IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i7p5979-d1111460.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Integrated Ocean Management (IOM) for Marine Sustainable Development Goal (SDG)14: A Case Study of China’s Bohai Sea

Author

Listed:
  • Yongjie Xue

    (School of Economics, Shandong Women’s University, Ji’nan 250300, China)

  • Jinling Yan

    (College of Economics and Management, Hebei Agricultural University, Baoding 071000, China)

  • Dahai Li

    (Marine Development Studies Institute, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, China)

  • Haijing Zheng

    (Research Faculty of Agriculture, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060-0808, Japan)

Abstract

Marine development and eco-environmental management have received increasing attention over the past two decades, however, no effective universal approach has been established to achieve marine development without destroying marine ecosystems. This study discusses the integrated ocean management (IOM) for meeting the sustainable development goal (SDG14) through the following four aspects: the marine eco-environment foundation, market mechanism, management support, and space consideration. Our findings highlight how to enhance the coastal and marine areas management efficiency to achieve ecological and socioeconomic values for sustainable development through the benign interaction of marine ecosystem and socioeconomic systems. The presented case study examines the IOM framework for achieving SDG14 in the Bohai Sea. Furthermore, content analysis and semi-structured interviews were conducted. The framework is theoretically and empirically explored in light of the Bohai Sea’s management, focusing on the role of the government and incentive. Further, issues preventing effective IOM are highlighted and a framework for optimizing the IOM implementation to better balance the interests of various industries is suggested. When implementing the IOM framework, each region should fully play to its own advantages and push forward with some focused aspects first. The long-term effect of the Bohai Sea’s management may need time to be verified, and the role of the market mechanism and multi-interest coordination mechanism need more special attention for the Bohai Sea in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Yongjie Xue & Jinling Yan & Dahai Li & Haijing Zheng, 2023. "Integrated Ocean Management (IOM) for Marine Sustainable Development Goal (SDG)14: A Case Study of China’s Bohai Sea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-24, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:7:p:5979-:d:1111460
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/7/5979/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/7/5979/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tacconi, Luca, 2012. "Redefining payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 29-36.
    2. Li, Ruiqian & van den Brink, Margo & Woltjer, Johan, 2017. "Market-based instruments for the governance of coastal and marine ecosystem services: An analysis based on the Chinese case," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 71-81.
    3. Raes, Leander & Loft, Lasse & Le Coq, Jean François & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido & Van Damme, Patrick, 2016. "Towards market- or command-based governance? The evolution of payments for environmental service schemes in Andean and Mesoamerican countries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 20-32.
    4. Koehn, J. Zachary & Reineman, Daniel R. & Kittinger, John N., 2013. "Progress and promise in spatial human dimensions research for ecosystem-based ocean planning," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 31-38.
    5. Jin-Ling Yan & Yong-Jie Xue & Muhammad Mohsin, 2022. "Accessing Occupational Health Risks Posed by Fishermen Based on Fuzzy AHP and IPA Methods: Management and Performance Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-20, October.
    6. Kemkes, Robin J. & Farley, Joshua & Koliba, Christopher J., 2010. "Determining when payments are an effective policy approach to ecosystem service provision," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2069-2074, September.
    7. Farley, Joshua & Costanza, Robert, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2060-2068, September.
    8. Vatn, Arild, 2015. "Markets in environmental governance. From theory to practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 225-233.
    9. Primmer, Eeva & Furman, Eeva, 2012. "Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: Do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 85-92.
    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. Li, Ruiqian & van den Brink, Margo & Woltjer, Johan, 2017. "Market-based instruments for the governance of coastal and marine ecosystem services: An analysis based on the Chinese case," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 71-81.
    2. Mangubhai, Sangeeta & Sykes, Helen & Manley, Marita & Vukikomoala, Kiji & Beattie, Madeline, 2020. "Contributions of tourism-based Marine Conservation Agreements to natural resource management in Fiji," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    3. Kolinjivadi, Vijay & Adamowski, Jan & Kosoy, Nicolás, 2014. "Recasting payments for ecosystem services (PES) in water resource management: A novel institutional approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 144-154.
    4. Van Hecken, Gert & Bastiaensen, Johan & Windey, Catherine, 2015. "Towards a power-sensitive and socially-informed analysis of payments for ecosystem services (PES): Addressing the gaps in the current debate," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 117-125.
    5. Hejnowicz, Adam P. & Raffaelli, David G. & Rudd, Murray A. & White, Piran C.L., 2014. "Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 83-97.
    6. Bauchet, Jonathan & Asquith, Nigel & Ma, Zhao & Radel, Claudia & Godoy, Ricardo & Zanotti, Laura & Steele, Diana & Gramig, Benjamin M. & Chong, Andrea Estrella, 2020. "The practice of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) in the Tropical Andes: Evidence from program administrators," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    7. Galati, Antonino & Crescimanno, Maria & Gristina, Luciano & Keesstra, Saskia & Novara, Agata, 2016. "Actual provision as an alternative criterion to improve the efficiency of payments for ecosystem services for C sequestration in semiarid vineyards," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 58-64.
    8. Rodríguez-Ortega, T. & Olaizola, A.M. & Bernués, A., 2018. "A novel management-based system of payments for ecosystem services for targeted agri-environmental policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 74-84.
    9. Mark E. Eiswerth & G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2017. "Maximizing Returns from Payments for Ecosystem Services: Incorporating Externality Effects of Land Management," Working Papers 2017-06, University of Victoria, Department of Economics, Resource Economics and Policy Analysis Research Group.
    10. Cranford, Matthew & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Credit-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 503-520.
    11. Driss Ezzine-de-Blas & Sven Wunder & Manuel Ruiz-Pérez & Rocio del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez, 2016. "Global Patterns in the Implementation of Payments for Environmental Services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, March.
    12. Sattler, Claudia & Trampnau, Susanne & Schomers, Sarah & Meyer, Claas & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Multi-classification of payments for ecosystem services: How do classification characteristics relate to overall PES success?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 31-45.
    13. Lin, Yongsheng & Dong, Zhanfeng & Zhang, Wei & Zhang, Hongyu, 2020. "Estimating inter-regional payments for ecosystem services: Taking China’s Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region as an example," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    14. Báliková, Klára & Šálka, Jaroslav, 2022. "Are silvicultural subsidies an effective payment for ecosystem services in Slovakia?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    15. Muñoz Escobar, Marcela & Hollaender, Robert & Pineda Weffer, Camilo, 2013. "Institutional durability of payments for watershed ecosystem services: Lessons from two case studies from Colombia and Germany," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 46-53.
    16. Sattler, Claudia & Loft, Lasse & Mann, Carsten & Meyer, Claas, 2018. "Methods in ecosystem services governance analysis: An introduction," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 155-168.
    17. Aguilar-Gómez, Carlos R. & Arteaga-Reyes, Tizbe T. & Gómez-Demetrio, William & Ávila-Akerberg, Víctor D. & Pérez-Campuzano, Enrique, 2020. "Differentiated payments for environmental services: A review of the literature," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    18. Kristin Nicolaus & Jens Jetzkowitz, 2014. "How Does Paying for Ecosystem Services Contribute to Sustainable Development? Evidence from Case Study Research in Germany and the UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(5), pages 1-24, May.
    19. Wunder, Sven, 2015. "Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 234-243.
    20. Fletcher, Robert & Büscher, Bram, 2017. "The PES Conceit: Revisiting the Relationship between Payments for Environmental Services and Neoliberal Conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 224-231.

    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:15:y:2023:i:7:p:5979-:d:1111460. 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.