Disclaimer:
The authors are solely responsible for the content of this report. Material included herein does not represent the opinion of the European Community, and the European Community is not responsible for any use that might be made of it.
Back to overview reports
To some extent, this weighting may be an artefact of RWG composition (in particular the lower scoring for recreational components), but also reflects the often fundamental management issues between the main estuarine usage foci of flood protection, conservation and navigation/port operation.
These high level issues were transposed within the conflict matrices to a series of user interactions, with highest scoring conflict interactions occurring between conservation protection and flood protection, and navigation and ports activities, although some synergies were also noted, primarily within the topic areas, but on occasion between groups, e.g. managed realignment for flood protection on conservation protection.
However, whilst at a high level, the provision of Ecological Function & Biodiversity may be a core management aim (together with Flood Protection and Assimilation and/or Transport & Accessibility, there are significant differences in the spatial distribution of uses between estuaries and zones.
Back to top
How can multiple estuarine resource use be managed in an integrated way within the existing planning system?
How can the Ecosystem Services Approach be used to support management decisions?
How do TIDE estuaries deal with management problems?
How does the societal demand for ecosystem services vary along the estuary gradient?
What are the key areas of conflicts or synergies in TIDE estuaries?
What tool is available to help manage multiple users of a resource in an integrated way (i.e. achieving more holistic management)?
What tools are useful for involving local communities and stakeholders?
Which aspects do I have to take into account in order to make a measure a success?
Which synergistic effects and conflicts can be expected by planning and implementing a certain measure?
Analysis of the TIDE Estuarine Conflict Matrices
Table of content
- 1. SUMMARY
- 2. INTRODUCTION
- 2a. General
- 2b. Research Aims
- 2c. Conflict Matrices
- 2d. Conflict Matrix Tool
- 3. CONFLICT MATRIX METHODOLOGY
- 3a. Approach
- 3b. Analysis
- 4. CONFLICT MATRIX SET-UP PROCESS FINDINGS
- 4a. Salinity/Management Zone Extent Comparison
- 4b. Regional Working Group (RWG) Composition and Interests Comparison
- 4c. Conflict Matrix Estuary Zone Level of Use Comparison
- 4d. Generic Estuary Conflict Scores
- 5. CONFLICT MATRIX OUTCOMES ANALYSIS PER ESTUARY & ZONE
- 5a. Elbe Estuary Conflicts Analysis
- 5b. Weser Estuary Conflicts Analysis
- 5c. Scheldt Estuary Conflicts Analysis
- 5d. Humber Estuary Conflicts Analysis
- 5e. Estuary Conflict Matrix Analysis Summary
- 6. TYPOLOGY OF ASSOCIATIONS ACROSS ALL TIDE ESTUARIES
- 6a. Management Awareness and Focus
- 6b. Salinity Zone Associations
- 6c. Conflict Interaction Typology
- 7. DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
- 7a. Spatial Conflict Variation
- 7b. Sectoral Conflict Variation
- 7c. Conflict Management
- 7d. Measures Interactions and Disbenefits
- 7e. Links to Other Approaches
- 8. REFERENCES
- 9. APPENDICES
6a. Management Awareness and Focus
The combined mean RWG management concern scoring resulted in aspects of Ecological Function and Diversity being rated as the most important estuarine function with Recreation and Social use being scored lowest (Figure 25).
To some extent, this weighting may be an artefact of RWG composition (in particular the lower scoring for recreational components), but also reflects the often fundamental management issues between the main estuarine usage foci of flood protection, conservation and navigation/port operation.
These high level issues were transposed within the conflict matrices to a series of user interactions, with highest scoring conflict interactions occurring between conservation protection and flood protection, and navigation and ports activities, although some synergies were also noted, primarily within the topic areas, but on occasion between groups, e.g. managed realignment for flood protection on conservation protection.
However, whilst at a high level, the provision of Ecological Function & Biodiversity may be a core management aim (together with Flood Protection and Assimilation and/or Transport & Accessibility, there are significant differences in the spatial distribution of uses between estuaries and zones.
Important to know
Reports / Measures / Tools
| Report: | Zonation of the TIDE estuaries (Functioning) |
|---|---|
| Report: | Ecosystem Service Assessment of TIDE Estuaries (Functioning) |
| Report: | Legislative Drivers & Sectoral Plan Review of TIDE Estuaries (Governance) |
Management issues
How can management actions be prioritised based on conflict assessment outcomes?How can multiple estuarine resource use be managed in an integrated way within the existing planning system?
How can the Ecosystem Services Approach be used to support management decisions?
How do TIDE estuaries deal with management problems?
How does the societal demand for ecosystem services vary along the estuary gradient?
What are the key areas of conflicts or synergies in TIDE estuaries?
What tool is available to help manage multiple users of a resource in an integrated way (i.e. achieving more holistic management)?
What tools are useful for involving local communities and stakeholders?
Which aspects do I have to take into account in order to make a measure a success?
Which synergistic effects and conflicts can be expected by planning and implementing a certain measure?