Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from orbit.dtu.dk on: Jul 29, 2020
Re-visiting ICM theory and practice: Lessons learned from the Baltic Sea Region
Støttrup, Josianne Gatt; Dinesen, Grete E.; Janssen, Holger; Gillgren, Christina; Schernewski, Gerald
Published in:Ocean & Coastal Management
Link to article, DOI:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.02.002
Publication date:2017
Document VersionPeer reviewed version
Link back to DTU Orbit
Citation (APA):Støttrup, J. G., Dinesen, G. E., Janssen, H., Gillgren, C., & Schernewski, G. (2017). Re-visiting ICM theory andpractice: Lessons learned from the Baltic Sea Region. Ocean & Coastal Management, 139, 64-76.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.02.002
1IntroductionIntegratedCoastal(Zone)Management(IC[Z]M)isaniterativeprocesstopromotesustainablemanagementofcoastalareasusingamultidisciplinaryapproach.Differentinitiativesweretakene.g.bytheU.S.,
theUnitedNations,ortheCouncilofEuropetoprotectthecoastlineareasmainlysincethe1970s(Vallejo,1992),butwhentheICZMconceptprogressedintheframeworkoftheRiodeJaneiroEarthSummitin1992
(Vallega,1999),thisinspiredthedevelopmentoffocussedEUpolicyonICZM.AnEUrecommendationtoimplementICZMwasadoptedin2002(2002/413/EC),providingalistofprincipleswhereintegrationacross
sectorsandlevelsofgovernanceispivotal.AcknowledgingthecomplexitiesanduncertaintiesassociatedwithimplementingICZM,alargerfour-yearEUprojectSPICOSA(ScienceandPolicyIntegrationforCoastal
SystemsAssessment)was launched in2007 todevelopaSystemsApproachFramework (SAF)with theobjective to restructure research inEuropeancountries towards integrationofknowledgeandmethods to
supportthedecision-makingprocessincomplexsystemscharacteristicofcoastalareas(Hopkinsetal.,2011;Mongrueletal.,2011;Tomlinsonetal.,2011).However,thecomplexityofimplementingICM(formerly
Re-visitingICMtheoryandpractice:LessonslearnedfromtheBalticSeaRegion
JosianneG.Støttrupa,∗
GreteE.Dinesena
HolgerJanßenb
ChristinaGillgrenc
GeraldSchernewskib,d
aDTU-Aqua,TechnicalUniversityofDenmark,NationalInstituteofAquaticResources,CharlottenlundCastle,JægersborgAllé1,2920,Charlottenlund,Denmark
bLeibnizInstituteforBalticSeaResearch(IOW),Seestrasse15,18119,Rostock-Warnemünde,Germany
cGillgrenandAssociates,15KentStreet,Bicton,WA,6157,Australia
dKlaipedaUniversity,MarineScienceandTechnologyCenter,H.Manto84,LT-92294,Klaipeda,Lithuania
∗Correspondingauthor.
Abstract
Sustainablemanagementofcoastalsystemsrequiresaniterativeprocessusingamultidisciplinaryapproachthatintegratesthethreepillarsofsustainabledevelopment:environmentalprotection,social
progressandeconomicgrowth.TheSystemsApproachFramework(SAF)providesastructureforanIntegratedCoastalManagement(ICM)processwithaneffectivescience-policyinterfacethatembraces
thechallengeofsimulatingcomplexsystemsandencapsulatescitizeninvolvementfromtheonset.Weanalysedthefindingsof16re-analysesstudiesundertakenineightBalticSeacountriestotesthowwell
SAFelementshadbeenappliedinpracticewithinICMprocesses.TheresultsrevealedthemainICMdriverwasecologyoreconomy.SeveralICMelementsasdefinedbytheSAFarealreadystandardwithin
theBalticSearegion.However,inmanycases,theomissionofstakeholderandinstitutionalmappingasinstructedbytheSAFledtoanunbalancedparticipationofstakeholders,orinsomecases,lackof
involvementofstakeholdersatthestartoftheprocess.MostoftheICMprocessesfailedtoincludeanintegrated,cross-sectorial,ecological-socio-economicassessment.Thisextendsfromthelackofsystem
thinkingwhendefiningthePolicyIssuefortheproblemandwhendevelopingtheconceptualmodel,whichoftenleadstoone-sectorialsolutions,whichmaynotbesustainable.Furthermore,thedurationof
someoftheICMprocesseswasprolongedduetodisagreementandoppositionearlyintheprocessand/orlackofmanagerexperiencesinconductingastakeholderparticipatoryprocess.Finally,duetoits
stringentstructuretheSAFwasfoundtobeasuitablequalityassuranceforsustainableICMprocesses.
Keywords:Systemsapproachframework;Stakeholderengagement;Ecological-socio-economicassessment;Policyandscienceintegration;Socialecology
termedICZM)mostlikelyplayedaroleinitbeingomittedbythetimetheMaritimeSpatialPlanning(MSP)Directive(Directive2014/89/EU)waspassedin2014.Therequirementsofthedirectivearelimitedtothe
establishmentandimplementationofMSPbyeachcoastalMemberState,althoughitisalsoexplicitlymentionedthatland-seainteractionsshouldbetakenintoaccount.
TheSAFisamethodologicalICMframeworkthatbuildsonSystemsTheory(VonBertalanffy,1968).SystemsTheoryisthetransdisciplinarysciencethatinvestigatestherelationswithinanentitythatconnect
allpartsintoawhole,ratherthanreducingtheentityintoitspartsorelementswhichcanthenbeexaminedseparately.WiththeSAFastrategyfordealingwithissuesinaholisticyetstringentmannerisdescribed
(Hopkins et al., 2011). This has shown to be one of the most influential concepts in ICM practice (Reis, 2014) and that has been applied in numerous case studies worldwide (e.g. Guimarães et al., 2013;
Semeoshenkovaetal.,2016).TheSAF(http://www.coastal-saf.eu/,accessed15.08.2016)includesintegratedassessmentsofcoastalsystemstoincludeenvironmental,economicandsocialconsiderationsrelevantto
the issue.The inclusionof social aspects emphasise that humans arepart of the systemasdefinedbyBerkes andFolke (1998). The interactionsbetweenhumans andecosystemsare complex, oftennon-linear
relations thatmay lead to unpredicted responses to external pressures regardless ofwhether these emerge through ecological, economic or governance drivers. Through simulations of potential policy options
includinginterdisciplinaryinformation,theSAFinformsdecision-makersofthepotentialconsequencesthatmayhelpavoidcostlydamageornegativeimpactswhilesimultaneouslyleadingtochangeswithinthesocial
system.Thesechangesmaybeinuserperceptionoftheecologicalsystemorininteractionsbetweendifferentusers.
Socialknowledge,suchasthecollectivebodyofknowledgeproducedbyagroupofengagedstakeholders,playsacriticalrole(BerkesandFolke,1998;Folkeetal.,2002).Centrallyderivedpoliciesattempting
tomakestronginterventionsinatop-downmannercaninadvertentlyoverridelocallyspecificandmoreappropriatesolutions(Næssetal.,2005).Thechoiceoftop-downdecisionmakingmaybeduetoconcerns
amongmanagersofdissipatingauthority.TheSAFinclusionofstakeholdersenhancesthepower-governancestructurebyincreasingthemutualknowledgebase,commonunderstandingandhenceownershipofthe
decisionbeingmadebymanagersandstakeholdersworkingtogether(Mette,2011).
AspartoftheBONUSBaltCoastproject,thispaperreportsonthefindingsof16re-analysiscasestudiesthatwereundertakentotesthowwelltheSAFhasbeenappliedinrecentpracticewithintheBalticSea
Region.Thisregionis,fromapoliticalandadministrativepointofview,mostcommonlydefinedasthoseninecountriesborderingtheBalticSea,namelyDenmark,Germany,Poland,Russia,Lithuania,Latvia,Estonia,
Finland,andSweden.ThisregionhasmorethantwentyyearsofhistoryinimplementingICM.Earlyrootsare,forinstance,the1996initiativeofthePrimeMinistersoftheBalticSeaRegionwhotooktheinitiativeto
develop anAgenda21 (CBSS, 1998), followedby the establishment of aBalticSeaRegion ICZMPlatformbymajorBaltic ICZMactors, international conventions and fora, likeHELCOM,Baltic 21,VASAB, the
EuropeanCommissionandnationalrepresentativesintheyear2003(Baltic21etal.,2003).TheregionhasheavilybenefittedfromtheEUDemonstrationProgrammeonICZM,variousappliedprojectsdealtwith
aspectsofICMintheBSRoverthelasttwodecades,e.g.BONUSBaltCoast,EUROSION,PROCOAST,CONSIENCE,ICZMOder,ARTWEI,PlanCoast,andAQUABEST(cf.Burbridge,2004;KörferandMorel,2007).
SincemanyoftheICMelementsareincludedintheSAFtheyhadbeenaddressedinthestudiesexamined.However,theapplicationofthedifferentelementsmaynotnecessarilybeinthestructuredand
stringentmannerordainedbytheSAF(http://www.coastal-saf.eu/,accessed15.08.2016)andsummarisedinTable1.TheSAFprovidesasystematicapproachtotheICMprocess,whereomittingoneofthestepsmay
compromisethedevelopmentandimplementationofsustainablemanagement.Inthispaperweexplore:1)howmanySAFelementswereincorporatedintheICMprocessesofthere-analysesstudiesexamined,2)
whetherandhowtheapplicationoftheSAFwouldimproveprocesses/outcomes,3)theresultsoftheSWOTanalysisofeachre-analysisstudyand4)whetherelementsdeemedimportantforissueresolutioninthe
studiesareabsentintheSAFwhenre-analysed.
Table1ThestepsintheSystemApproachFramework(SAF:http://www.coastal-saf.eu/,accessed15.08.2016).Reiterationbetweenstepscantakeplaceatanytime.Stakeholdersareengagedthroughouttheprocess.
ESE:seelistofabbreviations.
alt-text:Table1
SAFstep SAFelementswithineachStep
Issueidentification IdentifyPolicyIssue(s)
MappingofActivities
Institutionalmapping
Stakeholdermapping
Listmainecosystemgoodsandservices
IdentifySocialandEconomicelementsrelevanttothePolicyIssue
Systemdesign Systemdefinition
Conceptualmodel
Dataandanalyticalmethods
Problemscaling
Systemformulation DevelopESEsub-models
Validationandcalibration
Systemappraisal GeneratingESESystemsmodel
Calibrationandvalidationandsensitivitytests
Preparingscenariosimulations
Systemoutput Runningscenariosimulations
Presentingresultstostakeholders
Conductstakeholdermeetingandmanagementoptionsdeliberations
2Methods2.1Casestudies
SixteenICMcasestudieswereselectedinapanelmeetingformedby13ICMexpertsfromaroundtheBalticSea.MostoftheexpertshadbeenresponsibleorinvolvedinnationalOURCOASTcasestudydescriptionsandhalf
theselectedcasestudiesweretakenfromtheOURCOASTdatabase(EuropeanCommission,2016),apeer-reviewedcollectionofEuropeanbest-practiceICMcasestudies.ToincludealsoRussiancasestudiesinthepresentanalysis
andtoallowforabroadcoverageofissuesandapproaches,theotherhalfofcasestudiesweretakenfromotherlocalornationalinitiativesandpan-Balticprojects.TheresultingcasestudiesoriginatefromDenmark,Germany,Poland,
Russia,Lithuania,Estonia,FinlandandSweden.Keyselectioncriteriawerethefollowing:1)thecasestudyhadtoaddresscomplexcoastalmanagementissueswhichrequireanICM-basedapproach;2)itshouldincludeanadvanced
processwhereatleastadraftsolutionhasbeendevelopedandagreedbytheinvolvedactors;3)itshouldincludeabalancedmixtureofthemesandapproaches;and4)informationonboththeprocessanditsoutcomeshadtobe
available,eitherasawrittendocumentationorbyaccesstomorethanoneinvolvedkeyperson.
2.2TheanalyticalapproachAccordingtoBurbridge(2004),existingreports fromtheBalticSeaRegionarenotsuitable forgenericassessments.Therefore, inorder toanalyse thestate-of-the-artofBaltic ICMpracticeasurvey-basedapproachwas
chosen.Todevelopthesurveymaterial,whichconsistedofaquestionnaire(Appendix1),theSAFapproach(Hopkinsetal.,2011)wastakenasabenchmark(Table1).Thesurveyreviewedtheimplementationof67singleICMstepsas
describedbytheSAFHandbook(http://www.coastal-saf.eu/:accessed15.08.2016)andallowedforadditionalinformation,e.g.onreasonsfornon-implementation,divergentapproaches,orparticipants'observationsandcomments.
Furthermore,thesurveyincludedaSWOTanalysis(cf.Mintzberg,1994)ontheoverallqualityoftheICMprocess(expertjudgement)andonexternalandinternalrisksandopportunitiesthatmayfurtheraffecttheprocess(expert
judgement).After reviewof thedraft surveymaterial by a panel of national ICMexperts (see above), thesenational experts conducted interviews in local languageswithparticipants of the respective case studyprocesses and
consolidatedthembysummingthemupinonecompletedquestionnaireforeachcasestudy.Thereportswerethenreviewedandanalysedbytheauthorsofthispaper.
3ResultsAtypologyofthemaincharacteristicsofthere-analysescasestudieslistedinFig.1isshowninTable2.TheresultsoftheanalysesoftheICMcasestudiesrelativetoSAFapplicationareshowninFig.2.The
typologyandanalysesconductedwereusedtoprovideaplatformforathematicevaluationoftheresults.Eachre-analysescasestudywasrankedaccordingtothenumberofSAFelementsidentifiedintheICM
processandwasindependentofcountry(Fig.3).ThehighrankingofthetwoFinnishexamplesisduetothesebeingstrategiesandnotaddressingspecificPolicyIssues.
Table2Typologyofthemaincharacteristicsofthere-analysescasestudies.
alt-text:Table2
Rank No ICMcasestudy Country ICMprocessinitiatedby
ICMdriver(s)
Issuetypeandcomplexity
Issueidentifiedatoutset
Institutionaland
stakeholdermapping
TheICMteamcomposition
Stakeholderengagement
Economicassessment
Systemassessment(ESEmodel)
Scenariosimulations
ICMtimescale
15 1 CoastalrealignmentandwetlandrestorationGeltingerBirk
Germany Federalstateministry
Ecological,economical(costsofcoastalprotection)
Coastalprotection&natureconservation
Yes Nomapping Authorities,localmanagers&stakeholders
Severalthematicgroups,engagedduringprocess
Combinedcostanalysisofrestorationandprotection
No Nomodelling,severalmanagementscenarios
>20
9 2 Coastalprotection&wetlandrestorationMarkgrafenheide
Germany Regionalauthority
Ecological,economical
Coastalprotection&natureconservation
Yes Nomapping Local®ionalauthorityrepresentatives
Onlypublicparticipationmeetings
Twosectorialcostanalyses
No Modellingofcoastalevolution;noalternativescenarios
>10
15 3 Coastalprotectionmanagement:
Germany Federalstateministry
Economic(flooding,tourism)
Coastalprotection,tourism&urbandevelopment
Yes Nomapping,multiplestakeholders
Localstakeholderswithmoderator(company
Engagedatoutsetofprocess
Sectorialcostanalyses
Yes Yes,qualitativemodel
>10
Fig.1ThelocationsoftheICMcasesre-analyzedindicatedbynameandlistedontheleft-handsideofthemapoftheBalticSea.
alt-text:Fig.1
TimmendorferStrand&Scharbutz
andinstitutionsidentified
contractedcontratedbyministry)
(coastalprotection)
includingallESEcomponents
6 4 HelPeninsula Poland Nationalmanagers
Economic(localpopulationandtourism)
Climatechange(beacherosion)
Yes Nomapping Nationalmangers&scientists
Bilateralorsmallgroups,engagedduringprocess
One-sectorialcostanalysis
Bio-economicmodel
Yes >10
14 5 Szczecinlagoon-Polishpart
Poland Localmanagers
Economic Climatechange&Natura2000
Yes Nomapping Localmanagers,noformalteam
Bilateralorsmallgroups,engagedduringprocess
One-sectorialcostanalyses
No No >10
1 6 Limfjord-Denmark
Denmark Scientists Ecological EUWFDimplementation
Yes Yes Scientists,nationalmanagers,stakeholders
Engagedatoutsetofprocess
Cost-effectiveness
Yes Yes-bioeconomicmodelling,multiplecrosssectorialscenarios
<5
16 7 Sound-Denmark Denmark Stakeholders Economic Naturalresourceuseconflict
Yes Nomapping No No No No No <2.5,butunresolved
12 8 Restorationofimportanthabitatthroughsustainableagriculturalpractices,Rusne
Lithuania NationalNGO
Ecological Natureconservation&sustainableagriculturalpractises
Yes Nomapping,multiplestakeholdersandinstitutionsidentified
NationalNGO's,localmanagers,localstakeholders,socialscientists,
Engagedatoutsetofprocess
No Partialmodel.non-quantitativeinclusionofotherESEcomponents
Ecologicalscenarios
<10
13 9 Integratedshorelinemanagementforalargeharbourcity,KlaipedaSeagateandanadjacentseasideresortPalanga
Lithuania Nationalmanagers
Economic Climatechange(beachmaintenance/tourism)
Yes Nomapping,multiplestakeholdersandinstitutionsidentified
Nationalmanagers,localmanagers,scientists,localstakeholders,NGO's
Engagedatoutsetofprocess
No No No-lackofmodellingexpertise
<2.5
8 10 Cross-borderNemanRiverCatchment-Russianpart
Russia National&localmanagers
Ecological Waterqualityprotection
Yes Nomapping,multipleinstitutionsidentified
Nationalandlocalmanagers,scientists,stakeholderinterestsaddressedbyprofessionals
Bilateralorsmallgroups,engagedduringprocess
No Ecologicalmodelcomponent
Ecologicalscenarios
5 11 VistulaLagoon–comprehensivemanagementofawaterbody
Russia Nationalmanagers,cross-border(Russia-Poland)
Ecological&economic
Waterqualityprotection
Yes Nomapping Nationalmanagers,localmanagers,scientists,stakeholderinterestsaddressedbyprofessionals
No Yes Bio-economicmodelling
Economicandecologicalscenarios
>10
10 15 TheJärve-Nasvacase-studysiteonSaaremaaisland–coastalprotection
Estonia Localmanagers
Economic Climatechange,HAandnatureconservation
Yes Nomapping,multiplestakeholdersidentified
Localmanagers,localscientists,localstakeholders,NGO's
Engagedatoutsetofprocess
No No. Spatialassessmentofhumanactivities
>10
7 16 KundaPortdevelopment
Estonia Stakeholders Economic Coastaldevelopment,resourceuse&natureconservation
Yes Nomapping,multiplestakeholdersidentified
Portauthorities,otherlocalmanagers,natureprotectionrepresentatives,scientists,localstakeholders
Engagedatoutsetofprocess
Yes-one-sectorialcosts
Ecologicalmodels(basedonhistoricaldata)
Scenariosbasedonhistoricaldata
<2.5
2 17 CoastalmanagementstrategyforsouthwestFinland
Finland Scientists NoICMdriver
Noissueidentified ICZM/MSPdevelopment
Nomapping,multiplestakeholdersidentified
Regionalmanagers,scientists,multiplestakeholders
Engagedatoutsetofprocess
Yes No. Spatialassessmentofhumanactivitiesandnatureresourcesandvalues
n.a.
3 18 ICMintheBothnianSea,westernFinland
Finland Scientists NoICMdriver
Noissueidentified ICZM/MSPdevelopment
Nomapping,multiplestakeholdersidentified
Regionalmanagers,scientists,multiplestakeholders
Engagedatoutsetofprocess
Yes No. Spatialassessmentofhumanactivitiesandnatureresourcesandvalues.
n.a.
11 19 ImplementationoftheWFD:TheNorthBalticWaterDistrictinSweden
Sweden Nationalmanagers
Ecological EUWFDimplementation
Yes Nomapping,multiplestakeholdersandinstitutionsidentified
Nationalmanagers,scientistsconsulted
Engagedatoutsetofprocess
Yes,cost-effectiveness
Partialeconomicassessmentatnationallevel.
No
Fig.2MatrixindicatingwhetheraSAFelementhasbeenimplemented(green)ornot(red).Greyfields:noanswerwasgivenorrespondentwasuncertain;x-axis:casestudynumber,cf.Fig.1orTable2;y-axis:SAFstepswithblockandquestionnumbersas
usedinthequestionnaire,cf.Annex1.Only56ofthe67questionsarerepresentedinthematrixasonlythosequestionsthatcouldbeansweredas“Yes”,“No”or“Donotknow”couldbeincluded.(Forinterpretationofthereferencestocolourinthisfigure
legend,thereaderisreferredtothewebversionofthisarticle.)
alt-text:Fig.2
3.1PolicyIssuesandissuedriverThemainICMdriverwaseitherecological(7;44%)oreconomic(7;44%)(Table2).Themainissuesweretheneedsforcoastalprotectionorrealignment(8;50%)duetoimpactsfromclimatechangeorcoastaldevelopment
needs(Table2).Fourcasestudies(25%)dealtwitheutrophicationissuesorwererelatedtowaterquality.TwocasestudiesdealtwithgeneralproactiveICMplanningwithnospecificPolicyIssues.Thesecondaryissuesweretourism
andnatureconservation.Threecasestudiesdealtwithspatialconflictsinhumanactivitieseitherasprimaryorsecondaryconcerns.Eleven(69%)oftheICMprocesseswereledbynationalmanagersandthustop-down,ofwhichsix
(38%)wererelatedtoimplementationofEUlegislation(Fig.2).Ofallthecasestudies,25%ofthemwereinitiatedbystakeholders,whichensuredtheirparticipationintheICMprocess.Inalmostallcasestudies(88%)acoregroup
(ManagementTeam)wasestablishedtodealwiththePolicyIssue(Fig.2)butonlyintwoofthecaseswasthereknowledgeoftheSAF.
3.2InstitutionalandstakeholdermappingInstitutionalmappingwasreportedforsix(38%)ofthecasestudies(Fig.2).Fromthedescriptionsitwasevidentthatonlyoneperformedaformalinstitutionalmapping(Table2),whereasintherestofthecasesrelevant
institutions were identified by the responsible ICM authority. Several Baltic countries reported top-down processes with inclusion of some or most of the stakeholders. Several case studies (9; 56%) reported that none of the
stakeholderswereomitted,butformalmappingwasnotcarriedout.Insomecasestudies(5;31%),participationwaslimitedtomanagersandrelevantscientists.Severalcasestudies(9;56%)includedstakeholdersattheoutsetas
specifiedbytheSAF,wherebystakeholdersareinvolvedintheformulationofthePolicyIssue(IssueIdentification).
3.3BackgroundinformationrelevanttotheissueMostcasestudiesreportedgoodresearchintothecauseandeffectchain,identificationofpressuresandeconomic,ecologicalandsocialaspectsrelatedtothePolicyIssue(Fig.2;DesignStep).Lessthanhalfthecaseshad
developedaConceptualmodelfortheICMIssueimportantintheSystemsApproach.Thisisfurtherreflectedinthelackofconsiderationofdatarequirementsandavailability,andthelackofanintegratedmodellingstrategyinmost
cases.
3.4Ecological-social-economic(ESE)modellingandscenariosimulationsFewcasestudiesperformedafullintegratedESEassessment,whereecological,socialandeconomiccomponentswerequantifiedandintegratedintoamodel(Fig.2;FormulationStep).Most(75%)hadcalculatedcostsforthe
potential solutions.Several includedbio-economicmodels toprovide thebases for simulationsofmanagement scenarios.Mostcasestudies (75%)usedscenarios formanagementoptions,althoughonlyhalf (8)usedquantitative
modellingmethodsforsimulationsofscenarios(Fig.2;AppraisalStep).
3.5StakeholderinvolvementinthedecisionprocessTherewasahighengagementofstakeholdersinthediscussions(75%),withstakeholderopinionsbeingtakenintoaccount(56%),despitealowfrequency(38%)oftheuseofformalDecisionSupportTools.Thissuggeststhat
half the case studieswere top-downdrivenand thedecisionwasnot influencedby stakeholderopinions.The latterbecamevisiblealso in separateanalysesof strength,weaknesses, opportunitiesand threats (SWOT) thatwere
conductedfor15oftheICMcases.Whiletheevaluatorsvaluedmostofthestrength-weaknessestestcriteriaasstrengths,nearlyallthosecriteriathatrefertoactivestakeholderinvolvementwereconsideredasbeingimperfect(Fig.
4).AccordingtoFig.2therewasahighengagementofstakeholdersinthediscussions(seeabove),butonaveragethereviewedcasestudieshadsomeshortcomingsin
− involvingstakeholdersinareviewofESEassessments,
− makinguseoflocalknowledge,
− activeinvolvementofstakeholders,
− sufficientspacefordiscussions,andin
− providingtransparentresultsanddecisionmakingprocesses.
Fig.3Rankpercountry.Eachre-analysescasestudywasrankedaccordingtothenumberofSAFelementsidentifiedintheICMprocess.
alt-text:Fig.3
3.6ExternalforcingandevaluationFewcasestudiesreportedonthesuccessoftheICMprocessandthisisthereforenotdealtwithhere.LinkedtothisistheproblemthatoftenthereisnoregularevaluationofanICMprocess(Fig.4.).Severalofthecase
studies reported on theduration of the ICMprocess. Six lastedmore than ten years and reported stakeholder fatigue. In addition to top-downapproaches this couldbe another influencing factor for the shortcomings in active
stakeholderinvolvement.ThreereportedshortICMprocesses(<2.5years),butoneisstillunresolved.Politicalchangeswithsubsequentchangesinthenationalmanagementstructurehad,inatleasttwocases,disruptedtheICM
processorresultedinthelackofimplementationofSAFresults.Anunsupportivepolicyenvironmentwasinmanycasesperceivedashavingnegativeimpactsonthereviewedprocesses(Fig.4).
LegalcertaintywasrecognisedasthedominantopportunityintenoftheICMcasestudieswhereEUornationallegislationempowerednationalmanagerstodrivetheICMprocess(Fig.5).FundingandPublicopinionand
interestwereviewedasopportunitiesinsixcasesandthreatsinseven.Climatechangeandeconomicchangewererecognisedasthreatsinmorethanhalfthecases.Politicalchangeandspeedofimplementationwereidentifiedas
threatstotheICMprocessinthemajorityofthecases(12;75%).Therewerefewresponsestothepotentialthreatoropportunityofinstitutionalchange(3foreachchoice).
Fig.4Averagevaluesforstrengthsandweaknessesof15ICMcasestudies.
alt-text:Fig.4
Fig.5Opportunitiesandthreatsbynumberofmentions.
4DiscussionandconclusionsThisstudyrevealedthatseveralICMelementsasdefinedbytheSAFarealreadystandardwithintheBalticSeaRegion,e.g.environmentalimpactassessments,accesstoinformation,andpublicparticipation.
This,however,isoflittlesurpriseasitsimplyshowscompliancewithinternationalconventions,e.g.theAarhusConventionandEspooConvention,aswellasEuropeanlaw,e.g.EUdirectives85/337/EEC(anditslater
amendments),2001/42/EC,and2003/35/EC.However,omissionofacomprehensivestakeholderandinstitutionalmappingattheoutsetofanIssueIdentificationmaycompromisethesuccessof ICMbecausethe
powerandinfluenceinteractionsarenotfullyunderstood.Systemsthinking(i.e.holisticapproach)isintegraltoanICMprocess,butmostofthecase-studiesre-analyseddealtwithone-sectorialsolutions,indicating
thatholisticapproacheswere,ineffect,rarelyimplemented.Furthermore,thedurationofasuccessfulICMmayneedtobewithinapoliticaltimeframe.
4.1SystemsthinkinginICMprocessesMostoftheICMprocessesreviewedfailedtoincludeanintegratedcross-sectorial,ESEassessmentandscenariosimulationswerelimitedtoone-sectorialsolutions.ThisderivedfromthereactiveICMresponseindealingwith
aspecificproblemortheimplementationofadirective.ThisresultedinthePolicyIssuesbeingdecidedonwithoutconsideringtheentiresystemasupheldbyHopkinsetal.(2011).Theinclusionofabroaderstakeholderconsultation
atthispointwouldhaveensuredtheconsiderationofactivities,processesandinteractionswithintheentiresysteminwhichtheproblemisembedded.TheICMprocessesfocusedonidentifyingsolutionstoaparticularproblem.
SustainableICMrequiressystemsthinkingtopreventthatsolutionstoaparticularproblemgiverisetonewproblemsorcascadeeffects.AnexampleistheimplementationoftheWaterFrameworkDirective(Dinesenetal.,2011).
Withoutstakeholderconsultationattheoutsetthiswouldhavefocusedonup-streamanddown-streammitigationofnutrientloadings.Withtheinstitutionalmappingandstakeholderconsultationsotherstatesandactivitiesthatwould
beaffectedbythesolutionwereidentifiedandincludedintheESEassessment(Dinesenetal.,2011).
4.2StakeholderengagementPublicopinionandinterestwereviewedasbothanopportunityandathreattotheICMprocessintheBalticcases.Inrecentdecades,therehasbeenaparadigmshiftinthehegemonyofopinionanddecisionmakingtotakeon
moreseriouslytheinputofcitizensinrecognitionofthefactthatcitizenshavetolivewiththedecisionsandtheoutcomes.Bookchin(1982)conceptualisedsocialecologyasacriticaltheorythatintegratesenvironmental,socialand
economicaspectsforsustainablemanagement.ThishasdevelopedintoaparadigmforsustainabilitythinkingasdemonstratedinFig.6(Adams,2006).
However,withoutarobustgovernanceframeworkthathasintegrityandtheparticipationofcitizensasharedfuturecannotbebuilt(Fig.7).Meaningfulbenefitsfromcommunityparticipationcanonlybeachievedbyagenuine
commitmentbytheICMprocessleader(Robinson,2002).TheSAFrespectsthecomplexityofintegratedsystemsandprocessesandthemultiplicityofperspectivesenrichedthroughcitizenparticipation.Thestakeholdersareengaged
fromtheoutsetoftheprocessindefiningtheissue,describingthevirtualsystem,choosingpotentialmanagementoptionsandattheendoftheprocessdiscussingresultsofscenariosimulations.Itisvitalforcitizencompliancethat
stakeholdershavetheopportunitytodiscussseveralmanagementoptionsbeforeimplementation.TheSAFrecognisesthepivotalroleofarobustgovernancesystempreparedtoconductanopen,transparentandaccountableICM
alt-text:Fig.5
Fig.6ThethreepillarsofsustainabledevelopmentdevelopedbyAdams(2006),adaptedbyJ.Dréo(https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1587372)andredrawnhere.
alt-text:Fig.6
processthatencapsulatescitizeninputandensurestheirtrust.ThecontinuousengagementofstakeholdersintheICMprocessishelpfulinbuildingtrustandcommonunderstanding(Dinesenetal.,2011;Franzénetal.,2011;Hopkins
etal.,2012;Konstantinouetal.,2012).Theachievementofcitizentrust,inturn,reducestheriskofconsultationfatigue.ThisaspectwaslackinginmanyoftheBalticcases.Severalfollowedtraditionaldecisionmakingbymanagerson
courseofaction,whotoinclude,andpublichearingtoinformondecisions,therebyexcludingtheprocessoftrust-building,mutualeducationandjointproblemsolvingbetweenmanagersandcitizens.
IdentificationoftheappropriatestakeholdersisacriticalfirststepforasuccessfulICMprocess(BiggsandMatsaert,1999;PomeroyandDouvere,2008),whichiswhystakeholdermappinghasahighpriority intheSAF.
DifferentperceptionsofwhothestakeholdersarewereevidentintheICMcasestudiesreviewed.Insome,expertsorcivilservantsrepresentingspecifictrades,humanactivitiesornatureinterestswereconsideredastheappropriate
stakeholdersbythemanagementteam,whereasinothercasestudies,individuallocalcitizens/stakeholderswereactivelyinvolved.Stakeholderandinstitutionalmappingisanimportanttoolthatexploreslinksbetweenkeyactorswho
havepowertomakedecisionsandthosewhohavepoliticaloreconomicinfluence(Mcfaddenetal.,2010).LackofformalstakeholderandinstitutionalmappingintheBalticcasesledtoimbalancedstakeholdergroupsthatdidnot
representall interests,whilemotivatedopponentshada fieldday.The inclusionof individualstakeholderswithstrongopinionsmayhampercollaborationdueto largediscrepancies in issueperceptionandsystemunderstanding
betweenmanagers,scientistsandotherstakeholders(HumanandDavies,2010).Theresultsofthisstudyshowedthateffectivestakeholderparticipationwashamperedby1)lackofregulationsonformalstakeholderinvolvementfrom
theonsetoftheprocess,2)lackofexperiencebymanagers,and3)lackofmappingandconsultationtools.
Stakeholderswhoforeseeanegativeeconomicconsequencefortheiractivitiesandsimultaneouslyhaveastrongpoliticalinfluence(e.g.lobby)maychoosenottobeinvolvedinanICMprocess.Thisisanimportantweakness
inICMandalsointheSAFbecausestakeholderscannotbeforcedtoparticipateandpotentialsolutionsdiscussedmaybetotallyignoredinthepoliticalaftermathaswasshowninoneofthecasestudies.Onepossiblewaytocounter
theeffectsofapoliticallystrongbutun-engagedstakeholderistoensurestrongcommunityparticipationinanopenandtransparentprocess.AnESEassessmentmayhelpincreaselocalknowledgeonecologicalandsocio-economic
consequencesandhelpidentifymitigationstrategiesthataremoreacceptabletotheentirecommunity.InsuchsituationsarobustICMprocessshouldbegroundedinprinciplesofgoodgovernance(i.e.accountability,transparency
andopenness).Inverycomplexmatters,itmaybeusefultoemployconsultantsskilledinhighsocialriskmanagementtodeveloptheappropriatemethodologyforengagement.
4.3ConceptualmodelandESEassessmentAconceptualmodelisadescriptiverepresentationofasystemthathelpsvisualisethecomponents,processesandinteractionsrelevanttoaPolicyIssuetohelpparticipantsknowandunderstandentitiesandrelationships
betweenthem.ConceptualmodelsappeartobeanintuitivepartoftheICMprocess.MostBalticcasestudiesreportedsomeformofconceptualmodel,buthadnotfullyappreciatedthevalueofconsideringtheentiresystem(Fig.6).
Thisresultedinone-sectorialperceptionsofthesystemignoringthatcomplexESEinteractionsmaygiverisetounforeseenresultsandcauseundesiredconsequences(Hopkinsetal.,2011).IntheSAF,conceptualmodelsareusedto
describeallthestates,processesandlinkswithinandbetweentheESEcomponents(http://www.coastal-saf.eu/:accessed15Aug2016).Conceptualmodelshelptoidentifyexternalforcingsandprovideastructuraldescriptionofthe
virtualsystem.Withtheconceptualmodelathandthedecisionofwhethertodevelopquantitativemodelsoruseothermethodsreliesonthreequestions:1)Istheissuesimple?2)Aretherisks low?and3)Dowehavesufficient
informationtomakereliablescenariosimulations?Ifonecanansweryestoallquestions,developmentofaquantitativemodelmaynotbenecessary.
Fig.7TheCitizenshipFrameworkdepictshowthethreepillarsofsustainabilitymustbeintegratedwithcitizenparticipationandembeddedinarobustgovernanceframework.
alt-text:Fig.7
The level of complexity and risks involveddetermines the level of participation requiredby the community (Robinson,2002) and the type of participation needed andmethods to be applied. Integrated quantitativeESE
modellingisessentialwherecomplexinteractionsareinvolvedandsufficientdataisavailable.Thisallowsfortheevaluationofconsequencesofdifferentmanagementoptions.IntwoBalticcasestudies,availablehindcastdatawas
insufficientforpredictivequantitativemodellingthusdecisionmakingreliedonconsultativemeetingstowardsunanimousrecommendationsofmanagementoptions.Insuchcases,theESEassessmentcanbeshortenedbyomittingthe
SystemFormulationandSystemAppraisalsteps.Wheredataisavailable,toolssuchasquantitativemodels(Hopkinsetal.,2012),MSPandGIS,canbecombinedwithqualitativeinformationandnewknowledgegeneratedthrough
differentpublicengagementmethods,dependingontheissuecomplexityandlevelofriskinvolved(Robinson,2002).Theinvolvementofthepublicintheprocessprovidesalearningplatformforthecoregroup.Furthermore,the
modellingprovidesdeliberationsupport incorporatingmultipleobjectivesanddisciplines,dealswithlimiteddataanddifferenttypesof informationandcollatesICMdata(Ballé-Bégantonetal.,2010).Thus, theSAFissufficiently
flexibletoallowESEassessmentstobecarriedoutatdifferentinformation/datalevels(Hopkinsetal.,2012).
Economicchangemayariseunexpectedly, locally,nationallyoronaglobalscale,requiring immediate interventions. It is thereforereasonablethatthiswas identifiedasathreat inmorethanhalf theBalticcaseswithan
identifiedissue.EspeciallywitheconomicallydrivenPolicyIssues,thevalueoftheESEassessmentemerges.ThereviewedICMcasestudiesfocusedoncalculatingdirectcostsofdifferentinterventionsforonesectoronlyandsocial
aspectswerelargelyignored.Theone-sectorialapproachrisksneglectingimpactsonothersectorsortheenvironmentinanunpredictedfashion.Thesolutionmaybeviableorequitablebutnotsustainable(Adams,2006).
FundingprovidestheopportunitytoincluderesourcesnecessarytocompleteanICMprocessandimplementdecisions.IntheBalticstudies,fundingwasconsideredtobeanopportunityifavailablebutalsoathreattotheICM
processwhenlacking.Whenfundingwasusedtooutsourcethetaskstoconsultancyagencies,notallstakeholderswereincluded.Thismayhaveresultedinsolutionsthatwerenotembracedbytheendusersbutthecasestudiesdid
notprovideinformationonthisaspect.
4.4LegalcertaintyandimplicationsofICMnotbeinginalegalframeworkLegalcertaintywasthemostfrequentlyidentifiedopportunityreflectingtheroleinternationaldirectiveshaveplayedinICMprocessesintheBalticregion.TheEUWFDandNatura2000directives(EuropeanCommission,
1992, 2000, 2009), among others, have been important drivers towards environmental protection and abatement of undesired state of nature at national and cross-border levels. The directives empower managers to address
environmentalissuesbutdonotnecessarilycapturetheneedto1)involvecitizensuntillateintheprocessand2)addresscross-sectorialandmultidisciplinaryissuesinanintegratedapproach.
Cross-sectorialassessmentsrequire that there isa legal framework inplacebut itseemstobemissing inmostof thereviewedcases. InGermany,existing legislationmightevenprohibitcross-sectorialassessments.The
GermanEnvironmental ImpactAssessmentAct inconjunctionwith theGuidelines forExecution,whichare thenational transpositionsof theEuropeanEnvironmental ImpactAssessmentandStrategicEnvironmentalAssessment
directives(EIA-2014/52/EU;SEA-2001/42/EC),stateexplicitlythateconomical,societal,orsocialimpactsshallnotbeconsideredwithinenvironmentalassessments.ThereisnootherlegalbasisforaSocialImpactAssessment(with
theexceptionofbrowncoalmininginNorthRhine-Westphalia),whereforesocialandeconomicimpactsareoftendisregarded.
In2002,theEUrecommendedtheimplementationofICM,providingalistofprinciples. (shouldnotbeanewparagraphhere.)
Inensuingnegotiations,probablyduetothecomplexityofimplementingICM,theresultingdirective(MSPDirective2014/89/EU)onlyincludedtheMSPframeworkwithalimitedapplicationonland-seainteractions.Thus,
someof theeightEUICMprinciplesmayhavebeen ignored,suchasthe long-termperspective,adaptivemanagement, localspecificity,workingwithnaturalprocessesandthesupportand involvementofrelevantadministrative
bodies.SustainablegrowthinEuropewouldthusbenefitfromalegaldrivertowardsabetterqualityinICMprocesses.
4.5ProcessdurationIdentificationofpoliticalchangeandspeedofimplementationasthreatstotheICMprocessinthemajorityoftheBalticcasesreflectstheneedtohaveastructuredICMframeworkandatimeframealignedtothepolitical
cycle.Twocasesshowedadirect impacton implementationduetochangeingovernance.Inonecase,anational institutionalrestructuringduringtheendoftheSAFprocess(i.e.at theOutputstep,Table1)changedthepower
structureandthemanagersinvolvedwerenolongerrelevant.TheScience-Policydecouplinghaltedtheprocessandimplementationnevertookplace(Dinesenetal.,2011).Intheothercase,arecentshifttowardshigherstakeholder
involvementwasinterruptedduetoachangeingovernmentandpoliticaldirection(Sørensenetal.,2016).ToensureimplementationofmanagementoptionsbasedonaSAFprocess,thisshouldideallybecompletedwithinoneelection
period.Itmayalsobepossibletogainbroadpoliticalsupportattheoutsetofaprocess incaseswherea longer implementationtimeframeisrequired.Thismayrequire includingmulti-partisanpoliticalstakeholders,apart from
securingfundingandresourcesforthecompleteprocess.
Inseveralof theBalticcasestudies, the ICMprocesses lasted formultipleyears (Table2).Thiswasdue to1) lackof initial involvementof stakeholders,2) lackof trustbetweencitizensandmanagers,and/or3) lackof
experienceinconductingtheICMprocess.ThisindicatedtheimportanceofcompletingtheIssueIdentificationandSystemDesignstepsinastructuredandcoherentmannerandofdemonstratingleadershiptoembracedialogueboth
withinandoutsideinstitutions.LongplanningandimplementationperiodsseemedtobeasystematicchallengeinICMprocesses.Thisincreasednotonlytheprobabilityofchangesinexternaldriversbutalsoaffectedwillingnessof
stakeholderstoparticipate(consultationfatigue).ThisconstitutesarisktocompletionofasuccessfulICMprocess,sinceexclusionoftheSystemsOutputsteppreventsstakeholderdeliberationondifferentmanagementoptions.
Globalconcernsonclimatechangearehighlyemphasisedinthecoastalzonewheremajorchangesaremostlikelytooccurandwhicharethemostdenselypopulatedareas(Coxetal.,2000).Thisecologicaldriverhasmany
socialandeconomicimplications.Furthermore,thetimeframeofchangesmaydifferfromagradualprocesstosuddenirreversiblechanges.Thereviewedcasestudiesreflectedavarietyoftheseconcernsrangingfrominundation
problemstocoastalprotectionordevelopmentimpactingdifferenteconomicsectorsandpublicperceptionanduseofcoastalresources.Therefore,theprocessorientedapproachrecommendedintheSAFisvitalwhenconsidering
managementsolutionstoclimatechangeissues.
4.6Analyticalshortcomings(reviewersbased)Theassessmentareathatwasusedforthisstudy,theBalticSeaRegion,isaheterogenicareaformedbyninecountrieswithacorrespondingdiversityoflanguages,cultures,andlegalandadministrativesystems.Togetaccess
tolocalprocessesanddocumentsaswellastoclassifythemwiththecontextofnationalpeculiarities,theinvolvementofnationalexpertswasnecessary.Althoughtheexpertsfilledinthequestionnairebasedoninterviews,wecannot
excludebiasinterpretation.Individualnationalexpertsmayhavehaddifferenttypesofrelationstointervieweesortheymayhavecategorizedinformationindifferentmanners.Althoughthere-analysescouldbehighlysubjective,
muchoftheextractedinformationfromthequestionnaireswascoherentandprovidedacriticalreflectiononpastICMprocessesandwherethesecangainfromSAFassimilationinfutureprocesses.
ThestandardizedquestionnairefollowedwidelytheSAFstepsasoutlinedintheSAFmanual(http://www.coastal-saf.eu/:accessed15.08.2016).However,atthetimeofthere-analysestheSAFwasnoveltomanyoftheexperts.
Intheself-evaluationsomeofthequestionnairerespondentsindicatedthattheyhaddifficultiesindescribingallprocessdetailswithinstandardizedtextfields,whiletheyacknowledgedthenecessityforcomparablesystematics.
TwoFinnishstudieswereincludedinthisanalysis,eventhoughtheydidnotfulfilthecriteriaofaddressingaspecificPolicyIssue.ThesestudiesdescribedstrategiesforICMinspecificareasinamannerthatwaswellaligned
withtheSAFapproach,andthusscoredhighinthecountryrankinginimplementationofSAFelement.However,becausenospecificpolicyissuewasbeingaddressedthepotentialfornegativeenvironmental,socialandeconomic
impactswaslowwithnoperceivedconflictofinterests.ThechallengesintheICMprocessare:1)communicationespeciallywhenthestakesarehigh(Robinson,2002),and2)thePolicyIssueinvolvesacomplexsystem(Hopkinsetal.,
2012).
4.7SAFmanualimprovementInmanycasestudies,theparticipatorystakeholderinvolvementprocesswasnotwelldevelopedornotsuccessful.Localexpertsgavevariousexplanations,likelackoftime,resourcesorexperience.Amajorproblemwasthe
balancedinvolvementofallstakeholdersanddealingwithopponents.Therefore, toolsthatsupporttheparticipationprocessare important intheSAFandneedtobe linkedto indicator-basedassessments. Itshouldallowamore
systematic,guidedandthematicallyfocussedstakeholderinvolvementprocess.
OurexperienceshowsthatsuccessandimplementationprocessofICMmeasuresmostoftenarenotsufficientlyevaluated.Therefore,wesupportthesuggestionbye.g.Pendle(2013),whorecommendsthatkeyperformance
indicesofsustainabilityshouldbedeveloped,includedinpredictionsandthereaftermonitoredtoprovideevidencethatmeasuresmeeteconomic,socialandenvironmentalsustainabilitygoals.Anotherimportantaspectisthejoint
definitionofsuccesscriteriaandindicatorsinthebeginning.Weevenshouldgofurtherandprovideasustainabilityindicatortoolthatallowsacomprehensiveassessmentofthesituationbeforeandafterthemeasure.Theapplication
ofthistool inthebeginningtoassessalternativehypotheticalscenarioscanhelptoraiseawarenessandtovisualizeconsequencesofdecisions includingstatusquoscenarios.Further,apostsurveyamongstakeholderswouldbe
importanttoassesstheacceptanceofameasure,becausewesawseveraltimesthattheacceptancechanged(usuallyimproved)severalyearsaftertheimplementation.Anindicatorbasedpre-andpost-assessmentallowsasystematic
compilationoflessonslearntforfuturecasestudiesandavoidsrepeatingmistakes.However,itrequirestheprovisionoftoolsneededthatallowfastassessmentwithoutdetailedexpertknowledge.
4.8Perspectives-howcanSAFimproveanICMiterativeprocess?Policyeffectivenessimpliessustainableresourcemanagementrootedinsystemsthinking.Sustainablemanagementbuildsonthreepillars:environmental,socialandeconomicelements.Theseelementsneedtobeintegrated
withinaframeworkofpublicandstakeholderparticipationandarobustgovernancesystem.Thisstudyhighlightedtheneedfornationalandinternationalframeworkstoensurelegalcertaintyinholisticapproaches.Thestudyalso
showedthatcommittedleadershipandthenecessaryresourcesarerequiredforatimelyandeffectiveICMprocess.Furthermore,stakeholderparticipationneededtoencompassallrelevantpartiesandbeengagedfromtheoutset
rightthroughtotheimplementationstage.Thiswouldensurethatdecisionsarefullytransparentandaccountable.Itwouldalsoensurecitizenownershipofissuesandoutcomes,whichisthebestguaranteeforcompliance.Education
isanimportantsteptobroadenknowledgeoftheSAFandensureits implementationinthenextgenerationmanagers,scientistsandstakeholders.TheSAFprovidesthestructuretoencompassall theabove.Dueto itsstringent
structuretheSAFisasuitablequalityassuranceforsustainableICMprocesses.
AcknowledgementsTheresearchleadingtotheseresultshasreceivedfundingfromBONUS,thejointBalticSearesearchanddevelopmentprogramme(Art185),fundedjointlybytheEuropeanUnionandbynationalfunding
agenciesaroundtheBalticSeafortheproject‘SystemsApproachFrameworkforCoastalResearchandManagementintheBaltic’(BONUSBaltCoast).Theauthorsalsowishtoexpresstheirgratitudetotheinterview
participantsandquestionnairerespondentswhocontributedsowillinglytotheresearchdescribedinthisarticle.Theseinclude:JohannaSchumacher(Germancasestudy),MalgorzataBielecka,GrzegorzRóżyński
(Polishcasestudies),RamunasPovilanskas(Lithuanian,FinnishandRussiancasestudies),HannesTõnisson,AreKont(Estoniancasestudies),ThomasK.Sørensen(Danishcasestudy)andIng-MarieGren(Swedish
casestudy).Wealsothanktwoanonymousreviewersfortheirhelpfulcomments.
AppendixATableA.1Thisquestionnaireprovidedopportunityforanswering“Yes”,“No”or“DonotKnow”to56ofthe67questions.Therewasspaceforcommentsandforsomequestionsadditionalinformationwasprovided
(hereinbrackets).ThequestionswerebasedontheSAFhandbook(http://www.coastal-saf.eu).Theomittedquestionswerethoserequestingdescriptiveinformationonthecase-study.
alt-text:TableA.1
Pre-checkQ:1
Isthiscase-studydealingwithacomplexissue(e.g.affectingmultiplehumanactivitiesormultiplestakeholdergroups),whichrequirestheuseofasystematicmanagementapproach?Ifnot,youmightwishtochooseanothercasestudy.
A.1 IssueIdentification-gettingstarted
2 Wasamanagementteambuilttoleadtheprocessanddidithavescientificcompetencestosomedegree?
7 WastheissueinitiatedbyEUdirectives?
8 Wastheissueinitiatedbynationalregulations?
9 Wastheissuevoluntaryinitiatedbystakeholders?
10 WeretheteammembersfamiliarwithSAF?
A.2 IssueIdentification-preliminarystudyofthecoastalzone
11 Werehumanactivities(HA)andassociatedstakeholdergroupsdetermined?
12 WasapreliminaryinstitutionalmapcreatedtoshowuptherelationbetweenthegovernanceandtheseHAandstakeholders?
B.1 IssueIdentification–reachagreementonthePolicyIssue
13 Wasareferencegroupformed?(consistingofstakeholders,environmentalmanagersand/orpolicymakers)
15 Wastheissuediscussedandagreedbythereferencegroup?
16 Wasbackgroundworkdone?(Analysisofavailableinformationonthecause-and-effectchainfromHAtoimpactandevaluationoftheimportanceofdifferentHAsandimpacts)
17 Whereallpossiblemeasuresandtheircostsandimpactsidentified?
18 Wasequity,orallocationofeffectsamongstakeholders,givenanyconcern?
20 Werethemaineconomicactivities,themainecosystemgoodsandservicesandthemaineconomicdriverslistedormapped?
C.1 SystemDesign–definitionoftheVirtualSystem
21 Wasthecause-and-effectchaindescribed?(DescriptionofthechainfromHAviaecosystemdysfunctiontoImpactthatisinvolvedintheproblem)
22 Wasthevirtual(eco)systemaroundthecause-and-effectchainvisualizedbymapping?(Listofthemainecosystemcomponents,andtheirmainlinks,tobeincludedintheVirtualSystemrelevanttothe'Issue')
23 Werethemainecosystemcomponentslisted?
24 Werethetransboundaryexchanges(e.g.withadjacentseas)whichshouldbeincludedinthesystemlistedormapped?
25 Weretheeconomicandsocialcomponentsincludedinthevirtualsystem?
C.2 SystemDesign–identificationofexternalhazards
26 Weretheexternalhazardslistedwhichposeariskfortherealsysteminrelationtotheissue?
C.3 SystemDesign–synthesizethestateoftheimpactedsystem
27 Wasasynthesisofthesystemstatemade?
D.1 SystemDesign–constructconceptualmodels
28 Wasamethodfoundtoconstructamodelonthevirtualsystem?
29 Wereconceptualmodelsprepared?(Bydrawingorsoftware?Graphicalsymbolsandconnectorsandameansforassemblingthesearenecessary(e.g.:http://www.coastal-saf.eu/design-step/examples)
30 Wasthereferencegroupinvolvedindevelopingconceptualmodels?
31 Wasmodellingrequiredtosolvetheissue/problemofthiscasestudy?Ifnot,pleaseexplainbrieflywhyitwasnotrequiredandafterthatcontinuewithline100.Ifyes,pleasecontinuewithline92.
E.1 SystemDesign–identifymodelsoftware,methodsandformats
32 Wasastrategyforthemodellingdeveloped?(Wereavailablemodelsadapted?Werenewsub-modelsforthevirtualsystemsimulationmodeldeveloped?)
33 Wereauxiliarymodelsidentifiedtobeused?
34 Wereothertoolsidentifiedandused?(e.g.GISortoolsforstatisticalanalyses)
E.2 SystemDesign–analysisoftheeconomicdimensionsoftheCoastalZonesystemandidentificationofsuitableeconomicassessmentmethodologies
35 Werecostscalculatedandcomparedfordifferentactions?
36 Wereassessmentsmadeofimpactsondifferentstakeholders?
37 Weretheeconomicdimensionsofthemodelsclearandexplicit?
E.3 SystemDesign–acquiredata
39 Wererelevanthumanactivitiesidentifiedandrelevant‘pressure’or‘forcing’dataacquired?
40 Wasthereastrategyfortheissuesofmissingdataanduncertainty?
F.1 SystemDesign–adjustthecomplexityoftheVirtualSystem
41 WasthecomplexityoftheVirtualSystemadjusted(e.g.byfocusingoncoreprocesses,byidealization,orbysettingupaproblem-orientedmodel)?
42 Wasthefeasibilityoftheimplementationensured?
F.2 SystemDesign–specificationofformatsforresults
43 Didthereferencegroupthinkaboutaformatforthepresentationandvisualizationsofresults?
F.3 SystemDesign–designedsystemreport
44 Wasatechnicalreportingdocumentcompiled?
G.1 SystemFormulation-modelling
45 Was/werethemodel/modelsactuallyusedwiththecasestudywork?
UncitedreferencesEuropeanCouncil,1992.
ReferencesAdamsW.,TheFutureofSustainability,2006,17,Rep.IUCNRenownedthinkersMeet.29–31January2006www.iucn.o.
Ballé-BégantonJ.,LampleM.,BacherC.,FiandrinoA.,GuillardV.,LaugierT.,MongruelR.andPérezAgúndezJ.A.,Amodellingplatformforcomplexsocioecosystems:anapplicationtofreshwatermanagementin
coastalzones,Model.Environ.SakeProc.5thBienn.Conf.Int.Environ.Model.Softw.Soc.2010(2),2010,995–1002,iEMSs.
46 Werelinksbetweendifferentmodelcomponents(e.g.hydrodynamic,bio-ecological,social,and/oreconomicmodels)identified?
H.1 SystemFormulation-scenarios
47 Werescenariosusedtoinformthecase-studyprocessand/ortorunthemodels?
J.1 SystemAppraisal-preparationoftheESEmodelsforcoupling(ESE:Economic,Social,Ecological)
51 WeretheESEmodelscheckedconcerningtheappraisalobjectives?
52 Wereotherlinkstoothermodelsorproductsofanalysesintegrated?
53 WeretheESEmodelsrunseparatelyforpurposeofinterpretiveanalyses?
K.1 SystemAppraisal-systemsimulations
54 Werethepriorityandfeasibilityofscenariosreviewedandevaluated?
55 Werenecessaryinputdataforselectedscenariosgenerated?
56 WeredifferentscenarioversionsoftheSimulationModelprepared,conductedandtested?
57 Weretheresultsofscenariosdocumented?
L.1 SystemAppraisal-outputpreparation
58 WeretheHindcastandScenariomodellingresultsdescribedandinterpreted?
59 Werelimitsandliabilityofthemodeldocumentwithintheanalysis?
60 Weredraftconclusionsfromthesimulationanalysismadeandprovidedtostakeholders?
M SystemOutput-holdastakeholderforum
61 WasaStakeholderForumorganized?
62 Wasareportoftheforumdrawn?
63 Weretheresultsofscenarios/theirinterpretationdiscussedwithstakeholders?
64 Weretheoutcomesofthestakeholderforum/hearingconsideredbytheoveralldecisionmakingprocess?
N SystemOutput-deliberation
65 Wasadeliberationforumprepared?
66 Weredecisionsupporttoolsusedfordeliberationontheissue(s)ofthiscasestudy?
67 Wasthedeliberationreflectedbythestakeholdergroup/hadparticipatestheopportunitytoaddcomments?
Baltic21,HELCOMandVASAB,BalticSeaRegionICZMPlatformReport2003,2003,(Helsinki).
BerkesF.andFolkeC.,Linkingsocialandecologicalsystemsforresilienceandsustainability,In:BerkesF.andCarlF.,(Eds.),LinkingSocialandEcologySystems:ManagementPracticesandSocialMechanismsfor
BuildingResilience,1998,CambridgeUniversityPress;NewYork,13–20.
BiggsS.andMatsaertH.,Anactor-orientedapproachforstrengtheningresearchanddevelopmentcapabilitiesinnaturalresourcesystems,PublicAdm.Dev.19,1999,231–262.
BookchinM.,Theecologyoffreedom:theemergenceanddissolutionofhierarchy,SanFrancisco:CheshireBooks,1982,1982,reprintedwithanewintroductionbyAKPress,2005,revisededitionMontreal:BlackRoseBooks,1991.
BurbridgeP.R.,Acriticalreviewofprogresstowardsintegratedcoastalmanagementinthebalticsearegion,In:SchernewskiG.andLöserN.,(Eds.),ManagingtheBalticSea,2004,EUCC;Warnemünde,
63–75,CoastlineReports2.
CounciloftheBalticSeaStates,1998CBSS,In:AnAgenda21fortheBalticSeaRegion–Baltic21Adoptedatthe7thMinisterialSessionoftheCounciloftheBalticSeaStates,Nyborg,June22–23,1998.
CoxP.M.,BettsR.A.,JonesC.D.andSpallS.A.,AccelerationofGlobalWarmingDuetoCarbon-cycleFeedbacksinaCoupledClimateModelvol.408,2000,184–187.
DinesenG.E.,TimmermannK.,RothE.,MarkagerS.,Ravn-JonsenL.,HjorthM.,HolmerM.andStottrupJ.G.,MusselproductionandwaterframeworkdirectivetargetsintheLimfjord,Denmark:anintegrated
assessmentforuseinsystem-basedmanagement,Ecol.Soc.16,2011,http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04259-160426.
EuropeanCommission,Directive2000/60/ECoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof23October2000EstablishingaFrameworkforCommunityActionintheFieldofWaterPolicy,2000,1–73,OJL327,22.12.2000.
EuropeanCommission,Directive2009/147/ECoftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof30November2009ontheConservationofWildBirds,2009,7–25,OJL20,26.1.2010.
EuropeanCommission,OURCOAST-ICZMinEurope,2016,(lastassessedon11September16)http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/ourcoast.htm.
EuropeanCouncil,CouncilDirective92/43/EECof21May1992ontheConservationofNaturalHabitatsandofWildFaunaandFlora,1992.
FolkeC.,CarpenterS.,ElmqvistT.,GundersonL.,HollingC.S.,etal.,Resilienceandsustainabledevelopment:buildingadaptivecapacityinaworldoftransformations,In:Rep.Swed.Environ.Advis.Counc.2002:1.
Minist.Environ.,Stockholm,Swed,2002.
FranzénF.,KinellG.,WalveJ.,ElmgrenR.andSöderqvistT.,Participatorysocial-ecologicalmodelingineutrophicationmanagement:thecaseofhimmerfjärden,Swed.Ecol.Soc.16,2011,http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04394-160427.
GuimarãesM.H.,Ballé-BégantonJ.,BaillyD.,NewtonA.,BoskiT.andDentinhoT.,Transdisciplinaryconceptualmodelingofasocial-ecologicalsystem—acasestudyapplicationinTerceiraIsland,Azores,Ecosyst.
Serv.3,2013,22–31.
HopkinsT.S.,BaillyD.,ElmgrenR.,GleggG.,SandbergA.andStøttrupJ.G.,Asystemsapproachframeworkforthetransitiontosustainabledevelopment:potentialvaluebasedoncoastalexperiments,Ecol.
Soc.17,2012.
HopkinsT.S.,BaillyD.andStøttrupJ.G.,Asystemsapproachframeworkforcoastalzones,Ecol.Soc.16,2011,http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04553-160425.
HumanB.A.andDaviesA.,Stakeholderconsultationduringtheplanningphaseofscientificprograms,Mar.Policy34,2010,645–654.
KonstantinouZ.I.,KrestenitisY.N.,LatinopoulosD.,PagouK.,Galinou-MitsoudiS.andSavvidisY.,Aspectsofmussel-farmingactivityinChalastra,ThermaikosGulf,Greece:anefforttountieamanagementGordian
knot,Ecol.Soc.17,2012,http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04455-170101.
KörferA.andMorelV.,ICZMnetworksinthebalticsearegion,In:SchernewskiGlaeser,ScheibeSekścińskaandThamm,(Eds.),CoastalDevelopment:theOderEstuaryandbeyondCoastlineReports8,2007,EUCC;
Warnemünde,225–235.
QueriesandAnswersQuery:Pleasenotethatauthor’stelephone/faxnumbersarenotpublishedinJournalarticlesduetothefactthatarticlesareavailableonlineandinprintformanyyears,whereastelephone/faxnumbersarechangeableandthereforenotreliableinthelongterm.Answer:OK
McfaddenL.,PriestS.andGreenC.,Introducinginstitutionalmapping:aguideforSPICOSAscientists,SpicosaProj.Rep.2010,1–17.
MintzbergH.,Thefallandriseofstrategicplanning,Harv.Bus.Rev.72(1),1994,107–114.
MongruelR.,ProuJ.,Ballé-BégantonJ.,LampleM.,Vanhoutte-BrunierA.,RéthoretH.,PérezAgúndezJ.A.,VernierF.,BordenaveP.andBacherC.,Modelingsoftinstitutionalchangeandtheimprovementoffreshwater
governanceinthecoastalzone,Ecol.Soc.16,2011,http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04294-160415,art15.
NæssL.O.,BangG.,EriksenS.andVevatneJ.,Institutionaladaptationtoclimatechange,FloodresponsesatMunic.levelNor.15,2005,125–138,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.10.003.
PendleM.,EstuarineandCoastalManagedRealignmentSitesinEngland-AComparisonofPreditionswithMonitoringResultsforSelectedCaseStudies,2013,HRWallinford
Ltdhttp://eprints.hrwallingford.co.uk/664/.
PomeroyR.andDouvereF.,Theengagementofstakeholdersinthemarinespatialplanningprocess,Mar.Policy32,2008,816–822.
ReisJ.,Introductiontosystemsapproachesincoastalmanagement-ThelegacyoftheSPICOSAproject,Mar.Policy43,2014,1–2,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.03.012.
RobinsonL.,Publicoutrageandpublictrust,2002.
SemeoshenkovaV.,NewtonA.,RojasM.,PiccoloM.C.,BustosM.L.,HuamantincoCisnerosM.A.andBerninsoneL.G.,AcombinedDPSIRandSAFapproachfortheadaptivemanagementofbeacherosioninMonte
HermosoandPehuenCo(Argentina),OceanCoast.Manag.2016,http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.
SørensenT.,StøttrupJ.andDinesenG.,BestPracticeRe-analysis:Denmark-GrainsofSand,aSunkenTreasure?vol.25,2016,8.
TomlinsonB.,SastreS.,BlascoD.andGuillénJ.,Thesystemsapproachframeworkasacomplementarymethodologyofadaptivemanagement:acasestudyintheurbanbeachesofBarcelona,Ecol.Soc.16(28),
2011http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04484-160428.
VallegaA.,FundamentalsofIntegratedCoastalManagement,1999,KluwerAcademicPublishers;Dordrecht,Netherlands,269.
VallejoS.M.,IntegratedMarinePolicies:GoalsandConstraints,In:FabbriP.,(Ed),OceanManagementinGlobalChange,1992,Elsevier;London,153–168.
VonBertalanffyL.,GeneralSystemTheoryvol.1,1968,Georg.Braziller;NewYork,289.
Highlights
• TheSAFishighlysuitableasqualityassuranceforsustainableICM.
• OmittingstakeholderandinstitutionalmappingmaycompromisethesuccessofICM.
• SeveralreviewedICMprocesseswerenotholisticintheirapproach.
• WithSAFanICMprocessmayrunmoreeffectively,withinapoliticaltimeframe.
• QualityinICMprocesseswouldbenefitfromtheestablishmentofformaldirectives.
Query:Ref.“Mette,2011;EuropeanCommission,1992”arecitedinthetextbutnotprovidedinthereferencelist.Pleaseprovidetheminthereferencelistordeletethecitationsfromthetext.Answer:Mette,A.,2011.Bridgingthegapbetweenscienceandsociety.Sustainingcoastalzonesystems,DunedinAcademicPress,Edinburgh,103-149.Change"EuropeanCommission"to"EuropeanCouncil"inthereference.Ref:EuropeanCouncil,1992.CouncilDirective92/43/EECof21May1992ontheconservationofnaturalhabitatsandofwildfaunaandflora.
Query:Thecitation“PendleandWallingford(2013)”hasbeenchangedtomatchtheauthorname/dateinthereferencelist.Pleasecheckhereandinsubsequentoccurrences,andcorrectifnecessary.Answer:thisshouldbe:Pendle,M.,Wallingford,H,R.,(2013).EstuarineandcoastalmanagedrealignmentsitesinEnglandselectedcasestudies.HRWallingford,1–36.http://eprints.hrwallingford.co.uk/664/1/HRPP627-Managed_realignment.pdf.Needstobecorrectedinthereferencelistandinthereference.
Query:CouldyoupleaseprovidethegrantnumberforEuropeanUnion,ifany?Answer:thereisnograntnumberforthisgrant.Weonlyrefertotheprojectname:BONUSBaltCoast.
Query:Uncitedreference:Thissectioncomprisesreferencethatoccurinthereferencelistbutnotinthebodyofthetext.Pleasepositioneachreferenceinthetextor,alternatively,deleteit.Anyreferencenotdealtwithwillberetainedinthissection.Thankyou.Answer:AsyoucanseefromtheanswertoQ2,itshouldbeleftinasthereferenceinthetextwaswrong.
Query:Pleaseconfirmthatgivennamesandsurnameshavebeenidentifiedcorrectly.Answer:Yesallcorrect.
Query:Yourarticleisregisteredasaregularitemandisbeingprocessedforinclusioninaregularissueofthejournal.IfthisisNOTcorrectandyourarticlebelongstoaSpecialIssue/Collectionpleasecontactj.aranha@elsevier.comimmediatelypriortoreturningyourcorrections.Answer:Yes
