Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
lable at ScienceDirect
Ocean & Coastal Management 102 (2014) 139e148
Contents lists avai
Ocean & Coastal Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ocecoaman
Investigating options on how to address cumulative impacts in marinespatial planning
Christina Kelly*, Lorraine Gray 1, Rachel J. Shucksmith, Jacqueline F. Tweddle 2, 3
Department of Marine Science and Technology, NAFC Marine Centre, Port Arthur, Scalloway, Shetland ZE1 0UN, UK
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 17 February 2014Received in revised form24 July 2014Accepted 19 September 2014Available online
Keywords:ShetlandMarine spatial planningCumulative impactsEcosystem approachScotland
* Corresponding author. Present address: School oCivil Engineering, Queen's University Belfast, David KeBelfast BT9 5AG, UK.
E-mail addresses: [email protected], chri(C. Kelly), [email protected] (L. Gr(J.F. Tweddle).
1 Present address: Marine Atlas Consultants Ltd, 31Montrose DD10 0RR, UK.
2 Present address: School of Biological Sciences, ZoAberdeen, Tillydrone Avenue, Aberdeen AB24 2TZ, UK
3 Present address: Marine Scotland, Marine LaboratRoad, Aberdeen AB11 9DB, UK.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.09.0190964-5691/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
a b s t r a c t
Marine spatial planning (MSP) is an important aspect of the current European, UK and Scottish envi-ronmental agenda. The European Commission's recently published draft directive to create a commonframework for MSP and integrated coastal management in EU waters and coastal areas is an indicationthat the sustainable management of marine and coastal waters is a pressing issue. The development ofthe Shetland Islands' Marine Spatial Plan (SMSP) was initiated by the Scottish Government in 2006 and isan example of a progressive regional marine spatial plan. The SMSP has successfully provided a policyframework and baseline spatial data to guide the placement of marine developments. Through policy, itprovides suggestions, proposes directions and highlights opportunity for development. A model whichmaps cumulative pressures around the Shetland Islands, based on an ecosystem-based risk assessmentand extensive knowledge of existing marine activities and uses, is the next step in identifying areas foraction and marine policy formulation. This model may be used in comparable marine plan regions withaccess to comprehensive mapped activity data and local expertise to develop their own methodologies inaddressing cumulative impacts. This research also aligns with the Marine Strategy Framework Directivewhich requires an analysis of the predominant pressures and impacts, including human activity, on theenvironmental status of marine waters which inter alia covers the main cumulative and synergeticeffects.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Marine spatial planning (MSP) is recognised as an importanttool in the sustainable management of marine ecosystems(Douvere and Ehler, 2007; Ehler, 2008; Ehler and Douvere, 2009;CEC, 2008; Schaefer and Barale, 2011; Collie et al., 2013). Untilrecently governments applied a mainly sectoral approach towardsmarine issues, but now realise that a more integrated approach is
f Planning, Architecture andir Building, Stranmillis Road,
[email protected]), [email protected]
David Street, Inverbervie, Nr
ology Building, University of.ory, PO Box 101, 375 Victoria
required to manage increasing pressures on the marine environ-ment (Olsen et al., 2011). Within the EU MSP is currently beingsteered by a number of policy drivers including the EU IntegratedMaritime Policy, Blue Growth, Water Framework Directive, MarineStrategy Framework Directive, Habitats Directive, Common Fish-eries Policy, Renewable Energy Directive and the recently proposeddirective to establish a framework for maritime spatial planningand integrated coastal management (Kelly et al., 2014).
New emerging demands onmarine space and resources, such asrenewable energy developments, highlight the potential forusereuser conflicts i.e. with fishing activities as well as user-environment conflicts. Traditionally, marine space has been pre-dominantly regulated within individual economic sectors(Douvere, 2008) such as shipping channels and aquaculture sites,and there has been little consideration of the effects of multipledevelopments on other human activities or the marine environ-ment (Ehler and Douvere, 2009). Conflicts between users and themarine environment jeopardises the ability of the ocean to providethe necessary ecosystem goods and services upon which manydepend (Ehler and Douvere, 2009).
C. Kelly et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 102 (2014) 139e148140
The impact of human activity on the environment, as well associety, has been a recurring concern over the past century. Theterm ‘sustainability’ first originated in ecological science where itwas developed to express the conditions that must be present forthe ecosystem to sustain itself over the long term (Holden et al.,2014).
The term was then formally recognised in the 1987 BrundtlandReport ‘Our Common Future’ where sustainable development wasdefined as ‘development which meets the needs of the presentwithout compromising the ability of future generations to meettheir own needs’ (World Commission on Environment andDevelopment, 1987). In the face of global environmental degrada-tion sustainable development was considered an approach thataims to balance different, and often competing, needs against anawareness of the environmental, social and economic limitationsthat society faces. Today, the concept of sustainable development isrecognised by world leaders and is included in corporate reports,the media, schools and in conversation with the general public(Farley and Smith, 2013).
In 2012 the report ‘Back to Our Common Future’ looked at de-velopments in the previous twenty years and stated that at theglobal level, the impacts of human activities on the environmenthave been increasing. Moreover, it noted that many resources onwhich humanity depends for survival are ‘witnessing trends that, ifcontinued, would lead to depletion or collapse’ (United NationsDepartment of Economic and Social Affairs, 2012). Notably thisincluded the marine environment where resources were identifiedas being under threat from overexploitation, pollution, and land-based development.
Both the economy and society are wholly reliant on the envi-ronment including our oceans to survive. The marine environmentproduces the ecosystem services on which humans depend uponincluding provisioning, regulation, culture and habitat provision.The primacy of environmental stability and quality is thereforecentral to sustainable decision-making. However as Farley andSmith explain, it is not about simply considering the environmentbut about understanding the role of the environment in the func-tioning of social and economic systems, then working to align thesound stewardship of the environment with the desired social andeconomic outcomes (Farley and Smith, 2013).
In October 2007 the European Commission (EC) adopted theCommunication on Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) for the Euro-pean Union (EU), also referred to as the ‘Blue Book’ (Commission ofthe European Communities, 2007). This acknowledged the need toact in a coordinated manner to respond to pressures from multipleusers on the marine environment. The Communication sets out thebasic structure for a governance framework and cross-sectoral toolsnecessary for an EU IntegratedMaritime Policy. Included are a set ofmain actions that the Commission will pursue and are guided bythe principles of subsidiarity and competitiveness, the ecosystemapproach, and stakeholder participation. One action includes thedevelopment of a roadmap towardsMSP byMember States (MS). Asa consequence, the Communication titled ‘Roadmap for MaritimeSpatial Planning: Achieving Common Principles in the EU’ wasadopted by the EC on 25 November 2008 and aims to facilitate thedevelopment of MSP by MS, and to stimulate its implementation ata national and EU level (Commission of the European Communities,2008). The Roadmap sets out key principles for MSP and encour-ages the development of a common approach among MS includingecosystem based management and the consideration of cumulativeeffects on the marine environment.
In 2008 the EU also adopted the Marine Strategy FrameworkDirective (MSFD) which aims to achieve or maintain good envi-ronmental status (GES) of the marine environment by 2020(European Commission, 2012). The MSFD requires MS to apply an
ecosystem approach and to ensure that pressure from human ac-tivities is compatible with GES. TheMSFD has been described as theenvironmental pillar of the Integrated Maritime Policy (TheEuropean Parliament and the Council of the European Union,2008). The MSFD will complement the EU's Water FrameworkDirective (2000/60/EC; WFD) which requires MS of the EU to ach-ieve ‘good water status’ in freshwater and coastal waters by 2015.The WFD aims to reduce pollution from land based sourcesentering the sea; improving marine conditions while also protect-ing coastal waters as well as transitional waters including estuariesand coastal lagoons. These are important spawning grounds formarine fish species and an integral link between freshwater andmarine ecosystems. The two directives therefore strive to incor-porate the principles of ‘systems ecology’ and those of the‘ecosystem approach’ (De Jonge, 2007). In both situations commonenvironmental conditions are assessed to determine the responseto total natural variation and human induced pressures and im-pacts (De Jonge et al., 2012).
There are a number of definitions for ‘ecosystem basedapproach’ and ‘ecosystem based management’, both terms appearto be interchangeable, however for this paper the definition fromthe Convention on Biological Diversity is used to explain the pro-cess as follows:
‘The ecosystem approach is a strategy for the integrated manage-ment of land, water and living resources that promotes conserva-tion and sustainable use in an equitable way. Thus, the applicationof the ecosystem approach will help to reach a balance of the threeobjectives of the Convention: conservation; sustainable use; andthe fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of theutilization of genetic resources’ (Secretariat of the Convention onBiological Diversity, 2004).
An ecosystem based approach to MSP must therefore considerthe entire ecosystem including human beings. The objective ofecosystem-based management is to maintain an ecosystem in ahealthy, productive and resilient condition, providing the goodsand services humans want and need (Ehler and Douvere, 2009). Inthis respect, ecosystem-based management differs from traditionalapproaches which focus on a single species, sector, activity orconcern. The ecosystem approach should therefore consider thecumulative impacts of different sectors on themarine environment.
The recently published EC's draft directive to create a commonframework for MSP and integrated coastal management (ICM), ifadopted, will formalise the marine plan preparation processthroughout Europe (EC, 2013). This will include the assessment ofenvironmental effects of maritime spatial plans and integratedcoastal management strategies in accordancewith the provisions ofthe Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive 2001/42/EC. In accordance with the EC, the application of SEA is expected toensure a holistic consideration of the impacts, including cumulativeones, from the various human activities at an early stage andtherefore facilitate the implementation of future projects(European Commission, 2013). To adequately implement the SEADirective in MSP, an appropriate understanding of the potentialimpacts and pressures associated with marine activities is a basicrequirement. The spatial identification of where these cumulativeimpacts may occur and the features they may affect is intrinsic toany environmental assessment and one which seems to have beenoverlooked or inadequately addressed to date. Nevertheless, thisresearch into mapping cumulative impacts around the ShetlandIslands is a ‘learning by doing’ approachwhich can be reviewed andadapted to inform management policy and practice. Monitoringand evaluation can help to promote understanding and improve
Fig. 1. The spatial extent of Shetland Islands' Marine Spatial Plan area is shaded in greyrepresenting the 12 nautical mile limit from Mean High Water Spring. Contains UKHOdata © Crown copyright and/or database rights. © NAFC Marine Centre.
C. Kelly et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 102 (2014) 139e148 141
future planning and decision-making within the marine environ-ment (CBD, 2012; de Jonge et al., 2012; Douvere and Ehler, 2011).
2. National and regional context in MSP
In the United Kingdom (UK) MSP is being implemented underthe Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009 in England and Wales, theMarine (Scotland) Act, 2010 in Scotland and the Marine Act(Northern Ireland) 2013 for Northern Ireland. This legislation setsout the framework for marine management which includes thepreparation of marine plans and marine licensing. The overall aimof the legislation is to achieve ‘clean, healthy, safe, productive andbiologically diverse oceans and seas’ (HM Government, 2011).
Prior to any European guidance on MSP, the Scottish Govern-ment proactively instigated research into the sustainable man-agement of Scotland's marine resources in 2006. The ScottishSustainable Marine Environment Initiative (SSMEI), led by theScottish Government in collaboration with local authorities andother partners, aimed to develop and test new approaches toimprove the sustainable management of Scotland's marine envi-ronment through the establishment of four pilot projects (MarineScotland, 2010). The four pilot projects were based in the Firth ofClyde, Shetland Islands, the Sound of Mull and the Berwickshirecoast. This paper focuses on the continuing work of the SMSP intrialling new methods to support the management of the marineenvironment. Whilst the legislative context for marine manage-ment is still in its infancy, it does not mean that no progress can bemade in terms of improving decision making and marine man-agement. The development and progression of the SMSP over thepast seven years and supporting research such as mapping cumu-lative impacts is an example of such progress.
3. Shetland Islands' Marine Spatial Plan
The SMSP was first developed in 2006 under the auspices ofSSMEI and the first draft plan voluntarily adopted by the localplanning authority, statutory consultees and local developers in2008. The project was guided by a national and local steeringgroup. Whilst funding for the SSMEI project ended in 2010, theSMSP, with support from the Scottish Government through Ma-rine Scotland, continues to be developed as part of the core workof the NAFC Marine Centre.4 The MSP team at the NAFC MarineCentre engage regularly with key stakeholders, supported by aLocal Advisory Group. The Local Advisory Group comprisesdecision-makers, regulators, non-Governmental Organisations(NGOs), local industry and community representatives (Kelly et al.,2014).
Shetland Islands Council intends to adopt the SMSP on a stat-utory basis as ‘Supplementary Guidance’ to its Local DevelopmentPlan in 2014. The policies and maps in the SMSP will be materialconsiderations in decision-making on individual marine planningapplications and works licences within Shetland's coastal andmarine waters out to 12 nautical miles (NM), as illustrated in Fig. 1.The primary focus of the SMSP is to provide more information topublic bodies who have responsibilities for marine and coastalplanning functions and to developers. It will inform decision-making, guide priorities and seek to achieve a balance betweennational and local interests. As the demand for use of our seas andthe resulting pressures on them continue to rise, an integrated
4 NAFC Marine Centre is the operating name of the Shetland Fisheries TrainingCentre Trust whereby the Trust is a Management Agent for the Shetland IslandsCouncil. NAFC Marine Centre is an academic partner within the University of theHighlands and Islands.
approach will help to manage competing demands. The SMSPmarks a unique and significant move to standardise the approachesand responsibilities between terrestrial and marine planning ju-risdictions and reflects a more integrated approach to coastal zonemanagement and MSP.
Many estuarine and coastal areas generally consist of extensiveareas of flat land which prove suitable for development(McGlashan, 2002). As a result they tend to be the world's mostintensely used of regions (Barbier et al., 2011). Research suggeststhat coastal resources have, and continue to be, under multiple andintense pressures from diverse human activities (Kay and Alder,1999) which range from fisheries and aquaculture to urban andindustrial development. This increasing demand on coastal re-sources is however, leading to their degradation which can havesignificant adverse social and economic impacts (EuropeanCommission, 2001).
Given the complexities of the interaction between marine andterrestrial environments, the environmental management of theseareas is further complicated by administrative and institutionalgovernance arrangements which are common within overlappinggeographical boundaries (Ballinger and Stojanovic, 2010). Add to
5 Direct effects form the basis for the development and implementation ofoperational, spatial and temporal management measures to reduce the risk ofDirect Effects. Direct Effects are ecosystem, social, cultural and economic impacts.Indirect Effects are considered as secondary effects occurring once a Direct Effecthas occurred. These would include impacts to ecosystem processes and compo-nents as well as socio-economics impacts. Indirect Effects are difficult to model orpredict because their occurrence may also be amplified by natural variations ofecosystem processes.
C. Kelly et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 102 (2014) 139e148142
this the myriad of international and national legislative re-quirements and regulatory controls covering land use, environ-ment and marine resources and activities including fisheries,shipping, energy and protected sites, it is evident that an inte-grated approach is essential for the management and monitoringof such regions.
Therefore it is important to understand the complexitiesinvolving human interaction with the marine ecosystem includingcumulative impacts. This requires an analysis of human pressuresand drivers, in the form of potential scenarios as outlined inSection 4.
4. Assessing cumulative impacts using an ecosystem-basedrisk assessment
During development of their national marine plan, the ScottishGovernment included an interactions matrix which provided aninitial simplified view of the likely level of interactions between arange of marine users (Scottish Government, 2011). However, in areview of the work conducted in the MSP pilot projects fundedunder SSMEI, it was acknowledged that whilst the process ofidentifying interactions between different uses/activities with themarine environment had been effectively carried out in some cases,it would have been more relevant to test whether a more ‘spatiallyspecific’ approach to this exercise would identify particular loca-tions where specific policies are required to resolve interactions(Marine Scotland, 2010). Experience has indicated that the placebased nature of the ecosystem approach is an essential element inthe planning process and if not incorporated appropriately canresult in a predominantly sectoral approach to policy formulation(Flannery and �O Cinn�eide, 2012).
The SMSP already identifies potential impacts between activ-ities and important species and habitats around Shetland through asensitivity matrix; the subsequent phasewas to address cumulativeimpacts, interactions and capacity of the marine resource toaccommodate future sustainable development. In this context, theassessment of cumulative impacts using an ecosystem-based riskassessment was deemed the most suitable option for the SMSP. Byintroducing a more location-specific method, this would be a moveaway from the generic, single sector analysis approach of the in-teractions matrix and would utilise existing knowledge on thespatial use of the Shetland marine environment, as mapped in theSMSP.
In terms of identifying development opportunities and man-aging human activities within the marine environment, issues suchas cumulative pressures and complex interrelations among fea-tures, internal and external to the system, are also a key consider-ation in the decision making process (De Jonge et al., 2012).
An Integrated Ecosystem Assessment (IEA) is a synthesis andquantitative analysis of information on relevant physical, chemical,ecological and human processes in relation to specific ecosystemmanagement objectives (ESMWG, 2011). While methodologies forthe assessment of cumulative impacts are still in early develop-ment, the IEA provides a consultative process to identify prioritymanagement issues and provide robust decision support informa-tion. It is acknowledged that other methodologies are being testedelsewhere (Eastwood et al., 2007; EOEEA, 2009; Farmer et al., 2012;Foden et al., 2011; Stelzenmuller et al., 2012); however none areuniversally recognised or accepted. Nevertheless, some methodshave influenced the SMSP approach (Levin et al., 2009; Robinsonand Knights, 2011; Tillin et al., 2010).
In accordance with the MSFD, MS should undertake an analysisof the pressures and impacts, including human activity, on theirmarine waters. An indicative list of such pressures and impacts hasbeen identified in Annex III of the MSFD which provided a good
basis for the SMSP approach. In the UK, a number of assessmentsapply different criteria against these identified impacts (Robinsonand Knights, 2011; Tillin et al., 2010). It therefore made sense touse this list of identified pressures to determine the likely impactsof human activities on the marine environment, while at the sametime aligning with the MSFD objectives to determine the status ofmarine waters. Similar conceptual approaches include the Driver-Pressure-State change-Impact-Response or DPSIR approach whichis a scoping framework assessing causes, consequences, and re-sponses to changes caused by any stressor which then require apolicy/management ‘response’ (De Jonge et al., 2012).
Shetland is regarded as an ideal location to test this integratedERA as the SMSP has already mapped all known uses of the marineenvironment at a very local scale. This modelling exercise wouldnot have provided such a robust outcome should it have usednational-scale datasets. The SMSP has also been widely supportedby the local community and marine practitioners. This is evident inits pending adoption as Supplementary Guidance to the ShetlandIslands Council's Local Development Plan in 2014. Testing differentapproaches to integrated marine planning at a local level caninform policy and management measures at a local and nationallevel.
5. Methodology
The integrated Ecosystem-based Risk Assessment (ERA)concept was developed as part of the SMSP in 2008 in the form ofa marine biodiversity risk assessment. A Spatial Analysis Sub-group (the Sub-group), made up of members from the localSSMEI Steering Group, was formed at the time to consult and triala methodology and criteria to be used. The majority of the Sub-group members had local knowledge of Shetland's marine biodi-versity and/or experience of local industries. A workshop wasorganised with the Sub-group to test two case studies using azoning approach. The methodology involved ranking data basedon the identified significant positive and negative interactionsbetween two activities (aquaculture and wind farm). Followingthe trialling of this methodology and criteria, it was decided that arevised methodology which aligned more with recent legislationand incorporated more extensive and up-to-date data wasrequired.
The ERA methodology was revised in 2012 and explores thedifferent socio-economic and cultural marine activities currentlyundertaken around Shetland and mapped within the SMSP: com-mercial fishing, aquaculture, transport, coastal infrastructure, re-newables, dredging and disposal, tourism and recreation, oil andgas pipelines, telecommunication cables and effluent discharges.The SMSP mapped activities and data used in the GIS model isincluded in Table A.1, Appendix A. These activities and their directeffects were assessed; for example, commercial fishing activitieswith the different types of gear used and associated effects. Asample summary of these fishing activities is included in Table A.2,Appendix A. This analysis was carried out for all mapped marineactivities around Shetland. ‘Direct effects’ were considered as ef-fects that are directly linked to ‘driver/pressure’ combinations(HELCOM/VASAB, 2012).5
Fig. 2. Consultation map illustrating scored cumulative impacts within Shetland waters out to 12 nautical mile limit from Mean High Water Spring. Contains Ordnance Survey data© Crown copyright and database right 2011. UKHO data © Crown copyright and/or database rights. © NAFC Marine Centre.
C. Kelly et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 102 (2014) 139e148 143
The revised methodology incorporated the range of pressuresand impacts identified in the MSFD (The European Parliament andthe Council of the European Union, 2008). Direct effects andassociated impacts of each activity (Table A.3, Appendix A) wereassessed against a set of criteria (Tables B.1eB4, Appendix B)which was initially developed by the Sub-group in 2008 andmodified following consultation with a newly reformed SpatialAnalysis working group in 2012. Information was obtained fromthe Scottish Marine Atlas (Baxter et al., 2011) and used as a basisfor identifying and spatially mapping the pressures and impactsassociated with certain marine activities in Scottish waters. Otherassessments (Defra and Marine Scotland, 2012) including OSPARQSR2010 (OSPAR, 2010) have also been utilised to predict impactsand outcomes of interactions from several activities. Each of theassociated impacts were assigned scores in terms of likelihood of
impact, the frequency of the activity, the timescale to recoveryand confidence in the data used. The scores were then addedtogether for the latter three criteria and then multiplied by theformer ‘likelihood’ impact score. The score was assigned an indexvalue out of a maximum score of 1 and integrated into maps ofdifferent activities.
A workshop was organised in 2012 with the Spatial AnalysisSub-group which comprises members with detailed sector-specific knowledge in relation to the impact scores. The purposeof this session was to refine the process and ensure that themapping outputs were realistic and meaningful. The criteria weremodified and scores re-calculated based on feedback from aworkshop in 2013, and subject to further consultation, with finalimpact scores further consulted on with the Steering/AdvisoryGroup in 2014. The impact scores are detailed in a supporting
C. Kelly et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 102 (2014) 139e148144
excel workbook which can be downloaded from the NAFC MarineCentre website. The objective of the ongoing consultation is toensure a more informed and balanced assessment of the cumu-lative impacts involving marine industry experts and localpractitioners.
All activity data was converted into rasters using ArcGIS. Therasters for each activity were scored using a spatial analysis‘Weighted Sum’ tool in ArcGIS where weight ¼ x and ‘x’ is the cu-mulative score for each activity. Spatially varying cumulativepressure maps were created based on combined cumulative scoresfor all activities.
6. Results
Model outputs were mapped, which resulted in a spatial over-view of cumulative impacts based on the attributed scores, Fig. 2.Visual assessment by stakeholders of the final model outputconfirmed the results were realistic, e.g. areas of higher activityshowed highest cumulative impact and no activity appeared overor under scored relative to other activities.
Cumulative impacts were then grouped into banded levels usingthe standard classification method ‘Natural Breaks (Jenks)’ in Arc-GIS whereby the classes are based on natural groupings inherent inthe data (Esri, 2014). Class breaks are identified that best groupsimilar values and that maximise the variances between classes.The groupings were as follows: LOW (scores 0.62e1.87), MEDIUM(1.88 � score < 3.72), HIGH (3.73 � score < 5.97), and VERY HIGH(score � 5.97), to allow an assessment of the areas subject todifferent cumulative pressures levels.
The areas classified within each cumulative pressure level werecalculated as: 25% subject to no cumulative pressures; 19% subjectto ‘LOW’ cumulative pressure; 28% subject to ‘MEDIUM’ cumulativepressure; 21% subject to ‘HIGH’ cumulative pressure; and 7% sub-ject to ‘VERY HIGH’ cumulative pressure.
The highest cumulative pressure areas were closest to the coast,with areas further off-shore generally subject to lower cumulativepressure.
The model outputs may be used to identify areas in need offurther examination i.e. areas subject to ‘VERY HIGH’ cumulativepressures closest to the coast. This may trigger the need for futuremanagement measures such as: the consideration of furtherdevelopment capacity/environmental thresholds within the rele-vant areas; compatibility of activities and cumulative impacts; andan investigation of the types of marine habitats and species withinthese locations which may be vulnerable to certain activities andtheir associated impacts. The ERA model output is thereforeconsidered to be a practical tool in seeing where cumulative im-pacts are occurring and identifying potentially vulnerable/at riskareas which may require further management. This methodologyhas transferable aspects which may also assist other marine re-gions to develop their own models for addressing cumulativeimpacts.
7. Discussion
The widely used concept of ‘sustainable development’ is oftenconsidered an integrated approach to managing different, andoften competing, needs against an awareness of the environ-mental, social and economic limitations that society faces. None-theless, there is much criticism with regards the formally acceptedBrundtland definition which has been described as ‘neat butinexact’ (Adams, 2006). Adams noted that while the idea maybring people together it does not necessarily help them to agreegoals. Furthermore Adams suggests that ‘In implying everything
sustainable development arguably ends up meaning nothing’(Adams, 2006).
Inconsistent definitions are problematic when they begin toinform policy, impact organisational operations, and createframeworks for decision-making. This is inevitable when conceptsare not clearly defined, too theoretical, lack specific detail and areopen to divergent interpretation. Similarly, the ecosystem basedapproach is a useful conceptual framework however, is consideredtoo theoretical to be directly applied to managing social, economicand environmental objectives, or the ‘integral system’ (De Jongeet al., 2012; Farmer et al., 2012).
Nevertheless, an ecosystem approach which incorporatesmonitoring and evaluation as well as adaptation as part of itsframework can promote understanding, provide data to scien-tists, inform policy making and help to make effective manage-ment decisions (Douvere and Ehler, 2011; CBD, 2014).Monitoring, in general, makes it possible to determine if a modelor management system is working and can provide a basis forimprovement. Good monitoring and feedback loops are aneffective means in keeping all involved in the process informed,on track and able to assess progress and make changes wherenecessary (Kelly et al., 2014). An adaptive approach to ecosystemmanagement is just as important in incorporating and respond-ing to various types of change within the marine environmentsuch as environmental change, new knowledge, new legislationand the experience gained from the practice of ecosystem basedmanagement in MSP. This ensures that a ‘do-nothing response’ isavoided and some attempts at addressing problematic areas ofmanagement in research and practice are encouraged. Researchfindings and lessons learned from these trials can then inform therelevant governmental departments and institutions responsiblefor policy formulation and implementation within marineregions.
For example, all European Member States (MS) are contendingwith assessing and reporting on the status of their marine watersunder the MSFD; this includes an analysis of the cumulative im-pacts of human activities (Foden et al., 2011). Varying analyticalapproaches, methods, applications and practical software tools arebeing developed internationally to facilitate an assessment of therelationships between human uses and ecosystem components(Alexander et al., 2012; Stelzenmuller et al., 2012). It is widelyacknowledged that the issue is proving difficult to resolve(HELCOM/VASAB, 2012). For example, several human activitiescan have the same or similar effects on the marine environmentand its ecosystems. Attempting to attribute or distinguish eacheffect to a single use in multi-use areas has not been achievedconvincingly to date. Similarly, distinguishing the effects of humanactivities from natural disturbance is also proving difficult. This isfurther exacerbated by a lack of empirical data and modellingmethodologies to carry out the required integrated assessments tomanage the cumulative effects of human activities (Eastwoodet al., 2007; HELCOM/VASAB, 2012; Leslie and McLeod, 2007).However, MSP is about addressing uncertainties in a practicalmanner that is understandable and accessible to multiple poten-tial users.
This paper outlines a methodology to map cumulative impactsusing an integrated ERA, using comprehensive locally verifiedspatial data on the location of a range ofmarine activities. Themodeloutputswill be used to advise and formulateMSP policy in the SMSPby identifying areas which may be subject to significant cumulativepressures. The model developed and lessons learned from this on-going research has the potential to be used in comparable marineregions with access to comprehensive mapped activity data andlocal expertise to develop their own methodologies in addressingcumulative impacts. Furthermore the outputs of the model can
C. Kelly et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 102 (2014) 139e148 145
highlight areas requiringmanagement and therefore prompt actionand/or policy formulation. The use of spatial indicators such as theextent of the activity areas scoring ‘Very High’ can be monitored forincreases and decreases in cumulative impacts and likewise for the‘Low’, ‘Medium’ and ‘High’ classifications to determine change andtherefore potentially vulnerable or stable areas.
As consultation on the SMSP is ongoing with local expertise andstakeholders, there are opportunities to identify the limitations ofthe methodology and improve on it. Other cumulative impact as-sessments (Defra and Marine Scotland, 2012; MMO, 2013;Robinson and Knights, 2011) have predicted likely impacts andpressures from human activities but have refrained from actuallyassigning a score or weight to the combined impacts. This is un-derstandable as attributing or distinguishing certain effects to asingle use in multi-use areas has not been achieved yet (HELCOM/VASAB, 2012). Although applying weights/scores to different im-pacts/pressures during the current study could be perceived assubjective and therefore open to scrutiny, on-going consultationwith local experts from differing backgrounds should allow formore accurate outcomes to be achieved.
The importance of stakeholder engagement including devel-oping and expressing modelling outcomes through interdisci-plinary collaboration is a significant factor in delivering anequitable, integrated and transparent marine planning process. Aparticipatory approach to plan preparation and policy formulationwill also help to achieve broad acceptance, ownership and supportfor implementation (CEC, 2008; Ehler, 2008; Flannery and �OCinn�eide, 2012; Kelly et al., 2014).
This model however could be developed further to includeadditional factors such as the resilience of ecological characteristicsand the persistence of the pressure (Robinson and Knights, 2011).However, the ‘timescale to recovery’ criterion used as part of thisassessment was very dependent on the type of habitat and specieslikely to be affected by the impact and detailed knowledge of theirecological characteristics (e.g. sensitivity, resilience). This opens upthe number of possibilities as to how the ERA can be developedfurther, for example, all of the cumulative physical impacts on theseabed could be spatially overlain with vulnerable seabed habitatssuch as maerl and horse mussel beds. Similarly, rather than lookingat specific important features, cumulative impacts could begenerated on a broadscale habitat map produced for the SMSPusing sensitive biotope types to different activities developed byABPMer and MarLIN (Tillin et al., 2010). This type of treatment ofdata could trigger a need for further habitat management or policydevelopment in the future for identified priority marine features(PMFs) in Scotland.
In addition, thismodel focuses upon the direct impacts ofmarineactivities, and assumes that cumulative pressures will be additive.This may not be the case in all instances. As marine plannersincreasingly deal with uncertainty, differing geo-spatial analyticalapproaches, applications and software tools are being developed inresponse. Over 39 practical tools are reportedly available and havebeen applied in the marine environment in Europe, USA andAustralia (Stelzenmuller et al., 2012). Therefore, there are many
Appendix A
Table A.1SMSP mapped data used in the cumulative impacts GIS model.
Mapped activity layer Raw (original) data files
Aquaculture Finfish, shellfish and seaweed licensed sitesShipping Shipping routes
options available for scientists, programmers and spatial planners totrial anddeterminewhich are suitable to their own requirements. Aspart of the current study, it was deemed that ESRI ArcGIS was suit-able software to undertake the analysis and the spatial analysis toolsavailable were adequate to achieve the anticipated outputs.
The significance of the model's development however, is theavoidanceof the ‘do-nothing’approachandanattempt touse thebestdata and local knowledge available to develop an information toolwhich can help to determine cumulative impacts and assist in thedevelopment of policy and management strategies within the SMSP.
7.1. Conclusions
It is not possible to plan and manage marine ecosystems orcomponents of ecosystems, only human activities in marine areas(Ehler and Douvere, 2009). It is only possible for marine planners toallocate space to human activities by planning objectives; forexample development areas for renewables (Tweddle et al., 2014) oraquaculture (MMO, 2013). The ultimate goal of assessing cumulativeimpacts using the ecosystem approach is to inform and developmarine planning policy and objectives which will safeguard themarine environment and ensure its sustainable provision of goodsand services. Therefore, a fully consulted and balanced approach, asendorsed in this ERA,will be thefirst step in achieving this objective.
Monitoring and evaluation of the modelling outputs and use ofindicators will assist in determining how human activities spatiallyimpact on the marine ecosystem and how co-location or conser-vation measures may be implemented where appropriate tominimise adverse impacts. Adaptation will ensure a flexibleapproach which reflects changes within the system and will help toinform future policy and management strategies as is practicable.
It is recognised that while one size does not fit all in MSP,experimentation, innovation, monitoring, learning and change areall aspects of the process that plan-makers and decision-makerscan collectively learn from and share experiences in. It is hopedthat this exercise in addressing cumulative impacts in MSP aroundthe Shetland Islands will promote discussion and debate amongstakeholders and subsequently help to advise and formulate futurepolicy in the SMSP as well as informing other institutions andrelevant governmental departments responsible for policy devel-opment and implementation elsewhere.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the SMSP Advisory Group membersandNAFCMarine Centre staff for their time and advice, in particular,Dr. Richard Shelmerdine for his GIS expertise. We also thank thefollowing organisations for their financial contribution towards thefunding of the original SMSP under SSMEI: Scottish Government,NAFC Marine Centre, Scottish Natural Heritage, Shetland IslandsCouncil, TheCrownEstate andLeader.Wealso extendour thanks andgratitude to Marine Scotland for their continuing funding towardsthis project and the SMSP. Finally, we thank the Editor-in-Chief andthe two anonymous reviewers for improving this manuscript.
Data source
Shetland Islands Council (© NAFC Marine Centre)Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Shetland Islands Council and AIS,(© NAFC Marine Centre)
(continued on next page)
Table A.1 (continued )
Mapped activity layer Raw (original) data files Data source
Coastal infrastructure e shore access Ferry terminals; jetties; landing stage; marinas;piers, slipways
Ordnance Survey Material (© Crown copyright and database rightsand local sources)
Coastal infrastructure e port& harbours
Ports and harbour areas Shetland Islands Council, Lerwick Port Authority, and Taitand Peterson (Solicitors) (© NAFC Marine Centre)
Coastal infrastructure e cables& pipelines
Oil, gas and telecommunications Shetland Islands Council (© SIC 2012), Kingfisher InformationService e Cable Awareness (© NAFC Marine Centre)
Dredging & disposal Disposal and dredging licensed sites Shetland Islands Council, and Lerwick Port Authority(© NAFC Marine Centre)UKHO (©Crown copyright and/or database rights.
Wastewater discharges Water discharges and abstraction sites Scottish Environment Protection Agency (© SEPA 2012)Commercial fisheries e finfish Indicative demersal fishing effort (VMS data) Marine Scotland, with permission of Shetland Fishermen's Association
(© NAFC Marine Centre)Fisheries e shellfish Commercial shellfish creeling and dredging Interviews with local fishermen, and Envision Mapping
(© NAFC Marine Centre 2012)Shetland Shellfish Management Organisation (© NAFC Marine Centre)
Recreation e angling Angling, anchorages, beaches, climbing, kayaking,rowing, sailing race routes, scuba diving, surfing,coastal walking, windsurfing, yachting.
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (© SEPA 2012), Scottish NaturalHeritage (© SNH 2012), local sources (© NAFC Marine Centre), and Ridley(1998), Shetland Islands Council (© SIC. Contains OS data © Crown copyrightand database right 2013. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey licencenumber 100024344)
Marine renewables Tidal and wave licenced sites Shetland Islands Council (© SIC 2012)
Table A.2Sample of commercial fishing activities and direct effects. This analysis was carriedout for all other mapped marine activities around Shetland i.e. aquaculture, trans-port, coastal infrastructure, renewables, dredging and disposal, tourism and recre-ation, oil and gas pipelines, telecommunication cables and effluent discharges.
Marine activity Activity detail Direct effects (pressures)
Commercial fishing Creeling and pottingWhitefish trawling/demersal otter trawlingScallop dredging
Noise, collisionInteraction with seafloorPhysical damage to seabedand habitatImpact on/removalof non-target speciesImpact on/removalof target speciesGhostfishing (lost gearcontinuing to fish)Anti-fouling, litter,ballast water, waste products
Table A.3Pressures used to determine and evaluate the potential impacts from human ac-tivities in relation to the marine environment around Shetland waters.
Pressures and impacts
Physical loss ▪ Smothering▪ Sealing/Obstruction
Physical damage ▪ Abrasion▪ Extraction
Other physicaldisturbance
▪ Underwater noise▪ Marine litter
Interference withhydrological processes
▪ Temperature change▪ Salinity changes▪ Change in pH▪ Change in wave exposure▪ Change in water flow rates
Contamination byhazardous substances
▪ Introduction of syntheticcompounds (e.g. pesticides, antifoulants,pharmaceuticals)
▪ Introduction of non-synthetic substancesand compounds (e.g. hydrocarbons)
Nutrient and organicmatter enrichment
▪ Nitrogen and phosphorus▪ Inputs of organic matter
Biological disturbance ▪ Introduction of microbial pathogens▪ Introduction of invasive non-native species
C. Kelly et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 102 (2014) 139e148146
Table A.3 (continued )
Pressures and impacts
▪ Selective extraction of species, includingincidental non-target catches
Death or injury by collision ▪ Death or injury by collisionBarrier to species movement ▪ Preventing the natural movement of mobile
species along a key route of travelElectromagnetic changes ▪ Change in the amount and/or distribution
and/or periodicity of electromagnetic energyemitted in a marine area (e.g. from electricalsources such as underwater cables)
Appendix B
Table B.1Criteria (A) used to quantify the likelihood of potential impacts of differing activitieson the marine environment.
A Rating Likelihood of impact/certainty
Commentary
5 Definite/very high Well documented evidence of impactoccurring during normal operations OR >1accidental/illegal event per year
4 Likely/high Some evidence of impact occurring undernormal operations OR >1 accidental/illegalevent in 5 years
3 Possible/medium Unknown level of impact/interaction OR >1accidental/illegal event in 10 years
2 Unlikely/low Very little interaction with habitats/speciesOR >1 accidental/illegal event in 100 years
1 Remote No interaction with habitats/species
Table B.2Criteria (B) used to quantify the frequency of activity and potential impacts ofdiffering activities on the marine environment.
B Rating Frequency of activity/Effort
Commentary
5 Continual/Persistent More or less constant year-round, lastingthrough multiple years or decades e.g.fishing.
Table B.2 (continued )
B Rating Frequency of activity/Effort
Commentary
4 Regular/High Daily or weekly occurrence e vesselsassociated with maintenance works forrenewables, fish farm operations i.e. feedingetc.OrExtensive development construction stageincluding survey work (up to 2 yrs)
3 Intermittent/Moderate Monthly or annual occurrence e.g.navigational dredging, use ofchemotheraputants in aquaculture/asrequired, agricultural runoffOrMajor construction stage (6e12 months)
2 Brief/Minimal One-off event e over several days/irregulare.g. spillage, leakageOrMinor development construction stage (0e6 months)
1 One-off event One-off event e up to one day duration orinfrequent
Table B.3Criteria (C) used to quantify the timescale to ecosystem recovery and potentialimpacts of differing activities on the marine environment.
C Rating Timescale toecosystem recovery/stability (followingcessation of activity)
Commentary
5 None Recovery unlikely4 Low >10 years3 Medium Several years (3e10 years)2 High 1e2 years1 Very high Within 1 year
Table B.4Criteria (D) used determine confidence/reliability of data used to map activities andimpacts.
D Rating Confidencein maps
Commentary
1 Low An estimated location and questionablesource or scale/extent of activity. Anexample includes wave energydevelopment site.
2 Medium A fixed location but questionable sourceor scale/extent of activity. Examplesinclude shellfish fishing grounds withinSSMO squares (which are to the nearest5 km).
3 High A fixed location and of a good source orscale/extent of activity. Examples ofthese maps are oil and gas pipelines andaquaculture sites where standards onlocations are required for planning/licensing purposes.
C. Kelly et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 102 (2014) 139e148 147
References
Adams, W.M., 2006. The Future of Sustainability. Re-thinking Environment andDevelopment in the Twenty-first Century. Report of the IUCN RenownedThinkers Meeting, 29e31 January 2006. IUCN. The World Conservation Union.Available online at: http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_future_of_sustanability.pdf.
Alexander, K.A., Janssen, R., Arciniegas, G., O'Higgins, T.G., Eikelboom, T.,Wilding, T.A., 2012. Interactive marine spatial planning: siting tidal energy ar-rays around the mull of Kintyre. PLoS One 7 (1), e30031. Available online at:http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0030031.
Ballinger, R., Stojanovic, T., 2010. Policy development and the estuary environment:a Severn Estuary case study. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 61 (1e3), 132e145. Availableonline at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2009.12.020.
Barbier, E.B., Hacker, S.D., Kennedy, C., Koch, E.W., Stier, A.C., Silliman, B.R., 2011. Thevalue of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecol. Monogr. 81 (2),169e193. Available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/10-1510.1.
Baxter, J.M., Boyd, I.L., Cox, M., Donald, A.E., Malcolm, S.J., Miles, H., Miller, B.,Moffat, C.F. (Eds.), 2011. Scotland's Marine Atlas: Information for the NationalMarine Plan, p. 191. Marine Scotland, Edinburgh.
Collie, J.S., Adamowicz, W.L., Beck, M.W., Craig, B., Essington, T.E., Fluharty, D.,Rice, J., Sanchirico, J.N., 2013. Marine spatial planning in practice. Estuar. Coast.Shelf Sci. 117, 1e11. Available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2012.11.010.
Commission of the European Communities, 2007. Communication from the Com-mission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic andSocial Committee and the Committee of the Regions. An Integrated MaritimePolicy for the European Union. COM, 575 Final. Available online at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri¼COM:2007:0575:FIN:EN:PDF.
Commission of the European Communities, 2008. Communication from the Com-mission. Roadmap for Maritime Spatial Planning: Achieving Common Principlesin the EU. COM, 791 Final. Available online at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri¼COM:2008:0791:FIN:EN:PDF.
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Ecosystem Approach. Available at:https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-09/media/cop9-press-kit-ea-en.pdf (accessed on 4.07.14.).
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), Marine Scotland, 2012.Business as Usual Projections of the Marine Environment to Inform the UKImplementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (ME5104). Avail-able online at: http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu¼Menu&Module¼More&Location¼None&ProjectID¼17775&FromSearch¼Y&Publisher¼1&SearchText¼ME5104&SortString¼ProjectCode&SortOrder¼Asc&Paging¼10#Description.
De Jonge, V.N., 2007. Toward the application of ecological concepts in EU coastalwater management. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 55 (10e12), 407e414. Available online at:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2007.09.014.
De Jonge, V.N., Pinto, R., Turner, R.K., De Jonge, V.N., Pinto, R., Turner, R.K., 2012.Integrating ecological, economic and social aspects to generate useful man-agement information under the EU Directives' ‘ecosystem approach’. OceanCoast. Manage. 68, 169e188. Available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.05.017.
Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October2000 Establishing a Framework for Community action in the field of waterpolicy (Water Framework Directive). Available online at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri¼cellar:5c835afb-2ec6-4577-bdf8-756d3d694eeb.0004.02/DOC_1&format¼PDF.
Douvere, F., September 2008. The importance of marine spatial planning inadvancing ecosystem-based sea use management. Mar. Policy 32 (5), 762e771.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.021. Available online at:
Douvere, F., Ehler, C.N., 2007. International workshop on marine spatial planning,UNESCO, Paris, 8e10 November 2006: a summary. Mar. Policy 31 (4), 582e583.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2007.02.001.
Douvere, F., Ehler, C.N., 2011. The importance of monitoring and evaluation inadaptive maritime spatial planning. J. Coast. Conserv. 15, 305e311. Availableonline at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11852-010-0100-9.
Eastwood, P.D., Mills, C.M., Aldridge, J.N., Houghton, C.A., Rogers, S.I., February 2007.Human activities in UK offshore waters: an assessment of direct, physicalpressure on the seabed. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 64 (3), 453e463. Available online at:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsm001.
Ecosystem Science and Management Working Group (ESMWG), 2011. StrategicAdvice on Designing and Implementing Coastal and Marine Spatial Plans.Report to the NOAA Science Advisory Board from the Ecosystem Science andManagement Working Group. Available online at: http://www.sab.noaa.gov/Reports/CMSP%20Report%20to%20NOAA%20Final.pdf.
Ehler, C., 2008. Conclusions: benefits, lessons learned, and future challenges ofmarine spatial planning. Mar. Policy 32 (5), 840e843. Available online at:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.014.
Ehler, C., Douvere, F., 2009. Marine spatial planning: a step-by-step approach to-wards ecosystem-based management. IOC Manual and Guides No. 53, ICAMDossier No. 6. In: Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man andthe Biosphere Programme. UNESCO, Paris. Available online at: http://www.unesco-ioc-marinesp.be/uploads/documentenbank/d87c0c421da4593fd93bbee1898e1d51.pdf (in English).
Esri, 2014. Classifying Numerical Fields for Graduated Symbology. Available onlineat: http://resources.arcgis.com/en/help/main/10.1/index.html#//00s50000001r000000 (accessed 30.01.14).
European Commission, 2001. EU Focus on Coastal Zones. Office for Official Publi-cations of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/2000brochure_en.pdf.
European Commission, 2012. Good Environmental Status (GES) on the MarineEnvironment. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/marine/ges.htm (accessed 12.08.12).
European Commission, 2013. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliamentand of the Council Establishing a Framework for Maritime Spatial Planning andIntegrated Coastal Management. COM, 133 Final. Available online at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri¼COM:2013:0133:FIN:EN:PDF.
C. Kelly et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 102 (2014) 139e148148
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA), 2009. MassachusettsOcean Management Plan. In: Management and Administration, vol. 1. Availableonline at: http://www.env.state.ma.us/eea/mop/final-v1/v1-complete.pdf.
Farley, H.M., Smith, Z.A., 2013. Sustainability. If It's Everything, Is it Nothing?Routledge, Oxon.
Farmer, A., Mee, L., Langmead, O., Cooper, P., Kannen, A., Kershaw, P., Cherrier, V.,2012. The Ecosystem Approach in Marine Management. EU FP7 KNOWSEASProject, ISBN 0-9529089-5-6. Available online at: http://www.knowseas.com/links-and-data/project-publications/D2_4_final.pdf/view.
Flannery, W., �O Cinn�eide, M., 2012. A roadmap for marine spatial planning: a criticalexamination of the European Commission's guiding principles based on theirapplication in the Clyde MSP pilot project. Mar. Policy 36 (1), 265e271. Avail-able online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2011.06.003.
Foden, J., Rogers, S.I., Jones, A.P., May 2011. Human pressures on UK seabed habitats:a cumulative impact assessment. Mar. Ecol.-Pro. Ser. 428, 33e47. Availableonline at: http://dx.doi.org/10.3354/meps09064.
HELCOM/VASAB, OSPAR and ICES, 2012. Report of the Joint HELCOM/VASAB, OSPARand ICES Workshop on Multi-disciplinary Case Studies of MSP (WKMCMSP),2e4 November 2011, Lisbon, Portugal. Administrator, p. 45. Available online at:https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa¼t&rct¼j&q¼&esrc¼s&source¼web&cd¼1&cad¼rja&ved¼0CC8QFjAA&url¼http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vasab.org%2Findex.php%2Fdocuments%2Fdoc_download%2F575-report-of-the-joint-helcom-vasab-ospar-and-ices-workshop-on-multi-disci-plinary-case-studies-of-msp&ei¼KX7yUqnEK5Ow7Aa5koCoDA-&usg¼AFQjCNEGCsENDelk9KZL49OvxefDu_dvbw&sig2¼y8O-qjcZRzCFAjyF-lV_kw&bvm¼bv.60799247,d.ZGU.
HM Government, March 2011. UK Marine Policy Statement. HM Government,Northern Ireland Executive, Scottish Government and Welsh Assembly Gov-ernment. The Stationery Office, London.
Holden, E., Linnerud, K., Banister, D., 2014. Sustainable development: our commonfuture revisited. Glob. Environ. Change 26 (0), 130e139. Available online at:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.006.
Kay, R., Alder, J., 1999. Coastal Planning and Management. E & FN Spon. Routledge,London.
Kelly, C., Gray, L., Shucksmith, R., Tweddle, J.F., May 2014. Review and evaluation ofmarine spatial planning in the Shetland Islands. Mar. Policy 46, 152e160.Available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.01.017.
Leslie, H.M., McLeod, K.L., December 2007. Confronting the challenges of imple-menting marine ecosystem-based management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 5 (10),540e548. Available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/060093.
Levin, P.S., Fogarty, M.J., Murawski, S.A., Fluharty, D., 2009. Integrated ecosystemassessments: developing the scientific basis for ecosystem-based managementof the ocean. PLoS Biol. 7 (1), e1000014. Available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000014.
Marine Scotland, 2010. Scottish Sustainable Marine Environment Initiative. ProjectEvaluation. Available online at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/295194/0100906.doc.
MMO, 2013. Spatial Trends in Aquaculture Potential in the South and East Inshoreand Offshore Marine Plan Areas, ISBN 978-1-909452-18-3, p. 202. A ReportProduced for the Marine Management Organisation, MMO Project No: 1040.Available online at: http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/evidence/documents/1040.pdf.
McGlashan, D.J., 2002. Coastal management and economic development in devel-oped nations: the Forth estuary Forum. Coast. Manag. 30, 221e236. Availableonline at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08920750290042174.
Olsen, S.B., Olsen, E., Schaefer, N., 2011. Governance baselines as a basis for adaptivemarine spatial planning. J. Coast. Conserv. 15 (2), 313e322. Available online at:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11852-011-0151-6.
OSPAR, 2010. Quality Status Report 2010. OSPAR Commission, London.Robinson, L.A., Knights, A.M., 2011. ODEMM Pressure Assessment Userguide.
ODEMM Guidance Document Series No.2. EC FP7 project (244273) ‘Options forDelivering Ecosystem-based Marine Management’. University of Liverpool, ISBN978-0-906370-62-9. Available online at: http://www.liv.ac.uk/media/livacuk/odemm/docs/Pressure_Assessment_Guidance.pdf.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2004. The EcosystemApproach, (CBD Guidelines) Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Bio-logical Diversity, p. 50.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Scientific and Tech-nical Advisory Panel-GEF, 2012. Marine Spatial Planning in the Context of theConvention on Biological Diversity: a Study Carried Out in Response to CBD COP10 Decision X/29, Montreal. Technical Series No. 68, p. 44. Available online at:http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/publication/cbd-ts-68-en.pdf.
Schaefer, N., Barale, V., June 2011. Maritime spatial planning: opportunities &challenges in the framework of the EU integrated maritime policy. J. Coast.Conserv. 15 (2), 237e245. Available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11852-011-0154-3.
Scottish Government, 2011. Scotland's Pre-consultation Draft National Marine Plan,ISBN 978-1-78045-084-1.
Stelzenmuller, V., Lee, J., Sout, A., Foden, J., Rogers, S.I., 2012. Practical tools tosupport marine spatial planning: a review and some prototype tools. Mar.Policy 38, 214e227. March, 2013. Available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.05.038.
The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2008. Directive2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the Field of Marine Envi-ronmental Policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) OJ L 164/19,25.6.2008. Available online at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri¼OJ:L:2008:164:0019:0040:EN:PDF.
Tillin, H.M., Hull, S.C., Tyler-Walters, H., 2010. Development of a Sensitivity Matrix(Pressures-MCZ/MPA Features). Report to the Department of Environment,Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) from ABPMer, Southampton and the Marine LifeInformation Network (MarLIN) Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of theUK. Defra Contract no. MB0102 Task 3A, Report No. 22. Available online at:http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document¼MB0102_9721_TRP.pdf.
Tweddle, J.F., Marengo, I., Gray, L., Kelly, C., Shucksmith, R., 2014. Developingregional locational guidance for wave and tidal energy in the Shetland Islands.Mar. Policy 50 (Part A), 53e66. Available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.05.011.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2012. Back to OurCommon Future. Sustainable Development in the 21st century (SD21) project.Summary for Policymakers.
World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future.United Nations.
