Multiple interests across European coastal waters: the importance of a common language

ICES Journal of Marine Science ICES Journal of Marine Science (2015), 72(2), 720– 731. doi:10.1093/icesjms/fsu095 Original Article Multiple interests across European coastal waters: the importance of a common language Jorge Ramos 1*, Katrine Soma 2,8, Øivind Bergh 3, Torsten Schulze 4, Antje Gimpel 4, Vanessa Stelzenmüller 4, Timo Mäkinen 5, Gianna Fabi 6, Fabio Grati6, and Jeremy Gault 7 1 IPMA, Av. 5 Outubro, s/n, Olhão 8700-305, Portugal LEI, PO Box 29703, The Hague 2502 LS, The Netherlands 3 IMR, PO Box 1870 Nordnes, Bergen NO-5817, Norway 4 TI-SF, Palmaille 9, Hamburg 22767, Germany 5 RKTL, PO BOX 2, Helsinki 00791, Finland 6 CNR-ISMAR, Largo Fiera della Pesca, 2, Ancona 60125, Italy 7 CMRC – UCC, Western Road, Cobh, Co. Cork, Ireland 8 PAP, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, Wageningen 6706 KN, The Netherlands 2 *Corresponding author: tel: +351 289 700 540; fax: +351 289 700 535; e-mail: Ramos, J., Soma, K., Bergh, Ø., Schulze, T., Gimpel, A., Stelzenmüller, V., Mäkinen, T., Fabi, G., Grati, F., and Gault, J. Multiple interests across European coastal waters: the importance of a common language. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 72: 720 – 731. Received 24 September 2013; revised 30 April 2014; accepted 1 May 2014; advance access publication 13 June 2014. Different marine and coastal activities have diverse economic, environmental, and socio-cultural objectives, which can lead to conflict when these multidimensional activities coincide spatially or temporally. This is sometimes driven by a lack of understanding or other users’ needs and consequentially adequate planning and the utilization of a common language is essential. By using a transparent approach based on multi-criteria analysis, we characterize and establish priorities for future development/conservation for all users in the coastal area using six representative European Case Studies with different levels of complexity. Results varied according to location, but significantly it was found that stakeholders tended to favour ecological and social over economic objectives. This paper outlines the methodology employed, the results derived, and the potential for this approach to reduce conflict in coastal and marine waters. Keywords: case studies, coexist, conflict (reduction), European Coastal Zone, marine spatial planning, multi-criteria analysis, stakeholders. Introduction The use of European marine and coastal areas varies from traditional activities such as fishing and trade shipping, to more recent technical developments of green energy production (Ehlers and Lagoni, 2006). Demand for clean energies has progressed due to the public concerns about the sustainability of energy use (Pinkse and Dommisse, 2008). As a result of the increasing complexity of use, competition for space and for actual or perceived potential resources in the marine and coastal areas, there is an urgent need for coexistence among the different activities (Dempster and Sanchez-Jerez, 2008). This challenge is further complicated by the different degrees of acceptance by different parts of the society about decisions on marine and coastal uses (Brown et al., 2002). It has been shown, however, that there is greater social acceptance when increased transparency is established in the planning and decision-making processes (Curtin and Meijer, 2006). Marine spatial planning (MSP) needs room for a compulsory conciliation, and a compromise of not only sustainable but also intentional and efficient use of resources (Ostrom et al., 1999). More recently, Foley et al. [(2010, p. 2) after Douvere (2008)] defined ecosystem-based MSP as “an integrated planning framework that informs the spatial distribution of activities in and on the ocean to support current and future uses of ocean ecosystems and maintain the delivery of valuable ecosystem services for future generations in a way that meets ecological, economic and social objectives”. Within the process of planning, conflicts between public and private stakeholders may occur (Pinho, 2007), and different stakeholder types might interact either negatively or positively and a plethora of dissimilar interests may arise (Reed et al., 2009). # International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 2014. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: 721 European coastal waters common language The outcome of this it that information can appear too complicated to policy-makers who therefore make their decisions independently, based on their own experience. The COEXIST project (Interaction in Coastal Waters: A roadmap to sustainable integration of aquaculture and fisheries) engaged stakeholders from six representative European Case Studies (from now on CS). The project focused on the interaction of different human activities, conflicting or synergistic and facilitated interaction between diverse sectors in the coastal zone across several European countries. The objective of this paper is to apply a “common language”—in this case a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) approach—designed to ascertain the different stakeholder views and preferences, from different countries, with regard to sustainable use of coastal areas (Soma et al., 2013). In the MCA approach used, first the legislative framework is identified in general and in specific terms (in each CS). Second, under three main overarching objectives—economic, ecological, and socio-cultural—stakeholder preferences for a range of sub-objectives were determined. Third, the preference patterns were collated by CS and by stakeholder group. Finally, the subobjective preferences were ranked in each CS. MCA: state of the art MCA emerged because of the need to develop techniques to be used in processes where difficult decisions about alternative strategies have to be taken (Nijkamp, 1975; Van Delft, 1977; Kickert, 1978). MCA identify each of the choices made under a range of objectives (or sub-objectives) and assign a value to the relative importance of this choice with respect to each objective. To determine the relative importance of the objectives selected, predetermined multiple choice options are required (Hajkowicz and Collins, 2007). These are subsequently deployed as part of the evaluation process, can be conducted out by diverse individual stakeholders or stakeholder groups and commonly involves a multidisciplinary team (Munda, 2004). Once the stakeholders decisions have been obtained, several methods for judgements can be used to rank preferences (Yan et al., 2007; Shakhnov, 2008) and/or to make pairwise comparisons (Deng, 1999; Macharis et al., 2004; Soma, 2010; Saaty and Vargas, 2013). These methods of judgements are advocated within the MCA scope as suitable for decision problems and for the inclusion of stakeholders’ views (Linkov et al., 2006; Hajkowicz and Higgins, 2008). However, there is a challenge when the frames and understandings of the reality of stakeholders are influenced by their different and sometimes conflicting vie (...truncated)