Anda di halaman 1dari 11

Ocean & Coastal Management 96 (2014) 112e122

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Evaluating the performance of Integrated Coastal Management in


Quanzhou, Fujian, China
Guanqiong Ye a, *, Loke Ming Chou a, Lu Yang b, Shengyun Yang b, Jianguo Du c
a

Reef Ecology Laboratory, Department of Biological Sciences, Block S2, #02-05, 14 Science Drive 4, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117543,
Singapore
b
Department of Oceanography, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361005, PR China
c
The Third Institute of Oceanography State Oceanic Administration, Daxue Road 178, Xiamen 361005, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Available online 6 June 2014

The Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) framework has been increasingly adopted in coastal cities of
China. Using indicators to monitor and measure the progress and effectiveness of ICM implementation is
a key step towards adaptive management of the ICM process in the long-term perspective. However,
proper methods of evaluating the ICM performance are still lacking. An evaluation method based on
assessment of indicators is suggested and applied to Quanzhou in this study. 32 indicators adapted to
China's coastal cities are developed, and the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) method is employed as
the weighting method to synthesize the evaluation results. Key ICM performance indicators are identied and specic suggestions are proposed based on the evaluation results, which would be useful for
future decision-making in the ICM governance. The correlations between ICM governance, coastal
environmental and socioeconomic sustainability are analyzed using the Drive force-Pressure-StatusImpact-Response (DPSIR) model. The evaluation indicators and methodologies could be applied to
other coastal cities for promoting the progress of ICM towards the goal of sustainability.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Integrated Coastal Management (ICM), a world-recognized
management approach for coastal governance to address the
environmental and developmental challenges in a holistic way, has
been initiated in over 100 nations (Sorensen, 2002; UNESCO, 2003).
With almost 700 ICM initiatives recorded during the 1990s
(Belore, 2003), only a limited number of ICM initiatives were
completed, sustained or considered successful. A number of ICM
initiatives failed to enter the implementation stage or continued to
run a new cycle due to a synthesis of root causes, such as a lack of
external funds to carry out the projects (Pomeroy and Carlos, 1997;
White and Salamanca, 2002), institutional disagreement (Archer,
1988; Imperial et al., 2000), loopholes in legislation (e.g. a lack of
coherence between sectoral policies (Sharma, 1996)), etc. It became
an urgent need to develop indicators to assess the performance of
the numerous ICM efforts developed at all levels around the world
(Olsen et al., 1999; UNESCO, 2003).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: a0066323@nus.edu.sg (G. Ye).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.05.010
0964-5691/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Early ICM programmes in China were initiated in Xiamen, which


was selected as a demonstration site of the Global Environmental
Facility (GEF)/United Nations Development Program (UNDP)/International Maritime Organization (IMO) Regional Programme to
adopt an ICM framework in 1994. The successful ICM experience in
Xiamen encouraged Chinese government to scale up the ICM programmes along China's coast. To date, over ten coastal cities are
using ICM approaches in various ways in light of the principle of
sustainable coastal development. Using indicators to monitor and
measure the progress and effectiveness of ICM in these cities could
not only help to adjust and improve the ICM frameworks, but also
help to promote the process of ICM expansion in China.
Over the past decades of developments in ICM evaluation and its
indicators, year 2002e2003 could be considered as the years of
ICM indicators, in which the international workshop on The Role
of Indicators in Integrated Coastal Management were held in 2002.
The workshop reviewed the use of the indicators and special issue
46 of the Ocean & Coastal Management Journal on the role of indicators in ICM was published in 2003 (Belore, 2003), which made
signicant steps forward. After 2003, it's the stage of indicators
applications at different levels and scales (NOAA, 2004; Shi et al.,
2004; Breton et al., 2006; Chua, 2006 Schernewski et al., 2006;

G. Ye et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 96 (2014) 112e122

, 2007; Mcfadden et al., 2008; The Provincial Government of


Bille
Batangas, 2008; Ernoul, 2010; Gallagher, 2010; PEMSEA, 2011;
Tabet and Fanning, 2012; Fletcher et al., 2013). After decades of
efforts, the indicators used in the evaluation of ICM could be
categorized into 3 types with different purposes: (1) assessing the
progress of ICM initiatives, mostly within an ICM cycle (Burbridge,
1997; Olsen, 2003; Gallagher, 2010) (2) measuring the outcomes/
impacts of ICM projects, focusing on environmental and social
economic benets towards sustainability (Hanson, 2003; Kabuta
and Laane, 2003; Linton and Warner, 2003; Bowen and Riley,
2003; Mcfadden et al., 2008; Tabet and Fanning, 2012); (3)
measuring the performance of ICM integrating the process and
outcome indicators. This type of indicators are more widely applied
in coastal regions as measuring the progress or outcomes alone will
not sufciently be indicative of how successful ICM is in managing
the sustainable use of coastal resources. Several guidelines have
been published for developing this type of indicators. For example,
International Oceanographic Commission (IOC) published a handbook for measuring the progress and outcomes of ICM by using 37
indicators in terms of governance, ecology and socio-economy
(Heileman, 2006). Partnerships in Environmental Management
for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA) published a guidebook for local
governments measuring ICM in the East Asian Seas Region by
proposing 160 indicators in terms of governance elements and
sustainable development aspects (PEMSEA, 2011). A number of
practical performance evaluations have been carried out at national

113

and local scales (Breton et al., 2006; Schernewski et al., 2006;


NOAA, 2004; Heileman, 2006; The Provincial Government of
Batangas, 2008). However, there are still no widely accepted
methodologies or common criterions for assessing ICM performances due to the complexity and heterogeneity of assigned ICM
, 2007; Gallagher, 2010). How
programmes in different regions (Bille
to make indicators adaptive to local environments and management schemes remains an issue. In addition, the linkages and interdependencies of socio-economic, governance and coastal
environmental dynamics have been rarely analyzed thorough
evaluation. To ll theses gaps, the IOC's evaluation framework that
covers governance, ecological and socio-economic aspects is
applied to develop indicators for an integrated evaluation of ICM
performance in China's coastal cities. 32 indicators are selected
based on the reviews of three types of evaluations and adapted to
the current situation of ICM implementation in China's coastal
cities. Quanzhou (Fig. 1), one typical ICM city in China is chosen for
a case study to apply the indicators to evaluate its progress from
2004 to 2010. Based on the evaluation results, the effectiveness of
ICM programmes are assessed; general trends in the environmental
and social economic conditions of the area are identied. Drive
force-Pressure-Status-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model is also
used to gure out the effects of ICM governance in environmental
problem solving. Based on the evaluation results in the case study,
key performance indicators are selected for the improvements of
the efciency in long-term monitoring and evaluation; specic

Fig. 1. Sketch map of study area-Quanzhou municipality( 24 300 N25 560 N, 117 250 E119 050 E). Terrestrial boundary: includes Quanzhou downtown, 3 county-level cities of
Jiangjiang, Shishi, Nanan, and 4 counties of Huian, Anxi, Yongchun, Dehua, covering a total area of 10 866 km2. Territorial sea area boundary: stretches north to Meizhou Bay, and
south to Weitou Bay, with a coastline of 427 km, covering a total sea area of 11 360 km2.

G. Ye et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 96 (2014) 112e122

114

suggestions are proposed for Quanzhou to facilitate the adaptive


management in response to changing conditions in the future. The
methodologies and the case study presented in this paper could
provide important implications for researches on the ICM performance evaluation, which is imperatively important for the promotion of the ICM progress in coastal regions in an effective way.
2. Material and methods
2.1. An indicator framework for ICM performance evaluation
To measure the ICM performance in a certain period at a
regional level in China's coastal cities, the IOC's framework
(Heileman, 2006) was adopted to build up an adapted indicator
framework for this study. This framework consists of 3 main elements (3 main goals of coastal sustainably) in ICM: sustainable
governance, coastal environment sustainability and socioeconomic
development. In the light of the 3 main elements, 10 sub-elements
were identied for selection of proper indicators. Through an
extensive literature review of indicators used in coastal management, 32 specic indicators adapted to China's coast were selected,
which could reect the degree to which these 3 goals (3 main elements) have been achieved. The ICM performance measurement
indicators are listed in Table 1.
2.2. Study site-Quanzhou
Quanzhou (Fig. 1) is located in the southeast coast of China,
bordering the Taiwan Strait to the east. It is one of most densely
populated areas with nearly 8 million people, and it is also a most
developed coastal city contributes the largest portion of GDP in
Fujian province. With rapid economic expansion, it has been facing
severe coastal environmental problems, such as coastal water
pollution caused by large amounts of domestic and industrial

wastewater discharge and coastal habitats loss caused by extensive


reclamation activities. The previous environmental management
framework could not solve these problems due to series of management loopholes. They were a lack of integrated planning, conicts between different agencies, weak capacity for pollution
control and treatment, inadequate legal systems for regulation
enforcement, and lacking of sufcient coastal database for management. To address these problems and promote sustainable
coastal development, the municipal government joined the GEF/
UNDP/UNOPS-PEMSEAs ICM Scaling up Programme in 2005,
acting as an ICM parallel site to implement ICM programmes. The
municipal then started turning to reform the management mechanism of coastal management. Prioritized concerns included industrial pollution, changes in hydrodynamic condition of coastal
waters due to marine reclamation and port construction, overexploitation of marine resources, illegal sand mining, and red-tides.
To solve these concerns, three ICM steering committees on ocean
development and management, offshore wastewater integrated
treatment as well as coastal resource and environment protection
were formally established at the municipal level, dominating the
ICM coordination mechanism in Quanzhou (Fig. 2). The local government has also enacted series of coastal programmes on sea use
management, environmental protection, resource management,
ecological planning and risk management (Fig. 3). Until 2010, the
ICM had been implemented in Quanzhou for 6 years. Evaluation of
its progress would be essential to review the ICM performance in
the past and to adapt the ICM framework in the future.
2.3. Methods
2.3.1. Time scale
ICM programme was initiated in Quanzhou in 2005, the year
2004 was therefore chosen as a reference year, and the progress of
ICM performance was measured from year 2004 to year 2010.

Table 1
ICM performance measurement indicators.
Main elements

Sub-elements

Indicators

References

Governance

ICM Mechanism

(G1) General ICM strategy


(G2) Coordination mechanism
(G3) Law enforcement mechanism
(G4) Policies, regulations and projects enabling ICM
(G5) Implementation and monitoring of ICM initiatives
(G6) Scientic and technical support
(G7) Staff capacity building
(G8) Infrastructure and facilities allocation
(G9) Stakeholders involvement
(G10) Publicity of government information
(G11) Local government budget allocation for ICM
(G12) External funding
(E1) Coastal water quality
(E2) Marine sediment quality
(E3) Marine biological quality
(E4) Phytoplankton diversity
(E5) Zooplankton diversity
(E6) Benthos diversity
(E7) Habitat diversity
(E8) Key habitats
(S1) Population density
(S2) Per capita income
(S3) Employment
(S4) Per capital GDP
(S5) Gross Ocean Product
(S6) Fishery resources exploitation
(S7) Ports development
(S8) Tourism development
(S9) Marine and coastal hazards
(S10) Sewage treatment
(S11) Discharge of total pollutant into sea
(S12) Environmental funding

(Heileman, 2006; PEMSEA, 2011;


Breton et al., 2006; Hanson, 2003;
Ehler, 2003; Ernoul, 2010)

Planning, implementation,
and monitoring
Capacity Building

Public involvement
Financing
Coastal
Environment

Quality

Biodiversity

Social Economic
Condition

Social cohesion

Economic development
and resource utilization

Public safety and


environmental protection

(Rice, 2003; Chua, 2006;


Heileman, 2006; NOAA, 2004)

(Bowen and Riley, 2003;


Shi et al., 2004;
Mcfadden et al., 2008)

G. Ye et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 96 (2014) 112e122

115

Fig. 2. The ICM coordination mechanism in Quanzhou.

Fig. 3. The ICM legal framework in Quanzhou.

2.3.2. Data collection


All the data were collected through several eld studies in
Quanzhou. The governance data and environmental data were
mainly provided by the municipal government and the Quanzhou
Oceanic and Fishery Administration; social economic data were
mainly provided by the Quanzhou Statistics Bureau.
2.3.3. Selection of quantied indicators and criterions
Governance indicators (G1-G12) were scored as 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75
and 1 (Table 2) basing on the reviews of government documents
and interviews with scientists and administrators who were main
initiators and participants involved in the ICM programme in
Quanzhou. They were 4 scientists from the Third Institute of
Oceanography and Xiamen University, 4 governors from Quanzhou

Oceanic and Fishery Administration, and 2 administrators from


Quanzhou Mangrove Reserve.
Coastal environment indicators (E1-E8) and socio-economic
indicators (S1eS12) were quantied using available quantied
data.
Table 2
Scoring criterion for governance performance.
Score

Criterion

0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1

The
The
The
The
The

indicator
indicator
indicator
indicator
indicator

was
was
was
was
was

not identied, present, or recognized


present, but the performance is weak
present, and the performance is fair
present, and the performance is good
present, and the performance is excellent

G. Ye et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 96 (2014) 112e122

116

2.3.4. Data standardization


If the indicator has a positive correlation with sustainability,
keep the original value. If the indicator has a negative correlation
with sustainability, e.g. S8 Marine and coastal hazards and S11
Discharge of total pollutant into sea, the data were applied a
reciprocal transformation. All the data were then standardized by
using Z score transformation in SPSS 16.0.
2.3.5. Weighting method
Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to eliminate the
possibility of overlapping information in basic indicators to extract
key information from the calculation of three main elementsSustainable Governance Index (GI), Coastal Environment Sustainability Index (EI) and Socio-economic Development Index (SI) as
well as the general ICM Performance Index (IPI). The contribution
rates of the principal components for each indicator obtained by
the PCA analysis were the weights of the indicators.
Calculation of GI, EI, SI and IPI The numerical results of GI, EI,
and SI were calculated by the following equation:

Im

n
X

Pi Wi

(1)

i1

In Eq. (1), Im represents GI, EI, SI separately; n represents the


number of principal components, Pi is the standardized score of
each indicator, Wi is the weight of each indicator represented by the
principal component contribution rate. The nal IPI was the
average value of GI, EI and SI, where the weights of three indexes
were considered evenly as 1/3.

2.3.6. Analysis of DPSIR model


To further understanding the effectiveness and challenges of
ICM governance in environmental problem solving and sustainability promotion, the Drive force-Pressure-Status-ImpactResponse (DPSIR) model was employed. All the ICM performance
indicators were re-categorized into these ve domains e D, P, S, I
and R. To obtain the nal numerical results of D, P, S, I and R, indicators under the same domain were re-processed using the same
methods for the GI, EI, SI described in this section. The standardized
score of each indicator would be the same. But the weight of each
indicator would be different as the indicators were in different
groupings when applying the DPSIR model.
3. Results
GI: The evaluation results and nal scores of the governance
indicators in each year were listed in Table 3 and Table 4. G12
showed no variance within the 7 years, it was therefore eliminated
from Z score transformation and PCA analysis. The results of GI in
Quanzhou showed in Fig. 4 (a) and the variations of 12 governance
indicators with evaluation scores (before standardization) in 2004
and 2010 were showed in Fig. 5 (a). It would not be necessary to use
the standardized scores (which were used for EI and SI) for
governance indicators to show the changes of performances as the
evaluation scores were already in the same dimension from 0 to 1,
and the evaluation scores could reveal the changes more intuitive
by their denitions in Table 2.
EI: All the quantied data of environmental indicators were
provided in Table 5. E2, E3 and E7 showed no variance among 7

Table 3
Detailed evaluation results of Quanzhou ICM governance.
Indicators

Performance evaluation (2004e2010)

(G1) General ICM strategy

2004e2008, no general ICM plan


2009e2010, an ICM plan formulated, the overall performance was fair
2004e2005,there was a marine development and management team, but the performance was poor
2006e2010, three ICM steering committees set up, the performance was fair
2004e2005, multi agencies involved in law enforcement, the performance was poor
2006e2008, an integrated team of marine and shery law enforcement established, the performance was fair
2009e2010, an integrated law enforcement mechanism formulated, the performance was good
2004e2005, only one major project on coastal pollution treatment, the performance was poor
2006e2010,Quanzhou Marine Function Zoning was enforced, several integrated regulations and projects were
launched as well, the performance was fair
2004e2005, only coastal pollution treatment projects were implemented, the performance was poor
2006, more than 300 projects on pollution treatment implemented, the performance was fair
2007e2010, several projects on mangrove restoration, shery conservation, and coastal ecosystem restoration
were implemented, the monitoring work was enhanced, the performance was good
2004e2005, the scientic and technical support was weak
2006e2009, several research institutes and universities involved to provide scientic support, national and
international communication of ICM experiences, the performance was fair
2010, a research workstation established, the performance was enhanced to be good
2004, no staff be aware of ICM
2004e2008, few administrators took ICM training courses, the performance was weak
2009e2010, most of the administrators started to know ICM, the performance was fair
2004e2005, the performance was weak
2006e2008, advanced laboratories were setup, more monitoring sites were installed, and a decision making
system was setup, the performance was fair
2009e2010, an ICM center with an entire set of facilities was setup, the performance was good
2004e2005, very few stakeholders involved in decision making process, the performance was weak
2006e2010, stakeholder involvement was enhanced by the hearing system, the performance was fair
2004e2007, only part of the information was publicized on ofcial websites, the performance was weak
2008e2010, government plans, policies, decisions, and other information were publicized on ofcial websites
by law < Regulation of the People's Republic of China on the Disclosure of Government Information>,
the performance was fair
2004, the budget for coastal management was low, the performance was weak
2005, the budget for ICM increased, the performance was fair
2006e2010, the nancial mechanism for ICM was setup, the sea area use revenue has been invested into coastal
management, more than 1 billion RMB was allocated for ICM each year, the performance was good
2004e2010, no external funding supported

(G2) Coordination mechanism


(G3) Law enforcement mechanism

(G4) Policies, regulations and


projects enabling ICM
(G5) Implementation and
monitoring of ICM initiatives

(G6) Scientic and technical support

(G7) Staff capacity building

(G8) Infrastructure and facilities allocation

(G9) Stakeholders involvement


(G10) Publicity of government information

(G11) Local government budget


allocation for ICM

(G12) External funding

G. Ye et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 96 (2014) 112e122

117

Table 4
Evaluation results of governance indicators (GI) in Quanzhou (2004e2010).
GI

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
G8
G9
G10
G11
G12

0
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0

0
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.5
0

0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.75
0

0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.75
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.75
0

0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.75
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.75
0

0.5
0.5
0.75
0.5
0.75
0.5
0.5
0.75
0.5
0.5
0.75
0

0.5
0.5
0.75
0.5
0.75
0.75
0.5
0.75
0.5
0.5
0.75
0

Fig. 5. (a) Variations of Quanzhou governance indicators in 2004 and 2010. (b) Variations of Quanzhou environmental indicators in 2004 and 2010. (c) Variations of
Quanzhou Social economic indicators in 2004 and 2010.

Fig. 4. (a) Variations of Quanzhou Governance Index (GI) from 2004 to 2010. (b)
Variations of Quanzhou Environmental Index (EI) from 2004 to 2010. (c) Variations of
Quanzhou Social-economic Index (SI) from 2004 to 2010. (d) Variations of Quanzhou
general ICM Performance Index (IPI) from 2004 to 2010.

years, they were therefore eliminated during Z score transformation and PCA analysis. The nal results of EI were presented in
Fig. 4 (b). The variations of 5 environmental indicators with standardized values in 2004 and 2010 were showed in Fig. 5 (b). E2
Marine sediment quality, E3 Marine biological quality, and E7
Habitat diversity that showed no variations were not displayed in
the gure.
SI: All the quantied data of socioeconomic indicators were
provided in Table 5.The standardized score and contrition rate of
each indicator were presented in Table 6. The nal results of SI were
presented in Fig. 4 (c) and the variations of 12 social economic indicators with standardized values in 2004 and 2010 were showed
in Fig. 5 (c).
IPI: The nal measurement results of IPI were showed in Fig. 4
(d)
DPSIR: According to the denitions of Driving force, Pressures,
state, Impacts and Responses, eight indicators of SI were recategorized into Drivers/Pressures domain, six indicators of EI
were re-grouped into State domain, four indicators of SI and two
indicators of EI were in Impacts domain, and all the indicators of

G. Ye et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 96 (2014) 112e122

118

Table 5
Quantied indicators and actual vales of coastal environment and socioeconomic indicators (EI & SI) in Quanzhou (2004e2010).
Indicators

Quantied indicators

Actual values
2004

E1 Coastal water quality


E2 Marine sediment quality
E3 Marine biological quality
E4 Phytoplankton diversity
E5 Zooplankton diversity
E6 Benthos diversity
E7 Habitat diversity
E8 Key habitats
S1 Population density
S2 Per capita income
S3 Employment
S4 Per capital GDP
S5 Gross Ocean Product
S6 Fishery resources
exploitation
S7 Ports development
S8 Tourism development
S9 Marine and coastal hazards
S10 Sewage treatment
S11 Discharge of total
pollutant into sea
S12 Environmental funding

Compliance rate with the sea water


quality objectivesa (%)
Compliance rate with the sediment
quality objectivesa (%)
Compliance rate with the biological
quality objectivesa (%)
Species number (ind)
Species number (ind)
Species number (ind)
Number of habitat type (ind)
The area of mangroves (hm2)
Population densityind./km2
Per capita income for the residents (RMB)
Employment rate (%)
Per Capita GDP(RMB)
Gross Ocean Production (Billion yuan)
Marine Fish Production(Tonnes)

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

40

50

50

55.6

70.8

75

75

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

80

66
133
135
9
290
695.7
12 699
0.18
18 636
27.47
95.32

96
114
54
9
290
701.3
14 209
0.2
21 427
32.15
93.95

110
130
135
9
297
707.7
15 972
0.22
24 815
36.70
94.06

232
193
180
9
320
712.3
18 097
0.25
29 601
43.62
95.02

234
246
74
9
345
716.9
20 420
0.27
34 840
49.75
96.08

283
195
213
9
431
723.4
22 913
0.29
38 197
56.90
96.38

272
225
157
9
500
748.2
25 155
0.3
43 900
65.53
97.51

30.94
9.85
1.69

40.46
11.97
13.88

51.35
14.48
5.13

62.15
17.03
0.46

72.24
21.63
0.9

76.66
19.46
0.12

84.55
24.44
4.47

40.7

70

76.8

83

85.01

85.2

80.3

26.22

20.52

28.75

5.6

4.85

4.01

5.66

1.95

1.97

1.98

2.03

2.05

2.06

2.1

Port Cargo Throughput (million tonnes)


Tourist population (million people)
Economic losses from marine hazard
(billion yuan)
Ratio of sewage disposal to sewage
discharge (%)
Discharge of total pollutant into sea
(tonnes)
Ratio of Environmental investment
to GDP (%)

a
Water quality, sediment quality and biological quality are dened by National Standard 3 097-1997 Criteria of Seawater Quality of the P.R.C.. Issued by State Bureau of
Environmental Protection, 2002.
Source: data of E1-E8, S11, S12 were provided by Quanzhou Oceanic and Fishery Administration; data of S1eS10 were from Quanzhou Statistics Bureau, 2004e2010 Annual
Report on the Economic and Social Development in Quanzhou.

Table 6
The standardized score and contrition rate (W) of the indicators (2004e2010).

G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
G8
G9
G10
G11
E1
E4
E5
E6
E8
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
S11
S12

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

0.5855
1.4639
1.2247
1.4639
1.3517
0.5855
1.6562
1.2247
1.4639
0.8018
1.9973
1.3870
1.3071
0.8502
0.0076
0.7759
1.1193
1.2645
1.4044
1.2506
1.2487
0.1202
1.4610
1.3571
0.4361
2.1341
1.1371
1.2780

0.5855
1.4639
1.2247
1.4639
1.3517
0.5855
0.2070
1.2247
1.4639
0.8018
0.7263
0.6752
0.9768
1.2210
1.4519
0.7759
0.7957
0.9350
0.9675
0.9488
0.9073
1.1875
0.9785
0.9536
2.0750
0.2803
0.6211
0.9129

0.5855
0.5855
0.0000
0.5855
0.3004
0.4392
0.2070
0.0000
0.5855
0.8018
0.5447
0.6752
0.8227
0.9088
0.0076
0.6901
0.4259
0.5504
0.5306
0.5825
0.5754
1.1018
0.4265
0.4758
0.2725
0.1500
1.3661
0.7303

0.5855
0.5855
0.0000
0.5855
0.7509
0.4392
0.2070
0.0000
0.5855
0.8018
0.5447
0.2766
0.5207
0.3206
0.7947
0.4081
0.1601
0.0868
0.1248
0.0650
0.0707
0.3539
0.1209
0.0095
0.6895
0.5422
0.7295
0.1826

0.5855
0.5855
0.0000
0.5855
0.7509
0.4392
0.2070
0.0000
0.5855
1.0690
0.5447
0.8054
0.5427
1.3548
1.0953
0.1016
0.1057
0.4200
0.5618
0.5015
0.3765
0.4719
0.6324
0.8851
0.5989
0.6694
0.7974
0.5477

1.4639
0.5855
1.2247
0.5855
0.7509
1.6102
1.2421
1.2247
0.5855
1.0690
0.5447
1.1043
1.0822
0.3596
1.3831
0.9528
0.4812
0.9638
0.9987
0.8644
0.8980
0.7056
0.8564
0.4720
0.7596
0.6814
0.8734
0.7303

1.4639
0.5855
1.2247
0.5855
0.7509
1.4639
1.2421
1.2247
0.5855
1.0690
0.5447
1.1043
0.9611
0.9450
0.3846
1.7987
1.9142
1.4529
1.2172
1.4811
1.5275
1.5860
1.2563
1.4199
0.1366
0.3714
0.7240
1.4606

0.3981
0.7267
0.6722
0.7267
0.7049
0.3322
0.5625
0.6722
0.7267
0.4866
0.6970
0.7029
0.7223
0.6488
0.3941
0.6659
0.8515
0.8474
0.8580
0.8436
0.8528
0.3670
0.8824
0.8654
0.3318
1.0171
0.6708
0.8444

G. Ye et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 96 (2014) 112e122

119

GI were in Responses domain (Fig. 6). The numerical results of D/


P, S, I and R from 2004 to 2010 were showed in Fig. 7.
4. Discussions
The IPI in Quanzhou showed that the ICM performance
improved gradually from 2004 to 2010 (Fig. 4 (d)). The average
annual growth rate of IPI was 36.7%. It could be seen that the IPI
increased slightly faster during the initial period (2005e2007) of
the ICM implementation than the later period, which indicated that
the initial ICM programmes implemented in Quanzhou had promoted the sustainable development more effectively. The uprising
trend inferred that the ICM performance was able to achieve the
goal of sustainable development through long-term implementation. The overall positive result proved that the ICM in Quanzhou
could be considered as a success as many ICM initiatives in China
and in other countries (PEMSEA, 2011; Tabet and Fanning, 2012; Ye
et al., 2013). It furthermore showed a clear changing trend that
many practical studies did not.
4.1. Governance performance
The governance performance index (GI) in Quanzhou improved
signicantly from 2004 to 2010 with an average annual growth rate
of 38.3% (Fig. 4 (a)). It showed that the GI increased sharply from
2004 to 2006, and tended to increase much slower afterwards. It
could be seen that the performance of governance indicators were
all improved except G12 external funding, seeing that no external
funds had been invested in the programmes so far (Fig. 5 (a)). This
result, a lack of external funds from private companies or nongovernment organizations, was also an issue for the whole country (Liu et al., 2012). The performance scores of 5 indicators
including law enforcement mechanism, implementation and
monitoring, scientic and technical support etc. all reached a
good level in 2010, while other 6 indicators such as coordination
mechanism, stakeholder involvement were still in a fair level
(Table 4, Fig. 5 (a)). Stakeholder involvement was often the key
factor determining the success of ICM in many cases of other
countries (Archer, 1988; Ernoul, 2010; Imperial et al., 2000). In
China, because of its top down administrative approach, the performance of this factor has been often weak and was not always
the key of the success (Liu et al., 2012). It however cannot be
neglected as it is one of the key principal of ICM (Cicin-Sain et al.,
1998). In general, the municipal government made great efforts
to ICM governance capacity building in the initial stage of the ICM

Fig. 7. Stacked line chart of DPSIR index from 2004 to 2010.

programmes. However, it was also suggested that the improvement


of governance performance from a fair level to a good or
excellent level seems more difcult than the improvement from a
weak level to a fair level, which may require continual efforts to
be inputted to improve the performance.
4.2. Coastal environment performance
The coastal environment index (EI) also improved from 2004 to
2010 with an average annual growth rate of 33.5% (Fig. 4 (b)).
Although the general trend was upward, there was a uctuation
that EI in 2005 was worse than that in 2004 mainly due to the
declining performance of E6 benthos diversity as the species
number of benthic animals decreased from 2004 to 2005. Three
environmental quality indicators (E2 Marine sediment quality, E3
Marine biological quality, E7 Habitat diversity) were invariable
during 2004e2010 with good statuses. Other 5 indicators' performance scores all increased from 2004 to 2010 (Fig. 5 (b)), among
which, the overall growth rate of E2 (coastal water quality) was the
highest while the E6 (benthos diversity) was the lowest, indicating
that the ICM projects on pollution reduction and control to improve
the water quality were effective, while the benthic environment
continued to be deteriorated. Many case studies also showed that
the restoration of benthic environment usually needed more time

Fig. 6. DPSIR model for ICM performance analysis in China's coastal cites.

120

G. Ye et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 96 (2014) 112e122

and efforts than the up layer water environment (Heileman, 2006;


PEMSEA, 2011; NOAA, 2004).
4.3. Social-economic performance
The social-economic development index (SI) of Quanzhou
increased steadily from 2004 to 2010 with an annual growth rate of
37% (Fig. 4 (c)). The performance score of indicators under social
cohesion and economic development and resource utilization subelements all improved obviously, except the indicator of marine
and coastal hazards (Fig. 5(c)), of which the performance score
uctuated in different years. It was because of that the frequency
and intensity of coastal and marine disasters varied in different
years. In 2005, typhoons and storm surges hit 11 prefectures in
Quanzhou, destroying 2 127 houses and 17.506 km2 coastal aquaculture areas. The economic loss caused by the coastal hazards in
this year was at peak, which was about 1.39 billion RMB. The
volatility of this indicator suggested that marine and coastal hazards management would remain to be a major challenge for coastal
development (Chua, 2006).
4.4. DPSIR model for ICM performance analysis
Within the DPSIR model, the Drivers and Pressures cause the
changes of environmental Status; the Impacts result from
environmental changes and socio-economic development, as well
as the institutional Responses to these changes (Smeets et al.,
1999; Bowen and Riley, 2003). In Quanzhou case study, the indexes of D, P, S, I, R all increased from 2004 to 2010 (Fig. 7). The
Response index had the highest annual growth rate while Divers/
Pressures index had the lowest annual growth rate. It could be
inferred that with a rapid increase of the Response index, the Impacts and State index increased with lower growth rates, demonstrating the effectiveness of the Responses. The status of coastal
environment had been improved and better social and environmental impacts had been perceived. However, the Divers/Pressures
index still increased. To further analyze the trend of driving forces
and pressures in Quanzhou, ve main divers/pressures were
analyzed (Fig. 8). It could be seen that sub-indexes of population,
economic development and coastal resource utilization all
increased from 2004 to 2010, while sub-indexes of wastewater
emission and natural hazard showed uctuations among different
years. The sub-index wastewater emission decreased dramatically
from 2005 to 2007, indicating that the responses of wastewater
control and reduction in the initial period of ICM were effective. But
it then increased much slowly from 2007 to 2010, indicating that
the responses may not be sufcient to manage the pressures from
wastewater discharge. The reasons of the uctuation of natural

hazards (indicator S9) have been stated in the results part. In


general, although the improved status of coastal environment and
social/environmental impacts had proved the effectiveness of ICM
governance to some extent, the increase of driving forces/pressures
from rapid economic development and intense coastal resources
utilization as well as coastal natural hazards still called for
continuous ICM efforts to improve the overall eco-efciency in the
future.
4.5. Key performance indicators
Not all the indicators are effective to reveal current performance
gaps and provide indications of progress towards fullling the gaps.
Careful identication of key performance indicators (KPIs) is critical
for maintaining the functioning of ICM. KPI has been widely applied
in projects evaluation and management (Chan and Chan, 2004;
Parmenter, 2010). The identication of KPIs could be completed
by being satised with the following 3 criteria based on the evaluation results.
1. The variation between different years of the indicator is higher,
which means the indicator is sensitive to the changing
conditions.
2. The performance of the indicators is relative weaker, which
needs to be strengthened in the future.
3. The contribution rate of the indicator dened by PCA is either
higher or lower than others under the same sub-element, which
means the data either shows high statistical homogeneity or
high heterogeneity.
In the case study of Quanzhou, nineteen KPIs were selected
(Table 7) that could be used to simplify the original indicator
framework, and to enhance the efciency of monitoring and measurement in ICM performance.
4.6. Problems and suggestions for ICM in Quanzhou
Based on the ICM performance evaluation results and DPSIR
analysis results, the major achievements of ICM in Quanzhou, as
Table 7
Identied key performance indicators (KPI) for Quanzhou ICM performance
evaluation.
Main elements

Indicators

Attributes

Governance

(G1) General ICM strategy


(G2) Coordination mechanism
(G4) Policies, regulations and
projects enabling ICM
(G7) Staff capacity building
(G9) Stakeholders involvement
(G10) Publicity of government
information
(G12) External funding
(E1) Coastal water quality
(E4) Phytoplankton diversity
(E5) Zooplankton diversity
(E6) Benthos diversity

Weak performance
Weak performance
Weak performance

Coastal
Environment

Social Economic
Condition

Fig. 8. Variations of multi-driving forces/pressures in Quanzhou from 2004 to 2010.

(E8) Key habitats


(S3) Total employment
(S4) Per capital GDP
(S7) Ports development
(S9) Marine and coastal
hazards
(S10) Sewage treatment
(S11) Discharge of total
pollutant into sea

Weak performance
Weak performance
Weak performance
Weak performance
High variation
High contribution rate
High variation
Weak performance,
low contribution rate
High variation
High contribution rate
High contribution rate
High contribution rate
Weak performance,
high variation, low
contribution rate
High variation
High variation, low
contribution rate

G. Ye et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 96 (2014) 112e122

121

Table 8
Generalization of major achievements, remaining issues and suggestions for ICM in Quanzhou.
Goals

Major achievements

Remaining issues

Suggestions

Effective ICM
Governance

Formulation of the ICM mechanism as well as


policies, regulations and projects promoted
effective implementation and enforcement
of ICM programmes; strong capacity building
and sufcient internal funds sustained the ICM
programmes

Poor adaptive mechanism;


low-level public participation;
lacking of external funds

Health coastal
environment
Social economic
sustainability

Water quality improved dramatically

Poor benthic environment

Rapid economic development; rising of


environmental funds

Rapid population increase;


intensive coastal resource
developing; poor natural
hazard management

Establishment of the general goals and


objectives for ICM, and building up an
adaptive decision making support system
based on the ICM performance indicators;
seeking for proper mechanisms to rise
external funds, such as setting up different
types of environmental funds from private
donations (Chua, 2006)
Reinforcement of the monitoring and research efforts
on overall biodiversity in the coastal waters
Implementation of ecosystem-based marine
spatial planning (MSP) (Fletcher et al., 2013;
Olsen et al., 2011) to manage the utilization
of coastal resource; building up an integrated
disaster reporting and responding system for
risk management

well as the remaining issues could be concluded; and several suggestions are provided for future ICM planning (Table 8). In addition,
the ICM initiatives in Quanzhou had been implemented for 6 years
by year 2010, and the ICM governance capacity had been built up,
but the progress of ICM performance tended to be much slower. It
may be the time to run a new cycle of ICM with a more adaptive
framework in the next 6e7 years according to the experience in
other regions (Sorensen, 2002; Chua, 2006).
5. Conclusions
This study has proved that the proposed methodologies are
effective and operational to assess the progress of ICM performance. The use of the integrated performance indicators and the
quantied methodologies could clearly reveal the trends of coastal
governance progress as well as the environmental and socialeconomic conditions of the study area. The gaps in the progress
of ICM towards coastal sustainability could also be identied by the
analysis of specic indicators. The selection of proper indicators is a
key step to output a reliable result. Identication of key performance indicators (KPIs) could be an effective approach to facilitate
the monitoring efciency of ICM progress. The relationships between ICM governance, coastal environment changes and social
economic development could be analyzed using the DPSIR model.
However, the selection of indicators is subjected to the available
data in coastal regions. With the development of environmental
monitoring technologies, more indicators such as the biodiversity
indicators and marine spatial indicators could be incorporated to
better represent the changing conditions related to ICM
performance.
Along with the long-term monitoring on ICM performance in
the future, more research efforts could focus on establishing the
independences between the inputs of government interventions
and the outcomes of coastal development, so as to build up a
forecasting model to provide the decision makers with indications
for adaptive management.
Acknowledgment
Sincerely thanks to the reviewers for their very useful comments on this paper.
We would like to thank Zhou Qiulin, Chen Bin from The Third
Institute of Oceanography, Chen Mingru and Xiao Jiamei from
Xiamen University, Huang Xianliang, Wu Shouji, Chen Zhiyuan
from Quanzhou Oceanic and Fishery Administration, Chen Ruohai
and Ji Jianfeng from Quanzhou Mangrove reserve for all the great

supports on data collection process. Special thanks to Professor


Zhou Qiulin from for providing discussions and comments, which
signicantly improved an earlier draft of the manuscript.
References
Archer, J.H., 1988. Coastal management in the United States: a selective review and
summary. International Coastal Resources Management Project. Coastal Resources Center, the University of Rhode Island, p. 24.
Belore, S., 2003. The growth of integrated coastal management and the role of
indicators in integrated coastal management: introduction to the special issue.
Ocean. Coast. Manag. 46 (3e4), 225e234.
, R., 2007. A dual-level framework for evaluating integrated coastal manageBille
ment beyond labels. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 50 (10), 796e807.
Bowen, R.E., Riley, C., 2003. Socio-economic indicators and integrated coastal
management. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 46 (3e4), 299e312.
Breton, F., Gilbert, C., Marti, X., 2006. Report on the use of the ICZM Indicators from
the WG-ID A Contribution to the ICZM Evaluation.
Burbridge, P.R., 1997. A generic framework for measuring success in integrated
coastal management. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 37 (2), 175e189.
Chan, A.P.C., Chan, A.P.L., 2004. Key performance indicators for measuring construction success. Benchmarking: Int. J. 11 (2), 203e221.
Chua, T.-E., 2006. The Dynamics of Integrated Coastal Management: Practical Applications in the Sustainable Coastal Development in East Asia. GEF/UNDP/IMO
Regional Programme for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pollution
in the East Asian Seas, p. 461.
Cicin-Sain, B., Knecht, R.W., Jang, D., Fisk, G.W., 1998. Integrated Coastal and Ocean
Management: Concepts and Practices. Island Press, p. 492.
Ehler, C.N., 2003. Indicators to measure governance performance in integrated
coastal management. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 46 (3e4), 335e345.
Ernoul, L., 2010. Combining process and output indicators to evaluate participation
and sustainability in integrated coastal zone management projects. Ocean.
Coast. Manag. 53 (11), 711e716.
Fletcher, S., McKinley, E., Buchan, K.C., Smith, N., McHugh, K., 2013. Effective practice in marine spatial planning: a participatory evaluation of experience in
Southern England. Mar. Policy 39, 341e348.
Gallagher, A., 2010. The coastal sustainability standard: a management systems
approach to ICZM. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 53 (7), 336e349.
Hanson, A.J., 2003. Measuring progress towards sustainable development. Ocean.
Coast. Manag. 46 (3e4), 381e390.
IOC Manuals and Guides 46, ICAM Dossier. In: Heileman, S. (Ed.), A Handbook for
Measuring the Process and Outcomes of Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management, vol. 2. UNESCO, p. 224.
Imperial, M.T., McGee, S., Hennessey, T., 2000. The Narragansett Bay Estuary Program: Using a State Water Quality Agency to Implement a CCMP. Prepared for
the National Academy of Public Administration, p. 107.
Kabuta, S.H., Laane, R.W.P.M., 2003. Ecological performance indicators in the North
Sea: development and application. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 46 (3e4), 277e297.
Linton, D.M., Warner, G.F., 2003. Biological indicators in the Caribbean coastal zone
and their role in integrated coastal management. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 46
(3e4), 261e276.
Liu, W.H., Ballinger, R.C., Jaleel, A., Wu, C.C., Lin, K.L., 2012. Comparative analysis of
institutional and legal basis of marine and coastal management in the East
Asian region. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 62, 43e53.
Mcfadden, L., Green, C., Priest, S., 2008. Report Social Science Indicators for Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM). Spicosa Project Report. Flood Hazard
Research Centre, Middlesex University, London, pp. 1e17.
NOAA, 2004. Report to Congress on National Coastal Management Performance
Measurement System, p. 41.

122

G. Ye et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 96 (2014) 112e122

Olsen, S., Lowry, K., Tobey, J., 1999. The Common Methodology for Learning: A
Manual for Assessing Progress in Coastal Management. The University of Rhode
Island, p. 56.
Olsen, Stephen B., 2003. Frameworks and indicators for assessing progress in integrated coastal management initiatives. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 46 (3e4), 347e361.
Olsen, Stephen Bloye, Olsen, E., Schaefer, N., 2011. Governance baselines as a basis
for adaptive marine spatial planning. J. Coast. Conserv. 15 (2), 313e322.
Parmenter, D., 2010. Key Performance Indicators (KPI): Developing, Implementing,
and Using Winning KPIs. John Wiley & Sons, p. 299.
PEMSEA, 2011. Guidebook on the State of the Coasts Reporting for Local Governments Implementing Integrated Coastal Management in the East Asian Seas
Region. Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia
(PEMSEA), p. 105.
Pomeroy, R.S., Carlos, M.B., 1997. Community-based coastal resource management
in the Philippines: a review and evaluation of programs and projects, 19841994. Mar. Policy 21 (5), 445e464.
Rice, J., 2003. Environmental health indicators. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 46 (3e4),
235e259.
Schernewski, G., Hoffmann, J., Dreisewerd, M., Stavenhagen, P., Grunow, B., 2006.
Measuring the Progress and outcomes of Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management: the German Oder Estuary case study. Baltic Sea Research InstituteWarnemnde & University of Applied Sciences Neubrandenburg, p. 41.
Sharma, C., 1996. Coastal Area Management in South Asia A Comparative
Perspective. International Collective in Support of Fishworkers, p. 33.

Shi, C., Hutchinson, S.M., Xu, S., 2004. Evaluation of coastal zone sustainability: an
integrated approach applied in shanghai municipality and Chong Ming Island.
J. Environmental Management 71 (4), 335e344.
Smeets, E., Weterings, R., Centre, T.N.O., Bosch, P., Bchele, M., Gee, D., 1999.
Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview. Technical report No 25.
(European Environment Agency), p. 19.
Sorensen, J., 2002. Baseline 2000 Background Report: the Status of Integrated
Coastal Management as an International Practice (Second Iteration). Urban
Harbors Institute Publications, p. 31.
Tabet, L., Fanning, L., 2012. Integrated coastal zone management under authoritarian rule: an evaluation framework of coastal governance in Egypt. Ocean.
Coast. Manag. 61, 1e9.
The Provincial Government of Batangas, 2008. State of the Coast of Batangas
Province. Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia
(PEMSEA), p. 119.
UNESCO, 2003. A Reference Guide on the Use of Indicators for Integrated Coastal
Management. UNESCO, p. 136.
White, A.T., Salamanca, A., 2002. Experience with Marine Protected area planning
and management in the Philippines. Coast. Manag. 30 (1), 1e26.
Ye, G., Chou, L.M., Hu, W., 2013. The role of an integrated coastal management
framework in the long-term restoration of Yundang Lagoon, Xiamen, China.
J. Environ. Plan. Manag., 1e20 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2013.829420.
Published online.