• Energy Research

In contrast to institutionally focussed environmental accounting, socio-ecological accounting frameworks organise information concerned with human–environment interactions at scales relevant to ecosystem change and thus encapsulate information more relevant to ecosystem-based management. The DPSIR (Driver–Pressure–State–Impact–Response) framework has been used to identify relevant information in a number of ecosystem contexts but suffers limitations in terms of its definitional clarity and conceptual foundations, which undermine comparability between studies. These limitations are addressed in the DPSWR (Driver–Pressure–State–Welfare–Response) framework, which defines information categories based on a synthesis of concepts in DPSIR and its predecessors so as to more clearly identify the object of measurement in each category and isolate information relating to social systems. Consequently, its categories dealing with social systems are better suited to assessing anthropocentric trade-offs in environmental decision-making, such as through cost–benefit analysis. A conceptual input–output analysis is used to highlight measurement issues connected with the inter-relations between information categories, particularly with regard to scale, and the application of the framework is illustrated by reference to issues affecting marine ecosystems included in a Europewide study for the European Commission. However, DPSWR's definitions are designed to be sufficiently general as to support application in other ecosystem contexts.

In contrast to institutionally focussed environmental accounting, socio-ecological accounting frameworks organise information concerned with human–environment interactions at scales relevant to ecosystem change and thus encapsulate information more relevant to ecosystem-based management. The DPSIR (Driver–Pressure–State–Impact–Response) framework has been used to identify relevant information in a number of ecosystem contexts but suffers limitations in terms of its definitional clarity and conceptual foundations, which undermine comparability between studies. These limitations are addressed in the DPSWR (Driver–Pressure–State–Welfare–Response) framework, which defines information categories based on a synthesis of concepts in DPSIR and its predecessors so as to more clearly identify the object of measurement in each category and isolate information relating to social systems. Consequently, its categories dealing with social systems are better suited to assessing anthropocentric trade-offs in environmental decision-making, such as through cost–benefit analysis. A conceptual input–output analysis is used to highlight measurement issues connected with the inter-relations between information categories, particularly with regard to scale, and the application of the framework is illustrated by reference to issues affecting marine ecosystems included in a Europewide study for the European Commission. However, DPSWR's definitions are designed to be sufficiently general as to support application in other ecosystem contexts.

BACKGROUND There is ample evidence for human alteration of Europe’s regional seas, particularly the enclosed or partly enclosed Baltic, Black, Mediterranean, and North Seas. Accounts of habitat and biodiversity loss, pollution, and the decline of fish stocks in these economically, socially, and ecologically important seas demonstrate unsustainable use of the marine environment. At the same time, there is an insufficient quantity and quality of information to enable purely evidence-based management of Europe’s seas despite this being a declared goal of many decisionmakers; for example, less than 10% of the deep sea has been systematically explored (UNEP 2006). Evidence-based management alone is rarely possible in situations with complex value-laden policy options (Greenhalgh and Russell 2009), and unfortunately, many of the most pervasive problems in the marine environment are “wicked” second-order problems (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009): they are complex in nature and their management will often involve both winners and losers. Solutions to these problems involve less politically attractive, valuebased choices and may require long time lags before tangible results are observed. Fisheries management, habitat and species protection, competition for marine space, and invasive species are all examples of “wicked” problems. These are some of the biggest issues facing Europe’s seas and are the major focus of this article and Special Feature. For the first time in European history, most countries have adopted a common maritime policy (the 2007 Integrated Maritime Policy) and a legally binding environmental directive (the 2008 Marine Strategy Framework Directive [MSFD]). These comprehensive policy vehicles encompass, or closely interface with, more specific measures, such as the recently reformed Common Fisheries Policy, the Water Framework Directive, the Habitats and Birds Directive, and a number of targeted policy instruments that deal with aspects of pollution control and coastal zone management. The overall array of measures has the potential to ensure the sustainable use of Europe’s seas and the restoration of marine environments, but the pathway between the current situation and the implementation of an ecosystem approach to management (the aspiration of the European Commission; see Our Approach to Research) is fraught with “wicked” problems. Science can help society resolve these problems, but in many cases this requires the broad and integrative vision of Odum’s (1971) “macroscope” rather than trying to piece together an ill-fitting jigsaw puzzle of discipline-focused information. This paper and the others in this Special Feature employ a systems approach. We describe the approach, how it can be applied practically, and some of the challenges in making it work. Though the work is based on research on Europe’s seas, it has much wider implications for regional seas throughout the world. OUR APPROACH TO RESEARCH ON MARINE SOCIALECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS The research described in this paper (and Special Feature) was conducted in the framework of the EU-FP7 funded project Knowledge-based Sustainable Management of Europe’s Seas (KnowSeas). The interdisciplinary research spanned 4 years and involved 33 institutions from 16 European countries (KnowSeas 2013). Its primary objective was 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.” Given the knowledge gaps and uncertainties in the way Europe’s marine social-ecological systems function (e.g., unresolved causal links, poorly mapped habitats, nonlinear dynamics), an iterative approach to inquiry was adopted, based partly on the reasoning behind soft systems analysis (e.g., Checkland 2000).

BACKGROUND There is ample evidence for human alteration of Europe’s regional seas, particularly the enclosed or partly enclosed Baltic, Black, Mediterranean, and North Seas. Accounts of habitat and biodiversity loss, pollution, and the decline of fish stocks in these economically, socially, and ecologically important seas demonstrate unsustainable use of the marine environment. At the same time, there is an insufficient quantity and quality of information to enable purely evidence-based management of Europe’s seas despite this being a declared goal of many decisionmakers; for example, less than 10% of the deep sea has been systematically explored (UNEP 2006). Evidence-based management alone is rarely possible in situations with complex value-laden policy options (Greenhalgh and Russell 2009), and unfortunately, many of the most pervasive problems in the marine environment are “wicked” second-order problems (Jentoft and Chuenpagdee 2009): they are complex in nature and their management will often involve both winners and losers. Solutions to these problems involve less politically attractive, valuebased choices and may require long time lags before tangible results are observed. Fisheries management, habitat and species protection, competition for marine space, and invasive species are all examples of “wicked” problems. These are some of the biggest issues facing Europe’s seas and are the major focus of this article and Special Feature. For the first time in European history, most countries have adopted a common maritime policy (the 2007 Integrated Maritime Policy) and a legally binding environmental directive (the 2008 Marine Strategy Framework Directive [MSFD]). These comprehensive policy vehicles encompass, or closely interface with, more specific measures, such as the recently reformed Common Fisheries Policy, the Water Framework Directive, the Habitats and Birds Directive, and a number of targeted policy instruments that deal with aspects of pollution control and coastal zone management. The overall array of measures has the potential to ensure the sustainable use of Europe’s seas and the restoration of marine environments, but the pathway between the current situation and the implementation of an ecosystem approach to management (the aspiration of the European Commission; see Our Approach to Research) is fraught with “wicked” problems. Science can help society resolve these problems, but in many cases this requires the broad and integrative vision of Odum’s (1971) “macroscope” rather than trying to piece together an ill-fitting jigsaw puzzle of discipline-focused information. This paper and the others in this Special Feature employ a systems approach. We describe the approach, how it can be applied practically, and some of the challenges in making it work. Though the work is based on research on Europe’s seas, it has much wider implications for regional seas throughout the world. OUR APPROACH TO RESEARCH ON MARINE SOCIALECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS The research described in this paper (and Special Feature) was conducted in the framework of the EU-FP7 funded project Knowledge-based Sustainable Management of Europe’s Seas (KnowSeas). The interdisciplinary research spanned 4 years and involved 33 institutions from 16 European countries (KnowSeas 2013). Its primary objective was 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.” Given the knowledge gaps and uncertainties in the way Europe’s marine social-ecological systems function (e.g., unresolved causal links, poorly mapped habitats, nonlinear dynamics), an iterative approach to inquiry was adopted, based partly on the reasoning behind soft systems analysis (e.g., Checkland 2000).

Local-scale planning decisions are required by the existing Environmental Impact Assessment process to take account of the implications of a development on a range of environmental and social factors, and could therefore be supported by an ecosystem services approach. However, empirical assessments at a local scale within the marine environment have focused on only a single or limited set of services.\ud This paper tests the applicability of the ecosystem services approach to environmental impact appraisal by considering how the identification and quantification of a comprehensive suite of benefits provided at a local scale might proceed in practice. A methodology for conducting an Environmental Benefits Assessment (EBA) is proposed, the underlying framework for which follows the recent literature by placing the emphasis on ecosystem benefits, as opposed to services. The EBA methodology also proposes metrics that can be quantified at local scale, and is tested using a case study of a hypothetical tidal barrage development in the Taw Torridge estuary in North Devon, UK. By suggesting some practical steps for assessing environmental benefits, this study aims to stimulate discussion and so advance the development of methods for implementing ecosystem service approaches at a local scale.

Local-scale planning decisions are required by the existing Environmental Impact Assessment process to take account of the implications of a development on a range of environmental and social factors, and could therefore be supported by an ecosystem services approach. However, empirical assessments at a local scale within the marine environment have focused on only a single or limited set of services.\ud This paper tests the applicability of the ecosystem services approach to environmental impact appraisal by considering how the identification and quantification of a comprehensive suite of benefits provided at a local scale might proceed in practice. A methodology for conducting an Environmental Benefits Assessment (EBA) is proposed, the underlying framework for which follows the recent literature by placing the emphasis on ecosystem benefits, as opposed to services. The EBA methodology also proposes metrics that can be quantified at local scale, and is tested using a case study of a hypothetical tidal barrage development in the Taw Torridge estuary in North Devon, UK. By suggesting some practical steps for assessing environmental benefits, this study aims to stimulate discussion and so advance the development of methods for implementing ecosystem service approaches at a local scale.

The sustainable exploitation of marine ecosystem services is dependent on achieving and maintaining an adequate ecosystem state to prevent undue deterioration. Within the European Union, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) requires member states to achieve Good Environmental Status (GEnS), specified in terms of 11 descriptors. We analyzed the complexity of social-ecological factors to identify common critical issues that are likely to influence the achievement of GEnS in the Northeast Atlantic (NEA) more broadly, using three case studies. A conceptual model developed using a soft systems approach highlights the complexity of social and ecological phenomena that influence, and are likely to continue to influence, the state of ecosystems in the NEA. The development of the conceptual model raised four issues that complicate the implementation of the MSFD, the majority of which arose in the Pressures and State sections of the model: variability in the system, cumulative effects, ecosystem resilience, and conflicting policy targets. The achievement of GEnS targets for the marine environment requires the recognition and negotiation of trade-offs across a broad policy landscape involving a wide variety of stakeholders in the public and private sectors. Furthermore, potential cumulative effects may introduce uncertainty, particularly in selecting appropriate management measures. There also are endogenous pressures that society cannot control. This uncertainty is even more obvious when variability within the system, e.g., climate change, is accounted for. Also, questions related to the resilience of the affected ecosystem to specific pressures must be raised, despite a lack of current knowledge. Achieving good management and reaching GEnS require multidisciplinary assessments. The soft systems approach provides one mechanism for bringing multidisciplinary information together to look at the problems in a different light.