Ever increasing and diverse use of the marine environment is leading to human-induced changes in marine life, habitats and landscapes, making necessary the development of marine policy that considers all members of the user community and addresses current, multiple, interacting uses. Taking a systems approach incorporating an understanding of The Ecosystem Approach, we integrate the DPSIR framework with ecosystem services and societal benefits, and the focus this gives allows us to create a specific framework for supporting decision making in the marine environment. Based on a linking of these three concepts, we present a set of basic postulates for the management of the marine environment and emphasise that these postulates should hold for marine management to be achieved. We illustrate these concepts using two case studies: the management of marine aggregates extraction in UK waters and the management of marine biodiversity at Flamborough Head, UK.

The marine environment is a complex system formed by interactions between ecological structure and functioning, physico-chemical processes and socio-economic systems. An increase in competing marine uses and users requires a holistic approach to marine management which considers the environmental, economic and societal impacts of all activities. If managed sustainably, the marine environment will deliver a range of ecosystem services which lead to benefits for society. In order to understand the complexity of the system, the DPSIR (Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response) approach has long been a valuable problem-structuring framework used to assess the causes, consequences and responses to change in a holistic way. Despite DPSIR being used for a long time, there is still confusion over the definition of its terms and so to be appropriate for current marine management, we contend that this confusion needs to be addressed. Our viewpoint advocates that DPSIR should be extended to DAPSI(W)R(M) (pronounced dap-see-worm) in which Drivers of basic human needs require Activities which lead to Pressures. The Pressures are the mechanisms of State change on the natural system which then leads to Impacts (on human Welfare). Those then require Responses (as Measures). Furthermore, because of the complexity of any managed sea area in terms of multiple Activities, there is the need for a linked-DAPSI(W)R(M) framework, and then the connectivity between marine ecosystems and ecosystems in the catchment and further at sea, requires an interlinked, nested-DAPSI(W)R(M) framework to reflect the continuum between adjacent ecosystems. Finally, the unifying framework for integrated marine management is completed by encompassing ecosystem structure and functioning, ecosystem services and societal benefits. Hence, DAPSI(W)R(M) links the socio-ecological system of the effects of changes to the natural system on the human uses and benefits of the marine system. However, to deliver these sustainably in the light of human activities requires a Risk Assessment and Risk Management framework; the ISO-compliant Bow-Tie method is used here as an example. Finally, to secure ecosystem health and economic benefits such as Blue Growth, successful, adaptive and sustainable marine management Responses (as Measures) are delivered using the 10-tenets, a set of facets covering all management disciplines and approaches.

A B S T R A C TThere is a multitude of ecosystem service classifications available within the literature, each with its own advantages and drawbacks. Elements of them have been used to tailor a generic ecosystem service classification for the marine environment and then for a case study site within the North Sea: the Dogger Bank. Indicators for each of the ecosystem services, deemed relevant to the case study site, were identified. Each indicator was then assessed against a set of agreed criteria to ensure its relevance and applicability to environmental management. This paper identifies the need to distinguish between indicators of ecosystem services that are entirely ecological in nature (and largely reveal the potential of an ecosystem to provide ecosystem services), indicators for the ecological processes contributing to the delivery of these services, and indicators of benefits that reveal the realized human use or enjoyment of an ecosystem service. It highlights some of the difficulties faced in selecting meaningful indicators, such as problems of specificity, spatial disconnect and the considerable uncertainty about marine species, habitats and the processes, functions and services they contribute to.

This paper examines the potential relationships between the ecosystem services provided by the coastal and marine environment and the designation of marine protected areas. The hypothesis is that relationships exist between the provision of ecosystem services and the features protected by marine protected areas. It is considered that protection will maintain these features in good ecological condition and in some cases will restore ecological functioning with positive effects on the delivery of ecosystem services, as pressures upon the protected features are reduced. As the number of marine protected area designations grows, system-wide effects to communities from improvements in delivery of a range of ecosystem services may be realised. This paper provides a comparative analysis of the jurisdictional marine protected area policies proposed by the English, Welsh and Scottish Governments. It presents structured assessment matrices developed from the literature and expert opinion, of ecosystem service provision by marine protected habitats and species and applies the findings to a range of existing UK marine protected areas to demonstrate its relevance. The approach and case study findings are discussed within the wider context of marine ecosystem services and marine protected area management.