Conceptual models for the effects of marine ... - Devotes Project

WP 1

Deliverable 1.1.

Conceptual models for the effects of marine pressures on biodiversity Deliverable 1.1.

Dissemination level

Public

LEAD CONTRACTOR Hellenic Centre for Marine Research

AUTHORS Chris Smith, (HCMR), Nadia Papadopoulou, (HCMR), Steve Barnard (UHULL), Krysia Mazik (UHULL), Joana Patrício (JRC), Mike Elliott (UHULL), Oihana Solaun (AZTI), Sally Little (UHULL), Angel Borja (AZTI), Natasha Bhatia (UHULL), Snejana Moncheva (IO-BAS), Sirak Robele (NILU), K. Can Bizsel (IMST-DEU) Atilla H. Eronat (IMST-DEU).

SUBMISSION DATE 23 | June | 2014

Abstract Conceptual models help draw together, visualise and understand the issues and problems relating to actual or predicted situations and how they might be solved. In recent years, Pressure-State-Response (P-S-R) frameworks have been central to conceptualising marine ecosystem risk analysis and risk management issues and then translating those to stakeholders, environmental managers and researchers. It is axiomatic that society is concerned about the risks to the natural and human system posed by those pressures (thus needing risk assessment) and then is required to act to minimise or compensate those risks (as risk management). This document explores existing conceptual models of pressure-state change and refines these to produce a new model focusing on the way in which state change arises from the individual to the ecosystem level. Difficulties are addressed in dealing with cumulative impacts and in particular with multiple simultaneous pressures, which more often occur in multi-use and multi-user areas. An improved understanding of the interactions between drivers, pressures and states (or, more particularly, the pressure-state change (P-S) linkage) is important to help facilitate consideration of possible Responses, but this is not something that is specifically provided for by application of the DPSIR approach alone (DriverPressure-State-Impact-Response). Assessment tools including matrices assessments, dynamic ecosystem models and Bayesian Belief Networks are described. The Bow-Tie application is introduced as a marine risk assessment and risk management tool and the conceptual framework is redefined to incorporate mechanisms of pressure effect into a new model structure that supports the application of risk management approaches. In turn, the challenges for moving from conceptual frameworks to assessments are investigated.

2

Contents

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................ 2 CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................ 3 1.

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 4 1.1. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: ..............................................................................................................................6

2.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF DPSIR ........................................................................................................... 7 2.1. SINGLE DPSIR CYCLES .............................................................................................................................10 2.2. MULTIPLE DPSIRS ..................................................................................................................................11 2.3. MULTIPLE PRESSURES ..............................................................................................................................13

3.

CONCEPTUAL MODELS .....................................................................................................................14 3.1. PRESSURE-STATE CHANGE CONCEPTUAL MODELS .......................................................................................14 3.1.1. Research projects ........................................................................................................................15 3.1.2. Published Investigations ..............................................................................................................27 3.2. FROM CONCEPTS TO ASSESSMENTS ...........................................................................................................39 3.2.1. Simple Matrices Approach ..........................................................................................................39 3.2.2. Ecosystem Models .......................................................................................................................40 3.2.3. Bayesian Belief Networks ............................................................................................................41 3.2.4. The BowTie approach ..................................................................................................................42

4.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ......................................................................................................................44 4.1. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS IN REGIONAL SEA STUDIES........................................................................................46

5.

DPS CHAINS IN THE MSFD ................................................................................................................48

6.

DEVOTES CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ..............................................................................................52 6.1. REFINED CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF PRESSURE-STATE CHANGE RELATIONSHIPS.....................................................52 6.2. THE STATE CHANGE CONCEPTUAL MODEL IN THE CONTEXT OF RISK ASSESSMENT ...............................................60

7.

DATA CHALLENGES IN MOVING FROM CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS TO ASSESSMENTS ...................64 7.1. REGIONAL SEAS ......................................................................................................................................64 7.2. DATA AVAILABILITY .................................................................................................................................66 7.2.1. Drivers .........................................................................................................................................67 7.2.2. Pressures .....................................................................................................................................68 7.2.3. State-Change ...............................................................................................................................68 7.3. ASSESSMENT SCALES AND SCALING UP TO REGIONAL SEAS .............................................................................69 7.4. LEVELS OF CONFIDENCE ...........................................................................................................................69

8.

CONCLUDING REMARKS ...................................................................................................................70

9.

REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................................72

3

Deliverable 1.1. Conceptual models for the effects of marine pressures on biodiversity

1. Introduction The marine system is extremely complex with highly interrelated processes acting between its physical, chemical and biological components. Many diverse human activities exert pressure on this complex environment and the cumulative environmental effects these activities have on the system varies according to the intensity, number and spatial and temporal scales of the associated pressures. There is an increasing need to demonstrate, quantify and predict the effects of human activities on these interrelated components in space and time (Elliott, 2002). The study and management of marine systems therefore requires information on the links between these human activities and effects on structure, functioning and biodiversity, across different regional seas in a changing world.

Determining the cause and consequence of marine problems requires Risk Assessment and the responses require Risk Management (Cormier et al., 2013). Conceptual models are required to summarise, explain and address the identified risks. They allow a problem to be deconstructed as a precursor to each aspect being assessed, prioritised and addressed (Elliott, 2002). In terms of Risk Management, these models provide the basis for communicating the main message to managers and developers as well as having an educational value (capturing and relating knowledge about a given subject matter) (Mylopoulos, 1992). They provide the starting point for developing quantitative and numerical models, or for indicating the limitation of such models and the available scientific knowledge (Elliott, 2002).

Conceptual models can be regarded as diagrams which bring together and summarise information from many areas. Simple to complex diagrams can be used to conceptualise particular issues or problems. The more components that are drawn in, the more complex the diagrams become leading to what Elliott (2002) has described as “horrendograms” (Figure 1). These models may describe a process very aptly but may become very difficult to understand and therefore to model, although all numerical models start with a conceptual framework on which to base the quantitative thought-process.

4

Figure 1. Example of Horrendograms: the environmental consequences of offshore wind power generation at difference stages, processes and responses (from Elliott, 2002)

One of the key current conceptual frameworks in widespread use, the Driver-Pressure-State-ImpactResponse (DPSIR) framework, has developed over the last few decades and is used as the basis for the majority of conceptual approaches addressing pressure-state change links. The DPSIR framework provides some structure to the way that complex issues can be conceptualised in a standard way. Currently, however, the DPSIR framework provides an overly simplistic representation of the relationship between pressures and state changes, merely indicating that pressure leads to state change (which may not necessarily be the case). It takes no account of the processes (and hence where to target management), which may lead to state change or of the interaction between different activities and their associated pressures occurring simultaneously. Furthermore, it does not highlight the difference in the nature, severity, timescale or longevity of state changes in relation to pressure intensity, frequency or duration.

Whilst most pressure-state change conceptual models begin to accommodate all of the necessary information for conceptualising the multidimensional relationships between human activities, pressures and state changes, there is also a requirement to be able to take model constructs or outputs and use them to help augment our understanding of the complexity of the marine system. The spatial and temporal links in the marine system, coupled with the diverse nature of stressors on the systems will require conceptual models to be linked together and further developed towards numerical and predictive models.

In particular, an improved understanding of the interactions between drivers, pressures and states (or, more particularly, the pressure-state change (P-S) linkage) is important to help facilitate consideration of possible risk management responses.

This document has focussed on the pressures that emanate from activities in a specific area, and takes the view that pressures are the mechanism to lead to state changes (and impacts on human welfare). 5


Hence a pressure may be analogous to hazard which has been defined as the cause leading to a risk to some element of the system. In turn, the risk is the probability of effect (likely consequences) causing a disaster (as human consequences) (Elliott et al., 2014). Hence risk is often given in terms of assets which will be affected by the hazard. However, because of this Smith and Petley (2009) consider that hazard, as a cause, and risk, as a likely consequence, relate especially to humans and their welfare. In the discussion here, this may be regarded as relating to the Impact (on human Welfare) part of the DPSIR cycle. Therefore, this emphasises the links between the DPSIR approach and Risk Assessment and Risk Management.

1.1. Aims and objectives: This deliverable aims to review conceptual models for pressure-impact links and develop a merged and refined model which links human activities to effects on ecosystem structure, functioning and biodiversity. This model aims to be suitable for use in seas across Europe, with differing levels of available information and data. This review considers an example pressure (abrasion of the sea bed associated with demersal trawling in sedimentary habitats) and aims to identify the trajectory of potential state changes at different levels of organisation, acknowledging that this trajectory will be case specific. This facilitates understanding the way in which state changes in the marine environment arise. The objectives are: 

to investigate the development and review conceptual models that have addressed the relationship between pressure and state change;



to present a review of the DPSIR framework and derivatives used in coastal and marine ecosystems;



to demonstrate the complexity of interactions between simultaneously occurring activities and pressures (multiple DPSIRs) and the complexity of their ability to cause state change (antagonistic and synergistic interactions);



to review methods which may enable the conceptualisation of such complex interactions;



to present a conceptual model, using demersal trawling as an example, to describe pressurestate change relationships caused by abrasion in subtidal sedimentary habitats; and



to present that conceptual model in the context of the Risk Assessment and Risk Management framework.

6

2. The Development of DPSIR The DPSIR framework is a development of the Pressure-State-Response (PSR) framework initially proposed by Rapport and Friend (1979), adapted and largely promoted by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) for its environmental reporting. The PSR framework (Figure 2) was based on the concept of causality that human activities exert Pressures on the environment (marine and terrestrial), which can induce changes in the State/quality of natural resources. Society Responds to these changes through environmental, governance, economic and sectoral responses (policies and programmes). Highlighting the cause-effect relationships can help decision makers and the public see how environmental, economic, societal and other issues are interconnected. The model was generalised and did not try to specify the form of the interactions between human activities and the state of the environment. In the early 1990’s, the OECD re-evaluated the PSR model, whilst initiating work with environmental indicators (OECD, 1993). Its use has been extended to many countries and international organisations and the PSR framework remains in a continuous state of evolution (Figure 2). The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA, 1994) extended the framework to include the effects of changes in state on the environment (pressure-stateresponse/effects). UNEP (1994) also took up the framework with development of Pressure-StateImpact-Response (PSIR) framework.

Figure 2. Pressures-State-Responses framework (OECD, 1993)

The adoption and development of indicators was essential to support the further development of causal frameworks, allowing for performance evaluation, the setting of thresholds, causal links, and model 7


based analysis. In its work on sustainable development indicators, the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development proposed the Driving Force-State-Response framework (DSR). Here, Driving force replaced the term pressure in order to accommodate more accurately the addition of social economic and institutional indicators. It allows for the impact on sustainable development being both positive and negative as is often the case for social economic and institutional indicators.

In further developments, through agencies such as the European Environmental Agency and EUROSTAT, the EU adopted and started to use the Driving Force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response framework (DPSIR), which provides an overall mechanism for analysing environmental problems (Figure 3). The Driving forces (e.g. social and economic developments) exert Pressures (e.g. pollution), leading to changes in the State of the environment (e.g. changes in the physico-chemical and biological systems, nutrients, organic matter, etc.), which then lead to Impacts on humans and ecosystems (e.g. fish mortality, phytoplankton blooms) that will in turn require a societal Response (e.g. building water treatment plants). The response can feed back to the driving forces, the pressures, the state or the impacts directly though adaptation or remedial action (policies, legislation, restrictions, etc.). A fuller review of the early development of DPSIR can be found through international organisation web resources,

but

is

well

described

by

the

Food

and

Agriculture

(http://www.fao.org/nr/lada/?option=com_content&task=view&id=69&Itemid=1)

Organization and

(FAO)

European

Environment Agency (EEA) (http://ia2dec.ew.eea.europa.eu/knowledge_base/Frameworks/doc101182).

Figure 3. Driving forces-Pressure-State-Impact-Response modified from original EU framework (EU, 1999)

8

It should be noted that interpretation of DPSIR has been variable, particularly regarding States and Impacts which are often defined/used differently by natural and social scientists. For example, where either: 

States are State of the Environment and Impacts are physical/chemical/biological changes to the state of the environment (*1), or



State is State Change (of the environment) and Impacts are the effects on human society and welfare (*2);

where *1 is a natural science perspective and *2 is a social science perspective.

The lack of clarity of DPSIR definitions led to further re-definition of one element of the model resulting in the ‘modified DPSIR’ (mDPSIR) of the ELME EU FP6 project (for project details see Section 3.1.1.). Within mDPSIR the Impact category was restricted to impacts on human systems thus leading in turn to the definition of the DPSWR framework in the KNOWSEAS FP7 project (for project details see Section 3.1.1.). In this project, Cooper (2013) replaced Impact with Welfare (W, hence DPSWR). However, it has been suggested that neither I or W fully described the main features given that it is an impact on human welfare that is important hence using I(W) (Elliott, 2014). Many applications of what is referred to as a DPSIR approach actually make use of definitions that actually reflect those associated with the DPSWR model.

This report uses the terminology defined in Box 1 and is based on Borja et al. (2006), Robinson et al. (2008) and Atkins et al. (2011), with the important proviso that where Impacts are related to natural ecosystems we have defined this as a State Change.

9


BOX 1. D e f i n i n g D P S I R ________________________________________________________ 









Drivers at the highest level, ‘Driving Forces’ are considered to be the overarching economic and social policies of governments, and economic and social goals of those involved in industry. At a mid-level they may be considered to be Sectors in industry (e.g. fishing) and at a lower level, Activities in the sector (e.g. demersal trawling). Pressure is considered as the mechanism through which an activity has an actual or potential effect on any part of the ecosystem (e.g. for demersal trawling activity, one pressure would be abrasion to the seabed). State change refers to changes in the ‘State’ of the natural environment which is effected by pressures which cause State Changes to Ecological Characteristics (Environmental variable, Habitats, Species/Groups structural or functional diversity) (e.g. abrasion may cause a decrease in macrofaunal diversity) Impacts are the effect of State Changes on human health and society, sometimes referred to as welfare, change in welfare is affected by changes in use values and in non-use values (e.g. loss of goods and services from loss of biodiversity). Response is the societal response to impacts through various policy measures, such as regulations, information and taxes; these can be directed at any other part of the system (e.g. reduction in the number of bottom trawler licenses, the change to a less abrasive gear, or creation of no-fishing areas).

Within the last 10 years, the core use of DPSIR in a number of EU funded projects, covering a wide range of issues, has led to clarifications, adaptations and translation into assessments. This is further detailed in Section 3.1.1.

In another modification, used by social scientists, DPSIR has been related to Goods and Services through EBM-DPSER where Ecosystem Based Management (EBM) is directly related to Driver-Pressure-StateEcosystem Service-Response (Kelble et al., 2012) or the ES&SB (Ecosystem Services and Societal Benefits) linked DPSIR approach (Atkins et al., 2011). A further development of DPSIR in the area of health has been the DPSEEA framework comprising Driving forces-Pressures-State-Exposure-EffectAction (and sometimes DPSEEAC, where ‘C’ relates to Context), a framework used primarily in risk assessments for contaminants and developed by the World Health Organisation (Schirnding, 2002). A further development for creating indicators of children’s environmental health is the MEME framework (many-exposures many-effects) thus moving from the linear and pollution based view of DPSEEA (and other) frameworks (Briggs, 2003).

2.1. Single DPSIR Cycles It is emphasised that the DPSIR framework (as a single cycle) relates to a sectoral Driver, such as the requirement for food space, navigation, production, etc., and its resulting Pressures. As those occur 10

within an area being managed then they are referred to as Endogenic Managed Pressures in which the management can address the causes and consequences, such as fishing or navigation (e.g. Elliott, 2011). However, it should be recognised that the elements in this framework (and their depicted interrelationships) do not exist in isolation from the wider environment and that a range of natural pressures (based on ecology, climate, geomorphology and other dynamic conditions) act on the ecosystem and may potentially lead to State Change. That is, the area being managed is also subject to external pressures, i.e. Exogenic Unmanaged Pressures, in which consequences rather than causes are addressed and where management is required on larger or external scales, such as climate change or nutrient pollution from catchments.

Whilst a single DPSIR model or cycle represents a vast over-simplification of the ‘real world’, it can nevertheless be used to help build a conceptual understanding of the relationships between environmental change, anthropogenic pressures and management options. However, to be of value, the model does need to be bounded (e.g. Svarstad et al., 2008), for example, by defining the spatial limits for its application to any particular instance (usually the management unit such as a particular area of sea or length of coast). Additionally, a simple DPSIR cycle is bounded in conceptual terms, for example, in terms of the activity or sector to which it applies. Given that all areas are subjected to multiple Drivers, then there is the need for multiple and nested DPSIR cycles.

2.2. Multiple DPSIRs The marine environment can be seen as a complex adaptive system (Gibbs and Cole, 2008). In this context one activity (such as might be represented by a single DPSIR cycle) will inevitably interact with and impact upon other activities and cannot be fully considered in isolation. For example a reduction in wild fisheries could have a knock-on effect to aquaculture or the fish from wild fisheries used as feedstock for aquaculture. Using the DPSIR approach this can most simply be visualised as several interlinked DPSIR cycles (each representing a different activity or sector which interact together and demand a share of the available resources).

Atkins et al. (2011) linked separate systems by the Response element, arguing that the effective management of anthropogenic impacts should be in the form of an integrated action (involving many types of response) affecting all relevant activities. It is also possible to consider separate DPSIR cycles, each relating to a different activity, being linked by the Pressures element and reflecting the concept that a number of different activities can give rise to the same environmental pressure (Figure 4). In a manner analogous to the graphical presentation used by Atkins et al. (2011), Figure 4 illustrates how a 11


single Pressure (the central blue circle) provides a common link between five separate DPSIR cycles, which represent five separate activities. For the sake of clarity, the links within each individual DPSIR cycle have been simplified (e.g. by omitting the direct R-P link within each cycle and the links between other D, S, I and R elements for different cycles a la Atkins et al., 2011).

Linking separate DPSIR cycles in this way (Figure 4), and placing Pressure at the heart of the model, has the advantage of focusing attention on the Pressure as the system element that needs to be managed, an approach that supports the assessment of pressure-state change linkages. It should be noted that any such single Pressure may bring about a State change across a number of different ecological components.

Figure 4. Separate DPSIR cycles linked through a common pressure element.

Having a series of nested and linked DPSIR cycles, and linking those nested DPSIR cycles across ecosystems, accommodates many pressures within one area (Atkins et al., 2011). It is emphasised that a nested DPSIR cycle in a near-shore area, for example, has to link with those in the catchments, estuaries and at sea. This overcomes some of the difficulties in applying the framework to dynamic systems, cause-consequence relationships, multiple drivers and only linear unidirectional causal chains. The remainder of this review investigates further the DPSIR concept as a flexible framework to structure biodiversity impact studies in the marine environment.

12

2.3. Multiple pressures It is recognised that any one driver or activity may cause multiple pressures which, in turn, can cause multiple state changes. Any framework used to help conceptualise pressure-state change relationships in the marine environment needs to be able to account for multiple pressures. Consequently the DPSIR conceptual model framework (Figure 4) would need to be expanded to accommodate multiple pressures. For example, the different levels in Figure 5 (shown as blue, green and purple circles) represent different pressures or classes of pressure, P1, P2 and P3 (e.g. abrasion from demersal trawling, anchoring, dredging; marine litter from fishing, shipping, renewable energy developments; substratum loss from non-renewable energy development, renewable energy development, dredging etc.) Again, individual DPSIR cycles are activity-specific. Within this model there would be numerous links between DPSIR chains across the different levels; for example, where the DPSIR cycle for a single activity is responsible for a number of different pressures, or where the responses and drivers for one activity interact with or affect the responses and drivers for a different activity.

Figure 5. Linked DPSIR cycles within and across three separate pressures, P1, P2 and P3.

13


Whilst this approach begins to accommodate all of the necessary information for conceptualising the multidimensional relationships between activities and, through their associated and inter-related DPSIR cycles, the pressures and state changes to which they potentially give rise, there is also a requirement to be able to take the model constructs or outputs and use them to help augment our understanding of the (complex) system that is represented. For example, an improved understanding of the interactions between Drivers, Pressures and States (or, more particularly, the pressure-state change (P-S) linkage) would help to facilitate consideration of possible Responses. This is not something that is specifically provided for by application of the DPSIR approach.

3. Conceptual Models 3.1. Pressure-State Change Conceptual Models Since the DPSIR framework was developed in the late 1990s to structure and organize indicators in a meaningful way, it has been further applied, discussed and developed. Concentrating on known concepts, we have carried out a comprehensive but non-exhaustive review of the available literature concerned with the DPSIR framework its ‘derivatives’ and other related frameworks (Table 1). Box 2 shows the frameworks included in the review and the general components of each model.

The focus of this review is on research projects and publications dealing with coastal and marine habitats. However, the scope of the analysis is broadened to include both projects and publications that present or discuss the framework, regardless of its application to specific case studies and studies that address biodiversity (sensu lato) under the scope of DPSIR.

14

BOX 2. F r a m e w o r k c o m p o n e n t s ________________________________________________________  BPSIR: Behavior - Pressure - State - Impact – Response  DPCER: Driver - Pressure - Chemical state - Ecological state – Response  DPS: Driver - Pressure – State  DPSEA: Driver - Pressure - State - Effect – Action  DPSEEA: Driver - Pressure - State - Exposure - Effect – Action  DPSEEAC: Driver – Pressure – State – Exposure – Effect – Action - Context  DPSI: Driver - Pressure - State – Impact  DPSIR: Driver - Pressure - State - Impact – Response  DPSWR: Driver - Pressure - State (change) - Welfare – Response  DSR: Drivers - State – Response  EBM-DPSER: Ecosystem Based Management/Driver - Pressure - State - Ecosystem service – Response

 eDPSEEA: ecosystems-enriched Driver - Pressure - State - Exposure - Effect – Actions  eDPSIR: enhanced Driver - Pressure - State - Impact – Response  mDPSIR: Driver - Pressure - State - Impact – Response  PD: Pressures – Drivers  PSBR: Pressure - State - Benefits – Response  PSIR: Pressure - State - Impact – Response  PSR/E: Pressure - State - Response – Effects  Tetrahedral DPSIR: Driver - Pressure - State - Impact – Response (adapted)

3.1.1. Research projects Table 1 shows the final list of projects that were considered, categorised by “Acronym”, “Title”, “Duration”, “Funding institution”, “Geographical area”, “General objective” of the project, “Framework/model type” used, “Keywords”, “Website” and some examples of “Output references”. A column with additional information gives complementary details for some of the projects. The projects are listed in alphabetical order.

Since 1999, at least 23-research projects focusing on coastal and marine habitats have used (or are using) the DPSIR framework and/or derivatives as part of their conceptual development phases. Three of these projects had a scope beyond coastal and marine ecosystems, aiming to tackle large-scale environmental risks to biodiversity (e.g. FP6 ALARM), to contribute to the progress of Sustainability 15


Science (e.g. FP6 THRESHOLDS) and to identify and assess integrated EU climate change policy (e.g. FP7 RESPONSES). They have been included in this review as their findings can extend to the coastal and marine habitats.

From the considerable number of projects that used the framework or derivatives, only one was the result of non-European funds. The USA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Centre for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research supported the MARES project that developed the EMB-DPSER framework (see Nuttle et al., 2011 and Kelble et al., 2013). This review suggests that DPSIR is a framework that several European projects have applied and/or developed but is less commonly the case in non-EU areas.

The research projects that were considered in this review had diversified objectives, for example:



to improve Integrated Coastal Zone Management and planning maritime safety (e.g. BLAST);



integration of climate change into development planning (e.g. CLIMBIZ, RESPONSES, LAGOONS);



to provide a roadmap to sustainable integration of aquaculture and fisheries (e.g. COEXIST);



application of an ecosystem based marine management (ODEMM), the Ecosystem Approach to management (KNOWSEAS) or to fisheries (e.g. CREAM);



to integrate the marine and human system and assess human activity and its social, economic and cultural aspects (ELME, KNOWSEAS, VECTORS, ODEMM, DEVOTES);



to support scientifically the implementation of several European directives and legislation (e.g. ODEMM, LAGOONS, MULINO, SPICOSA, KNOWSEAS, DEVOTES);



to improve the knowledge of how environmental and man-made factors are impacting the marine ecosystems and are affecting the range of ecosystem goods and services provided (e.g. VECTORS, ODEMM, DEVOTES, SESAME, LAGOONS);



to produce integrated management tools (e.g. MESMA, ODEMM, DITTY, MULINO, LAGOONS, DEVOTES);



to look at spatial management and conflicts/synergies/trade offs (MESMA, COEXIST, ODEMM);



to produce threat, risk and pressure assessment (e.g. ODEMM, DEVOTES), and



to produce new biodiversity indicators and Environmental Status assessment tools (e.g. DEVOTES)

In addition to the scientific context, the role played by the DPSIR framework and/or derivatives also varied markedly from project to project. ELME, KNOWSEAS, ODEMM, DEVOTES and VECTORS have used (or are using) the DPSIR framework extensively and some of these projects have developed and further

16

modified the framework (e.g. ELME-mDPSIR and KNOWSEAS-DPSWR). However, this review encountered some difficulties mainly related to access to information. For some projects the website is no longer active (e.g. DITTY, ELME, EUROCAT, SESAME). In other projects, it has been difficult to find specific content even with a careful and thorough examination of websites, list of deliverables and publications. The lack of easy open-access acts as a constraint to apply and explore further the knowledge gained by the application of the conceptual frameworks.

17


Table 1. List of research projects that have used or are using DPSIR and/or derivatives as part of their conceptual frameworks. Acronym

ALARM

BLAST

CLIMBIZ

18

Title

Duration Funding

Assessing large scale risks for biodiversity 2004-2008 EU - 6FP with tested methods

Bringing land and sea together

Introducing climate change in the environmental strategy of the protection for the Black Sea

Area

General objective

To develop and test methods for assessing large-scale Europe + others environmental risks to biodiversity and to evaluate options to mitigate these risks.

North Sea 2009-2012 EU- Interreg region

BSEC Proj. Dev. Fund Black Sea and the region Austrian Dev. Agency

To improve ICZM and planning and maritime safety in a broad sense, by improving and contributing to harmonising terrestrial and sea geographical data, by developing planning and visualisation tools, and by improving the safety of maritime navigation - all in the context of climate change.

Regional Multilateral Organizations of the Black Sea have improved understanding of and capacities to integrate climate change into development planning, while private sector agents in the region are better equipped to contribute to low-carbon and climate change resilient development.

Framework/ Model type

Keywords

Website

Output references (e.g.)

Additional information

Hulme 2007, Maxim et al. 2009

The ALARM project adapted the general DPSIR concept to biodiversity (Maxim et al. 2009). Social and economic developments (Driving Forces) exert Pressures on the environment and, as a consequence, the State of the environment changes. This leads to Impacts on ecosystems, human health, and society, which may elicit a societal Response that feeds back on Driving Forces, on State or on Impacts via various mitigation, adaptation or curative actions. The general DPSIR approach was adapted for the risk assessmet because (i) biodiversity is complex with many interdependencies; (ii) it is difficult to consider social or political aspects in the general approach; (iii) it does not address uncertainties, needed for scientific applications.

DPSIR

biodiversity, environmental http://www.alarmpr risk assessment, oject.net/alarm/ mitigation measures

DPSIR

Integrated coastal zone www.blast-project.eu management, maritime safety

WP6 analysed how the DPSIR model can be used to describe the role of ICZM under the pressure of climate change.

climate change vulnerability and adaptation, development planning, lowcarbon development

The analysis is structured around DPIVR which is a modification of the DPSIR framework. The DPIVR stands for: Drivers (D) – major driving forces which characterise the target area; Pressures (P) – the pressures on the system caused by climate change; Impacts (I) – the effect of climate change on the different dimensions of the region; Vulnerability (V) – the degree to which systems affected by climate change are susceptible and unable to cope with climate impacts; Response (R) – management responses to climate change vulnerabilities. The DPIVR framework considers economic, social and natural dimensions.

DPIVR

http://www.climbiz.o rg/1-0Hills et al. OVERVIEW.html#.U3 2013 xy7tKSz_E

Acronym

Title

Duration Funding

Area

General objective

COEXIST

Interaction in coastal waters: a roadmap to sustainable 2010-2013 EU - FP7 integration of aquaculture and fisheries

Europe

CREAM

Coordinating research in support to application of ecosystem approach to fisheries and 2011-2014 EU - FP7 management advice in the Mediterranean and Black Seas

To set up the basis for a future network of research organisations to coordinate Mediterranean fisheries research for the and Black Seas effective application of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) in Mediterranean and Black Seas.

DEVOTES

Development of innovative tools for understanding 2012-2016 EU - FP7 marine biodiversity and assessing good environmental status

Europe

DITTY

Development of an information technology tool for the management of European Southern lagoons under the influence of riverbasin runoff

To develop the scientific and operational bases for a sustained utilisation of resources in Portugal, Spain, Southern European Lagoons, France, Italy taking into account all relevant and Greece impacts that affect the aquatic environment and developing targeted information technology tools.

2003-2006 EU - FP5

To provide a roadmap to better integration, sustainability and synergies across the diverse activities taking place in the European coastal zone.

To improve understanding of human activities impacts and variations due to climate change on marine biodiversity, to test/integrate indicators into a unified assessment of the biodiversity and to look at innovative modelling tools and monitoring systems.


DPSIR

DPSIR

DPSIR refined

DPSIR

Keywords

fisheries, aquaculture, coastal ecosystems, sustainability

fisheries, ecosystem approach, management

assessment tools, marine biodiversity, GEnS, MSFD, ecosystem services, indicators, monitoring, modelling tools

Website


www.coexistproject.e Jongbloed et u al 2011

Case studies reports and factsheets are available online along with the COEXIST guidance document and publications. The website also provides info and where applicable access to the COEXISTdeliverables and tools that include GIS mapping of activities, to Individual Stress Level Analysis (ISLA), Analysis of Conflict Scores, models and suitability maps, and stakeholder preferences. An International Conference on "Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries in the Mediterranean and BlackSeas" was held focussing on practical applications and socio-political recommendations derived from the project. A special Issue of "Sciencia Marina" (The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries in the Mediterranean and Black Seas”; Sci. Mar. 78S1: 2014) with Conference contributions is available at: http://www.icm.csic.es/scimar/index.php/secId/6/IdNum/196/)

www.cream-fp7.eu

http://www.devotesproject.eu/


Smith et al. 2014 (this Deliverable)

information technology tools, ICZM, coastal http://www.dittyproj Aliaume et al. lagoons, ect.org - NOT ACTIVE 2007 Decision Support System (DSS)

The DPSIR framework is reviewed and DPSWR is developed under WP1 "Human pressures and climate change" Task 1.1. "Conceptual models". It is also used and populated with data/metadata under WP2 "Socialeconomic implications for achieving Good Environmental Status" and WP6 "Integrated Assessment of Biodiversity".

The framework was used in WP6 final report - Scenario Analysis for Coastal Lagoons Management (D19 and D20).

19


Acronym

ELME

EUROCAT

IASON

KNOWSEAS

20

Title

Duration Funding

European lifestyles and marine ecosystems. 2004-2007 EU - FP6 Exploring challenges for managing Europe's seas.

European catchments. Catchment changes and their impact on the coast

International action for sustainability of the Mediterranean and Black Sea environment

Knowledge-based sustainable management for Europe's seas

2001-2004 EU - FP5

2005-2006 EU - FP6

2009-2013 EU - FP7

Area

General objective

Europe

Model the consequences of alternative scenarios for human development in post-accession Europe on the marine environment, through improved understanding of the relationship between European lifestyles and the state of marine ecosystems.

Europe

1) Identify the impacts on the coast, 2) Interface biophysical catchment and coastal models with socio-economic models, 3) Develop regional environmental change scenarios, 4) Link scenarios with the modelling toolbox to evaluate plausible futures and 5) Evaluate the research outcomes with stakeholders and policy makers.

Mediterranean and Black Sea region

To make hitherto inaccessible knowledge regarding the current state of the marine and coastal environment of the Mediterranean and Black Sea, available to the scientific community and the public at large.

Europe

To develop a comprehensive scientific knowledge base and practical guidance for the application of the Ecosystem Approach to the sustainable development of Europe’s regional seas.


mDPSIR

DPSIR

DPSIR

DPSWR



lifestyles and the state of marine ecosystems, scenarios, http://www.elmehuman eu.org/ - NOT ACTIVE development, policy, social change

Langmead et al. 2007, 2009

ELME was designed to help ensure that emergent European Union policies take into account the protection of marine ecosystems and biological diversity. The approach integrates information on: the current major state changes affecting Europe’s marine ecosystems; the pressures (anthropogenic and from natural variability) on the environment producing these state changes; the underlying social and economic drivers that lead to these pressures; and the plausible scenarios for social and economic change across Europe during the next 2 decades. KNOWSEAS was the follow up from ELME.

water resouces, river basin http://www.cs.iia.cnr.i management, t/EUROCAT/project.ht scenarios, m - NOT ACTIVE models

Turner et al 2001 (draft report), Salomons 2004, Kannen et al. 2004, Nunneri and Hofmann 2005

pressures on the coastal zone, www.iasonnet.gr ecosystem functioning

download deliverables here: http://www.i Attention: there is also a FP7 IASON. asonnet.gr/lib rary/index.ht ml

Keywords

Website

ecosystem approach, costs and benefits, sustainable seas, socio-ecological systems www.knowseas.com modelling, marine ecosystem impacts, marine resources

Cooper 2012

KnowSeas worked at the Regional Sea and Member State EEZs scale and developed a new approach of Decision Space Analysis to investigate mismatches of scale. Knowledge created through the ELME project, augmented with necessary new studies of climate effects, fisheries and maritime industries provided a basis for assessing changes to natural systems and their human causes. New research examined and modeled economic and social impacts of changes to ecosystem goods and services and costs and benefits of various management options available through existing and proposed policy instruments.

Acronym

Title

Duration Funding

Area

General objective

To contribute to a science-based seamless strategy of the management of lagoons seen under the land-sea and sciencepolicy-stakeholder interface; i.e., the project seeks to underpin the integration of the WFD, Habitat Directive, the EU’s ICZM Recommendation, and the MSFD.

LAGOONS

Integrated water resources and coastal zone management in 2011-2014 EU - FP7 European lagoons in the context of climate change

MARE

Marine Research on Eutrophication - A Scientific Base for Cost Effective measures for the Baltic

Swedish Foundation 1999-2006 for Strategic Baltic Sea Env. Research

To develop a user-friendly decision support system (Nest) in order to make estimations of cost-effective measures against eutrophication of the Baltic Sea possible.

Marine and Estuarine Goal Setting

NOAA Center for Sponsored 2009-2012 Coastal Ocean Research, USA

USA

To reach a science-based consensus on the defining characteristics and fundamental regulating processes of a South Florida coastal marine ecosystem that is both sustainable and capable of providing the diverse ecological services upon which society depends.

Europe

To produce integrated management tools (concepts, models and guidelines) for Monitoring, Evaluation and implementation of Spatially Managed marine Areas, based on European collaboration.

Europe

To develop a methodology that aims to support the implementation of the EU WFD.

MARES

MESMA

Monitoring and evaluation of spatially managed areas

MULINO

Multi-sectoral integrated and operational decision support system for 2001-2003 EU - FP5 sustainable use of water resources at the catchment scale

2009-2013 EU - FP7

Europe


Keywords

Website


DPSIR

lagoons, climate change, modelling, ecosystem lagoons.web.ua.pt processes, WFD, science-policy interface, river basins

Dolbeth et al. 2014

DPSIR

eutrophication, coastal ecosystems, scenarios, management, land-ocean interactions

http://www.mare.su.s e/ENG/eng-om/engom.html

Lundberg 2005

DPSER

management, coastal and marine ecosystems, integrated ecosystem models, indicators, sustainability

http://soflamares.org/

Nuttle et al. 2011, Kelble et al. 2013

DPSIR

marine spatial management, ecosystem based approach, www.mesma.org planning strategies, sustainable development

Stelzenmüller et al. 2013

DPSIR

decision support system, catchment areas, http://siti.feem.it/muli management, no/ water resources, tool, WFD

Giupponi 2002,2007, Fassio et al. 2005, Mysiak et al. 2005


The MESMA framework was developed in WP2 Framework for monitoring and evaluation of Spatially Managed Areas.

21


Acronym

Title

Duration

Funding

ODEMM

Options for delivering ecosystem2010-2013 EU - FP7 based marine management

RESPONSES

European responses to climate change: deep emissions reductions and mainstreaming of mitigation and adaptation

SESAME

SPICOSA

22

2010 2013

EU - FP7

Southern European seas: assessing and 2007-2011 EU - FP6 modelling ecosystem changes

Science and policy integration for coastal system assessment

2007-2011 EU - FP6

Area

General objective

Europe

To develop a set of fully-costed ecosystem management options that would deliver the objectives of the MSFD, the Habitats Directive, the EC Blue Book and the Guidelines for the Integrated Approach to Maritime Policy. To produce scientifically-based operational procedures that allow for a step by step transition from the current fragmented system to fully integrated mature ecosystem based marine management.

Europe

To identify integrated EU climatechange policy responses that achieve ambitious mitigation and environmental targets and, at the same time, reduce the Union's vulnerability to inevitable climate-change impacts.

Mediterranean and Black Sea region

Europe

To assess and predict changes in the Mediterranean and Black Sea ecosystems as well as changes in the ability of these ecosystems to provide goods and services.

To develop and test a selfevolving, operational research approach framework for the assessment of policy options for the sustainable management of coastal zone systems.



DPSIR

ecosystem-based marine management, pressure assessment, risk assessment, costbenefit analysis, management www.liv.ac.uk/odemm strategy / evaluation, governance, MSFD, decision making, uncertainty, ecosystem services

Koss et al. 2011, Knights et al. 2011, 2013

Publications and guidance documents/supporting info are availbale online on the tools developed including the pressure assessment guidance and the detailed linkage framework populating aspects of the DPSIR (e.g. linking sectors/pressures/ecosystem components and ecosystem services).

DPSIR

climate change mitigation and adaptation, http://www.responses strategic climate project.eu/ assessment approach

Meller et al, 2012 (D5.2)

The ALARM-work was useful for the RESPONSES framework (see above).

DPSIR

ecosystem goods and services, http://www.sesameglobal change, ip.eu/ - NOT ACTIVE ecosystem variability

DPSIR

sustainable management, coastal zone, policy options, System Approach Framework, science-policy interface, ICZM


Keywords

Website

http://www.spicosa.eu Gari, 2010 /

The ongoing project Policy-oriented marine Environmental Research for the Southern European Seas (PERSEUS) is a research project that assesses the dual impact of human activity and natural pressures on the Mediterranean and Black Seas. http://www.perseusnet.eu/ PERSEUS was the follow up project from SESAME.

Acronym

TIDE

THRESHOLDS

VECTORS

Title

Tidal river development

Thresholds of environmental sustainability

Duration Funding

2010-2013 EU Interreg

2005-2010 EU - FP6

Vectors of change in oceans and seas 2011-2015 EU - FP7 marine life, impact on economic sectors

Area

General objective

To help make integrated North Sea region management and planning a estuaries reality in the Elbe, Weser, Scheldt and Humber estuaries.

Europe

To bridge the gap between Science and Sustainability Policies through the establishment of a policy formulation mechanism based on: a) a target setting process driven by novel scientific knowledge on environmental sustainability indicator thresholds, b) the assessment of socio-economic costs and impacts associated to such targets and c) an integrated assessment model leading to the identification of the most costeffective abatement measures to maintain sustainability.

Europe (North Sea, Baltic and Western Mediterranean)

To improve our understanding of how environmental and manmade factors are impacting marine ecosystems now and in the future. To examine how these changes will affect the range of goods and services provided by the oceans, the ensuing socio-economic impacts and some of the measures that could be developed to reduce or adapt to these changes.


Keywords

Website



DPSIR

integrated estuarine management and planning

http://www.tideproject.eu/

Atkins et al. 2011b

TIDE took into account the ecological, economical and societal needs of the regions involved and interlinked the multiple processes and large scale efforts taking place in the estuaries. TIDE integrated the knowledge and solutions generated by previous projects such as HARBASINS, SedNet and New!Delta and existing management plans required by EU directives.

DPSIR

sustainability, indicator thresholds, coastal ecosystems, socio-economic assessment, policy support

http://www.threshold s-eu.org

Thresholds Report No. D6.2.5, 2007

The THRESHOLDS IP will develop generic tools but will apply them to the specific case of coastal ecosystems.

DPSIR

marine management, database of genetic material www.marineof invasive and vectores.eu outbreak species, tourism, AquaNIS

Vugteveen et al. 2014

To facilitate integrated assessment of human and ecosystem health and ecosystem service provision VECTORS also produced a new DPSIR based conceptual model, the ecosystems-enriched Drivers, Pressures, State, Exposure, Effects, Actions or ‘eDPSEEA’ model (Reis et al 2014). Their model recognizes convergence between the concept of ecosystems services which provides a human health and well-being slant to the value of ecosystems while equally emphasizing the health of the environment.

23


Focus should be drawn to a number of key EU funded projects because of their application of the DPSIR conceptual framework in the marine environment and how they have taken, adopted and/or adapted the framework going into assessments with towards a clear and standardised process.

The ELME project (European Lifestyles and the Marine Environment) investigated marine environmental problems, their connectivity with social and economic causes, and alternative future policy options. ELME adopted the DPSIR framework to organize information related to regional seas case study environmental issues with impacts relating to human welfare although the project did not consider the Response component of the framework. One of the key aspects was the identification of environmental linkages through use of expert groups. The conceptual models represented the linkages (sectoral drivers, pressures, states) identified for Bayesian modelling for future impacts under plausible 2025 scenarios. ELME was important as noted in Section 2 for developing the ‘modified DPSIR’, bringing a structure to horrendograms or pressure linkages (see Figure 6 an example of the Black Sea conceptual model) and for incorporating exogenous climatic variables along with normally stated endogenous anthropogenic drivers.

Figure 6. ELME Black Sea conceptual model with the simulation model embedded within it (red arrows show pathways between variables included in the simulation model, while grey arrows indicate where linkages were made conceptually but were not included). Yellow indicates anthropogenic driver variables; blue indicates exogenous climatic driver variables; purple indicates pressures, while green indicates ecological state variables. 24

The KNOWSEAS project, a follow-up to ELME concerned the Ecosystem Approach to Management and the development of a strong systems approach between natural (environment) and social science (economic and social data) that could deliver the knowledge base to support management for sustainable seas. KNOWSEAS took forward mDPSIR to the DPSWR conceptual approach, because of definition uncertainty and difficulties with the underpinning concepts of the EEA categorization (EEA, 1999). The DPSWR framework isolated human system aspects of the interaction with ecological systems, enabling a direct comparison of the sort required by cost-benefit analysis. This reconfiguration also supported accountability within human systems. By isolating human from environmental impacts it is possible to describe which of these and to what extent they are attributable to those who perform Driver activities (Cooper, 2012).

With the implementation of latest environmental framework directives, the ODEMM project was set up to investigate and quantitatively evaluate, specify and propose options and actions for a gradual transition from fragmented management of activities (e.g. fish stock based regime for fisheries management) to a mature integrated ecosystem-based approach management. Scientifically-based operational procedures were used, with pressure-impact linkages, building on the DPSIR assessment approach, which systematically organised information to assess threats and help prioritize management actions. In terms of methodology, the ODEMM project produced a very structured DPSIR-based linkage framework matrix approach (Koss et al., 2011) with rigorous definition and pressure (Knights et al., 2011; Robinson and Knights, 2011) and risk assessments (Breen et al., 2012; Knights et al., 2014 subm). Regional sea pressure assessments were undertaken which considered standardised lists with 19 marine Sector/105 related Activities (including for example, different types of fishing or phases of operations of renewable energy activities), 21-25 pressures (18 taken from the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD; EU, 2008) plus other emergent or current threats identified by ODEMM), and 17 ecological characteristics (physical chemical features, habitats, and biotic groups). This 3-way matrix resulted in 7066 activity-pressure-impact chains, where impact is synonymous with state change, (Knights et al., 2013). Of these, 1462 individual chains were identified as having the potential for detrimental effects on the ecosystem and its characteristics. Concerning only Descriptor 4 of the MSFD (Food Webs), there were more than 700 causal chains. Ecological characteristics assessed were at high group levels (and not the more detailed MSFD/DEVOTES habitats and taxa) and analyses did not consider links between ecological characteristics. Figure 7 shows an example of the linkages of the Renewable Energy Sector are given for pressures on ecological components on specific MSFD descriptor and the linkage of the sector with economic and socio-cultural societal components.

25


Figure 7. Example of Sector-Pressure-Ecological Component linkage for how the Renewable Energy Sector (yellow) exerts multiple pressures (green) on to one Ecological Characteristic (blue), Predominant Habitat Type. This influences the ability to achieve Good Environmental Status for the MSFD Descriptor Seafloor Integrity (brown). From ODEMM project, Knights et al. (2011).

The COEXIST project, investigating the interaction in coastal waters between aquaculture and fisheries using a DPSIR approach for spatial management, paralleled ODEMM producing standardised lists of Sector/Activities (15), pressures (25) and ecological components (7) in 6 regional and local study areas with matrices-based assessments (Jongbloed et al., 2011).

The VECTORS project is another complete integrated multidisciplinary project encompassing natural and social sciences working towards future environmental requirements, policies and regulations across multiple sectors. The project structure was modelled on the DPSIR framework with individual workpackages on pressures, mechanisms, impacts, projection of impacts, all with socio-economic considerations (including governance and policy). As the title (Vectors of Change in Oceans and Seas Marine Life, Impact on Economic Sectors) implies, there is some degree of emphasis on vectors of change and in particular on causes and consequences of invasive alien species, outbreak forming species, and changes in fish distribution and productivity. To facilitate integrated assessment of human and ecosystem health and ecosystem service provision VECTORS propose a new DPSIR based conceptual model, the ecosystems-enriched Drivers, Pressures, State, Exposure, Effects, Actions or ‘eDPSEEA’ model (Reis et al., 2014). Their model recognizes convergence between the concept of ecosystems services 26

which provides a human health and well-being slant to the value of ecosystems while equally emphasizing the health of the environment.

3.1.2. Published Investigations The 126 studies analysed are available in different publication formats: research papers, review papers, essays, short communications, view point papers, seminar papers, discussion papers, journal editorials, policy briefs, conference long abstracts, monographs, technical reports, manuals, synthesis or final project reports and book chapters (see Table 2).

The studies were collated and each reference was categorised by ‘Study site’, ‘Habitat’, ‘Region’, ‘Framework/Model type’, ‘Issue/problem tackled’, ‘Implementation level’ and ‘Type of publication’. The complete references are given in Section 8. Table 2 presents the final list of references and their classification according to the previous categories. The order of the references in the table is grouped first by habitat (marine, coastal, etc.) then within habitat by implementation level (applied, conceptual, conceptual and applied).

Despite the popularity that the DPSIR framework and derivative models have gained in the last twenty years among the scientific community, and the recommendations of OECD (1993), EPA (1994), EEA (1999) and EU (1999) for its application, rather few studies have focused on the marine habitat. From our comprehensive review, only 21 studies cover exclusively this habitat and from these only 8 illustrate a concrete case study (German Exclusive Economic Zone (Fock et al., 2011); German waters of the North Sea (Gimpel et al., 2013); Baltic Sea, Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and North East Atlantic Ocean (Langmead et al., 2007; 2009); Baltic Sea (Andrulewicz, 2005); North and Baltic Sea (Sundblad et al., 2014); Northwestern part of the North Sea (Tett et al., 2013) and Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas (Kelble et al., 2013)). The remaining 14 studies are either explicitly conceptual or illustrate the framework with generic situations/issues. For example, Elliott (2002) examined offshore wind power and Ojeda-Martinez et al. (2009) studied the management of marine protected areas.

Adding to the studies exclusively focussing on marine habitats, there are 17 other studies that focus simultaneously on marine and coastal habitats (12 of them applied), covering the Mediterranean region (Casazza et al., 2002), Portuguese marine and coastal waters (Henriques et al., 2008), German North Sea (Lange et al., 2010), West coast of Schleswig-Holstein (Licht-Eggert, 2007), Baltic Sea (Lundberg, 2005, Ness et al., 2010), Dutch Wadden Sea region (Vugteveen et al., 2014), UK waters (Rogers and Greenaway 2005, Atkins et al., 2011) and the North East Atlantic (Turner et al., 2010).

27


Approximately half of the references focus explicitly on coastal habitats (e.g. estuaries, coastal lagoons, entire basins), and half of these are concrete case studies where to a certain extent the DPSIR framework or derivatives where applied. The framework has been used with very different purposes, for example: 

assessment of eutrophication (e.g. Lundberg, 2005; Rovira and Pardo, 2006; Bricker et al., 2003; Cave et al., 2003; Pirrone et al., 2005; Gari, 2010; Garmendia et al., 2012; Newton et al., 2003; Trombino et al., 2007; Zaldivar et al., 2008; Karageorgis et al., 2005; Nunneri and Hofmann, 2005);



development and selection of indicators (e.g. Bell, 2012; EPA, 2008; Bowen and Riley, 2003);



assessment of the impact and vulnerabilities of climate change (e.g. Hills et al., 2013; Holman et al., 2005);



fisheries and/or aquaculture management (e.g. Henriques et al., 2008; Hoff et al., 2008 in Turner et al., 2010; Martins et al., 2012; Rudd, 2004; Knudsen et al., 2010; Mangi et al., 2007; Marinov et al., 2007; Ou and Liu, 2010; Viaroli et al., 2007; Cranford et al., 2012);



integrated coastal management (e.g. EEA, 1999; Licht-Eggert, 2007; Mateus and Campuzano, 2008; Vugteveen et al., 2014; Turner et al., 1998b, 2010; Schernewski, 2008; Vacchi et al., 2007);



management of marine aggregates (e.g. Atkins et al., 2011; Cooper et al., 2013);



assessment of seagrass decline (e.g. Azevedo et al., 2013);



management of water resources (e.g. Giupponi, 2002, 2007; Mysiak et al., 2005);



assessment of wind farming consequences (e.g. Lange et al., 2010).

The remaining references (25) are not habitat-specific, most of them being conceptual by nature (i.e. defining or reviewing the frameworks, using DPSIR as reporting outline or as framework for selecting environmental indicators, assessing biodiversity loss, etc.).

It is also of note that 70% of the publications refer to the use of DPSIR and derivatives as frameworks for issue framing, for gaining greater understanding, as a research tool, for capturing and communicating complex relationships, as a tool for stakeholder engagement, as the subject of reviews and as the subject for further tool/methodology development linked to policy making and decision support systems. For example, Cormier et al. (2013), using Canadian and European approaches, emphasised DPSIR as a Risk Assessment and Risk Management framework and recommends that ICES uses this as their underlying rationale for assessing single and multiple pressures.

This review shows clearly that the DPSIR framework and its extensions have mainly been used in the European context, with only 18 % of the studies being performed in other regions of the world (e.g. EPA, 28

1994, 2008; Kelble et al., 2013 and Bricker et al., 2003, in the USA; Bidone and Lacerda, 2004 in South America; Lin et al., 2007; Ou and Liu 2010; Turner et al. 1998a in Asia; Mangi et al., 2007; Scheren et al., 2004; Walmsley, 2002 in Africa; Cox et al., 2004 in Australia).

It can be seen from the reviews above that there is a widespread and increasing usage of DPSIR type conceptual framework models in management and issue resolving. However, their usage in fully marine habitats was noted to be low. The variety of derivatives that have come directly through the original DPS chains or DPSIR, indicates that usage is widely open to re-interpretation and our experience has shown that even within DPSIR there is a high degree in variation with how the major components are interpreted or defined. It thus becomes necessary to define how it is used in every study otherwise there is great confusion in whether a component is ascribed to driver/pressure, pressure/state or state/impact. The recent development within and between recent EU funded projects has helped to standardise definitions and component lists and has given a more rigid structure in starting from concept and moving to assessments, even though they may have used different definitions. The existing models are good for depicting the relationships between activities/sectors/pressures and the habitat/biological component that might be affected (or have its state changed) but there are none that actually address state change, what it is or how it arises. The science behind assessments is still advancing as new knowledge becomes available, but it still has it has to deal with ecosystems that are all complex, and where pressure-effect relationships on ecosystem components and interrelationships between these components are not fully understood. This complexity is further highlighted by the 7000+ regional seas activity-pressure-impacts (impact=state change) chains identified from the ODEMM project (see previous section) with state change components only identified at a very gross level. Consequently whilst DPSIR provides a very strong concept, there is room for much more development in refining the concept, methodologies and applications.

29


Table 2. Reference investigations concerned with DPSIR framework and derivatives (grouped by “habitat” – 1st level and by “implementation level” – 2nd level)). Reference

Study site

Habitat

Region


Issue/problem

Implementation level

Type of publication

Marine

Europe

PSR

Linking marine fisheries to environmental objectives (seafloor integrity)

Applied

Research paper

Marine

Europe

DPSI

Assessing changes in nursery grounds

Applied

Research paper

Marine

Europe

mDPSIR

Applied

Final project report

Northwestern Black Sea shelf

Marine

Europe

DPSIR

Applied

Research paper

Andrulewicz 2005

Baltic Sea

Marine

Europe

DPSIR

Kelble et al. 2013

Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas, USA

Marine

North America

EBM-DPSER

Fock et al. 2011 Gimpel et al. 2013 Langmead et al. 2007

Langmead et al. 2009

German EEZ German waters of the North Sea Baltic Sea, Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and North-East Atlantic

North and Baltic seas, Sweeden

Marine

Europe

BPSIR

Northwestern part of the North Sea

Marine

Europe

DPSIR + other

Atkins et al. 2011a

-

Marine

-

DPSIR

Cooper 2013

-

Marine

Europe

DPSWR

Curtin and Prellezo 2010

-

Marine

-

DPSIR & PSR

Elliott 2002

-

Marine

-

Sundblad et al. 2014

Tett et al. 2013

Elliott et al. 2006

30

-

Marine

Europe

Organising information relating to habitat change, eutrophication, chemical pollution and fishing Modelling the consequences of alternative scenarios of human development Developing indicators for management of human impact Informing management decisions Framework for structuring the social information that can play an important role in MSFD implementation (case studies: phosphorous load, mercury load and cod fishery)

Conceptual and Applied Conceptual and Applied

Book chapter Research paper

Conceptual and Applied

Research paper

Framework for understanding marine ecosystem health General management of the marine environment Defining the DPSWR framework and comment on its application to marine systems Help management to form sustainability indicators (EBM)


Review paper

Conceptual

Research paper

Conceptual

Research paper

Conceptual

Review paper

DPSIR

Management of offshore wind power

Conceptual

Journal editorial

DPSIR

Management approach for marine environment (i.e. framework to explain the causes and consequences of state change in the marine environment)

Conceptual

Technical report

Reference

Study site

Habitat

Region


Elliott 2011

-

Marine

-

DPSIR

Fehling 2009

-

Marine

-

DPSIR

German North Sea

Marine

Europe

DPSIR

Knights et al. 2013

-

Marine

Europe

DPSIR

Ojeda-Martínez et al. 2009

-

Marine

-

DPSIR

Rapport and Hildén 2013

Baltic Sea

Marine

Europe

PSR

Rees et al. 2006

UK waters

Marine

Europe

DPSIR

-

Marine

Europe

DPSIR & PSR

Mediterranean region

Marine and Coastal

-

Marine and Coastal

Portuguese marine and coastal waters

Marine and Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

-

Marine and Coastal

Black Sea

DPIVR

Lange et al. 2010

German North Sea

Marine and Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Licht-Eggert 2007

West coast of SchleswigHolstein (North Sea)

Marine and Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Kannen and Bukhard 2009

Stelzenmüller et al. 2013

Casazza et al. 2002 EEA 1999 Henriques et al. 2008

Hills et al. 2013

Mediterranean region Mediterranean region

DPSIR DPSIR

Issue/problem Philosophy for tackling and communicating methods of marine management Environmental assessment and monitoring management Integrated assessment of coastal and marine changes (e.g. offshore wind farms) Build an integrated network that captures the diverse and complex range of sector activities that through pressure pathways impact marine ecosystems, i.e. methodology development to support ecosystembased management Management of marine protected areas Effectiveneness of ecological indicators Use of indicators in international evaluations under the ‘DPSIR’ framework Monitoring and evaluation of spatially managed areas (ecosystem based marine management) Selection of indicators for environmental analysis Report marine and coastal management Development of a fish-based multimetric index toassess ecological quality of marine habitats Assessment of the impact and vulnerabilities associated with climate change Analyzing coastal and marine changes offshore wind farming Scenarios as a tool for integrated assessment of potential coastal developments


Type of publication

Conceptual

Journal editorial

Conceptual

Seminar paper

Conceptual

Research paper

Conceptual

Research paper

Conceptual

Research paper

Conceptual

Research paper

Conceptual

Review paper

Conceptual

Research paper

Applied

Research paper

Applied

Technical report

Applied

Research paper

Applied

Technical report

Applied

Synthesis Report

Applied

Research paper

31


Reference Lundberg 2005

Study site

Habitat

Region


Baltic Sea

Marine and Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Dutch Wadden Sea region

Marine and Coastal

Europe

PSBR

Baltic Sea

Marine and Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

UK

Marine and Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Turner et al. 2010

North East Atlantic

Marine and Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Atkins et al. 2011b

UK waters (e.g. Eastern English Channel) and Flamborough Head, UK

Marine and Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Borja et al. 2010

-

Marine and Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Cormier et al. 2013

-

Marine and Coastal

-

DPSIR

Martins et al. 2012

-

Marine and Coastal

-

DPSIR

Vugteveen et al. 2014 Ness et al. 2010 Rogers and Greenaway 2005

Rovira and Pardo 2006

-

Marine and Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Rudd 2004

-

Marine and Coastal

-

PSR + others

Humber estuary, UK

Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Ria de Aveiro, Portugal

Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Aubry and Elliott 2006 Azevedo et al. 2013 Bidone and Lacerda, 2004 Borja et al. 2006

32

Guanabara Bay basin, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Basque estuaries and coastal waters

Coastal

South America

DPSIR

Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Issue/problem Development of a conceptual model to describe eutrophication Monitoring for integrated coastal management Understanding and assessment of complex understanding issues (e.g. eutrophication) Assessment and reporting of marine ecosystem indicators Integrate natural and socio-economic science in coastal management (e.g. Hoff et al. 2008: fisheries in the North East Atlantic) Marine aggregates extraction and management of biodiversity Explain and communicate marine and coastal management Marine and coastal ecosystem-based risk management Fisheries management Assessment of eutrophication and indicators Design and monitor ecosystem-based fisheries management policy experiments Assessment of seabed disturbance and use of integrative indicators Assessment of seagrass decline Evaluate development and sustainability in coastal zones Assessing pressures and risk of failing good ecological status (WFD)


Type of publication

Applied

Research paper

Applied

Research paper


Research paper


Viewpoint paper


Technical report


Research paper

Conceptual

Research paper

Conceptual

Technical report

Conceptual

Review paper

Conceptual

Research paper

Conceptual

Research paper

Applied

Research paper

Applied

Research paper

Applied

Research paper

Applied

Research paper

Reference

Study site

Habitat

Region


Issue/problem


Type of publication

Assessment of estuarine trophic status (i.e. eutrophication)

Applied

Research paper

Applied

Research paper

Applied

Research paper

138 estuaries in the continental USA + Long Island Sound, Neuse River estuary, Savannah River estuary, Florida Bay, West Mississippi Sound, Tagus estuary, Sado Estuary

Coastal

USA, Europe

PSR

Cave et al. 2003

Humber estuary, UK

Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Cooper et al. 2013

Thames estuary, UK

Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Dolbeth et al. 2014

Ria de Aveiro, Portugal; Mar Menor, Spain; Vistula Lagoon, Poland/Russia; Tylygulskyi Lagoon, Ukraine

Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Propose management recommendations

Applied

Oral presentation

Ria Formosa, Portugal

Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Management of eutrophication

Applied

MSc Thesis

Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Management of eutrophication

Applied

Research paper

Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Applied

Research paper

Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Applied

Research paper

Coastal

Asia

DPSIR

Applied

Research paper

Coastal

Africa

DPSIR

Reef fisheries management

Applied

Research paper

Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Assessment of clam farming (modelling)

Applied

Research paper

Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Assessment of eutrophication

Applied

Research paper

Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Assessment of environmental problems

Applied

Research paper

Bricker et al. 2003

Gari 2010 Garmendia et al. 2012 Karageorgis et al. 2006 Knudsen et al. 2010 Lin et al. 2007 Mangi et al. 2007 Marinov et al. 2007 Newton et al. 2003

Newton et al. 2014

14 Basque country estuaries Inner Thermaikos Gulf, Greece Samsun, Black Sea coast of Turkey Xiamen coastal wetlands, China Kenya Sacca di Goro, Northern Adriatic Sea, Italy Ria Formosa coastal lagoon, Portugal Bassin d'Arcachon, Curonian lagoon, Etang Thau, Logarou, Mar Menor, Odra lagoon, Papas, Ria Formosa, Ringkøbing Fjord, Sacca di Goro, Venice lagoon

Assessment of fluxes of nutrients and contaminants to the coastal zone (i.e. water quality) Management of marine aggregates extraction industry

Evaluation of long run coastal zone changes Identification of drivers for fishing pressure Assessment of the coastal wetland changes

33


Reference

Study site

Habitat

Region


Issue/problem

Type of publication

Applied

Group report

Applied

Research paper

Applied

Research paper

Baltic Sea, Mediterranean, North Sea and Atlantic coast

Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Ou and Liu 2010

Gungliau, Taiwan

Coastal

Asia

PSR

Pinto et al. 2013

Mondego estuary, Portugal

Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Ebrié lagoon, Ivory Coast

Coastal

West Africa

DPSIR

Environmental pollution assessment

Applied

Research paper

Oder/Odra estuary

Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Coastal management

Applied

Research paper

Po basin-North Adriatic coastal continuum

Coastal

Europe

DPSIR


Applied

Research paper

Applied

Research paper

Applied

Review paper

Applied

Research paper


Journal editorial

Nunneri et al. 2005

Scheren et al. 2004 Schernewski 2008 Trombino et al. 2007

Scenario assessment to provide an outline forward look at the European coastal areas Development of sustainable indicators for local fisheries Assessment, organisation and communication of major changes in water uses


Analyse environmental and socioeconomic changes (coastal management for sustainable development) Spatial modelling for coastal management

Turner et al. 1998b

UK coast

Coastal

Europe

PSIR

Vacchi et al. 2014

Ligurian coastline and MPA, Italy

Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Viaroli et al. 2007

Sacca di Goro lagoon, Italy

Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Analysis of clam farming scenarios

Aliaume et al. 2007

Ria Formosa, Portugal; Mar Menor, Spain; Etang de Thau, France; Sacca di Goro, Italy; Gulf of Gera, Greece

Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Facilitate the integration of scientific issues with needs of end-users and define the modelling input-outputs

Bell 2012

Malta and Slovenia

Coastal

Mediterranean region

DPSIR

EPA 2008

-

Coastal

USA

PSR & PSR/E

Escaravage et al. 2006

-

Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Gregory et al. 2013

Flamborough Head, UK

Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Ostoich et al. 2009

Venice lagoon, Italy

Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

34

Selection of indicators and participatory application of DPSIR Use of conceptual models in indicator development Ecological functioning of coastal systems under eutrophication stress and implications for management Management of marine biodiversity at a multi-user coastal site Control of dangerous and priority substances (WFD)

Conceptual and Applied Conceptual and Applied Conceptual and Applied Conceptual and Applied Conceptual and Applied

Research paper Manual Research paper Research paper Research paper

Reference

Study site

Habitat

Region


Issue/problem Management of channels located in backbarrier systems subject to dredging operations Integrated system for land-ocean interaction Integrate natural and socio-economic science in coastal management


Type of publication


Research paper

Pacheco et al. 2007

Ria Formosa, Portugal

Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Turner et al. 1998a

Tokyo Bay, Japan and Baltic Sea

Coastal

Asia and Europe

PSIR

Baltic Sea drainage basin

Coastal

Europe

PSIR

Zaldívar et al. 2008

-

Coastal

-

DPSIR


Borja and Dauer 2008

-

Coastal

-

DPSIR

Dealing with the complexities of socioenvironmental issues

Conceptual

Research paper

Bowen and Riley 2003

-

Coastal

-

DPSIR & PSR

Selection of indicators

Conceptual

Research paper

Conceptual

Conference proceedings

Conceptual

Research paper

Conceptual

Technical report

Conceptual

Research paper

Turner 2000

Cox et al. 2004

-

Coastal

Australia

PSIR

Provision of an integrated reporting framework to assess condition, risk, management actions and priorities for coastal systems

Cranford et al. 2012

-

Coastal

-

DPSIR

Bivalve aquaculture management

EEA 2013

Coastal vulnerability and indicatorbased approach Environmental status indicators that span DPSIR categories

Conceptual and Applied Conceptual and Applied Conceptual and Applied

Technical report Research paper Review paper

-

Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Nestos Delta, Greece

Coastal

Europe

DPSIR

Ledoux and Turner 2002

-

Coastal

-

DPSIR

Sustainable development

Conceptual

Review paper

Mateus and Campuzano 2008

-

Coastal

-

DPSIR

Integrated coastal zone management

Conceptual

Book chapter

Conceptual

Review paper

Conceptual

Research paper

Karakos et al. 2003

Explore the causes and consequences of coastal vulnerability Elaborate on the role of coastal megacities in environmental degradation and their contribution to global climate change

Newton and Weichselgartner 2014

-

Coastal

-

DPSIR

Sekovski et. 2012

-

Coastal

-

DPSIR

Vistula River catchment, Bay of Gdansk, Poland/Russia

Coastal (entire catchment area)

Europe

DPSIR

Response of marine ecosystem to inflowing contaminates (modelling)

Applied

Research paper

Aixos River catchment and Thermaikos Gulf, Greece


Europe

DPSIR


Applied

Research paper

Humber estuary, UK


Europe

DPSIR

Use of scenarios for integrated catchment/coastal zone management

Applied

Research paper

Kannen et al. 2004

Karageorgis et al. 2005 Ledoux et al. 2005

35


Reference

Study site

Habitat

Nunneri and Hofmann 2005

Elbe River catchmentNorth Sea

Coastal (entire catchment area) Coastal (entire catchment area)

Pirrone et al. 2005

Po Catchment -Adriatic Sea, Italy


South Africa water resources

Coastal (entire catchment area) Coastal (entire catchment area) Coastal (entire catchment area)

Meybeck et al 2007

Walmsley 2002

Seine River basin, France

Region


Issue/problem Sources, evolution, fate and regulation of metal fluxes Nutrient enrichment and coastal eutrophication Integrated coastal zone management elaborate strategies for controlling eutrophication Identify key issues in catchment management and develop indicators Management of water resources (i.e. nitrates)


Type of publication

Applied

Research paper

Applied

Research paper

Applied

Research paper

Applied

Research paper

Conceptual

Research paper

Europe

DPSIR

Europe

DPSIR

Europe

DPSIR

South Africa

DPSIR

Europe

DPSIR

Europe

DPSIR (DPS)

Sustainable water management

Conceptual

Conference long abstract

Fassio et al. 2005

-

Giupponi 2002

-

Giupponi 2007

-


Europe

DPSIR (DPS)

Management of water resources (view of causal relationships in humanenvironmental systems)

Conceptual

Research paper

Dyle catchment, Belgium; Caia catchment, Portugal; Vahlui catchment, Romania; Vela catchment, Italy; Cavallino catchment, Italy


Europe

DPSIR (DPS)

Management of water resources (view of causal relationships in humanenvironmental systems)

Conceptual

Research paper

-


Europe

DPSIR & DPCER

Selection of models and other tools within different phases of WFD implementation

Conceptual

Research paper

Haberl et al. 2009

Donana, Spain; Inner Danube Delta wetland system, Romania; Eisenwurzen, Austria

Coastal and others

Europe

DPSIR

Socioeconomic biodivesity drivers and pressures

Applied

Analysis paper

Holman et al. 2005

East Anglia and North West England, UK

Coastal and others

Europe

DPSIR

Regional integrated assessment of the impacts of climate change and socioeconomic change

Applied

Research paper

-

Coastal and others

Europe

DPSIR

To assess the risks of aquatic species invasions - selection of indicators

Applied

Research paper

Mysiak et al. 2005

Rekolainen et al. 2003

Panov et al. 2009

36

Reference

Study site

Habitat

Region


Issue/problem


Type of publication

Global indicators of biological invasion

Applied

Research paper

Applied

Research paper

Conceptual

Book chapter

Conceptual

Policy Brief

Conceptual

Research paper

Conceptual

Research paper

Conceptual

Technical report

Conceptual

Research paper

McGeoch et al. 2010

-

not habitat-specific

-

PSR

Omann et al. 2009

-


-

DPSIR

Climate change and biodiversity loss

DPSIR

Presentation of the framework

Burkhard and Muller 2008

-


-

Define the DPSWR framework and comment on its application Environmental assessment and natural change in the environment Sustainable development (DPSIR as reporting framework) Inventory of biodiversity indicators (i.e allocattion of biodiversity indicators to DPSIR components) Use of conceptual models in indicator development

Cooper 2012

-


-

DPSWR

Berger and Hodge 1998

-


-

PSR & DSR

Carr et al. 2007

-


-

DPSIR

Delbaere 2003

-


-

DPSIR

EPA 1994

-


USA

PSR and PSR/E

EU 1999

-


Europe

DPSIR

Development of indicators

Conceptual

Technical report

Gabrielsen and Bosh 2003

-


-

DPSIR

Reporting on indicators using DPSIR

Conceptual

Technical report

Conceptual

Essay

Conceptual

Book chapter

Conceptual

Research paper

Conceptual

Discussion paper Final

Conceptual

Research paper

Conceptual

Review paper

Conceptual

Short communication

Conceptual

Research paper

Conceptual

Monograph

Green et al. 2005

-


-

DPSIR

Hulme 2007

-


Europe

DPSIR

Mace and Baillie 2007

-


-

DPSIR

Maes et al. 2013

-


Europe

DPSIR

Maxim et al. 2009

-


-

Measure biodiversity and reduce biodiversity loss Characterise the threat of alien species to European biodiversity Selection of indicators and measurement of biodiversity Propose a conceptual framework for ecosystem assessment under Action 5 of the Biodiversity Strategy

tetrahedral DPSIR Biodiversity

Meyar-Naimi and Vaez-Zadeh 2012

-


-

PSR, DSR, DPSIR, DPSEA, DPSEEA

Müller and Burkhard 2012

-


-

DPSIR

Niemeijer and de Groot 2008

-


-

eDPSIR

OECD 1993

-


-

PSR

Environment, energy and health related issues Ecosystem services and ecological indicators Framework for selecting environmental indicators Framework for developing and selecting environmental indicators

37


Reference

Study site

Habitat

Region


Issue/problem


Type of publication

Singh et al. 2009

-


-

DPSIR

Sustainability assessment methodologies

Conceptual

Review paper

Smeets and Weterings 1999

-


-

DPSIR

Reporting on indicators using DPSIR

Conceptual

Technical report

Conceptual

Research paper

Conceptual

Journal editorial

Conceptual

Research paper

Biodiversity loss and developing preservation strategies Biodiversity loss and developing preservation strategies Biodiversity (structuring and communicating research about the environment)

Spangenberg 2007

-


-

PD

Spangenberg et al. 2009

-


-

DPSIR

Svarstad et al. 2008

-


-

DPSIR

Tscherning et al. 2012

-


-

DPSIR

Revise the use of the DPSIR framework

Conceptual

Review paper

UNEP 2009

-


-

DPSIR

Vulnerability assessment

Conceptual

Manual

38

3.2. From Concepts to Assessments The intricacy of interactions between drivers-pressures, and the relationship of pressures to state changes, means that it is a complex task to undertake high level or quantitative assessments for management purposes. Any individual method requires knowledge of all the potential causal chains and state changes. The methodologies that might be applied can be broadly classified as a matrices approach or as a form of ecosystem modelling. The assessment can only be as good as the knowledge and detail applied.

3.2.1. Simple Matrices Approach Matrices are simple tables where drivers (or, more specifically, the activities resulting from them) can be related to pressures, and where pressures can be related to state changes. Such tables allow the identification of chains formed by particular causal links and permit some form of linear analysis of the impact chain (Knights et al., 2013).

The potential state changes caused by anthropogenic pressures in the marine environment, caused by a series of specific activities, have previously been defined in terms of their adverse effects on a series of receptors. Nevertheless, there remains a need to define the pressures (emanating from hazards) causing the problems (as the adverse effects on receptors) and the risk relating to those hazards (Elliott et al., 2014). The determination of the severity of the problems is then Risk Assessment (i.e. the movement of D and P to S and I), which needs Risk Management (i.e. the use of R to D and P) as the outcome of the responses under the DPSIR framework. Such information has been presented as a series of linked matrices, allowing users to identify those biodiversity components within the marine environment that are likely to be susceptible to damage by known pressures, as brought about by a defined activity. These relationships effectively define the links between pressures and potential state changes.

Under this simple approach, the matrices record relationships between activity and pressures, and between pressures and state changes. The relationships that are represented are complex with, for example, any single activity potentially causing many pressures, and any single pressure being caused by more than one activity (i.e. a many-to-many relationship).

The matrices that support this approach can be linked simply by an overlap (pressure X causes state change Y) or through more detailed information on potential levels of interaction, for example showing high/low or increasing/decreasing degrees of state change. The degree of state change caused by a 39


pressure on a habitat can be assessed in terms of: activity area or footprint, frequency, persistence, and characteristics of the habitat/ecosystem component impacted, including sensitivity and resilience (ability for recovery). Matrices and pressure assessment approaches have been used extensively and their use has been explained in the ODEMM project (see, for example, Robinson and Knights, 2011; Knights et al., 2011; Koss et al., 2011). Matrices are used as standard tools for pressure assessments, for example by HELCOM and OSPAR (Johnson, 2008). Complex matrices and linkages can be compiled through databases where the programming environment can be used to analyse data and use special tools that filter data, for example, to highlight activities that need to be managed or sensitive ecological components that might be at risk of state change (e.g. the PRISM and PISA Access database tools developed through the U.K. Net Gain programme (Net Gain, 2011)). The accuracy or value of the matrix approach will depend on identification of components, linkages and parameterisation for a particular area. They are useful for assessments, and depending on how comprehensive they are, will give the state changes; this will then allow users to predict the state changes under given circumstances.

3.2.2. Ecosystem Models With the move towards ecosystem-based management, much attention has been devoted to ecosystem modelling. These models may be conceptual (Section 3), deterministic (in which there is underlying theory or embedded mathematical relationships) or empirical in which the links are described statistically even when there is no apparent underlying theory. Some studies have focussed on the management of particular aspects of the ecosystem (e.g. Robinson and Frid, 2003; Plagányi, 2007) whilst other, more recent, studies concern the whole natural ecosystem and/or socio-ecological system (the latter are referred to as ‘end-to-end’ models) model development/application (e.g. Rose et al., 2010; Heath, 2012). In the context of the DEVOTES project (Piroddi et al., 2013), whole ecosystem models are the more relevant as they may better represent interactions with biodiversity components and these would for example include ECOPATH with ECOSIM, ATLANTIS or coupled lower trophic and high trophic models (Rose et al., 2010) (see DEVOTES Deliverable 4.1. Report on available models for biodiversity and needs for development).

The ability to apply models to drivers and pressure effects relies on knowledge of activities/pressures and being able to parameterise accordingly. For example, if trawling is known to cause a 30% reduction in suspension feeders in a modelled area, a 30% mortality figure can be applied to that biological component (split over a temporal or spatial scale) with respect to trawling activity (Petihakis et al., 2007). A specific model may not have the resolution to apply a precise mechanism, nor do models currently include detail on habitats. Whilst pelagic habitats may be defined by salinity, temperature, depth, nutrients, oxygen, etc., benthic habitats (an important setting for all species groups) are generally 40

not parameterised in any model. Nevertheless, such models may well be able to take into account indirect effects such as changes in predator-prey relations.

3.2.3. Bayesian Belief Networks Bayesian Belief Networks (BBNs; also referred to as belief networks, causal nets, causal probabilistic networks, probabilistic cause effect models, and graphical probability networks) offer a pragmatic and scientifically credible approach to modelling complex ecological systems and problems, where substantial uncertainties exist. A BBN is a graphical and probabilistical representation of causal and statistical relationships across a set of variables (McCann et al., 2006). The structure consists of graphically represented causal relationships (for example, the DPSIR D-P-S chain links) comprised of nodes that represent component variables and causal dependencies or links based on an understanding of underlying processes/relationships/association. Each node is associated with a function that gives the probability of the variable represented by the node dependant on the upstream/parent nodes. Each variable is populated with the best data available and can include expert opinion, simulation results or observed data. It is therefore flexible and also allows the information to be easily updated as better data become available (from Pollino et al., 2007; Hamilton et al., 2005).

Notwithstanding their potential, BBNs represent a relatively new modelling approach. They have only been applied to marine assessments in a limited way (e.g. in the ELME project, Langmead et al., 2007). However, BBNs are becoming an increasingly popular modelling tool, particularly in ecology and environmental management. This is largely because they can be used in a predictive capacity and also, because they use probabilities to quantify relationships between model variables, they explicitly allow uncertainty and variability to be accommodated in model predictions (Barnard and Boyes, 2013). They show high promise in adaptive management being iterative and especially in being able to mix and use both empirical data and expert knowledge. Although their uptake has been slow, in future it is expected that they will be used to a greater extent.

Within terrestrial studies, BBNs have been used in conjunction with State and Transition Models (STMs) (e.g. Bashari et al., 2009). Because of their graphical and descriptive nature, STMs are excellent tools for communicating knowledge regarding a system between scientists, managers, and policy makers. However, because they are essentially descriptive diagrams, STMs on their own have only a very limited predictive capability (which has restricted their practical application in scenario analysis), and their coarse handling of uncertainty represents a further shortcoming. In applying STMs and BBNs to rangeland management in south-east Queensland, Australia, Bashari et al. (2009) demonstrated an 41


approach which effectively linked an STM with a BBN to provide a relatively simple and dynamic model that was able to accommodate uncertainty, and support scenario-, diagnostic- and sensitivity- analyses.

3.2.4. The BowTie approach The BowTie method initially presents a conceptual model, which is increasingly being used to explore the causes, consequences and responses relating to natural and anthropogenic causes of change (Smyth and Elliott, 2014). It facilitates analysis or assessment of a defined problem by focusing attention onto the areas of a system where the consequences of a potentially damaging event can be proactively managed. The BowTie method is itself formed from a conceptual model that can be adapted to provide for a graphical representation of the expansion of the initial DPSIR environmental cause-and-effect pathway (Cormier et al., 2013). More specifically, it can be used to focus on the pathway between Pressure and State Change, and provides a means of identifying where controls can be put in place either to control the occurrence of a particular event, or to mitigate for the effects of the event should it occur. A BowTie embodies various elements of risk causes, assessment and consequence associated with the system under consideration and creates a clear differentiation between proactive and reactive management options (Figure 8). As well as being a useful management tool in its own right, it also serves as a key communication and consultation tool (Cormier et al., 2013).

Figure 8. A classic BowTie assessment/thebowtiemethod

framework.

Taken

from

www.cgerisk.com/knowledge-base/risk-

The start of any BowTie is the identification of a ‘Hazard’ – which is defined as part of the system under consideration that has the potential to cause damage; it represents an element of the system which, if control were to be lost, would generate negative consequences for the system. For example, within a BowTie structure, an activity such as demersal trawling could be considered to be a Hazard.

42

Once a Hazard is been identified, the next step is to define the ‘Top event’. This represents the point where control would be lost over the Hazard, but where as yet here is no damage or negative impact, but it is imminent. This means that the Top Event is defined so as to be occurring just before events start causing actual damage. For any Top Event, there are a number of ‘Threats’ that might cause the Top Event, which if not prevented or mitigated could then lead to a set of ‘Consequences’: hence usually there are several or many Threats and Consequences for every Top Event.

The final stage of building a basic BowTie model is to identify potential barriers which can be placed either between the threat and the Top Event as a prevention measure or alternatively as a recovery, mitigation or compensation mechanism preventing the Top Event from escalating into actual consequences or reducing the severity of the consequences. The preventative measures can be economic, governance, societal, political or technological devices, hence mapping on to the 10-tenets as a set of actions required to give sustainable environmental management (Elliott, 2013). It is likely that there may be several top events possibly occurring in any one area as the result of the Drivers such that nested Bow Ties are required in any assessment of cumulative impacts (Cormier et al., in prep.). Similarly, the consequence of the loss of control in one Bow Tie sequence may become the top event in another. For example, the threat of the introduction of non-indigenous species may be a top event, the consequence of which may be that an area fails Good Environmental Status (GEnS) under the MSFD. In turn, the failure to meet GEnS will then become the Top Event which has legal and financial consequences, each requiring mitigation (Smyth and Elliott, 2014).

The DPSIR framework can then be superimposed on the Bow-Tie structure given that the threats to the top-event will be Drivers and/or Pressures and the top-event and consequences are likely to be the State changes and/or Impacts. The barriers both as prevention measures and as mitigation or compensation measures, constitute the Response within DPSIR. As such, this links to a Risk Assessment and then Risk Management (RARM) framework as the need for responses to human pressures, which then follows the set of steps outlined in Table 3.

43


Table 3. Stages in the assessment of risk leading to the need for risk management (from Elliott et al., 2014). Stage

Detail

1. Problem Formulation

What needs to be assessed?

2. Hazard Identification

What can go wrong? (What are the hazards?)

3. Cause Identification

What can lead to the hazard occurring? (What causes the hazard?) Quantitative: How often or how likely is it that these causes will occur? Quantitative: How does the hazard reach the receptor? At what intensity? How long for and/or how frequently does the hazard reach or affect the receptor? Quantitative: How likely is it that the receptors will be exposed to the hazard? What are the consequences of the hazard if it occurs?

4. Exposure Assessment (This is a quantitative step that is not necessary but adds value to the risk assessment) 5. Consequence or Effect Identification 6. Risk Characterisation and Estimation for Consequences

What are the risks (quantitative or qualitative measure)? Quantitative: What is the probability of the consequence happening? Estimated for both before and after preventative and mitigation measures are put in place.

4. Cumulative Effects Single activities can have multiple pressures and the marine ecosystem usually supports multiple activities. Consequently multiples pressures will often be affect physico-chemical and ecological components. The multiple pressures will rarely be equal and will lead to cumulative and in-combination effects and such combinations may be synergistic, in which the sum of the effects is increased, or antagonistic, in which effects may cancel each other. This section summarises some of the current knowledge on cumulative effects and regional seas aspects.

In determining cumulative effects, it is important to note that synergism and antagonism may refer to either a mechanistic- or an outcome-based sense, referring to either the mechanistic interactions between drivers or to the resultant net outcome for an organism/population/community (Boyd and Hutchins, 2012). This section relates to resultant outcomes, whereas the beginning of the next section deals with mechanistic interactions.

44

When considering multiple pressures, resultant effects can act in many different ways (see Box 3). In previous research, agents (particularly climatologically mediated) effecting environmental properties have been defined as ‘stressors’ (Breitburg et al., 1998). In both theoretical and applied research, the effect of multiple stressors was often assumed to be the additive accumulation of effects associated with single stressors (Crain 2008) with the major difficulty of equating the impact of different stressors/pressures relative to one another (even between or within different areas). Non-additive concepts were introduced and defined by Folt et al. (1999); as well as additive effects, two stressors may cause synergistic effects where the total effect is greater than the sum of the individual effects (for example, two pollutants of low toxicity, each may have minor debilitating effects but combined may be lethal) or antagonistic effects where the total effect is lesser than the sum of the individual effects. For example, increases in coral calcification rates due to warming could partially counter the negative effects of calcification of decreasing carbonate ion concentration due to ocean acidification (Lough and Barnes, 2000). Synergistic effects are likely to be widespread (e.g. Sala et al., 2000).

BOX 3. M u l t i p l e P r e s s u r e / S t r e s s o r E f f e c t s ________________________________________________________ The cumulative effects of Stressor a and Stressor b upon an ecosystem component can be defined as: 

Additive Effect: result = a + b



Synergistic Effect: result > a + b



Antagonistic Effect: result < a + b

Crain et al. (2008) analysed 171 studies concerning multiple stressors in marine and coastal environments and included: salinity, sedimentation, nutrients, toxins, fishing, sea level rise, temperature, CO2, UV exposure, species invasions, disease, hypoxia and disturbance (subset from Halpern et al., 2007). The meta-analysis found multiple stressor effects, by study, to be 26% additive, 36% synergistic and 38% antagonistic, while interaction type varied by response level, trophic level, and specific stressor pair. They noted that addition of a third stressor changed interaction effects significantly in 66% of all cases and doubled the number of synergistic interactions. Response at the community level tended to be antagonistic, whilst synergistic at the population level, suggesting that species interactions within communities dampen and diffuse the impacts of multiple stressors that can have strong negative effects on individual species. Consequently, species level-data where most studies have taken place may have limited value in predicting community or ecosystem responses (Crain et al., 45


2008). In another meta-analysis of 112 experimental studies Darling and Cote (2008) found that the majority of the combined effects of two stressors were similar to the previous study with 23% additive, 35% synergistic and 42% antagonistic, a consistent result across different stressors, organisms and lifehistory stages. They concluded that synergies may be rarer than expected, but highlighted that 77% of studies showed non-additive effects (synergistic plus antagonistic), which is unexpected from a community or ecosystem-based conservation perspective where multiple stressors effects may be unpredictable from individual stressors and may lead to ‘ecological surprises’ as defined earlier by Paine et al. (1998). This makes it extremely difficult, and also inappropriate, to attempt to define a single conceptual model to illustrate the links between pressures and state change.

Many authors have indicated our lack of knowledge at the community and ecosystem level elucidating or predicting effects of combinations of individual pressure impacts, although we can measure the status of an ecosystem that is impacted by multiple pressures. This reflects how we may know what we have, but are unclear to exactly how it is happening at a sub-species, species, population or community level.

4.1. Cumulative Impacts in Regional Sea Studies Multiple activity/pressure impacts, as cumulative threats or cumulative impacts, have been investigated according to the footprints of a particular driver/activity and their overlap with habitats using spatial mapping/modelling. This approach does not consider additive/synergistic/antagonistic effects. Cumulative impacts (including both overlap and weighted cumulative methods) have been investigated at a global level by Halpern et al. (2008) with their global impact map shown in Figure 9, but also at the European level, for example in the Baltic (Korpinen et al., 2013 – Figure 10), eastern North Sea (Andersen et al., 2013) and the Mediterranean (Figure 11 and 12) by both Coll et al. (2011) and Micheli et al. (2013), the latter two examples with some contrasting results in different geographical areas. These techniques may not be of direct use in assessing State changes within the DEVOTES project but may nevertheless be of value in spatial planning applications, for example, in identifying areas where high levels of protection may be necessary. Similarly it is of note that the analysis by Halpern et al. (2008) was of the presence of activities rather than, and despite the paper’s title, human impacts. It is emphasised that an activity does not always have to lead to an impact especially if mitigation measures are employed.

46

Figure 9. Global map of cumulative impacts from Halpern et al. (2008).

Figure 10. Baltic Sea cumulative impacts from Korpinen et al. (2013).

47


Figure 11. Mediterranean Sea cumulative impacts on invertebrate species from Coll et al. (2011).

Figure 12. Mediterranean Sea cumulative impacts from Micheli et al. (2013).

Phenomena that characterize the dynamics of multiple environmental issues have multiple causes and represent the cause for many different other phenomena. The effects of several causes can be synergistic or antagonistic, and causes and effects can interact in different ways (Maxim et al., 2009).

5. DPS Chains in the MSFD As a major example of the complexity of interactions and considering just one sector (fishing) with one activity (demersal trawling), activities exert multiple individual pressures affecting the seafloor environment (see evidence in Blaber et al., 2000, and conceptual models McLusky and Elliott, 2004). Demersal trawling results in the selective extraction of species but, amongst other effects, also brings about the non-selective extraction of other living resources and causes abrasion to the seabed (scouring and turning over the sediment as well as causing compaction and other changes in sediment structure). 48

As well as extraction, fishing vessels can also input various objects/elements into the marine environment. From the identified list of MSFD pressures those potentially resulting from demersal trawling are identified in Table 4, which highlights both primary and lesser trawling pressures.

In turn, the pressures may act on specific habitats in a particular area, where the trawling activities are taking place (Table 5). The habitats could be said to define what biological components may potentially be present (e.g. shallow sublittoral muddy sand may have seagrass present) and are in some cases a link between pressures and ecological components.

Table 4. Standard pressures (25) in the marine environment identified from various sectoral activities (Marine Strategy Framework Directive (EC, 2008)) and ODEMM project - (Koss et al., 2011)). Bold highlighted (dark grey), primary pressures by demersal trawling activities; weakly highlighted (light grey), lesser pressures by demersal trawling.

MSFD Pressures 

Smothering



Nitrogen and phosphorus enrichment



Substratum loss



Input of organic matter



Changes in siltation



Introduction of microbial pathogens



Abrasion



Introduction of non-indigenous species



Selective extraction of non-living resources



Selective extraction of species



Underwater noise



Death by injury and collision



Marine litter



Barrier to species movement



Thermal regime changes



Emergence regime change



Salinity regime changes



Water flow rate changes



Introduction of synthetic compounds



pH changes



Introduction of non-synthetic compounds



Electromagnetic changes



Introduction of radionuclides



Change in wave exposure



Introduction of other substances

49


Table 5. Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) habitats impacted by demersal trawling (from the defined list of Predominant Habitats related to monitoring (adapted for DEVOTES from EU Commission Decision (2010/477/EC) and the EU Commission Staff Working Papers (EC, 2011, 2012)). Bold highlighted: strongly impacted to demersal trawling. Benthic habitats: littoral (approx. 0-1 m – intertidal zone), shallow sub-littoral (approx. 1-60 m), shelf sub-littoral (approx. 60-200 m), upper bathyal (approx. 200-1100 m), lower bathyal (approx. 1100-2700 m), abyssal (approx. >2700m).

MSFD Habitats (Predominant Habitats related to monitoring) 

Littoral rock and biogenic reef



Upper bathyal rock and biogenic reef



Littoral sediment



Upper bathyal sediment



Shallow sublittoral rock and biogenic reef



Lower bathyal rock and biogenic reef



Shallow sublittoral coarse sediment



Lower bathyal sediment



Shallow sublittoral sand



Abyssal rock and biogenic reef



Shallow sublittoral mud



Abyssal sediment



Shallow sublittoral mixed sediment



Reduced salinity water



Shelf sublittoral rock and biogenic reef



Variable salinity (estuarine) water



Shelf sublittoral coarse sediment



Marine water: coastal



Shelf sublittoral sand



Marine water: shelf



Shelf sublittoral mud



Marine water: oceanic



Shelf sublittoral mixed sediment



Ice-associated habitats

Table 6. Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) environmental characteristics impacted by demersal trawling (adapted for DEVOTES from EU Commission Decision (2010/477/EC) and the EU Commission Staff Working Papers (EC, 2011, 2012)). Bold highlights indicate groups that are strongly influenced by demersal trawling.

MSFD Environmental Characteristics 

Bathymetry



Mixing characteristics



Topography



Turbidity



Sediment composition



Residence time



Temperature



Salinity



Ice cover



Nutrients



Current velocity



Oxygen



Upwelling



pH



Wave exposure



pCO2

Within any one habitat, the different pressures may affect several environmental characteristics (Table 6). These characteristics also define/affect the niches of species groups (Table 7) such that following a 50

pressure, the environmental characteristics may no longer be suitable for that species group. Each of those species groups has structural and functional characteristics (Table 8) that may be affected to various extents. Although most of the effects that have been highlighted are direct, there are indirect affects for example through damage or habitat modification or changes to predator prey relationships. Table 7. Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) Species Groups impacted by demersal trawling (adapted for DEVOTES from EU Commission Decision (2010/477/EC) and the EU Commission Staff Working Papers (EC, 2011, 2012)). Bold highlights indicate groups that are strongly influenced by demersal trawling; light highlights indicates lesser influence by demersal trawling,

MSFD Species Groups 

Microbes



Fish



Phytoplankton



Cephalopods



Zooplankton



Birds



Angiosperms



Reptiles



Macroalgae



Marine Mammals



Benthic invertebrates

Table 8. Structural and Functional type characteristics impacted by demersal trawling (adapted for DEVOTES from EC 2008). Bold highlights indicate structural and functional characteristics that are strongly influenced by demersal trawling; light highlights indicate characteristics subject to lesser influence by demersal trawling.

Structural Characteristics

Functional Characteristics



Species composition



Functional Diversity



Species distribution/range



Productivity



Species variability



Fecundity



Abundance



Survival



Age/Size structure



Mortality



Biomass and ratios



Bioturbation



Population Dynamics & Condition



Predator-Prey Processes



Non-indigenous species



Energy Flows



Chemical levels/contaminants

Although presented simplistically, the situation is always complex. Different degrees of pressure can lead to different state change trajectories, for example, something causing large scale direct mortality will immediately cause a reduction in species, abundance, biomass, diversity, community structure change, etc., and the duration of this will be dependent on the nature of the habitat and its recovery potential (Duarte et al., 2013). This then determines the severity and timescale of wider impacts (e.g. at higher trophic levels). Alternatively, the pressure could just cause damage (e.g. crushing, loss or 51


damaged limbs or shells through collision with fishing gear) so that energy is allocated to individual recovery rather than growth/reproduction etc. In the long term, biomass, some components of population and community may be compromised with wider effects at ecosystem level. These impacts may take longer to manifest at higher levels and may occur over longer timescales. Some of these aspects are explored further in Section 6.

6. DEVOTES Conceptual Framework 6.1. Refined conceptual model of pressure-state change relationships Whilst it is well understood that pressures on environmental systems can result in varying degrees of state change, and that this can cause a loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, the process by which those impacts occur is complex. For a single, specific pressure, the relationship between pressure and impact varies according to the degree of pressure (e.g. spatial extent, duration and/or frequency, intensity), the habitat type upon which the pressure is acting, the component species and those species in the wider ecosystem which they support. This gives rise to a large number of potential pressure-statechange trajectories which increase in complexity when potentially synergistic or antagonistic combinations of activities and pressures are acting simultaneously (Section 4). It is therefore not possible to produce a single, informative conceptual model that fully describes pressure-state change relationships. Similarly, it would be incorrect to force complex processes into over-simplified models. This section presents example models that describe the generic processes leading to impacts for a selection of activities, pressures, habitat types and biological components. It is emphasised however that the specific, detailed trajectories will be site/system specific and specific to the nature of the activities and their associated pressures.

Pressure is defined as the mechanism through which a state change occurs (Robinson et al., 2008) and current attempts to link pressure with state change assume pressure to act as a single mechanism leading to state change (Robinson and Knights, 2011; Knights et al., 2011; Koss et al., 2011). Within this definition, pressure is more specifically viewed as the cause of a series of physico-chemical and biological state changes to the environment which, through lethal or sub-lethal processes, compromise the performance or survival of the component level of biological organisations (cell, individual, population (species, or community) (Figure 13). For example, the physical structure of the environment

52

may be rendered unsuitable to support the existing biological community, thus leading to changes in species composition and relative abundance.

Achievement of State change can be a progressive process and whilst changes to the structure of the physico-cehmical and biological components may be classed as state changes, paradoxically they may also be viewed as the mechanisms through which a pressure acts to cause a biological state change (Figure 13). For example, a change to the substratum type due to an activity is a physico-chemical state change and at the same time is a mechanism (and hence a pressure) causing a biological state change in the benthos. It is emphasised that, whilst most pressures are associated with physical state changes (e.g. hydrodynamic changes, substratum changes), the direct removal of species, the introduction of nonindigenous species and the input of microbial contaminants represent biological mechanisms of change.

These physico-chemical and biological modifications to the environment lead to a series of biological state changes, which can occur at any level (e.g., cellular, physiological, individual, population, community, ecosystem) (Figure 13). At a cellular or individual level, the response may be lethal (referring to loss) as a result of direct mortality associated with the pressure, direct removal (e.g. by fishing gear) or emigration, or sublethal. Lethal responses can have immediate, direct effects on an individual population and community (and ultimately ecosystem) structure in terms of the species composition, their relative abundance and biomass, total population and community biomass, trophic interactions and other functional attributes such as primary and secondary production and biogeochemical cycling. Sublethal responses relate to physical, chemical or biological damage caused by the pressure at an individual level, whereby the organism survives but its performance and, therefore, contribution to ecosystem processes is compromised.

Collectively, these physico-chemical and biological changes to the environment and associated biological responses lead to an overall state change which may initially be at a localised population and community level but, if severe enough and sustained, may also lead to state changes in interacting populations, communities and at the ecosystem level (Figure 13). The ultimate degree of state change at a community or ecosystem level associated with lethal and sub-lethal mechanisms of state change may be broadly similar but the severity, timescales over which those state changes occur and their duration will differ.

Despite this, the inherent variability and complexity throughout the levels of biological organisation may mean that an effect at a lower level does not necessarily manifest itself at higher levels, i.e. stressors at lower levels (e.g. cellular, individual) may get absorbed so that the higher levels (e.g. population, 53


community, ecosystem) do not show any deleterious effects. The ability to absorb that stress has been termed environmental homeostasis (Elliott and Quintino, 2006). Hence a stressor does not automatically lead to a high-level ecological effect.

54

Figure 13. Generic conceptual model showing the progression of physico-chemical and biological state changes arising from pressures in the marine environment. The black arrows under the diagram indicate the way in which pressure can cause a biological state change at any level: either (1) progressively through a sub-lethal response at the individual level which, over time, can lead to state changes at higher levels or (2) directly by acting at a higher level, leading to more immediate community and ecosystem state changes.

55


The sequence of biological state changes will vary according to:     

degree of pressure (spatial extent, intensity, duration, frequency) and whether it leads to lethal or sub-lethal effects; type of pressure; habitat sensitivity and the potential for disturbance and recovery of the physical attributes; sensitivity of the component species and communities and their recovery potential; sensitivity of the balance of interactions within and between habitats and biological components.

The pressures associated with demersal trawling are described in section 5. Taking the abrasion pressure as a specific example, and assuming a subtidal sedimentary (mud/sand) habitat, there are a number of physical state changes that may arise and which may, in turn, lead to a series of biological state changes (Figure 14).

The physical state changes associated with abrasion can be divided into those that cause immediate biological state change at higher biological levels (community/ecosystem), for example, by direct mortality, and those that cause a progressive state change over an extended time period through a sequence of physico-chemical state changes and state changes at different levels of biological organisation (e.g. through a modification of the physical environment). This leads to two different trajectories of state change (lethal and sub-lethal) which act over different timescales and may ultimately differ in severity and longevity (Figures 13, 14).

With respect to sub-lethal effects (upper row of Figure 14), in sedimentary habitats, the pressure ‘abrasion’ can lead to sediment homogenisation, change in the particle size characteristics and organic content of the sediment, changes in the sedimentation regime and changes to sediment stability and consolidation (Figure 14). Since the composition of the substratum is directly linked to the inhabiting species (Snelgrove and Butman, 1994), such changes, if severe enough or sustained for long enough, will act as physical mechanisms that result in overall changes to biological community structure by rendering the habitat unsuitable for long term survival, larval settlement and recruitment (Alexander et al., 1993). Similarly, the removal of species will affect a feedback loop whereby the organisms modify the sedimentary conditions through bioturbation, bioengineering, biodeposition, etc. (e.g. Gray and Elliott, 2009). Additionally, those organisms that are more mobile may simply relocate to other areas. Whilst this leads to species loss, it also presents opportunities for colonisation by new species leading to an overall change in community structure. Coupled with this may be a change in community function, as species are lost and replaced by functionally different species. Under this scenario, there would be a

56

degree of change in abundance, biomass and secondary production (and perhaps species richness and diversity), which may impact on wider ecosystem processes. Whilst this impact would be more gradual than in the second (lethal effects) scenario, and may be counteracted to an extent by colonisation by new species, overall community structure and function may nevertheless be altered.

Additionally, sub-lethal effects may arise through (for example) morphological damage (caused by interaction with fishing gear) and the associated physiological stress, changes in the physico-chemical parameters of the water column (e.g. dissolved oxygen, suspended solids), clogging of respiratory structures, inability to feed or burrow and behavioural modifications. Subsequently, somatic growth and reproductive capacity may be compromised as a result of, for example, increased respiration rate, increased ammonia production in response to stress, re-allocation of resources to survival and recovery (e.g. Widdows et al., 1981) or evolutionary adaptations that enable accelerated maturation and early reproduction at the expense of ultimate body size (Mollet et al., 2007; Elliott et al., 2012). These effects may initially be apparent at the individual or population level but if sustained, will ultimately lead to changes in abundance, biomass and function at community and ecosystem level.

With respect to lethal effects (the lower row of Figure 14, relating to mortality or direct removal) immediate state changes at the population and community level within a habitat are likely to include a reduction in the biomass and abundance of both target and non-target species. In the longer term, and particularly where demersal trawling is repetitive and frequent, a sustained reduction in species richness and diversity may occur, coupled with changes to community structure. Population structure in disturbed habitats may also be altered, particularly in longer-lived species, whereby individuals of a certain size class are selectively removed or where species of a more opportunistic nature allocate resources to reproductive output rather than somatic production resulting in a population dominated by small and or/young individuals. Ultimately, these state changes will result in an overall loss of secondary production which, coupled with altered predator-prey interactions, will lead to alterations of higher ecosystem processes.

In terms of timescale, and with reference to the ability of MSFD indicators to detect state change, this could potentially be a relatively acute process, with state changes at population and community level being immediately detectable. The duration would depend on the sensitivity of the species and habitats, their recovery potential (or their potential to recover to an alternative state which supports wider ecosystem processes) and the intensity of the pressure (or causative activity). It would also depend on the processes in the first (sub-lethal) scenario, since the two do not occur in isolation, whereby physical and biological changes to the environment will influence recovery rates and trajectories. 57


Both of these scenarios (lethal and sub-lethal) have the potential to ultimately lead to changes in population and community structure, overall community biomass and primary/secondary production, fragmentation and overall negative effects at higher trophic levels and wider ecosystem processes. The difference between the scenarios lies in the complexity/detail trajectory between the application of a pressure and the resultant state change.

58

Figure 14. State change trajectory initiated by the pressure abrasion (for example, as caused by demersal trawling) in a subtidal sedimentary habitat. MSFD: Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

59


6.2. The state change conceptual model in the context of risk assessment

The pressure-state change conceptual model (Figures 13 and 14) has been conceived to accommodate the multiple pathways that can link a pressure to a series of state changes and to allow express consideration of the range of initial biological or physico-chemical state changes that may result from any given pressure and which through lethal or sub-lethal processes, compromise the performance or survival of an ecological component and so may bring about state change detected by MSFD descriptors (e.g. at the population, community or ecosystem level).

However, as emphasised earlier, it is important to recognise that whilst the scenario (Figure 14) relates only to a single pressure, abrasion, this pressure may potentially arise as the result of a number of different activities (Table 9).

As with the basic pressure-state change model that underpins the simple matrix approach (Section 3.2.1.), each of the stages within the conceptual model (Figure 14) are characterised by a series of many-to-many relationships. This can be set in the context of the MSFD by visualising these links as they relate to an MSFD descriptor. For example, Figure 15 shows the range of physico-chemical state changes that may lead to loss of sea floor integrity (i.e. effectively those changes that arise due to abrasion) and the consequent range of potential (biological) state changes that may result at the individual, population, community or ecosystem level.

60

Table 9. Activities (by sector) that may give rise to the pressure of seabed abrasion Sector Aquaculture (including marine biotechnology based on aquaculture)

Fishing

Activity Set-up of fin-fish aquaculture facilities (interaction with seafloor during set-up of infrastructure, loss of gear) Operation of fin-fish aquaculture facilities (waste products, anti-fouling, predator control, disease and disease control, infrastructure effects on local hydrography, escapees, litter, anchoring/mooring of boats) Set-up of macro-algae aquaculture facilities (trampling (certain species), interaction with seafloor, removal of habitat-structuring species, loss of gear) Operation of macro-algae aquaculture facilities (waste products, anti-fouling, predator control, disease and disease control, infrastructure effects on local hydrography, litter, anchoring/mooring of boats) Set-up of shellfish aquaculture (interaction with seafloor when dredging for brood stock, loss of gear, litter) Operation of shellfish aquaculture (waste products, anti-fouling, predator control, disease and disease control, infrastructure effects on local hydrography, litter, anchoring/mooring of boats) Operation of benthic trawls and dredges (interaction with seafloor, catch, bycatch, waste products) Operation of benthic trawls and dredges - mooring/anchoring (interaction with seafloor) Operation of suction/hydraulic dredges (interaction with seafloor, catch, bycatch, waste products) Operation of suction/hydraulic dredges - mooring/anchoring (interaction with seafloor)

Shipping

Mooring/anchoring/beaching/launching (interaction with seafloor)

Renewable Energy

Construction of wind farms (installation/deinstallation of turbines on seafloor includes interaction with seafloor, habitat change and sealing, laying cables) Construction of wave energy installations (cable laying/removing - localised habitat change, noise) Construction of tidal sluices (interaction with seafloor, localised sealing of habitat)

Non-renewable Energy (oil, gas and hydro)

Telecommunications

Construction of tidal barrages (interaction with seafloor, habitat change (upstream and downstream) and localised sealing of habitat, barrier to movement for migratory anadromous or catadromous species) Exploration/construction of oil and gas facilities (drilling, anchoring, construction of wellheads, laying pipelines, oil spills) and subsequent decommissioning (anchoring, oil spills, removal of infrastructure where relevant) Construction of (land-based, coastal) power stations (jetties and intake wells - habitat change, sealing, increased turbidity, noise) Construction of (land-based, coastal) nuclear power stations (jetties and intake wells - habitat change, sealing, increased turbidity, noise) Installation/laying of communication cables (localised habitat change and smothering, interaction with seafloor, atmospheric emissions from ships laying cables)

61


Table 9. (Cont.) Sector Aggregates

Activity Maerl extraction - removal of substrate (habitat change, interaction with seafloor, removal of habitat-structuring species) Coastal rock/mineral quarrying - extraction of substrate (habitat change, interaction with seafloor, contaminant release) Sand/gravel aggregate extraction - removal of substrate (habitat change, interaction with seafloor, contaminant release)

Navigational Dredging

Capital dredging - extraction of substrate (habitat change, interaction with seafloor, contaminant release, increased turbidity, noise)

Coastal Infrastructure

Maintenance dredging and associated extraction of substrate (habitat change, interaction with seafloor, contaminant release, increased turbidity, noise) Construction of artificial reefs (interaction with seafloor, habitat change) Construction of culverted lagoons (interaction with seafloor, habitat change, smothering, increased turbidity, noise) Construction of marinas and dock/port facilities (habitat change, sealing, interaction with seafloor, smothering, increased turbidity, noise) Operation of marinas and dock/port facilities (anti-fouling, contaminants, interaction with seafloor from anchoring, litter) Construction of land claim projects (habitat change, smothering, increased turbidity, noise)

Tourism/Recreation

Construction of coastal defences - sea walls/breakwaters/groynes etc (habitat change, sealing, interaction with seafloor, smothering, increased turbidity, noise) Angling (catch, bycatch, interaction with seafloor (gear, and anchors if offshore)) Boating/Yachting/Diving/Water sports - mooring/anchoring/beaching/launching (interaction with seafloor) Public use of beach - general (trampling, litter) Construction of tourist Resort (habitat change, sealing, smothering, increased turbidity, noise)

Military

Military activity - mooring/anchoring/beaching/launching (interaction with seafloor)

Research

Research operations (specific to activity but can include: interaction with seafloor, catch, bycatch)

Harvesting/Collecting

Bait digging - (trampling, interaction with seafloor, removal of habitat-structuring species) Seaweed and saltmarsh vegetation harvesting (trampling, interaction with seafloor, removal of habitat-structuring species) Bird egg collection - (trampling, removal of individuals) Shellfish hand collecting - (trampling, interaction with seafloor, removal of individuals) Collection of peels/peeler crabs (boulder turning) - (trampling, removal of individuals) Collection of curios - (trampling)

62

Figure 15. Physical state changes associated with abrasion that potentially lead to an overall loss of seafloor integrity, and consequent biological state changes (at population, community or ecosystem level) that would be detected by Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) indicators.

Whilst the full range of possible relationships is extremely complex and impossible to show diagrammatically, it may be possible to define certain critical causal pathways by filtering the range of potential causal chains by considering only one specific instance within any one of the intermediary stages. Such a filter could be based on a particular physical mechanism, or on a given activity and MSFD descriptor. For example, for a given activity a range of physical state changes may be brought about. In turn these state changes may potentially affect a number of MSFD descriptors, as well as giving rise to a range of biological state changes. It is important to note that the pressures (and the consequent physico-chemical and biological state changes) do not occur in isolation but, notwithstanding this, this model structure lends itself to assessment using a BowTie approach and so provides a linkage between consideration of the pressure-state change element of the DPSIR framework and RARM methodologies (see Section 3.2.4.).

As indicated above, the approach recommended here is a linked DPSIR and BowTie system, hence using DPSIR-BT. This then aligns with Cormier et al. (2013) who indicated that the BowTie method supports the expansion of the initial DPSIR environmental cause-and-effect pathway. Again, by having the Threats 63

Deliverable 1.1. Conceptual models for pressure links

as Drivers and Pressures, and the Main Event and Consequences as State Changes and Impacts, then the link between these constitutes the Risk Assessment. The Risk Management then comprises of the Responses

to

the

Drivers,

Pressures

and

State

changes

by

placing

preventative

and

mitigation/compensation measures in the framework. Hence, we emphasise that the DEVOTES Conceptual model of DPSIR-BT also aligns with the demands of RARM (Risk Assessment and Risk Management). Following this, it is then straightforward to link this approach to the implementation of the MSFD. For example, in so doing, considering the failure to attain GEnS for a MSFD descriptor as both a state change and as an intermediary stage between physical state changes on the one hand and consequential biological state changes on the other is important; it allows a formalised assessment to be made of possible controls to remove or reduce the production of the physical mechanism and/or opportunities to mitigate its effects.

7. Data Challenges in Moving from Conceptual Frameworks to Assessments In making an assessment concerning an environmental or management issue, there are many challenges in moving from a conceptual framework to a data-based or expert judgement-based analysis. These challenges involve the identification of all the components and their linkages (e.g. DPS) within the greater problem, components data/indicators and their quality or thresholds, etc. In the following section, these issues/challenges are described further including data availability, equality of data from different areas, assessment scales and scaling up assessments, and finally confidence in the assessments.

7.1. Regional Seas The regional seas surrounding Europe cover around 11,220,000 km2 (EEA, 2014) and include a wide range of environmental conditions and different ecosystems, which vary in diversity and sensitivity. The particular characteristics of each area play a key role in the types of human activities developed there, and consequently, in the pressures that take place. An ecosystem overview of the European regional seas is available in the DEVOTES Deliverables D1.4 (Patrício et al., 2014) and D3.1 (Teixeira et al., 2014). These highlight the specific features of those areas that could be relevant to regional monitoring programs and give context to the existing indicators and the observed gaps.

64

Pressures in one regional area may not elicit the same response (impact or spatial/temporal scale of impact) in another area because of differing conditions. For example, the Mediterranean Sea is characterised by high salinity, high temperatures, predominantly wind driven or water mass difference driven currents, deep water, oligotrophic sea with a fauna exhibiting low abundance and biomass. In contrast northern waters have opposing characteristics where, for example, tidally driven mixing may distribute the effects of a pressure in a very different impact footprint.

The regional seas also have contrasting developmental and socio-economic situations and issues resulting in different complex and fragmented governance systems (Raakjaer et al., 2014), levels of legislation and compliance. Although each of the regional seas have their own conventions (see Box 4) with similar objectives and targets, the strength and applications greatly differ from the northern Regions to the Mediterranean and Black Sea reflecting the cohesiveness of EU Member States and related developed countries to the areas bordered by a higher number of non-EU Member States with lower states of development, lower standards of living and higher degrees of regional instabilities.

An outcome of geographically differing stages of development is generally seen in the status and depth of monitoring programmes that can produce data required in assessments in terms of Drivers, Pressures and State change. Whilst aided by the establishment of conventions and directives, there still may be large differences between nations in one regional sea where monitoring programmes may not be contiguous across bordering nations or where the extent and quality of the data may differ.

BOX 4. R e g i o n a l S e a s F u n d a m e n t a l C o n v e n t i o n s ________________________________________________________ 

 



North-East Atlantic: The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic – Oslo and Paris conventions (adopted 1974, revised and combined into OSPAR Convention 1992, in force 1998) Baltic Sea: Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki Convention), adopted 1974, in force 1980, revised 1992, in force 2000) Mediterranean Sea: The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean (Barcelona Convention); adopted on 16 February 1976, in force 12 February 1978; revised in Barcelona, Spain, 9-10 June 1995 as the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean (not yet in force). Black Sea Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution (Bucharest Convention); adopted 1992, in force 1994. From UNEP (Regional Seas Conventions and Protocols. UNEP and Partner Programmes. www.unep.ch/regionalseas/main/hconlist.html#pp)

65


7.2. Data Availability Within a causal link framework and to provide the route for management, indicators and their component indices/metrics are needed to determine the level of pressure, and changes in state and in the impact (e.g. Aubry and Elliott, 2006). To do this, the beginning or end points of the gradient of state change can be used to determine targets or reference conditions for the assessment of the indicators (see Borja et al., 2012). These changes in state need to be assessed by developing assessment methods or indices such as those within the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) (Birk et al., 2012). However, they need to be validated and calibrated against independent abiotic datasets. Taking into consideration the MSFD descriptors, some of them can be related to pressures, whilst others, such as biological diversity (D1), non-indigenous species (D2), food-webs (D4) and seafloor Integrity (D6), are related to state change (Figure 16). Therefore, data collection and analysis is needed to assess the effects that activities could have on the physical, chemical and biological quality of the marine environment.

Figure 16. Diagram showing the relationships between drivers, pressures, state of change, impacts and responses, together with the way in which they can be assessed and the relationship with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive descriptors (D). BPJ: Best professional judgment. Modified from Borja et al. (2012).

Considering that the DEVOTES assessments will require drivers, pressures and state-change, the available data catalogued in the DEVOTES project is a valuable starting point (see following sections). However, it has to borne in mind that the same pressure can be caused by several activities and can produce a different state-change depending on the location where is produced. Therefore, for a particular assessment in a geographical area, the identification of all the relevant activities, pressures, states and their indicators is necessary in each case. Moreover, in order to assess the status of the marine environment, there is also the need to identify the linkages (cause-effect interactions) between 66

them. ODEMM’s linkage framework (Koss et al., 2011 and Knights et al., 2013), for example, provides a means to fully evaluate all components that can affect the GEnS achievement in a fully integrated ecosystem assessment.

Applying the framework presented here relies on having not only indices of change but also baselines, thresholds and targets against which to judge that change. In addition, there is the need to define the inherent variability (‘noise’) against which the ‘signal’ of change is measured. Each of these requires a fit-for-purpose data background for each biological and physico-chemical component relevant to a particular stressor. Given that for many activities, the amount of pressure required to produce a given state change and thus impact on human welfare is unknown then the amount of data required to determine and asses the state change is also unknown. Furthermore, although power analysis could be used to determine the amount of data required to implement the Risk Assessment framework described here, that cannot be used unless the inherent variability in the components is known. Because of this, it is likely that the approaches advocated here will continue to be semi-qualitative at best and reliant on expert judgement (see below).

7.2.1. Drivers As previously noted in Section 3.1.1, approximately 20 standard sectors and over 100 activities have been defined and characterised through several projects (e.g. ODEMM, CO-EXIST, VECTORS). At the European

level,

the

http://www.emodnet.eu/)

European is

Marine

currently

Observation developing

and a

Data portal

Network

(EMODnet;

(http://www.emodnet-

humanactivities.eu/index.php) which will provide access to marine data for some of the human activities considered in the ODEMM project. Although currently few data sets are available, in the near future the parameters considered should include the geographical position and spatial extent of many marine activities. At a regional sea level, geographic data on human activities are available for some seas, due to the work done by some Regional Seas Conventions. In the OSPAR Maritime Area, for example, activities such as offshore wind-farms, offshore installations or marine protected areas are mapped (www.ospar.org/content/content.asp?menu=01511400000000_000000_000000), while in the HELCOM area (http://maps.helcom.fi/website/mapservice/index.html) a wider range of activities are included. Additionally, ocean databases are available for some European countries, which have mapped a wide range of human uses of the marine environment. The German CONTIS maps (developed by the BSH, www.bsh.de/en/Marine_uses/Industry/CONTIS_maps/index.jsp), for example, present the spatial extent of individual uses (e.g., on shipping, exploitation of resources, planned offshore wind farms or environmentally sensitive areas) and interfaces with other users in the German continental shelf, for both the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. The Coastal Atlas of Belgium (www.coastalatlas.be/map/) also 67


has digital geographic data on uses of the North Sea, while the functions and uses of the Dutch Continental Shelf are shown in the pdf maps available at the Noordzeeloket web page (www.noordzeeloket.nl/en/functions-and-use/). In the UK, The Crown Estate gives a general overview of the coastal and offshore marine activities in regularly updated maps and/or GIS data (www.thecrownestate.co.uk/).

7.2.2. Pressures The DEVOTES Deliverable D1.4 (Patrício et al., 2014) analyses the gaps in monitoring networks related with pressures per analysed at Regional Sea and subregional level. The interactive maps prepared identify the pressures that are currently being assessed, considering the full pressures list. The list originated from the MSFD (EC, 2008) with added emergent or current threats identified in the ODEMM project (Koss et al., 2011), and additional unmanageable widespread pressures (exogenous pressures or climate change) added in the DEVOTES project (Mazik et al., 2013): a total of 31 standard pressures. Overall, monitoring programmes undertaken within the European marine regions address all considered pressures; however, not all pressures are assessed in all subregions (some of the implemented programmes have demonstrated capability to assess up to 20 pressures at once, but most programmes assess four or less pressures). It should be noted that even where these pressures are monitored, their impact on many biodiversity components is not well understood and therefore, cannot be used quantitatively in the environmental assessment although a semi-quantitative or expert judgement approach may provide a valuable starting point.

7.2.3. State-Change The DEVOTES Deliverable D3.1 Catalogue of Indicators (Teixeira et al., 2014) reviews of the current capabilities of the existing environmental indicators, in the context of the MSFD. It shows the availability of the indicators for addressing specific relevant pressures in the EU regional seas and can be queried through DEVOTool, a special software tool developed to host the catalogue (www.devotesproject.eu/devotool/). This catalogue is complementary to the DEVOTES Deliverable D4.1 Catalogue of Model-derived Indicators (Piroddi et al., 2013). Analysis of the catalogue has shown that, for European regional seas, gaps exist mainly for indicators to address ecosystem structure, processes and functions, indicators for genetic diversity, the effects of non-indigenous invasive species, and indicators related to food-web structure and functioning (productivity and size distribution).

68

7.3. Assessment Scales and scaling up to regional seas The connections between ecosystem features and human activities (and their related pressures) should determine the appropriate scale at which an ecosystem-based approach should be implemented. Defining these scales and their boundaries is an imperative for any ecosystem-based approach management (EEA, 2014).

For a well monitored small bay, a comprehensive assessment can be normally made, because the drivers, pressures and state-changes could be well understood, mapped and assessed. However, at a larger scale, some issues may be well known, but some are not; some areas have quantitative data, some have no-data, and a more widespread range of very differing habitats may be included. As Borja et al. (2013) have pointed out, the fundamental challenge of arriving at a regional quality status is by either having a broad approach and omitting or down-weighting point-source problems or summing the pointsource problems (which may cover only a very small area) to indicate the quality status of the whole area. State-change becomes much more complicated and diverse. An important problem could also be the mismatch between the quantitative pressure information and the quantitative information from different descriptors and biodiversity components, at large scale (i.e. regional or sub-regional sea), making the assessment of the response of indicators of change at such large level difficult. During the phase of implementation of the MSFD, and the baseline assessment on the state of marine waters in the EU has allowed a better understanding of pressures and impacts from human activities on marine life. Although most Member States have reported on most descriptors, providing a very broad overview of the marine environment in Europe, the quality of reporting varies widely from country to country, and within individual Member States, from one descriptor to another (EC, 2014).

In addition, when different countries are involved in the assessment, the relevant information may come from many different sources, which each have their own assessment timescales, aims, indicators, criteria, targets and baseline values. In the ODEMM project, the available information on the status and trends of ecological characteristics, impacts on those characteristics, and pressures from human activities, by regional sea, have been identified. The summary information is a useful compendium of all recent status assessments by regional sea (Knights et al., 2011).

7.4. Levels of Confidence A conceptual framework such as DPSIR allows the view of key components and interactions of an ecosystem problem. However when moving to the next step of assessment, involving the use and distillation of a wide variety of data, confidence in the outcome becomes an issue for both the assessors 69


and the users of the assessment. The level of confidence in an assessment depends on the degree of uncertainty associated with the basis for the determination, including the adequacy of available data, knowledge, and understanding about the environmental component being assessed, the proposed technology, the nature of the project-environment interaction, and the efficacy of proposed mitigation (Horvath, 2013). Determining the degree of uncertainty also requires distinguishing between lack of knowledge and natural variability (Hoffman and Hammonds, 1994). Uncertainty in the future forecasted state (due to lack of long-term data sets and historical data and/or spatio-temporal variability of a biological indicator) as well as uncertainty in the resulting ecosystem state post management action present challenges in target setting (Knights et al., 2014b). In most cases, uncertainty is addressed through monitoring programmes that have adequate spatio-temporal coverage (Borja et al., 2010), although the absence of reference conditions or clear targets to be achieved makes it difficult to establish an accurate assessment (Borja et al., 2012). However, confidence can also be given through a range of methods from cumulative qualitative assessment of each metric and, for example, a traffic-light overall confidence assessment to a separate quantitative confidence metric (e.g. Anderson et al., 2010).

Despite this, the largest amount of uncertainty lay in the fact that the end points of any assessment (as the determination of deviation from that expected in a physico-chemical or biological component) are poorly defined. If the agreed targets against which indices and metrics are judged as not sufficiently well defined, then the status of the area is uncertain. Hence, in determining whether an area is in GEnS due to a low pressure influence may indicate that, for example, there is 60% confidence that the area is in good status and 40% that it is not. This may be decided for one of the Descriptors but as yet the final rules on aggregating Descriptors (and criteria and indices) have not yet been agreed (see Borja et al., in press). Hence, any uncertainty for any one Descriptor in defining GEnS is then compounded across all the Descriptors.

8. Concluding remarks This document has defined, described and reviewed Conceptual Frameworks for management and assessment purposes as well as refining the methodology for biodiversity assessments. By showing the predominant use of the DPSIR framework and its derivatives as a Risk Assessment and Risk Management tool, this report presents the generic approach and shows that there is a practical limit regarding the value of conceptual models and diagrams. Whilst they are of value in an abstract or generic application, the underlying complexity of the systems under consideration means that specific applications cannot be easily shown diagrammatically. In such instances, and in common with earlier work that considered 70

simple pressure-impact linkages, the most straightforward option for assessing specific examples of this conceptual model is to record relationships between successive stages by means of matrices. Subsequently, matrices and linkages can be compiled within a database and interrogated and analysed by means of interactive data filters. Such an approach facilitates the extraction of information for specific stages of the overall process, which can then be used as the input to other techniques, such as BowTie analysis.

In emphasising the complexity of the marine system, here we show that although creating a system which covers all eventualities (all activities, pressures, state changes and impacts on human welfare and the links between these) is a laudable aim, it is more profitable to focus on a problem-based approach. Hence for any specific area (e.g. a Regional Sea, eco-region or sub-ecoregion) to determine the ranked priority pressures based on the number of activities. Each of these can then be addressed through the proposed DPSIR-BowTie (DPSIR-BT) linked approach in which we can address the main risks and hazards creating pressures, and thus the Main Event of concern (Smyth and Elliott, 2014).

The challenge for marine management, as shown here, is to apply that linked DPSIR-BT approach for the area being managed. As shown here, by focussing on the Risk Assessment approach, i.e. the pressures as mechanisms causing the State Changes and Impacts on Human Welfare (and so ultimately impacting on Ecosystem Services and Societal Benefits, a la Atkins et al. (2011)), then by definition management measures for prevention and mitigation/compensation can be implemented; hence the latter being the Responses under DPSIR and the means by which the Responses address the Drivers and Pressures (and State changes) becomes the Risk Management framework (see Elliott, 2014 in press).

A further challenge, again given the complexity of the marine system, its uses and users, is its ability to respond to Exogenic Unmanaged Pressures as well as the Endogenic Managed Pressures, the latter the focus of much of the current review. Although outside the scope of the current review, superimposed on the activity-pressure-state change (impact) chain described here is external pressures such as climate change. Hence management not only has to provide the Responses to the causes and consequences of change due to system internal pressures but also the Responses to the consequences of external pressures. Because of this, the application of the proposed scheme to cumulative and in-combination pressures, as discussed here, is also an imminent challenge. It is of note that ICES (2014) has recommended that the BowTie framework is used to address cumulative and in-combination pressures and their consequences.

71


9. References Alexander RR, Stanton (Jr) RJ, Dodd JR (1993) Influence of sediment grain size on the burrowing of bivalves: correlation with distribution and stratigraphic persistence of selected Neogene clams. Palaios, 8(3), 289303. Andersen JH, & Stock A, (eds.), Mannerla M, Heinänen S, Vinther M (2013) Human uses, pressures and impacts in the eastern North Sea. Aarhus University, DCE – Danish Centre for Environment and Energy. 136 pp. Technical Report from DCE – Danish Centre for Environment and Energy No. 18. http://www.dmu.dk/Pub/TR18.pdf Aliaume C, Do Chi T, Viaroli P, Zaldívar JM (2007) Coastal lagoons of Southern Europe: recent changes and future scenarios. Transitional Waters Monographs 1: 1-12. Andrulewicz E (2005) Developing the DPSIR framework of indicators for management of human impact on marine ecosystems, Baltic Sea example. In Gönenc IE et al. (Eds), Assessment of the fate and effects of toxic agents on water resources. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Atkins JP, Burdon D, Elliott M, Gregory AJ (2011). Management of the marine environment: integrating ecosystem services and societal benefits with DPSIR framework in a systems approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62: 215-226. Aubry A, Elliott M (2006) The use of environmental integrative indicators to assess seabed disturbance in estuaries and coasts: application to the Humber Estuary, UK. Marine Pollution Bulletin 53: 175-185. Azevedo A, Sousa AI, Lencarte-Silva JD, Dias JM, Lillebo AI (2013). Application of the generic DPSIR framework to seagrass communities of Ria de Aveiro: a better understanding of this coastal lagoon. Journal of Coastal Research 65: 19-24. Barnard S, Boyes SJ (2013) Review of Case Studies and Recommendations for the Inclusion of Expert Judgement in Marine Biodiversity Status Assessments - A report for the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. JNCC Report No. 490 by the Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies, University of Hull. Bashari H, Smith C, Bosch OJH (2009) Developing decision support tools for rangeland management by combining state and transition models and Bayesian belief networks. Agricultural Systems 99: 23-34. Bell S (2012) DPSIR = A Problem Structuring Method? An exploration from the "Imagine" approach. European Journal of Operational Research 222: 350-360. Berger AR, Hodge RA (1998) Natural change in the environment: a challenge to the pressure-state-response concept. Social Indicators Research 44: 255-265. Bidone EB, Lacerda LD (2004) The use of DPSIR framework to evaluate sustainability in coastal area. Case study: Guanabara Bay basin, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Regional Environmental Change 4: 5-16. Birk S, Bonne W, Borja Á, Brucet S, Courrat A. Poikane S, Solimini A, van de Bund W, Zampoukas N, Hering D (2012) Three hundred ways to assess Europe's surface waters: An almost complete overview of biological methods to implement the Water Framework Directive. Ecological Indicators 18: 31-41. Blaber SJM, Albaret J-J, Ching CV, Cyrus DP, Day JW, Elliott M, Fonseca D, Hoss J, Orensanz J, Potter IC, Silvert W, (2000) Effects of fishing on the structure and functioning of estuarine and nearshore ecosystems. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 590-602. Borja Á, Dauer DM (2008) Assessing the environmental quality status in estuarine and coastal systems: comparing methodologies and indices. Ecological Indicators 8: 331-337. Borja Á, Dauer DM, Grémare A (2012) The importance of setting targets and reference conditions in assessing marine ecosystem quality. Ecological Indicators 12: 1-7. Borja Á, Elliott M, Carstensen J, Heiskanen A-S, van de Bund W (2010) Marine management – Towards an integrated implementation of the European Marine Strategy Framework and the Water Framework Directives. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60: 2175-2186.

72

Borja Á, Elliott M, Andersen JH, Cardoso AC, Carstensen J, Ferreira JG, Heiskanen A-S, Marques JC, Neto JM, Teixeira H, Uusitalo L, Uyarra MC, Zampoukas N (2013) Good Environmental Status of marine ecosystems: What is it and how do we know when we have attained it? Marine Pollution Bulletin 76: 16-27. Borja Á, Galparsoro I, Solaun O, Muxika I, Tello EM, Uriarte A, Valencia V (2006) The European Water Framework Directive and the DPSIR, a methodological approach to assess the risk of failing to achieve good ecological status. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 66: 88-96. Borja Á, Prins T, Simboura N, Andersen JH, Berg T, Marques JC, Neto JM, Papadopoulou N, Reker J, Teixeira H, Uusitalo L (in press) Tales from a thousand and one ways to integrate marine biodiversity components when assessing the environmental status. Frontiers in Marine Science. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2014.00022. Bowen RE, Riley C (2003) Socio-economic indicators and integrated coastal management. Ocean & Coastal Management 46: 299-312. Boyd PW, Hutchins DA (2012) Introduction: Understanding the responses of ocean biota to a complex matrix of cumulative anthropogenic change. Marine Ecology Progress Series 470: 125-135. Breen P, Robinson LA, Rogers SI, Knights AM, Piet G, Churilova T, Margonski P, Papadopoulou N, Akoglu E, Eriksson A, Fineko Z, Fleming-Lehtinen V, Galil B, Goodsir F, Goren M, Kryvenko O, Leppanen JM, Markantonatou V, Moncheva S, Oguz T, Paltriguera L, Stefanova K, Timofte F, Thomsen F (2012) An environmental assessment of risk in achieving good environmental status to support regional prioritisation of management in Europe. Marine Policy 36(5): 1033-1043. Breitburg DL, Baxter JW, Hatfield CA, Howarth RW, Jones CG, Lovett GM, Wigand C (1998) Understanding effects of multiple stressors: ideas and challenges. In: Pace ML, Groffman PM (eds) Successes, limitations, and frontiers in ecosystem science, Chapter 17. Springer Verlag, New York, p 416−431. Bricker SB, Ferreira JG, Simas T (2003) An integrated methodology for assessment of estuarine trophic status. Ecological Modelling 169: 39-60. Briggs D (2003) Making a difference: indicators to improve children’s environmental health. World Health Organization, Geneva, 13 pp. Burkhard B, Müller F (2008) Driver - Pressure - State - Impact - Response. In Jørgensen SE, Fath BD (Eds), Ecological Indicators, Vol 2 of Encyclopedia of Ecology, 5 vols. pp. 967-970 Oxford, Elsevier. Carr ER, Wingard P, Yorty S, Thompson M, Jensen N, Roberson J (2007) Applying DPSIR to sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 14: 543-555. Casazza G, Silvestri C, Spada E (2002) The use of bio-indicators for quality assessments of the marine environment: examples from the Mediterranean Sea. Journal of Coastal Conservation 8: 147-156. Cave RR, Ledoux L, Turner K, Jickells T, Andrews JE, Davies H (2003) The Humber catchment and its coastal area: from UK to European perspectives. The Science of the Total Environment 314-316: 31-56. Coll M, Piroddi C, Albouy C, Ben Rais Lasram F, Cheung WWL, Christensen V, Karpouzi V, Guilhaumon F, Mouillot D, Paleczny M, Palomares ML, Steenbeek J, Trujillo P, Watson R, Pauly D (2011) The Mediterranean Sea under siege: spatial overlap between marine biodiversity, cumulative threats and marine reserves. Global Ecology and Biogeography 21: 465–480. Cooper P (2012) The DPSWR social ecological accounting framework: notes on its definition and application. Policy Brief No 3. EU FP7 KNOWSEAS Project. ISBN 0-9529089-5-6. Cooper P (2013) Socio-ecological accounting: DPSWR, a modified DPSIR framework, and its application to marine ecosystems. Ecological Economics 94: 106-115. Cormier R, Kannen A, Elliott M, Hall P, Davies IM (Eds.) (2013) Marine and coastal ecosystem-based risk management handbook. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 317. 60 pp. Cox M, Scheltinga D, Rissik D, Moss A, Counihan R, Rose D (2004) Assessing condition and management priorities for estuaries in Australia. Proceedings of the Coastal Zone Asia Pacific Conference 2004: Improving the Quality of Life in Coastal Areas. 5-9 September 2004, Brisbane. pp 551-557. Crain CM, Kroeker K, Halpern BS (2008) Interactive and cumulative effects of multiple human stressors in marine systems. Ecology Letters 11: 1304.

73


Cranford P, Kamermans P, Krause G, Mazurié J, Buck BH, Dolmer P, Fraser D, Nieuwenhove KV, O'Beirn FX, Sanchez-Mata A, Thorarinsdóttir GG, Strand O (2012) An ecosystem-based approach and management framework for the integrated evaluation of bivalve aquaculture impacts. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 2: 193-213. Curtin R, Prellezo R (2010) Understanding marine ecosystem based management: a literature review. Marine Policy 34: 821-830. Darling ES, Cote IM (2008) Quantifying the evidence for ecological synergies. Ecology Letters 11:1278-1286. Delbaere B (2003) An inventory of biodiversity indicators in Europe, 2002. Technical report No 92. EEA, Copenhagen, 42 pp. Dolbeth M, Lillebø AI, Alves FL, Sousa L, Stålnacke P, Zarruk KK, Gooch GD, Baggett S, Khokhlov V, Loret J, Bielecka M, Rozynski G, Margonski P, Chubarenko B (2014) Integrated pan-European view for coastal lagoons management: a nested DPSIR approach. Conference on European Climate Change Adaptation - Research and Practice, 11 March. Duarte CM, Borja A, Carstensen J, Elliott M, Krause-Jensen D, Marbà N (2013) Paradigms in the Recovery of Estuarine and Coastal Ecosystems. Estuaries and Coasts, in press. DOI 10.1007/s12237-013-9750-9 EC (2008) Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). Official Journal of the European Union. L164: 19-40. EC (2010) EU Commission Decision of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters (2010/477/EU). EC (2011) European Commission Staff Working Paper (CSWP) Relationship between the initial assessment of marine waters and the criteria for good environmental status, Brussels, 14.10.2011. SEC(2011) 1255 final. EC (2012) European Commission Staff Working Paper (CSWP) Guidance for 2012 reporting under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, using the MSFD database tool. Version 1.0. DG Environment, Brussels, pp 164. EC (2014) COM(2014) 97 final. Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. The first phase of implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/56/EC). The European Commission's assessment and guidance {SWD(2014) 49 final}. http://www.fishsec.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/02/com_2014_97.pdf EEA (1999) Environmental indicators: Typology and overview. Technical report No.25, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. 19 pp. EEA (2014) Marine messages. Our seas, our future – moving towards a new understanding. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark, http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/marine-messages. EEA (2013) Balancing the future of Europe's coasts - knowledge base for integrated management, EEA, Copenhagen, 64 pp. ISBN 978-92-9213-414-3. EEA (Online) http://glossary.eea.europa.eu/terminology/concept_html?term=dpsir Elliott M (2002) The role of the DPSIR approach and conceptual models in marine environmental management: an example for offshore wind power. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44: iii-vii. Elliott M (2011) Marine Science and management means tackling exogenic unmanaged pressures and endogenic managed pressures - a numbered guide. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62: 651-655. Elliott M (2014) Integrated marine science and management: wading through the morass. Marine Pollution Bulletin, in press. Elliott M, Burdon D, Callaway R, Franco A, Hutchinson T, Longshaw M, Malham S, Mazik K, Otto Z, Palmer D, Firmin C, Smith T, Wither A 2012. Burry Inlet cockle mortalities investigation 2009-2011. Final technical report to Environment Agency (Wales), 17 January 2012. Available online: http://a0768b4a8a31e106d8b050dc802554eb38a24458b98ff72d550b.r19.cf3.rackcdn.com/gewa0112bwap-e-e.pdf. Elliott M, Burdon D, Hemingway KL (2006). Marine ecosystem structure, functioning, health and management and potential approaches to marine ecosystem recovery: a synthesis of current understanding. Report: YBB092-F-2006. IECS, The University of Hull, UK, 122 pp. 74

Elliott M, Quintino V (2007) The Estuarine Quality Paradox, Environmental Homeostasis and the difficulty of detecting anthropogenic stress in naturally stressed areas. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54, 640-645. EPA (1994) A Conceptual Framework to Support the Development and Use of Environmental Information. Environmental Statistics and Information Division. Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. EPA 230-R-94012, USEPA, Washington D.C. EPA (2008) Indicator development for estuaries. Washington DC, EPA842-B-07-004, 138 pp. EEA (1999) State and pressures of the marine and coastal Mediterranean environment. EEA, Copenhagen, 44 pp. FAO (Online) www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/lead/toolbox/Refer/EnvIndi.htm Escaravage V, Herman PMJ, Heip CHR (2006) Nutrient dynamics in European water systems - the management perspective emerging from ELOISE, a European cluster of land-ocean interaction studies. Environmental Sciences 3: 97-112. EU (1999) Towards environmental pressure indicators for the EU. First Edition 1999. European Union. 181 pp. Fassio A, Giupponi C, Hiederer R, Simota C (2005) A decision support tool for simulating the effects of alternative policies affecting water resources: an application at the European scale. Journal of Hydrology 304: 462476. Fehling A (2009) Marine application of the Driver-Pressure-Impact-Response (DPSIR) - framework. University of Kiel, Ecology Centre, Ms Environmental Science. Fock HO, Kloppmann M, Stelzenmüller V (2011) Linking marine fisheries to environmental objectives: a case study on seafloor integrity under European maritime policies. Environmental Science & Policy 14: 289-300. Folt CL, Chen CY, Moore MV, Burnaford J (1999) Synergism and antagonism among multiple stressors. Limnology and Oceanography 44: 864−877. Gabrielsen P, Bosch P (2003) Environmental indicators: typology and use in reporting. EEA internal working paper. EEA, Copenhagen, 20 pp. Gari SR (2010) The use of DPSIR and SAF for the management of eutrophication in the Ria Formosa. MSc Thesis. University of Algarve, Portugal, 106 pp. Garmendia M, Bricker S, Revilla M, Borja A, Franco J, Bald J, Valencia V (2012) Eutrophication assessment in Basque estuaries: comparing a North American and a European method. Estuaries and Coasts 35: 991-1006. Gibbs M, Cole A (2008) Oceans and coasts as complex adaptive systems. In: Patterson MG, Glavovic BC (eds) Ecological Economics of the Oceans and Coasts. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK. p 74-91. Gimpel A, Stelzenmuller V, Cormier R, Floeter J, Temmings A (2013) A spatially explicit risk approach to support marine spatial planning in the German EEZ. Marine Environmental Research 86: 56-69. Giupponi C (2002) From the DPSIR reporting framework to a system for a dynamic and integrated decision making process. MULINO Conference on "European policy and tools for sustainable water management", 21-23 November, Venice, Italy. Giupponi C (2007) Decision Support Systems for implementing the European Water Framework Directive: The MULINO approach. Environmental Modelling & Software 22: 248-258. Gray JS, Elliott M, (2009) Ecology of Marine Sediments – From Science to Management, second ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Green RE, Balmford A, Crane PR, Mace GM, Reynolds JD, Turner RK (2005) A framework for improved monitoring of biodiversity: responses to the World Summit on sustainable development. Conservation Biology 19: 5665. Haberl H, Gaube V, Díaz-Delgado R, Krauze K, Neuner A, Peterseil J, Plutzar C, Singh SJ, Vadineanu A (2009) Towards an integrated model of socioeconomic biodiversity drivers, pressures and impacts. A feasibility study based on three European long-term socio-ecological research platforms. Ecological Economics 68: 1797-1812. Hamilton G, Alston C, Chiffings T, Abal E, Hart B, Mengersen K (2005) Integrating Science through Bayesian Belief Networks: Case study of Lyngbya in Moreton Bay. In: Proceedings of International Congress on Modelling and Simulation 2005, 12‐15 December 2005, Melbourne, Victoria. 75


Halpern BS, Selkoe KA, Micheli F, Kappel CV (2007) Evaluating and ranking the vulnerability of global marine ecosystems to anthropogenic threats. Conservation Biology 21: 1301–1315. Halpern BS, Walbridge S, Selkoe KA, Kappel CV, Micheli F, D’Agrosa C, Brunoa JF, Casy KS, Ebert C, Fox HE, Fujita R, Heinemann D, Lenihan HS, Madin EMP, Perry MT, Selig ER, Spalding M, Steneck R, Watson R (2008) A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319: 948–952. Heath MR (2012) Ecosystem limits to food web fluxes and fisheries yields in the North Sea simulated with an endto-end food web model. Progress in Oceanography 102: 42-66. Henriques S, Pais MP, Costa MJ, Cabral H (2008) Development of a fish-based multimetric index to assess the ecological quality of marine habitats: the Marine Fish Community Index. Marine Pollution Bulletin 56: 1913-1934. Hills JM, Schoen G, Nadcrinicinii A (2013) Climate change vulnerability and impact assessment review for the Black Sea region. CLIMBIZ - Black Sea Trade and Investment Programme, UNDP – Athens. Hoffman FO, Hammonds JS (1994) Propagation of uncertainty in risk assessments: the need to distinguish between uncertainty due to lack of knowledge and uncertainty due to variability. Risk Analysis 14(5): 707-712. Holman IP, Rousevell MDA, Shackley S, Harrison PA, Nicholls RJ, Berry PM, Audsley E (2005) A regional, multisectoral and integrated assessment of the impacts of climate and socio-economic change in the UK: Part I. Methodology. Climatic Change 71: 9-41. Horvath CL (2013) Confidence, Uncertainty, and Risk in Environmental Assessment. 'IAIA13 Conference Proceedings' Impact Assessment the Next Generation 33rd Annual Meeting of the International Association for Impact Assessment 13 – 16 May 2013, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 6pp. (http://www.iaia.org/conferences/iaia13/proceedings/Final%20papers%20review%20process%2013/Conf idence,%20Uncertainty,%20and%20Risk%20in%20Environmental%20Assessment.pdf?AspxAutoDetectCo okieSupport=1 Hulme PE (2007) Biological invasions in Europe: drivers, pressures, states, impacts and responses. In: Hester R, Harrison RM (eds) Biodiversity under threat. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, p 56-80. ICES (2014) Report of the joint RIJKSWATERSTAAT/DFO/ICES workshop: Risk Assessment for Spatial Management (WKRASM), 24-28 February 2014, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. ICES CM 2014 /SSGHIE:07. 35 pp (draft). Johnson D (2008) Environmental indicators: their utility in meeting the OSPAR Convention’s regulatory needs. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 1387–1391. Jongbloed R, Jak R, Bolman B (2011) Deliverable D1.5 Characterisation of ecosystems. EU FP7 COEXIST Project. Project Number 245178. 89 pp. Kannen A, Jedrasik J, Kowalewski M, Oldakowski B, Nowacki J (2004) Assessing catchment-coast interactions for the Bay of Gdansk. Coastline Reports 2: 155-165. Kannen A, Burkhard B (2009) Integrated assessment of coastal and marine changes using the example of offshore wind farms: the coastal futures approach. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 18: 185272. Karageorgis AP, Skourtos MS, Kapsimalis V, Kontogianni AD, Skoulikidis NT, Pagou K, Nikolaidis NP, Drakopoulou P, Zanou B, Karamanos H, Levkov Z, Anagnostou C (2005) An integrated approach to watershed management within the DPSIR framework: Axios River catchment and Thermaikos Gulf. Regional Environmental Change 5: 138-160. Karageorgis A, Kapsimalis V, Kontoganni A, Skourtos M, Turner RK, Salomons W (2006) Impact of 100-year human interventions on the deltaic coastal zone of the Inner Thermaikos Gulf (Greece): A DPSIR framework analysis. Environmental Management 38: 304-315. Karakos A, Skoulikaris X, Monget J-M, Jerrentrup H (2003) The broadcasting on internet of water DPSIR indicators. Experiments on the Nestos delta, Greece. Global Nest 5: 81-87. Kelble CR, Loomis DK, Lovelace S, Nuttle WK, Ortner PB, Fletcher P, Cook GS, Lorenz JJ, Boyer JN (2013) The EBMDPSER Conceptual Model: Integrating Ecosystem Services into the DPSIR Framework. PLoS ONE 8(8): e70766. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0070766

76

Knights AM, Culhane F, Hussain SS, Papadopoulou KN, Piet GJ, Raakær J, Rogers SI, Robinson LA, (2014b) A stepwise process of decision-making under uncertainty when implementing environmental policy. Environmental Science & Policy 39, 56-64. Knights AM, Koss RS, Papadopoulou N, Cooper LH, Robinson LA (2011) Sustainable use of European regional seas and the role of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Deliverable 1, EC FP7 Project (244273) ‘Options for Delivering Ecosystem-based Marine Management’. University of Liverpool. ISBN: 978-0-906370-63-6: 165 pp. Knights AM, Piet GJ, Jongbloed RH, Tamis JE, White L, Akoglu E, Boicenco L, Churilova T, Kryvenko O, FlemingLehtinen V, Leppanen J-M, Galil BS, Goodsir F, Goren M, Margonski P, Moncheva S, Oguz T, Papadopoulou KN, Setälä O, Smith CJ, Stefanova K, Timofte F, Robinson LA (2014a) An exposure-effect approach for evaluating ecosystem-wide risks from human activities. submitted Biological Conservation. Knights AM, Koss RS, Robinson LA (2013) Identifying common pressure pathways from a complex network of human activities to support ecosystem-based management. Ecological Applications 23: 755-765. Knudsen S, Zengin M, Koçak MH (2010) Identifying drivers for fishing pressure. A multidisciplinary study of trawl and sea snail fisheries in Samsun, Black Sea coast of Turkey. Ocean & Coastal Management 53: 252-269. Korpinen S, Meidinger M, Laamanen M (2013) Cumulative impacts on seabed habitats: An indicator for assessments of good environmental status. Marine Pollution Bulletin 74: 311-319. Koss RS, Knights AM, Eriksson A, Robinson LA (2011) ODEMM Linkage Framework Userguide. ODEMM Guidance Document Series No.1. EC FP7 project (244273) ‘Options for Delivering Ecosystem-based Marine Management’. University of Liverpool, ISBN:978-0-906370-66-7. Lange M, Burkhard B, Garthe S, Gee K, Kannen A, Lenhart H, Windhorst (2010) Analyzing Coastal and Marine Changes: Offshore Wind Farming as a Case Study. Zukunft Küste - Coastal Futures Synthesis Report. LOICZ Research & Studies No. 36. GKSS Research Centre, Geesthacht, 212 pp. Langmead O, McQuatters-Gollop A, Mee LD (eds) (2007) European lifestyles and marine ecosystems: exploring challenges for managing Europe's seas. Plymouth, UK. University of Plymouth Marine Institute, 43 pp. Langmead O, McQuatters-Gollop A, Mee LD, Friedrich J, Gilbert AJ, Gomoiy M-T, Jackson EL, Knudsen S, Minicheva G, Todorova V (2009) Recovery or decline of the northwestern Black Sea: A societal choice revealed by socio-ecological modelling. Ecological Modelling 220: 2927-2939. Ledoux L, Turner RK (2002) Valuing ocean and coastal resources: a review of practical examples and issues for further action. Ocean & Coastal Management 45: 583-616. Ledoux L, Beaumont N, Cave R, Turner RK (2005) Scenarios for integrated river catchment and coastal zone management. Regional Environmental Change 5: 82-96. Licht-Egger K (2007) Scenarios as a tool for Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) - how to handle the aspects of quality of life? Coastline Reports 8: 265-275. Lin T, Xue X-Z, Lu C-Y (2007) Analysis of coastal wetland changes using the "DPSIR" model: a case study in Xiamen, China. Coastal Management 35: 289-303. Lough JM, Barnes DJ (2000) Environmental controls on growth of the massive coral Porites. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 245:225−243. Lundberg C (2005) Conceptualizing the Baltic Sea Ecosystem: an interdisciplinary tool for environmental decision making. AMBIO 34: 433-439. Mace GM, Baillie JEM (2007) The 2010 Biodiversity Indicators: challenges for science and policy. Conservation Biology 21: 1406-1413. Maes J, Teller A, Erhard M, Liquete C, Braat L, Berry P, Egoh B, Puydarrieux P, Fiorina C, Santos F, Paracchini ML,Keune H, Wittmer H, Hauck J, Fiala I, Verburg PH, Condé S, Schägner JP, San Miguel J, Estreguil C, Ostermann O, Barredo JI, Pereira HM, Stott A, Laporte V, Meiner A, Olah B, Royo Gelabert E, Spyropoulou R, Petersen JE, Maguire, C, Zal N, Achilleos E, Rubin A, Ledoux L, Brown C, Raes C, Jacobs S, Vandewalle M, Connor D, Bidoglio G (2013) Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services. An analytical framework for ecosystem assessments under action 5 of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020. Publications office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 57 pp. 77


Mangi SC, Roberts CM, Rodwell LD (2007) Reef fisheries management in Kenya: preliminary approach using the driver-pressure-state-impacts-response (DPSIR) scheme of indicators. Ocean & Coastal Management 50: 463-480. Marinov D, Galbiati L, Giordani G, Viaroli P, Norro A, Bencivelli S, Zaldívar JM (2007) An integrated modelling approach for the management of clam farming in coastal lagoons. Aquaculture 269: 306-320. Martins JH, Camanho AS, Gaspar MB (2012) A review of the application of Driving forces-Pressure-State-ImpactResponse framework to fisheries management. Ocean & Coastal Management 69: 273-281. Mateus M, Campuzano FJ (2008) The DPSIR framework applied to the integrated management of coastal areas. In: Neves R, Baretta JW, Mateus M (eds) Perspectives on integrated coastal zone management in South America, 29-42. IST Press, p 29-42. Maxim L, Spangenberg JH, O'Connor M (2009) An analysis of risk for biodiversity under the DPSIR framework. Ecological Economics 69(1): 12-23. Mazik K, Papadopoulou N, Elliot M, (2013) Working definition of pressure adopted for DEVOTES. DEVOTES document. Dissemination level public. 6 pp. McCann RK, Marcot BG Ellis R (2006) Bayesian belief networks: applications in ecology and natural resource management. Canadian Journal of Forest Research-Revue Canadienne de Recherche Forestiere 36: 30533062. McGeoch MA, Butchart SHM, Spear D, Marais E, Kleynhans EJ, Symes A, Chanson J, Hoffmann M (2010) Global indicators of biological invasion: species numbers, biodiversity impact and policy responses. Diversity and Distributions 16: 95-108. Meller L, van Teeffelen AJA, van Minnen J, Vermaat J, Alkemade R, Hellmann F, Cabeza M (2012) A matrix of Biodiversity Indicators. RESPONSES Deliverable D5.2. Meyar-Naimi H, Vaez-Zadeh S (2012) Sustainable development based energy policy making frameworks, a critical overview. Energy Policy 43: 351-361. Meybeck M, Lestel L, Bonté P, Moilleron R, Colin JL, Rousselot O, Hervé D, Pontevès C, Grosbois C, Thévenot DR. 2007. Historical perspective of heavy metals contamination (Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Pb, Zn) in the Seine River basin (France) following a DPSIR approach (1950-2005). Science of the Total Environment 375: 204-231. Micheli F, Halpern BS, Walbridge S, Ciriaco S, Ferretti F, Fraschetti S, Lewison R, Nykjaer L, Rosenberg AA (2013) Cumulative Human Impacts on Mediterranean and Black Sea Marine Ecosystems: Assessing Current Pressures and Opportunities. PLoS ONE 8(12): e79889. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0079889 Mollet FM, Kraak SBM, Rijnsdorp AD (2007) Fisheries-induced evolutionary changes in maturation norms in the North Sea sole Solea solea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 351: 189-199. Mylopoulos J (1992) Conceptual modeling and Telos1. In Loucopoulos P, Zicari R, Conceptual Modeling, Databases, and Case: An integrated view of information systems development. Wiley. New York, pp. 49–68. Mysiak J, Giupponi C, Rosato P (2005) Towards the development of a decision support system for water resource management. Environmental Modelling & Software 20: 2013-214. Müller F, Burkhard B (2012) The indicator side of ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 1: 26-30. Ness B, Anderberg S, Olsson L (2010) Structuring problems in sustainability science: the multi level DPSIR framework. Geoforum 41: 479-488. Net Gain (2011) Net Gain Final Recommendations Submission to Natural England and JNCC. V 1.1. The North Sea Marine Conservation Zones Project. Hull, UK. 880 pp. Newton A, Icely JD, Falcão M, Nobre A, Nunes JP, Ferreira JG, Vale C (2003) Evaluation of eutrophication in the Ria Formosa coastal lagoon, Portugal. Continental Shelf Research 23: 1945-1961. Newton A, Icely J, Cristina S, Brito A, Cardoso AC, Colijn F, Riva SD, Gertz F, Hansen J, Holmer M, Ivanova K, Leppakoski E, Mocenni C, Mudge S, Murray N, Pejrup M, Razinkovas A, Reizopoulou S, P]erez-Ruzafa A, Schernewski G, Schubert H, Seeram L, Solidoro C, Viaroli P, Zald]ivar J-M (2014) An overview of ecological status, vilnerability and future perspectives of European large shallow, semi-enclosed coastal lagoons and transitional waters. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 140: 95-122. 78

Newton A, Weichselgartner J (2014) Hotspots of coastal vulnerability: a DPSIR analysis to find societal pathways and responses. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 140: 123-133. Niemeijer D, de Groot RS (2008) Framing environmental indicators: moving from causal chains to causal networks. Environment, Development and Sustainability 10: 89-106. Nunneri C, Turner RK, Cieslak A, Kannen A, Klein RJT, Ledoux L, Marquenie JM, Mee LD, Moncheva S, Nicholls RJ, Salomons W, Sardá R, Stive MJF, Vellinga T (2005) Group report: integrated assessment and future scenarios for the coast. In: Vermaat JE et al. (eds.) Managing European Coasts: Past, Present, and Future. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 271–290. Nunneri C, Hofmann J (2005) A participatory approach for Integrated River Basin Management in the Elbe catchment. Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 62: 521-537. OECD (1993) OECD Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance Reviews. A Synthesis Report by the Group on the State of the Environment. OECD, Paris. 35 pp. Ostoich M, Critto A, Marcomini A, Aimo E, Gerotto M, Menegus L (2009) Implementation of Directive 2000/60/EC: risk-based monitoring for the control of dangerous and priority substances. Chemistry and Ecology 25: 257-275. Ojeda-Martínez C, Casalduero FG, Bayle-Sempere JT, Cebrián CB, Valle C, Sanchez-Lizaso JL, Forcada A, SancheJerez P, Martín-Sosa P, Falcón JM, Salas F, Graziano M, Chemello R, Stobart B, Cartagena P, Pérez-Ruzafa A, Vandeperre F, Rochel E, Planes S, Brito A (2009) A conceptual framework for the integral management of marine protected areas. Ocean & Coastal Management 52: 89-101. Omann I, Stocker A, Jäger J (2009) Climate change as a threat to biodiversity: an application of the DPSIR approach. Ecological Economics 69: 24-31. Ou C-H, Liu W-H (2010) Developing a sustainable indicator system based on the pressure-state-response framework for local fisheries: a case study of Gungliau, Taiwan. Ocean & Coastal Management 53: 289300. Pacheco A, Carrasco AR, Vila-Concejo A, Ferreira O, Dias JA (2007) A coastal management program for channels located in backbarrier systems. Ocean & Coastal Management 50: 119-143. Panov VE, Alexandrov B, Arbačiauskas K, Binimelis R, Copp GH, Grabowski M, Lucy F, Leuven RS, Nehring S, Paunović M, Semenchenko V, Son MO (2009) Assessing the risks of aquatic species invasions via European inland waterways: from concepts to environmental indicators. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 5: 110-126. Paine RT, Tegner MJ, Johnson EA (1998) Compounded perturbations yield ecological surprises. Ecosystems 1: 535– 545. Patr cio J, Little S, Mazik K, Thomson S, Zampoukas N, Teixeira H, Solaun O, Uyarra MC, Papadopoulou N, Kaboglu G, Bucas M, Churilova T, Kryvenko O, Moncheva S, Stefanova K, Borja A, Alvarez M, Zenetos A, Smith C, Zaiko A, Danovaro R, Carugati L, Elliott M (2014) Report on SWOT analysis of monitoring. Deliverable 1.4. Devotes Project. 100 pp + 4 Annexes. http://www.devotes-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/DEVOTES_D1-4_Report-on-SWOT-analysisof-monitoring.pdf Petihakis G, Smith CJ, Triantafyllou G, Sourlantzis G, Papadopoulou K-N, Pollani A, Korres G (2007) Scenario testing of fisheries management strategies using a high resolution ERSEM–POM ecosystem model. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64: 1627-1640. Pinto R, de Jonge VN, Neto JN, Domingos T, Marques JC, Patrício J (2013) Towards a DPSIR driven integration of ecological value, water uses and ecosystem services for estuarine systems. Ocean & Coastal Management 72: 64-79. Piroddi C, Lynham C, Teixeira H, Smith C, Alvarez M, Mazik K, Andonegi E, Churilova T, Tedesco L, Chifflet M, Chust W, Galparsoro I, Garcia AC, Kamari M, Kryvenko O, Lasalle G, Neville S, Niquil N, Papadopoulou N, Rossberg A, Suslin S, Uyarra MC (2013) Available models for biodiversity and needs for development Deliverable 4.1 Devotes Project. 32 pp + 6 Annexes.

79


Pirrone N, Trombino G, Cinnirella S, Algieri A, Bendoricchio G, Palmeri L (2005) The Driver-Pressure-State-ImpactResponse (DPSIR) approach for integrated catchment-coastal zone management: preliminary applications to the Po catchment-Adriatic Sea coastal zone. Regional Environmental Change 5: 111-137. Plagányi ÉE (2007) Models for an ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 477. FAO, Rome, 108 pp. Pollino CA, Woodberry O, Nicholson A, Korb K, Hart BT (2007) Parameterisation and evaluation of a Bayesian network for use in an ecological risk assessment. Environmental Modelling & Software 22: 1140-1152. Raakjaer J, van Leeuwen J, van Tatenhove J, Hadjimichael M, (2014) Ecosystem-based marine management in European regional seas calls for nested governance structures and coordination — A policy brief. Marine Policy, In Press, Corrected Proof, DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.03.007. Rapport D, Friend A (1979) Towards a comprehensive framework for environmental statistics: a stress-response approach. Statistics Canada Catalogue 11-510. Minister of Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa. 90 pp. Rapport DJ, Hildén M (2013) An evolving role for ecological indicators: from documenting ecological conditions to monitoring drivers and policy responses. Ecological Indicators 28: 10-15. Rees HL, Boyd SE, Schratzberger M, Murray LA (2006) Role of benthic indicators in regulating human activities at sea. Environmental Science & Policy 9: 496-508. Reis S, Morris G, Fleming LE, Beck S, Taylor T, White M, Depledge MH, Steinle S, Sabel CE, Cowie H, Hurley F, Dick JMcP, Smith RI, Austen M, (2014) Integrating health and environmental impact analysis, Public health (2013) 1-7, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2013.07.006. Rekolainen S, Kamari J, Hiltunen M, Saloranta TM (2003) A conceptual framework for identifying the need and role of models in the implementation of the Water framework Directive. International Journal of River Basin Management 1(4): 347-52. DOI:10.1080/15715124.2003.9635217 Robinson LA, Frid CLJ (2003) Dynamic ecosystem models and the evaluation of ecosystem effects of fishing: can we make meaningful predictions? Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 13: 5–20. Robinson LA, Knights AM (2011) ODEMM Pressure Assessment Userguide. ODEMM Guidance Document Series No. 2. EC FP7 Project (244272) ‘Options for Delivering Ecosystem-based Marine Management’. University of Liverpool. ISBN: 978-0-906370-62-9. Robinson LA, Rogers S, Frid CLJ (2008) A marine assessment and monitoring framework for application by UKMMAS and OSPAR – Assessment of Pressures and Impacts. Phase II: Application for regional assessments. Joint Nature Conservation Committee contract No. C-08-0007-0027. Rogers SI, Greenaway B (2005) A UK perspective on the development of marine ecosystem indicators. Marine Pollution Bulletin 50: 9-19. Rovira JL, Pardo P (2006) Nutrient pollution of waters: eutrophication trends in European marine and coastal environments. Contributions to Science 3: 181-186. Rose KA, Allen JI, Artioli Y, Barange M, Blackford J, Carlotti F, Cropp R, Daewel U, Edwards K, Flynn K, Hill S, Hille Ris Lambers R, Huse G, Megrey B, Moll A, Rivkin R, Salihoglu B, Schrum C, Shannon L, Shin Y, Smith SL, Smith C, Solidoro C, St. John M, Zhou M (2010) End-To-End Models for the Analysis of Marine Ecosystems: Challenges, Issues, and Next Steps. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science 2: 115–130. Rudd MA (2004) An institutional framework for designing and monitoring ecosystem-based fisheries management policy experiments. Ecological Economics 48: 109-124. Sala OE, Chapin FS III, Armesto JJ, Berlow E, Bloomfield J, Dirzo R, Huber-Sanwald E, Huenneke LF, Jackson RB, Kinzig A, Leemans, R, Lodge DM, Mooney HA, Oesterheld M, Poff NL, Sykes MT, Walker BH, Walker M, Wall DH (2000) Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287: 1770–1774. Scheren PAGM, Kroeze C, Janssen FJJG, Hordijk L, Ptasinski KJ (2004) Integrated water pollution assessment of the Ebrié Lagoon, Ivory Coast, West Africa. Journal of Marine Systems 44: 1-17. Schernewski G (2008) First steps towards an implementation of coastal management: from theory to regional practise. Rostocker Meeresbiologische Beiträge 19:131-148.

80

Sekovski I, Newton A, Dennison WC (2012) Megacities in the coastal zone: using a driver-pressure-state-impactresponse framework to address complex environmental problems. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 96: 48-59. Singh RK, Murty HR, Gupta SK, Dikshit AK (2009) An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators 9: 189-212. Smeets E, Weterings R (1999) Environmental indicators: typology and overview. Technical report no 25 European Environment Agency, 19 pp. Smith K, Petley DN (2009) Environmental Hazards: assessing risk and reducing disaster. 5th Ed. Routledge, London. Smyth K, Elliott M (2014) Develop Risk assessments leading to Best Practice: Resource Exploitation – Renewable Energy. Deliverable 60.5, VECTORS FP7 project, IECS, University of Hull, pp 65. Snelgrove PVR, Butman CA (1994) Animal-sediment relationships revisited: cause versus affect. Oceanography and Marine Biology Annual Review 32: 111-177. Spangenberg JH (2007) Biodiversity pressure and the driving forces behind. Ecological Economics 61: 146-158. Spangenberg JH, Martinez-Alier J, Omann I, Monterroso I, Binimelis R (2009) The DPSIR scheme for analysing biodiversity loss and developing preservation strategies. Ecological Economics 69: 9-11. Stelzenmüller V, Breen P, Stamford T, Thomsen F, Badalamenti F, Borja A, Buhl-Mortensen L, Carlstöm J, D'Anna G., Dankers N, Degraer S, Dujin M, Fiorentino F, Galparsoro I, Giakoumi S, Gristina M, Johnson K, Jones PJS, Katsanevakis S, Knittweis, Kyriazi Z, Pipitone C, Piwowarzyk J, Rabaut M, Sørensen TK, van Dalfsen J, Vassilopoulou V, Fernández TV, Vincx M, Vöge S, Weber A, Wijkmark N, Jak R, Qiu W, ter Hofstede R (2013). Monitoring and evaluation of spatially managed areas: A generic framework for implementation of ecosystem based marine management and its application. Marine Policy 37: 149-164. Sundblad E-L, Grimvall A, Gipperth L, Morf A (2014) Structuring social data for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Marine Policy 45: 1-8. Svarstad H, Petersen LK, Rothman D, Siepel H, Wätzold F (2008) Discursive biases of the environmental research framework DPSIR. Land Use Policy 25: 116-125. Tett P, Gowen RJ, Painting SJ, Elliott M, Forster R, Mills DK, Bresnan E, Capuzzo E, Fernandes TF, Foden J, Geider RJ, Gilpin LC, Huxham M, McQuatters-Gollop AL, Malcolm SJ, Saux-Picart S, Platt T, Racault M-F, Sathyendranath S, van der Molen J, Wilkinson M (2013) Framework for understanding marine ecosystem health. Marine Ecology Progress Series 494: 1-27. Teixeira H, Berg T, Furhaupter K, Uusitalo L, Papadopoulou N, Bizsel KC, Cochrane S, Churilova T, Zenetos A, Heiskanen, AS, Uyarra MC, Zampoukas N, Borja A, Akcali B, Anderson JH, Beauchard O, Berzano M, Bizsel N, Bucas M, Camp J, Carvalho S, Flo E, Garces E, Herman P, Katsanevakis S, Kavcioglu R, Krause-Jensen D, Kryvenko O, Lynham C, Mazik K, Moncheva S, Neville S, Ozaydinli M, Pantazi M, Patr cio J, Piroddi C, ueir s AM, Ramsvatn S, Rodriguez JG, Rodriguez-Ezpeleta N, Smith C, Stefanova K, Tempera F, Vassilopoulou V, Verissimo , Yilmaz EC, Zaiko A (2014) Existing biodiversity, non-indigenous species, foodweb and seafloor integrity GEnS indicators. Deliverable 3.1. Devotes Project. 198 pp + 2 Annexes. http://www.devotes-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/D3-1_Existing-biodiversity-indicators.pdf Trombino G, Pirrone N, Cinnirella S (2007) A business-as-usual scenario analysis for the Po Basin-North Adriatic continuum. Water Resources management 21: 2063-2074. Tscherning K, Helming K, Krippner B, Sieber S, Paloma SG (2012) Does research applying the DPSIR framework support decision making. Land Use Policy 29: 102-110. Turner RK, Adger WN, Lorenzoni I (1998a) Towards Integrated Modelling and Analysis in Coastal Zones: Principles and Practices, LOICZ Reports & Studies No. 11, iv + 122 pp. LOICZ IPO, Texel, The Netherlands. Turner RK, Lorenzoni I, Beaumont N, Bateman IJ, Langford IH, McDonald AL (1998b) Coastal management for sustainable development: analysing environmental and socio-economic changes on the UK coast. The Geographical Journal 164: 269-281. Turner RK (2000) Integrating natural and social-economic science in coastal management. Journal of Marine Systems 25: 447-460.

81


Turner RK, Hadley D, Luisetti T, Lam VWY, Cheung WWL (2010) An introduction to socio-economic assessment within a marine strategy framework. DEFRA, London, 121 pp. UNEP

(Online) Regional Seas Conventions and Protocols. www.unep.ch/regionalseas/main/hconlist.html#pp

UNEP

and

Partner

Programmes.

UNEP (1994) World Environment Outlook: Brainstorming Session. ENEP/EAMR. 94-5. Env. Assessm. Prog., Nairobi. 18 p. UNEP (2009) IEA training manual - II: Vulnerability and impacts assessment for adaptation to climate change (VIA module). UNEP-IISD-UNITAR. ISBN: 978-92-807-3072-2. Vacchi M, Montefalcone M, Parravicini V, Rovere A, Vassallo P, Ferrari M, Morri C, Bianchi CN (2014) Spatial models to support the management of coastal marine ecosystems: a short review of best practices in Liguria, Italy. Mediterranean Marine Science 15: 172-180. Viaroli P, Marinov P, Bodini D, Giordani G, Galbiati L, Somma F, Bencivelli S, Norro A, Zaldívar-Comenges J-M (2007) Analysis of clam farming scenarios in the Sacca di Goro lagoon. Transitional Waters Monographs 1: 71-92. Vugteveen P, van Katwijk MM, Rouwette E, Hanssen L (2014) How to structure and prioritize information needs in support of monitoring design for integrated coastal management. Journal of Sea Research 86: 23-33. Walmsley JJ (2002) Framework for measuring sustainable development in catchment systems. Environmental Management 29(2): 195-206. Widdows J, Bayne BL, Donkin P, Livingstone DR, Lowe DM (1981) Measurement of the responses of mussels to environmental stress and pollution in Sullom Voe: a baseline study. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh B 80: 323-338. Zaldívar J-M, Cardoso, AC, Viaroli P, Newton A, de Wit R, Ibañez C, Reizopoulou S, Somma F, Razinkovas A, Basset A, Holmer M, Murray N (2008) Eutrophication in transitional waters: an overview. Transitional Waters Monographs 1: 1-78.

82