Karen Alexander

Interactive Marine Spatial Planning: Siting Tidal Energy Arrays around the Mull of Kintyre

The rapid development of the offshore renewable energy sector has led to an increased requirement for Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) and, increasingly, this is carried out in the context of the ‘ecosystem approach’ (EA) to management. We demonstrate a novel method to facilitate implementation of the EA. Using a real-time interactive mapping device (touch-table) and stakeholder workshops we gathered data and facilitated negotiation of spatial trade-offs at a potential site for tidal renewable energy off the Mull of Kintyre (Scotland). Conflicts between the interests of tidal energy developers and commercial and recreational users of the area were identified, and use preferences and concerns of stakeholders were highlighted. Social, cultural and spatial issues associated with conversion of common pool to private resource were also revealed. The method identified important gaps in existing spatial data and helped to fill these through interactive user inputs. The workshops developed a degree of consensus between conflicting users on the best areas for potential development suggesting that this approach should be adopted during MSP.

Marine spatial planning and Good Environmental Status: a perspective on spatial and temporal dimensions

The European Union Marine Strategy Framework Directive requires the Good Environmental Status of marine environments in Europes regional seas; yet, maritime activities, including sources of marine degradation, are diversifying and intensifying in an increasingly globalized world. Marine spatial planning is emerging as a tool for rationalizing competing uses of the marine environment while guarding its quality. A directive guiding the development of such plans by European Union member states is currently being formulated. There is an undeniable need for marine spatial planning. However, we argue that considerable care must be taken with marine spatial planning, as the spatial and temporal scales of maritime activities and of Good Environmental Status may be mismatched. We identify four principles for careful and explicit consideration to align the requirements of the two directives and enable marine spatial planning to support the achievement of Good Environmental Status in Europes regional seas.

Decision support tools for collaborative marine spatial planning: identifying potential sites for tidal energy devices around the Mull of Kintyre, Scotland

The expansion of offshore renewable energy production, such as wind, wave and tidal energy, is likely to lead to conflict between different users of the sea. Two types of spatial decision support tools were developed to support stakeholder workshops. A value mapping tool combines regional attributes with local knowledge. A negotiation support tool uses these value maps to support stakeholders in finding acceptable locations for tidal energy devices. Interactive value mapping proved useful to address deficiencies in data and to create credibility for these maps. The negotiation tool helped stakeholders in balancing objectives of the various stakeholders.

Challenges of achieving Good Environmental Status in the Northeast Atlantic

The sustainable exploitation of marine ecosystem services is dependent on achieving and maintaining an adequate ecosystem state to prevent undue deterioration. Within the European Union, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) requires member states to achieve Good Environmental Status (GEnS), specified in terms of 11 descriptors. We analyzed the complexity of social-ecological factors to identify common critical issues that are likely to influence the achievement of GEnS in the Northeast Atlantic (NEA) more broadly, using three case studies. A conceptual model developed using a soft systems approach highlights the complexity of social and ecological phenomena that influence, and are likely to continue to influence, the state of ecosystems in the NEA. The development of the conceptual model raised four issues that complicate the implementation of the MSFD, the majority of which arose in the Pressures and State sections of the model: variability in the system, cumulative effects, ecosystem resilience, and conflicting policy targets. The achievement of GEnS targets for the marine environment requires the recognition and negotiation of trade-offs across a broad policy landscape involving a wide variety of stakeholders in the public and private sectors. Furthermore, potential cumulative effects may introduce uncertainty, particularly in selecting appropriate management measures. There also are endogenous pressures that society cannot control. This uncertainty is even more obvious when variability within the system, e.g., climate change, is accounted for. Also, questions related to the resilience of the affected ecosystem to specific pressures must be raised, despite a lack of current knowledge. Achieving good management and reaching GEnS require multidisciplinary assessments. The soft systems approach provides one mechanism for bringing multidisciplinary information together to look at the problems in a different light.

Progress in integrating natural and social science in marine ecosystem-based management research

Climate change, in combination with population growth, is placing increasing pressure on the world’s oceans and their resources. This is threatening sustainability and societal wellbeing. Responding to these complex and synergistic challenges requires holistic management arrangements. To this end, ecosystem-based management (EBM) promises much by recognising the need to manage the ecosystem in its entirety, including the human dimensions. However, operationalisation of EBM in the marine environment has been slow. One reason may be a lack of the inter-disciplinary science required to address complex social–ecological marine systems. In the present paper, we synthesise the collective experience of the authors to explore progress in integrating natural and social sciences in marine EBM research, illustrating actual and potential contributions. We identify informal barriers to and incentives for this type of research. We find that the integration of natural and social science has progressed at most stages of the marine EBM cycle; however, practitioners do not yet have the capacity to address all of the problems that have led to the call for inter-disciplinary research. In addition, we assess how we can support the next generation of researchers to undertake the effective inter-disciplinary research required to assist with operationalising marine EBM, particularly in a changing climate.

Marine spatial planning: scale mismatches in a complex (regional) seascape

The marine environment is globally important with approximately 40% of people living within 100 kilometres of the world’s coasts, and an estimated

Marine and Coastal Ecosystem Stewardship

1.5 trillion (Golden et al., 2017) of economic benefit arising from the oceans and coasts. As coastal nations seek to further develop their ‘blue economies’ (their use of the sea and its resources for sustainable economic development), improved management will be required.

Big, bold and blue: lessons from Australia’s marine protected areas

Our seas and coasts are an asset with rich and varied resources, both living and non-living. They support livelihoods through marine and coastal industries such as fishing, aquaculture, energy extraction and tourism. They provide spaces for recreation, play and relaxation. For the many of us who live at the coasts, the marine environment provides a sense of place and identity. Indeed, in some locations, particularly small island nations, our seas and coasts define cultures, and cultural practices such as ‘pearling’ (the traditional sea-use of harvesting pearls from oyster beds in Bahrain) have even been entered into the World Heritage List.

Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services

In Big, Bold and Blue, Fitzsimons and Westcott attempt to bring together the history, current status and future directions of Australian marine protected area (MPA) networks, as well as the perspectives from different sectors on these networks, in order to inform other nations on how they can progress their own MPA networks and achieve targets determined by the Convention on Biological Diversity. Whilst this volume provides the reader with a wealth of evidence regarding the Australian experience, the nature of such an overview means that depth of knowledge on any one topic often cannot be provided and the reader is occasionally left wanting more.