Ocean and Coastal Management 181 (2019) 104899

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean and Coastal Management

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

Evaluating Integrated Coastal Zone Management efforts in penang Malaysia T

∗
Reda Albotoush , Aileen Tan Shau-Hwai
Centre for Marine and Coastal Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia

A B S T R A C T

This study aimed to evaluate the efforts associated with Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in the state of Penang, Malaysia. After reviewing the different
methodologies in evaluating ICZM, two approaches were selected as recommended by Billé (2007) and Gallagher (2010). It was anticipated that by merging the
results of the two approaches, each would be capable of filling the gaps of the other one. Interestingly, it was found that the two methodologies together provided a
comprehensive evaluation of ICZM efforts. However, on the other hand, it was discovered that ICZM efforts in Penang were disadvantaged by the absence of an
authoritative agency having overall responsibility, lack of horizontal and vertical integration between the different sectors and levels (regulations and acts concerning
the coastal zone are implemented by different agencies at State and Federal levels), and poor institutional capacity. Although, in the present management system,
adequate consideration has been given to communication and the participation of related stakeholders. Therefore, based on the findings of this study, ICZM in Penang
is close to becoming an effective tool for managing coastal areas. However, the present management approach is proprietary. This paper contributes to the knowledge
and understanding of ICZM in Penang, Malaysia. Further, the findings of this study will help in providing the means by which to assess ICZM nationally given regional
evaluation is a prerequisite for evaluation at the national level in Malaysia.

1. Introduction
Coastal systems are formed by two main sciences, natural science
and social science (Pérez-Cayeiro and Chica-Ruiz, 2015), and therefore,
the effective management of such systems should address both sciences.
In this sense, Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) combines
these two sciences. ICZM was initially established as a management
process globally to support the sustainable use of coastal regions
(Gallagher, 2010; Pickaver et al., 2004), and is recognised as an ef-
fective tool for holistically managing coastal areas rather than applying
a sector-by-sector approach (Wheeler et al., 2011). Importantly, ICZM
has integrated and harmonised various policies and decision-making
processes (Tissier and Hills, 2010) to develop a process for the pro-
tection of coasts and to raise awareness of their surroundings (Tiller
et al., 2012).
However, awareness also means responding to changes in sur-
roundings and to adopt measures to protect these areas. These measures
also form part of ICZM initiatives and long-term goals (Burbridge,
1997), of which are subject to change according to changes in the socio-
economic demands and environmental status. For instance, in Europe,
despite ICZM being the primary tool for managing coastal regions,
further evaluations have revealed that ICZM initiatives need to be
continuously monitored and updated to compensate for emerging risks
and other uncertainties (Breen and Hynes, 2014). Therefore, ICZM must
be designed to be adaptive (Olsen, 2003; Pickaver et al., 2004). Ac-
cording to Gee et al. (2006), the evaluation and monitoring of ICZM are
critical factors in ensuring its adaptability. Thus, the evaluation of ICZM
has been the target of many studies (see Burbridge, 1997; Henocque,
2003; Olsen, 2003; Pickaver et al., 2004; Stojanovic et al., 2004; Billé,
2007; Gallagher, 2010; Pérez-Cayeiro and Chica-Ruiz, 2015).
In Malaysia, an ICZM project was initiated in Penang (located in the
northern region of Peninsular Malaysia on the west coast) to support
the state's aim to create the first proposal for an ICZM plan for the
region. The objective of the Economic Planning Unit (EPU) of the Prime
Minister's Department in Kuala Lumpur, was to build a foundation for
formulating a national policy for coastal zone management (Pedersen
et al., 2005). Also, in 2007, the Department of Irrigation and Drainage
(DID) of Penang initiated the Integrated Shoreline Management Plan
(ISMP) project. Although ISMP is related to the field of engineering, it,
however, addressed many of the vital issues related to the management
of coastal areas such as the loss of mangroves, overexploitation of
coastal fisheries and poor water quality (NRE and PKSD, 2010).
Moreover, while there were recommendations that DID should be the
lead agency in ensuring proper implementation in the 1996 ICZM, this
has not been the case (Pedersen et al., 2005). Billé (2007) argued that
although an ICZM plan may not exist or be implemented, coastal zones
are, in a sense de facto under management whose actions can be as-
sessed within the context of ICZM. In other words, through “developing
a framework that allows researchers and coastal practitioners to eval-
uate the progress being made on the ground without being too rigid is a
needed tool” (Tabet and Fanning, 2012).
Accordingly, through reviewing academic papers, donor project

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: reda_navy@hotmail.com (R. Albotoush).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104899
Received 8 February 2019; Received in revised form 12 July 2019; Accepted 20 July 2019
Available online 24 July 2019
0964-5691/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R. Albotoush and A. Tan Shau-Hwai
reports and government reports, this paper aims to evaluate ICZM ef-
forts in the state of Penang, Malaysia. It is anticipated that this paper
will also contribute to the knowledge and understanding of ICZM in
Penang. Moreover, this could be a step towards evaluating ICZM at the
national level, since the evaluation at a local level is a prerequisite for
evaluation at a national level.
2. Methodology
2.1. Review of the methods and critiques
Even though there has been significant effort to generate a frame-
work for measuring the progress and success of ICZM initiatives, no
acceptable evaluation guideline has been widely recognised as being
the most suitable tool (Pickaver et al., 2004; Gallagher, 2010).
Billé (2007) argued that any evaluation based either on outputs or
outcomes, but not both, will be unable to present the complete picture
of ICZM efforts in this context sufficiently. For instance, it would be
unfair to evaluate the ICZM program based on the achieved objectives
while neglecting the efforts of large agencies and the money that has
been invested in the program. Further, if the evaluation of ICZM is
based solely on outcomes alone, it may be inappropriate or biased, and
fail to consider the outputs (Billé, 2007). Moreover, Gallagher (2010)
argued that if the evaluation is based simply on sustainable develop-
ment indicators, it will again be unfair given it limits the work that has
been performed to a single value which, according to him, is called
“reductionism. Here, reductionism refers to an attempt to reduce real-
life phenomena to the level of single or simple values”. Also, Ehler
(2003) highlighted the importance of complementing “process-oriented
indicators with outcome-oriented indicators to improve adaptive
management and accountability”. Therefore, the evaluations of ICZM
efforts better to include a mixture of outcome and output-based ap-
proaches.
With the fact that ICZM efforts in Penang have been implemented
by different agencies without being driven by a particular plan or lead
agency, the present research will employ the approach developed by
Billé (2007) Table (1). This approach is considered most suitable, par-
ticularly given the absence of a clear ICZM initiative. Further, this ap-
proach will highlight the activities and initiatives performed pre-
viously, which could be referred to as the outputs. In addition, and for
the reasons given in Table (1), the evaluation approach of Gallagher
(2010) was chosen to evaluate the outcomes-based efforts in Penang's
ICZM. Even though Gallagher's proposal is quantitative, the background
analysis can be utilised by respective agencies in determining the
qualitative results (criterion of CoSS will provide complete qualitative
results). Notwithstanding, although Gallagher's CoSS is a mechanism to
measure the implementation of ICZM initiatives through measuring
sustainability in ICZM, sustainability is the ultimate goal of ICZM in-
itiatives. Therefore, it is believed that CoSS will complement Billé’s
(2007) methodology by elaborating further on the outcomes of ICZM in
the context of Penang.
2.2. Presentation of research methodologies
In applying the methodology by Billé (2007), the experience of CZM
in the state of Penang was presented using the questions listed below.
The research consisted of a desktop review of relevant research papers,
government publications and reports:
• “Issues: What are the integration issues between sectoral activities?
What regulation needs can be diagnosed for managing conflicts over
natural resources and space? What are the ‘‘environmental pro-
blems?’’
• Instruments: What regulation instruments already exist (whatever
their nature, be they laws, projects, plans, negotiated agreements,
rules, decrees, etc., dealing with natural resources management,
2
Ocean and Coastal Management 181 (2019) 104899
landscape, etc.)?
• Retrospective: How did these instruments accumulate over time? To
tackle which issue(s)?
• Implementation: How are these instruments implemented? Through
what kind of process? With what impact on the studied coastal area?
• Integration diagnosis: What is the level of integration in the way the
coast is managed? Which integration dimensions are satisfactorily
dealt with (e.g. integration between science and management)?
Where are the weaknesses and inconsistencies (e.g. impact of agri-
culture on shellfish farming)? What is the current trend (towards
more or less integration?)?
• Evaluation of ICM initiatives: Assessing their results against their
objectives in a contextualised way”.
The CoSS process recommended by Gallagher (2010) involved three
stages: pre-assessment/scoping exercise, main assessment, and feed-
back. The CoSS was also articulated around six fundamental principles,
known as the CoSS principles (i.e. planning (13 criterions), participation
(7 criterions), communication (7 criterions), integration (8 criterions), re-
sponsibility (10 criterions) and balance (9 criterions)). In this study, nu-
merous criteria were tested for each principle and presented against
four values, 0, 3, 7 and 10, as the scoring guideposts. According to
Gallagher (2010), the CoSS is designed to act as a strategic review tool
in assessing the effectiveness of ICZM and is intended to represent a
practical approach to assessing sustainability appraisal that is both
spatially and temporally repeatable. For example, an approach that
would enable a comparative audit to be conducted and analysed peri-
odically for a variety of different coastal areas. Once the evaluation was
completed, the scores based on the various factors were then entered
into a RADAR chart and compared with the standard, having the value
of 7 as the guidepost.
Based on the work of Gallagher (2010), for each principle, there was
a criterion, which was further broken down into four scoring criteria
represented as 0, 3, 7 and 10. Based on the collected data from the
related documents and research, the criterion was then analysed by the
researchers and given a score. However, if the researchers’ considered
the criterion was midway between two subsequent scores, it was given
a score in between. Part of the CoSS methodology is illustrated as a
screenshot, as shown in Fig. 1.
3. Results
3.1. Part 1: evaluation adopted from Billé (2007).
3.1.1. Issues
3.1.1.1. Vertical integration. The vertical issues were viewed as a top-
down arrangement, where the order and policies were depicted from
the highest to the lowest levels. However, the topmost level may accept
recommendations and suggestions from the lower levels. According to
Pedersen et al. (2005), “vertical issues tend to be concerning either a
geographical location or an ecosystem and often involve a few parties
with conflicting interests”. In the case of Penang, the Executive Council
of Penang is the highest administrative body in the state (Omran et al.,
2009). However, the decisions of four types of institutions will affect
the environment, namely, Federal, State, Local (De Oliveira, 2016) and
Statutory bodies (Town and Country Planning Act, 1976). The ministries
at the Federal level are represented by departments such as the DID, and
the Department of Environment (DOE) at the state level. At the State
level, the Town and Country Planning Department (TCPD) of Penang is
entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring the proper planning,
development, and conservation of land in Penang, including the
coastal areas (Town and Country Planning Act of 1976).
Furthermore, given the absence of a sole agency with overall re-
sponsibility for coastal management, the EPU in Penang under the
Prime Minister's Department plays an important role in coordinating
development in the coastal areas (Siry, 2006). At the local level, the
R. Albotoush and A. Tan Shau-Hwai
Table 1
Review and critique of ICZM evaluation methodologies (modified from Gallagher (2010)).
Mechanism and source
A generic framework for success
(Burbridge, 1997)
Framework for progress (Olsen, 2003)
Process indicators (Henocque, 2003)
Progress indicator (Pickaver et al.,
2004)
Success factors (Stojanovic et al.,
2004)
Dual-level framework (Billé, 2007)
Coastal Sustainability Standard’
(Gallagher, 2010)
Assessing ICZM components (Pérez-
Cayeiro and Chica-Ruiz, 2015)
Fig. 1. The CoSS performance scoring for Penang ICZM (planning principle’- Criterion 1) adopted from Gallagher (2010).
Key Elements
•The generic framework shows a degree of success in a shaded
triangular-shaped area.
•ICZM effectiveness is defined concerning sustainability development
pillars.
•Two frameworks. The first framework is for evaluating the four
orders of outcomes that group together the sequences of institutional,
behavioural and social/environmental changes that can lead to more
sustainable forms of coastal development. The second part is to
evaluate the ICZM policy cycle.
•Indicators for both frameworks.
•Data gathered are based on a self-assessment questionnaire
•Uses the method by Olsen (2003) to prepare the questions.
•The technique uses indicators to evaluate the seven-step process of
ICZM.
•Framework for the order of outcomes and ICZM cycle.
•Indicators (values are between 1 and 3) are used to identify the
strengths and weaknesses of the process.
•It is a two-step evaluation process; the second step is considered as an
elaboration of the first step and could explain it in detail.
•Developed by a team of experts.
•Five phases of the ICZM (from no ICZM to full implementation) are
broken down into 26 steps to be assessed to measure the degree of
implementation of ICZM.
•Participants are asked in a questionnaire to answer “yes” or “no".
•The author recommends that it be augmented with another
evaluation tool to measure the effectiveness of the initiative.
•Can measure the level of progress.
•List of success factors categorised into nine groups.
•Plays down the importance of evaluating “outputs” and “outcomes”
as they are full of pitfalls and need many analyses.
•A dual-level framework for evaluating beyond ICZM initiatives and
assessing their results against their objectives in a contextualised way.
•It is articulated around six groups of questions.
•A mix between qualitative and quantitative methodologies and it
proposes a Coastal Sustainability Standard (CoSS).
•It is based on evaluating the six principles of a CoSS.
•The scoring system (0, 3, 7, 10).
•Evaluation of ICZM program by assessing ten components of the
ICZM during the different phases of the program.
•Based on the assessment, the next step is a SWOT (Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) analysis of the program.
•The questionnaire is used in the evaluation.
3
Ocean and Coastal Management 181 (2019) 104899
Critique
•The triangular shape is useful for communicating the
results.
•Good for comparing two initiatives
•It can measure success against predefined objectives.
•It focuses on outcomes and ignores outputs.
•Insufficient details
•A useful description of ICZM governance capacity
concerning indicators.
•Focuses on progress.
•The scoring mechanism is unclear.
•Proposes a good practice guide.
•Useful for measuring outputs and outcomes.
•Limited scope in the scoring mechanism.
•Useful for comparing the progress over many years, but
not the effectiveness of the initiative.
•Unclear as to how it can be merged with sustainable
development indicators.
•Easy to apply in a questionnaire because a simple ‘yes’ or
‘no’ answer is expected.
•A comprehensive approach that considers many vital
factors related to the success of ICZM.
•Insufficient details on how to use success factors.
•Challenging to be used in a questionnaire but suitable
for interviews.
•Based on a study by Tabet and Fanning (2012), the
framework should be complemented with an outcome-
based evaluation methodology.
•A comprehensive approach in assessing ICZM based on
the principles of sustainability.
•Many details can play a vital role in guiding researchers.
•Sound scoring system and demonstration of results.
•It focuses on the initiative itself and what is happening
during its implementation.
•Not suitable as there is currently no ICZM program.
R. Albotoush and A. Tan Shau-Hwai
authorities that are not under the Federal Government fall under the
purview of the State Government (De Oliveira, 2016). Finally, statutory
bodies, such as the Penang Development Council (PDC), also reside under
the control of the State Government.
The governance system can be said to directly link to the Federal
Government (Loh, 2010). Thus, the River Basin and Coastal Zone
Management (RBCZM) Division within the Penang DID is mostly con-
trolled by the Federal Government (GOM/DID, 2009), which means
that Penang does not have complete control over its coastal areas. For
instance, while water and land areas reside under the control of the
State Government, biological resources fall under the Federal Govern-
ment (Mokhtar and Aziz, 2003). Within the same context, Kaur (2014)
further argued that the maritime domain in Malaysia is managed by the
overarching supervision of the Federal and State governments, minis-
tries and agencies and, to a lesser extent, by the local authorities. Even
though Malaysia has reinforced the shared responsibility for mon-
itoring, control and surveillance (MCS) with the local communities in
managing the coastal resources in response to the degradation of
coastal water, strong centralist political influences have the final say in
the management of maritime waters (Siry, 2006). In short, the vertical
integration between the different levels generally is generally balanced
with good status, except for the overlap in jurisdiction over some parts
of the coast.
3.1.1.2. Horizontal integration. Horizontal issues exist when
departments of similar ranking work collaboratively towards a
mutually agreed goal. Although the current system of managing
coastal issues in Malaysia contributes to the sustainable development
of coastal regions, this, by itself, is not sufficient in managing all coastal
dimensions and sectors. For example, the tourism sector in Penang, a
major economic contributor evidenced by the many hotels and tourist
attraction sites along the Batu Ferringhi coast, is managed through a
single-sector approach (NRE and PKSD, 2010). The advent of tourism in
the area has led to the modification and destruction of the environment,
habitats and decline in marine water quality (Abdullah, 1999).
Furthermore, conflicts can be seen in the same sector; best-called
intra-sector conflicts. For instance, the conflict between traditional
fisherman and commercial fishing operators.
In addition, revenues generated for the state from coastal reclama-
tion projects do not favour preservation (Abdullah, 1999). For instance,
the Penang South Reclamation project, occurring as part of the Penang
Transport Master plan, is to be funded via the revenue generated from
the proposed land reclamation (Ngui, 2017).
What regulation needs can be diagnosed for managing conflicts over
natural resources and space?
Given there is no legislation in Penang that directly addresses the
CZM or empowers the DID to perform their duties effectively (NRE and
PKSD, 2010), CZM has fallen between the cracks in terms of the re-
sponsibilities of individual agencies (Pedersen et al., 2005).
Even though there are various legislative acts and bylaws in place,
greater more focus should be given to policies. In this regard, two po-
licies have been prepared; the National Coastal Resource Management
Policy (NCRMP) of 1993 and the Malaysian Integrated Coastal Zone
Management Policy (ICZMP) Draft of 2004. The NCRMP recommends
establishing a National Coastal Resource Management Council at the
Federal and State levels (Abdullah, 1999), and developing guidelines to
manage mangrove and other coastal habitats (NRE and PKSD, 2010).
However, the council has yet to be established either at the Federal or
State level. Also, although the ICZMP addresses critical CZ issues, it
remains in draft form. Moreover, within the same context, it will be
necessary to provide greater attention to institutional capacity in
managing CZM issues. Regarding a comparison of public participation
in preparing an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report between
Malaysia and the EU, Mokhtar (2016) concluded that there was a need
to promote participatory planning from all related agencies and sta-
keholders and local communities given the level of participation is
4
Ocean and Coastal Management 181 (2019) 104899
inadequate. Moreover, the same study argues that firstly, provisions
within the Handbook of the EIA Guidelines in Malaysia does not specify
how the public should participate in the EIA procedure, and secondly,
the legislation on the EIA is insufficient when it comes to public par-
ticipation in the EIA process.
The southwest district of Penang island is reserved for various uses
given its unique characteristics, thus, leaving a small portion of it for
development. However, pressure for development from outside the area
is seen as a significant threat to the coastal area. Therefore, there is an
important need for a policy to be developed regarding land use devel-
opment (Ngah et al., 2015).
In 2007, a draft of the Shoreline Management Bill of 2007 was
prepared, which called for centralisation within the Federal
Government NRE, and for the DID to have the power and authority to
decide and approve any development along the shoreline. Although, the
Bill has yet to be approved and remains in draft form (Yusoff Z., RBCZM
Director in Penang, Personal Communication, July 11, 2017).
In 2009, a pioneering step forward was taken when the DID pub-
lished its first document on CZM (Volume 3 - Coastal Management).
The document is part of eleven volumes in the DID Manual of which
addresses coastal-related issues using a comprehensive educational
approach (GOM/DID, 2009). This was seen as a step in the right di-
rection towards capacity-building. However, it does not mean that the
DID has the power at this stage to enforce or regulate CZM.
What are the environmental problems?
In the ISMP study, NRE and PKSD (2010) reported that due to the
weak management of coastal zones in Penang, huge reclamations off
the coast, such as those in Gurney Drive and Tanjung Tokong had an
adverse effect on the coastal environment, mangroves, the fishery
sector, the monetary value of private infrastructure, and beach access.
Moreover, public areas have been converted to private beaches with an
aesthetic view of the coast. On the other hand, poor enforcement of
environmental Acts has resulted in polluted seawater. Sadly, increases
in water-borne diseases have been recorded resulting from the dis-
charge of raw sewage into the coastal waters off Jelutong (Pedersen
et al., 2005) resulting in degradation of the quality of coastal water
(Koh et al., 1997). In support of this argument, a study by Muyibi et al.
(2008) concluded that “the financial constraints on investing in ap-
propriate technology, especially sewerage systems, for controlling
human sources of water pollution” was a significant problem. In addi-
tion to this, increasing quantities of construction waste continue to be
sent to the Jelutong landfill area, which in future will struggle to ac-
commodate the disposal of such waste (Ng et al., 2017). Hence, the
landfill condition is becoming worse day-by-day (Shan et al., 2018).
As for environmental hazards, landslides are also seen as a major
challenge. “The limited space on Penang Island has created a need to
construct buildings on high-slope areas, and debris fans, which might
reactivate ancient landslides”. Also, soil erosion (non-point source
pollution) is a further issue that decision makers on Penang Island
should contemplate as it has been shown to be correlated with nu-
merous landslide events that have transpired (Pradhan et al., 2012).
Likewise, as seawater is not immune to what occurs in rivers, the
environmental status of rivers should also be acknowledged. For in-
stance, coastal water at the mouth of rivers (Pinang River, Keluang
River and Burung River) is polluted with Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
due to land-use around the rivers. Similarly, a study of the Water
Quality Index (WQI) of rivers on Penang Island conducted by Universiti
Sains Malaysia (USM) between October 2012 and January 2013 re-
vealed that almost all the rivers on Penang Island were either slightly or
significantly polluted (Yen et al., 2017). The contamination of the rivers
could also be due to faulty sewage systems or from “river sedimenta-
tion, failed toilet connections, illegal food outlets, laundry and car wash
services”, as was the case in 2014 with the contamination of the Batu
Ferringhi River having a black-coloured odorous substance
(Jamalluddin and Lee, 2017). This was similar to the findings of Lim
(2016) where two rivers in Penang (the Juru River and the Pinang
R. Albotoush and A. Tan Shau-Hwai
River) were considered to be the most polluted rivers in Malaysia. In
addition, Alsaffar et al. (2016) concluded that industrial and anthro-
pogenic activities might be the reason for the elevated levels of heavy
metals in the selected rivers.
Similarly, an evaluation by Khodami et al. (2017) of rivers near the
Penang's second bridge found that pollution was caused by discharge
from the Free Industrial Zone in Bayan Lepas. Whereas, in the Penang
National Park (PNP), the loss of flora and fauna and environmental
issues were found to be the main threats (Abas et al., 2016) due to the
non-enforcement of laws. Also, rapid development, industrialisation,
urbanisation and increasing problems of land shortage have resulted in
land expansion and water pollution. As a consequence of many of these
issues, the government continues to spend millions of ringgit to clean
up and promote the restoration of the rivers (Weng, 2005). However,
protecting the environment is not associated with the practices of the
locals in these areas. Here, a survey by Kasim (2004) revealed that al-
though tourists understand the importance of many environmental and
social issues, they still do not “care” enough to consider socio-en-
vironmental issues as the basis when choosing hotel accommodation.
A field survey conducted on Aman Island by Razali et al. (2015)
suggested that potentially toxic planktons and the presence of fish-
killing microalgae are commonly found in the sea surrounding Aman
Island. While found in low numbers and densities, they still pose a
potential threat in future if not controlled. It is also worth mentioning,
that in a study to investigate bridge sustainability using the Penang
Second Bridge as a case study, Yadollahi et al. (2015), found that al-
though it was thought that the bridge would have an adverse impact on
the environment, the “fish activities around the pillars of the bridge
increased, and the total environmental impact was assessed as being
negligible".
3.1.2. Instruments
Firm or hard regulations are necessary instructions, (e.g. laws),
while voluntary guidelines, like codes of good governance, are classi-
fied as weak or soft regulations (Rapp et al., 2011). At the state/na-
tional levels, the leading hard instruments in Penang are the Acts and
laws that work towards the sustainability of the coastal areas. For in-
stance, the Environmental Quality Act 127 of 1974 (Amendment Act
A636, 1985) and the EIA Order of 1987 all address coastal issues di-
rectly and require an EIA report to be prepared during the planning
stage for coastal reclamations that are within an area of 50 ha or more
and the construction of harbours and land-based aquaculture projects.
For granting permission, the Town and Country Planning (TCP) Act of
1976 (2006) authorises the state to grant development along the
shoreline and to charge a fine not exceeding RM 500,000 for any un-
authorised development. Furthermore, the discovery, declaration, sal-
vage ownership, control, preservation and conservation of the under-
water heritage is controlled by the National Heritage Act, of 2005.
While, the fishing sector is regulated under the Fishermen's Association
Act, of 1971, which was updated in 2011 (Fishermen's Association Act,
of 1971). In 2012, the Fisheries Act of 1985 was updated to extend the
conservation and management of maritime and estuarine fishing. It also
allows fishermen to fish up to the EEZ.
As for the soft regulations at the state/national level, many guide-
lines have been developed to administer coastal activities. In 1987, a
detailed flowchart was developed for processing applications for de-
velopments in CZs, and setback limits were proposed (60 m for sandy
beaches and 400 m for muddy beaches), as stated in the Guidelines on
Erosion Control for Development Projects in the CZ. The requirements
for carrying out coastal engineering hydraulic studies and impact eva-
luations by project proponents are also articulated in the Guidelines for
the Preparation of a Coastal Engineering Hydraulic Study and Impact
Evaluation, 1997.
Under the National Forest Act of 1984, forest rules were im-
plemented for Penang Island in managing matters relating to forests
(mangroves) in the state (NRE and PKSD, 2010). In 1996, the TCPD
5
Ocean and Coastal Management 181 (2019) 104899
launched the Development Planning Guidelines for Coastal Areas. That
same year, the DID released Guidelines on Erosion Control for Devel-
opment Projects in CZs (Mokhtar and Aziz, 2003). Also, guidelines for
the EIA in CZ development projects were issued by the DID in 1999
(GOM/DID, 2009). Within the same context concerning soft regulations
and for educational purposes and capacity-building, Coastal Manage-
ment Volume 3, addressed all coastal-related issues using a compre-
hensive educational approach (GOM/DID, 2009). In the following year,
(2010), the ISMP was completed, to be used as a management tool to
harmonise all activities concerning coastal erosion and also addressed
the loss of mangroves, overexploitation of coastal fisheries and the
worsening water quality.
Notwithstanding, conventions at international and regional levels
can be utilised to address common transboundary interests concerning
coastal zones. For instance, the ICZM was introduced as part of Agenda
21 of the Earth Summit UN Conference on Environment and
Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992 (Tiller
et al., 2012). Although it is not binding, it provides a mechanism which
is needed internationally in order to manage coastal areas and can be
utilised by neighbouring states to handle transboundary issues. At the
international level, Malaysia is a signatory to treaties and conventions,
some of which are related to the marine environment, which plays a
vital role in improving CZM. At the same time, CZM can be an effective
tool for implementing those treaties and conventions. Examples of such
treaties are MARPOL 73/78, UNCLOS, Biodiversity, Ramsar, Anti-
Fouling Systems Convention (AFSC), and Ballast Water Management
(BWM), and so forth. At the regional level, the Coral Triangle Initiative
was formally initiated in 2009 having a common stand to collaborate
and work together to sustain marine and coastal resources by addres-
sing crucial issues such as marine biodiversity, climate change and food
security (Secretariat, 2015–2016). In June 2018, Malaysia, as one of
seven members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN),
launched an initiative for the improvement of the marine environment
in the region by implementing IMO and UN marine environmental
protection treaties such as MARPOL, AFSC, and the BWS. Besides, The
IMO will implement the ‘Marine Environment Protection for Southeast
Asia Seas (MEPSEAS) Project’ over the next four years which is ex-
pected to be completed in 2021 (MEPSEAS project, 2018, June 26).
3.1.3. Retrospective
In Malaysia, since the early 1970s, environmental activists like
Gurmit Singh continue to play a significant role in drawing attention to
environmental issues associated with the land and oceans. In fact,
Gurmit Singh has written many books and papers on this subject, such
as Destroying Malaysian Forests and Environmental Issues in Malaysia -
An NGO Perspective. He is also the founder of the Centre for
Environment, Technology & Development in Malaysia (CETDEM)
(Singh, 1981 and 1993). In a recent engagement with him at a sus-
tainability symposium organised by the Penang government in January
2018, he mentioned that Penang had experienced its fair share of en-
vironmental problems due to unsustainable development, particularly
in relation to coastal reclamation. Also, he argued against the idea that
Penang Island is called a city, but instead, claimed that the only city on
the island is George Town and other areas should be managed differ-
ently (Nambiar, 2018, January 16). Malaysia has adopted visible and
prosperous steps towards managing environmental issues ever since the
last century, and it is evident that laws have been passed along with
instructions issued on how to manage such issues related to the coastal
environment.
At the local level, natural phenomena have been the catalyst for
driving much of the attention in this area, including the management
and conservation of coastal areas. For example, coastal erosion
(Ghazali, 2006; Siry, 2006) resulted in the National Coastal Erosion
Study (NCES) in 1984, which was completed in 1986 (Choon, 1996;
Mokhtar and Aziz, 2003; Ghazali, 2006; Siry, 2006; “Department of
Irrigation and Drainage”, 2017). Human interaction with nature is
R. Albotoush and A. Tan Shau-Hwai
another catalyst. Here, the depletion of natural resources has stimulated
the emergence of artificial reefs (AF) and fish aggregating device (FAD)
programmes in Malaysia in 1983 to enhance fishing sustainably
(Mokhtar and Aziz, 2003). Furthermore, coastal reclamation and all the
adverse consequences brought about to the marine and coastal en-
vironment, and the aesthetic view of the ocean and coast was addressed
by the EIA Order in 1987. The EIA Order requires that a report be
prepared for all coastal reclamations having an area of 50 ha or more,
and the construction of harbours and land-based aquaculture projects.
In actual fact, commitments to the international community
(Mokhtar and Aziz, 2003), as mentioned in the section on instruments,
and to international donors such as DANCED have had an indirect and
direct role in the foundation of the initial ICZM study in Penang.
3.1.4. Implementation
According to the Third Malaysia Plan (1976–1980), the most im-
portant legislation enacted in Malaysia as a mechanism to implement
the directives of the environmental policy is the Environmental Quality
Act 127 of 1974 (Amendment Act A636, 1985). Administratively, the
DOE is under the NRE, and it is the agency in charge of administering
the Act, its Orders and Regulations (Mustafa, 2011).
Different strategies have been employed to implement the
Environmental Quality Act 127, of 1974. Those which are related to
coastal areas include:
- “Acceptable conditions” strategy; where command and control and
has been used as an economic instrument and where, in principle,
the polluter pays. This strategy has succeeded in reducing the level
of pollutants from palm oil and rubber industries in Malaysian rivers
(which eventually flow into coastal waters) to insignificant levels
(Mustafa, 2011).
- Fines and penalties are imposed for non-compliance with environ-
mental regulations. For instance, “for the prohibition of the dis-
charge of wastes into Malaysian waters under Section 29, the pre-
vious penalty was a fine not exceeding RM 10,000 and
imprisonment up to 2 years. Nowadays, the penalty has been in-
creased to a fine not exceeding RM 500,000 and imprisonment not
exceeding 5 years” (Mustafa, 2011).
- The EIA Order 1987 directly addresses coastal issues requiring that
an EIA report is prepared during the planning stage for all coastal
reclamations with an area of 50 ha or more, including the con-
struction of harbours and land-based aquaculture projects.
However, Mokhtar (2016) stated that a “preliminary assessment of
the EIA report is only conducted within the DOE committee, without
interference from outsiders such as the public, NGOs or social ac-
tivists. While, for detailed assessment reports, an ad hoc Review
Panel will review the EIA report. Suggestions and recommendations
resulting from the review will then be transferred to the relevant
project-approving authorities for consideration in the project-
making decision”. The same previous argument was highlighted by
Makmor and Ismail (2016).
Regarding the TCP Act of 1976, public participation is strongly re-
commended during the formulation stage and following approval of the
draft plan (Dola and Mijan, 2006; Ismail and Said, 2015). Moreover, the
process of involvement should be announced in the four (4) local
newspapers (in Malay, English, Tamil and Mandarin), in addition to
displaying banners and radio announcements. Although suggestions or
objections from the community may not be accepted (Dola and Mijan,
2006). To obtain the necessary approval from the state government for
the construction of houses (this involves coastal areas as well), planners
should prepare a layout plan considering all related guidelines. It is
only at this point that the DID, DOE, etc. should be consulted regarding
their requirements which must be included. Once all the agencies are
satisfied, the layout plans will be sent to the local government for ap-
proval. However, for any development involving a land area exceeding
6
Ocean and Coastal Management 181 (2019) 104899
100 acres, prior approval of both the State and Federal governments is
required (Hussain and Said, 2015).
The Town and Country Planning Act, of 1976 (2006) authorises the
state to grant development of the shoreline and should be undertaken
with the cooperation of the DID, according to the General
Administrative Circular 5/1987. However, as mentioned previously, the
role of the DID is limited to only counselling, and their opinion is not
compulsory.
In 1988, Malaysia ratified the Convention concerning the Protection
of World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1972 (Mustafa and Abdullah,
2013). The preservation of the national heritage within the National
Heritage Act of 2005 falls under the joint jurisdiction of the Federal and
State governments (Said et al., 2013). A Commissioner, known as the
Director-General for Heritage, in the Department of Heritage, is tasked
with the designation of sites, objects, and underwater cultural heritage,
which should be approved by the Minster. The Commissioner also es-
tablishes and maintains liaison and co-operation with the State au-
thority and co-ordinates with the local planning authority to protect,
promote and deal with the cultural heritage (Mustafa and Abdullah,
2013). The coastal city of George Town, the capital of Penang, has been
inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 2008 (Harun, 2011).
The Fisheries Act of 1985 aims to manage, develop, conserve, and
control marine fishing and fishery resources (Lim, 2016). The Act was
implemented by the Department of Fisheries, Malaysia, under the
Fisheries Development Authority of Malaysia (Ghani et al., 2017).
Within the Act is the Fisheries Comprehensive Licensing Policy in order
to eliminate competition between fishermen. The policy divides Ma-
laysian fishing waters into four (4) zones, with each zone designated for
a particular type of fishing. Zone A for traditional fishing; Zone B for
commercial fishing; Zone C: C1 and C2, for commercial fishing using
boats above a gross tonnage of 40 and commercial fishing using boats
with a gross tonnage of 70 and above respectively. Lastly, Zone D for
foreign fishing boats above a gross tonnage of 70 concerning joint
ventures with Malaysian fishermen (Bakar and Ch'ng, 1987; Othman
and Gestsson, 2004).
In Penang, the PDC is in charge and responsible for promoting and
developing the local industry. The PDC in conjunction with the Ministry
of Tourism (MOTOUR) and the Malaysian Tourism Promotion Board
(MTPB) works to make Penang an appealing destination for local and
foreign tourists (Ghaderi et al., 2012). Tourism in Penang accounts for a
quarter of the state's GDP (Teo, 2003). As for public participation, the
majority of local citizens in certain areas agree that the local planning
authority is the proper agency to act as an organiser (Ismail and Said,
2015).
3.1.5. Integration diagnosis
Referring to what was previously mentioned in the vertical and
horizontal integration section; a possible diagnosis revealed that the
State Government manages the Penang coastal area with regards to the
land part and by the Federal Government regarding the marine part.
However, the Federal Government does impose its opinion on issues
relating to the land since it allocates the financial budget and biological
resources in the rivers fall under its jurisdiction. In addition, integration
and consultation between institutions at the same level are interest-
based. Whereas, the participation of the local population in the deci-
sion-making process is below the required level. As mentioned pre-
viously, participation is limited to the expression of opinions at some
stage of the project or in the preparation stage of the EIA. Also, in-
tegration between the environment and tourism is low, given many
habitats have been destroyed due to the many hotels and coastal re-
clamation projects.
Notwithstanding, there is some evidence of the interaction between
science and local communities. For instance, due to the rich biodi-
versity in the South Channel of Penang and the many development
projects that have been planned around the South Channel, serious
steps have been taken to strengthen the community's sense of
R. Albotoush and A. Tan Shau-Hwai
ownership. This is due to safeguarding these resources by empowering
the local community and public volunteers to carry out the assessment
and monitoring of resources. Furthermore, education and outreach
activities and programs within the project have been conducted for one
year in order to raise marine awareness in local schools (“Eco-en-
gineering: Design with Nature” Workshop”, 2017).
3.1.6. Evaluation
Following preparation of the 1996 ICZM initiative, a re-
commendation was presented to establish a department responsible for
the management of the coastal zone. However, this idea was later
abandoned (Pedersen et al., 2005).
Malaysia believes that the decentralisation of CZM will not suit its
governance system (Calestino, 2001; Hezri and Hasan, 2006). For in-
stance, in the state of Penang, despite the claim of decentralisation, the
governance system is directly linked to the Federal Government, and
where the State does not enjoy full jurisdiction in exploring its coastal
resources (Loh, 2010). Additionally, strong centralist political influ-
ences are dominant in coastal and fishery management in Malaysia
(Siry, 2006). Penang, being one of the first destinations of many tourists
visiting Malaysia (Ministry of Tourism report, 2016), needs to promote
itself in this regard by constructing additional hotels and preparing
appealing tourist attractions. Instead, it appears more concerned re-
garding urban development and less concerned about preserving the
environment, as witnessed in the coastal reclamation in southern Pe-
nang.
Malaysia has taken significant steps toward the establishment of a
foundation for CZM, such as the NCRMP, ICZMP and MCS systems, and
the preparation of the draft ICZM Act. However, there is remains a lack
of will on the part of the government to enforce the legislation and to
form a body with both responsibility and accountability for ICZM.
3.2. Part 2: evaluation by coastal sustainability standard (CoSS). Adopted
from Gallagher (2006).
The following presents the analysis of the performance-scoring table
for the six principles of CoSS.
3.2.1. Analysis
3.2.1.1. planning principle. The average score for the planning principle
was 5.3 (see Fig. 2). However, a score of 5.3 does not meet the standard
score of 7. Thus, it can be said that 53% of coastal management “is
enacted in accordance with an iterative and detailed proposal aimed at
enabling change through actions developed from reflection and
evaluation” (Gallagher, 2006, p. 138). In more detail, on the island
side, management is consistent with the natural system, which is not
the case with the land part of Penang, given some rivers flow from
outside the management area (criterion 1, scored 5). Although some
areas scored well in the cultural context by respecting the locals, at the
Penang South Reclamation (PSR), the economic perspective is given
priority (criterion 2, scored 7). Again, although the management system
Fig. 2. Performance score of the criteria for the Planning Principle.
7
Ocean and Coastal Management 181 (2019) 104899
has defined clearly the responsibilities of some organisations, the fact
that no single agency has complete power over the coastal water up to
the TWs obstructs complete control (criterion 3, scored 6).
The best score was regarding criterion 4, which had a score of 8. The
evidence revealed that the management system adopts a farsighted
view (the Second Penang Strategic Development Plan and the state's
Vision, 2020 are overarching the development at the coastal area).
Although baseline data are taken into account when preparing the EIA
reports, the decision of the RBCZM is not compulsory for the state
(criterion 5, scored 6). Coastal sustainability scored 6 given it has been
observed in some parts of the island, particularly at the western side
and in the national park zone. Likewise, the timeframes for achieving
the objectives are not stated clearly (criterion 7, scored 6), possibly due
to insufficient budget, as stated in criterion 8 (criterion 8, scored 5).
Further, there was no evidence regarding the measurement of the
performance of coastal management (criterion 9, scored 2). Although
calls for the implementation of key performance indicators (KPIs) were
mentioned in the Development Administration Circular 2/2005.
However, there is evidence of a feedback system within the manage-
ment system (criterion 10, scored 7). On the other hand, scant evidence
of adaptive management was found (criterion 11, scored 3) and au-
diting management approaches could only be found in the fishing and
finance sectors (criterion 12, scored 4). Similarly, the management
system has a low commitment to continually improve performance in
the light of sustainability (criterion 13, scored 4).
3.2.1.2. participation principle. The average score for the participation
principle was 5.5 (see Fig. 3). However, a score of 5.5 does not meet the
standard score of 7. Thus, it can be said that 55% of the process of
coastal management is “transparent and involves individuals, groups
and organisations in decision-making processes in such a way as to
foster trust and acceptance of the system” (Gallagher, 2006, p. 144). In
more detail, criterion 1, which is related to the range and diversity of
the stakeholders who participate actively in the management process,
scored 6, given their inputs are not considered. Also, there was little
evidence to demonstrate that they understand their role (criterion 2,
scored 3). Nevertheless, the decision making is transparent, as the
public can access structural plans, and efforts were made, in some cases,
to resolve conflicts (criterions 3 and 4 scored 7 and 6, respectively).
Moreover, tensions between top-down decision making and bottom-up
aspirations are only at the mid-point (criterion 5, scored 5). Similarly,
although stakeholders’ reviews and feedback were collected by
employing many instruments, their opinions may not be considered
(criterion 6, scored 5). However, through the application of
Competency, Accountability and Transparency, (C.A.T), decision-
makers were found to be accountable for their actions (criterion 7,
scored 7).
3.2.1.3. communication principle. The average score for the
communication principle was 5.7 (see Fig. 4). However, a score of
5.7 does not meet the standard score of 7. Thus, it can be said that 57%
R. Albotoush and A. Tan Shau-Hwai
Fig. 3. Performance score of the criteria for the Participation Principle.
of the coastal management is “conducted in such a way as to enable the
effective flow of information, thus allowing for capacity building and
appropriate changes in endogenous behaviour” (Gallagher, 2006, p.
148). In more detail, the stakeholders have many ways to access coastal
information (criterion 1, scored 9). Although members of the public are
not interested in accessing such information, possibly because they do
not value nor understand such information (criterion 2, scored 3).
Besides, they [the stakeholders] are not entirely aware of the
management process (criterion 3, scored 4). However, within the
same context, some stakeholders understand coastal sustainability
issues (criterion 4, scored 5). While the evidence suggests that 40
indicators are used for interpreting information to stakeholders, the
analysis of their application is not evident (criterion 5, scored 7). On the
other hand, the evidence shows that an outreach system for educating
the community on coastal sustainability has reached a good percentage
of school students and some of the stakeholders (criterion 6, scored 6).
Similarly, communication between stakeholders and the government is
only partially seen and functions as a two-way process (criterion 7,
scored 6).
3.2.1.4. Integration Principle. The average score for the integration
principle was 4.8 (see Fig. 5). Such a score does not meet the
standard score of 7. Therefore, it can be concluded that 48% of the
coastal management is “conducted in such a way as to progress towards
a holistic understanding and action across boundaries, disciplines and
sectors” (Gallagher, 2006, p. 151). In more detail, it was discovered that
problem-solving techniques were employed to analyse relevant issues
(criterion 1, scored 7). Moreover, the management system gives much
consideration to exogenous boundaries (criterion 2, scored 7).
However, it is only partly true to say that the vertical policy
components are in complete accord with one another (criterion 3,
scored 5). Just below that, criterion 4 scored 4, regarding the
accordance of the horizontal policy components. Similarly, the
development of perceived and inherent equalities between relevant
system disciplines scored 4 (criterion 5), given not all agencies have the
same level of influence on the decision-making process. The same was
Fig. 4. Performance scores for the criteria of the Communication Principle.
8
Ocean and Coastal Management 181 (2019) 104899
true for criteria 6, 7 and 8, which are related to the creative relationship
between science and management (the efforts of USM in transforming
higher education for a sustainable tomorrow). However, the matching
of the needs of government agencies with higher education remains
questionable. Some resources are focused on facilitating greater
integration, and there is only partial continuous improvement in
integration.
3.2.1.5. Responsibility principle. The average score for the responsibility
principle was 4.5 (see Fig. 6). Again, such a score does not meet the
standard score of 7. Hence, it can be said that 45% of the management
of the coast is “enacted with all ‘due care’” (Gallagher, 2006, p. 155). In
more detail, the management system has no clear legal basis given there
is no single responsible agency (criterion 1, scored 3). While the coastal
environment is monitored in a sound manner (criterion 2, scored 7),
efficiently regulating it remains questionable. In addition, the evidence
is available to show that some organisations do promote stewardship
and the efficient use of natural resources (criterion 3, scored 7).
Moreover, the best practicable means are present in the organic waste
management field. Although landfills are still dominant (criterion 4,
scored 5). The precautionary approach adopted Penang obtained a
standard score (criterion 5, scored 7).
In contrast, the implementation of the polluter pays principle scored
only 2 (criterion 6), because, in June 2018, calls to implement this
principle were still being raised by the local government. An almost
similar score was achieved for the criterion related to risk assessment
(criterion 7, scored 3). Again, criterion 8, which was related to the
consideration of the life cycle and impact of coastal activities, only
scored 2, as the role of this principle could not be found within the
management system (criterion 8, scored 2). Likewise, the budget was
not sufficient for the management system to operate successfully (cri-
terion 9, scored 4) and there is only partial evidence to suggest that the
management system is implemented the ecosystem approach (criterion
10, scored 5).
3.2.1.6. Balance principle. The average score for the balance principle
R. Albotoush and A. Tan Shau-Hwai
Fig. 5. Performance scores for the criteria of the Integration Principle.
was 4.9 (see Fig. 7). Although such a score does not meet the standard
score of 7. Thus, it can be said that 49% of the coastal management is
“conducted in such a way that it does not lead to a reduction in
environmental quality, economic prosperity or social welfare but
rather, attempts to improve on each of these” (Gallagher, 2006, p.
160). In more detail, although evidence suggests that the coastal
biodiversity is being protected, it remains below the standard
(criterion 1, scored 6). In contrast, the environmental and economic
policies do not consider the social distance (criterion 2, scored 2).
Although, some evidence tends to suggest that the management
system does partially enhance the optimum environmental quality
concerning its impact upon employment, income and wealth generation
(criterion 3, scored 6). The conservation of the cultural heritage ob-
tained the standard score (criterion 4, scored 7). In addition, improving
the equity of coastal communities and maintaining development op-
tions for future generations was below the standard (criterion 5, scored
4). Similarly, optimising the quality of life and managing temporal
variations in the coastal system were below the standard (criteria 6 and
7 scored 5). Likewise, policies are produced via negotiations with due
consideration being given to the relative importance of environmental,
social and economic interests (criterion 8, scored 3). Meanwhile, sta-
keholders consider trade-offs as an appropriate approach (criterion 9,
scored 6).
4. Discussion
The approach of Billé (2007) was shown to be beneficial in the
absence of a clear ICZM plan given it addresses CZM using dimensions
outside the initiative, which is precisely the case with ICZM in Penang.
Whereas, Tabet and Fanning (2012), mentioned that the framework by
Billé (2007) should be complemented along with an outcome-based
evaluation methodology, as mentioned earlier. However, the order of
outcomes, according to Olsen (2003), is enabling conditions, changes in
behaviour, harvest and sustainable coastal development. On comparing
the order with CoSS as recommended by Gallagher (2010), it was ap-
parent that Gallagher's (2010) approach addressed the fourth order of
Fig. 6. Performance scores for the criteria of the Responsibility Principle.
9
Ocean and Coastal Management 181 (2019) 104899
outcomes, even though it measures the implementation towards sus-
tainability. However, in this case, both aim to address sustainability
from a broader perspective. Therefore, it is believed that merging the
two methodologies offered each methodology the opportunity to ben-
efit from the other in addressing the gaps.
For instance, Billé (2007) recalled the events that helped to shape
and contribute to the application of the concept of CZM and evaluated
the results against the objectives. On the other hand, the approach by
Gallagher (2010) evaluated the efforts comprehensively given he ad-
dressed the six recommended CoSS principles in detail, citing several
criteria and foundations for the principles. For example, in answering
the question regarding the implementation of the instruments (re-
commended by Billé, 2007), it showed that the ‘polluter pays’ principle
is implemented. Although, when this principle was further investigated,
according to Gallagher's (2010) methodology, Principle 5 - Responsibility
(Criterion 6: The management system evidently applies the ‘Polluter Pays’
principle), it was discovered that this has been ineffective.
On the other hand, it can be said that the Penang State Government
has partial control over its coastal zone given the area of the coast
beyond 3 NM is under Federal Government control. Besides, develop-
ment and resources on the land side are not adequately controlled by
the State Government. Accordingly, all this has placed the various re-
sources and management of the coastal zone under multiple vertical
government levels. Consequently, there are overlapping and conflicting
governance issues in geographical locations. Importantly, the lack of
institutional capacity and the Federal Government will hinder the 1996
project from achieving its goals.
Likewise, at the operational level, no agency has full responsibility
or accountability for implementing the Penang ICZM project. As a re-
sult, within the context of the CZM, there remains a lack of coordination
with other agencies having the same level of responsibility. Henceforth,
there is a dire need for immediate action to enact acts related to the
CZM and to empower the DID to undertake the task. However, though
there are regulations and rules at the international, both the national
and local levels seemingly address different aspects of the coastal en-
vironment. This is in addition to the role played by environmental
R. Albotoush and A. Tan Shau-Hwai
Fig. 7. Performance scores for the criteria of the Balance Principle.
Fig. 8. Average scores for the CoSS Principles.
activists in inducing and calling for the protection of the environment,
and natural phenomena being a catalyst. Therefore, there remains a
significant requirement for regulations to be put in place to determine
the geographical jurisdiction of the State and Federal Government by
providing the state greater control over the coastal areas. By doing so,
the environmental problems (as mentioned earlier) affecting the coastal
areas (if controlled by a single agency) will be mitigated. Indeed, this is
in line with the finding by Abas et al. (2016) that the main challenge is
not only the absence of laws but more importantly, the forceful appli-
cation of laws and regulations against abuses, such as by poachers of
plants and animals, which was the weakness revealed in the case of the
PNP. Concerning the catalysts attributed to CZM, environmentalists and
natural phenomena, the results of human interactions with nature and
commitment to the international community have played the most
prominent role in highlighting the importance of giving attention to the
environment. Also, because Penang is an island, the marine environ-
ment has the greatest need for such attention.
The related acts and regulations (such as the Environmental Quality
Act, EIA, fines and penalties, TCP Act of 1976, Fishery Act of 1985 and
National Heritage Act of 2005) are all implemented by different agen-
cies across state and federal levels. This means that different agencies
and interests tend to manage coastal areas. Although, development at
the shoreline is entirely controlled by the State, with little interference
from the Federal Government. Therefore, it can be said that the level of
integration in the management of the Penang coast is not at the re-
quired level. As a result, the implementation of ICZM in Penang remains
a significant challenge. However, there is some evidence of interactions
between science, local communities and schools.
Based on the results of the CoSS analysis, as shown in Fig. 8, it can
be said that the ICZM efforts in Penang are almost at a mid-point. The
best score was for the communication principle, having an overall
average score of 5.7 from a maximum score of 10. It only required a
10
Ocean and Coastal Management 181 (2019) 104899
further 1.3 points to reach the standard. This was followed by partici-
pation, planning, balance and integration, respectively, and the lowest
score was for responsibility, with an overall average score of 4.5. A
possible interpretation of these results can be attributed to the fact that
there is no single agency having full responsibility and accountability
for managing the coast. Accordingly, the responsibility principle was
shown to have the lowest score. However, it can be said that the present
management system is providing adequate consideration to the com-
munication between different agencies and the participation of related
stakeholders.
However, there is room for improvement as the two principles
scored 5.7 and 5.5, respectively. This was closely followed by the
participation principle, which again showed that the management
system is directing efforts into planning for managing the coastal area
in order to cope with its 2020 vision. Notably, there is room for im-
provement in the horizontal and vertical integration between the dif-
ferent agencies at different levels and sectors, as well as the balance
between different sectors. Therefore, based on the integration results, it
is believed that the current management approach is instead, more of a
sectoral approach.
5. Conclusion
The findings of this research have shown that ICZM efforts in
Penang have only been partially completed (i.e. about mid-way). As
different agencies manage the coastal zone at different levels, it was
found that the principle of responsibility received the lowest score.
Communication between the different agencies and the participation of
related stakeholders were the two topmost principles, although both
were below the standard. Moreover, it can be viewed that the current
management approach is more of a sectoral approach. The evaluation
of ICZM efforts is not an easy task given many of the aspects and criteria
R. Albotoush and A. Tan Shau-Hwai
overlap, including recognising what needs to be evaluated (progress,
outputs or outcomes). In addition, one of the main issues regarding
evaluating ICZM and based on its principles is local specificity.
Therefore, whatever methodology is adopted; ultimately, it should be
articulated and designed to suit the coastal initiative or efforts under
investigation. For instance, the many differences between coastal areas
at regional and national levels concerning the governance hierarchy,
nature, society and interests should be considered when selecting the
evaluation methodology. Accordingly, the two methodologies adopted
in this research selected to suit the current status of ICZM efforts were
Billé (2007) and Gallagher (2010).
References
Abdullah, K., 1999, October, October. Malaysian coastal environment: planning, devel-
opment, and management of the environment in preparation for the next millennium.
In: Proceeding of the International Symposium and Exposition on Coastal
Environment and Management: Challenges in the New Millennium, pp. 13–15.
Lim, J., 2016. Resilient or Vulnerable?: a Study of the Livelihoods of Inshore Fishers and
Aquaculturists in Penang. Malaysia(Master's thesis, Norwegian University of Life
Sciences, Ås).
Ministry of natural resources and environment (NRE) and putra konsult sdn bhd (PKSD),
2010. august (2010), integrated shoreline management plan for negeri pulau pinanag
(ISMP).Print. Penang State ISMP Report.
Abas, N., How, N.C., Chai, Y.S., Jia, K.Y., Marzuki, N.M., Suhaimi, N.A.S.M., ... Darus,
N.I., 2016. Tourism Policy Org.: Case Study Penang Park.
Alsaffar, M.S., Suhaimi, J.M., Ahmad, K.N., 2016. Evaluation of heavy metals in surface
water of major rivers in Penang, Malaysia. Int. J. Environ. Sci. 6 (5), 657–669.
Fishermen's Association Act, 1971. Laws of Malaysia Online Version of Updated Text of
Reprint. act 44 as at 1 December 2011.
Bakar, H.S.A., Ch'ng Kim Looi, 1987. Licence limitation: an approach to the regulation of
fishing efforts in Peninsular Malaysia. In: Symposium on the Exploitation and
Management of Marine Fishery Resource in Southeast Asia Held in Conjunction with
the Twentieth Session of the Indo-Pacific Fishery Commission Darwin, pp. 16–26
Australia.
Billé, R., 2007. A dual-level framework for evaluating integrated coastal management
beyond labels. Ocean Coast Manag. 50 (10), 796–807.
Breen, B., Hynes, S., 2014. Shortcomings in the european principles of integrated coastal
zone management (ICZM): assessing the implications for locally orientated coastal
management using biome portfolio analysis (BPA). Mar. Policy 44, 406–418.
Burbridge, P.R., 1997. A generic framework for measuring success in integrated coastal
management. Ocean Coast Manag. 37 (2), 175–189.
Calestino, A.B., 2001. Malaysia. Does it really need decentralization. Sourcebook on de-
centralization in Asia. Decentralization and power shift: an imperative for good
governance. .
Choon Ann, I.R., 1996. Coastal erosion management in Malaysia. In: Proc. 13th Annual
Seminar of the Malaysian Society of Marine Sciences, pp. 1–11.
De Oliveira, j. a. p., 2016. Bridging Governmental Relations in Urban Management: Cases
of Solid Waste Management and Climate Change in Two Malaysian States.
Department of Irrigation and Drainage (DID), 2017. Jps.vox 10.com. Retrieved 27th July
2017 from. http://jps.vox10.com/index.php/pages/view/547?mid=410.
Dola, K., Mijan, D., 2006. Public participation in planning for sustainable development:
operational questions and issues. Int. J. Sustain. Trop. Des. Res. Pract. 1 (1), 1–8.
Eco-engineering: Design with nature” Workshop, 2017. Retrieved from. https://cemacs.
usm.my/index.php/en/15-aktiviti/89-eco-engineering-design-with-nature-
workshop.
Ehler, C.N., 2003. Indicators to measure governance performance in integrated coastal
management. Ocean Coast Manag. 46 (3–4), 335–345.
Environmental Quality (Amendment of 1974 127 Act) Act A 636, 1985. Laws of Malaysia
Online Version of Updated Text of Reprint. Act A363. 10 January 1986.
Fisheries Act, 1985. Laws of Malaysia Online Version of Updated Text of Reprint. Act
317. As of 1 November 2012.
Gallagher, A.W., 2006. ‘Sustainability Systems Appraisal for Integrated Coastal Zone
Management’. Ph.D thesis. The Nottingham Trent University and Southampton
Solent University.
Gallagher, A., 2010. The coastal sustainability standard: a management systems approach
to ICZM. Ocean Coast Manag. 53 (7), 336–349.
Gee, K., Kannen, A., Licht-Eggert, K., Glaeser, B., Sterr, H., 2006. The role of spatial
planning and ICZM in the sustainable development of coasts and seas. Final report.
Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM): Strategies for coastal and marine spatial
planning. Berlin. Res. Proj. Fed. Minist. Trans. Buid. Spat. Plann. (BBR) 45.
Ghaderi, Z., Som, A.P.M., Henderson, J.C., 2012. Tourism crises and island destinations:
experiences in Penang, Malaysia. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2, 79–84.
Ghani, N.A., Raub, M.A., Adam, F., Abdullah, B., Eusoff, Y.A., Puteh, D.A.H.A., 2017.
Quality of life (QoL) of fishermen in the west coast states of peninsular Malaysia. Int.
J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 7 (4), 313–330.
Ghazali, N.H.M., 2006. Coastal erosion and reclamation in Malaysia. Aquat. Ecosys.
Health Manag. 9 (2), 237–247.
Government of Malaysia (GOM)/Department of Irrigation and Drainage (DID), 2009.
Coastal management manual volume (3). Jabatan Pengairan dan Saliran Malaysia,
Jalan Sultan Salahuddin, 50626 Kuala Lumpur.
11
Ocean and Coastal Management 181 (2019) 104899
Harun, S.N., 2011. Heritage building conservation in Malaysia: experience and chal-
lenges. Procedia Eng. 20, 41–53.
Henocque, Y., 2003. Development of process indicators for coastal zone management
assessment in France. Ocean Coast Manag. 46 (3–4), 363–379.
Hezri, A.A., Nordin Hasan, M., 2006. February). Towards sustainable development? The
evolution of environmental policy in Malaysia. Natural Resources Forum, vol. 30.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.., Oxford, UK, pp. 37–50 No. 1.
Hussain, S.Y.S., Said, I., 2015. Knowledge integration between planning and landscape
architecture in contributing to a better open space. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 170,
545–556.
Ismail, W.A.W., Said, I., 2015. Integrating the community in urban design and planning of
public spaces: a review in Malaysian cities. Procedia-Soc. and Behav. Sci. 168,
357–364.
Jamalluddin, M.I.A., Lee, W.K., 2017. Advection and dispersion of water quality con-
stituents in Batu Ferringhi penang. Pertanika J. Sci. Technol. 25, 103–114.
Kasim, A., 2004. Socio-environmentally responsible hotel business: do tourists to Penang
Island, Malaysia care? J. Hosp. Leis. Mark. 11 (4), 5–28.
Kaur, C.R., 2014. National Ocean Governance: Some Options towards Strengthening
Efforts Based on Rio+20. Maritime Institute of Malaysia MIMA’s online commentary
on maritime issues.
Khodami, S., Surif, M., WO, W.M., Daryanabard, R., 2017. Assessment of heavy metal
pollution in surface sediments of the Bayan Lepas area, Penang, Malaysia. Mar.
Pollut. Bull. 114 (1), 615–622.
Koh, H.L., Lim, P.E., Lee, H.L., 1997. Impact modeling of sewage discharge from
Georgetown of Penang, Malaysia on coastal water quality. Environ. Monit. Assess. 44
(1–3), 199–209.
Loh, F.K.W., 2010. Restructuring Federal-State relations in Malaysia: from centralized to
co-operative Federalism? Round Table 99 (407), 131–140.
Makmor, M., Ismail, Z., 2016. Improving environmental impact assessment (EIA) process
in Malaysia. J. Teknol. (Sci. Eng.) 1 (78), 93–107.
MEPSEAS project launched to protect South-East Asia marine environment. Retrieved.
http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/11-MEPSEASLAUNCH.
aspx, Accessed date: 13 July 2018.
Mokhtar, N., 2016. A Comparative Study on Public Participation in Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) in Malaysia and European union.International and European Law.
Faculty of Law, Tilburg University, The Netherlands.
Mokhtar, M.B., Aziz, S.A.B.A.G., 2003. Integrated coastal zone management using the
ecosystems approach some perspectives in Malaysia. Ocean Coast Manag. 46 (5),
407–419.
Mustafa, M., 2011. The Environmental Quality Act 1974: a significant legal instrument
for implementing environmental policy directives of Malaysia. IIUM Law J. 19 (1), .
Mustafa, N.A., Abdullah, N.C., 2013. Preservation of cultural heritage in Malaysia: an
insight of the national heritage act 2005. Build. Future Tour. 407.
Muyibi, S.A., Ambali, A.R., Eissa, G.S., 2008. The impact of economic development on
water pollution: trends and policy actions in Malaysia. Water Resour. Manag. 22 (4),
485–508.
Nambiar, P., 2018, January 16. Activist's scathing report on Penang's unsustainable
‘follies’. Free Malaysia Today News. Retrieved from. http://www.freemalaysiatoday.
com/category/nation/2018/01/16/activists-scathing-report-on-penangs-
unsustainable-follies/.
National Heritage Act, 2005. Laws of Malaysia, Reprint, Act 645, Incorporating All
Amendments up to. 1 June 2006.
Ng, L.S., Tan, L.W., Seow, T.W., 2017. Current practices of construction waste reduction
through 3R practice among contractors in Malaysia: case study in penang. IOP
Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 271 IOP Publishing,
No. 1.
Ngah, K., Rahman, M.F.A., Zan, Z.M., Zakaria, Z., 2015. Development pressure in South
west district of penang: issues and implications. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences 211, 429–436.
Ngui, A., 2017, August 26. Fate of penang Transport master plan hangs in the balance
(Updated). the Sun daily, [online] p.1. Available at: http://www.thesundaily.my/
news/2017/08/26/fate-penang-transport-master-plan-hangs-balance-updated,
Accessed date: 10 June 2018.
Olsen, S.B., 2003. Frameworks and indicators for assessing progress in integrated coastal
management initiatives. Ocean Coast Manag. 46 (3–4), 347–361.
Omran, A., El-Amrouni, A.O., Suliman, L.K., Pakir, A.H., Ramli, M., Aziz, H.A., 2009.
Solid waste management practices in Penang State: a review of current practices and
the way forward. Environ. Eng. Manage. J. (EEMJ) 8 (1).
Othman, J., Gestsson, H., 2004. A critical appraisal of the strategy and structure of the
fishermen's associations in Malaysia. para 2 (5), 19.
Pedersen, J.D., Beck, S., Johansen, H.B., Jensen, H.B., 2005. Capacity development in
integrated coastal zone management: some lessons learned from Malaysia. Coast.
Manag. 33 (4), 353–372.
Pérez-Cayeiro, M.L., Chica-Ruiz, J.A., 2015. Evaluation of a programme of integrated
coastal zone management: the Ecoplata Programme (Uruguay). Mar. Policy 51,
527–535.
Pickaver, A.H., Gilbert, C., Breton, F., 2004. An indicator set to measure the progress in
the implementation of integrated coastal zone management in Europe. Ocean Coast
Manag. 47 (9), 449–462.
Pradhan, B., Chaudhari, A., Adinarayana, J., Buchroithner, M.F., 2012. Soil erosion as-
sessment and its correlation with landslide events using remote sensing data and GIS:
a case study at Penang Island, Malaysia. Environ. Monit. Assess. 184 (2), 715–727.
Rapp, M.S., Schmid, T., Wolff, M., 2011. Hard or Soft Regulation of Corporate
Governance?.HHL Research Paper Series in Corp Orate Governance. No.6.
Razali, R.M., Chui, P.L., Hong, C.L., Nyanti, L., Ishak, I., Po, T.L., 2015. Harmful micro-
algae assemblage in the aquaculture area of aman island, northen strait of malacca.
R. Albotoush and A. Tan Shau-Hwai
Malays. J. Sci. 34 (1), 20–32.
Said, S.Y., Aksah, H., Ismail, E.D., 2013. Heritage conservation and regeneration of his-
toric areas in Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 105, 418–428.
Secretariat, C.C.R., 2015-2016. ANNUAL ACTIVITIES REPORT.
Shan, N.L., Wee, S.T., Wai, T.L., Chen, G.K., 2018. Construction waste management of
Malaysia: case study in penang. Adv. Sci. Lett. 24 (6), 4698–4703.
Singh, G.K.S., 1981. Destroying Malaysian forests. Stud. Third World Soc. 13, 187–190.
Singh, G.K.S., 1993. Environmental issues in Malaysia-a NGO perspective. Akademika 42
(1), .
Siry, H.Y., 2006. Decentralized coastal zone management in Malaysia and Indonesia: a
comparative perspective 1. Coast. Manag. 34 (3), 267–285.
Stojanovic, T., Ballinger, R.C., Lalwani, C.S., 2004. Successful integrated coastal man-
agement: measuring it with research and contributing to wise practice. Ocean Coast
Manag. 47 (5–6), 273–298.
Tabet, L., Fanning, L., 2012. Integrated coastal zone management under authoritarian
rule: an evaluation framework of coastal governance in Egypt. Ocean Coast Manag.
61, 1–9.
Teo, P., 2003. Limits of imagineering: a case study of Penang. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 27
(3), 545–563.
Third Malaysia Plan, 1976-1980. Kuala Lumpur: Jabatan Percetakan Negara 1976, 225.
12
Ocean and Coastal Management 181 (2019) 104899
Tiller, R., Brekken, T., Bailey, J., 2012. Norwegian aquaculture expansion and Integrated
Coastal Zone Management ( ICZM ): simmering conflicts and competing claims. Mar.
Policy 36, 1086–1095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.02.023.
Tissier, M.D., Le, A.A., Hills, J.M., 2010. ocean and coastal management practitioner
training for building capacity in ICZM. Ocean Coast Manag. 53, 787–795. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.10.018.
Town and Country Planning Act, 1976. Laws of Malaysia Reprint Act 172, Incorporating
All Amendments up to 1 January 2006.
Weng, C.N., 2005. Sustainable management of rivers in Malaysia: involving all stake-
holders. Int. J. River Basin Manag. 3 (3), 147–162.
Wheeler, P.J., Peterson, J.A., Gordon-Brown, L.N., 2011. Spatial decision support for
integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) in Victoria, Australia: constraints and
opportunities. J. Coast. Res. 27 (2), 296–317.
Yadollahi, M., Ansari, R., Abd Majid, M.Z., Yih, C.H., 2015. A multi-criteria analysis for
bridge sustainability assessment: a case study of Penang Second Bridge, Malaysia.
Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 11 (5), 638–654.
Yen, L.J., Matsumoto, Y., Yin, C.S., Wern, H.C., Inoue, T., Usami, A.,., Yagi, A., 2017,
October. Characteristics of water quality of rivers related to land-use in Penang Island
Malaysia. AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 1892 1.