subjective. Further, views are likely to differ meaning it may be hard
to reach a consensus.

24

Step-by-step guide

5 Identify key drivers of differences in resilience scores→→ Some indicators have greater and some lesser influence on resilience scores→→ If indicators are equally weighted, highly variable indicators have greater
influence on differences in resilience scores→→ High variability indicators should be monitored regularly→→ Multivariate analyses can be used to determine which indicators are moststrongly associated with high and low resilience
A key benefit of normalizing the indicator scores is that we can examine variability in the scores on the same
scale (i.e., 0-1) and undertake multivariate analyses. Such analyses help answer these questions: Which resilience
indicators have greater and lesser influence on the final resilience scores? Do sites within a relative class ofresilience (e.g., high resilience sites) have high scores for the same or different indicators? Do high resilience sites
have high resilience for the same reasons?

Understanding which indicators vary most and which are most strongly associated with high and low
resilience has multiple benefits. Managers should ensure high variability indicators are included within any
regular monitoring programs.
If scores are equally weighted, the indicators with the greatest variability influence the resilience scores
more than the indicators with low variability. An example is provided in Figure 4. In this case, variance in thetemperature variability indicator is low. Since most sites have similar scores for that indicator, it has little
influence on the final resilience rankings. In contrast, macroalgae cover varies greatly. Macroalgae cover is agreater driver of differences in resilience rankings than temperature variability. Multivariate ordination analyses
can also be used to examine which indicators are driving differences in resilience across the relative resilienceclassifications (see Box 2 on p 26).

Normalized value

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

All Islands
SaipanTinianRota

0
Resilience
Score

Macroalgae
Cover

BleachingResistanceCoral
Recruitment

Coral
Diversity

Temperature Herbivore AFG
Variability
Biomass

Fishing
AccessNutrients andSediments

Figure 4. Distribution of normalized values for the resilience scores, indicators and anthropogenic stressors for the interisland and intra-island analyses in CNMI (see also Figure 3). Shapes represent average values, the tails equal 1 standard
deviation (sd), and the dots are the minimum values; maximum values are all 1.0 (dashed line). Relative classifications forresilience scores and resilience indicator scores are as follows: high (final scores that are >1 sd above average (avg.) and≤ 1), medium-high (<avg.+1 sd and > avg.), medium-low (<avg. and >avg.−1 sd), and low (<avg.−1 sd). The range in scores
meant that there are all four classifications among the survey sites in CNMI for 5 of 7 indicators. For macroalgae cover andcoral diversity the value of the average+1 sd exceeds the maximum possible value of 1 so no sites are described as being
relatively ‘high’ (macroalgae cover has been inversed so high scores mean low cover – see 2 in Section 4). Figure from
Maynard et al. (2015).

25

A Guide to Assessing Coral Reef Resilience for Decision Support

Box 2 – Multivariate analyses
A canonical analysis of principal coordinates (CAP, Anderson and Willis, 2003) has beenused in recent resilience assessments. The CAP results explain which resilience indicators
are the biggest drivers of differences among sites in final resilience scores, and which
resilience indicators are most strongly associated with high and low resilience sites.
For the stats-savvy, the CAP is based on Bray-Curtis similarity matrices where variables(‘resilience indicators’ in this case) that might be responsible for group differences areinvestigated by calculating the Spearman-rank correlations of canonical ordination axes
(with the original variables). Users of the software package R can undertake a CAP analysis
using the ‘CAPdiscrim’ functions found in the package ‘Biodiversity R’ (available at github).
An example CAP output is shown below for the All-islands comparisons in the CNMI
resilience assessment (Maynard et al. 2015; analyses conducted by GJ Williams).

All Islands

Saipan

0.4

n=78

0.2

TV

0.2
MA

0

CD
CR
MA

CAP2

CAP2

HB
TV
BR

-0.2

-0.2

-0.2

0

0.2
CAP1

0.4

0.6

BR

0

-0.4
-0.4

CD
CR

-0.2

Rota

-0.2

-0.2

26

0.
CAP1

CAP2

CAP2

Canonical analysis of principal coordinates showing Tinian
the relative contribution of six resilience indicators (overlaid asvectors, codes are: HB – herbivore biomass, CD – coral diversity, CR – coral recruitment, MA – macroalgae cover, TV– temperature variability, BR – bleaching resistance) to the overall resilience of n=25
reef sites for the CNMI inter-island
analysis, presented in Figure 3. Stats Notes - Squared canonical correlation values (δ²) of the first and second
ordination axes are0.2
0.603 and 0.112 for all islands. These correlation values represent the amount of variation,
as a proportion, in the dataset that each CAP explains; the axes are not fully independent, which is 0.2
why the value
exceeds 1 when the two are added. The CAP results indicate that high resilience sites generally had high values
MA forHB
for herbivore AFG biomass, coral recruitment and coral diversity and low macroalgae cover; the opposite is trueBRsites with medium-low or low resilience. FigureTV
adapted from Maynard et al. (2015).
TV
BR
HB
0
0
MA
CR
CD
CD
CR

0

-0.2

0

0.2
CAP1

0.4

0.6

-0.2

0

0.2
0.
CAP1

Step-by-step guide

6 Assess anthropogenic stress→→ Anthropogenic stressors particularly important in a resilience assessment are
nutrient pollution, sedimentation, physical human impacts and fishing pressure→→ Stressors can be assessed quantitatively or qualitatively using field and social
surveys or existing monitoring data→→ 500 m resolution data on overfishing, marine-based pollution and damage,coastal development and watershed-based pollution are available from the World
Resources Institute→→ High scores equal high stress
Anthropogenic stressors (e.g., nutrient pollution, sedimentation, physical human impacts, fishing pressure) are
separated from the ecological indicators because they can be directly addressed through management actions(see next section). This ensures indicators of resilience processes are separate from stressors that reduce
resilience. There are four approaches you can use to develop relative classifications (low to high, as for resilience)
for anthropogenic stress at your survey sites. (1) Anthropogenic stressors can be directly assessed qualitatively
and/or quantitatively using field and social surveys or existing monitoring data. Examples include regular water
sampling and testing for monitoring water quality, using fisheries observers and landing surveys and surveys oftargeted species biomass to assess fishing pressure, or belt transects for density of anchor and fin damage. Thesemethods can yield rigorous data but directly measuring stressors will not be possible in many areas. Alternately,
you can: (2) assess or measure proxies, (3) review publicly available datasets, or (4) survey experts. It is likely thata combination of two or more of the four approaches will yield the most robust datasets for anthropogenic stress.
In many cases, measuring or assessing a proxy for the stressor, rather than the stressor directly, will be morepractical. For example, understanding spatial variation in water quality (nutrients and/or sediments) requires
regular water sampling as well as testing. If data from regular water quality monitoring programs are not available,
you could use a proxy for water quality. Distance from river or stream outlets that are the point of release ofpollutants into coastal waters is one potential proxy for water quality. Alternately, if watersheds have been mapped,sites can be classified with respect to the watersheds that influence their water quality. Then, watersheds can beassessed for the likelihood of contributing to poor water quality near reefs, based on land-use activities, terrain,
and presence of rivers and streams. Proxies can also be developed for fishing pressure, such as site accessibility
and distance to markets.
You can also access spatial data (500 m resolution) on anthropogenic stressors from the World Resources
Institute (WRI) Reefs at Risk Revisited webpages on local threats (Burke et al. 2011). Data are available on
overfishing and destructive fishing, marine-based pollution and damage, watershed-based pollution, and coastal
development. In many reef areas, the WRI data will be all that is available on spatial variation in anthropogenic
stress. All 500 m pixels in reef areas have been classified as low, medium, high or very high for all four stressors.
You can extract these classifications for your survey sites using GIS software, such as ArcGIS. You may also
be able to access spatial data for one more anthropogenic stressors from regional programs that, for example,
monitor water quality or fishing pressure.
You can also consider using an expert survey to rate all your survey sites from low-high for each stressor type youwant to examine and can include known local experts, such as managers, scientists or stakeholders. Such surveys
can have a high degree of subjectivity. However, you can review surveys from many respondents, see where
there is good agreement in levels of stress and then use meetings or a workshop to classify sites where survey
respondents disagree on levels of anthropogenic stress.

27

A Guide to Assessing Coral Reef Resilience for Decision Support

A description of the four anthropogenic stressors we recommend including in your resilience assessment isprovided in Table 3, along with possible methods and units.
Table 3. A description of the recommended anthropogenic stressors, along with common units, and a list of potential field
methods and proxies.

Anthropogenic
stressors

Description

Nutrients (pollution)

Possible methods

Common units

Concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorous
or loading information.

Regular water sampling and testing, or
proxies, such as distance from river andstream outlets.

ug/L or Relative.

Sedimentation

Concentrations of heavy and fine sediments
or loading information.

Regular water sampling and testing, or
proxies, such as distance from river andstream outlets.

ug/L or Relative.

Physical humanimpacts

Abundance or density of injuries to reefbuilding corals caused by anchoring, fins, orboat/ship groundings.

Timed swims, quadrats, belt transects,
point-intercept transects, or proxies
such as ‘frequency of visit’.

#/m2 or Relative

Fishing pressure

Frequency and intensity of extraction of reef
and reef-associated fishes.

Timed surveys of boat trips perunit area, or social surveys, or
expert judgment, or proxies such as‘accessiblity’.

Trips per day or
Relative

Though separated in the analysis, it can be helpful to present scores for stressors with the scores for the resilience
indicators and final resilience scores (as in Table 2). For anthropogenic stressors, it is intuitive to have high scores
equal high stress; i.e., there is no need to subtract stressor scores from 1 to make high scores a ‘good score’as was described in step 2 of 8 in the Calculating relative resilience scores section. We suggest sticking with
the intuitive stoplight color scheme described for resilience where green is ‘good’. To visualize anthropogenic
stressors, relative classes and colors can be: green – low, yellow – medium-low, orange – medium-high, and red –high (see Table 4).
Table 4. Results for the site ‘Agatasi’ near the island of Rota in CNMI (from Appendix B for Maynard et al. 2015). The stoplightcolor scheme is intuitive for resilience (left) and anthropogenic stress (right), though the corresponding values change; i.e.,
green for resilience means high scores and high resilience, and green for stress means low scores and low stress.

Analysis

Rank

Resilience
Score

Macroalgae
Cover

BleachingResistanceCoral
Recruitment

Coral
Diversity

Temperature
Variability

Herbivore
Biomass

Accessibility(wave exposure)

LBSP

Inter-Island

31/78

0.83

1.00

0.73

0.31

0.95

0.72

0.27

0.17

0.19

Intra-Island

4/24

Low (<avg - 1 SD)

28

0.95

1.00

0.73

Med-Low (<avg and >avg - 1 SD)

0.58

0.95

Med-High (>avg and <avg+1 SD)

0.78

0.45

High (>avg+1 SD)

0.17
Low

Med-Low

0.67
Med-HighHigh→→ Climate model projections for acidification and bleaching are publicly accessible→→ Globally available acidification projections are currently too coarse to be useful inresilience assessments, excepting in very large reef systems.
→→ Projections for bleaching event frequency and severity have been downscaled to
4-km→→ Bleaching projections can vary greatly on the scales over which resilienceassessments are conducted→→ Projected exposure to bleaching can be expressed in relative terms and sites
categorized into relative classes→→ Resilience and exposure relative classes can be combined to produce avulnerability assessment→→ Priority sites are those that are relative climate refugia, projected to bleach >10
years later than other sites in your area
Resilience assessments enable us to discern strong from weak sites (Game et al. 2008), with respect to ability
to resist and recover from disturbances, climate-related and otherwise. We then need to assess exposure toclimate-related threats to ensure that limited management resources are applied to the reefs with the best survival
prospects. Reviewing climate exposure information enables us to discern lucky from unlucky sites. Sites with lower
or later projected future exposure are relatively lucky and sites with higher or earlier projected future exposure areunlucky. The reefs with the best survival prospects, and hence the most likely to continue to provide goods andservices, are those that are both lucky and strong.
A resilience assessment can summarize all available information on current and potential future ‘exposure’ toclimate change and ocean acidification. Such information is available from climate model projections. These
projections are now available at 4-km resolution for future frequencies of thermal stress events severe enough tocause coral bleaching and at 1° (latitude/longitude) resolution for ocean acidification. The 1°-resolution projections
for ocean acidification are unlikely to be useful at the scale over which most resilience assessments are
conducted, but may be useful in regional-scale exposure analyses. In contrast, the higher-resolution coral bleaching
projections may be useful. The timing of projected exposure to annual severe bleaching (ASB) varies greatly withincountries and territories with coral reefs and may vary at the scale over which your resilience assessment will
be conducted (e.g., in the central Philippines, see Box 3 on p 30, van Hooidonk et al. 2016). If projected ASB
timing varies more than 10 years within the resilience assessment area, sites projected to bleach >10 years later
than other sites in your area can be considered to be climate refugia in the context of your assessment. You cancategorize the survey sites into relative classes for exposure based on the average and standard deviation, as was
described for resilience (see p 21). The exposure and resilience classes can then be combined, via the matrix in
Figure 5, to produce a ‘vulnerability to coral bleaching’ classification for each of the survey sites.

Exposure

Resilience
Low

High

Med-High

Med-Low

Med-High

Low

Med-Low

Med-Low

Med-High

Med-Low

Med-Low

Med-Low

Med-HighHigh

Med-High

Med-Low

Med-High

High

High

High

Med-High

High

High

High

Figure 5. Vulnerability matrix relating resilience andexposure using four relative classes for the input(resilience and exposure) and output (vulnerability).
See p 21 for methods on using the average andstandard deviation to categorize survey sites into theresilience and exposure classes.

29

Step-by-step guide

7 Review climate exposure information

A Guide to Assessing Coral Reef Resilience for Decision Support

Box 3 — Downscaled projections of coral bleaching conditions
Summarized from van Hooidonk et al. (2016).
Increasingly frequent severe coral bleaching is among the greatest threats to coral reefs
posed by climate change. Global climate models (GCMs) project great spatial variation in
the timing of annual severe bleaching (ASB) conditions; a point at which reefs are certain
to change and recovery will be limited. However, previous model-resolution projections(approximately 1x1°, van Hooidonk et al. 2013, and Maynard et al. 2015b) are too coarse
to inform reef management planning. To meet the need for higher-resolution projections,
we developed statistically downscaled projections (4-km resolution) for all the world’s
coral reefs using the newest generation of IPCC climate models (CMIP5). Methods fordeveloping these projections are within the publications listed above.
Under a business-as-usual scenario (RCP8.5), ASB is projected to occur within this century
for 99% of the world’s coral reefs. The average projected year of ASB is 2043.
The downscaled projections can inform management decision-making where variationin projected ASB timing is more than 10 years between locations. Projected exposure tobleaching conditions is sufficiently different among these locations to potentially be adriver of differences in relative climate change vulnerability. Reefs projected to experience
ASB 10 or more years later than other reefs in the same jurisdiction are relative refugia andare conservation priorities (i.e., these have lower relative exposure). The range in projected
ASB timing is more than 10 years in 82%(71 of 87) of the countries and territories Central PhilippinesYearwith at least 500 km2 of coral reef.

30

2060

11° N

The projections have been made publicly
accessible via the Coral Reef Theme on
UNEP-Live and under Research Activities
on the NOAA Coral Reef Watch website.
On both websites the projections areavailable as large image files, as *.kmz
files viewable through Google Earth, andas a spatial data layer package that canbe opened in ArcGIS versions 10 andabove. ‘About’ pages on the websites
describe the project background,methods and main findings, and provide
an overview of applications.

2045

13° N

2030

100 km122° E

124° E

Example of spatial variation in the downscaled projections
for the onset of annual severe bleaching under RCP8.5.
Reef areas in turquoise and blue are relative climate refugiathat represent conservation priorities. Figure adapted fromvan Hooidonk et al. (2016).

8 Review connectivity information→→ High-resolution connectivity information is not always readily available→→ Larvae sources contribute coral and fish larvae to other reefs; sources can help
reefs and the reef system recover after major disturbances→→ Sinks are larvae destinations; sinks have potential for recovery after
disturbances, if sources are healthy and continue to provide larvae→→ All coral reef areas are sources and sinks but the extent to which they aresources and sinks can vary greatly→→ If available, connectivity information can be used to determine the extent towhich each site is a larvae source or sink→→ Priority sites are relatively greater sources that are not weak sinks
Connectivity refers to the extent to which populations are linked by the exchange of eggs, larval recruits, juveniles
or adults. It also refers to the ecological linkages associated with adjacent and distant habitats. Ecologicalconnectivity among habitats (reefs, mangroves, and seagrasses) supports vital life stages of reef organisms, suchas herbivores, so affects reef resilience.
Connectivity information is rarely available at the local scales over which resilience assessments are typicallyconducted. However, connectivity information may be available in your area, if not at the site scale then at the scaleof the islands included within the assessment (as was the case for CNMI in Maynard et al. 2015).

© NASA SVS

Connectivity information typically comes from oceanographic models that examine currents and mixing patterns.
The models run scenarios that calculate the number of larvae that arrived at each reef or reef area and determine
where those larvae originated (Kendall and Poti 2015). The results express larvae numbers at sites or reef areas
within matrices that quantify where larvae originated and their destinations. This enables us to determine theextent to which each site or reef area is a source and sink.

31

A Guide to Assessing Coral Reef Resilience for Decision Support

Larvae sources contribute coral and fish larvae to other reefs, so can help reefs and the reef system recover after
major disturbances. Sinks are larvae destinations, so have potential for recovery after disturbances, if sources arehealthy and continue to provide larvae. All coral reef areas are sources and sinks but the extent to which they aresources and sinks can vary greatly.
Sources are important to protect so will often be conservation priorities while sinks have greater chance ofrecovering and may recover faster, however this assumes sources continue to function (hence the need toconserve these). Sites that are relatively infrequent or rare destinations for larvae may struggle to recover as
disturbance frequencies increase, meaning management actions may have little to no impact there.
Connectivity information, if available, is a data layer that can be considered when using resilience assessment
results to formulate management recommendations, described next.

Management actions will have a greater positive influence on the ecological resilience of a reef system if
implemented at sites that are relatively good sources and not weak sinks.

32

9 Formulate management recommendations→→ Recommendations are more likely to be implemented if made in local decisionmaking context→→ Management recommendations should be developed with involvement ofrelevant management agencies and other stakeholders.
→→ Data layers resulting from a resilience assessment are likely to be used among
many other information types in management priority setting→→ Management recommendations may relate to MPA creation, zoning or
targeted reduction of stress through other, sectoral actions as well as throughmultisectoral marine spatial planning→→ The process for identifying and prioritizing target sites is the same for all action types→→ Priority sites have higher relative resilience, or lower relative vulnerability, aregreater relative sources and not weak sinks, and are exposed to a manageable
anthropogenic stress
With the resilience assessment complete, all of the following are data layers that can be included in management
decision-making processes and planning: 1) resilience to climate change, 2) spatial variation in anthropogenic
stress, 3) projections of future bleaching event frequency and severity, 4) vulnerability to bleaching, and5) connectivity information (if available). At this stage, resilience assessments can involve management agencies
and/or stakeholders to identify and prioritize options for management actions that will support site and system
resilience. Depending on your decision-making authority, priority management actions may either be directly
implemented, integrated into near or longer-term management or environmental planning, or posed to others
as recommendations. Most resilience assessments will be done in collaboration with a range of management
agencies and other partners to identify priority actions and recommendations.
Collaborating to identify the management recommendations may be most effective in a workshop setting. All priorsteps in the resilience assessment process (1-8) can be reviewed with emphasis on sharing resultant spatial data
layers as maps and tables. These data layers/maps, such as relative resilience to climate change, may be new tomany, helping them to consider what actions to implement and where those actions should be targeted in a newway. In all areas, resilience assessment information will only represent a portion of the information that will beconsidered during marine spatial planning or when making targeted management decisions. Biodiversity, culturalvalues, commercial and recreational use, and presence of endangered or threatened species are all examples ofother considerations (i.e., data layers) that may be available for prioritizing management options.

33A Guide to Assessing Coral Reef Resilience for Decision Support

Increasingly, spatial planning processes use planning software, such as Marxan (Ball et al. 2009). Marxan develops
spatial planning scenarios for multi-use MPAs. As examples, maximizing biodiversity within protected areas, andminimizing resource user conflict are two very popular conservation objectives during MPA planning processes.
Marxan is increasingly being used to develop MPA plans that meet or partially meet those objectives while also
accounting for resilience to climate change.
You will need to account for known local conservation objectives, consider trade-offs and opportunity costs(among conservation objectives), and know which entities would implement recommended actions.

Ideally, all relevant management entities are involved in the priority-setting process/workshop.
Representatives of these entities can then share how the recommendations will need to be supported or defended
so that recommendations lead to decisions and, in turn, on-ground action. Resilience assessment leaders can thentailor reporting outputs (see section 10 below) to best meet the needs of decision-makers.

The recommended priority actions are the most critical output of resilience assessments.
Management recommendations that result from the resilience assessment process can either relate to: 1)
including sites within MPAs or MPA networks zoned for various uses; or 2) targeting actions that reduce stressors
related to human activities. Below, we provide give examples of potential management action for each of theseaction types and describe criteria you can use or modify to identify target sites in your management area for thoseactions. Essentially, the data layers that result from the resilience assessment process are ‘queried’ based on
criteria you set to identify target sites for various management strategies. There is a focus in the example criteria
provided below on the sites with medium-high and high relative resilience.

Disturbance frequencies are expected to increase in all coral reef areas in the coming decades, seriously
challenging reef resilience.
Sites with higher relative resilience are more likely to continue to provide ecosystem goods and services andmanagement actions can increase that likelihood (Mumby and Anthony 2015). Sites with lower relative resilience
still warrant consideration in decision-making processes but are lesser priorities, requiring other data/information
layers support their being management action targets (i.e., biodiversity, cultural values, or high use/dependence of
nearby coastal communities).

34

°40'E

145°45'E

145°50'E

146°00'E

145°55'E

146°05'E

146°10'E#

145°46.974'E

15°56.803'S

Agincourt
Reefs (No 3)
15-099a#Morning Reef
15-098

Step-by-step guide

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Australia



 Agincourt



B-15-3010













CAIRNS PLANNING AREA
(Plan of Management provisions apply) 
Reefs
MNP-15-1046




   The management actions described below should be seen as examples rather than an exhaustive list. All five ofthese examples are likely to be relevant in all coral reef areas worldwide. You may have other actions that interest
Agincourt
Reefs (No 4)
15-09616-016ec

16°03.600'S

16-017

Agincourt
Reefs (No 1)

16-018a#dc

145°53.299'Eb

145°52.200'E

16-013ab

145°51.001'E

16-014aackay Reef
-015

Agincourt
Reefs (No 2a)bAgincourt
Reefs (No 2b)Agincourt
Reefs (No 5)

16-01116°04.800'S#b

St Crispin Reef
16-01916-020b#

Undine Reef
16-020ayou. You can use the same logic and process described here for any other management actions you want the
CP-16-4029
resilience assessment results to inform. Candidate
sites for the action are identified using criteria for sub-set
survey sites based on a combination of the five data layers that can result from the resilience assessment process.

Rudder Reef
16-023#145°51.033'EPriority sites will typically: have higher
relative resilience, or lower relative vulnerability (if you combinedresilience withbleaching projections),
be greater relative larvae sources and not weak sinks (if connectivity


and have relatively
data are available),high levels of a manageable anthropogenic stress.


Marine Protected Areas and
MPA networks

16°12.939'S

Chinaman Reef
16-024145°48.332'E#

Opal Reef
16-02516°16.760'S

16°18.613'S

#

#

ni

ng

#

16°24.000'S

#

O

pe

#

#

#

#

Onyx Reef
16-035#

Hastings Reef
16-05716°32.066'S

146°10.456'E

35
16°31.064'S
Hope Reef
16-05816°30.982'S##

Jorgensen
Patch
16-041






Nicholas Reef
16-036#

MNP-16-1050

146°04.590'E#

145°57.900'E

#

Tr
in

ity

Saxon Reef
16-032#145°40.041'E

Norman Reef
16-030#16°27.195'S16°22.625'S

Spur Reef
16-034

Batt Reef
16-029#Satellite Reef
16-031146°10.456'E

146°01.259'E

16-02716°21.239'S

Linden Bank
16-03316°18.613'S

145°51.132'E

145°40.041'E

Tongue Reef
16-026#138'S

16°16.65#

145°55.564'E

Long-term conservation — You can identify sites that represent strategic priorities for conservation, either
MNP-16-1048through co-management schemes or restriction of all extractive practices (i.e., no-take areas within MPAs). Theseconservation priority sites have high or medium-high relative resilience. These sites are more likely to resist andrecover from climate and other disturbances and thus are most likely to continue to provide ecosystem goods andservices in the decades ahead. A ‘representation and replication’ approach to risk-spreading may be used duringMPA planning – the suggestion here is that the high resilience sites are more represented than the low resilience sites.
This example is aimed specifically at revisions in MPA zoning and/or development of new MPAs or MPA networks(seecase study example on developing a management plan for Wakatobi National Park). If an MPA has already
beenestablished, you can determine the extent to which each relative resilience class (low – high) is representedwithinthe various MPA zones (as in Maynard et al. 2015b). If/when zoning is reviewed scenarios can be set outand discussed that increase representation and replication of areas with greater relative resilience. If bleachingprojections vary >10 years within your area of interest, you may have been able to combine resilience and exposureclasses to classify sites based on their relative vulnerability (as in Figure 5 on p 29). If that is the case, everythingstated here still applies, but you will be looking to include sites with lower relative vulnerability within MPAs.
Sites with greater relative resilience, climate refugia or, if you combined
these, low vulnerability areas, should
sites.
have greater replication within MPAs and MPA networks than low resilienceIf connectivity data is also available then you can prioritize from among the high resilience (or low vulnerability)sites by choosing sites that are greater relative sources and not weak sinks.

A Guide to Assessing Coral Reef Resilience for Decision Support

Targeting stress reduction through other (non-MPA) actions
Improve water quality – There are no global standard guidelines for critical levels of nutrients and sediments incoral reef waters, though many areas will have guidelines for acceptable levels of pollutants. Judgment will be
required as to whether land-based sources of pollution (LBSP) levels at any sites in your area are sufficiently highto impact coral health.

Improving water quality will be important throughout almost every coral reef management area.
There is probably no other single type of action that can support the resilience at the greatest number of sites inareas where reefs are within a few kilometers of the coast. The resilience assessment results can aid in deciding
where to undertake local or small-scale projects addressing particular problems, such as point sources ofwastewater (see case study example on wastewater treatment in Bonaire). A case can also be made for reducing
LBSP more broadly in watersheds. Such actions may be most urgently needed at low resilience sites. However,benefits may be greater, in terms of continued provision of ecosystem goods and services, at the Priority sites we
describe above.
Sites that meet the criteria you set (be it for low or high relative resilience) that also have relatively highvalues for nutrient and sediment loading or concentrations are priority areas for improving water quality. Once
priority sites are decided on, you can identify a range of actions to improve water quality that reflect your local
context and that consider and account for the who and how of implementing those actions. As examples,
recommendations could be made to: further regulate coastal development, shape or restrict beach nourishment
activities, reduce or restrict fertilizer usage, reduce deforestation and other activities that lead to soil erosion,
regulate or otherwise improve wastewater treatment (UN Environment 2017), and establish or re-design
storm drainage routes. These are pertinent examples as they reflect that improving water quality can involve
development, agriculture, and water treatment, each of which is often managed by a different agency or entity.

36

Reduce fishing pressure – The impact of fishery management on resilience and the continued provision of
ecosystem goods and services as the climate changes is likely to be greatest at sites that: 1) have medium-highor high relative resilience (or are climate refugia or, if you combined these, low relative vulnerability areas), and2) have high fishing pressure. You may further create a sub-set from among the identified sites for sites thatare greater relative sources and not weak sinks, if connectivity data is available. The key here is that actions
to reduce fishing pressure on herbivorous fishes be targeted to the areas most likely to recover as climate
disturbance frequencies increase. There is a large range of potential management actions that can reduce
fishing pressure, including: restricting fishing in some areas (as in no-take MPAs), seasonal closures, gear
restrictions, size restrictions, and quotas.

You will need to consider which action options for reducing fishing pressure exist and which from among youroptions are most politically and practically feasible.
As with improving water quality (see above), this is likely to involve creating a long list of action options andtarget sites first, and then prioritizing those options in collaboration with fisheries management agencies
and stakeholders.
Support Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) – Countries increasingly use marine spatial planning (sometimes
referred to as maritime spatial planning) to allocate use of marine space in order to promote economic growth
while supporting environmental sustainability. Such planning is commonly applied across different sectors, andmay build on or incorporate other more circumscribed tools and approaches such as: fisheries management,
local or municipal land use plans, and area-based biodiversity measures such as siting of marine protected areasand networks. The management that flows from marine spatial planning therefore includes Integrated Coastal
Management, MPA design and implementation, and the spatial allocation of maritime uses and sectors (e.g.,
shipping lanes, oil and gas leases, fisheries closures, scientific research sites, etc.).

MSP is increasingly used by countries to achieve economic development and environmental sustainability
objectives. MSP provides opportunities to manage reefs as an asset for dependent people and businesses
and addresses many pressures that threaten reef resilience, through a single process.
Coral reef resilience assessment findings can be directly applied in a MSP process, to identify: sites that warrant
particular protection (e.g., closed sites/MPAs), areas where specific activities need to be restricted (certain
types of fishing, infrastructure development or shipping), or areas where resilience to climate change or low
vulnerability of coral reefs is likely to support economic activity, such as tourism. The mapping of institutional
mandates and jurisdictions necessitated by marine spatial planning also helps in the formulation of management
recommendations based on resilience assessments.

The long-term efficacy of marine spatial planning can be greatly enhanced by incorporating resilienceassessment findings.
Marine spatial planning utilizes a wide range of spatial analysis tools, such as the planning software Marxan.
Several data outputs from a resilience assessment can be included in a marine spatial planning process, including
resilience scores for individual sites, anthropogenic stressor information, climate change projections andconnectivity data, if available. Marxan can manage these disparate datasets, and can complete ‘kriging’ processes
based on assumptions that you set such that site-based resilience data can be made spatially continuous.
Consider whether your sampling intensity warrants kriging the site data; i.e., whether your sampling captures
spatial variation in the resilience indicators in the entire area over which sites have been surveyed.

37

Step-by-step guideYou should identify a range of action options and then prioritize from among those actions with collaborating
managers based on what you see as best-case trade-offs between impact (on improving water quality) andfeasibility.

A Guide to Assessing Coral Reef Resilience for Decision Support

Box 4 — Targeting actions to support reef resilience in CNMI
Criteria were set and site targets were identified for all six of the management actions
described in the guide text (conservation, LBSP reduction, reducing fishing pressure, bleachingmonitoring and supporting recovery, coral translocation, and outreach) during the 2015
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) resilience assessment (see Figure 3
on p 23). Criteria for these management action queries of resilience assessment results areshown in the table below, which also contains lists of example actions. Summary maps canalso be made that combine all assessment queries showing all candidate sites for the targetedmanagement actions (see map below). It will be important to be clear that sites that did notmeet any of your set criteria may warrant management attention for reasons distinct fromthe actions and associated criteria you develop. Bleaching projections do not vary >10 years
where those surveys were conducted (see Box 3 on p 30) so bleaching vulnerability was
not assessed in CNMI. However, island-scale connectivity information was available so sites
identified as targets for the actions (see map below) were considered higher priorities if greater
sources and not weak sinks (i.e., near Saipan and Tinian, see Maynard et al. 2015 for details).
Queries of resilience assessment results developed to inform management decision-making and planning processesin CNMI in 2015. Bracketed numbers under criteria indicate the number of sites that met the criteria. Lists ofrelevant management actions were not intended to be exhaustive. * indicates actions not planned in CNMI in 2015.
The results are shown as a map below. Table from Maynard et al. (2015).
Query nameCriteria (n of 78)

Relevant management actions

Conservation

High or low resilience potential and are currently
outside established no take MPAs (14)

Any of the actions described below (as appropriate)Land-based sources ofpollution reduction.

Above average scores for resilience potential andland-based sources of pollution (13)Afforestation, stream bank stabilization, riparian
restoration, and storm drain improvement, other erosion
control practices, wetland enhancement and sewage
treatment plant upgrades

Fishery management andenforcement

Above average resilience potential and accessability
due to wave exposure (10) OR
Below average herbivore AFG biomass and above
average accessibility due to wave exposure (15) orboth (6)

Increased enforcement, marine protected areas*,
temporary closures*, LMMAs, size regulations and bag
and catch limits, moorings and no-anchoring areas, fishstocking, marine debris removal

Bleaching monitoring andsupporting recovey

Low bleaching resistance and low herbivore AFG
biomass (20)Increased monitoring during warm seasons, shading orother cooling measures, supporting recovery processes
using any other actions described in this table

Reef restoration/coraltranslocation

Above average resilience potential and low coral
diversity or coral cover (10)Priority coral nursery and transplantation area, artificial
reef installation

Tourism outreach andstewardshipAbove average coral diversity and above average
fish species richness and biomass above average
accessibility due to wave exposure (2)Establish moorings, undertake targeted outreach,develop stewardship and/or citizen science programs,
marine debris removal

Targets for:

R

C

C

B

R

Conservation
Land-based sources of pollution (LBSP) reduction
Fishery management and enforcement
Bleaching monitoring and supporting recovery
Reef restoration/coral translocation
CB
B R
Tourism outreach and stewardship
CB B
C
Rota
Marine Protected Areas

FFR

C
LR

FB
FC F

FCB

R
B

B

FCR

FB

FR

LFR

B

Tinian
LFR

Aguijan
B

C

L
B

FC

F

LF

F

LF

LFB

FB F
FB

FB

L

SaipanLB

LFBT FCT
LFB

FC

C

L

L

N
4 km

Results of 6 queries used to identify targets for different types of management actions that can support site orsystem resilience in CNMI in 2015. Criteria for the queries and relevant suggested management actions are describedwithin the table above. Sites in gray meet none of the 6 set criteria but may warrant some of these same kinds ofmanagement actions for reasons distinct from the resilience assessment results.

38

Informing other kinds of management actions
Resilience assessment results can be used to inform a range of other management actions beyond establishingor revising MPAs, improving water quality, and reducing fishing pressure (see Box 4 on p 38 for an example fromthe west Pacific). As examples, you can identify sites where bleaching susceptibility is greatest, i.e., where theproportion of the community made up by bleaching-resistant species is lowest. These are priorities for monitoring
bleaching prevalence and severity during thermal stress events and may benefit from actions that support recovery(e.g., temporary closures) when bleaching events occur (see Box 4 on p 38). Resilience assessment results canalso be used to identify locations for transplanting corals from nurseries, translocating corals or restoring reefs.
You may decide to outplant corals from nurseries to locations where anthropogenic stress is low that are also
relatively weak sinks and/or that have low coral diversity or cover. Resilience assessments may also be used to
identify locations to promote education and outreach, such as through citizen-based monitoring of reef recovery inhighly impacted areas (i.e., as a way of teaching resilience concepts).

For all potential management actions that could support site and system resilience, the process of using theresilience assessment results is the same.
First, query the resilience assessment results to identify potential target sites. Again, priority sites have mediumhigh or high resilience, are climate refugia or, if you combined these, have lower relative vulnerability and are
greater relative larvae sources and not weak sinks.

Among priority sites, actions will be targeted to sites that are exposed to an anthropogenic stress that can be
influenced through management or policy actions.
Next, prioritize from among those target sites in collaboration with relevant management agencies andstakeholders. You need to use the local decision-making context to determine what is feasible that will have thegreatest positive impact on supporting resilience and reducing vulnerability. Remember, meaningful engagementwith management agencies and stakeholders is a key ingredient in a successful resilience assessment process.
The last step in the resilience assessment process, and also a critical ingredient in the process being successful,is producing clear data and reporting products and making these accessible. Such reporting ensures the
management recommendations are well understood and can be easily defended, and therefore increases the use
and impact of the findings.

39

Step-by-step guideBy using resilience assessment findings, MSP can enhance the prospects for sustained ecosystem service
provision. MSP can then also reduce the risks of widespread damage to the ecosystem due to climate change, andsupport economic activity based on the ecosystem services provided by coral reefs.

A Guide to Assessing Coral Reef Resilience for Decision Support

10 Provide data and share results→→ Developing data outputs and reporting products should be an ongoing effort
during the resilience assessment process→→ Data and reporting products will need to be tailored to the target audience andable to support all intended uses→→ Most assessment leaders will generate a range of data and reporting products
including spatial data, tables, maps, summaries for decision makers, technicalreports and potentially fact sheets or posters→→ Broad communication of project results can increase compliance and promotestewardship→→ Resilience assessments have a longer-lasting legacy if access to data andreports is maintained→→ A large range of different outputs and reporting products can be generated
during the resilience assessment process.
Generating data outputs and preparing to develop and deliver reporting products requires investment oftime and resources throughout the resilience assessment process.
Formalizing all of your outputs into communications products or making data layers publicly accessible will
typically occur after you have formulated the management recommendations. Importantly, steps 9 and 10 are
highly complementary and are best implemented as linked steps.

Data and reporting products will need to be tailored to the target audience (management or regulatory agencies
as well as other stakeholders such as community members, businesses and the scientific community).
The language, format and presentation style, file type, data types and format all need to suit the intended audienceand support any intended uses or application. For most resilience assessments, this will mean developing andsharing all or most of the following: spatial data files compatible with ArcGIS (such as zipped layer packages ‘*.lpk’with all gridded data), databases that can easily be queried such as in MS Excel or Access, tables, maps, technicalreports for the scientific and management community, shorter summaries for decision-makers (executive
summaries of project reports), summaries that concisely describe management recommendations and theirjustification, and public summaries such as ‘fact sheets’ or posters.
Leaders of resilience assessments may broadly share these data and reporting products (beyond the planned
managers workshops) through presentations at community meetings or town halls, as well as through relevant
national and regional processes for environmental planning and management.

Broadly communicating results of the resilience assessment process to community members and stakeholders
can increase compliance with management actions once implemented and promote stewardship.
Stewardship is a way of empowering local communities to take a more active role in sustaining the natural
resources on which they depend. Stakeholders that are stewards are more likely to comply with management
actions and engage in and promote a range of other environmentally friendly practices and behaviors (seecase study example of building reef stewardship in Belize). A Reef Manager’s Guide to Fostering Community
Stewardship has been developed to help you promote stewardship.
Keep in mind that the resilience assessment process will have a longer-lasting legacy if the data and reporting
products are regularly discussed in meetings with management agencies and other end users of the findings and if
ongoing accessibility is ensured (e.g., through creating a web area on a local management agency website).

40

Conducting resilience assessments regularly
The resilience assessment process supports adaptive management of coral reefs to address the threat ofclimate change combined with local human impacts.
During any resilience assessment, research gaps and sources of uncertainty will be identified along with parts ofthe process that could be strengthened or refined. Those research gaps being filled, new information becoming
available (e.g., high-resolution connectivity data or new climate model projections) or a new decision-making
process or opportunity arising (e.g., revision of existing MPAs) are all reasons to conduct the process again.
Further, where possible, we recommend conducting a resilience assessment every 5 years to keep assessment
results up to date and support adaptive management. Since the resilience assessment process will be repeated
and iteratively refined, Step 10 of formalizing data and reporting products is followed, usually 3-5 years later, by
repeating Step 1 and deciding whether to re-undertake the process. This ensures assessments are representativeof current spatial variation in resilience indicators and anthropogenic stress and are reported on in ways that
inform current and near-term decision-making.

41

A Guide to Assessing Coral Reef Resilience for Decision Support

References
Anthony, K., Marshall, P. A., Abdulla, A., Beeden, R., Bergh, C., Black, R., ... & Green, A. (2015). Operationalizing resilience for adaptive
coral reef management under global environmental change. Global change biology, 21(1), 48-61.
Ball, I. R., Possingham, H. P., & Watts, M. (2009). Marxan and relatives: software for spatial conservation prioritisation. Spatialconservation prioritisation: quantitative methods and computational tools. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 185-195.
Burke, L., Reytar, K., Spalding, M., & Perry, A. (2011). Reefs at risk revisited.
Depczynski, M., Gilmour, J. P., Ridgway, T., Barnes, H., Heyward, A. J., Holmes, T. H., ... & Wilson, S. K. (2013). Bleaching, coralmortality and subsequent survivorship on a West Australian fringing reef. Coral Reefs, 32(1), 233-238.
Game, E. T., McDonald‐Madden, E. V. E., Puotinen, M. L., & Possingham, H. P. (2008). Should we protect the strong or the weak? Risk,
resilience, and the selection of marine protected areas. Conservation Biology, 22(6), 1619-1629.
Graham, N. A., Jennings, S., MacNeil, M. A., Mouillot, D., & Wilson, S. K. (2015). Predicting climate-driven regime shifts versus
rebound potential in coral reefs. Nature, 518(7537), 94-97.
Graham, N. A., Pratchett, M. S., McClanahan, T. R., & Wilson, S. K. (2013). The status of coral reef fish assemblages in the Chagos
Archipelago, with implications for protected area management and climate change. In Coral reefs of the United Kingdom
overseas territories (pp. 253-270). Springer Netherlands.
Golbuu, Y., Victor, S., Penland, L., Idip, D., Emaurois, C., Okaji, K., ... & Van Woesik, R. (2007). Palau’s coral reefs show differential
habitat recovery following the 1998-bleaching event. Coral Reefs, 26(2), 319-332.
Heron SF, Maynard JA, van Hooidonk R, Eakin CM (2016) Warming trends and bleaching stress of the world’s coral reefs 19852012. Nature Scientific Reports. DOI: 10.1038/srep38402
Marshall, N. A., & Marshall, P. A. (2007). Conceptualizing and operationalizing social resilience within commercial fisheries innorthern Australia. Ecology and Society, 12(1), 1.
Marshall, P. A., & Baird, A. H. (2000). Bleaching of corals on the Great Barrier Reef: differential susceptibilities among taxa.
Coral Reefs, 19(2), 155-163.
Maynard, J. A., Beeden, R., Puotinen, M., Johnson, J. E., Marshall, P., Hooidonk, R., ... & Ban, N. (2015). Great Barrier Reef no‐takeareas include a range of disturbance regimes. Conservation Letters.
Maynard, J. A., Mckagan, S., Raymundo, L., Johnson, S., Ahmadia, G. N., Johnston, L., ... & Van Hooidonk, R. (2015b). Assessing
relative resilience potential of coral reefs to inform management. Biological Conservation, 192, 109-119.
Maynard, J., Van Hooidonk, R., Eakin, C. M., Puotinen, M., Garren, M., Williams, G., ... & Harvell, C. D. (2015c). Projections of climate
conditions that increase coral disease susceptibility and pathogen abundance and virulence. Nature Climate Change, 5(7),688-694.
McClanahan, T. R., Baird, A. H., Marshall, P. A., & Toscano, M. A. (2004). Comparing bleaching and mortality responses of hardcorals between southern Kenya and the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 48(3), 327-335.
McClanahan, T. R., Donner, S. D., Maynard, J. A., MacNeil, M. A., Graham, N. A., Maina, J., ... & Eakin, C. M. (2012). Prioritizing key
resilience indicators to support coral reef management in a changing climate. PloS one, 7(8), e42884.
Mumby, P. J., & Anthony, K. (2015). Resilience metrics to inform ecosystem management under global change with application tocoral reefs. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 6(9), 1088-1096.
Mumby, P. J., Hastings, A., & Edwards, H. J. (2007). Thresholds and the resilience of Caribbean coral reefs. Nature, 450(7166), 98-101.
Obura, D., & Grimsditch, G. (2009). Resilience assessment of coral reefs: assessment protocol for coral reefs, focusing on coralbleaching and thermal stress. Gland: IUCN.
Sheppard, C. R., Bowen, B. W., Chen, A. C., Craig, M. T., Eble, J., Fitzsimmons, N., ... & Koldewey, H. (2013). British Indian Ocean
Territory (the Chagos Archipelago): setting, connections and the marine protected area. In Coral Reefs of the United Kingdom
Overseas Territories (pp. 223-240). Springer Netherlands.
Transport Pathways of Marine Larvae Around the Mariana Archipelago. In: Kendall, M.S., Poti, M. (Eds.), NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOS NCCOS 193. Silver Spring, Maryland, USA (130 pp.).
Turner, B. L., Kasperson, R. E., Matson, P. A., McCarthy, J. J., Corell, R. W., Christensen, L., ... & Polsky, C. (2003). A framework forvulnerability analysis in sustainability science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(14), 8074-8079.
UN Environment (2017) Wastewater Pollution and Coral Reefs: Science-to-Policy Brief
van Hooidonk, R., Maynard, J., Tamelander, J., Gove, J., Ahmadia, G., Raymundo, L., ... & Planes, S. (2016). Local-scale projectionsof coral reef futures and implications of the Paris Agreement. Scientific Reports, 6, 39666.
West, J. M., & Salm, R. V. (2003). Resistance and resilience to coral bleaching: implications for coral reef conservation andmanagement. Conservation Biology, 17(4), 956-967.

42

Additional resources
Data sources mentioned in this Guide
Reefs at Risk Revisited Local Threats: Data are available at 500-m resolution from the World Resources Institutefor these anthropogenic stressors: sedimentation and nutrients associated with coastal development, watershedbased pollution, marine-based pollution and damage, and injuries associated with fishing activities. These areassessed for all coral reef areas as low, medium, high or very high.
Link to Data:
http://www.wri.org/publication/reefs-risk-revisited
Downscaled (4-km) projections of coral bleaching conditions: Climate model projections of the timing of theonset of twice per decade and annual severe bleaching conditions under emissions scenarios RCP8.5 (businessas usual) and RCP4.5 (suggests major climate policy is enacted and complied with). Projections are available asstatic images, Google Earth files, and an ArcGIS layer package:
Links to Data:
http://environmentlive.unep.org/theme/index/19
http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/climate/projections/downscaled_bleaching_4km/index.php
Ocean acidification: Climate model projections (1x1° resolution, latitude and longitude) are available of theabsolute and percentage change in aragonite saturation state between 2006 and 2050, between 2006 and 2100,
and between 2016 and the projected timing of the onset of annual severe bleaching. Projections are available asstatic images, and a Google Earth file. Spatial data can be requested (see contact at link).
Link to Data:
http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/climate/projections/piccc_oa_and_bleaching/index.php

CNMI resilience assessment technical report and appendices
A resilience assessment was completed in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) between
2012 and 2014, following the methodology and process presented within this Guide. The assessment results arepresented within Maynard et al. (2015) in Biological Conservation. This open access paper includes appendicesthat describe all analysis steps and 1-page Site Summaries. This journal article and the associated supplementarymaterial appendices can serve as a valuable reference for those considering resilience assessments and, while
you are conducting an assessment, provide ideas on how to share and present assessment results.

MS-Excel tutorial on Analyzing data for a resilience assessment(process Step 4).
A tutorial is available from the UN Environment website that describes all 8 analysis steps. The tutorial is an Excel
workbook that has a spreadsheet for each analysis step. Working through the tutorial will familiarize you with theanalysis steps, ensuring you can complete an analysis of your data without missing steps or making mistakes.
The tutorial is also valuable as a reference. You can copy formulas from within the spreadsheets into your own
analysis workbooks and can refer to the descriptions of the required task sequence for each step. You can also
access virtual assistance with the data analysis through the Reef Resilience Network Forum (see next section).

43

A Guide to Assessing Coral Reef Resilience for Decision Support

TNC Reef Resilience Toolkit and Network
The Reef Resilience Network is a partnership effort led by the Nature Conservancy that builds the capacity of reefmanagers and practitioners around the world to better address the impacts on coral reefs from climate change
and other stressors.
The Reef Resilience Network has the following main components:•

Access to new coral reef science and management strategies for coral reef practitioners throughthe following online modules: Resilience, Coral Reef, Coral Reef Fisheries, and Community-BasedClimate Adaptation.

•

Communication to coral reef managers worldwide on new resources and tools for managing for resilience•

Virtual capacity-building that is implemented through the Reef Resilience online course, a webinar series,
and the Reef Resilience Network Forum.

•

Intensive, in-person trainings and experiences for coral reef managers in order to improve management
techniques on the ground, through Training of Trainers Workshops and learning exchanges. This includes
seed funding for on-the-ground trainings led by workshop participants.

The online content and course provide detailed information and tutorials on conducting resilience assessments
and provide case study examples of resilience assessments and managing reefs to support resilience from aroundthe world.

44

A Guide to Assessing Coral Reef Resilience
For decision support

2018