Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Reef Ecology Laboratory, Department of Biological Sciences, Block S2, #02-05, 14 Science Drive 4, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117543,
Singapore
b
Department of Oceanography, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361005, PR China
c
The Third Institute of Oceanography State Oceanic Administration, Daxue Road 178, Xiamen 361005, PR China
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Available online 6 June 2014
The Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) framework has been increasingly adopted in coastal cities of
China. Using indicators to monitor and measure the progress and effectiveness of ICM implementation is
a key step towards adaptive management of the ICM process in the long-term perspective. However,
proper methods of evaluating the ICM performance are still lacking. An evaluation method based on
assessment of indicators is suggested and applied to Quanzhou in this study. 32 indicators adapted to
China's coastal cities are developed, and the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) method is employed as
the weighting method to synthesize the evaluation results. Key ICM performance indicators are identied and specic suggestions are proposed based on the evaluation results, which would be useful for
future decision-making in the ICM governance. The correlations between ICM governance, coastal
environmental and socioeconomic sustainability are analyzed using the Drive force-Pressure-StatusImpact-Response (DPSIR) model. The evaluation indicators and methodologies could be applied to
other coastal cities for promoting the progress of ICM towards the goal of sustainability.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Integrated Coastal Management (ICM), a world-recognized
management approach for coastal governance to address the
environmental and developmental challenges in a holistic way, has
been initiated in over 100 nations (Sorensen, 2002; UNESCO, 2003).
With almost 700 ICM initiatives recorded during the 1990s
(Belore, 2003), only a limited number of ICM initiatives were
completed, sustained or considered successful. A number of ICM
initiatives failed to enter the implementation stage or continued to
run a new cycle due to a synthesis of root causes, such as a lack of
external funds to carry out the projects (Pomeroy and Carlos, 1997;
White and Salamanca, 2002), institutional disagreement (Archer,
1988; Imperial et al., 2000), loopholes in legislation (e.g. a lack of
coherence between sectoral policies (Sharma, 1996)), etc. It became
an urgent need to develop indicators to assess the performance of
the numerous ICM efforts developed at all levels around the world
(Olsen et al., 1999; UNESCO, 2003).
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: a0066323@nus.edu.sg (G. Ye).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.05.010
0964-5691/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
113
Fig. 1. Sketch map of study area-Quanzhou municipality( 24 300 N25 560 N, 117 250 E119 050 E). Terrestrial boundary: includes Quanzhou downtown, 3 county-level cities of
Jiangjiang, Shishi, Nanan, and 4 counties of Huian, Anxi, Yongchun, Dehua, covering a total area of 10 866 km2. Territorial sea area boundary: stretches north to Meizhou Bay, and
south to Weitou Bay, with a coastline of 427 km, covering a total sea area of 11 360 km2.
114
Table 1
ICM performance measurement indicators.
Main elements
Sub-elements
Indicators
References
Governance
ICM Mechanism
Planning, implementation,
and monitoring
Capacity Building
Public involvement
Financing
Coastal
Environment
Quality
Biodiversity
Social Economic
Condition
Social cohesion
Economic development
and resource utilization
115
Criterion
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
The
The
The
The
The
indicator
indicator
indicator
indicator
indicator
was
was
was
was
was
116
Im
n
X
Pi Wi
(1)
i1
Table 3
Detailed evaluation results of Quanzhou ICM governance.
Indicators
117
Table 4
Evaluation results of governance indicators (GI) in Quanzhou (2004e2010).
GI
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
G8
G9
G10
G11
G12
0
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0
0
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.5
0
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.75
0
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.75
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.75
0
0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.75
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.75
0
0.5
0.5
0.75
0.5
0.75
0.5
0.5
0.75
0.5
0.5
0.75
0
0.5
0.5
0.75
0.5
0.75
0.75
0.5
0.75
0.5
0.5
0.75
0
Fig. 5. (a) Variations of Quanzhou governance indicators in 2004 and 2010. (b) Variations of Quanzhou environmental indicators in 2004 and 2010. (c) Variations of
Quanzhou Social economic indicators in 2004 and 2010.
Fig. 4. (a) Variations of Quanzhou Governance Index (GI) from 2004 to 2010. (b)
Variations of Quanzhou Environmental Index (EI) from 2004 to 2010. (c) Variations of
Quanzhou Social-economic Index (SI) from 2004 to 2010. (d) Variations of Quanzhou
general ICM Performance Index (IPI) from 2004 to 2010.
years, they were therefore eliminated during Z score transformation and PCA analysis. The nal results of EI were presented in
Fig. 4 (b). The variations of 5 environmental indicators with standardized values in 2004 and 2010 were showed in Fig. 5 (b). E2
Marine sediment quality, E3 Marine biological quality, and E7
Habitat diversity that showed no variations were not displayed in
the gure.
SI: All the quantied data of socioeconomic indicators were
provided in Table 5.The standardized score and contrition rate of
each indicator were presented in Table 6. The nal results of SI were
presented in Fig. 4 (c) and the variations of 12 social economic indicators with standardized values in 2004 and 2010 were showed
in Fig. 5 (c).
IPI: The nal measurement results of IPI were showed in Fig. 4
(d)
DPSIR: According to the denitions of Driving force, Pressures,
state, Impacts and Responses, eight indicators of SI were recategorized into Drivers/Pressures domain, six indicators of EI
were re-grouped into State domain, four indicators of SI and two
indicators of EI were in Impacts domain, and all the indicators of
118
Table 5
Quantied indicators and actual vales of coastal environment and socioeconomic indicators (EI & SI) in Quanzhou (2004e2010).
Indicators
Quantied indicators
Actual values
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
40
50
50
55.6
70.8
75
75
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
66
133
135
9
290
695.7
12 699
0.18
18 636
27.47
95.32
96
114
54
9
290
701.3
14 209
0.2
21 427
32.15
93.95
110
130
135
9
297
707.7
15 972
0.22
24 815
36.70
94.06
232
193
180
9
320
712.3
18 097
0.25
29 601
43.62
95.02
234
246
74
9
345
716.9
20 420
0.27
34 840
49.75
96.08
283
195
213
9
431
723.4
22 913
0.29
38 197
56.90
96.38
272
225
157
9
500
748.2
25 155
0.3
43 900
65.53
97.51
30.94
9.85
1.69
40.46
11.97
13.88
51.35
14.48
5.13
62.15
17.03
0.46
72.24
21.63
0.9
76.66
19.46
0.12
84.55
24.44
4.47
40.7
70
76.8
83
85.01
85.2
80.3
26.22
20.52
28.75
5.6
4.85
4.01
5.66
1.95
1.97
1.98
2.03
2.05
2.06
2.1
a
Water quality, sediment quality and biological quality are dened by National Standard 3 097-1997 Criteria of Seawater Quality of the P.R.C.. Issued by State Bureau of
Environmental Protection, 2002.
Source: data of E1-E8, S11, S12 were provided by Quanzhou Oceanic and Fishery Administration; data of S1eS10 were from Quanzhou Statistics Bureau, 2004e2010 Annual
Report on the Economic and Social Development in Quanzhou.
Table 6
The standardized score and contrition rate (W) of the indicators (2004e2010).
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
G8
G9
G10
G11
E1
E4
E5
E6
E8
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
0.5855
1.4639
1.2247
1.4639
1.3517
0.5855
1.6562
1.2247
1.4639
0.8018
1.9973
1.3870
1.3071
0.8502
0.0076
0.7759
1.1193
1.2645
1.4044
1.2506
1.2487
0.1202
1.4610
1.3571
0.4361
2.1341
1.1371
1.2780
0.5855
1.4639
1.2247
1.4639
1.3517
0.5855
0.2070
1.2247
1.4639
0.8018
0.7263
0.6752
0.9768
1.2210
1.4519
0.7759
0.7957
0.9350
0.9675
0.9488
0.9073
1.1875
0.9785
0.9536
2.0750
0.2803
0.6211
0.9129
0.5855
0.5855
0.0000
0.5855
0.3004
0.4392
0.2070
0.0000
0.5855
0.8018
0.5447
0.6752
0.8227
0.9088
0.0076
0.6901
0.4259
0.5504
0.5306
0.5825
0.5754
1.1018
0.4265
0.4758
0.2725
0.1500
1.3661
0.7303
0.5855
0.5855
0.0000
0.5855
0.7509
0.4392
0.2070
0.0000
0.5855
0.8018
0.5447
0.2766
0.5207
0.3206
0.7947
0.4081
0.1601
0.0868
0.1248
0.0650
0.0707
0.3539
0.1209
0.0095
0.6895
0.5422
0.7295
0.1826
0.5855
0.5855
0.0000
0.5855
0.7509
0.4392
0.2070
0.0000
0.5855
1.0690
0.5447
0.8054
0.5427
1.3548
1.0953
0.1016
0.1057
0.4200
0.5618
0.5015
0.3765
0.4719
0.6324
0.8851
0.5989
0.6694
0.7974
0.5477
1.4639
0.5855
1.2247
0.5855
0.7509
1.6102
1.2421
1.2247
0.5855
1.0690
0.5447
1.1043
1.0822
0.3596
1.3831
0.9528
0.4812
0.9638
0.9987
0.8644
0.8980
0.7056
0.8564
0.4720
0.7596
0.6814
0.8734
0.7303
1.4639
0.5855
1.2247
0.5855
0.7509
1.4639
1.2421
1.2247
0.5855
1.0690
0.5447
1.1043
0.9611
0.9450
0.3846
1.7987
1.9142
1.4529
1.2172
1.4811
1.5275
1.5860
1.2563
1.4199
0.1366
0.3714
0.7240
1.4606
0.3981
0.7267
0.6722
0.7267
0.7049
0.3322
0.5625
0.6722
0.7267
0.4866
0.6970
0.7029
0.7223
0.6488
0.3941
0.6659
0.8515
0.8474
0.8580
0.8436
0.8528
0.3670
0.8824
0.8654
0.3318
1.0171
0.6708
0.8444
119
Fig. 6. DPSIR model for ICM performance analysis in China's coastal cites.
120
Indicators
Attributes
Governance
Weak performance
Weak performance
Weak performance
Coastal
Environment
Social Economic
Condition
Weak performance
Weak performance
Weak performance
Weak performance
High variation
High contribution rate
High variation
Weak performance,
low contribution rate
High variation
High contribution rate
High contribution rate
High contribution rate
Weak performance,
high variation, low
contribution rate
High variation
High variation, low
contribution rate
121
Table 8
Generalization of major achievements, remaining issues and suggestions for ICM in Quanzhou.
Goals
Major achievements
Remaining issues
Suggestions
Effective ICM
Governance
Health coastal
environment
Social economic
sustainability
well as the remaining issues could be concluded; and several suggestions are provided for future ICM planning (Table 8). In addition,
the ICM initiatives in Quanzhou had been implemented for 6 years
by year 2010, and the ICM governance capacity had been built up,
but the progress of ICM performance tended to be much slower. It
may be the time to run a new cycle of ICM with a more adaptive
framework in the next 6e7 years according to the experience in
other regions (Sorensen, 2002; Chua, 2006).
5. Conclusions
This study has proved that the proposed methodologies are
effective and operational to assess the progress of ICM performance. The use of the integrated performance indicators and the
quantied methodologies could clearly reveal the trends of coastal
governance progress as well as the environmental and socialeconomic conditions of the study area. The gaps in the progress
of ICM towards coastal sustainability could also be identied by the
analysis of specic indicators. The selection of proper indicators is a
key step to output a reliable result. Identication of key performance indicators (KPIs) could be an effective approach to facilitate
the monitoring efciency of ICM progress. The relationships between ICM governance, coastal environment changes and social
economic development could be analyzed using the DPSIR model.
However, the selection of indicators is subjected to the available
data in coastal regions. With the development of environmental
monitoring technologies, more indicators such as the biodiversity
indicators and marine spatial indicators could be incorporated to
better represent the changing conditions related to ICM
performance.
Along with the long-term monitoring on ICM performance in
the future, more research efforts could focus on establishing the
independences between the inputs of government interventions
and the outcomes of coastal development, so as to build up a
forecasting model to provide the decision makers with indications
for adaptive management.
Acknowledgment
Sincerely thanks to the reviewers for their very useful comments on this paper.
We would like to thank Zhou Qiulin, Chen Bin from The Third
Institute of Oceanography, Chen Mingru and Xiao Jiamei from
Xiamen University, Huang Xianliang, Wu Shouji, Chen Zhiyuan
from Quanzhou Oceanic and Fishery Administration, Chen Ruohai
and Ji Jianfeng from Quanzhou Mangrove reserve for all the great
122
Olsen, S., Lowry, K., Tobey, J., 1999. The Common Methodology for Learning: A
Manual for Assessing Progress in Coastal Management. The University of Rhode
Island, p. 56.
Olsen, Stephen B., 2003. Frameworks and indicators for assessing progress in integrated coastal management initiatives. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 46 (3e4), 347e361.
Olsen, Stephen Bloye, Olsen, E., Schaefer, N., 2011. Governance baselines as a basis
for adaptive marine spatial planning. J. Coast. Conserv. 15 (2), 313e322.
Parmenter, D., 2010. Key Performance Indicators (KPI): Developing, Implementing,
and Using Winning KPIs. John Wiley & Sons, p. 299.
PEMSEA, 2011. Guidebook on the State of the Coasts Reporting for Local Governments Implementing Integrated Coastal Management in the East Asian Seas
Region. Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia
(PEMSEA), p. 105.
Pomeroy, R.S., Carlos, M.B., 1997. Community-based coastal resource management
in the Philippines: a review and evaluation of programs and projects, 19841994. Mar. Policy 21 (5), 445e464.
Rice, J., 2003. Environmental health indicators. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 46 (3e4),
235e259.
Schernewski, G., Hoffmann, J., Dreisewerd, M., Stavenhagen, P., Grunow, B., 2006.
Measuring the Progress and outcomes of Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management: the German Oder Estuary case study. Baltic Sea Research InstituteWarnemnde & University of Applied Sciences Neubrandenburg, p. 41.
Sharma, C., 1996. Coastal Area Management in South Asia A Comparative
Perspective. International Collective in Support of Fishworkers, p. 33.
Shi, C., Hutchinson, S.M., Xu, S., 2004. Evaluation of coastal zone sustainability: an
integrated approach applied in shanghai municipality and Chong Ming Island.
J. Environmental Management 71 (4), 335e344.
Smeets, E., Weterings, R., Centre, T.N.O., Bosch, P., Bchele, M., Gee, D., 1999.
Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview. Technical report No 25.
(European Environment Agency), p. 19.
Sorensen, J., 2002. Baseline 2000 Background Report: the Status of Integrated
Coastal Management as an International Practice (Second Iteration). Urban
Harbors Institute Publications, p. 31.
Tabet, L., Fanning, L., 2012. Integrated coastal zone management under authoritarian rule: an evaluation framework of coastal governance in Egypt. Ocean.
Coast. Manag. 61, 1e9.
The Provincial Government of Batangas, 2008. State of the Coast of Batangas
Province. Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia
(PEMSEA), p. 119.
UNESCO, 2003. A Reference Guide on the Use of Indicators for Integrated Coastal
Management. UNESCO, p. 136.
White, A.T., Salamanca, A., 2002. Experience with Marine Protected area planning
and management in the Philippines. Coast. Manag. 30 (1), 1e26.
Ye, G., Chou, L.M., Hu, W., 2013. The role of an integrated coastal management
framework in the long-term restoration of Yundang Lagoon, Xiamen, China.
J. Environ. Plan. Manag., 1e20 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2013.829420.
Published online.