Marine Policy 28 (2004) 249–255

ARTICLE IN PRESS

*Correspondin

80319739.

E-mail addres

0308-597X/$ - see

doi:10.1016/j.ma

Constructs of sustainability in coastal management

Anthony Gallaghera,*, David Johnsona, Gillian Gleggb, Colin Trierc

a School of Maritime and Coastal Studies, Southampton Institute, East Park Terrace, Southampton SO14 0YN, UKb Institute of Marine Studies, University of Plymouth, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK

c School of Environmental Sciences, University of Plymouth, Plymouth PL4 8AA, UK

Received 8 July 2003; accepted 7 August 2003

Abstract

‘Sustainability’ figures routinely but prominently as a guiding principle for all those working in coastal management. In order to

be able to progress coastal sustainability, it is necessary to understand more fully the normative structure of the concept by breaking

down the key constructs inherent in the definition of sustainability. To this end a short questionnaire was disseminated to an ‘expert’

group of coastal and resource management professionals. The data gathered was analysed using the Qualitative Research Solutions

(QSR) package, Nud�ist 6, and highlighted a number of theoretical concepts that were commonly held to be determinative of

sustainability. These may form the basis for the future development of a ‘Coastal Sustainability Standard’.

r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Sustainability; Mobile constructs/concepts; Success; Integrated coastal management

1. Introduction

1.1. Coastal sustainability and management

Sustainability is a widely acknowledged concept usedby organisations representing all scales of governance:local, regional, national and international. It hasprogressed from one concerned solely with economicand technical considerations to one where there are nowa number of interpretations relating the promotion ofenvironmentally sound approaches to economic devel-opment [1]. This development of thought has stemmedfrom concern for the increasingly apparent effects thatmankind’s use of the environment is having on thecomplex, biophysical systems upon which life depends.Global climate change and a reduction in biodiversity,for example, are consequent social costs of suchactivities. Since the seminal ‘Brundtland Report’ and‘Agenda 21’ outlined and identified the need for resourcemanagement in the light of sustainability, there has beenan expanse of thought relating to the concept. This hasbeen such that, in the case of coastal planning and

g author. Tel.: +44-23-80319748; fax: +44-23-

s: anthony.gallagher@solent.ac.uk (A. Gallagher).

front matter r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

rpol.2003.08.004

management, sustainability may be viewed as thedominant paradigm [2].

By its very nature, however, the huge raft ofdefinitions, policies and reports, produced on thesubject, have strengthened the argument for sustain-ability without necessarily progressing it, since, for eachreport, there has been a particular interpretation ofsustainability in tune with the author’s aims and agenda[3]. This is not surprising since anthropogenic andsociological factors are intrinsic to the concept ofsustainability and, as such, sustainability is value-ladeninvolving many different perceptions and understand-ings in relation to any one situation. This, in turn,reflects a vast array of variables along with an ambiguityin definition. Nevertheless, it can still be argued thatthe basic premise of sustainability is quite straight-forward in that if we consider the case of sustaina-bility within a system, for example, a sustainable systemis one that survives or persists and works to remainstable [4].

With regard to the coast, both the ‘BrundtlandReport’ and ‘Agenda 21’ identified the need for thesustainable management of this complex zone. Giventhe diversity and extent of pressures affecting coastalareas, there is still a clear and apparent need for this,and one that was reiterated in the key official outcomefrom the World Summit on Sustainable Development

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Gallagher et al. / Marine Policy 28 (2004) 249–255250

(WSSD) in Johannesburg, 2002: ‘‘The Plan of Imple-mentation’’ (para 30).

Sustainability must therefore represent the funda-mental aim for the plethora of coastal managementplans currently in existence, and as such may also beseen as a means by which the ‘success’ of those plansmay be measured. So far, however, this measurementhas proved elusive. The relationship that exists betweenthe management tools and techniques employed incoastal areas, the system of governance in operationand sustainability is often far from clear, thus making itdifficult to assess or evaluate such ‘success’. A commonfeature then of coastal plans is the lack of evidenceregarding their effectiveness. Indeed, Ehler [5] refers to‘‘the challenge (for the governance of Integrated CoastalManagement) to establish measurement systems able toadequately check the progress of efforts’’. Such a systemhe argues would answer two basic needs of coastalgovernance: accountability and adaptive management.There is thus a requirement for a suitable mechanism tobe developed by which coastal governance, with respectto sustainability, may be appraised.

1.2. Research aims

This paper represents the first stage of a project thatattempts to achieve such an operating mechanismthrough the development and critical evaluation of aperformance-related ‘Coastal Management Sustainabil-ity Standard’. This ‘Standard’ is intended to enable anaudit of coastal sustainability to be taken and analysedon a periodic basis, thus enabling comparison to bemade between different coastal planning areas.

The development of such a ‘standard’ represents theapplication of systems based thinking to the decision-making process: an approach that has seen a markedincrease over recent years within a number of relatedfields. For example, environmental management systemssuch as the Eco Management Audit Scheme (EMAS)and ISO14001 are now well acknowledged in thedecision-making processes of both local authoritiesand businesses. Furthermore, the Marine StewardshipCouncil (MSC) have developed a ‘standard’ in relationto sustainable fisheries, which seeks to achieve a balancebetween the social, ecological and economic interestsrelevant to any particular fishery [6]. This MSCapproach is based on a set of ‘Principles and Criteria’and was developed through an extensive consultationprocess. The development of a standard for coastalsustainability could follow a similar model.

Clearly, to achieve this a number of objectives mustbe met. This stage of the research is concerned with anattempt to establish a consensual crosscutting structurewithin sustainability by identifying, and validating, aminimum number of discrete theoretical and normativeconstructs inherent in the definition. The rationale being

that, although many see sustainability as a complexidea, most professionals involved in coastal resourcemanagement are able to identify a series of constructsthat together define the fundamental characteristics ofsustainability. These constructs may be termed ‘mobileconcepts’ since they represent the common understand-ings of complex theory that professionals intuitivelycarry around with them. It is likely, indeed, that theseare used routinely in order to translate the concept intopractice. The purpose of this paper is to identify thesekey constructs, or ‘mobile concepts’, among profes-sional coastal practitioners.

2. Methodology

The research is inductive in nature since it involvesmoving from an observation of the empirical world,through data collection, to a construction of explana-tions and theories. It represents learning by reflection toenable the formulation of abstract theories and general-isations in order to help explain reality.

Primary data collection was in the form of a shortquestionnaire with the qualitative data generated beinganalysed using the QSR computer software Nud�ist 6.This process is supplemented through the use ofsecondary sources. The questionnaire was disseminatedvia electronic mail, and sent to individuals who areinvolved either directly or indirectly in coastal manage-ment. This consultative survey of ‘experts’ thereforereached a sample of 1000 professionals involved incoastal or resource management throughout the UK.

Individuals were invited to participate in this researchby answering the following two questions:

1. What is your current sectoral interest, e.g. natureconservation, ports?

2. What key theoretical constructs are embodied by‘sustainability’?

In order to analyse the data, the QSR computersoftware Nud�ist 6 was used: an acronym for theaccurate description of Non-numerical UnstructuredData Indexing Searching and Theorizing. Responseswere input into a project database, which enabled thereceived text to be coded. The methodology involved incoding requires the operator to apply subjective judge-ment in defining what is considered a ‘text unit’. The textunits can then be ‘coded’ according to the ideas theyrepresent. These ideas are termed ‘nodes’ and togethercan be seen to represent an indexing system. To aidanalysis, reports can then be produced which highlightthe location and frequency with which each node isstated. Nud�ist thus acts as a toolkit to help analysetextual data, explore coding and produce projectinformation based on that coding. This sixth version

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

Scoring of perceived key constructs inherent in the concept of

sustainability

Rank Response idea (x) A B (%)

1 Balance 176 27.2

2 Participation 71 11

3 Conservation and resource efficiency 71 11

4 Scientific efficacy 53 8.2

5 Futurity 38 5.9

6 Integration 38 5.9

A. Gallagher et al. / Marine Policy 28 (2004) 249–255 251

of Nud�ist product therefore represents a powerfulqualitative tool.

Given that this data collection represents an attemptto garner ‘expert’ group opinion, it should be noted thatthis process, as with any attempt to garner consensusfrom a wide range of stakeholders, is not expected tolead to complete agreement. Nevertheless, it doesrepresent a suitable mechanism by which the objectivemay be met.

7 Education and training 32 4.9

8 Planning 28 4.3

9 Communication 22 3.4

10 Problem solving 19 2.9

11 Reflectivity 17 2.6

12 Precautionary 15 2.3

13 Equity 14 2.2

14 Transparency 9 1.4

15 Stewardship 8 1.2

16 Regulation 7 1.1

17 Success 6 0.9

18 Adaptive 5 0.8

19 Quality of life 5 0.8

20 Responsibility 5 0.8

21 Holistic 4 0.6

22 Acceptability 3 0.5

23 Trust 2 0.3

A=total number of text units with response ‘x’; B=Percentage of text

units with response ‘x’ out of total number (647).

3. Results

Ninety responses were received over a 3-month periodfrom a sample of 1000. Table 1 identifies the breakdownof these respondents in terms of their sectoral respon-sibilities. This can be seen to illustrate a wide range ofprofessional roles contributing to the database.

In relation to the question of key constructs, answersvaried enormously from short single word or lineanswers, and definitions of the concept, to lengthytreatise on the subject. However, it was clear thatevident linkages or associations existed in many of theanswers. On this basis, and in order to synthesise thefindings into simple, discrete ideas, Nud�ist 6 was usedto draw a series of associations through text anddocument coding. The coding process identified 647discrete text units or units of text that could beconsidered to be cogent ideas. Some of these took theform of individual words that described commonunderstandings whilst others were involved sentencesand paragraphs that could be interpreted to representindividual ideas. Overall, 23 dominant ideas, or nodes,were identified which were seen to describe the sum totalof the responses. These recurring ideas, as shown in

Table 1

Professional responsibilities of respondents

Primary profession Total

number of

respondents

Percentage of

respondents

Multi-

sectoral

Coastal zone management 17 18.9

Consultant 11 12.2

Local government—Planning 8 8.9

Regulation 4 4.4

Sectoral Amenity conservation 1 1.1

Archaeology 3 3.3

Coastal defence 10 11.1

Coastal property development 2 2.2

Energy 1 1.1

Fisheries 6 6.7

Nature conservation 16 17.8

Port industry 9 10

Recreation and Tourism 2 2.2

Table 2, exhibit great variation in their perceivedimportance.

The definitions used in coding for each of these ideasare shown in Table 3. These are determined, in part, bythe responses given but also based on a review ofsecondary sources and subjective interpretation of theauthor. It should be noted, however, that the intent ofsome suggestions listed by respondents was occasionallyrather ambiguous and, as such, scope exists for somemisinterpretation.

4. Discussion: deconstructing sustainability

In analysing the data presented, several considera-tions should be taken into account. Firstly, almost all ofthe ideas suggested have reasonably well-understoodmeanings (Table 3: Coding definitions). As such it is alsoclear that many of these ideas have a certain amount ofoverlap. Since the purpose of this stage of the research isto identify the minimum number of theoretical con-structs necessary to define the concept of sustainability,it is clearly necessary therefore to reduce these ideas totheir discrete and fundamental meanings and identities.

Secondly, there is also an evident distinction betweensuggestions that represent cogent constructs, or con-cepts, and those that represent practical actions. Forexample, ‘scientific efficacy’ is clearly an important

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 3

Coding definitions

Suggested idea Working definition

Acceptability Development and its related decision-making is seen as appropriate by stakeholders and the public at

large—in the light of sustainability

Adaptive An experiential management approach, non-prescriptive in nature, and aware of inherent complexity

Balance A parallel consideration of maintaining the integrity of the natural environment, economic prosperity and

an equal opportunity for all people to benefit from a better quality of life

Communication The general act of imparting information to stakeholders to enable understanding [2]

Conservation and resource

efficiency

The natural management of habitats, biodiversity and coastal resources to allow for continued appreciation

and use

Education and training A formal process by which individuals are enabled to gain greater awareness and understanding of coastal

issues

Equity Inter- and intra-generational improvements in welfare whilst maintaining development options and

opportunities

Futurity Taking a long-term view

Holistic Systemic theories that ‘wholes’ are greater than the sum of their parts

Integration A unified and interdisciplinary approach to the understanding and management of coastal zones

Participation The democratisation and active role and involvement of individuals, groups and organisations in the

decision-making processes relevant to coastal sustainability

Planning A structured and detailed process for achieving aims and objectives

Precautionary An awareness and consideration of the levels of understanding and competence relevant to a situation prior

to decision-making

Problem solving Enabling the mitigation or resolution of conflicts

Quality of life Acceptable and equitable opportunities and standards of living available to all within a community

Reflectivity Action and decision-making made in consideration of the context and outcomes of past events

Regulation The control of resource use through a system of licensing

Responsibility Implying a degree of ownership and taking ‘due care’ in managing resources and coastal zones

Scientific efficacy The gathering and effective use of good scientific information

Stewardship Long term and careful use of coastal resources

Success! Achieving a good quality of life and sustainable development within a coastal community

Transparency The process of decision-making is open and clear to stakeholders and the community

Trust Stakeholders perceive the decision-making process to be fair and just

A. Gallagher et al. / Marine Policy 28 (2004) 249–255252

aspect of achieving sustainability, but the role that itplays is in informing decision making to enable betterdecisions to be taken. This is not in itself a conceptualdeterminant of sustainability but instead a tool toachieve it. The distinction, however, is not always aneasy one to draw since many of the suggestions can betaken to mean both.

Table 1 identifies the breakdown of respondents interms of their sectoral responsibilities. This can be seento illustrate a wide range of professional roles con-tributing to the database. However, it is considered thatthere is insufficient representation within each sector toenable any effective comparison to be made between thesectors in terms of the respective constructs that aresuggested. This, nevertheless, would represent an inter-esting line of research and one that could be progressedin the future.

In relation to the inherent constructs, Table 2 lists thecoded suggestions of the ‘expert group’ in ranked order.By far the highest scoring is that of ‘balance’. Thecoding definition used for this was that of a ‘‘parallelconsideration of maintaining the integrity of the naturalenvironment, economic prosperity and an equal oppor-tunity for all people to benefit from a better quality oflife’’. This large aspirational definition is enshrined

within the antecedence and understanding of sustain-ability, and is often described as representing ‘three legsof a common stool’. By coding such ideas relating theenvironment, the economy and social welfare under thenode ‘balance’, the construct accounts for 27.2% of alltext units. In defining it as such there are clearlyapparent areas of overlap with other suggestions,notably perhaps ‘quality of life’ and ‘success’. Theformer has provided a national focus and title for theUK government strategy for sustainable development[7], and is also inherently linked with the definition ofthe World Commission on Environment and Develop-ment [8] and ‘Agenda 21’. However, it accounts for only0.8% of all text units. In terms of managing ageographical area, the achievement of an appropriate‘balance’ between economic growth and environmentalhealth whilst at the same time providing for a just levelof prosperity, for the population clearly represents aconsiderable achievement and therefore may be con-sidered to represent ‘success’. The difficulty in achievingsuch ‘success’, as described by Burbridge [9], lies in theproblem of understanding what is meant by ‘success’,given that each of the three legs of the stool could beinterpreted very differently amongst different groupsand communities.

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Gallagher et al. / Marine Policy 28 (2004) 249–255 253

The upshot is that conflicts are inherent and opera-tional difficulties highly likely when determining theequivalence between categories. Nevertheless, thesesuggested crosscutting constructs are supported byPrinciples 1 and 3 of the Rio Declaration on Environ-ment and Development (1992) which state that ‘‘humanbeings are...entitled to a healthy and productive life’’(Principle 1) and that as such there is a requirementto meet ‘‘developmental and environmental needs’’(Principle 3).

Following ‘balance’, the next most suggested concept isthat of ‘participation’, which accounts for 11% of textunits. This is outlined in Principle 10 of the RioDeclaration and has been of growing importance overthe last decade. Indeed, it is acknowledged that in thepast, systems of governance have often meant thattension has existed between ‘top-down’ decision-makingand ‘bottom-up’ aspirations. As such, sustainable devel-opment has no hope of realisation if those aspirations aredefined at the wrong end of that scale, or where relevantstakeholders are excluded from participating [10].Furthermore, one of the major issues surrounding anymanagement decision is whether or not the decision isclearly understandable and if it is, whether the under-standing accepted by other parties is in fact that which isintended or meant. Understanding correctly how adecision is made is the key to openness, trust andultimately to acceptance of the management structure.Participation thus also may be seen to link in well withthe ideas of acceptability, transparency and trust, all ofwhich identify an open and perceptibly fair and justsystem of governance. In total, though many seeparticipation as being, in itself, central to sustainablecoastal management, the notion of participation alonecannot guarantee that ‘right’ decisions are made. Instead,there is perhaps a requirement for a holistic view ofstakeholder involvement that provides for the securerepresentation of stakeholder interests within a decision-making process. This should be responsive to the needs ofthe stakeholder community, inclusive and fair [11]. Inturn, this would then aid in the process of legitimisationand make any implementation of plans easier.

A clearly important aspect of any participatory processis that of ‘communication’, or ‘‘the general act ofimparting information in such a way that understandingis achieved and ultimately that behaviour and attitudeschange’’ [2]. This is supported by the convincing assertionthat the effective involvement of interested parties incoastal management is often hampered by a lack ofunderstanding or awareness [2]. What is clear is thatknowledge, gained through scientific enquiry, needs tofilter down and be made available to the users and putalongside that knowledge gained through experience andintuition. Considered independently, communication,which is referred to in Principle 9 of the Rio Declaration,accounted for just 3.4% of text units.

Closely allied to this idea of communication is that of‘education and training’, which is defined as a formalprocess by which knowledge and understanding canreach out to a community. Education and training canbe differentiated from the broader ‘umbrella’ term ofcommunication on the basis of its more formal nature,and the fact that it may represent just one of a numberof possible communication approaches employed. Com-munication, for example, may also include approachessuch as corporate style communication and marketing.Despite this the coded responses relating to educationand training ranked slightly higher than that ofcommunication with responses in 4.9% of text units.

Through a greater understanding and awareness thenof the nature of the coast, its processes, problems andvalues, individuals and groups may play more inter-active and constructive roles. This is the essence of verymany of the plethora of coastal management plans inexistence globally. The complexity of coastal issueshowever cannot necessarily be described in any simpleterms. At the very least, issues are multidisciplinary innature, involving both natural and social sciences, eachof which has its own objectives and ‘scientific’ languagewith which to communicate [12]. The requirementtherefore is to bridge these differences and developequality between the disciplines. According to O’Rior-dan [13], this involves a creative relationship betweenscience and management: between those who collect andprepare evidence and those who act and are responsiblefor decision making. The coding definition used toexpress such ideas, proposed by the ‘expert group’, isthat of ‘integration’. Integration accounted for 5.9% ofall text units.

A similarly related idea to this may be seen to be theidea of ‘holism’, which refers to the systemic theory that‘wholes’ are greater than the sum of their parts. Suchsystems theory naturally relates to the integration ofcomponents and understandings within a single concep-tual whole. Systemic theory is of course applied in manydifferent forms throughout environmental and resourcemanagement although it does not rate highly in thesurvey responses accounting for only 0.6% of text units.

A systemic approach would, as with any goodplanning practice, reflect on past actions through aprocess of evaluation, thus enabling change in accor-dance with sustainable goals. Indeed, the nature of agood management structure is evidently that it isiterative and based on the cyclic principles of planning,implementation, monitoring and evaluation or review.Elements of this process were proposed in the surveywith ‘planning’ accounting for 4.3% of text units and‘reflectivity’ for 2.6%. The idea that learning from pastevents is also closely allied to the notion of ‘adaptive’management in which decision-making is founded onexperience. This benefits from the fact that it allowsmanagers to take advantage of their activities on the

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Gallagher et al. / Marine Policy 28 (2004) 249–255254

basis that these are acting as learning tools [14]. Thisadaptive management approach was suggested howeverin just 0.8% of text units.

It is also clearly evident that sustainability involvestaking a long-term view. This idea is expressed in thesurvey responses and coded as ‘futurity’. The idea isclearly stated within the Brundtland definition ofsustainable development and represents a well-under-stood construct of sustainability, being referenced in5.9% of text units. Taking a long-term view can be clearlyreflected in a number of the other constructs highlightedpreviously, and is stated with reference to ‘futuregenerations’ in Principle 3 of the Rio Declaration. Inaddition, it is also relevant to the specific planning andmanagement tasks of establishing goals, or objectives.This is evident in many coastal management plans wherea common approach is to firstly identify a ‘vision’, oraspirational notion, of what the process is intended toachieve prior to the establishment of these objectives.

Such an approach clearly represents a responsibleattitude in dealing with coastal and resource manage-ment, and implies taking ownership of a situation andtreating resources with all ‘due care’. This idea of‘responsibility’ was proposed in the survey, though itonly accounted for 0.6% of coded text units. It is alsoincluded in Principle 7 of the Rio Declaration (Principleof Common but Differentiated Responsibility) in whichit refers to the need to conserve, protect and restore thehealth and integrity of the Earth’s ecosystem. Sugges-tions for constructs that similarly imply some a degreeof ownership include ‘stewardship’, which perhapssurprisingly only accounted for 1.2% of text units, and‘regulation’ with only 1.1%.

It could be argued that responsibility also implies alevel of awareness of human understanding andcompetence, and thus the levels of confidence we canhave in our own knowledge. For example, to whatextent do we have confidence in our understanding ofhow particular coastal systems function and interact?Such awareness, and understanding of the complexity ofthe coastal environment, necessarily means that asuitably ‘precautionary approach’ should be applied tothe management of the coastal environment. Thisprecautionary approach is referred to in Principle 15of the Rio Declaration and represents a well-establishedprinciple enshrined, for example, in Article 130r of theMaastricht Treaty (Treaty of EU), 1992. In the survey itaccounts for 2.3% of text units.

One could further argue that the confidence that wecan have in our levels of knowledge and understandingare determined by the effective and appropriate use ofscience either in monitoring or in application. ‘Scientificefficacy’ scored highly in the survey, accounting for8.2% of coded text units, and reflects the need to havean effective link between those who supply informationand those who use it. Having an input into the research

agenda in this way may enable data collection to be‘issue led’, and thus be directed towards achievingsustainability. This idea clearly links back to O’Rior-dan’s call for a creative link between science andmanagement (2000). Such an appropriate link betweenscience and management of course may be seen torepresent the best chance of maximising ‘conservationand resource efficiency’ (11% of text units) and ofresolving any coastal conflicts that may be comeapparent. Clearly, such problem solving is an importantfocus of sustainable coastal management.

The last and perhaps one of the more illuminatingfeatures of survey was that the construct of ‘equity’ wasnot seen as being of greater significance, accounting as itdoes for just 2.2% of total text units. Both Principles 3and 5 of Rio Declaration refer to the need for equity anddescribe a state relating to the welfare of all people,especially the poor and disadvantaged, and the main-tenance of development options and opportunities forgenerations to follow [15]. Indeed, the principle of inter-generational equity may be seen as an omnibus test ofwhether or not development is sustainable since itrequires that the next generation receive a stock of assets(resource potentials, created wealth, human capabil-ities), that is at least equivalent to our own, taking intoaccount population growth. Strictly interpreted, intra-generational equity represents a contingent principle inthat it refers to whether the development is appropriaterather than whether or not it can continue. Thisprinciple refers to real improvements in the quality oflife of those who are disadvantaged, where disadvantagemay be determined by societal and/or community basedjudgements. However, if the condition of intra-genera-tional equity is such that it is not socially acceptable, thesocial system in which it is working may have a greaterpropensity to become destabilised.

The apparent low level of significance attached to theconstruct of ‘equity’ may be attributed to the fact thatthe mix of respondents did not fully reflect all of theissues relating to coastal management or sustainability.This raises the question of whether there is in fact aneed, amongst coastal practitioners, to gain a greaterunderstanding of the social aspects of sustainability orindeed whether they should simply concern themselveswith concentrating on the promotion of their owncorners. It also supports the requirements for thevaunted greater integration of coastal management.

5. Conclusion

Sustainability has proved an elusive concept tooperate in the coastal environment with little by wayof applying the concept to ‘real’ situations, where it mayenable and improve, through reflection, the decision-making process. Information gathered with regards to

ARTICLE IN PRESSA. Gallagher et al. / Marine Policy 28 (2004) 249–255 255

sustainability has tended to be more concerned withpassive monitoring rather than active decision makingand the weighing up of real investment, technology andpolicy options. As such it is considered imperative thatcoastal management have a common means by whichthe ‘success’ of governance in fulfilling the fundamentalaim of sustainability be measured. Ultimately, therefore,the aim of developing a ‘sustainability standard’ forcoastal management; where the ‘standard’ enables anaudit of coastal sustainability to be taken, and analysed,on a periodic basis, would be a positive step. In order toachieve this, an understanding of the normativestructure of sustainability is potentially very beneficialsince it stems from the very understandings thatprofessionals have with regard this complex problem.

This research surveyed an ‘expert group’ of coastalmanagement professionals and identified 23 ‘mobileconcepts’, which reflected the mix of respondents andtogether defines the fundamental characteristics ofsustainability. In reality, these concepts can be seen toexhibit a high degree of association and inter-relation-ships, and as such require further reducing to theirdiscrete and fundamental meanings. In doing so, thesetheoretical constructs may be applied as the principlesupon which a coastal sustainability standard could bedeveloped. Adopting a similar model to the MarineStewardship Council’s Fisheries Standard, criteria canthen identified which reflect the scope and depth of eachprinciple, and from which judgments can be made as tothe relevant progress. Therefore, on the basis of theseprinciples, the governance of coastal sustainability canbe assessed.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr. Bob Earll for kindlyallowing the use of his consultancy (Coastal Manage-

ment for Sustainability) database and for his help in thedevelopment of this paper.

References

[1] Pezzoli K. Sustainable development: a transdisciplinary overview

of the literature. Journal of Environmental Planning and

Management 1997;40(5):549–74.

[2] Kay R, Alder J. Coastal planning and management. London:

E&FN Spon; 1999.

[3] Bell S, Morse S. Sustainability indicators; measuring the

immeasurable. London: Earthscan; 1999.

[4] Costanza R, Patten BC. Defining and predicting sustainability.

Ecological Economics 1995;15:193–6.

[5] Ehler CN. Indicators to measure governance performance in

integrated coastal management. Ocean and Coastal Management

2003;46(3–4):335–45.

[6] Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). MSC principles and criteria

for sustainable fishing. 2002.

[7] DETR. A better quality of life. London: HMSO; 1999.

[8] World Commission on Environment and Development. Our

common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.

[9] Burbridge PR. A generic framework for measuring success in

integrated coastal management. Ocean and Coastal Management

1997;37(2):175–89.

[10] Carley M, Christie I. Managing sustainable development, 2nd ed.

London: Earthscan; 2000.

[11] Fletcher S. Stakeholder involvement in coastal partnerships:

towards secure representation. Southampton Institute, 2003,

Unpublished Ph.D. thesis.

[12] Dronkers J, de Vries I. Integrated coastal management: the

challenge of transdisciplinarity. Journal of Coastal Conservation

1999;5(2):97–102.

[13] O’Riordan T. editor. Environmental science for environmental

management, 2nd ed. Harlow: Prentice-Hall; 2000.

[14] McLain RJ, Lee RG. Adaptive management: promises and

pitfalls. Environmental Management 1996;20(4):437–48.

[15] Sadler B. A framework for environmental sustainability assess-

ment and assurance. In: Petts J, editor. Handbook of environ-

mental impact assessment, vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell Science;

1999. p. 12–31.