Advertisement

Journal of Coastal Conservation

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 305–311 | Cite as

The importance of monitoring and evaluation in adaptive maritime spatial planning

  • Fanny DouvereEmail author
  • Charles N. Ehler
Article

Abstract

Adaptive maritime spatial planning (MSP) uses monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of spatial and temporal management measures to promote understanding and improve planning and decision-making. An adaptive approach to MSP involves exploring alternative ways to meet management objectives, predicting the outcomes of alternative management measures, implementing one or more of these alternative management measures, monitoring to learn about the effects of management measures, and then using the results to update knowledge and adjust management actions. A monitoring and evaluation plan should be designed to be both cost effective and comprehensive. The process of setting and assessing performance metrics requires that the ecological and socio-economic objectives of the spatial management plan must be clearly stated up front for management actions to reflect those objectives accurately. To evaluate the effectiveness of a MSP plan, a range of ecological, socio-economic and institutional indicators need to be developed and monitored.

Keywords

Maritime (marine) spatial planning Adaptive management Monitoring Indicators Evaluation Management effectiveness 

References

  1. Belfiore S, Barbiere J, Bowen R, Cicin-Sain B, Ehler C, Mageau C, McDougall D, Siron R (2006) A handbook for measuring the progress and outcomes of integrated coastal and ocean management. IOC Manuals and Guides 46, ICAM Dossier 2, UNESCO, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  2. Commission of the European Communities (2008) Roadmap for maritime spatial planning: achieving common principles in the EU. COM(2008)791 finalGoogle Scholar
  3. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2008) Oceans Act. Boston, Massachusetts, USA. Available at: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw08/sl080114.htm
  4. Day J (2002) Lessons from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Ocean Coast Manag 45:139–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Day J (2008) The need and practice of monitoring, evaluating, and adapting marine planning and management. Marine Policy 32:823–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ehler C (2003) Indicators to measure governance performance in integrated coastal management. Ocean Coast Manag J 46:335–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ehler C, Douvere F (2009) Marine spatial planning: a step-by-step approach toward ecosystem-based management. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme. IOC Manual and Guides No. 53, ICAM Dossier No. 6. Paris: UNESCOGoogle Scholar
  8. Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of Massachusetts (2009) Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan. Volume 2. Baseline Assessment and Scientific Framework. Boston, Massachusetts, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (2009) Spatial plan for the German exclusive economic zone in the North Sea (text section). Hamburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  10. Food and Aquaculture Organization of the United Nations (2009) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2008 (SOFIA). Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  11. Hockings M (2000) Evaluating protected area management. A review of systems for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas School of Natural and Rural Systems University of Queensland Occasional Paper 4:1–58Google Scholar
  12. Hockings M (2003) Systems for assessing the effectiveness of management in protected areas. BiosScience 53(9):823–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holling C (ed) (1978) Adaptive environmental assessment and management. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  14. Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force (2009) Interim framework for effective coastal and marine spatial planning. The White House Council on Environmental Quality, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  15. Kusek JZ, Rist R (2004) Ten steps to a results-based monitoring and evaluation system. The World Bank, WashingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee K (1994) Compass and gyroscope: integrating science and politics for the environment. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Maelfait H, Belpaeme K (eds) (2007) Het kustkompas: indicatoren als wegwijzers voor een duurzaam kustbeheer. Coördinatiepunt Duurzaam Kustbeheer, OostendeGoogle Scholar
  18. McLeod K, Leslie H (2009) Ecosystem-based management of the oceans. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  19. Nicholson C (2009) Gulf of Mexico dead zone shrinks. Scientific American. 27 July.Google Scholar
  20. OSPAR Commission (2000) Quality Status Report 2000 for the North East Atlantic. London, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  21. Pomeroy R, Parks J, Watson L (2004) How is your MPA doing? A guidebook of natural and social indicators for evaluating marine protected area management effectiveness. The World Conservation Union, GlandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Royal Norwegian Ministry of the Environment (2006) Integrated Management of the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea and the Sea Areas off the Lofoten IslandsGoogle Scholar
  23. Walters C (1986) Adaptive management of renewable resources. MacMillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC)UNESCOParisFrance

Personalised recommendations