Evaluation of marine spatial planning requires fit for purpose monitoring strategies

Stelzenmüller, Vanessa; Cormier, Roland; Gee, Kira; Shucksmith, Rachel; Gubbins, M.; Yates, Katherine L.; Morf, Andrea; Aonghusa, Caitríona Nic; Mikkelsen, Eirik; Tweddle, Jacqueline F.; Pecceu, Ellen; Kannen, Andreas; Clarke, Stacey

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111545

Cited by 36 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…11), limits the capacity to assign causation to social and economic outcomes. The challenges of assigning causation to spatial management measure outcomes based on existing social-economic monitoring programmes are widespread [31] and the resultant lack of clarity inherently makes policy and management decisions around social-economic outcomes more difficult.…”

Section: Implications For Policy/managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ultimately the entire context, including all these aspects, will collectively determine how effective a spatial management measure is. However, evaluations are often focused on particular aspects, and the choice of what aspect of a spatial management measure to evaluate depends on the priorities of those asking how effective that measure is [31].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In doing so, we have sought to develop understanding, rather than assess the monitoring and evaluation approaches themselves. However, while outside our scope, we acknowledge the importance both of effectively [26,31,34]. Further research into the design, implementation and evaluation of the monitoring, evaluation and learning systems themselves, focused on both short-and long-term outcomes, will therefore continue to be an important research agenda [e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The nature and extent of evidence on methodologies for monitoring and evaluating marine spatial management measures in the UK and similar coastal waters: a systematic map

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Anthropogenic degradation of marine ecosystems is widely accepted as a major social-ecological problem. The growing urgency to manage marine ecosystems more effectively has led to increasing application of spatial management measures (marine protected areas [MPAs], sectoral [e.g. fishery] closures and marine spatial planning [marine plans]). Understanding the methodologies used to evaluate the effectiveness of these measures against social, economic, and ecological outcomes is key for designing effective monitoring and evaluation programmes. Methods We used a pre-defined and tested search string focusing on intervention and outcome terms to search for relevant studies across four bibliographic databases, Google Scholar, 39 organisational websites, and one specialist data repository. Searches were conducted in English and restricted to the period 2009 to 2019 to align with current UK marine policy contexts. Relevant studies were restricted to UK-relevant coastal countries, as identified by key stakeholders. Search results were screened for relevance against pre-defined eligibility criteria first at title and abstract level, and then at full text. Articles assessed as not relevant at full text were recorded with reasons for exclusion. Two systematic map databases of meta-data and coded data from relevant primary and secondary studies, respectively, were produced. Review findings Over 19,500 search results were identified, resulting in 391 relevant primary articles, 33 secondary articles and 49 tertiary reviews. Relevant primary articles evaluated spatial management measures across a total of 22 social, economic and ecological outcomes; only 2.8% considered all three disciplines, with most focused exclusively on ecological (67.8%) or social (13.3%) evaluations. Secondary articles predominately focused on ecological evaluations (75.8%). The majority of the primary and secondary evidence base aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of MPAs (85.7% and 90.9% respectively), followed by fisheries closures (12.5%; 3.0%) with only 1.8% of primary, and 6.1% of secondary, articles focused on marine plans or on MPAs and fisheries closures combined. Most evaluations reported within primary articles were conducted for a single site (60.4%) or multiple individual sites (32.5%), with few evaluating networks of sites (6.9%). Secondary articles mostly evaluated multiple individual sites (93.9%). Most (70.3%) primary articles conducted principal evaluations, i.e. basic description of effects; 29.4% explored causation; and 0.3% undertook benefit evaluations. Secondary articles predominately explored causation (66.7%) with the remainder conducting principal evaluations. Australia (27.4%), the USA (18.4%) and the UK (11.3%) were most frequently studied by primary articles, with secondary articles reporting mostly global (66.7%) or European (18.2%) syntheses. Conclusions The systematic map reveals substantial bodies of evidence relating to methods of evaluating MPAs against ecological outcomes. However, key knowledge gaps include evaluation across social and economic outcomes and of overall merit and/or worth (benefit evaluation), as well as of: marine plans; networks of sites; real-time, temporary or seasonal closures; spatial management within offshore waters, and lagoon or estuary environments. Although the evidence base has grown over the past two decades, information to develop comprehensive evaluation frameworks remains insufficient. Greater understanding on how to evaluate the effectiveness of spatial management measures is required to support improved management of global ocean resources and spaces.

show abstract

Section: Implications For Policy/managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The nature and extent of evidence on methodologies for monitoring and evaluating marine spatial management measures in the UK and similar coastal waters: a systematic map

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another methodological issue would be how to integrate the principles of Effective Governance into ecosystem-based management frameworks since various approaches exist that could be applied, e.g., through sustainability assessment (Frederiksen et al, 2021), the social sustainability approach, used by Saunders et al (2020) or during recurring evaluation of maritime spatial plans (more precisely in this casethe MSP process), operationalised by a third-party audit or responsible planning body in cooperation with stakeholders (Stelzenmüller et al, 2021). Last but not least, several options are available as to how these assessments could be carried out: quantitatively, or rather based on qualitative local community assessment, supplemented by the judgement of society at large and/or expertbased evaluation.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Land-sea interactions: case studies from the Baltic Sea Region

Neimane

2021

SHS Web Conf.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research background: Nowadays, mainstream discussions on maritime spatial planning (MSP) are tightly intertwined with the discourse on governance for land-sea interactions or interface (LSI), using multi-scalar and cross-sectoral governance systems. At the same time, principles with legal rank need to be respected and applied in both MSP and LSI and their respective governance structures while putting coastal communities at the centre and taking into consideration the process of “maritimisation.” In combination, these factors contribute to augmenting the pressure of competing uses both on land and sea in the frame of the Blue Economy. As an exemplary forerunner in the field of MSP, the Baltic Sea Region (BSR) and its case studies can provide a useful insight in this respect. Purpose of the article: The aim is to identify and integrate the principles with legal rank of Effective Governance for sustainable development to be implemented through different LSI governance perspectives and in the framework of MSP and the Blue Economy, providing concise guidance as to their application through BSR case studies. Methods: Preparation of this article involves applying traditional legal research methods (analysis and synthesis) and the results of maritime spatial plans and practical examples of pilot projects. Analysis includes the following techniques: descriptive, historical, special analytical and dogmatically comparable, including an analytical perspective of transnational environmental law. Synthesis is applied through the legally constructive method. Findings & Value added: Based on conclusions and lessons learned from BSR case studies, the article offers added value by structuring and improving knowledge and providing a basis for further theoretical discussion.

show abstract

“…Finally, it is worth stressing that both SCP and MSP are processes that should be subject to monitoring and evaluation to allow for adaptive management and improved marine spatial plans that are effective over time (García-Barón et al, 2021;Stelzenmüller et al, 2021). Over the past decade, EU member states have shown increasing interest for international recognition of their exclusive economic zones and the development of new maritime activities within their jurisdiction (Katsanevakis et al, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marine spatial plans focusing on biodiversity conservation: The case of the Aegean Sea

Markantonatou

Giakoumi

Koukourouvli

et al. 2021

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. The expansion and intensification of marine uses have severe cumulative impacts on marine ecosystems and human well-being, unless they are properly managed with an ecosystem-based management approach.2. A systematic conservation planning approach, using MARXAN WITH ZONES, was applied to generate alternative marine spatial plans for the Aegean Sea. Relevant human uses were included and their cumulative impact on a wide set of key biodiversity features was considered in the analysis. Different cost scenarios were developed to gain insight on the effects of the approaches used to assess socio-economic factors, and their potential impact on spatial plans.3. The spatial plans generated differed greatly depending on the method used to estimate opportunity costs and evaluate human activities in monetary terms. The vulnerability weights (the relative vulnerability of ecological features tospecific human activities and their impacts) that were estimated based on a cumulative impact assessment, allowed the assessment of each zone in contributing to the achievement of conservation targets, through a transparent planning approach.5. Results indicate that special care should be given to how socio-economic activities, their impact on the ecosystems, and related costs are incorporated into planning.6. The proposed approach demonstrates how EU member states may effectively comply with the new Biodiversity Strategy 2030 targets, while planning for the sustainable use of their marine resources.

show abstract

Evaluation of marine spatial planning requires fit for purpose monitoring strategies

Cited by 36 publications

References 48 publications

The nature and extent of evidence on methodologies for monitoring and evaluating marine spatial management measures in the UK and similar coastal waters: a systematic map

The nature and extent of evidence on methodologies for monitoring and evaluating marine spatial management measures in the UK and similar coastal waters: a systematic map

Land-sea interactions: case studies from the Baltic Sea Region

Marine spatial plans focusing on biodiversity conservation: The case of the Aegean Sea

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About