Content uploaded by Martin Solan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Martin Solan on Mar 17, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES
Mar Ecol Prog Ser
Vol. 434: 213–228, 2011
doi: 10.3354/meps09260 Published July 28
INTRODUCTION
The Ecosystem Approach is increasingly being
adopted at an international and national level as a
framework for environmental policy development
which aims to maintain the benefits that humans
derive from ecosystems, whilst minimising any envi-
ronmental externalities arising from the use of these
benefits or the processes that people use to generate
them. Its importance was emphasised in the Millen-
nium Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2005), and its princi-
ples underpin recent policy developments such as the
European Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (2008/
56/EC) (EUR-Lex 2010a,b). The ecological concept
behind these directives is intuitive, as it recognises the
interdependencies of abiotic and biotic components in
delivering ecosystem services in natural systems. How-
ever, the translation of the directives into practical
monitoring and hypothesis-driven research has been
challenging (Basset 2010, Borja et al. 2010, Van Hoey
et al. 2010), and questions have been raised about the
availability of sufficient and appropriate data in marine
systems to underpin decision making (Reiss et al. 2010,
© Inter-Research 2011 · www.int-res.com*Email: a.holt@sheffield.ac.uk
Mismatches between legislative frameworks
and benefits restrict the implementation of the
Ecosystem Approach in coastal environments
Alison R. Holt1,*, Jasmin A. Godbold2, Piran C. L. White3, Anne-Michelle Slater4,
Eduardo G. Pereira4, Martin Solan2
1Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK
2Oceanlab, University of Aberdeen, Main Street, Newburgh, Aberdeenshir e AB41 6AA, UK
3Environment Department, University of York, Heslington, York YO10 5DD, UK
4School of Law, Taylor Building, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB24 3UB, UK
ABSTRACT: The Ecosystem Approach is increasingly being adopted as a framework for developing
environmental policy because it forms a strategy for the management and sustainable use of land,
water and living resources. Yet it is not clear how this approach translates into policies that will create
the integrated management necessary to protect the environment and supply the benefits which soci-
ety values. Here we explore the disconnect between current policy and legislation aiming to conserve
and protect specific components of coastal wetland ecosystems, and the aspirations of the Ecosystem
Approach. Using an estuarine case study, we illustrate the benefits that people value from coastal
wetlands and evaluate the extent to which current institutional arrangements protect these benefits.
We find that cultural services are the most valued, particularly recreational activities and the
enhancement of human wellbeing through a sense of belonging. Although many laws exist that
relate to different components of coastal wetland areas, a diversity of organisations are responsible
for their implementation, and they do not always adequately protect the benefits most valued by
people. In order to successfully move towards the implementation of an Ecosystem Approach, we
argue that new institutional arrangements are required. These need to encompass formal laws that
protect those ecosystem processes and functions that are necessary to support valued benefits, whilst
recognising the need for bridging and coordinating networks of organisations for the integrated
management of coastal wetlands.
KEY WORDS: Coastal wetlands · Ecosystem services · Network · Ecosystem management ·
Recreation · Human well-being
Resale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisher
O
PEN
PEN
A
CCESS
CCESS
Contribution to the Theme Section: ‘Biodiversity, ecosystems and coastal zone management’
Mar Ecol Prog Ser 434: 213–228, 2011214
Atkins et al. 2011, Heymans et al. 2011). Nevertheless,
regional management measures that are explicitly
based on the Ecosystem Approach have been adopted
including, e.g. the Helsinki Commission Baltic Sea
Action Plan (Backer et al. 2010) and A Land Use Strat-
egy for Scotland (Scottish Government 2011a). Both of
these strategies take an anthropocentric viewpoint
(Yaffee 1999), as they involve the integrated manage-
ment of land, water and living resources, promote con-
servation and sustainable use in an equitable way, and
recognise that people with their cultural and varied
social needs are an integral part of ecosystems. Whilst
the Malawi principles which underlie the Ecosystem
Approach (Convention on Biological Diversity: www.
cbd.int/) advo cate that the management objectives
should be a matter of societal choice, the Ecosystem
Approach also emphasises the importance of a healthy
environ ment in underpinning human benefits and
well being through the sustained provision of ecosys-
tem services (MA 2005, Dasgupta 2010). These ecosys-
tem services are in turn dependent on functions and
processes occurring in the ecosystem as a result of
interactions between biodiversity and the physical and
chemical environment (White et al. 2010).
Some benefits that humans derive from ecosystems
are direct economic ones, such as the production of
food or timber, but the environment can also provide
opportunities for recreation and for cultural and spiri-
tual wellbeing (MA 2005, UKNEA 2011). For example,
catchments, river basins, wetlands and other water
sources often form the foundation for cultural or com-
munity identity and sense of place (Parkes & Panelli
2001, Everard et al. 2010). Increasingly, it is recognised
that the environment may play a significant role in
enhancing human health and wellbeing, both mental
and physical (Barton & Pretty 2010, Lloret 2010,
Thompson Coon et al. 2011). In addition, a healthy
environment is vital for buffering human health and
wellbeing from extreme climate events that are likely
to increase in the future as a result of climate change
(Tong et al. 2010). The challenge of the Ecosystem
Approach is to find ways in which we can manage the
physical and biological components of the ecosystem
as a whole to maximise these diverse benefits, and at
the same time minimise conflicts between the different
sectors of the human population who benefit from them
(White et al. 2010). Finding solutions to this challenge
requires an improved understanding of the science
underpinning the links between biodiversity and eco -
system services, as well as of the preferences and moti-
vations of societyfor the benefits the ecosystem provides.
This ecosystem-based understanding of which com-
ponents contribute to benefits is at odds with much
current environmental policy and legislation, which
tends to be focused on specific ecosystem components.
For example, within the UK, the conservation of biodi-
versity is governed by EU Council Directive 92/43/ EEC.
This focuses on the conservation of threatened habitats
and wild species and has been implemented through
the designation of specific protected sites, including
Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Areas
of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Areas
(SPA). Certain species- and habitat-specific conserva-
tion programmes have been introduced as a UK Bio -
diversity Action Plan (BAP) in response to the Con ven -
tion on Biological Diversity (CBD) which emerged from
the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. Currently, the UK BAP ex -
tends to 1150 species and 65 habitats (Natural England,
www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/conservation/
biodiversity/protectandmanage/ukactionplan.aspx). In
addition, initiatives have been established to reduce
the adverse impacts on biodiversity associated with
specific agricultural or fisheries practices in certain
areas and to encourage the adoption of more environ-
mentally-benign production methods. Examples in -
clude the designation of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
(NVZs) and Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs),
or the adoption of more benign fishing gears (Jennings
& Revill 2007). These existing controls therefore oper-
ate either on specific areas or on the organisms that
inhabit and move through them. Hence, the legislative
framework focuses on specific components of the
ecosystem, rather than on the contribution that ecosys-
tems as a whole make to human benefits.
More recently, legislation has moved towards a more
system-level focus. The European Water Framework
Directive (WFD; 2000/60/EC) marks a change in em -
phasis, part of the so called third wave of EU legislation
which adopts a holistic approach to environmental pro-
tection and regulation. It sets out requirements for
water resource management across the EU. In particu-
lar, it requires the introduction of a comprehensive
regime of river basin management planning within a
strict timetable, in order to bring water quality to a
‘good’ standard, as defined in the WFD. It has the
objective of achieving ‘good ecological status’ in all
aspects of these waters and the surrounding environ-
ment, based on the implicit principle that achieving
ecological health will bring broader benefits to society
(Moran & Dann 2008). The European Marine Strategy
Framework Directive (MSFD; 2008/56/EC) and the
associated Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 and
the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 in the UK take a simi-
larly broad perspective for maintaining healthy ecosys-
tems in marine waters. The WFD and the MSFD take
rather different approaches to implementing the Eco -
system Approach (Borja et al. 2010), but both share a
focus on the status of various non-human components
of the ecosystem (WFD: biological, chemical and mor-
phological conditions associated with no or very low
Holt et al.: Barriers to implementing the Ecosystem Approach 215
human pressure; MSFD: qualitative descriptors include,
e.g. elements of marine food webs, biological diversity,
hydrographical conditions and sea floor in tegrity),
which conflicts with the focus of the Ecosystem
Approach on human benefits. Moreover, the imple-
mentation of these directives by policy makers has so
far been rather piecemeal and has failed to meet the
more holistic aspirations of the original legislation
(Moss 2008, Wakefield 2010). This gap has recently
been recognised, in terms of policy development, in
the terrestrial environment by the publication of a
Land Use Strategy for Scotland (Scottish Government
2011a). For example, Proposal 8 states ‘Demonstrate
how the Ecosystem Approach could be taken into
account in relevant decisions made by public bodies to
deliver wider benefits, and provide practical guidance’
(p. 20) and Proposal 10 is to ‘Investigate the relation-
ship between land management changes and ecosys-
tem processes to identify adaptation priorities’ (p. 21).
The implementation of this is at an early stage; how-
ever, this contribution should inform development of
both guidance and practical application of the Eco -
system Approach in marine systems (Scottish Govern-
ment 2011b).
To effectively implement the Ecosystem Approach, it
is important to understand the significance of the dis-
connect between the current system of environmental
conservation policy and the aims of the Ecosystem
Approach, both in terms of environmental protection
but also in relation to human benefits (Berkes 2010,
Ecke et al. 2010). Such an analysis can inform the
future development of environmental policy based on
an Ecosystem Approach, by identifying key gaps or
inconsistencies in coverage and considering ways in
which these can be addressed. In addition, because the
focus of the Ecosystem Approach is on human benefits,
it is important to include the perceptions of human
stakeholders in any analysis, especially concerning the
nature of the benefits derived and any potential con-
flicts between them, which could act as a constraint
on future policy initiatives. Here, we use the Ythan
Estuary in Aberdeenshire, Scotland, as a case study
to consider the implementation of an Ecosystem
Approach to management.
The Ythan catchment is ~640 km2in area and drains
a low-altitude watershed (maximum elevation 200 m)
in Aberdeenshire, north-east Scotland (Wiegand et al.
2010). Land use within the catchment is dominated by
arable agriculture (>90%, barley, wheat and oil seed
rape), and it also supports large numbers of cattle and
pigs (Raffaelli 1999). Land within the catchment area
is predominantly owned by individ ual farmers and
larger estates in rural areas and is affected by a
number of legislative instruments. Farm incomes are
enhanced through compliance with various agri-
environment schemes, including voluntary agreements
and community involvement (Morris & Morris 2005,
Sang 2008). Using a stakeholder-based approach, we
evaluated the human benefits obtained from the
Ythan ecosystem and relate these to one another, to
biodiversity and to the environment, before analysing
the extent to which the current legislative structure
relating to the Ythan Estuary ac counts for the interac-
tions between the various benefits identified by stake-
holders. We used this in formation to identify (1) the
gaps in coverage of existing legislation in terms of
components of the ecosystem and perceived human
benefits, (2) the advantages and disadvantages that
would be likely to result from adapting an Ecosystem
Approach to management and (3) the challenges for
implementing such an approach. On the basis of this
analysis, we make recommendations for the adoption
of an Eco system Approach to the management of
estuarine environments.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Participatory workshop. In order to understand how
the Ythan Estuary and surrounding Forvie Sands are
used and valued by local residents, we held a partici-
patory workshop (18 June 2010) with interested parties
from organisations with a stake in managing Forvie,
and members of the public who use the area. We
invited all members of the Forvie National Nature
Reserve (NNR) Panel, a group of stakeholders and user
groups who meet regularly to discuss issues that affect
the management of Forvie Sands and the Ythan Estu-
ary. The reserve boundary covers Forvie Sands, most
of the intertidal and foreshore areas of the Ythan Estu-
ary, and selected areas of the surrounding catchment.
Other key stakeholders were identified and invited
following a discussion with the organiser of the Forvie
Panel. In order to attract members of the public who
were not involved with specific organisations, the
work shop was also advertised in the main shop in
Newburgh, the village adjacent to the Ythan Estuary.
Work shop participants included representatives from
Scottish Natural Heritage, the Scottish Environment
Protection Agency (SEPA), Forvie Panel, the local parish
council, as well as local residents. All discussions at the
workshop were recorded and transcribed. From these
transcripts, we removed dialogue spoken by the work-
shop leaders (A.H., J.A.G., P.C.L.W., M.S.) before iden-
tifying those words used most frequently by the par -
ticipants using a word cloud generator (Wordle, http://
wordle.net/). The resulting word cloud gives greater
visual prominence to words that appear more fre-
quently in the source text, providing an indication of
subject matter that is most important to the partici-
Mar Ecol Prog Ser 434: 213–228, 2011216
pants. In order to establish meaning and the context in
which these words were spoken, we matched the word
cloud with the audio recordings of the workshop to
ensure that any subsequent interpretation was not mis-
leading.
During the workshop, the participants were asked to
discuss how they used the estuary and to list the main
benefits it provides. Following definitions in the Mil-
lennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2005), we cate-
gorised these benefits according to whether they were
derived from provisioning, supporting, regulating or
cultural services. The full list of benefits was sum-
marised, and the participants were asked to illustrate
the important uses of the estuary, the interactions
between the different components of the estuary, and
whether there were any positive or negative factors
which influenced these interactions. The resulting dia-
grams were converted into a single matrix and repre-
sented as a benefits network using Netdraw (Analytic
Technologies).
Legislation and policy. To understand the diversity
of laws and the types of protection they offer to ecosys-
tems, we identified legislation that exists to protect
coastal wetlands and considered its scope, extent and
the responsible agencies. In addition, we investigated
the laws and regulations that apply specifically to the
Ythan Estuary to understand how they protect the
benefits it provides. The text of national legislation
was located using the UK National Archives (www.
legislation.gov.uk) and examined to determine the
extent to which it included the benefit interactions
identified during the stakeholder workshop. We
searched the Scottish Natural Heritage archives for
text of Forvie NNR byelaws (i.e. laws made by local
councils or other bodies, using powers granted by an
Act of Parliament) and the Management Statement
relating to the SSSI status. All relevant extracts and
documents were imported into text analysis software
(Nvivo, www. qsrinternational.com/). We adopted the
analytical techniques presented by Ekstrom & Young
(2009) to search each of these legislative documents for
text relating to the benefit interactions identified by
the workshop participants. We did not use an auto-
mated algorithm because it was important that we
understood the context that the terms were found in,
and to replace the terms with others whose meanings
were synonymous. Those interactions that were cov-
ered were used to build a legislation network using
Netdraw (Analytic Technologies).
We compared the benefits and legislation networks
to identify any mismatches between the benefits iden-
tified by participants and the scope of the legislation.
The degree of fit (similarity) between the 2 networks
was assessed using a matching metric, M, which is the
ratio of the sum of the benefit interactions covered by
legislation to the total number of benefit interactions
(Hanneman & Riddle 2005, Ekstrom & Young 2009):
(1)
where p11 is the total number of cells in the legisla-
tion– benefits matrix that have a binary value of 11
(interaction recorded in both the benefits and legisla-
tion networks), and p10 is the total number of cells in
the legislation– benefits matrix that have a binary
value of 10 (interaction recorded in the benefits net-
work, but not in the legislation network).
A high value of Mindicates a high similarity be tween
the structure of 2 networks, but not the degree to
which legislation protects the delivery of benefits.
Hence, care was taken to only interpret metric values
where we were confident that legislation was pro -
tecting the delivery of a benefit, rather than just the
components of the system that contributed to a given
benefit.
RESULTS
Benefits
Workshop participants readily identified 26 benefits
which they valued and regarded as being of high
importance to communities in and around the Ythan
catchment area (Table 1). Of these, recreational ser-
vices (17 benefits, 65%) far outnumbered provisioning
(3 benefits, 12%) and cultural (6 benefits, 23 %) ser-
vices, whilst supporting services (e.g. primary produc-
tion, nutrient cycling) were not specifically mentioned.
Recreational benefits, such as walking and kayaking,
were generally obtained throughout the year, whereas
benefits supported by provisioning services, such as
fishing and farming, were more seasonal. Some bene-
fits are geographically or temporally restricted (e.g. in
designated routes or areas, by licensing, legal restric-
tions or physical constraints). The cultural/spiritual
importance of the estuary was emphasised, especially
by participants who had been resident in the area
for longer periods of time, as a place of personal sig -
nificance or as a location where they could go to re -
store their sense of wellbeing. For these people, there
was a strong sense of ownership and belonging. On the
whole, stakeholder views reflect immediate benefits
rather than those obtained over the longer term. Some
benefits are at least partially realised in terms of their
direct economic potential, but in most cases the major
economic benefits are indirect although they may still
make important contributions to human wellbeing.
The word cloud (Fig. 1) and audio recordings
confirmed the importance of people and place, but also
Mp
pp()
=
+
11
11 10
Holt et al.: Barriers to implementing the Ecosystem Approach
illus trated an awareness of different benefits, such as
‘aesthetics’, ‘recreation’ and ‘nature’ (biodiversity). The
use of words such as ‘impact’ and ‘negative’ high lighted
an awareness of some of the threats to the system and
potential conflicts between different user groups.
Workshop participants identified 7 benefit nodes
(Fig. 2; ‘history and culture’, ‘food, fish and farming’,
‘aesthetics’, ‘education’, ‘water-based recreation’, ‘inter -
tidal-based recreation’, and ‘onshore-based recreation’).
In most cases, links between different benefits were
mediated through processes. For example, ‘onshore
recreation’ has a negative effect on ‘aesthetics’ via dog
fouling but has a positive effect on ‘education’ through
bird watching. Overall negative interactions (60% of
total interactions) between these nodes outweighed
positive ones, with ‘food, fish and farming’ and ‘inter-
tidal-based recreation’ in particular having predomi-
nantly negative impacts on other benefits. In contrast,
‘education’ was identified as having largely positive
impacts, whilst, for other benefits, positive and nega-
tive interactions were more evenly balanced. Ecologi-
cal components of the estuary such as birds, seals and
sand dunes were clearly seen as positive aspects that
enhanced recreation, education and aesthetics.
Legislation
The relevant legislation is a web of interrelated and
overlapping international, European and UK (reserved
and devolved) legislation (Fig. 3). The Forvie NNR is
affected by the following legislative instruments: the
designation as an NNR (National Parks and Access to
the Countryside Act 1949 and the Wildlife and Coun-
tryside Act 1981); designation of part of the site as a
Ramsar site under the Ramsar Convention, Wetlands of
International Importance; designation of the Sands of
Forvie as a SAC under the Habitats Directive (Council
Di rective 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of Natural
Habitats and Wild Fauna and Flora) and several areas
as Special Protection Areas under the Birds Directive
(Council Directive 79/4099/EEC on the Conservation
of Wild Birds). There is also an SSSI within the NNR
(Sands of Forvie and Ythan Estuary SSSI). This was
originally designated under the National Parks and
Access to the Countryside Act 1949 but is now regu-
lated by the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004.
However, much legislation relates to coastal wetlands,
operating at different levels (international, European,
national and local) and diverse spatial extents (i.e.
land, foreshore, water), with a number of different
responsible agencies ensuring that the legislation is
enforced (Appendix 1). Numerous pieces of legislation
focus on specific components of the ecosystem (partic-
ular species, EU Birds Directive 2009/147/EC; habitats,
EU Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC as enacted by the
Conservation [Natural Habitats etc.] Regulations 1994).
Other legislation is concerned with restricting the
impacts of human activity, such as agricultural pollu-
tion (EU Nitrates Directive 91/676/EEC). Some legis -
lation covers aesthetics (Countryside Act 1968 and
its predecessor, the National Parks and Access to the
Countryside Act 1949), and other legislation relates
to landscape, recreation, culture and heritage (e.g.
National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949
and Nature Conservation [Scotland] Act 2004). More
recent legislation (e.g. WFD 2000 and the MSFD 2008)
has started to take a more holistic perspective, incorpo-
rating the social and economic importance of both the
physical and ecological systems.
The Forvie NNR provides an illustration of how these
different forms of legislation interact. Forvie NNR is
designated under the National Parks and Access to the
Countryside Act 1949. Over the 50 yr since that law
was passed, the development of law and policy relat-
ing to the environment has been increasingly influ-
enced by international and particularly European Law.
Furthermore, devolution for Scotland, with the passing
of the Scotland Act 1998, gave competence to the Scot-
tish Executive to legislate on most matters relating to
the environment. This extremely complicated web of
legislation includes remnants of UK legislation, such as
the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act
1949, which has now been partly superseded by both
UK legislation and Acts of the Scottish Parliament. The
regulation of the area has been augmented by many
other pieces of legislation, some emanating from the
European Union. An example is the European Habitats
and Species Directive 92/43/EC, which was imple-
mented in the UK by the Conservation (Natural Habi-
tats etc.) Regulations 1994 and more recently amended
by the Scottish Parliament through the Conservation
(Natural Habitats etc.) Amendment (Scotland) Regula-
tions 2007. There is, however, a close relationship with
some new legislation reflecting shared powers, duties
and responsibilities, such as the Marine and Coastal
Access Act 2009 and the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010.
The new marine licensing, planning and nature con-
servation regime is yet to be implemented in full, but
there are a number of ongoing policy developments at
the UK and Scotland level. The UK Marine Policy
Statement, published on 18 March (HM Government
2011), is the framework for preparing Marine Plans
and taking decisions affecting the marine environment
and was adopted by the Secretary of State and the
ministers of the devolved nations. A pre-consultation
draft of Scotland’s National Marine Plan was also pub-
lished in March 2011. The requirement to prepare and
adopt a National Marine Plan is contained in Part 3
of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010. The plan must set
217
Mar Ecol Prog Ser 434: 213–228, 2011218
Activity Service
category
Economic potential Activity boundary Additional remarks
Classification Realised Temporal Spatial
1 Walking Recreation Indirect Y All year Designated
routes
2 Cycling Recreation Direct, equipment
hire N All year
Designated
routes
3
Wildlife watching
Recreation Indirect Y
Specific areas
a) Migratory birds, e.g.
geese Seasonal
b) Non-migratory birds,
e.g. eider ducks All year
c) Mammals, e.g. seals Seasonal
d) Other, e.g. butterflies Seasonal
4 Horse riding Recreation
Indirect Y
All year Designated
areas
Direct,
trekking/stable
facilities
Partly
5 Dog walking Recreation Indirect Y All year Designated
routes
6.25% of estuary users
are dog walkersa
6 Kite surfing and kite
flying Recreation
Indirect Y
All year Specific areas Weather dependent
Direct, equipment
hire N
7 Running / exercise Recreation Indirect Y All year Designated
routes
8 Windsurfing Recreation
Indirect Y
All year Specific areas Weather dependent
Direct, equipment
hire N
9 Kayaking / canoeing Recreation
Indirect Y
All year All
watercourse
Direct, equipment
hire N
10 Metal detecting Recreation
Indirect Y
All year All areas Economic benefits rare
Direct, treasure
rewards Y
11 Golf Recreation
Indirect
Y All year
Designated
area
Restricted to club
members
Direct, equipment
hire, clubhouse
12 Wildfowling Recreation
Direct,
accompanying
guide, gun club, bird
management
Y Seasonal
Designated
areas
Restricted to those
under licence, quota
system in place
13 Angling Recreation
Direct, angling
association, boat
hire, accompanying
guide
Y Seasonal
All
watercourse
Restricted to those
under licence, quota
system in place. Decline
in fishery reduced
economic benefit
14 Art and photography Recreation
Indirect Y
All year All areas
Direct, tutored
courses Y
15 Sailing and power boats Recreation
Indirect Y
Seasonal All
watercourse
Local deeds prevent
vessel launching
Direct, mooring fees,
vessel maintenance,
launch infrastructure
Partly
16
Commercial fishing
Provisioning Direct, sale of
produce Partly Seasonal Specific areas
Activity historically
important, but now
reduced largely to
personal usage
a) Crustacea, e.g. crabs
b) Fish
c) Molluscs, e.g. mussels,
cockles, winkles
Table 1. (This and facing page) Benefits that stakeholders derive from the Ythan Estuary, the ecosystem service category accord-
ing to the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the temporal and spatial boundary of the activities. Benefits are listed
in no particular order
Holt et al.: Barriers to implementing the Ecosystem Approach
out policies for sustainable development of Scotland’s
seas and policies on nature conservation, Marine Pro-
tected Areas and other relevant conservation sites.
Marine Scotland has adopted a 3-tier approach to
nature conservation (species conservation, site protec-
tion and wider seas policies), which recognises the lim-
itations of traditional nature conservation regulation
and includes Environmental Impact Assessment and
marine planning. A network of marine conservation
sites is also being developed, as required by both the
UK Marine legislation and the EU MSFD. Furthermore,
the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 requires the develop-
ment of regional marine planning and consultation re -
sponses on re gional marine boundaries. At the time of
219
Fig. 1. Summary of words (n =
200) used most frequently by
the participants after dialogue
spoken by the workshop lead-
ers has been removed. Greater
visual prominence is given to
words that appear more fre-
quently in the source text, pro-
viding an indication of subject
matter that was most discussed
by the participants
Activity Service
category
Economic potential Activity boundary Additional remarks
Classification Realised Temporal Spatial
17
Education
Cultural
All year All areas
Public education centre
and university research
station present
a) Public education and
outreach Indirect Y
b) Schools and university Direct, tutored
courses Partly
18 Hotels, public houses
and restaurants
Recreation
and cultural Direct, job creation Y All year Tourism exacerbated
development
19 Agriculture and
livestock farming Provisioning Direct, job creation
and sale of produce Y Seasonal Catchment
Policy implementation
dramatically changed
type of farming and
farming practices in last
30 yrb
20 Bait digging Provisioning Indirect, underpins
angling Y Seasonal Specific areas
21 Travelling community
stop point Cultural Indirect, cultural
diversity Y Seasonal Specific areas
Overnight stoppage
prohibited
22 Camping Recreation Indirect Y Seasonal Specific areas Actively discouraged
23 Archaeology Cultural
Indirect Y
All year Specific areas
Historical links and
importance in sense of
belonging
Direct, tutored
courses Y
24
Housing Indirect,
All year Designated
areas
Local developmental
plan in place, shore
development desirable
a) Views of estuary and
surroundings Cultural Direct, property sale
and maintenance
Y
b) Restricted or no
landscape views Y
25 Coastal protection Regulating Indirect Y All year Specific areas
Physical protection from
sand dune (erosion) and
wetland (flooding)
systems
26 Sense of well being
and/or belonging Cultural Indirect Y All year All areas
aSource: Moffat Centre (2010); bSource: Raffaelli et al. (1989) and Domburg et al. (1998)
Table 1 (continued)
Mar Ecol Prog Ser 434: 213–228, 2011
writing, the form of a regional planning regime was
being considered by the Scottish Government.
Marine planning and the new instruments to be cre-
ated under the marine legislation extend from the Mean
High Water Spring tide level to 200 nautical miles. The
terrestrial planning system extends to the Low Water
Spring tide level; there is therefore some limited over -
lap between marine and terrestrial environments.
Linking benefits to legislation
Only a small proportion (35%) of the interactions be -
tween the 7 different benefits identified by the work-
shop participants (Fig. 2) are influenced by environ-
mental legislation, resulting in fewer visible links in
Fig. 4. In some cases, only half of an interaction was
covered, rather than the complete interaction. For
example, the arrow from ‘food, fish and farming’ →
‘pollution’ →‘water recreation’ shows that legislation
associated with the SSSI Management Statement only
protects Forvie NNR against pollution from farming
activities, but does not do so for the interests of those
that use the area specifically for water recreational
activities. This poor match between the benefits and
legislation networks was confirmed by a low matching
metric ratio (M= 0.068). The potential negative im -
pacts of ‘food, fish and farming’ on other benefits were
the most highly regulated, as were various aspects of
recreation in relation to the natural environment.
There is a relative lack of legislation relating to links to
and from ‘aesthetics’, ‘education’ and ‘history and cul-
ture’, which is perhaps not surprising given that the
Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural
Heritage (UNESCO 2003) was not ratified by the UK.
Most links are covered by a single piece of legislation,
although links between recreation and the natural
environment are covered by both access-related and
nature conservation-related legislation.
DISCUSSION
Our aims were to understand which benefits gener-
ated by a representative coastal system were valued by
people and to gain an initial understanding as to
220
Water recreation
Food, fish & farming
History & Culture
Sewage
Siltation Pollution
Eutrophication
Cascading
effects
Kite
surfing
Fences
Bird
Watching
History
Education
centre
Agricultural
productivity
Archaeology
Sense of
wellbeing
Reduced
visitors
Intertidal
recreation
Onshore
recreation
Aesthetics
Bait digging
Kite
surfing
Windsurfing
Over -
crowding
Litter
Noise
Dog walking Cycling
Algal blooms
Vehicles
Dog
fouling
Housing
development
Sand dunes
Seals
Habitat
protection
Increased tourism
Reduced
visitors
Habitat
disturbance
Education
Fig. 2. Benefits that stakeholders derive from the Ythan Estuary (circles), how they interact and what factors (triangles) determine
whether these interactions are positive (solid lines) or negative (dashed lines)
Holt et al.: Barriers to implementing the Ecosystem Approach
whether legislation had the potential to cover benefit
interactions. We found disagreement between the
long-term philosophy of the Ecosystem Approach and
the perceived needs of the stakeholder community.
The latter needs emphasise a requirement for more
immediate benefits that were no longer related to
extractive natural resources (primarily fish and shell-
fish) that had been prominent in the past. Many of the
benefits valued were recreational activities related to
rural living and the enjoyment of the natural environ-
ment (Huppert et al. 2003), which are not adequately
covered by existing legislation. There are, however,
complex interactions between the recreational and
cultural benefits that are valued and the consequences
of the way that humans manage the land and coast, the
latter often having a directional feedback on recre-
ational activities (Wiegand et al. 2010). What is inter-
esting is that many of the activities that were valued
are underpinned by wildlife and habitats being intact
and free from pollution. For example, much of the aes-
thetic enjoyment is derived from the natural heritage of
the area, the sense of wellbeing that is gained from
being in the area, and through activities such as bird
watching.
These benefits highlight an understanding of the
implications, such as eutrophication and pollution, on
certain activities (fishing and farming) and shows that,
ultimately, they have an effect on recreational activi-
ties. Indeed, increased nitrogen associated with changes
in farming practice within the catchment over the last
50 yr (Domburg et al. 1998) has been linked to in -
creased growth in macrophytic algae and, in turn, vis-
ible changes to invertebrate and bird population struc-
ture within the Ythan Estuary (Raffaelli et al. 1989).
Although local stakeholders are acutely aware of these
environmental issues, the ability to see agricultural
production, including livestock, farm machinery and
fields of crops, was nevertheless considered to be im -
portant culturally and, to a lesser extent, economically.
Similarly, we also found evidence of some interesting
recreational benefit feedbacks; stakeholders felt that
their enjoyment of the estuary was enhanced by the
presence of others, but that too many people would
detract from the aesthetics and enjoyment of specific
locations. Although not protecting these benefits di -
rectly, these examples highlight the important role of
conservation legislation in maintaining the quality of
what is valued. Consequently, it is possible that these
benefit interactions could be covered by certain inter-
pretations of the legislation by the regulating bodies.
There is a whole range of legislation that applies to
individual nodes of the network that may indirectly
protect the benefits of importance to stakeholders. For
example, a number of pieces of legislation may protect
specific components of the estuary (e.g. seals and
birds), but the philosophy of such protection is to pre-
serve the named component rather than its contribu-
tion to benefit interactions (e.g. aesthetic significance
of birds/seals leading to enjoyment and feeling of well-
being) that are valued by people. Similarly, legislation
that aims to control pollution from human activities,
such as farming, may positively impact the recreational
value of an area, but does not directly preserve recre-
ational activities. Where the objectives of legislation
are restricted to specific and isolated components of
the ecosystem, they are of less value to the protection
of benefit interactions, as they serve a subtly different
purpose.
Although more than one designation may afford a
particular location additional protection, or emphasise
221
International Conventions
CCEWNH
OSPAR
CCPWCNH
UNCLOS
UNECE
RAMSAR
CBD
CITES
EU INT
UK
RESERVED DEVOLVED
EU
Habitats Directive
SPA Directive
Water Framework Directive
Marine Strategy Framework Directive
Nitrates Directive
Fig. 3. Relationship between interna-
tional, European and UK reserved and
devolved legislation. International con-
ventions are abbreviated: CCEWNH =
The Convention on the Conservation of
European Wildlife and Natural Habitats
(1979); CCPWCNH = The Convention
Concerning the Protection of the World
Cultural and Natural Heritage; OSPAR
= Convention for the Protection of the
Marine Environment of the North East
Atlantic; CITES = Convention on Inter-
national Trade in Endangered Species
of Wild Flora and Fauna; RAMSAR =
The Convention of Wetlands of Interna-
tional Importance. UNECE = United
Nations Economic Commission for Eu-
rope; UNCLOS = United Nations Con-
vention on the Law of the Sea; CBD =
Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio
Convention)
Mar Ecol Prog Ser 434: 213–228, 2011
the importance of the site at national and/or interna-
tional levels (Ross & Stockdale 1996), it is clear from
the analyses here that there is no direct protection for
the benefits of value. In order to achieve appropriate
protection, an adaptive management and decision-
making process is necessary that incorporates the
views of stakeholders and scientific understanding of
linked social–ecological systems. Frameworks that
encap sulate these processes have now been described
for marine and terrestrial systems (e.g. Daily & Matson
2008, Turner & Daily 2008, Daily et al. 2009, Paetzold et
al. 2010, Tallis et al. 2010, White et al. 2010), but gover-
nance processes need to be in place to allow such
frameworks to succeed. There has, however, been a
step change in the development of law and policy at a
European level (e.g. WFD 2000 and the MSFD 2008),
with legislation (Water Environment and Water Ser-
vices [Scotland] Act 2003, Marine and Coastal Access
Act 2009, and the Marine Strategy Regulations 2010)
that has the express aim to take a more holistic view of
the environment, including the social and economic
importance of a resource and/or components of the
physico-ecological system. The Marine and Coastal
Access Act 2010 even refers to the need to take an
Ecosystem Approach, but the manner in which this is
implemented ultimately dictates how successful it is
likely to be.
Success relies on a network of organisations working
together on these issues, with participation from other
stakeholders including local groups and users, rather
than one responsible agency working in isolation. It
also takes time to implement; the first deadline for the
222
Water recreation
Food, fish & farming
History & Culture
Education Sewage
Pollution
Bird
Watching
Archaeology
(e), (h)
(b), (d)
(b)
(b), (e)
(b)
(h)
Siltation
Eutrophication
Fences
(b)
(h)
(b)
(e)
(e) (e)
(h)
(e), (g)(e)
Intertidal
recreation
Onshore
recreation
Litter
Sense of
wellbeing
Aesthetics
Vehi cles
(b)
(b)
(b)
Cycling
Habitat
disturbance
Sand dunes
Algal blooms
(e)
(e)
(e), (g)
(e)
(f)
(e), (g)
(e), (g)
(e)
(e)
(e)
Fig. 4. Benefit interactions from Fig. 2 that are covered by local, national and international environmental legislation. The illus-
trated network connections are based on the interactions (pairs of terms) noted as important from the stakeholder workshops that
appear in the text of legislation relevant to the Ythan Estuary. The letters indicate the legislation which covers the network inter-
actions that appear (the following list includes all legislation searched): (a) Forvie National Nature Reserve (NNR) byelaws, (b)
The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1947, (c) The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, (d) Natural Her-
itage (Scotland) Act 1991, (e) Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) Management Statement, (f) Land Reform (Scotland) Act
2003, (g) Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (implementing the Directive on the Con-
servation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora 92/43/EEC), (h) Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 (implementing the Marine
Strategy Framework Directive 2008/56/EC), (i) Water Environment and Water Service (Scotland) Act 2003 (implementing the
Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC)
Holt et al.: Barriers to implementing the Ecosystem Approach 223
WFD is 2015, but the detailed marine planning and
conservation process under the Marine (Scotland) Act
2010 is only at the consultation stage. The Land Use
Strategy, for example, acknowledges that the policy
framework for management of the marine environ-
ment is provided by the marine planning system.
Future reviews of the strategy will have regard to
marine plans developed under the Marine (Scotland)
Act 2010 (p. 6). The future marine plans will therefore
physically overlap, albeit limited to the area between
high and low tide, with terrestrial plans (Town and
Country Planning [Scotland] Act 1997 as amended).
Although this will force a merger of marine and terres-
trial disciplines (Raffaelli et al. 2005, Reyers et al.
2010), it is considered insufficient to ensure appropri-
ate policy development in relation to both marine
nature conservation and the delivery of ecosystem ser-
vices. None of the legislation appears to protect the
functioning of the estuary (e.g. nutrient recycling, car-
bon sequestration) or the benefits that people value.
This is interesting because eco system processes and
functions are the basis for providing vital and valued
ecosystem service benefits and a healthy and biodi-
verse environment. This omission is largely due to a
lack of knowledge of the different levels of functioning
required to give rise to certain ecosystem services and
benefits, and how the interactions between these pro-
cesses might affect benefits in both the short and long
term. A further complication is that these pieces of leg-
islation can interact (i.e. one level of legislation may be
overtaken by another at a different scale) and, as a
result, some components of a system may be covered
by numerous regulations (e.g. wetland areas could be
a Ramsar site, subject to the WFD, or could be a Special
Protection Area under the EU Birds Directive, 2009/
147/EC), whilst others are free from any regulations.
At present, even though a number of responsible
agencies are beginning to talk of the importance of
adopting the Ecosystem Approach, there is a long way
to go before our institutional set up, culture of working
and legislation reflects this. Here we have shown how
just one aspect of this, the legislation, indirectly pro-
tects some important ecosystem processes and benefits
by chance rather than by design. On the whole, it
seems that the system of legislation is not set up for
maintaining benefits that people value, but for protect-
ing specific components of the ecology of coastal wet-
lands i.e. species and habitats of value, and protecting
the ecosystem from the effects of human activity.
Whilst this remains important, it is necessary to recog-
nise that the components protected by legislation con-
stitute the prerequisite for anthropogenic activities to
take place in aquatic systems, but legislation needs to
focus on conserving biodiversity– environment interac-
tions that support what people want or need from the
system. The latter is not simple, however, as people
value different components of the system, and may not
always have the same views; the values of stakehold-
ers affect management, and in turn, these constantly
changing opinions of what is important transform the
landscape. Such decisions tend to be based on short-
term needs, with little consideration of the long-term
implications of actions and changes in the dynamics of
the system. Therefore, it is necessary to create man-
agement that takes a balance of both the important
processes, functions, ecology and benefits.
What is important is that the institutional set up can
account for a new way of working—the Ecosystem
Approach. This is beginning to be acknowledged
through the publication of, for example, A Land Use
Strategy for Scotland (2011), which deals with the ter-
restrial area and the development of a marine planning
re gime. The intertidal and coastal zone areas are of
particular importance in terms of benefit supply and
need to be reflected in policy formulation and subse-
quent legislation. Furthermore, a cross-sector approach
(merging across nature conservation, agri culture and
inland and coastal water sectors) that works in net-
works of organisations, rather than as isolated units, is
required in order to gain scientific understanding,
management and policy expertise, and on-the-ground
knowledge and preferences. At present, the imple-
mentation of the WFD, the Marine and Coastal Access
Act 2009 and the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 hint at
this type of management; however, they remain frag-
mented as the institutional structures needed for
implementation of an Ecosystem Approach do not
exist.
To implement an integrated approach, simply coor-
dinating existing institutions, and adding new ones to
this arrangement, be they informal or formal, is not
likely to yield collaboration. Instead, networks of part-
nerships between state, public and private stakehold-
ers are more effective for managing social – ecological
systems (Olsson et al. 2004, Armitage et al. 2009).
These types of arrangements could harness the social–
ecological knowledge and understanding of local to
regional scale user groups, who then participate in the
governance process for managing ecosystem services;
social networks are thought to play a significant role in
achieving these objectives (Folke et al. 2005, Olsson et
al. 2008, Bodin & Crona 2009). In this way, horizontal
and vertical linkages connect across scales and facili-
tate the exchange of knowledge through the wider
network. Bridging organisations (as in Berkes 2009)
linking a variety of sectors (e.g. nature conservation,
water quality and agriculture), rather than centralised
authorities, will be key to providing a strategic over -
view of ecosystem service management at different
governance levels (i.e. catchment and basin scales). In
Mar Ecol Prog Ser 434: 213–228, 2011
the UK, it is possible that bodies such as the Marine
Management Organisation and its counterpart, Marine
Scotland, could fulfil such a role if geographical units,
such as a catchment, are used as the basis for integrat-
ing management. Such arrangements are thought to
be more flexible and resilient, with such institutional
diversity an advantage when dealing with uncertainty
and multi-scale social–ecological issues (Dietz et al.
2003). Viewing issues as trade-offs between multiple
ecosystem services in order to provide multi-functional
landscapes brings all sectors into play, increasing insti-
tutional diversity and flexibility (Dietz et al. 2003) and
will serve to fit governance arrangements with the
environmental problems that society is facing.
Acknowledgements. The work was supported by a NERC/
ESRC transdisciplinary research seminar series entitled
‘Coastal Wetland Ecosystem Services’ (RES 496-26-0040). We
thank H. Richardson (University of Sheffield) and C. Thomson
(University of Aberdeen) for their assistance with the legisla-
tive aspects of the paper. We are very grateful to the partici-
pants of the Ythan workshop. Open Access for the Theme
Section on Coastal Zone Management is sponsored by Marine
Alliance for Science and Technology for Scotland (MASTS)
Coastal Zone Joint Research Theme.
LITERATURE CITED
Armitage DR, Plummer R, Berkes F, Arthur RI and others
(2009) Adaptive co-management for social– ecological
complexity. Front Ecol Evol 7:95–102
Atkins JP, Burdon D, Elliott M, Gregory AJ (2011) Manage-
ment of the marine environment: integrating ecosystem
services and societal benefits with the DPSIR framework
in a systems approach. Mar Pollut Bull 62:215–226
Backer H, Leppanen JM, Brusendorff AC, Forsius K and
others (2010) HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan — a re -
gional programme of measures for the marine environ-
ment based on the Ecosystem Approach. Mar Pollut Bull
60:642– 649
Barton J, Pretty J (2010) What is the best dose of nature and
green exercise for improving mental health? A multi-study
analysis. Environ Sci Technol 44:3947–3955
Basset A (2010) Aquatic science and the water framework
directive: a still open challenge towards ecogovernance of
aquatic ecosystems. Aquat Conserv 20:245–249
Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management: role of knowl-
edge generation, bridging organisations and social learn-
ing. J Environ Manag 90:1692–1702
Berkes F (2010) Linkages and multilevel systems for matching
governance and ecology: lessons from roving bandits. Bull
Mar Sci 86:235–250
Bodin O, Crona BI (2009) The role of social networks in nat-
ural resource governance: What relational patterns make
a difference? Glob Environ Change 19:366 –374
Borja A, Elliott M, Carstensen J, Heiskanen AS, van de Bund
W (2010) Marine management—towards an integrated
implementation of the European Marine Strategy Frame-
work and the Water Framework Directives. Mar Pollut
Bull 60:2175–2186
Daily GC, Matson PA (2008) Ecosystem services: from
theory to implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:
9455– 9456
Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM and others
(2009) Ecosystem services in decision-making: time to
deliver. Front Ecol Environ 7:21–28
Dasgupta P (2010) Nature’s role in sustaining economic devel-
opment. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 365:5–11
Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern P (2003) The struggle to govern the
commons. Science 302:1907–1912
Domburg P, Edwards AC, Sinclair AH, Wright GG, Ferrier RC
(1998) Changes in fertilizer and manurial practices during
1960–1990: implications for N and P inputs to the Ythan
catchment, N.E. Scotland. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 52:
19–29
Ecke F, Hellsten S, Mjelde M, Kuoppala M, Schlacke S (2010)
Potential conflicts between environmental legislation and
conservation exemplified by aquatic macrophytes. Hydro-
biologia 656:107–115
Ekstrom JA, Young OR (2009) Evaluating the functional fit
between a set of institutions and an ecosystem. Ecol Soc
14:16
EUR-Lex (2010a) Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Par-
liament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing
a framework for community action in the field of water
policy. Available at http:// eurlex. europa. eu/ Lex Uri Serv/
LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0060:EN:NOT (accessed
25 March 2011)
EUR-Lex (2010b) Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Par-
liament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a
framework for community action in the field of marine
environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Direc-
tive). Available at http://eurlex.europa.eu/ Lex Uri Serv/
LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32008L0056:EN:NOT (accessed
25 March 2011)
Everard M, Jones L, Watts B (2010) Have we neglected the
societal importance of sand dunes? An ecosystem services
perspective. Aquat Conserv 20:476–487
Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive gover-
nance of social– ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ
Resour 30:441–473
Hanneman RA, Riddle M (2005) Introduction to social net-
work methods. University of California, Riverside, CA.
Available at: http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/
Heymans JJ, Howell KL, Ayers M, Burrows MT, Gordon JDM,
Jones EG, Neat F (2011) Do we have enough information
to apply the Ecosystem Approach to management of deep-
sea fisheries? An example from the West of Scotland. ICES
J Mar Sci 68:265–280
HM Government (2011) UK Marine Policy Statement. The
Stationary Office, London. Available at: www.scotland.
gov. uk/ Topics/ marine/ seamanagement/international/ MPS/
MPSMarch2011
Huppert DD, Johnson RL, Leahy J, Bell K (2003) Interactions
between human communities and estuaries in the Pacific
Northwest: trends and implications for management. Estu-
aries 26:994–1009
Jennings S, Revill AS (2007) The role of gear technologists in
supporting an Ecosystem Approach to fisheries. ICES J
Mar Sci 64:1525–1534
Lloret J (2010) Human health benefits supplied by Mediter-
ranean marine biodiversity. Mar Pollut Bull 60:1640–1646
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems
and human well-being: current state and trends. Island
Press, New York, NY
Moffat Centre (2010) The Natural Heritage as an economic
driver: protected areas case studies. Scottish Natural
224
➤➤
➤➤
➤➤
➤
➤➤
➤
➤➤
➤➤
➤
➤➤
➤➤
➤
➤
➤
➤
➤
➤
➤
➤➤
Holt et al.: Barriers to implementing the Ecosystem Approach
Heritage Commissioned Report No. 368 (ROAME No.
F05AC701), Scottish Natural Heritage, Inverness
Moran D, Dann S (2008) The economic value of water use:
implications for implementing the Water Framework
Directive in Scotland. J Environ Manag 87:484–496
Morris CT, Morris RM (2005) The Ythan project: a case study
on improving catchment management through commu-
nity involvement. J Environ Plan Manag 48:413–429
Moss B (2008) The Water Framework Directive: total environ-
ment or political compromise? Sci Total Environ 400:32– 41
Olsson P, Folke C, Hahn T (2004) Social–ecological transfor-
mation for ecosystem management: the development of
adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in south-
ern Sweden. Ecol Soc 9:2
Olsson P, Folke C, Hughes TP (2008) Navigating the transition
to ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier
Reef, Australia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:9489–9494
Paetzold A, Warren PH, Maltby LL (2010) A framework for
assessing ecological quality based on ecosystem services.
Ecol Complex 7:273–281
Parkes M, Panelli R (2001) Integrating catchment, ecosystems
and community health: the value of participatory action
research. Ecosyst Health 7:85–106
Raffaelli D (1999) Nutrient enrichment and trophic organisa-
tion in an estuarine food web. Acta Oecologica 20:449– 461
Raffaelli D, Hull S, Milne H (1989) Long term changes in
nutrients, weed mats and shorebirds in an estuarine sys-
tem. Cah Biol Mar 30:259–270
Raffaelli D, Solan M, Webb TJ (2005) Do marine and terres-
trial ecologists do it differently? Mar Ecol Prog Ser 304:
283–289
Reiss H, Greenstreet SPR, Robinson L, Ehrich S, Jorgensen
LL, Piet GJ, Wolff WJ (2010) Unsuitability of TAC manage-
ment within an Ecosystem Approach to fisheries: an eco-
logical perspective. J Sea Res 63:85– 92
Reyers B, Roux DJ, O’Farrell PJ (2010) Can ecosystem ser-
vices lead ecology on a transdisciplinary pathway? Envi-
ron Conserv 37:501–511
Ross A, Stockdale A (1996) Multiple environmental designa-
tions: a case study of their effectiveness for the Ythan Estu-
ary. Environ Plann C Gov Policy 14:89–100
Sang N (2008) Informing common pool resource problems: a
survey of preference for catchment management strate-
gies amongst farmers and the general public in the Ythan
river catchment. J Environ Manage 88:1161–1174
Scottish Government (2011a) Getting the best from our
land—a land use strategy for Scotland. Available at:
www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/03/17091927/0
Scottish Government (2011b) Scotland’s National Marine
Plan, Pre-consultation draft, March 2011. Available at:
www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/03/21114728/0
Tallis H, Levin PS, Ruckelshaus M, Lester SE, McLeod KL,
Fluharty DL, Halpern BS (2010) The many faces of ecosys-
tem-based management: making the process work today
in real places. Mar Policy 34:340–348
Thompson Coon JT, Boddy K, Stein K, Whear R, Barton J,
Depledge MH (2011) Does participating in physical activ-
ity in outdoor natural environments have a greater effect
on physical and mental wellbeing than physical activity
indoors? A systematic review. Environ Sci Technol 45:
1761–1772
Tong S, Mather P, Fitzgerald G, McRae D, Verrall K, Walker D
(2010) Assessing the vulnerability of eco-environmental
health to climate change. Int J Environ Res Public Health
7:546– 564
Turner RK, Daily GC (2008) The ecosystem services frame-
work and natural capital conservation. Environ Resour
Econ 39:25– 35
UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2011) Synthesis of the
key findings. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge
UNESCO (2003) Convention for the safeguarding of the in -
tangible cultural heritage. MISC/2003/CLT/CH/14. Avail -
able at http://unesdoc. unesco. org/ images/ 0013/ 001325/
132540e.pdf
Van Hoey G, Borja A, Birchenough S, Buhl-Mortensen L and
others (2010) The use of benthic indicators in Europe: from
the Water Framework Directive to the Marine Strategy
Framework Directive. Mar Pollut Bull 60:2187–2196
Wakefield J (2010) Undermining the Integrated Maritime
Policy. Mar Pollut Bull 60:323– 333
White PCL, Godbold JA, Solan M, Wiegand JA, Holt AR (2010)
Ecosystem services and policy: a review of coastal wetland
ecosystem services and an efficiency-based framework for
implementing the Ecosystem Approach. In: Hester RE,
Harrison RM (eds) Ecosystem services. Issues Environ Sci
Technol 30:29–51
Wiegand J, Raffaelli D, Smart JCR, White PCL (2010) Assess-
ment of temporal trends in ecosystem health using an
holistic indicator. J Environ Manag 91:1446–1455
Yaffee SL (1999) Three faces of ecosystem management. Con-
serv Biol 13:713–725
Wiegand J, Raffaelli D, Smart JCR, White PCL (2010) Assess-
ment of temporal trends in ecosystem health using an
holistic indicator. J Environ Man 91:1446–1455
225
➤➤
➤
➤➤
➤➤
➤
➤
➤
➤
➤
➤
➤➤
➤
➤➤
➤➤
➤
➤➤
➤➤
➤
➤
➤
➤
➤
➤
Mar Ecol Prog Ser 434: 213–228, 2011226
Legislation Scope Responsible agency Area of jurisdiction Land ownership Description
Rights and responsibilities for states in relation to
the seas
Protect wetlands of international importance
Protection, conservation, preservation and transmis-
sion of natural heritage to future generations
Conserve wild flora and fauna and their habitats in
particular where the cooperation of several states is
required and with regard to endangered and
vulnerable species
Regulation of international trade through licensing
of import and export
Protection of the marine environment, including
biodiversity and ecosystems
National strategies for conservation and sustainable
use of biological resources developed and inte-
grated into UK policies
Protection of cultural heritage, recognising that it
will be constantly recreated by communities and
groups in response to their environment, their
interaction with nature and their history, such that it
provides a sense of identity and continuity
Crown Estate: UK
continental shelf
High Seas: Commons
Various: private and
public
Various
Various
Various
Various
Crown Estate and
commons
Various
Various
Territorial sea: MHW
to 12 n miles (also
continental shelf and
high seas)
Terrestrial and
coastal
Terrestrial and
coastal
Terrestrial and
coastal
Terrestrial and
coastal
Coastal, 12 n miles
(also continental
shelf and high seas)
Territorial, coastal
and beyond
Not specified
All state signatories
and their various
agencies
Environment Agency
(EA)
Scottish Natural
Heritage (SNH)
Various
Various
Department of the
Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs
(DEFRA) and Joint
Nature Conservation
Committee (JNCC)
Various
Various
Various
All oceans
(territorial sea,
continental shelf
and high seas)
Wetland habitats
of international
importance
Nature conserva-
tion sites of
outstanding
universal value
a) Habitats
b) Floral & faunal
species
Protection and
conservation of
endangered
species of wild
flora and fauna
Marine environ-
ment
Conservation of
biological
diversity, the
sustainable use
of its components
Deep-seated
interdependence
between the
intangible
cultural heritage
and the tangible
cultural and
natural heritage
International
United Nations Conven-
tion on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS)
The Convention of
Wetlands of International
Importance (RAMSAR)
The Convention Concern-
ing the Protection of the
World Cultural and
Natural Heritage
The Convention on the
Conservation of European
Wildlife and Natural
Habitats (1979)
Convention on Interna-
tional Trade in Endan-
gered Species of Wild
Flora and Fauna (CITES)
Convention for the
Protection of the Marine
Environment of the North
East Atlantic (OSPAR)
The Convention on
Biological Diversity (Rio
Convention)
Convention for the
safeguarding of the
intangible cultural
heritage (UNESCO)
Appendix 1. Legislation that applies to coastal wetland areas, detailing the spatial scale, scope and responsible agencies. Only legislation that is most commonly referred to
by stakeholders of the Ythan Estuary and the Forvie National Nature Reserve are listed. MHW: Mean High Water, MLW: Mean low water; LWS: Low Water Spring tide
level , CCW: Countryside Council for Wales
Holt et al.: Barriers to implementing the Ecosystem Approach 227
Legislation Scope Responsible agency Area of jurisdiction Land ownership Description
Protect territorial, coastal and marine habitats and
species of EU importance by designation of sites as
Special Areas of Conservation (SAC)
Protects populations of wild birds of EU importance
by designation of sites as Special Protected Areas
(SPA)
Integrated Water Resource Management and River
Basin management to enhance the status and
prevent deterioration of aquatic ecosystems and
wetlands
Designation of a network of marine protected areas
to achieve or maintain good environmental status
for the national waters of member states
Identification of vulnerable zones and creation of
action plans to control runoff from fertiliser
Designate and manage National Nature Reserves
Formation of SNH
Conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the
countryside (including wildlife)
Management of NNR; provide advice on nature
conservation to national and local government;
notify SSSI
Principal mechanism for the legislative protection of
wildlife and implementation of the Bern Convention
and the EU Birds and Habitats directives
Establishment and management of SSSIs and
European sites in Scotland
Various
Various
Various
Crown Estate
Various: private and
public
Various including
SNH
Various: private and
public
Various
Various
Territorial and
coastal
Territorial, coastal
and continental shelf
and high seas
Terrestrial and
coastal (1 n mile
England and 3 n
miles Scotland)
MHW to 12 n miles
Terrestrial
Intertidal, terrestrial
Terrestrial and
coastal
Intertidal, terrestrial
LWS – terrestrial (not
including estuaries)
LWS – terrestrial (not
including estuaries)
Terrestrial and to 12
n miles
Natural England
(NE)
SNH
NE and SNH
EA and Scottish
Environment
Protection Agency
(SEPA)
Marine Management
Organisation (MMO)
and Marine Scotland
(MS)
SEPA
Various including
SNH
SNH
SNH, NE, CCW
Nature Conservancy
Council
Scottish Natural
Heritage
SNH, NE, CCW
SNH
Animal and plant
species plus
habitats
Bird species and
habitats
a) Protect aquatic
ecosystems
b) Sustainable
water use
c) Pollution
Sustainable use
of the seas, en -
hancing and
preserving ma -
rine ecosystems
Regulation of
pollution from
agriculture
Conserve &
enhance
National Nature
Reserves
Natural heritage
in Scotland
a) Natural beauty
b) Amenity
c) Wildlife
a) Manage NNR
b) Select SSSI in
England
a) Protection of
wildlife
b) Designation of
protected areas
c) Public rights of
way in England /
Wales
Areas designated
for nature con ser -
vation in Scotland
EU
EU Habitats Directive
EU Directive on the
Conservation of Wild Birds
Special Protected Areas
(SPA)
The EU Water Framework
Directive
EU Marine Strategy
Framework Directive
EU Nitrates Directive
National
National Parks and Access
to the Countryside Act
(1949)
Natural Heritage (Scot-
land) Act 1991
Countryside Act (1968)
Nature Conservancy
Council Act (1973)
Wildlife and Countryside
Act (1981)
Nature Conservation
(Scotland) Act 2004
Appendix 1 (continued)
Mar Ecol Prog Ser 434: 213–228, 2011228
Submitted: April 11, 2011; Accepted: June 11, 2011 Proofs received from author(s): July 13, 2011
Legislation Scope Responsible agency Area of jurisdiction Land ownership Description
Defines the fundamental structure and authority for
waste management and control of emissions into
the environment. Includes the remediation of
contaminated land and prohibition of release of
invasive species
Access legislation and advice on access code, core
paths
Regulation of activities in the sea and on the sea
bed (mineral extraction and offshore renewable
energy production). Protection of wildlife and
historic environments from human damage and
disturbance
Regulation of activities in the sea and on the sea
bed (mineral extraction and offshore renewable
energy production). Protection of wildlife and
historic environments from human damage and
disturbance
Protect, improve and promote sustainable uses of
Scotland’s water environment and implementation
of the EU Water Framework Directive in Scotland
and River Basin Management
Regulate activities including discharges, abstrac-
tions, engineering works
Prepare development plans; determine planning
applications and take enforcement action against
breaches of planning control
Protection, enhancement and conservation of
salmon
Various
Crown Estate
Crown Estate
Various
Various
Various
Private
LWS to terrestrial
(not including
estuaries)
MHW to 12 n miles
Terrestrial MHW to
200 n miles
Coastal and transi-
tional waters to 3 n
miles, wetlands,
rivers, lochs
Coastal and transi-
tional waters to 3 n
miles, wetlands,
rivers, lochs
Terrestrial to MLW
River
EA, SEPA
SNH and local
authorities
Marine Scotland
MMO
SEPA, SNH and local
authorities
SEPA, SNH, Marine
Scotland and local
authorities
Scottish ministers
and local authorities
Ythan District
Fishery Board
Waste manage-
ment and control
of emissions into
the environment
Responsible right
of access to land
in Scotland
Marine planning,
licensing and
monitoring.
Conservation of
the natural and
historic heritage
Marine planning,
licensing and
monitoring.
Conservation of
the natural and
historic heritage
Access to coastal
land
Sustainable use
of water environ-
ment
Detailed imple-
mentation of the
WFD and of the
2003 Act
Forward plan-
ning of land use
through spatial
plans and plan -
ning permission
process
Establishing local
fisheries boards
Environmental Protection
Act (1990)
Land Reform (Scotland)
Act 2003 Part 1
Marine (Scotland) Act
2010
Marine and Coastal
Access Act (2009)
Water Environment and
Water Services (Scotland)
Act 2003
Water Environment
(Controlled Activities)
(Scotland) Regulations
2005
Town and Country
Planning (Scotland) Act
1997, as amended by the
Planning etc. (Scotland)
Act 2006
Local
Salmon and Freshwater
Fisheries (Consolidation)
Scotland Act 2003
Appendix 1 (continued)
