Decision-Support Tools Used in the Baltic Sea Area: Performance and End-User Preferences

Decision-support tools (DSTs) synthesize complex information to assist environmental managers in the decision-making process. Here, we review DSTs applied in the Baltic Sea area, to investigate how well the ecosystem approach is reflected in them, how different environmental problems are covered, and how well the tools meet the needs of the end users. The DSTs were evaluated based on (i) a set of performance criteria, (ii) information on end user preferences, (iii) how end users had been involved in tool development, and (iv) what experiences developers/hosts had on the use of the tools. We found that DSTs frequently addressed management needs related to eutrophication, biodiversity loss, or contaminant pollution. The majority of the DSTs addressed human activities, their pressures, or environmental status changes, but they seldom provided solutions for a complete ecosystem approach. In general, the DSTs were scientifically documented and transparent, but confidence in the outputs was poorly communicated. End user preferences were, apart from the shortcomings in communicating uncertainty, well accounted for in the DSTs. Although end users were commonly consulted during the DST development phase, they were not usually part of the development team. Answers from developers/hosts indicate that DSTs are not applied to their full potential. Deeper involvement of end users in the development phase could potentially increase the value and impact of DSTs. As a way forward, we propose streamlining the outputs of specific DSTs, so that they can be combined to a holistic insight of the consequences of management actions and serve the ecosystem approach in a better manner.

[1]  Wolfgang Fennel,et al.  Experimental simulations with an ecosystem model of the Baltic Sea: A nutrient load reduction experiment , 2002 .

[2]  G. Mace,et al.  Bringing Ecosystem Services into Economic Decision-Making: Land Use in the United Kingdom , 2013, Science.

[3]  A. Wolfsberg,et al.  Hydro-economic modelling of cost-effective transboundary water quality management in the Baltic Sea , 2014 .

[4]  L. V. Waes,et al.  Development and Testing , 2021 .

[5]  Jürgen Hofmann,et al.  Modelling of Nutrient Emissions in River Systems – MONERIS – Methods and Background , 2011 .

[6]  M. Schaafsma,et al.  Coastal zones ecosystem services : From science to values and decision making , 2015 .

[7]  Ibon Galparsoro,et al.  End users’ perspective on decision support tools in marine spatial planning , 2019, Marine Policy.

[8]  R. Jak,et al.  Unravelling the myth – The use of Decisions Support Systems in marine management , 2018 .

[9]  Jesper H. Andersen,et al.  Human pressures and their potential impact on the Baltic Sea ecosystem , 2012 .

[10]  T. Sullivan EVALUATING ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION SUPPORT TOOLS. , 2004 .

[11]  J. Andersen,et al.  BEAT 3.0 – a Tool for Integrated Biodiversity Assessments , 2018 .

[12]  L. Airoldi,et al.  Loss, status and trends for coastal marine habitats of Europe , 2007 .

[13]  G. Velthof,et al.  How Can Decision Support Tools Help Reduce Nitrate and Pesticide Pollution from Agriculture? A Literature Review and Practical Insights from the EU FAIRWAY Project , 2020, Water.

[14]  Stuart I. Rogers,et al.  Practical tools to support marine spatial planning: A review and some prototype tools , 2013 .

[15]  Lassi Ahlvik,et al.  An economic-ecological model to evaluate impacts of nutrient abatement in the Baltic Sea , 2014, Environ. Model. Softw..

[16]  Michael Elliott,et al.  Processes for the sustainable stewardship of marine environments , 2016 .

[17]  D. Olivieri Environmental Management , 2006 .

[18]  A. Lepistö,et al.  A National-Scale Nutrient Loading Model for Finnish Watersheds—VEMALA , 2015, Environmental Modeling & Assessment.

[19]  Josianne G. Støttrup,et al.  The systems approach framework for collaborative, science-based management of complex systems , 2019, Journal of Coastal Conservation.

[20]  Berit Hasler,et al.  The Baltic Sea as a time machine for the future coastal ocean , 2018, Science Advances.

[21]  Henrik Nygård,et al.  Price vs. Value of Marine Monitoring , 2016, Front. Mar. Sci..

[22]  Ibon Galparsoro,et al.  Decision support tools in marine spatial planning: Present applications, gaps and future perspectives , 2017 .

[23]  M. Elliott The 10-tenets for integrated, successful and sustainable marine management. , 2013, Marine pollution bulletin.

[24]  C. Humborg,et al.  Application of a novel modeling tool with multistressor functionality to support management of organic contaminants in the Baltic Sea , 2015, AMBIO.

[25]  Ralf Kunkel,et al.  Integrated Agricultural and Hydrological Modeling within an Intensive Livestock Region , 2007 .

[26]  M. Elliott Marine science and management means tackling exogenic unmanaged pressures and endogenic managed pressures--a numbered guide. , 2011, Marine pollution bulletin.

[27]  Philip Cooper,et al.  Sustaining Europe's seas as coupled social ecological systems , 2015 .

[28]  J. Oltmanns,et al.  Final Report: Applying a tested procedure for the identification of potential emerging chemical risks in the food chain to the substances registered under REACH ‐ REACH 2 , 2019, EFSA Supporting Publications.

[29]  Berit Hasler,et al.  Marine Ecosystem Services , 2016 .

[30]  D. Gee,et al.  Making sustainability accountable : eco-efficiency, resource productivity and innovation : proceedings of a workshop on the occasion of the Fifth Anniversary of the European Environment Agency (EEA), 28-30 October 1998 in Copenhagen , 1999 .

[31]  Henning Sten Hansen Cumulative Impact of Societal Activities on Marine Ecosystems and Their Services , 2019, ICCSA.

[32]  Bill Slee,et al.  A review on cost-effectiveness analysis of agri-environmental measures related to the EU WFD: Key issues, methods, and applications , 2011 .

[33]  Burchard Hans,et al.  GETM, a General Estuarine Transport Model , 2002 .

[34]  J. Randers,et al.  The Living Planet Index: using species population time series to track trends in biodiversity , 2005, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[35]  Jonathan P. Atkins,et al.  "And DPSIR begat DAPSI(W)R(M)!" - A unifying framework for marine environmental management. , 2017, Marine pollution bulletin.

[36]  Andy Stock,et al.  Open Source Software for Mapping Human Impacts on Marine Ecosystems with an Additive Model , 2016 .

[37]  G. Schernewski,et al.  Methodologies to support coastal management - A stakeholder preference and planning tool and its application , 2018, Marine Policy.

[38]  Mikołaj Czajkowski,et al.  Recreational Value of the Baltic Sea: a Spatially Explicit Site Choice Model Accounting for Environmental Conditions , 2018 .

[39]  B. Hasler,et al.  Environmental economic research as a tool in the protection of the Baltic Sea : costs and benefits of reducing eutrophication , 2014 .

[40]  H. E. Andersen,et al.  Cost-effective abatement of non-point source nitrogen emissions - The effects of uncertainty in retention. , 2019, Journal of environmental management.

[41]  Vivi Fleming-Lehtinen,et al.  Recent developments in assessment methodology reveal that the Baltic Sea eutrophication problem is expanding , 2015 .

[42]  Maria Laamanen,et al.  Cumulative impacts on seabed habitats: an indicator for assessments of good environmental status. , 2013, Marine pollution bulletin.

[43]  Christopher J. Smith,et al.  The footprint of bottom trawling in European waters: distribution, intensity, and seabed integrity , 2016, ICES Journal of Marine Science.

[44]  M. Inácio,et al.  Ecosystem services provision today and in the past: a comparative study in two Baltic lagoons , 2018, Ecological Research.

[45]  Henrik Nygård,et al.  On the uncertainty and confidence in decision support tools (DSTs) with insights from the Baltic Sea ecosystem , 2020, Ambio.

[46]  W.L.T. van Densen,et al.  Differences in causal reasoning about resource dynamics and consequences for the participatory debate on North Sea fisheries , 2010 .

[47]  F. Ward Decision support for water policy: a review of economic concepts and tools , 2007 .

[48]  M. Elliott,et al.  Management of the marine environment: integrating ecosystem services and societal benefits with the DPSIR framework in a systems approach. , 2011, Marine pollution bulletin.

[49]  D. Karnauskaitė,et al.  Assessing coastal management case studies around Europe using an indicator based tool , 2018, Journal of Coastal Conservation.

[50]  Alessandro Sarretta,et al.  Tools4MSP: an open source software package to support Maritime Spatial Planning , 2018, PeerJ Comput. Sci..

[51]  Darius J. Semmens,et al.  A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation , 2013 .

[52]  Antonio Di Guardo,et al.  The POPCYCLING Baltic Model: A Non-Steady State Multicompartimental Mass Balance Model of the Fate of Persistent Organic Pollutants in the Baltic Sea Environment , 2000 .

[53]  Michael Elliott,et al.  Marine legislation--the ultimate 'horrendogram': international law, European directives & national implementation. , 2014, Marine pollution bulletin.

[54]  J. Andersen,et al.  Development and testing of a prototype tool for integrated assessment of chemical status in marine environments , 2016, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment.

[55]  Katarina Elofsson Cost-effectiveness of the Baltic Sea Action Plan , 2010 .

[56]  Angel Borja,et al.  Overview of Integrative Assessment of Marine Systems: The Ecosystem Approach in Practice , 2016, Front. Mar. Sci..