Introduction
Developing an analytical framework for assessing EBM processes
Addressing multiple ecosystem aspects and management phases
The EBM assessment matrix
Component | Score | Generic criteria | Contextualised criteria |
---|---|---|---|
Systems thinking How well the ecosystem aspects are covered and integrated in the System Description (first column in Fig. 1) | High | All ecosystem aspects and several linkages between them are addressed in detail | Biodiversity is addressed at genetic, species and landscape levels, different relations in the system (e.g., food webs) are described as well as essential processes (e.g., nutrient cycling, hydrology);, spatial and temporal scales are discussed in relation to biodiversity, relations and processes. Historical and future projected changes of the system are discussed, as are key uncertainties in the system. Many anthropogenic processes are identified and related to the system dynamics |
Medium | Most ecosystem aspects and some linkages are addressed, but varying degrees of detail | One level of biodiversity is described, with the others just mentioned. Relations and ecological processes are mentioned in general terms and related to biotopes, with spatially and temporally explicit information for some species. Change and uncertainty are mentioned but in general terms (e.g., a general lack of knowledge about populations). Many anthropogenic processes are addressed in detail but without clear connections to the ecosystem dynamics (e.g., touriSM—forestry, recreation, pollution and transportation are presented regarding history, future prognosis and as problematic to other values in the system) | |
Low | A few ecosystem aspects and linkages between them are addressed in general terms | Only one level of biodiversity is described (e.g., landscape) and relations are not addressed. Some ecological processes are mentioned in general terms (e.g., importance of water fluctuations for fish spawning). There is no recognition of spatial or temporal scales. Change is mentioned in the introduction (e.g., importance of climate change) but not further addressed. Several anthropogenic processes are addressed generally, but not related to the ecosystem dynamics | |
Specificity The degree of content specificity in each combination of ecosystem aspect and management phase (each cell in Fig. 1). | High | The degree of specificity is ‘high’ for most ecosystem aspects and management phases | In the system description the ecosystem aspects are described in detail (e.g., quantities, history, future trends, spatially explicit). There are overarching goals, as well as interim targets that are spatially and temporally explicit (e.g., sustainable fish populations, including defined populations goals per species and at certain times and places). The measures are specific in what, where and when and in terms of expected outcomes. There is a monitoring program that follows the system in detail (e.g., changes in populations over time, nutrient leakage from certain sources) |
Medium | The degree of specificity varies across ecosystem aspects and management phases | Most ecosystem aspects are presented in detail in the system description. Some goals are quantitative (e.g., level of nitrogen), others general (e.g., sustainable forestry). The measures are detailed, who is going to do what, when and where. The monitoring varies greatly in specificity, from high, e.g., the level of nitrogen at several points over time to low, e.g., no specific monitoring for the system aspects | |
Low | The degree of specificity is low for most ecosystem aspects and management phases | EAs and management phases are mostly very generally formulated or there is a strong focus on a single ecosystem aspect and/or management phase. E.g., there is a general focus on nutrient cycling and eutrophication that is described in detail (history, future prognosis, spatial variations, anthropogenic sources, ecological consequences). The goal is to decrease nutrient leakage in certain places at certain times and a variety of measures are presented that are to be followed up by targeted monitoring | |
Integration The degree of integration across management phases per ecosystem aspect (each row in Fig. 1) | High | Content and specificity are matched across all management phases for each ecosystem aspect | All levels of the ecosystem aspect biodiversity addressed in the management phase system description are targeted by goals at the same level of specificity. The goals are related to measures that are linked to the targeted biodiversity components. Finally there is a monitoring scheme that follows the progress toward the goals and the effectiveness of the measures over time |
Medium | The content and specificity are somewhat matched across some management phases for some ecosystem aspect | For example even if the ecosystem aspect processes are generally described, there are detailed and quantitative goals related to processes. However measures to reach these are just vaguely formulated, whereas the monitoring of the goals is rigorous | |
Low | The content and specificity are not matched across all management phases per ecosystem aspect | The content and specificity in how for example ecosystem aspect anthropogenic processes are described are not matched in the following management phases; the goals are general, the relation to measures unclear and there is no monitoring related to anthropogenic processes |
Case study application
Results
Summary of the EBM assessment of the SAM area plan
Outcomes and insights from the comparative application
Area | Systems thinking | Average specificity | Average integration | Gaps and points of gravity |
---|---|---|---|---|
HK (A) | Medium | Medium | Medium− | All ecosystem aspects are included in the System Description but with varying specificity and linkages between aspects The highest specificity is found in Systems Description and Monitoring/Evaluation, but is not matched in Goals and Strategies/Measures phases, creating a gap in the management process Weak match across management phases, with the highest specificity in the System Description Anthropogenic Processes are well specified in Goals and Strategies/Measures but less so in System Description and Monitoring/Evaluation The monitoring system is described in detail, focusing on species and abiotic factors in terms of Relations and Ecological Processes by the use of indicators and the need for continuously evaluation and updating the management plan is addressed The main emphasis is on System Description and Monitoring/Evaluation of all ecosystem aspects except for Anthropogenic Processes which are the focus of Goals and Strategies/Measures |
SNS (B) | Medium | Low+ | Low | Strong focus and highest specificity at the species level of biodiversity across plan phases, terrestrial biotopes mentioned only in the Systems Description Mismatch between System Description and the other plan phases for Relations and Ecological Processes, and Scales, regarding both content and specificity. Scales not addressed in Strategies/Measures or Monitoring/Evaluation Change and Uncertainty is addressed across phases but with low specificity The main emphasis is on the System Description and ecosystem aspects Biodiversity and Anthropogenic Processes |
SAM (C) | Medium | Medium | Medium− | The specificity and integration is ‘medium’ to ‘high’ for Biodiversity, Relations and Ecological Processes Change and Uncertainty, and Scales are formulated in general terms, indicating a lack of understanding of system dynamics Goals formulation are general and vague Severe lack of integration of Scales No other uncertainties other than knowledge gaps are identified No monitoring program, hence the adaptive approach is unfeasible Quantitative indicators for the PVs are suggested as a way to specify the goals, but no indicators are suggested for the IFs that are the main targets of the suggested measures The main emphasis is on System Description and the ecosystem aspects Biodiversity and Anthropogenic Processes |
BA (D) | High | Medium | Low | All ecosystem aspects described in detail in a document from the Man and the Biosphere Area (MAB) designation processa
The specificity in the System Description is not matched in the other plan phases, except for Biodiversity and Anthropogenic Processes The monitoring suggested in the MAB-document is not linked to the Goals and Strategies/Measures in the plan, making the adaptive approach unfeasible System Description and Monitoring/Evaluation are not matched by the Goals and Strategies/Measures suggested, indicating a failure to operationalize the MAB process No uncertainties other than knowledge gaps are identified The main emphasis is on System Description and the ecosystem aspects Biodiversity and Anthropogenic Processes |
NB (E) | High | Medium | Medium+ | All ecosystem aspects are addressed with rather ‘high’ specificity in the System Description, including their linkages Weak match across phases for Scales, where the description is detailed, but scales are missing in Goals and Monitoring/Evaluation and only generally addressed in Strategies/Measures Monitoring/Evaluation is lacking for Change and Uncertainty, Scales and Anthropogenic Processes hampering integration across phases Measures focus on societal dynamics and are very specific and detailed, while the linkages and assumed effects on the PVs are left unspecified The emphasis is on System Description and ecosystem aspects Biodiversity, Relations and Ecological Processes and Anthropogenic Processes |