Marine Policy 43 (2014) 40–45

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy

0308-59http://d

n CorrPuerto R964.

E-manewtoc.d.lowe

1 Pe

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Testing the application of the Systems Approach Framework (SAF)for the management of eutrophication in the Ria Formosa

Sirak R. Gari a,e,n,1, Alice Newton b,f, John Icely c,e, Christopher D. Lowe d,g

a UCA, Tecnica de formación de FUECA, Campus de Puerto Real, Poligono San Pedro, s/n Aulario Norte, Cadiz, Spainb IMAR, FCT, Gambelas Campus, Universidade do Algarve, 8005-139 Faro, Portugalc Sagremarisco Lda, Apt 21 8650-999 Vila do Bispo, Portugald Centre for Marine and Coastal Policy Research, University of Plymouth, PL4 8AA, United Kingdome FCT, Gambelas Campus, Universidade do Algarve, 8005-139 Faro, Portugalf NILU-IMPEC, Box 100, 2027 Kjeller, Norwayg Centre for Sustainable Aquatic Research College of Science, Swansea University, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o

Available online 21 April 2013

Keywords:EutrophicationRia FormosaSystems Approach FrameworkSPICOSA

7X/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. Ax.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.03.017

esponding author at: UCA, Tecnica de formeal, Poligono San Pedro, s/n Aulario Norte, C

ail addresses: sirakr@gmail.com, sirakrob@yahn.ualg@gmail.com (A. Newton), john.icely@gm@swansea.ac.uk (C.D. Lowe).rmanent address: P.O. Box 19197, Addis Abab

a b s t r a c t

The SAF (Systems Approach Framework) encompasses the ecological, social and economic components ofcoastal zones and aims to establish a permanent dialogue between scientists, stakeholders and policymakers working within European coastal zones for developing effective ICZM (Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement). The objective of the present study is to test the application of the SAF for definingeutrophication management options in the Ria Formosa, Portugal. Stakeholders were identified and theissue of eutrophication was agreed upon. Having defined the virtual system, the conceptual model of theRia Formosa was developed. The formulation of the conceptual model into a mathematical modelrepresenting the ecological, social and economic components of the system is then discussed. The linkingvariable of the three components within the simulation model, as well as the scenarios to be run are thenexplored. The role of scientists as facilitators within the deliberation process is discussed, and a format bywhich the final output package could be disseminated is suggested. This case study demonstrates howthe SAF could successfully be applied to the management of eutrophication in the Ria Formosa. It alsosuggests ways in which this approach may be adapted to address unique coastal systems with specificsystem characteristics.

& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The Systems Approach Framework (SAF) is a protocoladopted by the Science and Policy Integration for CoastalSystems Assessment (SPICOSA) project [1]. The SAF can be usedto explore the dynamics of coastal zone systems and potentialconsequences of alternative policy scenarios [1]. This approachencompasses the ecological, social and economic components ofcoastal zones. A SAF application runs through four steps andproduces outputs that can be communicated to stakeholdersand policy makers alike. This also helps to establish a perma-nent dialogue between scientists and stakeholders [1] by meansof informal and formal meetings. True to the principles of

ll rights reserved.

ación de FUECA, Campus deadiz, Spain. Tel.: +34 632 813

oo.com (S.R. Gari),ail.com (J. Icely),

a, Ethiopia.

adaptive management, long term interaction between scienceand policy results in ever evolving improvement of practice forboth parties, in this case, in the field of integrated coastal zonemanagement [1].

The approach was applied in 18 Study Site Applications(SSAs) in Europe, among which the Ria Formosa, the site forthis study, was not included. The aim of the present study wastherefore to test whether the four major steps of the SAF:System Design, System Formulation, System Appraisal andSystem Output could be applied without the significant financialinvestment. If successful, this could serve as a useful tool toprovide policy makers with alternative policy options for themanagement of eutrophication in the Ria Formosa and othersocio-ecological systems.

2. System design

The first step in the SAF is System design. The system designstep contains five sub-tasks. These are issue resolution, system

S.R. Gari et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 40–45 41

definition, conceptual model development, methods and informa-tion requirements and problem scaling.

2.1. Issue resolution

Issue resolution begins with stakeholder mapping. It consistsof identification of the stakeholders in a given coastal zoneand exploring their relations with local issues and among them-selves [2]. The active involvement of the community and stake-holders at an early stage of ICZM provides local knowledge,encourages dialogue, fosters support and raises awareness of theprogramme [3].

Stakeholder mapping calls for process legitimacy, processefficiency and transparency with respect to identification of bothstakeholders and policy issues [2]. Process legitimacy refers to thefact that all stakeholders and their concerns are included. Processefficiency, similarly, refers to the requirement that all resourceshaving information are used and no key policy issues are left out.Transparency emphasises that all information is shared and nopolicy issue is hidden.

In accordance with these principles, a number of stake-holders were identified in the Ria Formosa. The major stake-holders identified were agricultural farmers, animal raisers,fishermen, aqua-culturists, tourists and local inhabitants. Insti-tutions concerned were different government, educationaland private institutions involved with the management andcontrol of the economic activities and the environment. Addi-tionally, research institutions were considered to be among thestakeholders.

The stakeholder institutions are summarised in Table 1.The basis for choosing these stakeholders was the

direct influence they have on the lagoon by their economic,administrative and academic activities. Once these stake-holders were identified, a forum for consultation by means ofa range of workshops, formal and informal meetings could bearranged.

2.1.1. Economic activitiesThe major economic activities in the Ria Formosa are agri-

culture and livestock raising, aquaculture and fisheries, tourismand urbanisation. The negative externalities envisaged were thecosts associated with loss of shellfish products caused byparasitic infection and benthic eutrophication symptoms.Though urbanisation could be counted towards development,

Table 1List of stakeholder institutions.

No. Institutions

1 Ministry of Agriculture (MADRP)2 The regional branch of MADRAP (DRAP-Algarve)3 Nature Reserve ( Parque Nacional da Ria Formosa)4 Department of Investment, Trade and Tourism (DITT)5 Tourism operators6 Ministry of Environment, Spatial Planning and Regional Development

(MESPRD)7 Municipalities (Loule, Faro, Olhao, Tavira, Vila Real Santo Antonio)8 Water Company (Aguas do Algarve)9 The Navy

10 Maritime Department (DMS)11 Office of the Port of Faro (CPF)12 Portuguese Water Institute (INAG)13 Portuguese Association for Water Resources (APRH)14 University of Algarve (UAlg)15 Government Tourism Office (Direcçao Regional do Turismo do Algarve)16 Government Environment Office (Direcçao Regional do Ambiente )

it exerts excessive influence on agriculture and associatedeconomic activities. As population size increases there will bemore production of waste that finds its way ultimately into theRia Formosa, causing a range of negative consequences.Response costs, for instance, those of urban waste water treat-ment plant (UWWTP) construction were also considered. Theseconstructions constitute an opportunity cost that could havebeen utilised elsewhere, had it not been for wastes produced byan increasing number of people attracted to urban centres, andmore intense economic activities to satisfy the demand of anincreased population.

Several methods of economic valuation of ecosystem goodsand services are used by environmental economists. Travel costmethod, hedonic valuation and stated preference are commonlycited approaches [4,5]. In the absence of sufficient data, thevalue of economic activities (Drivers) that depend on theecosystem can be approximated [6] to give the partial ecosys-tem value (PEV). In addition, it can be useful to apply a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of management scenarios to informdecision-making.

2.1.2. Policy issue and relevanceMultiple issues require attention in the Ria Formosa. For

example tourism, erosion, fishing, aquaculture, salt productionand eutrophication commonly cause complex inter-relatedimpacts. In this study, it was not possible to go through all ofthe SAF's steps of issue resolution due to time limitation of theresearch. Therefore, a review of existing media and academicreports was used to identify an appropriate issue to address witha SAF application.

The symptoms of eutrophication have been widely reported toappear in the Ria Formosa. Macro-algal growth, occasional appear-ance of toxic algal blooms [7] and fluctuation in oxygen concen-tration [8] were all evident in academic and media reports. Thesesymptoms are associated with nutrient enrichment from theidentified economic activities and outlets of the local UWWTP[6]. Furthermore, the impacts of deteriorated water quality arerevealed in fish kill [9], decrease in shellfish production [10] aswell as shellfish and human poisoning due to harmful algal blooms(HAB) [11].

To add impetus to the collaborative process among thestakeholders to agreeing on issues, assistance from EuropeanDirectives and treaties that have been transposed into thecountry's laws and regulations can be sought. The Water Frame-work Directive (WFD), the Nitrate Directive (ND) and UrbanWaste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD) are among these.The WFD aims to achieve European waters of good ecologicalstatus by 2015 [12–14]. The ND has the objective of reducingwater pollution caused by nitrate from agricultural sources[15,16] and the UWWTD stipulates the provision of urban wastewater treatment facilities to urban areas based on populationsize and sensitivity of the receiving waters to eutrophication[17]. Consequently, the issue chosen for consideration via theSAF was eutrophication.

2.1.3. ScenariosThe main factor to contribute to eutrophication of

the Ria Formosa is nutrient load. Consequently, it is concludedthat the objective of management activity should focus onnutrient load reduction. A number of policy options may beappropriate to achieve this aim. These are summarised inTable 2.

Table 2Policy options for nutrient load reduction.

No. Policy options

1 Do nothing2 Construction of UWWTPs of varying technical status. This includes primary to tertiary UWWTPs.3 Installing an agricultural runoff management system (Constructed Wetland, Strip cropping, Filter strips, Nutrient management).4 Developing an Agricultural Waste Management System (AWMS) of appropriate scale, capacity and type. Scale refers to AWMS on a farm or at a community level.

Capacity refers to the size of ponds to be constructed, and type indicates whether the ponds are aerobic or anaerobic.5 Using economic instruments (e.g. polluters pay principle) to encourage economic actors to treat their waste and initiate nutrient trade.6 Arresting urban development close to shores.7 Decreasing areas of finfish farming.8 Increasing water circulation by dredging and opening inlets.

8°W

37°N

N

5 km

Fig. 1. Land sat image of the Ria Formosa lagoon.

S.R. Gari et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 40–4542

2.2. System definition

The Ria Formosa lies in the geographic coordinates of 371N,81W to 371N, 7132W, extending for 55 km along the southern coastof Portugal (Fig. 1). It is a shallow mesotidal lagoon with naturalbiogeochemical cycles that are regulated by tidal exchanges at theseawater boundaries and at the sediment interface [9]. The lagoonis much affected by what is occurring beyond its own boundaries,namely, the wider catchment, the town centres and the adjacentcoastal waters. Consequently, the catchment of the Ria Formosaaround the town centres and the Atlantic coast form its systemboundary conditions.

2.3. Conceptual model

As the purpose of the present study was not to actuallyformulate and run a mathematical model, but to show thateutrophication can be managed through SAF, the software devel-oped by IAN (Integration and Application Network) of the Uni-versity of Maryland using Adobe Illustrator version CS4 was usedto develop a conceptual model (Fig. 2).

2.4. Methods and information

Information about the Ria Formosa was obtained fromexisting literature. This included scientific studies about the envir-onmental and socio-economic aspects of the lagoon, and statisticaldata published by the Institute of National Statistics (INE). Thenecessary inputs for running the ecological, economic and socialmodels were adapted from these sources. However, when actuallyimplementing the study, further discussion fora of the stakeholdersgave valuable additional information about the system.

2.5. Problem scaling

A conceptual model should correspond to a realistic system andinclude all the necessary functionalities with respect to nutrientloading and eutrophication. This does not mean that iteration isexcluded. Though the conceptual model may look complete, thereis a possibility of discovering new aspects of the system as workprogresses on the system and feedbacks come in. Depending onthe level of information that can potentially be obtained on thelagoon and its boundary conditions, the conceptual model can be

Fig. 2. Conceptual model of nutrient dynamics in the Ria Formosa (Courtesy of Sonia Cristina, University of Algarve).

Table 3Summary of the ecological/physical and socio-economic aspects needed formodelling.

Ecological/Physical aspects Socio-economic aspects

Nutrient loading AgriculturePhytoplankton biomass AquacultureBiomass of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) FisheriesDissolved Oxygen (DO) TourismGrazing UrbanisationTidal exchange Waste production

S.R. Gari et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 40–45 43

improved. In practice, some aspects that were not clearly seenearlier were expanded upon and some features deemed importantbefore were relegated to secondary positions.

Efforts were made to avoid over-complication or oversimplifica-tion of the conceptual model. Appropriate scaling of the system andthe scope of the task was crucial as the time and resource constraintswere limiting. Therefore, the conceptual model did not include all theenvironmental and socio-economic features of the system but dididentify the major ones. Conversely, it did not exclude the keyenvironmental features, socio-economic activities and stakeholders.

Residence time EmploymentSedimentation and re-suspension Impact on human health

3. System formulation

The conceptual model of the Ria Formosa can be formulatedinto a mathematical model by incorporating input data. In addi-tion to the ecological/physical and socio-economic aspects of theRia Formosa listed in Table 3, the following parameter inputs wereincluded.

For the determination of nutrient loading; flow rate of runoffinto the system and nutrient concentration in the runoff data werecollated. The evaluation of algal biomass and submerged aquaticvegetation (SAV), need parameters such as light and plant growthrate. Grazing rate and hydrodynamic characteristics of the lagoonsuch as tidal range and flushing volume were also used todetermine the influences of filters on eutrophication. Finally,sedimentation and resuspension rates were used to simulatesediment dynamics.

An important aspect of the modelling involved careful selectionof data so as not to clutter the model which could render itunnecessarily complex. This was particularly important as theoutputs of the evaluation were envisaged to be managementoptions that would be suggested to policy makers. Clarity wastherefore essential.

4. System appraisal

System appraisal involves the construction of a simulationmodel that incorporates the ESE (Ecological-Social-Economic)

components and simulating scenarios resulting from managementresponses [18]. The results of the simulations, then, are documen-ted and interpretatively analysed.

Reviewing the actions taken in the system formulation step isan important measure. This ensures that the functional represen-tation of the virtual system is focused on the simulation and theoutput of the policy options and no major aspect of the scenariosare missing [18]. Since the chosen software EXTEND cannotexecute all the necessary tasks of the simulation process, seekingcomplementary or supplementary assistance from other models isnecessary. For example, study of issues requiring models of finespatial resolution (e.g. the interaction between human activities)may not be sufficiently modelled with EXTEND [19]. Furthermoreit was not sufficient either for controlling the spatial distributionof human activities by coastal managers (e.g. identifying whichbeach is suitable for which activity) or for marine spatial planning(e.g. Loch Fyne) of human activities as it is not good enough formodelling spatial heterogeneity [19]. Though the ESE models aretested, calibrated and validated in the system formulation step,they might require some adaptation when running the scenariosimulations. This means running the ESE models plays a significantrole in refining the simulation process.

The individual ESE components involve many internal andexternal interactions. The simulation model is therefore con-structed by coupling them. System models with unilateral

Table 4Formats for dissemination of the output package.

Format Advantages Disadvantages

Printedmaterial

Portrays complexinformation

Audience-tailoredExpensiveMay not be read

Memory sticks/DVDs

Likely to be picked up May not be readCheaper than printing Needs computer skills

Web pages Cheap Needs to be advertisedEasy to update Needs to be updated

Needs to be maintained after theproject

Local media Reaches large audience Little control on content,May be misrepresented

Oralpresentations

Enforce information Easy to be sidetrackedAllows questionsanswering

Bad communicator can destroypublic opinion

S.R. Gari et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 40–4544

interactions may be ecologically oriented so that the modelfocuses on the changes in an ecological subsystem caused by aneconomic subsystem [1]. In the Ria Formosa, this kind of couplingis more relevant because the study particularly focuses on thechanges in the lagoon caused by the economic activities.

Once the simulation had been run, results were documentedfor further processing. This includes evaluation of their effective-ness in capturing information that can be passed on for policydevelopment. Whether modification is required and how thiswould be undertaken should also be considered. The acceptanceof the results by the stakeholders, and the ability of the scenariosto provide sufficient prognostic answers relative to the issue areimportant points which call for consideration. The results shouldbe credible enough to arouse the stakeholders' confidences so thatthe later act relative to the former. This can only be true if theselected scenarios are good enough to truly enlighten the stake-holders about the likely consequences of their actions.

Good public relations

5. System output

The system output is the final step in the SAF protocol. Itinvolves the preparation of the output package and disseminationin appropriate formats to stakeholders, including policy makers. Itprovides a particularly useful platform for a stakeholders' forum toexecute three important tasks of recapitulation, presenting sce-narios and conducting deliberations.

One important aspect of communication is the use of icons,such as those illustrated in Fig. 2. This is particularly relevantbecause many tourists do not understand Portuguese, the nativelanguage in the Ria Formosa. It also addresses the illiteracy rate ofthe local population, one of the highest in Europe [20].

During the latter part of the SAF protocol, it is important toremind stakeholders of the process. Each step should be describedand justified to maintain consensus and transparency. In the caseof the current study area, this included: the chosen policy issue(eutrophication), the virtual system, i.e., the Ria Formosa catch-ment with its environmental, economic and social components,the formulation of the conceptual model and its evolution into anumerical model, the development of possible scenarios andindicators of the success of the policy options. Care must be takennot to make this recapitulation process either too complex or toosimple or causing stakeholder “fatigue”.

Presenting scenarios makes stakeholders aware of variousalternatives for the future and assists with decision-making [21].Chosen policy options should be presented and explained, high-lighting advantages and possible shortcomings. Transparency isalso maintained by describing the limitations of the model andoutlining how it might be improved. Finally, uncertainties regard-ing the values of economic goods and services and the causes ofuncertainties should be fully described and taken account of. Oncescenarios are developed, results are recorded. Outcomes are thencompared with real-life data.

Presentation of results should correspond to the levels ofunderstanding and background of the audience. In particular,information should be modified so that the target audience is ableto fully comprehend the findings. In addition, information pre-sented should be as free of bias and value judgments as possible.This should ensure results are trustworthy and useable.

Through a deliberation process stakeholders are able to scru-tinise their preference for management options [21]. Deliberationincludes exploration of technical alternatives, for example, con-struction of UWWTPs and establishment of AWMS of differenttechnical specifications, in the case of our scenarios. The imple-mentation costs, long-term benefits and trade-offs associated witheach scenario were particularly important features deliberated at

the study site. Moreover, the time scales of costs and benefits wereconsidered to be of relevance. This refers to the time frame withinwhich the costs of a policy change could produce effects on thesystem. For example, stakeholders asked how much it cost toestablish AWMS at a community level and when the effect ofnutrient reduction (benefit) could be felt.

A computer based Deliberation Support Tool, Ker-DST [22]software package was applied in the main SPICOSA project, andto some extent, facilitated the stakeholder deliberation process atthe Ria Formosa. Although useful, this tool was hindered by thelack of computer skills and interest in technology of the stake-holder group. Consequently, paper “post-it” sticky notes werefound to be simpler to use and more acceptable to the localaudience.

The output package that resulted from the previous steps wasdisseminated in a range of different formats. A variety of formatsare suggested to this effect [21] (Table 4).

6. Discussion and conclusions

The objective of the study was to test whether the SAF could beapplied to a coastal site, not to actually apply it. A coastal manageroften needs to screen a new methodology to see if it is applicableand useful for management purposes. The scope of the study waslimited to indicating the way in which different managementoptions could be developed for dealing with the eutrophicationproblem in the Ria Formosa and consequently in similar coastalsystems by making use of the SAF. Practical application with realdata was not attempted; therefore the System formulation, Systemappraisal and System output steps of the SAF were limited. If a fullapplication had been developed, the four SAF steps would havebeen implemented by several multidisciplinary experts. Havingsaid this, the process of exploring whether the SAF could beapplied to this case study has undoubtedly been a useful exercise.

Through the exploration process, a number of issues came tolight. Firstly, data on the economic value of drivers in the localstudy area were insufficient. Some data gaps could have beennarrowed if interviews with actors of the socio-economic activitieswere undertaken. For instance, more insight could be gained onthe economic revenues of each activity, on social relations and onthe existence of conflict resolution mechanisms (if any) in thesystem by interviewing the actors directly. Moreover, the danger ofleaving out groups that might be inconspicuous but really impor-tant could be avoided by site visits and interviews. As the

S.R. Gari et al. / Marine Policy 43 (2014) 40–45 45

application of SAF in this study was more theoretical thanpractical, a number of assumptions were made. For example incoupling the ecological, social and economic components of thesystem to construct a simulation model, nutrient release wasassumed to be the linking variable. Nutrient release emanatesfrom fertilizer use (economic component), has relations withemployment (social component) and causes eutrophication (eco-logical component). The advantage of this assumption in the issueof eutrophication was that fertilizers belong to the economicdomain of the system as they are used to increase agriculturalproduction and at the same time provide employment for thosewho produce them in factories. Additionally, increased foodproduction is the result of more demand due to an increase inpopulation size, which makes fertilizer use relate to the socialcomponent of the system. Ultimately, eutrophication results fromnutrient release into the lagoon having an impact on the ecologicalcomponent of the system. Thus by choosing an appropriate linkingvariable the coupled ESE model can be constructed ensuring areliable simulation of the system. The probable drawback of thisassumption is that it has not yet been tested.

The SAF protocol is an evolving approach and needs furtherrefinement. Identification of stakeholders comes prior to identifi-cation of economic activities. But since economic activities aremore obvious and easier to identify, their identification must comeearlier. Since each economic activity has actors, the task ofstakeholder mapping becomes simpler once the economic activ-ities are identified.

In conclusion, the SAF protocol has been demonstrated topotentially improve management of coastal water bodies such asthe Ria Formosa. Through application of the protocol, a number ofvaluable lessons have been learned. The first of these is the basicrequirement to consider unique system characteristics of a studysite and the second is to ensure flexibility of approach to adapt tovarying stakeholder needs and levels of data provision. Sinceflexibility is one of the underlying principles of the SAF, it isconsidered to be a useful, if not perfect tool for assisting sustain-able coastal management.

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by the EC 6FP Grant agreement036992 (SPICOSA, http://www.spicosa.eu); EC 7FP Grant agree-ment 226675 (KnowSeas, http://www.knowseas.com); EC 7FPGrant agreement 282845 (COMET-LA, http://www.comet-la.eu);and the IGBP/IHDP core project LOICZ (http://www.loicz.org). Thiswork was also supported by both EMMC WACOMA and EMJDMACOMA.

References

[1] SPICOSA. Description of work. SPICOSA Project; 2009.[2] SPICOSA-WP1. User's Manual for ICZM Stakeholder-Policy Mapping (Draft

Report). SPICOSA-Project; 2007.[3] Cummins V, O'Mahony C, Connolly N. Review of Integrated Coastal Zone

Management and principles of best practice. Coastal and Marine ResourcesCentre: Environmental Research Institute, University College Cork Ireland;2003.

[4] Costanza R, Segura O, Martinez-Alier J, editors. Getting down to earth:practical applications of ecological economics. Washington D.C: Island Press;1996.

[5] Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, et al. Thevalue of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature1997;387:253–60.

[6] Nobre AM. An ecological and economic assessment methodology for coastalecosystem management. Environmental Management 2009;44:185–204.

[7] Nobre AM, Ferreira JG, Newton A, Simas T, Icely JD, Neves R. Management ofcoastal eutrophication: integration of field data, ecosystem-scale simulationsand screening models. Journal of Marine Systems 2005;56:375–90.

[8] Mudge SM, Icely JD, Newton A. Oxygen depletion in relation to waterresidence times. Journal of Environmental Monitoring 2007;9:1194–8.

[9] Newton A, Icely JD, Falcao M, Nobre A, Nunes JB, Ferreirad JG, et al. Evaluationof eutrophication in the Ria Formosa coastal lagoon, Portugal. ContinentalShelf Research 2003;23:1945–61.

[10] Bebbiano MJ. Effects of pollutants in the Ria Formosa lagoon, Portugal. TheScience of the Total Environment 1995;171:107–15.

[11] Vale P, Sampayo MAM. Esters of okadaic acid and dinophysistoxin-2 inPortuguese bivalves related to human poisonings. Toxicon 1999;37:1109–21.

[12] EP-CEU. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Councilof 23 October 2000: establishing a framework for community action in thefield of water policy. The European Parliament and the Council of EuropeanUnion; 2000.

[13] Borja A, Galparsoro I, Solaun O, Muxika I, Tello EM, Uriarte A, et al. TheEuropean Water Framework Directive and the DPSIR: a methodologicalapproach to assess the risk of failing to achieve good ecological status.Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 2006;66:84–96.

[14] Green C, Fernández-Bilbao A. Implementing the Water Framework Directive:How to Define a Competent Authority. Journal of Contemporary WaterResearch & Education 2006;135:65–73.

[15] Brouwer F, Hellegers P. The Nitrate Directive and farming practice in theEuropean Union. European Environment 1996;6:204–9.

[16] EU-CDG. European Communities Implementation of Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitratesfrom agricultural sources. Commission—Directorate General for Environment;2002.

[17] CoEC. Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment. Commission of European Communities; 1991.

[18] SPICOSA-WP6. System Output. SPICOSA-Project; 2009.[19] SPICOSA-WP3. System Design. SPICOSA-Project; 2007.[20] UNDP. Human Development Report 2007/2008. Fighting climate change:

human solidarity in a divided world. United Nations Development Program.1UN Plaza, New York, NY 100017, USA; 2007.

[21] SPICOSA-WP5. System Appraisal. SPICOSA-Project; 2009.[22] Chamaret A, O'Connor M, Douget JM. KerDST: The Kerbabel™ on-line

deliberation support tool. Centre of economics and ethics for environmentand development. University of Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines: France;2009.