Development of an environmental performance indicator framework to evaluate management effectiveness for Jiaozhou Bay Coastal Wetland Special Marine Protected Area, Qingdao, China

Ocean & Coastal Management 142 (2017) 71e89

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Development of an environmental performance indicator framework to evaluate management effectiveness for Jiaozhou Bay Coastal Wetland Special Marine Protected Area, Qingdao, China Wen Wu a, Shuqing Yan a, Ruoyan Feng a, Dehai Song b, *, Xiaoxuan Chen c a b c

College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, PR China Key Laboratory of Physical Oceanography, Ministry of Education at Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, PR China School of Law and Politics, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 1 November 2016 Received in revised form 5 February 2017 Accepted 21 March 2017

The management effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) has gained more and more attentions with an increasing research interest worldwide. An Environmental Performance Indicator (EPI) framework is considered to be a good means for MPAs' management planning and assessment. As a peculiar type of MPAs with Chinese characteristics, Special Marine Protected Area (SMPA) is still at an imperfect stage in terms of its operation and management in China. There is a scarcity of research evidence of SMPAs' management and its effectiveness evaluation as well. Focusing on this relatively new research field, this paper aims to establish a conceptual model and an operable EPI framework for examining SMPA's day-to-day management and evaluating its management effects, using Jiaozhou Bay Coastal Wetland SMPA (JZBCWSMPA), the first SMPA of Qingdao, as a case study. The evaluation model and indicator framework are developed via a comprehensive approach taking basic management ideas, international well-known model, widely used indicator frameworks and specific features of the study area into consideration. An expert ranking procedure is also conducted to aggregate the initial indicators. The innovative features of this framework are described, such as it is not only a systematic framework incorporating various kinds of indicators but also specifically practicable for the study area. It is expected that the research outcomes will provide technical supports for JZBCWSMPA's management effectiveness evaluation (MEE) and scientific references for decision-making and guiding for Qingdao's socialeconomic sustainable development. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Special marine protected area Management effectiveness evaluation Environmental performance indicator framework Jiaozhou Bay Coastal Wetland Special Marine Protected Area

1. Introduction Environmental management is a key element on ensuring positive environmental performance of an organization (Kolk and Mauser, 2002). Marine environmental management has gained in importance around the world in recent years. Numerous factors, such as the rapid population growth and economic development, over exploitation of resources, ecosystem destruction, marine environmental pollution and increasingly marine disasters, lead to a growing demand for effective and integrated marine environmental management, ecological balance maintenance, and the

* Corresponding author. Key Laboratory of Physical Oceanography, Ministry of Education at Ocean University of China, 238 Songling Road, Qingdao 266100, PR China. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Song). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.03.021 0964-5691/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

sustainable development of marine social and economic resources and environment. Under this circumstance, various types of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) have been established and attracted more and more attention worldwide (Wu, 2015; Zhu, 2009). Relevant research and practical experiences in recent years (Section 2) demonstrate that an MPA is considered as one of the effective ways to protect the marine environment and ecosystem, and to coordinate marine development and protection. At present, the amount of MPAs is growing rapidly around the world, but there are insufficient understandings on the management quality of existing MPAs. Although full attention and concerns are given to MPAs' management effectiveness evaluation (MEE), relevant scientific research is still lagging behind. Some preliminary studies have been done, but in-depth and specific exploitations are still called for; the specific effects of MPAs are not yet completely clear. In spite of some basic principles and methods of monitoring and

72

W. Wu et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 142 (2017) 71e89

evaluation in place, there is not a unified understanding on how to evaluate and what effect it should be achieved (Section 2.2). As shown in Section 2, it is difficult to define a single best way to evaluate the management effectiveness for MPAs. Many have suggested that an indicator framework and a set of complementary and objective indicators should be developed (Kolk and Mauser, 2002). The concept and functions of indicators have been discussed by Wu and Wang (2011). More research is needed, especially producing further useful indicators and providing operational guidelines for evaluating management effectiveness of MPAs. With regard to China, according to its national strategic deployment of “improving the capacity of marine resource exploitation, developing marine economy, protecting ecological environment, resolutely safeguarding national marine rights and interests, constructing the maritime power”, the construction and development of MPAs are the basic components and important guarantee of stepping towards the maritime power for this country. MPAs are further divided into two major categories in China, namely, Marine Nature Reserve (MNR) and Special Marine Protected Area (SMPA) (Wang, 2011) and SMPA is a specific type of MPA with Chinese characteristics (Section 3.1). Previous experiences show that SMPA is a good method to solve the contradiction between the development of marine economy and the protection of marine environment in China. Compared with MNRs, the SMPA development and its related research are even weaker. Few studies have been done on evaluating management effects on policy formulation, environmental performances and social influences for China's MPAs, especially SMPAs. This paper will focus on examining the SMPA's day-to-day management and its effectiveness evaluation using a specific SMPA as a research example, which is a useful attempt and pioneering exploration. Jiaozhou Bay (JZB) is the “Mother Bay” of Qingdao, China, with unique advantages in geographical location, natural resources and environment (Liang et al., 2015; Yuan et al., 2016). Jiaozhou Bay Coastal Wetland Special Marine Protected Area (JZBCWSMPA) is the first SMPA of Qingdao, which is called the “Kidney of Qingdao”. Encompassing both terrestrial and marine zones, it has high environmental and ecological values of national and international significance. It is a complex and distinctive protected area because of its sensitive and interconnected ecosystems and diverse natural resources that requires special environmental care (Zhang, 2009). In previous studies, extensive scientific investigations and research have been conducted in JZB; a number of management activities have also been undertaken with various experiences obtained (Section 3.3). However, specific research related to JZBCWSMPA is still limited since its establishment. Given that the JZBCWSMPA is an environmentally sensitive area, it is necessary and important to use an indicator framework to examine how effective the management is for this area. So far there has not been a systematic indicator framework used for MEE of this area. In this paper, an operable evaluation model will be developed to estimate the SMPA's management effectiveness by taking JBCWSMPA as a case study. Guided by the sustainable development theory and relevant international and national standards, a systematic environmental performance indicator (EPI) framework specific to JBCWSMPA will be established according to globally well-known model for management effectiveness evaluation, other widely used indicator frameworks, features of SMPA and coastal wetlands, and the specific nature of JBCWSMPA. An EPI ranking procedure with an expert panel will be followed in order to prioritize the indicators and reduce their number to produce an operational indicator set. Through exploring the SMPA management in more detail, this research has substantial significance in enriching the field of SMPA

MEE, aiming to fill knowledge gaps, as well as to provide theoretic and practical references for managers' decision-makings and improving SMPA's day-to-day management. The evaluation model and indicator framework established by this study can be used as technical tools for JZBCWSMPA's MEE so that the management strengths and weaknesses can be clearly understood. Future perfection measures can be made more scientifically and rationally in the decision-making process on the basis of evaluation results. Therefore, this is helpful to assist in achieving the sustainable development of JZBCWSMPA and coordinating the implementation of Qingdao's strategic planning, “Protection around the Bay and Development Encompassing the Bay”, in the future. This paper is arranged as follows: in Section 2, a literature review will be given on the management of MPA and its MEE; the EPI initiatives and typical MEE framework will also been described in this section; Section 3 will summarize SMPA, including JZBCWSMPA and their current management status, as well as JZB management related research; a supportive conceptual model will be presented to evaluate the JZBCWSMPA's operation and management in Section 4, in which an expert ranking procedure will also be conducted to aggregate the initial indicators; and Sections 5 and 6 offer discussion and conclusions, respectively. 2. Brief review of MPA and its MEE 2.1. MPA and its management MPA is defined as “any area of intertidal or sub-tidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment” (Kelleher, 1999, p.xi) by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) e the World Conservation Union. It is usually established for different purposes, including “protecting marine species and habitats, conserving marine biodiversity, restoring fisheries stocks, managing tourism activities, and minimizing conflicts among diverse resource users” (Pomeroy et al., 2004, p.vii). MPAs can be divided into different types according to different classification criteria (Kelleher, 1999). Their important roles and particular functions have also been extensively discussed in previous studies (e.g. Cai et al., 2011; Gallacher et al., 2016; Kelleher, 1999; Leleu et al., 2012; Rees et al., 2015; Yang, 2010). At present, most coastal countries have established a large number of MPAs according to their own situations. The report on “global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features” was published by Nature in 2014, which reviewed the MPAs' development status; for example, there were only 118 MPAs at 27 countries in 1970, whereas the number increased to more than 5900 in 2010 (Edgar et al., 2014). Developed countries, especially maritime powers such as the United States of America (USA), Australia, Canada, etc., started earlier and have rich experiences on the MPA operation. Thus remarkable achievements have been built in various relevant aspects including theoretical research, location selection and planning, legislation and policy, operation and management, and monitoring and evaluation (e.g. Brown et al., 2001; Clifton, 2003; Day, 2008; Jones and Burgess, 2005; Kelleher, 1996; Wu, 2015; Zhu, 2009). The MPA operation and management involves many different departments with demands of sufficient participation. Therefore, stakeholder participation and cooperation mechanism are favoured in the MPA planning and management (e.g. Ban et al., 2012; Bennett and Dearden, 2014; D'Anna et al., 2016; Fox et al., 2013; Gleason et al., 2010, 2013; Islam et al., 2014; Ruiz-Frau et al., 2015; Sayce et al., 2013; Zorrilla-Pujana and Rossi, 2014). Generally speaking, previous studies on MPAs focused more on locating and planning, roles

W. Wu et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 142 (2017) 71e89

in ecosystem protection, network construction, stakeholder participation, evaluation of operation and management, and so on. 2.2. Evaluation of the MPA's management effectiveness While carrying out the planning and operation of MPAs, it is necessary to conduct their MEE (Heck et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2012; Rees et al., 2015). The MPA's management effectiveness mainly includes the establishment background and the planning design, the suitability of management system and process, the completion status of MPA's objectives, and so on. Consequently, MEE is defined as “the assessment of how well the protected area is being managed e primarily the extent to which it is protecting values and achieving goals and objectives” (Hockings et al., 2006, p.xiii). This kind of evaluation activity is helpful to promote the adaptive management based on the loop feedback and to improve the management planning; furthermore, it facilitates the information disclosure of managers about the management status as well as the guarantee of the Right to Know of all stakeholders including the general public. Therefore, the evaluation is essential in successful MPA management practices (Gallacher et al., 2016; Hockings et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2012; Rees et al., 2015; Wang, 2015). In recent years, researchers and practitioners have attached more and more importance to MPA's social and ecological benefits, management performance and their decisive factors. Some relevant studies have also been conducted, such as Ban et al. (2014), Fitriana (2014), Gleason et al. (2013), Gurney et al. (2015), Horigue et al. (2014), Knip et al. (2012), Rees et al. (2015), Roy (2012), Stevenson and Tissot (2013), and Valls et al. (2012). The 1992 World Parks Congress further emphasized the necessity to evaluate the management performance of protected areas. To date, more than 40 kinds of evaluation methods have been established and developed, and 14 kinds are in connection with the MPA evaluation. However, only eight kinds of methods have been widely used to date, amongst the IUCN-WCPA Management Effectiveness Evaluation Framework developed by the IUCN World Commission for Protected Areas is one of the most authoritative models worldwide to evaluate the overall management effectiveness. The framework will be described in detail in Section 2.4. As providing general principles and recommendations for MEE of protected areas, the IUCN-WCPA framework has a strong applicability, which can provide a systematic and comprehensive evaluation for almost all MPAs, as well as any ocean management and planning processes (Hockings et al., 2006). From previous studies it can be seen that the majority of methods applied in the MPA MEE are investigative, such as interviews and questionnaire surveys with managers and stakeholders (e.g. governmental departments, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), research institutions, local communities and the general public), participating observations and case studies (e.g. Bennett and Dearden, 2014; D'Anna et al., 2016; Horigue et al., 2014; Jentoft et al., 2012; Kaida and Dang, 2016; Leleu et al., 2012; Martin et al., 2016; Stevenson and Tissot, 2013). Statistical tools are widely used for information collection and data analysis (e.g. Dalton et al., 2012; Heck et al., 2011, 2012; Stevenson and Tissot, 2013). As with the planning, operation and management (Section 2.1), the MPA MEE is also an assessment process of stakeholder participation, because the attitudes of stakeholders determine whether a MPA is successful or not to a great extent (e.g. Bennett and Dearden, 2014; Garces et al., 2013; Leleu et al., 2012; Kaida and Dang, 2016; Marques et al., 2013; Martin et al., 2016; Stevenson and Tissot, 2013). Indicators are commonly used in performance evaluation and their importance has been recognized as well. Most of the studies have evaluated the MPA's management effectiveness through

73

selecting relevant indicators (e.g. Dalton et al., 2012; Heck et al., 2011; Leleu et al., 2012; Marques et al., 2013). For example, Garces et al. (2013) selected 23 indicators comprising biophysical, socioeconomic and governance indicators to evaluate the management effectiveness of three MPAs in Philippines. Referring to the IUCN-WCPA framework, Heck et al. (2012) established the indicator set in light of the management process and evaluated the management effectiveness of MPAs on Canada's west coast. Gurney et al. (2015) mainly selected five socioeconomic indicators, namely “perceived well-being”, “environmental knowledge”, “wealth”, “fisheries dependence” and “livelihood diversity”, in order to assess socioeconomic impacts of Indonesia's MPAs using data of pre-, mid- and post-implementations. Adopting a systematic literature review approach, Gallacher et al. (2016) developed an indicator framework with biophysical, socio-economic and governance indicators applied for determining the success of MPAs in England. Previous studies reveal that presently there is no prevailing methodology for evaluating MPA's management effectiveness. Selfevaluation and conceptual measures are commonly developed. The combination of qualitative and quantitative methods has been used in some research; thereinto qualitative research is also an important part of the evaluation process. For the indicators that cannot be directly quantified, qualitative analysis can be applied to a certain extent (e.g. Gallacher et al., 2016; Heck et al., 2011; Jentoft et al., 2012; Roy, 2012). A case-by-case approach is considered to be an acceptable way as long as evidence can be found to provide support for the evaluation. Generally speaking, for the MPA MEE, the comprehensive analysis and evaluation should be conducted using the integrated method based on incorporating various elements, in order to provide systematic evaluation results and decision-making reference for sustainable development. The development of evaluation indicators frequently depends on many factors, such as the evaluation purpose, the scope of application, the specific objectives of the study area, and the information requirements of the management department and stakeholders. Kolk and Mauser (2002, p. 28) noted that “indicators should be specified to suit the particular situation”, such as “country, sector and organizational peculiarities, and reckon with the particular objectives for the performance evaluation”. As usual, indicators are considered to be difficult to applied in all situations, but vary according to the differences of geographical locations and regional scales. Consequently, appropriate methods, guidelines and indicators should be developed with consideration of the characteristics of different MPAs' to evaluate their management effectiveness more effectively. In brief, the practices and research reviewed in this section can provide referencing supports for proposing the conceptual model and indicator framework for the MEE of the protected area in this study. 2.3. Major environmental indicator initiatives A number of global, national, regional, and sectoral indicators related to environmental management performance or sustainability have been developed by governmental sectors, scientific research institutions and NGOs. A few significant initiatives, such as the ISO (International Organization for Standardization) 14031 Environmental Performance Evaluation (EPE), PSR (Pressure-StateResponse) and DPSIR (D ¼ Driving force indicator; P ¼ Pressure indicator; S ¼ State indicator; I ¼ Impact indicator; R ¼ Response indicator) frameworks, and other initiatives, have been reviewed by Wu and Wang (2011). Previous indicator development approaches have provided a useful background for the indicator framework. In particular, as basic guidelines for indicator development and are used worldwide, the ISO14031 EPE and PSR and DPSIR frameworks

74

W. Wu et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 142 (2017) 71e89

Fig. 1. Management cycle and evaluation within the IUCN-WCPA framework (Hockings et al., 2006).

are accepted as the essential direction for the establishment of JZBCWSMPA environmental performance indicator framework in this study. 2.4. IUCN-WCPA Management Effectiveness Evaluation Framework As a guide to designing and developing assessment systems, the IUCN-WCPA Management Effectiveness Evaluation Framework is adopted in this paper as one of the most important basis for developing the evaluation conceptual model. Referring to the connotation of “management effectiveness” (Section 2.2), this framework is “based on the principle that good protected area management should follow a cyclical process with six stages or elements” (Hockings et al., 2006, p. 11), namely context, planning, inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes (Fig. 1). The main evaluation contents of each stage are also expounded, for example: (1) “context” mainly evaluates the significance of establishing protected areas, the values and international background of protected areas, and their facing threats, etc.; (2) “planning” mainly includes applicable laws and regulations and policies, the design of protected area system and management planning, etc.; (3) “inputs” contain resources available for protected areas and their management; (4) “processes” mainly evaluate the suitability of management process and its implementation; (5) “outputs” contain the results, relevant goods and services produced by the implementation of management measures; and (6) “outcomes” indicate whether management activities achieve defined objectives or not, etc. (Hockings et al., 2006). The implications of all elements of six parts are supplementary with each other, forming the core of the IUCN-WCPA framework. It also provides some examples of indicators in accordance with each stage respectively. Since the establishment of the IUCN-WCPA framework, many countries all over the world have widely developed more detailed and appropriate evaluation tools or methods based on this framework and their own characteristics. Typical international examples include “How is your MPA doing? e A Guidebook of Natural and Social Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected Area Management Effectiveness” jointly released by USA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), IUCN and World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Rapid Assessment and Prioritizssation of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) produced by WWF, and so on (Liu and Cui, 2014; Pomeroy et al., 2004). In China, there are a few guidance

documents, such as “Evaluation on Management of National Nature Reserves”, “Technical regulations for the management effectiveness evaluation of nature reserves”, etc. (State Forestry Administration, 2008). These are all established based on the IUCN-WCPA framework with differences in terms of respective emphases and some details. In general, the IUCN-WCPA framework has a wide range of users at international and national levels. 3. Overview of the Chinese issues 3.1. MPA (SMPA) and its management and MEE MPA has been greatly developed in China since 1980s. A series of measures have been formulated to support the MPA operation and management, including strengthening the construction of laws and regulations, setting up management organizations, making development plans, conducting education and training, scientific research, law enforcement management, internal and international communications, etc. (Yan et al., 2008; Yang, 2010). To date, extensive scientific studies on MPAs have been conducted at national (e.g. Li, 2013; Liu and Liu, 2015; Wang, 2015; Yan et al., 2008; Yuan, 2008; Zhao, 2012; Zhu, 2009), regional and local levels (e.g. Cai et al., 2011; Chen, 2006; Liao et al., 2015; Liu, 2012; Liu et al., 2013a; Wu et al., 2013; Ye et al., 2014), aiming to improve the MPA management in China. SMPA refers to a type of MPAs that requires special management via effective protection measures and scientific exploitation ways for such a region with special geographical conditions, ecosystem, biological and non-biological resources, and particular needs of marine development and utilization (as seen from Clause 23 of the Marine Environmental Protection Law of the People's Republic of China 1982). According to the international perspectives on the MPA's definition and classification, SMPA should be a specific type of MPA with Chinese characteristics (Wang, 2011). The designation and construction of SMPAs are initially emerged during early 1980s and formally put forward in the Marine Environmental Protection Law of the People's Republic of China in 1982. More detailed issues related to SMPAs including connotation, classification, selection, approval and management were clarified in 1992 through the Special Marine Protected Area Management Programme which was formulated by the State Oceanic Administration (SOA) and approved by the State Council.

W. Wu et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 142 (2017) 71e89

75

Table 1 The main differences between MNR and SMPA. Aspect

MNR

SMPA

 Sustainable use of marine resources;  Protection of the ability of the sustainable development of marine resources and environment Selection criteria,  Selection mainly focuses on the originality, rarity  Selection mainly focuses on the comprehensive exploitation of marine resources and protection content and nature of the protection object; the value of sustainable utilization; and scope  Protecting the natural status, almost not involving  Protection contents involve many aspects, such as natural resources, ecological resource exploitation and social development environment, social-economic issues, etc. Mission and Different levels of mandatory and closed  Many aspects in terms of sustainable exploitation of marine resources (e.g. marine management methods management according to regions development plan, marine functional zoning, industrial structure optimization, coordination management, etc.);  Emphasis on the rationality of marine resource exploitation Protection purpose and object

Mainly some marine ecological environment object with originality, persistence and rarity

SMPAs aim to protect the ability of the sustainable development of marine resources and environment, and the protection contents involve many aspects, such as natural resources, ecological environment, social-economic issues, etc. (Wu et al., 2010), which are in accordance with China's current development strategy of “Maritime Power” (Section 1). At present, a few studies have been conducted to describe SMPAs' essential features, fundamental purpose and objectives, designation and classification, and other basic issues (e.g. Cai et al., 2005; Wang et al., 2011, 2014; Weng and Zhao, 2012; Yuan, 2008). Although both of MNRs and SMPAs are within the scope of MPAs aiming to reasonably and effectively protect their environment and ecology, there are a few differences between the two kinds of reserves from many aspects, such as the protection purpose, object, the selection criteria, the protection content and scope, mission and management methods (Cai et al., 2005; Liu et al., 2006; Ma et al., 2013; Wu et al., 2010; Yan et al., 2008), as summarized in Table 1. From this table it can be seen that there are almost few crossing duplication problems regarding the operation and management of MNRs and SMPAs. Since the first SMPA was established in 2005, China's SMPAs are developing rapidly and a network system has been initially formed including various types of SMPAs such as special geographical condition reserves, marine ecological reserves, marine resource reserves, marine parks, etc. (Ma et al., 2013). There have been 59 national SMPAs approved and established until 2015, with a total area of 69,000 km2 (Yin et al., 2015). Based on China's basic policy of “Exploitation in Protection, Protection in Exploitation”, the SMPA management follows the principles of “Scientific Planning, Unified Management, Protection as Priority, Appropriate Use” and implements an integrated protection of marine resources, aiming to generating the best comprehensive benefits of spatial resources and the environment (Yan et al., 2008). As a new attempt, although there are guiding policies and technical guidelines in place, and the SMPA operation and management related issues are clarified at national, provincial, municipal and local levels, a perfect operation and management model has not been formed. A few problems still exist, including how to deal with the relationship between exploitation and protection, the conflict and coordination between the management organization and the existing system, the implementation of management policies, unification of different planning, and so on. Liu's (2006) work is considered as the relatively comprehensive and representative research on the theory and practice of SMPAs in China. In that study, the development status and characteristics of MPAs all over the world were reviewed; the connotation, guiding ideology and theoretical basis, and construction objectives and contents of SMPA were systematically discussed; the theoretic system including selection and planning, approval, operation and management was comprehensively analysed; potential problems

and recommendations from stakeholders' perspective were finally put forward. A few other studies have also been conducted in terms of the SMPA operation and management from the overall viewpoints (e.g. Li and Zhao, 2015; Liu, 2012; Ma et al., 2013; Wang, 2011; Weng and Zhao, 2012; Wu et al., 2010; Xu et al., 2010; Yin et al., 2015) or focusing on some specific aspect such as ecosystem suitability (e.g. Wang, 2011), fisheries management and public participation (e.g. Li, 2012), dynamic monitoring (e.g. Li and Zhao, 2015), research and development of technique supporting tools like Geographic Information System (GIS) (e.g. Liu et al., 2013a; Xiang, 2013), etc. Indicators are widely used tools to assist in the management and evaluation of China's SMPAs as well. For example, Miao et al. (2013) selected indicators for sustainable resource utilization of SMPAs mainly from three aspects, i.e. ecotourism, ecological culture and port shipping. Wang et al. (2011) established an indicator set for ecosystem health assessment using Liyashan Oyster Reef SMPA of Jiangsu Province as a case study, including marine ecological environment, ecosystem structure and stability. For the same SMPA, Wang (2011) developed an evaluation model and relevant indicators to evaluate its ecotourism suitability. As with the statement in Section 2.2, these practices may also provide supports and references for the development of conceptual model and indicator framework in this paper. From previous relevant studies, it can be seen that the research on SMPAs in China are just at an early stage with almost no systematic studies, which is consistent with their developing status. The current research field mainly included two aspects, i.e., theory and construction and management. Theoretical research mainly involved basic issues such as concept, connotation and classification, etc. In terms of construction and management, most studies focused on locating and planning, report for approval, policy and legislation, and management model. There is a lack of in-depth analyses specific for the construction contents. From a macroscopic point of view, the majority of current studies mainly aim to provide recommendations and countermeasures for managers to plan and construct SMPAs. Some researchers also conducted preliminary explorations for SMPA's development using a specific SMPA as an example, whereas overall these are necessary to be more detailed and deeply. 3.2. JZBCWSMPA and its management As an important coastal city in China, Qingdao has great advantages in MPAs' construction and marine management. However, due to the historic overuse and marine pollution, JZB (Section 3.3) wetlands have suffered a severe degradation. The JZB water area is continuously decreasing, which has declined by 41.2% from 578.5 km2 in 1863 to 337.4 km2 in 2014 (Chen, 2014). The coastal sea water quality is worse than the Class III Sea Water Quality

76

W. Wu et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 142 (2017) 71e89

Fig. 2. Jiaozhou Bay Coastal Wetland Special Marine Protected Area, Qingdao, China.

Standard of China, indicating a relatively heavy water pollution. Meanwhile, marine biodiversity, especially economic species, is decreasing and traditional economic fish species cannot even sustain the fishing season. In this situation, a special protected area called JZBCWSMPA was established in 2009, aiming to protect resources and ecological environment, refine the ecological status of coastal wetlands and specific regions, improve the biodiversity level, restore and manage damaged and destroyed marine resources and environment, gradually achieve a positive loop of marine ecological environmental protection and marine resource development. In brief, it is devoted to be a demonstration area of marine sustainable development with the overall consideration of resources and environment (Li et al., 2007). The JZBCWSMPA includes the Dagu River estuary, the Yanghe River estuary and their adjacent sea areas in JZB (Fig. 2), with a total area of 3621.92 ha (Zhang, 2009). The area possesses rich wetland vegetation and high marine biodiversity with abundant rare and threatened species, such as seagrasses, reeds, birds and other protected species. In particular, it is a significant habitat for many kinds of migratory birds in China, including red-crowned cranes, grey cranes, whooper swans, golden eagles, and so on (Qingdao Peninsula Metropolis Daily, 2009). Abundant marine resources and various industrial sectors make it an ecologically sensitive and vulnerable region. Consequently, it is essential and critical to maintain a sustainable environment in this area.

The designation and selection of JZBCWSMPA are based on relevant laws and regulations, marine functional zoning, marine environmental protection planning and marine economic development planning at national and local levels. Since its establishment, a set of executive guidelines and concrete measures have been set up to facilitate the JZBCWSMPA day-to-day management. For example, a specific administrative department subject to Qingdao Municipal Ocean and Fisheries Administration has been established with personnel and responsibilities in place. The operation and management objectives are clarified; management policies like the JZBCWSMPA Construction and Management Programme are published (Li et al., 2007); the number of people in and out of the area is strictly controlled; relevant scientific research are conducted such as the Study of Ecosystem Function Protection and Ecological Restoration in Jiaozhou Bay Wetland, etc. (State Oceanic Administration, 2010). Furthermore, regarding the coordination of environmental protection and economic development, the “Subregion Management” mechanism is implemented in order to better achieve both of JZBCWSMPA's ecological and economic values. The whole SMPA is divided into four functional zones according to their characteristics, namely, Ecological Conservation Zone, Resource Recovery Zone, Environmental Remediation Zone, and Development and Utilization Zone. In accordance with the overall development perspective of JZBCWSMPA, specific management objectives, and

W. Wu et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 142 (2017) 71e89

concrete exploitation and protection measures are provided for each subregion, respectively (Wang et al., 2007). Current management activities are playing a directive role in rational resource exploitation and environmental protection of JZBCWSMPA. However, its construction and management are at an early stage. With the increasing human activities like cultivation and exploitation in JZB sea area, there are more and more pressures on ecological environment, including wetland degradation, destroyed ecosystem and decreased function; severe pollutant emission, declined water quality, reduced self-purification capacity and other threats (Chen, 2014). Therefore, based on summarizing JZBCWSMPA's operation and day-to-day management situation, this study contributes to develop and refine the conceptual model and corresponding indicator framework, expecting to provide technical supports for its MME, and scientific references for decision-making and management.

3.3. JZB management related research Along with the famous fishery resources and natural port resources, JZB plays a great role in promoting Qingdao's development. Qingdao Municipal Government attaches great importance to JZB and promulgated and implemented the “Jiaozhou Bay Protection Regulation” in 2014, which regulates human activities within the bay at the legal level. The Regulation is helpful to further exploit JZB's various advantages under the precondition of full protection and build a higher-level platform for Qingdao's urban development (The Standing Committee of Qingdao People's Congress, 2014; Wang, 2008; Zhang, 2009). In recent years, the majority of JZB related investigations and research are mostly concentrated in environmental resources, hydrogeology, shoreline changes, wetland restoration, etc., whereas few are about JZB's management, which have been reviewed by Liang et al. (2015). Except for comprehensive studies related to JZB coastal management from the whole point of view, some researchers investigated the specific issues regarding JZB management, such as coastal wetlands, fishery resources, water quality, legal issues, reclamation, etc. (e.g. Che, 2009; Guo, 1997; Gu et al., 2007; Liang et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2010; Ma, 2006; Ma et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2015; You et al., 2009; Yuan et al., 2016; Zhang, 2013). To date, scientific research outcomes published specific for JZBCWSMPA have not been visible yet during this study. Thus it can be seen that the necessity and importance of JZB Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) have been commonly recognized by practitioners and researchers, and integrated management of JZB will definitely be a mainstream trend in the future. Meanwhile, the Ecosystem-based Management idea is widely accepted. Although there have been some discussion about JZB ICZM model, a unified management model has not formed until now. The majority of current research put forward suggestions and countermeasures regarding JZB environment, ecology and management from the macro view; the discussion of their concrete implementation is relatively few. The indicator system established has not been fully applied to the JZB management evaluation in practice. Additionally, many current literature are research degree theses, high quality journal papers, especially English papers are relatively scarce, with a lack of international influence to a certain extent. The research on the JZB management is a long and arduous process. Therefore, more systematic and holistic studies are needed; relevant research outcomes should be transformed into practices, expecting to improve JZB's integrated management and better implement Qingdao's strategic planning regarding the bay's development and protection as stated in Section 1.

77

4. Development of an indicator framework for MEE within the JZBCWSMPA 4.1. Conceptual model As described in Section 2, the IUCN-WCPA framework is applicable for this study. It pays more attention to the outcome evaluation whereas this paper expects to analyse the entire management process and effects for the research area more comprehensively. In addition, the contents of the IUCN-WCPA framework are relatively general and the descriptions are not specific enough in some aspects. Furthermore, at present the framework is extensively applied in the MEE of large-scale protected area systems at national and regional levels. This paper chooses a specific SMPA as a case study, which has both exploitation and protection functions as well as particular characteristics. Therefore, relevant refinement and innovation are conducted in this study according to JZBCWSMPA's features, and the original evaluation categories and contents are enriched to a certain extent. For example, JZBCWSMPA's basic situations will be stressed in the “context” element; human activity related components and indicators will be augmented in the “inputs”, “processes” and “outputs” stages. In addition, numerous factors including general features of SMPA and coastal wetlands, and the specific nature of JZBCWSMPA, etc. are all incorporated into the conceptual model as important modules. Meanwhile, extensive previous research outcomes related to the MPA (SMPA) management processes and their MEEs reviewed in Sections 2 and 3 have been taken into considerations for reference supports as well. The conceptual model developed by this study is shown in Fig. 3, which systematically clarifies the processes of indicator framework development, JZBCWSMPA's management and its effectiveness evaluation. It can be seen from the conceptual model that it is guided and defined by linking causal relationships. JZBCWSMPA has its own management objectives, generally to say, it is relevant to effective management of the protected area. Certain outcomes will be achieved through JZBCWSMPA's day-to-day management, which relate to the management effectiveness. The evaluation of management effectiveness is conducted via an EPI framework. The management cycle proposed by the IUCN-WCPA framework is also reflected in this model, which begins with understanding the context of JZBCWSMPA such as its characters and values, resource and environmental conditions, etc. Appropriate planning including laws, regulations, policies and strategies are required to facilitate management. The following activities proceed from inputs to operational processes to outputs and outcomes. Inputs are allocated in terms of management agency, personnel, equipment, funding and human activities and so on. Numerous management actions are subsequently implemented according to accepted processes, including management system, procedure, methods and contents (e.g. risk reduction; environmental awareness training; monitoring; and stakeholder participation). Relevant outputs will be eventually produced (e.g. pollutant emission; response mechanism; environmental and ecological status and impacts; and stakeholder and public attitudes), which result in outcomes, “hopefully achieving defined goals and objectives” (Hockings et al., 2006, p.11). The indicator selection will be guided by this management cycle. Based on the evaluation results, managers will examine management advantages and problems, and then conduct objective corrections if necessary. Eventual management outcomes will be influenced by the refined day-to-day management, expecting to improve the management effectiveness. This is the theoretical implication of the conceptual model. The whole model forms feedback loops which are shown as arrows within the main box of Fig. 3. For example, inappropriate

78

W. Wu et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 142 (2017) 71e89

Fig. 3. Conceptual model of the EPI development for JZBCWSMPA.

waste discharge in exploitation activities would put pressures on the JZBCWSMPA environment and cause water pollution, resulting in the managers needing to implement relevant measures such as the water monitoring program; boat survey; and waste incident responding mechanism to prevent the pollution or to respond to this issue.

4.2. An initial EPI framework specific for JZBCWSMPA Based on extensively studying a great deal of literature and documents, an integrated approach is adopted by this paper. In light of the sustainable development theory, globally well-known model for MEE (e.g. the IUCN-WCPA framework), relevant international and national standards, other widely used indicator frameworks (Section 2.3), general features of SMPAs and coastal wetlands, the conceptual model proposed in Section 4.1 and the peculiarities of JBCWSMPA (Sections 3.2 and 3.3), an initial EPI framework specific for the JZBCWSMPA MEE is developed here, which is called the JBCWSMPA-MEE indicator framework. Besides various criteria, indicator related research works discussed previously (e.g. Ban et al., 2014; Dalton et al., 2012; Gallacher et al., 2016; Garces et al., 2013; Gurney et al., 2015; Heck et al., 2011, 2012; Leleu

et al., 2012; Marques et al., 2013; Miao et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2011; Wu and Wang, 2011, etc.) provide supportive references for identification of the initial indicator set proposed by this study. The indicators have been grouped into six thematic categories, which are consistent with the modules illustrated in Fig. 3. Table 3 summarizes the indicators' placement into the categories and outlines the structure of coverage created by the framework. A specific code has been used to facilitate representation and future analysis of each category, that is, “BG”, “PN”, “IP”, “PC”, “OP” and “RS” are the abbreviations for “Background Indicator”, “Planning Indicator”, “Input Indicator”, “Process Indicator”, “Output Indicator” and “Result Indicator”, respectively. “Section” provides the first hierarchy under these categories. All indicators have been coded with an abbreviation for each category plus a number (e.g., GF2, P5), as well as their names, descriptions and possible units. Appendix A outlines the initial indicator set identified within the JZBCWSMPA-MEE framework. There are 40 primary indicators, 13 of which contain 46 secondary ones; consequently 79 detailed indicators in total. More indicator related issues of the six categories, including the selection foundation, main contents and features, will be analysed subsequently:

W. Wu et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 142 (2017) 71e89

4.2.1. Background indicators According to the descriptions of background indicators in Section 2.4, this kind of indicators do not belong to the direct analysis of management, whereas are very helpful for managers' decisionmaking, management implementation and management process planning according to particular features of relevant regions. The background evaluation can better capture key issues in the management. Practically, JZBCWSMPA has been established; the selection of background indicators therefore mainly aims at its current status, including basic situation, important values, major threats and management status and so on (Appendix A). 4.2.2. Planning indicators First of all, planning is a qualitative and quantitative plan made by managers for the future objective achievement, that is, “where do we want to be and how will we get there?” (Hockings et al., 2006, p.18). Therefore, in view of JZBCWSMPA's current situation, the selection of planning indicators mainly focuses on environmental management policy and planning, laws and regulations, environmental management mechanism (Appendix A), in order to facilitate the evaluation of planning, such as whether relevant policies and legal framework are scientific and reasonable or not; whether the planning of protected area system is perfect or not; and whether specific management plans are feasible or not. 4.2.3. Input indicators The evaluation of input effectiveness is actually to answer the question “what do we need” (Hockings et al., 2006, p.20) for the protected area management. Regarding input related indicators, the most essential issue is the inputs of resources, such as funding, responsible personnel and requisite equipment, etc. It is necessary to incorporate rational resource use into the indicator framework as well. Although the relationship between inputs and management demands is relatively complicated, the management preferences can be understood via resource availability during the MEE. JZBCWSMPA is a region with both exploitation and protection, it is therefore essential to reflect human activities conducted within the area through relevant indicators. Thus, input indicators mainly include environmental management resources, investment, exploitation activities, equipment and infrastructure and so on (Appendix A). 4.2.4. Process indicators The evaluation of management process is a qualitative procedure under more circumstances, which is usually difficult to obtain accurate results through quantitative data analysis. Although the effectiveness of management process is not equal to the effectiveness of management itself, management problems can be seen from the management process. Relatively speaking, the number of indicators for management process evaluation is large. They not only cover a wide range and involve the most complex contents, but also are very important (Hockings et al., 2006). Combined with JZBCWSMPA's characteristics, the selection of process indicators mainly focuses on environmental impact assessment and risk reduction, resource management, environmental education and training, environmental monitoring, scientific support, data and information system, emergency response, stakeholder participation, environmental reporting and so on (Appendix A). 4.2.5. Output indicators Focusing on the outputs of management process is an important means to track and evaluate the management effectiveness. Outputs are usually considered as core information for management plan evaluation. The evaluation of outputs is more effective as long as management planning and objectives are determined. Output

79

related indicators cover both quantitative and qualitative ones and their selection generally commences in terms of production of goods and services; the proper implementation of management plans; the effectiveness of current response mechanism; and the impacts of human activities on protected areas; and so on (Hockings et al., 2006). Accordingly output indicators selected by this paper involve many aspects such as the rationality of environmental management policies, laws and regulations, management system and procedures; audits of environmental quality, biodiversity and ecosystem; precautionary measures; effects of environmental education and training and stakeholder participation; funding use and equipment maintenance; and environmental management report (Appendix A). 4.2.6. Result indicators Result indicators estimate direct and real impacts of management activities, which straight reflect the degree of achievement of management objectives. MacKinnon (1986) believed that the clarity and measurability of result/outcome related indicators cannot be overemphasized, whereas they were the most fundamental evaluation for management effectiveness. There is no doubt that result indicators are extremely important; the selection of this kind of indicators should combine with management plans, objectives and current status of protected areas. Hockings et al. (2006) considered outcome related indicators typically consisted of three components, i.e., the evaluation of management and work plans; the identification of particular threats; and IUCN protected area management types. Regarding JZBCWSMPA, result indicators mainly contain achievement of management objectives and plans; review of management process and performance; improvement of management mechanism and measures; budget adjustment; indicator revision; and so on (Appendix A). 4.3. Expert ranking and indicator aggregation The JZBCWSMPA-MEE indicator framework proposed here is a preliminary set. A problem is that the number of indicators is large, which is a common concern in previous initiatives. However, this is due to the number being dependent on an organization's complexity, the purpose and users of indicators. In order to facilitate management activities more effectively, the indicator set should be simple enough for decision makers and the public to understand (Hammond et al., 1995). A systematic way to achieve this is to aggregate the indicators into more-general categories focusing on key issues (e.g. core set of indicators, headline indicators and index), as suggested by many studies (e.g. CSIR et al., 2001; Hammond et al., 1995; Olsthoorn et al., 2001; United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2006). Consequently, an expert indicator ranking procedure was conducted following previous studies (e.g. Burgman et al., 2011; Lennox et al., 2011; Pollnac et al., 2001; Ramos et al., 2007b), expecting to reduce the number of indicators and highlight indicator priorities. Experts were chosen based on their knowledge and experience of the environment and management of JZB and JZBCWSMPA. Eventually 13 experts were invited to attend the ranking process. Designed in accordance with the initial indicator set, the indicator ranking forms were distributed with experts' consent via email, hardcopy delivery and relevant meeting discussion. Integrating previous widely accepted indicator initiatives and principles (e.g. Berkhout et al., 2001; European Environment Agency (EEA), 2005; OECD, 1993; Standards Australia and New Zealand, 2000), China's theory development and practices in this field, and JZBCWSMPA's environmental and management features, a set of criteria was developed to assist the indicator assessment (Table 2). These criteria will be integrated into the conceptual

80

W. Wu et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 142 (2017) 71e89

Table 2 JZBCWSMPA-MEE indicator ranking criteria. Criteria Reliability

Explanation Policy and objective relevance

In accordance with relevant international standards Consistent with national and sectoral policies and objectives related to environmental management Clear definition and description of indicators Specific to JZBCWSMPA's natural and social features Incorporating exploitation peculiarities and environmental management within JZBCWSMPA Science and ecosystem based management Precautionary consideration Adaptive management Consultation process in place Properly documented Convenient for communication to decision makers, stakeholders and general public Indicating long-term environmental changes Convenient for monitoring and checking Stored on a database Supported by available data Fixed analysis method for data processing and evaluation Cost-effective Ideal correlation with outcome evaluation Revised and updated as necessary

Simplicity and understandability Representativeness and specificity Credibility

User availability Feasibility

Practicability Data accessibility and soundness of analysis

Measurability

model for the JZBCWSMPA-MEE indicator framework. Experts scored the initial indicators in the forms against the above criteria in terms of “reliability” and “feasibility”. A threepoint Likert scale was used: 1 ¼ low; 2 ¼ medium; 3 ¼ high. The raw data obtained from the experts' judgements was then transformed through a normalization process to facilitate the further aggregation of indicators, following the methods of Ramos and de Melo (2006). The final score of each indicator was calculated according to:

Pm Indicator score ¼

j¼1

n

Pn

i¼1

Pm

Xij wj

(1)

j¼1 wj

where Xij is the raw score of expert i according to the attributed weight wj for each indicator; n is the number of experts, so that i ¼ 1, …,13; m denotes the category of ranking criteria, “reliability” and “feasibility”, j ¼ 1,2. As “reliability” is considered as important as “feasibility” for an indicator in this study, they are equally weighted (w1 ¼ w2). Consequently, calculation of the indicator score is similar to the calculation of average values. As the number of ranking experts is small, “this kind of analysis can give the appearance of numerical respectability” (Gordon, n.d., p. 12). Although there is an increasing trend to “develop a more limited number of indicator core sets” (Ramos et al., 2007b, p. 422), no consensus exists for the number of indicators. Referring to the ranking results, only indicators with a final score of 2.1 or more (i.e. 70% and above level of “3 ¼ high”) are counted in a summative indicator set (Appendix B), which has 33 primary indicators including a total of 63 detailed indicators

Table 3 The JZBCWSMPA-MEE indicator distribution corresponding to the management cycle modules before and after expert rankings. Categories

Code

Sections (No.)

Possible number of indicators

Initial

Refined

Initial

Refined

1 Background Indicator 2 Planning Indicator 3 Input Indicator 4 Process Indicator 5 Output Indicator 6 Result Indicator Total number

BG PN IP PC OP RS

5 3 5 12 10 5 40

5 3 5 10 6 4 33

8 3 5 30 23 10 79

6 3 5 24 17 8 63

(Table 3).

5. Discussion 5.1. The initial EPI framework From the descriptions in Section 4.2, it can be seen that the initial JZBCWSMPA-MEE indicator framework has its own characteristics that is different from previous initiatives. According to its category, the majority of indicators are process indicators (n ¼ 30, 38%), output indicators (n ¼ 23, 30%) and result indicators (n ¼ 10, 13%), which contributes 81% of the whole indicator set. As mentioned in Section 3.2, JZBCWSMPA is a unique marine protected area with significant ecosystems and a sensitive environment. It should be noted that previous JZB related studies have not only focused on the JZBCWSMPA area, while this paper is the pioneering work in building an EPI framework specific for this SMPA's MEE. More importantly, this is a highly integrated framework incorporating various kinds of indicators, such as policies and laws, planning, physical impacts and management effects (Table 3). Traditionally, the dominant types of indicators are physical, chemical and biological indicators. Social response indicators were developed later (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 1993) and are less advanced. As management-related indicators are complicated and sensitive, it is difficult to develop them and to evaluate their management outcomes (South Africa Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) et al., 2001). However, the evaluation of management effectiveness relies heavily on both qualitative and quantitative information (Ramos et al., 2007a). The overall management effectiveness of JZBCWSMPA is the integrated result of multiple relationships amongst different indicators. There are many cross-cutting issues in the JZBCWSMPA-MEE indicator framework. Normally, one environmental impact might be caused by several activities and cumulative processes (Burbridge, 1997; Linton and Warner, 2003; Maes et al., 2011; Olsen, 2003). Conversely, one kind of activity or environmental pressure might have potential impacts in several areas; for example, hazard waste disposal could cause sea water pollution, as well as ecosystem and habitat destruction. Therefore, an integrated management approach is required in the development of the indicator framework, as suggested by previous studies (e.g. Gallacher et al., 2016; Gurney et al., 2015; Horigue et al., 2014). The combination

W. Wu et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 142 (2017) 71e89

of different kinds of indicators (e.g. physical, chemical, biological, managerial and social) is considered in this paper. For example, indicators of “environmental quality audit” (OP3) and “biodiversity and ecosystem audit” (OP4) are related to quantitative environmental information regarding physical, chemical and biological aspects. Managerial and social indicators are reflected in the planning and process steps, such as “environmental impact assessment” (PC1); “environmental education, training and propaganda” (PC4); “stakeholder participation” (PC6) (Appendix A). 5.2. The aggregated indicator set As can be seen from the statistical results based on the expert ranking (Section 4.3), output and process indicators have been relatively more compressed. For example, although climate change has become an increasing challenge throughout the world, climatechange related indicator in the initial JZBCWSMPA-MEE framework (OP3-1-3 in Appendix A) was not ranked as highly important by the experts. Climate change is a global and long-term issue; so that the impacts of a specific exploitation activity conducted in JZBCWSMPA with a small area and strong regional features, considered minor and temporary, are deemed not to be highly relevant to climate change. However, as the global climate is becoming warmer, the recovery of environmental damages may require a longer time (Wu and Wang, 2011), it is necessary for managers to cautiously reduce potential impacts of human activities on climate change. The majority of stakeholder participation related initial indicators (PC6) have not obtained an optimistic ranking result, such as stakeholders' identification; their rights and involved activities; feedback, inquiries, complaints and suggestions received. It is probably due to stakeholder participation related aspects do not devote sufficiently to the JZBCWSMPA's management system; or are not paid enough attentions to its day-to-day management. As a result, the understanding and application of relevant indicators are less experienced, thus the feasibility of indicators will be affected. There might also be difficulties in the actual operation of indicators like data collection, analysis and evaluation. Moreover, scientific research on stakeholder participation in the JZBCWSMPA management is scarce, with no published research outcomes found until now, leading to a lack of data and references. However, it should be noted that stakeholder participation is an essential component of the whole MEE system, with no exception to marine protected areas (Wu, 2015). As reviewed in Section 2, many developed countries have leaded in this field with numerous achievements. China still has many deficiencies from the overall perspective, such as insufficient emphasis and publicity; weak awareness of stakeholders; imperfect participation mechanism; and unsatisfactory implementation effects (Liu and Liu, 2015). Therefore, the stakeholder participation mechanism should be improved and refined in JZBCWSMPA's future environmental management, such as building an open and friendly participating environment, extending participation pathways, providing feedback after widely receiving all views and advices, to ensure full participation of stakeholders in all management activities, as well as the integrity of management system and the availability of relevant indicators. As illustrated by the ranking outcomes, indicators related to the effects of management elements, and the evaluation of output and results (e.g. OP1, OP5, OP7, OP8, RS1 and RS3-1 in Appendix A) have generally not received high scores. The reasons perhaps lie in that the implementation of these aspects is relatively complicated, which needs various types of data and information obtained from numerous channels; long term observation and monitoring; and rational analysis and evaluation methods. As mentioned before, the operation and management of JZBCWSMPA are still at the early

81

stage, with many aspects to be improved. The application of such indicators is difficult regarding current status and should be gradually enriched along with JZBCWSMPA's own features and management promotion. Besides, as experts' understanding of the ranking criteria is consistent throughout the whole ranking process, indicators of environmental awareness training and education and stakeholder participation (e.g. PC4, PC6 in Appendix A) have lower priorities in all initial indicators, which influents subsequent scores of OP7 and OP8 (Appendix A) to a certain extent. Indicators related to JZBCWSMPA's environmental and ecological elements and their quantization are considered a high priority, such as environmental monitoring (PC7), environmental database and information system (PC9), environmental quality (e.g. water quality, soil, waste discharge) (OP3), and biodiversity and ecosystem (OP4), etc. (Appendix A). JZB is one of the most developed and studied embayment in China (Liang et al., 2015). As previously stated (Section 3.3), a variety of quantitative data and research outcomes in terms of JZB have been accumulated in recent years; managers have also carried on fruitful practices in wetland restoration, coastal zone and marine management. JZBCWSMPA is embodied in JZB, the features of such kinds of indicators, such as credibility, representativeness, measurability, data accessibility and practicability (Table 2), have therefore been fully reflected; relevant quantitative indicators take obvious advantages in “reliability” and “feasibility” compared with other indicators. The ranking also highlights the importance of planning, input and environmental impact assessment related indicators in promoting JZBCWSMPA's environmental management and its effectiveness evaluation. For example, the high priorities of some indicators (e.g. environmental policy; planning; legal and regulatory requirements; inputs of resources, personnel and equipment; environmental management mechanism; environmental risk assessment) illustrates that the importance of the precautionary principle is greatly emphasized. They need to be not only valid for the environmental impacts that occur, but also directly connected with the earlier stages of the indicator framework (Ramos et al., 2007b). With an guiding significance and a close connection with management objectives, these indicators should be incorporated into the day-to-day environmental management at JZBCWSMPA in order to facilitate the communication between decision-makers and stakeholders, as also suggested by other studies (e.g. Ban et al., 2014; Islam et al., 2014; McDonach and Yaneske, 2002; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Department of Public Policy, 2003). 5.3. The future perspectives Different from large-scale and large-sample questionnaire surveys, the number of ranking experts is usually relatively small. In this study, it is also because only a small group of people are experts in JZBCWSMPA use and management issues, but their judgements are considered representative, indicating the feasibility of the research method adopted by this paper. Burgman et al. (2011) also stated that the expert number and response rate were usually small in such ranking processes. It should be noted that the method is subjective to a certain extent and might influence the indicator aggregation results. Meanwhile, due to time limitations and operational difficulties, the ranking process was conducted for only one round. As a follow-up, research methods will be further optimized for more objective quantitative analyses; feedback could also be provided to the experts for further revision in future, in order to improve the ranking performance and indicator quality, as also suggested by Burgman et al. (2011). The indicators should also be periodically reviewed and revised according to new data and scientific knowledge, changed

82

W. Wu et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 142 (2017) 71e89

environmental conditions, and policy and social context, to improve their usefulness (Hammond et al., 1995; OECD Environment Directorate, 2004; Ramos et al., 2007b; UNEP, 2006). For example, the priority of quantitative indicators is generally higher than qualitative ones according to the ranking outcomes of this study (Sections 4.3 and 5.2). As can be seen from international experiences in the past few years, qualitative indicators also play an essential role in the MEE for protected areas (Sections 2.2 and 3.1). Therefore, such kind of indicators could be enriched in future for JZBCWSMPA as necessary. As stated previously, JZBCWSMPA plays an essential role in Qingdao's development and the specific indicator framework is an integrated issue incorporating basic management ideas like the sustainable development and ICZM, as well as various kinds of indicators; therefore it could set a typical example for promoting the social-economic development of the entire city in a sustainable manner. In addition, the research outcomes demonstrated in this paper may also be applied to similar MPAs or to other fields' MEE. However, one needs to be cautious before adopting them. Because each field has its own characteristics, case-by-case analyses are required, considering such issues as the context (e.g. political, environmental and economic), features of the study area, objectives and methods, and management capabilities (Edwards et al., 1997; Lennox et al., 2011; Nawrocka and Parker, 2009). 6. Conclusions The MEE, along with corresponding EPIs, can be regarded as an integrated information system that is most crucial for supporting good environmental management (Bititci et al., 1997). At present, the MEE and the development of corresponding indicator framework for SMPAs are still relatively new research and practical fields in China (see Section 2). This paper took Qingdao's first SMPA, the JZBCWSMPA, as a research example, and conducted an indicator establishment and refinement related study for the first time. In order to assist the evaluation of management effectiveness for the JZBCWSMPA, a region-specific EPI framework, the JZBCWSMPAMEE, has been developed on the basis of the protected area's management flow and a proposed conceptual model. This specific indicator framework introduced the sustainable development theory and relevant international and national standards as the guide; it adopted and innovated the IUCN-WCPA framework for fundamental basis; used widely accepted indicator frameworks (e.g. ISO14031 EPE, PSR, DPSIR, etc.) for references; further combined the SMPA management features with JZBCWSMPA's environmental peculiarities; as well as drew lessons from other research works. By incorporating both of the top-down and bottom-up approaches, this method is considered to be practicable

and flexible. The innovation of the JZBCWSMPA-MEE framework is demonstrated in Section 5.1. An integrated mechanism is emphasized (Appendix A), aiming to provide comprehensive evaluations. Relevant development and management activities have been used as examples to explain the specific EPI framework proposed in this paper. The explanations also aim to intuitively illustrate that the framework is expected to affect adaptive management and integrate environmental awareness into the day-to-day activities. An expert-ranking procedure was used to rank the initial indicators. Based on two evaluation criteria (i.e. “reliability” and “feasibility”) and the standardization processing, indicator priorities were highlighted and the number of indicators reduced to produce a summative indicator set and obtain consensus about its use, and to facilitate information compression and public communication. This research has significance for enriching the study of SMPA MEE. The establishment of this EPI framework is the first step for the evaluation of management effectiveness for JZBCWSMPA. As discussed by Wu and Wang (2011), various kinds of data and information need to be collected and analysed, in order to test and validate the framework's practicability and look for convincing evidences to contribute to the MEE. Meanwhile, the JZBCWSMPAMEE conceptual model and indicator framework should be disseminated to managers, stakeholders and the general public via effective communications and field investigations, in order to seek their comments and feedback and then determine its serviceability for decision-making and practices at policy, management and enjoyment levels. To sum up, the JZBCWSMPA managers have vital responsibilities for strategic, operational and integrated environmental management. The specific evaluation model and indicator framework proposed by this study have been designed with the expectation of providing a useful tool and reference for managerial assistance in JZBCWSMPA's environmental management in the future. Acknowledgments This paper is supported by China Association of Marine Affairs (CAMA) [Grant number: CAMAQN201409] and China Ministry of Science and Technology under Contract (2015CB452905). Special thanks to indicator ranking experts for their participation and support. The research was partly funded by the 48th Scientific Research Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars, State Education Ministry [Grant number: (2014)1685]. Appendix A Initial indicators of the JBCWSMPA-MEE indicator framework.

Indicator Background Indicator (BG) BG1 Location, scope and total size of JBCWSMPA BG2 Functional zoning of JBCWSMPA (e.g. quantity, name, functions, proportion, etc.) BG3 Value of JBCWSMPA (e.g. significance, unique features, vulnerability, etc.) BG3-1 Environmental condition (e.g. water quality, sediment concentration, terrestrial and marine environment, pollution, sensitivity to environmental impacts, etc.) BG3-2 Resource status and ecological value BG3-2-1 Biological resources (e.g. vegetation coverage area, fisheries, birds, rare and endangered species, native and introduced exotic species, harmful organisms, etc.) BG3-2-2 Ecosystem and their values (e.g. wetland, estuaries, ocean, etc.) BG3-3 Economic value, cultural value, aesthetic value BG4 Degree of marine area use

Unit(s) (Examples) Description; Ha/km2 Number; Description; % Description Good/Preferable/Bad, Subject to environment and ecosystem related indicators within the following “Output Indicator”, High/Medium/Low Subject to environment and ecosystem related indicators within the following “Output Indicator” m2; Number; Abundance (High/Medium/Low); Location; Description Qualitative and quantitative descriptions Quantitative and qualitative descriptions % Yes/No; Year; Description

W. Wu et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 142 (2017) 71e89

83

(continued ) Indicator BG5 Environmental Management System (e.g. whether in place or not; implementation duration, basic information, etc.) Planning Indicator (PN) PN1 Environmental management policy and planning (e.g. guidelines, management targets and objectives, plans, strategies and programs, etc.) PN2 Legal and regulatory requirements (e.g. amount, legislation framework, promulgation agency, contents, application status, understood by responsible management organization, etc.) PN3 Environmental management mechanism (e.g. management system, procedures, style, etc.) Input Indicator (IP) IP1 Resources available for environmental management (e.g. government supports; management institutions; human resources; roles and responsibilities; time spent, etc.) IP2 Environmental investment (e.g. funding source, type, amount, budget, etc.) IP3 Human exploitation activities conducted (e.g. type, exploiter, cycle/frequency, etc.) IP4 Total resource use (e.g. energy (e.g. electricity), water, material, pesticide, etc.) IP5 Equipment and infrastructure (e.g. pollution abatement equipment, waste treatment plants, transport infrastructure (e.g. road types and length, vehicle loads) Process Indicator (PC) PC1 Environmental impact assessment (EIA) PC1-1 Identification of environmental aspects and impacts (e.g. amount, source (direct, indirect); scale (localized, entire area, external); significance (high, moderate, low); frequency (temporary, permanent); reversibility), etc.) PC1-2 Procedure and methodology PC1-3 Involved personnel (e.g. amount, source, expertise, etc.) PC1-4 Assessment frequency PC2 Environmental risk reduction measures PC2-1 Nonconformity for decreasing or eliminating resources within JBCWSMPA (e.g. nonconformity events reported, causes investigated, penalty mechanism to nonconformity, etc.) PC2-2 Environmental management technologies and equipment (e.g. pollution reduction and elimination, waste disposal and treatment, energy and material substitution, etc.) PC2-3 Proactive management measures PC3 Resource management (e.g. natural resource, human and cultural resource, resources available for human exploitation, tourism management, etc.) PC4 Environmental education, training and propaganda PC4-1 Subject and object (e.g. type, amount, etc.) PC4-2 Contents and pathways PC4-3 Frequency and duration PC5 Internal communication and coordination within the entire management organization (pathway (e.g. meetings, newsletters, bulletins, intranet, workshops), frequency, etc.) PC6 Stakeholder participation (Consultation, communication and cooperation) PC6-1 JBCWSMPA stakeholder identification and stakeholders' rights PC6-2 Stakeholder participatory activities PC6-3 Communication methods (e.g. meetings; community consultations, workshops, media, websites, hotlines, etc.) and implementation frequency PC6-4 Feedback, inquiries, complaints and suggestions received PC7 Environmental monitoring within and surrounding JBCWSMPA PC7-1 Monitoring stations (e.g. name, location, amount, etc.) PC7-2 Responsible personnel and equipment PC7-3 Monitoring frequency and pattern PC7-4 Monitoring contents (e.g. environmental quality, natural resource, biodiversity and habitat disturbance, ecosystem health, etc.) PC8 Scientific support and science-based management PC8-1 Environmental specialist assistance (e.g. involved personnel, assistance methods and contents, etc.) PC8-2 Scientific research (e.g. funding, involved institutions, outcomes and publications; contribution to management, etc.) PC9 Database and information system PC9-1 Systematic data collection and analysis procedures (e.g. data collection frequency and method, analytical measurements) PC9-2 Contents (e.g. data type, time series length, data quality and availability, storage platform, etc.) PC9-3 Data and information management PC10 Incident reporting and response management PC10-1 Identification of potential emergencies (e.g. possible hazards source, incident types, amount, frequency, affected areas, etc.) PC10-2 Response mechanism (e.g. methods and equipment, responsible personnel receiving training, speed to respond and correct, emergency respond pre-proposal, emergency preparedness and precautionary drills conducted, possible assistance from local communities, etc.) PC10-3 Post-incident evaluation PC11 Integration with other management notions and mechanism (e.g. sustainable development, Integrated Coastal Zone Management, etc.)

Unit(s) (Examples)

Number, Description Number, Description; Yes/No

Description

Yes/No; Organizational character, responsibility; Number; Days/year Description; RMB Yuan/year Description; Number/year kWh/year, m3/year, kg/year Description, Location, Number, km, t

Number (type); % of total impacts

Description Number; Description Number of times/year Description, Number, Yes/No

Description, Number, Location, kg/year Description Description

Qualitative and quantitative descriptions Description Number of times/year; Days/Hours Description; Number of times/day

Description Description Description; Number of times/year Number; %; Description Description, Number Description Description Subject to environment and ecosystem related indicators within the following “Output Indicator” Yes/No; Description RMB Yuan/year; Number; Description

Description Description, Months/Years Qualitative assessment Yes/No; Description, Number, Ha/km2 Description; Yes/No, Number, Time (minutes, hours), Ha/km2

Yes/No, Description Yes/No, Description (continued on next page)

84

W. Wu et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 142 (2017) 71e89

(continued ) Indicator

Unit(s) (Examples)

PC12 Environmental reportingdDisclosure of environment and management information (e.g. disclosed information type, methodology and pathway, frequency, information quality (e.g. credibility, transparency, clearness), etc.) Output Indicator (OP) OP1 Effectiveness of environmental management policy

Qualitative and quantitative descriptions; Yes/No

OP2 Effectiveness of legal and regulatory requirements and degree of compliance OP3 Environmental quality audit OP3-1 Air quality and climate change OP3-1-1 Emission to air (e.g. SO2, NOx, CO, PM10, VOCs, toxic, etc.) OP3-1-2 Greenhouse gases (GHG) emission (e.g. CO2, CH4, N2O, etc.) OP3-1-3 Changes of local temperature OP3-2 Water quality OP3-2-1 Acidification (e.g. release to water (e.g. SO2, NOX, NH3, nitrates, ammonia, HCl, HF, H2SO4); total depositions of acidifying substances; comparison with standard, etc.) OP3-2-2 Eutrophication (e.g. release to water (e.g. ammonium, phosphate, silicate, chlorinated organic substances); wastewater; N, P concentration; COD, BOD (i.e. chemical/ biochemical oxygen demand); phytoplankton biomass/algal blooms, average chlorophylla concentration; DO (dissolved oxygen)/bottom oxygen concentration; comparison with standard, etc.) OP3-2-3 Turbidity (e.g. sediment, suspended solids, water transparency, etc.) OP3-2-4 Incidents of groundwater/drinking water impairment OP3-3 Soil quality (e.g. toxic contamination; acidification, salinisation, eutrophication, compaction; exceedance of critical contaminant loads; degree of top soil loss, etc.) OP3-4 Waste generation and discharge (e.g. disposal quantity of liquid waste (e.g. wastewater; oil and fuel spill; marine dumping), solid waste, radioactive waste; hazardous/toxic waste, non-hazardous waste, etc.) OP3-5 Other environmental pollution (e.g. dust emission; Noise and vibration emission and level, etc.) OP4 Biodiversity and ecosystem audit OP4-1 Flora and fauna species diversity and list OP4-2 Community structure and function (e.g. distribution, quality, growth rate, productivity, degradation, regeneration, etc.) OP4-3 Threatened/rare/endangered/vulnerable/extinct species; protected species and areas; introduced exotic species and affected areas OP4-4 Fauna habitat (e.g. type; habitat area and location; alternation and fragmentation; habitat disturbance, degradation and loss; habitat protection and restoration, etc.) OP4-5 Evaluation of ecosystem service function OP5 Effectiveness of environmental impact assessment OP6 Effectiveness of corrective and preventive actions for reducing environmental risks (e.g. degree of nonconformity reduction, pollution remediation, recycling and reuse, positive impact of new energy and material use, etc.) OP7 Effect of environmental education, training and propaganda (e.g. changes of objects' environmental knowledge and awareness, and behaviours, etc.) OP8 Effective coordination and cooperation with stakeholders OP9 Environmental management report (e.g. responsible agency, type (e.g. periodic, annual), contents, submission institution, frequency, effects, etc.) OP10 Funding use and equipment maintenance Result Indicator (RS) RS1 Achievement of management plans, targets and objectives (e.g. improvements of environmental, economic and social benefits; degree of stakeholders' attitude, support and satisfaction, etc.) RS2 Management process and performance review RS2-1 Review contents (all elements of management process and their advantages and weaknesses) RS2-2 Review methods (e.g. meeting discussion, briefing, direct inspection and measurement, interview, survey, reference to previous audits and reviews, etc.) RS2-3 Periodical review RS3 Improvement of management mechanism and measures RS3-1 Effectiveness and systematisms of management mechanism, integration with advanced management notions RS3-2 Environmental impact assessment updated as necessary, environmental pollution reduction RS3-3 Periodical check, review and revise emergency preparedness and incident response procedures RS3-4 Environmental monitoring and data and information system supplemented and updated RS4 Budget adjustment RS5 Revision of JBCWSMPA environmental performance indicators

Qualitative assessment (Evaluation criteria in accordance with the ISO 14001 requirements) Qualitative assessment (High/Medium/Low; Good/Preferable/Bad); Description, %

kg/year, mg/m3, Number of days per year exceeding air quality 

C/year

kg/year; pH value; Exceedance mg/l; MPN/100 ml (biological parameter); km2/year (algal blooms);

kg/m3, g/l, Dimensionless Number/year %, Ha; kg/year; m3/year Number/year, m3/year, kg/year

kg/year; W, % of exceeding limits per year; High/Medium/Low; Description

Number, Description Ha/m2, %, Number, Description Number, %, Ha/m2, Description, Location Number, Ha/m2, %; Yes/No; Qualitative and quantitative descriptions and assessments Qualitative and quantitative assessments Yes/No %, High/Medium/Low, Description

Survey result analysis Yes/No Qualitative and quantitative descriptions Description Number, %; High/Medium/Low; Description

Qualitative and quantitative descriptions Description Yes/No; Number of times/year Description Yes/No, Description Yes/No, Description Yes/No, Number of times/year Description Description, Number

W. Wu et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 142 (2017) 71e89

Appendix B

85

on expert ranking procedure.

Revised indicator set of the JZBCWSMPA-MEE framework based

Indicator Background Indicator (BG) BG1 Location, scope and total size of JBCWSMPA BG2 Functional zoning of JBCWSMPA (e.g. quantity, name, functions, proportion, etc.) BG3 Value of JBCWSMPA (e.g. significance, unique features, vulnerability, etc.) BG3-1 Environmental condition (e.g. water quality, sediment concentration, terrestrial and marine environment, pollution, sensitivity to environmental impacts, etc.) BG3-2 Biological resources (e.g. vegetation coverage area, fisheries, birds, rare and endangered species, native and introduced exotic species, harmful organisms, etc.) BG4 Degree of marine area use BG5 Environmental Management System (e.g. whether in place or not; implementation duration, basic information, etc.) Planning Indicator (PN) PN1 Environmental management policy and planning (e.g. guidelines, management targets and objectives, plans, strategies and programs, etc.) PN2 Legal and regulatory requirements (e.g. amount, legislation framework, promulgation agency, contents, application status, understood by responsible management organization, etc.) PN3 Environmental management mechanism (e.g. management system, procedures, style, etc.) Input Indicator (IP) IP1 Resources available for environmental management (e.g. government supports; management institutions; human resources; roles and responsibilities; time spent, etc.) IP2 Environmental investment (e.g. funding source, type, amount, budget, etc.) IP3 Human exploitation activities conducted (e.g. type, exploiter, cycle/frequency, etc.) IP4 Total resource use (e.g. energy (e.g. electricity), water, material, pesticide, etc.) IP5 Equipment and infrastructure (e.g. pollution abatement equipment, waste treatment plants, transport infrastructure (e.g. road types and length, vehicle loads) Process Indicator (PC) PC1 Environmental impact assessment (EIA) PC1-1 Identification of environmental aspects and impacts (e.g. amount, source (direct, indirect); scale (localized, entire area, external); significance (high, moderate, low); frequency (temporary, permanent); reversibility), etc.) PC1-2 Procedure and methodology PC1-3 Involved personnel (e.g. amount, source, expertise, etc.) PC2 Environmental risk reduction measures PC2-1 Nonconformity for decreasing or eliminating resources within JBCWSMPA (e.g. nonconformity events reported, causes investigated, penalty mechanism to nonconformity, etc.) PC2-2 Environmental management technologies and equipment (e.g. pollution reduction and elimination, waste disposal and treatment, energy and material substitution, etc.) PC2-3 Proactive management measures PC3 Environmental education, training and propaganda PC3-1 Subject and object (e.g. type, amount, etc.) PC3-2 Contents and pathways PC3-3 Frequency and duration PC4 Internal communication and coordination within the entire management organization (pathway (e.g. meetings, newsletters, bulletins, intranet, workshops), frequency, etc.) PC5 Stakeholder participation (Consultation, communication and cooperation) methods (e.g. meetings; community consultations, workshops, media, websites, hotlines, etc.) and implementation frequency PC6 Environmental monitoring within and surrounding JBCWSMPA PC6-1 Monitoring stations (e.g. name, location, amount, etc.) PC6-2 Responsible personnel and equipment PC6-3 Monitoring frequency and pattern PC6-4 Monitoring contents (e.g. environmental quality, natural resource, biodiversity and habitat disturbance, ecosystem health, etc.) PC7 Scientific support and science-based management PC7-1 Environmental specialist assistance (e.g. involved personnel, assistance methods and contents, etc.) PC7-2 Scientific research (e.g. funding, involved institutions, outcomes and publications; contribution to management, etc.) PC8 Database and information system PC8-1 Systematic data collection and analysis procedures (e.g. data collection frequency and method, analytical measurements) PC8-2 Contents (e.g. data type, time series length, data quality and availability, storage platform, etc.) PC8-3 Data and information management PC9 Incident reporting and response management

Unit(s) (Examples) Description; Ha/km2 Number; Description; % Description Good/Preferable/Bad, Subject to environment and ecosystem related indicators within the following “Output Indicator”, High/Medium/Low m2; Number; Abundance (High/Medium/Low); Location; Description % Yes/No; Year; Description

Number, Description Number, Description; Yes/No

Description

Yes/No; Organizational character, responsibility; Number; Days/year Description; RMB Yuan/year Description; Number/year kWh/year, m3/year, kg/year Description, Location, Number, km, t

Number (type); % of total impacts

Description Number; Description Description, Number, Yes/No

Description, Number, Location, kg/year Description Qualitative and quantitative descriptions Description Number of times/year; Days/Hours Description; Number of times/day Description; Number of times/year

Description, Number Description Description Subject to environment and ecosystem related indicators within the following “Output Indicator” Yes/No; Description RMB Yuan/year; Number; Description

Description Description, Months/Years Qualitative assessment Yes/No; Description, Number, Ha/km2 (continued on next page)

86

W. Wu et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 142 (2017) 71e89

(continued ) Indicator

Unit(s) (Examples)

PC9-1 Identification of potential emergencies (e.g. possible hazards source, incident types, amount, frequency, affected areas, etc.) PC9-2 Response mechanism (e.g. methods and equipment, responsible personnel receiving training, speed to respond and correct, emergency respond pre-proposal, emergency preparedness and precautionary drills conducted, possible assistance from local communities, etc.) PC9-3 Post-incident evaluation PC10 Environmental reportingdDisclosure of environment and management information (e.g. disclosed information type, methodology and pathway, frequency, information quality (e.g. credibility, transparency, clearness), etc.) Output Indicator (OP) OP1 Effectiveness of legal and regulatory requirements and degree of compliance OP2 Environmental quality audit OP2-1 Air quality and climate change OP2-1-1 Emission to air (e.g. SO2, NOx, CO, PM10, VOCs, toxic, etc.) OP2-1-2 Greenhouse gases (GHG) emission (e.g. CO2, CH4, N2O, etc.) OP2-2 Water quality OP2-2-1 Acidification (e.g. release to water (e.g. SO2, NOX, NH3, nitrates, ammonia, HCl, HF, H2SO4); total depositions of acidifying substances; comparison with standard, etc.) OP2-2-2 Eutrophication (e.g. release to water (e.g. ammonium, phosphate, silicate, chlorinated organic substances); wastewater; N, P concentration; COD, BOD (i.e. chemical/ biochemical oxygen demand); phytoplankton biomass/algal blooms, average chlorophylla concentration; DO (dissolved oxygen)/bottom oxygen concentration; comparison with standard, etc.) OP2-2-3 Turbidity (e.g. sediment, suspended solids, water transparency, etc.) OP2-2-4 Incidents of groundwater/drinking water impairment OP2-3 Soil quality (e.g. toxic contamination; acidification, salinisation, eutrophication, compaction; exceedance of critical contaminant loads; degree of top soil loss, etc.) OP2-4 Waste generation and discharge (e.g. disposal quantity of liquid waste (e.g. wastewater; oil and fuel spill; marine dumping), solid waste, radioactive waste; hazardous/toxic waste, non-hazardous waste, etc.) OP2-5 Other environmental pollution (e.g. dust emission; Noise and vibration emission and level, etc.) OP3 Biodiversity and ecosystem audit OP3-1 Flora and fauna species diversity and list OP3-2 Community structure and function (e.g. distribution, quality, growth rate, productivity, degradation, regeneration, etc.) OP3-3 Threatened/rare/endangered/vulnerable/extinct species; protected species and areas; introduced exotic species and affected areas OP3-4 Fauna habitat (e.g. type; habitat area and location; alternation and fragmentation; habitat disturbance, degradation and loss; habitat protection and restoration, etc.) OP4 Effectiveness of corrective and preventive actions for reducing environmental risks (e.g. degree of nonconformity reduction, pollution remediation, recycling and reuse, positive impact of new energy and material use, etc.) OP5 Environmental management report (e.g. responsible agency, type (e.g. periodic, annual), contents, submission institution, frequency, effects, etc.) OP6 Funding use and equipment maintenance Result Indicator (RS) RS1 Management process and performance review RS1-1 Review contents (all elements of management process and their advantages and weaknesses) RS1-2 Review methods (e.g. meeting discussion, briefing, direct inspection and measurement, interview, survey, reference to previous audits and reviews, etc.) RS1-3 Periodical review RS2 Improvement of management mechanism and measures RS2-1 Environmental impact assessment updated as necessary, environmental pollution reduction RS2-2 Periodical check, review and revise emergency preparedness and incident response procedures RS2-3 Environmental monitoring and data and information system supplemented and updated RS3 Budget adjustment RS4 Revision of JBCWSMPA environmental performance indicators

References Ban, N., Cinner, J.E., Adams, V.M., Mills, M., Almany, G.R., Ban, S.S., Mccook, L.J., White, A., 2012. Recasting shortfalls of marine protected areas as opportunities through adaptive management. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 22, 262e271. Ban, N.C., McDougall, C., Beck, M., Salomon, A.K., Cripps, K., 2014. Applying empirical estimates of marine protected area effectiveness to assess

Description; Yes/No, Number, Time (minutes, hours), Ha/km2

Yes/No, Description Qualitative and quantitative descriptions; Yes/No

Qualitative assessment (High/Medium/Low; Good/Preferable/Bad); Description, %

kg/year, mg/m3, Number of days per year exceeding air quality

kg/year; pH value; Exceedance mg/l; MPN/100 ml (biological parameter); km2/year (algal blooms);

kg/m3, g/l, Dimensionless Number/year %, Ha; kg/year; m3/year Number/year, m3/year, kg/year

kg/year; W, % of exceeding limits per year; High/Medium/Low; Description

Number, Description Ha/m2, %, Number, Description Number, %, Ha/m2, Description, Location Number, Ha/m2, %; Yes/No; Qualitative and quantitative descriptions and assessments %, High/Medium/Low, Description

Qualitative and quantitative descriptions Description

Qualitative and quantitative descriptions Description Yes/No; Number of times/year Yes/No, Description Yes/No, Description Yes/No, Number of times/year Description Description, Number

conservation plans in British Columbia, Canada. Biol. Conserv. 180, 134e138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.09.037. Bennett, N.J., Dearden, P., 2014. Why local people do not support conservation: community perceptions of marine protected area livelihood impacts, governance and management in Thailand. Mar. Policy 44, 107e116. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.marpol.2013.08.017. Berkhout, F., Hertin, J., Azzone, G., Carlens, J., Drunen, M., Jasch, C., Noci, G., Olsthoorn, X., Tyteca, D., Van Der Woerd, F., Wagner, M., Wehrmeyer, W.,

W. Wu et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 142 (2017) 71e89 Wolf, O., 2001. Measuring the Environmental Performance of Industry (MEPI), Final Report. EC Environment and Climate Research Programme: Research Theme 4, Human Dimensions of Environmental Change. SPRU-Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex, Department of Economics and Production, Politecnico di Milano, Institut für Oekologische Wirtschaftsforschung (IOeW), Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit
Catholique de Amsterdam, Centre Entreprise-Environnement (CEE), Universite Louvain, Centre for Environmental Strategy (CES), University of Surrey, IPTS Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, 228 pp. Bititci, U.S., Carrie, A.S., McDevitt, L., 1997. Integrated performance measurement systems: a development guide. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 17 (5), 522e534. Brown, K., Adger, W.N., Tompkins, E., Bacon, P., Shim, D., Young, K., 2001. Trade-off analysis for marine protected area management. Ecol. Econ. 37 (3), 417e434. Burbridge, P.R., 1997. A generic framework for measuring success in integrated coastal management. Ocean Coast. Manag. 37 (2), 175e189. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/S0964-5691(97)00051-3. Burgman, M., Carr, A., Godden, L., Gregory, R., McBride, M., Flander, L., Maguire, L., 2011. Redefining expertise and improving ecological judgment. Conserv. Lett. 4 (2), 81e87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00165.x. Cai, Y.H., Zhang, H.B., Xiang, Y.T., 2005. Investigations on the construction and management of special marine protected areas. Ocean Dev. Manag. 3, 55e57 (in Chinese). Cai, Y.H., Zhang, H.B., Wang, W., 2011. A study of present situation and countermeasures of the construction and management of marine protected areas in Ningbo City. Ocean Dev. Manag. 9, 105e108 (in Chinese). Che, S.S., 2009. Study on Public Policy of Wetland Protection in Qingdao City. School of Economics. Qingdao University, Qingdao, 58pp. (in Chinese). Chen, C.M., 2006. Present situation and countermeasures of the construction and management of marine nature reserve in Fujian Province. Ocean Dev. Manag. 23 (1), 93e95 (in Chinese). Chen, Z.H., 2014. Jiaozhou Bay Ecological Red Line Delimited for Coastal Wetland Protection. Qilu Evening News Network. http://www.qlwb.com.cn/2014/0919/ 208021.shtml (accessed 28 October 2016). (in Chinese). Clifton, J., 2003. Prospects for co-management in Indonesia's marine protected areas. Mar. Policy 27, 389e395. South Africa Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Mzuri Consultants, HSRC, 2001. National Core Set of Environmental Indicators for State of Environment Reporting in South Africa Phase 1: Scoping Report. CSIR, Mzuri Consultants, HSRC. Dalton, T., Forrester, G., Pollnac, R., 2012. Participation, process quality, and performance of marine protected areas in the wider Caribbean. Environ. Manag. 49, 1224e1237. Day, J., 2008. The need and practice of monitoring, evaluating and adapting marine planning and managementdlessons from the Great Barrier Reef. Mar. Policy 32, 823e831. D'Anna, G., Fern
andez, T.V., Pipitone, C., Garofalo, G., Badalamenti, F., 2016. Governance analysis in the Egadi Islands Marine Protected Area: a Mediterranean case study. Mar. Policy 71, 301e309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.marpol.2015.12.009. Edgar, G.J., Stuart-Smith, R.D., Willis, T.J., Kininmonth, S., Baker, S.C., Banks, S., Barrett, N.S., Becerro, M.A., Bernard, A.T.F., Berkhout, J., Buxton, C.D., €rsterra, G., Galv
Campbell, S.J., Cooper, A.T., Davey, M., Edgar, S.C., Fo an, D.E., Irigoyen, A.J., Kushner, D.J., Moura, R., Parnell, P.E., Shears, N.T., Soler, G., Strain, E.M.A., Thomson, R.J., 2014. Global conservation outcomes depend on marine protected areas with five key features. Nature 506 (7487), 216e220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature13022. Edwards, S.D., Jones, P.J.S., Nowell, D.E., 1997. Participation in coastal zone management initiatives: a review and analysis of examples from the UK. Ocean Coast. Manag. 36 (1e3), 143e165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0964-5691(97) 00011-2. EEA, 2005. EEA Core Set of Indicators-guide. EEA Technical report No 1/2005. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Fitriana, R., 2014. Assessing the Ompact of a Marine Protected Area on Coastal Livelihoods: a Case Study from Pantar Island, Indonesia. PhD thesis. Charles Darwin University, 470pp.
, D., Fox, E., Poncelet, E., Connor, D., Vasques, J., Ugoretz, J., McCreary, S., Monie Harty, M., Gleason, M., 2013. Adapting stakeholder processes to region-specific challenges in marine protected area network planning. Ocean Coast. Manag. 74 (3), 24e33. Gallacher, J., Simmonds, N., Fellowes, H., Brown, N., Gill, N., Clark, W., Biggs, C., Rodwell, L.D., 2016. Evaluating the success of a marine protected area: a systematic review approach. J. Environ. Manag. 183, 280e293. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.029. Garces, L.R., Pido, M.D., Tupper, M.H., Silvestre, G.T., 2013. Evaluating the management effectiveness of three marine protected areas in the Calamianes Islands, Palawan Province, Philippines: process, selected results and their implications for planning and management. Ocean Coast. Manag. 81, 49e57. Gleason, M., McCreary, S., Miller-Henson, M., Ugoretz, J., Fox, E., Merrifield, M., McClintock, W., Serpa, P., Hoffman, K., 2010. Science-based and stakeholderdriven marine protected area network planning: a successful case study from north central California. Ocean Coast. Manag. 53, 52e68. Gleason, M., Fox, E., Ashcraft, S., Vasques, J., Whiteman, E., Serpa, P., Saarman, E., Caldwell, M., Frimodig, A., Miller-Henson, M., Kirlin, J., Ota, B., Pope, E., Weber, M., Wiseman, K., 2013. Designing a network of marine protected areas in California: achievements, costs, lessons learned, and challenges ahead. Ocean

87

Coast. Manag. 74, 90e101. Gordon, T.J., n.d. The Delphi Method. The Millennium Project, Futures Research Methodology v3.0, 31 pp. Gu, D., Zhang, Y., Fu, J., Zhang, X., 2007. The landscape pattern characteristics of coastal wetlands in Jiaozhou Bay under the impact of human activities. Environ. Monit. Assess. 124 (1e3), 361e370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10661-0069232-7. Guo, K., 1997. Discussion on Management of Fisheries Development in Jiaozhou Bay, 14. Shandong Fisheries, pp. 46e47 (in Chinese). Gurney, G.G., Pressey, R.L., Cinner, J.E., Pollnac, R., Campbell, S.J., 2015. Integrated conservation and development: evaluating a community-based marine protected area project for equality of socioeconomic impacts. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 370, 1e9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0277. Hammond, A., Adriaanse, A., Rodenburg, E., Bryant, D., Woodward, R., 1995. Environmental Indicators: a Systematic Approach to Measuring and Reporting on Environmental Policy Performance in the Context of Sustainable Development. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C. Heck, N., Dearden, P., McDonald, A., 2011. Stakeholder evaluation priorities for demonstrating marine protected area effectiveness at the Pacific Rim National park Reserve, Canada. Coast. Manag. 40 (1), 55e72. Heck, N., Dearden, P., McDonald, A., 2012. Insights into marine conservation efforts in temperate regions: marine protected areas on Canada's West Coast. Ocean Coast. Manag. 57, 10e20. Hockings, M., Stolton, S., Leverington, F., Dudley, N., Courrau, J., 2006. Evaluating Effectiveness: a Framework for Assessing Management Effectiveness of Protected Areas, second ed. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 105 pp. ~ o, P.M., Pressey, R.L., 2014. Evaluating management performance of Horigue, V., Alin marine protected area networks in the Philippines. Ocean Coast. Manag. 95, 11e25. Islam, G.Md.N., Yew, T.S., Noh, K.M., Noh, A.F.M., 2014. Community's perspectives towards marine protected area in Perhentian Marine Park, Malaysia. Open J. Mar. Sci. 4, 51e60. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojms.2014.42007. Jentoft, S., Pascual-Fernandez, J.J., De la Cruz Modino, R., Gonzalez-Ramallal, M., Chuenpagdee, R., 2012. What stakeholders think about marine protected areas: case studies from Spain. Hum. Ecol. 40, 185e197. Jones, P.J.S., Burgess, J., 2005. Building partnership capacity for the collaborative management of marine protected areas in the UK: a preliminary analysis. J. Environ. Manag. 77, 227e243. Kaida, N., Dang, N.A., 2016. Tourists' perception of marine ecosystem conservation in the Nha Trang Bay Marine Protected Area, Vietnam. Tropics 24 (4), 187e194. http://dx.doi.org/10.3759/tropics.24.187. Kelleher, G., 1996. A global representative system of marine protected areas. Ocean Coast. Manag. 32 (2), 123e126. Kelleher, G., 1999. Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland; Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xxiv þ107pp. Knip, D.M., Heupel, M.R., Simpfendorfer, C.A., 2012. Evaluating marine protected areas for the conservation of tropical coastal sharks. Biol. Conserv. 148, 200e209. Kolk, A., Mauser, A., 2002. The evolution of environmental management: from stage models to performance evaluation. Bus. Strategy Environ. 11 (1), 14e31. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.316. Leleu, K., Alban, F., Pelletier, D., Charbonnel, E., Letourneur, Y., Boudouresque, C.F., 2012. Fishers' perceptions as indicators of the performance of marine protected areas (MPAs). Mar. Policy 36, 414e422. Lennox, J., Proctor, W., Russell, S., 2011. Structuring stakeholder participation in New Zealand's water resource governance. Ecol. Econ. 70 (7), 1381e1394. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.02.015. Li, X., 2012. Special Marine Reserves of Fisheries Management Issues: Ma'an Archipelagos Special Marine Reserves Empirical Research. Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai, 69pp. (in Chinese). Li, F.N., 2013. Implementation and improvement of China's marine protected areas system: focused on the protection of marine biodiversity. Law Sci. Mag. 3, 75e84 (in Chinese). Li, Y., Zhao, X.S., 2015. Research on digital monitoring of marine special protection areas: a case study of Haizhou Bay national special protected area. J. Green Sci. Technol. 10, 13e20 (in Chinese). Li, W.R., Bao, A.J., Long, H.Y., Li, K.R., Li, W., Wang, G.G., Yang, S.M., Yang, Z., Yu, Z.S., Zhu, L.Y., 2007. JZBCWSMPA construction and management Programme. Qingdao Municipal Ocean and Fisheries Administration, Qingdao, 40pp. (in Chinese). Liang, S.K., Pearson, S., Wu, W., Ma, Y.J., Qiao, L.L., Wang, X.H., Li, J.M., Wang, X.L., 2015. Research and integrated coastal zone management in rapidly developing estuarine harbours: a review to inform sustainment of functions in Jiaozhou Bay, China. Ocean Coast. Manag. 116, 470e477. Liao, G.X., Liu, M.Q., Liu, C.A., Xiong, D.Q., Xu, D.Y., Cong, P.F., 2015. A preliminary study on the comprehensive evaluation method of ecological risks in marine protected areas: a case study of Binzhou Beikedi Island and Wetland National Marine Nature Reserve, Shandong, China. Ocean Dev. Manag. 10, 59e65 (in Chinese). Linton, D.M., Warner, G.F., 2003. Biological indicators in the Caribbean coastal zone and their role in integrated coastal management. Ocean Coast. Manag. 46 (3e4), 261e276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0964-5691(03)00007-3. Liu, L., 2006. The Study of the Theory and Practice on Marine Special Reserve in China. College of Environmental Science and Engineering. Ocean University of China, Qingdao, 121pp. (in Chinese). Liu, L., 2012. Investigations on the construction of marine protected areas in

88

W. Wu et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 142 (2017) 71e89

Shandong Province. Mar. Environ. Sci. 6, 918e922 (in Chinese). Liu, F.Z., Cui, G.F., 2014. Comparison of management effectiveness evaluation methods of national and international protection areas. World For. Res. 26 (6), 33e38 (in Chinese). Liu, H.B., Liu, Z., 2015. Present situation, existing problems and countermeasures of marine protected areas in China. Ocean Dev. Manag. 36e41 (in Chinese). Liu, H.R., Gao, W., Yang, Y.S., 2006. Discussion on the legal system of the special marine protected area management. Rule Law Forum 21 (3), 52e56 (in Chinese). Liu, H.B., Sun, L., He, X.Y., 2010. A preliminary investigation of reclamation management in Shandong Province: a case study of Jiaozhou Bay. Coast. Eng. 29 (1), 22e29 (in Chinese). Liu, Z.H., Li, X.H., Weng, D.F., Cai, F., Yu, X.G., 2012. Primary investigation of APEC marine protected area management capacity building: based on the output of 2011 APEC MPA management capacity building training. J. Oceanogr. Taiwan Strait 31 (2), 295e297 (in Chinese). Liu, B., Xiang, S.Y., Liu, K.L., 2013a. Application of remote sensing images in the geographic information system of special marine protection area. Meteorological. Hydrol. Mar. Instrum. 4, 62e66 (in Chinese). Liu, L., Yu, Y.F., Ma, Y.R., 2013b. Construction of marine protected areas in Bohai from the perspective of ecological civilization. Dong Yue Trib. 34 (7), 78e82 (in Chinese). Ma, Y.Y., 2006. Dynamic change and quality evaluation of Jiaozhou Bay wetland based on remote sensing analysis. Mar. Geol. Quat. Geol. 28 (1), 69e75 (in Chinese). Ma, C., Zhang, X.C., Chen, W.P., Zhang, G.Y., Duan, H.H., Ju, M.T., Li, H.Y., Yang, Z.H., 2013. China's special marine protected area policy: trade-off between economic development and marine conservation. Ocean Coast. Manag. 76, 1e11 (in Chinese). Ma, Y.J., Lv, L.S., Pearson, S., 2015. Studies on the legal issues of environmental protection of the Jiaozhou Bay. Mar. Sci. 39 (3), 1e5 (in Chinese). MacKinnon, 1986. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Maes, W.H., Fontaine, M., Ronge, K., Hermy, M., Muys, B., 2011. A quantitative indicator framework for stand level evaluation and monitoring of environmentally sustainable forest management. Ecol. Indic. 11 (2), 468e479. Marques, A.S., Ramos, T.B., Caeiro, S., Costa, M.H., 2013. Adaptive-participative sustainability indicators in marine protected areas: design and communication. Ocean Coast. Manag. 72, 36e45. Martin, C.L., Momtaz, S., Jordan, A., Moltschaniwskyj, N.A., 2016. Exploring recreational fishers' perceptions, attitudes, and support towards a multiple-use marine protected area six years after implementation. Mar. Policy 73, 138e145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.08.002. McDonach, K., Yaneske, P.P., 2002. Environmental management systems and sustainable development. Environment 22 (3), 217e226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/ A:1016523611067. Miao, L.J., Yang, X.M., Guan, C.J., Suo, A.N., Lin, X., Zhang, J.M., 2013. A study on a comprehensive indicator framework for sustainable resource utilization in special marine protected areas. Ocean Dev. Manag. 3, 74e77 (in Chinese). Nawrocka, D., Parker, T., 2009. Finding the connection: environmental management systems and environmental performance. J. Clean. Prod. 17 (6), 601e607. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.10.003. OECD, 1993. OECD Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance Reviews e a Synthesis Report by the Group on the State of the Environment. Environment Monographs no. 83, OECD, Paris. OCDE/GD(93), 39 pp. OECD Environment Directorate, 2004. OECD Key Environmental Indicators. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris. Olsen, S.B., 2003. Frameworks and indicators for assessing progress in integrated coastal management initiatives. Ocean Coast. Manag. 46 (3e4), 347e361. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0964-5691(03)00012-7. Olsthoorn, X., Tyteca, D., Wehrmeyer, W., Wagner, M., 2001. Environmental indicators for business: a review of literature and standardisation methods. J. Clean. Prod. 9 (5), 453e463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(01)000051. Pollnac, R.B., Crawford, B.R., Gorospe, M.L.G., 2001. Discovering factors that influence the success of community-based marine protected areas in the Visayas, Philippines. Ocean Coast. Manag. 44 (11e12), 683e710. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/S0964-5691(01)00075-8. Pomeroy, R.S., Parks, J.E., Watson, L.M., 2004. How Is Your MPA Doing? a Guidebook of Natural and Social Indicators for Evaluating Marine Protected Area Management Effectiveness. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xvi þ 216pp. Qingdao Peninsula Metropolis Daily, 2009. JZBCWSMPA Approved as the First SMPA in Qingdao. Qingdao Peninsula Network Limited. http://news.bandao.cn/news_ html/200909/20090920/news_20090920_864080.shtml (accessed 06 October 2016). (in Chinese). Ramos, T.B., de Melo, J.J., 2006. Developing and implementing an environmental performance index for the Portuguese military. Bus. Strategy Environ. 15 (2), 71e86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bse.440. Ramos, T.B., Alves, I., Subtil, R., de Melo, J.J., 2007a. Environmental pressures and impacts of public sector organizations: the case of the Portuguese military. Prog. Ind. Ecol. e Int. J. 4 (5), 363e381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/ PIE.2007.015617. Ramos, T.B., Alves, I., Subtil, R., de Melo, J.J., 2007b. Environmental performance policy indicators for the public sector: the case of the defence sector. J. Environ.

Manag. 82 (4), 410e432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.12.020. Rees, S.E., Mangi, S.C., Hattam, C., Gall, S.C., Rodwell, L.D., Peckett, F.J., Attrill, M.J., 2015. The socio-economic effects of a Marine Protected Area on the ecosystem service of leisure and recreation. Mar. Policy 62, 144e152. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.marpol.2015.09.011. Roy, C., 2012. Effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas across a Latitudinal Gradient. University of Connecticut Honors Scholar Theses, Avery Point. Ruiz-Frau, A., Possingham, H.P., Edwards-Jones, G., Klein, C.J., Segan, D., Kaiser, M.J., 2015. A multidisciplinary approach in the design of marine protected areas: integration of science and stakeholder based methods. Ocean Coast. Manag. 103, 86e93. Sayce, K., Shuman, C., Connor, D., Reisewitz, A., Pope, E., Miller-Henson, M.,
, D., Owens, B., 2013. Beyond traditional stakeholder Poncelet, E., Monie engagement: public participation roles in California's statewide marine protected area planning process. Ocean Coast. Manag. 74, 57e66. Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand, 2000. AS/NZS ISO14031:2000 Environmental Management Systems e Environmental Performance Evaluation e Guidelines. Standards Australia, Australia, 32pp. State Forestry Administration of the People’s Republic of China, 2008. Technical Regulations for the Management Effectiveness Evaluation of Nature Reserves (LY/T 1726-2008). China Standard Press, Beijing, 10pp. (in Chinese). State Oceanic Administration of the People’s Republic of China, 2010. Qingdao Marine Environment Bulletin (in Chinese). Stevenson, T.C., Tissot, B.N., 2013. Evaluating marine protected areas for managing marine resource conflict in Hawaii. Mar. Policy 39, 215e223. The Standing Committee of Qingdao People’s Congress, 2014. Jiaozhou Bay Protection Regulation. Qingdao. (in Chinese). UNEP, 2006. Environmental Indicators for North America. United Nations Environment Programme, Washington D.C., 158 pp. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Department of Public Policy, 2003. Environmental Management Systems: Do They Improve Performance? Project final report University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, N.C.
nette, S., Francour, P., 2012. Modeling trophic interactions Valls, A., Gascuel, D., Gue to assess the effects of a marine protected area: case study in the NW Mediterranean Sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 456, 201e214. Wang, Z.F., 2008. Present Situation and Protection and Recovery Countermeasures of Jiaozhou Bay Wetlands. Wetlands in China. http://www.shidi.org/sf_ 4C3CB1C541BC461DB81A695EB24EF499_151_053282206391.html (accessed 28 October 2016). (in Chinese). Wang, R.J., 2011. Research the Eco-tourism Suitability of China's Special Marine Protected Areas: a Case Study of Liyashan Oyster Reef Special Marine Protected Area, Haimen, Jiangsu. School of Geography Science. Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, 90pp. (in Chinese). Wang, B., 2015. IUCN Green List of Protected Areas and its reference significance to marine protected areas management in China. Biodivers. Sci. 23 (4), 446e448. http://dx.doi.org/10.17520/biods.2015014 (in Chinese). Wang, S.L., Li, W.R., Bao, A.J., Long, H.Y., Li, K.R., Li, W., Wang, G.G., Yang, S.M., Yang, Z., Yu, Z.S., Zhu, L.Y., 2007. Report on the JZBCWSMPA selection and demonstration. Qingdao Municipal Ocean and Fisheries Administration, Qingdao, 84pp. (in Chinese). Wang, Z.F., Liu, Q., Xu, Q., 2011. Ecosystem health assessment of Liyashan Oyster Reef Special Marine Protected Area, Haimen. J. Ecol. Rural Environ. 27 (2), 21e27 (in Chinese). Wang, Q., Qin, M.L., Ren, M., Liu, Q., Shen, J.P., 2014. A study on the planning of Ruian Tongpan Island Special Marine Protected Area. Ocean Dev. Manag. 8, 24e26 (in Chinese). Wang, Y.L., Xu, Y., Sun, L.E., 2015. Assessment research on water quality and pollution resources of Jiaozhou Bay. J. EMCC 25 (4), 86e89 (in Chinese). Weng, L., Zhao, L.H., 2012. A preliminary study on the construction issues of marine special protection areas in Zhejiang Province. Econ. Res. Guide 9, 120e122 (in Chinese). Wu, W., 2015. The construction status of marine protected areas in various countries and its enlightenment. Fujian Finance 5, 40e43 (in Chinese). Wu, W., Wang, X.H., 2011. Development of an environmental performance indicator framework to evaluate an environmental management system for Shoalwater Bay Training Area, Queensland, Australia. Labour Manag. Dev. 11, 1e26. Wu, T., Zhao, X.S., Liu, Y., Chen, X., 2010. Analysis on the current situation of the construction and management of the Bay ecosystem and natural Heritage marine special protection area in Haizhou Bay. Ocean Dev. Manag. 27 (11), 52e54 (in Chinese). Wu, R., Chen, D.D., Liu, J.B., Wang, D.R., 2013. Study on current situation and management of marine protected areas in Hainan Province. Ocean Dev. Manag. 30 (7), 79e84 (in Chinese). Xiang, S.Y., 2013. The geographic information system of special marine protection area based on multi-source data. J. Hebei Univ. Eng. Soc. Sci. Ed. 30 (1), 34e36 (in Chinese). Xu, Z.J., Zhang, Z.H., Wang, Z.L., 2010. Current situation, problems and development countermeasures of marine special protection areas in Shandong Province. Ocean Dev. Manag. 27 (5), 17e20 (in Chinese). Yan, H.B., Lin, T., Wang, Y., 2008. Discussion on the management mode of marine protected areas in China. Environ. Sci. Manag. 33 (8), 6e10. Yang, Y.Y., 2010. International practice and legislative characteristics of marine protected areas. J. Hubei Univ. Econ. Humanifies Soc. Sci. 7 (3), 97e98 (in Chinese). Ye, C.X., Yu, Y.H., Chen, C.H., 2014. Discussion on the construction of marine

W. Wu et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 142 (2017) 71e89 protected areas in Hainan Province. Ocean Dev. Manag. 31 (3), 107e112 (in Chinese). Yin, X.Y., Chen, H.G., Qiao, Y.L., Chen, L., 2015. Present condition and management countermeasures of Dashentang Oyster Reef marine special Reserve in Tianjin. Trans. Oceanol. Limnol. 1, 162e166 (in Chinese). You, K., Ma, C., Gao, H., Li, F., Wang, B., 2009. Study on environmental variation and management in Jiaozhou Bay. Mar. Environ. Sci. 28 (1), 34e51. Yuan, Y., 2008. Marine Reserves Management System Design and Implementation. College of Urban and Environmental Science. Liaoning Normal University, Dalian, 46pp. (in Chinese). Yuan, Y., Song, D.H., Wu, W., Liang, S.K., Wang, Y., Ren, Z.P., 2016. The impact of anthropogenic activities on marine environment in Jiaozhou Bay, Qingdao, China: a review and a case study. Regional Stud. Mar. Sci. 8, 287e296. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rsma.2016.01.004.

89

Zhang, Z.H., 2009. Utilization Status and Assessment of Coastal Zone in Jiaozhou Bay. College of Marine Geosciences. Ocean University of China, Qingdao, 73pp. (in Chinese). Zhang, S.X., 2013. The Study on the Problem and Countermeasure of Beach Management of Jiaozhou Bay in Qingdao. School of Law and Politics. Ocean University of China, Qingdao, 47pp. (in Chinese). Zhao, J.J., 2012. Analysis and Evaluation Function of the Marine Reserves Management System. Liaoning Normal University, Dalian, 40pp. (in Chinese). Zhu, Y., 2009. Research on Establishment and Management of Marine Protected Areas in China. College of the Environment & Ecology. Xiamen University, Xiamen, 86pp. (in Chinese). Zorrilla-Pujana, L., Rossi, S., 2014. Integrating environmental education in marine protected areas management in Colombia. Ocean Coast. Manag. 93, 67e75.