| 1. |
- Koundouri, P., et al.
(author)
-
Methodology for Integrated Socio-economic Assessment of Multi-use Offshore Platforms.
- 2017
-
In: In: Koundouri P. (eds) The Ocean of Tomorrow. Environment & Policy, vol 56. Springer, Cham. - 9783319557700 ; , s. 11-26
-
Book chapter (other academic/artistic)abstract
- This chapter presents the methodology employed for the Integrated Socio-Economic Assessment (MISEA) of different designs of Multi-Use Offshore Platforms (MUOPs). The methodology allows for the identification, the valuationand the assessment of the potential impacts and their magnitude. The analysis considers a number of feasible designs of MUOP investments, and the likely responsesof those impacted by the investment project. The approach provides decision-makers with a valuable tool to assess whether a MUOP project increases the overall social welfare and hence should be undertaken. This is performed under alternative specifications regarding platform design, the discount rate and the stream of net benefits, if a Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) is to be followed or a sensitivity analysis of selected criteria in a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) framework. Themethodology can support the implementation of policies aiming at achieving a goodenvironmental status of the EU’s marine waters and the protection of the resource base upon which marine-related economic and social activities depend.
|
|
| 2. |
- Stuiver, M., et al.
(author)
-
The Governance of Multi-Use Platforms at Sea for Energy Production and Aquaculture: Challenges for Policy Makers in European Seas
- 2016
-
In: Sustainability. - : MDPI AG. - 2071-1050. ; 8:4
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- European seas are encountering an upsurge in competing marine activities and infrastructures. Traditional exploitation such as fisheries, tourism, transportation, and oil production are accompanied by new sustainable economic activities such as offshore windfarms, aquaculture, and tidal and wave energy. One proposed solution to overcome possible competing claims at sea lies in combining these economic activities as part of Multi-Use Platforms at Sea (MUPS). MUPS can be understood as areas at sea, designated for a combination of activities, either completely integrated in a platform or in shared marine space. MUPS can potentially benefit from each other in terms of infrastructure, maintenance, etc. Developing MUPS in the marine environment demands adequate governance. In this article, we investigate four European sites to find out how governance arrangements may facilitate or complicate MUPs. In particular, we apply a framework specifying policy, economic, social, technical, environmental, and legal (PESTEL) factors to explore governance arrangements in four case study sites in different sea basins around Europe ( the Mediterranean Sea, the Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea, and the Baltic Sea). The article concludes with policy recommendations on a governance regime for facilitating the development of MUPS in the future.
|
|
| 3. |
- van den Burg, S., et al.
(author)
-
Participatory Design of Multi-Use Platforms at Sea
- 2016
-
In: Sustainability. - : MDPI AG. - 2071-1050. ; 8:2, s. Art. no. 127-
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- European oceans are subject to rapid development. New activities such as aquaculture and ocean energy have gained importance. This triggers interest in “multi-use platforms at sea” (MUPS), i.e., areas at sea in which different activities are combined. MUPS are complex features with regards to technology, governance, and financial, socioeconomic, and environmental aspects. To identify realistic and sustainable solutions and designs for MUPS, the MERMAID project applied a participatory design process (PDP) involving a range of stakeholders representing companies, authorities, researchers, and NGOs. This paper evaluates if and how the participatory design process contributed to the design of multi-use platforms. It is based on interviews with the managers of the case study sites and a questionnaire administered to all stakeholders participating in the PDP workshops. Analyzing the four case studies, we conclude that the participatory design process has had a valuable contribution to the development of the four different designs of MUPS, even though the preconditions for carrying out a participatory design process differed between sites. In all four cases, the process has been beneficial in generating new and shared knowledge. It brought new design issues to the table and increased knowledge and understanding among the different stakeholders.
|
|
