Keeping Humans in the Ecosystem

Abstract

The World Ocean presents many opportunities, with the blue economy projected to at least double in the next two decades. However, capitalizing on these opportunities presents significant challenges and a multi-sectoral, integrated approach to managing marine socio-ecological systems will be required to achieve the full benefits projected for the blue economy. Integrated ecosystem assessments have been identified as the best means of delivering the information upon which marine resource management decisions can be made. By their nature, these assessments are inter-disciplinary, but to date have mostly focused on the natural sciences. Inclusion of human dimensions into integrated ecosystem assessments has been lagging, but is fundamental. Here we report on a Symposium, and the articles emmanating from it that are included in this Theme Set, that address how to more effectively include human dimensions into integrated ecosystem assessments. We provide an introduction to each of the main symposium topics (governance, scenarios, indicators, participatory processes, and case studies), highlight the works that emerged from the symposium, and identify key areas in which more work is required. There is still a long way to go before we see end-to-end integrated ecosystem assessments inclusive of all the major current and potential ocean use sectors that also encompass multiple aspects of human dimensions. Nonetheless, it is also clear that progress is being made and we are developing tools and approaches, including the human dimension, that can inform management and position us to take advantage of the multi-sectoral opportunities of sustainable blue growth.

ecosystem-based management, governance, indicators, integrated ecosystem assessment, marine socio-ecological systems, modelling, scenario analysis, stakeholder engagement

Introduction

The World Ocean is an essential component of global economic activity and development. A majority of countries are exploring the potential of blue growth, supported by both well-established economic sectors (maritime transport, fisheries and aquaculture, coastal tourism, oil and gas exploitation, recreation, dredging, etc.) and new industries still developing their full potential (renewable marine energy, deep-sea energy and mineral extraction, new forms of aquaculture like seaweed farming, marine biotechnologies, etc.). The OECD (2016) estimates the ocean economy will more than double to over US$3 trillion by 2030, and argues that the critical need is to adopt multi-sector perspectives for management, with coordinated and coherent long-term strategies, clearer regulation and allocation of rights, and greater international cooperation. The challenge in supporting enhanced equitable (http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals/goal-10-reduced-inequalities/targets/) and sustainable uses of marine ecosystems is to enable current and future growth in this blue economy, maintaining and facilitating the development of coastal livelihoods while not compromising the sustainability of social, economic or environmental outcomes (UNEP, 2006; Díaz et al., 2015; Long et al., 2015; Inniss et al., 2016; United Nations, 2016; Burgess et al., 2017). This challenge explicitly involves managing human impacts on the earth’s marine and coastal systems, and managing the feedback of these impacts on coastal communities, industries, and stakeholders.

Meeting this challenge can be facilitated by an integrated understanding of marine socio-ecological systems (Charles, 2001; Rice and Garcia, 2001; Kooiman et al., 2005; Ommer et al., 2011; Kittinger et al., 2013; Begg et al., 2015; Link and Browman, 2014, and references therein). Fully integrated ecosystem assessments take into account the relationships among marine ecosystem components, how marine ecosystems are structured and function, how marine ecosystem goods and services are produced, maintained and utilized, how governance of marine socio-ecological systems are structured and implemented, and how this all contributes to the development of the blue economy and associated distribution of benefits to society (IPBES, 2015; Cormier et al., 2017; ICES, 2016; Burgess et al., 2017; Lillebø et al., 2017). Reviewing our progress and current capacity to evaluate the global state of marine socio-ecological systems is needed, is timely, and has not been done systematically. Many methods, approaches and tools for such integrated ecosystem assessments have been developed during the last two decades, as have processes for using these assessments in policy development and management (Link and Browman, 2014; Dickey-Collas, 2014; IPBES, 2015). To take stock of the status of this discipline, and to identify key scientific challenges ahead, an international symposium on “Understanding marine socio-ecological systems: including the human dimension in Integrated Ecosystem Assessments” (MSEAS) was held in Brest, France, from 30 May to 3 June 2016 (http://www.ices.dk/news-and-events/symposia/MSEAS/Documents/programme_mseas_2016.pdf;ttp://www.ices.dk/news-and-events/symposia/MSEAS/Documents/BookOfAbstractsUpdateJune.pdf). The focus of the symposium was on integration and assessment across multiple ocean uses and sectors. There was a particular emphasis on the methodological and empirical challenges involved in including human dimensions in integrated ecosystem assessments, as well as the governance considerations and processes which such assessments can inform. The symposium was global in scope, with a focus on regions in which integrated ocean management policies have been developed and implemented in the last two decades. A key aspect of this symposium is that it provided an opportunity for information exchange among scientists, researchers and practitioners, from a wide range of different disciplinary backgrounds, with those involved in the development of ocean policies and governance.

The past few years have seen a growing literature on the general theme of integrated ecosystem assessments (Dickey-Collas, 2014; Levin et al., 2014; Samhouri et al., 2014; Walther and Möllmann, 2014; Link and Browman, 2017; Dickey-Collas, 2014; DePiper et al., 2017) and its associated implementation towards ecosystem-based management (Pikitch et al., 2004; Long et al., 2015; Hopkins et al., 2011; Tett et al., 2011; Arkema et al., 2016) or ecosystem approaches to management (e.g. Link and Browman, 2017 and references therein; Witherell et al., 2000; Kruse et al., 2009; Kim and Zhang, 2011; Jin et al., 2016). That literature evaluates the extent to which ecosystem-based management is being implemented, both within and across sectors. This Theme Set further contributes to that discussion. Other reports from the MSEAS Symposium are available (Thébaud et al., 2017; Drakou et al., 2017); we do not aim to reiterate them here. Rather, we provide a synthesis of the overarching results from the MSEAS symposium, highlighting recent advances in the study of marine socio-ecological systems. We also provide an introduction to the papers in this Theme Set. We organize this introduction around core themes of the symposium, which also represent common thematic steps in the implementation of integrated ecosystem assessments (Levin et al., 2009, 2014; Dickey-Collas, 2014; Samhouri et al., 2014; Walther and Möllmann, 2014; IPBES, 2015; DePiper et al., 2017; Harvey et al., 2017). Each section that follows is structured with an introductory paragraph (or set of paragraphs) on the topic, highlights of works in this Theme Set, and then transition or synthesis paragraphs as needed. Our aims are to introduce the works that emerged from the symposium and to identify key areas of remaining work.

Identifying needs for managing multiple ocean use sectors—governance, policy, and institutions

One theme of the symposium sought to identify the needs that arise from current and projected marine policy, management and industry developments. It also sought to identify the changes in governance systems and institutions that are in place or under development, particularly those that require jurisdiction and that mandate management of multiple marine sectors. Core questions are: Can governance systems promote greater integration of knowledge systems and ocean management, and if so, how and under what circumstances? And: What information is needed to inform current and projected policy, management and industry development?

How management systems and institutions use multiple knowledge systems (scientific and technical information, local experiential knowledge, and indigenous knowledge) to make policies and choose management measures in a socio-ecological framework is clearly identified as a key research area (Mackinson, 2001; Olsson and Folke, 2001; Dutra et al., 2015). Additionally, the specifics of what information is needed is also recognized as equally important; both in terms of items required to meet governance mandates and items elicited from stakeholder participation (Mardle et al., 2004; Dichmont et al., 2013; Pascoe et al., 2013, 2014). The importance of ecosystem-based management moving from primarily the scientific domain to being more readily adopted by resource managers has been highlighted (Levin et al., 2014; Harvey et al., 2017). How management systems and institutions operate when key knowledge is absent or limited, selecting interim policies and measures when circumstances allow, and filling the knowledge gaps when feasible, is important, given the demand to make decisions with the best scientific information available, even when that is limited.

The paper by Stephenson et al. (2017) describes well the range of factors needing to be considered when establishing fisheries policy and management. The summary point of their work is that the management of living marine resources needs to be adopted from a systems perspective. Such a perspective takes into account the multiple considerations required to inform and make management decisions.

It is recognized that there are features of governance systems and institutions that are accepted de facto as central to effective governance in a socio-ecological system (Ostrom, 2009). A feature which has been highlighted is stakeholder inclusiveness (Gray, 2005; ICES, 2016; Smith et al., 2017). Another is effective communication and free flow of information both among all stakeholders and expert communities and across sectoral governance authorities (Levin et al., 2014; Link and Browman, 2017). However, there are a large number of ways that governance systems strive to achieve those features and many factors influence their effectiveness in achieving truly integrated decision-making. Governance can achieve greater integration across the different sectoral components of ocean policy, and this is needed, but doing so remains an important challenge. The paper by Smith et al. (2017) argues that, in many cases, key impediments to implementing ecosystem-based management are governance and institutional frameworks rather than science. They cite recent work that argues that operational implementation is a management issue rather than being science-limited (Tallis et al., 2010; Levin et al., 2014; Walther and Möllmann, 2014), highlighting the need to continue discussions more broadly than solely among the science community to support integrated ecosystem assessments.

The paper by Steenbergen et al. (2017) reinforces this observation with the example of the shrimp fishery in the North Sea. A salient point from Steenbergen et al. explores how well conflicting objectives within the governance system—a problem all too familiar—can determine the success of management measures. Altering the incentives for use and ensuring appropriate treatment of the “common goods” can help mitigate the challenges of these competing objectives, but simply acknowledging multiple objectives remains an important consideration; how to address them is a key challenge.

Two observations related to governance have emerged. First, there is clearly a need for more explicit emphasis on how governance processes address the distribution of benefits and opportunities (Voss et al., 2014; Cormier et al., 2017). There are certainly agreements, institutions and processes that focus on human well-being (Breslow et al., 2016), but they have rarely been explicitly and routinely considered as part of marine governance. Socio-cultural aspects are generally not well covered in policy-making and management planning processes, yet the potential for cultural and personal benefits to accrue from marine uses are greater than typically considered (Kim and Zhang, 2011). To fully realize these socio-cultural benefits, social sciences need to be brought in at the beginning of studies rather than as a later addition to the work (Stephenson et al., 2017). Second, the idea that “governance” is some imutable suite of institutions, with priorities perhaps periodically altered by changes in elected governments, is naïve. Governance is as inherently uncertain and dynamic as the natural system, with displaced peoples, economic down- and up-turns driven by externalities and other factors.The difficulty is amplified by the challenges of pursuing objectives at multiple scales. Individual policies may be targeted to deliver outcomes at specific spatial or temporal scales, yet policies designed to function at different scales necessarily interact in their implementation. Furthermore, governance is not only an act of government(s) as it often is interactive, with many different (public and civil and private) actors involved (Kooiman et al., 2005). It is in this context that integrated governance of marine socio-ecological systems remains a major challenge around the world.

Coupling ecological, economic, and social processes for scenario development and prediction

One theme of the symposium explored scientific advances in the understanding of coupled ecological, economic, and social processes driving the dynamics of marine socio-ecological systems. The literature is replete with methods and tools which may contribute to understanding such processes, ranging from qualitative approaches to quantitative process and empirical model-based approaches (e.g. Pascoe et al., 2009; Smith et al., 2007). Examples include ecological-economic systems dynamics models (Mongruel et al., 2011), the technical mechanics of full system Management Strategy Evaluations (MSEs) (Dichmont et al., 2008; Mapstone et al., 2008; Punt et al., 2016), risk assessments (Sumner et al., 2004; Hobday et al., 2004), prioritization and triaging processes (Pendleton et al., 2015), and similar methods as applied to coupled socio-ecological systems.

The dynamics governing the use of marine resources are not only embedded in ecological systems, but also in associated economic and social systems (Charles, 2001; Ferrol-Schulte et al., 2013). These coupled socio-ecological systems make it challenging to predict consequences of management actions because of interacting non-linear dynamics, self-organization, and cross-scale interactions (Schlüter et al., 2012). The uncertainties that arise from this complexity can pose significant challenges to integrated ecosystem assessments and marine resource management (Fulton et al., 2011). To begin to design strategies to adequately manage socio-ecological systems, a clear understanding of decision-making processes is required that can be directly incorporated in models of individual and collective behavior in socio-ecological systems (Batsleer et al., 2015, 2016; Girardin et al., 2017) as well as the aggregate dynamics within and among resources, actors, and institutions across multiple scales, (Folke et al., 2010). Models of socio-ecological systems thus need to take explicit account of feedbacks within and between ecological, economic, and social systems, and concurrently account for the uncertainty and stochasticity within and among them.

An important development in coupled socio-ecological system modeling is the increasing formulation of socio-ecological system management issues in terms of MSEs (Smith et al., 2007; Punt et al., 2016). MSEs assess the robustness of alternative management strategies in terms of the likelihood that they will achieve management goals given uncertainties and stochasticities in socio-ecological systems. This involves simulating socio-ecological systems using virtual worlds that mimic system dynamics and produce responses to different future scenarios (Bunnefeld et al., 2011). For MSE to help management achieve its aims, uncertainty needs to be well represented (Punt et al., 2016). This means that uncertainties and stochasticities characteristic of the integrated ecological, economic and social system processes need to be represented as much as possible (Bunnefeld et al., 2011; Fulton et al., 2011).

The paper by Coston-Guarini et al. (2017) details new statistical developments for environmental impact assessments that are ecosystem-based. This takes a contrarian view that social and economic aspects are drivers of the ecological system rather than being directly coupled to it. Although the debate over who drives who continues, the importance of delineating cause and effect, particularly in the evaluation of cumulative effects, clearly emerges.

The paper by Zador et al. (2017) directly links human dimensions to ecological systems in a common analytical framework using conceptual models. These conceptual models hold promise in eliciting participation from a range of stakeholders (see below) as well as placing all facets of a socio-ecological system in a common context, further facilitating discussion. In many ways, this approach has come to be used as a qualitative MSE, and Zador et al. (2017) demonstrate the benefits of doing so for coastal communities. The paper by Boschetti and Andreotta (2017) similarly highlights the value of mental models, noting the utility of this tool in finding common ground in a management context among a diverse set of stakeholders.

Challenges to taking socio-ecological system models to the next level remain. How best to integrate qualitative, analytical, and empirical models of social, economic, and ecological subsystems so as to reveal emergent dynamic properties of the overall system is no trivial exercise. A key challenge in doing so is the diversity and growing complexity of the models being developed, and finding approaches that help address this complexity (Thébaud et al., 2014b). This needs to occur cognizant of the benefits that even simpler, qualitative modeling can provide (Dambacher et al., 2007; Boschetti and Andreotta, 2017; Zador et al., 2017). Although this complexity may be perceived as a hurdle, the benefits of multiple methods and data sources, as well as the efforts currently underway to develop models of intermediate complexity, are quite promising (Plagányi et al., 2014).

Indicators, reference points, and performance evaluation

Another theme of the symposium considered the challenges associated with the identification of adequate indicators, decision criteria, and performance evaluation methods that enable full inclusion of the social and economic dimensions into integrated ecosystem assessments. Key questions remain regarding how to best assess and present the trade-offs associated with alternative scenarios and management strategies.

To be informative, integrated ecosystem assessment indicators, be they empirical or model derived, must integrate across a range of disciplines, processes and conceptual frameworks. As such, there is unlikely to be just one indicator, but rather indicator suites. Indicators must address the practical questions facing policy and blue-growth development in the ocean. When supporting decisions, there is a tension between complex realities vs. simple depictions thereof, along with the need to provide information which is understandable and relevant to multiple parties. Approaches for developing indicators need to include how they can assist in the identification of reference points, and how they can be used to inform performance measures (Sainsbury et al., 2000; Link, 2005). Converting indicators from simple time-series of status and trend into reference points and performance measures is critical to inform and help make key marine resource management decisions towards sustainable blue growth.

A core question is: how do we use the available data to define reference points and assess policy performance? One option is to adopt a pragmatic approach and start by demonstrating the value of more widespread and broader use of extant data (Shin et al., 2010a,b; Large et al., 2013, 2015). The empirical basis for exploring tipping points and thresholds (e.g. Large et al., 2013, 2015; Fay et al., 2013; Samhouri et al., 2014) represents progress towards this objective. Yet, there remains a need to improve our understanding of the relation between human activities, the status of ecosystems, including particular components (e.g. coastal habitats, certain biological guilds, etc.), the status of the services derived from the ecosystems, the impacts on social networks, and where important tipping points emerge (Samhouri et al., 2014; IPBES, 2015; DePiper et al., 2017; Harvey et al., 2017).

The paper by Tam et al. (2017) highlights an indicator selection process used by ICES to support one of the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive (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) Good Environmental Status criteria. Tam et al. (2017) show the range of possible indicators to elucidate food web dynamics, and describe which ones hold promise based on a set of selection criteria. Delineating thresholds, or reference points, based on these indicators remains an important need to better manage the uses of these ecosystems.

Additionally, the empirical understanding of social aspects of coastal communities, although improving, is still falling short of what is needed to fully account for social dimensions in integrated ecosystem assessments (Himes-Cornell and Kasperski, 2015, 2016; Colburn et al., 2016). Coordinated approaches are needed for the collection of social data using a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods, including measures of vulnerability, human well-being, and valuation of the ocean, ocean uses, and ocean goods and services. An important challenge for such monitoring is the need to account explicitly for the distribution—spatially, temporally and across economic and social networks—of benefits and costs to people associated with changes in marine socio-ecological systems and in the ongoing development of the blue economy. The lack of, and difficulty in, including social, economic data into integrated ecosystem assessments was a common issue that emerged in discussions at MSEAS and is also clear in the literature (Kelble et al., 2013). Simply collecting this range of data can be a daunting, difficult, time-consuming and expensive process. Furthermore, collecting “more” of the social and economic data may result in a tradeoff relative to biologicial or ecological data collection; highlighting the need for coordination when allocating budgets for indicator development. However, understanding the relationships between human uses of the marine environment and marine and coastal ecosystem services is fundamental for integrated ecosystem assessment (Samhouri et al., 2014; DePiper et al., 2017; Harvey et al., 2017; Marshak et al., 2017). Thus, in addition to robust monitoring and data collection systems, research to translate observed components of the socio-ecological system into reference points is critical.

The growing availability of a large number of methods and indicators to support integrated ecosystem assessments is apparent (Levin et al., 2009). Yet, it is acknowledged that there are still very few operational reference points and performance measures internationally, and that thresholds or tipping points for marine socio-ecological systems are far from being generally established (Rice, 2009; Tam et al., 2017), although notable progress is being made (Large et al., 2013, 2015; Fay et al., 2013). The need to account for cumulative effects of multiple uses on ecosystems is also still poorly addressed. In addition, while strong emphasis is often placed on ecological tipping points (and their socio-economic impacts), it is also necessary to consider the possibility of social or economic tipping points (Thébaud et al., 2015). The key observation is that data can be transformed into indicators, from which reference points can be established, either empirically or using models, from which marine management decisions can be informed. In doing so, assessment approaches must enable trade-off evaluation across multiple objectives, that facilitate the development of consensus-based management (Bode et al., 2011; Thébaud et al., 2014a). An example of such an approach, which enables multicriteria assessment as well as accounting for transition processes in marine socio-ecological systems, is co-viability analysis (Cury et al., 2005; Doyen et al., 2013). Other approaches include multi-criteria analysis, the analytic hierarchy process, and goal-programming approaches (Mardle and Pascoe, 1999; Mardle et al., 2000, 2004; Herath, 2004; Pascoe et al., 2009). Collectively, these seek to sharpen the contrast among a range of policy choices relative to tradeoffs among key socio-ecological system considerations.

Participatory assessment processes

Another theme of the symposium focused on the ways in which stakeholder knowledge can become available for integrated ecosystem assessments and can be integrated into decision-making processes. Of particular interest is how the degree of participation may determine the nature and use of the information developed (Soma, 2003; Estvez and Gelchich, 2015; Stephenson et al., 2016). The methods of participatory approaches, such as the processes that enable elicitation of multiple management objectives, are areas of growing importance (Voinov and Bousquet, 2010; Fulton et al., 2013; Dutra et al., 2015; Dichmont et al., 2016; Voinov et al., 2016). The core question which this theme session sought to address was: What are the opportunities and challenges associated with participatory research?

The paper by Morales-Nin et al. (2017) describes how a small-scale fishery in the Mediterranean adhered to broader (i.e. national and international) regulatory constraints that were implemented locally by a committee of affected parties. The fishery and its management certainly have room for improvement, but this more collaborative approach to management has reaped many benefits that Morales-Nin et al. (2017) highlight. The paper by Steenbergen et al. (2017) reinforces the concept that participatory management can help mitigate some conflicts. Additionally, the paper by Boschetti and Andreotta (2017) also reinforces the need for a stakeholder engagement process to achieve common understanding on which to base management decisions.

An important recurring issue is that there is “no one size fits all” when it comes to participatory processes (Gray, 1998; Pita et al., 2012; Leite and Pita, 2016; Stephenson et al., 2016). Certainly there are many ways one can approach engaging stakeholders. A range of methods have been highlighted including fisheries action research, game theory, territory games, experimental economics, Bayesian belief network models, multi-criteria decision analysis and loop analysis (Bailey et al., 2010; Aswani et al., 2013). But a participatory approach that works well in one situation may not necessarily work in another, highlighting the need to remain flexible and have multiple options in the participatory repertoire (Röckmann et al., 2014; Leite and Pita, 2016).

Major challenges in developing participatory research include the difficulty of incorporating the interests of multiple stakeholder groups with interests in the marine environment and how to actively engage and involve a growing number of players interested in the marine sectors, considering also the different levels of power, different perceptions, different knowledge bases, etc. (Ouananian et al., 2012; Kraan et al., 2014). In addition, there is a need to acknowledge the time and resources required to build relationships and trust both between researchers and stakeholders and between different stakeholder groups in participatory research processes. In general, the participatory process often increased mutual respect among sectors and enhanced recognition that “we are all in this together”, engendering greater appreciation of the implications of decisions across sectors and greater uptake of decisions (Leite and Pita, 2016).

Summary of lessons learned from practical case studies

A cross-cutting theme of the symposium explored single and multi-sectoral case studies of integrated ecosystem assessments, highlighting experiences when implementation of integrated ecosystem assessments for ecosystem-based management has been attempted. The core question for this theme session was what are the lessons learned from the experience of individuals involved in designing or carrying out these studies? It sought to identify the causes for success and failure in developing such integrated ecosystem assessments that particularly included the human dimension.

Again, the concept of stakeholder inclusion and engagement in the process was identified as a common element important to the success of the process across all the studies (Marshak et al., 2017). For example, the work by Boschetti and Andreotta (2017), Steenbergen et al. (2017), and Zador et al. (2017) all raise the importance of participatory processes. Although it is difficult to prove that instances where stakeholders were involved early on and extensively in the management process led to better outcomes, it was clear that stakeholder engagement helped to broaden the treatment of societal goals and led to improved overall metrics of success. For example, studies show that when moving from a focus solely on total revenues to the fishing fleet, following subsequent engagement of stakeholders, individuals involved became more concerned about the distribution of those revenues, as well as other social aspects of impacts on fishing communities that might be affected by management decisions (Stokes et al., 2006).

It is clear that there are a variety of tools being implemented to integrate the human dimension into integrated ecosystem assessments. These range from community organizing tools such as cooperative formation to community assessment tools such as multi-criteria decision analysis, loop analysis, choice modelling, and Bayesian network analysis, and range from being quantitative to qualitative. The mental or conceptual modelling described in Zador et al. (2017) and Boschetti and Andreotta (2017) illustrate these qualitative approaches, similar to the loop analysis that Dambacher et al. (2007) used in coastal multiple use management. As more examples are developed it will be helpful to start evaluating the variety of approaches being employed and developing a set of best practices for use of these tools.

Smith et al. (2017) describe what is arguably one of the most advanced attempts to implement fully integrated, multi-sector, ecosystem-based management. The major steps outlined in their work reinforce the common steps codified for most compilations of integrated ecosystem assessment best practices (Levin et al., 2009, 2014; Dickey-Collas, 2014; Samhouri et al., 2014; Walther and Möllmann, 2014; Harvey et al., 2017), and again loosely reflect the structure of the MSEAS meeting. The many Australian examples given by Smith et al. (2017) highlight the importance of including clearly identified needs and objectives, stakeholder ownership, well-defined governance frameworks, and scientific tools to deal with conflicts and trade-offs in ongoing discussions of the blue economy.

There is still a long way to go before we see end-to-end integrated ecosystem assessments inclusive of all the major current and potential ocean use sectors that also encompass multiple aspects of human dimensions (Link and Browman, 2017; Marshak et al., 2017). But from the MSEAS meeting, and the papers in this Theme Set, it is clear that progress is being made and we are developing useful information on all aspects of marine ecosystems, particularly including the human dimension, that can inform management now as we continue to conduct integrated ecosystem assessments (Thébaud et al. 2017).

Conclusions

There are multiple dimensions to integrated ecosystem assessments, and even more when considering the many facets of explicitly including the human dimension, and yet more when attempting to integrate across multiple ocean-use sectors. A lot of the work presented in the Theme Set and at the MSEAS meeting was still very fishery and conservation centric. How to involve other sectors remains an important challenge. Additionally, what is the right mix for integrating across these many dimensions, especially with respect to complexity, models, the various disciplines represented (such that we don’t lose their distinctiveness while still integrating), governance, and scale? Addressing issues such as these are necessary to advance the ecosystem approach to management and to facilitate sustainable blue growth. As noted by Marshak et al. (2017), we still very much need to address such structural impediments to ecosystem-based management.

Understanding the myriad dynamics of marine socio-ecological systems remains an exciting area of research. Taking a reductionist approach helps with mechanisms and details, but has limits when the intent is to identify systemic solutions—and when we do employ reductionistic methods, we often drop the human dimension elements first. Alternatively, inclusivity and systems-thinking encourages the consideration of different disciplines from the start (Charles, 2001; Meadows, 2008). For instance, copious and extant tools, indicators and information are now available from several interdisciplinary integrated ecosystem assessment efforts. Maintaining such an emphasis and fostering interdisciplinary discussions and collaborations is warranted (Drakou et al., 2017). The value of the MSEAS meeting, and we hope this Theme Set, is that in getting the different disciplines together to talk is helpful and leads to better use of multiple models, getting past disciplinary jargon, and increasing the number of case studies that incorporate human dimensions and thereby improve marine resource management.

From the symposium and articles in this Theme Set, several challenges have emerged (Table 1). Addressing governance complexity, especially with respect to cumulative effects and cross-jurisdictional uses for fully integrated ecosystem-based management, remains a challenge. Similarly, promoting sufficient governance adaptability to respond in coherent ways across sectoral jurisdicitons also remains a challenge. From an implementation perspective, operationalizing research advances into appropriate management venues can be a significant hurdle. From a research perspective, codifying the value and rewards for interdisciplinary work is needed to improve incentives for interdisciplinary research, such that governments, universities, and NGOs may wish to create and fund more professional positions focused on inter-disciplinary programs. Of course, adapting to some of the major challenges facing society (e.g. global climate change, environmental degradation) remains an underlying consideration for both the natural and human systems as blue growth continues.

Table 1.

Summary of results from the several theme sessions.

Theme sessions	Core question assessed	Pros	Cons
Identifying needs for managing multiple ocean use sectors—policy, management and industry perspectives	What information is needed to inform policy, management and industry developments?	A lot of work developed in this field; Several needs identified.	Imbalance between domains with large impacts/potential (e.g., tourism, oil and gas) and science; Slow uptake of information from multiple knowledge systems when supporting such work
Governance and institutional frameworks	Can governance systems promote greater integration of knowledge systems and ocean management?	Lots of laws, mandates and conventions; Fair number of legal experts (i.e. lawyers) in attendance at MSEAS; Increasing formal processes for the provision of integrated scientific advice.	Lack of clarity about how to operationalize integrated governance across all sectors; Need for a more explicit emphasis on distribution of benefits and opportunities; Need to recognize that governance is inherently as uncertain as the environment; Often missing political scientists/governance experts in these discusssions.
Coupled ecological, economic and social process understanding of the drivers of change: methods and tools for scenario development and prediction	Can we build scenarios integrating ecological, economic and social dimensions?	Lots of tools for scenario development and prediction exist; Using multiple tools is useful; Key role for scenarios to access different categories of knowledge.	Problems deciding best models and what level of tradeoffs to explore; Difficulty setting scope/scale correctly; Challenge getting models right.
From data to indicators to reference points and performance evaluation	How do we use available data to set reference points and assess policy performance?	Lots of indicators; Increasing wisdom about role of context in defining relevant approaches and methods.	Very few operational RPs and PMs, even thresholds/tipping points; Integrated management will mean multiple indicators each with its own RPs, so need decision-rules that may accommodate different risk tolerance profiles for different properties of SES systems
Participatory assessment processes: opportunities and challenges	What are the opportunities and challenges associated with participatory research?	A lot of work done on this topic and growing; A range of qualitative and quantitative approaches;	Lack of knowledge about how to best integrate participatory research, including how to address incompatabilities from multiple knowledge sources; Problems related to survey fatigue; Need for more input from social sciences (and other sectors) to learn from experience; Need for more methodological synthesis
Integration: lessons learned from practical case studies	What lessons have we learned from practical research experience?	Growing number of case studies and practical examples of integration; Growing standardization of descriptions and comparisons.	Case studies not always fully integrated across key dimensions; Most case studies of integration are issue, sector or even species specific; Missed lessons learned from other disciplines (e.g. forestry, agriculture); Need to improve standardization of lessons learned.

Our sense from the MSEAS meeting and discussions with colleagues around the globe is that human dimensions not only need to, but are effectively beginning to be considered more frequently in integrated ecosystem assessments (DePiper et al., 2017). More effective incorporation of the human dimension into marine assessment and management processes is crucial for achieving equitable outcomes for the blue economy (Burgess et al., 2017; Singh et al., 2017). There is recognition that such broader discussions are occurring and that they are leading to implementing more effective solutions towards sustainable and equitable marine ecosystem-based management (Thébaud et al., 2017).

We conclude by observing from the case studies identified above that ocean uses and resources are managed effectively in some places. In each instance, some form of integration is apparent, and some inclusion of human dimensions is also apparent. As we continue to seek sustainable blue growth to support the global economy, it would be prudent to consider these factors more deliberately as we move forward.