Frontiers in Marine Science
OPEN ACCESS
EDITED BY
Donata Melaku Canu,
National Institute of Oceanography and
Applied Geophysics, Italy
REVIEWED BY
Alberto Basset,
University of Salento, Italy
Matt Harwell,
US EPA - Pacific Coastal Ecology Branch,
United States
*CORRESPONDENCE
Nadia Papadopoulou
nadiapap@hcmr.gr
RECEIVED 02 May 2024
ACCEPTED 17 January 2025
PUBLISHED 18 February 2025
CITATION
Papadopoulou N, Smith CJ, Franco A,
Elliott M, Borja A, Andersen JH, Amorim E,
Atkins JP, Barnard S, Berg T,
Birchenough SNR, Burdon D, Claudet J,
Cormier R, Galparsoro I, Judd A,
Katsanevakis S, Korpinen S, Lazar L,
Loiseau C, Lynam C, Menchaca I,
O’Toole C, Pedreschi D, Piet G, Reid D,
Salinas-Akhmadeeva IA, Stelzenmüller V,
Tamis JE, Uusitalo L and Uyarra MC (2025)
‘Horses for courses’ – an interrogation of
tools for marine ecosystem-based
management.
Front. Mar. Sci. 12:1426971.
doi: 10.3389/fmars.2025.1426971
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Papadopoulou, Smith, Franco, Elliott,
Borja, Andersen, Amorim, Atkins, Barnard, Berg,
Birchenough, Burdon, Claudet, Cormier,
Galparsoro, Judd, Katsanevakis, Korpinen,
Lazar, Loiseau, Lynam, Menchaca, O’Toole,
Pedreschi, Piet, Reid, Salinas-Akhmadeeva,
Stelzenmüller, Tamis, Uusitalo and Uyarra. This
is an open-access article distributed under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (CC BY). The use, distribution or
reproduction in other forums is permitted,
provided the original author(s) and the
copyright owner(s) are credited and that the
original publication in this journal is cited, in
accordance with accepted academic
practice. No use, distribution or reproduction
is permitted which does not comply with
these terms.
TYPE Review
PUBLISHED 18 February 2025
DOI 10.3389/fmars.2025.1426971‘Horses for courses’ – an
interrogation of tools for marine
ecosystem-based management
Nadia Papadopoulou1*, Christopher John Smith1, Anita Franco2,
Michael Elliott 2,3, Angel Borja4, Jesper H. Andersen5,6,
Eva Amorim2, Jon P. Atkins2, Steve Barnard2, Torsten Berg7,
Silvana N. R. Birchenough8,9, Daryl Burdon2, Joachim Claudet10,
Roland Cormier11, Ibon Galparsoro4, Adrian Judd9,
Stelios Katsanevakis12, Samuli Korpinen13, Luminita Lazar14,
Charles Loiseau10, Christopher Lynam 9, Iratxe Menchaca4,
Christina O’Toole15, Debbi Pedreschi15, Gerjan Piet16,
Dave Reid15,17, Irene Antonina Salinas-Akhmadeeva10,
Vanessa Stelzenmüller18, Jacqueline E. Tamis16,
Laura Uusitalo13,19 and Maria C. Uyarra4
1Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, IMBRIW, Heraklion, Greece, 2International Estuarine and Coastal
Specialists (IECS) Ltd, Leven, United Kingdom, 3School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of
Hull, Hull, United Kingdom, 4AZTI, Marine Research, Basque Research and Technology Alliance (BRTA),
Pasaia, Spain, 5NIVA Denmark Water Research, Copenhagen, Denmark, 6Aquatic Synthesis Research
Centre (AquaSYNC), Copenhagen, Denmark, 7MariLim Aquatic Research GmbH, Schönkirchen, Germany,
8Environmental Resources Management (ERM) Ltd, Norwich, United Kingdom, 9Centre for Environment,
Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Lowestoft, United Kingdom, 10National Center for Scientific Research,
CNRS, PSL Universite´ Paris, CRIOBE, Paris, France, 11National Centre for Effectiveness Science, Fisheries
and Oceans Canada, Moncton, NB, Canada, 12Department of Marine Sciences, University of the Aegean,
Mytilene, Greece, 13Marine Research Centre, Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE), Helsinki, Finland,
14Ecology and Marine Biology Department, National Institute for Marine Research and Development
“Grigore Antipa”, Constanta, Romania, 15Fisheries Ecosystem Advisory Services, Marine Institute,
Galway, Ireland, 16Wageningen Marine Research, Wageningen University and Research, Den
Helder, Netherlands, 17International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES),
Copenhagen, Denmark, 18Thünen Institute of Sea Fisheries, Bremerhaven, Germany, 19Natural Resources
Institute Finland (LUKE), Helsinki, FinlandMarine Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) approaches are a well-established
and fundamental component of international agreements and treaties, regional
seas conventions, assessment strategies, European Directives and national and
regional instruments. However, there is the need to interrogate and clarify the
implementation of EBM approaches under current marine management. Although
particular focus here is within the European Union Marine Strategy Framework
Directive (MSFD), all lessons learned are applicable to marine assessments and
management in seas worldwide given that all marine management instruments
aim to ensure sustainability in marine ecosystems and human uses. Notably, the
MSFD aims to ensure that Good Environmental Status (GES) will be achieved
thereby enabling the sustainability of coastal and marine ecosystems to deliver
ecosystem services and societal goods and benefits while at the same time being
adaptive to rapid climate and environmental changes. As a clear understanding of
EBM and the tools available to achieve it is needed for practitioners, regulators and
their advisors, the analysis here firstly presents the current understanding of EBM
(including its origin and application) and the wider 26 principles on which it is
based. Secondly, we identify the key elements that are addressed by thosefrontiersin.org01
Papadopoulou et al. 10.3389/fmars.2025.1426971
Frontiers in Marine Scienceprinciples (18 key EBM elements). Thirdly, we identify the types of tools available
for use in the EBM context (19 tool groups). Fourthly we analyze the suitability of
tool types to deliver the key EBM elements using an expert judgement approach.
Finally, we conclude with the lessons learned from the use of those tools and
briefly indicate how they could be combined to help achieve EBM in the most
effective way. It is emphasized that no single tool is likely to satisfy all aspects
of EBM and therefore employing a complementary suite of tools as part of a
toolbox is recommended.KEYWORDS
Ecosystem-Based-Management, EBM elements, assessment tools, marine policies,
Marine Strategy Framework Directive1 Introduction
Managing human activities impacting marine systems focuses
on one central theme – the need to have the appropriate physical,
chemical and biological conditions, in order to protect and
maintain ecological structure and functioning while at the same
time ensuring that the natural system delivers the ecosystem
services from which society gains goods and benefits after
inputting human capital and complementary assets (Elliott, 2013,
2023). For example, in the marine system, physical, chemical and
biological conditions can ensure that fish stocks are maintained but
then complementary assets of time, money, energy, skills and
knowledge and the ability to be sentient are required to ensure
that society benefits from those fish (Haines-Young and Potschin,
2018). Hence, marine management and governance must be aimed
at ensuring sustainable marine systems in which the above central
theme is satisfied (Borja et al., 2010).
Sustainable development, management and governance rely on
an adequate understanding of the complex interplay of science,
technology, and management skills (Borja et al., 2024). However,
there are fundamental management philosophies which underpin
the holistic approach required to achieve sustainable development
and management of coastal and marine activities. The main
underlying philosophy for these is summarized as managing the
ecosystem in which humans are regarded as an integral part. The
‘Ecosystem Approach’ (EA or EcAp), ‘Ecosystem-Based Approach’
(EBA) and/or ‘Ecosystem-Based Management’ (EBM), and their
variants are the terms commonly used for this philosophy
(Kirkfeldt, 2019). However, it can be argued that the term ‘based’
is redundant as any ecosystem approach must be based in the
ecosystem, with its natural and human features. Despite this, the
semantics of these terms have been interrogated and even subtle but
meaningful differences between the terms have been analyzed (e.g.,
Kirkfeldt, 2019); here, the term EBM is taken to include all variants
of the concept.
Given this implied uncertainty, the research here uses a
structured expert evaluation to identify and interrogate current
EBM approaches and policy measures to reduce the adverse effects02of human activities; in doing so, it provides the best assessment of
the most appropriate approaches/tools to reach policy objectives.
The particular focus is within the European Union (EU) Marine
Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD; EC, 2008) to ensure that
Good Environmental Status (GES) can be achieved thereby
enabling the sustainability of coastal and marine ecosystems to
deliver ecosystem services and societal goods and benefits while at
the same time being adaptive to rapid climate and other
environmental changes (Borja et al., 2013). Despite that EU focus,
this interrogation is relevant to all marine areas where similar
policies/legislation are applied and marine ecosystem assessments
are required; for example, Cormier et al. (2022) indicated that
Canada has also followed large elements of the MSFD.
The analysis here is structured to firstly present the current
understanding and context of EBM and the wider principles on
which it is based. Secondly, we identify the key elements that are
addressed by the EBM principles. Thirdly, we identify the types of
assessment tools available to support EBM. Fourthly, we analyze the
suitability of tool types to deliver the key EBM elements. Finally, the
paper presents conclusions regarding the use of those tools and
briefly indicates the way in which they could be combined to
achieve EBM.2 Ecosystem-Based Management in
theory: the concept and principles
The term EBM has several definitions although these are not
always very clear and unambiguous (Kirkfeldt, 2019; Delacámara
et al., 2020); however, with respect to the MSFD, the following
is used:“Ecosystem-based approach (to management), aka an
‘ecosystem-based approach’ or ‘ecosystem-based management’,
is an integrated approach to management of human activities
that considers the entire ecosystem including humans. The goal is
to maintain ecosystems in a healthy, clean, productive andfrontiersin.org
Papadopoulou et al. 10.3389/fmars.2025.1426971
Fronresilient condition so that they can provide humans with the
services and goods upon which we depend. It is a spatial
approach that builds around a) acknowledging connections, b)
cumulative impacts and c) multiple objectives” (modified slightly
from CSWD, 2020).Ecosystem-Based Management recognizes the full array of
interactions within a marine ecosystem, including humans, rather
than considering single issues, species, or ecosystem services in
isolation (see also McLeod et al., 2005). It encompasses the
comprehensive integrated management of human activities based
on the best available scientific knowledge about the ecosystem and its
dynamics, helping to ensure activities are monitored and managed
accordingly with the relevant legislation (ICES, 2020). It aims to
identify and act on influences which are critical to the health of
marine ecosystems, thereby achieving the sustainable use of goods
and services and maintenance of ecosystem integrity (ICES, 2003).
Ecosystem-Based Management is under-pinned by several
fundamental or key principles required for its operationalization
and implementation. Using literature up to 2010, Long et al. (2015)
reviewed the evolution of the concept of the set of EBM principles in
their definition of EBM, which adds a spatial connotation compared
to the previous definitions: “Ecosystem-based management is an
interdisciplinary approach that balances ecological, social and
governance principles at appropriate temporal and spatial scales in
a distinct geographical area to achieve sustainable resource use”
(Long et al., 2015). That study selected the 15 most important/
commonly cited EBM principles from a list of 26 principles. They
noted three emerging Key Principles such as ‘Consider Cumulative
Impacts’, ‘Apply the Precautionary Approach’ and ‘Explicitly
Acknowledge Trade Offs’ that could help to shape and
successfully apply EBM.
Other projects and expert working groups globally have since
further considered this list of principles and consequently chosen
the EBM principles that most fit their aims/mandate. For example, a
United States, EU and Canadian working group on the ecosystem
approach to ocean health and stressors was established in 2016
under the Atlantic Ocean Research Alliance (AORA) to investigate
the implementation of EBM in the North Atlantic. They reviewed
and contrasted 20 Principles for implementation (Dickey-Collas
et al., 2022), including those such as ‘the ecosystem approach should
seek the appropriate trade-off (balance) between, and integration of,
conservation and use of marine resources (e.g., biological diversity)’,
‘the ecosystem approach should consider all forms of relevant
information, including scientific and indigenous and local
knowledge, innovations and practices’ and ‘the ecosystem approach
should involve all relevant sectors of society and scientific disciplines’.
As a further example, to clarify and codify the priorities for EBM in
New Zealand, a set of narratives and EBM principles were
developed around seven themes including recognition that
‘humans along with their multiples uses and values for the marine
environment are part of the ecosystem’ and EBM should be ‘tailored,
place and time specific, recognizing all ecological complexities and
connectedness, and addressing cumulative and multiple stressors’
(Hewitt et al., 2018; Le Heron et al., 2020). Guilhon et al. (2021),tiers in Marine Science 03working on Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction and deep-sea
mining (DSM), grouped EBM principles into 8 categories: core,
ecological, impacts, knowledge, management, participation, socio-
economic and spatial-temporal scales. The inclusion of the words
‘tailored’ and ‘management’ in this definition implies that EBM
must be an adaptive system to accommodate changing
circumstances. Similarly, by necessity it should have feedback
loops so that lessons learned can be incorporated into future
management actions (Elliott et al., 2020a; Roux and Pedreschi,
2024; Smith et al., 2025).3 Ecosystem-Based Management in
practice: application from global to
local scales
3.1 At the global level
Although previous regional approaches, such as the North Sea
Conferences (e.g. NSC, 2002) mention the Ecosystem Approach, it
was first codified by the UN Convention for Biological Diversity
(CBD, 2000, 2004) as a set of 12 principles (CBD 1992, 2007). This
defined it as ‘a strategy for the integrated management of land, water
and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use
in an equitable way’ and so its application aims to achieve these
three objectives of the Convention. It is based on applying
appropriate scientific methodologies focused on levels of
biological organization, which encompass the essential processes,
functions and interactions among organisms and their
environment. Furthermore, it recognizes that humans, with their
cultural diversity, are an integral component of ecosystems.
At a global level, EBM is not explicitly stated in the CBD although
it is implicit in the original 12 principles and, at the 5th Conference of
Parties (COP) meeting in 2000, the EBA was set as the primary
framework for action under the Biodiversity Convention (CBD, 2000,
COP 5, Decision V/6). The recent (12/2022) 15th CBD COP adopted
the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” (GBF) in
which three of 23 targets express the need to apply EBAs and nature-
based solutions (CBD, 2022).
The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) defines
the rights and responsibilities of nations concerning their use of the
world’s oceans as well as the management of marine resources
(Cormier et al., 2022). At present, the concept of the Ecosystem
Approach is only implicit in the Convention, through a reference to
a clear obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment
(Article 192). Similarly, the use of measures is included to protect
and preserve rare or fragile ecosystems as well as the habitat of
depleted, threatened or endangered species and other forms of
marine life (Article 194(5)).3.2 At the regional level
Regional Sea Conventions, together with various organizations,
such as the European Environment Agency (EEA), have includedfrontiersin.org
Papadopoulou et al. 10.3389/fmars.2025.1426971EBM in their science and evidence planning and have included its
principles in their data, science and advisory programs. EBM is
therefore an approach for addressing ‘wicked’ environmental
problems, i .e . , complex problems that involve many
interdependent factors and strong links between the socio-
economic and ecological spheres (Termeer et al., 2019). As such,
it recognizes the need to incorporate systems thinking into natural
resource management (O’Higgins et al., 2020; Elliott et al., 2020a;
Smith et al., 2025). It is important to acknowledge that due to the
complexities involved in marine and aquatic social-ecological
systems, there is neither a one-size-fits-all EBM approach nor
only one EBM implementation path (Delacámara et al., 2020;
Roux and Pedreschi, 2024). Indeed, progress towards EBM is
more likely to proceed incrementally; it is essential therefore that
approaches are regularly reviewed and that any produced EBM
toolbox includes new tools and tool combinations to improve and
support the process. This also ensures that EBM is an adaptive
management approach which can accommodate changing
conditions and the results of previous management actions.
The monitoring and assessment strategy of the Baltic Sea
Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM) is built
on the ecosystem approach concept (HELCOM, 2013). This
strategy covers all the components of a marine ecosystem and the
pressures impacting it, and more recently includes climate change.
The HELCOM integrated assessments are based on a few key
features: (i) commonly agreed assessment areas, which are
defined in a nested way for each assessment indicator; (ii)
quantitative core indicators which have been developed following
commonly agreed criteria; (iii) indicator threshold values, which
define good environmental status, and (iv) multi-metric indicator-
based assessment tools.
The HELCOM assessment strategy not only covers the state of
the environment but also gives due focus to human activities,
pressures and their impacts on the ecosystem and society. In
2010, the HELCOM holistic assessment introduced the
cumulative impact assessment of anthropogenic pressures (see
Korpinen et al., 2012), following the global assessment method by
Halpern et al. (2008). Since then, this includes the HELCOMmulti-
metric indicator-based assessment tools (HEAT, BEAT and
CHASE), cumulative impact assessment (CIA) and a tool to
estimate the effectiveness of measures (Ahtiainen et al., 2024).
The Barcelona Convention for the Mediterranean adopted the
EcAp in 2008 as the guiding principle to all policy implementation
for healthy marine and biological ecosystems that are productive
and biologically diverse for the benefit of present and future
generations (UNEP, 2008). The Integrated Monitoring and
Assessment Program (IMAP) was adopted in 2016, as part of the
implementation of the EcAp Roadmap. The current EcAp
contributes to Sustainable Development Goal 14 (Cormier et al.,
2021), the achievement of CBD Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 and the
implementation of the MSFD (see below). The EcAp includes
ecological objectives that mirror the MSFD descriptors and also
aims towards operational objectives with indicators and target levels
through regular monitoring programs.
For the Black Sea, although the Bucharest Convention (http://
www.blacksea-commission.org/_convention.asp) does notFrontiers in Marine Science 04explicitly mention EBM and the EcAp, the main actions are
linked to combating pollution from land-based sources and
maritime transport, achieving sustainable management of marine
living resources, and pursuing sustainable human development, i.e.
by definition an EcAp. Black Sea action plans require a holistic
approach to the ecosystem, which has led to the development of the
Black Sea Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Program
(BSIMAP). Integrated evaluation tools are still generally missing
from BSIMAP with the exception of eutrophication assessment
tools, TRIX (Trophic Status Index; Vollenweider et al., 1998)
and BEAST (Black Sea Eutrophication Assessment Tool;
Slobodnik et al., 2017).
In the North-East Atlantic Ocean, the Oslo and Paris (OSPAR)
Convention (https://www.ospar.org/convention) considers a
framework for the regulation of most human activities, which are
likely to influence marine ecosystems and the overall biodiversity.
Both, the HELCOM and OSPAR Commissions have in their vision
and mission the need to consider the concept of a defined
Ecosystem Approach (given as “the comprehensive integrated
management of human activities based on the best available
scientific knowledge about the ecosystem and its dynamics, in order
to identify and take action on influences which are critical to the
health of marine ecosystems, thereby achieving sustainable use of
ecosystem goods and services and maintenance of ecosystem
integrity” - Helsinki and OSPAR Commissions, 2003). The
OSPAR North-East Atlantic Environment Strategy 2030 provides
further detail to this definition of the Ecosystem Approach to
incorporate reference to “drivers, activities and pressures that
adversely affect the health of marine ecosystems” in place of “on
influences which are critical to the health of marine ecosystems”
(OSPAR, 2021). Applying the ecosystem approach integrates
conservation and management approaches, such as marine
protected areas or measures targeted at single species and
habitats, as well as other approaches, including cumulative effects.
In the case of the EEA, under its high level policy objective of
achieving sustainability in Europe, its multifaceted work addresses
key EBM principles. These include Ecological integrity and
biodiversity, and Cumulative effects and support EU policies and
strategies with evidence-based knowledge to help the EEA member
countries and the EU to assess progress towards achieving their
vision. The EEA outputs include the State of Environment reports.
The EEA Marine Messages III addressing key EBM elements (as
with marine Messages II, European Environment Agency, 2019), is
being prepared for 2026.3.3 At the European Union level
The EU, in policy, legal instruments (such as Directives),
strategies and with support from numerous research projects,
focuses on understanding marine ecosystems, their interactions
and pressures. Therefore, this implicitly requires applying EBM as
an iterative process (Haugen et al., 2024) although there is no
definition of EBM embedded in EU law (O’Hagan, 2020). The EU
Integrated Maritime Policy contains the fundamental pillars of the
MSFD (EC, 2008) and the Maritime Spatial Planning Directivefrontiersin.org
Papadopoulou et al. 10.3389/fmars.2025.1426971(MSPD; EU, 2014). The MSFD text (EC, 2008) does not provide a
definition (see also CSWD, 2020 and Section 4) of an EBA to
management but requires its application. The 11 descriptors of the
MSFD form the different sectors of the EBA as seen by the EU, as
they include the most important ecosystem features of concern as
well as human pressures on the ecosystems and their resulting
effects (Berg et al., 2015).
While the MSFD is the first piece of EU legislation to adopt an
EBA aiming at the protection of the full range of marine
biodiversity, the European Commission considers the Natura
2000-regime (the network of sites to safeguard the habitats and
species of community interest) as one of the legal components of the
implementation of this approach for the marine environment. This
EBA considers the concepts of favorable conservation status and
good ecological status as required respectively by the Habitats
Directive (HD) and the Water Framework Directive (WFD)
(Bastmeijer, 2018; Elliott and Wither, 2024). Both Natura 2000
and WFD objectives are in line with some of the EBM principles
(e.g., ecosystems must be managed within the limits of their
functioning, assess cumulative impacts, conserve ecosystem
structure and functioning to maintain ecosystem services) and
therefore the Ecosystem Approach is considered appropriate to
aid their implementation (Vlachopoulou et al . , 2014;
Bastmeijer, 2018).
The MSPD (EU, 2014) explicitly acknowledges that an EBA will
contribute to promoting the sustainable development and growth of
the maritime and coastal economies and the sustainable use of
marine and coastal resources, supported by maritime spatial
planning. The MSPD is increasingly regarded as the mechanism
for the Program of Measures needed to achieve Favorable
Conservation Status, for HD, and GES, for the MSFD (Elliott and
Wither, 2024).
The EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) (EU, 2013), whilst
focused on fisheries, implements an EBA to fisheries management
within ecologically meaningful boundaries. This aims to ensure that
negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are
minimized, and ensures that activities avoid the degradation of the
marine environment.
The more recent EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030 (EC, 2020)
again does not define EBM but reiterates the benefits of its
application. It also introduces the EU Nature Restoration Law
(EC, 2022; Hering et al., 2023; now adopted as EU, 2024) and the
Action Plan to conserve fisheries resources and protect marine
ecosystems (EC, 2023). With this action plan, the EC aims to
achieve a more consistent implementation of the EU
environmental policy and the Common Fisheries Policy with its
three – environmental, economic and social - sustainability pillars.4 Sector, single activity or single-
policy EBM applications
Marine management has to address the full range of human
activities and their resulting pressures and effects on both the
natural and human systems (Elliott et al., 2020b). A key aspect ofFrontiers in Marine Science 05EBM is in recognizing the full array of marine ecosystem
interactions (including humans) rather than focusing on specific
sectors in isolation hence only on a subset of related activities and
pressures to be managed. An early example of this is the adoption of
Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) management (EAFM)
(FAO, 2003). While the EAF deals with all the ecological
consequences of fishing, it also recognizes the social and
economic implications of fishing and especially its management
(FAO, 2021). Although the EAF concept has been introduced in the
European CFP (e.g. see Garcia et al., 2003; Morishita, 2008; Jennings
and Rice, 2011), its operationalization and implementation in
European fisheries management so far have been limited
(Wakefield, 2018; FAO, 2021).
The application of the EBM to a single sector (e.g. offshore
energy) and activity (e.g. monopile and turbine placement) is also
seen in the development of offshore wind farms (OWF) in line with
conservation objectives (Pezy et al., 2020; Copping et al., 2020;
Galparsoro et al., 2022; Maldonado et al., 2022). Similarly, Guilhon
et al. (2021) review the adoption of EBM by deep-sea mining (DSM)
concluding that the mere recognition of EBM principles in the
regulatory framework does not guarantee their implementation and
further clarification on the meaning of the Ecosystem Approach in
the DSM context is needed. In another sectoral example, an
‘ecosystem approach to aquaculture’ (EAA) is defined as a
strategy for the integration of its activities within the wider
ecosystem such that it promotes sustainable development, equity,
and resilience of interlinked social-ecological systems (FAO, 2010).
Ecosystem-based marine spatial planning (EB-MSP) is a
relatively recent practice (see Andersen et al., 2020). EB-MSP has
been extensively researched and reviewed in its concepts, tools and
critical issues for its implementation (Katsanevakis et al., 2011,
2020; Kirkfeldt, 2019; Stelzenmueller et al., 2013, 2018, 2020). EBA
is often presented as a concept or broad implementation philosophy
to ‘give space to ecology’ within the MSP process and decisions. The
guidance of the main steps of the MSP process (EC et al., 2021)
presents a set of key actions to operationalize EBA.
Other EBM applications include approaches linked to
Integrated Ecosystem Assessments (IEAs). First developed by the
US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
IEAs are seen as an approach to operationalizing EBM (Levin et al.,
2009, 2014; Samhouri et al., 2014; Dickey-Collas, 2014), and have
been adopted by ICES as a key tool to achieve EBM (ICES, 2023)
along with fisheries assessments and ecosystem overviews (ICES,
2021a; 2022).5 Key EBM principles, elements
and tools
Having defined EBM, it is then important to determine and
interrogate the tools available for achieving it and its outcomes. To
this end, the 26 EBM principles from Long et al. (2015) were
reviewed together with more recent literature (Rudd et al., 2018;
Hewitt et al., 2018; Clark et al., 2021; Dickey-Collas et al., 2022).
The principles were reworded to add clarity and to aid theirfrontiersin.org
Papadopoulou et al. 10.3389/fmars.2025.1426971operationalization (Table 1). To make the analysis more
manageable, only 16 of the 26 EBM principles were selected here
as this study primarily focused on the assessment of environmental
state change and pressures and Good Environmental Status in the
marine environment. Accordingly, the current analysis omitted
principles that apply exclusively to the management
implementation part of the system, e.g., acknowledging trade-offs
(principle 21), use of incentives (principle 26) and applying the
precautionary approach to management (principle 18) (Table 1).
Trade-off analysis can be used to advice on potential fisheries
closures based on fisheries data and bioeconomic modellingFrontiers in Marine Science 06(ICES, 2021b). Trade-offs between small-scale fisheries and
aquaculture can be studied using a mixed methods approach
(including literature reviews, conceptual models, quantitative and
qualitative data and insights) to meet social and environmental
goals (Mansfield et al., 2024). Trade-off scenarios between fisheries,
offshore wind farms and MPAs, based on spatially-explicit trophic
models, can also be used to advise on future sea space e.g. for
planned offshore wind farms and new MPAs (Püts et al., 2023).
However, whether trade-offs are actually considered formally,
consistently and transparently by decision makers and national
authorities when designing their management measures, i.e. theTABLE 1 Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) Principles (Long et al., 2015) and reworded as instructions.
No EBM Principles Reworded principles
1 Consider ecosystem connections* Determine and ensure connectivity within and between areas
2
Appropriate spatial and
temporal Scales*
Assess at temporal and spatial scales, appropriate to the ecosystem components of concern
3 Adaptive management* Use adaptive management in employing measures
4 Use of scientific knowledge* Use best and fit-for-purpose scientific knowledge
5 Integrated management* Ensure integrated management is carried out
6 Stakeholder involvement* Ensure a fair and transparent stakeholder involvement at all stages
7
Account for dynamic nature
of ecosystem*
Ensure ecosystem functioning is assessed at relevant spatial and temporal scales accounting for change
8 Ecological integrity and biodiversity* Determine ecological integrity and biodiversity
9 Sustainability* Ensure the managed systems are sustainable in the long-term
10
Recognise coupled social-
ecological systems*
Include and integrate both ecological and social systems (humans are part of the marine system)
11 Decisions reflect Societal Choice Ensure the outcomes respect societal choice
12 Distinct boundaries* Consider ecosystem and jurisdictional boundaries. Include spatial and temporal boundaries in the assessments.
13 Inter-disciplinarity* Ensure the assessments are multidisciplinary, including social and natural scientists
14 Appropriate monitoring* Perform appropriate and fit-for-purpose monitoring
15 Acknowledge uncertainty* Measure and record uncertainty in the assessments
16 Acknowledge ecosystem resilience
Acknowledge ecosystem resilience in a narrative, in planning and when assessing the resilience of existing plans to current
and emerging pressures.
17 Consider economic context Determine the economic repercussions of action and non-action
18 Apply the Precautionary Approach Apply the precautionary approach in management
19 Consider cumulative impacts* Assess the risk, identify and measure the cumulative impacts/effects (on both natural and social systems)
20 Organizational change Identify if organizational change is required in management and make recommendations
21 Explicitly acknowledge Trade-offs Determine whether and what are the trade-offs in management measures
22
Consider effects on
adjacent ecosystems
Determine the effects and connectivity of an area on adjacent systems and vice versa
23 Commit to principles of equity Ensure that actions and outcomes are just and equitable to nature and society
24 Develop long term objectives
Record the long-term vision and ensure objectives are SMART: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-
Bound and link to indicators
25 Use of all forms of knowledge* Use best-available natural and social sciences, including indigenous knowledge
26 Use of incentives Use economic, societal and ecological incentives to achieve outcomesPrinciples marked with an asterisk (*) are the most relevant to this study focus on assessing Good Environmental Status under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.frontiersin.org
Papadopoulou et al. 10.3389/fmars.2025.1426971suggestion of the omitted EBM principle 21, is questionable (Howe
et al., 2014; Fortnam et al., 2023) and not the focus of this work.
Similarly, EBM principle 23 suggests that managers and decision
makers should be committing to principles of equity ensuring that
measures and outcomes are just for nature and society, while EBM
26 suggests the use of economic, societal and ecological objectives to
achieve outcomes.
The current assessment identified key elements of EBM relevant
to the selected 16 principles (as the operations to undertake and
aspects to be considered and assessed to satisfy each principle as
part of the overall EBM process; Table 2). It considers these together
with the appropriate assessment approaches and tools that can be
used to deliver, singly or in combination with others, these different
EBM elements (Table 3). The selection of EBM principles, EBM
elements and associated assessment tools was based on the
judgement of 20 experts who were researchers with direct
experience of GES assessment, EBM and use of the tools to
deliver it; these experts were taken from the partners and advisors
in the GES4SEAS project (www.ges4seas.eu) and are included as
authors here. The experts (with an estimated >150,000 citations)
were chosen based on their wide and documented experienceFrontiers in Marine Science 07working on major relevant marine policies (e.g. MSFD, WFD,
MSP), on thematic assessments (e.g. non-indigenous species,
benthic seafloor assessments, eutrophication, ecosystem services),
tool development or use (e.g. AMBI, CIMPAL, NEAT, MARXAN,
various models, risk based and cumulative impact assessment tools)
and all the relevant EBM aspects and principles (e.g. assessing
ecological integrity and biodiversity, cumulative impacts, distinct
boundaries, appropriate spatial and temporal scales).
The experts deconstructed and matched the principles into
elements (i.e., all those essential topics that need to be addressed/
assessed to satisfy a principle) following a co-creation and
consensus approach. For the next step, the experts matched the
elements to tools/tool types/methodological approaches required to
address/satisfy the elements based on expert knowledge and
literature checks by subject focusing on marine applications. An
example matching the principles to elements and corresponding
tool groups/assessment methodologies is given in S1. The tools were
then grouped in relevant tool groups following a co-creation with
key stakeholders and a consensus approach based on their main
characteristics (e.g. from conceptualizing to modelling, from
assessing state to addressing risk, and within modelling fromTABLE 2 Elements of Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) (and their applications) relevant to Ecosystem Assessments (full descriptions in
Supplementary Materials S2).
# EBM element Brief description
1 Cumulative effects assessments -CEA Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA) is the assessment of ecosystem changes that accumulate from multiple stressors,
both natural and human made (Dubé et al., 2013). CEAs are holistic evaluations of the combined effects of human
activities and natural processes on the environment, constituting a specific form of environmental impact assessments.
2 GES MSFD assessments The assessment undertaken for the purposes of the MSFD. It is a formal procedure by which information is collected
and evaluated following agreed methods, rules and guidance. It is carried out periodically to determine the level of
available knowledge and to evaluate the environmental status. The resulting output is a report that synthesizes the
findings, and leading to a classification of status in relation to the determination of GES (CSWD, 2020).
3 Whole ecosystem assessments Whole ecosystem assessments are similar to the previous but without the same strict structure and requirements of
the MSFD. These include regional assessments, e.g., in the Baltic Sea (HELCOM), Atlantic Ocean (OSPAR
Commission), Mediterranean (UNEP-MAP), or in the Black Sea (Todorova et al., 2019) and ICES ecoregions
(ICES, 2023).
4 Ecosystem services (delivery,
impacts, valuation)
This includes assessments of ecosystem services (ES) in terms of delivery and impacts as well as of value. Ecosystem
services are the final outputs or products from ecosystems that lead to societal goods and benefits that are directly
consumed, used (actively or passively) or enjoyed by people.
5 Special biotic effects/impacts Examples include sex-changing and sex segregation (i.e., when sexes of a species live apart, either singly or in single‐
sex groups). Documenting the underlying causes of sexual segregation is important for management and conservation
reasons as differential exploitation of the sexes (e.g., by spatially focused fishing in key areas) can lead to
population decline.
6 Specific ecosystem functions (and
impacts on functions)
The MSFD in line with its requirement for good environmental status and ‘clean, healthy and productive oceans and
seas within their intrinsic conditions’, additionally requires that the structure, functions and processes of the constituent
marine ecosystems…. allow those ecosystems to function fully and to maintain their resilience to human-induced
environmental change (EC, 2008).
7 Pressures-activities footprint Determining the overall effects of human activities as a precursor to management, requires quantifying: (i) the area in
which the human activities take place, (ii) the area covered by the pressures generated by the activities on the
prevailing habitats and species, and (iii) the area over which any adverse effects occur. These three features
correspond to activities-footprints, pressures-footprints and effects-footprint (Elliott et al., 2020b).
8 Effects or Impacts footprints As with the category Pressure-Activities footprint, this category brings in a spatial element in the assessments of
impacts and effects which is an essential part of EBM and EU conservation policies (e.g., HD and MSFD). As effects
and impacts are more difficult to identify and assess, activity and pressure footprints are often used as proxies.
(Continued)frontiersin.org
Papadopoulou et al. 10.3389/fmars.2025.1426971single species life cycle or stock assessment modeling to predictive
species distribution models, multi species food web modeling,
bioeconomic modelling and so on; they excluded approaches used
in the ecohydrology/other coastal/terrestrial fields).
In total, 18 individual key EBM elements were identified
(Table 2; full descriptions in S2). They relate to all aspects of
conceptual management cycle frameworks around adaptive EBM
strategy, including the PACE [plan, act, check, evaluate (BSPC,
2006)] and cause-consequence-response frameworks such as the
modified DPSIR-related (Drivers, Pressures, State, Impacts,
Response) frameworks DAPSES-MMM (Drivers-Activity-
Pressures-State-Ecosystem Services-Management (Policies and
Governance)- Measures-Monitoring; CSWD, 2020) and DAPSI
(W)R(M) (Drivers-Activities-Pressures-State change-Impacts (on
human Welfare)-Responses (using management Measures; Elliott
et al., 2017); the cause-consequence-response frameworks are
typically used as problem-solving approaches by the European
Commission, Regional Seas Conventions and EU research projects.
Assessment methodological approaches and tools addressing
the 18 EBM elements were identified as 19 tool groups (categories)
(Table 3; full descriptions including examples of applications and
required data and resources are given in S3). Scoring of the tools by
the experts is given in section 6.1.Frontiers in Marine Science 086 Assessment of tools used in EBM
6.1 Assessment method
The relevance and usefulness of the tool groups was assessed by
the team of 20 experts by scoring the tool group ability to deliver on
the specific elements of EBM according to a set of questions.
Specifically, “can these tool groups inform on the EBM element
in question? Can they offer concrete advice alone or in combination
with other tools?”.
The scoring system used was as follows:• Score 5, if the tool group fully delivers on the specific
element of EBM;
• Score 3, if the tool group only delivers on some aspects of
the specific element of EBM;
• Score 1, if the tool group only delivers on specific aspects of
the EBM element and its use in combination with other
tools is required to deliver the element of EBM;
• Score 0, if the tool group does not deliver on the EBM
element (in full or partially).
• Leave blank, if no score can be attributed (e.g., due to
insufficient knowledge).TABLE 2 Continued
# EBM element Brief description
9 Links activities pressures impacts Linking activities, pressures and impacts is an essential part of the MSFD and a crucial element of EBM. DAPSI(W)R
(M) (Drivers, Activities, Pressures, State change, Impacts on human Welfare, Responses by Measures) or DAPSES-
MMM (socio-economic Drivers, human Activities, Pressures, State of environment, Ecosystem Services –
Management (policies and governance), Measures, Monitoring) are examples of the conceptual frameworks mapping
these links.
10 Single MSFD descriptors/single issues This includes primarily assessments on major issues such as Invasive alien species (IAS), Harmful Algal Blooms
(HABs), jellyfish blooms and eutrophication.
11 Single species, ecosystem components
state change
This includes assessments of single species status (e.g., under CFP and MSFD for commercial species) or assessments
of a habitat (e.g., for reporting for HD or within an MPA) and looking at changes of status due to pressures.
12 Threatened habitats and species This includes documenting status and distributions of species and habitats at risk at global, regional or local scales.
13 Pressure and impact
reduction/mitigation
This includes targeted and specific pressure and impact reduction or mitigation measures. For example measures
mitigating the impacts of marine IAS include physical removal, promotion of commercial exploitation, and
environmental rehabilitation. Other examples include increasing the selectivity of the fishing gears and implementing
the landing obligation to reduce bycatch and unwanted catches.
14 Spatial and other measures This includes spatial and other measures related to the management response and management footprint. Well known
spatial measures include, for example, the ban of trawling in the deep habitats in the Mediterranean and the North
East Atlantic, or in particular areas (e.g., over protected habitats).
15 Climate change Modelling tools can address changes in species distributions due to climatic effects and these insights are relevant to
the planning phase to conservation spatial planning and restoration prioritization. In the evaluation and assessment
phase it can inform on whether the outcomes are affected by climate change as well as the trajectory of change.
16 Uncertainty Uncertainty applies to all the EBM process phases in that the managers prefer to get advice that includes uncertainty/
confidence both in terms of consequences of planning scenarios or management plans and in assessment outcomes.
17 Risks This includes risk from action or inaction, risks to ecosystem components due to spatial overlap with activities and
pressures, risks related to specific biotic effects (e.g., sex related fishing impacts or fishing impacts on nesting or
nursery areas).
18 Other policy requirements e.g., MSPD,
BHD, Biodiversity Strategy
This EBM element addressed the ability of satisfying different policy needs (other than MSFD), e.g., by providing
outputs relevant for the MSPD, the Biodiversity Strategy, the EU Nature Restoration Law, the BHD or the needs of
RSC (e.g., OSPAR, HELCOM).MSFD, Marine Strategy Framework Directive; GES, Good Environmental Status; HD, Habitats Directive; BHD, Birds and Habitats Directives; CFP, Common Fisheries Policy.frontiersin.org
Papadopoulou et al. 10.3389/fmars.2025.1426971TABLE 3 Types of tools used to support delivery of the elements of Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM).
# Tool group Brief description
1 Conceptual models Conceptual models (including mental models, mind maps, argument mapping, horrendograms,
organograms, etc.) are a graphical representation of a system (e.g., natural, socio-economic or socio-
ecological system). They visually summarize the complex relationships within a system through a
network of nodes (the main components of a system) and vectors/links (the pathways linking
those components).
2 Semi-quantitative mental models - Fuzzy
cognitive mapping
Semi-quantitative mental models are an advance on conceptual models in that the linkages between
nodes (the system’s main components) are not just documented, but the direction and strength of
interaction is specified, allowing for simple scenario investigation. Perhaps the most used Fuzzy
cognitive mapping (FCM) tool is Mental modeler.
3 Knowledge graphs A knowledge graph is a structured representation of knowledge that encapsulates information on
entities, their attributes, and the relationships between them. It consists of ‘nodes’ (representing entities)
and ‘edges’ (representing the relationships between them), and can be visualized as a network or a
graph. A knowledge graph might be usefully viewed as a combination of a graphical network diagram,
allied to a database providing information on each of the nodes and links.
4 BBN probabilistic models Bayesian Belief Networks (BBNs) are models that graphically and probabilistically represent correlative
and causal relationships among variables and which account for uncertainty. BBNs operationalize
conceptual models by quantifying the linkages and the strengths of the links (the dependencies and
interdependencies) between nodes (the model’s variables) through conditional probability tables
or distributions.
5 Risk based approaches exposure-effect-hazard-
vulnerability (e.g., Bow-Tie)
Bow-Tie is an ISO and industry-standard method for producing conceptual models (Cormier et al.,
2019). It addresses a risk or problem (as the central knot of the Bow-Tie) and indicates the causes of
that problem (to the left of the knot) and the consequences that occur because of the problem (to the
right of the knot). Various controls can be placed on the left of the hazard to prevent the hazard from
occurring, or on the right to reduce/mitigate/compensate for the magnitude of any consequences.
6 Cumulative impact spatial mapping The global human impact assessment (Halpern et al., 2008) is a spatial assessment where layers of
pressures and of ecosystem components (e.g., species, species groups, habitats), spatialized across a grid
of selected resolution, are combined. Their spatial overlap and weight scores representing the sensitivity
of the ecosystem components to each of the pressures are used to derive an index expressing cumulative
impacts/effects.
7 Impact risk ranking through linkage-chain-
frameworks (e.g., ODEMM)
A risk assessment methodology which traces sector–pressure–ecosystem component pathways (also
known as ‘linkage chains’) and scores them through expert judgement and data where available. Each
link is scored for a number of attributes (e.g., spatial overlap, temporal overlap, degree of impact,
resilience or resistance), giving total impact risk scores in a variety of ways depending on complexity
(ODEMM: Knights et al., 2015; Pedreschi et al., 2023; SCAIRM: Piet et al., 2023).
8 Single spp. model (life cycle, stock assessment) Single-species models are mathematical representations used to study and understand the dynamics of a
particular species within an ecosystem. The models focus on population size, growth, and interactions
of a single species, while often considering the species interactions with its environment and other
influencing factors. These models can incorporate limited ecosystem or multispecies information.
9 Biogeochemical models Biogeochemical models capture two-way interactions between the biology and chemistry of ecosystems.
They are used to simulate how abiotic and biotic variables interact through time and across space and
provide a means to explore management scenarios in relation to climate change and change in the flow
of nutrients from land into the ocean.
10 Food web models (e.g., multispecies models, EWE) Food-web models are a particular type of ecosystem models, which simulate the structure and flow of
energy and nutrients between ecosystem components. Food web models aim to understand the trophic
patterns, population dynamics among predators and prey, and implications for system stability.
Examples include Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) and Ecological Network Analysis (ENA).
11 Ecosystem models (e.g., End2End) Ecosystem models are models that describe the interactions between at least two ecosystem components
(e.g., populations, species, functional groups), whereby the interactions are real ecological processes (e.g.,
predator–prey interactions). They are a mathematical representation of an entire ecosystem, which
integrates physico-chemical oceanographic descriptors and organisms ranging from microbes to higher-
trophic-level organisms (including humans).
12 Species distribution models Species distribution models (SDM, also known as habitat suitability models or predictive habitat
distribution models) are used to predict the spatial distribution of a species (e.g. the likelihood of its
presence or density) based on its observed relationship with environmental conditions. Different
modelling techniques can be used (e.g., generalized linear or additive regression models, classification
and regression trees, Random Forest, maximum entropy algorithm).
(Continued)Frontiers in Marine Science frontiersin.org09
Papadopoulou et al. 10.3389/fmars.2025.1426971The scores were reported in a matrix format crossing tool
groups (19 rows; Table 3) against EBM elements (18 columns;
Table 2). Each expert contributed to scoring individual or multiple
tools depending on their knowledge of the tools, and the confidence
the experts had in this knowledge was also recorded (as high,
moderate or low) for each of the tool groups they scored.
In addition, each tool was assessed for its place within the four
management cycle phases based on the PACE framework (plan, act,
check, evaluate) (BSPC, 2006; Andersen, 2012). PACE is compatible
with the ISO9001:2015 process management PDCA model (plan,
do, check, act). In the Planning phase of PACE, the overall vision
and goals (e.g., GES, targets per descriptor or theme specific goals
such as tackling eutrophication, in the MSFD) are set by
management and all the main threats to the system are identified.
In the Evaluation and Check phases, the main focus of this work,
status assessments are performed and distance to goals is evaluatedFrontiers in Marine Science 10(e.g., is GES reached? Why GES is not achieved? Is monitoring fit-
for-purpose? Are additional measures needed)?.
Score matrices were collated and averaged across contributors.
Scores allocated by the contributors to tool groups with high or
moderate confidence were only considered further in the analysis.
Due to blanks in the matrix, the number of responses contributing
to the average varied according to the tool-by-element pair. The
number of responses considered in the average calculation was
recorded, together with estimates of the standard deviation (SD)
and range (minimum and maximum) of the scores across
participants. The minimum and maximum number of entries per
tool were also recorded.
A Group average algorithm cluster analysis, based on Euclidean
distance, was applied to the matrix data (average of scores across
contributors) to identify groupings of (i) elements of EBM based on
the similarity of tools used, and (ii) the tool abilities to deliver theTABLE 3 Continued
# Tool group Brief description
13 Natural capital accounting, ecosystem
services valuation
The natural capital approach to policy and decision-making considers the value of the natural
environment for people and the economy, providing a tool to support the protection and management
of the natural environment and to facilitate the engagement of stakeholders within management
decisions. Natural capital accounts are developed to assess and monitor the contribution of natural
resources to economic activity.
14 Bioeconomic models, socioeconomic models (CBA),
societal goods and benefits valuation
This tool group includes tools such as: (i) Bio-economic models, i.e. integrated economic-ecological
models used for resource management; (ii) Valuation of Societal Benefits, which determines the ‘total
social value’ (comprising of ecological value, economic value, and socio-cultural value) of marine
ecosystem services leading to benefits for society; (iii) Cost-benefit analysis (CBA), a core tool of public
policy consisting of the systematic process of calculating the benefits and costs, expressed in monetary
units, of policy options and projects.
15 Spatial planning models (e.g., GIS, VAPEM, related
to use)
Spatial planning models are tools used to help planners and policymakers make informed decisions
about the use of marine space and resources. The models are designed to provide insights into the
potential impacts of different planning scenarios. Examples include Geographic Information Systems
(GIS, computer-based tools used to store, analyze, and visualize spatial or geographic data) and VAPEM
tool (Ecological Assessment and Marine Spatial Planning Tool, which integrates environmental risk
information and with technical and socio-ecological information).
16 Conservation planning models (e.g., MARXAN) Conservation planning is the process of locating, configuring and implementing areas that are managed
to promote the persistence of biodiversity and other natural values. Systematic conservation planning
(SCP) based on clear goals and targets, locates and designs new reserves. Common decision support
tools to facilitate SCP include MARXAN (a suite of spatial prioritization decision support tools to
design networks of protected areas) and ZONATION (operating on spatial data about ecological
features, costs, and threats, also utilizing information about uncertainty and connectivity).
17 Simple assessment index (e.g., M-AMBI) Simple assessment indices are methods for classifying marine systems according to human pressures
and include those focusing on the primary community structural variables (abundance, species richness,
and biomass) and derived community structural variables (e.g., diversity indices). Examples include
numerous biotic indices, covering different biological elements from phytoplankton to
macroinvertebrates and fishes. M-AMBI (Multivariate AZTI’s Marine Biotic Index) is an example of
multivariate index for macroinvertebrates (Borja et al., 2019).
18 Descriptor or theme-specific combination of indices
and models (e.g., HEAT, BEAT and CHASE)
The indicator-based multi-metric assessment tools integrate quantitative indicators to inform of the
integrated state of the assessment area. Tools have been developed for hazardous substances (CHASE),
eutrophication (HEAT) and biodiversity (BEAT). The indicators use a threshold value indicating
acceptable state from the un-acceptable state and the indicators can be grouped within the tool to best
reflect the assessment topic.
19 Overarching assessment tools (e.g., NEAT and OHI) NEAT (Nested Environmental status Assessment Tool) is a tool primarily developed for biodiversity
assessment. The tool is usually applied to status assessment, describing the status of an ecosystem using
target, thresholds and values of state indicators for various ecosystem components, divided into separate
values for specific habitats inside a spatial assessment unit. OHI (Ocean Health Index) is a framework
for assessing ocean health based on the sustainable provisioning of benefits and services people expect
from healthy oceans, such as food, cultural and social value, and jobs.Full descriptions in Supplementary Materials S3.frontiersin.org
Papadopoulou et al. 10.3389/fmars.2025.1426971specific element of EBM, i.e. Q and R-mode analyses (respectively
analyzing attributes by cases and vice versa, Southwood and
Henderson (2000)). A SIMPROF test was applied to identify
clusters of elements that do not significantly (P>0.05) differentiate
based on the tools used to deliver them. The contingency table from
the clustering of both EBM elements and tools was explored and the
score matrix rearranged accordingly to identify which tool groups
better deliver for which EBM elements (or groups of elements
within a cluster). The a priori categorization based on the EBM
process phases (PACE) was also considered as a means to interpret
the data-based clusters. The analyses were undertaken in PRIMER
v6 (Clarke and Gorley, 2006).6.2 Assessment results
On average, there were 11 entries per methodological tool group
across all contributors, ranging from 7 (Knowledge Graphs) to 15
(Overarching Assessment Tools). The mean scores attributed to the
tool groups according to their ability to deliver on the specific
elements of EBM are shown in Table 4. The EBM elements
(columns) and tool groups (rows) in Table 4 are grouped with
separators according to the results of the cluster analysis undertaken
between EBM elements (Figure 1 shows 5 groups differentiated at
Euclidean distance 5) and tool groups (Figure 2 shows 5 groups
differentiated at Euclidean distance 5). The cells in Table 4 are
colored to reflect the variability of the mean score of tool groups
within each column (the lowest score in the column is white, highest
score in the column is dark blue).
All tool groups are noted in italics and all EBM elements are in
bold in the following sections. Risk based approaches accounting for
exposure-effect-hazard-vulnerability (e.g., Bow-Tie; tool group #5);
BBN probabilistic tools (#4) and Impact risk ranking through
linkage-chain-frameworks (#7) together with Knowledge graphs
(#3) and Conceptual models (#1), were identified as the most
suitable (with mean score values between 4.2-4.8 out of a
maximum of 5) for the assessment of Links between activities,
pressures and impacts during the planning phase of the EBM
process. Risk based approaches alone were also identified as the
most suitable tool for the assessment of Risks and of Pressure and
impact reduction/mitigation, with mean score values 4.7 (Table 4).
This tool group is also best suited to deliver the requirements of
other policies (e.g., MSPD, BHD, Biodiversity Strategy), although
the mean score in this case is lower (3.8) compared to the other
EBM elements mentioned above.
The use of Descriptor or theme-specific combinations of indices
and models (e.g., HEAT, BEAT and CHASE; #18) and Overarching
assessment tools (e.g., NEAT and OHI; #19) also scored high overall.
They were considered the most suitable tools to deliver GES MSFD
assessments during the Check/Evaluation phases of the EBM
process (both tools scoring >4.5). Descriptor or theme-specific
combinations of indices and models (#18) were also the most
suitable tool (score 4.8) to assess Single MSFD descriptors and
single issues (e.g., eutrophication, NIS, HABs), while the
Overarching assessment tools (#19) were also the best option to
undertakeWhole ecosystem assessments (score 4.5), together withFrontiers in Marine Science frontiersin11T
A
B
LE
4
M
e
an
sc
o
re
s
as
si
g
n
e
d
to
e
ac
h
to
o
l
g
ro
u
p
(r
o
w
s)
b
as
e
d
o
n
th
e
ir
ab
ili
ty
to
d
e
liv
e
r
o
n
a
sp
e
ci
fi
c
e
le
m
e
n
t
o
f
E
co
sy
st
e
m
-B
as
e
d
M
an
ag
e
m
e
n
t
(E
B
M
)
(c
o
lu
m
n
s)
.
M
ai
n
g
ro
u
p
E
B
M
e
le
m
e
n
ts
T
o
o
l
N
o
.
T
o
o
l
G
ro
u
p
4
E
S
(d
e
liv
e
ry
,
im
p
ac
ts
,
va
lu
at
io
n
)
9
Li
n
ks
ac
ti
vi
ti
e
s
p
re
ss
u
re
s
im
p
ac
ts
15
Sp
at
ia
l
an
d
o
th
e
r
m
e
as
u
re
s
3
W
h
o
le
e
co
sy
st
e
m
as
se
ss
m
e
n
ts
2
G
E
S
M
SF
D
as
se
ss
m
e
n
ts
10
Si
n
g
le
M
SF
D
D
e
sc
ri
p
to
rs
/
si
n
g
le
is
su
e
s
13
C
lim
at
e
ch
an
g
e
14
P
re
s-
su
re
an
d
im
p
ac
t
re
d
u
ct
io
n
/
m
it
ig
at
io
n
15
O
th
e
r
P
o
lic
y
R
e
q
u
ir
e
m
e
n
ts
5
Sp
e
-
ci
fi
c
b
io
ti
c
e
ff
e
ct
s
6
Sp
e
-
ci
fi
c
fu
n
ct
io
n
s
16
U
n
ce
rt
ai
n
ty
11
Si
n
g
le
sp
e
ci
e
s,
St
at
e
ch
an
g
e
12
T
h
re
at
-
e
n
e
d
h
ab
it
at
s
an
d
sp
e
ci
e
s
17
R
is
ks
1
C
u
m
u
la
-
ti
ve
as
se
ss
m
e
n
ts
7
P
re
s-
su
re
s-
A
ct
iv
it
ie
s
fo
o
tp
ri
n
t
8
Im
p
ac
ts
fo
o
tp
ri
n
ts
13
N
at
ur
al
ca
pi
ta
l
ac
co
un
ti
ng
,
E
S
va
lu
at
io
n
4.
7
0.
7
1.
3
0.
8
0.
0
0.
3
0.
8
1.
3
1.
8
1.
2
2.
7
1.
5
0.
5
1.
0
1.
2
0.
3
1.
0
1.
0
14
B
io
ec
on
.,
so
ci
oe
c.
m
od
el
s,
SG
&
B
va
lu
at
io
n
5.
0
1.
5
0.
0
1.
5
0.
0
0.
0
0.
5
0.
5
1.
5
0.
5
0.
5
0.
0
0.
0
0.
0
0.
5
2.
0
0.
5
1.
5
9
B
io
ge
oc
he
m
ic
al
m
od
el
s
0.
3
0.
0
0.
7
1.
3
0.
7
1.
3
2.
0
1.
0
1.
0
1.
0
0.
7
1.
5
1.
3
1.
0
0.
5
0.
3
0.
0
0.
0
17
Si
m
pl
e
as
se
ss
m
en
t
in
de
x
0.
8
1.
2
1.
4
1.
3
3.
0
2.
5
0.
7
1.
6
2.
4
3.
1
2.
2
1.
3
1.
9
2.
4
0.
9
1.
1
0.
8
1.
0
8
Si
ng
le
sp
p.
m
od
el
s
0.
6
1.
0
1.
9
0.
9
1.
3
2.
0
1.
7
1.
3
1.
6
2.
6
1.
4
2.
1
3.
3
2.
4
1.
7
0.
1
0.
9
0.
5
12
SD
M
m
od
el
s
1.
7
1.
2
2.
1
1.
2
2.
0
1.
9
2.
4
1.
3
2.
0
2.
5
1.
7
1.
9
2.
8
3.
2
1.
8
1.
8
1.
1
1.
2
(C
on
ti
nu
ed
).org
TABLE 4 Continued
e-
c
ic
cts
6 Spe-
cific
functions
16
Uncertainty
11
Single
species,
State
change
12 Threat-
ened
habitats
and species
17
Risks
1 Cumula-
tive
assessments
7 Pres-
sures-
Activities
footprint
8
Impacts
footprints
1.8 1.5 0.9 1.9 2.5 4.7 4.0 3.8
1.2 1.5 1.0 1.5 2.1 2.8 2.9 2.5
0.8 2.0 1.0 2.7 1.6 1.8 2.2 1.8
2.5 3.1 2.5 2.6 1.4 2.4 1.5 1.6
1.4 4.0 2.9 3.1 0.7 2.7 2.7 2.8
3.0 1.6 2.2 1.7 3.9 4.1 3.1 2.9
3.2 3.8 2.7 3.3 3.6 3.4 1.8 2.0
3.0 2.6 2.5 2.8 4.7 3.8 1.9 1.9
1.6 0.8 1.0 2.6 1.2 1.4 1.0 1.0
3.0 1.8 2.2 2.4 1.9 2.6 2.6 2.3
2.0 1.3 2.0 2.3 1.9 2.3 1.7 1.6
4.0 2.6 3.1 2.6 1.8 2.1 1.3 2.0
3.3 1.7 2.4 2.4 1.8 2.3 1.0 1.1
PA Gen CE CE Gen PA/CE PA PA
rouped based on cluster analysis between EBM elements (Figure 1) and tools (Figure 2), respectively (gaps
om of the table (P, Plan; A, Act; C, Check; E, Evaluate; Gen, General relevance). Cells in the table are colored
core-match between tool groups and EBM elements.
P
ap
ad
o
p
o
u
lo
u
e
t
al.
10
.3
3
8
9
/fm
ars.2
0
2
5
.14
2
6
9
71
Fro
n
tie
rs
in
M
arin
e
Scie
n
ce
fro
n
tie
rsin
.o
rg
12Main group EBM elements
Tool
No.
Tool Group
4 ES
(delivery,
impacts,
valuation)
9 Links
activities
pressures
impacts
15 Spatial
and
other
measures
3 Whole
ecosystem
assessments
2 GES
MSFD
assessments
10 Single
MSFD
Descriptors/
single issues
13
Climate
change
14 Pres-
sure and
impact
reduction/
mitigation
15 Other
Policy
Requirements
5 S
ci
bio
effe
6
Cumulative
impact spatial
mapping
1.7 3.1 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.3 1.9 2.1 2.6 1
15
Spatial planning
models
1.7 2.7 4.3 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.9 2.5 1
16
Conservation
planning models
0.8 1.9 4.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 1.6 2.3 3.1 0
18
Descriptor or
theme-specific
combination
of indices
& models
1.9 2.6 2.6 3.3 4.8 4.8 1.7 2.1 2.9 2
19
Overarching
assessment
tools
1.5 2.5 3.7 4.5 4.5 3.3 1.9 2.5 3.0 1
7
Impact risk -
linkage-chain-
frameworks
2.0 4.8 1.3 3.2 1.9 2.8 1.6 3.3 2.8 2
4
BBN
probabilistic
2.4 4.6 1.6 2.6 1.9 3.0 2.9 3.2 2.6 3
5
Risk based
approaches
2.4 4.5 1.9 2.3 2.1 3.5 2.7 4.3 3.8 3
3
Knowledge
Graphs
1.2 4.6 1.0 1.4 1.2 2.6 3.4 3.0 2.8 1
1
Conceptual
models
2.6 4.2 2.0 2.5 2.0 2.6 2.9 2.8 2.1 2
2
Semi-
quantitative
mental models
2.0 3.5 1.4 2.1 1.4 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.1 2
10
Food web
models
1.7 2.0 2.5 3.0 2.3 3.0 2.6 2.7 1.9 3
11
Ecosystem
models
2.1 2.4 2.0 3.5 2.0 2.4 2.3 2.0 2.1 2
ProcessPhase PA PA PA CE CE PA Gen PA Gen C
Scores assigned with high or medium confidence only were considered to calculate the mean values across all contributors. EBM elements and tool groups are g
between columns and rows separate cluster groups at Euclidean Distance = 5). Links between EBM elements and the EBM process phases are also shown at the bot
in a monochrome gradient to reflect the variability of the mean score from lowest (white) to highest (dark blue) value overall, indicating therefore the highestp
fi
t
.7
.7
.9
.3
.5
.3
.0
.3
.8
.7
.0
.6
.5
E
t
s
Papadopoulou et al. 10.3389/fmars.2025.1426971FIGURE 1
Cluster analysis of the elements of Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) based on similarity of tools used and their ability to deliver the specific
element of EBM (mean of scores with high or medium confidence). See Table 2 for full name and reference number of the EBM elements. Symbols
indicate EBM process phases: P, Plan; A, Act; C, Check; E, Evaluate; Gen, General relevance. Group average algorithm was applied for the cluster
analysis, based on Euclidean distance. Elements connected by red lines do not significantly differentiate based on the tools used to deliver them
(SIMPROF test, P>0.05). Bold crosses identify the cluster groups differentiated at Euclidean Distance of 5 (black dotted line), as reported in Table 4).FIGURE 2
Cluster analysis of the tool groups based on similarity in the Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) elements they can deliver (mean of scores with
high or medium confidence). See Table 3 for full name and reference number of the tool groups. Group average algorithm was applied for the
cluster analysis, based on Euclidean distance. Bold crosses identify the cluster groups differentiated at Euclidean Distance of 5 (black dotted line), as
reported in Table 4).Frontiers in Marine Science frontiersin.org13
Papadopoulou et al. 10.3389/fmars.2025.1426971Ecosystem end-to-end models (#11), and for Uncertainty
assessments (score 4.0), along with BBN probabilistic methods
(score 3.8) (Table 5).
Spatial-based tools were best suited to deliver elements at the
Planning phase of the EBM process. Cumulative impact spatial
mapping (#6) was identified as the best option to undertake
Cumulative assessments (score 4.7) and to assess the footprints of
pressures/activities (score 4.0) and of impacts (score 3.8). Spatial and
Conservation planning models (#15 and #16, respectively) were the
most suitable option to deliver on Spatial and other measures.
Food web models (#10) were identified as the best option to assess
Specific ecosystem functions (and impacts on functions) (score 4.0)Frontiers in Marine Science 14and Specific biotic effects/impact (score 3.6) during Planning and
Check/Evaluation phases of the EBM process, respectively. Risk based
approaches (#5) and Simple assessment indices (#17) scored
moderately in the delivery of this latter EBM element. Food web
models were also amongst the top scoring tools (score 3.1) identified
to deliver the assessment of Single species, ecosystem components
state change, although Single spp. Models (tool group #8) were
identified as the best option for this element of the EBM Check/
Evaluation phases, albeit with a score in the mid-range (score 3.3).
SDM models (#12) and Overarching assessment tools (#19) were also
amongst the top scoring tools for the assessment of Single species,
ecosystem components state change, but their scores suggest a betterTABLE 5 Three top-scoring tool groups for each Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) element.
EBM element First place Second place Third place
Cumulative assessments
Cumulative impact spatial mapping (e.g., Halpern
et al.) [4.7]
Impact risk ranking through linkage-
chain-frameworks (e.g., ODEMM) [4.1]
GES MSFD assessments
Descriptor or theme-specific combination of indices
and models (e.g., HEAT, BEAT and CHASE) [4.8]
Overarching assessment tools (e.g.,
NEAT and OHI) [4.5]
Whole ecosystem assessments
Overarching assessment tools (e.g., NEAT and
OHI) [4.5]
Ecosystem services (delivery,
impacts, valuation)
Bioeconomic models, socioeconomic models (CBA),
societal goods and benefits valuation [5.0]
Natural capital accounting, ecosystem
services valuation [4.7]
Specific biotic effects/impacts
Food web models (e.g., multispecies models,
EWE) [3.6]
Risk based approaches exposure-effect-
hazard-vulnerability (e.g., Bow tie) [3.3]
Simple assessment index (e.g.,
M-AMBI) [3.1]
Specific ecosystem functions (and
impacts on functions)
Food web models (e.g., multispecies models,
EWE) [4.0]
Pressures-activities footprint
Cumulative impact spatial mapping (e.g., Halpern
et al.) [4.0]
Impacts footprints
Cumulative impact spatial mapping (e.g., Halpern
et al.) [3.8]
Links activities pressures impacts
Impact risk ranking through linkage-chain-
frameworks (e.g., ODEMM et al.) [4.8]
Knowledge Graph [4.6] BBN probabilistic [4.6]
Single MSFD descriptors/single
issues (e.g., eutrophication,
NIS, HABs)
Descriptor or theme-specific combination of indices
and models (e.g., HEAT, BEAT and CHASE) [4.8]
Single species, ecosystem
components state change
Single spp. model (e.g., life cycle, stock
assessment) [3.3]
Food web models (e.g., multispecies
models, EWE) [3.1]
Threatened habitats and species BBN probabilistic [3.3] SDM models[3.2]
Overarching assessment tools
(e.g., NEAT and OHI) [3.1]
Climate change Knowledge graph [3.4]
Pressure and impact
reduction/mitigation
Risk based approaches exposure-effect-hazard-
vulnerability (e.g., Bow tie) [4.3]
Spatial and other measures Conservation planning models (e.g., MARXAN) [4.6]
Spatial planning models (e.g., GIS,
VAPEM, related to use) [4.3]
Uncertainty
Overarching assessment tools (e.g., NEAT and
OHI) [4.0]
Risks
Risk based approaches exposure-effect-hazard-
vulnerability (e.g., Bow tie) [4.7]
Other policy requirements e.g.,
MSPD, BHD, Biodiversity Strategy
Risk based approaches exposure-effect-hazard-
vulnerability (e.g., Bow tie) [3.8]
Conservation planning models (e.g.,
MARXAN) [3.1]
Overarching assessment tools
(e.g., NEAT and OHI) [3.0]Only tools with average score ≥4 are included, where present. Where not present the top 3 tools with average score between 3 and 4 were considered. The average score for each tool is shown
between square brackets. MSFD, Marine Strategy Framework Directive; GES, Good Environmental Status.frontiersin.org
Papadopoulou et al. 10.3389/fmars.2025.1426971suitability to deliver the assessment of Threatened habitats and
species, along with BBN probabilistic methods (#4; top scoring for this
EBM element, with a value of 3.3).
Tools such as Natural capital accounting, ecosystem services
valuation (#13) and Bioeconomic models, socioeconomic models
(CBA), societal goods and benefits valuation (#14) are clearly the best
option (scores >4.6) for the assessment of Ecosystem services
(delivery, impacts, valuation) (including societal goods and benefits)
during the Planning phase of the EBM process, while these tools are
poorly suited to deliver other EBM elements (with almost all scores <2,
and often 0; Table 4). Finally, the best tool to account for Climate
change in the EBM process appeared to be Knowledge graphs (#3),
followed by Conceptual models (#1) and BBN probabilistic methods
(#4), albeit with scores only between 2.9-3.4.
The three top-scoring tool groups for each EBM element are
summarized in Table 5. When tools with an average score ≥4 are
considered, 12 tools are selected, but these only deliver 12 of the 18
EBM elements, as some EBM elements have only tools scoring
lower than 4 (e.g., Specific biotic effects/impacts; Table 4). To
account for these latter EBM elements, the top 3 scoring tools
with scores between 3-4 were considered in these cases. As a result
of these combined selection criteria, Table 5 includes 15 out of the
19 tool groups analyzed. Conceptual models, semi-quantitative
mental models, biogeochemical models and ecosystem models are
not included as they did not fulfil the selection criteria.6.3 Selecting tools for the EBM approaches
Each of the tools have different advantages and disadvantages
but, as shown above, they also have different abilities to fully or
partially deliver one or multiple EBM elements. Cumulative impact
spatial mapping and Impact risk ranking through linkage-chain-
frameworks are the best suited tools to deliver Cumulative
assessments, for which they both scored highly (≥4 on average,
on a scale 0-5). The score closer to 5 attributed (on average) to
Cumulative impact spatial mapping suggests that this tool alone is
closer to fully deliver on this specific element of EBM at the plan
and check phases. Either or both of these two top tools also appear
to support the delivery of five other EBM elements which
specifically address activities, pressures and impacts, through the
assessment of their links or footprints during the planning phase. In
turn, the top-ranking tools for Cumulative assessments appear to
be less suited for the other elements of EBM (e.g., on ecosystem
services and specific biotic effects assessments).
The best tools to deliver GES MSFD assessments during the
Check-Evaluation phases of the EBM process are Descriptor or
theme-specific combination of indices and models (e.g., HEAT,
BEAT and CHASE) and Overarching assessment tools (e.g., NEAT
and OHI). Both the NEAT and OHI tools scored ≥4 on average, but
the use of Descriptor or theme-specific combination of indices and
model alone appears to be closer to fully deliver on this specific
element of EBM. Similarly, this tool group is also the best choice to
undertake the assessment of Single MSFD descriptors/single
issues (e.g., eutrophication, contamination, NIS, HABs) as may
be required at the planning phase of the EBM process. OverarchingFrontiers in Marine Science 15assessment tools (e.g. NEAT and OHI) also inform other EBM
elements at the Check-Evaluation phases, being well suited to
deliver Whole ecosystem assessments and supporting the
assessment of Threatened habitats and species (along with SDM
models). Overarching assessment tools also deliver well on
Uncertainty and may be used to support Other policy
requirements (together with Conservation planning models).
These tools are sufficiently specific to support the strict
requirements of the MSFD but also, in being a combination of
indices, models and integration tools can deliver to both topic
related thematic and holistic assessments. In turn, the two top-
ranking tools for GES MSFD assessments appear to poorly deliver
on other EBM elements, both being among the lowest ranking tools
for Risks and Climate change.
The top-ranking tools for the assessment of Ecosystem services
(delivery, impacts, valuation) during the planning phase of the EBM
process (Natural capital accounting, ecosystem services valuation and
Bioeconomic models, socioeconomic models (CBA), societal goods and
benefits valuation) are very well suited to deliver this specific EBM
element, with scores close (for Natural capital accounting) or equal to
the maximum of 5 (for Bio/Socio-economic models). However, due to
their very specific nature, they are a very poor choice to inform all the
other EBM elements, for which they are amongst the lowest ranking
tools, and often with a value of 0 (no use) for example forGESMSFD
assessments (both tools) and Single MSFD descriptors/single
issues, Single species/ecosystem components state change,
Threatened habitats and species, Spatial and other measures, and
Uncertainty (Bio/Socio-economic models).
Food web models are the best tool choice for EBM elements of
the planning phase such as the assessment of Specific biotic effects/
impacts (also informed by Simple assessment indices, e.g., M-AMBI)
and Specific ecosystem functions (and impacts on functions),
especially for the latter. Food web models may also inform the
assessment of Single species, Ecosystem components state change,
for which they are the top-ranking tool along with Single spp.model
(e.g. life cycle, stock assessment), albeit both with scores close to 3.
The top-ranking tools to address Spatial and other measures
during EBM planning (Spatial planning models e.g., GIS, VAPEM,
related to use) and Conservation planning models (e.g., MARXAN)
are well suited for this EBM element, with scores ≥4. In turn, they
do not appear to be of particular use for the other EBM elements,
for which they are most often amongst the lowest ranking tools.
Notable exceptions being the ability of Conservation planning
models and of Spatial planning models to deliver on spatial
planning aspects (e.g. spatial allocation and exclusion of activities,
preferred locations for conservation and restoration) of,
respectively, Other policy requirements (e.g., advising on the
best ways to reach targets such as the 10 and 30% protection
targets) or Pressures-activities footprint (e.g. through the spatial
mapping of these elements in an area).
The top-ranking tool for the general assessment of Risks is Risk
based approaches exposure-effect-hazard-vulnerability (e.g., Bow-
tie), which appears to be well suited to deliver this EBM element.
This latter tool is also the best option for the Pressure and impact
reduction/mitigation during the planning and act phases of the
EBM process and to address Other policy requirements (althoughfrontiersin.org
Papadopoulou et al. 10.3389/fmars.2025.1426971with a score ≤4). It also appears to be always within the top ten
ranking tools for any of the other EBM elements. Furthermore,
Knowledge graphs appear to be the best tool to account for Climate
change (albeit with an average score ≤4 and most likely done in a
qualitative way. This tool is also within the top 3 ranking (with score
≥4) in the delivery of Links activities-pressures-impact, together
with BBN probabilistic tools and impact risk ranking through
linkage-chain-frameworks.
Finally, the best tool group for the assessment of Single species/
Ecosystem components state change at the planning stage of the
EBM process includes Single spp. model (e.g., life cycle, stock
assessment), although this type of tool cannot fully deliver all
aspects of this element of EBM (scoring close to 3).7 Discussion
The analysis here has shown that EBM is either explicit or
implicit in all major policies for sustainable marine management. It
is commonly regarded to be based on a set of accepted principles,
presented here, and as shown here, it has been adopted widely by
national, European, regional and global initiatives. Because of this, it
requires tools and approaches for that adoption but is has become
apparent that (i) EBM principles need to be disaggregated to all
important associated EBM elements (e.g. example in S1) to be able
to address them fully and correctly match them to necessary tools
and methods, and (ii) not all tools are suitable for fulfilling all of
those principles and thus the user needs guidance in choosing the
most suitable tools – hence ‘horses for courses’.
Marine EBM is essentially a risk-based process based on an
understanding of natural and anthropogenic hazards, in order to
determine what are the risks to the seas, how to assess and mitigate
them, and how to manage the causes and consequences (Cormier
et al., 2022). In essence, hazards occur in the environment (for
example, by natural features such as tsunamis, and anthropogenic
hazards such as contaminant inputs) and these become risks once
they affect human health and welfare (Cormier et al., 2019). Hence,
marine management and especially EBM is centered around cause-
consequence-response frameworks (see above) relating to the
human activities, their pressures, risks and effects on the natural
and human systems and the management responses to prevent or
mitigate those adverse consequences (e.g. CSWD, 2020; Elliott et al.,
2017; Stelzenmüller et al., 2020). In order to be proactive, EBM
should also enable an opportunity assessment and management
process as a means to ensuring the wise and sustainable use of the
seas while also maintaining and protecting the natural system
(Borja et al., 2024). Key EBM elements in all these frameworks
focus on ecosystem health and so identify: (i) the change in status of
various ecosystem components due to single human activities or
pressures, and (ii) the cumulative effects of all the activities
operating in the marine space, negatively but also positively e.g.,
through protection, conservation and restoration actions. The
analysis here shows that two key tool group categories fit this
purpose: Overarching assessment tools (for GES assessments
through structured ecosystem component changes assessments)Frontiers in Marine Science 16and Cumulative impact spatial mapping (Halpern et al., 2008:
EcoImpactMapper). Improvements can be made to these tools to
further their use, for example to the Halpern et al. (2008) approach,
to provide a hierarchical (vs. flat) structure, values for ecosystem
components (vs. only presence/absence), and proper (vs. no)
weighting by importance or spatial distribution of ecosystem
components) (see Borja et al., 2024).
The risk-based tools (e.g. Knights et al., 2015; Piet et al., 2021,
2023) using spatial overlap and sensitivity estimates specifically
intended to guide EBM), can also be used more widely in
assessments, where their outcomes can be compared with those of
more quantitative tools (or perhaps alternatively in data-poor
cases). They can also partly inform on spatial and other measures
and be integrated into science and advice frameworks (Roux and
Pedreschi, 2024). However highly specialized tools such as
MARXAN, ZONATION, VAPEM (see Supplementary Materials
S3 for skills/software links/references) may be needed to support
decision-making (for placing and zoning activities including
conservation) and maritime spatial planning (see, for example,
applications by Maldonado et al., 2022; Doxa et al., 2022;
Fabbrizzi et al., 2023). Beyond highly specialized tools for the
valuation of natural capital and ecosystem services, only food web
models can address the delivery of ecosystem services and some
production-related societal goods and benefits (e.g. Elliott, 2023).
Despite the continued debate and semantics regarding the EBM
terms used (Kirkfeldt, 2019), the analysis here has strongly
confirmed that EBM is the central pillar of the understanding,
interrogation and management of the marine environment. Hence,
EBM or its variants are mentioned in all major marine policy
instruments at local, national, regional (European) and
international levels (see Dickey-Collas et al., 2022, for a list). As
such, it is notable that the analysis here is the first in which the 26
EBM principles have been reworded as instructions and 16 of them
have been assessed in relation to tools for their partial or full
delivery (Table 2). Despite this, while Link and Haugen (2025)
recently carried out a valuable assessment to quantify the monetary
repercussions of using EBM compared to a Business-As-Usual
(BAU) scenario, we contend that so many bodies and instruments
are using EBM that it should be regarded as BAU. However,
importantly, this work reinforces the point here that EBM is good
for both the ecosystem structure, functioning and services, as well as
delivering societal goods and benefits.
The EBM approaches have often been related to individual
components, habitats, species, activities or sectors, but it is
emphasized that such a deconstructing of the marine
environment would not result in an ‘ecosystem-based’ approach
which requires all natural and societal features to be included. For
example, while the FAO emphasized ‘the ecosystem-based
approach to fisheries management’, this is only for one sector and
its management is usually to the benefit of this sector and to the
exclusion of other sectors (Dickey-Collas et al., 2022), thereby a
misnomer not constituting EBM as defined here and elsewhere.
Similarly, it is cautioned that if EBM is only considered in relation
to HABs, NIS, top predators or any other individual component, no
matter how important, then this would not constitute a true EBMfrontiersin.org
Papadopoulou et al. 10.3389/fmars.2025.1426971(Borja et al., 2024) as EBM is/should be a systematic holistic
approach and the alternative to piecemeal and sectoral
management (Sander, 2023).
When applied to disparate areas, EBM and its tools would have
the major challenge in having to cope with different types of
information, both qualitative and quantitative (Haugen et al.,
2024). It also must be suitable for skills- and data-poor areas as
well as skills- and data-rich areas (S3). The analysis here has shown
that the priorities of scientists may differ from the priorities of
managers as the two groups focus on different phases of the PACE
process. Furthermore, the 19 tool groups interrogated here are not
mutually exclusive and some have the same aims and outcomes,
hence, the rationale for discussing tool groups in support of EBM.
Central to the task of managing marine areas is determining/
assessing the footprints of activities, pressures and effects (Elliott
et al., 2020b) and then enacting and integrating the horizontal and
vertical management response-footprints (Cormier et al., 2022); a
true EBM approach should encompass all of these aspects. The tool
groups interrogated here show the importance of conceptual
models as a starting point and frameworks, especially for cause-
consequence-response links, such as DPSIR and its variants (see
above). Among these, the most recent and increasingly widely-used
variant, DAPSI(W)R(M) overcomes the difficulties in other and
earlier variants (Patrıćio et al., 2016; Elliott et al., 2017).
Given the complexity of the marine environment and the need
for its management to cope with a multi-component, multi-
functioning, multi-sectoral, multi-user, multi-agency and multi-
legal jurisdiction environment (Cormier et al., 2022), then it is
not surprising that several or many tools would be required to be
used together to support and effect EBM. Here, as designed in this
particular study, the EBM principles (Table 1) were matched to
assessment core objectives (e.g., quality status assessments,
cumulative effects assessments, ecosystem services addressing
uncertainty and acknowledging the importance of stakeholder
engagement); for example, the principles determine ecological
integrity and biodiversity (e.g., GES for MSFD) and consider
cumulative impacts are at the core of EU Member State MSFD
assessments (Borja et al., 2024).
The novel application used here of R and Q mode multivariate
analyses, applied to the data elicited by expert judgement regarding
the cases (experts) and attributes of the tools, has respectively
grouped the most appropriate tools for EBM and the most
relevant EBM principles for the tools. In summary, the analysis
indicated five groups of tools according to the elements to which
they relate (Figure 2): (i) socio-economic aspects, (ii) biochemical,
species and habitat models; (iii) spatial mapping and planning
models; (iv) indices and assessments for descriptors and wider
assessment, and (v) conceptual, graphical and numerical ecosystem
models encompassing natural and social features.
Given that EBM is essentially a risk and opportunity assessment
and management process, this grouping is not surprising. However,
the analysis could indicate a circular argument in that the overarching
assessment tools (e.g. NEAT) are best at delivering an overall GES
assessment. Similarly, descriptor and theme-based tools (e.g. HEAT)
are good for descriptor and single issues whereas other types of
assessment tools (such as single species or simple biotic indices) areFrontiers in Marine Science 17appropriate for other assessments (Borja et al., 2016). Assessment,
and its monitoring, are not management measures per se, but they are
necessary to indicate what management is needed and/or whether
management has been successful (Borja and Elliott, 2021; Elliott and
Wither, 2024). Several tools can help with planning (through activity
placement, suggested measure types or closures/MPAs, and
conservation prioritization) or by risk management informed
through linkage chains or exposure-effect-hazard approaches. All of
these tools contribute to supporting EBM but not implement EBM.
The Act phase of PACE and the Impact (Welfare) and Response (by
Measures) phases of the DAPSI(W)R(M) cycle (and Management
and Measures part of the DAPSES-MMM framework) require
additional approaches. These include, for example, stakeholder
involvement, consultation and co-creation of measures based on
socio-economic tools, distance to accepted policy objectives and
targets, elaborated scenarios and determination of social and
economic repercussions of and need for management, thereby
completing the EBM cycle (Borja et al., 2024). EBM should be then
at the forefront of approaches that could address the current nature
crisis (Sander, 2023).
It is emphasized throughout this review that EBM should not
only gather appropriate information covering both the natural and
human realms but that it has to accommodate both the changes to the
system and the effects and repercussions of management measures.
This implies that the management actions can be revisited by the
environmental managers (often the so-called ‘competent authorities’
such as an Environmental Protection Agency) at prescribed intervals.
Those intervals may occur whenever there are notable changes to
external events, ecosystem local and global (e.g. climate change)
characteristics, and levels of activities and pressures. Conversely, they
may follow the monitoring and reporting cycle stipulated in the
legislation, for example the 6-year cycle in the case of the MSFD. It is
of note, for example, that the MSFD requires that its indicators,
targets and thresholds can be adapted/modified at each reporting
cycle to adjust for the so-called shifting baselines caused by climate
change (Elliott et al., 2015).
Given that many of the EBM principles relate to natural and
anthropogenic changes in the marine system under management
(e.g. EBM principle 7, account for dynamic nature of ecosystems)
then it is imperative that any tool used should be sufficiently flexible
to those changes and repeated easily with the input parameters
being changed/modified. This argues for not only having one tool
used flexibly but also for having a suite of tools (a toolbox) which
can be used to accommodate changing conditions. For example, this
response to changing circumstances should include feedback loops
indicating new or revised management actions, hence the central
and important feature that EBM has to be related to an adequate
monitoring system in which the monitoring not only indicates what
management is required but also whether that management has
succeeded in its aims.8 Conclusions and recommendations
The analysis here has shown that a given complement of tools,
i.e., a toolbox, is needed to satisfy the many principles of EBM. EBMfrontiersin.org
Papadopoulou et al. 10.3389/fmars.2025.1426971principles encompass high level concepts with many different or
complementary aspects and deconstructing the principles to
essential relevant EBM elements is vital for clarity and to be able
to address them fully. No single tool is likely to satisfy all aspects of
EBM and especially there is the need to ensure that the EBM can
adapt to changing circumstances. Hence, as the result of the
analysis, the EBM toolbox needs to include:Froni. The starting point of a good conceptual understanding
linking the ecological features to their relevant
management anchored in all essential principles and
elements, policy and governance through a risk and
opportunity assessment and management framework.
ii. The conceptual model should include the capability to
create links (again conceptual or preferably numerical)
between the ecological structure and functioning, the
resulting ecosystem services and the societal goods and
benefits and their valuation.
iii. A tool/suite of tools for a suitably weighted cumulative
impacts assessment which is based on estimating the
activity-, pressures- and effects-footprints for all aspects
in an area and which can help define/evaluate/check the
thresholds and identify tipping points of change and then
link these to management actions.
iv. A tool/suite of tools which both covers the components
and features of the ecosystem, such as the MSFD
descriptors, both singly and in total, including the
species and habitat components and their interlinkages,
and which allows an adaptive capacity in management as
marine conditions change.Developing such an EBM toolbox and applying these tools
requires appropriate and fit-for-purpose data and expertise (see
Supplementary Material S3) and thus EBM processes should plan
for the required resources in order to advance EBM
implementation. Hence, it is emphasized that for wide use
globally then the tools should be suitable for skills- and data-poor
areas as well as skills- and data-rich ones.
For most EBM principles (even for some of the omitted ones, as
we show above) there are suitable tools to address their essential
elements, but data gaps remain and impede comprehensive full-scale
assessments. For example, while natural capital valuation tools are
available, not many valuation studies or data are available for deep sea
habitats (Jobstvogt et al., 2014). Similarly, there are tools available for
trade-off analysis to allow EBM principle 11 decisions respect societal
choices e.g. on planning priorities in national marine spatial plans but
again valuations or willingness-to-pay studies are few and focusing on
a small range of issues (e.g. Addamo et al., 2024).
The framework presented here, could be applicable to any
marine system, from estuaries, to coastal and offshore waters, as
well as to shallow and deep-sea areas. While it is intended to serve as
basis to be used under European marine directives (e.g. MSFD,
MSPD), it is emphasized that the fundamental aspects are global
and applicable anywhere, in taking management decisions and
measures for achieving a healthy ocean.tiers in Marine Science 18Author contributions
NP: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – original draft,
Writing – review & editing. CS: Conceptualization, Investigation,
Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
AF: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation,
Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. ME: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – original
draft, Writing – review & editing. AB: Investigation, Writing –
original draft, Writing – review & editing. JHA: Investigation,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. EA:
Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. JPA: Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing –
review & editing. StB: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing –
original draft, Writing – review & editing. TB: Investigation,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SiB:
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. DB:
Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. JC: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft.
RC: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. IG:
Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. AJ: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft.
StK: Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. SaK: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
LL: Writing – review & editing. CLo: Writing – review & editing,
Writing – original draft. CLy: Writing – original draft, Writing –
review & editing. IM: Investigation, Writing – original draft,
Writing – review & editing. CO: Investigation, Writing – review
& editing. DP: Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing –
review & editing. GP: Investigation, Writing – original draft,
Writing – review & editing. DR: Investigation, Writing – review
& editing. IS-A:Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft.
VS: Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. JT: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. LU:
Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. MU:
Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This review
is based on work from the GES4SEAS project (Achieving Good
Environmental Status for maintaining ecosystem services, by
assessing integrated impacts of cumulative pressures). The project
is funded by the European Union under the Horizon Europe
program (Grant Agreement No. 101059877) and UK Research
and Innovation (Grant Agreement Nos. 10050522; 10040226).Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Dr Camino Liquete of the
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, as member of the
Practitioners Advisory Board of GES4SEAS, and Dr Marta Coll offrontiersin.org
Papadopoulou et al. 10.3389/fmars.2025.1426971the Institute of Marine Science (ICM-CSIC), Spain for critically
reading and insights on earlier versions of this work.Conflict of interest
The authors AF, ME, EA, JHA, StB, DB, are employed by IECS
Ltd, TB by MariLim Aquatic Research GmbH and SiB by
Environmental Resources Management Ltd.
The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted
in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that
could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The authors NP, AB, JHA, StK, IG, RC, SaK and LU declared
that they were editorial board members of Frontiers, at the time of
submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the
final decision.Frontiers in Marine Science 19Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the
authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated
organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the
reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or
claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
endorsed by the publisher.Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online
at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2025.
1426971/full#supplementary-materialReferences
Addamo, A. M., La Notte, A., and Guillen, J. (2024). Status of mapping, assessment
and valuation of marine ecosystem services in the European seas. Ecosyst. Serv. 67,
101631. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101631
Ahtiainen, H., Dodd, L., Korpinen, S., Pakalniete, K., and Saikkonen, L. (2024).
Assessing the effectiveness and sufficiency of measures - quantitative application of the
DPSIR framework for the marine environment. Mar. Policy 172, 106480. doi: 10.1016/
j.marpol.2024.106480
Andersen, J. H. (2012). Ecosystem-based management of coastal eutrophication.
Connecting science, policy and society. University of Copenhagen: University of
Copenhagen, 56 pp + annexes.
Andersen, J. H., Bendtsen, J., Hammer, K. J., Harvey, T., Knudsen, S. W., Murray, C.
J., et al. (2020). ECOMAR: A data-driven framework for ecosystem-based Maritime
Spatial Planning in Danish marine waters. NIVA. NIVA Denmark Report No. 7562-
2020. (Copenhagen: NIVA Denmark), 81 pp.
Bastmeijer, K. (2018). “The ecosystem approach for the marine environment and the
position of humans: lessons from the EU natura 2000 regime,” in Chapter 7. The
Ecosystem Approach in Ocean Planning and Governance (Leiden, The Netherlands:
Brill | Nijhoff Publ). doi: 10.1163/9789004389984_008
Berg, T., Fürhaupter, K., Teixeira, H., Uusitalo, L., and Zampoukas, N. (2015). The
Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the ecosystem-based approach – pitfalls and
solutions. Mar. pollut. Bull. 96, 1–2. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.04.050
Borja, Á., Chust, G., and Muxika, I. (2019). Chapter Three - Forever young: The
successful story of a marine biotic index. Adv. Mar. Biol. 82, 93–127. doi: 10.1016/
bs.amb.2019.05.001
Borja, Á. M., and Elliott, M. (2021). From an economic crisis to a pandemic crisis:
The need for accurate marine monitoring data to take informed management decisions.
Adv. Mar. Biol. 89, 79–114. doi: 10.1016/bs.amb.2021.08.002
Borja, Á., Elliott, M., Andersen, J. H., Berg, T., Carstensen, J., Halpern, B. S., et al.
(2016). Overview of integrative assessment of marine systems: the Ecosystem Approach
in practice. Front. Mar. Sci. 3. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2016.00020
Borja, Á., Elliott, M., Andersen, J. H., Cardoso, A. C., Carstensen, J., Ferreira, J. G.,
et al. (2013). Good Environmental Status of marine ecosystems: What is it and how do
we know when we have attained it? Mar. pollut. Bull. 76, 16–27. doi: 10.1016/
j.marpolbul.2013.08.042
Borja, Á., Elliott, M., Carstensen, J., Heiskanen, A.-S., and van de Bund, W. (2010).
Marine management - Towards an integrated implementation of the European Marine
Strategy Framework and the Water Framework Directives. Mar. pollut. Bull. 60, 2175–
2186. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.09.026
Borja, Á., Elliott, M., Teixeira, H., Stelzenmüller, V., Katsanevakis, S., Coll, M., et al.
(2024). Addressing the cumulative impacts of multiple human pressures in marine
systems, for the sustainable use of the seas. Front. Ocean. Sustainabil. 1. doi: 10.3389/
focsu.2023.1308125
BSPC (2006). Nutrient and Eutrophication in the Baltic Sea: Effects/Causes/Solutions,
Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (Copenhagen: Nordic Council).
CBD (2000). Convention on Biological Diversity, COP5, Decision V/6, The
Ecosystem Approach. Available online at: https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=7148
(Accessed February 10, 2024).
CBD (2004). Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, (2004) The Ecosystem
Approach, (CBD Guidelines) (Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity), 50 p. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/ea-text-en.pdf
(Accessed February 10, 2024).
CBD (2007). Ecosystem Approach – 12 Principles, Convention Biological Diversity.
Available online at: https://www.cbd.int/ecosystem/principles.shtml (Accessed
February 2, 2024).
CBD (2022). COP15: Nations adopt four goals, 23 targets for 2030 in landmark UN
Biodiversity Agreement. Official CBD Press Release - 19 December 2022 (Montreal:
CBD press). Available at: https://www.cbd.int/article/cop15-cbd-press-release-final-
19dec2022.
CBD (1992) Convention on biological diversity, june 1992 (Nairobi: UNEP). Available
at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/223428?v=pdf (Accessed February 8, 2024).
Clark, D. E., Gladstone-Gallagher, R. V., Hewitt, J. E., Stephenson, F., and Ellis, J. I.
(2021). Risk assessment for marine ecosystem-based management (EBM). Conserv. Sci.
Pract. 4, e12636. doi: 10.1111/csp2.12636
Clarke, K., and Gorley, R. N. (2006). Primer v6: User Manual/Tutorial (Plymouth:
Plymouth Marine Laboratory), 190 p.
Copping, A. E., Gorton, A. M., May, R., Bennet, F., DeGeorge, E., Repas Goncalves,
M., et al. (2020). Enabling renewable energy while protecting wildlife: an ecological
risk-based approach to wind energy development using ecosystem-based management
values. Sustainability 12, 9352. doi: 10.3390/su12229352
Cormier, R., Elliott, M., and Borja, Á. (2021). “Measuring success: indicators and
targets for SDG 14,” in Life below Water. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable
Development Goals. Eds. W. Leal Filho, A. M. Azul, L. Brandli, A. Lange Salvia and
T. Wall (Springer, Cham). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-71064-8_113-1
Cormier, R., Elliott, M., and Borja, Á. (2022). Managing marine resources sustainably
– the ‘Management response-footprint pyramid’ Covering policy, plans and technical
measures. Front. Mar. Sci. 9. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2022.869992
Cormier, R., Elliott, M., and Rice, J. (2019). Putting on a Bow-tie to sort out who does
what and why in the complex arena of marine policy and management. Sci. Total.
Environ. 648, 293–305. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.168
CSWD (2020). Commission Staff Working Document: Background document for the
Marine Strategy Framework Directive on the determination of good environmental status
and its links to assessments and the setting of environmental targets. Accompanying the
Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the
implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC).
European Commission SWD(2020) 62 final. (Brussels, Belgium: European Commission).
Delacámara, G., O’Higgins, T. G., Lago, M., and Langhans, S. (2020). “Ecosystem-
based management: moving from concept to practice. Chapter,” in Ecosystem-Based
Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Biodiversity. Theory, tools and practice.
Eds. T. O’Higgins, M. Lago and T. DeWitt (Amsterdam: Springer). doi: 10.1007/978-3-
030-45843-0
Dickey-Collas, M. (2014). Why the complex nature of integrated ecosystem
assessments requires a flexible and adaptive approach. ICES. J. Mar. Sci. 71, 1174–1182.
doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsu027
Dickey-Collas, M., Link, J. S., Snelgrove, P., Roberts, J. M., Anderson, M. R.,
Kenchington, E., et al. (2022). Exploring ecosystem-based management in the North
Atlantic. J. Fish. Biol. 101, 342–350. doi: 10.1111/jfb.15168
Doxa, A., Almpanidou, V., Katsanevakis, S., Queirós, A. M., Kaschner, K., Garilao, C.,
et al. (2022). 4D marine conservation networks: Combining 3D prioritization of presentfrontiersin.org
Papadopoulou et al. 10.3389/fmars.2025.1426971and future biodiversity with climatic refugia. Global Change Biol. 28, 4577–4588.
doi: 10.1111/gcb.v28.15
Dubé, M. G., Duinker, P., Greig, L., Carver, M., Servos, M., McMaster, M., et al.
(2013). A framework for assessing cumulative effects in watersheds: an introduction to
Canadian case studies: Watershed CEA Framework. Integrated. Environ. Assess.
Manage. 9, 363–369. doi: 10.1002/ieam.1418
EC (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. Off. J. Eur. Union. 2008. L164, 19–40. Available online at: http://
data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2008/56/oj
EC (2020). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of The
Regions. EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 Bringing nature back into our lives (Brussels,
Belgium: European Commission). 20.5.2020 COM (2020) 380 final.
EC (2022). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
on nature restoration (Brussels, Belgium: European Commission). 22.6.2022, COM
(2022) 304 final, 2022/0195 (COD).
EC (2023). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of The
Regions. EU Action Plan: Protecting and restoring marine ecosystems for sustainable
and resilient fisheries, COM (2023) 102 final, Brussels, 21.2.2023.
EC, European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency, Ruskule,
A., Oulès, L., Zamparutti, T., Dworak, T., Lieberknecht, L., et al. (2021). Guidelines for
implementing an ecosystem-based approach in maritime spatial planning: including a
method for the evaluation, monitoring and review of EBA in MSP (Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union). doi: 10.2926/84261
Elliott, M. (2023). Marine Ecosystem Services and Integrated Management: “There’s
a crack, a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in”! Mar. pollut. Bull. 193,
115177. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115177
Elliott, M. (2013). The 10-tenets for integrated, successful and sustainable marine
management. Mar. pollut. Bull. 74, 1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.08.001
Elliott, M., Borja, A., and Cormier, R. (2020a). Managing marine resources
sustainably: a proposed integrated systems analysis approach. Ocean. Coast. Manage.
197, 105315. doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105315
Elliott, M., Borja, A., and Cormier, R. (2020b). Activity-footprints, pressures-
footprints and effects-footprints – Walking the pathway to determining and
managing human impacts in the sea. Mar. pollut. Bull. 155, 111201. doi: 10.1016/
j.marpolbul.2020.111201
Elliott, M., Borja, Á., McQuatters-Gollop, A., Mazik, K., Birchenough, S., Andersen, J.
H., et al. (2015). Force majeure: will climate change affect our ability to attain Good
Environmental Status for marine biodiversity?Mar. pollut. Bull. 95, 7–27. doi: 10.1016/
j.marpolbul.2015.03.015
Elliott, M., Burdon, D., Atkins, J. P., Borja, A., Cormier, R., de Jonge, V. N., et al.
(2017). And DPSIR begat DAPSI(W)R(M)!” - A unifying framework for marine
environmental management. Mar. pollut. Bull. 118, 27–40. doi: 10.1016/
j.marpolbul.2017.03.049
Elliott, M., and Wither, A. (Eds.) (2024). Environmental Consequences and
Management of Coastal Industries: Terms and Concepts (Amsterdam: Elsevier), pp
371, ISBN: , ISBN: .
EU (2013). Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council
Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council
Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/
585/EC, 93 pp. (Accessed October 8, 2024)
EU (2014). Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of
23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning. Off. J. Eur. Union.
L257, 135–145. Available online at: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/89/oj (Accessed
February 7, 2024).
EU (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 24 June 2024 on nature restoration and amending Regulation (EU) 2022/
869. (Text with EEA relevance). Off. J. Eur. Union. Available at: http://data.europa.eu/
eli/reg/2024/1991/oj. L, 29.7.2024, 93 (Accessed October 8, 2024).
European Environment Agency (2019). Marine messages II, Navigating the course
towards clean, healthy and productive seas through implementation of an ecosystem-
based approach. EEA Report No. 17/2019 (Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union). doi: 10.2800/71245
Fabbrizzi, E., Giakoumi, S., De Leo, F., Tamburello, L., Chiarore, A., Colletti, A., et al.
(2023). The challenge of setting restoration targets for macroalgal forests under climate
changes. J. Environ. Manage. 326, 116834. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.116834
FAO (2003). The ecosystem approach to fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for
Responsible Fisheries. No. 4, Suppl. 2 (Rome: FAO), 112 pp. Available at: http://www.
fao.org/3/a-y4470e.pdf (Accessed February 10, 2024).
FAO (2010). “Aquaculture development. 4. Ecosystem approach to aquaculture,” in
FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. No. 5, Suppl. 4 (Rome: FAO), 53p.
FAO (2021). Ecosystem approach to fisheries implementation monitoring tool – A tool
to monitor implementation of the ecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF) management.
User manual (Rome: FAO). doi: 10.4060/cb3669en (Accessed February 10, 2024).Frontiers in Marine Science 20Fortnam, M., Chaigneau, T., Evans, L., and Bastian, L. (2023). Practitioner
approaches to trade-off decision-making in marine conservation development. People
Nat. 5, 1636–1648. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10530
Galparsoro, I., Menchaca, I., Garmendia, J. M., Borja, A., Maldonado, A. D., Iglesias,
G., et al. (2022). Reviewing the ecological impacts of offshore wind farms. NPJ Ocean.
Sustainabil. 1, 1. doi: 10.1038/s44183-022-00003-5
Garcia, S. M., Zerbi, A., Aliaume, C., Do Chi, T., and Lasserre, G. (2003). The ecosystem
approach to fisheries: issues, terminology, principles, institutional foundations,
implementation and outlook. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 443 (Rome: FAO), 71 p.
Guilhon, M., Montserrat, F., and Turra, A. (2021). Recognition of ecosystem-based
management principles in key documents of the seabed mining regime: implications and
further recommendations. ICES. J. Mar. Sci. 78, 884–899. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsaa229
Haines-Young, R., and Potschin, M. B. (2018). Common International Classification
of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised
Structure. Available online at: www.cices.eu (Accessed February 10, 2024).
Halpern, B. S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K. A., Kappel, C. V., Micheli, F., D’Agrosa, C.,
et al. (2008). A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319, 948–
952. doi: 10.1126/science.1149345
Haugen, J. B., Link, J. S., Cribari, K., Bundy, A., Dickey-Collas, M., Leslie, H. M., et al.
(2024). Marine ecosystem-based management: challenges remain, yet solutions exist,
and progress is occurring.NPJ Ocean. Sustainabil. 3, 7. doi: 10.1038/s44183-024-00041-1
HELCOM (2013). HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy. Part of the 2013
HELCOMMinisterial Declaration that was adopted by the 2013 HELCOMMinisterial
Meeting. Available online at: https://helcom.fi/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/
Monitoring-and-assessment-strategy.pdf (Accessed February 10, 2024).
Helsinki and OSPAR Commissions (2003). Statement on the Ecosystem Approach to
the Management of Human Activities “Towards An Ecosystem Approach To The
Management Of Human Activities”. Joint Meeting of the Helsinki & OSPAR
Commissions 2003 Record of the meeting – Annex 5 (Ref 6.1). Available online at:
https://www.ospar.org/site/assets/files/1232/jmm_annex05_ecosystem_approach_
statement.pdf (Accessed February 10, 2024).
Hering, D., Schürings, C., Wenskus, F., Blackstock, K., Borja, A., Birk, S., et al. (2023).
Securing success for the nature restoration law. Science 382, 1248–1250. doi: 10.1126/
science.adk1658
Hewitt, J., Faulkner, L., Greenaway, A., and Lundquist, C. (2018). “Proposed
ecosystem-based management principles for New Zealand,” in Resource Management
Journal, Auckland, N.Z.: Online, November 2018. (Auckland, N.Z.: Resource
Management Law Association of New Zealand), 10–13. Available at: https://
ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE37949911
(Accessed February 7, 2024).
Howe, C., Suich, H., Vira, B., and Mace, G. M. (2014). Creating win-wins from trade-
offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being: A meta-analysis of ecosystem service
trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Global Environ. Change 28, 263–275.
doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.005
ICES (2003). Management Committee for the Advisory Process Report of the Study
Group on ACFM, ACE, ACME, and Working Group Protocols. ICES CM 2003/
MCAP:02. Available online at: https://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/CM%20Doccuments/
2003/MCAP/MCAP02.PDF (Accessed February 10, 2024).
ICES (2020). Guide to ICES advisory framework and principles. ICES Technical
Guidelines. Report. (Copenhagen: International Council for the Exploration of the Sea).
doi: 10.17895/ices.advice.7648
ICES (2021a). “Workshop on methods and guidelines to link human activities,
pressures and state of the ecosystem in Ecosystem Overviews (WKTRANSPARENT;
outputs from 2020 meeting),” in ICES Scientific Reports. 3:17. (Copenhagen:
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea), 59. doi: 10.17895/ices.pub.7930
ICES (2021b). “EU request on how management scenarios to reduce mobile bottom
fishing disturbance on seafloor habitats affect fisheries landing and value,” in Report of
the ICES Advisory Committee 2021. ICES Advice 2021, eu.2021.08. (Copenhagen:
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea). doi: 10.17895/ices.advice.8191
ICES (2022). Advice on ecosystem services and effects. General ICES Advice guidelines.
Report. (Copenhagen: International Council for the Exploration of the Sea).
doi: 10.17895/ices.advice.19551433.v1
ICES (2023). ICES Advice 2023, Section 1.4. (Copenhagen: International Council for
the Exploration of the Sea). doi: 10.17895/ices.advice.23634480
Jennings, S., and Rice, J. (2011). Towards an ecosystem approach to fisheries in
Europe: a perspective on existing progress and future directions. Fish. Fisheries. 12,
125–127. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-2979.2011.00409.x
Jobstvogt, N., Townsend, M., Witte, U., and Hanley, N. (2014). How can we identify
and communicate the ecological value of deep-sea ecosystem services? PloS One 9,
e100646. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0100646
Katsanevakis, S., Coll, M., Fraschetti, S., Giakoumi, S., Goldsborough, D., Mačić, V.,
et al. (2020). Twelve recommendations for advancing marine conservation in european
and contiguous seas. Front. Mar. Sci. 7. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2020.565968
Katsanevakis, S., Stelzenmüller, V., South, A., Sorensen, T. K., Jones, P. J. S., Kerr, S.,
et al. (2011). Ecosystem-based marine spatial management: Review of concepts,
policies, tools, and critical issues. Ocean. Coast. Manage. 54, 807–820. doi: 10.1016/
j.ocecoaman.2011.09.002frontiersin.org
Papadopoulou et al. 10.3389/fmars.2025.1426971Kirkfeldt, T. S. (2019). An ocean of concepts: Why choosing between ecosystem-
based management, ecosystem-based approach and ecosystem approach makes a
difference. Mar. Policy 106, 103541. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103541
Knights, A. M., Piet, G. J., Jongbloed, R. H., Tamis, J. E., White, L., Akoglu, E., et al.
(2015). An exposure-effect approach for evaluating ecosystem-wide risks from human
activities. ICES. J. Mar. Sci. 72, 1105–1115. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsu245
Korpinen, S., Meski, L., Andersen, J. H., and Laamanen, M. (2012). Human pressures
and their potential impact on the Baltic Sea ecosystem. Ecol. Indic. 15, 105–114.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.09.023
Le Heron, E., Le Heron, R., Taylor, L., Lundquist, C. J., and Greenaway, A. (2020).
Remaking ocean governance in aotearoa new zealand through boundary-crossing
narratives about ecosystem-based management marine policy 122, 104222.
doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104222
Levin, P. S., Fogarty, M. J., Murawski, S. A., and Fluharty, D. (2009). Integrated
ecosystem assessments: developing the scientific basis for ecosystem-based
management of the ocean. PloS Biol. 7, e1000014. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000014
Levin, P. S., Kelble, C. R., Shuford, R. L., Ainsworth, C., DeReynier, Y., Dunsmore, R.,
et al. (2014). Guidance for implementation of integrated ecosystem assessments: a US
perspective. ICES. J. Mar. Sci. 71, 1198–1204. doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fst112
Link, J. S., and Haugen, J. B. (2025). The business case for ecosystem-based
management. Mar. Policy 172, 106485. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106485
Long, R. D., Charles, A., and Stephenson, R. L. (2015). Key principles of marine
ecosystem-based management. Mar. Policy 57, 53–60. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2015.01
Maldonado, A. D., Galparsoro, I., Mandiola, G., de Santiago, I., Garnier, R., Pouso, S.,
et al. (2022). A Bayesian Network model to identify suitable areas for offshore wave
energy farms, in the framework of ecosystem approach to marine spatial planning. Sci.
Total. Environ. 838, 156037. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.156037
Mansfield, E. J., Micheli, F., Fujita, R., Fulton, E. A., Gelcich, S., Battista, W., et al.
(2024). Anticipating trade-offs and promoting synergies between small-scale fisheries
and aquaculture to improve social, economic, and ecological outcomes. NPJ Ocean.
Sustaintabil. 3, 1. doi: 10.1038/s44183-023-00035-5
McLeod, K. L., Lubchenco, J., Palumbi, S. R., and Rosenberg, A. A. (2005). Scientific
Consensus Statement on Marine Ecosystem-Based Management. Published by the
Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea. Available online at: http://
compassonline.org/?q=EBMhttps://marineplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/
Consensusstatement.pdf.
Morishita, J. (2008). What is the ecosystem approach for fisheries management?Mar.
Policy 32, 19–26. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2007.04.004
NSC (2002). “Bergen declaration,” in Fifth International Conference on the Protection of
the North Sea, Bergen, Norway, 20–21March 2002. Declaration signed by theMinisters of
the Environment of 9 North Sea countries and the European Commission’s Director of
DG Environment. Norwegian Ministry of the Environment. Bergen, Norway. Available
online at: https://www.ospar.org/site/assets/files/1239/5nsc-2002_bergen_declaration_
english.pdf (Accessed January 31, 2025).
O’Hagan, A. M. (2020). “Ecosystem-based management (EBM) and ecosystem
services in EU law, policy and governance. Chapter,” in Ecosystem-Based
Management, Ecosystem Services and Aquatic Biodiversity. Theory, tools and practice.
Eds. T. O’Higgins, M. Lago and T. DeWitt (Springer, Amsterdam). doi: 10.1007/978-3-
030-45843-0
O’Higgins, T. G., DeWitt, T. H., and Lago, M. (2020). “Using the concepts and tools of
social ecological systems and ecosystem services to advance the practice of ecosystem-
based management. Chapter,” in Ecosystem-Based Management, Ecosystem Services and
Aquatic Biodiversity. Theory, tools and practice. Eds. T. O’Higgins, M. Lago and T.
DeWitt (Springer, Amsterdam). doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-45843-0
OSPAR (2021). Strategy of the OSPAR commission for the Protection of the Marine
Environment of the North-East Atlantic 20301. Agreement 2021-01: North-East
Atlantic Environment Strategy (replacing Agreement 2010-03). OSPAR 21/13/1,
Annex 22. Available online at: https://www.ospar.org/documents?v=46337 (Accessed
February 10, 2024).
Patrıćio, J., Elliott, M., Mazik, K., Papadopoulou, K.-N., and Smith, C. J. (2016).
DPSIR—Two decades of trying to develop a unifying framework for marine
environmental management? Front. Mar. Sci. 3. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2016.00177
Pedreschi, D., Niiranen, S., Skern-Mauritzen, M., and Reid, D. G. (2023).
Operationalising ODEMM risk assessment for Integrated Ecosystem Assessment
scoping: Complexity vs. Manageabil. Front. Mar. Sci. 9. doi: 10.3389/
fmars.2022.1037878
Pezy, J.-P., Raoux, A., and Dauvin, J.-C. (2020). An ecosystem approach for studying
the impact of offshore wind farms: a French case study. ICES. J. Mar. Sci. 77, 1238–1246.
doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fsy125Frontiers in Marine Science 21Piet, G., Grundlehner, A., Jongbloed, R., Tamis, J., and de Vries, P. (2023). SCAIRM:
A spatial cumulative assessment of impact risk for management. Ecol. Indic. 157,
111157. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.111157
Piet, G. J., Tamis, J. E., Volwater, J., de Vries, P., van der Wal, J. T., and Jongbloed, R.
H. (2021). A roadmap towards quantitative cumulative impact assessments: Every step
of the way. Sci. Total. Environ. 784, 146847. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146847
Püts, M., Kempf, A., Möllmann, C., and Taylor, M. (2023). Trade-offs between
fisheries, offshore wind farms and marine protected areas in the southern North Sea –
Winners, losers and effective spatial management. Mar. Policy 152, 105574.
doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105574
M. J. Roux and D. Pedreschi (Eds.) (2024). “ICES framework for ecosystem-informed
science and advice (FEISA),” in ICES Cooperative Research Reports. (Copenhagen:
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea), vol. 359 , 39 pp. doi: 10.17895/
ices.pub.25266790
Rudd, M., Dickey-Collas, M., Ferretti, J., Johannesen, E., Link, J. S., Macdonald, N.
M., et al. (2018). Ocean ecosystem-based management mandates and implementation
in the North Atlantic. Front. Mar. Sci. 5. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2018.00485
Samhouri, J. F., Haupt, A. J., Levin, P. S., Link, J. S., and Shuford, R. (2014). Lessons
learned from developing integrated ecosystem assessments to inform marine
ecosystem-based management in the USA. ICES. J. Mar. Sci. 71, 1205–1215.
doi: 10.1093/icesjms/fst141
Sander, G. (2023). European approaches support an essential definition of
ecosystem-based management and demonstrate its implementation for the oceans.
Ocean. Dev. Int. Law 54, 421–447. doi: 10.1080/00908320.2023.2301105
Slobodnik, J., Alexandrov, B., Komorin, V., Mikaelyan, A., Guchmanidze, A.,
Arabidze, M., et al. (2017). National Pilot Monitoring Studies and Joint Open Sea
Surveys in Georgia, Russian Federation and Ukraine 2016. Final Scientific Report EU/
UNDP Project: Improving Environmental Monitoring in the Black Sea – Phase II
(EMBLAS-II), ENPI/2013/313-169. EMBLAS/EU/UNDP Scientific Project, 479 pp.
https://emblasproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/EMBLAS-II_NPMS_JOSS_
2016_ScReport_Final3.pdf (Accessed January 31, 2025).
Smith, G., Atkins, J. P., Gregory, A., and Elliott, M. (2025). The minimum complexity
necessary: the value of a simple Social-Ecological systems analysis in holistic marine
environmental management. Sustainable Futures, in press, 100476. doi: 10.1016/
j.sftr.2025.100476
Southwood, T. R. E., and Henderson, P. A. (2000). Ecological Methods. 3rd Edition
(Oxford: Blackwell Science), 575.
Stelzenmueller, V., Breen, P., Stamford, T., Thomsen, F., Badalamenti, F., Borja, A.,
et al. (2013). Monitoring and evaluation of spatially managed areas: a generic
framework for implementation of ecosystem based marine management and its
application. Mar. Policy 37, 149–164. doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2012.04.012
Stelzenmüller, V., Coll, M., Cormier, R., Mazaris, A. D., Pascual, M., Loiseau, C., et al.
(2020). Operationalizing risk-based cumulative effect assessments in the marine
environment. Sci. Total. Environ. 724, 138118. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138118
Stelzenmüller, V., Coll, M., Mazaris, A. D., Giakoumi, S., Katsanevakis, S., Portman,
M. E., et al. (2018). A risk-based approach to cumulative effect assessments for marine
management. Sci. Total. Environ. 612, 1132–1140. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.08.289
Termeer, C. J. A. M., Dewulf, A., and Biesbroek, R. (2019). A critical assessment of
the wicked problem concept: relevance and usefulness for policy science and practice.
Policy Soc. 38, 167–179. doi: 10.1080/14494035.2019.1617971
Todorova, N., Alyomov, S. V., Chiotoroiu, B. C., Fach, B., Osadchaya, T. S., Rangelov,
M., et al. (2019). “Chapter 8 – Black sea,” inWorld Seas: an Environmental Evaluation,
2nd ed. Ed. C. Sheppard (Academic Press, London, U.K), 209–226.
UNEP (2008). Decision IG 17/6: Implementation of the ecosystem approach to the
management of human activities that may affect the Mediterranean marine and coastal
environment. UNEP(DEPI)/MED IG.17/10, Annex V. Available online at: https://
www.rac-spa.org/sites/default/files/ecap/ig17_6_eng.pdf (Accessed February 10, 2024).
Vlachopoulou, M., Coughlin, D., Forrow, D., Kirk, S., Logan, P., and Voulvoulis, N.
(2014). The potential of using the Ecosystem Approach in the implementation of the
EU Water Framework Directive. Sci. Total. Environ. 470–471, 684–694. doi: 10.1016/
j.scitotenv.2013.09.072
Vollenweider, R. A., Giovanardi, F., Montanari, G., and Rinaldi, A. (1998).
Characterization of the trophic conditions of marine coastal waters with special
reference to the NW Adriatic Sea: proposal for a trophic scale, turbidity and
generalized water quality index. Environmetrics 9, 329–357. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-
095X(199805/06)9:3<329::AID-ENV308>3.0.CO;2-9
Wakefield, J. (2018). “The ecosystem approach and the common fisheries policy,” in The
Ecosystem Approach in Ocean Planning and Governance. Eds. D. Langlet and R. Rayfuse
(Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, The Netherlands), 287–316. doi: 10.1163/9789004389984_011frontiersin.org