Daniela HRBST Babitonga

Ocean and Coastal Management 196 (2020) 105279
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ocean and Coastal Management

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman
Integrated and deliberative multidimensional assessment of a subtropical

coastal-marine ecosystem (Babitonga bay, Brazil)
Dannieli Firme Herbst a, *, Leopoldo Cavaleri Gerhardinger b, Daniele Alves Vila-Nova c,
Fabiano Grecco de Carvalho c, Natalia Hanazaki a, d
a
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Ecologia – Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil
b
Laboratório de Ecologia, Manejo e Conservação Marinha, Instituto Oceanográfico, Universidade de São Paulo, SP, Brazil
c
Projeto Babitonga Ativa – Universidade da Região de Joinville, SC, Brazil
d
Departamento de Ecologia e Zoologia, ECZ/CCB, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Campus Trindade, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: We investigate the operationalization of an integrated and deliberative multidimensional assessment (distribu
Ecosystem-based management tion of socioeconomic activities across marine spaces, risk to ecosystem levels, pressures on ecosystem services,
Risk and conflicts) in a Brazilian subtropical coastal-estuarine social-ecological system that is currently changing from
Fisheries
a fragmented and sectoral governance system towards an ecosystem-based regime. Based on the perception of
Direct users
Conflicts
five direct ecosystem user groups (aquatic transport, tourism and recreation, mariculture, mining, and fisheries)
we explored how the multidimensional assessment approach may inform ecologically coherent and socially
equitable coastal governance and development. We conducted three cycles of participatory planning workshops
(n = 39) with all groups: to map uses and activities across 7 contextually different planning units; to identify
conflicts; and to assess the spatial distribution of risks to the ecosystem. We mapped the spatial distribution of 28
activities that directly generate provisioning and cultural ecosystem services (ES), and their associated indirect
impact-chains on all ESs types and affected users. A total of 44 conflicts (32 inter- and 12 intra-sectoral) were
discussed, and were higher in more intensely used areas. A habitat risk assessment scaled-up an ecosystem-level
understanding of areas in need of urgent management. Important habitats (mangroves, submerged rocky out
crops, soft bottoms, water column) are facing high levels of risk; and a significant heterogeneity in spatial dis
tribution of risk justifies radically alternative, contextually-based management and development measures to
challenge the status quo. We conclude that the ecosystem services will likely continue to benefit present and
future generations if an ecosystem-based management approach is consistently adopted with five sets of prior
ities: 1) advance plural valuation mechanisms with awareness of pressure-levels on the ecosystem; 2) manage
conflicts while creating synergies amongst existing activities across space; 3) avoid expansion of pressure on
ecologically sensitive areas; 4) consolidate the emerging novel democratic governance mechanism; and 5)
explore the transferability approach’s potential to scale-up coastal governance transformation in Brazil.
1. Introduction political, institutional and socio-ecological contexts and scales (Long

et al., 2015; Langlet and Rayfuse, 2019). In sustainability science, re
Coastal-marine environments provide a wide range of ecosystem sponses to these calls translates in increasing interest in trans
services (ESs) that are targeted benefits of distinct human-use interests disciplinary and transformational research initiatives (Arbo et al., 2018;
(Liquete et al., 2013). Besides the high relevance of tropical estuarine Jacobs et al., 2020); given their potential to respond and transform the
social-ecological systems (Bauer et al., 2013), their associated ESs are reality of complex social-ecological systems to be governed by diverse
being rapidly modified and lost in the past decades. Therefore, a global (often divergent) epistemologies and perceptions of nature (Horcea-
call for action in support of the adoption of principles of coastal-marine Milcu et al., 2020; Eelderink et al., 2020). New management paradigms
ecosystem-based management (EBM) approaches echoes in different should acknowledge the multiple connections sustaining and
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (D.F. Herbst).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105279
Received 3 July 2019; Received in revised form 26 May 2020; Accepted 8 June 2020
0964-5691/© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
D.F. Herbst et al. Ocean and Coastal Management 196 (2020) 105279
distinguishing an ecosystem, including values and services provided by Knights et al., 2015; Borja et al., 2016; Singh et al., 2017; Wyatt et al.,
such ecosystem, the accumulated impacts and risks, the multiple and 2017).
often competing management objectives, as well as the need to embrace These gaps still limit our capacity to understand the subjacent
change and foster social learning and adaptation from wide scale stra mechanisms of impacts to marine ecosystems and the social phenome
tegies to local contexts (UNEP, 2011; UN Environment, 2018). non of building and managing shared values of nature (Jacobs et al.,
In situ biodiversity protection at a local scale (Korpinen and Ander 2016, 2020). We confront these challenges by exploring the outcomes of
sen, 2016; Gattuso et al., 2018) offers a critically important set of so a transdisciplinary sustainability research initiative that combined in
lutions. Hence adopting ‘area-based management’ approaches offer tegrated (e.g., inter-sectoral) and deliberative (widely discussed
promising measures to advance in this direction, e.g. see Other Effective amongst social actors) risk, space use, conflict and ecosystem services
Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs: CDB Recommendation No assessments in a project co-designed with users of an intermunicipal
22/5, July 2018). Area-based management integrates an array of ecosystem that is undergoing coastal governance transformation to
coastal-marine management instruments with a high potential to wards an EBM regime: the Babitonga Bay (Santa Catarina state, South
transversally promote the Sustainable Development Goals in Brazil) (Gerhardinger et al., 2018b).
coastal-marine policies (UN Environment, 2018). Herbst et al. (2020) presented a diversity of perceptions on ESs and
While growing interest in area-based governance is noted across the shared values amongst Babitonga ecosystem direct resource users. These
UN system, how to operationalize an integrated ecosystem and risk as authors and Gerhardinger et al. (2017) showed that the predominant
sessments linked to equitable processes of allocation of access to marine economic thinking combined with asymmetrical power relations have
space (e.g., through EBM marine spatial planning - MSP) are still areas propelled incoherent and unfair public policies in the past. In this paper,
for much theoretical and methodological development (Laffoley et al., we will spatially describe and analyze the multiple direct spatial uses
2017; IUCN WCPA, 2019; Jacobs et al., 2020) and critical debate (activities), their associated ESs, pressures, conflicts and risks posed to
(Peterson et al., 2018; Clarke and Flannery et al., 2019). The valuation of the aquatic ecosystem. We critically assess the application of the
‘ecosystem services’ – the benefits obtained from the environment by multidimensional approach to provide guidance on how to steer trans
humans that are critical to human survival, livelihoods, well-being, and formation of a currently fragmented and sectoral system towards an
quality of life (MEA, 2005) - has been strongly encouraged as a mean to ecosystem-based regime.
introduce ecosystem notions within the coastal-marine public
policy-building sphere (Simpson et al., 2016). For instance, the notion of 2. Methods
ESs can be crucial in studies and debates about estuarine environments,
because it allows for a common language to explore the interconnec 2.1. Study area: Babitonga bay
tedness of ESs and the limits of biosphere, and facilitate learning by
decision-makers and the general public about complexity in an inte The case study encompasses a total area of approximately 1115.28
grated and adaptive perspective (Zaucha et al., 2016; Kenter et al., 2016; km, including 177.30 km2 of mangrove vegetation and 856.19 km2 of
Costanza et al., 2017). Similarly, integrated assessments of risk offer marine aquatic environments (spanning from the inner bay waters to
decision makers a measure of the degree to which coastal and marine wards the ocean down to 20m deep, from the mouth of Saí-Guacú river
habitats are exposed to human activities, as well as the habitat-specific to the North; to the mouth of Itapocú river to the south) (Gerhardinger
consequence of that exposure for the delivery of ESs (Natural Capital, et al., 2017). This is a very important nursery ground for commercial
2017). fisheries (eg. Drumers and shrimps) and endangered marine species (eg.
Therefore, the application of ecosystem-based Marine Spatial Plan Groupers and porpoises) in the South Brazil (Gerhardinger et al., 2020)
ning (MSP) to improve ocean governability requires, inevitably, that and encompasses the largest mangrove area of Santa Catarina state
decision-making is informed about: the distribution of values and uses of (IBAMA, 1998). We engaged direct ecosystem users of all six munici
services; the pressures and associated impact chains (Borgwardt et al., palities neighboring the Babitonga bay, a metropolitan region of about
2019) on ESs and affected users, conflicts and risks; as well as of re 700,000 inhabitants (IBGE, 2016). Herbst et al. (2020) conducted a
lations of power and conflict emerging from shared use and disputes consultation with Babitonga bay direct ecosystem users to identify what
over ESs (Jentoft, 2017; Gerhardinger et al., 2019; Herbst et al., 2020). they perceive as the core set of shared values: food, tourism/leisure,
Transdisciplinary sustainability research supports direct engagement of employment, work and income as well as transportation (e.g. vessels,
social actors and socioeconomic to render prioritization and planning ports and navigation) - were perceived as important by all user groups.
processes robust and socially acceptable, and hence are better able to The Babitonga Ecosystem has been divided in eight Planning Units
balance economic efficiency with consideration for intra- and inter (PUs) given their common ecological, social and economic features
generational equity (Koehn et al., 2013; Werner et al., 2014). (Fig. 1 – below and Table 1 – Supplementary Material). Such division
However, several authors indicate that few are the examples of plural enabled the prioritization of work in seven PUs and identification and
valuation processes going beyond a reductionist and disciplinary attri subsequent mobilization of most relevant actors from each municipality
bution of values to specific commodities that establish monetized in order to collaboratively identify and assess the conflicts and potential
‘market values’ and thus optimally fosters unjust neoliberal models of pressures to the ecosystem. PU No 8 was not considered a priority
economic development (Kull et al., 2015; Mcdonough et al., 2017; Ja because it lies within a no-use state park hence was considered to be
cobs et al., 2020). Research focusing only in the relationship between already subjected to protected area authority management.
certain uses and a subset of species, or in the consequences of a single Before 2015, the Babitonga Ecosystem was under no integrated nor
economic activity or sector to the ecosystem are limited because they participative EBM regime. The inception of a coastal governability
ignore other effects and synergies that can potentially affect the initiative is marked by the Babitonga Ativa project (www.babitongaa
ecosystem as a whole (Leslie e McLeod, 2007; UNEP, 2011). Spatialized tiva.com) which derives from a partnership between the Federal Pub
socioeconomic and ecological data is also often not readily available in lic Ministry (MPF), the University of Joinville Region (UNIVILLE) and
developing countries, such as Brazil, which increases the importance of the Sea Memories Collective network. One major outcome of the project
participatory seascape mapping approaches (Gerhardinger et al., 2010) was the initiation of a multi-sectoral collegiate forum to advance area-
in order to create momentum in area-based management in coastal and based EBM, with representation of public, socio-economic and social-
marine territories. Furthermore, there are also still only a few published environmental segments, the Pró-Babitonga Group - PBG (Gerhar
analyses of case studies and analytical approaches on the application of dinger et al., 2017).
integrated assessments of risks derived from multiple uses to marine
habitats, and even less on deliberative approaches (Arkema et al., 2014;
2
Fig. 1. Map of study area and the Planning Units (PUs): 1) Entry of the Bay, 2) Central islands, 3) Palmital River, 4) Coastal Joinville, 5) Linguado Chanel – Araquari,
6) Linguado Chanel - Barra do Sul, 7) Marine, 8) Acaraí River.
2.2. Workshop sample & design 2.3. Data collection
Co-design of workshop cycles and criteria for participation occurred Local ecological knowledge and perceptions were collected in
in a highly collaborative fashion (for additional detail see ‘selection of workshops hosted by at least two facilitators, each cycle with a different
participants’ in Herbst et al., 2020). This process prioritized direct methodology. The first cycle (September to December 2015) aimed at
ecosystem actors using resources for economic and/or subsistence pur the identification of perceived ecosystem services (Herbst et al., 2020)
poses, including aquatic transport (ports, ferry and public transport and mapping of activities undertaken by direct resource users. We used a
boats), tourism and recreation (marinas, small leisure boats and lodg printed satellite image of the Babitonga Ecosystem (1.266 m × 0.9 m)
ings focusing sports-fishing activities), mariculture (oysters and mussels with a transparent plastic sheet above, where participants were invited
cultive), sand mining and artisanal fisheries agents. We approached the to draw the areas they use (points, polygons and/or lines) and to
maximum possible number of formal representatives of resource users, enumerate them with written legends. For higher precision, geo
in every city around Babitonga Bay. morphologic references were indicated to help the territorial contextu
Three participatory workshop cycles were conducted. The first two alization of drawings.
were undertaken separately with each direct user group across all six The second workshop cycle (September to December 2016) aimed at
coastal municipalities (not all users are present at every city – see first communicating back the results of the former cycle and to hand-out
column of Table 2 - Supplementary Material). In the third cycle, repre maps of their activities per user group at each city for critical feed
sentatives of each user group were invited to jointly take part in one back. In the occasion, participants could use the opportunity to increase
inter-sectoral workshop per PU (Table 2 – Supplementary Material). their understanding about spatial data and make complementary re
Furthermore, for the third cycle representatives from the Pro-Babitonga marks and/or adjustments in the information provided by each activity
Group (composed by public, socioeconomic and social-environmental and use of the ecosystem. After this initial step, we collectively inves
segments) were also invited to participate. The focus of the third cycle tigated the presence of conflicts, regarded as the circumstances in which
was to: widen general understanding of the planning process; increase two or more users are interested and dispute the same space and/or
mutual learning about the outcomes and to contribute with ideas for natural resource.
alternative governance measures in the mid and long run. All invited After receiving feedback from prior cycles, the third cycle (October
companies and institutions related to direct users were invited. In rela 2017 to March 2018) gathered representatives of all active sectors in
tion to fisheries, given historical exclusion and poor representation in workshops at each of the seven investigated PUs. During workshops,
coastal planning (Gerhardinger et al., 2018a), we also sought to mobilize each sector separately discussed and filled tables with information about
the most knowledgeable fishers in every municipality as well as the their perception on the frequency of activities - disturbance (where 3-
representatives of local fishers’ associations. stands for annual or not frequent; 2- occurring many times per year and;
3
1- every week or day) and the intensity rating of each sectoral activity on recruitment, mortality, connectivity and recovery time) and stressors of
the ecosystem, using the following standardized weighting degrees: each activity (frequency of disturbance, change in area rating and
change in structure rating). With the exception of frequency of distur
0 Activity does not affect the quality and productivity of ecosystem and bance, all other ratings were based upon scientific literature. The
does not require immediate management concerns; calculation of exposure (E), in turn, considered ratings for temporal
1 Activity can be affecting the quality and productivity of ecosystem overlap, management effectiveness and intensity. The intensity rating of
and requires attention; each activity (stressor) was assigned based on the average weight re
2 Activity is intense and shows signs that it is already affecting the ported by users themselves at every PU inter-sectoral workshop. We
quality and productivity of ecosystem and requires management considered every management effectiveness level equal 0 (without
actions; management effectiveness), given the low governability of the
3 Activity perceived to have crossed tolerable limits and is already ecosystem. We standardized the confidence (Data Quality) of used data
putting the ecosystem and/or continuity of the activity at risk with weight 2, in order to acknowledge possible imprecisions of data
requiring urgent management actions. derived from user perception. An influence area (buffer – 0 to 1000 m)
for every activity was also adopted.
The intensity weight of all activities was assessed individually, e.g. The HRA output maps show the risk to each habitat and to habitats
all twelve fisheries activities/modalities (gear/target-species) were altogether, where it is possible to visualize the areas classified as high,
assigned separate weights. For every activity, the groups also outlined medium or low risk based on the risk of one or cumulative effect of
the range of pressures they posed to the aquatic environment and to each multiple activities (Arkema et al., 2014). High risk refers to grids
other sector, prompted by a pre-defined comprehensive list of 23 achieving a cumulative risk over >66% of the maximum possible com
possible pressures (Table III- Supplementary Material). bination of stressors reported to each habitat (2.8 for Euclidian dis
tance); medium risk refers to rates between 33 and 66% of possible
2.4. Data processing and analysis cumulative total and; low risk for rates inferior to <33% (Arkema et al.,
2014; Natural Capital, 2017).
We built a matrix of habitats and ecosystem services to each PU As way to guide the assignment of effects of each activity to the
(following Asmus et al., 2015; Scherer and Asmus, 2016; and Herbst ecosystem and the associated weights, we have undertaken an exercise
et al., 2020) in order to associate activities to respective ESs used, and to with other researchers which provided weights and a list of all pressures
describe the presssures affecting them. We used the Millennium of activities on the aquatic ecosystem and users affected. The result was
Ecosystem Assessment concept of ecosystem services (ES) as ‘benefits that resource users’ and scientists’ knowledge were quite similar and in
obtained from the environment by humans’ (MEA, 2005) and its four some cases resource users had given higher weights and listed even more
basic types of ES (provisioning, regulating, supporting and cultural). pressures.
All plastic sheets were photographed at a 90-degree angle for digital The conflicts identified in the second workshop cycle were analyzed
archiving, and the spatial data was scanned and systematized in a GIS qualitatively, by direct user group sector in each PU. The pressures
(shapefiles) using ArcGIS (version 10.5). We built thematic maps of use enlisted to each activity by all direct users were quantified in relation to
to each workshop (per sector and municipality) (see webgis at: www.ba the ecosystem and to other user groups. Data related to conflicts and
bitongaativa.com). Shapefiles of formally licensed areas (mining, ports pressures are presented in a network graph.
and mariculture) were built from data provided by the Department of The number of pressures of a given sectoral activity is not necessarily
National Mineral Production (DNPM) and the Santa Catarina Agro equivalent to the significance of impact and risk it poses to the
pecuarian and Rural Extension Research Company (EPAGRI). ecosystem – hence we also use the HRA analysis to evaluate the different
We performed a cumulative risk and effects analysis of the ecosystem effects of activities in the ecosystem. We linked perceived pressures to
using Natural Capital’s (2017) Habitat Risk Assessment (HRA) model affected ESs types (Table 3- Supplementary material) at each habitat and
which combines different layers of habitats and human stressors (ac PU, and used a Sankey graph (https://rawgraphs.io/) to explore their
tivities) to assess the potential cumulative risk of such activities over the relationships with sectoral activities.
ecosystem in general and on specific habitats. The HRA model used is
part of an ‘open source’ package named InVEST (Arkema et al., 2014; 3. Results
Cabral et al., 2015) to provide guidance on the selection of spatial pri
orities and strategies for effective implementation of EBM (Werner et al., 3.1. Activities, uses and ecosystem services accessed
2014); e.g. advancing the zoning process through better spatial assess
ment and hence decisions concerning the allocation of economic activ A total of 39 workshops were undertaken in the first (n = 18 and 153
ities across the ecosystem (Arkema et al., 2015; Wyatt et al., 2017). participants), second (n = 14 and 128 participants) and third (n = 7 and
Risk intensity maps were built on calculations of the sum of expo 90 participants) cycles. Our collaborative mapping rendered 28 socio
sures (E) and consequences (C) of each ecosystem grid to activities and economic activities associated to mariculture (n = 1), mining (n = 1),
habitats (Arkema et al., 2014; Wyatt et al., 2017). A database matrix of artisanal fishing (n = 12), tourism and recreation (n = 7) and aquatic
habitats and stressors is used to calculate exposures and consequences. transport (n = 7) (Table 1; Layers of single activities maps - Supple
Risk increase with the number of co-occurring habitats and activities at a mentary Material).
given area. The model calculates the cumulative effect by multiplying The 28 activities facilitate access by direct and indirect users to 10
the sums of E and C by grid, by habitat and in the ecosystem as a whole; ESs (Table 1), including six cultural (e.g., navigation/transport/n = 22
and the risk assessment calculates the Euclidean distance based on the activities, contemplation and aesthetics/n = 10 activities, and leisure
sums of E and C by grid, by habitat and in the ecosystem as a whole. For and recreation activities/n = 7 activities) and four provisioning ESs (e.
this analysis we considered spatial data (shapefiles) of three habitats: g., food related activities/n = 15 activities). Activities with higher de
mangroves, submerged rocky outcrops and soft bottoms/water layer; as gree of intensity on the ecosystem (weight >2) and which require
well as data on human activities reported by direct ecosystem users management measures according to the informant perception were:
during the first and second workshop cycles. We chose these three shrimp harvesting, anchored fishing, beach seine, Gerival shrimp fishing,
habitats because of their importance in maintaining ecosystem services, shrimp fishing with bottom-trawling, tourism and ports stop-over. No
aiming the quality of ecological, economic and social benefits obtained. activities were perceived to be associated to intensity 3 (requiring urgent
A total of 28 human uses/activities were considered for the HRA. The management measures).
calculation of consequences (C) considers data on habitat (rates of
4
Table 1
Economic activities undertaken by direct user groups (n = 28), with associated weights (activity intensity) and sites (Planning Unit – PU) in Babitonga Ecosystem and
ecosystem services (ESs) accessed by direct (D) and indirect (I) users. ESs types and subtypes following MEA (2005).
Sector Activity Ecosystem services directly accessed Service type PU Users Activity
intensity
Mariculture Aquaculture of mollusks Navigation and food Provisioning 1, 2, Maricultore agents (D), tourist 1
(mussels and oysters) and cultural and 7 and population (I)
Mining Sand mining Sand (geological resource) and navigation Provisioning 3 Mining agents (D) and 1
and cultural population (I)
Artisanal Harvesting of mollusks Food (various fish), navigation Provisioning 1, 2, 3, Fishers (D), tourists and 1
fisheries (mangrove and rocky oyster and cultural 4, 5 population(I)
and mussel species) and 6
Mangrove crab harvesting 1, 2, 3, 2
4, 5
and 6
Surface gillnet fishing All 1
Bottom gillnet fishing 1, 2, 3, 2
4 and 7
Line fishing All 1
Castnet fishing All 0
Longline fishing 2 1
Beach seine fishing 7 2
‘Gerival’ shrimp fishing 1, 2, 4 2
abd 5
Bottom trawling for shrimps 1 and 7 2
Shrimp seine fishing 2 and 6 1
Swimming crab fishing 1, 2, 3, 0
4, 5
and 6
Tourism and Marinas (boat trips) Navigation, leisure and recreation, Cultural 1, 2, 3, Marina owners (D) tourists and 2
recreation contemplation and aesthetics 4 and 6 population (I)
Sportsfishing Recreation and leisure, navigation, Cultural and All Boat and lodging owners (D), 1
contemplation and aesthetics, food provisioning tourists and population (I)
Boat tours Leisure and recreation, navigation, Cultural 1, 2, 3, Boat owners (D), tourists and 1
contemplation and aesthetics 4, 6 population (I);
and 7
Gastronomy tourism Leisure and recreation, historical heritage and Cultural 4 Boat owners (D), tourists and 1
cultural; contemplation and aesthetics population (I)
Diving/shelter/spearfishing Leisure and recreation, contemplation and Cultural and 2 and 7 Boat owners (D), tourists and 1
aesthetics (scenic beauty), food provisioning population (I)
Tourism stop-over Bathing and swimming, leisure and recreation, Cultural 1 and 2 Boat owners (D), tourists and 2
contemplation and aesthetic (scenic beauty) population (I)
Environmental education Educational knowledge and value systems, Cultural 6 Boat owners (D), tourists and 0
(school boat) navigation, contemplation and aesthetics, sense population (I)
of belonging, historical heritage and cultural,
leisure and recreation
Tourism anchorage stop- Contemplation and aesthetics, logistic support Cultural 1 and 7 Tourism and recreation agentes 1
over vessels and companies that support port
activity (D)
Aquatic Port in operation Navigation/transport Cultural 1 State government (public), 2
transport private enterpreneurs, workers
(logistics and other services) (D)
Access channel Geological resources (natural channel), Provisioning 1 and 7 Ports (D) 1
navigation and cultural
Public transport Navigation/transport, contemplation and Cultural 1 Transport companies (D), 1
aesthetics tourists and population (I)
Ferry boat Navigation/transport, contemplation and Cultural 2 and 3 Transport companies (D), 1
aesthetics tourists and population (I)
Oil ship anchorage buoy Energy (oil), navigation/transport Provisioning 7 Oil and gas industry (D) 1
and Cultural
Submerged oil pipes Energy (oil), navigation/transport Provisioning 1 and 7 Oil and gas industry (D) 1
and Cultural
Legends: Planning Units (PUs): 1) Entry of the Bay, 2) Central islands, 3) Palmital River, 4) Coastal Joinville, 5) Linguado Chanel – Araquari, 6) Linguado Chanel - Barra
do Sul, 7) Marine.
3.2. Conflicts for space use by direct ecosystem users 16).

Areas shared by the largest number of operating activities and sectors
Several activities enlisted in Table 1 occur in the same space and time has probably more disputed ESs, more potential for inter- and intra-
frames by users from different municipalities and sectors sharing the sectoral conflicts, and presence of impact chains (on ESs and direct
coastal-marine environment (see Table 2 – Supplementary material). No users).
PU has all 5 sectors present at the same time (Fig. 1 – Supplementary A conflict might have been assigned to more than one PU. A total of
Material). While mining occurs in only one PU, mariculture is present in 78 conflicts were recorded, of which 34 were not considered either
four, aquatic transport agents in five, fishing activities and tourism and because they were too superficial/lacked minimum characterization (n
recreation occur in all PUs. The PUs with highest number of activities are = 8), they reported on conflicts with indirect users (n = 20) or they were
the Entry of the Bay (n = 21), Central Islands (n = 17) and Marine (n = rather considered descriptions of problems (n = 6). Amongst conflicts
5
with indirect users we highlight those with law enforcement agencies; Channel (n = 14), Central Islands (n = 12), Marine (n = 9), Coastal
those with organizations responsible for licensing or registering activ Joinville (n = 8) and Linguado – Araquari and Balneário Barra do Sul
ities; and those with newly proposed ports that are still pursuing their (both with n = 5).
licenses to build their plants in the ecosystem, e.g. we identified 9 new
port projects under environmental licensing in Babitonga bay whose
pre-planning phases are already concerning local citizens and direct 3.3. Risk and pressure of activities to the ecosystem and affected direct
ecosystem users, because they are located in the Entry of the Bay or in user groups
the Central Islands, where many socioeconomic activities are already in
place. The pressures from direct and indirect activities to the marine
Amongst the reported problems we highlight pollution, wrong dates environment and their cumulative impacts generates risks to different
for official fishing seasonal closures and possible impacts brought by habitats and to the ecosystem as a whole. The identification, mapping
major infrastructure projects still being licensed in the area. Even and attribution of weight for different activities by direct users them
though these problems do not fit our definition of conflicts generated by selves allowed for the spatial assessment of risk they pose to the marine
direct use, they were perceived as potential risks affecting the ecosystem habitats and ecosystem (Fig. 3).
and direct users’ socioeconomic activities; hence they present potential The PUs with highest number of high-risk areas (>66% of total
conflicts in future use of the seascape and thus must also be taken into possible risk value) from activities undertaken by direct users are:
account. Our definition of conflicts rendered the identification of a total Coastal Joinville, Entry of the Bay, Central Islands and Palmital Channel
of 44 conflicts amongst direct user groups (Fig. 5). (Fig. 3a). The PUs with higher risks (red grids) coincides with PUs with
Amongst 44 conflicts, 32 are inter and 12 intra-sectoral (Fig. 2). The the highest number of reported direct use activities. Areas in dark green
fisheries sector is involved with 86% of identified conflicts (n = 38). (no risk at all) are associated to areas where there is no exposure to
Conflicts amongst fishers relates to illegal fishing (use of irregular gill direct user activity (e.g., areas nearby the city of Joinville and areas
nets and mesh sizes, lack of fishing permits, and amateur fishing). We outside what we have considered as the Babitonga Ecosystem – depths
recorded the largest amount of conflicts (n = 18) between fishing and over 20m on the marine PU). It is also important to note that not only the
tourism and recreation agents, which disputes fishing resources, fishing Central Islands PU presents higher-risks, but also shows salient spatial
sites and navigation pathways. These are the most abundant users of the variation (heterogeneity) of risk including some of the areas with the
ecosystem, they undertake the largest number of activities throughout a lowest ranking inside the bay.
wider range of areas which also implied in a higher number of work When considering the risks to different habitat types assessed, we
shops organized to represent their views. The absence of conflicts be found a similar cumulative risk between soft bottoms (0–18.91 – Fig. 3b)
tween mining, mariculture and aquatic transport agents largely derives and mangroves (0–19.92 – Fig. 3c) and, both differing significantly to
from the fact these activities do not occur in the same PUs. Two reported the cumulative risks facing submerged rocky reefs (7.07–4.18 – Fig. 3d).
conflict types cannot be associated to a particular user (thus are non- In mangroves (Fig. 3c), we noted that their frontal parts are facing
identified – NI), including the stealing of production from mariculture higher risks in some PUs (Central Islands, Coastal Joinville, Palmital
fields and stealing of signaling light bulbs from official navigation Chanel and Linguado – Araquari). All areas of submerged rocky reefs
channels giving access to ports. (Fig. 3d) are under risk and those at the Entry of the Bay scored higher
25 out of 44 conflicts occur at only one PU and the others occur in risks, probably because of the closeness to an intense port activity. In
two to five PUs depending on the area used by the activities. PUs with relation to soft bottoms (Fig. 3b), those PUs facing higher risk are
highest numbers of conflicts were: Entry of the Bay (n = 18), Palmital Coastal Joinville, Entry of the Bay, Central Islands and Palmital Channel.
With the exception of the Marine PU, all other presented high-risk areas.
Fig. 2. Perceived inter- and intra-sectoral conflict

relationships amongst direct users of Babitonga
Ecosystem. Total number of (intra-plus intersectoral)
conflicts cited by direct users of Babitonga
Ecosystem, is described below each sector label.
Number in parenthesis refers to intra-sectoral con
flicts, numbers in the tip of edges refers to intersec
toral conflicts. Blue edges are bidirectional, where
two sectors are in a mutually reported conflict rela
tionship). Green edges are unidirectional, where only
one user group reported a conflict with another
group. NI are non-identified user groups. (For inter
pretation of the references to colour in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of
this article.)
6
Fig. 3. a) Risk assessment map from activities undertaken by direct users of Babitonga Ecosystem (Santa Catarina, Brazil); b) Habitat risk assessment model for
Babitonga Ecosystem habitats: b) soft bottoms c) mangroves; and d) submerged rocky reefs/outcrops.
Even though the analyzed activities focuses on provisioning and shows the Central Islands PU with the highest number of affected ESs
cultural ESs (direct services), their inadequate or ilegal operations may (for all types of services), followed by the Marine and Entry of Bay.
as well cause a series of pressures on regulating and supporting ESs Besides posing risks to the ecosystem and its specific habitats, direct
(indirect services) – Fig. 4. We must note, however, that the most users’ activities also affect and pose intra- and intersectoral pressures
frequently cited pressures (e.g. 6, 5, 9, 7 and 20) can reflect the higher (Fig. 5). Three sectors are challenged with intra-sectoral impacts: fish
number of activities from a specific sector and/or number of workshops ing, tourism and recreation and aquatic transport agents. Fisheries and
performed with those sectors, and thus do not necessarily imply greater tourism and recreation agents are the only groups suffering negative
impact to the ecosystem. Alternatively, a much less frequently cited pressures from all other sectors. The fisheries sector, although receiving
pressures (e.g., 14, 16, 17) can be more or as much as impactful as those the pressures of all sectors, reportedly generate pressures only towards
more frequently mentioned during our workshops. Nevertheless, Fig. 4 two other sectors: tourism and recreation and aquatic transport. Tourism
7
Fig. 4. Sankey graph exploring perceived impact chains on ecosystem services and other affected users by each direct use activity of Babitonga bay ecosystem (see
the list with further detail on 23 pressures in Table 3 - Supplementary Material). Pressures types: 1) solid waste; 2) visual pollution; 3) stress to aquatic life generated
by suspension of particulate sediments; 4) changes in hydrodynamics; 5) higher aquatic traffic; 6) overfishing; 7) water pollution; 8) degeneration of nursery grounds;
9) oil spill; 10) coastal erosion; 11) coastal deforestation; 12) exclusion of access to other sector; 13) sound pollution; 14) alteration/loss of consolidated bottoms; 15)
light pollution; 16) fertilizer pollution; 17) direct invasion of exotic species; 18) alteration/loss of soft bottoms; 19) indirect facilitation of exotic species; 20) fisheries
bycatch; 21) obstruction of navigation channels; 22) loss of fishing grounds; 23) loss of fishing gears.
Fig. 5. Network of pressure distribution amongst

sectors. Sum of the pressures of all activities within
the same user group (numbers in parenthesis), be
tween user groups (blue and green edges and
numbers at their tips). Blue edges are bi-directional
(when two user groups produce mutual pressure)
and green edges represents unidirectional pressure
(when only one sector reports a pressure from
another). (For interpretation of the references to
colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to
the Web version of this article.)
8
and recreation and aquatic transport agents are the only sectors gener ecosystem user perception; suggesting they could be elicited by probing
ating pressures to all other direct ecosystem users. informants’ questions about specified natural processes, e.g., climate
change, variation in rainfall, drought, water dynamics, role of the
4. Discussion different environments in generating life. In addition, we propose that a
fuller representation of direct users’ perception on the ecosystem (e.g.,
Our paper demonstrates that the integrative and deliberative recording perceptions on regulating and supporting ESs) benefits from
approach undertaken can hopefully imbue Babitonga bay inter exploration of their perception on how their activities relates to
municipal coastal governance dynamics with all the three key di ecosystem services and pressures. We have shown in Fig. 4 the complex
mensions of EBM interactional structures (Röckmann et al., 2015): web of possible trade-offs narratives it may possibly enact in future so
legitimacy in participatory process, credibility in knowledge production cial learning activities to be conducted with stakeholders navigating the
and salience in scientific inputs. While coastal management usually transformation towards an EBM regime.
suffers from limited levels of stakeholder participation in Brazil (Glaser
et al.,2012), the level of direct user involvement in a subnational MSP 4.2. Conflicts in use of space
process achieved in our case study has not been matched elsewhere in
the country (Gerhardinger et al., 2019). The outcomes of three work Our results show that even though one sector generates pressure to
shop cycles now constitute a key component of Pro Babitonga Group’s others, they are not necessarily in conflict. While this shows the possi
knowledge assets and have indeed been used to steer territorial planning bility of spatial co-existence of users; it can also be a proxy of higher risks
and conflict resolution. through cumulative impacts on indirect ESs. Conflicts are generally
Our data offer stakeholders an opportunity to represent their socio created by disputes over space and resources. Nevertheless, PUs with
economic activities in a more symmetric MSP playing field, which higher number of co-existing activities and sectors are also those with a
should be a critical feature of socially equitable and environmentally higher amount of identified conflicts (Entry of the Bay, Central Islands,
sustainable blue economy arenas (Larson et al., 2013; Cohen et al., 2019; Marine and Palmital Channel).
Bennett et al., 2019). We will explore next how the adoption of our These are particularly important areas for fisheries, tourism and
pluralistic assessment may support decision-making processes aimed at recreation agents and should receive appropriate management attention
resolving conflicts; establishing more effectively management and con because: they share the highest weights of intensity of use on the
servation measures (Machado et al., 2019); and ultimately avoid feeding ecosystem; higher number of conflicts and pressure to intra- and inter
neoliberal economic development approaches (Kull et al., 2015; Mac sectoral use of the aquatic space; and because these sectors were
Donough et al., 20017; Herbst et al., 2020). consistently reported to be operating in a disorderly, free-access regime,
even by their own peers. In the context above, it is worth highlighting
4.1. Multiple uses of marine ecosystem services that: 1) together with mariculture agents, these sectors facilitate access
to the highest quantity of the most important shared values for all direct
Direct use socioeconomic activities undertaken in the studied aquatic and indirect users (seafood and leisure); 2) these activities encompass
ecosystem enables access to direct ESs such as provisioning and cultural, the largest part of the population in terms of distribution of income
following the findings of Herbst et al. (2020). These authors noted that (largest number of economically dependent families across all six mu
food (provisioning service), tourism/leisure, employment, work and nicipalities) and; 3) they have the largest potential to mutually synergize
income as well as transportation (e.g. vessels, ports and navigation) good practices in terms of how one sector can leverage and favor the
(cultural services) forms the core set of commonly perceived shared valuing of others (given the touristic attractiveness of coastal cities). An
values of nature. This is noteworthy and speaks to Martin’s et al. (2016) aggravating factor, however, is that both sectors are heavily suffering
concerns with the poor representation of coastal-marine cultural the consequences of policies that risk further priviledging the develop
ecosystem services in Latin American studies. In our study, the role of ment of other most powerful direct user groups, e.g., various large costal
cultural services was outstanding, largely because of our highly partic infrastructure projects such as ports and shipyards are under advanced
ipative and qualitative methodological choices. Indeed, Martin et al. licensing stages at the Central Islands PU.
(2016) argued that such approaches would be more effective in identi Disputes for ESs and sea space are closely linked, a process most often
fying cultural services and in the assessment of shared values in public imbued with asymmetrical power relations affecting their fair distribu
territories. tion amongst sectors (Bennet et al., 2015; Jacobs et al., 2016). The
Even though the ESs accessed directly by economic activities are spatial data has now been especially important to best represent the
provisioning and cultural, they necessarily mobilize and affect natural plethora of activities performed by less politically influential ecosystem
ecosystem processes and functions, supporting and regulating services users such as artisanal fisheries and tourism and recreation agents. Be
given cascading social-ecological dynamics (La Notte et al., 2017; Herbst sides the existence of specific sectoral legislation, these groups are
et al., 2020). Although supporting and regulating services are often seen operating arguably at an open access regime due to very limited
as ‘invisible’ or less perceived by users in comparison to other services enforcement and very low levels of cohesion in political representation
(Raymond et al., 2009; Casado-Arzuaga et al., 2013; Oliveira and at existing coastal management fora. Aquatic transport (ports/oil and
Berkes, 2014; Mcnally et al., 2016), they are essential to gas industry), mining (the most powerful) and mariculture agents,
well-functioning ecosystems. Therefore, they are often considered in alternatively, can only operate under previously delimited and licensed
termediaries in the pursue of final ESs such as seafood, a critically areas, which facilitates mapping, acknowledgement and enforce
important provisioning service for human well-being (Fischer et al., ment/adaptation of their areas of interest.
2009). Indeed, negative impacts in regulating and supporting ESs (e.g., Rossini et al. (2016) argues the municipality of São Francisco do Sul
lower quality of water and marine life productivity due to pollution) can has been wasting its potential of cultural tourism because of the exag
generate pressures and risks to economic activities, specific habitats and gerated focus on beach tourism at the Marine PU. Policies aimed at
to the ecosystem in general. increasing the visibility of cultural tourism practices would build upon
Maes et al. (2012) indicated that provisioning ESs might be quanti the potential of shared values. For instance, involving fishers in joint
fied and mapped directly in relation to other types of ESs and high activities with other sectors, preserving the historical and natural pat
lighted scientists’ role in the assessment of those that might be rimonies of the region (cultural heritage, tourism, scenic beauty,
degenerated in space, beyond directly used ESs. Herbst et al. (2020) amongst others) go potentially well along with the integration of pro
research, in turn, acknowledged indirect ESs (e.g., regulating and sup visioning ESs such as local seafood and gastronomy.
porting) were not easily recorded in their exploration of direct Fisheries are present across the entire ecosystem, and the fishing
9
grounds at the Central Islands PU are shared by fishers from several 4.3. Risk analysis
communities (De Carvalho et al., 2011; Serafini et al., 2014; Gerhar
dinger et al., 2017). This highlights the importance of this PU in terms of Our spatially-based risk analysis informs spatial prioritization of
supply of fishing resources, but also the potential conflicts and hence management actions, eliciting critical considerations aiming at the
need of management interventions. Furthermore, this PU has a unique reduction of exposure of certain habitats and users to undesirable con
scenic beauty, which is already explored by tourism and recreation boats sequences (Arkema et al., 2014). For instance, risks currently posed to
and the operation of the Ferry Boat taking people to gastronomic jour mangrove and submerged rocky reefs by direct use, can bring loss of ESs
neys in restaurants on the bayside. and directly hinder fishing activities, and indirectly prejudice aquacul
Fisheries are also the most conflicting activity in the ecosystem, ture, tourism and recreation. Mangroves and rocky bottoms are highly
involved with 86% of all identified conflicts. Although formal rules do relevant to fisheries productivity (Barbier et al., 2008). Tognella-de-R
exist to regulate fisheries (e.g., types of gear, minimum size limits, osa et al. (2006) highlighted that, in Brazil, several mangroves are
seasonal closures, etc), they have not been effective mainly because lack considered of no value and their use and value are underestimated while
of enforcement, basic harvesting statistics, control of the number and facing the consequences of high political, social and economic interest
legitimacy of fishing licenses and the ever-higher number of non- and pressure. These authors argued that further loss of mangrove forests
professional fishers competing with artisanal fishers. The lack of at Babitonga bay would generate severe loss of natural capital, to be felt
engaged and committed leadership in artisanal fisheries representation by coastal citizens across the bay. Beyond the harvesting of shellfish and
in the public sphere and a high level of paternalistic behavior (e.g., crustaceans (which renders concrete provisioning services), mangroves
reliance on governmental subsidies and political influence of powerful are important for environmental buffering, nutrient cycling, coastal
port actors) increases the complexity of fisheries management in protection, sewage treatment and carbon sequestration, amongst other
stitutions in this social-ecological system (Serafini et al., 2014). This services (Tognela de Rosa et al., 2006; Rovai et al., 2012).
situation is putting at risk the resilience of fish stocks and degradation of We also highlight the urgent need for conserving the Central Islands
essential fish habitats (Gerhardinger et al., 2020), affecting commercial PU (Table I- Supplementary Material, Fig. 4). Beyond their productivity
as well as sport fishing which is also a very important socioeconomic for local fisheries, and opportunities for tourism and recreation, this is a
activity in Babitonga bay. highly ecologically important area for two sympatric species of small
An alternative to minimize conflicts would be to place limits to cetaceans (grey-dolphin Sotalia guianensis and the critically endangered
recreational fishers while incentivizing local projects to enable social porpoise Pontoporia blainvillei) (Cremer et al., 2011, 2012; Hardt et al.,
learning, stewardship, and empowering artisanal fishers to engage in 2013) and reef fishes (endangered dusky and critically endangered
fisheries self-monitoring schemes and more cohesive representation at goliath groupers - Epinephelus marginatus and E. itajara, respectively;
regional planning stances (specially in Entry of the Bay, Palmital Gerhardinger et al., 2009; Gerhardinger et al., 2020). Furthermore, the
Channel and Central Islands PUs). Increasing surveillance on illegal presence of several islands creates a highly intrincated geography of
fisheries will also decrease opportunistic behavior by ‘weekend’ calm sandy beaches and rocky reef shores that are essential fish habitats
amateur fishers that compete with traditional artisanal fisherfolk. for several commercially important species in South Brazil (Gerhar
Port activities are subjected to licensing and thus prone to official dinger et al., 2020). Duarte (2011) has also noted that specific places
delimitation and regular inspection. Both sand mining and port activ within the Central Islands and Entry of the Bay PUs are highly important
ities involves periodic dredging (the later to keep appropriate depths in priority conservation zones, given that their lower hydrodynamics fa
navigation routes), overlap with traditional fishing grounds, impact on vours the retention of particles playing a critical role in the recruitment
the landscape scenery, and generate pollution from fertilizers and soy of fish larvae.
residues during loading/unloading of grain cargo. All these factors The new ports being proposed to the Central Islands PU can poten
generate conflicts with mariculture, fisheries, and tourism and recrea tially generate severe loss or alteration of habitat (e.g., removal of
tion sectors, which heavily rely on a healthy and productive aquatic submerged rocky reefs through underwater explosions and dredging of
environment. new navigation channels), exacerbating already existing conflicts such
Brazil has been facing a rapid increase in the number of aquatic as the high levels of siltation and turbidity (Gerhardinger et al., 2017).
transport infrastructure projects undergoing fragmented licensing pro We therefore suggest that future trade-off analyses should be urgently
cesses. However, the fragmentation and disconnect of licensing to sec performed to enable the use of the integrated risk assessment presented
toral plans, or even lack of MSP at the national level, creates an herein in jointly assessing the implications of developmental scenarios
atmosphere of political speculation, lobbying and bargaining in favor of posed by all environmental licensing processes by state agencies at
traditionally powerful private actors (Gerhardinger et al., 2018a). municipal, state and federal levels. Our results show that a more sus
Wilmsmeier and Monios (2016) argued that the Port of Itapoá, which is tainable option from an aquatic ecosystem standpoint, would be the
located at the entry of Babitonga Bay, stands as a symbol of the chal allocation of new or expanded port infra-structure avoiding further al
lenging mission of obtaining appropriate licenses at the municipal, state, terations of socially and ecologically important habitats. The Entry of
national and international levels. This port has taken 18 years to be the Bay PU, for instance, is already heavily used by port activity and,
built, and after high investments have become a ‘green field’ port. therefore, possesses the adequate channel depth and regular dredging
Nevertheless, conflicts between this particular port and local fisherfolk activities to maintain them stable. Even though this allocation might
has been severe and even been judicialized at various occasions. As of increase cumulative impact at this PU, the social-ecological impact
today, the licensing of some ports is conducted by the state of Santa related to the aquatic portion would be lower than if the installation of
Catarina environmental agency, while others by the federal environ new ports occurred at the Central Islands PU (Gerhardinger et al.,
mental agency, and no cumulative impact assessments have been 2018a) which holds key ecological functions and heterogeneous risk
attempted between or within agencies where the rule is to technically levels (highly ecologically important areas still facing low risk). This
assess each project proposal in isolation (Gerhardinger et al., 2018b). If alternative would avoid further explosion of submerged rocks and in
not for the high-hopes placed at PBG on the transformation of Babitonga crease in long-term dredging requirements, because no new deep
bay governance towards an EBM-regime, the future of local commu channels would have to be opened. Moreover, no further pressures and
nities (including other direct ecosystem users) would unfortunately be risks to adjacent mangroves of high ecological relevance would be
left to face an even higher speculative, mis-informed and hence unsus posed. Finally, socioeconomic activities of the main producers of shared
tainable pathway. values to society such as seafood and tourism (fishers, tourism and
mariculture agents) would not be directly prejudiced (Herbst et al.,
2020).
10
Finally, we note some limitations in the application of HRA that agents in terms of mutually benefiting incentives to local seafood pro
should be given further consideration. Given that HRA model presumes duce and gastronomy. For instance, the more organized, culturally
additive effects of pressures (Crain et al., 2008; Cabral et al., 2015), we sensitive and supported the tourism sector is, the more vigorous the
suggest that the potential synergistic and/or antagonistic effects of region’s economy may become in relation to shared values of nature The
human activities be considered in future analysis. Interpretation of our above offers a pathway to help the social-ecological system evolve under
HRA risk maps should also acknowledge that indirect risks also affect the the lines of equitability and justice and find an alternative pathway to
ecosystem, despite the fact they were not considered in the spatial the currently priviledged track leading to massive (and misplaced) port-
analysis. For instance, the lack of spatial information on high levels of based infrastructure and industrial development to please foreign
siltation and land-based pollution at Coastal Joinville and Linguado interests.
Channel – Araquari PUs renders the level of risk low to those areas We suggest that decision makers and state and federal-level envi
(Fig. 3 a, b and c) – even though the real risks may be high and even ronmental licensing agencies should (3) avoid expansion of pressures to
affect the potential flow of benefits from those areas to some potential ecologically sensitive/lower risk areas (e.g., Central Islands PU), whilst
users. Arkema et al. (2014) also argued that the rate of risk is relative priviledging the allocation of new activities (e.g., expansion of port infra
and possibly areas depicting lower risk are not free from degradation. In structure) to structurally altered areas (e.g., the Entry of the Bay PU already
Babitonga bay, for instance, a vast mangrove area (837 ha) was affected holds deep manmade navigation channels and regular dredging operations).
by severe mortality rates of white mangrove (Avicennia schauriana) at While all PUs encompasses ecologically relevant areas, the Central
the Coastal Joinville PU, which has been linked to the invasion of teak Islands PU’s attributes are a crucial spot in need of management atten
caterpillars (Hyblaea puera – January 2016) in biologically stressed tion, because of its high habitat heterogeneity (with both high and low
mangroves growing over chemically polluted sediments (Kilka, 2017; human use areas), essential habitat for commercially relevant fish and
Kilka et al., 2019). small resident cetaceans, thus its strategic importance for sustaining
activities may be based on shared values of nature in the perception of
5. Conclusions direct users (fishing, tourism, and mariculture). Our results show that
new port infrastructure development in the Entry of the Bay would be
Our combined integrated and deliberative multidimentional assess sounder given that this PU has already been turned fit for purpose (with
ment of space-use, risk, conflict and pressure/impact chains (on ES and deeper channels and regular dredging operations already enabling the
direct users) consists of the most comprehensive spatial analysis ever operation of ports in Itapoá and São Francisco do Sul municipalities).
undertaken at the Babitonga bay ecosystem level. Nevertheless, the re In face of the highly political and institutionally unstable atmosphere
sults of such approach should be cautiously interpreted through currently driving environmental governance in Brazil, we suggest that
concomitant/iterative consideration of contextual social-ecological dy state agencies must (4) consolidate emerging novel integrated and demo
namics at each PU and whole ecosystem levels; and considering the cratic governance mechanisms involving all social segments currently pur
limitations of the method (e.g., concerning the impacts of indirect uses suing political representation at the ecosystem-level (e.g., Pro-Babitonga
on the social-ecological system). Group). While our results are currently being scrutinized by represen
Our approach offers a contribution towards the implementation of tatives of direct and indirect user groups at PBG and are thus able to feed
EBM principles in the coastal governance regime because: it allows for more ecologically coherent and socially embedded policy outcomes; the
inter- and transdisciplinary consideration of multiple connections in a group is still often challenged by top-down, highly centralized and
coupled social-ecological system; it supports scaling-up governance to fragmented governance decisions at municipal, state and federal levels.
an appropriate ecosystem level while rationally reflecting upon Finally, the subnational case study presented in this paper has a
contextual differences at each PU; it sets the groundwork for future potential to feed the innovation of marine spatial planning at a national
adaptive management to deal with the uncertainty; it operationalises a level, hence we urge authorities to: (5) explore the transferability potential
trully integrated assessment of the social-ecological system and; it al of the integrated and deliberative (space-use, risk, conflict, impacts chains
lows for the inclusion of diverse activities and associated interests and and ecosystem services) assessment approach to scale-up coastal governance
perceptions through deliberative practice and social learning. transformation in Brazil in other coastal areas suffering from fragmented and
In order to steer transformation of the currently fragmented and unfair policy-making. Our results are fully compatible with state of Santa
sectoral system towards EBM and to promote a healthy and resilient Catarina’s incipient attempts to develop an economic-ecologic zoning
aquatic ecosystem, we therefore emphasize the urgency for applied ESs for the coastal zone. Moreover, our approach highlights critical
research that (1) advance combined plural valuation and social awareness ecological and socioeconomic features in decision-making and can
of pressure-levels on the ecosystem aiming at maintaining the quality, supply therefore inspire the implementation of existing and new mandates in
and multiples uses of ESs. The Babitonga bay case study highlights the key integrated coastal management, watershed management and marine
importance of shared values such as fish (seafood) and tourism, ESs that and coastal protected areas elsewhere in Brazil. Our combined inte
flow to society facilitated by economic activities such as fisheries, grated and deliberative multidimensional method are highly replicable
mariculture and tourism and leisure agents. We highlight the critical and have a potential to inform national efforts to advance the imple
importance of advancing trade-off analysis of direct and indirect (e.g., mentation of novel area-based approaches such as ‘Other Effective Area
terrestrially-based) uses of ESs (specially regulating and supporting ESs) Based Conservations Measures’ through national marine legislation and
aiming at an even more comprehensive assessment of interdependencies associated governance strategies.
and overview of the implications of different development scenarios in
the long-run. Declaration of competing interest
We have also identified the pressing need to (2) manage conflicts while
creating synergies amongst existing activities across space, specially to We have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
minimize risks to more ecologically sensitive and productive areas. In this
regard, the mapping of fishing and tourism areas (not available to Acknowledgements
decision-makers in the past) can support formal acknowledgement of
traditional fishing territories and tourism hotspots, hence helping the We thank the Babitonga Ativa Project executive team which sup
resolution of conflicts (specially in Entry of the Bay, Palmital Channel ported intense activities of social mobilization and production of all
and Central Islands PUs). We highlight the importance of managing workshops (specially Suelen M. C. Beeck, Maiti Fontana, Alessandra
commercial and recreational fisheries, and the need for developing the Pfuetzenreuter, Arthur Paganini, Mirela Cursino and Letícia Haak). We
potential synergies between small-scale fishers, mariculture and tourism are indebted to all workshop participants that inspired us during the
11
present collaborative research and all associated institutions for their Cohen, E.H. Allison, Andrew, N.L., Cinner, J., Evans, L.S., Fabinyi, M., Garces, L.R.,
Hall, S.J., Hicks, C.C., Hughes, T.P., Jentoft, S., Mills, D.J., Masu, R., Mbaru, E.K.,
support with workspace, logistics and/or mobilization of their constit
Ratner, B.D., 2019. Securing a just space for small-scale fisheries in the blue
uencies. We thank Celso Voos for the mangrove shapefiles, for Marta economy. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00171.
Cremer to opening the doors of Univille for the Babitonga Ativa project Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P., Farber, S.,
proposal, and to Rebecca Borges for helping with the conceptualization Grasso, M., 2017. Twenty years of ecosystem services: how far have we come and
how far do we still need to go? Ecosyst. Serv. 28, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
of the early research ideas. This study was financed in part by the ecoser.2017.09.008.
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil Crain, C.M., Kroeker, K., Halpern, B.S., 2008. Interactive and cumulative effects of
(CAPES) - Finance Code001. We acknowledge the sponsorship of a multiple human stressors in marine systems. Ecol. Lett. 11, 1304–1315. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01253.x.
CAPES scholarship to D.F.H and CNPq to a productivity scholarship to N. Cremer, M.J., Hardt, F.A.S., Tonello, A.J., Simões-Lopes, P.C., 2011. Distribution and
H. (309613/2015-9); and FAPESP for a post-doctoral scholarship to L.C. status of the guiana dolphin Sotalia guianensis (cetacea, delphinidae) population in
G. (2016/26158-8). D.V.N. thanks the ESRI Conservation Program for Babitonga bay, southern Brazil. Zool. Stud. 50, 327–337.
Cremer, M.J., Pinheiro, P.C., Simões-Lopes, P.C., 2012. Prey consumed by Guiana
providing ArcGIS license. The Babitonga Ativa project was funded by a dolphin Sotalia guianensis (Cetacea, Delphinidae) and franciscana dolphin
public call hosted by the Federal Public Ministry (Joinville) and Pontoporia blainvillei (Cetacea, Pontoporiidae) in an estuarine environment in
implemented by the Regional University of Joinville (Univille). southern Brazil. Iheringia. Série Zool. 102, 131–137. https://doi.org/10.1590/
s0073-47212012000200003.
De Carvalho, F.G., Gerhardinger, L.C., Cursino, M., Serafini, T.Z., 2011. Mapeamento
Appendix A. Supplementary data Participativo dos Recursos Pesqueiros na Área de Influência do Terminal Marítimo
Mar Azul - Porção Sul do Eixo Central da Baía Babitonga (Relatório).
Duarte, M.C., 2011. Ictioplâncton da baía da Babitonga (SC, Brasil): instrumento para a
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
definição de áreas prioritárias para a conservação. Dissertação em Ciência e
org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105279. Tecnologia Ambiental Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, p. 125p.
Eelderink, M., Vervoort, J.M., van Laerhoven, F., 2020. Using participatory action
References research to operationalize critical systems thinking in social-ecological systems.
Ecol. Soc. 25 (1), 16. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11369-250116.
Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services
Arbo, P., Knol, M., Linke, S., Martin St, K., 2018. The transformation of the oceans and for decision making. Ecological Economics 68, 643–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
the future of marine social science. Maritain Stud. 17, 295–304. https://doi.org/ ecolecon.2008.09.014.
10.1007/s40152-018-0117-5. Gattuso, J.-P., Magnan, A.K., Bopp, L., Cheung, W.W.L., Duarte, C.M., Hinkel, J.,
Arkema, K.K., Verutes, G., Bernhardt, J.R., Clarke, C., Rosado, S., Canto, M., Wood, S.A., Mcleod, E., Micheli, F., Oschlies, A., Williamson, P., Billé, R., Chalastani, V.I.,
Ruckelshaus, M., Rosenthal, A., McField, M., De Zegher, J., 2014. Assessing habitat Gates, R.D., Irisson, J.-O., Middelburg, J.J., Pörtner, H.-O., Rau, G.H., 2018. Ocean
risk from human activities to inform coastal and marine spatial planning: a solutions to address climate change and its effects on marine ecosystems. Front. Mar.
demonstration in Belize. Environ. Res. Lett. 9 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ Sci. 5 https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00337.
9/11/114016. Gerhardinger, L.C., Hostim-Silva, M., Medeiros, R.P.R.P., P, R., Matarezi, J.,
Arkema, K.K., Verutes, G.M., Wood, S.A., Clarke-Samuels, C., Rosado, S., Canto, M., Bertoncini, Á.A., Freitas, M.O., Ferreira, B.P., 2009. Fishers’ resource mapping and
Rosenthal, A., Ruckelshaus, M., Guannel, G., Toft, J., Faries, J., Silver, J.M., goliath grouper Epinephelus itajara (Serranidae) conservation in Brazil. Neotrop.
Griffin, R., Guerry, A.D., 2015. Embedding ecosystem services in coastal planning Ichthyol. 7, 93–102. http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?
leads to better outcomes for people and nature. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, pid=S1679-62252009000100012&script=sci_arttext&tlng=e!n (accessed August
7390–7395. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1406483112. 18, 2011).
Asmus, M.L., et al., 2015. Planilha de Ecossistemas e Serviços para o Baixo Estuário da Gerhardinger, L.C., Godoy, E.A., Dapper, C.G., Campos, R., Marchioro, G.B., Sforza, R.,
Lagoa dos Patos (BELP). In: Conde, D., Polette, M., Asmus, M. Risk (Eds.), Perception Polette, M., 2010. Mapeamento participativo da paisagem marinha no Brasil:
and Vulnerability to Climate Change in Wetland Dependent Coastal Communities in experiências e perspectivas. In: Albuquerque, U.P.; Lucena, R.; Cunha, Luiz Vital
the Southern Cone of Latin America. Final Report. IDRC Climate Change and Water Fernandes Cruz da. (Org.). Métodos e Técnicas na Pesquisa Etnobiológica e
program Project 6923001. Etnoecológica. Recife: NUPEEA.
Barbier, E.B., Koch, E.W., Silliman, B.R., Hacker, S.D., Wolanski, E., Primavera, J., Gerhardinger, L.C., Freitas, R.R., Carvalho, F.G., Herbst, D.F., Mergen, B., Cunha, S.,
Granek, E.F., Polasky, S., Aswani, S., Cramer, L.A., Stoms, D.M., Kennedy, C.J., Cremer, M.J., Vila-nova, D., Pfuetzenreuter, A., Haak, L., 2017. Diagnóstico
Bael, D., Kappel, C.V., Perillo, G.M.E., Reed, D.J., 2008. Coastal ecosystem-based Socioambiental Do Ecossistema Babitonga.
management with nonlinear ecological functions and values. Science 319 (5861), Gerhardinger, L.C., de Carvalho, F.G., Haak, L., Herbst, D.F., Poderoso, R.A., 2018a.
321–323. Planning Blues: tenure rights fade under unjust ‘blue planning’. Samudra Reports 78,
Bauer, J.E., Cai, W., Raymond, P.A., Bianchi, T.S., Hopkinson, C.S., Regnier, P.A.G., 42. Available at: https://www.icsf.net/en/samudra/article/EN/78-4334-Planning-B
2013. The changing carbon cycle of the coastal ocean. Nature 504, 61–70. https:// lues.html.
doi.org/10.1038/nature12857. Gerhardinger, L.C., Gorris, P., Gonçalves, L.R., Herbst, D.F., Vila-Nova, D.A., De
Bennett, N.J., Govan, H., Satterfield, T., 2015. Ocean grabbing. Mar. Pol. 57, 61–68. Carvalho, F.G., Glaser, M., Zondervan, R., Glavovic, B.C., 2018b. Healing Brazil’s
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.03.026. Blue Amazon: the role of knowledge networks in nurturing cross-scale
Bennett, N.J., Cisneros-Montemayor, A.M., Blythe, J., Silver, J.J., Singh, G., Andrews, N., transformations at the frontlines of ocean sustainability. Front. Mar. Sci. 4 https://
Calò, A., Christie, P., Di Franco, A., Finkbeiner, E.M., Gelcich, S., Guidetti, P., doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00395.
Harper, S., Hotte, N., Kittinger, J.N., Le Billon, P., Lister, J., López de la Lama, R., Gerhardinger, L.C., Quesada-Silva, M., Gonçalves, L.R., Turra, A., 2019. Unveiling the
McKinley, E., Scholtens, J., Solås, A., Sowman, M., Talloni-Álvarez, N., Teh, L.C.L., genesis of a marine spatial planning arena in Brazil. Ocean Coast Manag. 179,
Voyer, M., Sumaila, U.R., 2019. Towards a sustainable and equitable blue economy. 104825 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104825.
Nat. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0404-1. Gerhardinger, L.C., Herbst, D.F., Cunha, S., Duarte, M., 2020. Diagnóstico da Ictiofauna
Borgwardt, F., Robinson, L., Trauner, D., Teixeira, H., Nogueira, A.J.A., Lillebø, A.I., do Ecossistema Babitonga. Revista CEPSUL: Conservação e Biodiversidade Marinha.
Piet, G., Kuemmerlen, M., O’Higgins, T., McDonald, H., Arevalo-Torres, J., Glaser, M., Roberta, B., Gerhardinger, L.Cavaleri, Padovani, B.F., Marquez, S.,
Barbosa, A.L., Iglesias-Campos, A., Hein, T., Culhane, F., 2019. Exploring variability Gonçalves, L., Turra, A., 2012. Trajectory of ecosystem user participation in
in environmental impact risk from human activities across aquatic ecosystems. Sci. Brazilian coastal management (in press). In: Glaeser, Bernhard, Glaser, Marion
Total Environ. 652, 1396–1408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.10.339. (Eds.), Navigating towards Sustainable Human-Nature Relations - Coastal
Borja, Á., Elliott, M., Andersen, J.H., Berg, T., Carstensen, J., Halpern, B.S., Management revisited. Elsevier. planned for 2020.
Heiskanen, A.-S., Korpinen, S., Lowndes, J.S.S., Martin, G., Rodriguez-Ezpeleta, N., Hardt, F.A.S., Cremer, M.J., Tonello-Junior, A.J., Buffa, G., Bellantte, A., Buscaino, G.,
Borja, A., Elliott, M., Andersen, J.H., Berg, T., Carstensen, J., Halpern, B.S., Mazzola, S., Barreto, A.S., Martinelli, L.A., Zuppi, G.M., 2013. Use of carbon and
Heiskanen, A.-S., Korpinen, S., Lowndes, J.S.S., Martin, G., Rodriguez-Ezpeleta, N., nitrogen stable isotopes to study the feeding ecology of small coastal cetacean
2016. Overview of integrative assessment of marine systems: the ecosystem populations in southern Brazil. Biota Neotropica 13, 90–98. https://doi.org/
Approach in practice. Front. Mar. Sci. 3, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3389/ 10.1590/S1676-06032013000400009.
fmars.2016.00020. Herbst, D.F., Gerhardinger, L.C., Hanazaki, N., 2020. Linking user-perception diversity
Cabral, P., Levrel, H., Schoenn, J., Thiébaut, E., Le Mao, P., Mongruel, R., Rollet, C., on ecosystems services to the inception of coastal governance regime transformation.
Dedieu, K., Carrier, S., Morisseau, F., Daures, F., 2015. Marine habitats ecosystem Frontiers in Marine Science 7, 83. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00083.
service potential: a vulnerability approach in the Normand-Breton (Saint Malo) Gulf. Horcea-Milcu, A.-I., Martín-López, B., Lam, D.P.M., Lang, D.J., 2020. Research pathways
France. Ecosyst. Serv. 16, 306–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.09.007. to foster transformation: linking sustainability science and social-ecological systems
Casado-Arzuaga, I., Madariaga, I., Onaindia, M., 2013. Perception, demand and user research. Ecol. Soc. 25 (1), 13. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11332-250113.
contribution to ecosystem services inthe Bilbao Metropolitan Greenbelt. J. Environ. Ibge, 2016. Estimativas da população residente para os municípios e para as unidades da
Manag. 129, 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.059. federação. Available at: https://www.ibge.gov.br/estatisticas-novoportal/sociais
Clarke, J., Flannery, W., 2019. The post-political nature of marine spatial planning and /populacao/9103-estimativasdepopulacao.html?edicao=9112&t=resultados.
modalities for its re-politicisation. J. Environ. Pol. Plann. 1–14. https://doi.org/ Access feb 2019.
10.1080/1523908X.2019.1680276.
12
Instituto Brasileiro de Meio Ambiente e Recursos Naturais Renováveis, 1998. Proteção e Maes, J., Egoh, B., Willemen, L., Liquete, C., Vihervaara, P., Schägner, J.P., Grizzetti, B.,
controle de ecossistemas costeiros: manguezal da Baía Babitonga. Brasília, IBAMA, Drakou, E.G., Notte, A. La, Zulian, G., Bouraoui, F., Luisa Paracchini, M., Braat, L.,
Coleção Meio Ambiente. Séries estudo pesca, p. 146p. Bidoglio, G., 2012. Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision
Iucn Wcpa, 2019. Guidelines for Recognising and Reporting Other Effective Area-Based making in the European Union. Ecosyst. Serv. 1, 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Conservation Measures. IUCN, Switzerland. ecoser.2012.06.004.
Jacobs, S., Dendoncker, N., Martín-López, B., Barton, D.N., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Martin, C.L., Momtaz, S., Gaston, T., Moltschaniwskyj, N.A., 2016. A systematic
Boeraeve, F., McGrath, F.L., Vierikko, K., Geneletti, D., Sevecke, K.J., Pipart, N., quantitative review of coastal and marine cultural ecosystem services: current status
Primmer, E., Mederly, P., Schmidt, S., Aragão, A., Baral, H., Bark, R.H., Briceno, T., and future research. Mar. Pol. 74, 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Brogna, D., Cabral, P., De Vreese, R., Liquete, C., Mueller, H., Peh, K.S.H., Phelan, A., marpol.2016.09.004.
Rincón, A.R., Rogers, S.H., Turkelboom, F., Van Reeth, W., van Zanten, B.T., Mcdonough, K., Hutchinson, S., Moore, T., Hutchinson, J.M.S., 2017. Analysis of
Wam, H.K., Washbourn, C.L., 2016. A new valuation school: integrating diverse publication trends in ecosystem services research. Ecosyst. Serv 25, 82–88. https://
values of nature in resource and land use decisions. Ecosyst. Serv. 22, 213–220. doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.022.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.007. Mcnally, C.G., Gold, A.J., Pollnac, R.B., Kiwango, H.R., 2016. Stakeholder Perceptions of
Jacobs, S., Zafra-Calvo, N., Gonzalez-Jimenez, D., Guibrunet, L., Benessaiah, K., Ecosystem Services of the Wami River and 21.
Berghöfer, A., Chaves-Chaparro, J., Díaz, S., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Lele, S., Martín- Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (Mea), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being:
López, B., Masterson, V.A., Merçon, J., Moersberger, H., Muraca, B., Norström, A., Synthesis, p. 155.
O’Farrell, P., Ordonez, J.C., Prieur-Richard, A.-H., Rincón-Ruiz, A., Sitas, N., Oliveira, E.L., Berkes, F., 2014. What value São Pedro’ s procession ? Ecosystem services
Subramanian, S.M., Tadesse, W., van Noordwijk, M., Pascual, U., Balvanera, P., from local people’ s perceptions 107, 114–121.
2020. Use your power for good: plural valuation of nature – the Oaxaca statement. Peterson, G.D., et al., 2018. Welcoming different perspectives in IPBES: “Nature’s
Glob. Sustain. 3, e8. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.2. contributions to people” and “Ecosystem services”. Ecology and Society 23, 1–39.
Jentoft, S., 2017. Small-scale fisheries within maritime spatial planning: knowledge https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10134-230139.
integration and power. J. Environ. Pol. Plann. 19, 266–278. https://doi.org/ Raymond, M.C., Bryan, B.A., MacDonald, D.H., Cast, A., Strathearn, S., Grandgirard, A.,
10.1080/1523908X.2017.1304210. Kalivas, T., 2009. Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem
Kenter, J.O., Bryce, R., Christie, M., Cooper, N., Hockley, N., Irvine, K.N., Fazey, I., services. Ecological Economics 68, 1301–1315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
O’Brien, L., Orchard-Webb, J., Ravenscroft, N., Raymond, C.M., Reed, M.S., Tett, P., ecolecon.2008.12.006.
Watson, V., 2016. Shared values and deliberative valuation: future directions. Rökmann, C., van Leeuwen, J., Goldsborough, D., Kraan, M., Piet, G., 2015. The
Ecosyst. Serv. 21, 358–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.006. interaction triangle as a tool for understanding stakeholder interactions in marine
Kilka, R.V., 2017. Monitoramento do desfoliamento e da mortalidade de manguezais na ecosystem based management. Marine Police 52, 155–162. https://doi.org/
Baía da Babitonga-SC. Relatório final enviado ao Ministério Público de Joinville. São 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.10.019.
Francisco do Sul, Instituto Vidamar, p. 70p. Rossini, D.D.M., Tricárico, L.T., Tomelin, C.A., 2016. O Português Centro Histórico de
Kilka, R.V., Melo-Júnior, J.C.F., Esemann-Quadros, K., Larcher, L., Pfuetzenreuter, A., São Francisco do Sul (BR): um atributo para o turismo cultural. Interações (Campo
2019. Os manguezais e marismas da Baía Babitonga uma síntese. Revista CEPSUL: Gd. 17, 110–125. https://doi.org/10.20435/1518-70122016111.
Conservação e Biodiversidade Marinha 16. Rovai, A.S., Soriano-Sierra, E.J., Pagliosa, P.R., Cintrón, G., Schaeffer-Novelli, Y.,
Knights, A.M., Piet, G.J., Jongbloed, R.H., Tamis, J.E., White, L., Akoglu, E., Boicenco, L., Menghini, R.P., Coelho Jr., C., Horta, P.A., Lewis, R.R., Simonassi, J.C., Alves, J.A.A.,
Churilova, T., Kryvenko, O., Fleming-Lehtinen, V., Leppanen, J.M., Galil, B.S., Boscatto, F., Dutra, S.J., 2012. Secondary succession impairment in restored
Goodsir, F., Goren, M., Margonski, P., Moncheva, S., Oguz, T., Papadopoulou, K.N., mangroves. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 20, 447–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-012-
Setälä, O., Smith, C.J., Stefanova, K., Timofte, F., Robinson, L.A., 2015. An exposure- 9269-z.
effect approach for evaluating ecosystem-wide risks from human activities. ICES J. Scherer, M.E.G., Asmus, M.L., 2016. Ecosystem-based knowledge and management as a
Mar. Sci. 72, 1105–1115. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsu245. tool for integrated coastal and ocean management: a Brazilian initiative. In: Vila-
Koehn, J.Z., Reineman, D.R., Kittinger, J.N., 2013. Progress and promise in spatial Concejo, A., Bruce, E., Kennedy, D.M., McCarroll, R.J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th
human dimensions research for ecosystem-based ocean planning. Mar. Pol. 42, International 146 Coastal Symposium (Sydney, Australia). Journal of Coastal
31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.01.015. Research, Special Issue, vol. 75. Coconut Creek (Florida). ISSN 0749-0208.
Korpinen, S., Andersen, J.H., 2016. A global review of cumulative pressure and impact Serafini, T.Z., Andriguetto Filho, J.M., Pierri, N., 2014. Subsídios para a gestão
assessments in marine environments. Front. Mar. Sci. 3, 1–11. https://doi.org/ compartilhada da pesca na Baía da Babitonga (SC, Brasil). Brazilian J. Aquat. Sci.
10.3389/fmars.2016.00153. Technol. 18, 99–111. https://doi.org/10.14210/bjast.v18n1.p99-111.
Kull, C.A., Arnauld de Sartre, X., Castro-Larrañaga, M., 2015. The political ecology of Simpson, S., Brown, G., Peterson, A., Johnstone, R., 2016. Stakeholder perspectives for
ecosystem services. Geoforum 61, 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. coastal ecosystem services and influences on value integration in policy. Ocean Coast
geoforum.2015.03.004. Manag. 126, 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.03.009.
La Notte, A., D’Amato, D., Mäkinen, H., Paracchini, M.L., Liquete, C., Egoh, B., Singh, G.G., Sinner, J., Ellis, J., Kandlikar, M., Halpern, B.S., Satter, T., Chan, K.M.A.,
Geneletti, D., Crossman, N.D., 2017. Ecosystem services classification: a systems 2017. Mechanisms and risk of cumulative impacts to coastal ecosystem services. An
ecology perspective of the cascade framework. Ecol. Indicat. 74, 392–402. https:// expert elicitation approach 199, 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.11.030. jenvman.2017.05.032.
Laffoley, D., Dudley, N., Jonas, H., MacKinnon, D., MacKinnon, K., Hockings, M., The Natural Capital Project (Natural Capital), 2017. Habitat risk assessment. InVEST
Woodley, S., 2017. An introduction to ‘other effective area-based conservation documentation (3.6.0). In: http://data.naturalcapitalproject.org/nightly-build/inve
measures’ under Aichi Target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity: origin, st-users-guide/html/habitat_risk_assessment.html#hra-preprocessor.
interpretation and emerging ocean issues. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 27, Tognella-de-Rosa, M.M.P., Cunha, S.R., Soares, M.L.G., Schaeffer-Novelli, Y., Lugli, D.O.,
130–137. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2783. Paulo, D.S., Paulo, S., Bay, B., Tognella-de-Rosa, M.M.P., Schaeffer-Novelli, Y., 2006.
Langlet, D., Rayfuse, R., 2019. The Ecosystem Approach in Ocean Planning and Mangrove evaluation-an essay. J. Coast Res. 1219–1224, 2004.
Governance. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston. https://doi.org/10.1163/ Un Environment, 2018. Applying Marine and Coastal Area-Based Management
9789004332287. Approaches to Achieve Multiple Sustainable Development Goal Targets: Summary
Larson, S., De Freitas, D.M., Hicks, C.C., Freitas, D.M. De, Hicks, C.C., 2013. Sense of for Policy Makers. UN Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 206.
place as a determinant of people’s attitudes towards the environment: implications UNEP, 2011. Taking Steps toward Marine and Coastal Ecosystem-Based Management -
for natural resources management and planning in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. An Introductory Guide. In: Agardy, T., Davis, J., Sherwood, K., Vestergaard, O.
J. Environ. Manag. 117, 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.11.035. (Eds.), UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 189.
Leslie, H.M., McLeod, K.L., 2007. Confronting the challenges of implementing marine Werner, S.R., Spurgeon, J.P.G., Isaksen, G.H., Smith, J.P., Springer, N.K., Gettleson, D.A.,
ecosystem-based management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 5, 540–548. https://doi.org/ N’Guessan, L., Dupont, J.M., 2014. Rapid prioritization of marine ecosystem services
10.1890/060093. and ecosystem indicators. Mar. Pol. 50, 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Liquete, C., Piroddi, C., Drakou, E.G., Gurney, L., Katsanevakis, S., Charef, A., Egoh, B., marpol.2014.03.020.
2013. Current status and future prospects for the assessment of marine and coastal Wilmsmeier, G., Monios, J., 2016. Institutional structure and agency in the governance of
ecosystem services: a systematic review. PloS One 8. https://doi.org/10.1371/ spatial diversification of port system evolution in Latin America. J. Transport Geogr.
journal.pone.0067737. 51, 294–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.02.004.
Long, R.D., Charles, A., Stephenson, R.L., 2015. Key principles of marine ecosystem- Wyatt, K.H., Griffin, R., Guerry, A.D., Ruckelshaus, M., Fogarty, M., Arkema, K.K., 2017.
based management. Mar. Pol. 57, 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Habitat risk assessment for regional ocean planning in the U.S. Northeast and Mid-
marpol.2015.01.013. Atlantic. PloS One 12, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188776.
Machado, A.M. da S., Daura-Jorge, F.G., Herbst, D.F., Simões-Lopes, P.C., Ingram, S.N., Zaucha, J., Conides, A., Klaoudatos, D., Norén, K., 2016. Can the ecosystem services
Castilho, P.V. de, Peroni, N., 2019. Artisanal Fishers’ perceptions of the ecosystem concept help in enhancing the resilience of land-sea social-ecological systems? Ocean
services derived from a dolphin-human cooperative fishing interaction in southern Coast Manag. 124, 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.01.015.
Brazil. Ocean Coast Manag. 173, 148–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ocecoaman.2019.03.003.
13

Daniela HRBST Babitonga

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Daniela HRBST Babitonga

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ocean and Coastal Management 196 (2020) 105279

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean and Coastal Management

Integrated and deliberative multidimensional assessment of a subtropical

1. Introduction political, institutional and socio-ecological contexts and scales (Long

2.2. Workshop sample & design 2.3. Data collection

3.2. Conflicts for space use by direct ecosystem users 16).

Fig. 2. Perceived inter- and intra-sectoral conflict

Fig. 5. Network of pressure distribution amongst

You might also like