42
3 Status: Basics of ICZM
A comprehensive program evaluation was conducted between 1995 and 1997 by Hershman et al. (1999). The National Coastal Zone Management Effectiveness Study (CZME)
focused on the five core objectives of the CZMA:
• protection of natural resources such as wetlands and estuaries
• protection of beaches, dune, bluffs,
2 and rocky shore resources
• public access to the coastal zone
• revitalization of urban waterfronts
• seaport developments
First, they identified over 60 studies and reports dealing with the assessment of CZM
program on different topics and levels. Hershman et al. (1999) conducted an effectiveness evaluation, so that in their view “effective coastal programs [. . . ] show a clear link
between the goal they deem important, the process they set up to achieve that goal and the
outcomes resulting from those processes that advance the goal” (Hershman et al., 1999,
p. 118). To be able to assess the different core objectives according to the effectiveness
they developed and applied three indicator categories: (i) issue importance indicators, (ii)
process indicators and (iii) outcome indicators. Each set of indicators was adapted to the
respective investigation of the core objectives. Because of the difference of these objectives and the quality and amount of available data approaches have to be tailor-made. In a
second step the results and findings on each core objective were aggregated to gain results from the national perspective. The investigation was enhanced by interviews of senior
program managers to get an in-depth insight into the development of CZM programs over
time. Quintessential statements were, for example, that the senior managers
“. . . stressed CZM’s unique role in upgrading capacity for management in state and local government units. [. . . ], they emphasized the crucial importance of public participation and the
availability of discretionary funding for implementation and specific projects,”
“. . . stressed the inadequacy of the decision process prior to CZM and the importance of this
institutional restructuring.”,
“. . . observed that a major outcome of CZM is that only well-conceived development projects
are proposed, that is, that CZM standards and requirements help to weed out the poor projects
before they reach the stage of seeking official approval”
“. . . were forthcoming about failures. A number of them commented that issues like water
quality protection, watershed management, and non-point pollution control are not yet well
addressed in the coastal zone.”
Finally, Hershman et al. (1999, p. 127) concluded that “State CZM programs are effectively implementing the five CZMA objectives examined. However, this conclusion was
based on assessment of the policies, processes, and tools used, and on only limited outcome data and case examples that were available.” This conclusion was, for example,
seconded by the emphasis of the senior managers that “the role of changed governance
2 Cliff or very steep bank.
3 Status: Basics of ICZM
A comprehensive program evaluation was conducted between 1995 and 1997 by Hershman et al. (1999). The National Coastal Zone Management Effectiveness Study (CZME)
focused on the five core objectives of the CZMA:
• protection of natural resources such as wetlands and estuaries
• protection of beaches, dune, bluffs,
2 and rocky shore resources
• public access to the coastal zone
• revitalization of urban waterfronts
• seaport developments
First, they identified over 60 studies and reports dealing with the assessment of CZM
program on different topics and levels. Hershman et al. (1999) conducted an effectiveness evaluation, so that in their view “effective coastal programs [. . . ] show a clear link
between the goal they deem important, the process they set up to achieve that goal and the
outcomes resulting from those processes that advance the goal” (Hershman et al., 1999,
p. 118). To be able to assess the different core objectives according to the effectiveness
they developed and applied three indicator categories: (i) issue importance indicators, (ii)
process indicators and (iii) outcome indicators. Each set of indicators was adapted to the
respective investigation of the core objectives. Because of the difference of these objectives and the quality and amount of available data approaches have to be tailor-made. In a
second step the results and findings on each core objective were aggregated to gain results from the national perspective. The investigation was enhanced by interviews of senior
program managers to get an in-depth insight into the development of CZM programs over
time. Quintessential statements were, for example, that the senior managers
“. . . stressed CZM’s unique role in upgrading capacity for management in state and local government units. [. . . ], they emphasized the crucial importance of public participation and the
availability of discretionary funding for implementation and specific projects,”
“. . . stressed the inadequacy of the decision process prior to CZM and the importance of this
institutional restructuring.”,
“. . . observed that a major outcome of CZM is that only well-conceived development projects
are proposed, that is, that CZM standards and requirements help to weed out the poor projects
before they reach the stage of seeking official approval”
“. . . were forthcoming about failures. A number of them commented that issues like water
quality protection, watershed management, and non-point pollution control are not yet well
addressed in the coastal zone.”
Finally, Hershman et al. (1999, p. 127) concluded that “State CZM programs are effectively implementing the five CZMA objectives examined. However, this conclusion was
based on assessment of the policies, processes, and tools used, and on only limited outcome data and case examples that were available.” This conclusion was, for example,
seconded by the emphasis of the senior managers that “the role of changed governance
2 Cliff or very steep bank.