dngce D

iam

1988; Imperial et al., 2000), loopholes in legislation (e.g. a lack ofcoherence between sectoral policies (Sharma,1996)), etc. It becamean urgent need to develop indicators to assess the performance ofthe numerous ICM efforts developed at all levels around the world(Olsen et al., 1999; UNESCO, 2003).

nal Programme toICM experience inle up the ICM pro-coastal cities are

of the principle ofrs to monitor andthese cities couldmeworks, but alson China.evaluation and its

indicators, year 2002e2003 could be considered as the years ofICM indicators, in which the international workshop on The Roleof Indicators in Integrated Coastal Managementwere held in 2002.The workshop reviewed the use of the indicators and special issue46 of the Ocean & Coastal Management Journal on the role of in-dicators in ICMwas published in 2003 (Belore, 2003), whichmadesignicant steps forward. After 2003, it's the stage of indicatorsapplications at different levels and scales (NOAA, 2004; Shi et al.,2004; Breton et al., 2006; Chua, 2006 Schernewski et al., 2006;

* Corresponding author.

Contents lists availab

Ocean & Coastal

sev

Ocean & Coastal Management 96 (2014) 112e122E-mail address: a0066323@nus.edu.sg (G. Ye).management approach for coastal governance to address theenvironmental and developmental challenges in a holistic way, hasbeen initiated in over 100 nations (Sorensen, 2002; UNESCO, 2003).With almost 700 ICM initiatives recorded during the 1990s(Belore, 2003), only a limited number of ICM initiatives werecompleted, sustained or considered successful. A number of ICMinitiatives failed to enter the implementation stage or continued torun a new cycle due to a synthesis of root causes, such as a lack ofexternal funds to carry out the projects (Pomeroy and Carlos, 1997;White and Salamanca, 2002), institutional disagreement (Archer,

ternational Maritime Organization (IMO) Regioadopt an ICM framework in 1994. The successfulXiamen encouraged Chinese government to scagrammes along China's coast. To date, over tenusing ICM approaches in various ways in lightsustainable coastal development. Using indicatomeasure the progress and effectiveness of ICM innot only help to adjust and improve the ICM frahelp to promote the process of ICM expansion i

Over the past decades of developments in ICMIntegrated Coastal Management (ICM), a world-recognizedwas selected as a demonstration site of the Global EnvironmentalFacility (GEF)/United Nations Development Program (UNDP)/In-1. Introductionhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.05.0100964-5691/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.proper methods of evaluating the ICM performance are still lacking. An evaluation method based onassessment of indicators is suggested and applied to Quanzhou in this study. 32 indicators adapted toChina's coastal cities are developed, and the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) method is employed asthe weighting method to synthesize the evaluation results. Key ICM performance indicators are iden-tied and specic suggestions are proposed based on the evaluation results, which would be useful forfuture decision-making in the ICM governance. The correlations between ICM governance, coastalenvironmental and socioeconomic sustainability are analyzed using the Drive force-Pressure-Status-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model. The evaluation indicators and methodologies could be applied toother coastal cities for promoting the progress of ICM towards the goal of sustainability.

2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Early ICM programmes in Chinawere initiated in Xiamen, whichAvailable online 6 June 2014 China. Using indicators to monitor and measure the progress and effectiveness of ICM implementation isa key step towards adaptive management of the ICM process in the long-term perspective. However,Article history: The Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) framework has been increasingly adopted in coastal cities ofEvaluating the performance of IntegrateQuanzhou, Fujian, China

Guanqiong Ye a, *, Loke Ming Chou a, Lu Yang b, Shea Reef Ecology Laboratory, Department of Biological Sciences, Block S2, #02-05, 14 ScienSingaporeb Department of Oceanography, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361005, PR Chinac The Third Institute of Oceanography State Oceanic Administration, Daxue Road 178, X

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

journal homepage: www.elCoastal Management in

yun Yang b, Jianguo Du c

rive 4, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117543,

en 361005, PR China

le at ScienceDirect

Management

ier .com/locate/ocecoaman

Bille, 2007; Mcfadden et al., 2008; The Provincial Government ofBatangas, 2008; Ernoul, 2010; Gallagher, 2010; PEMSEA, 2011;Tabet and Fanning, 2012; Fletcher et al., 2013). After decades ofefforts, the indicators used in the evaluation of ICM could becategorized into 3 types with different purposes: (1) assessing theprogress of ICM initiatives, mostly within an ICM cycle (Burbridge,1997; Olsen, 2003; Gallagher, 2010) (2) measuring the outcomes/impacts of ICM projects, focusing on environmental and socialeconomic benets towards sustainability (Hanson, 2003; Kabutaand Laane, 2003; Linton and Warner, 2003; Bowen and Riley,2003; Mcfadden et al., 2008; Tabet and Fanning, 2012); (3)measuring the performance of ICM integrating the process andoutcome indicators. This type of indicators are morewidely appliedin coastal regions as measuring the progress or outcomes alonewillnot sufciently be indicative of how successful ICM is in managingthe sustainable use of coastal resources. Several guidelines havebeen published for developing this type of indicators. For example,International Oceanographic Commission (IOC) published a hand-book for measuring the progress and outcomes of ICM by using 37indicators in terms of governance, ecology and socio-economy(Heileman, 2006). Partnerships in Environmental Managementfor the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA) published a guidebook for localgovernments measuring ICM in the East Asian Seas Region byproposing 160 indicators in terms of governance elements andsustainable development aspects (PEMSEA, 2011). A number ofpractical performance evaluations have been carried out at national

and local scales (Breton et al., 2006; Schernewski et al., 2006;NOAA, 2004; Heileman, 2006; The Provincial Government ofBatangas, 2008). However, there are still no widely acceptedmethodologies or common criterions for assessing ICM perfor-mances due to the complexity and heterogeneity of assigned ICMprogrammes in different regions (Bille, 2007; Gallagher, 2010). Howto make indicators adaptive to local environments and manage-ment schemes remains an issue. In addition, the linkages and in-terdependencies of socio-economic, governance and coastalenvironmental dynamics have been rarely analyzed thoroughevaluation. To ll theses gaps, the IOC's evaluation framework thatcovers governance, ecological and socio-economic aspects isapplied to develop indicators for an integrated evaluation of ICMperformance in China's coastal cities. 32 indicators are selectedbased on the reviews of three types of evaluations and adapted tothe current situation of ICM implementation in China's coastalcities. Quanzhou (Fig. 1), one typical ICM city in China is chosen fora case study to apply the indicators to evaluate its progress from2004 to 2010. Based on the evaluation results, the effectiveness ofICM programmes are assessed; general trends in the environmentaland social economic conditions of the area are identied. Driveforce-Pressure-Status-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model is alsoused to gure out the effects of ICM governance in environmentalproblem solving. Based on the evaluation results in the case study,key performance indicators are selected for the improvements ofthe efciency in long-term monitoring and evaluation; specic

11

G. Ye et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 96 (2014) 112e122 113Fig. 1. Sketch map of study area-Quanzhou municipality( 24300N25560 N, 117250E

Jiangjiang, Shishi, Nanan, and 4 counties of Huian, Anxi, Yongchun, Dehua, covering a totalsouth to Weitou Bay, with a coastline of 427 km, covering a total sea area of 11 360 km2.9050E). Terrestrial boundary: includes Quanzhou downtown, 3 county-level cities of2area of 10 866 km . Territorial sea area boundary: stretches north to Meizhou Bay, and

suggestions are proposed for Quanzhou to facilitate the adaptivemanagement in response to changing conditions in the future. Themethodologies and the case study presented in this paper couldprovide important implications for researches on the ICM perfor-mance evaluation, which is imperatively important for the pro-motion of the ICM progress in coastal regions in an effective way.

2. Material and methods

2.1. An indicator framework for ICM performance evaluation

To measure the ICM performance in a certain period at aregional level in China's coastal cities, the IOC's framework(Heileman, 2006) was adopted to build up an adapted indicatorframework for this study. This framework consists of 3 main ele-ments (3 main goals of coastal sustainably) in ICM: sustainablegovernance, coastal environment sustainability and socioeconomicdevelopment. In the light of the 3 main elements, 10 sub-elementswere identied for selection of proper indicators. Through anextensive literature review of indicators used in coastal manage-ment, 32 specic indicators adapted to China's coast were selected,which could reect the degree to which these 3 goals (3 main el-ements) have been achieved. The ICM performance measurementindicators are listed in Table 1.

2.2. Study site-Quanzhou

Quanzhou (Fig. 1) is located in the southeast coast of China,bordering the Taiwan Strait to the east. It is one of most densely

wastewater discharge and coastal habitats loss caused by extensivereclamation activities. The previous environmental managementframework could not solve these problems due to series of man-agement loopholes. They were a lack of integrated planning, con-icts between different agencies, weak capacity for pollutioncontrol and treatment, inadequate legal systems for regulationenforcement, and lacking of sufcient coastal database for man-agement. To address these problems and promote sustainablecoastal development, the municipal government joined the GEF/UNDP/UNOPS-PEMSEAs ICM Scaling up Programme in 2005,acting as an ICM parallel site to implement ICM programmes. Themunicipal then started turning to reform the management mech-anism of coastal management. Prioritized concerns included in-dustrial pollution, changes in hydrodynamic condition of coastalwaters due to marine reclamation and port construction, over-exploitation of marine resources, illegal sandmining, and red-tides.To solve these concerns, three ICM steering committees on oceandevelopment and management, offshore wastewater integratedtreatment as well as coastal resource and environment protectionwere formally established at the municipal level, dominating theICM coordination mechanism in Quanzhou (Fig. 2). The local gov-ernment has also enacted series of coastal programmes on sea usemanagement, environmental protection, resource management,ecological planning and risk management (Fig. 3). Until 2010, theICM had been implemented in Quanzhou for 6 years. Evaluation ofits progress would be essential to review the ICM performance inthe past and to adapt the ICM framework in the future.

2.3. Methods

stn memegulaationd tity bre ars inof goernmundter qimelogictonn diersersitsdenncomtGDPn Prurcopmvelocoaeatmof t

G. Ye et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 96 (2014) 112e122114populated areas with nearly 8 million people, and it is also a mostdeveloped coastal city contributes the largest portion of GDP inFujian province. With rapid economic expansion, it has been facingsevere coastal environmental problems, such as coastal waterpollution caused by large amounts of domestic and industrial

Table 1ICM performance measurement indicators.

Main elements Sub-elements Indicators

Governance ICM Mechanism (G1) General ICM(G2) Coordinatio(G3) Law enforc

Planning, implementation,and monitoring

(G4) Policies, re(G5) Implement

Capacity Building (G6) Scientic a(G7) Staff capac(G8) Infrastructu

Public involvement (G9) Stakeholde(G10) Publicity

Financing (G11) Local gov(G12) External f

CoastalEnvironment

Quality (E1) Coastal wa(E2) Marine sed(E3) Marine bio

Biodiversity (E4) Phytoplank(E5) Zooplankto(E6) Benthos div(E7) Habitat div(E8) Key habitat

Social EconomicCondition

Social cohesion (S1) Population(S2) Per capita i(S3) Employmen

Economic developmentand resource utilization

(S4) Per capital(S5) Gross Ocea(S6) Fishery reso(S7) Ports devel(S8) Tourism de

Public safety andenvironmental protection

(S9) Marine and(S10) Sewage tr(S11) Discharge

(S12) Environmenta2.3.1. Time scaleICM programme was initiated in Quanzhou in 2005, the year

2004 was therefore chosen as a reference year, and the progress ofICM performance was measured from year 2004 to year 2010.

References

rategy (Heileman, 2006; PEMSEA, 2011;Breton et al., 2006; Hanson, 2003;Ehler, 2003; Ernoul, 2010)

echanismnt mechanismtions and projects enabling ICMn and monitoring of ICM initiativesechnical supportuildingnd facilities allocationvolvementvernment informationent budget allocation for ICMinguality (Rice, 2003; Chua, 2006;

Heileman, 2006; NOAA, 2004)nt qualityal qualitydiversityversityityy

sity (Bowen and Riley, 2003;Shi et al., 2004;Mcfadden et al., 2008)

e

oductes exploitationentpmentstal hazardsentotal pollutant into sea

l funding

Management 96 (2014) 112e122 115G. Ye et al. / Ocean & Coastal2.3.2. Data collectionAll the data were collected through several eld studies in

Quanzhou. The governance data and environmental data weremainly provided by the municipal government and the QuanzhouOceanic and Fishery Administration; social economic data weremainly provided by the Quanzhou Statistics Bureau.

2.3.3. Selection of quantied indicators and criterionsGovernance indicators (G1-G12) were scored as 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75

and 1 (Table 2) basing on the reviews of government documentsand interviews with scientists and administrators who were maininitiators and participants involved in the ICM programme inQuanzhou. They were 4 scientists from the Third Institute ofOceanography and Xiamen University, 4 governors from Quanzhou

Fig. 2. The ICM coordination m

Fig. 3. The ICM legal framOceanic and Fishery Administration, and 2 administrators fromQuanzhou Mangrove Reserve.

Coastal environment indicators (E1-E8) and socio-economicindicators (S1eS12) were quantied using available quantieddata.

echanism in Quanzhou.

ework in Quanzhou.

Table 2Scoring criterion for governance performance.

Score Criterion

0 The indicator was not identied, present, or recognized0.25 The indicator was present, but the performance is weak0.5 The indicator was present, and the performance is fair0.75 The indicator was present, and the performance is good1 The indicator was present, and the performance is excellent

2.3.4. Data standardizationIf the indicator has a positive correlation with sustainability,

keep the original value. If the indicator has a negative correlationwith sustainability, e.g. S8 Marine and coastal hazards and S11Discharge of total pollutant into sea, the data were applied areciprocal transformation. All the data were then standardized byusing Z score transformation in SPSS 16.0.

2.3.5. Weighting methodPrincipal component analysis (PCA) was used to eliminate the

possibility of overlapping information in basic indicators to extractkey information from the calculation of three main elements-Sustainable Governance Index (GI), Coastal Environment Sustain-ability Index (EI) and Socio-economic Development Index (SI) aswell as the general ICM Performance Index (IPI). The contributionrates of the principal components for each indicator obtained bythe PCA analysis were the weights of the indicators.

Calculation of GI, EI, SI and IPI The numerical results of GI, EI,and SI were calculated by the following equation:

Im Xn

i1PiWi (1)

In Eq. (1), Im represents GI, EI, SI separately; n represents thenumber of principal components, Pi is the standardized score ofeach indicator,Wi is theweight of each indicator represented by theprincipal component contribution rate. The nal IPI was theaverage value of GI, EI and SI, where the weights of three indexeswere considered evenly as 1/3.

2.3.6. Analysis of DPSIR modelTo further understanding the effectiveness and challenges of

ICM governance in environmental problem solving and sustain-ability promotion, the Drive force-Pressure-Status-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model was employed. All the ICM performanceindicators were re-categorized into these ve domains e D, P, S, Iand R. To obtain the nal numerical results of D, P, S, I and R, in-dicators under the same domain were re-processed using the samemethods for the GI, EI, SI described in this section. The standardizedscore of each indicator would be the same. But the weight of eachindicator would be different as the indicators were in differentgroupings when applying the DPSIR model.

3. Results

GI: The evaluation results and nal scores of the governanceindicators in each year were listed in Table 3 and Table 4. G12showed no variance within the 7 years, it was therefore eliminatedfrom Z score transformation and PCA analysis. The results of GI inQuanzhou showed in Fig. 4 (a) and the variations of 12 governanceindicators with evaluation scores (before standardization) in 2004and 2010 were showed in Fig. 5 (a). It would not be necessary to usethe standardized scores (which were used for EI and SI) forgovernance indicators to show the changes of performances as theevaluation scores were already in the same dimension from 0 to 1,and the evaluation scores could reveal the changes more intuitiveby their denitions in Table 2.

EI: All the quantied data of environmental indicators wereprovided in Table 5. E2, E3 and E7 showed no variance among 7

Table 3Detailed evaluation results of Quanzhou ICM governance.

04e

plarmurineinginvoeamaw eprone Fmanllutits os onitod th inn ofn esMtors took ICM training courses, the performance was weakinie watorrmawithholdolvinf

ans,eop

l macreaechillio

G. Ye et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 96 (2014) 112e122116Indicators Performance evaluation (20

(G1) General ICM strategy 2004e2008, no general ICM2009e2010, an ICM plan fo

(G2) Coordination mechanism 2004e2005,there was a ma2006e2010, three ICM steer

(G3) Law enforcement mechanism 2004e2005, multi agencies2006e2008, an integrated t2009e2010, an integrated l

(G4) Policies, regulations andprojects enabling ICM

2004e2005, only one major2006e2010,Quanzhou Marilaunched as well, the perfor

(G5) Implementation andmonitoring of ICM initiatives

2004e2005, only coastal po2006, more than 300 projec2007e2010, several projectwere implemented, the mon

(G6) Scientic and technical support 2004e2005, the scientic an2006e2009, several researcinternational communicatio2010, a research workstatio

(G7) Staff capacity building 2004, no staff be aware of IC2004e2008, few administra2009e2010, most of the adm

(G8) Infrastructure and facilities allocation 2004e2005, the performanc2006e2008, advanced laborsystem was setup, the perfo2009e2010, an ICM center

(G9) Stakeholders involvement 2004e2005, very few stake2006e2010, stakeholder inv

(G10) Publicity of government information 2004e2007, only part of the2008e2010, government plby law < Regulation of the Pthe performance was fair

(G11) Local government budgetallocation for ICM

2004, the budget for coasta2005, the budget for ICM in2006e2010, the nancial mmanagement, more than 1 b(G12) External funding 2004e2010, no external fundinstrators started to know ICM, the performance was fairas weakies were setup, more monitoring sites were installed, and a decision makingnce was fairan entire set of facilities was setup, the performance was gooders involved in decision making process, the performance was weakement was enhanced by the hearing system, the performance was fairormation was publicized on ofcial websites, the performance was weakpolicies, decisions, and other information were publicized on ofcial websitesle's Republic of China on the Disclosure of Government Information>,

nagement was low, the performance was weaksed, the performance was fairanism for ICM was setup, the sea area use revenue has been invested into coastaln RMB was allocated for ICM each year, the performance was good2010)

nlated, the overall performance was fairdevelopment and management team, but the performance was poorcommittees set up, the performance was fairlved in law enforcement, the performance was poorof marine and shery law enforcement established, the performance was fairnforcement mechanism formulated, the performance was goodject on coastal pollution treatment, the performance was poorunction Zoning was enforced, several integrated regulations and projects werece was fairon treatment projects were implemented, the performance was poorn pollution treatment implemented, the performance was fairmangrove restoration, shery conservation, and coastal ecosystem restorationring work was enhanced, the performance was goodechnical support was weakstitutes and universities involved to provide scientic support, national andICM experiences, the performance was fairtablished, the performance was enhanced to be goodg supported

Table 4Evaluation results of governance indicators (GI) in Quanzhou (2004e2010).

GI 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

G1 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5G2 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5G3 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.75G4 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5G5 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75G6 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.75G7 0 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5G8 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.75 0.75G9 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5G10 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.5G11 0.25 0.5 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75G12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fig. 4. (a) Variations of Quanzhou Governance Index (GI) from 2004 to 2010. (b)Variations of Quanzhou Environmental Index (EI) from 2004 to 2010. (c) Variations ofQuanzhou Social-economic Index (SI) from 2004 to 2010. (d) Variations of Quanzhougeneral ICM Performance Index (IPI) from 2004 to 2010.

G. Ye et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 96 (2014) 112e122 117years, they were therefore eliminated during Z score trans-formation and PCA analysis. The nal results of EI were presented inFig. 4 (b). The variations of 5 environmental indicators with stan-dardized values in 2004 and 2010 were showed in Fig. 5 (b). E2Marine sediment quality, E3 Marine biological quality, and E7Habitat diversity that showed no variations were not displayed inthe gure.

SI: All the quantied data of socioeconomic indicators wereprovided in Table 5.The standardized score and contrition rate ofeach indicator were presented in Table 6. The nal results of SI werepresented in Fig. 4 (c) and the variations of 12 social economic in-dicators with standardized values in 2004 and 2010 were showedin Fig. 5 (c).

IPI: The nal measurement results of IPI were showed in Fig. 4(d)

DPSIR: According to the denitions of Driving force, Pressures,state, Impacts and Responses, eight indicators of SI were re-categorized into Drivers/Pressures domain, six indicators of EIwere re-grouped into State domain, four indicators of SI and twoindicators of EI were in Impacts domain, and all the indicators of

Fig. 5. (a) Variations of Quanzhou governance indicators in 2004 and 2010. (b) Vari-ations of Quanzhou environmental indicators in 2004 and 2010. (c) Variations ofQuanzhou Social economic indicators in 2004 and 2010.

Table 5Quantied indicators and actual vales of coastal environment and socioeconomic indicators (EI & SI) in Quanzhou (2004e2010).

Indicators Quantied indicators Actual values

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

E1 Coastal water quality Compliance rate with the sea waterquality objectivesa (%)

40 50 50 55.6 70.8 75 75

E2 Marine sediment quality Compliance rate with the sedimentquality objectivesa (%)

80 80 80 80 80 80 80

E3 Marine biological quality Compliance rate with the biologicalquality objectivesa (%)

80 80 80 80 80 80 80

E4 Phytoplankton diversity Species number (ind) 66 96 110 232 234 283 272E5 Zooplankton diversity Species number (ind) 133 114 130 193 246 195 225E6 Benthos diversity Species number (ind) 135 54 135 180 74 213 157E7 Habitat diversity Number of habitat type (ind) 9 9 9 9 9 9 9E8 Key habitats The area of mangroves (hm2) 290 290 297 320 345 431 500S1 Population density Population densityind./km2 695.7 701.3 707.7 712.3 716.9 723.4 748.2S2 Per capita income Per capita income for the residents (RMB) 12 699 14 209 15 972 18 097 20 420 22 913 25 155S3 Employment Employment rate (%) 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.25 0.27 0.29 0.3S4 Per capital GDP Per Capita GDP(RMB) 18 636 21 427 24 815 29 601 34 840 38 197 43 900S5 Gross Ocean Product Gross Ocean Production (Billion yuan) 27.47 32.15 36.70 43.62 49.75 56.90 65.53S6 Fishery resources

exploitationMarine Fish Production(Tonnes) 95.32 93.95 94.06 95.02 96.08 96.38 97.51

S7 Ports development Port Cargo Throughput (million tonnes) 30.94 40.46 51.35 62.15 72.24 76.66 84.55S8 Tourism development Tourist population (million people) 9.85 11.97 14.48 17.03 21.63 19.46 24.44S9 Marine and coastal hazards Economic losses from marine hazard

(billion yuan)1.69 13.88 5.13 0.46 0.9 0.12 4.47

S10 Sewage treatment Ratio of sewage disposal to sewagedischarge (%)

40.7 70 76.8 83 85.01 85.2 80.3

S11 Discharge of totalpollutant into sea

Discharge of total pollutant into sea(tonnes)

26.22 20.52 28.75 5.6 4.85 4.01 5.66

S12 Environmental funding Ratio of Environmental investmentto GDP (%)

1.95 1.97 1.98 2.03 2.05 2.06 2.1

a Water quality, sediment quality and biological quality are dened by National Standard 3 097-1997 Criteria of Seawater Quality of the P.R.C.. Issued by State Bureau ofEnvironmental Protection, 2002.Source: data of E1-E8, S11, S12 were provided by Quanzhou Oceanic and Fishery Administration; data of S1eS10 were from Quanzhou Statistics Bureau, 2004e2010 AnnualReport on the Economic and Social Development in Quanzhou.

Table 6The standardized score and contrition rate (W) of the indicators (2004e2010).

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 W

G1 0.5855 0.5855 0.5855 0.5855 0.5855 1.4639 1.4639 0.3981G2 1.4639 1.4639 0.5855 0.5855 0.5855 0.5855 0.5855 0.7267G3 1.2247 1.2247 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.2247 1.2247 0.6722G4 1.4639 1.4639 0.5855 0.5855 0.5855 0.5855 0.5855 0.7267G5 1.3517 1.3517 0.3004 0.7509 0.7509 0.7509 0.7509 0.7049G6 0.5855 0.5855 0.4392 0.4392 0.4392 1.6102 1.4639 0.3322G7 1.6562 0.2070 0.2070 0.2070 0.2070 1.2421 1.2421 0.5625G8 1.2247 1.2247 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.2247 1.2247 0.6722G9 1.4639 1.4639 0.5855 0.5855 0.5855 0.5855 0.5855 0.7267G10 0.8018 0.8018 0.8018 0.8018 1.0690 1.0690 1.0690 0.4866G11 1.9973 0.7263 0.5447 0.5447 0.5447 0.5447 0.5447 0.6970E1 1.3870 0.6752 0.6752 0.2766 0.8054 1.1043 1.1043 0.7029E4 1.3071 0.9768 0.8227 0.5207 0.5427 1.0822 0.9611 0.7223E5 0.8502 1.2210 0.9088 0.3206 1.3548 0.3596 0.9450 0.6488E6 0.0076 1.4519 0.0076 0.7947 1.0953 1.3831 0.3846 0.3941E8 0.7759 0.7759 0.6901 0.4081 0.1016 0.9528 1.7987 0.6659S1 1.1193 0.7957 0.4259 0.1601 0.1057 0.4812 1.9142 0.8515S2 1.2645 0.9350 0.5504 0.0868 0.4200 0.9638 1.4529 0.8474S3 1.4044 0.9675 0.5306 0.1248 0.5618 0.9987 1.2172 0.8580S4 1.2506 0.9488 0.5825 0.0650 0.5015 0.8644 1.4811 0.8436S5 1.2487 0.9073 0.5754 0.0707 0.3765 0.8980 1.5275 0.8528S6 0.1202 1.1875 1.1018 0.3539 0.4719 0.7056 1.5860 0.3670S7 1.4610 0.9785 0.4265 0.1209 0.6324 0.8564 1.2563 0.8824S8 1.3571 0.9536 0.4758 0.0095 0.8851 0.4720 1.4199 0.8654S9 0.4361 2.0750 0.2725 0.6895 0.5989 0.7596 0.1366 0.3318S10 2.1341 0.2803 0.1500 0.5422 0.6694 0.6814 0.3714 1.0171S11 1.1371 0.6211 1.3661 0.7295 0.7974 0.8734 0.7240 0.6708S12 1.2780 0.9129 0.7303 0.1826 0.5477 0.7303 1.4606 0.8444

G. Ye et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 96 (2014) 112e122118

GI were in Responses domain (Fig. 6). The numerical results of D/P, S, I and R from 2004 to 2010 were showed in Fig. 7.

4. Discussions

The IPI in Quanzhou showed that the ICM performanceimproved gradually from 2004 to 2010 (Fig. 4 (d)). The averageannual growth rate of IPI was 36.7%. It could be seen that the IPIincreased slightly faster during the initial period (2005e2007) ofthe ICM implementation than the later period, which indicated thatthe initial ICM programmes implemented in Quanzhou had pro-moted the sustainable development more effectively. The uprisingtrend inferred that the ICM performance was able to achieve thegoal of sustainable development through long-term implementa-tion. The overall positive result proved that the ICM in Quanzhoucould be considered as a success as many ICM initiatives in Chinaand in other countries (PEMSEA, 2011; Tabet and Fanning, 2012; Yeet al., 2013). It furthermore showed a clear changing trend that

the water quality were effective, while the benthic environmentcontinued to be deteriorated. Many case studies also showed thatthe restoration of benthic environment usually needed more time

G. Ye et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 96 (2014) 112e122 119many practical studies did not.

4.1. Governance performance

The governance performance index (GI) in Quanzhou improvedsignicantly from 2004 to 2010 with an average annual growth rateof 38.3% (Fig. 4 (a)). It showed that the GI increased sharply from2004 to 2006, and tended to increase much slower afterwards. Itcould be seen that the performance of governance indicators wereall improved except G12 external funding, seeing that no externalfunds had been invested in the programmes so far (Fig. 5 (a)). Thisresult, a lack of external funds from private companies or non-government organizations, was also an issue for the whole coun-try (Liu et al., 2012). The performance scores of 5 indicatorsincluding law enforcement mechanism, implementation andmonitoring, scientic and technical support etc. all reached agood level in 2010, while other 6 indicators such as coordinationmechanism, stakeholder involvement were still in a fair level(Table 4, Fig. 5 (a)). Stakeholder involvement was often the keyfactor determining the success of ICM in many cases of othercountries (Archer, 1988; Ernoul, 2010; Imperial et al., 2000). InChina, because of its top down administrative approach, the per-formance of this factor has been often weak and was not alwaysthe key of the success (Liu et al., 2012). It however cannot beneglected as it is one of the key principal of ICM (Cicin-Sain et al.,1998). In general, the municipal government made great effortsto ICM governance capacity building in the initial stage of the ICMFig. 6. DPSIR model for ICM performanprogrammes. However, it was also suggested that the improvementof governance performance from a fair level to a good orexcellent level seemsmore difcult than the improvement from aweak level to a fair level, which may require continual efforts tobe inputted to improve the performance.

4.2. Coastal environment performance

The coastal environment index (EI) also improved from 2004 to2010 with an average annual growth rate of 33.5% (Fig. 4 (b)).Although the general trend was upward, there was a uctuationthat EI in 2005 was worse than that in 2004 mainly due to thedeclining performance of E6 benthos diversity as the speciesnumber of benthic animals decreased from 2004 to 2005. Threeenvironmental quality indicators (E2 Marine sediment quality, E3Marine biological quality, E7 Habitat diversity) were invariableduring 2004e2010 with good statuses. Other 5 indicators' perfor-mance scores all increased from 2004 to 2010 (Fig. 5 (b)), amongwhich, the overall growth rate of E2 (coastal water quality) was thehighest while the E6 (benthos diversity) was the lowest, indicatingthat the ICM projects on pollution reduction and control to improve

Fig. 7. Stacked line chart of DPSIR index from 2004 to 2010.ce analysis in China's coastal cites.

and efforts than the up layer water environment (Heileman, 2006;PEMSEA, 2011; NOAA, 2004).

4.3. Social-economic performance

The social-economic development index (SI) of Quanzhouincreased steadily from 2004 to 2010 with an annual growth rate of37% (Fig. 4 (c)). The performance score of indicators under socialcohesion and economic development and resource utilization sub-elements all improved obviously, except the indicator of marineand coastal hazards (Fig. 5(c)), of which the performance scoreuctuated in different years. It was because of that the frequencyand intensity of coastal and marine disasters varied in differentyears. In 2005, typhoons and storm surges hit 11 prefectures inQuanzhou, destroying 2 127 houses and 17.506 km2 coastal aqua-

hazards (indicator S9) have been stated in the results part. Ingeneral, although the improved status of coastal environment andsocial/environmental impacts had proved the effectiveness of ICMgovernance to some extent, the increase of driving forces/pressuresfrom rapid economic development and intense coastal resourcesutilization as well as coastal natural hazards still called forcontinuous ICM efforts to improve the overall eco-efciency in thefuture.

4.5. Key performance indicators

Not all the indicators are effective to reveal current performancegaps and provide indications of progress towards fullling the gaps.Careful identication of key performance indicators (KPIs) is criticalfor maintaining the functioning of ICM. KPI has beenwidely appliedin projects evaluation and management (Chan and Chan, 2004;Parmenter, 2010). The identication of KPIs could be completedby being satised with the following 3 criteria based on the eval-uation results.

1. The variation between different years of the indicator is higher,which means the indicator is sensitive to the changingconditions.

2. The performance of the indicators is relative weaker, which

G. Ye et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 96 (2014) 112e122120culture areas. The economic loss caused by the coastal hazards inthis year was at peak, which was about 1.39 billion RMB. Thevolatility of this indicator suggested that marine and coastal haz-ards management would remain to be a major challenge for coastaldevelopment (Chua, 2006).

4.4. DPSIR model for ICM performance analysis

Within the DPSIRmodel, the Drivers and Pressures cause thechanges of environmental Status; the Impacts result fromenvironmental changes and socio-economic development, as wellas the institutional Responses to these changes (Smeets et al.,1999; Bowen and Riley, 2003). In Quanzhou case study, the in-dexes of D, P, S, I, R all increased from 2004 to 2010 (Fig. 7). TheResponse index had the highest annual growth rate while Divers/Pressures index had the lowest annual growth rate. It could beinferred that with a rapid increase of the Response index, the Im-pacts and State index increased with lower growth rates, demon-strating the effectiveness of the Responses. The status of coastalenvironment had been improved and better social and environ-mental impacts had been perceived. However, the Divers/Pressuresindex still increased. To further analyze the trend of driving forcesand pressures in Quanzhou, ve main divers/pressures wereanalyzed (Fig. 8). It could be seen that sub-indexes of population,economic development and coastal resource utilization allincreased from 2004 to 2010, while sub-indexes of wastewateremission and natural hazard showed uctuations among differentyears. The sub-index wastewater emission decreased dramaticallyfrom 2005 to 2007, indicating that the responses of wastewatercontrol and reduction in the initial period of ICMwere effective. Butit then increased much slowly from 2007 to 2010, indicating thatthe responses may not be sufcient to manage the pressures fromwastewater discharge. The reasons of the uctuation of naturalFig. 8. Variations of multi-driving forces/pressures in Quanzhou from 2004 to 2010.needs to be strengthened in the future.3. The contribution rate of the indicator dened by PCA is either

higher or lower than others under the same sub-element, whichmeans the data either shows high statistical homogeneity orhigh heterogeneity.

In the case study of Quanzhou, nineteen KPIs were selected(Table 7) that could be used to simplify the original indicatorframework, and to enhance the efciency of monitoring and mea-surement in ICM performance.

4.6. Problems and suggestions for ICM in Quanzhou

Based on the ICM performance evaluation results and DPSIRanalysis results, the major achievements of ICM in Quanzhou, as

Table 7Identied key performance indicators (KPI) for Quanzhou ICM performanceevaluation.

Main elements Indicators Attributes

Governance (G1) General ICM strategy Weak performance(G2) Coordination mechanism Weak performance(G4) Policies, regulations andprojects enabling ICM

Weak performance

(G7) Staff capacity building Weak performance(G9) Stakeholders involvement Weak performance(G10) Publicity of governmentinformation

Weak performance

(G12) External funding Weak performanceCoastal

Environment(E1) Coastal water quality High variation(E4) Phytoplankton diversity High contribution rate(E5) Zooplankton diversity High variation(E6) Benthos diversity Weak performance,

low contribution rate(E8) Key habitats High variation

Social EconomicCondition

(S3) Total employment High contribution rate(S4) Per capital GDP High contribution rate(S7) Ports development High contribution rate(S9) Marine and coastalhazards

Weak performance,high variation, lowcontribution rate

(S10) Sewage treatment High variation(S11) Discharge of total High variation, low

pollutant into sea contribution rate

Qua

inin

adapevelg of

bent

popsiveopind m

Manwell as the remaining issues could be concluded; and several sug-gestions are provided for future ICM planning (Table 8). In addition,the ICM initiatives in Quanzhou had been implemented for 6 yearsby year 2010, and the ICM governance capacity had been built up,but the progress of ICM performance tended to be much slower. Itmay be the time to run a new cycle of ICM with a more adaptiveframework in the next 6e7 years according to the experience inother regions (Sorensen, 2002; Chua, 2006).

5. Conclusions

This study has proved that the proposed methodologies areeffective and operational to assess the progress of ICM perfor-mance. The use of the integrated performance indicators and thequantied methodologies could clearly reveal the trends of coastalgovernance progress as well as the environmental and social-economic conditions of the study area. The gaps in the progressof ICM towards coastal sustainability could also be identied by theanalysis of specic indicators. The selection of proper indicators is akey step to output a reliable result. Identication of key perfor-mance indicators (KPIs) could be an effective approach to facilitatethe monitoring efciency of ICM progress. The relationships be-tween ICM governance, coastal environment changes and socialeconomic development could be analyzed using the DPSIR model.However, the selection of indicators is subjected to the availabledata in coastal regions. With the development of environmental

Table 8Generalization of major achievements, remaining issues and suggestions for ICM in

Goals Major achievements Rema

Effective ICMGovernance

Formulation of the ICM mechanism as well aspolicies, regulations and projects promotedeffective implementation and enforcementof ICM programmes; strong capacity buildingand sufcient internal funds sustained the ICMprogrammes

Poorlow-llackin

Health coastalenvironment

Water quality improved dramatically Poor

Social economicsustainability

Rapid economic development; rising ofenvironmental funds

Rapidintendevelhazar

G. Ye et al. / Ocean & Coastalmonitoring technologies, more indicators such as the biodiversityindicators and marine spatial indicators could be incorporated tobetter represent the changing conditions related to ICMperformance.

Along with the long-term monitoring on ICM performance inthe future, more research efforts could focus on establishing theindependences between the inputs of government interventionsand the outcomes of coastal development, so as to build up aforecasting model to provide the decision makers with indicationsfor adaptive management.

Acknowledgment

Sincerely thanks to the reviewers for their very useful com-ments on this paper.

We would like to thank Zhou Qiulin, Chen Bin from The ThirdInstitute of Oceanography, Chen Mingru and Xiao Jiamei fromXiamen University, Huang Xianliang, Wu Shouji, Chen Zhiyuanfrom Quanzhou Oceanic and Fishery Administration, Chen Ruohaiand Ji Jianfeng from Quanzhou Mangrove reserve for all the greatsupports on data collection process. Special thanks to ProfessorZhou Qiulin from for providing discussions and comments, whichsignicantly improved an earlier draft of the manuscript.

References

Archer, J.H., 1988. Coastal management in the United States: a selective review andsummary. International Coastal Resources Management Project. Coastal Re-sources Center, the University of Rhode Island, p. 24.

Belore, S., 2003. The growth of integrated coastal management and the role ofindicators in integrated coastal management: introduction to the special issue.Ocean. Coast. Manag. 46 (3e4), 225e234.

Bille, R., 2007. A dual-level framework for evaluating integrated coastal manage-ment beyond labels. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 50 (10), 796e807.

Bowen, R.E., Riley, C., 2003. Socio-economic indicators and integrated coastalmanagement. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 46 (3e4), 299e312.

Breton, F., Gilbert, C., Marti, X., 2006. Report on the use of the ICZM Indicators fromthe WG-ID A Contribution to the ICZM Evaluation.

Burbridge, P.R., 1997. A generic framework for measuring success in integratedcoastal management. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 37 (2), 175e189.

Chan, A.P.C., Chan, A.P.L., 2004. Key performance indicators for measuring con-struction success. Benchmarking: Int. J. 11 (2), 203e221.

Chua, T.-E., 2006. The Dynamics of Integrated Coastal Management: Practical Ap-plications in the Sustainable Coastal Development in East Asia. GEF/UNDP/IMORegional Programme for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pollutionin the East Asian Seas, p. 461.

Cicin-Sain, B., Knecht, R.W., Jang, D., Fisk, G.W., 1998. Integrated Coastal and OceanManagement: Concepts and Practices. Island Press, p. 492.

Ehler, C.N., 2003. Indicators to measure governance performance in integratedcoastal management. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 46 (3e4), 335e345.

Ernoul, L., 2010. Combining process and output indicators to evaluate participationand sustainability in integrated coastal zone management projects. Ocean.Coast. Manag. 53 (11), 711e716.

nzhou.

g issues Suggestions

tive mechanism;public participation;external funds

Establishment of the general goals andobjectives for ICM, and building up anadaptive decision making support systembased on the ICM performance indicators;seeking for proper mechanisms to riseexternal funds, such as setting up differenttypes of environmental funds from privatedonations (Chua, 2006)

hic environment Reinforcement of the monitoring and research effortson overall biodiversity in the coastal waters

ulation increase;coastal resourceg; poor naturalanagement

Implementation of ecosystem-based marinespatial planning (MSP) (Fletcher et al., 2013;Olsen et al., 2011) to manage the utilizationof coastal resource; building up an integrateddisaster reporting and responding system forrisk management

agement 96 (2014) 112e122 121Fletcher, S., McKinley, E., Buchan, K.C., Smith, N., McHugh, K., 2013. Effective prac-tice in marine spatial planning: a participatory evaluation of experience inSouthern England. Mar. Policy 39, 341e348.

Gallagher, A., 2010. The coastal sustainability standard: a management systemsapproach to ICZM. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 53 (7), 336e349.

Hanson, A.J., 2003. Measuring progress towards sustainable development. Ocean.Coast. Manag. 46 (3e4), 381e390.

IOC Manuals and Guides 46, ICAM Dossier. In: Heileman, S. (Ed.), A Handbook forMeasuring the Process and Outcomes of Integrated Coastal and Ocean Man-agement, vol. 2. UNESCO, p. 224.

Imperial, M.T., McGee, S., Hennessey, T., 2000. The Narragansett Bay Estuary Pro-gram: Using a State Water Quality Agency to Implement a CCMP. Prepared forthe National Academy of Public Administration, p. 107.

Kabuta, S.H., Laane, R.W.P.M., 2003. Ecological performance indicators in the NorthSea: development and application. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 46 (3e4), 277e297.

Linton, D.M., Warner, G.F., 2003. Biological indicators in the Caribbean coastal zoneand their role in integrated coastal management. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 46(3e4), 261e276.

Liu, W.H., Ballinger, R.C., Jaleel, A., Wu, C.C., Lin, K.L., 2012. Comparative analysis ofinstitutional and legal basis of marine and coastal management in the EastAsian region. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 62, 43e53.

Mcfadden, L., Green, C., Priest, S., 2008. Report Social Science Indicators for Inte-grated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM). Spicosa Project Report. Flood HazardResearch Centre, Middlesex University, London, pp. 1e17.

NOAA, 2004. Report to Congress on National Coastal Management PerformanceMeasurement System, p. 41.

Olsen, S., Lowry, K., Tobey, J., 1999. The Common Methodology for Learning: AManual for Assessing Progress in Coastal Management. The University of RhodeIsland, p. 56.

Olsen, Stephen B., 2003. Frameworks and indicators for assessing progress in inte-grated coastal management initiatives. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 46 (3e4), 347e361.

Olsen, Stephen Bloye, Olsen, E., Schaefer, N., 2011. Governance baselines as a basisfor adaptive marine spatial planning. J. Coast. Conserv. 15 (2), 313e322.

Parmenter, D., 2010. Key Performance Indicators (KPI): Developing, Implementing,and Using Winning KPIs. John Wiley & Sons, p. 299.

PEMSEA, 2011. Guidebook on the State of the Coasts Reporting for Local Govern-ments Implementing Integrated Coastal Management in the East Asian SeasRegion. Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia(PEMSEA), p. 105.

Pomeroy, R.S., Carlos, M.B., 1997. Community-based coastal resource managementin the Philippines: a review and evaluation of programs and projects, 1984-1994. Mar. Policy 21 (5), 445e464.

Rice, J., 2003. Environmental health indicators. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 46 (3e4),235e259.

Schernewski, G., Hoffmann, J., Dreisewerd, M., Stavenhagen, P., Grunow, B., 2006.Measuring the Progress and outcomes of Integrated Coastal and Ocean Man-agement: the German Oder Estuary case study. Baltic Sea Research Institute-Warnemnde & University of Applied Sciences Neubrandenburg, p. 41.

Sharma, C., 1996. Coastal Area Management in South Asia A ComparativePerspective. International Collective in Support of Fishworkers, p. 33.

Shi, C., Hutchinson, S.M., Xu, S., 2004. Evaluation of coastal zone sustainability: anintegrated approach applied in shanghai municipality and Chong Ming Island.J. Environmental Management 71 (4), 335e344.

Smeets, E., Weterings, R., Centre, T.N.O., Bosch, P., Bchele, M., Gee, D., 1999.Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview. Technical report No 25.(European Environment Agency), p. 19.

Sorensen, J., 2002. Baseline 2000 Background Report: the Status of IntegratedCoastal Management as an International Practice (Second Iteration). UrbanHarbors Institute Publications, p. 31.

Tabet, L., Fanning, L., 2012. Integrated coastal zone management under authori-tarian rule: an evaluation framework of coastal governance in Egypt. Ocean.Coast. Manag. 61, 1e9.

The Provincial Government of Batangas, 2008. State of the Coast of BatangasProvince. Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia(PEMSEA), p. 119.

UNESCO, 2003. A Reference Guide on the Use of Indicators for Integrated CoastalManagement. UNESCO, p. 136.

White, A.T., Salamanca, A., 2002. Experience with Marine Protected area planningand management in the Philippines. Coast. Manag. 30 (1), 1e26.

Ye, G., Chou, L.M., Hu, W., 2013. The role of an integrated coastal managementframework in the long-term restoration of Yundang Lagoon, Xiamen, China.J. Environ. Plan. Manag., 1e20 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2013.829420.Published online.

G. Ye et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 96 (2014) 112e122122

Evaluating the performance of Integrated Coastal Management in Quanzhou, Fujian, China1 Introduction2 Material and methods2.1 An indicator framework for ICM performance evaluation2.2 Study site-Quanzhou2.3 Methods2.3.1 Time scale2.3.2 Data collection2.3.3 Selection of quantified indicators and criterions2.3.4 Data standardization2.3.5 Weighting method2.3.6 Analysis of DPSIR model

3 Results4 Discussions4.1 Governance performance4.2 Coastal environment performance4.3 Social-economic performance4.4 DPSIR model for ICM performance analysis4.5 Key performance indicators4.6 Problems and suggestions for ICM in Quanzhou

5 ConclusionsAcknowledgmentReferences