Strategies for Transforming Coastal Governance: Addressing Barriers and Evolving Dependencies
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Coastal areas are places where land and sea meet. They offer many opportunities but also face profound social and environmental challenges, such as rising sea levels, habitat degradation, pollution, and coastal erosion, which are difficult to address due to limitations in current governance systems. Often, land and sea governance are managed separately, leading to a lack of coordination, inconsistent policies, and ineffective responses to rapidly changing coastal environments. Barriers such as unclear mandates and roles, fragmented knowledge, power dynamics, and limited stakeholder involvement are common in coastal governance. Transforming coastal governance is essential to enhance the effectiveness and legitimacy of governance systems. Yet, current practices and past experiences have shown that bringing about necessary changes for sustainable ocean and coastal governance, adaptive decision-making, or improved coordination is anything but easy.Our study explores strategies for transforming coastal governance, drawing on a novel perspective from Evolutionary Governance Theory. It highlights the role of evolving configurations of actors and institutions in shaping governance pathways in coastal areas, emphasizing the dependencies such as path, inter-, goal, and material dependencies that influence both governance outcomes and opportunities for transformation.Through examples from various coastal practices in European case studies, we illustrate how these dependencies manifest in real-world contexts and how strategies can be developed to navigate them. For example, the shift in the Western Scheldt estuary/region (the Netherlands and Belgium), from traditional flood management approaches to more integrated, nature-based solutions reflects governance transformation shaped by historical legacies, technological advances, and climate change impacts. Similarly, the Isle of Wight Biosphere (UK) illustrates the governance challenges of balancing environmental protection with social and economic priorities, especially in the wake of political changes like Brexit. Another example, from the Oslofjord (Norway), highlights the complex relationship between governance strategies and ecosystem health, revealing the need for more holistic, adaptive approaches. Lastly, in Valencia, (Spain) the case of coastal development and erosion offers insights into the barriers posed by institutional misalignment, due to overlapping or conflicting policies and regulations that fail to adapt to environmental change, while also illustrating enablers such as improved scientific data use and stakeholder engagement.Ultimately, these examples underscore the importance of adaptive, inclusive governance strategies that can evolve in response to changing environmental, social, and political dynamics. In line with Evolutionary Governance Theory, we elaborate on how strategies for transforming coastal governance can be developed through continuous reflection and adaptation, which are essential for enhancing their likelihood of success. By fostering collaboration and aligning governance systems with the complex, evolving nature of coastal challenges, we can enhance resilience and ensure more sustainable management of coastal and marine ecosystems in the face of ongoing global changes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,020 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,014 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,018 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».