Display options
Cite
Stelzenmüller V, Cormier R, Gee K, et al. Evaluation of marine spatial planning requires fit for purpose monitoring strategies. J Environ Manage. 2020;278:111545doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111545.
Stelzenmüller, V., Cormier, R., Gee, K., Shucksmith, R., Gubbins, M., Yates, K. L., Morf, A., Nic Aonghusa, C., Mikkelsen, E., Tweddle, J. F., Pecceu, E., Kannen, A., & Clarke, S. A. (2021). Evaluation of marine spatial planning requires fit for purpose monitoring strategies. Journal of environmental management, 278111545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111545
Stelzenmüller, V, et al. "Evaluation of marine spatial planning requires fit for purpose monitoring strategies." Journal of environmental management vol. 278 (2021): 111545. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111545
Stelzenmüller V, Cormier R, Gee K, Shucksmith R, Gubbins M, Yates KL, Morf A, Nic Aonghusa C, Mikkelsen E, Tweddle JF, Pecceu E, Kannen A, Clarke SA. Evaluation of marine spatial planning requires fit for purpose monitoring strategies. J Environ Manage. 2021 Jan 15;278:111545. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111545. Epub 2020 Nov 14. PMID: 33202370.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Environ Manage. 2021 Jan 15;278:111545. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111545. Epub 2020 Nov 14.

Evaluation of marine spatial planning requires fit for purpose monitoring strategies.

Journal of environmental management

V Stelzenmüller, R Cormier, K Gee, R Shucksmith, M Gubbins, K L Yates, A Morf, C Nic Aonghusa, E Mikkelsen, J F Tweddle, E Pecceu, A Kannen, S A Clarke

Affiliations

  1. Thünen Institute of Sea Fisheries, Herwigstraße 31, Bremerhaven, 27572, Germany. Electronic address: [email protected].
  2. Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht, Institute for Coastal Research, Max-Planck-Straße 1, Geesthacht, 21502, Germany.
  3. NAFC Marine Centre UHI, Scalloway, Shetland, ZE1 0UN, UK.
  4. Marine Scotland, Marine Laboratory, 375 Victoria Road, Aberdeen, AB11 9DB, UK.
  5. School of Science, Engineering and Environment, University of Salford, Manchester, UK; ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
  6. Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.
  7. Marine Institute, Renville, Oranmore, Co., Galway, H91 R673, Ireland.
  8. Nofima, Postboks 6122 Langnes, Tromsø, 9291, Norway.
  9. Cruickshank Building, School of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, St Machar Dr, Aberdeen, AB24 3UU, UK.
  10. Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ankerstraat 1, Ostend, 8400, Belgium.
  11. Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk, NE33 0HT, UK.

PMID: 33202370 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111545

Abstract

Marine spatial planning (MSP) has rapidly become the most widely used integrated, place-based management approach in the marine environment. Monitoring and evaluation of MSP is key to inform best practices, adaptive management and plan iteration. While standardised evaluation frameworks cannot be readily applied, accounting for evaluation essentials such as the definition of evaluation objectives, indicators and stakeholder engagement of stakeholders is a prerequisite for meaningful evaluation outcomes. By way of a literature review and eleven practical MSP case studies, we analysed present day trends in evaluation approaches and unravelled the adoption of evaluation essentials for three categories for monitoring and evaluation for plan making, plan outcomes, and policy implementation. We found that at a global scale the focus of MSP evaluation has shifted over the past decade from evaluating predominantly plan outcomes towards the evaluation of plan making. Independent of the scope of the evaluation, evaluation approaches varied greatly from formal and structured processes, building for instance on MSP goals and objectives, to informal processes based on stakeholder interviews. We noted a trend in the adoption of formalised approaches where MSP evaluations have increasingly become linked to MSP policy goals and objectives. However, the enhanced use of MSP objectives and indicators did not result in a more straightforward reporting of outcomes, e.g. such as the achievement of specific MSP objectives. Overall, we found weak linkages between defined MSP objectives, indicators and available monitoring data. While the apparent shift towards a focus on objectives is promising, we highlight the need of fit-for-purpose monitoring data to enable effective evaluation of those objectives. Hence, effective MSP and adaptive management processes require customised and concurrent monitoring and evaluation strategies and procedures. We argue that evaluation processes would also benefit from a better understanding of the general environmental, socio-economic and socio-cultural effects of MSP. Therefore, to understand better environmental effects of MSP, we praise that forthcoming MSP processes need to deepen the understanding and considerations of cause-effect pathways between human activities and changes of ecosystem state through the adoption of targeted cumulative effects assessments.

Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Adaptive management; Compliance monitoring; Effects assessments; Indicators; Marine spatial planning; Monitoring strategies

MeSH terms

Publication Types