Transfer Report: Toolbox for local and urban resource management and conflict mitigation

1

Project acronym: SECOA

Project full title: Solutions for Environmental contrast in Coastal Areas

Grant agreement no.: 244251

Start date of project: December 1, 2009

Duration: 48 months

Deliverable: D 7.2

Title: Transfer Report: Toolbox for local and urban resource management and conflict mitigation

Lead beneficiary: UGOT (Authors: A. Morf, S. Alpokay, K. Bruckmeier, T. Buurman, P. Knutsson, M. Riechers, O. Stepanova, J. Wernersson)

Date of issue: 1st July July 2013

Project co-funded by the EU Commission within the 7th Framework Programme (2007-2013)

Dissemination Level

PU Public X

PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services)

RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services)

CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)

2

Abstract

This transfer report Toolbox for local and urban resource management and conflict mitigation presents a synthesis of earlier SECOA research related to natural resource and conflict management in urban coastal areas and on-going work in Work Package 7. One aim of this report is to inform a larger circle beyond the SECOA-community on important insights from the project and develop a guideline to identify relevant policy tools for the management of urban resources and related conflicts. Another, SECOA-internal aim is to prepare for the final phase of work packages 7 and 8, where a participatory GIS-based scenario methodology is to be tested and strategies developed to find appropriate policy mixes for specific areas and their problems.

Section 1 delimits the scope and questions and the sources and methods used, and defines the important concepts. In focus are environmental and social conflicts in coastal urban areas with on local or regional scale and low degree of violence. The methods include document and literature analysis on relevant policy instruments.

Section 2 summarises the results from the first round of stakeholder workshops in relation to coastal conflict management and draws conclusions on what should be addressed – both topically and with regard to process and communication with SECOA-end users. These have among other emphasised the need for participation and coordination tools and the necessity for a comprehensive and conflict management oriented perspective.

Section 3 presents an overview over relevant approaches and methods for natural resource management important for urban resource and conflict management found in literature and starts developing criteria for structuring the toolbox.

Section 4, with a conflict analysis and management perspective, provides a review of analytical frameworks from both SECOA- and other relevant research that can help choosing policy instruments to address coastal resource conflicts.

Section 5 summarises the results and experiences from SECOA-research in relation to what is in place for the management urban coastal areas in the SECOA countries and what still needs to be developed in the different participating countries and how policy tools could be selected.

Section 6 provides an overview over the types of instruments and a stepwise introduction and guideline on how to use the toolbox. The actual toolbox consists of three matrices in the appendix. The tools are described both qualitatively and using more specified criteria developed in sections 1-5. A graded colour code provides a possibility for easily seeing relevance of the instrument for specific SECOA topics (natural resource management, conflict management, urban planning and management, institutional innovation, coastal management, and addressing climate change.

Section 7 draws conclusions and provides suggestions on how to proceed to select useful combinations of policy tools from a regional perspective in relation to the needs identified in sections 2 and 5 and from a SECOA-topical perspective based on an analysis of the instruments in relation to the earlier developed criteria.

The annex contains a list of references used in the text and concludes with the three tables of the toolbox: (1) Policy instruments: more than 80 instruments characterised as

3

described in section 6, (2) References: from the literature review for further reading, (3) Handbooks & web resources: a selection of recommended literature and web resources for further reading and capacity development.

4

Table of Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................................. 2 Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. 4 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 5

1.1 Aim and Scope ......................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Sources and Methods .............................................................................................. 6 1.3 Application: Living Database for the Final Project Phase ........................................ 7

2. Challenges and Needs Identified by SECOA-Stakeholders ................................................ 8 2.1 Common Challenges Identified in the Workshops .................................................. 8 2.2 Common Needs Identified in Workshops ............................................................. 10 2.3 Reactions to SECOA-Methods in Workshops ........................................................ 11 2.4 Conclusions from the Stakeholder Workshops for Future SECOA Work .............. 12

3. Natural Resource Management – Frameworks and Indicators ...................................... 14 3.1 Adaptive management and governance ............................................................... 14 3.2 Interaction Nature-Society in the DPSIR framework ............................................ 14 3.3 Defining status, trends and evaluating progress: Indicators as tools ................... 15 3.4 Identifying relevant policy instruments for natural resource management ........ 16

4. Conceptual Frameworks to Address Coastal Conflicts .................................................... 17 4.1 Broad Perspective on Frameworks to Address Conflicts in CZM .......................... 17 4.2 Relevance According to SECOA ............................................................................. 18 4.3 Frameworks for Coastal Conflict Analysis and Management ............................... 18 4.4 Synthesis: Matrix for Tool Selection for Conflict Management ............................ 21

5. Policy Instruments and Needs - SECOA Experiences ...................................................... 27 5.1 Instruments Promoting ICZM Used in the SECOA Countries ................................ 27 5.2 Challenges, Gaps and Needs in Relation to ICZM in the SECOA Countries ........... 30 5.3 Approaches and Tools Used Practically in the SECOA Project .............................. 36 5.4 The SECOA Perspective on the Tools Analysed and Tested .................................. 43

6. Towards A Toolbox for Coastal Resource and Conflict Management ............................ 44 6.1 Typology of Instruments ....................................................................................... 44 6.2 Preparation - Questions Before Using the Tables ................................................. 48 6.3 Introducing the Tables: Policy Instruments, Literature, Handbooks and Web Resources ........................................................................................................................ 49

7. Conclusions and Outlook ................................................................................................. 54 7.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 54 7.2 Towards Appropriate Method Packages – Country Suggestions .......................... 55 7.3 Towards Appropriate Method Packages – SECOA-Topical Suggestions ............... 56 7.4 Outlook: Refinement and Testing Through Further Application in SECOA ........... 57

Annex 1 - Overview over Policy Instruments for Natural Resource and Conflict Management In Urban Coastal Areas ..................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Annex 2 - Literature on Policy instruments for Natural Resource and Conflict Management ....................................................................................................................... 71 Annex 3 - Handbooks Web Resources ............................................................................... 78 References ........................................................................................................................... 80

5

1 Introduction

This section presents an introduction to aim and topics of this report and how they were addressed - including delimitation, methods, and sources.

1.1 Aim and Scope

This transfer report Toolbox for local and urban resource management and conflict mitigation presents a synthesis with focus on policy instruments for urban coastal management using earlier SECOA research related to natural resource and conflict management and on-going work in Work Package 7. For the final phase of work packages (WPs) 7 and 8 of the SECOA-project the results from studies of coastal conflicts and their management so far are to be brought together and supplemented by an analysis of policy instruments relevant for natural resource management, conflict resolution, and institutional innovation. One aim of this report is to inform a larger circle beyond the SECOA-community on important insights so far and develop a guideline to identify relevant policy instruments to manage coastal resources in urban areas and address the related conflicts. A further, SECOA-internal aim is to prepare for the conclusion of work packages 7 and 8, where a participatory GIS-based scenario methodology is to be tested and strategies to be developed for finding appropriate policy mixes in specific areas.

The content of the toolbox proposed here relates to the need to address increasing pressures on urban coastal resources and the related conflicts described in WPs 1 – 4. The complexity of problems and conflicts is most likely to require integrative and adaptive forms of resource management and the integration of conflict management into urban resource management. The range of tools (instruments) reviewed, categorised, and presented here is broad: from single analytical and management tools with one specific focus and purpose to whole packages of tools like urban planning and processes and broad approaches with base in the policy world such as Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM). They can be relevant for scientists and coastal managers.

As each urban area, the time and setting of problems and conflicts differ there are no one-size-fits-all tools or even toolboxes. Tools and mixes appropriate for specific coastal urban areas and their locally/regionally specific problems have to be found. In additions, appropriate policy mixes may not be enough but may require further changes of the overall institutional frameworks in order to achieve efficient and sustainable resource management. This is the theme of the complementary transfer report (D 7.3, Knutsson & Alpokay 2013).

For both transfer reports the following points specify the SECOA-research and the nature of problems and conflicts studied:

SECOA-focus has been on managing environmental “contrasts” (i.e. problems and conflicts) in urban metropolitan areas, primarily of local and regional scale, in some cases with national and international components.

The problems and conflicts occur within institutional systems of highly varying structure, including multiple levels and multiple sectors. These systems and their potential changes to achieve better results in resource management are the theme of the final analyses in SECOA.

6

The problems and conflicts SECOA is dealing with are often of the kind of “wicked problems” of complex and changing nature, with various types of uncertainties. 1 Resource management under such conditions is discussed in recent research on adaptive management and governance, vulnerability and resilience. Both transfer reports connect to these newer fields of research and management, making use of their ideas.

This report connects the perspectives of resource management and conflict resolution. The coastal conflicts studied are usually non-violent and can include various types of stakeholders and interests on various institutional levels. Stakeholder participation is an important issue.

Complex conflicts as the ones studied may not be finally solved. We see conflict management as a flexible term, including both resolution (finding a full and final solution) and mitigation (dealing with conflicts and their effects at least partially).

In order to understand and manage conflicts, further dimensions of human interaction need special attention, such as the history of management, and goals, positions, interests, and interaction between stakeholders, power and roles of conflicting parties and managers and not the least conflict escalation dynamics (Khan et al. 2011, Morf 2006, Stepanova & Bruckmeier, 2013b).

When looking for relevant analytical frameworks and policy instruments to understand and address the problems and conflicts in question one or more of the following aspects need to be taken into account:

Complex problems and conflicts that may include both societal and environmental aspects

Coastal management, including the management of water- and land based resources

Urban planning and management and urban-rural interactions

Conflict management with focus at local/regional scale but possibilities to unfold multi-scale perspectives

Climate change and its consequences with regard to conflict management and institutional adaptation

Institutional innovation that includes all aspects of coastal management (discussed further in report D 7.3)

These aspects make the basic criteria of relevance and are covered in the transfer reports 7.2 and 7.3. Besides being used for selecting relevant literature and instruments, these criteria also guide the presentation of instruments in the toolbox.

1.2 Sources and Methods

The knowledge base for this report includes the results from a) the stakeholder workshops in WP 7, b) earlier relevant SECOA research, especially from work packages

1 Wicked problem (Rittel & Webber 1973): tricky, thorny, constant challenge, difficult to define and

delineate from other and bigger problems, not solved once and for all but posing a constant challenge, not known for sure when and if solved

7

two, three and four, and c) a literature search using relevant keywords, complemented d) by insights from our earlier research in the area.

Workshops

In autumn 2012 and spring 2013, stakeholder workshops and interviews were conducted in seven countries as part of WP 7. The aim was to find out, through communication with possible end-users of SECOA research results, the policy challenges faced in terms of conflict- and natural resource management, the needs for new methods and tools in present and future conflict- and natural resource management, and the policy relevance of the research methods applied in WP 1 – 4 within the SECOA project.

Literature review

As many analytical and policy instruments for natural resource management include analysing and addressing conflicts, parts of the literature search and analysis were done in parallel. The results of literature review and overview of policy instruments found have been compiled in an excel workbook and structured in literature list, handbook list and list of policy instruments for natural resource and conflict management in urban areas (see chapter 6 and appendix). The instruments are described, discussed and classified according to characteristics developed through synthesis of SECOA-needs and the literature analysis (chapters 2-5).

Earlier analyses

Important methods and sources used for this report have been document analysis and the multiple methods used in the SECOA WP 2 on DPSIR and environmental problem analysis and WP 4 on conflict analysis (Khan et al. 2011). Another base of knowledge is from the Swedish research in SECOA (Stepanova & Bruckmeier 2013a, b, Stepanova 2013, forthcoming, Morf et al. 2012) and prior research of the members of the Swedish team in the SUCOZOMA and FRAP projects (e.g. Bruckmeier 2005, Morf 2006 and 2008, Bruckmeier & Höj Larsen 2008).

1.3 Application: Living Database for the Final Project Phase

In the last part of this report, we present policy instruments that can play a role in resource and conflict management in urban coastal areas. The tools presented can contribute to the analysis and addressing of relevant situations. The appendix includes three different tables: a table of policy instruments deemed relevant for managing coastal resource conflicts, a literature list, and a list of relevant handbooks. These tables also exist as an excel workbook, which can continue to be a living document, to improve and complement during the rest of SECOA.

As new instruments are becoming available, the excel workbook as a living document can be updated. Not the least the final activities within WP 7 (Master Plan) and the coming scenario-analysis in WP 8 may result in an updating of the toolbox.

8

2. Challenges and Needs Identified by SECOA-Stakeholders

This section presents the views of SECOA-stakeholders on needs and challenges in relation to urban coastal management. In the second phase of the project the research results are to be synthesised and transferred in policy instruments and appropriate policy mixes for natural resource management, conflict resolution, and on institutional innovation. As points of departure to develop criteria for the relevance of tools and a framework to choose among these this report discusses practical (section 2) and theoretical perspectives (sections 3 and 4).

Here below, the views of practitioners, i.e. the SECOA-end users are presented - from workshops conducted within WP 7 with focus on challenges and needs identified in relation natural resource and conflict management in coastal urban areas. In autumn 2012 and spring 2013 two rounds of workshops have been conducted in the seven SECOA countries, through communication with possible end-users of SECOA results. The aim of the 1st round of workshops was to identify the policy challenges faced in terms of conflict- and natural resource management, the needs for new methods and tools in present and future conflict- and natural resource management, and the policy relevance of the research methods applied in WP 1-4 of the SECOA project. The aim of the 2nd round was to deepen and complement the earlier analysis. The type of participants varied between countries and workshops: in some workshops a majority of participants came from environmental NGOs, in others a majority came from local government agencies, and in a 3rd array of workshops it was mixed. Although the participants of the workshops were not always representing all potentially relevant stakeholders, the material collected provides important information on challenges and needs seen by the practitioners. The analysis below is based on the national workshop reports.

2.1 Common Challenges Identified in the Workshops

With regard to natural resource management, the workshops provided many examples of the policy challenges posed by increasing development pressures on coastal resources, such as pollution, infrastructure, transports, recreation, tourism, waste etc. Another important, typically urban issue is how to manage the many different uses of land that often characterizes urban coastal areas.

The impacts of climate change and necessary adaptation strategies make further important challenges. Not the least in relation to climate change is uncertainty and the importance of knowledge for policy-making, including scientific assessments for training, learning and raising awareness of risks were emphasised.

Many end-users stressed that challenges may often been found in responses to environmental problems rather than in the problems themselves. A common example is the lack of regulations, or lack of clarity or enforcement of regulations. Formulating clear policies, strategies, and plans is an important challenge for natural resource management. Ideas have been articulated how to achieve genuine public participation and influence in decisions related to natural resource management.

The importance of indicators and values in relation to natural resource policy was emphasised as well.

In many reports, natural resource- and conflict management are not strictly separated. From a conflict-perspective most important challenges identified concern the types of

9

conflicts, complexity and uncertainty, stakeholder involvement, and institutional and knowledge gaps to address four main issues:

(a) Common types of conflicts:

There is an increasing demand for scarce coastal land from many sectors. Thus, land-use conflicts are frequent, usually combined with other components. Conflicts connected with economic development are important too (conflicts between different economic activities, between conservation interests and development, differing time frames). It is not only the private economic sector pressing for economic development: in the studies from India, England and Italy, civil society and NGOs push for conservation often against the government.

For land-use change conflicts new strategies new strategies need to be found to address them, e.g. in connection with planning for new infrastructure, housing, or climate-change related restrictions.

There are conflicts between different environmental values (different visions of sustainable development - such as wind power development, where landscape amenity, biodiversity or climate change objectives may be in conflict).

(b) Complexity and uncertainty:

Conflicts are often complex in various aspects. Especially for complex conflicts, the differences in power and influence of various stakeholders were mentioned.

Different types of uncertainties mentioned by the practitioners include uncertainties in terms of climate change impacts, ecological carrying capacity, future scenarios, policy impacts that are part of the conflicts.

(c) Challenges with regard to stakeholders:

Multi-stakeholder conflicts are common.

Many conflicts are asymmetrical in terms of power, influence, and status of the stakeholders involved, making solutions difficult.

Despite the availability of appropriate formal and informal forums, communication is often found to be lacking.

(d) Challenges related to the management-process:

Natural resource management in itself creates conflicts.

There is a lack of incentives for conflict resolution with the consequence that certain conflicts are not addressed. How can a conflict be resolved when the stakeholders are not willing to pay the costs of conflict resolution or a resulting compromise?

Knowledge gaps identified include such in relation to the marine environment, in relation to knowledge about relevant societal processes, and in the interaction between science and policy makers.

Problems and challenges are perceived to be similar - both from a general natural resource management and from a conflict perspective. They include (a) the pressures on resource use creating environmental problems, which can lead to conflictive situations; (b) the knowledge gaps, lack of regulation and incentives and the need for institutional

10

development and for training; (c) the need for systematic work with stakeholder involvement. With regard to natural resource management, the emphasis on lack of clarity and the emphasis of the importance of indicators shows a need of a more structured policy making process (based on status analyses objectives should be set and evaluated, using indicators). These aspects are only of limited significance with regard to conflicts according to SECOA-stakeholders. Conflict management may be less developed methodologically and it may be difficult to measure outcomes and success with regard to conflicts.

2.2 Common Needs Identified in Workshops

The following common needs were identified in the workshops:

(a) Stakeholder engagement and communication:

There is a great need for policy instruments to enhance communication. This includes finding of media to communicate messages for those without power, transparency in terms of regulations, laws, policies and decisions, but also communication for conflict management.

There seems consensus in almost all workshops that it is important to find effective ways to integrate various stakeholders, sectors, and forms of knowledge in decision making and planning. The purposes of integration formulated include instrumental reasons such as making natural resource management policies more accepted, better coordinated, and more efficient, but also normative ambitions of making the process more democratic and transparent. Several workshops stressed the importance of timing in the decision-making process. Many workshops formulated possible problems that may arise in conflict management: that it may be difficult to achieve good coordination when there are large differences in power between sectors or stakeholders; that there is a cost (money and time) to engage in coordinating efforts that some stakeholder may not be ready to spend.

There is a need for guidelines for workable deliberation processes e.g. with regard to mobilisation, form of engagement, mandate, timing.2 In one of the UK-workshops it was stressed that there are surprisingly few instruments or mechanisms providing a road map towards compromise or a ”joint truth” in order to guide participatory processes. Processes and platforms where different stakeholders can discuss and influence decisions can be a way to address and solve conflicts (learning from other stakeholders, taking responsibility for the common good through compromise, finding joint priorities etc.). At the same time there was awareness of the challenges of participation processes as confronting conflicting parties can deepen entrenchments, some stakeholders may be excluded, the imbalance in terms of power within participation processes and the question of the mandate for these.3

(b) Important dimensions of integration: institutions, sectors, space, time

Coordination between different authorities, organizations, and sectors is often called for.

2 See e.g. report from Belgian workshop, where innovative methods to involve citizens were requested and

the lack of an overall guideline or framework identified. 3 The English team provided a good list of criteria for consultative processes and developed a decision-

making approach with inclusion, neutrality and transparency as the main aims (Esteves, et al. 2012)

11

Another aspect raised was the question how to incorporate a broader consultation in planning, and how to work with geographical information in order to achieve more integrated planning. Better coordination and integration between levels and sectors and formal approaches to make decisions is a common request for decision-making and integration of decisions. Reference to existing regulations and rights is important to manage conflicts.4 When consultation and dialogue are a part of formal decision- or planning processes, the question is, whether formal approaches can build on deliberative processes or not.

(c) Knowledge integration and intensified interaction between researchers and policy makers (politicians, public servants):

In many workshops it was stated that, although knowledge about specific issues is available, overviews on the knowledge are lacking. In many cases, better knowledge was seen as a necessity for conflict management: knowledge related to how to manage conflicts (e.g. the need for stakeholder analysis); more comprehensive knowledge of a problem as a tool to address conflicts and find areas of possible compromise; knowledge of rules, policies, and strategies is seen as a prerequisite of knowledge integration. There also is evidence that knowledge does not always help to find solutions, it has sometimes an authoritarian aspect, limiting dialogue.

(d) Alternative scenarios:

There seems to be a need in many of the SECOA cases to find ways to explore alternative scenarios in contrast to “business as usual”-models or proposed governmental plans. However, it was also pointed out that such scenarios needs to be explorative and consultative rather than expert based.

(e) Importance of the economic perspective:

In some workshops the importance of economic incentives was stressed, e.g., of incentives to engage in decision-making, of economic incentives for natural resource protection, and of valuing different resources, furthermore the need for analysis of economic costs of different management strategies, or of willingness to pay.

(f) Nature conservation and environmental protection:

There seems to be a widespread need to find ways to protect or conserve ecological values/natural resources more effectively than today. This shows that that many of the participants in the workshops were working with environmental issues, but also increasing socio-economic pressures on the environment in many coastal urban areas.

2.3 Reactions to SECOA-Methods in Workshops

Work and results from the SECOA-project can according to the stakeholders participating in the workshops contribute to conflict management as follows:

(a) Knowledge gaps for the problems and conflicts analysed were identified.

4 In the Indian case, NGOs refers to environmental/conservation regulations to claim the right of nature or

tribal groups. In Sweden it was said that sometimes the only way to manage a conflict is to make a political decision or to enforce a regulation.

12

(b) Scenario-tools applied in three work packages were seen as useful for conflict management and evaluating different options (e.g. through multi-criteria assessment based on stakeholders’ views).

(c) The DPSIR-framework, but also instruments for risk-, vulnerability- and hazard assessment are considered as relevant, but some may need further simplification for application in practice.

(d) Several workshops referred to maps and geographical information systems as useful tools. However, as a stakeholder in Belgium noted: ”more is needed than some coloured maps”.

(e) The workshops show the need for instruments providing alternative policy options to discuss among the stakeholders (e.g., scenario analysis).

(f) End-users in many workshops asked for instruments for participation, indicating a lack of information or of instruments for participation.

Common points of criticism of SECOA-methods:

(a) Too technocratic and complicated: SECOA-methods and the presentation of results in reports are too technocratic, too detailed, and too complicated. In some countries, there is a need for simplification and training, especially for methods to be applied on local level.

(b) Information on some instrument is not up to date: With regard to certain instruments used by SECOA, better and newer versions are available.

(c) End-user participation from the very beginning: As many other projects, SECOA was criticised that end users and stakeholders were not sufficiently involved from the very beginning during design, not only when research is already under way and for communication of results.

(d) Political gap: The SECOA methods do not sufficiently consider aspects and problems of political processes that make an important part of coastal management (e.g., creating political interest for coastal issues and conflicts, intensifying the dialogue with various stakeholders, mobilising politicians).

2.4 Conclusions from the Stakeholder Workshops for Future SECOA Work

Based on the input from the workshops summarized above, the following conclusions can be drawn for continued work in WP 7, most of them touching on natural resource management as well as conflict management:

(1) Approaches and specific instruments for dealing with natural resource management and conflicts in coastal urban areas should address multiple components, including different land- and water-uses and changes of such uses, social interactions and resources, conflicting environmental and other values. Institutional system should be ready for this, but very often aren’t.

(2) Participation and communication should be improved to create meaningful participation and address conflictive issues. Instruments have been developed in many areas, but still not commonly used. A number of such instruments are included in the review.

13

(3) Mobilisation of relevant decision makers: senior officials and politicians are important for setting coastal conflicts on the agenda by participating themselves through active decision-making for dispatching resources for both conflict resolution.

(4) Power asymmetries: the instruments used to analyse and address interaction between stakeholders and conflicts should be sensitive to power relations and stakeholders’ differing capacities to influence the process and its outcomes.

(5) Dealing with complexity and uncertainties in natural resource and conflict management: practically applicable instruments to deal with complexity and different types of uncertainties should be developed as well as instruments for risk-, hazard- and impact assessment and evaluation. To design for adaptation, institutional learning and innovation is important.

(6) Knowledge gaps identified in general with regard to aquatic environments and the interactions between land and water and different forms of use need to be specified and addressed.

(7) Simplification and illustration: for coastal conflict management information and instruments need to be easily accessible and simple (also a question of illustration, translation and communication to broader groups of stakeholders).

(8) End-user feedback: The later part of WP 7 and 8 (further workshops) can be used to discuss appropriate policy packages in relation to the different case study areas. Moreover, the end-users participating in Mumbai signalled readiness to review reports and other products in draft stages.

In the following review of framework and the characterisation and presentation of relevant policy instruments for managing conflicts in coastal urban areas we try to address these requests.

14

3. Natural Resource Management – Frameworks and Indicators

This section presents the results of the literature review from a natural resource management perspective. A series of frameworks and indicators for natural resource management have been developed and discussed in coastal and other resource-related research. These are not discussed in detail here, only insofar as they are directly relevant for the formulation of policy instruments and tools and of a framework for selection.

3.1 Adaptive management and governance

The debates in research on natural resource management and governance that are relevant for coastal research and resource use conflicts too, include two new discourses: (1) adaptive management or adaptive governance (Nelson et al. 2007, Plummer 2009, Rijke et al. 2012) and (2) global environmental governance. Both are connected to the overarching discourse of sustainable development and resource management.

Adaptive management or governance is important as a new framework for integrated coastal zone management reaching beyond the older debates under this name in several regards: it adopts a more interdisciplinary perspective and it is critical with regard to the knowledge forms and sources in resource management, explicitly arguing for integration of other forms of knowledge than merely scientific. For this purpose it asks for improved cooperation of researchers and non-academic stakeholders. Furthermore, the approach addresses the interaction between science and policy in new forms, designing policies as experiments to be continuously monitored and evaluated to allow for corrections and adaptations. The experimental approach includes also testing of new policy instruments and tools. Collective (social) learning from successes and failures to improve natural resource management becomes much more important than in prior approaches to resource management. Like the broader approach on global governance, aiming at sustainable management of the global resources and of global environmental change, adaptive management has a longer time horizon and deals with hitherto neglected forms of risks and uncertainties. This is one of the reasons why new policy instruments and combinations of instruments are discussed. Long- term perspectives and uncertainties limit the use of planning instruments; rather, adaptive management is to become planning for that what cannot be planned. For that purpose policy instruments for short and long-term views of resource management need to be connected. Whereas most policy instruments are constructed with the assumption of a short-term management perspective, the innovation comes with instruments and tools to guide long-term perspectives. Scenarios have become one important tool, combined with other tools discussed in this report.

3.2 Interaction Nature-Society in the DPSIR framework

The DPSIR framework was developed in the late 1990s to show the cause-effect relationships between human and environmental systems and finds today wide application in environmental management (e.g. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, EU Maritime Strategy Framework Directive). The main idea is that drivers, in the form of social, economic, or environmental developments, create pressure on a certain environment or ecosystem which then change sits state. These changes cause social, economic or environmental impacts. The framework has increasingly been applied in research in order to support decision making to bridge the gap between science and policy. Although, it has drawbacks and weaknesses, identified by Tscherning et al. (2012)

15

for four areas. Firstly, the DPSIR carries with it an implicit hierarchical structure, causing a hierarchy of elements and therefore a hierarchy of actors. Secondly, the DPSIR framework tends to assume the existence of a natural knowledge of environmental relationships, excluding normative perspectives and concerns. Thirdly, DPSIR have been found to overemphasize causal, one-to-one relationships on the cost of more complex relationships. Fourthly, it does not deal with the fact that drivers and responses exists on different levels.

As with regard to broadening and deepening a societal perspective in managing social-ecological systems, method development is still under way (Sundblad et. al., 2012). The authors suggest complementing the cause-effect chain with indirect drivers and by adding an actor/behaviour-perspective to drivers, impacts and responses. It is also suggested that indicators that can be used over time to investigate sustainability, rather than data intended for other research and data that allow for long distances in time and space between cause and effect (ibid.).

The DPSIR framework has been used in three WPs of SECOA and seems relevant as a framework, despite the above criticism, by providing a systematic link between policy instruments and indicators. The task to identify relevant policy-instruments for natural resource management can been seen as response to either the Driving forces, Pressures, State of the environment, or Impacts related to an environmental stress or a natural resource use. Thus, the challenge of improving natural resource management is an integrated part of the DPSIR framework. However, it is important to take into account the limits and weaknesses pointed out above. We propose a framework for identifying relevant policy instruments for coastal natural resource management that includes a DPSIR perspective to link policy instruments to indicators, but also takes into account the policy challenges and needs addressed by relevant stakeholders in urban coastal areas (see section 4 below), and also considers the purpose, functions and aspects addressed by existing policy instruments.

3.3 Defining status, trends and evaluating progress: Indicators as tools

The question of finding relevant indicators to address the environmental- and natural resource use problems faced in the 17 SECOA case studies has already been looked into in WP 2. In order to assess status and trends before a decision is made or evaluate whether a policy is relevant and effective, the latter has to be linked to a set of indicators related to the environmental and societal status, stressors and natural resource uses for the specific management context. Indicators help creating a systematic knowledge basis to describe a problem and evaluate or compare situations. There various ways to use indicators and a multitude of different indicator types to choose from. When using indicators for policy tools, the relationship between the two is not always evident. The choice of indicators is affected by available knowledge, time, scale, difficulty to measure, need for additional resources, and more. Many formulations indicators are quite broad, particularly when the problem to be indicated is complex and difficult to measure. At times, using indicators can even prove irrelevant or counter-productive. Indicators become easier to define and identify if the focus is narrower. In these cases policy tools have specific indicators connected to them. For example, the Conservation Management Partnership (CMP), defines indicator as “[a] measurable entity related to a specific information need such as the status of a target/factor, change in a threat, or progress toward an objective”, and writes that it should “meet the criteria of being measurable,

16

precise, consistent, and sensitive” (CMP, 2007, p.18). Similarly, the European Environmental Agency (EEA) has made use of “environmental indicators” for the purposes, “1. to supply information on environmental problems, in order to enable policy-makers to value their seriousness; 2. to support policy development and priority setting, by identifying key factors that cause pressure on the environment; 3. to monitor the effects of policy responses.” (Smeets & Weterings, 1999, p.5).

In complex policy-making it may be more fruitful to underline the importance of critical choices of indicators for policy tools. In the 2009 EU report on Sustainable Development Indicators (SDIs), an overview is provided from research where the authors find a tendency to disregard social aspects and focus on economic and environmental dimensions. This connects to other gaps regarding sustainable production and consumption research, policy, and monitoring, as well as social inclusion, public health, inequalities, poverty, migration and demographic changes. Social transformations are particularly complex and involve short- and long-term issues, which make the use of indicators problematic, e.g., short-term decision-support should use more conceptual approaches (Adelle & Pallemaerts, 2009). Regarding the connection between policy tools and indicators, the authors find a tendency to forget the monitoring part of the process as well as cross-cutting objectives and key objectives of the EU’s Sustainable Development Strategy that are difficult to quantify or attach relevant indicators to (ibid.). For complex problems with complex interactions, the DPSIR framework can help to organize thinking around the problem/conflict and identify the indicators that can aid the policy process from problem to solution.

3.4 Identifying relevant policy instruments for natural resource management

By literature review we identified more than 150 policy instruments potentially relevant for natural resource management and distribution. The review was guided by a broad definition of policy instruments, including general research approaches and frameworks and specific and detailed methods, as well as instruments used to monitor the environment and instruments directed at policy processes. These were first described according to methodological characteristics and the main originating knowledge field. Then they were typologised further and clustered into categories of similar instruments. From the above analysis and the SECOA needs not the least the following aspects seemed relevant: the purposes an instrument should help fulfilling, the problems of natural resource management it should address; the types of instrument (administrative, political, planning, participatory, regulatory, economic etc.), the process functions to address (analysis, planning, negotiation, decision making etc.), and how stakeholders are addressed. These aspects are implemented as search and sorting criteria in the instrument table in the appendix.

17

4. Conceptual Frameworks to Address Coastal Conflicts

This section provides a brief overview of coastal conflict relevant perspectives, methods and analytical frameworks from own earlier research (Morf 2006, 2008), SECOA research (e.g. Khan et al. 2011), more recent relevant literature identified by database search and a literature review by Stepanova & Bruckmeier (2013a). As a result, a combined conceptual framework for coastal conflict analysis is suggested, based on the needs formulated in earlier SECOA work as the frameworks developed for and used in WP 2, 3, 4 and the workshops in WP 7.

4.1 Broad Perspective on Frameworks to Address Conflicts in CZM

Stepanova and Bruckmeier (2013a) show that analysis and resolution of coastal resource use conflicts have largely been neglected in coastal research, environmental policies and resource management strategies. In order to find adequate approaches to coastal conflict analysis and resolution that better embrace the complexity and multi-scale-nature of such conflicts, an interdisciplinary combination and integration of knowledge and methodologies used by different disciplines is possible. Research on environmental conflicts is spread across various disciplines such as political and economic sciences, interdisciplinary human ecological research, ecological economics and more applied ICZM research (further details see Stepanova & Bruckmeier, 2013a p. 20) addressing violent and non-violent conflicts from local to international, global levels. Relevant research can be found in research on peace, development and security, common pool resource, social-ecological systems, human ecology, political economy, ecological economics and political ecology, critical environmental sociology, conflict resolution and transformation, and resilience research. With regard to practically applicable policy research and managing urban coastal areas, we would like to add the field of urban management and planning (e.g. Friend & Hickling 2005).

Some frameworks developed in thematically similar disciplines can be applied for conflict analysis and resolution for complex multi-dimensional coastal conflicts.

In common pool resource management, the multi-tier framework by Ostrom (2009), which includes a large number of variables influencing the resource use, can be applied to all kinds of resource use conflicts.

McCay and Jentoft 1998, McCay 2002, Degnbol and McCay, 2007, argue for interdisciplinary approach to address the common pool resources and the problems that arise with their exploitation. Such problems (conflicts) need to be addressed in their ecological, cultural and historical contexts and the institutional embeddedness of social action and learning.

Human-ecological and livelihood perspectives look at resource conflicts from a life-world and user- oriented perspective (i.e. Ohlsson 1999, 2000).

Social-ecological resilience research can be applied for conflict analysis and management through its focus on multifunctional activities of adaptation, participation, learning, knowledge integration and cooperation in resource management (Gruber, 2010).

18

4.2 Relevance According to SECOA

Important points to formulate criteria for selecting instruments for conflict analysis and mitigation include the following ones:

a) Criteria for relevance for conflict analysis and management

Coastal management and coastal environmental issues are included.

Urban planning and urban-rural interactions are addressed.

Complex problems that may include both societal and environmental aspects are addressed.

The focus of conflict management is at local/regional scale but includes possibilities to integrate further scales.

Stakeholder involvement and power relations are addressed.

Relevance for both understanding and resolution of conflicts.

b) Aspects for selecting relevant policy instruments

Scale, both geographical and administrative

The core issues of the conflict (natural resources, land-use, coastal, urban aspects, but also socio-cultural aspects including history and values)

The institutional context for managing the conflict (including urban-rural interaction)

The stakeholders and their interests, positions, values, needs and influence on the process and how they interact

The degree of escalation (here: mainly non-violent)

The capacity to deal with complexity and uncertainty: both institutional and decision-making, with regard to stakeholders and the issues of the conflicts

To develop a strategy to select relevant instruments for appropriate policy mixes, the above list can be used. Each conflict needs to be addressed in its specific context and constellations with regard to particular issues and actors.

4.3 Frameworks for Coastal Conflict Analysis and Management

a) The DPSIR-Framework

The framework has become increasingly popular for policy makers. Also the European Marine Strategy Directive with the goal to achieve good environmental status (GES) for the marine environment is working with DPSIR to structure indicators for environmental status, pressures, and impacts.

Here, we use DPSIR to set the instruments presented in a larger context, especially of natural resource management. In relation to urban and coastal conflict management, the DPSIR-framework can connect academic research and practice in being used to

(1) Connect research with environmental management practice, e.g. in the European Union in relation to water quality and marine environmental management (SECOA is an example);

19

(2) For conflict analysis to connect natural resource use conflicts with the management processes and contexts the conflicts arise within (e.g. in SECOA, for the case study of natural resource use conflicts on the Falsterbo peninsula in Vellinge, we have connected work in WP 2 with scenario analysis (Morf et al. 2012b);

(3) For structuring the initial analysis and later monitoring and evaluation of conflicts – this includes the choice, measuring, and integration of relevant indicators to decision-making material (see section 3).

In order to address conflicts, societal aspects and not just environmental pressures, status, and impacts the framework needs to be expanded and more and different types of data are needed. Moreover, analysing problems of the coastal environment from a societal perspective requires going beyond analysing ecosystem services to address economic externalities. Basic units (drivers, pressures, status, impacts, responses) and interactions need to be complemented, e.g., drivers with indirect drivers (often, whole chains of indirect drivers) and environmental impacts with those on society (Sundblad et al. 2012). The indirect and direct drivers, the societal impacts and the responses need to be coupled to relevant actor- and stakeholder groups (stakeholder/actor analysis). In order to understand conflicts and their management history, the perspective needs to expand over time, by adding more layers or impact-response-driver-pressure-status-loops (ibid.). DPSIR analysis can be a first step in a process of structuring and organising instruments for analysis and management of coastal conflicts.

b) SECOA framework for conflict analysis in WP 4

In the SECOA WP 4, local and regional conflicts were studied under a number of perspectives. In order to compare different cases and develop map-based scenarios, a general multi-aspect framework was developed by Khan et al 2011 to analyse all national case studies – about four per country (fig. 4-1 and Khan et al. 2011).

Figure 4-1: SECOA WP 4 Framework for conflict analysis (Khan et al. 2011)

20

c) Analytical Framework for Analysis of Coastal Resource Use Conflicts

The idea of the integration of knowledge for different areas of research developed in Stepanova and Bruckmeier 2013a (Fig. 4-2) is complemented with a stakeholder-based conceptual model for systematic analysis of coastal resource use conflicts. The model is empirically grounded on the Swedish SECOA case studies (see WP 4) and framed in theoretical concepts from conflict research and the common pool research.

To specify the model, three additional themes are included: changing resource use in coastal landscapes, interactions of urban and rural development through land use, and interactions between local and global resource flows and human mobility.

The theoretical framework addressed the important aspects and dimensions of conflicts at the individual user oriented level including rights, interests, positions/strategies, and values/worldviews; at a more complex, user groups oriented level where interaction occurs between competing forms of resource use, responsibility for the effects of resource use, power relations and the involvement of actors /location of users to describe the social complexity of resource conflicts; at the level of the context. To avoid an overload of concepts in the analysis, case-specific, in-depth conflict studies are useful, using flexible combinations of typological and multi-scale SES analyses, management strategies and combinations of policy instruments.

Conflict analysis can also be framed by conceptualizing conflicts through models of interacting social and ecological systems (SES). Applying the SES concept to conflict analysis can help reducing complexity of multi-layered coastal SES to a level of complexity that is manageable by resource management and planning systems.

Fig. 4-2. Conceptual model for the systematic analysis of coastal resource use conflicts (Stepanova and Bruckmeier, 2013b, p.4).

21

d) Empirical Framework to Analyse Conflict Management by Participatory Planning

Earlier empirical analysis of local coastal resource conflict management by Morf (2006) has, applied similar dimensions to in-depth conflict analysis in relation to (a) themes of the conflict, (b) actors (including their interests, attitudes, themes raised, roles in process, action taken, influence and power), (c) temporal development of the conflict, (d) phases of management, (e) forums for participation (who uses it and how for conflict management), (f) patterns/strategies of management in relation to the conflictive issues (e.g. exclusion, integration, nesting, prioritising), and (g) management outcomes in relation to conflict themes, instruments used, and concrete outputs. Also here, the contextual analysis of the international, national, regional and local framework and drivers has been included.

With relation to the management of coastal conflicts, in the theoretical framework Morf (2006) emphasises stakeholders and their positions (expressed in public in relation to the conflict), underlying interests (open for negotiation), values (taking time to negotiate) and basic needs (non-negotiable) as important dimensions in relation to how easily manageable a conflict is. This is further developed in table 4-1 with regard to coastal management.

Table 4-1: Tractability of conflicts - based on roots and involved parties

Types of conflicts

Philosophical Conflicts

Potential Interaction Conflicts

Actual Interaction Conflicts

Imagined Interaction Conflicts

Roots of conflict

Differences in values Differences in facts, interests, possibly values

Differences in facts, interests

Differences in facts

Parties to conflict

Indirect users/ direct users

Direct users/ direct users



Tractability Most intractable

Less tractable

Fairly tractable

Most tractable

Examples Environmentalists vs. oil developers Residency vs. offshore wind power development

Outdoor activities vs. mussel culture

Leisure boats vs. fisheries Leisure- vs. professional fisheries

Fisheries vs. oil development

Comment Value based conflict, can be enhanced by difficulties to establish direct contact among users. Treatment requires a discussion of values, which take time to change. Lacking conflicts about on basic needs.

Interest based conflict can include information deficits and values. Treatment requires a discussion of both interests and values, which may take time and not necessarily can be solved. Exchange of correct information contributes to solution.

Interest based conflict, combined with information deficits. Can be treated through negotiations and exchange of correct information.

Information based conflict. Can be treated by exchanging correct information.

Source: Morf 2006, based on Cicin-Sain 1992, with adapted examples and comment

4.4 Synthesis: Matrix for Tool Selection for Conflict Management

For the purpose of choosing appropriate policy instruments for conflict management, the following criteria seem to be relevant: the “nature of the conflict” including its context (what is it about, scale, context); the actors and stakeholders in relation to a number of

22

aspects (see e.g. fig. 4-1) and the dynamics of the conflict including the attempts to manage them. The framework for stakeholder analysis proposed in SECOA WP 4 covers both characteristics of various stakeholder groups and of the interaction between those groups (e.g. relationships and coalitions, see Khan et al. 2011). Another relevant aspect in relation to practical conflict management is the degree of escalation of the conflict if necessary even in relation to different stakeholder groups (Yasmi et al. 2006, Bloomfield 1997). Finally, a judgement of criticality and urgency will help to decide on appropriate timing and strategies for mitigation and resolution.

a) Relevant Dimensions of Analysis from a Conflict Management Perspective

The following perspectives appear relevant for analysis and for structuring a process of selecting policy instruments for coastal conflict management:

(a) Content or nature of the conflict: issues the conflict is about in relation to scale, type and characteristics of resources and uses involved (spatial, economic, technical, values, etc.)

(b) Scale, temporal and spatial dimensions should be addressed in relation to conflicting issues and uses that can be traced on local, regional and global levels and scales

(c) Context (institutional, environmental, political, economic etc.): the institutional context and the formal and informal structures and processes the conflict is embedded

(d) Actors/stakeholders and relations among them: who has a stake, who is actively involved, how and why and how different stakeholders are interacting. More specifically, but depending on the scope of the analysis this may include: Positions, interests, values/world views and needs because these affect the tractability of the conflict and how long it may take to manage it. Power relations and roles: influence is based on various aspects of power, mandates and responsibilities in relation to the management of the conflict

(e) Process of conflict development: the process-perspective is important from a procedural and from a historical perspective (conflict management cycles - policy cycles, the history of the conflict).

(f) Escalation and its dynamics: different levels of escalation require different approaches to management. Different stakeholders may be at different levels of escalation.

(g) Instruments for conflict management: Approaches and Instruments for conflict management with combinations of different tools and methods that address conflict development at different levels and scales, including spatial and temporal (i.e. pro-active and preventive strategies of participation in early stages of city development planning).

The literature analysis shows that complex, multi-scale, multifaceted coastal conflicts cannot be efficiently addressed by simple or one-fits-all types of solutions. Here we present combinatory set of conflict assessment matrices (see Table 4-2 below) that can provide a guide for systematic analysis of coastal resource conflicts and help develop strategies to find relevant policy instruments for conflict resolution and sustainable resource management at the coast. Table 4-2 provides an assessment matrix with three main parts: general conflict description including context and development, stakeholder

23

related relevant aspects of the conflict and their dynamics, and process- and management relevant aspects of the conflict.

Table 4-2: Synthesis: framework for conflict analysis and management

Conflict aspect Content and DPSIR-related focus

Comments in relation to conflict analysis and management

a) General conflict description incl. context

Pressures, Status & Impacts and context related drivers.

Profile and larger context of the conflict

Context (political, economic socio-cultural) Emerging issues (political, economic, ecological, social) Conflict-prone/affected areas (Status)

Basic information necessary for understanding conflict and prioritising (part of “Nature of the conflict” in other frameworks)

Scales and levels of the conflict geogra-phic & administrative

International/continental, trans-national, national, regional, local (Status)

Relates to both institutional frameworks, potential amount of stakeholders, issues covered.

Development, causes and content of the conflict

History of the conflict Structural causes Proximate causes contributing to conflictive atmosphere Triggers (leading to outbreak/ escalation) Contributing factors (“drivers” of conflict prolongation/ resolution)

Here comes the question whether the issues require regulatory, technical, spatial, etc. tools for management Part of “Nature of the conflict” in other frameworks

b) Actors/ stakeholders and their interactions

Drivers & Pressures Indirect and direct drivers and pressures and the actors behind them

Actor/stakeholder characterisation

Positions: the solution supported by actors, irrespective of interests and goals of others. Interests: underlying motivations of the actors (concerns, goals, hopes and fears). Values: important for attitudes, need to be addressed, difficult to negotiate. Basic, non-negotiable needs. Goals: the strategies that actors use to pursue their interests. Capacities: potential to affect the context. Relationships: interactions between actors and their perception of these interactions Salience: possibilities to affect outcomes

Negotiability differs between positions, interests, values and basic needs. Power and influence are important to address. Potential can be defined in terms of resources, access, social networks and constituencies, other support and alliances, etc.

Interaction characterisation: dynamics and degree of escalation

1.Feeling anxiety 2.Debate & critique 3. Lobby & persuasion 4.Protest and campaigning 5.Access restriction 6.Court 7.Intimidation and physical exchange,

The four first levels are easier to manage and do not necessarily require a 3rd party involvement and containment of destructive interaction between conflicting parties. The degree and dynamics of

24

Conflict aspect Content and DPSIR-related focus

Comments in relation to conflict analysis and management

8.Nationalization and Internationalization NB: Different groups may be at different levels of escalation. High trust is an indicator for low escalation.

escalation affect urgency to address a conflict and how it needs to be dealt with.

c) Management Responses

Conflict management instruments and process so far

1. Initial analysis 2. Management process including participation, prioritising, decision making & implementation (see e.g. ICZM-cycle or other policy cycle models) 3. Monitoring & evaluation

Whether there is an institutional system in place or not that is possible to use and supporting CM Who did/does what? When? Responsibilities?

Source: own compilation using Conflict Sensitivity Consortium, (undated). Khan et.al. (2011), Morf (2006), Stepanova and Bruckmeier (2013a, b), and Yasmi et. al (2006).

b) Connecting DPSIR-Framework with Conflict Analysis

When connecting conflict analysis with the DPSIR-logic in relation to coastal environmental management, the relations between different parts can be structured as shown in table 4-3.

Table 4-3: Relations between the DPSIR-framework and conflict analysis

D P S I R

DPSIR-framework

Direct and indirect drivers

Pressures Status Impacts Responses

Environ-mental aspects

Conflict assessment in relation to environmental context, landscape, topography, geology etc.

Assessment of environmental pressures caused by conflict & pressures creating conflicts

Environmental status relevant for the conflict (not necessarily able to relate directly to pressures)

Environmental impacts relevant for the conflict

Stakeholder related compo-nents

Analysis of stakeholders: positions, interests, values, needs, assets, roles, power, stage of escalation

Stakeholders actions in the environment (P) relevant for conflict

Analysis of societal impacts: social, economic, cultural in relation to different groups

Analysis of responses by society at large. Societal and individual learning.

Other relevant aspects: not the

Conditions: Conflict assessment in relation to

Actual addressing of conflict: Responses

25

least institutional, historical

institutional context, causes and history of conflict etc. Presence and design of procedures and frameworks to deal with conflict.

by institutional actors: regulation and other sorts of relevant policy instruments (becoming D) Institutional learning over time.

Source: own compilation

c) Towards a Procedure for Selecting Policy Instruments for Conflict Management

In order to develop a procedure to select policy instruments to address coastal resource conflicts, we use a policy-process logic. The following main steps should at least be distinguished in relation to a process-logic (chapter 3) and to the conceptual framework developed above (Table 4-2, section c):

(1) Preliminary analysis: analysing the conflict and its context before choosing any further instruments. Mainly knowledge-related tools are necessary, including tools to achieve participation in the analytical and problem definition phase. Here, the matrices above may be already sufficient as checklists or for some aspects more specific tools may need to be found. The tables in the appendix can be used to search more specific knowledge tools.

(2) Managing the conflict by addressing its different components in relation to content, scales the conflict is located at, stakeholders, behaviour, and the conflict specific institutional framework. It implies finding solutions, evaluating alternatives, making decisions, and implementing them.

(3) Monitoring and evaluation of the efforts (feedback) implies a new phase of analysis using similar tools as during step one. Systematic evaluation is rarely present and methods to do this in an efficient way still need to be developed. The same is true for the development of necessary indicators, with a few exceptions. Below, as an example, an evaluative table from literature (Wittmer et al. 2006).

Fig. 4-4: Criteria to evaluate decision aid methods (Wittmer et al. 2006)

26

Once policy instruments have been selected, the success of resolution efforts depends on appropriate evaluation and follow-ups. These processes need to develop and take place in parallel to conflict analysis and resolution in order to give timely and adequate feedback to decision-makers. Not the least knowledge sharing, integration and joint learning of different stakeholders and decision makers at different levels of the conflict needs to be followed continuously. From such a follow-up decision-making in the overall process of coastal resource management would be much more well informed.

Coastal resource conflicts in urban areas are often highly complex and need that local conflict resolution connects with higher levels of administration, institutional organization and resource governance at regional, national and international levels.

Both interconnectedness between different levels of resource management and evaluation require further reflection and research, which remains the challenge and the target for future research.

27

5. Policy Instruments and Needs - SECOA Experiences

This section presents tools and methodological packages used by SECOA teams including the experiences made and a judgement of the methods by stakeholders in the 1st round of workshops. Focus for the examples presented has been on tools and methods providing syntheses and possibilities for deliberative discussions to take place, but not actual decision-making and implementation.

5.1 Instruments Promoting ICZM Used in the SECOA Countries

By way of a project-internal survey Portman et al. (2012) have mapped the types of instruments or mechanisms the SECOA countries use in coastal management and analysed them especially with regard to their role for integration. The information was collected by way of a questionnaire to experts in each SECOA country. Portman et al. (2012) conclude that all countries have succeeded in making some progress in ICZM despite the great differences in country context, geographic region, level of development and size. More specifically, the following conclusions can be drawn:

All countries participate in some form of international program aiming at promoting ICZM. Two types of involvement were observed: (1) the support of a foreign entity/agent to initiate/promote a program (e.g. the Netherlands involvement in the Vietnamese ICZM program) and (2) multi-lateral, cross-region programs (e.g. the Barcelona Convention). In the EU, multi-lateral regional initiatives usually result from Directives, a top-down approach to promote collaboration between member states. Vietnamese and Indian ICZM appear more dependent on international programs. Israel appears less dependent in operationalizing ICZM by the use of legal (regulatory) mechanisms. International regional schemes, such as EU directives and recommendations have been instrumental in promoting ICZM initiatives and infusing principles of integration into existing and newly created institutions, particularly in Portugal and Sweden. Portugal is more dependent on overall European initiatives, whereas Sweden has made progress through its regional commitments such as HELCOM and OSPAR. Israel has to a lesser extent been influenced by the Barcelona Convention (BC), mostly in the area of marine pollution abatement in the Mediterranean Sea; the ICZM Protocol of the BC still awaits adoption. Italy has not made much progress in implementing principles and mechanism promoted by the EU.

Table 5.1-1: ICZM mechanisms used in the eight SECOA countries

SECOA country

Mechanism

BE IN IL IT PT SE UK VM

Environm. Impact Assessmt. X X X X X X X X

Planning Hierarchy X X X X X X X

Setback Lines X X X X X

Marine Spatial Planning X X X

Regulatory Commission X X X

Countries: BE = Belgium, IN = India, IL = Israel, IT = Italy, PT = Portugal, SE = Sweden, UK = United Kingdom, VM = Vietnam

Source: Portman et al. 2011, p. 25

28

According to the survey a number of mechanisms are used in more than one country (see table 5.1-1), even if there are mechanisms unique, such as the Coastal Sustainability Index in Belgium. The mechanisms most commonly used to support integration in coastal management in the studied countries are: EIA and establishing a planning hierarchy. Setback lines are applied in five countries. Only three countries have regulatory commissions making decisions relevant to ICZM. For the other countries decision-making is built into other, partially statutory mechanisms such as spatial planning (e.g. Sweden). Coastal management forums do not need to be statutory bodies to be influential. Non-statutory bodies can be flexible and deal with issues as they see fit without top-down obligations. Drawbacks are their temporary status (e.g. Coordination Point in Belgium) and inconsistent funding (e.g. Coastal Partnerships in the UK). Last but not least (marine) spatial planning (MSP) is a relatively new tool (recommended by the EU since 2008) and not unexpectedly only implemented or on the way towards it in three countries. Although each mechanism can result in better overall integration in coastal management, they are likely to support integrations along specific dimensions more efficiently than others (e.g. institutional, geographical, cross-sectoral etc. for an overview, see e.g. Fig. 5.2-1). It has to be noted that some dimensions of integration e.g. knowledge types, or future generations also depend on the design of the process coupled with the instrument.

Fig. 5.1-1 Dimensions of integration according to Portman and Fischhendler 2011

Table 5.1-2 indicates the main dimensions of integration supported by each mechanism. By choosing the most relevant mechanisms, policy makers and practitioners can promote particular types of integration. For example, if the objective is to improve integration across sectors or government levels, the implementation of regulatory commissions might be the best option. Setbacks might be more useful to promote integration across landscape units. Some mechanisms are more suited to international initiatives (e.g. MSP) whereas others (e.g. setbacks) are more relevant to national or local matters. Mechanisms supporting integration of policy and science and integration of inter-generational concerns were not identified in the survey.

29

Table 5.1-2: Dimensions of integration supported by specific mechanisms

Mechanism No. of countries

Main types of integration supported by mechanism

Environm. Impact Assessment EIA

8 (all)

Use sectors; landscape units; public- private

Planning Hierarchy

7 Landscape units; cross-government levels

Setback Lines

5 Landscape units; use sectors requiring physical structures

Marine Spatial Planning MSP

3 All types

Regulatory Commission

3 Cross-government levels, use sectors

Source: Portman et al. 2011, p. 77, own complements

In two countries the regional government level is not involved in ICZM (Sweden and the UK). In the UK, recent changes in government structure involved the dissolution of regional agencies, resulting in enhanced empowerment of local governments. In Sweden, the lack of regional level CZM results from the centralization of decision-making at national level and the municipal planning monopoly. Integration of national goals and coastal management initiatives at the local level can occur regardless of the involvement of regional governments, but may become difficult if regional level responsibilities (e.g. economic development) interact with national resource management and local spatial planning.

Despite calls for integrating land and sea interface, there are differences between management of land and sea impeding integration. Some differences are artefacts of policy. While land management is the responsibility of regional, district or local authorities (and these themselves may be integrating various sectors), sea management is almost always occurring at the national level (e.g. Belgium, UK). Almost all mechanisms that bring about integration will be costly in the short term. However, judging from the responses to the questionnaires these mechanisms are expected to reduce conflicts in the long term.

Compliance and enforcement of ICZM mechanisms has been neglected in many countries, especially with setback lines. For other mechanisms, compliance of decisions is loose. EIA findings are not always adopted and enforced. The lack of compliance and enforcement of existing regulations is seen as a significant barrier to successful ICZM. The findings indicate that some actions are key in supporting progress towards integration in coastal management, particularly:

Adopting ICZM mechanisms as legal instruments and following through with their implementation over time;

Engaging in regional/international programs to maximize efforts with neighbouring countries and countries with more experience in ICZM;

Promoting inclusiveness in decision-making to assure all interests are represented and available knowledge is considered;

30

Enhancing integration by adopting mechanisms that are most suited to promote specific types of integration needed in in the context of the coastal area.

These key findings and the wealth of information provided on the SECOA case studies should be widely applicable and contribute to promote best practice of ICZM, particularly in the use of specific mechanisms to achieve integration.

5.2 Challenges, Gaps and Needs in Relation to ICZM in the SECOA Countries

In their report Portman et al. (2012) do not just present the tools used in the SECOA countries and case study areas but also provide a comprehensive overview on the status of integrative coastal management. We use their analysis to identify important problem areas for each country and its case study areas where further institutional and instrumental development is needed. Table 5.2-1 below goes a step beyond the earlier table on main ICZM tools used in each country (5.1-1) by providing a more detailed overview over the main features and status of ICZM, the challenges, and where the needs for further policy tools and institutional development lie.

Most SECOA countries do have a number of features for ICZM in place and the ambition to manage their coastal areas more sustainably, driven by problems such as environmental degradation, coastal erosion, flooding risks, with important causes climate change and increasing urbanisation and development for housing, transport, industry, and recreation in the coastal zone.

Planning hierarchies exist in seven countries, but do not always cover all political levels or may have focus on development only without a broader perspective on environmental problems. A number of countries already have an integrative form of planning, either for parts or the whole of their territorial waters and economic zone.

Environmental impact assessments are known in all countries, but not always used for strategic planning as well in the form of strategic environmental assessment (SEA). From a sustainable development perspective, there would even be a need to include social and economic aspects in such assessments. A further improvement would be to have some kind of ex post evaluation and benchmarking mechanisms like the Belgian sustainability indicators.

Last but not least, there are transnational collaborations and action plans in relation to marine environmental issues (not the least the Barcelona-, Helsinki-, and Oslo-Paris conventions), but they may need to be strengthened further or complemented to be effective for coastal environmental management. Transnational use-coordination is so far underdeveloped. Different countries do have MSP, but the first generation of MSPs are rarely based on overall strategies within a nation or even across even in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea area, where MSP activities have been going on for a while.

31

Table 5.2-1: Problems and Needs in relation to ICZM in the case study areas

Country Characteristics and state of ICZM

Main problems and drivers to address

Important institutional gaps and needs

Belgium Existing planning hierarchy covering all levels including MSP offshore. Coastal: regional level important, offshore national. Institutional integration with env. perspective in the 2000s.Coastal sustainability index and non-statutory Coastal Coordination Point special mechanisms.

Unsustainable fisheries, sand & gravel extraction Achieving sustainable use of sea and land: urbanisation and industries vs nature protection and coastal recreation onshore Increasing use pressure offshore (e.g. transport, wind power) Coastal hazards: erosion, flooding (coastal protection and planning) Surveillance and collaboration for it

Transnational integration of planning across the North Sea (if possible collaboration). Temporary status of integrative coordination point. Cross-sector coordination needs improvement. Fisheries not dealt with within the land/sea interface mandate. Guidelines for stakeholder participation Addressing coastal hazards and risks in relation to climate change (?)

India CZM authorities at national and state level, CZM plans by each state, regional IMCAM plans (special perspective: environm. issues) First ICZM initiatives based on external funding: various CZM programmes and capacity building activities (academia and external funding important for CZM knowledge & capacity).

Large cities with slum areas, large ports, industrial development Increasing traffic and congestion in urban areas Poverty Coastal hazards: erosion, accretion, flooding Development vs. aquaculture/fisheries Environmental degradation through urbanisation (pollution, destruction of mangroves, sewage, garbage to deal with, air quality low)

Resources and funding Basic knowledge Capacity development (especially district and local level), need to address big contrasts high-/low tech for processes and translation of knowledge, e.g. with EIA Stakeholder involvement and communication of important information Compliance and enforcement, not the least with setback lines Overall framework needs further integration Addressing coastal hazards and risks in relation to climate change.

Israel Spatial planning hierarchy at al levels (national, district, local) National Outline Scheme for overall structure Legislation, plans and schemes with protection of public access and environment as focus for ICZM (integr. mgmt & sustainable

Coastal mega-developments for residency and tourism Coastal erosion & protection Cultural conservation Tourism and recreation and public access to shore Water use Marine pollution also in a Mediterranean perspective

Missing overall-vision for strategic coastal management Lacking geographical areas and plans in National Outline Scheme for marinas and ports and for tourism and recreation (not adopted) Implementation of plans and compliance to regulation Need for political will for ICZM Improved interpretation of regulation so far (weakened by development interests) Regulatory commission deals

32




developm.) X-level and x-sector regulatory commission to control development (parallel to National Planning Board)

only with development, not pollution EIA for specific projects and development plans, no EIA of strategic plans (=>SEA)

Italy Planning hierarchy from regional level downward, but tendency not to respect decisions at higher levels. No nation-wide ICZM strategy but regional and project-based action Coastal Area Management Programs for specific regions (e.g. Lazio) Decentralisation of administration under way Focus of coastal mgmt. on specific issue areas: public maritime domain, landscape conservation, coastal hazards and national security. EU as a driver for action and integration (ICZM-programmes, MSFD)

Coastal erosion Steering development Biodiversity protection Eutrophication Water and air pollution Cultural heritage and landscape protection, not the least submarine Strongly affected by economic crisis (resources, political decisions: high interest in development, low interest in environmental protection, other issues than ICZM important)

Needs: Institutional learning, integration, implementation General national plan for defence of coast and sea (framework for ICZM) from 1980s uncompleted, not implemented Italian state does not legally recognise coastal areas Planning hierarchy needs complementing (especially national) and more consequent use (implementation, conformance) On-going administrative decentralisation hinders integration Fragmentation: regional, project-based ICZM, hinders institutional learning Low political interest in implementation, disrespect of higher-level dec. Setback lines to protect the coast line, but problems with compliance and enforcement

Portugal Planning hierarchy for development National strategy for ICZM, using SEA MSP-legislation in place and plans under development Strategic coordination group developing CZ strategy EU as important driver for action and integration (ENCORA,

Coastal erosion and protection Protecting nature and cultural amenities Water quality, salinisation Steering development, not the least for tourism (Algarve) Lack of spatial planning locally (development pressure on environment) Strongly affected by economic crisis

Need for further integration of sector legislation and policies for CZM Strengthen implementation and enforcement (development, pollution, water use) Coordination between different planning levels: more coherent planning and implementation Institutional development under way, but still implementation deficits, not the least in areas with high pressure

33




INTERREG, ICZM-programmes, MSFD)

Coastal and marine areas economically important for Portugal: renewable energies, fisheries, marine transport (Blue Growth also EU-interest)

(e.g. Algarve). Madeira has yet no adopted coastal management plans. Strengthen political will for implementation Need to protect ecological and cultural values further Evaluation? Capacity development?

Sweden Planning hierarchy exists, but incomplete. Integrative national authority for marine and water mgmt. (2011) Resource management power centralised and sectoral but integrative planning local w. national priority areas to implement. Local coastal planning monopoly, but few municipalities plan their territorial waters. Few regions w. mandate for regional planning. Setback lines: public access, conservation Important regional ICZM collaborations on project base (e.g. INTERREG). National MSP in EEZ under development SEA required in planning

Environmental pressures by mobility and intensive uses Urbanisation (need to balance with space for recreation and conservation) Coastal tourism & recreation needs “beautiful” coast Conservation of biodiversity and fish resources New uses & high use pressure in Baltic Sea as drivers for MSP (e.g. wind power, aquaculture) Climate change (mud-slides and flooding in many coastal areas, erosion mainly South Sweden)

Getting from integrative projects at regional, national and transnational level to an institutionalisation at these levels: transnational integration of planning, adoption of national MSP legislation (waiting since 2010 due to struggles between different legislations and local/national level) Institutional integration at regional level: coordinating between 3 different authority levels operating at this scale, closing the planning gap Evaluation for adaptive coastal management Knowledge development on marine issues at local and regional level. Capacity development for marine planning (regional & local level) and public participation (natl., regional) So far only responding to binding EU-legislation

34




United Kingdom

CZM: Relatively well integrated through CZM act (Marine and Coastal Access) and Marine Management Organisation (MMO) Planning hierarchy with national legislation, but devolved responsibility for actual planning to large regions (e.g. England), to be considered in local planning. MSP: common frame-work for all regions, but regional plans. Regulatory committees and special plans for risk/ hazard mgmt. SEA required in planning EU-legislation as driver

Coast & sea are important for UK-history, culture, and economy Increasing urbanisation in many ecologically important estuaries Reducing impact of fisheries (not coastal) Marine and coastal nature conservation Coastal erosion and risk- & hazard management in relation to climate change (flooding) Public access to the shore

Transnational integration of planning (North Sea, Irish Sea) Slow and bureaucratic planning processes, recently accelerated by devolution (skipping county level strategic development planning) keeping significant power at national level (Secretary of State). Evaluation of institutional changes still needs to be made. Participation and local influence on plans formally granted, but need for tools and methods for meaningful public participation (according to workshops) Weaknesses in EIA: quality control by local authorities (varies between them), consultants often rely on out-dated knowledge Evaluation?

Vietnam First ICZM initiatives externally assisted in the form of pilot projects in many areas to address coastal use conflicts (e.g. by Netherlands) Most CZM is conducted at the local level: spatial planning (optimise economic and social development w biodiversity protection). National ICZM strategy draft through project Mostly national sector legislation and master plans for various uses Recent national CZM program 2010-2020 and national strategy for seas and islands

Urbanisation, poverty Non-sustainable exploitation of marine and coastal resources by both local subsistence users and international companies resulting in environmental degradation: erosion, pollution, destruction of mangrove areas, over use of resources Risk- & natural hazard management (flooding, typhoons, tsunamis)

Need for institutional development and integration across sectors especially at higher levels Need for further integration with an environmental management perspective: sectoral management leading to conflicts between different stakeholders Need for basic knowledge and capacity development Low influence of public in general on ICZM, potentially high with specific controversial projects (pressures on decision makers): need for methods and capacity development for stakeholder participation. Planning hierarchy works between levels (higher level overriding) but consistency of plans between sectors difficult to achieve (slow planning, low

35




2009 national integrated policy marine resources management and environmental protection National agency for ICZM, but centralised and sectoral policy making. SEA for projects /plans.

communication between sectors). No planning of the sea yet (thus not yet integrated with CZM): unsolved conflicts. Dependency on external funding and international partnerships for further development of ICZM No systematic evaluation of ICZM.

Source: own compilation using Portman et al. 2012 and national reports from WP 2 and WP 7

External funding and assistance have been important for the development of ICZM not only in Asian but also around the Mediterranean through development aid and EU-projects. States with institutional fragmentation and implementation gaps like Italy and other Mediterranean states needed pressure from above like the European Union. Not surprisingly, the EU’s non-mandatory ICZM-recommendations have had little effect, except where combined with EU-money for pilot projects leading to the development of coastal plans at least at regional level. The new proposal for a combined directive for MSP and ICZM (2013) has received doubtful answers not the least from the countries that are already implementing ICZM and MSP, in many cases because they are afraid of too much steering from above.

According to our analysis here, the important specific needs of the SECOA countries in relation to tools for integrative coastal management and institutional development include the following:

Belgium: Transnational integration of planning, better cross-sector coordination and including fisheries in land-water integration, only temporary status of integrative coordination point, guidelines for meaningful participation, addressing potential effects of climate change in the coastal zone (?)

India: Resources and funding, basic knowledge, capacity development (especially district and local level), further integration of the overall-framework, compliance and enforcement, stakeholder involvement and communication, addressing coastal hazards and risks in relation to climate change.

Israel: Political will for ICZM, an overall-vision for strategic coastal management, address lacking issues in National Outline Scheme (marinas, ports, tourism and recreation), implementation of plans and compliance to regulation, better interpretation of regulation so far.

Italy: Integration: complementing the planning hierarchy (especially national level), improved implementation and conformance: addressing (raising) political interest in implementation of existing plans and completing of drafts, increasing compliance to higher level decisions and enforcement (setback lines), promoting institutional learning (evaluation, go beyond projects).

36

Portugal: Strengthen implementation, institutional development and innovation to close gaps and make overall system more coherent, evaluation, participation, capacity development.

Sweden: Getting beyond transitory projects to institutionalisation and closing institutional gaps at regional, national and transnational level by national legislation and enhanced collaboration and coordination regionally, local and regional capacity development, system for evaluation and learning.

United Kingdom: Transnational integration of planning, rather new system for ICZM and MSP, methods for meaningful stakeholder participation, system for evaluation in general (evaluate even outcomes of recent devolution).

Vietnam: Resources and capacity development (knowledge, participation), institutional complementing at higher levels, better integration at local level, evaluation for institutional learning.

Summing up, finding resources, capacity, and knowledge on the coastal and marine environment and its uses and users are important basic challenges in all countries, with the northern European countries in a comparatively better situation. For politicians to prioritise institutional change and implementation of a more integrative and environmentally sensitive coastal management regulation and policies is a challenge especially in the Mediterranean countries. With a deepening economic crisis the interest in economic and physical development, tourism and recreation is higher than preserving nature and protecting the shoreline (e.g. Italy, Israel). Portugal is under the same pressure but seems to have chosen a slightly different course. The potential of using coastal and marine areas for economic development is acknowledged but has boosted (with support from the EU) the development of integrative institutional structures and strategies, including MSP. Most countries are still in need of further institutional integration and development, with Belgium, Portugal and the UK having the most integrated systems so far. Capacity and method development for managing coastal conflicts in relation to stakeholder participation seems to be a common need in all countries. The literature analysis tried to have a broad perspective beyond standard tools as in some countries complementary instruments may be needed going beyond those presented above and in Portman et al. (2012). Based on the overview here, strategies for the search of methods in the toolbox are developed (excel table Policy instruments for urban resource and conflict management) in section 7.

5.3 Approaches and Tools Used Practically in the SECOA Project

In the SECOA-project a number approaches were combined and tested – both for basic data collection and situation analysis and for assessing their “usefulness” in urban coastal management. This included DPSIR, sustainability indicators, Multi Criteria Analysis, and Scenario Analysis. These methods were at times combined with participatory methods including representatives for important stakeholder groups in the case study areas. Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) was used in two different ways in SECOA – one for calculating Flooding Hazard Maps for each urban area and looking at institutional responses (WP 1, see Kale 2011 and Fischhendler et al. 2011), a more expert based approach, and one in a more participatory setting to evaluate alternative development scenarios for areas with conflictive use interests (WP 7). Similarly, Scenario analysis has been/will be used in a less and a more participatory manner: in WP 4 with experts and in Sweden building on the

37

earlier DPSIR analysis in WP 2 and in coming work in WP 8 combined with an MCA approach in a participatory manner including stakeholders. Below, four illustrative examples are presented and discussed in relation to their usefulness for urban coastal management.

a) Non-participatory MCA for the mapping of flood hazards in urban regions

In WP 1 a type of expert based multi criteria analysis was performed to develop Flooding Hazard Maps in relation to climate change and compare across cases (for a complete reporting see Kale 2011). Flood hazard zoning maps provide an overview of the area where a flood hazard could occur and should be taken into consideration before planning any other use. The focus of the mapping has been on river flood hazard without coastal (tidal) flooding. To develop the maps, a spatial-analytic hierarchy process (S-AHP) approach was used for two study areas per country (exception UK: river flood hazard in Portsmouth is negligible). The S-AHP uses a decision-making framework combining an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and GIS-based spatial analysis (Saaty 1980, Siddiqui, et al. 1996). A combination of different criteria was used to compute a composite index of flood hazard based on multi-parametric analysis (Malczewski et al., 1997; Malczewski, 1999). The composite index of flood hazard was used to identify high, medium and low hazard zones, which are displayed in the Hazard Zone Maps produced for the fifteen study areas.

The criteria, sub-criteria and attributes were identified considering the specific characteristics of the study area, data availability and relevance. The composite flood hazard index was calculated for each study area using different criteria, sub-criteria and attributes. 4-5 key criteria were selected, including: topography, hydrology, geomorphology, land use/cover and socio-economic aspects. Once the criteria, sub-criteria and attributes were identified, the relative weights were derived using AHP method at 2-3 levels. At the first level, all criteria were compared against each other in a pairwise comparison matrix, which is a measure to express the relative importance among the factors according to the Saaty’s (1980) 9-point scale (Table 5.3-1).

Table 5.3-1: Nine-point pairwise comparison scale typically used in AHP

Point Meaning Explanation

1 Equally important Two criteria contribute equally to the hazard

3 Moderately more important

Experience and judgment indicates that the criterion contributes slightly more than the other criterion.

5 More important Experience and judgment indicates that the criterion contributes significantly more than the other criterion

7 Strong more important

Experience and judgment indicates that the criterion is strongly more important than the other criterion.

9 Extremely more important

Experience and judgment indicates that the criterion has the highest possible order of control on the hazard.

Source: Kale 2011, p.8 (after Saaty, 1980)

This step was repeated for sub-criteria (Level 2) and attributes (Level 3). At each level, the consistence ratio was calculated to ascertain whether the pair-wise comparison was

38

consistent in order to accept the results of the weighting. The Flood Hazard Index (FHI) was calculated as a function of the relative weights of all criteria/sub-criteria/attributes. Once the relative weights were obtained, all data were integrated in a GIS environment to prepare a flood hazard zone map. The map was derived from overlay analysis. The relative weights (RW) for each map layer (sub-criterion/attributes) were aggregated to derive the FHI (see Kale 2011).

FHI = TCw + HCw + GCw + LCw + SECw + ……

With w = total sum of relative weights of each criterion

Considering the range of the composite index (FHI) values and the natural breaks, at least three classes were formed to represent the zones of ‘low’, ‘medium’ and ‘high’ flood hazards. The FHI values used to define the three classes of hazard zones varied between countries (ibid., see examples in Fig. 5.3-1 and Table 5.3-2). Based on these valuations, Flood Hazard Maps were generated.

Fig. 5.3-1: Radar diagrams with relative weights of criteria used in mapping for flood hazard zones (examples from Kale 2011, p. 22).

Stakeholders in the workshops saw the methodology to be relevant, and useful. However, there is a need for high-resolution topographic models/data for making the final maps, which were not available in all regions (costs, data collection needed).

Table 5.3-2: Summary of Flood Hazard Zone Maps - Examples: India, Israel

Name of Country

Name of Case study

DEM* Spatial

Resolution in m

Name of metro

window/basin

Tech

niq

ue

use

d

Number of

Criteria

Weights of Criteria Flood Hazard Zone (Area)

Criteria Relative weights

High Medium Low

ha % ha % ha %

India

Mumbai

2.5 (0.14)

Metropolitan area

AHP

5

Topography 0.16

29910 7 81560 20 324030 73

Hydrology 0.20

Geomorphology 0.13

Land use/cover 0.10

Socio-economic 0.41

Chennai

2.5 (0.14)

Metropolitan area

AHP

5

Topography 0.16

11370 10 22950 19 84580 71

Hydrology 0.20

Geomorphology 0.13

Land use/cover 0.10

Socio-economic 0.41

Israel

Haifa

25 (2.0)

Metropolitan area

AHP

5

Topography 0.13

9700

9

27300

26

66800

64 Hydrology 0.22

Geomorphology 0.18

Land use/cover 0.20

Socio-economic 0.28

Topography 0.13

39

Name of Country

Name of Case study

DEM* Spatial

Resolution in m

Name of metro

window/basin

Tech

niq

ue

use

d

Number of

Criteria

Weights of Criteria Flood Hazard Zone (Area)

Criteria Relative weights

High Medium Low

ha % ha % ha %

Tel Aviv

25

(2.0)

Metropolitan area

AHP

5

Hydrology 0.22 8400

6

33300

22

109100

72 Geomorpholo

gy 0.18

Land use/cover

0.20

Socio-economic

0.28

Source: Summary table Flood Hazard Zoning Map (Kale 2011, pp. 20-21)

b) Participatory MCA analysing infected conflictive situations and valuing options

A combination of MCA with scenarios in a participatory setting is being tested within WP 7 and 8 in many SECOA-countries. In the UK a specific methodology was developed, tested and found to be applicable and useful - reported in Esteves et al. for Portsmouth (2012) and in Walters et al. (2012) for the Lower Thames. In Belgium, policy issues options in relation to a new, national coastal safety plan were approached using a participatory MCA, and the Swedish team also built on MCA for conducting workshops – testing the methodology on a highly infected typical urban conflict in the Gothenburg area.

c) Expert based scenario analysis in relation to climate change (DPSIR, indicators): Falsterbo case Sweden

In WP 4, scenario analysis was used to study conflict management from a geographical perspective. In Sweden, a combined scenario analysis with a DPSIR-based perspective was made to study conflicts arising due to management of climate change (Morf et al. 2012). A bundle of conflicts in relation to climate change management arise on the Falsterbo peninsula in Vellinge municipality, at the urban fringe of Malmö. The flat, sandy peninsula on the SW-corner of Sweden is highly attractive are for human residency and recreation at the same time as it is highly valuable for cultural and nature conservation reasons. Moreover, it is highly exposed to weather and climate. Discussions on how to address climate change related problems such as erosion and sea-level rise have given rise to a whole bundle of new environmental- and user conflicts and old conflicts in new shapes. These were analysed from a spatial land-use perspective. The methods used include DPSIR-analysis, factor analysis, scenario building, back-casting, based on extrapolations of land-uses and population in relation to the different scenarios. Based on a DPSIR analysis using documents and earlier work in WP 2 and 4, factor analysis, back-casting using both qualitative, spatial and numeric aspects have been performed and specified in the form of GIS-maps and analytical tables using a number of easily available indicators for land-use change. Three scenarios were created to analyse potential land use conflicts and alternative management strategies: (a) MIX - a combination of development/defence and conservation/retreat (basing on proposals in Vellinge’s municipal comprehensive plan 2010); (b) DEV (development) - a development focused alternative, where residency and jobs and protection against sea level rise is in focus; and (c) ECO (ecology and conservation) - with focus on retreat from the most exposed areas. Each scenario leads to specific types of conflicts. Tables 5.3-4 & 5, show the connections between DPSIR and Scenarios. The different alternative were then expressed on GIS-based maps and calculated in surface to show the changes the three different scenarios implied and geographically illustrate where potentially conflictive changes were likely to occur.

40

Conclusions from the Scenario analysis: conflict potential is high with measures forcing people to move or change behavior. Conflict mitigation possibilities vary depending on the basic assumptions in the scenarios and the local conditions. The most important conflicts to be expected with sea level rise are related to densification of attractive detached house areas and historically interesting townscapes, building of dams in relation to overlapping different kinds of conservation interests that partially collide, and behavioral changes and economic effects especially if a retreat strategy is being chosen. Last but not least, the case raises also a dilemma in relation to the consumption of productive agricultural land, which during the last decades of increasingly open markets, cheap transports, and strong nature protection policy in European countries has come out of focus. The scenarios also include different management strategies: the ECO-scenario requires most pro-active behavioral change work, followed by the MIX-scenario, whereas an important characteristic of the DEV-scenario is the procrastination of problems and conflicts to the future.

Table 5.3-4 Factor identification and typology preparing the scenarios (example: Falsterbo peninsula, Vellinge municipality, Sweden)

Factor Municipal develop-ment policy

Regional develop-ment

Climate change

Housing develop-ment

Economic develop-ment

Recreation & tourism

Infra-structure

Function according to DPSIR

Social driver

Social driver

Environmental driver

Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure

Possible descrip-tors

Policies formulated in relation to building & other kinds of developm

Spatial develop-ment in region Econom. turnover

Sea level rise

Spatial

Temporal patterns

Area in use

Spatial distribution

Area in use


Area in use

Intensity in time and space

Area in use


Factors continued

Traffic & commu-ting

Population Residency type

Real estate values, ownership

Valuable ecological areas & objects

Culturally valuable areas & objects

Climate adaptation strategies

Function according to DPSIR

Pressure Pressure Impact Impact Impact Impact Response

Possible descriptors

Intensity in time and space

Quantity Change over time Spatial dis-tribution

Social class Temporal & spatial distribution

Location

Price

Social group

Area in use Spatial dis-tribution Ecological value

Area in use

Spatial dis-tribution Cultural value

Physical action Policy measures Social action

Source: Morf et al. 2012

41

The table shows important factors in relation to the case. The second row characterizes the functions in relation to the DPSIR-typology deemed suitable to structure the logical interrelation of factors. The third row in the table above contains possible descriptors for each factor. Criteria for further use in the scenarios have been a) their power as indicators b) data accessibility, and c) commensurability with other descriptors.

Methodological conclusions: According to the reports from the stakeholder workshops both DPSIR and the combination with indicators and in some cases calculated indices were considered to be useful and applicable (i.e. not requiring too much effort and expertise). Policy relevance of the framework is high, e.g. the EU is working with a DPSIR logic and indicators in relation to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, 2008). GIS can be an interesting tool for scenario work with conflict analysis- and management in mind, but it is important to keep things simple for understandability for stakeholders if used as a process tool and not for research. Comparisons with other scenarios in SECOA may be difficult because of the very specific local situations and assumptions made in each scenario. Besides some general topical criteria and suggestions for methods, the selection of cases and collection data was ad-hoc driven by problems interesting to analyse in specific cases and end-user contexts. A multiple case study design for comparison of mappings and especially quantitative data would require an overall-design in advance. This is especially valid in relation to quantifications and percentages and the comparability of selected parameters.

The method was used from a research perspective, but with municipal public servants defining the problem and reacting to the scenarios and the conclusions. By using an issue urgent for policy makers it was possible to get access to interesting data and have interaction with usually rather stressed decision makers. These have found the perspective interesting and thought provoking

Table 5.3-5 Factor weighing & ranking in relation to the different scenarios (example: Falsterbo peninsula, Vellinge municipality, Sweden)

Ranking of the factors identified in relation to their importance for the different scenarios. Legend: H= High; M= Medium; L = Low

DPSIR-label

Factors MIX

Weight

DEV

Weight

ECO

Weight

Comments: factor and possible descriptors/dimensions to include as indicators in evaluation

Drivers Municipal development policy (social driver)

H H M Internal driver, municipal reactions to external drivers

Climate change (environm. driver)

M L H External driver

Regional economic development (social driver)

H H L External driver

Pressures Housing, commercial and small business development

H H M Land consumption, concentration of structures, use overlay (GIS data, statistics & qualitative description)

Industrial development M H L Land consumption, concentration of physical structures, use overlay (GIS data, statistics & qualitative description)

Infrastructure development (roads, rails) & traffic

H H L Consumption of land (GIS data), Increase of cars (ownership, use), type of traffic, temporal patterns (statistics)

42

DPSIR-label

Factors MIX

Weight

DEV

Weight

ECO

Weight

Comments: factor and possible descriptors/dimensions to include as indicators in evaluation

Recreational activities (especially high impact activities)

H H

M Space consumption, concentration of structures, overlay of uses (GIS data on golf courses & recreation structures, visitor statistics)

Impacts Growing population & density

M H L Statistics (municipal subdistricts), people per household

Growing settlement & infrastructure

M H L Relative change of urbanised space

Rising land prices M H L Qualitative description, statistics

Relocation of residents M L H Qualitative description, statistics

Decrease/consumption of open space

M H L Consumption of open, non urbanised space (GIS), qualitative description of changed uses, statistics

Increase of wetland areas M L H Relative change of temporarily/ permanently water covered area (GIS), qualitative description of changes, statistics

Responses

Physical climate change adaptation: coastal protection & defence

H H M Dams, dikes, land fills, fortified marinas, delay-water magazines and wetlands etc. (GIS data)

Non-physical (policy-based) climate change adaptation measures

H M H Legislation, planning: setback lines/zoning, land buying/leasing, etc. (GIS-data on lines & planned areas, qualitative description policies)

Importance of social/civil society responses

M L H Collaboration, moving, changing use behaviour etc.

Land use conflicts

Resulting conflicts Result of the analysis: diminishing of some types of areas due to expansion of others (GIS), restrictions of certain uses due to reduced availability of land/ infrastructure

NB: Other types of conflicts related to changes in land-use and policy are possible as well (e.g. about values, procedures, power, economic resources etc.). These are not focus of the GIS based analysis.

Concentration of uses (densification)

M H L (M) GIS (present in all scenarios, concentrated to inner peninsula in ECO)

Land consumption (development)

M L H GIS (present in all scenarios)

Land prices & need to change behaviour in relation to land use

M L H Qualitative (mainly ECO, but also in MIX)

Source: Morf et al. 2012

For the numerical description of potential land use conflicts in the scenario, merely a few easily available spatial descriptors have been chosen as indicators (spatial elements

43

indicating potentially conflictive land use change, potentially conflictive line elements, population changes).

d) Participatory scenario analysis in relation to climate change using MCA

In the last phase of SECOA geographic modeling (development of spatial decision support systems SDSS) and MCA tools are to be combined in a participatory process with interested stakeholders in a number of areas (Italy, Portugal, Sweden and maybe Israel). Based on the experiences and material from earlier work packages case settings and scenarios will be developed to assess different development alternatives using MCA and a GIS-based modelling tool that is being developed by the Geographical Institute of the University of Lisbon during in WP 8 (see report N 8.1 by IGOT). A first round of analysis and stakeholder workshops is to result in a list of important values and development trends and a weighing of the values and trends by each participating stakeholder. This information will then be fed into a GIS-based modelling tool, which will calculate a number of alternative development scenarios that are most likely to be accepted by a majority of stakeholders, based on the valuations from workshop 1. These optimal scenarios will then be discussed in a further round of workshops, possibly in connection with proposals for policy instrument mixes for each case study/area.

5.4 The SECOA Perspective on the Tools Analysed and Tested

Summing up, all SECOA countries are developing their coastal zone management and are to some extent using similar tools for this purpose. At the same time the conditions differ considerably, which needs to be addressed in a differentiated manner, sensitive both to local conditions and institutional history.

The SECOA-project also has tested a number of tools (DPSIR methodology, Sustainability indicators, Multi Criteria Analysis, Scenario technique) in more expert-focused and in more participatory settings. The tools tested can both be used in research and practice. They can be used for analysis, negotiation and decision-making, but are less implementation related – as they are mainly of analytical and synthesising and discursive type. Moreover, the SECOA experience from the workshops (GB, SE, BE) indicates that approaches not specifically designed to address conflicts can have positive effects on conflict management (e.g. scenario-construction, multi-criteria assessments of the value of specific areas, the use of maps to discuss the planning of an area etc. provide a possibility of learning about others’ perspectives).

Further interesting experiences will come through final work in WP 7 and WP 8.

44

6. Towards A Toolbox for Coastal Resource and Conflict Management

This section presents a guideline to the selection of appropriate instruments in relation to conflict situations in the SECOA case studies. Here and in 3 annexes in landscape format, the policy instruments identified through literature analysis are presented, together with a structure of questions to guide selection. The same information is also available as an excel workbook from the authors of this report. The tables are based on a literature analysis of more than 150 texts resulting in more than 90 different instruments, which then have been clustered to reduce complexity.

6.1 Typology of Instruments

The instruments identified are of differing character. Because of the perspective of this deliverable on transfer and applicability – it has a rather broad delimitation of policy instruments/tools. So, the database contains anything from very specific single methods (tools: e.g. risk analysis or setback lines), combinations of tools (tool boxes combined with processes: e.g. coastal or marine spatial planning including a whole bundle of tools built into a process), to formalised overall-approaches including a method package and a user community (e.g. Open Standards for Conservation, Strategic Choice Approach) or overall-approaches and policy programmes which are part of a certain political agenda (e.g. Integrated Coastal Zone Management, Ecosystem Approach).

In order to structure a long list and complex information, a typology was developed. The typology is based on the different SECOA-relevant perspectives and the problems defined by stakeholders and earlier project activities. Other aspects relevant for a coastal urban management process came from prior literature analysis. Based on the typology will be easier to identify interesting instruments and develop appropriate packages for each problem area. Using an image (fig. 6-1), one could see the different topical areas as partially overlapping circles where the individual tools/instruments can be sorted and placed in overlapping and not overlapping areas. Of course, the circles may look rather amoeboid and not at all have the same size if one wants to come closer to reality. For instance, if the size of the circle was proportional to the amount of tools, e.g. the light blue circle (managing climate change) and the orange one (promote institutional innovation) would be much smaller than the one on urban planning (red) and natural resource management (green).

0) Science or practice as origin and application

Three main types of instruments/tools can be distinguished:

(a) Scientific “tools” like concepts or analytical frameworks that are of a more academic type and mainly relevant for research, as they are connected to specific disciplines or fields of research supporting description and analysis how coastal resource management and conflict management are actually working: e.g. panarchy, common pool resource (Ostrom et al. 2010).

(b) Instruments of blended character that can be both found as analytical concepts in research and are used in practice (e.g. co-management or the positions-interest-values-needs typology for conflict management)

(c) Practice based principles and approaches (e.g. Integrated Coastal Zone Management, Adaptive Management) or easily applicable concrete tools for coastal and environmental

45

management situations (e.g., Open Standards for Conservation or Strategic Choice Approach).

Fig. 6-1 An illustration of the overlap of SECOA-topics and a few examples of instruments identified and where they could be located in the graph. Many instruments touch several topical areas – as can also be seen in the red and orange coding of the specific instrument in table 1 in the Annex.

I) SECOA-topical typology

The six topical fields of SECOA include urban, coastal, natural resource, conflict management, addressing climate change, and institutional innovation. The instruments identified here are to a differing degree appropriate to/developed for dealing with these issues (see Fig 6-1). Some instruments address several functions and topical areas at once (placed in overlap areas), others are more specific (not overlapping). E.g. Integrative Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) is located in an overlapping area between coastal management, climate change and natural resource management and to some extent even urban planning and conflict management. This includes the following types and examples.

(a) Multivalent approaches: e.g. Collaborative Planning, ICZM, Ecosystem Approach, Open Standards, Strategic Choice Approach etc.

(b) Focus on natural resource management: e.g. Integrated Water Resources Management, Catchment Authorities, Tradable Quota, Precautionary Principle.

(c) Focus on conflict management: e.g. Consensus Conference, Co-resolution, Legal mechanisms and liability (and arbitration through them), Mediation.

46

(d) Urban management: e.g. spatial planning, Framework for Sustainable Urban Water Management, Relative Urban Ecosystem Assessment, Material Flow Analysis, Urban Harvest Approach (combining urban and natural resource mgmt.).

(e) Coastal management: e.g. ICZM, Marine Spatial Planning, setback lines, managed realignment (also used for next topic)

(f) Climate change: e.g. Flood Hazard Assessment, vulnerability and risk analysis.

II) Typical broader problems related to the SECOA topics

Addressing other specific problem areas common to the type of problems SECOA is dealing with (can be searched for in the qualitative sections using relevant keywords) such as:

(a) Complexity, uncertainty, change

(b) Geographically/landscape based tools (search in scale section, or use terms like landscape, GIS)

(c) Processes tools dealing with processes and people (organisation, interaction, behaviour, communication, coordination etc.)

III) Type of Instrument

Coastal urban managers have different types of instruments to access – some of them are related to formal institutional frameworks, others are/can be used outside of formal arrangements.

(a) Analytical: both for research and management

(b) Administrative: practical administration and management related

(c) Institutional: related to design of organisation structures and processes

(d) Planning: strategic approaches to deal with issues (not the least integrative environmental/spatial ones)

(e) Participation and communication: from engaging actively (bottom-up, empowerment) to more passive methods (information)

(f) Regulatory: setting up rules for what is allowed and not

(g) Implementation: different types of incentives to steer behaviour including surveillance

(h) Market-based: affecting the price of societal and environmental goods and services and steering behaviour

(i) Whole packages combining multiple types of instruments (often designed as a policy package for specific situations, e.g. through specific legislation or an action plan – e.g. Baltic Sea Action Plan in relation to the marine environment)

IV) Scale

This includes both geographical and administrative scales. SECOA focus is on the local-regional level - typical instruments include those used in urban planning and management. However, some instruments can be used on multiple scales or for crossing/integrating across a number of scales (e.g. ICZM, hierarchies of planning).

47

V) Functional

Important process functions that may be needed

(a) Analysis – for research or for planning/management

(b) Coordination: between sectors and stakeholders

(c) Prioritising: focus on finding criteria, procedures for prioritising

(d) Negotiation: focus on discourse about priorities

(d) Decision making: taking decisions e.g. on what to prioritise, what to do, how to go about it and who is responsible.

(e) Implementation: formal regulation based tools and others

(f) Evaluation of process and effects

(x) Mixed: multifunctional approaches combining several of these functions in a mix – very often designed for the specific situation they have been developed to address (e.g. the Ecosystem Approach managing conservation areas, not the least in relation to local people who have a livelihood in these areas)

VI) Actor/Stakeholder perspective in relation to involvement in the process

There are no preferred SECOA-perspectives with regard to stakeholders and who manages the participation process, as participation has to be designed according to the situation and purposes it has to fulfil. This has to be defined by those responsible for arranging participation. The participatory activity can range from information provision to dialogue to actively engaging and empowering stakeholders. Also the purpose can vary between instrumental ones (exchange of information, problem/ conflict analysis, implementation, management, creating support) or more normative ones (democratic requirement, emancipation and transformation of power relations).

The following perspectives usually are relevant for selecting:

(a) Few stakeholders/parties with interests or many

(b) Requiring a more or less neutral third party managing the process (can be necessary in conflict management)

(c) Activating, empowering methods or more passive methods

(d) Expert-decision maker based methods or methods that rely on stakeholders actively taking part in the overall process and in decision-making.

Our research indicates that there is a great need for decision makers both in politics and administration to reflect more systematically on the functions and purposes of participation, whom to involve, when, how and why.

VII) Conflict analysis and management

With regard to conflict management, it is important to think about what types of conflicts the instrument can address (SECOA-themes) and what aspects of conflict management make the strength of the instrument (process functions, roles of different parts, who is involved and with which roles). Similarly it is important to reflect on how actively different stakeholders (potential and actual parties of a conflict) are participating in the

48

process of analysis and resolution. Here, we did not develop a typology, but listed important characteristics in a descriptive manner.

6.2 Preparation - Questions Before Using the Tables

After having made a first analysis of the conflict in relation to the aspects in the earlier analysis table and answered the general questions above, possible tools to address it need to be checked. This can be done by answering a number of questions looking at the matrices in the appendix. This is followed by further descriptions and more concrete guidelines on how to use and interpret the tables.

Guiding Questions to Find Relevant Policy Instruments

The following questions can be asked in relation to find relevant policy instruments for resource and conflict management in coastal urban areas. They can be used to search in the table.

1. What are the goals and what is the intended purpose to use an instrument?

2. Does the instrument address important aspects of the situation we have identified?

3. What is the scale of management?

4. What general type of instrument is required? A specific type (analytical, administrative, planning, market related) or rather a package of several types?

5. Which functions in relation to a policy process should the instrument address? Is focus on analysing and understanding resource problems and related conflicts or on addressing their content and consequences? What do we need: basic knowledge, an efficient process for prioritising, better forums for stakeholder participation, a system for evaluation etc.? Do we need to address several functions at once?

6. Based on the stakeholder analysis: what types of stakeholders are/should be targeted (decision makers, communities, interest groups, public, companies etc.)? Further questions to be asked in relation to stakeholder management and the choice of instruments include: Are they empowered to participate? Do some groups need to be mobilised especially? What are their needs in order to be able to participate/exchange information? Which groups are in coalition and which are in opposition? How far is the conflict escalated in relation to these groups? How urgently does the conflict need to be addressed?

7. Which aspects are we focusing on: natural resources, conflicts, urban issues, coastal issues, climate change and/or institutional innovation? With climate change focus is e.g. on risks, hazards, uncertainty, changes in relation to climate, hydrology, coastal defence, or vulnerability. Institutional Innovation: larger learning process and change needed? Level/scale?

8. Other questions can be formulated in relation to specific terms – descriptive aspects are not possible to sort in the table, but available by word search. For example in relation to conflict management: which aspects of the conflict management process need special attention (e.g. transparency, equality among stakeholders, neutrality, de-escalation)? What characteristics of the problems/issues at hand affect our possibilities to manage the conflict? What uncertainties may play a role in the conflict and need special attention?

49

9. Further, more general questions (important but only partially assisted by the table)

a) Knowledge: What type of knowledge is lacking? Which aspects need to be addressed especially?

b) Capacity: Do we have the resources, mandate and appropriate instruments to set them up? Do we need special competence? See handbook section and methods that include communities of practice one can get in contact with.

10) Single instrument or whole package? What kind of instrument is needed – a highly specific one (e.g. with regard to function or issue addressed) or a general, more open one (with the intention to integrate and catch issues that are not even yet identified)? In more complex situations there may be need to enhance integration in a fragmented situation and compose a whole package or choose an overall framework.

11) Scientific analysis and research or analysis for practical problem solving? The level of ambition and the resources available steer the depth of the analysis.

6.3 Introducing the Tables: Policy Instruments, Literature, Handbooks and Web Resources

In the appendix, three tables can be found: the 1st with the policy instruments in alphabetical order and characterised by a number of descriptors, the 2nd with a literature list (result of the literature review), and the 3rd with useful handbooks and web resources. The three tables give an overview over the content of the main database in the form of an excel workbook.

Annex 1: Using the Policy Instrument Table

The table includes both common and innovative instruments with varying scope and functions for managing natural resources and conflicts such as instruments for regulation, prioritizing, assessment, and decision-making. Based on our criteria, the instruments included were of potential use for coastal management in urban areas. Where possible, we have grouped instruments with similar characteristics (e.g. on Multi Criteria Analysis). Based on the main topics of this report and the overall SECOA themes, we use a colour code to structure the information on the instruments (see fig. 6-1). The instruments are classified in a manner indicating their practical relevance for management and research. 18 key identifiers or descriptors indicate how and in which context the instruments can be used. They show step by step the instruments, their focus and their relation to the six specific problem areas relevant for SECOA.

The key identifiers or descriptors used and their respective colour code are:

General descriptors (1) ID, (2) Instrument, (3) Description, (4) Scale, (5) Aspects addressed, (6) Type of instrument, (7) Process functions addressed, (8) Types of actors involved Descriptors in relation to natural resource management (green) (9) Relevance for natural resource management, (10) DPSIR relation, (11) Relation to indicators Descriptors in relation to conflict management (yellow) (12) Relevance for conflict management, (13) Conflict context, (14) Conflict analysis and management aspects Descriptors in relation to further important SECOA-themes

50

(15) Relevance for institutional innovation (orange) (16) Relevance for urban management (red) (17) Relevance for coastal management (darker blue) (18) Relevance for addressing climate change (sky blue). In the boxes below, the 18 key identifiers are described and defined more closely in four functional groups and connected with the colour code.

Box 6-1: General descriptors

(1) ID: refers to relevant entries in the literature list. This can both be general literature we based our descriptions in the table upon as well as literature on e.g. adapted versions, critical reflections, and case studies and so on. More references can be found for instruments that are popular or debated intensively: e.g. common Pool Resource Management, refers to four publications while an instrument like Managed Realignment is described briefly using one reference only.

(2) Instrument: descriptive title of the instrument, usually provided by literature. In absence of a clear descriptive title in the literature, we have sometimes created a descriptive title ourselves. E.g. in the case of Methodology for classification of estuary restoration areas, no descriptive title was provided, we created one based on relevant keywords. At times, similar instruments have been clustered into one entry. E.g. Material Flow Analysis consists of different instruments that are based on different forms of the idea of material flow analysis.

(3) Description: describes the instrument in more detail, with a focus on purpose and goals. This identifier is descriptive and should mainly be used for a quick overview about how the instrument can be used.

(4) Scale: here, a judgement is made about the most appropriate geographic and institutional scales the instrument can be used at – partially based on knowledge on actual use and partially based on knowledge about the method.

(5) Aspects addressed: gives further contextual information on issues, aspects and problems the instrument can deal with. This may include relatively common and general aspects such as uncertainty, risk and complexity as well as more detailed and contextual information in relation to the instrument.

(6) Type of instrument: gives an idea about the policy-process and the structural conditions an instrument is placed in. Compared to the earlier handbook “Knowledge and synthesis for urban resource management” (D 7.1) the types of policy instruments defined have been shortened in name and complemented in type. Here included are: analytical, administrative, institutional/organisational, market-related, planning (includes spatial and environmental), participatory (engaging civil society, bottom-up perspective), and regulatory, adjudication & enforcement.

(7) Process functions addressed: refers to the functions an instrument can have in the management process: analysis, coordination, prioritising, decision-making, implementation, and evaluation. Mixed stands for various combinations, which are then specified. This identifier helps to identify how useful an instrument can be. Many instruments listed are approaches attempting to integrate or cover all aspects of the management process.

(8) Actors/stakeholders and their roles in the process: indicates which types of stakeholders are involved and how. e.g. decision-makers, experts, NGOs, users,

51

individuals, etc.. Many instruments include a multi-stakeholder perspective (e.g. Bottom-up GIS).

Box 6-2: Descriptors with relation to natural resource management

(9) Relevance for Natural Resource Management: here, we made a judgement using a colour and number code to both visualise relevance and make it sortable: 1 (red) very high relevance, 2 (orange) high relevance, 3 (yellow) potential relevance, 4 (no colour) low relevance. Instruments especially designed for natural resource management received red. Instruments addressing typical problems of natural resource management and including more than two of the following characteristics (dealing with natural resources and environmental problems, coastal and marine resource focus, nature conservation focus, tested or well established tool in the area, easy to use and transfer to natural resource management) are orange. Yellow are those that have one or two characteristics of the earlier types.

(10) DPSIR: describes which components of the DPSIR-framework the instrument addresses. This aspect is mostly relevant for natural, urban and coastal resource management, where a number of institutional actors already are working with such a perspective (e.g. the EU’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive).

(11) Relation to indicators: indicates whether the instrument has a clear relation to indicators. When by literature review a clear relation was found to specific indicators, this field is marked with a yes and in some cases further information is included. When nothing is mentioned, it is either unknown or we have not found any explicit relations to indicators in the literature used.

Box 6-3: Descriptors with relation to conflict management

(12) Relevance for conflict management: classified using a colour and number code to both visualise relevance and to sort: 1 (red) very high relevance, 2 (orange) high relevance, 3 (yellow) potential relevance, 4 (no colour) low relevance. The classification is both based on literature and on our own knowledge and interpretation of the usability and relevance of the instrument for conflict management. Class 1 is for instruments especially designed for analysing, and solving conflicts. Class 2 includes instruments that may not be directed towards conflict management as first purpose but address typical conflictive problems of coastal urban areas including more than two of the following characteristics: prevention or de-escalation of conflictive situations, learning over time, building trust and collaboration, integrative analysis and/or coordination across levels, sectors and stakeholder groups, and explicitly dealing with either all or at least some aspects of their stakes (positions, interests, values and needs). Yellow are those that have one or two characteristics of the earlier types.

(13) Conflict context: includes which types of conflictive aspects the tool is designed for/can address if used for conflict management.

(14) Conflict analysis and management aspects: includes further specification which types of aspects of conflict analysis and management the tool can be used for. Especially with instruments not specifically designed for conflict management such characteristics may vary in comparison to the general descriptions in the columns farther to the left.

52

Box 6-4: Descriptors in relation to other SECOA topics

(15) Relevance for institutional innovation: is presented using a combined colour/number code to visualise relevance and to sort: 1 (red) very high relevance, 2 (orange) high relevance, 3 (yellow) potential relevance, 4 (no colour) low relevance. Class 1 received instruments especially designed for institutional innovation. 2 refers to instruments addressing more than two typical aspects of institutional change (learning over time, integrative perspective, increasing integrative coordination across levels, sectors and stakeholder groups, new types of regulations and incentives), even if not directed towards it as main purpose. 3 refers to those instruments that can be used as a tool in an institutional change process and address less of the above aspects. The classification is based on literature and our knowledge and interpretation of the usability and relevance of the instrument for an institutional innovation process.

(16) Relevance for urban management: is presented using a colour and number code to visualise relevance and to sort: 1 (red) very high relevance, 2 (orange) high relevance, 3 (yellow) potential relevance, 4 (no colour) low relevance. The classification of relevance for urban management is based on literature and own knowledge and interpretation. Here, the perspective was on typical urban area issues as included in SECOA (development, mobility, population density, environmental impacts) or urban areas’ interactions with their surroundings. Class 1 is for instruments especially designed for urban management. 2 received those instruments addressing more than two of the above-mentioned aspects of urban management, even if not directed towards it as main purpose. 3 was used for instruments that can be used in urban management addressing fewer aspects.

(17) Relevance for coastal management: is presented using a colour and number code to visualise relevance and to sort: 1 (red) very high relevance, 2 (orange) high relevance, 3 (yellow) potential relevance, 4 (no colour) low relevance. The classification in relation to usability and relevance of the instrument for coastal management uses both literature and our own competence/experience. Class 1 is for instruments especially designed for coastal management. 2 received those instruments addressing more than two relevant aspects of coastal management, even if not directed towards it as main purpose. 3 is used for instruments that can be used in coastal management addressing fewer aspects.

(18) Relevance for addressing climate change: is presented using a colour and number code to visualise relevance and to sort: 1 (red) very high relevance, 2 (orange) high relevance, 3 (yellow) potential relevance, 4 (no colour) low relevance. The classification is based on literature analysis and our interpretation of relevance to address climate change. This delimitation was less easy to make, as there many policy instruments, but not many used yet to address climate change. We base our judgement on situational characteristics such as dealing with climate and weather related topics and effects, on-going and future changes related to climate and hydrology, risks and uncertainty, and global interconnections of cause and effect chains related to climate change. Class 1 is for those instruments actually addressing climate change. 2 received instruments addressing more than two aspects above. 3 is used for instruments that can be used to deal with climate change but address only 1-2 aspects.

53

Annex 2: Using the Literature Analysis

An extensive literature review in several steps between 2012 and 2013 included over 150 scientific articles, books, reports, and documents. Through this, we identified over 90 policy instruments that can contribute to manage natural resources and conflicts in coastal urban areas (for the instrument table in annex 1 these have been grouped to reduce complexity). The literature review was guided by a broad definition of what can be said to constitute a policy instrument (from broad research approaches and frameworks to specific and detailed methods and tools, as well as instruments used to monitor the environment to instruments directed at the policy process itself). The instruments collected were then broadly categorized according to methodological characteristics of the instrument presented and the originating field of knowledge. Annex 2 provides an overview over the texts identified, including complete references. The references include both general method descriptions and textbooks and related writings on e.g. adapted versions, critical reflections, and case studies and so on. These references offer a starting-point for gaining a deeper insight in the specific instrument.

Annex 3: Handbooks and Web Resources for Natural Resource and Conflict Management in Coastal Urban Areas

In order to make the tool report more relevant for practice, we included a list of handbooks for practitioners. The list includes both a complete reference and a short description of content and who may be interested in using it.

The database behind the tables: the excel workbook

The excel file behind the three tables is available from the authors on request ([email protected]). It furthermore includes two general possibilities to find relevant material:

(a) Using the sorting functions included in each table and based on the structured lists and terms and the colour coding in the instruments table

(b) Using the search tool included in the excel sheet and look up specific terms that can also be part of the qualitative descriptions (e.g. uncertainty, risk, empowerment)

Practical advice to deal with the sorting functions of excel sheet: The key identifiers are searchable and possible to sort and reduce alphabetically and numerically by using the filter function in the menu (a little funnel icon in the tool bar) and by clicking on the grey triangle button and selecting (deselecting specific aspects). The active sorting is shown in the form of a little arrow besides a smaller triangle. The qualitative identifiers (e.g. description) are easier to search with by using key words of interest in the search field in the upper right corner of the toolbar.

Further development of the database:

The intention is to make the information in the excel workbook available through either a CD with the report or a web-based application hosted an interested SECOA-member, end user or financer.

mailto:[email protected]

54

7. Conclusions and Outlook

In this final section, conclusions are drawn in relation to important problems to address in the management of coastal urban areas as exemplified by the SECOA countries and cases. Based on the earlier analyses, strategies are proposed to find appropriate instrument/method packages in relation to problem constellations the different SECOA countries have to address and in relation to how to complement tools and toolboxes for specific themes (natural resource management, conflict management, and climate change)..

7.1 Conclusions

The analysis of workshops and results from earlier studies in WP 1-4 in relation to institutional development and policy tools indicates that there are considerable differences between coastal nations and their cases and similarities that make it possible to give some common recommendations.

Among the important common needs and issues to address in all SECOA areas are:

- To address complexity and uncertainty, which requires the design of learning systems. Mechanisms for evaluation and feedback should be designed for learning both from an individual and organisational perspective. This is at present is underdeveloped in all SECOA countries.

- To develop channels and forums for communication between relevant institutional levels and sectors and non-governmental stakeholders. This is important for problem- and conflict analysis (assessing issues, scales or levels of a problem/conflict) and later process steps. Empirical evidence indicates a lack of synchronisation, collaboration, and communication between different levels of decision-making and a need to make operational procedures more efficient.

- Systems and processes of efficient knowledge production, sharing, integration and joint learning of stakeholders at different levels are important for many purposes, not the least for addressing conflicts between different stakeholders, levels, and administrative sectors.

- Need for important decision-makers to participate in the problem solving process at all (e.g. Italy, Israel), where it is their mandate “put down a foot” and make the necessary decisions (e.g. Sweden).

In all countries, processes for more integrative and participatory coastal resource management are under way. However, the examples of both Sweden and Italy indicate that change processes take long time and do not always fit the schedule and time frame of a research project like SECOA.

The differences and the on-going change processes in the areas (see reports from WP 2) suggest the conclusion that there will be no “one-size-fits-all” solution, neither for a nations as a whole, nor for a specific coastal urban area. The common problems allow for some general suggestions based on our analysis and typology of tools (see next section). In a longer perspective, institutional innovation the adaptation and complementing of existing institutional frameworks and tools will be needed. These aspects are developed further in the Transfer Report D 7.3 by Knutsson & Alpokay (2013).

55

7.2 Towards Appropriate Method Packages – Country Suggestions

Below we discuss a few examples from the earlier descriptions and suggest a strategy for searching and the kind of tools that may be appropriate for the coastal problem based on the analysis. Based on the earlier presentation of problems/issues identified by Portman et al 2011 and the 1st round of workshops, the SECOA-countries can be structured into three groups in regarding their main characteristics and needs in relation to integrative coastal management:

Northern Europe (SE, GB, BE): all have marine and coastal planning systems or are developing them, but have problems of institutional integration at various levels (Sweden e.g. regional) and are struggling with how to include relevant stakeholders in marine and coastal planning processes. Knowledge systems are already in place for other types of issues and under development for marine and coastal management. There is institutional fragmentation and so far no overall integrative mechanism for transnational coordination in the sea (transnational MSP). Evaluation as part of institutional learning is still underdeveloped. Participation and integration in relation with environmental and coastal management is to some extent regulated, but there are still some gaps in the institutional system. Conflict studies and workshops indicate that there is a need for new types of tools to deal with the conflicts that cannot be solved through the present system.

Recommended priorities and focus for tool selection:

Instruments promoting institutional innovation and closing existing gaps in the management system (including those for knowledge production and integration facilitating the development of functional systems for evaluation and adaptive management).

Instruments dealing with stakeholder analysis, design of participation processes and facilitating participation beyond well established the statutory information and communication processes – especially where solutions have to be sought for problems the existing networks and institutions are not experienced with stakeholder cooperation.

Tools for conflict analysis and management beyond the statutory decision making processes (participatory, activating manner of conflict analysis and management).

Mediterranean (IT, PT, IS): Here, the picture is more diverse. The development of an institutional system for integrative coastal management varies with IS and PT having come farther. PT and IT are presently also struggling with the effects of the economic crisis, where in PT blue growth is even seen as an opportunity and reason for coastal and marine planning. There are common problems of compliance and implementation in all countries. Furthermore, important institutional and economic stakeholders are not ready to enter collaborative processes to address important conflicts and commit themselves to the results.


Political decisions, implementation and enforcement.

Tools for informing and mobilising political actors and public at large for coastal management issues.

56

Tools for conflict analysis and management assisting to get beyond the present deadlock situations.

Institutional innovation promoting further integration and more collaborative conflict analysis, mitigation, and possibly resolution.

Tool packages working with overall-sustainability from an integrative and adaptive management perspective.

Asia (IN, VN): basic environmental and other knowledge for coastal planning and management is needed and resources are lacking. With regard to stakeholder participation both stakeholder empowerment and capacity building of those leading the processes are necessary. Institutional development is required, taking into account resource and other types of limits.


Capacity building with managers and stakeholders for knowledge production, planning, negotiation, decision-making, implementation.

Tools for information and capacity building with stakeholders and public at large.

Creation of further resources and choosing tools effectively. Tools enhancing collaborative partnerships between public and private actors – especially where public resources are lacking – with a perspective of empowerment of disempowered groups.

Capacity building and searching for “easy to use”- tools for mobilisation, empowerment and participation – especially for issues where stakeholder support is important when regulation is lacking and voluntary agreements are necessary.

Design of institutional systems without having to take too much care of existing institutions and turf-competition within administrations and between different levels. Established and tested integrative method packages can be used (e.g. Open Standards, Strategic Choice Approach) for institutional development.

7.3 Towards Appropriate Method Packages – SECOA-Topical Suggestions

With regard to the different instruments for the SECOA topics a few conclusions can be drawn:

Natural Resource Management: These instruments could profit from a more conscious complementing with tools for conflict management.

Conflict management: Not the instruments addressing violent conflicts or those requiring external arbitration are most relevant. A conflict management perspective can easily be combined with a participatory and natural resource management perspective.

Coastal management: Pioneering work in coastal management has combined instruments for participation, conflict management, and natural resource management. There are also projects developing specific instruments to address climate change in coastal areas (e.g. the CONSCIENCE project, see Marchand et al. 2011). Complementary approaches can be found in approaches dealing with specifically urban perspectives: e.g. social sustainability and livelihood, and planning based approaches such as mapping of sociotopes.

57

Urban planning and management: In urban areas one often worked with social sustainability issues. There is a strong integrative planning tradition that can be used for natural resource and conflict management.

Climate change management: There are rather few tools explicitly dealing with coastal conflict management – however, this is changing at present. Institutional development and innovation are relevant, but the process takes time.

Institutional innovation is necessary in all types of constellations and tools and in all the case study countries. For this purpose tools promoting adaption and evaluation, communication and participation and conflict resolution in non-traditional ways are important.

7.4 Outlook: Refinement and Testing Through Further Application in SECOA

This report and the related matrices make a first step towards preparing a tool for finding strategies to select relevant policy instruments for conflict management. An excel workbook is under development. The strategies to develop imply situation analysis (problems, stakeholders, needs, gaps), weighing of options/alternatives, designing and testing, selection, implementation, and evaluation.

In relation to coming work in WP 7 (master plan) and WP 8 (scenario-analysis), it will be discussed further, what policy instruments are needed in which contexts. In WP 7, a type of master plan/strategy is to be developed. WP 8 will test GIS based scenario analysis through a SECOA-developed spatial decision support system (SDSS) in a combination with multi criteria analysis and possibly further instruments (see report N 8.1 by IGOT).

Resource Management Methods

Table for Method Characteristics

Ref. nr. see

litera-ture

list Annex 2 Title/description Purpose, characteristics, possible outcomes

Instrument

reaching across

multiple geographic

and administrative

scales or with

specific focus from

global to local

Problem types and

context addressed

Analytical,

administrative,

institutional/organi

sational, market

related, planning

(spatial/envrionent

al), participatory

(enganging civil

society actors),

regulatory,

adjudication &

Analysis,

coordination,

prioritising,

negotiation,

decision-making,

implementation,

evaluation.

Mixed: several

functions.

Process

managers,

target groups

Relevance for

natural resource

management.

Legend: 1/red: very

high; 2/orange: high;

3/yellow: potential;

4/no colour: low

relevance

Aspects of DPSIR

the instrument

relates to

Clear relation to

indicators (ev.

description)

Relevance for conflict

management. Legend:

1/red: very high;

2/orange: high; 3/yellow:

potential; 4/no colour:

low relevance

Addressing context

relevant for conflict

management

e.g. Role of

conflict parties

and eventual 3rd

party, addressing

of escalation,

trust between

parties, violent

behaviour and

attitudes towards

other parties, etc.

Relevance for

instituional

innovation. Legend:

1/red: very high;

2/orange: high;


4/no colour: low

relevance

Relevance for urban

management. Legend:

1/red: very high;

2/orange: high;


4/no colour: low

relevance

Relevance for coastal

management. Legend:

1/red: very high;

2/orange: high;


4/no colour: low

relevance

Relevance to address

climate change.

Legend: 1/red: very

high; 2/orange: high;


4/no colour: low

relevance

Ref. Instrument Description Scale Aspects addressedType of

instrument

Process

functions

addressed

Types of

actors

involved

Natural Res.

Mgmt.DPSIR

Relation to

indicators

Conflict

managementConflict context

Conflict

analysis &

management

aspects

Institu-tional

Inno-vation

Urban

planning &

mgmt

Coastal mgmtClimate

change mgmt

30 Adaptive

Management,

Adaptive Decision-

Making

A general principle or learning approach to urban and natural resource management.

Policies are seen as testing of hypotheses. If desired effects are not achieved policy

needs to be adapted. Permanent change, complexity, uncertainties and incomplete

knowledge do not allow final conclusions. A possibility for change needs to be allowed.

Makes often an important component of other approaches dealing with situations with

high uncertainties where learning is necessary (e.g. dealing with complex interactions

between ecosystems and society in the ecosystem approach - combined with the

precautionary principle, ICZM, MSP, Open Standards for Conservation ).

Multiple scales Uncertainty, decision-

making, monitoring,

learning

Multiple:

administrative,

institutional

Mixed: decision

making,

implementation,

evaluation to

result in learning

Decision makers

involving

stakeholders

1 All of DPSIR Monitoring and

evaluation are

essential

components.

Indicators for

follow-up need to

be developed.

3 Governance Learning of whole

governance

system

1 1 1 1 adaptation to

societal &

ecosystem

changes due to

climate

116 ASSURE

(environmental

sustainability index

model)

A parcel-scale environmental index embedded in a mathematical model helping to

systematically map environmental problems through data in a local context. It also

gives directions about the problem in a larger context. The model is intended to

provide guidance to evaluate the urban development and its environmental impacts in

order to increase urban sustainability (long-term environmental, economic and social

benefits for cities). Final purpose is to improve the quality of urban life and city services.

Local-regional Mapping environmental

problems in a local

context, sustainable

urban development,

data collection

Analytical Analysis Decision-

makers,

possibly

involving other

stakeholders as

well

1 All of DPSIR Yes 4 Analysis of

environmental

problems as

potential conflict

causes

Problem analysis

can produce input

to conflict

analysis.

3 1 1 3

164 Capacity building

and education

Education and training of individual professionals and whole governance systems,

reaches beyond mere information of public or users with purpose to develop both

knowledge and skills to participate and perform within governance system

Multiple scales Developing knowledge

and capacity, individual

and group and

institutional learning

Multiple:

participatory,

analytical,

planning, policy

making,

administrative

Mixed: analysis,

participation,

evaluation and

learning

Decision-makers

and experts

among

themselves and

towards

stakeholders

1 D, social I, R 1 In relation to issues

included in capacity

building & social

capital

Empowering,

creating mutual

understanding

and trust as a

condition for

conflict

management

1 1 1 1

7, 66 Catchment Based

Management:

Catchment

Management

Authorities (CMAs)

& Natural Resource

Districts (NRD)

Ecologically based management bodies and boundaries: Catchment Management

Authorities: Ecologically based delimitation of management area coupled with a

governance body ensuring that communities and specific stakeholders have a say in

how natural resources are managed in their catchment region. Natural Resource

Districts (NRD): local management agencies based on watershed boundaries with broad

authority to research and regulate natural resource use and to provide environmental

protection. Innovative governance, each district sets its own priorities and develops its

own programs to best serve local needs. Part of an ecosystem based approach to

managing aquatic systems.

Regional

(catchment)

Democratic deficits,

lack of

understanding/commun

ication, ecological

boundaries of aquatic

systems

Multiple:

administrative,

institutional,

participatory

Mixed: analysis,

coordination,

negotiation,

decision making,

implementation,

evaluation

Multi-

stakeholder

1 ecosystem

based mgmt

non-DPSIR, focus

on stakeholders,

inst. Framework

(ev. R)

Yes (see MERI as an

evaluation tool)

2 Governance,

delimitation

Negotiation and

decision making

among equal

members

1 3 useful, beyond

urban area

1 1 catchm

perspective

93 Classification of

estuary restoration

areas

A methdology to optimize decision-making in accordance with the objectives which

might arise in projects for the hydrodynamic restoration of estuaries. Gives managers

an overall view of the potential effects of restoration in each zone and provies a basis

on which to plan such actions. Takes into account hydrodynamic, biological, legal,

economic paramenters.

Local-regional

(estuary)

Estuarine management,

problems of

restoration, need for

structured decision

making

Administrative Mixed: analysis,

prioritising,

decision making

Experts and

decision-makers

1 impacts,

responses

Yes 3 possible to use Estuaries,

restoration

Focused on

specific issue

area, decision

making process

3 can be part of

an innovation

process

2 many urban

areas in estuaries

1 4

Annex 1: Overview over Policy Instruments for Natural Resource & Conflict Management in Urban Coastal AreasBased on literature review Jan 2013, complemented in May 2013. Authors: Andrea Morf with contributions by Serin Alpokay, Tom Buurman, Maraja Riechers, and Julia Wernersson


Table for Method Characteristics126, 146 Co-management Implies a cooperation between formal decision makers and resource users or

representatives of user grousp, and the commitment to a working relationship or even

alliance.. Many applications involve the harvesting of living resources in relatively well-

defined areas. Research under way to assemble the major factors determining

successful outcomes (Brondizio et al.). Variety: adaptive co-management implies a

combination with adaptive management (126, see also common pool resource

management).

Multiple scales,

mostly regional-

local

Institutional, effective

governance practice in

relation to stakeholder

involvement,

participation, obtaining

agreement considered

to be fair, stable and

efficien, feeling for

responsibility

Institutional Mixed:

coordination,

negotiation,

decision making,

implementation

Multi-

stakeholder,

relevant user

groups, formal

decision-makers

allowing users

to participate in

decisions

2 DPSIR (response

analysing and

addressing all)

2 Governance,

institutions,

participation

Conflict

management part

of the process.

Building

transparency and

trust.

2 innovative

approach

2 1 needed for

many coastal

resources

3

141 Co-operative

Discourse

Valuation- and negotiation approach to assess policy options based on differing roles

and capacities of societal actors (3 different types with differing roles: stakeholders,

scientific experts, and citizens). The concerns and criteria for evaluation are identified

and selected by asking all stakeholder groups to reveal their values and criteria for

judjing different options. The values are transformed into operational indicators serving

tu evaluate the performance of each policy option. The experts assess the potential

impacts of different policy options. A modification of the Delphi method is used to

reconcile conflicts on factual evidence and reach expert consensus. The process is

concluded by a discourse with randomly selected cizitens as jurors, where stakeholders

participate as witnesses.

Social and

environmental

consequences of

different potentially

conflicting

strategies/policy

options,

communication,

participation,

respresentation, values,

evaluation of

alternatives before

deciding

Multiple:

participatory,

planning, analytical

Mixed: problem

analysis,

participation,

prioritising,

decision making

Stakeholders as

interest-

representatives,

citizens as

jurors, experts

as knowledge

bearers

2 DPSIR (response

analysing and

addressing all)

2 Deliberative,

evaluation,

participation

Dividing up

different roles

between different

types of actors.

2 innovative

approach

2 2 2

142 Co-resolution Interest-based conflict resolution in collaboration between negotiators of 2-3 conflicting

parties. Purpose: overcome a situation where both parties only pursue their own

interests and try to obstruct the process for their own purposes, or manipulate it by

hiding their true interests and misinforming others. Each party has a negotiator acting

as advisor and advocate for the parties, but also communicating and collaborating with

the other negotiator(s) to find the best solution for both parties (a mediator in the

classical sense does not exist). Parties receive guidance from a personal negotiation

coach and protection from the working relationship between the negotiators that

ensures they do not undercut each other. The co-resolvers help each disputant to assert

the own interests in an empowering constructive manner and create a safe

environment for problem-solving negotiation.

Conditions: 2-3 parties are recommended in order to keep the process simple. For

successful outcomes the roles of negotiators and the process need to follow the

specified characteristics.

Scale-specific

(where few parties

possible)

Lack of understanding

and communication,

social dynamics.

Multiple topics possible:

those relevant for the

involved parties.

Multiple:

participatory,

analytical. May

result in the use of

various further

instrument types.

Mixed,

negotiation,

participation,

decision making

Multi-

stakeholder.

Negotiators as

leaders

(solution

finding,

advocacy,

facilitation,

empowerment)

2 DPR (response

addressing

primarily drivers

and pressures)

1 Deliberative,

negotiation,

empowerment

Any kind of

conflictive

problem. Mgmt

of up to medium

escalated

conflicts.

Designed

management

process

addressing

differing

interests, seeking

knowledge and

solutions.

Addressing social

dynamics. Equal

participants.

Requires

facilitation.

2 innovative

approach

2 2 2

123, 124,

125, 134,

145

Collaborative

Planning

Engagement of various types of stakeholders with decision makers in a collaborative

process, including face-to-face dialogue to seek mutually acceptable outcomes (125).

The forms are open, with no generally specified procedure, multiple methods for

mobilisation, dialogue, negotiation and synthesis can be used (see 123, 124). The

process is located within existing institutional framework and the instruments available

but can go beyond this on a voluntary level. The process is the responsibility of

legitimised decision makers (politicians, planning experts witin administration).

Multiple scales,

mostly regional-

local

Institutional gaps, needs

for issue-integration,

inclusiveness/participati

on

Multiple:

participation,

planning

Mixed:

participation,

negotiation,

decision making,

implementation

(analysis &

process with

focus on

interactive

aspects)

Multi-

stakeholder.

Decision-makers

as leaders.

1 DPSIR (response

analysing and

addressing all)

1 Participation Popular in

environmental

decision-making,

particularly with

multiple actors

with conflicting

interests.

Requires process

leadership.

1 1 1 2


Table for Method Characteristics11, 132 Collaborative

Research

Approaches:

Participatory

(Action) Research

and Collaborative

Research

Seeks to incorporate the subjects of social science research in problem identification,

definition, data-collection, analysis and dissemination process. Thus including a

previously excluded sphere of knowledge. Participatory instrument of research leading

to a democratisation of knowledge in a collaborative and reflective way. Challenges:

time consuming, resource intensive. Definitions of problems by citizens might not be the

same as those of researchers. There are an increasing amount of approaches calling for

integrating different types of suc non-scientific knowledge (local, ecological, traditional,

silent, experiential etc.) e.g. Ecosystem Approach, ICZM, Open Standards and the

practical methods to do this are also developing (see handbook section).

Local-regional

(mostly used so far)

Empowerment,

reducing the

objectification of those

researched. Recognising

limits of experts and

those in formal science.

Problems/solutions

defined by problem

owners.

Multiple:

analytical,

participation

Mixed: analysis,

evaluation

(research making

itself a tool of

those not in

power)

Experts

(researchers)

and problem

owners (multi-

stakeholder)

2 can be used

for NRM

all of DPSIR 3 Conflict analysis,

knowledge,

communication

Openness and

inclusion of all

types of know-

ledge creating

legitimity, can

thus reduce

related conflicts

or improve

possibilities for

management.

3 can be part of

an innovation

process

3 possible to use 3 possible to use 3 possible to use

2, 22, 62,

63, 69, 70,

88

Common Pool

Resource (CPR)

Management,

Management of

Common Property

Resources,

Community Based

Natural Resource

Management

This implies collective management of shared resources that are difficult to delimit and

exclude others from (e.g. fish, air, water, community forests etc.). In such situations

neither state- nor individual property suffice to keep harvest within sustainable

boundaries. CPR-mgmt implies self-organisation of humans interacting with ecosystems

to maintain long-term sustainable resource yields. Due to the multifaceted nature of

human–ecosystem interaction, there is no one solution fits all. Successful CPR

arrangements can have different designs as they need to be adapted to the specific

context. They still have some common characteristics, refered to as "design principles"

(see e.g. Ostrom et al.). Most successful CPR-mgmt examples are of a relatively local or

regional scale. Community-based NRM is a sub-variety with strong focus on legitimacy

and empowerment for local user communities: sustainably managing commons/CPRs

and in order to increase access to resources, capacity for management,

household/community empowerment, social capital and inclusion in decision-making.

Local societies are seen as part of the ecosystem (see also ecosystem approach).

Multiple scales,

mostly regional-

local

Common pool

resources, sustainable

development,

institutional capacity

for stable management,

interaction of humans

with ecosystems.

Community based

CPRmgmt with special

focus on empowerment

of local communities

and long-term

sustainability.

Multiple:

participation,

regulation,

economic

incentives,

planning

Mixed:

coordination,

negotiation,

decision making,

implementation

Multi-

stakeholder.

Lead &

ownership:

authorities

and/or local

users/communit

ies

1 D, linkages

between

PSIR,new/old

type of R with

focus on users

and legitimacy

Yes 2 Natural resource

management

related conflicts

An important

condition for

successful CPR-

arrangements is

that there are

forums to raise

and resolve

conflicts.

1 "old" and

"new" strategy

to address

resource

problems

2 today mostly

peri-urban and

rural

1 3 CC needs to be

addressed within

arrangement

52, 58 Comparative

ecological impact

analysis: ecological

footprint, carrying

capacity etc.

Various methods resulting in comparable indices for measuring human demands on

ecosystems. Many different ways of calculation exist such as ecological footprint (52)

assessing demand of productive space, carrying capacity (58). Highly illustrative for non-

experts. Using one single method implies weaknesses that may need to be compensated

by furhter perspectives (e.g. cost benefit, life cycle, material flow).

Multiple scales Human uses/human

impact on the

environment,

visualisation,

comparability

Multiple:

analytical,

administrative

Mixed: analytical,

prioritising,

evaluation

(inform decision

makers)

Open, depends

on context of

use, experts

required for

knowledge

1 Relating D with

PSI

Yes 3 Conflictive

environmental

impacts &

distribution of

effects

Analysing for

negotiation

3 can be part of

an innovation

process

1 1 2

127 Compensation

measures

Compensating negative effects on ecological or other values. Compensation can either

occur at the same location where damage has occured or damage can be compensated

by measures "improving" the ecological values elsewhere. Compensation can also be

used by society to pay those who have to tolerate restrictions in use in favour of society

(e.g. ecological compensation payments to farmers who reduce the intensity of use).

Local or resource

specific

Damaged or destroyed

values, compensation

for loss of income

Multiple: market-

related,

administrative,

planning (spatial,

uses)

Implementation Decision-makers

towards users

1 DP Possible (economic,

physical)

2 Environmental and

other types of

conflicts

Mitigation and

resolution

2 Well known

measure, varies

in

institutionalisati

on

2 today mostly

peri-urban and

rural

1 1 may become

important

65 Conflict-Sensitive

Natural Resource

Management

Systems

A normative framework promoting desirable social transformation, while mitigating the

risks and potential impacts of violent and damaging conflict. The power to make

decisions about vital resources can be contested by different stakeholders without

violence = conflict-sensitivity. This requires a capable, accountable, transparent

government responsive to wishes/needs of the population. Conflict sensitive

management can be broken down into 4 steps: 1) develop shared understandings of the

resource and conflict context. 2) design natural resource policies and projects. 3) build

inclusive, transparant and accountable NRM-systems. 4)monitor and evaluate

environmental trends and results. Conflict becomes problematic when societal

mechanisms and institutions for managing conflict break down, giving way to violence.

Societies with weak institutions, fragile political systems and divisive social relations can

be drawn into cycles of conflict and violence. The framework aims to prevent this.

Similarities to CPR- and ecosystem based management but more conscious focus on

conflict management.

Multiple scales Complex sustainable

capacity building,

conflicts in societies

with weak institutions

to manage them

Multiple:

participatory,

administrative,

planning, analytical

Mixed:

coordination,

negotiation,

decision making,

implementation

Multi-

stakeholder.

Lead &

ownership:

authorities

and/or local

users/communit

ies

1 D, linkages

between

PSIR,new/old

type of R with

focus on conflict

analysis and

management

Yes 1 Environmental and

resource

management

related conflict

aspects

Analysis,

mitigation and

resolution.

Raising

awareness of

potential conflicts

and preventing

them from

escalating too far

to be manageable

1 use implies

today often inst.

Innovation

2 1 2

92, 128 CONSCIENCE

Approach

Provides guidelines and tools to design and implement a sustainable management

strategy for erosion at any given location with an adaptive management perspective.

The CONSCIENCE Frame of Reference for policy formulation implies a definition of

clear objectives at strategic and tactical levels and an operational decision process in

four steps (EU-6th FW prog. Concepts and Science for Coastal Erosion Management). At

the highest policy level strategic goal is formulated, based on a long-term vision on

Multiple scales:

national-local

Coastal erosion in order

to reduce economic

loss, ecological damage

and societal problems.

Procedures to establish

necessary goals,

Multiple: planning,

policy,

administration,

analysis

Mixed:

prioritising,

decision making,

implementation

(guidelines)

Decision-makers

lead, experts as

knowledge

bearers

1 PSI Yes (CIS, bench-

marking,

evaluation)

3 Environmental

conflicts due to

coastal erosion

Guideline for

analysis and

resolution of

conflicts between

objectives and

measures.

2 application

may lead to

innovation

2 1 1 if erosion is a

problem

141 Consensus

Conference

Publicly open dialogue between a panel of laymen and experts over several days with

laymen representing a cross-section of the public. The final consensus document is

presented to legitimised decision makers. Panelists receive information to develop

questions. The discussion with the expert, moderated by a non-expert, is the actual

conference. Experts including relevant stakeholders inform the laymen on the issue.

Evaluated in referenced article according to a number of criteria.

Complexity, Integration,

Uncertainty,Inclusion/re

presentation,

Transparency of rules,

Citizen empowerment,

Facilitate convergence,

Multiple:

participatory,

analytical, planning

Mixed: analysis,

participation,

prioritising,

decision making

Multi-

stakeholder:

public, panel

(laymen &

experts)

decision makers

2 DPSIR (response

analysing and

addressing all)

1 Whatever aspect is

deemed necesary to

include

Analysis and

discussion of

results and

acceptable

solution.

Decisions for

2 application

may lead to

innovation

2 2 3


Table for Method Characteristics163 Consistency/

concurrency review

Review of consistency and concurrency of policies and decisions across sectors and

levels (evaluation for learning and promoting integration)

Multiple scales Integration across

scales in coastal zone

management

Multiple:

analytical,

planning,

administrative

Evaluation and

adaptation

Decision-makers

and experts

mainly

1 R (D) 1 Policies reviewed Analysing for

understanding

and learning

1 1 1 1

70, 91, 104 Detailed Regulation

(technical)

Regulation by setting limits, prescribing technology or specifying conditions of use under

which activities are supposed to occur are important steering instruments: zoning (e.g.

speed restriction zones), regulation of activities (e.g. time and equipment for fishing),

bans on trade or specific substances, requirements for specific technology.

Steering the behaviour

of different kinds of

actors towards a

desired one.

Regulation Implementation Multi-

stakeholder,

informal

regulation (by

users) or formal

(by

government).

1 DP Yes 2 Ways of using

resources

Means of solving

some types of

conflicts (that can

be regulated

away).

3 can be part of

an innovation

process

1 1 1 e.g. Setback

lines

19, 21, 27,

31, 77, 87

Dialogue (2-way

communication):

Participatory

Communication /

Process /

Stakeholder

Dialogue

The purpose goes beyond merely informig towards listening and interacting and

learning various actors' experiences, views and ideas. Often applied by creating more

or less permanent forums for (constructive) dialogue between various actors such as:

NGOs, planning agencies, foreign development organisaties, companies, religious

organisations etc. More ambitious aims are to achieve mutual learning, mobilise

participants, encourage broader thinking, self-expression and reflection. Contributes to

a more flexible and transparant decision-making process embracing diverse knowledges

and values. There are a myriad of methods and documented experiences to create and

conduct processe and forums for dialogue, see handbook section.

Multiple scales:

national-local

Complex and dynamic

nature of

environmental

problems, need for

interaction and mutual

learning,

Multiple:

participatory,

analytical,

planning, policy

making,

administrative

Mixed: analysis,

participation,

prioritising

Multi-

stakeholder

with decision

makers as

leaders. Experts

as specialist

participants or

facilitators.

1 drivers, social

impacts,

responses

1 Interaction,

multiple values and

experiences

Direct contact

and interaction is

a basic condition

for conflict

management and

resolution

3 standard tool

in most

countries, can be

enhanced to be

innovative

1 1 1

70 Direct Provision of

Public Goods

Direct provision of public goods such as taking responsibility for major environmental

threats, providing and maintaining natural parks, cleaning up etc (70, chapter 6) is an

implementation step in environmental management and may both lead to control over

important resources and steering of user behaviour. Decisions on such investments

include issues of discouting, equity, and efficiency in tax structure and public sector in

general.

Multiple scales

possible

Control, provision of

public goods important

for societal welfare and

development, financing,

administration.

Regulation and

market-related

Implementation Multi-

stakeholder,

provided/

directed by

government

1 DPIR 1 Use, behaviour,

control

Steering

provision of

societally

important

goods/services

3 can be part of

an innovation

process

1 1 1 taking away

certain services

in no-build areas

129, 150,

151

DPSIR-framework A framework used both for structuring environmental analysis and management

responses by logically connecting various types of data and management actions.

Drivers (social, economic or environmental) exert Pressures on the environment.

Through the pressures, the environmental State changes, which leads to Impacts

(social, economic or environmental), which may lead to a Response by government/

society. The response can feed back to Drivers, Pressures, States or Impacts. The

framework is well established (EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, UN-

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment); for gaps/criticism see references.

Multiple scales Structures

environmental and

other data, often in the

form of indicators,

according to a logical

framework facilitating

the understanding of

complex environmental

problems and their

management for

Multiple:

analytical,

administrative

Mixed: analytical,

evaluation

(inform decision

makers)

Experts and

decision makers

(informing

them).

Stakeholder

perspective

needs to be

added (129)

1 DPSIR (response

analysing &

addressing all)

Yes 4 can be used but

today not much

connected/ dealing

with env conflicts

Environmental

management at

various levels

Conflict

management is a

response

3 can be part of

an innovation

process

2 1 2

4, 122 Economic Analysis:

Cost-Benefit

Analysis, Discount

Rates (declining),

Economic Surplus

Analysis

CBA is a standard tool in econometrics today used for analysing costs and benefits of

different policy options for different groups. Declining Discount Rates: A valuation

method in econometrics integrating long-term changes, sustainability and future

generation within todays decisions that is also embedded in societal cost benefit

analysis. Economic surplus analysis for NRM implies the calculation of potential (ex-

ante) economic impacts (increase of benefits) of natural resource management.

Multiple scales

possible

Analysing short-term vs

long-term benefits and

losses, valuing the

future, ex-ante impact

analysis (social and

economic)

Analytical, market-

related

Analyitical,

prioritising

Experts as

knowledge

bearers and

decision-makers

2 D & social I Yes 2 Economic values in

present and future

Analysing for

prioritising

4 becoming

standard in

decision making

1 1 1

102 Ecosystem

Approach,

Ecosystem Based

Management

The ecosystem approach is a strategy for the integrated management of land, water

and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable

way; thus, the application of the ecosystem approach will help to reach a balance of the

three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: conservation; sustainable

use; and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of

genetic resources. Ecosystem Based Management follows a similar line in

environmental management, possibly with slightly less focus on conservation and

indigenous peoples' rights to resources. There are networks of researchers and

practitioners working on developing understanding of ecosystems and analysis and

management toolbox (e.g. http://www.ebmtools.org/ for marine and coastal areas).

Multiple scales Complexity and

dynamics of ecosystems

and the absence of

complete knowledge or

understaning of their

functioning

Multiple: overall-

approach that may

lead to the use of

all types of

instruments

Multiple: all

functions need to

be included in this

overall-approach

Multi-

stakeholder:

public, relevant

user groups,

experts,

decision-makers

in partially

combined roles.

1 linking all of

DPSIR

Yes 2 Conflictive

environmental

impacts &

distribution of

natural assets and

effects

Overall approach

that can include

various tools for

and functions of

conflict

management.

1 providing new

perspectives

2 today mostly

peri-urban and

rural

1 1 adaptation to

societal &

ecosystem

changes due to

climate


Table for Method Characteristics64 Ecosystem

Management Tool

(EMT)

EMT is a model-tool developed to include both political decision making and

management procesess explicitly as essential part of environmental management. It

includes an empirically calibrated multi-stakeholder decision process and dynamics of

ecosystems as a set of stochastic decision models and then computes most politically-

feasible environmental protection options. Besides ecological aspects the model

accounts for culture-specific beliefs and political decision procesess and allows to

parameterize them. Examples: blue whale, cheetah management. Book with web-

resources: http://www4.uwm.edu/people/haas/cheetah_emt/. 1) open-source web-

based ecosystem management model; 2) web-links on data and information (focus on

Africa) and a guide how to integrate such type of information into EMT; 3) description

of the decision models of stakeholders; 4) relevant publications.

Multiple scales Ecosystem

management, political

process, management

options (combined in a

computer model logic).

Multiple:

analytical, political

Multiple:

prioritising,

decision making

Decision

makers,

scientists

(stakeholder

views included

by data from

internet and fed

into the model)

1 Linking all of

DPSIR

Yes, in the form of

data fed into the

model

3 Conflictive aspects

as perceived by

those programming

the model

Analysing for

decision making

3 new tool 3 2 4

67, 68, 136 Ecosystem Services

Approach (ESS)

Specifying the benefits from what natural ecosystems produce and maintain from

human-centered perspective - including both resources and processes. Four different

types of ecosystem services (ESS) can be defined (67): supporting (e.g. nutrient cycling),

provisioning (e.g. fish, wood), regulating (e.g. climate, pollination), supporting (e.g. , and

cultural (e.g. recreation, experience, learning). ESS are a way to make public and

decision makers more aware of what ecosystems provide. Development of

methodology, definitions, and assessments is still under way (e.g. by TEEB). TEEB also

suggests to replace supporting services with habitat services and ecoysstem functions in

order to avoid double counting (68). ESS is also used as a tool when implementing the

Multiple scales

possible

Benefits of ecosystems

for society, visualisation

Multiple:

analytical,

administrative

Mixed: analytical,

prioritising,

evaluation

(inform decision

makers)

Multi-

stakeholder,

need for experts

to analyse, tool

for public and

decision makers

1 Linking D with S

and I

Under way 3 Environmental and

resource

management

related conflict

aspects

Analysing for

negotiation

2 innovative

approach

2 urban

ecosystems are

often of special

type

1 1

12, 13, 75,

76

Environmental

Valuation

Valuation implies giving monetary values to environmental impacts. It can be used to

incorporate the benefits and costs of environmental effects into the analysis of

alternatives. Thus, a wider array of benefits and costs associated with a project can be

considered in deciding which alternative produces the largest net benefit to society

(coupling to cost-benefit analysis ).

Multiple scales

possible

Lack of economic

information on

environmental aspects

in decision making.

Market-related Mixed: analytical,

prioritising, ex

ante/ex post

evaluation

(inform decision

makers)

Experts,

decision makers

1 linking drivers

with

environmental

status and

impacts

Yes 3 Economically

describable aspects

of environmental

consequences

Analysing for

decision making

3 2 2 2

50, ?? Environmental/Soci

al Impact

Assessment (EIA,

SIA)

Ex-ante assessment of positive and negative impacts of a proposed project or plan on

environment and/or society. Assists decision-makers include such impacts in their

decisions. In many countries formalised and enacted as part of planning and permit

procedures. A variety is strategic environmental assessment (SEA) coupled to strategic

planning.

Multiple scales

possible

Potential impacts of

proposed actions on

environment/ society

Need to judge social

and environmental

consequences in

Multiple:

analytical,

administrative

Mixed: analytical,

prioritising, ex-

ante evaluation

(inform decision

makers)

Decision-

makers,

affected parts in

society

1 PSI Yes 3 Environmental and

societal aspects that

may lead to

conflicts

Analysing for

decision making

3 becoming

standard in

decision making

in the EU

2 2 3 climate change

yet little included

in EIA/SIA

85 Flood Hazard

Assessment

A widely applicable methodological framework to analyse flood hazard and risks in

coastal regions. Guidelines can assist coastal managers to (a) identify high- and

moderate-risk zones; (b) implement a flexible process-oriented adaptation approach to

backbarrier uses; (c) organise a complex planning and management process with

conflicting uses and multiple stakeholder groups with diverging interests; and (d)

consider the appropriateness of management interventions, not only to address the

Local-regional Visualisation on a map

of relation between

hazard and risk

Multiple:

analytical,

administrative

Mixed: analytical,

prioritising

(inform decision

makers)

Experts,

decision makers

1 linking drivers

with

environmental

and societal

impacts in

relation to risks

Yes 4 Risk- not conflict

perspective

3 can be part of

an innovation

process

2 1 1

98, 101 Frame of Reference

Framework (FOR)

Promotes effective interaction between coastal science and management, a tool for

communication on coastal management problems. Characteristics of the FOR are a

definition of clear objectives at strategic and tactical levels and an operational decision

recipe involving four steps. At the highest (policy) level a strategic objective is

formulated, based on a long-term vision for desired development. This vision should be

the outcome of a participatory process of all stakeholders framed in an ICZM process

based on generic ideas about sustainable development and should ideally reflect the

interdependency of natural and societal coastal systems. Note the parallel CONSCIENCE

approach with focus on coastal risk management.

Multiple scales Coastal management in

general from many

perspectives

Multiple:

analytical, policy,

planning,

administrative

Mixed:

prioritising,

decision making,

implementation

(guidelines)

Decision

makers,

experts,

stakeholders

1 All of DPSIR Yes (necessary part

of complete ICZM

cycle)

2 Conflicts related to

coastal

management issues

(very generally)

Guideline for

analysis and

resolution of

conflicts between

objectives and

measures.

2 application

may lead to

innovation

2 1 1

36 Framework for

Urban Sustainable

Water Resource

Management

Focuses on urban water resources and includes both biophysical, socio-economic and

political factors. Includes 4 types of strategies to achieve sustainable development:

supply management, demand management, efficiency management and emission

management. Possibility to develop a holistic picture of issues and their relationships,

while providing choice alternatives for municipal decision makers.

Local-regional Include a larger context

of problems. Maps

possible options for

policy implementation.

Administrative Mixed: analytical

prioritising,

decision making

Experts and

decision makers

1 All of DPSIR 3 Sustainable

development,

problems in larger

context

No special guide-

lines for CMgmt.

Strategies &

choice

alternatives can

include conflict

mgmt.

3 can be part of

an innovation

process

1 1 2 urban water

resources are

affected by

climate

109 Framework of

Livelihood, Rights

and Equity

(integrate with

marginalised

approaches above?)

A three-part conceptual framework of livelihoods, equity and rights (resource access

and management rights, as well as indigenous and aboriginal rights). The framework is

applied to examine the experiences of indigenous peoples in Canada and the Philippines

regarding access to fishery resources, and participation in fisheries management and

policy.

Local-regional Involvement of

indigenous peoples in

fisheries and the

management of those.

Complex nature-society

interactions.

Engaging the

public/civil society;

Administrative

Mixed (mainly

analystical)

Experts, multi-

stakeholder

2 indigenous

peoples' rights

are often NRM

related

D, social I, R 3 Raising issues of

equity and

livelihood

Analysing for

empowerment

(?)

3 can be part of

an innovation

process

2 mostly peri-

urban & rural

1 4


Table for Method Characteristics90 Functional design

of games to support

resource

management

Conceptual framework to design games to support participatory policy development.

Function-oriented approach. Games need to be tailored to specific context. Typology of

games: 1) research and analyse policy contexts as systems, 2) find alternative solutions

to a policy problem, 3) provide strategies for policy process to clients, 4) mediate

between different stakeholders. 5) democratise policy development by actively bringing

in stakeholder views, and 6) clarify the values and arguments pertinent to a policy

discourse.

Multiple scales Complexity combined

with continually

increasing

techonological

possibilities. Computer

modeling combined

with role plays as tools

for situation analysis

Multiple:

participatory,

analytical

Mixed: analytical,

negotiation,

prioritising

Multi-

stakeholder,

experts,

decision makers

1 All of DPSIR 2 Focus on

stakeholders'

interaction, values

and policy options

Analysing for

empowerment

(?)

3 can be part of

an innovation

process

1 1 1

96 Fuzzy Cognitive

Mapping (FCM)

FCM extends cognitive maps by adding fuzzy logic to incorporate value, knowledge and

qualitative descriptions. FCM analyses how people perceive a complex system by

identifying, comparing, and contrasting risk perceptions of individuals or groups of

stakeholders. FCM stimulates the development of cognitive scenarios. These scenarios

forecast how laypeople would perceive final states of the ecosystem (here: Black Sea).

Technically, FCM implies a collecting of nodes linked by directed edges, which represent

causual relationships among the nodes.

Local-regional Peoples' perceptions of

complex systems and

risks related to those

(example: marine

ecosystem)

Multiple:

participatory,

analytical

Analytical,

prioritising

Multi-

stakeholder,

experts to

manage the

modeling

2 environmental

perspective can

be included

All of DPSIR 3 Focus on

stakeholders'

perceptions of risks

Analysing for

empowerment

(?)

3 can be part of

an innovation

process

2 1 2

97 Generic GIS-based

approach to assess

the costs of sea

level rise and

extreme flooding at

local level

Systematic framework for assessing the costs of sea-level rise (SLR) and extreme

flooding at a local level. The method is generic and transferable. It is built on coupling

available GIS capabilities with quantitative estimates of the effects of natural hazards.

This allows an ex-ante monetarisation of important costs related to different scenarios

of permanent inundation and periodic flooding. Tools are borrowed from economic

impact analysis.

Local Risks, uncertainties of

flooding and inundation

in coastal areas and

costs related to these

Multiple: planning,

analysis

Analyitical Experts and

decision makers

1 I & S (in relation

to flooding)

Yes 4 4 1 1 1

3, 24, 79,

135

GIS analysis/

Bottom-Up GIS

(BUGIS)

There are various methods, even web-based interactive GIS applications under

development and testing, not the least in marine and coastal management. With BUGIS

residents use GIS too communicate how they perceive their neighbourhood or

community, via their description, evaluation, or perscription for their local

environment. One example is measurement of landscape values through random

household surveys (3). Witin the EU Interreg project BaltSeaPlan an interactive

BaltSeaPlan web application for marine planning was developed based on the

BoundaryGIS portal (135).

Local-regional Complex issues in a

spatial context,

opportunities and

constraints for

development/protectio

n in a landscape,

understanding the

effects of uses and

development

Multiple:

analytical,

planning,

participatory

(BUGIS)

Mixed: analytical,

negotiation,

prioritising

Experts,

decision

makers, plus

multi-

stakeholder

(with BUGIS)

2 environmental

perspective can

be included

all of DPSIR in

relation to

stakeholder

perception

Yes 3 Spatial constraints

and consequences

of human use

Analysing for

empowering and

decision making

3 2 1 2

16 Green

Entrepreneurship

A business model with green ideological roots strengthening environmental

sustainability within a market context by incorporating business with green ambitions

into environmental causes. Makes use of social awareness within green

entrepeneurship. Participatory instrument for entrepeneurs and consumers promoting

Multiple scales Need for ecological

awareness with market

actors, need for green

business innovation.

Market-related Implementation Entrepreneurs,

producers and

consumers

2 natural

resources can

be included

D, environmental

and social I, R

4 2 2 2 3

70 Information

provision (1-way

communication)

Inform target groups about important aspects of environmental management and

resource use. Better information can improve understanding. Basic tool in

environmental management: environmental regulation often includes rules on what

kind of information needs to be provided to whom and at what stage of a process.

Multiple scales Need to raise

awareness and level of

knowledge with various

actors

Multiple: planning,

policy,

administration,

participation

Mixed:

coordination,

participation,

implementation

Decision makers

towards

stakeholders

2 natural

resources can

be included

DR 3 Information,

knowledge as tool

Openness to

create trust and

legitimacy

4 standard tool 2 2 2

83, 108,

120

Integrated Coastal

Zone Manage-

ment (ICZM),

Integrated Coastal

& Ocean

Management

(ICOM)

A dynamic, integrative and iterative process to promote sustainable management of

coastal zones and/or mareine areas. It covers the full cycle of information collection,

planning (in its broadest sense), decision making, management and monitoring of

implementation. Stakeholder participation is an important component .Uses adpative

management logic. For evaluation see handbook (120), for example in Spain (108).

Similar approach for freshwater Integrated Water Resources Management .

Multiple scales Addressing multiple

interests and uses,

complexity, uncertainty,

and potential conflicts

in coastal and marine

management in an

integrative and iterative

way.

Multiple: overall-

approach that may

lead to the use of

all types of

instruments

Mixed: all

functions

Multi-

stakeholders,

experts,

decision makers

1 all of DPSIR in

relation to coastal

and ocean

management

Yes. For proposed

indicators see 120

2 All potentially

conflictive types of

coastal

management issues

Overall approach

that can include

various tools for

and functions of

conflict

management.

1 2 1 1

110 Integrated Develop-

ment of Applied

Sys-tems for

Coastal

Management

(IDeASyCoM)

Modelling approach based on a decision-support system applicable to identify coastal

managers’ needs and defining priorities as well as for handling and capitalising on

existing knowledge.

Multiple scales Identify coastal

management needs,

prioritising, managing

knowledge

Analytical Mixed: analytical,

prioritising

Experts and

decision-makers

1 all of DPSIR in

relation to ICZM

Yes 3 Knowledge,

management needs

Analysing for

decision making

2 2 1 2

133, 141 Integrated

Methodological

Approach for

participatory multi-

criteria decision

support under

uncertainty (IMA)

Integrated methodology combining cost-benefit analysis, multi-criteria analysis, and

participatory elements on the basis of scientific modelling. Supports public decisions on

complex environmental problems that affect many people, large regions over long

periods of time and imply considerable social , ecoogical, and economic consequences

and uncertainties IMA includes the following steps: 1. problem analysis and scenario

derivation, 2. indicator and criteria selection, 3. impact analysis via modelling or other

effect estimation methods, and 4. evaluation using cost-benefit and multi-criteria

Local-regional Complexity,

uncertainties, regional

scale, long term

perspective, multiple

views and interests,

fairness and

competence in decision-

Multiple:

analytical,

planning,

participation

Mixed: analysis,

participation,

prioritizing,

decision-making

Multi-

stakeholder,

decision

makers, experts

as knowledge

bearers and

facilitators.

1 DPSIR (response

analysing and

addressing all)

1 Deliberative

process, modeling,

participation

Complexity,

integration along

many

dimensions,

structured

analysis and

interaction of

1 1 1 1


Table for Method Characteristics20 Integrated Water

Resources

Management

(IWRM)

A coordinated, goal-directed process to control the development and uses of river, lake,

ocean, wetland, and other water assets. IWRM approaches involve knowledge

integration and integration of stakeholder perspectives to develop sustainable

solutions. IWRM is a comprehensive tool for participatory planning and

implementation, not the least resulting in environmental regulations at the scale of the

water resource in question.

Regional

(catchment)

Addressing multiple

interests and uses,

complexity, uncertainty,

and potential conflicts

of water resources

management in an

integrative and iterative

way.

Multiple: overall-

approach that may

lead to the use of

all types of

instruments

Mixed: all

functions

Multi-

stakeholders,

experts,

decision makers

1 all of DPSIR in

relation to

freshwater

Yes 3 All potentially


water management

issues

Overall approach

that can include

various tools for

and functions of

conflict

management.

1 2 1 2 CC can be

included

147 Interest-Based

Bargaining

Parties are encouraged to explore ways to change their conflict positions from exclusive

to integrative. The goal is to achieve a state where the expectations of both parties are

satisfied. The means are to redefine the core concerns of parties as motives and try to

find the intersections of these motives. Transforming competitive interests into

compatible goals, getting from positions to interests (not necessarily addressing

conflicts about values and basic needs that are more difficult to solve). The design tries

to avoid two pitfalls of conflictive situations: 1) people formulating conflicts in

competitive and zero-sum ways over scarce resources and incompatible positions. 2)

conflict escalation into situations, where legal, financial resources and violence

resources become the default means of struggle.

Scale-specific

(where few parties

possible)

Getting beyond conflict

parties' positions to

underlying interests and

expectations.

Multiple:

participatory,

analytical,

(administrative?)

Mixed: analytical,

prioritising,

negotiation

Multi-

stakeholder:

two or more

parties

involved, may

require

facilitation by

process expert

2 environmental

perspective can

be included

Not relevant-

stakeholder

perspective

1 Individual, group

and to a lesser

extent international

conflicts

Negotiation to

reach common

understanding

and defining

compatible goals.

Not necessarily

based on

formalised

institutional

framework.

1 2 2 2

70,103 Labeling and

Certifications

Instrument for consumer information in relation to desired outcomes (e.g. Eco-labeling

of fish) which should lead to adaptation of behaviour. Needs to be combined with up-to-

date information for consumers and control of certified products and enterprises. E.g.

Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is a market-based incentive program recognizing

well-managed fisheries which encourages producers to meet prescriptive sustainability

standards based on three aspects 1) condition of target species, 2) fishing impact on the

ecosystem, 3) management system. Under development: systems for traceability.

Multiple scales Lack of information on

sustainability of

products. Attempt to

integrate external

environmental costs.

Market-related Implementation Multi-

stakeholder

(MSC:

enterprises,

producers and

environmental

NGOs

1 from a

producer &

consumer

perspective

DR Yes for certification 4 1 bottom up

change, often by

non

governmental

institutions

3 2 1

70 Legal mechanisms,

liability

Ensures the enforcement of other rules. Environmental liability typically involves

multiple layers of principle-agent relationships. Strict liability gives more rights to

injured party and internalises environmental damages and risks. Requires regulation,

procedures and a specified institution for decision making (e.g. court).

Multi-scale,

resource specific

Externalities, defective

behaviour, breach of

contracts/agreements

Regulation Implementation Government /

formal

institutions

responsible

(civil &

administrative)

1 DR 1 Governmental,

usually based on

regulation or

contracts

Keeping conflicts

from escalating

into violent and

environmentally

destruction. Can

be costly.

4 standard tool

in most

countries

3 3 4 not used so far

72, 73, 74,

51, 49

Life Cycle Thinking:

Life Cycle

Assessment (LCA) ,

Life Cycle

Management (LCM)

, Life Cycle Costing

(LCC) , Design for

the Environment

(DfE), Eco-LCA (49)

The Life Cycle Thinking integrates present consumption and production strategies

counteracting present day fragmentation. Life Cycle Thinking in policy making can

contribute to more coherent policy making and efficient and effective improvement of

products and production processes. It provides a frame to meaningful, decision oriented

information for policy makers. Ecologically based LCA: Eco-LCA (49) is a framework to

account for the role of ecosystem goods and services in the life cycle of economic

activities. As these goods and services are the basis of all planetary activities,

accounting for them is essential in efforts to enhance the sustainability of human

activities. Product focus whereas Material Flow Analysis focuses on systems.

Multiple scales Avoid problem shifting

between areas outside

of actors' primary

concern: e.g. life cycle

stages, geographical

areas, environmental

mediums or protection

targets.

Multiple: market,

planning,

administration,

analysis

Mixed (in relation

to analysis)

Multi-

stakeholder;

enterprises,

producers,

decision makers

assisted by

experts

1 from a

producer &

consumer

perspective

all of DPSIR 3 Analysis of larger

context and

production process

for potential

conflict causes

Putting problems,

causes and

consequences in

a larger

perspective

3 possible to use 3 possible to use 3 possible to use 3 possible to use

99 Managed

realignment

(setback or

managed retreat)

Allows an area previously not exposed to flooding by the sea (or river) to become

flooded by removing coastal protection.

Local-regional Flooding related issues Planning,

administration

Implementation Experts,

decision makers

2 IR 3 Physical

management

Potentially

relevant in relatin

to climate change

4 1 1 1

71, 86, 61,

53, 54, 55,

56, 57, 89

Marginalised

Groups

Perspective:

Environmentalism

of the Poor,

Marginalised/

Gender Perspective

There are a number of critical responses to dominant ideas guiding natural resource

management emphasising a perspective in favour of marginalised groups.

Environmentalism of the poor (71) underlines the historical co-evolution of peasant

groups and indigenous people, ensuring the conservation of biology. Uses various

perspectives such as the precausionary principle from ecological economics. Questions

valuation in monetary terms of GNP. Ecological economics and environmentalism of the

poor suggest HANPP (human appropriation of net primary production (54)), EROI

(Energy return on (energy) input (55)), MIPS (material input per unit service (56)), and

Local-regional Marginalised groups in

focus: considers who

has the power to

simplify complexity.

Considers what

empowers, mobilizes

(see 61), and what

excludes (see 53) the

Multiple:

participatory,

analytical

Mixed: analysis,

participation,

prioritising

Multistakeholde

r, choosing and

excluding with

greater critical

thinking.

2 environmental

perspective

included in

some methods

linking drivers

with

environmental

and societal

impacts

Yes 2 Raising issues of

marginalised groups

Analysing for

empowering and

decision making

1 providing new

perspectives

2 3 2 effects of

climate change

on marginalised

groups

119 Marine /Maritime

Spatial Planning

(MSP)

An integrative, strategic and politically legitimated process to coordinate the use of

marine areas and other assets with a spatial perspective, establishing societal priorities.

In the case of this publication, the objective is to balance ecological, social and

economic objectives according to the Ecosystem Approach. Requires some type of

political legitimisation on the specific administrative level it is performed.

Multiple scales Sustainable use of

marine areas, balancing

ecological, socio-

cultural, and economic

aspects and needs. Both

ex-ante for strategic

Multiple: overall-

approach with

focus on spatial

planning

Mixed: analysis,

participation,

prioritising,

decision making,

evaluation

(implemented

Multi-

stakeholders,

experts,

decision makers

1 all of DPSIR with

spatial focus

Indicators have to

be developed for

evaluation

2 All potentially


spatial

management issues

Overall approach

that can include

various tools for

and functions of

conflict

management.

1 still lacking in

many countries

2 managing

cities' sea

territory

1 coordination

with CZM

2 spatial

consequences of

CC


Table for Method Characteristics29, 81 Markov Decision

Process (MDP) /

partially observable

markov decision

process (POMDP)

Assessment and decision making tool to find optimal strategies to manage change

processes despite considerable uncertainty of knowledge. A Markov chain here implies

that the change of a system state into a discrete next one is depending on its present

state but not on what has happened earlier. Sub-variety POMDP: If the issue in

question (e.g. vegetation succession) can be represented by a Markov chain, the

regulator's problem of when to monitor, the best monitoring method and when to stop

or continue a contract can be addressed by a partially observed Markov decision

process.

Multiple scales Uncertainty of

knowledge,

unpredictability of

systems, decision

making under

uncertainty here

applied to ecological

problems.

Multiple: planning,

analytical,

administration

Mixed: analysis,

prioritising

(inform decision

makers)

Experts,

decision

makers,

possibility to

include

stakeholders

1 all of DPSIR Yes 4 3 can be part of

an innovation

process

3 possible to use 1 3 climate change

implies yet

unknown

changes

38, 39, 40,

41, 42, 43,

44, 47, 48

Material Flow

Analysis (urban

metabolism)

Analytical tool from natural and industrial ecology with a system perspective to assess

the flows of material in a well-defined system. Including input-output analysis, energy-

analysis. Can also include emergy-synthesis. Applied to analyse urban metabolism,

socioeconomic metabolism. Relevant management strategies are defined by Material

Flow Management (see 43 for emergy-based indicator system for evaluating urban

metabolism). Implies a system-perspective (compared to Life Cycle Thinking with a

product perspective).

Multiple scales Need to understand

material and energy

flows in order to solve

environmental

problems or make

resource use more

efficient.

Multiple:


Mixed: analysis,

evaluation

Experts and

decision-makers

1 all of DPSIR Yes 4 3 can be part of

an innovation

process

1 urban

metabolism

analysis

1 society-nature

interaction

4 not used so far

141 Mediation Process of negotiation largely behind closed doors where dispute issues are cleared and

issues of mutual gain maybe be discussed publicly. Process led by 3rd party not involved

in conflict. Mediator defines the disputants, the nature of dispute, and the likelyhood of

parties to reach an agreement. The aim of the group discussions is to obtain a

consensus document judged fairer, more stable, and/or more efficient than solutions

Scale-specific

(where few parties

possible)

Need for 3rd party to

manage conflict

resolution process,

obtaining a mutual

agreement considered

Multiple:

participatory,

administrative,

regulation,

analytical

Mixed: analysis,

prioritising,

decision making,

implementation

(can include some

Mediator and

conflicting

parties only

3 possible to

use where no

legal procedures

established

DPSIR (response

analysing and

addressing all)

1 Participation,

implementation

Conflict

management

through 3rd

party.

Management of

3 can be part of

an innovation

process

2 2 4 not used so far

66 MERI (Monitoring,

Evaluation,

Reporting and

Improvement)

A robust and comprehensive monitoring and evaluation system to track changes to

natural resources. Focus on evaluation of expected impacts and needs for adaptation. It

captures the rationale behind a program/project and outlines the anticipated cause-and-

effect relationships between activities, outputs and outcomes. A program logic is

usually represented as a diagram or matrix with a series of expected consequences. Part

of the Australian Caring for our Country scheme with the government responsible for

delivering and various types of societal funding recipients.

National (Australia) Evaluation of a funding

programme

Administrative Evaluation and

adaptation

Decision

makers,

stakeholders as

recipients of

funding

1 all of DPSIR Yes 4 3 institutional

learning through

evaluation

3 possible to use 2 4 not used so far

6, 15, 33,

34, 78, 500

Multi Criteria/

Objective

Approaches: Multi

Criteria Analysis,

Multi Criteria

Decision Making,

Multi Criteria

Decision Aid, Multi-

Objective Decision

Support Systems

(MODS), Multi

Criteria Evaluation

in Deliberative

Workshops

There are a number of different approaches for Multi Criteria Decision Making or

Analysis (MCA). The procedure usually implies a structuring framework to analyse and

resolve decision problems characterised by multiple objectives or criteria. A series of

decision rules determine how the desirability of specific (discrete) alternatives is

assessed relative to others. Criteria are set up in relation to desirability and then

different alernatives/scenarios (often numerically) graded according to these criteria. A

step of relative weighing can be included. Can combine individual and collective

valueing of specific alternatives. Used where a multi-objective situations are common

(e.g. urban planning). NB: decision criteria are not always independent (see 34). Multi-

Criteria Decision-Aid containst the following steps: definition of a) problem, b) criteria,

c) decision options, d) criteria evaluation, e) aggregation of evaluations, and f) ranking

of options. It aims to enhance the degree of conformity and coherence between an

evolving decision-making process and the value systems and objectives of those

involved and differs from othe, more technical, rationalist types of multi-criteria

analysis through a more constructivist perspective (knowledge and worldview are

constructed in interaction). Can be used both in participatory and nonparticipatory

version. Evaluated in article. Multiple objective decision support (MODS) is a structured

framework with key component a process used to obtain information from decision

makers on the relative importance of evaluative criteria. Decision alternatives are

evaluated against multiple, and often conflicting, criteria. For deeper analysis and

conflict management a MCA can be complemented with broder participatory

components such as in Multi Criteria Evaluation in Deliberative Workshops. Here, the

aim is to gain deeper understanding of the public's perspective about a specific issue.

Several workshops are held with individuals or representatives of groups matching

socio-economic characteristics of the overall population. Participants are informed

through videos ,briefing, flyers etc. and given time to discuss information and key

issues. No experts are invited to give advice on specific issues. Seven main stages in

workshops: 1. Record participants’ initial state of information. 2. Provide further

information, 3. Introduce illustrative decision options, vote on them individually, and

construct new options. 4. Select and group possible criteria for evaluating the options

and compare the criteria with the criteria drawn from current policy objectives. 5.

Evaluate (with the opportunity to change evaluations) the various options in small

groups against the top criteria by use of linguistic variables (good, medium, or bad). 6.

Enlarge the debate to a wider policy horizon and develop preferred options for this

horizon. 7. Explore possibilities for own action in this field to link the workshop to daily

life of the participants. Some methods are evaluated in 500 according to a number of

criteria, MCA has also been tested in the SECOA project.

Multiple scales Complex problems

where multiple

quantitative and

qualitative objectives

and values need to be

weighed systematically

against each other.

Participatory varieties

of MCA include even

communication,

participation,

respresentation.

Multiple:

analytical,

planning,

participation

Mixed: analysis,

planning,

prioritising,

negotiation (some

approaches with

a broader public)

Decision makers

as main target

groups, possible

to have multi-

stakeholder

processes with

experts as

facilitators and

knowledge

bearers

1 DPSIR (response

analysing and

addressing all)

Yes 1 in case of

participatory MCA,

2 in case of other

approaches

(depending on

ambitions to

address conflicts)

Complex decision

situations, multiple

values, deliberative

process if

participatory

component added

Mathematical

valuation and

weighing

providing one

alternative of

"rationalised"

possible

outcomes. Both

analysis and

process can be

important. Can

help "cool down",

intellectualise

and structure

complex decision

situations when

values and

emotions

dominate making

the situaiton

difficult to

overview.

Individual

valueing assists

reflection and

individual

ownership. Group

discussion assists

finding common

values and

identifying

conflicts yet to

resolve.

2 2 2 2


Table for Method Characteristics95 Multi-Objective

Programming and

System Dynamic

(combine with

MCA?)

MOPSD is a computerised tool used to address complex environmental problems with a

hybrid optimization-simulation model. One of its main goals is to mitigate the impacts

of climate change. Combines multi-objective programming addressing the trade-off

between discrepant objectives and the preferences of decision-makers (using decision

making criteria) with system dynamics capable of modelling dynamic interactions along

time. Scenario analysis is used. Economic, social and environmental aspects are included

in the model

Multiple scales The dilemma of spatial

planning in a dynamic

and complex coastal

environment

Multiple:


Mixed: analysis,

prioritising,

decision making

Decision-makers

and experts

mainly

1 all of DPSIR Yes 2 for those

participating

Complex decision

situations, multiple

values

Mathematical

valuation and

weighing

providing one

alternative of

"rationalised"

possible

outcomes.

3 can be part of

an innovation

process

3 possible to use 1 1

17 Multidisciplinary

framework to

support community

decision-making

Framework with ambition to combine knowledge from various relevant disciplines in a

participatory process. Identifies the tasks nessecary to support community decision-

making and where necessary provide specialist/ technical knowledge into the process;

relates to adaptive and participatory management.

Local-regional Knowledge

fragmentation,

empowerment through

knowledge.

Multiple:

participatory,


Mixed: analysis,

prioritising,

decision making

Multi-

stakeholder,

facilitation by

experts

2 can be used

for NRM

all of DPSIR 3 Lack of knowlege

and knowlege

fragmentation

Knowledge,

analysis and

process of

interaction are

important

3 can be part of

an innovation

process

3 possible to use 3 3

146 Multilevel

governance

Political science concept also expressed as institutional nesting with institutional

integration being a part. There is a need to place institutional responsibilities for

management att appropriate geographic scales in order to manage human-environment

interactions in coherent way. This can imply a coordinated management across a

number of levels from local to global. It involves distinct but interlinked components at

two or more levels of social organizations. There has been a perceived need to create

governance systems that are compatible with distinct systems above and below and

that include mechanisms to reduce tensions arising from special needs and

circumstances at specific levels. This may both imply formalised institutional systems

and informal (often local) ones.

Multiple scales Effective governance

practice integrating

across levels,

subsidiarity (possibility

of decentralised

authority), include local

communities in

management

Multiple: overall-

perspective with

focus on all types

of institutions and

their tools

Mixed: analysis

(as scientific

concept),

coordination,

decision making,

implementation

(practice)

Multi-

stakeholder,

decisin makers,

experts

2 can be used

for NRM

DPSIR (response

analysing and

addressing all)

3 Governance,

institutions,

participation

CMgmt not main

purpose, but pos-

sibility o address

cross-scale con-

flicts more easily

and reduce

conflicts due to

fragmen-tation

and conflicts of

hierarchy.

1 often part of

innovation

(integration

across levels and

sectors)

2 important

ingredient

2 instit./ sector

integr. central in

CZM

2 important for

CC Mgmt.

121 Open Standards for

Conservation

A complete method package of a) standards of procedure, b)MIRADI-software, d)

participatory facilitation process and d) education and network of practicioners to

develop successful programmes and plans for conservation. Approach based on

combined interdisciplinary research, literature review and practical experience through

a well-connected community of practice. The five-step process uses an Adaptive

Management and organisational learning logic by way of thorough situation analysis,

goal setting, process planning and evaluation. The method is presently being tested in

broader than conservation contextst (coastal management). The process is as important

as the results and so is good facilitation.

Local-regional


Focus on conservation

objectives, but can also

be used with

complementary

aspects. Includes

participation process

and awareness of

institutional context

and constraints.

Intersectional, may


many different

instruments

mixed (analysis

and process with

conservation

focus)

Multi-

stakeholder,

decision

makers, experts

as knowledge

bearers and

facilitators.

Assisted by

MIRADI-

software.

1 all of DPSIR

(conservation-

focus)

Indicators

developed based

on theory of

change created by

the process.

2 NRM-content,

process,

institutional system

CMgmt seen as

part of planning.

Managing low- to

medium

escalated

conflicts.

Requires process

leadership.

1 2 today mostly

peri-urban and

rural

1 4 CC requires

global

perspective

143, 144,

165

Participation,

Participatory

Planning

Including stakeholder in planning for natural resource management (land use, water use

etc.). The goal is to enhance social sustainability which is often interpreted to include

the employment of local people, the status and living conditions of indigenous people,

as well as wide participation possibilities in the planning process, and the broad

acceptance of its results. The techniques used for participation may vary, e.g., research

oriented (143) with groups of researchers and stakeholders formed early in a process,

internet-based such as Mesta, an internet-based decision-support application providing

a set of alternatives from which participants can chose acceptable and unacceptable

alternatives (144). Such an approach can also be used for mapping potential conflicts

between different participants and avoiding unnecessary conflicts, sharing information,

and promoting good relationships in operational planning (144). See also collaborative

planning with even stronger components of active collaboration and institutional

aspects.

Local-regional Inclusiveness and

participation, mutual

learning, multiple and

complex issues

requiring issue-

integration and finding

compromises across

issues

Multiple:

participatory,

analytical,

planning, may


various further

instrument types

Mixed: analysis,

participation,

prioritising,

decision making

with social and

spatial focus

Multi-

stakeholders,

experts,

decision makers

1 DPSIR (response

analysing and

addressing all)

2 Planning process,

participation and

issues raised

thereby

CMgmt is part of

planning.

Managing low- to

medium

escalated

conflicts.

Requires process

leadership. Other

parties are equal.

Focus on social

and interaction

part of the

conflict with a

strategic

1 1 1 2

14, 25, 80,

141

Participatory

Modelling (front-

and back-end, co-

construction, Front-

End, Back-End),

Mediated Modeling

Involving stakeholders in one or more stages of a modelling process from data-

collection through to model-construction and use. This improves participants' shared

understanding of the management problem and its solutions. Participatory Modeling as

a subvariety implies that stakeholders collaborate in the development of a situation

model about a specific problem. Form: series of facilitator supported workshops using

computer software for actual modeling. Evaluation in article: a) Information: elucidate

different types of complexity, integrate different types of information, taking account of

uncertainty; b) Legitimacy: compatibility with existing legislation, clear accountability

for decision and outcome, representation or inclusion of all relevant interests,

transparency of rules to insiders and outsiders, c) Social dynamics: how actor's

relationships are affected, agency and empowerment, changing perspectives/learning,

facilitate convergence/illustrate diversity; d) Costs: cost-effective for proposed solution,

Local-regional Democratic deficits,

lack of

understanding/commun

ication, need to

facilitate convergence

of opinions, diversity,

complexity and

uncertainty. Mediated

modeling adresses also

issues of

respect/relationship,

transparency,

Multiple:

participatory,

analytical

Mixed: analysis,

participation,

prioritising

Multi-

stakeholder,

decision

makers, experts

as facilitators

1 all of DPSIR 2 Collaborative

aspects of analytical

process, modeling

Addressing

complexity,

integration, social

dynamics.

Mediated

modeling:

Process as

important as

analysis.

1 2 2 2


Table for Method Characteristics67, 113 Payment for

Ecosystem Services

(PES scheme)

Ecosystem services are public goods, but as no one actually owns them, there is

generally little incentive to preserve them. Four different types of ecosystem services

(ESS) are defined by 67: supporting (e.g. nutrient cycling, primary production),

provisioning (e.g. fish, water), regulating (e.g. climate, pollination), and cultural (e.g.

recreation, experience, learning). There are no direct market mechanisms to

communicate the scarcity or degradation of a service until it fails. Payments for

Ecosystem Services (PES) aim to fill this gap by creating markets for services (e.g. carbon

sequestration, biodiversity conservation, watershed protection, landscape values).

Multiple scales Lack of economic

incentives to preserve

ecosystem services as

public goods

Multiple: market-

related,

participatory,

regulation

Implementation

(awareness,

economic drivers)

Multi-

stakeholder,

decision makers

1 Linking D and P Yes 3 possible to use Economic drivers,

values in ecosystem

services

Implementation

tool in a

resolution

process.

1 2 1 2

146 Place-based

governance

Focus on place as point of departure for integrating management. Stems from the

debate on how to respond to the crisis in marine systems due to fragmentation of

authority and spatial and temporal mismatches between biophysical systems and the

responsible governance systems. Even if focus is on integrative governance addressing

activities in specific places, place-based management is sensitive to outside forces,

viewing places as complex and dynamic systems that are open rather than closed. The

approach includes active participation of public servants at different levels and

representatives of important stakeholder groups.

Local-regional Integration,

participation,

decentralization,

effective governance

practice with local

perspective

Institutional, local

level

Mixed: analysis

(scientific

concept),

participation,

prioritising,

decision making

(all with people

and place focus)

Multi-

stakeholder

1 DPSIR (response

analysing and

addressing all)

3 possible to use Governance,

institutions,

participation

Can address

conflicts due to

fragmentation.

Focus on issues of

specific

stakeholders in

specific place can

enhance

possibilities to

find solutions.

1 1 1 2

162 Planning Hierarchy Hierarchy of priorities and embedding of plans across levels to achieve better

integration across levels of planning and administration

Multiple scales Integration across

scales in planning and

coastal zone

management

Planning,

administration

Implementation,

decision-making

Decision

makers, experts

1 R (D) 1 Planning process

and issues raised

there

Structure and

priorities can

conflict mgmt

across levels of

administrative/

planning

hierarchy

1 2 1 2

35 Policy Directive

Framework

General, future oriented policy framework: countries view natural resources as critical

assets and formulate strategies for the development of specific assets. The status of all

categorized natural assets present in a country is recorded. It implies a proposal of

policy initiatives through a national development plan parallel to a natural resource

plan. This includes a performance management tool providing information to policy

makers on the progress and effectiveness of policies. The aim is to ensure policy

National Long-term sustainability

of policy-making,

integrating of national

development policy

with resource policy.

Multiple:

administrative,

institutional,

regulation

Mixed: analysis,

prioritising,

decision making,

implementation,

evaluation

Decision

makers, experts

1 Linking D, P and R Yes 3 possible to use Natural resources,

development

policies

Thorough

analysis and

formulation of

strategies as tools

to deal with

directional level

1 promoting

policy

integration

2 1 2

146 Polycentric

Governance

Polycentric governance bases on the idea that autonomous, self-organized resource

governance systems may be more effectively learning from experimentation than a

single central authority. In an institutional environement where the central authority

dissolves autonomous self-organized govarnance systems arise. These self-governing

systems are capable of uniting to form a dynamic network which even can adress macro-

Multiple scales Institutional innovation,

adaptiveness, need for

decentralised authority,

include local

communities

Institutional,

engaging locals

Mixed: analysis

(as scientific

concept),

coordination,

decision making,

Multi-

stakeholder,

new types of

decision makers

1 DPSIR (response

analysing and

addressing all)

Participation,

Institution

Possibility o

address cross-

scale conflicts

more easily and

reduce conflicts

1 where the top-

down system

fails

1 where the top-

down system

fails

1 where the top-

down system fails

4 CC mgmt

requires global

view & some top-

down action

114 Precautionary

Principle

The precautionary principle enables a response in the face of a possible danger to

human, animal or plant health, or to protect the environment. Where scientific data do

not permit a complete evaluation of risks, this principle is e.g. used to stop distribution

or order withdrawal from the market of products likely to be hazardous.

Multiple scales Uncertainty, risk in

relation to

environmental and

other potential damage

Regulation Implementation,

decision-making

Decision-

makers, experts

(provide

criteria)

1 R 3 In relation to issue

principle regulates

Beforehand-

solution in

relation to a

specific issue at

hand

2 innovative in

some areas

3 2 e.g. Eco-syst

appr. for CZM

1 can be difficult

to imple-ment

111 Process Analysis by

Remote Sensing

(spatial change)

Through remote sensing of spatial changes, the spatial patterns and other expression of

complex processes and structures can be detected. Parallel socio-economic,

demographic, and cultural analysis helps uncover and explain reasons for and settings

of observed changes. The tool can be used in coastal planning and management.

Multiple scales Mapping spatial

expression of complex

processes of change

over time

Analytical,

administrative

Analysis Experts,

decision-makers

1 SI Yes 3 Spatial changes

leading to or

expressing conflicts

Analysis of

situation, early

warning system

2 1 1 1

70 Property Rights Clearly defined property-rights to land and other resources are an important asset in

many Western countries' economies as they support enterprise based on the present

and future value of such assets. Economists also argue that property also promotes the

taking of responsibility for long-term sustainable use. Property-rights need to be

supported and enforced by institutional frameworks. Property delineation e.g by land

surveying is important for both governmental and private actors. Individual

(Transferable) Quota (ITQ) are a way of defining property rights for mobile resources

Local or resource

specific

Historically closely

linked to address

scarcity. Can be used as

policy instrument to

make owners feel

responsible and able to

conduct business based

Market-related Implementation Land owners

(natural/

juridical

persons),

government:

marginalized

groups often

1 D 2 Resources and

specific rights to

them

Means of solving

some types of

conflicts (where

clear ownership

rights and duties

are necessary).

3 can be part of

an innovation

process

1 1 4

105 Protected Area

Sustainibility Index

(PASI)

PASI can be used as a decision-support tool for systematic spatial management under

data poor conditions, especially when identifying suitable sites for protection. PASI

assesses the suitability of sites for protection based on fishers’ preferences for that site

and the site’s conservation value. Eight input attributes are required. PASI operates on a

series of heuristic rules to estimate a site suitability score ranging from 0 to 10, with 10

highly suitable for protection from fishing. It is a relatively robust method, producing

reliable results even with little data.

Local-regional Managing data poor

fisheries, overcoming

uncertainties due to

little information on

biological and socio-

economic conditions

Multiple:

analytical,

planning,

administrative

Mixed: analysis,

prioritizing

Decision-

makers,

experts, fishers

1 R (D) Yes 3 Fisheries and

conservation

Heuristics to

define suitability

for protection in

relation to

fisheries

3 can be part of

an innovation

process

4 1 fisheries conser-

vation

4

70 Regulation of

Performance

Performance standards/performance objectives (instead of regulating by requiring

specific technology) give firms flexibility to choose methods by which to meet a

mandated goal. By creating a regulation based on a performance standard it is possible

to regulate a command and control mechanism.

Multi-scale, issue

specific

Need for flexibility to

address a problem,

avoiding short-

sightedness /outdating

of rules (see Detailed

Regulation)

Regulation Implementation Multi-

stakeholder,

issued by

decision makers

1 DPR Yes 2 In relation to issue

regulated

Final step in

solution process,

beforehand-

solution as goals

2 innovative in

some areas

3 3 1


Table for Method Characteristics42, 45 Urban Ecosystem

Health Assessment

Frameworks for analysing urban ecosystems and their health. FW for integrating

comprehensive evaluation and detailed analysis, from both bottom-up and top-down

directions. Emergy-based indicators are established to reflect the urban ecosystem

health status from a biophysical viewpoint. Considering the intrinsic uncertainty and

relativity of urban ecosystem health, set pair analysis is combined with the emergy-

based indicators to fill the general framework and evaluate the relative health level of

urban ecosystems.

Local Sustainability in urban

ecosystems, ecosystem

health, uncertainty

Analytical Analysis Experts,

decision-makers

1 SI Yes 4 mainly analytical

little relation to

conflicts

2 1 2 4

147 Resource-Based

Bargaining

For RBB, opposing parties must share their true goals and bottom lines and learn about

the others' in order to discover common ground. Prior to negotiation there a tacit

agreement that it is in the interest of each party to find a satisfactory solution. The

parties recognize their interdependence, accept that there are preferable alternatives to

a conflict, are confident to reach agreement with the other side, and view negotiation

as the means. RBB may in some situations lead to short-term, material fixes without

Scale-specific

(where few parties

possible)

Lacks of communication

and transparency,

getting from positions

to interests

Participation,

administration

bargaining,

negotiation

two or more

parties involved

2 Not relevant-

stakeholder

perspective

1 Positions, Interests,

negotiation

Transparent

negotiation

between

stakholders,

efforts to define

common ground

1 2 1 3

84 Risk Assessment

for achieving Good

Environmental

Status (GES)

Risk assessment framework to score deviation from GES (Good Environmental Status)

as defined in the EU's Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) for 10 out of the 11

descriptiors, based on proposed definitions of GES and current knowledge of

environmental status. The MSFD indicators have been developed in working groups

with experts from different EU-countries. Deviation from GES definitions is described as

high, moderate or low and the implications for management options and national policy

decisions are discussed related to this method. While criteria used in the case were

specifically developed for an MSFD context, a modified approach could be used to

Inter-national,

national

Prioritizing of

conservation objectives,

deviation from

objectives

Analytical,

administrative

Mixed: analysis,

prioritising

Experts and

decison makers

1 all of DPSIR,

MSFD works with

a DPSIR logic

DPSIR logic used to

structure process

and indicators.

4 mainly analytical

little relation to

conflicts

2 4 1 4

115 Safe Minimum

Standard

Limits the use of resources to levels that are thought to be safe, e.g. conservation of a

sufficient area of habitat to ensure the continued provision of ecological functions and

services, at the ecosystem level.

Multiple scales Intensity of resource

use, level of emissions

Regulation Implementation Decision-makers

(expert based

knowledge)

1 P Yes 2 In relation to issue

regulated

Final step in

solution process,

beforehand-

solution as goals

2 2 1 1

1, 107 Scenario

Development

Polyvalent tool to help analysing and discussing possible future developments of e.g.

climate change, demographics and economy in decision-making situations with high

uncertainties. For different trends scenarios are described in assessment narratives

outlining the possible consequences of each setting. Scenarios and risks are evaluated

(example: three dimensions of change climate, demography, economy.

Scale-specific

(different possible)

Uncertainty,

unpredictability

Multiple:


Analysis,

prioritizing

Experts and

decision

makers, even

possible with

stakeholders

2 all of DPSIR 2 In relation to the

issues in the

scenario

Scenario process

provides larger

picture,

possibilities to

analyse, discuss

and negotiate

1 1 1 1

166 Setback lines Spatial planning and management tool defining boundaries for certain activities in

relation to coast line - often used in relation to coastal hazards or keeping coasts

accessible.

Local-regional Keeping activities within

certain distance from

the coast (danger,

public access, nature

protection)

Planning,

administration

Implementation

(steering

behaviour)

Decision makers

towards

stakeholders

1 DR 1 In relation to issue

line regulates

Implementation

tool in a

resolution

process.

2 1 1 1

106, 112 Social Impact

Assessment (SIA)

SIA is an assessment tool applied to both projects and policies looking at social effects in

a relatively wide sense (either based on regulatory standards or if there are none

defined ad hoc). There are parallels EIA - environmental impact assessment. Potential

effects are enhanced quality and legitimacy of decisions, reduced harm and increased

the benefits for those affected by the project/policy. Indicators used can be both chosen

based on expert recommendations in handbooks, required by authorities and higher

level goals or developed ad hoc.

Scale-specific

(different possible)

Social consequences of

planned interventions

Administrative,

implying analysis

Analysis Experts and

decision makers

as drivers,

potentially multi-

stakeholder

2 D, social I, R Yes, various ways

of developing them

are possible.

2 Social/societal

effects of project/

policy

Analysing for

decision making,

raising social

consequences can

be important step

in Cmgmt

2 1 1 3 possible to use

148 Social Learning for

adaptation

Paradigm or ideal (not practical guidelines) for policy making to adapt in complex and

changing problem contexts, overcoming the limitations of citizen engagement perceived

mainly from a static power perspective. Focus is on facilitating equal contributions and

on mutual learning between parties in a decision making process. The authors see social

learning as one or more of the following types of processes: 1) the convergence of

goals, criteria and knowledge leading to awareness of mutual expectations and the

building of relational capital - a dynamic form of capital integrating the other forms

(artificial, natural, social and human); 2) a process of co-creation of knowledge

providing insight into causes and means for transforming a situation (SL as an integral

part of concerted action); 3) a change of behaviours and actions resulting from

Multiple scales Dealing with

uncertainties, change,

and complex, messy

situations and

problems. Learning on a

larger group/societal

level.

Multiple:

participatory,

analytical,

administrative

Mixed: analytical,

prioritising,

evaluation (all

with focus on

mutual learning)

Multi-

stakeholders,

experts,

decision makers

1 DPSIR (response

analysing and

addressing all)

1 Climate change and

other complex

changing problem

areas that need

common definition

and action

Creative solutions

through mutual

learning, co-

creation of

knowledge,

building social

capital and trust,

potential for

transformative

conflict

1 1 possible for

urban issues in

general

1 1 societal

learning for

dealing with CC

89,94 Stakeholder

Analysis

A group of methods used to identify individuals, groups, institutions likely to affect or

be affected by a proposed action or otherwise relevant for the situation at hand. They

then can be sorted according to characteristics interesting for the analysis e.g. to their

impact on the action and the impact the action will have on them or how they need to

be addressed. An overall SA involves: 1) understanding the context (focus and system

boundaries), 2) applying analytical methds (identify stakeholders, identify their stakes,

categorise stakeholders, and investigate relationships between stakeholders), 3)

Multiple scales Preparation of planning

and participation

processes or research

projects where

stakeholders can play

important roles

Multiple:

analytical,

participatory,

planning,

administration

Mixed: analysis,

prioritising

Multi-

stakeholder, but

emphasis on

who depends on

specific method.

1 Social D, IR 1 Stakes and

stakeholders

Important first

step in a conflict

management

process

1 1 1 1


Table for Method Characteristics167 Statutory

Management Task

Force

Management task force with legal mandate to make decisions - e.g. in relation to

integrative and sustainable coastal environmental management

Multiple scales

possible

Mandate to act in

relation to specified

issues

Multiple: planning,

administrative,

participatory,

regulatory,

analytical

Mixed: analysis,

participation,

prioritising,

decision making,

evaluation

Decision makers

and others

allowed to

participate in

task force

1 R (D) 1 In relation to issues

included in mandate

Possibility to

collaborate and

create trust

within task force,

concrete problem

and conflict

solving

1 1 1 1

149 Strategic Choice

Approach

SCA is a tool developed by planning practitioners including book with overall-approach

and a number of tools, software and a community applying the approach. Aims to help

effective choices in complex situations (urban, landscape planning, risk management).

Instead of focusing on the differences between possible options, it aims to catch the

interconnectedness of them. Suggests four modes following each other, and also

interconnected with one and other. These modes are: the problems enter the shaping

modeand pass through a cycle of designing, comparing, and choosing towards

implementation. Problems to solve pass back and forth through these four modes until

they are addressed satisfactorily for the participants.

Local-regional


Complex and changing

issues, decision-

making, choices,

learning under way, by

design and doing,

participation is part of

it. Addressing various

types of uncer-tainties:

i.e. values, the working

environment, and

related decisions

Intersectioal,

stakeholder-

engagement and

planning related,

may result in the

use of various

further instrument

types

mixed (analysis

and process with

urban and

landscape

planning focus)

all types of

relevant

stakeholders

1 DPSIR (response

analysing and

addressing all),

not necessarily

with that

perspective,

however

Yes (in relation to

the approach and

its outcomes itself)

1 Mainly used at local

and regional levels,

Could be used at

others as well.

Conflict

management part

of the process.

1 1 1 2

70 Subsidies and

Subsidy Reduction

Subsidies provide an economic support for desired action and are often aimed to

protect highly valued goods or properties of a society (e.g. agriculture, biodiversity). A

subsidy can either be a direct (partial) repayment of abatement costs or a fixed

payment per unit of emissions production. Can be seen as negative taxes: the main

differences are ownership and rights to nature. Subsidies lack the output-substitution

effect of taxes. Subsidies are expensive as a policy-instrumen and often benefit few and

well organized groups. Many subsidies address environmental issues, however many

promote wasteful and environmentally destructive behaviour. Perverse output effects

Multi-scale, issue

specific

Economic incentives to

promote desired

behaviour ("carrot"),

taking away subsidies

can be perceived as a

rise in costs ("whip").

Multiple: market-

related, regulatory

Implementation Multi-

stakeholder;

designed by

decision makers

and experts

1 DP 2 In relation to issue

regulated

Final step in

solution process

1 especially

reduction in env.

destructive

subsidies

2 2 1

5 Systems Thinking Holistic view allowing to discover and analyse structure and interactions of larger units

and sub-units, how they are embedded in each other and hang together among each

other and with the surroundings - here with environmental and societal perspective.

Based on systems-theoretical thinking as used in ecology, physics and engineering. A

framework to combine disparate sources and forms of knowledge about a specific field

or problem area (ecosystems, social systems). Acknowledges complexity of interactions

in the ‘hard’ (biophysical) and the ‘soft’ system: interactions between biophysical

components, technology and society. The embedding in larger systems provides context

and meaning for decisions.

Multiple scales Fragmentation,

complexity, multiple

interconnections

Analytical,

administrative,

possibly

participatory

Mixed: analysis,

evaluation

Experts,

decision

makers,

possibility to

include other

stakeholders

1 all of DPSIR 2 Connecting

problems and issues

Analytical tool to

see larger context

and sub-problems

1 overcome

stovepipe

thinking and

acting in govt.

and admin.

1 1 1

70 Taxes, fees, or

charges

Taxes are usually established by political decisions. Fees are decided administratively.

Charges can be levied and appropriated by sectoral agencies. A purely environmental

charge is set to equal marginal social damage: i.e. water tariffs, park fees, fishing

licences, waste fees, congestion pricing, gas taxes, industrial pollution fees. Often a pure

environmental tax is hard to apply since marginal damages can be difficult to estimate,

particularly with ecosystems. Many details such as level of taxation are difficult to

calculate and decide. An optimal solution is often found by trial and error.

Multi-scale, issue

specific

Internalisation of

external costs with

relation to society and

environment

Multiple:

regulation and

market-related,

administration

Implementation

(steering

behaviour)

Experts and

decision makers

decide, multiple

stakeholders

can be affected.

Taxes are

subject to

political

process.

1 D 2 In relation to issue

taxed

Final step in

solution process

1 not new, but

still innovative

1 1 1 carbon tax

70, 136 Tradeable Quotas

or Rights

Creating ownership for batches of resources in time and space and - if tradeable -

making it possible to sell/trade them or take loans basd on the rights. There are many

different types of quota, not all of them tradeable: e.g. individual transferable quota

ITQ, individual vessel quota IVQ in fisheries, transferable rights for land development,

forestry, or agriculture, emissions permits or auctioned seasonal quotas (see 100).

Setting totals but allowing some dynamics due to e.g. population growth, changing

technology, mobility, and economic growth. Many quota need ecological and technical

definitions, calculations and specifications in number, duration, and temporal and

spatial validity of permits as well as a proposed method for allocation. Quota reduce

externalities and diminish rush for the resource. Tradability can, however, create

accumulation of quota with few economically strong actors.

Quota are local-

regional (specific),

but regulation can

be trans-national

Externalities -

tradeability allows the

market mechanism to

assist that marginal

benefits and costs are

equalized.

Market-related Implementation

(steering

behaviour)

Experts and

decision makers

decide, multiple

stakeholders

can be affected.

Taxes are

subject to

political

process.

1 D 2 In relation to

resource and quota

system

Final step in

solution process

1 innovative in

some areas,

otherwise room

for innovation

3 1 4 see emission

rights instead


Table for Method Characteristics70 Two-Part Tariff

Systems (Deposit

Refund Schemes

and Refunded

Emissions

Payments)

Combinations of subsides and taxes (see: Taxes, fees, or charges and Subsidies and

Subsidy reduction). The main advantages relate to the distribution of costs and thus the

political economy of the instrument. Example refunded emissions payments: Here many

firms will pay less than some firms, some might even make money, thus it will be less

controversial than pure taxes). Enourages environmentally friendly behaviour.

Multiple scales Internalisation of

external costs,

behaviour.

Multiple:

regulation and

market-related,

administration

Implementation

(steering

behaviour)

Experts and

decision makers

decide,

stakeholders

can be affected.

1 D 2 In relation to tariff

system

Final step in

solution process

1 2 2 2

37, 117 Urban Harvest

Approach (UHA)

Bottom-up approach implying that also in large cities society cannot be separated from

ecology. Planners need tools to understand cities and regions as environmental systems

and as parts of regional and global networks. Resource management needs to be

incorporated into urban planning to change urban characteristics such as massive

consumption and waste production affecting the urban surroundings. Moreover, the

urban experience needs to include 'nature' as positive. Relates to urban-metabolism

tools.

Local-regional with

larger systems

perspective

Pressure of urban core

on peripheries by

consumption and waste

production.

Multiple:

analytical,

administrative

Analyitical,

prioritising

Experts

(research,

planning),

decision makers

1 all of DPSIR 3 possible to use Urban

surroundings,

environmental

pressures

Analysing for

understanding

and prioritising

2 1 1 4

70 Voluntary

Agreements

Mainly used as negotiated (and verifiable) contract between environmental regulaters

and polluting firms (e.b. toxic chemicals or forest products). Stresses dialogue and

information disclosure. An important reason for a company/country working with

environmental protection activities is improving public image. A main strength of

voluntary agreements lies in the creativity generated by employees/residents since with

these people complex everyday issues that are hard to regulate or tax might be

adressed.

Local-regional Externalities,

environmental

problems

Mixed: regulatory,

information/image

related

Implementation

(steering

behaviour)

Enterprises,

decision makers

1 D 1 In relation to issue

agreed upon

Final step in

solution process

1 1 1 2

68, 71 Willingness To Pay

(WTP) and

Willingness To

Accept (WTA) for

environmental

improvement/

degradation

Environmental economy-releated analytical instruments. WTP is the maximum an

individual would be willing to spend or sacrifice in order to avoid something. This can

e.g. be pollution. WTA determines the amount an invidiual is willing to receive to give

up of something or to accept something undesirable. Change is possible in case the WTP

exceeds market prices. Economic and moral valuing of natural values can be included. ;

relates to methods to measure WTP and WTA and whether payments are done directly

or indirect; See also Continguent Valuation Method as a way to measure WTP and WTA

Multiple scales Need to know about

attitudes and economic

and other motives of

societal actors in

relation to

environmental

degradation for

research and decision

making

Market-related Analysis Individual users 1 D 3 possible to use Willingness to pay

or accept damage

Analysing for

understanding

and prioritising

2 1 1 1

ID Tool/Instrument Methodological details Field Complete Source Reference Year Author Title1 Scenario Development case study Environmental

Studies

Environmental Modelling & Software 26 (2011) 873e885 2011 Mohammed I. Mahmoud, Hoshin V.

Gupta, Seshadri Rajagopal

Scenario development for water resources planning and watershed management: Methodology and

semi-arid region case study

2 Community-based

natural resource

management

Q-sort methodology Environmental

Studies

Conservation and Society 9(2):159-171,2011 2011 James S. Gruber Perspectives of effective and sustainable community-based natural resource management: an

application of Q Methodology to forest projects

3 GIS/ tradtional survey

methods

measurement of landscape values through random

household surveys, ‘‘participatory’’ (Abbot et al. 1998) or

‘‘bottom-up’’ GIS

Planning Society and Natural Resources, 18:17–39, 2005 2005 Gregory Brown Mapping Spatial Attributes in SurveyResearch forNatural Resource Management: Methods and

Applications

4 Economic surplus

analysis

Ex ante impact assessment Environmental

Studies

Research Evaluation 2005 Roehlano Briones, Madan Dey, Ilona

Stobutzki and Mark Prein

Ex ante impact assessment for research on natural resources management: methods and application to

aquatic resource systems

5 Systems Thinking Case study Environmental

Studies

Systems Research and Behavioral Science Syst. Res.

24, 217-232 (2007)

2007 O. J. H. Bosch, C. A. King, J. L.

Herbohn, I. W. Russell and C. S.

Smith

Getting the Big Picture in Natural Resource Management—Systems Thinking as ‘Method’ for Scientists,

Policy Makers and Other Stakeholders

6 Multi-criteria decision

analysis

multi-objective decision making and multi-attribute

decision making & Soft Systems Methods

Ecology Forest Ecology and Management 230 (2006) 1–22 2006 G.A. Mendoza, H. Martins Multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management: A critical review of methods and new

modelling paradigms

7 Natural Resources

Districts (NRDs)

innovative form of government as NRM Environmental

Studies/Political

Science

Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable

Development, 45:10, 8-20

2010 David W. Cash Innovative Natural Resource Management: Nebraska's Model for Linking Science and Decisionmaking

8 Overview summary of the proceedings of an International

Workshop

Agricultural Studies International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid

Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru 502 324, India. ISBN 92-9066-

460-6. Order code CPE 148,

2003 Shiferaw, B., and Freeman H.A.

(eds.)

Methods for assessing the impacts of natural resource management research. A summary of the

proceedings of an International Workshop, 6-7 Dec 2002,

11 Participatory Action

Research

case study Environmental

Studies

Taylor & Francis, New York, ISBN 1-56032-979-3 2002 C. Castellanet, C.F. Jordan Participatory Action Research in Natural Resource Management: A Critique of the Method Based on Five

Years’ Experience in the Transamazônica Region of Brazil

12 Environmental

Evaluation

theoretical approach to EV methodology Enviornmental

Studies

Management of Environmental Quality: An International

Journal Vol. 21 No. 2, 2010 pp. 165-176

2009 Elena Mazourenko A natural resource valuation tool for assisting natural resource management

13 Economic Evaluation NVP,GNVP,IRR Environmental

Economics

Ecological Economics 46 (2003) 47�/59 2003 Joan Pasqual, Guadalupe Souto Sustainability in natural resource management

14 Interactive modelling Graphical User Interfaces; modelling approach to assess

effects of management decisions

Enviornmental

Science

Environmental Modelling&Software25(2010)1075e1085 2010 F.Boschetti, A.deLaTourb,

E.A.Fulton, L.R.Little

Interactive modelling for natural resource management


analysis

multi attribute utility theory- outranking methods

(ELECTRE III,PROMETHEE II)

Planning Silva Fennica 35(2): 215–227 2001 Kangas, A., Kangas, J. & Pykäläinen,

J.

Outranking Methods As Tools in Strategic Natural Resources Planning

16 Green

Entrepreneurship

case studies Social Science Society and Natural Resources, 21:828–844 2008 John C. Allena & Stephanie Malin Green Entrepreneurship: A Method for Managing Natural Resources?

17 Multidisciplinary

approaches

overview Interdisciplinary Hydrobiologia (2005) 552:99–108 2005 Terry Hillman, Lin Crase, Brian Furze,

Jayanath Ananda, Daryl Maybery

Multidisciplinary approaches to natural resource management

19 Participatory Process

(multi-criteria decision

analysis)

Analytic-deliberative process/Participant & stakeholder

diologues, Participatory Rural Appraisal

Environmental

Science

Environmental Science and Engineering 2006, DOI:

10.1007/978-3-540-36917-2

2006 Susanne Stollkleemann and Martin

Welp

Stakeholder Dialogues in Natural Resources Management Theory and Practice

20 Capacity Development Integrated Water resource management Environmental

Science

Environmental Earth Science, Special Issue 2011 M. Leidel , S. Niemann , N.

Hagemann

Capacity development as a key factor for integrated water resources management (IWRM): improving

water management in the Western Bug River Basin, Ukraine

21 Stakholder Analysis participatory natural resource management research Enviornmental

Studies

Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2009)

1933–1949

2009 Mark S. Reed et al. Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management

22 Community-based

natural resource

management

participatory natural resource management research Environmental

Studies

The Journal of Environment & Development Volume 16

Number 4 December 2007 355-374

2007 Ballet, Jérôme; Requiers-Desjardins,

Mélanie; Sirven, Nicolas

Social Capital and Natural Resource Management A Critical Perspective

24 Spatial technology GIS http://www.cadalyst.com/gis/spatial-technologies-gis-

resource-management-8967?page_id=1

2006 James L. Snipes GIS in Resource Management: guardians of the enviornment use spatial technologies to monitor lan,

water and air

25 Participatory Modeling Actors, Resources, Dynamics, and Interactions method Environmental

Studies

Ecology and Society 16(1): 44 2011 Michel Etienne, Derick R. Du Toit,

and Sharon Pollard

ARDI: A Co-construction Method for Participatory Modeling in Natural Resources Management

27 Participatory

communication

selected visual techniques Environmental

Studies


2734e2745

2010 L. Petherama, C. High, B.M.

Campbell, N. Stacey

Lenses for learning: Visual techniques in natural resource management

Annex 2: Literature on Policy instruments for Natural Resource & Conflict ManagementLiterature review status May 2013: Editor Andrea Morf; further research by Serin Alpokay, Tom Buurman, Maraja Riechers, Julia Wernersson

http://www.cadalyst.com/gis/spatial-technologies-gis-resource-management-8967?page_id=1

http://www.cadalyst.com/gis/spatial-technologies-gis-resource-management-8967?page_id=1


analysis

Systematic regional planning Environmental

Studies


1175–1189

2008 Brett A. Bryan�, Neville D. Crossman Systematic regional planning for multiple objective natural resource management

29 Markov decision

processes

discrete-state Markov decision processes (MDP) under

structural uncertainty and partial observability

Environmental

Studies

Ecological Modelling 222 (2011) 1092–1102 2011 Byron K. Williams Resolving structural uncertainty in natural resources management using POMDP approaches

30 Adaptive management Environmental

Studies


1346e1353

2011 Byron K. Williams Adaptive management of natural resourcesdframework and issues

31 Participatory Process case study Environmental

Studies

Agriculture and human values, 2011 vol:28 iss:1 sidor:99 -

107

2010 Nicole D. Peterson Excluding to include: (Non)participation in Mexican natural resource management

33 Multiple objective

decision support

ranking algorithm Environmental

Studies

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(4),

505–518, 2000

2000 Stefan A. Hajkowicz, Geoff T.

McDonald & Phil N. Smith

An Evaluation of Multiple Objective Decision Support Weighting Techniques in Natural Resource

Management


analysis

dependent decision criteria Environmental

Studies

Journal of Environmental Management 77 (2005) 244–251 2005 Pekka Leskinena, Jyrki Kangas Multi-criteria natural resource management with preferentially dependent decision criteria

35 Policy directives

framework

Directional frameworks for natural resource policy Environmental

Studies

Pakistan journal of commerce and social sciences 2010 Suleman Aziz Lodhi, Muhammad

Abdul Majid Makki

A Natural Resource Management Framework for Sustainable Development

36 Framework for

sustainable urban

water resource

case study Environmental

Studies

Sustainable Development 9, 24–35 (2001) 2001 Xuemei Bai1, and Hidefumi Imura Towards Sustainable Urban Water Resource Management: A Case Study in Tianjin, China

37 sustainabile urban

planning

overview Environmental

Studies


2295e2303

2011 Claudia M. Agudelo-Vera, Adriaan R.

Mels, Karel J. Keesman, Huub H.M.

Rijnaarts

Resource management as a key factor for sustainable urban planning

38 Material flow

accounting

case study Industrial Ecology Journal of Industrial Ecology Volume 13, Number 3 2009 Samuel Niza, Leonardo Rosado, and

Paulo Ferr˜ao

Urban Metabolism Methodological Advances in Urban Material Flow Accounting Based on the Lisbon

Case Study

39 Material flow analysis Eurostat Method Industrial Ecology Journal of Industrial Ecology Volume 13, Number 6 2009 Sabine Barles Urban Metabolism of Paris and Its region

40 Material flow analysis DSPR model, urban metabolism , economic-wide MFA Industrial Ecology Journal of industrial ecology 2011 vol:15 iss:3 sidor:420 -434 2011 Sai Liang and Tianzhu Zhang Urban Metabolism in China Achieving Dematerialization and Decarbonization in Suzhou

41 Material flow analysis Analysing flows of matter and energy through systems Urban Planning Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 134, No.

1, March 1, 2008

2008 Natalia Codoban1 and Christopher

A. Kennedy

Metabolism of Neighborhoods

42 Ecological footprint assessment tool of urban metabolism flows Environmental

Studies

Management of Environmental Quality: An International

Journal Vol. 21 No. 1, 2010 pp. 78-89

2010 Karima Dakhia and Ewa Berezowska-

Azzag

Urban institutional and ecological footprint A new urban metabolism assessment tool for planning

sustainable urban ecosystems

43 emergy synthesis emergy-based indicator system for evaluating urban

metabolism

Environmental

Studies

Ecological Modelling 220 (2009) 1690–1696 2009 Yan Zhang, Zhifeng Yanga, Xiangyi

Yub

Evaluation of urban metabolism based on emergy synthesis: A case study for Beijing (China)

44 Material flow analysis Eurostat Method Environmental

Studies

Waste Management 29 (2009) 2765–2771 2009 David Browne, Bernadette O’Regan,

Richard Moles

Assessment of total urban metabolism and metabolic inefficiency in an Irish city-region

45 Urban ecosystem

health assessment

Framework for integrating evaluation and detailed

analysis, in urban ecosystems

Environmental

Studies

Ecohealth 2010 vol:7 iss:4 sidor:459 -472 2010 Meirong Su, Zhifeng Yang, and Bin

Chen

Relative Urban Ecosystem Health Assessment: A Method Integrating Comprehensive Evaluation and

Detailed Analysis

47 Material flow analysis input-output analysis, emergy analysis Enviornmental

Science

Low Carbon Economy, 2011, 2, 32-40 2011 Gao Xue-song, Luo Xiao-jiao, Deng

Liang-ji, Zeng Min

Analysis of Material Metabolism of Eco-Economic System in Chongqing Based on the Emergy Theory

48 Emergy Synthesis Material flow Analysis, socioeconomic metabolism Environmental

Studies

Resources, Conservation and Recycling 48 (2006) 166–196 2006 Shu-Li Huang∗, Chun-Lin Lee, Chia-

Wen Chen

Socioeconomic metabolism in Taiwan: Emergy synthesis versus material flow analysis

49 Eco-Life Cycle

Assessment

LCA Environmental

Science

Environmental science & technology 2010 vol:44 iss:7

sidor:2624 -2631

2010 Yi Zhang, Anil Baral, Bhavik Bakshi Accounting for Ecosystem Services in Life Cycle Assessment, Part II Toward an Ecologically Based LCA

50 Environmental Impact

Assessment

LCA, EIA, EF, SPI, MFA Environmental

Studies

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 9 (2005)

169–189

2005 Ibrahim Dincer, Marc A. Rosen Thermodynamic aspects of renewables and sustainable development

51 Life Cycle Assessment LCA Environmental

Studies

Journal of Cleaner Production 6 (1998) 5341 1998 J. Krozer, J.C. Vis How to get LCA in the right direction

52 Ecological footprint Planning Environmental

Studies

Building Research& Information (1999) 27(4/5), 206–220 1999 William E. Rees The built environment and the ecosphere: a global perspective

53 Urban Planning Global South/ Climate Change perspectives Planning Progress in Planning 72 (2009) 151–193 2009 Vanessa Watson The planned city sweeps the poor away: Urban planning and 21st century urbanisation

54 Human Appropriate of

Net Primary Production

embodied HANPP Environmental

Economics

Ecological Economics 69 (2009) 328–334 2009 Karl-Heinz Erb, Fridolin Krausmann,

Wolfgang Lucht Helmut Haberl

Embodied HANPP: Mapping the spatial disconnect between global biomass production and consumption

55 Energy Return on Input EROI and Carbon intensity Environmental

Studies

Environmental Management Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 305-317 1993 C. Mitchell ,C.R J. Cleveland Resource Scarcity, Energy Use and Environmental Impact: A Case Study of the New Bedford,

Massachusetts, USA, Fisheries

57 TMR EW-MFA, PERF, HF Industrial Ecology Journal of industrial ecology 2009 vol:13 iss:5 sidor:775 -790 2009 Inaki Arto Using Total Material Requirement to Reduce the Global Environmental Burden

58 Ecological footprint carrying capacity Environmental

Studies

Environment and Urbanization 1992 4: 121 1992 William E. Rees Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out

61 Community-based

natural resource

management

Empowerment, Gender Environmental

Studies

Environment and Urbanization 1992 4: 132 1992 Mike Douglass The political economy of urban poverty and environmental management in Asia: access, empowerment

and community based alternatives

62 CPR management community-based self organisation, local knowledge Political

Science/Economy

Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 1999. 2:493–535 1999 Ostrom, Elinor Coping with Tragedies of the Common

63 CPR management community-based self organisation, SES Political

Science/Economy

Science 325, 419 (2009) 2009 Ostrom, Elinor A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems

64 Ecosystem

Managemant Tool

Statistics Environmental

Science

John Wiley& Sohns ltd. West Sussex 2011 Timothy C. Haas Improving Natural Resource Management: Ecological and political Models (review:

http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/14/4/reviews/5.html)

65 Conflict-senstitive NRM

systems

Capacity development Political Science UNEP unknow

n

UNEP Capacity Development for Managing Land and Natural Resources.

66 Catchment

Management

Authorities (CMAs)

Monitoring, evaluation, reporting

and improvement (MERI)

Political Science Industry & Investment NSW 2009 Robert Gale and Nick Milham Monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement (MERI) as

an integrated assessment tool: Improving socio-economic and biophysical outcomes from investment

decisions in natural resource management (NRM)

67 Millennium Ecosystem

Assessment

Case analysis of ecosystem services in relation to human

welfare. 4 types: supporting (e.g. primary production),

provisioning (e.g. fish, water), regulating (e.g. climate,

Environmental

Economics

Island Press, Washington 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis.

68 Economics of

Ecosystems and

Biodiversity

Economic methods (WTP, WTA etc) Environmental

Economics

earthscan 2010 TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity

69 Governing CPR CPR Political

Science/Economy

cambridge university press, cambridge 1990 Ostrom, Elinor Governing the Commons

70 Regulations of

Technology,

performance

Political

Science/Economy

Working paper in Economics, no 480, Jan2011 2011 Jessica Coria, Thomas Sterner NRM: Challenges and Policy Options

71 Allocation of property

rights, carrying

capacity, MIPS,

CPR, conflicts Ecological Economics Edward Elgar Pub; Cheltenham, UK 2002 Joan Martinéz-Alier The Environmentalism of the poor

72 Life Cycle Costing LCA Environmental

Studies

EU Joint Research Center

http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/lcathinking.vm#

2011 EU LCA tools, Services and Data

73 Life Cycle Management LCA Environmental

Studies




74 Design for the

Environment

LFA Environmental

Studies




75 Environmental

valuation (EV)

EV Environmental

Economics

World Bank 2011 WB http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/ENVIRONMENT/EXTEEI/0,,contentMDK:2099876

5~menuPK:2770701~pagePK:210058~piPK:210062~theSitePK:408050,00.html

76 Environmenal

valuation

EV Environmentla

Economics

Economics and Conservation in the Tropics: A strategic

dialogue

2008 Dixon, John Environmental Valuation: Challenges and Practices: A personal view

77 Stakeholder

participation

participatory process Environmental

studies

Biological Conservation 2008 Mark S. Reed Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review


analysis in NRM

Handbook/overview Sustainability and

environmental

economics

Book 2006 Herath & Prato Using multi-criteria decision analysis in natural resource management

79 Spatial

technology/planning

BUGIS (bottom-up GIS) Environmental

planning

Journal of the American Planning Association 2007 Emily Talen Bottom-Up GIS

80 Participatory modelling Participatory modelling (front- and back-end, co-

construction, Front-End, Back-End)

Environmental policy Environmental Policy and Governance 2011 Matt Hare Forms of Participatory Modelling and its Potential for Widespread Adoption in the Water Sector

81 Markov decision

processes

partially observed Markov decision process (POMDP) Environmental

Studies

Ecological Modelling 2005 Ben White An economic analysis of ecological monitoring

82 Social psychology Value-belief-norm theory Environmental

studies

Human Ecology Review 1999 Paul C. Stern A Value-Belief-Norm Theory of Support for Social Movements: The Case of Environmentalism

83 Integrated Coastal

Zone Management

ICZM framework Coastal management EU 2002 EU Integrated Coastal Zone Management

84 MSFD/GES Risk assessment for achieving Good Environmental Status Environmental

studies

Marine Polcy 2012 Breen et al. An environmental assessment of risk in achieving good environmental status to support regional

prioritisation of management in Europe

85 Maps Flood hazard assessment Coastal studies Ocean & Coastal Management 2012 Carrasco et al. Flood hazard assessment and management of fetch-limited coastal environments

86 Gender perspective participartory, critical thinking Gender studies WB 2009 WB Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook: Module 10 Gender in Natuaral Resource Mangement

87 Participation Learning about communication for participation Communication Environmental Communcation 2010 Westberg, L.; Hallgren, L; Setterwall,

A.

Communicative skills of development of Administrtors: a necessary step for implementing participatory

policies in NRM

88 Community based

NRM

Participatory . Environmental

Conservation

Environmenal Conservation 2010 Brunkhorst, D. Using context in novel CBNRM: landscapes of property, policy and place

89 Stakeholder analysis participation Environmental

management

Journal of Environmental Management 2009 Reed, M.; Graves, A. et al. Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for NRM

90 game-theory Functional design of games to support NRM Environmental

studies

Simulation & Gaming 2007 Bots & Van Daalen Functional design of games to support natural resource management policy development

91 Zoning Classification levels of MBAs Marine Policy Marine Policy 2012 Dalal Al-Abdulrazzak,

StephenC.Trombulak

Classifying levelsofprotectioninMarineProtectedAreas

92 ICZM Combining ICZM with Earth system governance Marine Policy Marine Policy 2011 Maria Falaleeva, Cathal O’Mahony,

Stefan Gray, Margaret Desmond, et

al

Towards climateadaptationandcoastalgovernanceinIreland:Integrated

architectureforeffectivemanagement?

93 Classification of

estuary restoration

areas

A methodology for the classification of estuary

restoration areas

Environmental

studies

Ocean & Coastal Management 2012 Jimenez et al. A methodology for the classification of estuary restoration areas: a management tool

94 Stakeholder analysis framework for partnership evaluation Marine policy Marine Policy 2012 Kelly et al. Reflective practice for marine planning : A case study of marine nature-based tourism partnerships

95 Spatial planning Multi-Objective Programming and System Dynamic) Ocean & coastal

management

Ocean & Coastal Management 2012 Ko & Chang An integrated spatial planning model for climate change adaptation in coastal zones

96 Participatory

communication/modell

ing

Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping (FCM) Ocean & coastal

management

Ocean & Coastal Management 2012 Kontogianni et al. Risks for the Black Sea marine environment as perceived by Ukrainian stakeholders: A fuzzy cognitive

mapping application

97 GIS Assessment framework using GIS Ocean & coastal

management

Ocean & Coastal Management 2012 Lichter & Felsenstein Assessing the costs of sea-level rise and extreme flooding at the local level: A GIS-based approach

98 Decision-making

framework

CONSCIENCE framework Ocean & coastal

management

Ocean & Coastal Management 2011 Marchand et al. Concepts and science for coastal erosion management e An introduction to the CONSCIENCE framework

99 Managed realignment managed realignment Ocean & coastal

management

Ocean & Coastal Management 2012 Morris Managed realignment: A sediment management perspective

100 Quotas auctioned seasonal quotas Marine Policy Marine Polcy 2011 Moxnes Individual transferable quotas versus auctioned seasonal quotas: Anexperimentalinvestigation

101 Decision-making

framework

Frame Of Reference Ocean & coastal

management

Ocean & Coastal Management 2011 Mulder et al. Implementation of coastal erosion management in the Netherlands

102 Ecosystem approach Convention with framework for implementation (Malawi

principles, website, sourcebook)

Environmental

Conservation

CBD Convention on Biodiversity:

http://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/sourcebook/

2004 Convention on biological diversity,

Conference of Parties no. 7

COP (Conference of Parties) 7 Decision VII/1: http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=7748 and general:

http://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/description.shtml

103 Certification MSC certification Marine Policy Marine Policy 2012 Ramirez et al. MSC certification in Argentina: Stakeholders’ perceptions and lessons learned

104 Zoning Speed Restriction Zones Marine Policy Marine Policy 2012 Steckenreuter et al. Are Speed Restriction Zones an effective management tool for minimising impacts of boats on dolphins

in an Australian marine park?

105 Protected Area

Sustainibility Index

(PASI)

A tool for site prioritisation of marine protected areas

under data poor conditions

Marine Policy Marine Policy 2012 Lydia C.L. teh.. A tool for site prioritisation of marine protected areas under data poor conditions

106 Social Impact

Assessment

Within ICZM Ocean & coastal

management

Ocean & Coastal Management 2012 Vanclay The potential application of social impact assessment in integrated coastal zone management

107 Scenarios Scenarios for coastal management Ocean & coastal

management

Ocean & Coastal Management 2012 Wortelboer & Bischof Scenarios as a tool for supporting policy-making for the Wadden Sea

108 ICZM Progress Indicator Ocean & coastal

management

Ocean & Coastal Management 2012 Areizaga et al. A methodological approach to evaluate progress and public participation in ICZM: The case of the

Cantabria Region, Spain

109 Framework for

livelihood, rights and

equity

framework Ocean & coastal

management

Ocean & Coastal Management 2012 Capistrano R.G.C., Charles, A. Indigenous rights and coastal fisheries: A framework of livelihoods, rights and equity

110 IDeASyCoM Modeling for coastal management Ocean & coastal

management

Ocean & Coastal Management 2012 Dore et al. Toward a qualified process for coastal models: Integrated Development of Applied Systems for Coastal

Management (IDeASyCoM)

111 Remote sensing Combined with social sciences Ocean & coastal

management

Ocean & Coastal Management 2012 Teka et al. Process analysis in the coastal zone of Bénin through remote sensing and socio-economic surveys

112 Social Impact

Assessment

Frameworks and methods for assessing social impacts of

specific measures (e.g. Marine protected areas)

Marine Policy Ocean & Coastal Management 2012 Voyer et al. Methods of social assessment in Marine Protected Area planning: Is public participation enough?

113 Payment for ecosystem

services

PES Environmental

Studies

FAO: http://www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2100e/i2100e.pdf FAO Payments for ecosystem services and food security

114 Precautionary principle In case of uncertainty about effects or danger that an

effect may be irreversible refraining from action

Environmental

management

EU:

http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/consu

mer_safety/l32042_en.htm

EU The precautionary principle

115 Safe Minimum

Standard

Minimum standards to be keptin order to avoid damage Environmental

management

FAO:

http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/lead/tool

box/Indust/PSafeMin.htm

FAO Safe Minimum Standards

116 ASSURE environmental sustainability index model Environmental

studies

Proceedings of the 14th IPHS Conference, July 12-15 2010,

Istanbul, Turkey

2010 Dizdaroglu, Didem and Yigitcanlar,

Tan and Dawes, Les

Assessing the sustainability of urban ecosystems : an innovative approach

117 Urban Harvest

Approach UHA

Framework for analysis Urban planning Journal of Industrial Ecology 2012 Agudelo-Vera, Mels, Keesman,

Rijnaarts

The Urban Harvest Approach as an Aid for Sustainable Urban Resource Planning

118 Evaluation of Marine

Protected Areas using

Social and Natural

Handbook on evaluation (design of evaluation process,

proposals for indicators: biophysical, socio-economic, and

governance)

Conservation

management

IUCN, Gland: http://www.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/PAPS-

012.pdf

2004 Pomeroy, Robert S; Parks, John E.;

Watson, Lani M.

How is your MPA doing: A Guidebook of Natural and Social Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected

Area Management Effectiveness

119 Marine Spatial

Planning

Handbook on developing spatial planning for marine

areas with an Ecosystem Based Management perspective

(spatial management, adaptive cyclical perspective,

Marine Spatial

Planning

IOC, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission:

http://www.unesco-ioc-

marinesp.be/goto.php?id=ac1dd209cbcc5e5d1c6e28598e8

2009 Ehler, C., Douvere, F; edited by Dahl,

R.

Marine Spatial Planning: A Step-By-Step Approach toward Ecosystem-based Management

120 Evaluation of

Integrated Coastal and

Ocean Management

Handbook on evaluation - measuring progress and

outcomes (design of evaluation process, proposals for

indicators: biophysical, socio-economic, and governance)

Coastal management IOC, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission:

http://www.unesco-ioc-

2006 Belfiore, S., Barbière, J., Bowen, J,

Cicin-Sain, B., Ehler, C., Mageau, C.,

McDougall, D., Siron, R.

A Handbook for measuring the progress and outcomes of Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management

121 Open Standards for

Conservation

Standards, software, facilitation process, and network of

practicioners to develop working programmes for

conservation

Conservation

management

CMP Conservation Measures Partnership:

http://www.conservationmeasures.org/initiatives/standard

s-for-project-management (software MIRADI)

2007 Conservaton Measures Partnership Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation, Version 2.0.

122 Discount rates Instrument to value far off future more in relation to the

present (as future utilities and profits are usually valued

less in relation to present ones)

Environmental

economics

http://www2.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/publications/rese

arch-articles/docs/discount-rates-climate-change-policy.pdf

2006 Cameron Hepburn Valuing the Far-Off Future: Discounting and its Alternatives

123 Collaborative planning Multiple methods to engage people for local

development processes, practical handbook

Urban Planning Earthscan, London 2000

(new

forthco

Wates, N. The Community Planning Handbook: How people can shape their cities, towns and villages in any part of

the world

124 Collaborative planning Multiple methods to engage people for local

development processe, practical handbook

Urban Planning Earthscan, London 2008 Wates, N. The Community Planning Event Manual: How to use Collaborative Planning and Urban Design Events to

Improve Your Environment

125 Consensus building Urban and spatial planning in collaboration between

governmental and other actors

Urban Planning Journal of the American Planning Association, 65:4, 412 -

423

1999 Innes, Judith E. and Booher, David E. Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems

126 Adaptive co-

management

Theory, experiences and overall principles to analyse and

discuss co-management arrangements of natural

resources.

Natural resource

management

UBC Press, Vancouver, Toronto 2007 Armitage, D., Berkes, F. &

Doubleday, N. (eds.)

Adaptive Co-Management: Collaboration, Learning, and Multi-Level Governance.

128 Coastal erosion

management

Coastal erosion management based on scientific analysis

and procedure to develop action plan

Coastal erosion

management

Deltares, Delft 2010 M. Marchand (ed.) Concepts and Science for Coastal Erosion Management. Concise report for policy makers.

129 DPSIR framework DPSIR-based analytical framework to collect and

structure data relevant for the implementation of the

EU's Marine Strategy Framework Directive

Marine

Environmental

Management

Report by the Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment

2012:5. Gothenburg. ISBN: 978-91-637-1164-0

2012 Sundblad, E.L., Gipperth, L.,

Grimvall, A., Morf, A.

Social analysis: A marine societal analysis. A report prepared for Sweden’s initial assessment as required

by the Marine Environmental Ordinance (SFS 2010:1341).

130 Multi Criteria Analysis Manual how to use MCA for analysis and decision making

in local develpment processes

Rural Development Department for Communities and Local Government,

London, UK. ISBN: 978-1-4098-1023-0

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads

2009 Department for Communities and

Local Government (DCLG)

Multicriteria Analysis: A Manual.

131 Embedded Case

Studies

Multiple methods to conduct case studies in

environmental research and management

Research

methodology for

case studies

Sage, London 2002 Scholz, R. Tjetje, O. Embedded Case Study Methods

132 Co-operative Inquiry Research in collaboration with research subjects

(problem owners) - methods and reflections (method

handbook for social scientists).

Research

methodology

Sage, London 1996 Heron, J. Co-operative Inquiry: Research into the Human Condition

133 IMA Integrated

Methodological

Approach

Combining CBA, MCA with modeling and participatory

process

Process

methodology

Land Use Policy 23 (2006) 63-75 2006 Messner, O., Zwirner,O.,

Karkuschke, M.

Participation in Multicriteria Decision Support: the Case of conflicting Water Allocation in the Spree River

Basin

134 Collaborative planning Urban and spatial planning in collaboration between

governmental and other actors

Planning Macmillian Press. London. 1997 Healey, P. Collaborative Planning. Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies.

135 BaltSeaPlan Web and

Boundary GIS

Interactive web-based GIS tool to exchange information

and collect stakeholders' knowledge and views on marine

uses.

Marine Spatial

Planning

Estonian Marine Institute, University of Tartu, Estonia,

BaltSeaPlan Report 28, see www.baltseaplan.eu

2012 Fetissov ,M, Aps, R., Kopti, M. BaltSeaPlan Web - advanced tool in support of Maritime Spatial Planning

136 Quotas Dividing of resource Fisheries

management

OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 22, OECD

Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/218520326143

2009 Cox, A. Quota Allocation in International Fisheries

137 Special Area

Management Plan

Comprehensive marine/coastal plan with special

perspective on ecosystem restoration including process,

implementation and evaluation. Illustrative example,

Marine Spatial

Planning, ICZM

University of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Center/Rhode

Island Sea Grant College Program, Narragansett, R.I

2013 McCann, J. and S. Schumann, with G.

Fugate, S. Kennedy, and C. Young.

The Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan: Managing Ocean Resources Through Coastal

and Marine Spatial Planning.

138 Marine Protected Area

Evaluation

Comprehensive handbook on how to evaluate marine

protected areas

Conservation

management

IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 2004 Pomeroy, R.S., Parks, J.E. and

Watson, L.M.

How is your MPA doing? A Guidebook of Natural and Social Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected

Area Management Effectiveness.

139 ICZM Describing main principles and mechanisms to raise the

understanding of ICZM including its potential as a way to

achieve multiple goals and objectives in the coastal zone.

Coastal management Hebrew University, Jerusalem 2011 Portman, M. E., and Fishhendler, I. Towards Integrated Coastal_Zone Management: A Toolkit for Practitioners.

140 Participation methods Interactive resource website with methods and materials

on participation and empowerment in connection with

rural development, but easily applicable to other areas

Rural development,

participaiton

www.fao.org/participation Ongoing Food and Agricultural Organisation

(FAO)

Participation - resources and methods

141 Evaluation of multiple

conflict management

methods

Evaluation of seven deliberative and analytical methods

for environmental conflict resolution (scientific article)

Evaluation of seven

deliberative and

analytical methods

Land Use Policy 23 (2006) 108-122 2006 Rauschmayer, F., Wittmer, H. Evaluating deliberative and analytical methods for the resolution of environmental conflicts

142 Dispute resolution Dispute resolution in a collaborative manner. Conflict resolution Conflict Resolution Quarterly. Vol.26(2):239-256 2008 Witkin, Nathan Co-resolution: A cooperative Structure for Dispute Resolution

143 Research supported

participatory planning

Research-supported participatory planning for water

stress mitigation

Environmental

planning

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management.

Vol.54(2):283-300.

2011 Ribarova, Irina, Dionysis

Assimacopoulos, Paul Jeffrey,

Katherine A. Daniell, David Inman,

Research-supported participatory planning for water stress mitigation

144 Internet-based

participatory planning

Participatory planning using computer application for

Internet based decision-support

Environmental

planning

Forest Policy and Economics Vol.11: 1–9 2009 Hiltunen, Veikko, Mikko Kurttila,

Pekka Leskinen, Karri Pasanen, Jouni

Pykäläinen

Mesta: An internet-based decision-support application for participatory strategic-level natural resources

planning

145 Collaborative planning Collaborative approach including methods for analysis

and evaluation

Forestry Land Use Policy. Vol. 29(2):309–316 2012 Raitio, Kaisa New institutional approach to collaborative forest planning on public land: Methods for analysis and

lessons for policy.

146 Governance of multi-

level social-ecological

systems

Governance of multi-level social-ecological systems Environmental

studies

Annual Review of Environment and Resources. Vol.

34:253–78.

2009 Brondizio, Eduardo S., Elinor

Ostrom, and Oran R. Young

Connectivity and the Governance of Multilevel Social-Ecological Systems: The Role of Social Capital.

147 Interactive Conflict

Resolution

Interactive, interest-based, resource-based and identity-

based bargainig

Conflict resolution Journal of Peace Research. Vol.38(3):289-305 2001 Rothman, Jay and Marie L. Olson From Interests to Identities: Towards a New Emphasis in Interactive Conflict Resolution.

148 Social learning

approach

Reaching beyond mere public participation, co-creationof

knowledge, mutual learning

Environmental policy Environmental Policy and Governance 2009 Collins, Kevin and Ray Ison Jumping off Arnstein's Ladder: Social learning as a New policy Paradigm for Climate Change Adaptation.

149 Strategic choice

approach

Process design and toolbox including software and

network of practicioners working with this strategic

planning approach with roots in urban management and

Planning 3rd edition, Elsevier, Burlington MA 2005 Friend, John and Allen Hickling Planning Under Pressure. The Strategic Choice Approach.

150 DPSIR Critical discussion of DPSIR Natural resource

management

Land Use Policy. Vol.25(1):116-125 2008 Svarstad, Hanne, Lars Kjerulf

Petersen, Dale Rothman, Henk

Siepel, Frank Wätzold

Discursive biases of the environmental research framework DPSIR

151 DPSIR Assessment of different studies using DPSIR Natural resource

management

Land Use Policy. Vol.29(1):102–110 2012 Tscherning, Karen, Katharina

Helming, Bernd Krippner, Stefan

Sieber, Sergio Gomez y Paloma.

Does research applying the DPSIR framework support decision making?

152 Conflict management Conflict management that helps students understand the

nature of conflict and learn the skills that will enable

them to deal with conflicts. The book is divided into two

Targeted audience:

students. Could be

beneficial for

Central European University Press 2004 Shapiro, D., Pilsitz, L., Shapiro, S. Conflict and Communication: A Guide through the Labyrinth of Conflict Management

153 Conflict management Consists three parts. Part I focuses on strategies for

educating others about managing conflict and learning

from those who exemplify and facilitate peaceful

Social Sciences and

education

Kindle 2003 William J. Pammer Jr., Jerri Killian Handbook of Conflict Management

154 Conflict resolution offers a collection of works that discuss the theories and

practices of conflict resolution from a social psychological

perspective, focusing on interpersonal and intergroup

Social Sciences Wiley & Sons 2006 Deutsch, Morton, Peter T. Coleman,

Eric C. Marcus (eds.)

The Handbook of Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice

155 Conflict Resolution Demonstrates the range of themes that constitute

modern conflict resolution. It brings out its key issues,

methods and dilemmas through original contributions by

Social

Sciences/Political

Science

Sage, London 2009 Bercovitch, Jacob, Victor

Kremenyuk,I., William Zartman

The SAGE Handbook of Conflict Resolution

156 Environmental

Communication

Informing the public is now a critical part of the job of the

environmental professionals. Environmental

Communication demonstrates, step by step, how it is

Environmental

studies/Communicat

ion

Springer 2010 Jurin , Richard R., Donny Roush, K.

Jeffrey Danter,

Environmental Communication. Skills and Principles for Natural Resource Managers, Scientists, and

Engineers.

157 Environmental

Conflicts/Conflict

resolution

Discusses the mediation of environmental disputes in the

U.S. Role of the US Institute for Environmental Conflict

Resolution; Forum which is provided where people can

Environmental

studies/Conflict

resolution

BioScience. Vol. 52(5):400 2002 Cohn, Jeffrey P. Environmental Conflict Resolution.

158 Cooperative decision

making/Consensus

building

Consensus building: dynamic process that has been

employed in reaching environmental decisions. Here, a

neutral facilitator establishes communication among

Environmental

studies/Conflict

resolution

Environ. Sci. Technol. Vol.15 (2):150-155 1981 Busterud, John. Environmental conflict resolution

159 Dispute Resolution Methods of dispute resolution, public participation, and

evaluation of dispute resolution methods

Political Science Resources for the Future Press 2003 O'Leary, Rosemary, Bingham, Lisa The promise and performance of environmental conflict resolution

160 Environmental conflict

resolution; Instrument

choice in decision

environmental conflicts are characterised by the

combination of two types of complexities, ecological and

societal. Decisions to resolve these conflicts have often

Environmental

conflict resolution

Land Use Policy. Vol.23(1):1-9 2006 Wittmer, Heidi, Felix Rauschmayer,

Bernd Klauer

How to select instruments for the resolution of environmental conflicts?

161 Environmental conflicts Alternative approaches instead of traditional dispute

resolution procedures

Environmental Law Edward Elgar Pub; Cheltenham, UK 2008 Christie, Edward Finding solutions for environmental conflicts. Power and negotiation (New Horizons in Environmental

Law)

162 Planning Hierarchy Hierarchy of priorities and embedding of plans across

levels to achieve better integration across levels of

planning and administration

Planning Planning Practice & Research 17(2): 175- 196 2002 Allmendinger, P., A. Barker and S.

Stead

Delivering integrated coastal-zone management through land-use planning

163 Consistency/concurren

cy review

Evaluation/ review of consistency and concurrency of

policies and decisions across sectors and levels

Coastal management Journal of Coastal Conservation 11(12): 121- 131 2007 Portman, M.E. Coastal Protected Area Management and Multi-tiered Governance: The Cape Cod Model

164 Capacity building Education and training of individual professionals and

whole governance systems

Coastal management Ocean & Coastal Management 53(3): 89-98 2010 Garriga, M. and I.J. Losada Education and training for integrated coastal zonemanagement in Europe.

165 Public Participation Participatory process Coastal management Ocean & Coastal Management 47(9-10): 495-513 2004 Anker, H.T., V. Nellemann and S.

Sverdrup-Jensen

Coastal zone management in Denmark: ways and means for further integration

166 Setback lines Spatial planning and management tool defining

boundaries for certain activities in relation to coast line -

often used in relation to coastal hazards or keeping

Coastal management Coastal Management 27: 187-217 1999 Bernd-Cohen, T. and M. Gordon State coastal program effectiveness in

protecting natural beaches, dunes, bluffs, and rocky shores.

167 Statutory Management

Task Force

Management task force with legal mandate to make

decisions - e.g. in relation to integrative and sustainable

coastal environmental management

Environmental

management

Ocean & Coastal Management 48(11-12): 996-1015 2005 Enemark, J. The Wadden Sea protection and management scheme--towards an integrated coastal management

approach?

Annex 3: Handbooks Web Resources

No. Author Title Field Description Methodological details Year SECOA type Source reference

4 Belfiore, S. et al. A Handbook for

Measuring Progress and

Outcomes of Integrated

Coastal and Ocean

Coastal and

Ocean Planning

and

management

Handbook Focus on evaluation - an

under valued process

aspect! Including overview

over overall planning

2006 NRM, CM,

CZM, II

IOC Manuals and guices 46, ICAM

Dossier 2, Paris, Unesco

130 Department for

Communities and

Local Government

(DCLG)

Multi Criteria Analysis: A

Manual

Local

development,

community

planning

Handbook An introduction and

manual to MCA

2009 NRM, II Department for Communities and

Local Government, London, UK.

ISBN: 978-1-4098-1023-0,

https://www.gov.uk/government/u3 Ehler, C, Douvere,

F.

Marine Spatial Planning: A

Step-by-Step-Approach

towards Ecosystem-based

Marine Spatial

Planning

Handbook Overall-planning process

including process structure

and examples. Works for

2009 NRM, CM,

CZM, II

Intergovernmental Oceanographic

Commission and Man and the

Biosphere Programme, IOC Manual 140 Food and

Agricultural

Organisation (FAO)

Interactive resource

website with methods and

materials on participation

and empowerment in

connection with rural

Rural

development,

participaiton

Web

resources

Interactive website with

methods on participation,

user community

Ongoing NRM, CM,

CZM, II

www.fao.org/participation

5 Holman, P.,

Devane, T., Cady,

S.

The Change Handbook:

The Definitive Resource on

Today's Best Methods for

Engaging Whole Systems

Process

facilitation,

group pedagogy

Handbook Multiple methods to

engage groups and

organisations of various

sizes, for those with more

advanced skills in

2006 CM, II Berett-Koehler Publisers, San

Francisco

515 Jurin , Richard R.,

Donny Roush, K.

Jeffrey Danter

Environmental

Communication. Skills and

Principles for Natural

Environmental

communication

Handbook Communication/participati

on

2010 NRM, CM, II Springer

137 McCann, J. and S.

Schumann, with G.

Fugate, S.

Kennedy, and C.

Young.

The Rhode Island Ocean

Special Area Management

Plan: Managing Ocean

Resources Through Coastal

and Marine Spatial

Marine Spatial

Planning, ICZM

with focus on

how to establish

a Special Area

Handbook Comprehensive

marine/coastal plan with

special perspective on

ecosystem restoration

including process,

2013 NRM, CM,

CZM, II

University of Rhode Island Coastal

Resources Center/Rhode Island Sea

Grant College Program,

Narragansett, R.I

121 Open Standards

for Conservation

Open Standards for the

Practice of Conservation,

Version 2.0.

Conservation

management

Handbook &

web

resources

Standards, software,

facilitation process, and

network of practicioners to

develop working

2007 NRM, CM,

CZM, II

CMP Conservation Measures

Partnership:

http://www.conservationmeasures.

org/initiatives/standards-for-project-

Authors: Andrea Morf (further research: Serin Alpokay, Tom Buurman, Julia Wernersson)

138 Pomeroy, R.S.,

Parks, J.E. and

Watson, L.M.

(2004).

How is your MPA doing? A

Guidebook of Natural and

Social Indicators for

Evaluating Marine

Conservation

management

Handbook Comprehensive handbook

on how to evaluate marine

protected areas

2004 NRM, CM,

CZM, II

IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and

Cambridge, UK.

131 Scholz, R., Tietje,

O.

Embedded Case Study

Methods

Environmental

studies, research

and


conduct case studies in

environmental research

2002 NRM, II Sage, London

152 Shapiro, D., Pilsitz,

L., Shapiro, S.

Conflict and

Communication: A Guide

through the Labyrinth of

Conflict Management

Conflict

Management

Handbook Helps understanding the

nature of conflict and learn

the skills to enable dealing

with conflicts. Includes

practical activities helping

understand how personal

values are formed, how

misperceptions and

misunderstandings arise

and affect relationships,

2004 CM Central European University Press

1 Shiferaw, B., and

Freeman H.A.

(eds.)

Methods for assessing the

impacts of natural

resource management

research. A summary of

Agricultural

Studies

Overview summary of the

proceedings of an

International Workshop

2003 NRM

123 Wates, N. The Community Planning

Handbook: How people

can shape their cities,

towns and villages in any

Urban Planning,

participation


engage people for local

development processes.

Works for beginners. Many

2000

(new ed

forthc.)

NRM, CM, II Earthscan, London

124 Wates, N. The Community Planning

Event Manual: How to use

Collaborative Planning and

Urban Design Events to

Urban Planning,

participation


engage people for local

development processes.

Works for beginners. Many

2008 NRM, CM, II Earthscan, London

80

References

Adelle, C., Pallemaerts, M. 2009. Sustainable Development Indicators: An Overview of relevant Framework Programme funded research and identification of further needs in view of EU and international activities. European Communities.

Antunes, P, Kallis, G., Videira, N., Santos, R.. 2009. “Participation and Evaluation for Sustainable River Basin Governance.” Ecological Economics. Vol.68:931-939.

Blackmore, C., 2007. What kinds of knowledge, knowing and learning are required for addressing resource dilemmas? A theoretical overview. Environmental Science & Policy, 10, 512-525.

Bloomfield, D. 1997. Peacemaking Strategies in Northern Ireland: Building Complementarity in Conflict Management Theory. Macmillian. London.

Bringezu, S., Moriguchi, Y. 2002. “Material Flow Analysis.” A handbook of Industrial Ecology. Ayres and Ayres (eds.) Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Cheltenham, U.K.

Brondizio, E. S., Ostrom, E., Young, O.R. 2009. “Connectivity and the Governance of Multilevel Social-Ecological Systems: The Role of Social Capital.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources. Vol. 34:253–78.

Bruckmeier K., Höj Larsen, C. 2008. Swedish coastal fisheries — From conflict mitigation to participatory management. Marine Policy 32 (2008) 201–211

Bruckmeier, K. (ed.), Böhler T., Morf A., and Stepanova O. 2011. National Report Sweden: Identification of resource conflicts in the coastal areas of Gothenburg and Malmö. Report identifying conflicts in both urban regions that are interesting to analyse in-depth. SECOA internal deliverable no. N 4.2. University of Gothenburg, School of Global Studies, Gothenburg.

Bruckmeier, K.. 2005. Interdisciplinary Conflict Analysis and Conflict Mitigation in Local Resource Management. AMBIO 34 (2), pp. 65-73.

Cadoret, A. 2009. “Conflict dynamics in coastal zones: a perspective using the example of Languedoc-Roussillon (France).” Journal of Coastal Conservation. Vol.13:151–163.

Cicin-Sain, B. 1992. Multiple use conflicts and their resolution: Toward a comprehensive research agenda. In Fabbri, P. (ed.) 1992. Ocean Management in Global Change. Elsevier Applied Science. New York, pp. 280-307

Cicin-Sain, B., and R. W. Knecht. 1998. Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management: Concepts and Practices. Washington, Covelo. Island Press.

CMP (The Conservation Measure Partnership). 2007. Open Standards for the Practice of Cocervation Version 2.0. October 2007. The Conservation Measure Partnership.

Conflict Sensitivity Consortium. Undated. “Conflict-sensitive approaches to development, humanitarian assistance and peace building: tools for peace and conflict impact assessment.” (http://www.conflictsensitivity.org/sites/default/files/Conflict-Sensitive%20Approaches%20to%20Development,%20Humanitarian%20Assistance%20and%20Peacebuilding%20Resource%20Pack.pdf).

Costanza, R. , Sklar, F. H., & White, M. L., (1990). Modeling Coastal Landscape Dynamics. BioScience, 40 (2), pp. 91-107.

81

Cumming, G. S.. 2011. Spatial resilience: integrating landscape ecology, resilience, and sustainability. Landscape Ecology, 10-1007/s10980-011-9623-1.

Degnbol, P.; McCay, B.J. 2007. Unintended and perverse consequences of ignoring linkages in fisheries systems ICES J. Mar. Sci./J. Cons. int. Explor. Mer 64(4): 793-797.

Dessel, A. and M.E. Rogge. 2008. “Evaluation of Intergroup Dialogue: A Review of the Empirical Literature.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly. Vol.26(2):199-238.¨

Esteves, L.S., Foord, J., Draux, H. 2012. Report on the workshop with stakeholders in Portsmouth. Secoa internal deliverable: UK contributions to WP 7, tasks 7.2. and 7.3. WP 7 UK Report stakeholder event – Portsmouth. London Metropolitan University. London

Fischhendlers, I., Karasin, O., Rubin, Z. 2011. Handbook for Institutional Responses to Coastal Hazards. SECOA report D 1.2, University of Jerusalem.

Fisher, Ronald J. 1983. “Third Party Consultation as a Method of Intergroup Conflict Resolution. A review of Studies.” Journal of Conflict Resolution. Vol. 27(2):301-334.

Friend, J., Hickling, A. 2005. Planning Under Pressure: The Strategic Choice Approach. 3rd edition, Elsevier, Burlington MA.

Galtung, J. 2000. “Conflict Transformation by Peaceful Means (Transcend Method).” United Nations.

Gleditsch, Nils Petter. 1998. “Armed Conflict and The Environment: A Critique of the Literature.” Journal of Peace Research. Vol.35(3):381-400.

Gobster, P. H., Nassauer, J. I., Daniel, T. C., & Fry, G., (2007). The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology, 22, pp. 959-972.

Gruber, J.S., 2010. Key principles of community-based natural resource management: a synthesis and interpretation of identified effective approaches for managing the commons. Environ. Manage. 45 (1), 52-66.

Hiltunen, V., Kurttila, M., Leskinen, P., Pasanen, K, Pykäläinen, J. 2009. “Mesta: An internet-based decision-support application for participatory strategic-level natural resources planning.” Forest Policy and Economics Vol.11: 1–9.

Homer-Dixon, T. F. 1999. Environment, Scarcity and Violence. Princeton University Press. U.K.

Hornborg, A. 2009. “Zero-Sum World Challenges in Conceptualizing Environmental Load Displacement and Ecologically Unequal Exchange in the World-System.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology. Vol. 50(3–4): 237–262.

Instituto de Geografia e Ordenamento do Território (IGOT). 2012. N 8.1 Scenario Building Baseline Report. University of Lisbon, Lisbon.

Jansson, U., Kautsky, U., & Miliander, S., (2006). Rural Landscape, Production and Human Consumption: Past, Present , Future. Ambio, 35, (8), pp. 505-512.

Kale, Vishwas. 2011. SECOA deliverable D 1.1 Flood Hazard Zoning Mapping: Summarising Report, University of Pune.

Khan, Ahmed, Torsten Wiedemann, Quynh Xuan Le, Eric Corijn, Frank Canters. 2011. “Synoptic Report on conflicts of Uses at Coastal Urban Areas.” For Project SECOA.

82

Knutsson, P., Alpokay, S.. 2013. Transfer Report: Institutional innovation and cooperation in urban resource management. SECOA Report D 7.3. School of Global Studies, University of Gothenburg.

Lujala P., N.P. Gleditsch, E. Gilmore. 2005. “A Diamond Curse? Civil War and a Lootable Resource.” Journal of Conflict Resolution. Vol.49(4):538-562.

Martinez-Alier, J., Kallis, G., Veuthey, S., Walter, M., Temper, L. 2010. “Social Metabolism, Ecological Distribution Conflicts, and Valuation Languages”. Ecological Economics Vol 70:153-158.

Martinez-Alier, J. 2009. “Social Metabolism, Ecological Distribution Conflicts, and Languages of Valuation.” Capitalism, Nature, Socialism. Vol.20(1):58-87.

Mason, S. A., Muller, A.. 2007, “Transforming Environmental and Natural Resource Use Conflicts.” The Economics of Global Environmental Change. Mario Cogoy and Karl W. Steininger (eds.). Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA. p.225.

Mason, S. A., Muller, A.. 2007. “Market-related conflict, market-based policy approaches Analyzing economic market interactions as conflicts: New concepts to assess market-based policy instruments.” Ecological Economics. Vol. 61:81- 90.

McCay, B., Jentoft, S., 1998. Market or Community Failure? Critical perspectives on Common Property research. Hum. Organ. 57 (1), 21-29.

McCay, Bonnie J. 2002. “Emergence of Institutions for the Commons: Contexts, Situations, and Events.” in The Drama of The Common. E. Ostrom et.al. (eds.). National Academy Press. U.S. p.361-402.

Morf, A. 2005. Public Participation in Municipal Planning: a Tool for Coastal Management: Case Studies from Western Sweden. AMBIO 34 (2), pp. 74-83.

Morf, A. 2006. Participation and Planning in the Management of Coastal Resource Conflicts: Case Studies in West Swedish Municipalities. Ph.D. Dissertation. Göteborg University, School of Global Studies, Human Ecology Section, Göteborg. ISBN 91-975290-3-6. 362 p.

Morf, A., Almered Olsson, G., and Näsström, R (maps). 2012a. Maps of sustainable coastal resource use in relation to a vulnerability analysis with regard to natural values and climate change. SECOA internal deliverable no. 2.3. University of Gothenburg, School of Global Studies, Gothenburg.

Morf, A., and Almered Olsson, G. (ed.). 2011b. Assessment of natural resources use for sustainable development (DPSIR analysis) - The coastal wetlands in the municipalities Kungälv (Gothenburg peri-urban area) and Vellinge (Malmö peri-urban area) in relation to climate change. SECOA internal deliverable no. N 2.3. University of Gothenburg, School of Global Studies, Gothenburg.

Morf, A., Bruckmeier, K., Knutsson, P., and Ekberg, R (maps). 2012. Maps of Land Use Conflicts for Different Scenarios: Scenario-Analysis Land Use Conflicts Regarding Climate-Change, Development & Conservation on the Falsterbo Peninsula in Vellinge Municipality. SECOA internal deliverable N 4.3. University of Gothenburg, School of Global Studies, Gothenburg.

83

Morf, A., Bruckmeier, K., Knutsson, P., and Ekberg, R (maps). 2012b. Maps of Land Use Conflicts for Different Scenarios: Scenario-Analysis Land Use Conflicts Regarding Climate-Change, Development & Conservation on the Falsterbo Peninsula in Vellinge Municipality. SECOA internal deliverable no. N 4.3. University of Gothenburg, School of Global Studies, Gothenburg.

Morf. A. 2008. Evaluating an established approach for the management of coastal resource conflicts: case studies of public participation in Swedish municipal planning. Chapter 9 in: Krishnamoorthy R., Glavovic, B.C., Zencul, H., Tinti, S., Ramanathan, AL., Green, D., Kannen, A., Agardy, T.S. (eds.) Integrated Coastal Zone Management: The Global Challenge. Research Publishing Services, Chennai, India. ISBN: 978-981-05-8948-6, pp. 181-205.

Nelson, D. R., Adger, W.N and Brown K., 2007. Adaptation to Environmental change: contributions of a resilience framework. The Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 32:395-419

Ohlsson, L., 1999. Environment, scarcity and conflict – a study of Malthusian concerns. Doctoral thesis. Dept. of Peace and Development Research, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.

Ohlsson, L., 2000. Livelihood conflicts: linking poverty and environment as causes of conflict. Environmental Policy Unit, Sida, Stockholm, Sweden. Available at: http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/david.harvey/AEF806/OhlssonLivelihoods.pdf; last accessed: 2013-01-05.

Ostrom, E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325 (5939), pp. 419-422.

Ostrom, E. 2010. “Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems.” American Economic Review. Vol. 100:1-33.

Plummer, R., Armitage, D. 2007. “A resilience-based framework for evaluating adaptive co-management: Linking ecology, economics and society in a complex world.” Ecological Economics. Vol.61(1):62–74.

Plummer, R., 2009. The adaptive co-management process: an initial synthesis of representative models and influential variables. Ecology and Society 14(2): 24

Portman, M. E., and Fishhendler, I. 2011. Towards Integrated CoastalZone Management: A Toolkit for Practitioners. Hebrew University: Jerusalem

Portman, M.E., Esteves, L.S., Quynh, L.X. and Mahsud, A.Z.K. 2012. Progress in ICZM: A Handbook for Scholars and Practitioners. Hebrew University: Jerusalem

Raitio, Kaisa. 2012. “New institutional approach to collaborative forest planning on public land: Methods for analysis and lessons for policy.” Land Use Policy. Vol. 29(2):309–316.

Ramsbotham, O., Woodhouse, T., Miall, H. 2011. Contemporary Conflict Resolution. The prevention, management and transformation of deadly conflicts. Third edition. Polity Press, U.K.

Rauschmayer, F., Wittmer, H. 2006. Evaluating deliberative and analytical methods for the resolution of environmental conflicts. Land Use Policy 23; pp. 108-122.

84

Raymond, C.M., Fazey, I., Reed, M.S., Stinger, L.C., Robinson, G.M. and Evely, A.C., 2010. Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, 1766-1777.

Ribarova, Irina, Dionysis Assimacopoulos, Paul Jeffrey, Katherine A. Daniell, David Inman, Lydia S. Vamvakeridou-Lyroudia, Thomas Melin, Petar Kalinkov, Nils Ferrand,

Rice, J. 2007. “Ecological Unequal Exchange: Consumption, Equity, and Unsustainable Structural Relationships within the Global Economy.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology. Vol. 48(1): 43–72.

Rijke, J., Brown, R., Zevenbergen, C., Ashley, R., Farelly, M., Morison, P., van Herk, S. 2012. Fit-for-purpose governance: a framework to make adaptive governance operational. Environmental Science and Policy, 22, 77-84

Rittel, Horst, and Melvin Webber. 1973. Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, Vol. 4, pp. 155–169. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Inc., Amsterdam. [Reprinted in N. Cross (ed.), Developments in Design Methodology, J. Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1984, pp. 135–144.]

Rothman, Jay and Marie L. Olson. 2001. “From Interests to Identities: Towards a New Emphasis in Interactive Conflict Resolution.” Journal of Peace Research. Vol.38(3):289-305.

SECOA project. 2011. Deliverable D2.1. DPSIR framework for case studies. October 27th 2011. Project co-funded by the EU Commission within the 7th Framework Programme.

SECOA project. 2011. Deliverable D2.2. Assessment Report of Natural Resources Use. October 23rd 2011. Project co-funded by the EU Commission within the 7th Framework Programme.

Smeets, E., Weterings, R. 1999. Environmental indicators: Typology and overview. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen.

Stepanova, O. 2013, (forthcoming). Knowledge integration in the management of coastal conflicts in urban areas: Two cases from Sweden (under review in Journal of Environmental Policy & Management)

Stepanova, O. and Bruckmeier, K., 2013a. The relevance of environmental conflict research for coastal management. A review of concepts, approaches and methods with focus on Europe. Ocean and Coastal Management 75, 20-32.

Stepanova, O. and Bruckmeier, K., 2013b. Resource use conflicts and urban-rural resource use dynamics in Swedish coastal landscapes: comparison and synthesis. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, DOI:10.1080/1523908X.2013.778173

Sundblad, E.L., Gipperth, L., Grimvall, A., Morf, A.. 2012. Social analysis: A marine societal analysis. A report prepared for Sweden’s initial assessment as required by the Marine Environmental Ordinance (SFS 2010:1341). Report by the Swedish Institute for the Marine Environment 2012:5. Gothenburg. ISBN: 978-91-637-1164-0 (available online).

Tamaki, K.. 2011. “Research-supported participatory planning for water stress mitigation.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. Vol.54(2):283-300.

Treves, A., Wallace, R. B., White, S. 2009. “Participatory Planning of Interventions to Mitigate Human–Wildlife Conflicts.” Conservation Biology. Vol.23(6):1577-1587.

85

Tscherning, K., Helming, K., Krippner, B., Sieber, S., Gomez y Paloma, S. 2012. Does research applying the DPSIR framework support decision making? Land Use Policy 29: 102 – 110.

Walters, G.J. 2012. Lower Thames Crossing Case Study: A Negotiated Weighted Multi-Criteria Decision Making Approach. Stage 2 Workshop. Surrey Tourism Research Centre, University of Surrey. SECOA WP 7 report UK case study Lower Thames (November 2012).

Witkin, N.. 2008. “Co-resolution: A cooperative Structure for Dispute Resolution.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly. Vol.26(2):239-256.

Wittmer, H., Rauschmayer, F., Klauer, B.. 2006. “How to Select Instruments for the Resolution of Environmental Conflicts.” Land Use Policy. Vol.23(1):1-9.

Yasmi, Y., Schan, H., Salim, A. 2006. “Manifestation of Conflict Escalation in Natural Resource Management.” Environmental Science and Policy. Vol.9:538-546.

Zartman, I. William ed., 2007. Peacemaking in International Conflict. Methods and Techinques. Revised edition. United States Institute of Peace. Washington, U.S.

Transfer Report: Toolbox for local and urban resource management and conflict mitigation

Documents