themes like adaptation to coastal risks and climate change,
planning and land management instruments, institutional
coordination mechanisms, as well as information and
communication (OurCoast, 2011).
Despite all efforts, ICZM still suffers from weaknesses,
e.g., insufficient political and legal status or the lack of a
consistent and applicable process for practitioners and
policy makers (e.g., Shipman and Stojanovic, 2007). Shipman (2012) outlined future demand: ICZM has to be politically robust and legitimate, coherent in its outcomes and
benefits, and with a clear guidance of how to achieve
them. Recently, ICZM agreements have been developed
and adopted for international, large-scale regional sea
frameworks. For example, the “Protocol on Integrated
Coastal Zone Management in the Mediterranean,” the first
supranational (21 countries located in Europe, Africa, and
Asia), legally binding ICZM agreement entered into force
in 2011. The ratification includes the European Union and
is legally binding for all member states. Formally, it
addresses recent ICZM demands, provides a vision of sustainable development, defines the coastal zone, and has
legitimacy, a hierarchy of strategies and plans, as well as
a coherence of governance and actions. It is outcome
focused, provides process guidelines for each stage, and
is interactive and expandable. The future will show if it
can serve as model for regional seas around the world
(Rochette and Billé, 2012; Shipman, 2012).
Some major future challenges are the integration of
ICZM with maritime spatial planning (Smith et al.,
2011), maritime policy and marine environment protection (Cicin-Sain and Belfiore, 2005), the integration of
land and marine spatial planning, and the further development and application of tools, like systems approach
frameworks (SAF) for coastal zones (Hopkins et al.,
2011).
Measuring success
Several indicator sets have been suggested to measure the
state of and the progress toward sustainability in coastal
zones on a local (Henocque, 2003; Hoffman, 2009), European (Burbridge, 1997; Pickaver et al., 2004), and worldwide level (Olsen, 2003; Belfiore et al., 2006). Indicators
provide a simplified view on complex phenomena, quantify information, and make it comparable. Many application exercises (e.g., Pickaver, 2009) and critical
evaluations (Wallis, 2006; Bell and Morse, 2008) took
place. Indicator sets are regarded as important tools, e.g.,
in European coastal and maritime policy (Meiner, 2010),
and are used to monitor the EU Sustainable Development
Strategy. On a local level, ICZM indicator sets are still
poorly accepted. Recent approaches provide indicator
sets, a scoring system, and participative self-assessment
approaches to comprehensive policy tools for local
coastal authorities (SUSTAIN partnership, 2012). It not
only allows the evaluation of the sustainability
performance but can be used as a local planning and management tools.
Conclusions
Existing conflicts in the coastal zone as well as future challenges, like climate change, call for an ICZM. ICZM principles and concepts are not new but still need to evolve and
to prove its applicability and practical relevance.
Bibliography
Belfiore, S., Barbiere J., Bowen R., Cicin-Sain B., Ehler C., Mageau
C., McDougall D., and Siron, R., 2006. A Handbook for Measuring the Progress and Outcomes of Integrated Coastal and Ocean
Management. IOC Manuals and Guides No. 46, ICAM Dossier,
Vol. 2, UNESCO.
Bell, S., and Morse, S., 2008. Sustainability Indicators – Measuring
the Immeasurable? 2nd edn. London: Earthscan.
Burbridge, P. R., 1997. A generic framework for measuring success
in integrated coastal management. Ocean and Coastal Management, 37(2), 175–189.
Cicin-Sain, B., and Belfiore, S., 2005. Linking marine protected
areas to integrated coastal and ocean management: a review of
theory and practice. Ocean and Coastal Management, 48
(11–12), 847–868.
Cicin-Sain, B., and Knecht, R. W., 1998. Integrated Coastal and
Ocean Management: Concepts and Practices. Washington,
DC: Island Press.
European Commission, 1999. Towards a European Integrated
Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) Strategy: General Principles and Policy Options. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. ISBN 92-828-6463-4.
Henocque, Y., 2003. Development of process indicators for coastal
zone management in France. Ocean and Coastal Management,
46, 363–379.
Hoffmann, J., 2009. Indicators for an ICZM. Experience with a
problem-oriented approach. Journal of Coastal Conservation,
13(2–3), 141–150.
Hopkins, T. S., Bailly, D., and Støttrup, J. G., 2011. A systems
approach framework for coastal zones. Ecology and Society,
16(4), 25, doi:10.5751/ES-04553-160425.
Knecht, R. W., and Archer, J., 1993. Integration in the US coastal
management program. Ocean and Coastal Management, 21,
183–200.
Meiner, A., 2010. Integrated maritime policy for the European
Union – consolidating coastal and marine information to support
maritime spatial planning. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 14,
1–11.
Olsen, S., Tobey, J., and Kerr, M., 1998. A common framework for
learning from ICZM experience. Ocean and Coastal Management, 37(2), 155–174.
Olsen, S. B., 2003. Frameworks and indicators for assessing progress in integrated coastal management initiatives. Ocean and
Coastal Management, 46(3–4), 347–361.
OurCoast. 2011. Comparative analyses of the OURCOAST cases.
http://ec.europa.eu/ourcoast
Pickaver, A. H., Gilbert, C., and Breton, F., 2004. An indicator set to
measure the progress in the implementation of integrated coastal
zone management in Europe. Ocean and Coastal Management,
47(9–10), 449–462.
Pickaver, A. H., 2009. Further Testing of the Approved EU Indicator to Measure the Progress in the Implementation of Integrated
364
INTEGRATED COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
planning and land management instruments, institutional
coordination mechanisms, as well as information and
communication (OurCoast, 2011).
Despite all efforts, ICZM still suffers from weaknesses,
e.g., insufficient political and legal status or the lack of a
consistent and applicable process for practitioners and
policy makers (e.g., Shipman and Stojanovic, 2007). Shipman (2012) outlined future demand: ICZM has to be politically robust and legitimate, coherent in its outcomes and
benefits, and with a clear guidance of how to achieve
them. Recently, ICZM agreements have been developed
and adopted for international, large-scale regional sea
frameworks. For example, the “Protocol on Integrated
Coastal Zone Management in the Mediterranean,” the first
supranational (21 countries located in Europe, Africa, and
Asia), legally binding ICZM agreement entered into force
in 2011. The ratification includes the European Union and
is legally binding for all member states. Formally, it
addresses recent ICZM demands, provides a vision of sustainable development, defines the coastal zone, and has
legitimacy, a hierarchy of strategies and plans, as well as
a coherence of governance and actions. It is outcome
focused, provides process guidelines for each stage, and
is interactive and expandable. The future will show if it
can serve as model for regional seas around the world
(Rochette and Billé, 2012; Shipman, 2012).
Some major future challenges are the integration of
ICZM with maritime spatial planning (Smith et al.,
2011), maritime policy and marine environment protection (Cicin-Sain and Belfiore, 2005), the integration of
land and marine spatial planning, and the further development and application of tools, like systems approach
frameworks (SAF) for coastal zones (Hopkins et al.,
2011).
Measuring success
Several indicator sets have been suggested to measure the
state of and the progress toward sustainability in coastal
zones on a local (Henocque, 2003; Hoffman, 2009), European (Burbridge, 1997; Pickaver et al., 2004), and worldwide level (Olsen, 2003; Belfiore et al., 2006). Indicators
provide a simplified view on complex phenomena, quantify information, and make it comparable. Many application exercises (e.g., Pickaver, 2009) and critical
evaluations (Wallis, 2006; Bell and Morse, 2008) took
place. Indicator sets are regarded as important tools, e.g.,
in European coastal and maritime policy (Meiner, 2010),
and are used to monitor the EU Sustainable Development
Strategy. On a local level, ICZM indicator sets are still
poorly accepted. Recent approaches provide indicator
sets, a scoring system, and participative self-assessment
approaches to comprehensive policy tools for local
coastal authorities (SUSTAIN partnership, 2012). It not
only allows the evaluation of the sustainability
performance but can be used as a local planning and management tools.
Conclusions
Existing conflicts in the coastal zone as well as future challenges, like climate change, call for an ICZM. ICZM principles and concepts are not new but still need to evolve and
to prove its applicability and practical relevance.
Bibliography
Belfiore, S., Barbiere J., Bowen R., Cicin-Sain B., Ehler C., Mageau
C., McDougall D., and Siron, R., 2006. A Handbook for Measuring the Progress and Outcomes of Integrated Coastal and Ocean
Management. IOC Manuals and Guides No. 46, ICAM Dossier,
Vol. 2, UNESCO.
Bell, S., and Morse, S., 2008. Sustainability Indicators – Measuring
the Immeasurable? 2nd edn. London: Earthscan.
Burbridge, P. R., 1997. A generic framework for measuring success
in integrated coastal management. Ocean and Coastal Management, 37(2), 175–189.
Cicin-Sain, B., and Belfiore, S., 2005. Linking marine protected
areas to integrated coastal and ocean management: a review of
theory and practice. Ocean and Coastal Management, 48
(11–12), 847–868.
Cicin-Sain, B., and Knecht, R. W., 1998. Integrated Coastal and
Ocean Management: Concepts and Practices. Washington,
DC: Island Press.
European Commission, 1999. Towards a European Integrated
Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) Strategy: General Principles and Policy Options. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. ISBN 92-828-6463-4.
Henocque, Y., 2003. Development of process indicators for coastal
zone management in France. Ocean and Coastal Management,
46, 363–379.
Hoffmann, J., 2009. Indicators for an ICZM. Experience with a
problem-oriented approach. Journal of Coastal Conservation,
13(2–3), 141–150.
Hopkins, T. S., Bailly, D., and Støttrup, J. G., 2011. A systems
approach framework for coastal zones. Ecology and Society,
16(4), 25, doi:10.5751/ES-04553-160425.
Knecht, R. W., and Archer, J., 1993. Integration in the US coastal
management program. Ocean and Coastal Management, 21,
183–200.
Meiner, A., 2010. Integrated maritime policy for the European
Union – consolidating coastal and marine information to support
maritime spatial planning. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 14,
1–11.
Olsen, S., Tobey, J., and Kerr, M., 1998. A common framework for
learning from ICZM experience. Ocean and Coastal Management, 37(2), 155–174.
Olsen, S. B., 2003. Frameworks and indicators for assessing progress in integrated coastal management initiatives. Ocean and
Coastal Management, 46(3–4), 347–361.
OurCoast. 2011. Comparative analyses of the OURCOAST cases.
http://ec.europa.eu/ourcoast
Pickaver, A. H., Gilbert, C., and Breton, F., 2004. An indicator set to
measure the progress in the implementation of integrated coastal
zone management in Europe. Ocean and Coastal Management,
47(9–10), 449–462.
Pickaver, A. H., 2009. Further Testing of the Approved EU Indicator to Measure the Progress in the Implementation of Integrated
364
INTEGRATED COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT