6
this, a central idea in EAM is that management needs to be based on congruence
between institutions and ecosystems, as well as between institutions and environmental problems (institutional fi t) (e.g. Folke et al. 2007 ). Furthermore, EAM aims
to address environmental issues and their management in a holistic and integrated
manner (e.g. McLeod and Leslie 2009 ), implying that the concept promotes an
approach that analyses multiple objectives (e.g. socio-economic developments and
environmental status), as well as multiple sectoral interests (e.g. fi sheries, maritime
transports, tourism, etc.). Finally, linked to discussions on the need for adaptive comanagement (e.g. Armitage et al. 2007 ), EAM offers approaches to analyse prerequisites and implications of adaptation, collaboration and learning linked to multilevel
stakeholder arrangements and science-policy interfaces.
Research has also shown that the governance of environmental problems and
risks
1 in, for example, marine areas poses specifi c challenges and problems in that
they (1) usually exhibit extremely complex multilevel interactions between riskcausing human activities and societal responses to these (Gilek and Kern 2015 ); (2)
usually are associated with a striking scientifi c uncertainty (Udovyk and Gilek
2013 ); and (3) are characterised by social complexity which requires substantial,
not seldomly contested, debate on what is at stake, what choices to make and which
values are being assigned to different components of the ecosystem and to various
strategies (Lidskog et al. 2009 ; van Asselt and Renn 2011 ). Hence, based on insights
on governance in general and on EAM and environmental issues in particular (e.g.
Lidskog et al. 2009 ), this book focuses on three key governance dimensions and
challenges: multilevel and multi - sectoral governance structures , assessment -
management processes and interactions and stakeholder participation and communication , as discussed below.
1.2.1 Multilevel and Multi-sectoral Governance Structures
Environmental governance in general and marine governance in particular are characterised and challenged by complex multilevel and multi-sectoral interactions (cf.
Gilek and Kern 2015 ; Lidskog et al. 2009 ). The Baltic Sea environmental governance system is, for example, made up of structures of national, international,
European and transnational governance and can be perceived of as the outcome of
continuous disparate processes over time, rather than being part of an intentionally
designed governance arrangement (Andonova and Mitchell 2010 ). Furthermore,
although marine environmental governance has traditionally focused on particular
1 It can be argued that environmental issues, even if they already manifested themselves as negative
environmental impacts, are associated with signifi cant uncertainties about the type and extent of
impacts, probabilities for future impacts, effectiveness of management responses, etc. Therefore,
we argue in this volume that the risk governance concept, which acknowledges the central role of
ignorance, uncertainty and ambiguity in decision-making on risks (Stirling 2007 ; Renn 2008 ) provides a suitable analytical perspective.
M. Gilek et al.
this, a central idea in EAM is that management needs to be based on congruence
between institutions and ecosystems, as well as between institutions and environmental problems (institutional fi t) (e.g. Folke et al. 2007 ). Furthermore, EAM aims
to address environmental issues and their management in a holistic and integrated
manner (e.g. McLeod and Leslie 2009 ), implying that the concept promotes an
approach that analyses multiple objectives (e.g. socio-economic developments and
environmental status), as well as multiple sectoral interests (e.g. fi sheries, maritime
transports, tourism, etc.). Finally, linked to discussions on the need for adaptive comanagement (e.g. Armitage et al. 2007 ), EAM offers approaches to analyse prerequisites and implications of adaptation, collaboration and learning linked to multilevel
stakeholder arrangements and science-policy interfaces.
Research has also shown that the governance of environmental problems and
risks
1 in, for example, marine areas poses specifi c challenges and problems in that
they (1) usually exhibit extremely complex multilevel interactions between riskcausing human activities and societal responses to these (Gilek and Kern 2015 ); (2)
usually are associated with a striking scientifi c uncertainty (Udovyk and Gilek
2013 ); and (3) are characterised by social complexity which requires substantial,
not seldomly contested, debate on what is at stake, what choices to make and which
values are being assigned to different components of the ecosystem and to various
strategies (Lidskog et al. 2009 ; van Asselt and Renn 2011 ). Hence, based on insights
on governance in general and on EAM and environmental issues in particular (e.g.
Lidskog et al. 2009 ), this book focuses on three key governance dimensions and
challenges: multilevel and multi - sectoral governance structures , assessment -
management processes and interactions and stakeholder participation and communication , as discussed below.
1.2.1 Multilevel and Multi-sectoral Governance Structures
Environmental governance in general and marine governance in particular are characterised and challenged by complex multilevel and multi-sectoral interactions (cf.
Gilek and Kern 2015 ; Lidskog et al. 2009 ). The Baltic Sea environmental governance system is, for example, made up of structures of national, international,
European and transnational governance and can be perceived of as the outcome of
continuous disparate processes over time, rather than being part of an intentionally
designed governance arrangement (Andonova and Mitchell 2010 ). Furthermore,
although marine environmental governance has traditionally focused on particular
1 It can be argued that environmental issues, even if they already manifested themselves as negative
environmental impacts, are associated with signifi cant uncertainties about the type and extent of
impacts, probabilities for future impacts, effectiveness of management responses, etc. Therefore,
we argue in this volume that the risk governance concept, which acknowledges the central role of
ignorance, uncertainty and ambiguity in decision-making on risks (Stirling 2007 ; Renn 2008 ) provides a suitable analytical perspective.
M. Gilek et al.