IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i19p12606-d933056.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Utilising MYTILUS for Active Learning to Compare Cumulative Impacts on the Marine Environment in Different Planning Scenarios

Author

Listed:
  • Ida Maria Bonnevie

    (Department of Planning, Aalborg University, A.C. Meyers Vænge 15, 2450 Copenhagen SV, Denmark)

  • Henning Sten Hansen

    (Department of Planning, Aalborg University, A.C. Meyers Vænge 15, 2450 Copenhagen SV, Denmark)

  • Lise Schrøder

    (Department of Planning, Aalborg University, A.C. Meyers Vænge 15, 2450 Copenhagen SV, Denmark)

  • Aurelija Armoškaitė

    (Latvian Institute of Aquatic Ecology, Voleru Str. 4, LV-1007 Riga, Latvia)

Abstract

Spatial tools to calculate cumulative impact assessments on the environment (CIA) are important contributors to the implementation of an ecosystem-based approach to maritime spatial planning (MSP). Ecosystem dynamics are increasingly important to understand as the activities and pressures in marine areas increase. Results from the application of a new training set for the CIA tool MYTILUS, developed in capacity-building MSP projects for active learning environments, illustrate important points on how the CIA method can be used in systematic scenario design. The feedback from its use in an online PhD course outlines how the training set successfully enables researchers from different disciplines and different parts of the world to meet the CIA approach with such interest and understanding that it enables them to highlight the strengths as well as the shortcomings of the tool interface, tool capabilities, and CIA method, even when none of these researchers are CIA experts. These promising results are presented in this paper and advocate for the increasing use of MYTILUS and similar CIA tools in MSP stakeholder sessions where no preliminary CIA expertise can be expected. The key strengths and challenges of training CIA with MYTILUS are discussed to point out focus points for how to make its approaches increasingly fit for participatory and decision-making processes in MSP to utilise its promising abilities for supporting ecosystem-based management.

Suggested Citation

  • Ida Maria Bonnevie & Henning Sten Hansen & Lise Schrøder & Aurelija Armoškaitė, 2022. "Utilising MYTILUS for Active Learning to Compare Cumulative Impacts on the Marine Environment in Different Planning Scenarios," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-15, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:19:p:12606-:d:933056
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12606/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/19/12606/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Semmens, Darius J. & Waage, Sissel & Winthrop, Robert, 2013. "A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 27-39.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ainhoa Gonzalez & Álvaro Enríquez-de-Salamanca, 2018. "Spatial Multi-Criteria Analysis in Environmental Assessment: A Review and Reflection on Benefits and Limitations," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-24, September.
    2. Drakou, E.G. & Crossman, N.D. & Willemen, L. & Burkhard, B. & Palomo, I. & Maes, J. & Peedell, S., 2015. "A visualization and data-sharing tool for ecosystem service maps: Lessons learnt, challenges and the way forward," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 134-140.
    3. Alessio D’Auria & Pasquale De Toro & Nicola Fierro & Elisa Montone, 2018. "Integration between GIS and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Ecosystem Services Assessment: A Methodological Proposal for the National Park of Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    4. Mayer, Alex & Jones, Kelly & Hunt, David & Manson, Robert & Carter Berry, Z. & Asbjornsen, Heidi & Wright, Timothy Max & Salcone, Jacob & Lopez Ramirez, Sergio & Ávila-Foucat, Sophie & Von Thaden Ugal, 2022. "Assessing ecosystem service outcomes from payments for hydrological services programs in Veracruz, Mexico: Future deforestation threats and spatial targeting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    5. Dong Chen & Rongrong Liu & Maoxian Zhou, 2023. "Delineation of Urban Growth Boundary Based on Habitat Quality and Carbon Storage: A Case Study of Weiyuan County in Gansu, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-17, May.
    6. Ram Avtar & Apisai Vakacegu Rinamalo & Deha Agus Umarhadi & Ankita Gupta & Khaled Mohamed Khedher & Ali P. Yunus & Bhupendra P. Singh & Pankaj Kumar & Netrananda Sahu & Anjar Dimara Sakti, 2022. "Land Use Change and Prediction for Valuating Carbon Sequestration in Viti Levu Island, Fiji," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-17, August.
    7. Moreno-Llorca, R. & Vaz, A.S. & Herrero, J. & Millares, A. & Bonet-García, F.J. & Alcaraz-Segura, D., 2020. "Multi-scale evolution of ecosystem services’ supply in Sierra Nevada (Spain): An assessment over the last half-century," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    8. Mostafa Shaaban & Carmen Schwartz & Joseph Macpherson & Annette Piorr, 2021. "A Conceptual Model Framework for Mapping, Analyzing and Managing Supply–Demand Mismatches of Ecosystem Services in Agricultural Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-19, January.
    9. Brown, Melanie G. & Quinn, John E., 2018. "Zoning does not improve the availability of ecosystem services in urban watersheds. A case study from Upstate South Carolina, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 254-265.
    10. Agudelo, César Augusto Ruiz & Bustos, Sandra Liliana Hurtado & Moreno, Carmen Alicia Parrado, 2020. "Modeling interactions among multiple ecosystem services. A critical review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 429(C).
    11. Liu, Peng & Jiang, Shiwei & Zhao, Lianjun & Li, Yunxi & Zhang, Pingping & Zhang, Li, 2017. "What are the benefits of strictly protected nature reserves? Rapid assessment of ecosystem service values in Wanglang Nature Reserve, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 70-78.
    12. Richard Yao & David Palmer & Barbara Hock & Duncan Harrison & Tim Payn & Juan Monge, 2019. "Forest Investment Framework as a Support Tool for the Sustainable Management of Planted Forests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-22, June.
    13. Warziniack, Travis & Sims, Charles & Haas, Jessica, 2019. "Fire and the joint production of ecosystem services: A spatial-dynamic optimization approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Vardon, Michael & May, Steve & Keith, Heather & Burnett, Peter & Lindenmayer, David, 2019. "Accounting for ecosystem services – Lessons from Australia for its application and use in Oceania to achieve sustainable development," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    15. Rasmussen, Laura Vang & Mertz, Ole & Christensen, Andreas E. & Danielsen, Finn & Dawson, Neil & Xaydongvanh, Pheang, 2016. "A combination of methods needed to assess the actual use of provisioning ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 75-86.
    16. Yu-Pin Lin & Wei-Chih Lin & Hsin-Yi Li & Yung-Chieh Wang & Chih-Chen Hsu & Wan-Yu Lien & Johnathen Anthony & Joy R. Petway, 2017. "Integrating Social Values and Ecosystem Services in Systematic Conservation Planning: A Case Study in Datuan Watershed," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-22, April.
    17. Stephen B. Stewart & Anthony P. O’Grady & Daniel S. Mendham & Greg S. Smith & Philip J. Smethurst, 2022. "Digital Tools for Quantifying the Natural Capital Benefits of Agroforestry: A Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-32, September.
    18. Kenny, Daniel C. & Costanza, Robert & Dowsley, Tom & Jackson, Nichelle & Josol, Jairus & Kubiszewski, Ida & Narulla, Harkiran & Sese, Saioa & Sutanto, Anna & Thompson, Jonathan, 2019. "Australia's Genuine Progress Indicator Revisited (1962–2013)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 1-10.
    19. Cátia da Silva & Ana Paula Barbosa‐Póvoa & Ana Carvalho, 2022. "Towards sustainable development: Green supply chain design and planning using monetization methods," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 1369-1394, May.
    20. Tammi, Ilpo & Mustajärvi, Kaisa & Rasinmäki, Jussi, 2017. "Integrating spatial valuation of ecosystem services into regional planning and development," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 329-344.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:19:p:12606-:d:933056. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.