updated website to incorporate new scores and edited all goal score p…

…ages with new info

content/global-scores/_index.md

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ menu:
 ---
 The global Ocean Health Index measures the state of the world’s oceans. 
 
-The global OHI score for the 2023 assessment was 67. This interactive map shows  how different countries and goals contributed to this score, as well as how the score has changed since 2012. Click on colored regions (i.e. EEZs) to see short country summaries.
+The global OHI score for the 2023 assessment was 73. This interactive map shows  how different countries and goals contributed to this score, as well as how the score has changed since 2012. Click on colored regions (i.e. EEZs) to see short country summaries.
 
 {{< scoresGlobe >}}
 

content/global-scores/data-download.md

@@ -8,13 +8,13 @@ menu:
     weight: 3
 ---
 
-### 12 YEARS OF SCORES! 
+### 2023 OHI Assessment
 
 The OHI 2023 global assessment includes scores from 2012 to 2023 for 220 coastal countries and territories.  
 
-This marks our 12th year of calculating the global Ocean Health Index. The average 2022 Index score was 67 out of 100. Average Index scores have not dramatically changed over eleven years, which could be expected at a global scale. However, some individual goals and regions have had significant changes. You can now download 12 years of data which makes the OHI a very useful resource for exploring changes in the sustainable use of ocean resources over time.
+This marks our 12th year of calculating the global Ocean Health Index. The average 2023 Index score was 73 out of 100. Average Index scores have not dramatically changed over twelve years, which could be expected at a global scale. However, some individual goals and regions have had significant changes. You can now download 12 years of data which makes the OHI a very useful resource for exploring changes in the sustainable use of ocean resources over time.
 
-![Flowerplot](/images/flower_GlobalAverage_2023.png)
+![Flowerplot](/images/flower_GlobalAverage2023.png)
 
 {{<button text="Download Scores" link=data/scores.csv icon="images/misc/download-icon.svg">}}
 {{<button text="Supplemental Results" link=images/htmls/Supplement_Results.html icon="images/flower_plot.png">}}

content/global-scores/goal-scores/_index.md

@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ menu:
 
 <!--## Ocean benefits delivered to humans now and in the future.-->
 
-The overall global score was 69, but a closer look at the underlying goals reveals a great deal of variation in how well we are managing the sustainable delivery of different ocean benefits. 
+The overall global score was 73, but a closer look at the underlying goals reveals a great deal of variation in how well we are managing the sustainable delivery of different ocean benefits. 
 
 Select a goal below to see the scores that make up the global index and to learn how they have changed during the 10 years we have been conducting OHI assessments.
 

content/global-scores/goal-scores/artisanal-fishing-opportunities.md

@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ This goal measures whether people who need to fish on a small, local scale have
 
 The current score indicates that many regions are addressing and meeting the needs that people and communities have to fish artisanally by implementing government policies that permit or encourage them to do so and providing appropriate access to near-shore areas.
 
-Artisanal Opportunities has a relatively good global score, which was pretty stagnant until this year. This year the score jumped by over 2 points. Certain regions have improved their score in 2022 through a higher score on access to artisanal fishing opportunity through law and regulation as reported by the UN sustainable development goal 14.b.1 which measure the progress by countries in the degree of application of a legal, regulatory, policy, or institutional framework which recognizes and protects access rights for small-scale fisheries.
+Artisanal Opportunities has a relatively good global score, which was pretty stagnant until 2021, when it jumped up by 2 points, further increasing by one more point this year. Certain regions improved their score in 2022 through a higher score on access to artisanal fishing opportunity through law and regulation as reported by the UN sustainable development goal 14.b.1 which measure the progress by countries in the degree of application of a legal, regulatory, policy, or institutional framework which recognizes and protects access rights for small-scale fisheries.
 
 Another factor that may have contributed to the latest increase in Artisanal Opportunities scores was a decrease in need, indicated by an increase in per capita GDP (standardized by purchasing power), in 2021 due to the beginning of the rebound from the global economic slowdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. 
 

content/global-scores/goal-scores/biodiversity/habitats.md

@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ The main reason for this discrepancy is the Ocean Health Index uses a more recen
 
 All of the goals that require habitat data, such as this one, are difficult to assess because much of the data are of poor quality, lack historical information, and are not tracked over time (aside from mangroves and sea ice). Despite these limitations, we are still able to to identify changes in some regions.
 
-For example, we observe declining habitat scores in Iceland (47), Jan Mayn (56), and Greenland (55) due to the steady loss of sea ice habitat. 
+For example, we observe poor habitat scores in Iceland (50), Jan Mayen (56), and Greenland (55) due to the steady loss of sea ice habitat. 
 
 
 [Learn more about this goal]({{< ref "goals/biodiversity/habitats.md" >}})

content/global-scores/goal-scores/biodiversity/species.md

@@ -18,11 +18,11 @@ A high score indicates that most native marine species in a country are not iden
 
 The current score indicates a potential risk of losing a significant proportion of marine species diversity across the globe. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species estimates that [35% of all assessed species](https://www.iucnredlist.org/search/stats) are threatened with extinction, including 37% of species of sharks and rays.
 
-Trends in the Species subgoal are concerning. The global score has, on average, dropped nearly a quarter of a point every year since 2012. This decline lines up with results from the [Red List Index](https://www.iucnredlist.org/assessment/red-list-index), which shows a clear decreasing trend across all major species groups. In fact, for the 2022 OHI assessment, only 14 regions out of 220 show an increasing trend for this subgoal. 
+Trends in the Species subgoal are concerning. The global score has, on average, dropped nearly one-fifth of a point every year since 2012. This decline lines up with results from the [Red List Index](https://www.iucnredlist.org/assessment/red-list-index), which shows a clear decreasing trend across all major species groups. In fact, for the 2023 OHI assessment, only 14 regions out of 220 show an increasing trend for this subgoal. 
 
 The region with the most negative trend is Monaco in Western Europe. This region is the second smallest and most densely populated region in the world, resulting in an extremely urban landscape with little room for flora and fauna to thrive ([Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)](https://www.cbd.int/countries/profile/?country=mc)). Furthermore, this region has fallen victim to extreme marine pollution and several invasive species ([CBD](https://www.cbd.int/countries/profile/?country=mc)). The famous annual car race held here, the Monaco Grand Prix, likely contributes to this pollution as it attracts heavy marine vessel traffic in the harbor. Since 2010, this region began taking steps towards improving their marine biodiversity by establishing the Monaco Blue Initiative, a platform to discuss ocean management and socioeconomic development ([Monaco Blue Initiative](https://www.monacoblueinitiative.org/en/the-monaco-blue-initiative/)). Hopefully this annual initiative will improve infrastructure and Monaco Species goal scores will improve in future OHI assessments.
 
-Libya has also seen one of the largest decline in species score, dropping by 8 percentage points. This is a concerning trend, especially considering that Libya has the third worst Species subgoal score for 2022. Over the past 11 years, only 5% of the species assessed in Libya have increasing population trends, while 25% are decreasing, according to the IUCN Red List. However, there still remain many data gaps with nearly 50% with unknown population trends. 
+Libya has also seen one of the largest decline in species score, dropping by 8 percentage points. This is a concerning trend, especially considering that Libya has the third worst Species subgoal score for 2023. Over the past 11 years, only 5% of the species assessed in Libya have increasing population trends, while 25% are decreasing, according to the IUCN Red List. However, there still remain many data gaps with nearly 50% with unknown population trends. 
 
 The region with the most positive trend is Bouvet Island, a Norwegian territory. Bouvet Island and its surrounding waters were protected in 1971, establishing the region as the world’s most remote nature preserve ([Norwegian Polar Institute](https://www.npolar.no/en/regulations-bouvetoya-nature-reserve/)). Being an uninhabited island with an extremely icy climate certainly contributes to Bouvet Island’s impressive trend in the Species subgoal because there is a substantial reduction in tourism and invasive species transport ([Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/place/Bouvet-Island)). 
 

content/global-scores/goal-scores/coastal-protection.md

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ The current score indicates that although, in many places, these habitats (mangr
 
 Since 2012, we have seen a modest decline in coastal protection scores globally. Like the carbon storage goal and habitat subgoal the data quality for many of our habitats is poor. However, a negative trend can be elucidated in the coastal protection goal due to the declining status of coastal sea ice, which has data derived from satellite imagery.
 
-For the 2022 OHI assessment, Norway saw a large improvement in coastal protection with a score increase of 8 percentage points. Not far behind, Russia improved by 4 percentage points. 
+For the 2023 OHI assessment, Norway saw a large decrease in coastal protection with a score decrease of ~8 percentage points, likely due to declining sea ice. However, in Russia, we see a 2 point improvement. 
 
 
 

content/global-scores/goal-scores/food-provision/mariculture.md

@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ The current score indicates that most regions are not sustainably producing as m
 Even though mariculture has been one of the fastest growing food sectors in the world over the past 20 years ([FAO 2020](https://www.fao.org/3/ca9229en/online/ca9229en.html)) global mariculture scores have only seen a slight increase since 2012. This is largely because many countries could sustainably produce much more aquaculture. Several countries are not producing aquaculture in a sustainable manner.
 
 
-Chile and Norway are two of the world's largest mariculture producers, however they both receive low Mariculture scores (a score of 17 for Chile, a score of 49 for Norway). Why is this the case? Both are large producers of salmon, which has a terrible sustainability score (~0.45) due to excess nutrient run-off from antibiotics and pesticides associated with marine net pen farming. The discrepancy between these two regions, despite having similar production, is due to production potential ([Gentry et al. 2017](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0257-9)). Norway has a much lower production potential than Chile, because Chile has a massive coastline with many bays and inlets perfect for mariculture farming. Norway exceeds its potential mariculture demand, while Chile does not, hence the higher score. For Norway to increase its score it will need to adopt more sustainable practices for its salmon production. Chile, however, should both increase production, and adopt more sustainable farming practices to increase their score.
+Chile and Norway are two of the world's largest mariculture producers, however they both receive low Mariculture scores (a score of 18 for Chile, a score of 49 for Norway). Why is this the case? Both are large producers of salmon, which has a terrible sustainability score (~0.45) due to excess nutrient run-off from antibiotics and pesticides associated with marine net pen farming. The discrepancy between these two regions, despite having similar production, is due to production potential ([Gentry et al. 2017](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0257-9)). Norway has a much lower production potential than Chile, because Chile has a massive coastline with many bays and inlets perfect for mariculture farming. Norway exceeds its potential mariculture demand, while Chile does not, hence the higher score. For Norway to increase its score it will need to adopt more sustainable practices for its salmon production. Chile, however, should both increase production, and adopt more sustainable farming practices to increase their score.
 
 ----
 

content/global-scores/goal-scores/food-provision/wild-caught-fisheries.md

@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ The current score indicates that most regions are significantly below their sust
 The global score has, on average, dropped nearly one fifthteenth of a point every year since 2012. This modest decline is due mainly to the decreasing sustainability of some fisheries, which means many stocks are being overfished. In fact, the [Global Fishing Index](https://www.minderoo.org/global-fishing-index/results/key-findings/) found that nearly half of assessed fish in 2018 were overfished. However, many stocks are not assessed which means we don't know how many stocks are doing.
 
 
-Over the past 10 years, there has been a slight decrease (~1%) in fish catch (2009/2010 vs. 2018/2019). However, the differences in catch are drastically different across regions, ranging from 200% more to 1% less, which can produce many different outcomes for fish stocks depending on the status of the stock (underfished, fully exploited, overfished). 119 of the 220 regions included in OHI have a fisheries score less than 50. Small island nations tend to have high scores, and Nauru is the highest scoring region for the fisheries subgoal in 2022.
+Over the past 10 years, there has been a slight decrease (~1%) in fish catch (2009/2010 vs. 2018/2019). However, the differences in catch are drastically different across regions, ranging from 200% more to 1% less, which can produce many different outcomes for fish stocks depending on the status of the stock (underfished, fully exploited, overfished). 119 of the 220 regions included in OHI have a fisheries score less than 50. Small island nations tend to have high scores, and Nauru is the highest scoring region (a score of 97) for the fisheries subgoal in 2023.
 
 The United States has seen a modest decrease in the fisheries score since 2015. This is because we are catching less sustainably harvested stocks while catching about the same amount of overfished stocks. Interestingly, a large proportion of catch in the United States comes from the Alaska Pollock (~26%), which is considered an underfished stock. However, OHI does not currently penalize regions for harvesting underfished stocks, so this does not harm the fisheries score for the United States.
 

content/global-scores/goal-scores/livelihoods-and-economies/_index.md

@@ -15,8 +15,7 @@ This goal measures jobs and revenue from sustainable marine-related industries.
 
 Sadly, the Livelihoods and Economies goal has not been meaningfully updated since the origin of the global Ocean Health Index in 2012. The datasets we used for this model were discontinued, and we have been unable to find good replacements.
 
-Please let us know if you have any good leads on data we could use to calculate this goal!
-
+We are working on updating this goal with current day data!
 
 ----
 

content/global-scores/goal-scores/natural-products.md

@@ -15,9 +15,11 @@ This goal assesses how well countries are maximizing the sustainable harvest of
 
 The current score indicates that many regions have potential to improve sustainable harvests of natural products, either by eliminating overharvesting, increasing harvests that are too low, or reducing the pressures that decrease potential harvests.
 
-Despite the relatively good global score, trends in Natural Products are decreasing. The global score has, on average, dropped one fifth of a point every year since 2012. This decline is likely due to the decreasing sustainability of forage fisheries, which largely drive the Natural Products scores due to the large amount of harvest compared to seaweeds and ornamental fish in many regions.
+Despite the relatively good global score, trends in Natural Products are decreasing. This decline is likely due to the decreasing sustainability of forage fisheries, which largely drive the Natural Products scores due to the large amount of harvest compared to seaweeds and ornamental fish in many regions.
 
-However, there are regions which aren't driven by forage fisheries and have increased their Natural Products score. For instance, both China and Indonesia lead the world in seaweed mariculture production (accounting for ~87% of seaweed production included in our assessment for 2020), increasing their production each year. Seaweed mariculture is also generally sustainable. Because of this both regions scores have improved greatly since 2012. Djibouti, for example, has seen a [marked increase](https://www.fao.org/3/cb9691en/cb9691en.pdf) in fish exports, particularly ornamental fish, in the late 2010s. This led to their natural products score increasing to a perfect score in 2022.
+However, there are regions which aren't driven by forage fisheries and have increased their Natural Products score. For instance, both China and Indonesia lead the world in seaweed mariculture production (accounting for ~87% of seaweed production included in our assessment for 2020), increasing their production each year. Seaweed mariculture is also generally sustainable. Because of this both regions scores have improved greatly since 2012.
+
+Within recent years we have seen a higher level of volatility in global scores as the lowest and highest goal scores have been recorded in the last three years. We believe this was due to the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on the industry and trade of natural products. Since the COVID shock the global score has rebounded and is now at its highest level on record.
 
 
 [Learn more about this goal]({{< ref "goals/natural-products.md" >}})