Course: Interdisciplinary Project
Students: Rosa Boone (Earth Sciences, 10771891)
Jules Klinkhamer (Human Geography, 10799222) Vivièn Laros (Communication Science, 10741666) Ties Ludden (Human Geography, 10756604) Supervisor: Alison Gilbert
Tutor: Jaap Rothuizen MSc
Date: May 31, 2017
Word count: 7516 words
‘Marine Spatial Planning’: a technocratic instrument or a
process towards collaborative space allocation?
Analysing the potential of extending Marine Spatial Planning to facilitate the sustainable implementation of Tidal Energy
Abstract
Tidal energy is a form of Marine Renewable Energy (MRE) that can generate large amounts of electricity from tidal currents. The Severn Estuary, located on the border of England and Wales, has great potential for the development of a tidal barrage. This requires insights from multiple disciplines and necessitates a tool such as Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) so that conflict between actors can be minimised and marine space can be managed in a sustainable way. The aim of this research is to investigate how the concept of MSP can be extended to facilitate the development of a tidal barrage in the Severn Estuary. However, from this research it becomes clear that not the concept of MSP itself requires extension, but that its practical application can be improved. In order to reach its full potential, MSP should not serve as a technocratic instrument, but rather as a tool for collective decision-making.
Introduction
While the majority of western governments invest in renewables such as wind and solar energy, tidal energy offers a promising alternative providing predictable and large flows of energy (DECC, 2009a; Devine-Wright, 2011), while having a minimal land occupancy and a high longevity of 120 years in comparison to 20 years for a wind farm (Hooper & Austen, 2013; Vazquez & Iglesias, 2015). Tidal energy is a form of Marine Renewable Energy (MRE) that generates electricity from moving tidal currents through submerged turbines or sluices (Rourke, Boyle & Reynolds, 2010).
The UK has the greatest potential for implementation of tidal energy in the EU (Keijser, personal communication, 2017). Specifically, the Severn estuary was chosen as a case study for this project because of its fourteen meter tidal range, the second highest in the world (DECC, 2010). This could provide up to 17 TWh per year, enough energy for 9 million homes in the UK (Ibid.). Moreover, this is an interesting case because it has been a controversial idea since 1989, when it first was proposed by the Severn Tidal Power Group (STPG) (Ahmadian, Olbert, Hartnett & Falconer, 2014). Since the UK has committed itself to the ‘Climate Change Act’, which is a framework facilitating the reduction of emissions (The Climate Change Act, 2008), it aims to increase its share of renewable energy sources in which tidal energy shows great potential providing up to five percent of the total electricity supply (DECC, 2009a; DECC, 2009b; DECC, 2010).
Nonetheless, literature indicates that the environmental and social impacts of tidal energy make its implementation rather difficult (Devine-Wright, 2010; Hooper & Austen, 2013; Kadiri, Ahmadian, Bockelmann-Evans, Falconer & Kay, 2014), dealing with the complexity of the marine system and the involvement of many stakeholders, conflicting jurisdictions, eventually leading to high economic costs (Brennan, Fitzsimmons, Gray & Raggatt, 2014). Therefore, some form of spatial planning is required, integrating all impacts into a solid interdisciplinary proposal in order for the British Government to approve of such a major impact. (e.g. Peel & Lloyd, 2004). To guide conflicting actors - referred to as the ‘marine problem’ - towards consensus, ‘Marine Spatial Planning’ (MSP) is considered to offer a solution to overcome these problems and to strive towards the sea’s full potential (Ehler & Douvere, 2009; Uihlein & Magagna, 2016). MSP is a framework that can be used to divide the sea into spatial (and, if necessary, temporal) zones reserved for the various
socio-economic activities. However, MSP has been criticised for not involving all relevant stakeholders in the organisation of marine space, causing some ‘gaps’ in the decision-making concerning the implementation of tidal energy (e.g. Gazzola, Roe & Cowie, 2015). Hence, it is of great importance to evaluate the framework of MSP in order for it to be effective for the implementation of tidal energy. Therefore, the aim of this interdisciplinary research is to analyse and to give a recommendation to extend the concept of MSP to facilitate the implementation of tidal energy in the Severn Estuary, according to the following research question: ‘How can the concept of Marine Spatial Planning be extended in order to facilitate the implementation of a tidal barrage in the Severn Estuary?’
To answer this question, the most important theoretical insights will be discussed in the first section. In the third section, the research design, the interdisciplinarity of the research is introduced after which the methods will be discussed. The fourth section is setting the scene for the Severn case and in the fifth section the results of the research can be found. Lastly, the results will be discussed, some concluding remarks be will made and recommendations for the Severn case will be given.
Theoretical framework
Tidal energy
A tidal barrage can be described as a dam that is built crosswise in a bay or estuary (Rourke et al., 2010). The tidal range of the locations needs to be over five meters. A single basin system, which is the most common way of a tidal barrage, can be operated in three ways. The first is an ebb-only generation, which lets the basin fill during flood, and when the water behind the basin reaches a sufficient water level, the water is released and flows through the turbines which generates electricity. The second way is a flood generation which closes the basin during flood, and when during ebb the water level has decreased sufficiently, the gates are opened. The last method is a two-way generation which uses both the flood and ebb tides for electricity generation (Ibid.). There is no consensus in the existing literature which form of tidal generation is the most beneficial for the ecosystem in the Severn (Kadiri et al., 2014; Bray, Ahamdian & Falconer, 2016). However, the most recent article about this states that a two-way generation has the least environmental impact (Ahmadian, Falconer, Bockelmann-Evans, 2014), yet the economic costs are higher since the technology is more advanced (Vazquez & Iglesias, 2016). In addition, the expected ecological impacts of tidal energy (namely: eutrophication, potential loss of intertidal habitats and loss of fish and bird species) might cause struggles with local opposition, even though the overall support for this renewable energy source appears to be high (Devine-Wright, 2011a; Devine-Wright, 2011b; Wiersma & Devine-Wright, 2014; Wolsink, 2005; Wolsink, 2007; Wüstenhagen, Wolsink & Bürer, 2007). Consequently, a high ecological impact as well as high public opposition could result in higher economic costs of the tidal barrage in the Severn. The ecological impact could result in high reparation costs such as the creation of fish sluices, sub-tidal sandbanks and freshwater wetlands (DECC, 2010). High public opinion can result in higher costs in finding investments.
Marine Spatial Planning
In 2014, the European Parliament and Council adopted the legislation to create a common framework for MSP in Europe. In 2021, all member states should have established marine plans (The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2014). Although the UK has no successful marine plan yet, the legislative base is established in 2009 through the Marine and Coastal Access Act. MSP is a reaction to the conventional managing strategy of marine activities, which is sectoral, top-down, lacks environmental consideration and is now
seen as a necessary institution among coastal states, policy makers and academics (Jay, 2010). MSP has become important as Blue Growth is a major theme in EU policy: traditional uses are expanding and the seas are increasingly seen as potential areas for interests as diverse as marine renewable energy, ecosystem protection, industry and international trade (Jay, 2010; Douvere, 2010) but also for cross-border cooperation such as pipelines and energy grids (European Commission, 2017a).
Definitions of MSP often only capture the broader concept, but fail explain how MSP can play a role in reaching ecological, economic and social objectives. One definition cited in the EU Directive (2014), which is relevant for the Severn case, is:
“The European Union identifies maritime spatial planning as a cross-cutting policy tool enabling public authorities and stakeholders to apply a coordinated, integrated and trans-boundary approach” (Council Directive 2014/89/EU, p. 1).
However, there are insecurities concerning the economic and ecological domains, and also regarding the social domain. These insecurities will be further explained in the results section.
Research design
To answer the earlier stated research question, there will be a focus on the following sub-questions:
1. What are the main possibilities for the implementation of a tidal barrage in the Severn Estuary?
2. What are the main challenges for the implementation of a tidal barrage in the Severn Estuary?
3. How could MSP enable possibilities and deal with these challenges?
4. What adjustments and extensions can be applied to MSP in order to remove barriers for the implementation of a tidal barrage?
Interdisciplinary approach
The implementation of a tidal barrage in the Severn Estuary can be seen as a complex problem. This is due to three main traits that define the problem. Firstly, the hierarchy and connectivity between and also within the disciplines make the problem complex (Crelis Rammelt, personal communication, February 27, 2017). A multilevel perspective is therefore needed. Secondly, the complexity of this implementation cannot be captured by an individual discipline alone, referred to as observer dependence. Lastly, because of the complexity of the problem, future outcomes of a tidal barrage implementation cannot be predicted. The consequences of the path that has been chosen will be long-term, and if a tidal barrage is realised in the future, the consequences can possibly not be reversed (Ibid.).
Since the implementation of a tidal barrage in the Severn estuary can be seen as a complex development, it is of importance that the main disciplines in this research are combined in an interdisciplinary framework. To do so, several integration techniques need to be considered. The first major driver of this integration of disciplines is the inherent complexity of nature and society (Rutting, Post, de Roo, Blad, & de Greef, 2014). The implementation of a tidal barrage of this size has an impact on the natural as well as societal domains. A natural system is interrupted so that humans can be provided with a renewable energy source. For the British Government to approve of such a major impact, these two opposites need to be integrated into a strong and solid proposal.
To integrate different disciplines, we need a definition of the major characteristics that make a discipline. The five characteristics, which are being used are: the use of concepts, the use of methods, the object of research, the awareness of the problem and the research goal
(van Klink & Taekema, 2009). The first step towards interdisciplinary research is a common one: a shared definition of a problem. In this case the shared problem is the need for renewable energy and, at the same time, the conflicting use of a water body. To improve the interdisciplinary approach of this research, we chose to use shared terms in the field of research. This will be further explained in the methodology section. Marine Spatial Planning can be seen as the result of an interdisciplinary approach to this problem. However, the research that has been completed on this subject still tends to be mainly multidisciplinary, only to be analysed and converted into a framework called MSP. Thus MSP as it is now, should be considered the product of the ‘perspectivistic’ side of interdisciplinary research - integrating an ecological, economic and social domain(Ibid.).
In the end, only when new integrated concepts and methods, shared problem definitions and shared research goals are realised, one could speak of a completely new discipline of research (Van Klink & Taekema, 2009).
Selected method and data
As explained in the theoretical framework, three disciplines are important for understanding the challenges and possibilities for the successful implementation of tidal energy. These disciplines were integrated within the concept of MSP. This interdisciplinary study primarily relied on data published by other researchers that are written interpretations or recordings of their sources, and are thus ‘second hand data’ or secondary data (Walliman, 2011). The literature for the first two sub-questions has been selected in the process of writing the individual literature report per discipline. The literature for the third and fourth sub-questions, however, was derived using a systematic literature search in the electronic database ‘Web of Science’ . The following search words identified 12 studies:
‘TOPIC: (marine AND spatial AND planning) AND TOPIC: (tidal energy OR renewable* OR sustainab*) AND TOPIC: (stakeholder participation)’
The search term ‘marine’ was used instead of ‘maritime’ as the results did not differ and there is no commonly approved definition or consistently used term despite ongoing academic discussions (e.g. Gazzola et al., 2015). The resulting studies were briefly analysed in order to verify their relevance for the third and the fourth sub-questions. Studies in which MSP was not a central theory, were not selected. Ten studies were indicated as irrelevant for this study and twelve studies remained. Relevant articles that were initially ‘missed’ with this literature
search were still included using the ‘backwarding’ method, which uses the studies that are cited in the already identified studies. Using this method, an addition of three studies were provided. Also, with the method of ‘forwarding’, which consists of the analysis of studies that cited the selected literature, one study was added. Consequently, the sixteen articles have been analysed.
For this interdisciplinary study, the literature has been analysed and primary data was used to answer the interdisciplinary research question. A major drawback of using secondary information is related to the usefulness of the data as it might be gathered for other purposes and is therefore not completely accurate enough (Walliman, 2011). Supplementary, primary data was also used. This data is ‘first hand data’ gathered by the researchers themselves (Ibid.). In this study, interviews have been conducted with experts. For the social discipline within the research, an interview with the expert Maarten Wolsink has been conducted on the 10th of April, 2017. The transcript of the interview with Maarten Wolsink can be viewed in Appendix E on page 54. For the economic and ecological discipline of the study, the tidal turbine test site of the Dutch company Tocardo was visited and the director of the company ‘Tocardo’ Sjoerd Keijser (CCO) has provided a guided tour on the 11th of April, 2017.
Results
In this subsection, respectively the case of the Severn, the definition of MSP and the four sub questions will be discussed. The first two sub questions will be discussed per discipline, which makes it multidisciplinary. The last two sub questions will be discussed using an interdisciplinary approach.
Setting the scene Case
The river Severn is the longest river in the UK, which eventually flows into the Severn Estuary. This connects it to the Bristol Channel where the water flows into the Atlantic Ocean. The Estuary is known for its high tidal range (Ahmadian et al., 2014). It is is situated in the Southwest of the UK as shown in figure 1. All the rivers that mount into the estuary add large amounts of sediments to the area, and a large part of these deposited sediments form mudflats. These mudflats create intertidal and saltmarsh habitats which sustain important ecosystems. This gives the Severn Estuary an important ecological status (Thomas, Pidgeon, Whitmarsh & Ballinger, 2015; Bray et al., 2016). Because of its high tidal range, it is an interesting site for the implementation of marine renewable energy projects, and several tidal energy projects have already been proposed and considered by the UK government (Ahmadian et al., 2014). One of the most popular proposed tidal energy projects is a tidal barrage between Cardiff and Weston (see figure 2), also known as the Severn Barrage (Ibid.). The tidal barrage was originally proposed by the Severn Tidal Power Group (STPG) in 1989 and would have used an ebb-tide only generation. However, the project was turned down because of the ecological impact it would cause and because it turned out not to be economically profitable given the energy situation in the 1980’s. More recently, there has been growing interest in the tidal barrage again. This is due to the growing awareness around climate change and rising fossil fuel prices. In 2007 the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) ordered the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) to write a report on the possibilities of the development of the UK’s tidal energy resources in relation to the UK Renewable Energy Strategy. They concluded that it could play a big role in meeting the Kyoto targets of 2020 and 2050 (National Assembly for Wales, 2010).
Figure 2. Map of the Severn Estuary and Bristol Channel area (Xia, Falconer & Lin, 2010, p. 87).
Legislation
The ‘Marine and Coastal Access Act’, which was implemented in 2009, sets out a framework that necessitates the UK government to use an evidence-based marine spatial plan in order to manage the marine area sustainably (Prior & Seaton, 2016). Furthermore, it places a duty on all relevant governments to publish ‘Statements of Public Participation’ (SPP) prior to the start of the actual process of marine planning. Consequently, governments need to point out how relevant stakeholders could be included in the planning- and development process. If governments do not adhere to the legislation, there will be enforcements, as stated in part eight, chapter two (Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009).
As the Severn Estuary is located on the border of England and Wales, both have to be included in the development of regulation for the Severn Estuary. The Welsh government has introduced overarching legislation for all their surface waters through the Wales National Marine Plan, both inshore and offshore. The Welsh Ministers form the planning authority (Welsh National Marine Plan, 2015). In 2011, the Welsh government started to discuss marine planning, which led to a draft version of the plan in 2015 (Prior & Seaton, 2016). The aim of the (draft) plan is to ensure healthy and resilient Welsh seas in order to support a sustainable economy. However, the actual plan is yet to be published. England, on the other
hand, has developed separate plans for eleven districts. Here, the Marine Management Organization (MMO) is established and serves as the main planning authority with the responsibility for all marine plans (Fatima, 2016; Prior & Seaton, 2016). Taking into account the multiple uses of the estuary and the upcoming of marine planning, a regional planning organization is desirable. As early as in 1995, the Severn Estuary Partnership was established and this independent organisation takes a holistic approach towards the “sustainable planning, management and development of the estuary’’ (Ballinger & Stojanovic, 2010) and works with local and national stakeholders. All marine plans that are being developed in the UK are in correspondence with the ‘Maritime Spatial Planning Directive’, which was adopted in 2014 by all EU member states (Prior & Seaton, 2016) (see figure 3 for an overview of relevant legislations).
Figure 3: Developments in British and Welsh Marine Legislation (for further explanation see Appendix D on page 51)
Defining ‘Marine Spatial Planning’
A variety of definitions were found in the analysed literature (see appendix C on page 45). First of all, MSP is considered a process (Agostini et al., 2015; Ehler & Douvere, 2009; Smythe, 2017), an approach (Reilly, O’Hagan & Dalton, 2016; Olsen et al., 2014), a tool (Calado et al., 2011; De Santo, 2011; Nutters & Pinto da Silva, 2012), or providing a framework (Ibid.) for (improved) decision-making (Ibid.). In particular, it is important to note that MSP is not considered to be an outcome (e.g. Smythe, 2017). Second, MSP is considered
a way of managing marine space in order to facilitate coexistence of existing or future (conflicting) marine uses or objectives (Agostini et al., 2015; Calado et al., 2011; De Santo, 2011; Ehler & Douvere, 2009; Nutters & Pinto da Silva, 2012; Reilly et al., 2016; Smythe, 2017; Olsen et al., 2014). Additionally, literature shows that MSP is considered important for the sustainable use of marine space and regulating the impact of humans on the marine environment (Calado et al., 2011; De Santo, 2011; Reilly et al., 2016; Smythe, 2017; Olsen et al., 2014), or simply to achieve certain ecological, economic, and social objectives (Ehler & Douvere, 2009; Smythe, 2017). Fourth, the participation of relevant stakeholders in the (decision-making) process of MSP is considered relevant by some authors (Ehler & Douvere, 2009; Nutters & Pinto da Silva, 2012).
Possibilities for the implementation of tidal energy
In this section, we discuss the possibilities of tidal energy. From the ecological and economic perspective it explains how tidal energy influences aspects from these disciplines and regarding the social perspective it explains how social institutions facilitate tidal energy. This different approach is used because it is unfeasible to discuss the impacts of tidal energy on the social sphere.
Ecology
Renewable marine energy forms can have impacts on the marine environment (Boehlert & Gill, 2010). However, in contrast to the fact that an implementation of tidal energy will cause harm to the environment, it can also be beneficial for the environment. The most important benefit for the environment would be a reduced flood risk for the entire estuary. The tidal barrage will act as a protection against extreme cases of enhanced tidal levels and the possibility of a sea level rise (Xia, Falconer & Lin, 2010). Another beneficial impact is the enhancement of species that live on the bottom of the seabed (benthos). This increase is caused due to the replacement of the hard rocky seabeds with a softer sedimented sub-tidal area. The softer sediment can precipitate on the seabed because of the reduced tidal currents (Warwick & Somerfield, 2010). The enhancement could have a positive side effect on the bird species that have their habitat in the estuary. Besides these positive impacts, it is also possible to compensate for one of the negative impacts a tidal barrage can have. Artificial mudflats can be created to compensate for the loss of intertidal habitats. With this, the implementation of tidal energy causes less harm to the ecology of the Severn (DECC, 2010).
Economy
The Severn Tidal Power Feasibility Study (STPFS), the leading research project conducted in name of the UK government, projected the capital costs of the tidal barrage in the Severn to be between 22.5 and 23.8 billion GBP. The operational costs of the tidal barrage are estimated at 276 million GBP yearly (DECC, 2010). The specific tidal barrage between Cardiff and Weston has been proposed because of the option to generate power through turbines in the deep parts of the estuary and through sluices in the more shallow parts (Ibid). In this way, the highest range of possible yield of 15 up to 17 TWh/year (Xia, Falconer, Lin, & Tan, 2012), can be reached which could provide electricity for 9 million homes in the UK. The LCoE for the Cardiff Tidal Lagoon are therefore projected to be between 156 and 169 GBP per MWh (DECC, 2010). These relative costs are higher yet more stable in comparison with offshore wind farms. The LCoE of wind farms built in 2016 vary between 70 GBP and 210 GBP (Ioannou, Angus, & Brennan, 2017).
Implementation and stakeholder involvement
Marine activity has rapidly increased in the past decades, and hence management and coordination have grown the marine environment. However, the long-standing questions of who owns what part of the sea, who owns resources, who is responsible for marine environmental quality and how marine space should be organized, remain relevant.
In the case of the UK, The Crown Estate plays a major role in the development of MRE such as tidal energy in the UK as it has a monopoly over the marine environment and grants the rights for such renewable developments (The Crown Estate, 2016). The institutional system in the UK allows a relatively easy implementation of tidal energy in comparison to other countries, because its entire seabed only has this one owner (M. Wolsink, personal communication, April 10, 2017).
In addition, stakeholder involvement is a possibility, especially since it has become a component of EU legislation (see table in Appendix D on page 51). The regulation following the Marine and Coastal Access Act for instance, stress the importance of a participatory approach during the development phase of large projects. This shift towards more public consultation in, amongst others, MRE projects is promising.
Challenges for the implementation of tidal energy Ecological impacts
An abstract way to explain the impact of tidal energy in the Severn on the ecology, is that when you take energy from an area for human use, less energy is left over for the surrounding environment (van de Molen, Ruardij & Greenwood, 2016). The ecology in the Severn can be harmed by this decrease in energy. A reduction in tidal flushing for example, could lead to a higher risk of eutrophication in the enclosed basin. This is the result of a longer residence time of the water that flows in the area behind the barrage towards the land. Normally, the high turbidity of the estuary would prevent eutrophication by flushing the high nutrient load, but with a barrage in the estuary, this effect is lessened (Kadiri et al., 2014). Another negative impact is the possible loss of the intertidal zones. The intertidal mudflats are of importance to the ecosystem of the Severn. First of all, the Silica cycle of the ecosystem is dependent of the mudflats. Silica is the main element for some of the organisms that live in the estuary (Welsby, Hendry & Perkins, 2016). Second, the mudflats are a food source for seasonal birds. The loss of the zones will mean a reduction in population of these birds (Bray et al., 2016). However, as described in the section above, this loss could be compensated with the artificial creation of mudflats (DECC, 2010).
Furthermore, the construction itself will also be harmful for the birds. Habitat will be lost, and the birds will have to re-establish themselves in closest habitat available. This will eventually result in an increase of bird population in that area, which will also put pressure on the available food sources (Burton, Musgrove, Rehfisch & Clark, 2010). In addition to loss of bird species, there will also be loss of fish species. Fish can be injured or possibly be killed by blade strikes caused by passing through the turbines (DECC, 2010). All these negative impacts can be seen as constraints of implementing a tidal barrage in the Severn.
Direct and indirect economic costs
The economic challenges can be split into direct barriers and indirect barriers. Because of the large barrage of the estuary, accessibility of the ports of Cardiff, Bristol, Newport and Sharpness shall decrease (Vazquez & Iglesias, 2015). Absolute losses could be as high as 600 million GBP considering recent investments in The Bristol Port (DECC, 2010). Tourism could go both ways since the tidal range will stabilize. Some beaches will vanish while the quieter water allows boat clubs to be started (Ibid.). Lastly, waste disposal plants must alter their discharges because of the change in the tidal range. A detailed overview of all socio-economic costs can be found in the ‘STPFS’ (DECC, 2010). Other direct challenges lay in
the financing of the barrage. Although tidal energy can be seen as a stable and renewable energy source, the scale of the project turns off investors. Therefore, the project relies largely on public funding which could encourage public resistance.
To minimize the environmental losses, various efforts can be made. Barriers in the barrage can be taken away, fish sluices can be made and freshwater wetlands or sub-tidal sandbanks can be created to give the damaged ecosystem a push in the right direction (Ibid.). These costs vary between 500 million to 1.5 billion GBP as the level of compensation for habitat losses depend on government decisions.
Implementation and stakeholder involvement
A significant barrier to the implementation of tidal energy is considered to be a low level of social acceptance (Wolsink, 2012; Wüstenhagen et al., 2007). Even though a high level of public support towards tidal energy and other renewables is observed before the actual siting phase, its development often struggles with local opposition or a low level of community acceptance (Devine-Wright, 2011a; Devine-Wright, 2011b; Wiersma & Devine-Wright, 2014; Wolsink, 2005; Wolsink, 2007; Wüstenhagen et al., 2007). The full potential of the development of a tidal barrage could be partially realised by bridging this social gap in community acceptance (Bonar, Bryden, Borthwick, 2015). This concept is defined as the acceptance of local citizens or stakeholders towards siting decisions in which fairness and trust are especially important (Wolsink, 2012; Wüstenhagen et al., 2007). Communities especially feel like they are not able to participate in the planning and decision-making process, referred to as procedural justice (Tyler, 2003; Wolsink, 2007). Specifically countries that consult communities after the location(s) for tidal barrages are already selected, deal with local opposition as they present a narrow frame for the procedure of decision-making in which communities are not able to participate (Wolsink, 2012). In addition, public attachment or the symbolic meaning that is attributed by communities to certain places needs to be taken into account. One solution to the relatively low levels of community acceptance could be the involvement of relevant stakeholders in the early phases of planning and decision-making (Bonar, Bryden & Borthwick, 2015; Reilly et al., 2016; Wolsink, 2012). A more open and collaborative approach in the implementation of tidal barrages could enhance perceived justice and the trust of relevant stakeholders, thereby enhancing the development of tidal energy (e.g. Devine-Wright, 2010; Wolsink, 2007; Wolsink, 2010; Wolsink, 2012; Wolsink, 2013).
Furthermore, the interrelatedness of community acceptance with the other two dimensions of social acceptance - socio-political acceptance and market acceptance - need to be taken into account as they all can provide barriers for the development of tidal barrages (M. Wolsink, personal communication, April 10, 2017; Wüstenhagen et al., 2007). Respectively, they are related to the acceptance or disapproval of policies that could create favourable conditions for the other two dimensions, and the willingness of stakeholders to support or invest in new developments such as tidal energy (Wolsink, 2012; Wüstenhagen et al., 2007) The bottleneck is ‘located’ in the socio-political dimension, which frequently provides barriers for the developments of tidal barrages in the new system, referred to as ‘institutional lock-ins’ (Unruh, 2002; Wolsink, 2012). These lock-ins arise from the use of policies that are built on legal frameworks from the past and are therefore not able to deal with developments in the upcoming system (Ibid.). Additionally, as noted by Maarten Wolsink, the innovation that is needed for the successful implementation of tidal energy requires more than just the attempts to implement new techniques (personal communication, April 10, 2017):
“If you want to come out of those institutional lock-ins, then you have to look at socio-political acceptance. … Innovation is not just a new technique instead of an old technique. No, totally another organisation. However, it is difficult and we do not know exactly how. But we do know that it should not be the way we do it now. Because then we will not figure it out. And that is exactly what is happening in most countries in policy. Attempts to adapt to new techniques into an existing system without fundamentally changing the existing system will not work. And it is only a transition if the last one is going to succeed. In order for that to happen, you need an incredible amount of socio-political change that also needs to be accepted by the community.”
It is argued that stakeholder empowerment is an important point of improvement in the current MSP regime (Pomeroy & Douvere, 2008; Ehlers & Douvere, 2009; Walton, Gomei & Di Carlo, 2013; Reed, 2008). This empowerment comes in two forms: stakeholders should be able to actually influence the decision (Pomeroy & Douvere, 2008) and they should have the technical capability to intellectually participate (Reed, 2008). This can be done through, for instance, environmental education, financial support for professional guidance of stakeholders and capacity development. Reed (2008) argues that the participation itself enhances capacity development through collaboration with researchers and other elites, and thus promotes empowerment. The continuous involvement of stakeholders in different phases “including the planning, plan evaluation, implementation and post-implementation phase”
(Pomeroy & Douvere, 2008, p. 822) is also significant. Now, it is often still limited to the public commenting on an already existing plan.
Assigning MSP to the possibilities and challenges of tidal energy
In this section, MSP will be discussed to determine how this framework enables the earlier discussed possibilities and deals with the challenges for the implementation of tidal energy. Hence, the potential of the framework will be identified and analysed with the focus on the case of the Severn estuary. Resulting from the previous two sections, five key principles regarding the possibilities of MSP to enhance the implementation of tidal energy on an ecological, economic and social level were identified. These are: (1) ecosystem-based, (2) process facilitation, (3) efficiency, (4) certainty, (5) stakeholder participation and empowerment.
(1) MSP is an ecosystem-based approach (e.g. Pomeroy & Douvere, 2008; Ehler & Douvere, 2009; De Santo, 2011; Soma et al., 2014; Ritchie & Ellis, 2010), which can be beneficial for the ecological, economic and the social facets of the implementation of tidal energy, by balancing the goals of the three facets (Soma et al., 2014). The ecosystem-based approach offers an effective protection for the marine environments (e.g. Ritchie & Ellis, 2010). Moreover, the ecosystem based approach supports the ideas from the sustainable economy discourse. Since vulnerable sections in the ecosystem will be protected from economic activities, the long term economic profitability of the system stays healthy (e.g. Ehler & Douvere, 2009). By protecting the marine environments, MSP sustains the benefits of the ecological goods and services for the society (e.g. Pomeroy & Douvere, 2008). Lastly, the fact that the ecosystem is central in MSP could improve the public opinion since a significant part of the opposition movement brings the harm to ecology as their main argument (e.g. Douvere & Ehler, 2009).
(2) As the implementation of tidal energy has to overcome conflicts between stakeholders and legislations, some form of spatial planning is needed. The MSP framework offers opportunities to facilitate the coexistence or even the resolution of conflicting stakeholder and uses (Agostini et al., 2015; European Commission, 2017a; De Santo, 2011; Olsen et al., 2014; Reilly et al., 2016; Smythe, 2017; Soma et al, 2014; Ehler & Douvere, 2009), while facilitating stakeholder involvement, and thus the planning- and development process through more complete information (Reed, 2008). Also, horizontal and vertical integration are required and important to manage spatial conflicts and MSP adopts these forms of integration (Soma et al, 2014). Vertical integration refers to the coordination
between different levels of government and horizontal integration to the integration of different sectors (Smythe, 2017; Olsen et al, 2014; soma et al., 2014). MSP could also enhance understanding of issues and generate solutions that the individual may not think of (Pomeroy & Douvere, 2008). In addition, MSP facilitates a sustainable and long-term profitable economy discourse that has emerged over the past decades (Ehler & Douvere, 2009).
(3) By considering different scenarios and tradeoffs, MSP could be considered a tool to meet different ecological, economic and social objectives, while finding the most efficient solution (Agostini et al., 2015; Smythe, 2017). First, this efficiency can be found in economy. Because MSP is about space allocation, marine resources can be utilised in a sustainable way, as activities can take place where they generate the most value and minimally impede value generation of other activities (DECC, 2010). Second, efficiency can be found in the improved opportunities for stakeholders to participate in the planning process, which avoids conflicts and opposition from communities during the process of implementation (e.g. Devine-Wright, 2010; Wolsink, 2007; Wolsink, 2010; Wolsink, 2012; Wolsink, 2013).
(4) Additionally, MSP could provide greater economic certainty and transparency in the development of a sustainable infrastructure project (Ehler & Douvere, 2009). Since the framework of MSP is built on legally binding Marine Acts (see appendix D, page 51), it will improve certainty of access to desirable areas for the respective users of the Severn (Ehler & Douvere, 2009). Furthermore, MSP gives greater certainty in how to mediate the conflicts that arise in the stakeholder dialogue. Therefore, stakeholders are more certain about the possible outcomes of the process (Ritchie & Ellis, 2010). This could improve the acquirement of possible investors in order to implement a tidal barrage in the Severn (DECC, 2010).
(5) The MSP framework offers opportunities for people to participate, communicate and work together in the decision-making process (Ehler & Douvere, 2007; Ehler & Douvere, 2009; Reilly et al., 2016; Olsen et al, 2014). Especially since EU legislations stress the importance of stakeholder participation. At the same time, MSP could empower citizens, or NGOs on their behalf, to intervene and to participate in the MSP process (De Santo, 2011; Reilly et al., 2016). Furthermore, MSP offers an integrated approach to overcome the fragmentation of existing ocean governance (Smythe, 2017).
Extending MSP
In this section, the framework of MSP will be criticised according to the adjustments that can be applied to MSP in order to remove barriers for the implementation of a tidal barrage. Furthermore, the potential of extending the concept will be examined. The terms defined in the previous section will be used as starting points. Afterwards, some recommendations will be given for the Severn case.
Even though MSP is considered to be important for the large-scale implementation of tidal energy (Flannery et al., 2016) and essential to the “biological integrity of the marine ecosystem” (Peel & LIoyd, 2004, p. 366), the practical application of this framework is criticised on some points. First, we argue that vertical and horizontal integration can be improved. Regarding vertical integration, one should take into account that integration sometimes means that context specific knowledge is not considered (Saunders et al., 2016). And as this context or area specific knowledge is which leads to good decisions (Scott, 2002). Therefore, vertical integration should work bottom-up, so that stakeholder participation is not undermined. The challenge is to find vertical integration while also enabling adaptive management (Saunders et al., 2016). Concerning horizontal integration, regional forum and coordination is important to impede users of marine space of competing, now and in the future (Ibid.). A general challenge is to create integrated legislation. Until now, the main barrier for integration has been the sectorial legislation and management (Soma et al., 2014).
Second, in the MSP process efficiency can be achieved by targeting management objectives and goals at least costs (Soma et al. 2014). Nonetheless, in practise the process can be biased towards more powerful stakeholders. If weaker sectors are not empowered, the more powerful sectors will be favoured, which could lead to less efficiency (Brennan et al., 2014). Efficiency of the MSP process can be improved by evaluation. However, there is currently not much knowledge of the evaluation process in MSP due to the low practical experience and low priority. Nonetheless, Carneiro (2013) assumes that the earlier an evaluation is done, the more information can be contributed to the MSP process, which could minimise the often heavy transaction costs (Saunders et al., 2016). Furthermore, as argued by Jarvis, Breen, Krägeloh & Billington (2015), citizen science - data collection by trained citizen scientists - could provide valuable insights in areas of good and poor environmental health, and subsequently potential sites for tidal energy, information that would be rather difficult to collect otherwise due to limited time and resources.
Third, MSP should be seen as a zero sum game, not a win-win situation (Brennan et al., 2014). Hence, the outcome of the economic decisions in the MSP process has to be
recognised as fair by all economic actors in practise. This could provoke discussion since chances are that multiple stakeholders pursue the same area in the limited space available. Objectivity in decision-making and evaluation are, thus, essential in the framework. Evaluation of MSP must therefore focus on: effectiveness of actually achieving management goals, efficiency of achieving the goals at least cost, but foremost on the equity (who wins, who loses) (Brennan et al., 2014; Carniero, 2013). On the one hand, inequity in the process could be harmful for weaker stakeholders such as inshore fishers (Qiu & Jones, 2013). On the other hand MSP could be the helping hand for weaker stakeholders to obtain publicity for previous injustices they had experienced (Brennan et al., 2014).
Fourth, MSP fails to fully integrate stakeholder involvement due to the practical implications that come with the process (Reilly et al., 2016), affecting the economic funds available for tidal energy (Brennen et al., 2014), and indirectly the successful application of tidal barrages (e.g. Gazzola et al., 2015). Although stakeholders are usually informed and consulted in the planning process of large developments, the final stage, namely involvement (Reilly et al., 2016), is often not reached. A shift towards better consultation and/or involved rather than solely informed or consulted stakeholders may be realised by engaging stakeholder from an early point in the process (Pomeroy & Douvere, 2008; Agostini et al., 2015). Stakeholder involvement should take place in all stages of the process, “including the planning, plan evaluation, implementation and post-implementation phase” (Pomeroy & Douvere, 2008, p. 822) so that better understanding can lead to more trust in officials, perceived fairness, and thus acceptance (Carniero, 2013; Wolsink, 2007; M. Wolsink, personal communication, April 10, 2017). It is often still limited to the public commenting on an already existing plan. In order to identify all relevant stakeholders, a stakeholder analysis needs to be done beforehand (Nutters & Pinto da Silva, 2012; Reilly et al., 2016). A way to facilitate stakeholder involvement, is to present the results of a stakeholder analysis in a matrix, which maps out the information necessary for identifying which stakeholders are doing what, and how important the stakeholders are for the process (Pomeroy & Douvere, 2008).
Also, stakeholders should be (more) empowered, so that they are capable, technically and intellectually and socially to participate and to represent their stake effectively (Pomeroy & Douvere, 2008; Ehler & Douvere, 2009; Nutter & da Silva, 2012; Walton et al., 2013; Reed, 2008). If the public is informed and better educated, the chance that they accept large public spending by the government will increase. Furthermore, there is a chance that stakeholder processes become ‘one-sided’, because the meetings are often more open for the
privileged with more resources and time, is reduced (Nutters & da Silva, 2012). Especially NGOs can play a key role in this, since they specialise in the translation from science to public (Calado et al., 2012). We propose the expansive use of environmental education by organising workshops, capacity development and (financial support for) professional guidance of stakeholders (e.g. Nutters & Da Silva, 2012). However, in the interview with Wolsink (2017), he states that if stakeholders cannot participate enough, this will lead to public resistance, plans might are discarded or bad decisions are made. This means that stakeholders should not be underestimated. In addition, we argue that the MSP framework should adopt tools to a larger extent for picking the ‘best’ plan. Examples are participatory mapping and preference ranking (Reed, 2008) and stakeholder guidance of mediators that neutrally handle group dynamics (Chess & Purcell, 1999). This will avoid ‘dysfunctional consensus’ in which less powerful stakeholders agree with a plan without actually supporting it (Cooke, 2001).
Another point of critique is that MSP is considered to be more ‘top-down’ - by only including officials in decision-making - than bottom-up, which includes other relevant parties as well (Jay, 2010). If decisions are top-down, there is often enough resistance by stakeholders or within society to counteract. This power in the form of public resistance is illustrated through the following quote (M. Wolsink, personal communication, April 10, 2017):
“The tricky thing is that top-down planning, which is naturally done by stakeholders who think they are the most powerful. And then, if you do not include the other stakeholders, it appears that there are enough obstacles in the rest of society - not always, but often. Hitting the brake means that nothing is going to happen [...]. That generates opposition and that almost always leads to failures. And if it does works out, they [the decisions] eventually seems to be not that good.”
It is therefore important that MSP also includes a more bottom-up approach.
Recommendations for the Severn
Due to the fact that a tidal barrage in the Severn Estuary has not yet been implemented, no remarks can be made about the process itself, but it is possible to give some recommendations based on the findings in section four.
The vertical integration is illustrated by the translation of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive into the UK the Marine and Coastal Access Act (see Appendix D on
page 51). Moreover, the EU goals of the Water Framework Directive are captured in regional goals of eight river basins, in this case the Severn River Basin District. NGOs can play a significant role in vertical integration, as their role is to facilitate communication and coordination between governments and educate the public and stakeholders (Calado et al, 2012). A central government body is needed to coordinate the larger MSP process. In the UK, the MMO executes this role. For the development of the implementation of tidal energy in the Severn Estuary, a cross-border co-operation between the MMO and the Welsh Government is needed (Prior & Seaton, 2016). At the regional level, a mechanism that stimulates horizontal and vertical integration already exists. This is the Severn Estuary Partnership (SEP). The SEP is an autonomous corporation that connects local and national stakeholders, and stimulates them to find a sustainable way of planning, managing and developing all the activities in the Severn Estuary.
Even though no specific recommendations can be made regarding ‘efficiency’ and ‘certainty’, a stakeholder analysis and more participation could enhance both. Furthermore, enhanced vertical and horizontal integration could enhance efficiency by facilitating communication and coordination between all actors, thus accelerating the process, and provide more certainty for investors.
Stakeholder participation should be initiated from an earlier point in the process, and should take place in all stages. To do this, a stakeholder analysis beforehand is recommended for all stakeholders that are included for the Severn barrage. Stakeholders identified in this research are listed in Appendix A (p. 38), which could partly be of use in the MSP process.
Discussion
The analysis of the first sub-question has shown that it is technically safe to say that tidal energy is a promising and upcoming addition for conventional renewables. First and foremost, the barrage in the Severn would generate a major share of renewable energy in the UK. A yearly 17 TWh could provide 5 percent of the UK energy demand with clean and stable energy. Since tides are very much predictable, the energy output as well as the price will be stable and could therefore be called safe. More indirect possibilities for the tidal barrage are: the reduced flood risk in the area and the creation of jobs in the implementation process.
From the second sub-question, however, it becomes clear that there are constraints too. A tidal barrage is likely to cause a change in biodiversity. Different species will live in the estuary and a decrease in bird and fish populations can be expected. Other challenges are the large construction costs and possible decreased accessibility to ports. Also, social acceptance appears to be low and stakeholder empowerment forms a challenge.
The third sub-question has shown that the framework of MSP could help enable these possibilities and deal with these challenges, summarized in the following five key principles: (1) ecosystem-based, (2) process facilitation, (3) efficiency, (4) certainty, (5) stakeholder participation and empowerment.
However, when discussing the fourth sub-question it becomes clear that MSP is not necessarily failing, but its practical application is. As stated in the theoretical framework, MSP is considered as a tool for “enabling public authorities and stakeholders to apply a coordinated, integrated and transboundary approach” (Council Directive 2014/89/EU, p. 1). Thus, the practical application differs from the definition of the concept, resulting in the conclusion that it is not required to extend the concept itself, but that an improvement is needed in the process of stakeholder involvement in order to enhance the application of tidal barrages. MSP may be contested because it is sometimes used as a technocratic instrument
rather than a tool for participative decision-making. Although the general purpose of MSP is to collectively discuss the allocation of marine space so that the sea can be used to its full potential, this might often not be the case. Instead, it may function as a ‘political cloak’ through which already developed plans can be pushed through with in disguise of stakeholder consultation.
Therefore, legislation needs to adapt to new developments and policy makers should use MSP as a tool for collaborative decision making. In practice, there is a need for two-way communication with all relevant stakeholders, that are able to actively participate in an early stage and are not just consulted, for which they need to be empowered in order to effectively represent their stake. Therefore, it is important that all relevant stakeholders are identified beforehand, and a foundation of transnational legislation that effectively supports the framework of MSP is developed.
Regarding the Severn case there is a need of more vertical and horizontal integration, a more active role for non-governmental organisations, a cross-border co-operation between the MMO and the Welsh Government, more (and earlier) stakeholder participation, and a stakeholder analysis beforehand (see Appendix D on page 51). In this report, we have argued that stakeholder participation is of great importance. We want to note, however, that letting all stakeholders participate might cause a ‘public paradox’. As argued by De Santo (2011): “The greater the number of actors, the smaller the role each plays, and the lesser the importance of each sector” (p. 38). It could well be the case that there generally is common ground regarding the concept of MSP, but that different stakeholders put an emphasis on what they think is important.
Conclusion
The aim of this interdisciplinary project was to analyse MSP and to give a recommendation to extend the concept in order facilitate the implementation of tidal energy in the Severn Estuary, according to the following research question: ‘How can the concept of Marine Spatial Planning be extended in order to facilitate the implementation of tidal barrage in the Severn Estuary?’ Based on a (primarily) systematic literature review, the main conclusion of this study is that the concept of MSP itself does not necessarily require extension, but the practical application does. We identified five, interdisciplinary key terms that are essential to the success of MSP: (1) ecosystem-based, (2) process facilitation, (3) efficiency, (4) certainty, (5) stakeholder participation and empowerment - as a result of a multidisciplinary research.
Regarding the used methods, it is important to note that the search terms used for the systematic literature search might not have ‘captured’ all relevant literature. Even though the ‘forwarding’ and ‘backwarding’ methods provided some additional articles that were also relevant, both methods are selective and might have caused some bias in the analysis. Furthermore, no remarks could be made about the process itself based on secondary data. Therefore, future research should include primary data by visiting the case site and, for example, make a more detailed stakeholder analysis. If research would be done in the case area, it is possible to communicate with the stakeholders in order to make a more realistic analysis. All relevant stakeholders can be identified and there can be a discussion about the importance of each stakeholder in the dialogue. In this research, implementation of other studies has shown to be difficult because there was mainly access to secondary data.
In this report, we started with multidisciplinary research and with the identification of the five key terms and the use of a method that originates from a social discipline for the whole project, we aimed at interdisciplinarity. These terms combine related aspects of multiple disciplines. This illustrated that there are similar goals in the different disciplines. It is discussable whether this made the research interdisciplinary or not. Ultimately, we have not extended MSP but we have pointed out how it is currently not optimally used, which might have been concluded from multidisciplinary research too.
These limitation notwithstanding, this report has shown how relations between disciplines can be captured in new overarching terms, which could function as a base for future (interdisciplinary) research. Furthermore, this report has highlighted that although there is general support for MSP there is room for improvement regarding its practical capability.
Literature
Agardy, T., Di Sciara, G. N., & Christie, P. (2011). Mind the gap: addressing the shortcomings of marine protected areas through large scale marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 35(2), pp. 226-232.
Agostini, V. N., Margles, S. W., Knowles, J. K., Schill, S. R., Bovino, R. J., & Blyther, R. J. (2015). Marine zoning in St. Kitts and Nevis: a design for sustainable management in the Caribbean. Ocean & Coastal Management, 104, pp. 1-10.
Ahmadian, R., Olbert, A. I., Hartnett, M., & Falconer, R. A. (2014). Sea level rise in the Severn Estuary and Bristol Channel and impacts of a Severn Barrage. Computers & Geosciences, 66, pp. 94-105.
Ahmadian, Falconer & Bockelmann-Evans. (2014). Comparison of hydro-environmental impacts for ebb-only and two-way generation for a Severn Barrage. Computers & Geosciences, 66, pp. 11-19
Aitken, M. (2010). Why we still don’t understand the social aspects of wind power: A critique of key assumptions within the literature. Energy Policy, 38(4), pp. 1834-1841.
Ballinger, R., Marsh, C., Morgan, R., Owen, G., Parker, P., Perkins, R., … Thrupp, T. (2011). State of the Severn Estuary report: An initial overview of the Estuary’s use and features. The Severn Estuary Partnership: Cardiff.
Ballinger, R., & Stojanovic, T. (2010). Policy development and the estuary environment: a Severn Estuary case study. Marine pollution bulletin, 61(1), pp. 132-145.
Boehlert, G. W., & Gill, A. B. (2010). Environmental and ecological effects of ocean renewable energy development: a current synthesis. Oceanography, 2(23). pp. 68 – 81.
Bonar, P. A., Bryden, I. G., & Borthwick, A. G. (2015). Social and ecological impacts of marine energy development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 47, pp. 486-495.
Brennan, J., Fitzsimmons, C., Gray, T., & Raggatt, L. (2014). EU marine strategy framework directive (MSFD) and marine spatial planning (MSP): Which is more dominant and practicable contributor to maritime policy in the UK? Marine Policy, 43, pp. 359-366.
Bray, S., Ahmadian, R., & Falconer, R. A. (2016). Impact of representation of hydraulic structures in modelling a Severn barrage. Computers & Geosciences, 89, pp. 96-106.
Burton, N. H. K., Musgrove, A. J., Rehfisch, M. M., Clark, N. A. (2010). Birds of the Severn Estuary and Bristol Channel: Their current status and key environmental issues. Elsevier: Marine Pollution Bulletin, (61), pp. 115-123.
Calado, H., Bentz, J., Ng, K., Zivian, A., Schaefer, N., Pringle, C., Johnson, D., Philips, M. (2012). NGO involvement in marine spatial planning: a way forward? Marine Policy, 36, pp. 382-388.
Calado, H., & Bentz, J. (2013) The Portuguese maritime spatial plan. Marine Policy, 42, pp. 325-333.
Carneiro, G. (2013). Evaluation of marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 37, pp. 214-229.
Christie, N., Smyth, K., Barnes, R., & Elliott, M. (2014). Co-location of activities and designations: A means of solving or creating problems in marine spatial planning?. Marine Policy, 43, pp. 254-261.
Climate Change Act. (2008). Derived on May 29, 2017, from:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/pdfs/ukpga_20080027_en.pdf
Cooke, B., (2001). The Social Psychological Limits of Participation. Manchester University
Condliffe, J. (2016, September 13). Scotland waves hello to the World’s first tidal power farm. MIT technology review. Retrieved on February 28, 2017, from: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602360/scotland-waves-hello-to-the-worlds-first-tidal-power-farm/
Department for energy and climate change (2009a). DECC: the road to Copenhagen: The UK Government’s case for an ambitious international agreement on climate change. Retrieved on March 8, 2017, from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228771/7659.p df
Department for energy and climate change (2009b). The UK low carbon transition plan: national strategy for climate and energy. Retrieved on March 8, 2017, from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228752/97801 08508394.pdf
Department of Energy and Climate Change. (2010). Severn tidal energy: feasibility study conclusions and summary report. London: HM Government.
De Santo, E. (2011). Environmental justice implications of maritime spatial planning in the European Union. Marine Policy, 35, pp. 34-38.
Devine-Wright, P. (2010). Renewable Energy and the Public: From NIMBY to participation. London: Earthscan.
Devine-Wright, P. (2011a). Enhancing local distinctiveness fosters public acceptance of tidal energy: a UK case study. Energy Policy, 39(1), pp. 83-93.
Devine-Wright, P. (2011b). Place attachment and public acceptance of renewable energy: A tidal energy case study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(4), pp. 336-343.
Douvere, F., & Ehler, C. N. (2009). New perspectives on sea use management: Initial findings from European experience with marine spatial planning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, pp. 77-88.
Douvere, F. (2010). Marine spatial planning: concepts, current practice and linkages to other management approaches. Ghent University, Belgium.
Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment. (2015). Policy Document on the North Sea 2016-2021. The Hague: The Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the
Environment.
Ederer, N. (2016). The price of rapid offshore wind expansion in the UK: Implications of a profitability assessment. Renewable Energy, 92, pp. 357-365.
Ehler, C., & Douvere, F. (2006). Visions for a Sea Change: Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme. IOC Manual and Guides, 46: ICAM Dossier, 3. Paris: UNESCO.
Ehler, C., & Douvere, F. (2009). Marine spatial planning, a step-by-step approach towards ecosystem-based management. Paris: UNESCO.
European Commission (2017a). The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). Retrieved on May 1, 2017, from: https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp_en
European Commission (2017b). Nature and Biodiversity Law. Retrieven on May 1, 2017, from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/index_en.htm
European Commission (2016a). Legislation: The Marine Directive. Retrieved on May 1, 2017, from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marine-policy/marine-strategy-framework-directive/index_en.htm.
European Commission (2016b). Introduction to the new EU Water Framework Directive. Retrieved on May 1, 2017, from:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/info/intro_en.htm
European parliament and Council (2008), 'Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive)', Official Journal of the European Communities, L164, pp. 19-40.
European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. (2014). Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council: Establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning. Official Journal of the European Union, L257, pp. 135-145.
European Parliament. (2017). The Integrated Maritime Policy. Retrieved on May 1, 2017, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/ftu/pdf/en/FTU_5.3.8.pdf.
Fatima, Z. (2016). The Role of Severn Estuary Partnership in Emerging Marine Planning in England and Wales (thesis). Cardiff University, Cardiff.
Flannery, W., Ellis, G., Ellis, G., Flannery, W., Nursey-Bray, M., van Tatenhove, J. P., ... & Jentoft, S. (2016). Exploring the winners and losers of marine environmental governance/Marine spatial planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 17(1), pp. 121-151.
Gazzola, P., Roe, M., & Cowie, P. (2015). Marine spatial planning and terrestrial spatial planning: reflecting on new agendas. Environment & Planning C: Government & Policy, 33(5), pp. 1156-1172.
Hooper, T., & Austen, M. (2013). Tidal barrages in the UK: Ecological and social impacts, potential mitigation, and tools to support barrage planning. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 23, pp. 289-298.
Jarvis, R. M., Breen, B. B., Krägeloh, C. U., & Billington, D. R. (2015). Citizen science and the power of public participation in marine spatial planning. Marine policy, 57, pp. 21-26.
Jay, S. (2010). Built at sea: marine management and the construction of marine spatial planning. Town Planning Review, 81(2), pp. 173-192.
Joint Nature Conservation Committee. (2010). UK Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Retrieved on May 1, 2017, from http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5230
Kadiri, M., Ahmadian, R., Bockelmann-Evans, B., Falconer, R.A. & Kay, D. (2014). An assessment of the impacts of a tidal renewable energy scheme on the eutrophication potential of the Severn Estuary, UK. Elsevier: Computers & Geoscience, 71, pp. 3-10.
Kerr, S., Watts, L., Colton, J., Conway, F., Hull, A., Johnson, K., ... & Potts, T. (2014). Establishing an agenda for social studies research in marine renewable energy. Energy Policy, 67, pp. 694-702.
Khan, A., & Amelie, V. (2015). Assessing climate change readiness in Seychelles: implications for ecosystem-based adaptation mainstreaming and marine spatial planning. Reg. Environ. Change, 15, pp. 721-733.
Kidd, S., & Shaw, D. (2014). The social and political realities of marine spatial planning: some land-based reflections. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil, 71(7), pp. 1535-1541.
van Klink, B., & Taekema, S. (2009). Dwarsverbanden. Interdisciplinair onderzoek in de rechtswetenschap. Nederlands Juristenblad, 39, pp. 2559-2566.
Knowles, S., & Myatt-Bell, L. (2001). The Severn Estuary Strategy: a consensus approach to estuary management. Ocean & coastal management, 44(1), pp. 135-159.
Ioannou, A., Angus, A., & Brennan, F. (2017). Stochastic Prediction of Offshore Wind Farm LCOE through an Integrated Cost Model. Energy Procedia, 107, pp. 383-389.
Melling, A., Davis, P., Schlottmann, V. (2015). Welsh National Marine Plan. Welsh Government. Docref: rbri0251r.
Mueller, H., Hamilton, D., & Doole, G. (2016). Evaluating services and damage costs of degradation of a major lake ecosystem. Ecosystem Services, 22 pp. 370-380.
National Assembly for Wales. (2010). Severn Estuary Tidal Power (Enquiry no: 10/1008). Retrieved on 16 May, 2017 from
http://www.assembly.wales/Research%20Documents/Severn%20Estuary%20Tidal%20Powe r%20-%20Research%20paper-10052010-180289/10-011-English.pdf
