Bridging the Science-Policy Gap - Toward Better Integration of Decision Support Tools in Coastal and Marine Policy Implementation

被引:12
作者
Schumacher, Johanna [1 ,2 ]
Bergqvist, Lisa [3 ]
van Beest, Floris M. [4 ]
Carstensen, Jacob [4 ]
Gustafsson, Bo [3 ,5 ]
Hasler, Berit [6 ]
Fleming, Vivi [7 ]
Nygard, Henrik [7 ]
Pakalniete, Kristine [8 ]
Sokolov, Alexander [3 ]
Zandersen, Marianne [6 ]
Schernewski, Gerald [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Leibniz Inst Baltic Sea Res Warnemunde, Unit Coastal Sea Management & Planning, Rostock, Germany
[2] Klaipeda Univ, Marine Res Inst, Klaipeda, Lithuania
[3] Stockholm Univ, Baltic Sea Ctr, Stockholm, Sweden
[4] Aarhus Univ, Dept Biosci, Roskilde, Denmark
[5] Univ Helsinki, Tvarminne Zool Stn, Hango, Finland
[6] Aarhus Univ, Dept Environm Sci, Roskilde, Denmark
[7] Finnish Environm Inst, Marine Res Ctr, Helsinki, Finland
[8] AKTiiVS Ltd, Riga, Latvia
基金
瑞典研究理事会;
关键词
decision-making; Baltic; end-user needs; environmental science and policy; tools and approaches; science and policy interface; BALTIC SEA; TARGETS;
D O I
10.3389/fmars.2020.587500
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Decision support tools (DSTs), like models, GIS-based planning tools and assessment tools, play an important role in incorporating scientific information into decision-making and facilitating policy implementation. In an interdisciplinary Baltic research group, we compiled 43 DSTs developed to support ecosystem-based management of the Baltic Sea and conducted a thorough review. Analyzed DSTs cover a wide variety of policy issues (e.g., eutrophication, biodiversity, human uses) and address environmental as well as socio-economic aspects. In this study, we aim to identify gaps between existing DSTs and end-user needs for DSTs for supporting coastal and marine policy implementation, and to provide recommendations for future DST development. In two online surveys, we assess the awareness and use of DSTs in general, as well as policy implementation challenges and DST needs of representatives of public authorities from all Baltic countries, in particular. Through a policy review we identify major policy issues, policies, and general implementation steps and requirements and develop the synthesis-matrix, which is used to compare DST demand and supply. Our results show that DSTs are predominantly used by researchers. End-users from public authorities use DSTs mostly as background information. Major obstacles for DST use are lacking awareness and experiences. DST demand is strongest for the policy issue eutrophication. Furthermore, DSTs that support the development of plans or programs of measures and assess their impacts and effectiveness are needed. DST supply is low for recently emerging topics, such as non-indigenous species, marine litter, and underwater noise. To overcome existing obstacles, a common database for DSTs available in the BSR is needed. Furthermore, end-users need guidance and training, and cooperation between DST developers and end-users needs to be enhanced to ensure the practical relevance of DSTs for supporting coastal and marine policy implementation. To fill existing gaps, DSTs that address impacts on human welfare and link environmental and socio-economic aspects should be developed. The Baltic Sea Region serves as a best practice case for studying DSTs and their practical use. Hence, our results can provide insights for DST development in other marine regions. Furthermore, our methodological approach is transferable to other areas.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 31 条
  • [1] Benefits of meeting nutrient reduction targets for the Baltic Sea - a contingent valuation study in the nine coastal states
    Ahtiainen, Heini
    Artell, Janne
    Czajkowski, Mikoaj
    Hasler, Berit
    Hasselstrom, Linus
    Huhtala, Anni
    Meyerhoff, Juergen
    Smart, James C. R.
    Soderqvist, Tore
    Alemu, Mohammed H.
    Angeli, Daija
    Dahlbo, Kim
    Fleming-Lehtinen, Vivi
    Hyytiainen, Kari
    Karloseva, Aljona
    Khaleeva, Yulia
    Maar, Marie
    Martinsen, Louise
    Nommann, Tea
    Pakalniete, Kristine
    Oskolokaite, Ieva
    Semeniene, Daiva
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND POLICY, 2014, 3 (03) : 278 - 305
  • [2] European Environmental Management: Moving to an Ecosystem Approach
    Apitz, Sabine E.
    Elliott, Michael
    Fountain, Michelle
    Galloway, Tamara S.
    [J]. INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT, 2006, 2 (01) : 80 - 85
  • [3] Backer H., 2012, DILEMMA BOUNDARIES, P199, DOI [10.1007/978-4- 431- 54035-9_17, DOI 10.1007/978-4-431-54035-9_17]
  • [4] The European water framework directive: A challenge for nearshore, coastal and continental shelf research
    Borja, A
    [J]. CONTINENTAL SHELF RESEARCH, 2005, 25 (14) : 1768 - 1783
  • [5] Overview of Integrative Assessment of Marine Systems: The Ecosystem Approach in Practice
    Borja, Angel
    Elliott, Michael
    Andersen, Jesper H.
    Berg, Torsten
    Carstensen, Jacob
    Halpern, Benjamin S.
    Heiskanen, Anna-Stiina
    Korpinen, Samuli
    Lowndes, Julia S. Stewart
    Martin, Georg
    Rodriguez-Ezpeleta, Naiara
    [J]. FRONTIERS IN MARINE SCIENCE, 2016, 3
  • [6] Adoption of the ecosystem services concept in EU policies
    Bouwma, Irene
    Schleyer, Christian
    Primmer, Eeva
    Winkler, Klara Johanna
    Berry, Pam
    Young, Juliette
    Carmen, Esther
    Spulerova, Jana
    Bezak, Peter
    Preda, Elena
    Vadineanu, Angheluta
    [J]. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, 2018, 29 : 213 - 222
  • [7] EC, 2019, EU COAST MAR POL
  • [8] EC, 2019, EUR COMM COMM STAFF
  • [9] Underwater noise modelling for environmental impact assessment
    Farcas, Adrian
    Thompson, Paul M.
    Merchant, Nathan D.
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REVIEW, 2016, 57 : 114 - 122
  • [10] Can tools contribute to integration in MSP? A comparative review of selected tools and approaches
    Gee, Kira
    Blazauskas, Nerijus
    Dahl, Karsten
    Goke, Cordula
    Hassler, Bjorn
    Kannen, Andreas
    Leposa, Neva
    Morf, Andrea
    Strand, Helena
    Weig, Barbara
    Zaucha, Jacek
    [J]. OCEAN & COASTAL MANAGEMENT, 2019, 179