Please note this site is currently in beta mode while we finalise the data and test for bugs.

Methods

Below is a summary of the methods used when assessing the sensitivity
of marine features to anthropogenic pressures.

Sensitivity scoring methods summary

Sensitivity assessments use the best available evidence to assess the likely response of a marine feature to anthropogenic pressures. This is done by considering a feature’s tolerance (ability to absorb or resist change or disturbance) to a pressure (such as abrasion) and its likely ability to recover, should the pressure be stopped.

A list of human induced marine pressures are used, each with a clear definition and impact benchmark (where possible) at which feature sensitivities are assessed. This ensures the assessments are consistent. The marine pressures list is adapted from an inventory and prepared and agreed by the OSPAR Joint Assessment Monitoring Programme.

Each marine feature is scored for tolerance and recovery separately, and then combined to give a single sensitivity score – see Tables 1-3.

Table 1 - Tolerance categories for the FEAST sensitivity matrix.

Tolerance category descriptions
Tolerance (Resistance)	None
Benthic habitats and species	Key functional, structural, characterising species severely decline and/or physico-chemical parameters are also affected e.g. removal of habitat causing change in habitat type. A severe decline / reduction relates to the loss of 75% of the extent, density or abundance of the selected species or habitat element e.g. loss of 75% substratum (where this can be sensibly applied).
Birds and Fish (population-based assessments)	A severe decline (>50%) in the estimated size of the local population as a result of increased mortality, reduced reproductive success, displacement or any other mechanism.
Mammals and some fish [1] (individual-based assessments)	Mortality of the individual.
Geodiversity	Complete destruction or removal of the feature.
Tolerance (Resistance)	Low
Benthic habitats and species	Significant mortality of key and characterising species with some effects on physico-chemical character of habitat. A significant decline / reduction relates to the loss of 25%-75% of the extent, density or abundance of the selected species or habitat element e.g. loss of 25-75% substratum.
Birds and Fish (population-based assessments)	A significant decline (>10 and ≤50%) in the estimated size of the local population as a result of increased mortality, reduced reproductive success, displacement or any other mechanism.
Mammals and some fish [1] (individual-based assessments)	Significant sub-lethal effects: Behavioural response resulting in e.g. significantly increased energy expenditure, significantly reduced food intake, significant increase in susceptibility to disease or significant increased vulnerability to predation. Physical impairment with significant energetic or health consequences. Likely effects on fertility rate. Possible effects on probability of individual survival.
Geodiversity	Widespread disruption to the feature’s surface or stratigraphy.
Tolerance (Resistance)	Medium
Benthic habitats and species	Some mortality of species (can be significant where these are not keystone structural / functional and characterising species) without change to habitat type. Some mortality refers to the loss of 25% of the species or element.
Birds and Fish (population-based assessments)	A moderate decline (loss of up to 10%) in the estimated size of the local population as a result of increased mortality, reduced reproductive success, displacement or any other mechanism.
Mammals and some fish [1] (individual-based assessments)	Behavioural response resulting in some increased energy expenditure, some reduced food intake, some increase in susceptibility to disease or some increased vulnerability to predation. Possible effects on fertility rate. Unlikely to affect the probability of individual survival.
Geodiversity	Partial and localised damage to the feature’s surface or stratigraphy.
Tolerance (Resistance)	High
Benthic habitats and species	No significant effects to the physico-chemical character of habitat and no effect on population viability of key / characterising species but may affect feeding, respiration and reproduction rates.
Birds and Fish (population-based assessments)	No population decline is expected within the site. Effects affecting key functional and physiological attributes of the species (e.g. food intake rate, energy expenditure rate) may occur but are buffered from feeding through to changed rates of reproduction or mortality and hence population size by virtue of species’ flexibility to respond to the pressure e.g. by redistribution, dietary shifts, increased foraging effort, etc.
Mammals and some fish [1] (individual-based assessments)	Behavioural response resulting in little increased energy expenditure, little reduced food intake, little increase in susceptibility to disease or little increased vulnerability to predation. No significant change to the reproductive rate of the individual. No impact on probability of individual survival.
Geodiversity	Negligible change to the feature.

	Tolerance category descriptions
Tolerance (Resistance)	Benthic habitats and species	Birds and Fish (population-based assessments)	Mammals and some fish [1] (individual-based assessments)	Geodiversity
None	Key functional, structural, characterising species severely decline and/or physico-chemical parameters are also affected e.g. removal of habitat causing change in habitat type. A severe decline / reduction relates to the loss of 75% of the extent, density or abundance of the selected species or habitat element e.g. loss of 75% substratum (where this can be sensibly applied).	A severe decline (>50%) in the estimated size of the local population as a result of increased mortality, reduced reproductive success, displacement or any other mechanism.	Mortality of the individual.	Complete destruction or removal of the feature.
Low	Significant mortality of key and characterising species with some effects on physico-chemical character of habitat. A significant decline / reduction relates to the loss of 25%-75% of the extent, density or abundance of the selected species or habitat element e.g. loss of 25-75% substratum.	A significant decline (>10 and ≤50%) in the estimated size of the local population as a result of increased mortality, reduced reproductive success, displacement or any other mechanism.	Significant sub-lethal effects: Behavioural response resulting in e.g. significantly increased energy expenditure, significantly reduced food intake, significant increase in susceptibility to disease or significant increased vulnerability to predation. Physical impairment with significant energetic or health consequences. Likely effects on fertility rate. Possible effects on probability of individual survival.	Widespread disruption to the feature’s surface or stratigraphy.
Medium	Some mortality of species (can be significant where these are not keystone structural / functional and characterising species) without change to habitat type. Some mortality refers to the loss of 25% of the species or element.	A moderate decline (loss of up to 10%) in the estimated size of the local population as a result of increased mortality, reduced reproductive success, displacement or any other mechanism.	Behavioural response resulting in some increased energy expenditure, some reduced food intake, some increase in susceptibility to disease or some increased vulnerability to predation. Possible effects on fertility rate. Unlikely to affect the probability of individual survival.	Partial and localised damage to the feature’s surface or stratigraphy.
High	No significant effects to the physico-chemical character of habitat and no effect on population viability of key / characterising species but may affect feeding, respiration and reproduction rates.	No population decline is expected within the site. Effects affecting key functional and physiological attributes of the species (e.g. food intake rate, energy expenditure rate) may occur but are buffered from feeding through to changed rates of reproduction or mortality and hence population size by virtue of species’ flexibility to respond to the pressure e.g. by redistribution, dietary shifts, increased foraging effort, etc.	Behavioural response resulting in little increased energy expenditure, little reduced food intake, little increase in susceptibility to disease or little increased vulnerability to predation. No significant change to the reproductive rate of the individual. No impact on probability of individual survival.	Negligible change to the feature.

[1] Including some fish species, e.g. common skate, basking shark, and European sturgeon.

Table 2 - Recovery category descriptions for the FEAST sensitivity matrix.

Recovery Category Description
Recovery (Resilience)	Very Low
Biodiversity features [2]	Negligible or prolonged recovery possible; at least 25 years to recover.
Geodiversity Please note recovery categories are named differently	None
	No potential for regeneration over decadal to centennial timescales (e.g. relict or extremely inactive feature).
Recovery (Resilience)	Low
Biodiversity features [2]	Full recovery within 10-25 years.
Geodiversity Please note recovery categories are named differently	Low
	Partial regeneration over decadal to centennial timescales.
Recovery (Resilience)	Medium
Biodiversity features [2]	Full recovery between 2- 10 years.
Geodiversity Please note recovery categories are named differently	Medium
	Full regeneration over decadal to centennial timescales
Recovery (Resilience)	High
Biodiversity features [2]	Full recovery within 2 years.
Geodiversity Please note recovery categories are named differently	High
	Full regeneration over sub-decadal timescales

	Recovery Category Description
Recovery (Resilience)	Biodiversity features [2]	Geodiversity Please note recovery categories are named differently
Very Low	Negligible or prolonged recovery possible; at least 25 years to recover.	None	No potential for regeneration over decadal to centennial timescales (e.g. relict or extremely inactive feature).
Low	Full recovery within 10-25 years.	Low	Partial regeneration over decadal to centennial timescales.
Medium	Full recovery between 2- 10 years.	Medium	Full regeneration over decadal to centennial timescales
High	Full recovery within 2 years.	High	Full regeneration over sub-decadal timescales

[2] Biodiversity features include all mobile species, and benthic habitats and species.

Table 3 - Final sensitivity scoring matrix: Combining tolerance and recovery.

Recovery
Tolerance
	Very Low
None	High
Low	High
Medium	Medium
High	Low
	Low
None	High
Low	High
Medium	Medium
High	Low
	Medium
None	Medium
Low	Medium
Medium	Medium
High	Low
	High
None	Medium
Low	Low
Medium	Low
High	Not Sensitive

Recovery	Tolerance
	None	Low	Medium	High
Very Low	High	High	Medium	Low
Low	High	High	Medium	Low
Medium	Medium	Medium	Medium	Low
High	Medium	Low	Low	Not Sensitive

Note for individual based sensitivity assessments (mammals and some fish) any tolerance score of none – represents mortality, from which there is no possible recovery.

Final sensitivity scores do not take into account the intensity, frequency or cumulative impacts from activities taking place at specific locations, but provide a consistent approach to measuring sensitivity, which then needs to be interpreted and applied to the situation the sensitivity information is being used for. Information about the sensitivity scores and their definitions can be found in the glossary.

The confidence in the assessments are also scored for both the tolerance and recovery evidence (Table 4), which are then combined using the confidence matrix to give an overall confidence score (Table 5) for the final sensitivity.

Table 4 - Confidence category descriptions for all FeAST assessments with the exception of birds.

Confidence Description
Biodiversity features [3]	Geodiversity features
Confidence score	Low Confidence
Recovery/Tolerance	There is limited or no specific or suitable proxy information on the sensitivity of the feature to the relevant pressure. The assessment is based largely on expert judgement.
Recovery	Low level of confidence in the assigned judgement of how the feature is likely to recover from disruption. Reflects a poor level of knowledge about the feature under consideration either in terms of the processes behind its inception and/or whether it is currently active or relict.
Tolerance	Low level of confidence in the assigned judgement of feature resistance to specified pressure reflecting a poor understanding of either the morphological characteristics of the mapped feature and/or an incomplete understanding how the specified pressure may disturb the seabed.
Confidence score	Medium Confidence
Recovery/Tolerance	There is some specific evidence or good proxy information on the sensitivity of the feature to the relevant pressure.
Recovery	Reasonable level of confidence in the assigned judgement of how the feature is to likely to recover from disruption. Reflects some knowledge gaps with regards to either the processes behind its inception and/or whether the feature is currently active or relict.
Tolerance	Reasonable level of confidence in the assigned judgement of feature resistance to specified pressure reflecting a generally sound understanding of the morphological characteristics of the mapped feature and the extent to which the specified pressure may disturb the seabed.
Confidence score	High Confidence
Recovery/Tolerance	There is good information on the sensitivity of the feature to the relevant pressure. The assessment is well supported by the scientific literature.
Recovery	High level of confidence in the assigned judgement of how the feature is to likely to recover from disruption. Reflects a good level of knowledge about the feature under consideration in terms of both the processes behind its inception and whether it is currently active or relict.
Tolerance	High level of confidence in the assigned judgement of feature resistance to specified pressure reflecting a good understanding of the morphological characteristics of the mapped feature and the extent to which the specified pressure may disturb the seabed.

	Confidence Description
	Biodiversity features [3]	Geodiversity features
Confidence score	Recovery/Tolerance	Recovery	Tolerance
Low Confidence	There is limited or no specific or suitable proxy information on the sensitivity of the feature to the relevant pressure. The assessment is based largely on expert judgement.	Low level of confidence in the assigned judgement of how the feature is likely to recover from disruption. Reflects a poor level of knowledge about the feature under consideration either in terms of the processes behind its inception and/or whether it is currently active or relict.	Low level of confidence in the assigned judgement of feature resistance to specified pressure reflecting a poor understanding of either the morphological characteristics of the mapped feature and/or an incomplete understanding how the specified pressure may disturb the seabed.
Medium Confidence	There is some specific evidence or good proxy information on the sensitivity of the feature to the relevant pressure.	Reasonable level of confidence in the assigned judgement of how the feature is to likely to recover from disruption. Reflects some knowledge gaps with regards to either the processes behind its inception and/or whether the feature is currently active or relict.	Reasonable level of confidence in the assigned judgement of feature resistance to specified pressure reflecting a generally sound understanding of the morphological characteristics of the mapped feature and the extent to which the specified pressure may disturb the seabed.
High Confidence	There is good information on the sensitivity of the feature to the relevant pressure. The assessment is well supported by the scientific literature.	High level of confidence in the assigned judgement of how the feature is to likely to recover from disruption. Reflects a good level of knowledge about the feature under consideration in terms of both the processes behind its inception and whether it is currently active or relict.	High level of confidence in the assigned judgement of feature resistance to specified pressure reflecting a good understanding of the morphological characteristics of the mapped feature and the extent to which the specified pressure may disturb the seabed.

[3] Biodiversity features include all mobile species, and benthic habitats and species.

For bird assessments, separate confidence scores were determined for both Recovery and Tolerance scores.

The confidence for the Tolerance score was based on the evidence base and an evidence confidence score was assigned for each species and pressure pairing (Table 5). The three criteria for assessing confidence scores were evaluated separately and combined for an overall confidence score. This method is different to the FeAST approach and was created during the 2019 assessment updates for the seabird conservation strategy as it provided a clear guide to reach a definitive score. Scores greater than 12 resulted in a “high” confidence score, if scores fell between 6 and 12, a “medium” confidence score was given, and if scores were less than 6, a “low” confidence score was given.

For the confidence for the Recovery score, all species were likely to receive a “high” confidence score for recovery score because the key information on marine bird breeding and survival is established (cf. Robinson, 2005; Woodward & Humphreys, 2018). The confidence would be “medium” or “low” if it were not possible to access evidence for the majority of aspects of the recovery score. The tolerance confidence score was “low” if proxy species statements were used or if only general species statements were applicable instead of species-specific information within the evidence base. The confidence scores for the Recovery and Tolerance scores were combined to produce a final sensitivity confidence score (Table 6).

Table 4 - Biodiversity features [3] - Confidence category descriptions for all FeAST assessments with the exception of birds.

test	test2
Confidence score	rrrr
Confidence score1	1111

Table 4 - Geodiversity features - Confidence category descriptions for all FeAST assessments with the exception of birds.

test 22

test 3	test 4
1231231	asdasd
123123	adsadsaa

Table 5 - Criteria and levels for confidence scores for bird assessments only.

Confidence assessment of evidence [4]	High
Quality of Information Sources	Based on Peer Reviewed papers (observational or experimental) or grey literature reports by established agencies on the feature Score = 5
Applicability of evidence	Assessment based on the same pressures arising from similar activities, acting on the same type of feature in comparable areas (i.e. Ireland, UK) Score = 5
Degree of Concordance	Evidence agrees on the direction and magnitude of impact Score = 5
Confidence assessment of evidence [4]	Medium
Quality of Information Sources	Based on some peer reviewed papers but relies heavily on grey literature or expert judgement on feature or similar features Score = 3
Applicability of evidence	Assessment based on similar pressures on the feature in other areas Score = 3
Degree of Concordance	Evidence agrees on direction but not magnitude of impact Score = 3
Confidence assessment of evidence [4]	Low
Quality of Information Sources	Based on expert judgement, which is not clearly documented Score = 1
Applicability of evidence	Assessment based on proxies for pressures, e.g. natural disturbance events Score = 1
Degree of Concordance	Evidence does not agree on concordance or magnitude Score = 1

Confidence assessment of evidence [4]

Quality of Information Sources

Applicability of evidence

Degree of Concordance

High

Based on Peer Reviewed papers (observational or experimental) or grey literature reports by established agencies on the feature

Score = 5

Assessment based on the same pressures arising from similar activities, acting on the same type of feature in comparable areas (i.e. Ireland, UK)

Score = 5

Evidence agrees on the direction and magnitude of impact

Score = 5

Medium

Based on some peer reviewed papers but relies heavily on grey literature or expert judgement on feature or similar features

Score = 3

Assessment based on similar pressures on the feature in other areas

Score = 3

Evidence agrees on direction but not magnitude of impact

Score = 3

Low

Based on expert judgement, which is not clearly documented

Score = 1

Assessment based on proxies for pressures, e.g. natural disturbance events

Score = 1

Evidence does not agree on concordance or magnitude

Score = 1

[4] The final rank is given based on the summed scores across the three components of the assessment i.e. quality, applicability and concordance: Maximum combined score 15; Minimum score 3.

Table 6 - Final confidence scoring matrix: Combining tolerance and recovery confidences.

	Tolerance Confidence
Recovery Confidence	Low
Low	Low
Medium	Low
High	Low
Recovery Confidence	Medium
Low	Low
Medium	Medium
High	Medium
Recovery Confidence	High
Low	Low
Medium	Medium
High	High

	Tolerance Confidence
Recovery Confidence	Low	Medium	High
Low	Low	Low	Low
Medium	Low	Medium	Medium
High	Low	Medium	High

Additional details

There are some slight differences between the methods used for different categories of marine feature, for details see below.

Methods

Sensitivity scoring methods summary

Additional details

Habitats - Priority Marine Features[Reveal Information][Hide Information]

Habitats – Additional offshore habitats[Reveal Information][Hide Information]

Habitats - Habitats Directive Annex I habitats[Reveal Information][Hide Information]

Species – Shellfish and other invertebrates[Reveal Information][Hide Information]

Species – Marine mammals[Reveal Information][Hide Information]

Species – Marine birds[Reveal Information][Hide Information]

Species – Fish[Reveal Information][Hide Information]

Geodiversity features[Reveal Information][Hide Information]

Large-scale features[Reveal Information][Hide Information]

References[Reveal Information][Hide Information]

Military activity associations option 1[Reveal Information][Hide Information]

Military activity associations option 2[Reveal Information][Hide Information]