IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i4p2261-d502196.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Realizing the Social Dimension of EU Coastal Water Management

Author

Listed:
  • David Langlet

    (Department of Law, School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, Vasagatan 1, 411 24 Gothenburg, Sweden)

  • Aron Westholm

    (Department of Law, School of Business, Economics and Law, University of Gothenburg, Vasagatan 1, 411 24 Gothenburg, Sweden)

Abstract

In the last 20 years, the EU has adopted some rather ambitious pieces of legislation with the aim to achieve a good environmental status in freshwater and marine ecosystems. Both the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) have a strong focus on the natural environment and biological criteria for assessing the status of the relevant ecosystems. In the same time period, much research on environmental governance has focused on the interconnectedness of social systems and ecosystems, so-called social-ecological systems (SES). While having high aspirations, the legal frameworks underpinning current EU water and marine management do not necessarily reflect the advances of contemporary science relating to SES. Using the geographical intersection of the two directives, i.e., coastal waters as a focal point, the paper explores the inchoate integration of social and ecological perspectives in the EU marine governance. What are the main challenges for the current EU legal regimes for managing coastal waters in a way that builds on the understanding of social and ecological systems as interconnected? Having explored the two directives, the paper introduces the possibility of using marine spatial planning (MSP), and the EU directive establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning (MSPD) as a bridge between the social and ecological dimensions and discusses what implications this would have for the current system for governing coastal waters in Europe.

Suggested Citation

  • David Langlet & Aron Westholm, 2021. "Realizing the Social Dimension of EU Coastal Water Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:4:p:2261-:d:502196
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/4/2261/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/4/2261/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Langlet, David, 2018. "Scale, space and delimitation in marine legal governance – Perspectives from the Baltic Sea," MarXiv sfqyn, Center for Open Science.
    2. Gilliland, Paul M. & Laffoley, Dan, 2008. "Key elements and steps in the process of developing ecosystem-based marine spatial planning," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 787-796, September.
    3. Heather Ritchie & Geraint Ellis, 2010. "'A system that works for the sea'? Exploring Stakeholder Engagement in Marine Spatial Planning," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(6), pages 701-723.
    4. Ounanian, K. & Delaney, A. & Raakjær, J. & Ramirez-Monsalve, P., 2012. "On unequal footing: Stakeholder perspectives on the marine strategy framework directive as a mechanism of the ecosystem-based approach to marine management," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 658-666.
    5. van Leeuwen, Judith & Raakjaer, Jesper & van Hoof, Luc & van Tatenhove, Jan & Long, Ronán & Ounanian, Kristen, 2014. "Implementing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive: A policy perspective on regulatory, institutional and stakeholder impediments to effective implementation," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(PB), pages 325-330.
    6. Pomeroy, Robert & Douvere, Fanny, 2008. "The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 816-822, September.
    7. Bigagli, Emanuele, 2015. "The EU legal framework for the management of marine complex social–ecological systems," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 44-51.
    8. Eric Neumayer, 2013. "Weak versus Strong Sustainability," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14993.
    9. World Commission on Environment and Development,, 1987. "Our Common Future," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780192820808.
    10. Langlet, David & Rayfuse, Rosemary, 2018. "Challenges in Implementing the Ecosystem Approach: Lessons Learned," MarXiv 8xqjt, Center for Open Science.
    11. Voyer, Michelle & Gladstone, William & Goodall, Heather, 2012. "Methods of social assessment in Marine Protected Area planning: Is public participation enough?," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 432-439.
    12. Susanne Wuijts & Peter P. J. Driessen & Helena F. M. W. Van Rijswick, 2018. "Towards More Effective Water Quality Governance: A Review of Social-Economic, Legal and Ecological Perspectives and Their Interactions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-19, March.
    13. Michael Wegener & Kenneth Button & Peter Nijkamp (ed.), 2007. "Planning History and Methodology," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3629.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brennan, Jonathon & Fitzsimmons, Clare & Gray, Tim & Raggatt, Laura, 2014. "EU marine strategy framework directive (MSFD) and marine spatial planning (MSP): Which is the more dominant and practicable contributor to maritime policy in the UK?," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 359-366.
    2. Ranger, S. & Kenter, J.O. & Bryce, R. & Cumming, G. & Dapling, T. & Lawes, E. & Richardson, P.B., 2016. "Forming shared values in conservation management: An interpretive-deliberative-democratic approach to including community voices," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 344-357.
    3. Scarff, Gavin & Fitzsimmons, Clare & Gray, Tim, 2015. "The new mode of marine planning in the UK: Aspirations and challenges," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 96-102.
    4. Weidner, Helmut, 2005. "Global equity versus public interest? The case of climate change policy in Germany," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Civil Society and Transnational Networks SP IV 2005-102, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    5. Werner Hediger, 2013. "From Multifunctionality and Sustainability of Agriculture to the Social Responsibility of the Agri-food System," Journal of Socio-Economics in Agriculture (Until 2015: Yearbook of Socioeconomics in Agriculture), Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, vol. 6(1), pages 59-80.
    6. Ngo Long & Vincent Martinet, 2018. "Combining rights and welfarism: a new approach to intertemporal evaluation of social alternatives," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 50(1), pages 35-64, January.
    7. Baumgärtner, Stefan & Quaas, Martin F., 2009. "Ecological-economic viability as a criterion of strong sustainability under uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 2008-2020, May.
    8. Jean-François Ruault & Alice Dupré La Tour & André Evette & Sandrine Allain & Jean-Marc Callois, 2022. "A biodiversity-employment framework to protect biodiversity," Post-Print hal-03365820, HAL.
    9. Indra de Soysa & Jennifer Bailey & Eric Neumayer, 2004. "Free to Squander? Democracy, Institutional Design, and Economic Sustainability, 1975–2000," Macroeconomics 0412004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Raakjær, Jesper & van Tatenhove, Jan, 2014. "Marine governance of European Seas: Introduction," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(PB), pages 323-324.
    11. Quentin Couix, 2019. "Natural resources in the theory of production: the Georgescu-Roegen/Daly versus Solow/Stiglitz controversy," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(6), pages 1341-1378, November.
    12. Alexey Voinov, 2008. "Understanding and communicating sustainability: global versus regional perspectives," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 487-501, August.
    13. Ottmar Edenhofer & Susanne Kadner & Christoph von Stechow & Gregor Schwerhoff & Gunnar Luderer, 2014. "Linking climate change mitigation research to sustainable development," Chapters, in: Giles Atkinson & Simon Dietz & Eric Neumayer & Matthew Agarwala (ed.), Handbook of Sustainable Development, chapter 30, pages 476-499, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Ralph V Tafon, 2018. "Taking power to sea: Towards a post-structuralist discourse theoretical critique of marine spatial planning," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(2), pages 258-273, March.
    15. Flannery, Wesley & O’Hagan, Anne Marie & O’Mahony, Cathal & Ritchie, Heather & Twomey, Sarah, 2015. "Evaluating conditions for transboundary Marine Spatial Planning: Challenges and opportunities on the island of Ireland," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 86-95.
    16. McGrath, Luke & Hynes , Stephen, 2020. "Approaches to accounting for our natural capital: Applications across Ireland," Working Papers 309501, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    17. Abdelillah Hamdouch & Bertrand Zuindeau, 2010. "Sustainable development, 20 years on: methodological innovations, practices and open issues," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(4), pages 427-438.
    18. Thomas Wanner, 2015. "The New 'Passive Revolution' of the Green Economy and Growth Discourse: Maintaining the 'Sustainable Development' of Neoliberal Capitalism," New Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(1), pages 21-41, February.
    19. Emilio Padilla, 2002. "Limitations and biases of conventional analysis of climate change. Towards an analysis coherent with sustainable development," Working Papers wp0206, Department of Applied Economics at Universitat Autonoma of Barcelona.
    20. Bazhanov, A., 2011. "The Dependence of the Potential Sustainability of a Resource Economy on the Initial State: a Comparison of Models Using the Example of Russian Oil Extraction," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, issue 12, pages 77-100.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:4:p:2261-:d:502196. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.