| 1. |
- Gee, Kira, et al.
(author)
-
BONUS BALTSPACE Deliverable 3.3: Addressing MSP integration challenges: The role of tools and approaches. Geesthacht.
- 2018
-
Reports (other academic/artistic)abstract
- This report discusses seven different tools and approaches to address important integration challenges in marine and coastal spatial planning and management, namely in relation to sectors and policies, boundaries, stakeholders and different types of knowledge. BONUS BALTSPACE (2015-2018) was conceived against the background of the EU MSP Directive and the need for Member States to produce marine spatial plans by 2021. MSP is an integrative concept that requires integration of sectors and stakeholders, of different types of knowledge, as well as integration across administrative borders. BALTSPACE was the first transnational, interdisciplinary MSP research project in the BSR to focus on four key integration challenges in MSP, namely policy and sector integration, multi-level and transboundary integration, stakeholder integration and knowledge integration. Work Package 3 was tasked with developing and assessing practitioner-oriented approaches and tools for MSP to help deal with the integration challenges identified (www.baltspace.eu). The capacity of seven problem- and process-specific techniques and approaches (subsequently termed tools) was assessed in different case study settings: •Bowtie •Culturally Significant Areas •Governance Baselines •Integrated Indicator System for monitoring the spatial, economic and environmental effects of MSP solutions •Marxan •Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation •Spatial Economic Benefit Analysis (SEBA) Each tool was applied once in a particular country context in a format determined by the tool user. Some applications were desktop exercises, others were more participative, although most had some form of verification by stakeholders. Tool selection reflected both the variety of available methods and the diverse range of tasks in MSP, leading to the inclusion of product- and process-oriented tools, descriptive and analytical tools, as well as data and forecasting tools. One of the tools (SEBA) was specifically developed for MSP as part of BALTSPACE. An overview of academic literature revealed that “tools” in MSP are mostly understood as technical instruments that provide decision support. To a large part, the tools described in the literature rely on scientific data and information, in line with a view of MSP as an evidence-based exercise requiring data collection and analysis as a basis for planning. There is little mention of the role of process in MSP and the learning that might result from tool-supported processes. Also, most assessments do not focus on the indirect or ‘soft’ impacts of tool use, which are often related to the persons or groups engaging with the tool – and which could have positive integration effects by and for themselves. Examples of such impacts include greater mutual understanding or an improved sense of trust, both of which could arise from improved stakeholder and knowledge integration facilitated by a tool. Integration effects may therefore manifest themselves when the tool is being used - e.g. to generate a particular output such as a map – or when the results are being fed back into the MSP process. After a short overview of the purpose of each tool and where it fits in the MSP cycle, an analytical template is set out. This breaks down the four integration challenges into a series of sub-challenges, so as to enable a comparative evaluation of the seven tools against the same set of challenges. It also sets out some more general contributions the tools could make with respect to MSP, such as contributing to the efficiency of the MSP process or to improved decision-making. The assessment is based on the retrospective evaluation of the BALTSPACE researchers and largely descriptive, focusing also on the direct outputs and indirect outcomes of tool use. Throughout, the assessment focuses on the capacity of each tool, taking account of the fact that tool use is context-dependent and that a range of external factors comes into play when it comes to the actual integration results. The assessment shows that the integration challenges most readily addressed are stakeholder and knowledge integration. Conversely, policy integration is difficult to achieve as a direct result, although some tools are well suited to analysing the existing policy landscape and potential integration gaps. Multi-level (transboundary) integration depends on the scale of tool use and is potentially achievable as all tools can be up-scaled if necessary. Some tools are also well-placed to contribute to land-sea integration. An important difference is noted between the inherent capacity of the tools and their application. Some tools are better at certain tasks than others but ultimately, it is the application that is make or break. For example, some tools (such as OS or CSA) are specifically designed to support stakeholder and knowledge integration, in the sense that they would not deliver a result without them. Other tools that are less specifically designed for this purpose can also contribute to stakeholder integration, but this then happens as a result of how the tool is applied – in this case in a participative setting. To some degree, the capacity to facilitate stakeholder and knowledge integration depends on whether a tool is process- or product-oriented or analytical or experimental. Generally, process-oriented tools, especially complex ones such as OS require active stakeholder involvement and input, but there are also product-oriented tools (such as CSA or SEBA) that rely on the integration of various stakeholders and their knowledge. Analytical tools such as Bowtie or Governance Baselines could in theory be conducted as mere desktop exercises, which would restrict their impact on knowledge integration; if applied as participatory tools they would also make an indirect contribution to stakeholder integration. The mere fact that a tool requires stakeholder involvement does not automatically lead to integration benefits, although involvement is certainly a prerequisite. Especially with respect to process-oriented tools, much depends on the skill of the tool user and the quality of the application process, including for example facilitation skills, timing and resources, also on the part of the participating stakeholders. Much also depends on the quality of the (surrounding) MSP process and whether this is capable of absorbing the benefits that may be generated from tool use. The seven tools are unable to contribute to increasing national/transnational policy coherence and resolving institutional compatibilities, and less well placed to help evaluate the consequences of planned action. Only the most comprehensive process-oriented tool (OS) is able to create a forum for deliberation. A key aspect for applying the seven BALTSPACE tools in practice is to know the precise challenge to be addressed, the capacity of the tool (its potential outcomes) including any soft benefits to be achieved, and the capacity of those using the tool (time, timing, resources). It is also important to consider which role the tool is expected to play in the MSP process: Will it be used as a free-standing, independent entity and process, feeding results into the MSP process? Will it be used as a trigger of the MSP process and “way in” or door-opener, for example to motivate stakeholders? Or is the tool to be intimately linked to the entire MSP process, effectively running large parts of it? Insights and practical tips for using the tools are provided in a separate Tools Handbook which is available for download on the BALTSPACE website (www.baltspace.eu). The website also contains short video tutorials on selected tools, as well as a briefing note and short summary of the opportunities and challenges in using tools to support integration in MSP.
|
|
| 2. |
- Gee, Kira, et al.
(author)
-
Can tools contribute to integration in MSP? : A comparative review of selected tools and approaches
- 2019
-
In: Ocean and Coastal Management. - : Elsevier. - 0964-5691 .- 1873-524X. ; 179, s. 1-11
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The role of tools and approaches is currently much debated in maritime spatial planning (MSP). Past evaluation has mainly concentrated on decision support tools and the tangible outputs these can provide for MSP, but little attention has so far been been given to the soft or indirect benefits tool use can have in MSP. This paper assesses the potential benefits of tool use in the context of four common integration challenges in MSP. Drawing on case study material from the Baltic Sea region, the paper reviews the potential contribution of five selected tools and approaches to multi-level and transboundary, policy and sector, stakeholder and knowledge integration. Specific end points are defined for each integration challenge, including general desired outcomes of integrated MSP processes as a template for assessment. Our review shows that the selected tools play different roles in moving towards the various end points of MSP integration. There is an important difference between the potential of each tool, or its inherent capacity, and how it is applied, e.g. in a participative or non-participative setting. Another lesson is that some integration benefits can be achieved by the tools alone, while others – often secondary benefits - depend on how the outcomes of tool use are taken up by the subsequent MSP process. Although the nature of a tool does restrict its potential contribution to MSP integration challenges, the secondary “soft” benefits that can be achieved through certain styles of application and good links to the MSP process can add important integration benefits up and beyond the tool itself. The results presented here may also be relevant to other types of spatial planning and conservation management.
|
|
| 3. |
- Saunders, Fred P., et al.
(author)
-
BALTSPACE Deliverable: D1.2 : Final Guidance Document on Analysing Possibilities and Challenges for MSP Integration
- 2016
-
Reports (other academic/artistic)abstract
- This report makes a case for examining the role of integration and its links to how sustainable development is variably expressed in different marine spatial planning (MSP) contexts. The aim of the report is to refine an analytical approach to examine integration in MSP in the Baltic Sea through consideration of preliminary empirical results from a broad range of case studies. MSP is conceptualised here as a governance platform for improving processes to enable political decision-making with the aim to achieve sustainable development of marine space. Integration is universally espoused as a means to address a variety of challenges closely related to MSP’s sustainable development ambitions, such as supporting inter-sectoral decision-making, stakeholder engagement and cross-border interaction, but its role, value and implementation in MSP has not been examined in any empirical detail. Although increased integration may well have positive effects on MSP processes and outcomes, in some instances, the contrary might also be the case. With these thoughts in mind, this report argues that we need to analyse integration as a multidimensional concept in MSP processes and outcomes. Based on understandings of integration derived from MSP experience and concepts in the broader social science literature, an analytical framework is developed to examine MSP practice in the Baltic Sea. Integration is conceptualised as including transboundary/cross-border, policy/sectoral, stakeholder and knowledge dimensions. Despite common requirements under the European Union MSP Directive and policies, national jurisdictions are likely to adopt MSP differently, which has implications for the role integration is likely to play in national and transnational MSP practice. Drawing on empirical data derived from national MSP studies, stakeholder dialogue forums and preliminary interviews with stakeholders the analytical framework is applied to examine how particular integration challenges play out in both national and transnational marine space across the Baltic Sea Region. The analytical framework is then used to structure an examination of several case studies from different parts of the Baltic Sea Region. Based on consideration of the empirical work and an analyses of previous experiences in science and practice we then propose some revisions to the initial analytical framework presented earlier. The revised analytical framework, while capturing the integration dimensions mentioned earlier, also includes consideration of the following aspects of integration: how ‘balance’ between sustainable development dimensions is exercised; the character of cross-boundary interactions; and temporal dynamics. Instead of a conclusion, short think-pieces are presented to capture the main insights of the report, which could be used to aid the examination of integration in MSP in other MSP contexts, beyond the Baltic Sea.
|
|
| 4. |
- Staehr, Peter A. U., et al.
(author)
-
Environmental DNA Monitoring of Biodiversity Hotspots in Danish Marine Waters
- 2022
-
In: Frontiers in Marine Science. - : Frontiers Media SA. - 2296-7745. ; 8
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- We investigated the use of eDNA metabarcoding for supplementing traditional diver-based monitoring of biodiversity of marine boulder reefs within the photic zone. The applied sampling design made it possible to evaluate the usefulness of eDNA monitoring as a supplement for traditional monitoring. Specifically, this study aimed to (1) assess the local influence of boulder reefs on biodiversity across the North Sea to Baltic Sea transition zone and (2) investigate the importance of environmental gradients for patterns in community structure. On samples collected during August 2020, we compared the composition and abundance of species associated with nine reefs, representing an environmental gradient of salinity (16–33 psu), water temperature (16–21°C) and water depth (6–29 m). At each reef site, water was sampled near the bottom just above the reef and on average 2.6 km upstream and downstream (location) and sequenced with metabarcoding using COI, 18S and 12S rDNA primers. eDNA identified 400 species, diver-based observations identified 184 with an overlap of 70 species (12%) and 81 genera (18%). While eDNA identified many infaunal species, it did not detect several macroalgal species which dominated in the diver-based observations. Multivariate analysis of eDNA and diver-based community structure both distinguished between reef communities, with a significant match between patterns observed by the two methods (r = 0.37, p = 0.02). Furthermore, the eDNA approach made it possible to identify significant differences in species composition between upstream, above-reef and downstream locations, suggesting that eDNA leaves a local footprint in benthic habitats. Patterns in both eDNA and diver-based species composition and richness were significantly related to geographical distance, salinity, water temperature and water depth. Despite of low detection of macroalgae, the eDNA sampling provided a substantial supplement to traditional diver-based monitoring of biodiversity around benthic hotspots in the Danish marine waters and therefore we recommend to add eDNA methods to conventional monitoring programs in the future.
|
|
