Ocean and Coastal Management 244 (2023) 106796

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean and Coastal Management

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

Marine coastal biodiversity and services in Ireland in a three-dimensional

context: Scientific, news media, and legislative
Gema Casal *, Tim McCarthy
National Centre for Geocomputation, 2nd Floor Iontas Building, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Biodiversity is a key indicator of ecosystem health and plays an important role in providing ecosystem services
Biodiversity that are essential for economic development and social well-being. In Ireland, climate change and anthropogenic
Ecosystem services pressures have led to biodiversity loss and habitat degradation, which in turn affects the provision of ecosystem
Coastal areas
services. The aim of this study was to determine how marine coastal biodiversity and ecosystem services in the
Climate change
Bibliometrics
Republic of Ireland are portrayed in the scientific literature, news media, and current legislation in order to
identify knowledge gaps and priority areas of intervention for policymakers and other decision-making stake­
holders. A review of the scientific literature based on the Scopus database suggests a lack of stakeholder
involvement in the scientific-based approach. Up to 2022 research on marine coastal biodiversity focused pri­
marily on species richness and diversity, especially in the context of climate change, while research on ecosystem
services focused primarily on ecosystem function. Analysis of the news media found that coverage of biodiversity
and ecosystem services has increased over the past decade, but opportunities are being missed to raise public
awareness of the multiple benefits, not just economic, of marine coastal ecosystems, their biodiversity, and the
services they provide. The terms “biodiversity” and “ecosystem services” have only been introduced into Irish
legislation in recent years. The legislative context at the national level is rather fragmented at diverse levels and
mainly corresponds to the transposition of European Directives while national specific legislation is less devel­
oped. The interconnection between these three domains: scientific, news media and legislative was not evident in
this study, especially in the case of the scientific field. Efforts to promote science-based knowledge, communi­
cation, collaboration, and transparency between these domains are crucial to support informed decision-making
and promote public engagement while conserving biodiversity. Addressing the information gaps identified in this
work could help advance the implementation of Nature-based Solutions (NbS), key cost-effective measures to
mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change while protecting biodiversity and ecosystem services.

1. Introduction ecosystems also have spiritual value and contribute significantly to

Marine coastal ecosystems support important economic activities
such as fisheries, aquaculture, biotechnology and tourism, and provide a
wide range of goods and services (Constanza et al., 1997; Lefcheck et al.,
2019; Wedding et al., 2022). All these activities and resources make a
significant contribution to the Irish economy and are essential for live­
lihoods, particularly those of coastal communities (Smale et al., 2013;
Norton et al., 2018; Neill et al., 2022). In addition to the material ben­
efits, these areas also play a key role in environmental processes such as
regulating water quality or protecting against storms and contribute to
mitigating the effects of climate change by sequestering carbon (Burke
et al., 2022). As an island nation, Ireland’s coastal areas and their
human well-being (Norton et al., 2018; Pérez-Lloréns et al., 2020;
Fonseca et al., 2023). Because of all these benefits, it is no coincidence
that 40% of the total Irish population lives within 5 km of the coast
(CSO, 2017).
In Ireland, coastal biodiversity loss, habitat loss and ecosystem
degradation due to increasing pressures from overexploitation, pollution
and climate change are of great concern (Marine Protected Area Advi­
sory Group, 2020). Due to the requirements of EU directives such as the
EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EC) or the EU Birds Directive
(2009/147/EC), biodiversity assessments are carried out at national
level every seven years. These assessments show that most of the habi­
tats listed in the Habitats Directive are in “unfavourable” condition, with

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: gema.casal@mu.ie (G. Casal).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.106796
Received 12 October 2022; Received in revised form 28 July 2023; Accepted 6 August 2023
Available online 12 August 2023
0964-5691/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
G. Casal and T. McCarthy
nearly half showing a continuing decline (OPW, 2022). A significant
number of habitats have also been classified as “bad”, requiring
concerted efforts to protect and restore them (OPW, 2022). Species
groups particularly affected in coastal ecosystems include waterfowl,
whose winter populations are declining because of climate change. The
latest Water Quality in Ireland Report 2016–2021 published by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), shows that water quality in
Ireland has continued to deteriorate since the last assessment in 2019,
and that at the current level Ireland will not meet EU and national re­
quirements to achieve a good or better status by 2027 (Trodd et al.,
2022). These water quality conditions are less able to support healthy
ecosystems and biodiversity (Trodd et al., 2022). To conserve and
restore biodiversity, several actions have been taken at the national
level. The National Biodiversity Action Plan 2017–2021, the third such
plan for Ireland, aims to conserve and restore biodiversity and ecosys­
tems ensuring the delivery of benefits essential for society and contrib­
uting to halter the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of
ecosystems. An independent assessment of the National Biodiversity
Action Plan 2017–2021 implementation conducted by the National
Biodiversity Forum (https://www.biodiversityimpactplan.ie/), in­
dicates that more effective actions are needed and makes five key rec­
ommendations: 1) improve governance and stewardship of biodiversity;
2) finance the plan and prioritise actions; 3) protect, recover and renew
biodiversity and ecosystems; 4) build, connect and use biodiversity
knowledge base; and 5) engage communities and the private sector.
As mentioned earlier, marine coastal biodiversity has an important
function in supporting “ecosystem services”, which are essential for
economic development and social well-being. In the context of biodi­
versity degradation due to anthropogenic pressures and climate change
effects, the ecosystem services that biodiversity supports may be glob­
ally compromised (Cardinale et al., 2012). The concept of ecosystem
services is relatively new and has evolved over the years. There are
several definitions of this concept, but perhaps the most widely adopted
comes from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Report (MEA, 2005),
which defines the concept as “the benefits people obtain from ecosystems”.
These ecosystem services are classified into several categories that varies
depending on the consulted source. One of the most widely used is the
one provided by the UN Common International Classification of
Ecosystem Services (CICES), endorsed by the United Nations and the
European Commission. CICES divides ecosystem services into three
categories: provisioning, regulating, and cultural services (Haine­
s-Young and Potschin-Young, 2018). Provisioning services include
ecosystem resources that provide food, fuel, and raw materials, while
regulating services are defined as the benefits that result from regulating
ecosystem processes such as nutrient cycling, flood mitigation or water
quality. Cultural services result from the intellectual, spiritual, and
emotional connections that people have with the environment.
It is well known that the degradation of natural ecosystems alters the
provision of their ecosystem services, with negative consequences for
human well-being (McFarland and Gerdes, 2016). Therefore, the
concept of ecosystem services should be considered in biodiversity
conservation policy making at all levels of governance (Ferraro and
Failler, 2021). At the global level, the reports from The Intergovern­
mental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
(IPBES) show that all types of ecosystem services have declined signif­
icantly in recent years. Natural resources in the marine environment
have been intensively exploited and, as a consequence, associated eco­
systems (e.g., seabed habitats) are less useful for providing regulating
and provisioning services such as carbon sequestration, fish nursery
habitat, biodiversity, and ecological and functional redundancy (Pap­
rotny et al., 2021).
The value of services related to the marine environment, and coastal
ecosystems in particular, has received more attention in recent years
(Liquete et al., 2013). This general trend also applies to Ireland, where
the only work found on marine ecosystem services valuation was pub­
lished in 2018. Norton et al. (2018) estimated the economic value that
2
Ocean and Coastal Management 244 (2023) 106796
Ireland’s marine ecosystems provide to Irish society annually. These
authors estimated the value of recreational services at €1.6 billion, while
carbon sequestration was estimated at €819 million. Norton et al. (2018)
also reported that the output of the fisheries and aquaculture sector in
Ireland is worth €664 million while the turnover generated by
biotechnology was estimated at €76 million, with a total gross value
added of €30 million and 545 full-time jobs (Marine Protected Area
Advisory Group, 2020). Coastal defence was estimated at €11.5 million
and seaweed harvesting, a growing industry, brought in €4 million.
Although coastal ecosystems play a critical role in economic pros­
perity and social well-being, there are still large gaps in knowledge
about the role of biodiversity in ecosystem services (Harrison et al.,
2014). Reports on the loss of biodiversity in marine ecosystems are
becoming more frequent and public awareness is growing worldwide
(Barnosky et al., 2011). In addition, climate change is leading to a
decline in biodiversity and ecosystem resilience, diminishing the goods
and services that coastal ecosystems can provide. The protection of the
environment and the conservation of natural habitats and species is
therefore one of the EU’s policy priorities, as recently confirmed by the
European Commission (EC, 2020a) and the Council of the European
Union (CEU, 2020). The importance of protecting marine ecosystems
and their services has already been highlighted by international orga­
nisations such as the United Nations and the European Union, and
countries such as Ireland have committed to taking action to meet these
requirements. Some examples include Development Goal 14 ″Life Below
Water”, which sets goals for international policies to protect coastal
ecosystems and promote more sustainable economic practises for coastal
communities. The EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030 emphasises the
importance of halting the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services by
protecting and restoring ecosystems and fully integrating environmental
requirements into policymaking to address climate change. In addition,
Directive 2014/89/EU established a Marine Spatial Planning (MSP)
framework in which Member State authorities analyse and organise
human activities in marine areas to achieve environmental, economic,
and societal goals, using an ecosystem-based approach. This approach
aims to ensure good environmental status of critical habitats and their
long-term capacity to provide goods and services. However, despite
international and EU efforts to promote biodiversity protection and
restoration, current national policies and policy practices of European
countries still neglect the importance of natural ecosystem values (Fer­
raro and Failler, 2021).
The aim of this work was to determine how marine coastal biodi­
versity and ecosystem services are portrayed in the scientific literature,
news media, and current legislation in the Republic of Ireland. This in­
formation will 1) provide useful knowledge to identify the main infor­
mation gaps and needs for future research, and 2) establish a baseline for
policymakers and other decision-making stakeholders involved in the
management of marine coastal ecosystems to identify priority areas for
intervention.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Data collection
2.1.1. Scientific context
Two searches were made in Scopus database including documents up
to 2022. The first search included the terms “Ireland”, “biodiversity”,
“coastal”, and “marine”, while the second search included “Ireland”,
“marine ecosystem services”, and “coastal ecosystem services”. Terms
were searched in the article title, abstract, and keywords. Secondary
documents were also included. A secondary document, as defined by
Scopus, is a document extracted from a Scopus reference list but not
directly available in the Scopus database since it is not indexed by
Scopus. Only documents written in English were included. Search results
were screened to exclude duplicate documents and those that were not
relevant to our analyses (e.g., other scientific fields). Papers that did not
G. Casal and T. McCarthy
address Ireland as a case study or papers that did not address marine
coastal areas were also excluded. Thus, 103 papers on biodiversity and
28 papers on ecosystem services were included in the analysis (Fig. 1).
These documents can be found in Table 1 of Supplementary Material.
After the selection was done, the next step consisted in the data
analysis using the package “bibliometrix” v 3.2.1 (Aria and Cuccurullo,
2017) implemented in the software R (R Development Core Team,
2010). This package allows a bibliometric analysis, following the Sci­
ence Mapping Workflow (Börner et al., 2003). “Bibliometrix” provides a
set of tools for quantitative research in bibliometrics and scientometrics,
based on a comprehensive and effective statistical algorithm,
high-quality numerical routines, and integrated data visualisation tools
(Aria and Cuccurullo, 2017). The analysis using this R package included
a descriptive assessment of the bibliographic data framework such as the
number of publications per year and the scientific journals most
frequently used by the authors. Conceptual structure was analysed using
keyword co-occurrences. Keywords plus (ID) are words and phrases, that
appear in the titles of references cited by authors (Tripathi et al., 2018).
The Keyword Co-occurrences Network (KCN) using ID, identifies the
knowledge components and knowledge structures of a scientific field by
examining the links between keywords in the literature. A KCN is
created by treating each keyword as a node and each co-occurrence of a
pair of words as a link between them. This co-word analysis can reveal
the conceptual structure and the main topics covered by authors,
so-called research fronts.
Thematic maps based on the co-word network analysis and clus­
tering were also created to detect and visualise conceptual subdomains.
The thematic maps present four different types of themes: niche (upper-
left), motor (upper-right), emerging or declining (lower-left) and basic
(lower-right). Following Cobo et al. (2011), the clusters included in the
Fig. 1. Flow diagram of the methodology and selection processes used in this review.
3
Ocean and Coastal Management 244 (2023) 106796
niche themes (upper-left) quadrant are interpreted as topics that are not
central in research, but highly developed with strong connected key­
words. These can be considered only of marginal importance to the field,
very specialised and peripherical themes. Motor themes (upper-right)
quadrant can be interpreted as both important and developed in the
field. Emerging or declining themes (lower-left) present low density and
low centrality, mainly representing either emerging or disappearing
themes. Basic themes (lower-right) are important for a research field but
not well-developed. Two other descriptors are also included in the
thematic maps: centrality and density. Centrality represents the strength
of the external links to other themes, which is a measure of the impor­
tance of the development of a theme in the field while density represents
the strength of the association between keywords within the themes. The
size of the nodes is proportional to the relevance of the theme defined by
the number of publications, citations, etc. Before the analysis, the key­
words chosen by the authors (DE) and keywords plus (ID) were
standardized.
The social structure was also analysed through the country collabo­
ration network, the assessment of the most active universities in pub­
lishing scientific documents and the main funding sponsors.
2.1.2. Media context
To complement the scientific context a search was conducted on
Google News including the terms “Ireland”, “coastal”, “marine” and
“biodiversity”. A second search using the terms “coastal ecosystem ser­
vices” and “Ireland” was also made. The searches were limited to the last
decade (2012–2022). Only news related to Ireland and marine coastal
environments were considered. A pre-selection of results was made to
include only news published by Irish media. A database including year,
source and title was created for a descriptive analysis using R software v.
G. Casal and T. McCarthy
4.2.2. This descriptive analysis included the number of documents
published by year, the number of documents published by source and
the most frequent words contained in the title.
2.1.3. Legislation context
Together with scientific and media context, we also performed a
search related to the legislation initiatives on the protection and man­
agement of coastal areas and their ecosystems, to establish the national
legislative context. The search was done using different online sources
such as the ones included in Table 1.
A group of keywords and terms were also introduced in various
search engines and online scholarly networks such as Science direct,
web of Science, and Google Scholar to identify past and current pub­
lished material related to the legislation on protection and management
of coastal areas. The online review considered search terms such as
“ecosystem legislation”, “climate protection legislation”, “biodiversity
legislation”, “coastal legislation”, “marine legislation” “EU environment
law transposed into Irish legislation” and “coastal management”. The
term “Ireland” was also included in all the searches. The main national
legislation and plans for biodiversity and ecosystem services of marine
coastal ecosystems were identified based on their impact at national
level for ensuring the sustainable management, conservation, and pro­
tection of marine coastal biodiversity.
3. Results
3.1. Scientific context
3.1.1. Biodiversity
Analysis of the scientific context for the state of knowledge related to
biodiversity in marine coastal ecosystems was performed based on 103
selected scientific documents covering the period between 1997 and
2022. Descriptive analysis showed that the number of published papers
related to coastal biodiversity were higher than the ones related to
coastal ecosystem services (Fig. 2) with an annual percentage growth
rate (APGR) of 7.43. These documents mostly included Ireland as the
corresponding author’s country, followed in number by the United
Kingdom (UK). A 37.86% of these documents presented an international
co-authorship.
The journals most frequently used by authors to publish research on
topics related to marine coastal biodiversity were Hydrobiologia and
Marine Policy, followed by Marine Environmental Research and Marine
Pollution Bulletin. The keywords most frequent used by authors (DE)
were “biodiversity” and “Ireland” followed by “Irish Sea” and “climate
change” (Table 2). The term “conservation” occupied the fifth place on
the list. On the other hand, the keywords plus (ID) also contained as
most frequent keywords the terms “Ireland” and “biodiversity” followed
by “ecosystem” (Table 2). In this case, “climate change” occupied the
tenth position on the list.
KCN showed three clusters or research fronts that were well differ­
entiated (Fig. 3). One of these clusters contained the words “biodiver­
sity” and “Ireland” as main nodes suggesting that published research on
marine coastal biodiversity was mainly focused on species richness and
diversity with a particular interest in algae and invertebrates. A second
Table 1
Main websites consulted for establishing the legislation context related to
coastal marine ecosystems and their biodiversity.
ID Name of website Link
1 Government of Ireland https://www.gov.ie/en/
2 Electronic Irish Statute Book (eISB) http://www.legislation.ie/
3 National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) https://www.npws.ie/
4 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) https://www.epa.ie/
5 FAOLEX Database https://www.fao.org/faolex/
6 European Commission https://ec.europa.eu/
7 EUR-Lex https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
4
Ocean and Coastal Management 244 (2023) 106796
cluster was associated with the environmental monitoring using tech­
niques such as genetics or DNA (mainly environmental DNA). A third
cluster revealed an interest in ecosystem biology and climate change.
The thematic maps for marine coastal biodiversity (Fig. 4) showed
that the study of ecosystems is a well-developed topic in the scientific
literature, while “phylogeny” is a peripheral theme with marginal
importance. A cluster with the term “vegetation” appeared in the lower-
left quadrant along with the cluster “antennas” (keyword used by Scopus
in remote sensing studies). This combination of clusters could be inter­
preted to mean that the study of biodiversity in coastal vegetation such
as the one present in saltmarshes, is an emerging research theme in
Ireland, particularly using remote sensing techniques. The term biodi­
versity appeared as a different cluster in the low-right quadrant, indi­
cating a basic, general, and transversal theme to the research field. Due
to the cluster position, biodiversity can be considered an important
theme but not well developed.
The most active organisations producing scientific documents on
coastal marine biodiversity in Ireland were University of Galway and
University College Cork, both with 24 documents, followed by Queen’s
University Belfast with 16 documents (Fig. 5a). This scientific work has
been funded by various European and national agencies with the Eu­
ropean Commission and the Marine Institute being the main funding
sponsors (Fig. 5b).
Country collaboration networks showed that the United Kingdom
(UK) was Ireland’s main collaborator in the production of scientific
documents related to marine coastal biodiversity, followed by the
United States (US) and France (Fig. 6).
3.1.2. Ecosystem services
The search for marine coastal ecosystem services found 40 docu­
ments, of which only 28 were selected for the analysis. In Ireland, the
publication of scientific literature on marine coastal ecosystems is more
recent than the one related to biodiversity. The first scientific paper on
this topic was published in 2009 (Fig. 2b) showing an annual percentage
growth rate (APGR) of 8.49. The corresponding author’s countries for
these documents were mainly Ireland, followed by the UK, Italy, and
Spain. The most frequent journals chosen by the authors to publish
research on ecosystem services were Marine Policy, followed by Ecology
and Evolution, Science of Total Environment and Applied Vegetation
Science. The 39.29% of these documents presented an international co-
authorship.
The most frequently used keywords by authors (DE) were “Ireland”
and “ecosystem services” followed by terms such as “biodiversity” and
“climate change” (Table 3). In the case of the keywords plus (ID), the
most common keywords were “Ireland”, “ecosystem (s)” and “ecosystem
services” followed by terms such as “climate change” or “stakeholder”
(Table 3). Some of the terms were coincident in both results (DE and ID),
suggesting that, for example, climate change and biodiversity are
considered in Ireland when it comes to the ecosystem services provided
by marine coastal ecosystems.
Further analyses of the relationships between the keywords (ID)
revealed two main research fronts (Fig. 7). The co-occurrences analyses
showed that the term “ecosystem services” was primarily associated
with “ecosystems function” and “biodiversity” mainly in “sediment” and
“invertebrate”. “Climate change”, “sustainable development” and
“stakeholder” are also included as part of this research front along with
“trade off”. A second cluster was mainly form by terms associated to
“aquaculture” as well as “phytoplankton” and “chlorophyll”.
The thematic map (Fig. 8) confirmed that “carbon” and “stake­
holder” are important and well-developed themes in ecosystem services
research. Three other clusters appeared in the lower-left quadrant as
emerging or declining themes. The one related to “marine environment”
showed high development and relevance. This cluster was mainly
related to the economic activity and a governance approach. The cluster
“trade-off” showed moderate relevance, but it is still low developed. The
cluster “eutrophication” appeared in a central position indicating a high
G. Casal and T. McCarthy Ocean and Coastal Management 244 (2023) 106796

Fig. 2. Number of scientific documents published by year on a) marine coastal biodiversity and b) marine coastal ecosystem services.

departments or universities. After an initial evaluation using the same

Table 2
criteria as for the Scopus results, 96 documents were selected that could
Top 10 most frequent words included by the authors (DE) and keywords plus
not be found in the Scopus database. Of these documents, published
(ID) related to biodiversity. N represents the number of scientific documents
between 1967 and 2022, only 40% contained an ISBN or ISSN. An
where the term appeared.
analysis of the most common terms in the title (Fig. 11) showed that
Keywords used by authors (DE) N Keywords plus (ID) N
these documents were mainly related to the distribution of species and
Biodiversity 14 Ireland 96 their ecological assessment and focused in particular on commercial fish
Ireland 8 Biodiversity 92 species. Phytoplankton and monitoring were also considered relevant
Irish Sea 6 Ecosystems 42
Climate change 5 Article 26
topics in these documents. Terms such as “Irish”, “Ireland”, “waters” and
Conservation 4 Animals 24 “marine” were not included as they were considered redundant. All
Lough Hyne 3 Atlantic Ocean 20 documents analysed can be found in Table 2 in the Supplementary
Marine biodiversity 3 Animal 19 Material.
Marine Protected Area 3 Environmental monitoring 19
Taxonomy 3 Europe 19
Benthos 2 Climate Change 17
3.2. Media context

relevance in the research of ecosystem services.
In terms of social structure, the University of Galway produced the
largest number of scientific documents related to ecosystem services
followed by Trinity College Dublin, with 8 and 6 documents respectively
(Fig. 9a). This research has been primarily funded by the European
Commission followed by national agencies such as Environmental Pro­
tection Agency and Marine Institute together with NERC from UK
(Fig. 9b).
Fig. 10 shows that, as in the case of biodiversity, the United Kingdom
(UK) is Ireland’s most important collaborator for research on marine
coastal ecosystem services, followed by the United States (US).
3.1.3. Other sources
Several organisations in Ireland such as the Marine Institute or the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), publish documents on biodi­
versity and ecosystem services that were not found in the Scopus search
outputs. For this reason, keywords “marine coastal biodiversity” and
“ecosystem services” were specifically searched in the databases of these
organisations. The Marine Institute database (https://oar.marine.ie/)
contains not only documents published by the Marine Institute, but also
documents published by other organisations such as the International
Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), various government
We obtained 186 Google entries for biodiversity related news and
177 for ecosystem services. As the results did not show a clear separation
between the two topics and 49 articles appeared in both searches, all
results were analysed together after removing duplicates. The search
outputs mainly corresponded to national newspapers and specialised
magazines. The results showed a significant increase since 2016, peak­
ing at 117 publications in 2022 (Fig. 12a). Over the last decade, the most
active media outlets publishing news about marine coastal biodiversity
and its ecosystem services were Afloat, the Irish magazine for sailing,
shipping, and maritime affairs, followed by The Irish Times and Irish
Examiner, both daily newspapers and online digital publications
(Fig.12b). These private media outlets were followed in number by Irish
government press releases. The most common terms in these titles
included words such as “marine”, “biodiversity”, “sea”, and “coastal”
(Fig. 12c). This result was to be expected as these terms were included in
the search (see Section 2.2.2), but the analysis revealed some other
interesting information. For example, the term “climate” appeared as
the most frequent word after the search terms, indicating an interest in
how climate, and probably climate change, affects coastal ecosystems,
their biodiversity, and services. The term “wind” together with
“offshore” and “energy” refers to wind farms and the debate on how they
may affect biodiversity and ecosystem services. The term “fish” was also
frequently used in the media and was one of the most frequently

5
G. Casal and T. McCarthy Ocean and Coastal Management 244 (2023) 106796

Fig. 3. Keywords Co-occurrence Network (KCN) of the scientific literature regarding marine coastal biodiversity in Ireland. Only the labels of the 30 main vertices
are included in the plot.

Fig. 4. Thematic map for marine coastal biodiversity.

mentioned words. In addition, these analyses also showed the media’s
interest in protecting biodiversity and ecosystem services, as the word
“protect” was also among the most frequently used words.
3.3. Legislative context
In the case of Ireland, the management and protection of coastal
zone, their ecosystems and biodiversity are regulated by a combination
of EU directives, national, and local legislation. Ireland has also signed
international conventions and treaties such as the Ramsar Convention
for the protection of wetlands, the Bonn Convention for the protection of
migratory birds, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which prevents illegal trade in
wild animals, and the IUCN, which provides international framework for
monitoring endangered species https://www.npws.ie/legislation/inte
rnational. A summary of the main regulations that Ireland has adopted
for the management and protection of marine coastal areas and their
ecosystems can be found in Table 4. The objective of this study is not to

6
G. Casal and T. McCarthy Ocean and Coastal Management 244 (2023) 106796

Fig. 5. Scientific documents on marine coastal biodiversity by a) affiliation and b) funding sponsor. IR= Ireland, UK= United Kingdom, FR= France, EU= Europe.

Table 3
Top 10 most frequent words included by the authors (DE) and keywords plus
(ID) related to ecosystem services. N represents the number of scientific docu­
ments where the term appeared.
Keywords used by authors (DE) N Keywords plus (ID) N

Ireland 7 Ireland 17
Ecosystem services 6 Ecosystems 11
Biodiversity 3 Ecosystem Services 9
Climate change 3 Climate change 6
Marine ecosystems 3 Marine ecosystems 5
Waste management 3 Stakeholder 5
Aquaculture 2 Sustainable development 5
Biogeochemistry 2 Biodiversity 4
Chlorophyll 2 Coastal zone 4
Choice experiment 2 Coastal zone management 4

established a statutory requirement for the Office of Public Works to

perform Maintenance works on Coastal Protection Schemes that were
created under this Act to maintain these Schemes in a “proper repair and
Fig. 6. Scientific collaboration between Ireland and other countries in marine
effective condition”. Examples of these Coastal Protection Schemes are
coastal biodiversity.
Coastal Erosion Schemes such as those in The Murrough, Co. Wicklow or
Youghal, Co. Cork. The statutory responsibility for maintaining Coastal
provide an exhaustive overview of the legislation, but rather to provide a
Protection Schemes has changed between different government bodies
general context to identify possible legislation gaps and limitations.
over the decades. In 2009, this function was transferred from the
One of the first laws in Ireland to deal with coastal protection was the
Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to the Office of Public
Foreshore Act of 1933. The Foreshore Acts (as amended) require a li­
Works (OPW, 2012). Also in 1963, the Local Government (Planning and
cense or lease from the Minister for the Environment, Community and
Development) Act was approved. This Act is considered the first legis­
Local Government or the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as
lation on planning and development of the coastal zone and included
appropriate, before any work on the state foreshore, defining foreshore
only the seashore area.
as the land and seabed between the high water of ordinary or medium
The main legislation pieces related to the protection of coastal areas,
tides and the 12-mile limit. Later, the Coastal Protection Act of 1963

7
G. Casal and T. McCarthy Ocean and Coastal Management 244 (2023) 106796

Fig. 7. Keywords (ID) co-occurrence network of the scientific literature regarding ecosytem services. Only the labels of the 30 main vertices are included in the plot.

Fig. 8. Thematic map on ecosystem services.

their biodiversity and nature conservation in Ireland are the Wildlife Act
1976 (as amended) and the European Communities (Birds and Natural
Habitats) Regulations 2011–2021. The Wildlife Acts 1976 is the original
piece of nature conservation legislation, and it has been amended in
2000 to improve the protection and conservation of wild fauna and
flora. The Acts, as amended, also enable the designation of Natural
Heritage Areas, Nature Reserves and Refuges for Fauna. The Wildlife
Acts do not provide protection beyond 12 nautical miles. Most existing
conservation sites in Ireland (excluding European Natura, 2000 sites)
derive from the Wildlife Acts. The European Communities (Birds and
Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 (S.I. No. 477 of 2011) transpose the
EU Habitats Directive and the EU Birds Directive. These regulations
provide anew for the implementation of the Habitats Directive 92/43/
EEC and the Birds Directive 2009/147/EC in Ireland. The Birds and
Habitats Directives were previously transposed into Ireland’s national
legislation. However, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) found that

8
G. Casal and T. McCarthy
Fig. 9. Scientific documents on marine coastal ecosystem services by a) affiliation and b) funding sponsor. IR= Ireland, UK= United Kingdom, SA= South Africa,
EU= Europe.
Fig. 10. Scientific collaboration between Ireland and other countries in
ecosystem services.
this transposition was not adequate. According to NPWS, the 2011
Regulations consolidate the European Communities (Natural Habitats)
Regulations 1997 to 2005 and the European Communities (Birds and
Natural Habitats) (Control of Recreational Activities) Regulations 2010
and address the transposition failures identified by the CJEU
judgements.
9
Ocean and Coastal Management 244 (2023) 106796
The first time the terms biodiversity and ecosystems appeared in a
legal document under this review was in the Planning and Development
(Strategic Environmental Assessment) Regulations 2004, which specif­
ically considered the impacts of planning and development activities on
fisheries and the marine environment. Following this regulation, it was
not until 2012 that an Integrated Marine Plan (IMP) was published,
setting out the roadmap for unlocking Ireland’s marine potential. This
IMP, Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth: An Integrated Marine Plan for
Ireland (HOOW IMP; Inter-Departmental Marine Coordination Group,
2012), represents an important milestone in unlocking the potential of
the marine economy, balancing the protection of the marine environ­
ment (and its species and habitats) with the maximum use of its re­
sources and the economic growth. Five years later, in 2017, Ireland
developed a plan to conserve and restore biodiversity and ecosystem
services in the marine environment (National Biodiversity Action Plan,
2017–2021). One of the goals of this Action Plan was to expand and
improve the management of protected areas and species, with particular
attention to biodiversity and ecosystem services in coastal areas. The
Biodiversity Action Strategy 2022–2026, released on May 24, 2022,
builds upon the National Biodiversity Action Plan. It outlines a series of
strategic measures aimed at supporting the implementation of govern­
ment policies and actively contributing to the fulfilment of the National
Biodiversity Action Plan.
In addition to national legislation, local authorities also participate
in the protection and regulation of biodiversity in coastal areas. It is
worth noting that the Republic of Ireland is divided into 26 geographical
regions called counties, most of which are coastal (14 out of 26). The
counties are responsible for Development Plans, which are mainly
related to coastal management. Some of the counties have also
G. Casal and T. McCarthy Ocean and Coastal Management 244 (2023) 106796

Fig. 11. Most common terms in the title of documents not found in the Scopus database dealing with marine coastal biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Fig. 12. Descriptive plots showing the main results of the Google News search a) number of publications by year (2012–2022) b) number of publications by media c)
most common terms in news ‘titles.

10
G. Casal and T. McCarthy
Table 4
Summary of national legislation and plans related to the protection and man­
agement of coastal areas, their biodiversity, and their ecosystem services.
Ireland’s national legislation and plans
• Foreshore Act, 1933
• Foreshore (Amendment) Act, 1992
• Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959 (as
amended)
• Coast Protection Act, 1963
• Local Government (Planning and
Development) Act, 1963
• Wildlife Act, 1976
• Wildlife Act (Amendment), 2000
• European Communities (Water Policy)
Regulations of 2003 (S.I. No. 722 of
2003)
• European Communities (Water Policy)
Regulations of 2003 (S.I. 350 of 2014)
• European Communities (Water Policy)
Regulations of 2009 (S.I. 272 of 2009)
• Planning and Development (Strategic
Environmental Assessment)
Regulations 2004 as amended by S.I.
No. 201 of 2011 (Planning and
Development (Strategic Environmental
Assessment (Amendment) Regulations
2011)
• European Communities (Birds and
Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 (S.
I. No. 477 of 2011).
• Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth: An
Integrated Marine Plan for Ireland
2012
Table 4 (continued )
Overview
One of the first Acts related to coastal
zone protection. Most of marine
development activities are licensed or
leased under the provisions of the
Foreshore Acts.
This Act provides for the management
and conservation of marine and
freshwater fisheries in Ireland (use of
gear and other restrictions of fishing,
trade in fish). Amended many times,
last amended 2020.
The Act regulates the construction of
coastal protection works in Ireland. It
allows subnational governments
(council of a county) to investigate
proposals for coastal protection works
and requires them to deliberate on
proposals. It also requires the
Commissioners of Public Works to
develop coastal protection schemes for
combating sea-level rise.
Planning legislation in coastal areas
came in force for the first time in
Ireland under this Act. In general terms
any structure built or modified prior to
that date does not require planning
permission.
Is the original piece of nature
conservation legislation and it has been
amended to provide more protection
and conservation for wild fauna and
flora. The Acts, as amended, also enable
the designation of Natural Heritage
Areas, Nature Reserves and Refuges for
Fauna.
The law was given legal effect in Ireland
to the EU Water Framework Directive
(2000/60/EC). These regulations
implement a register of protected areas,
classification systems and monitoring
programmes for water bodies. Outlines
surface water quality standards and
establishes threshold values for the
classification and protection of surface
waters against pollution and
deterioration in quality.
Transposition of EU Directive 2001/42/
EC for environmental protection into
Irish Law for the application of Strategic
Environmental Assessment (SEA) to
relevant plans and programmes, which
includes consideration of impacts on
biodiversity and ecosystems.
Transposition of EU Birds Directive
(2009/147/EC) and Habitats Directive
(92/43/EEC) into Irish Law for the
protection of the wildlife. The Acts, as
amended, also enable the designation of
Natural Heritage Areas, Nature
Reserves and Refuges for Fauna. It
provides protection to species and
habitats listed in the EU Habitats
Directive. Including the marine
environment. For habitats in the marine
area, the protection is applicable within
the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
Harnessing Our Ocean Health is and
Integrated Marine Plan (IMP), setting
out a roadmap for the Government’s
vision, high-level goals and integrated
actions across policy, governance, and
business to enable Ireland’s marine
potential to be realised. Among its
11
Ocean and Coastal Management 244 (2023) 106796
Ireland’s national legislation and plans
• European Communities (Good
Agricultural Practice for Protection of
Waters) Regulations 2014 (S.I. No. 31
of 2014)
• National Biodiversity Action Plan
2017–2021
• European Union (Planning and
Development) (Environmental Impact
Assessment) Regulations 2018 (S.I. No.
296/2018).
• National Marine Planning Framework
(NMPF) Marine Spatial Planning
Directive (2014/89/EU)
• Marine Planning Development
Management Bill (General Scheme)
2019
• Biodiversity Action Strategy
2022–2026
Overview
objectives are to protect and conserve
Ireland’s biodiversity and ecosystems.
These regulations, which give effect to
Ireland’s 3rd Nitrates Action
Programme, provide statutory support
for good agricultural practice to protect
waters against pollution from
agricultural sources.
The National Biodiversity Plan 2017
had seven objectives and targets: 1)
Mainstream biodiversity into decision-
making across all sectors, 2)Strengthen
the knowledge base for conservation,
management and sustainable use of
biodiversity 3) Increase awareness and
appreciation of biodiversity and
ecosystem services 4) Conserve and
restore biodiversity and ecosystem
services in the wider countryside 5)
Conserve and restore biodiversity and
ecosystem services in the marine
environment 6) Expand and improve
management of protected areas and
species 7) Strengthen international
governance for biodiversity and
ecosystem services.
These regulations extensively amend
the Planning and Development Act
2000 and the Planning and
Development Regulations 2001 in order
to transpose into Irish law the
provisions of Directive (2014)/52/EU
amending Directive 2011/92/EU of the
European Parliament and of the Council
on the assessment of the effects of
certain public and private projects on
the environment, which includes
impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems.
This regulation aims to preserve,
protect, maintain and, where
appropriate, enhance biodiversity,
particularly EU designated sites and
protected species; to protect against
pollution and prevent changes in key
coastal and marine processes; and also
to ensure that the status of water bodies
is protected, maintained, and improved
in line with the requirements of the
WFD and MSFD.
One of the aims is to establish a legal
basis for A Bord Pleanála and coastal
local authorities to consent the
development in the maritime area,
while retaining existing foreshore and
planning permission provisions for
aquaculture and sea fisheries related
development.
The aim of the strategy sets out the
intention for protecting, promoting,
and enhancing biodiversity across its
operations. It lays out actions that
create the structure, context, and
processes, through which specific
measures for biodiversity can be taken.
It identifies strategic actions to help to
deliver Government policy through
contribution to the delivery of the
National Biodiversity Action Plan. It
serves as a decision-making guide and
reference document for staff and
contractors, and aims to ensure OPW
will comply with, and exceed, its
biodiversity duty by championing
biodiversity across its varied portfolio.
G. Casal and T. McCarthy
developed local legislation to protect ecosystems and biodiversity. Ex­
amples include the Cork City Council Climate Change Adaptation
Strategy 2019–2024, whose fifth key theme/goal is Nature, Natural
Resources and Cultural Infrastructure, and the Galway City Biodiversity
Action Plan 2014–2024, which aims to protect, manage, and enhance
biodiversity in the city.
4. Discussion
Marine coastal biodiversity is a fundamental natural capital to pro­
duce ecosystem services that are essential for human well-being. In
Ireland, approximately 30,000 people are employed in the marine sector
and the direct value of the ocean economy has been estimated at €1.8
billion, equivalent to 0.9% of gross domestic product (GDP) (Norton
et al., 2018). Habitat degradation, over-exploitation, invasive species,
pollution, and climate change are driving ecosystems change worldwide
(Barnoski et al., 2011; Hogue and Breon, 2022). In Ireland, one in every
five assessed species is reported to be at risk of extinction (IPBES et al.,
2019), and catastrophic population declines have been reported for
important marine and coastal species such as Atlantic salmon (Salmo
salar), European eel (Anguilla), and native white-clawed crayfish (Aus­
tropotamobius pallipes). However, important knowledge gaps still remain
in Ireland regarding how biodiversity is changing as only approximately
10% of the species have been assessed to date.
Biodiversity plays a crucial role in the functioning of ecosystems.
Processes such as capturing biologically essential resources, biomass
production, and nutrient cycling are impaired as biodiversity globally
declines (Cardinale et al., 2012). Biodiversity also increases the resil­
ience of ecosystems to global change (Loreau and de Mazancourt, 2013).
The HOOW: IMP for Ireland (Inter-Departmental Marine Coordination
Group, 2012) laid out a “roadmap” for adopting an integrated approach
to marine governance and to achieve the government’s ambitious tar­
gets for maritime sectors. These goals include increasing the ocean
economy to 2.4% of GDP by 2030. This roadmap also highlighted the
need for further research into generating “economic values of marine
biodiversity and ecosystem services to ensure best practise planning and
management of the ocean resources” (Inter-Departmental Marine Co­
ordination Group, 2012). The results obtained in this study suggest that
this roadmap was not completely accomplished, and actions still need to
be done in the different domains: scientific, news media and legislative
to ensure an effective management and protection of marine coastal
biodiversity and services.
4.1. Scientific context
The results of the Scopus database showed an increasing production
of scientific literature related to marine coastal biodiversity and
ecosystem services. The KCN results revealed three main research fronts
in marine coastal biodiversity. The most important research front was
related to the study of species richness and diversity with a particular
interest in algae and invertebrates (e.g., Bermejo et al., 2019; Firth et al.,
2021). A second cluster highlighted another important line of research
related to the use of genetics and DNA, particularly environmental DNA
(e.g., Mirimin et al., 2021; Fernández et al., 2021; Gargan et al., 2022),
to monitor the marine environment. A third research front was related to
ecosystems ecology and climate change, particularly physiology and
benthos (e.g., Jochum et al., 2012; Bull et al., 2013). These findings are
consistent with previous reports that highlighted the lack of funda­
mental information on species and habitat distributions required to
inform policy-makers and the need to advance in the understanding of
the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (Wal­
dren et al., 2011). In spite of some recent studies (Cott et al., 2021), there
are still gaps in knowledge about the biodiversity of important coastal
ecosystems such as seagrasses, kelp forests or saltmarshes, because the
term algae, which appeared in the thematic clusters, mostly referred to
phytoplankton and algal blooms. Research on kelp forests distribution
12
Ocean and Coastal Management 244 (2023) 106796
and biodiversity has increased in the last years (e.g., Schoenrock et al.,
2020a; Schoenrock et al., 2020b; Schoenrock et al., 2021; Schoenrock
et al., 2022). However, most studies on ecosystems such as seagrasses
and saltmarshes are isolated in time or were published more than a
decade ago (e.g., Madden et al., 1993; Kelly, 2005; Dale et al., 2007;
McCorry, 2007; McCorry and Ryle, 2009).
According to the Scopus database, the scientific literature on
ecosystem services in Ireland is relatively recent (first document 2009),
while the literature on biodiversity has a slightly longer history (first
document 1997). This difference is not surprising given that ecosystem
services are a newer area of research, with little representation in the
global literature prior to 2006 (Liquete et al., 2013). Greater interest in
ecosystem services was triggered in part by the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment published in 2005 (Constanza and Kubiszewski, 2012). In
Ireland, Norton et al. (2018) published the most comprehensive report
to date on the value of coastal, marine, and estuarine ecosystem services.
While a growing body of work is improving our knowledge in this field,
the lack of established conceptual frameworks, indicators, and metrics
has hindered growth globally (Liquete et al., 2013). In our literature
review, we noticed that some documents that included the term
“ecosystem services” in the keyword list or abstract did not actually
address it in the main body of text. One of the scientific journals most
frequently chosen by authors to publish research on marine coastal
biodiversity and ecosystem services was Marine Policy, suggesting that
much of the research focuses on the formulation and of understanding
relevant policy.
The keywords most frequently chosen by the authors regarding
biodiversity, excluding the search terms such as “biodiversity” or
“Ireland”, were “climate change” and “conservation” (Table 2), while for
ecosystem services were again “climate change” and “biodiversity”
(Table 3). This result suggests a research interest in the effects of climate
change in marine coastal biodiversity and ecosystem services. However,
climate change is not the only threat to biodiversity and other issues
such as habitat destruction (excluding indirect damage from climate
change), direct exploitation of natural resources, pollution, and invasive
species should also be considered (Hogue and Breon, 2022). Another
aspect to note on the DE list is the absence of the keyword “stakeholder”.
This fact is also found in the ID list of biodiversity (Table 2), while it is
included in the ID list of coastal services (Table 3). Stakeholder
engagement should be considered an essential aspect for improving
scientific knowledge and involving society into the deliberation and
development of science-based solutions. Providing and building a solid
knowledge base requires the integration of local socio-ecological
knowledge with existing scientific knowledge (Mielke et al., 2016).
The result of this literature review also showed that terms such as
“services” or “ecosystem services” did not appear as relevant keywords
in the biodiversity analysis (Table 2). This fact may indicate a possible
lack of connection between the research conducted in these two areas.
This situation has also been reported by other authors in a more global
context (e.g., Cardinale et al., 2012). Despite the growing evidence that
biodiversity is critical for the provision of ecosystem services, research
on the linkages between these two areas is not well developed, while
decision makers need clear information to develop effective strategies
for the conservation and protection of coastal ecosystems. A report
published in 2014 (NESC, 2014) highlighted the large gaps in environ­
mental and economic data for marine ecosystems in Ireland. Efforts have
been made at the national level to address these gaps through several
initiatives, such as Harnessing Our Ocean Health: An Integrated Marine
Plan for Ireland 2012 and its progress reviews, or the National Marine
Planning Framework 2021. However, Ireland still lacks basic informa­
tion on species distribution, biodiversity, and species interactions
(Smale et al., 2013). Additional studies are also needed to examine the
capacity of ecosystems to provide services and to understand the pres­
sures that limit this capacity (Science for Environment Policy, 2015).
Understanding the distribution and extent of critical habitats is an
important first step in valuing ecosystem services. The natural capacity
G. Casal and T. McCarthy
of ecosystems to provide services, the drivers and pressures impairing
that capacity, and the demand for ecosystem services vary spatially and
temporally (Science for Environment Policy, 2015). Several habitat
mapping efforts have already been carried out worldwide at different
spatial and temporal resolutions (Wabnitz et al., 2008; Dolan et al.,
2009; Traganos et al., 2022). However, there are still large regions
where the spatial distribution of marine ecosystem components is un­
known (Liquete et al., 2013). These knowledge gaps are widely recog­
nised and previous studies have acknowledged that current knowledge
of marine coastal ecosystems is generally poor for Ireland, the UK, and
the NE Atlantic (Smale et al., 2013). In 2011, the European Commission
adopted the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy, which commits Member
States to “… map and assess the state of ecosystems and their services
and promote the integration of these values into accounting and
reporting systems at EU and national level by 2020” (Maes et al., 2014).
To this end, the Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Ser­
vices (MAES) initiative was launched and a framework for ecosystem
assessment on a global level was developed (Science for Environment
Policy, 2015). Mapping ecosystem services is a vital part of imple­
menting this framework, but it is also a major challenge.
In Ireland, efforts are being made to map biodiversity in coastal
marine ecosystems, mainly based on in situ field campaigns. However,
this task is challenging due to the extent and dispersion of these eco­
systems, as well as the financial and logistical resources required.
Remote sensing data could be a useful complement to in situ efforts to
provide detailed spatial and temporal information on Ireland’s marine
coastal ecosystems (Beca-Carretero et al., 2020) and associated pres­
sures (Casal and Lavender, 2017; Casal et al., 2022a). The results of this
study show that although remote sensing techniques are an emerging
theme in biodiversity research, especially for monitoring emerged
vegetation, this line of research is not yet consolidated. The Sentinel
missions under the Copernicus programme could contribute in great
extent to map coastal regions in Ireland. Of particular interest are the
Sentinel-2 satellites, which offer a relatively high spatial resolution (10
m) and an of 2–3 ay revisit time at mid-latitudes, enabling improved
mapping capabilities in regions of high cloud cover (Casal, 2022b).
Satellite data also serve as an important input for multi-risk assessment
frameworks for accounting climate change and natural impacts (Furlan
et al., 2018). The combination of interdisciplinary tools (e.g., environ­
mental DNA, acoustics, remote sensing) will be essential to address the
specificities of the marine environment and to fill the large national and
global knowledge gaps on marine and coastal ecosystem services.
The results describing this scientific context were extracted from the
Scopus database, widely recognised as one of the most comprehensive
and reputable bibliographic databases for academic research. However,
a large number of documents published by organisations such as the
Marine Institute or EPA (the major funding sponsors of biodiversity and
ecosystem services research) were not found in the Scopus search re­
sults. The analysis of these documents revealed similar trends to the
findings presented in the scientific context. However, it is advisable for
these organisations to contemplate granting visibility to their reports in
scientific databases by giving these documents a publication identifier or
using a higher number and more specific keywords.
4.2. Media context
Mass media coverage is a key factor in shaping and influencing sci­
entific and political discourse, as well as public understanding and ac­
tion (Weingart et al., 2000). The media can play an important role in
bridging the communication gap between the scientific community and
other stakeholders. The need for clear scientific communication is rec­
ognised by organisations such as the Intergovernmental Science-Policy
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Part of the work of
these organisations is dedicated to communicating scientific research in
a format that can be used directly by policymakers (Legagneux et al.,
13
Ocean and Coastal Management 244 (2023) 106796
2018), with the ultimate goal of linking scientific and policy agendas
(Brooks et al., 2014). An assessment of how the media reports scientific
information is useful in understanding what messages Irish society
receives.
The results of this study showed that over the last decade, interest in
topics related to biodiversity and ecosystem services has increased. In
the last two years, 2021 and 2022, the number of news articles has
doubled compared to 2020 (Fig. 12a). A notable increase in the number
of news articles in 2017 could be related to the publication of the Na­
tional Biodiversity Action Plan 2017–2021. From our analysis of media
coverage of biodiversity and ecosystem services, we can conclude that
while interest in these topics has increased in recent years, the number
of news items remains much lower than for other topics such as climate
change, and that news about biodiversity are mainly in the context of
climate change. Climate change was a recurring theme in media
coverage, and the term “climate” was also one of the most frequent in
our analyses (Fig. 12c). Irish newspaper coverage of climate change
broadly followed international trends. Coverage peaks during interna­
tional climate change conferences and extreme weather events and de­
clines when other pressing issues such as politics and economics,
dominate the news agenda (Culloty et al., 2019). In contrast, the
adoption of legislation relevant to biodiversity and coastal ecosystems
was found to have no effect on the number of news items published,
although the number of analysed news items was not high (n = 343).
The relevance of the news media in raising public awareness was
highlighted in the report “Climate Change in the Irish Mind”, published
in 2021. This report, based on a survey of 4000 people, assessed the
awareness of people in Ireland regarding climate change. The results
showed that most respondents trusted the mainstream news media
(69%) and journalists (66%) (Leiserowitz et al., 2021). These results
indicate that the news media are considered a reliable source of infor­
mation for Irish society and could significantly contribute to raising
public awareness of the significance of marine coastal ecosystems, their
biodiversity, and the services they provide.
“Wind”, “offshore”, and “energy” were also among the most
frequently used terms. This fact is linked to the increasing interest of the
Irish government and business community in building offshore wind
farms and the subsequent public debate about the impact on marine
coastal ecosystems. The Irish Government plans to generate 70% of its
electricity from renewable sources having 5 GW of offshore wind in
2030 and rising it to 35 GW by 2050. Currently, there are 70 offshore
wind farm projects in Ireland, of which only 2 are operational. For this
reason, major developments are expected in this sector in the coming
years. The media will play an important role in informing the public
about these projects, shaping opinions and minimising conflicts in a
changing landscape. These topics addressed by the media could suggest
a discrepancy between the Blue Economy objectives and the biodiversity
targets. While the Blue Economy concept aims to balance economic
development with the preservation of marine ecosystems, conflicts can
arise when economic activities prioritise exploitation over conservation.
As previously mentioned, the HOOW: IMP for Ireland (Inter-Depart­
mental Marine Coordination Group, 2012) included the goal of growing
the ocean economy to 2.4% of GDP by 2030 and highlighted the need for
further research on marine biodiversity and ecosystem services to ensure
best practises in planning and management of the ocean resources. On
the other hand, recent documents such as The Climate Action Plan 2023
(CAP23), specifically included the need of further marine Special Areas
of Conservation and Special Protection Areas. This Plan also includes the
designation and management of Marine Protected Areas to facilitate the
development of offshore renewable energy alongside the conservation,
protection, and restoration of marine biodiversity. Although some of
these documents are quite recent, further research is still needed to
support scientific-based decisions required by the legislative domain. At
the same time, legal actions should be sustained by robust science that
contributes to the sustainable development of marine and coastal areas
and thus to the benefit of society.
G. Casal and T. McCarthy
Analysis of the news media also revealed that “fish” was among the
most common terms in the relevant headlines, which is in line with the
trend observed in the scientific context. The fishing sector has consid­
erable social and economic importance in Ireland, and it is therefore, not
surprising, that the term “fish” was one of the most frequently occurring.
Irish fishing vessels landed 188,994 tonnes in Irish ports in 2020 (ICES,
2021), with an estimated value of €220.5 million, and a further €31.5
million was landed abroad (ICES, 2021).
All the main topics addressed by the news media are certainly of
great economic importance to Ireland. However, coverage of other
important coastal habitats and sectors is underrepresented. Media
coverage should be balanced to ensure a diverse and inclusive media
landscape that serves the interests of society as a whole. In this sense,
opportunities are being missed to inform different stakeholders and the
general public about the importance of coastal marine systems, their
biodiversity and the benefits they can provide.
4.3. Legislative context
Marine coastal areas are highly dynamic, and the multitude of social
and environmental considerations in coastal areas adds complexity to
governance (O’Hagan et al., 2020). The management of these ecosys­
tems must take into account multiple scales and is challenged by
different spheres of legislative control, institutional hierarchies (Roch­
ette et al., 2015), and differences between terrestrial and marine policies
(Van Assche et al., 2020). Coastal management requires stakeholders to
work across administrative and geographical boundaries.
In Ireland, legislation relevant to coastal marine systems occurs at
multiple levels (local, national, European, and international), and re­
sponsibilities are divided between local governments and various na­
tional departments and agencies. At the regional level, the Republic of
Ireland is divided into 26 geographical regions called counties. Most
counties (14 out of 26) are located on the coast and are responsible for
preparing County Development Plans (CDPs), which are reviewed every
six years. The CDPs consist of a written statement and a series of maps
describing how the regional authority plans to use specific areas. At the
national level, there are at least 34 different government departments,
agencies, and bodies responsible for managing estuaries, coasts, and seas
across different scales (Kelly et al., 2018). Adding to the complexity of
these shared responsibilities, are numerous changes in department
names and the redistribution of responsibilities, which was particularly
noticeable after the 2007 elections (O’Hagan et al., 2020). At the na­
tional level, studies have reported that the management of the marine
and coastal environment has taken place for years in a policy vacuum
(O’Hagan and Ballinger, 2010). For example, in Ireland several coastal
areas, covering 10,420 km2 (2.13% of Ireland’s total maritime area;
Marine Protected Area Advisory Group, 2020), are protected by law.
However, Irish legislation does not define marine protected areas and is
limited in its ability to conserve many of the threatened species, habi­
tats, and other marine features of biological and cultural importance
(Marine Protected Area Advisory Group, 2020). All these factors have
impacted the evolution of coastal and marine governance, as evidenced
by numerous shifts in policy direction and responsibilities over a rela­
tively short period of time (O’Hagan et al., 2020). This evolution has
highlighted several issues, such as limited coherence with the interna­
tional maritime law and inadequate investment in research and devel­
opment (O’Hagan et al., 2020).
Our findings have shown that the terms biodiversity and ecosystem
services have only been introduced into Irish legislation in recent years
and mainly correspond to the transposition of European Directives, i.e.,
the incorporation of these directives into national legislation. The first
key document to include both concepts was the HOOW IMP published in
2012 (Inter-Departmental Marine Coordination Group, 2012). This plan
was followed by the National Biodiversity Action Plan 2017–2021,
which incorporated the term ecosystem services for the marine envi­
ronment. The actions initiated by this document should be continued in
14
Ocean and Coastal Management 244 (2023) 106796
the coming years based on the Biodiversity Action Strategy 2002–2026.
Despite these initiatives, there are still gaps in legislation related to
coastal ecosystems. Currently, legal protection of areas and species can
only be implemented under the Habitats Directive, the Birds Directive,
or the Wildlife Acts. These instruments may not be fully capable of
providing the types of protection needed for other important threatened
and declining species, habitats, and features (Marine Protected Area
Advisory Group, 2020).
The IUCN has called for all OECD countries to contribute at least
0.3% of their GDP on biodiversity conservation, but between 2010 and
2015 Ireland spent only 0.13% (Morrison and Bullock, 2018). In Ireland,
the State is the main body providing funding for biodiversity conser­
vation. However, marine and coastal systems receive much less funding
than terrestrial or freshwater domains (Morrison and Bullock, 2018). In
the period 2010–2015, the terrestrial domain received 90.3% of the
funding allocated to biodiversity conservation, compared to 8.4% and
1.3% for the freshwater and marine domains, respectively. Most of the
biodiversity-related expenditure in the marine sector was associated
with fisheries monitoring, assessment, and enforcement, as reflected in
the news media analysis, while coastal ecosystems such as seagrasses,
kelp forests, or saltmarshes were not represented.
The EU Biodiversity Strategy emphasises the dual importance of
ecosystem services and the intrinsic value of biodiversity in its vision for
2050: “by 2050 European Union biodiversity and the ecosystem services it
provides -its natural capital- (will be) protected, valued and appropriately
restored for biodiversity’s intrinsic value and for their essential contribution
to human well-being and economic prosperity, and so that catastrophic
changes caused by the loss of biodiversity are avoided”. The Irish govern­
ment is committed to expanding Ireland’s network of MPAs to 10% of its
maritime area as soon as is practical and to 30% by 2030, in line with the
EU Biodiversity Strategy. To achieve these goals, procedures, and pro­
cesses for the implementation of existing legislative instruments are
needed at all scales. Other challenges to be addressed are the boundaries
between sectors, for example, ecological vs. administrative, and the
scales of interest (e.g., private, economic, social) (O’Hagan et al., 2020).
Most environmental problems, including biodiversity conservation and
climate change, require transnational and global coordination. Inter­
national and regional organisations (both intergovernmental and
non-governmental) can create platforms for cooperation and contesta­
tion, shaping debates and advocating for policy solutions (Kaiser and
Meyer, 2016). At the same time, national and international funding
agencies must recognise that the existence of knowledge gaps hampers
the adoption of informed management measures and allocate resources
accordingly.
A major shortcoming of current legislation is a clear commitment to
integrated coastal zone management (ICZM). ICZM is included in key
policy documents (e.g., HOOW IMP), but the full potential of this
approach has yet to be realised. The importance of coastal zone man­
agement for ecosystem services is widely recognised, as evident from our
findings, but additional steps are needed (Perry et al., 2014). More po­
litical support, a legal basis for ICZM, and the development of a national
ICZM policy and strategy are needed to advance forward with this
approach.
Nature-based Solutions (NbS), defined by the European Commission
as “solutions that are inspired and supported by nature, which are cost-
effective, simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic
benefits and help build resilience” (EC, 2020b) have gained importance
in the international policy context. This definition implies that NbS
should benefit biodiversity and support the provision of ecosystem ser­
vices (Dumitru and Wendling, 2021), while addressing a range of soci­
etal challenges (O’Leary et al., 2023). In Ireland, while some recent
initiatives for NbS solutions in urban areas have been implemented (e.g.,
Collier and Bourke, 2020), the term is still not common in planning and
management policies (Collier and Bourke, 2020). Addressing the gaps
identified in this work could help advance in the implementation of NbS
in the marine domain (blue NbS) that contribute to mitigation and
G. Casal and T. McCarthy
adaptation of climate change impacts while supporting biodiversity and
protecting ecosystem services. The implementation of NbS could help to
meet European climate change and biodiversity policies, agreements
and regulations while providing an opportunity for sustainable invest­
ment (Tanneberger et al., 2021) and new business prospects. However,
implementing effective NbS requires greater public and political
awareness of the value of marine and coastal ecosystems (O’Leary et al.,
2023).
Our findings are consistent with recent studies showing that while
the current biodiversity strategy in Ireland targets ecosystem services
conservation, the policy landscape is fragmented with gaps and laggards
that need to be addressed for a coherent and integrated approach to
environmental governance (Neill et al., 2022). Research is also needed
to better understand the linkages between biodiversity and the provision
of services at ecosystem level to recommend actions that lead to the
implementation of NbS. The news media could play an important role in
this regard by raising public awareness of NbS and their value. The
desired environmental and social outcomes will not be achieved without
adequate measures such as effective legislation and enabling conditions
such as resources or stakeholder engagement (Gill et al., 2017;
Sánchez-Arcilla et al., 2022).
5. Conclusions
As an island nation, marine coastal ecosystems are important to Irish
society in many ways. Biodiversity is considered an important indicator
of ecosystem health and supports ecosystem services that are essential
for economic development and social well-being. In addition, biodi­
versity provides the adaptive capacity to changes caused by natural and
anthropogenic pressures. In Ireland, interest in marine coastal ecosys­
tems, biodiversity and services has increased over the years in the three
contexts studied: scientific, news media and legislative. Nevertheless,
some information gaps should be addressed to effectively protect these
ecosystems, improve their management and better engage communities.
In a scientific context, our results showed that despite recent ad­
vances in the field, biodiversity research in Ireland is mainly focused on
very specific topics and still has major gaps, such as species distribution
or biodiversity inventories. The results of the scientific context also
revealed a potential lack of linkages between biodiversity and ecosystem
services research as well as weak stakeholder participation in biodi­
versity science. Stakeholder engagement should be an important pillar
for developing science-based solutions to provide a solid knowledge
base for future management actions. National and international funding
agencies should allocate resources to address these knowledge gaps that
hinder the adoption of informed management measures.
Over the last decade, Irish society has increasingly received infor­
mation in the media about biodiversity and ecosystem services mainly in
the context of climate change. Offshore wind farms and fisheries have
been two main topics addressed by national newspapers and specialised
magazines. However, opportunities are being missed to raise public
awareness about the benefits of biodiversity and the consequences of its
degradation and loss. The news media should also help promote the
potential of NbS to sustain the long-term capacity of these ecosystems to
provide goods and services.
Analysis of the legislative context has shown that Irish legislation
related to marine coastal ecosystems, their biodiversity, and the services
they provide is rather fragmented and mainly corresponds to the
transposition of European directives, with a lack of coordination be­
tween different departments and agencies and a widespread absence of
the specific Irish context.
The interconnection between these three domains: scientific, news
media and legislative was not straightforward in this study, especially in
the case of the scientific domain. The interrelationship between scien­
tific research, news media, and legislative context is critical for the
effective dissemination of scientific knowledge, informed public
discourse, and the development of evidence-based policies. It is
15
Ocean and Coastal Management 244 (2023) 106796
important for these three domains to maintain a constructive and sym­
biotic relationship. Policymakers should actively seek out scientific
expertise and engage in evidence-based decision-making process, while
also considering public opinion and societal implications.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
This work was financially supported by the European Union’s Ho­
rizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement
No 869710 “Marine Coastal Ecosystems Biodiversity and Services in a
Changing World” (MaCoBioS). We also thank the editor and the anon­
ymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions that helped to
improve the initial version of this manuscript.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.106796.
References
Aria, M., Cuccurullo, C., 2017. Bibliometrix: an R-tool for comprehensive science
mapping analysis. J. Inf. 11, 959–975.
Barnosky, A.D., Matzke, N., Tomiya, S., Wogan, G.O.U., Swartz, B., Quental, T.B.,
Marshall, C., McGuire, J.L., Lindsey, E.L., Maguire, K.C., Mersey, B., Ferrer, E.A.,
2011. Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471 (7336),
51–57.
Beca-Carretero, P., Varela, V., Stengel, D.B., 2020. A novel method combining species
distribution models, remote sensing, and field surveys for detecting and mapping
subtidal seagrass meadows. Aquat. Conserv. 30 (6), 1098–1110.
Bermejo, R., Heesch, S., Mac Monagail, M., O’Donnell, M., Daly, E., Wilkes, R.J.,
Morrison, L., 2019. Spatial and temporal variability of biomass and composition of
green tides in Ireland. Harmful Algae 81, 94–105.
Börner, K., Chen, C., Boyack, K.W., 2003. Visualizing knowledge domains. Annu. Rev.
Inf. Sci. Technol. 37 (1), 179–255.
Brooks, T.M., Lamoreux, J.F., Soberón, J., 2014. Ipbes ∕ = ipcc. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29,
543–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.08.004.
Bull, J.C., Manson, S., Wood, C., Price, A.R.G., 2013. Benthic marine biodiversity
patterns across the United Kingdom and Ireland determined from recreational diver
observations: a baseline for possible species range shifts induced by climate change.
Aquat. Ecosys. Health Manag. 16 (1), 20–30.
Burke, A.A., Manahan, J., Eichelmann, E., Cott, G.M., 2022. Dublin’s saltmarshes contain
climate-relevant carbon pools. Frontiers in Marine Science, Front. Mar. Sci. 9,
976457.
Cardinale, B.J., Duffy, J.E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D.U., Perrings, C., Venail, P.,
Narwani, A., Mace, G.M., Tilman, D., Wardle, D.A., Kinzig, A.P., Daily, G.C.,
Loreau, M., Grace, J.B., 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature
486 (7401), 0–9.
Casal, G., 2022b. Assessment of Sentinel-2 to monitor highly dynamic small water
bodies: the case of Louro lagoon (Galicia, NW Spain). Oceanologia 64 (1), 88–102.
Casal, G., Cordeiro, C., McCarthy, T., 2022a. Using satellite-based data to facilitate
consistent monitoring of the marine environment around Ireland. Rem. Sens. 14 (7),
1749.
Casal, G., Lavender, S., 2017. Spatio-temporal variability of sea surface temperature in
Irish waters (1982-2015) using AVHRR sensor. J. Sea Res. 129, 89–104.
CEU (Council of the European Union), 2020. Conclusions on biodiversity. the Need for
Urgent Action. Brussels. https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-118
29-2020-INIT/en/pdf. (Accessed 19 May 2022).
Cobo, M.J., López-Herrera, A.G., Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F., 2011. An approach for
detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: a practical
application to the fuzzy sets theory field. J. Informetr. 5 (1), 146–166.
Collier, M.J., Bourke, M., 2020. The case for mainstreaming nature-based solutions into
integrated catchment management in Ireland. Biol. Environ. 120B (2), 107–113.
Constanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K.,
Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M., 1997.
The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387,
253–260.
G. Casal and T. McCarthy
Costanza, R., Kubiszewski, I., 2012. The authorship structure of ‘‘ecosystem services’’ as
a transdisciplinary field of scholarship. Ecosys. Sev. 1, 16–25.
Cott, G.M., Beca-Carretero, P., Stengel, D.B., 2021. Blue Carbon and Marine Carbon
Sequestration in Irish Waters and Coastal Habitats. Marine Institute, Ireland.
CSO (Central Statistics Office), 2017. Census 2016 report. Profile 2- population
distribution and movements. https://www.cso.ie/en/census/census2016reports/.
Culloty, E., Smeaton, A., Suiter, J., Murphy, P., Brereton, P., Zhang, D., Robbins, D.,
2019. Climate Change in Irish Media (EPA Research Report (2014-CCRP-DS.8) No.
300), EPA Research Programme 2014-2020. Johnstown Castle, Co. Wexford, Ireland.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Dale, A.L., McAllen, R., Whelan, P., 2007. Management considerations for subtidal
Zostera marine beds in Ireland. In: Irish Wildlife Manuals, No. 28. National Parks and
Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government,
Dublin, Ireland.
Dolan, M.F.J., Buhl-Mortensen, P., Thorsnes, T., Buhl-Mortensen, L., Bellec, V.K., Bøe, R.,
2009. Developing seabed nature-type maps offshore Norway: initial results from the
MAREANO programme. Nor. J. Geol. 89, 17–28.
Dumitru, A., Wendling, L., 2021. Evaluating the Impact of Nature-Based Solutions: A
Handbook for Practitioners. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium.
EC (European Commission), 2020a. Communication from the commission to the
European parliament, the Council, the European economic and social committee and
the committee of the regions. In: EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Bringing Nature
Back into Our Lives. EC, Brussels (last access 19/05/2022). https://eur-lex.europa.
eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0380.
European Commission (EC), 2020b. Biodiversity and Nature-Based Solutions: Analysis of
EU-Funded Projects. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Publications
Office.
Fernández, S., Miller, D.L., Holman, L.E., Gittenberger, A., Ardura, A., Rius, M.,
Mirimin, L., 2021. Environmental DNA sampling protocols for the surveillance of
marine non-indigenous species in Irish coastal waters. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 172,
112893.
Ferraro, G., Failler, P., 2021. Bringing nature into decision-making and policy design.
Experiences from overseas Europe. Policy Design and Practise 5 (2), 226–244.
Firth, L.B., Curd, A., Hawkins, S.J., Knights, A.M., Blaze, J.A., Burrows, M.T., Dubois, S.
F., Edwards, H., Foggo, A., Gribben, P.E., Grant, L., Harris, D., Mieszkowska, N.,
Nunes, F.L.D., Nunn, J.D., Power, A.M., O’Riordan, R.M., McGrath, D., Simkanin, C.,
O’Connor, N.E., 2021. On the diversity and distribution of a data deficient habitat in
a poorly mapped region: the case of Sabellaria alveolata L. in Ireland. Mar. Environ.
Res. 169, 105344.
Fonseca, C., Wood, L.E., Andriamahefazafy, M., Casal, G., Chaigneau, T., Cornet, C.C.,
Degia, A.K., Failler, P., Ferraro, G., Furlan, E., Hawkins, J., de Juan, S., Krause, T.,
McCarthy, T., Pérez, G., Roberts, C., Trégarot, E., O’Leary, B., 2023. Survey data of
public awareness on climate change and the value of marine and coastal ecosystems.
Data Brief 47, 108924.
Furlan, E., Torresan, S., Critto, A., Marcomini, A., 2018. Spatially explicit risk approach
for multi-hazard assessment and management in marine environment. The case of
study of the Adriatic Sea. Sci. Total Environ. 618, 1008–1023.
Gargan, L.M., Brooks, P.R., Vye, S.R., Ironside, J.E., Jenkins, S.R., Crowe, T.P.,
Carlsson, J., 2022. The use of environmental DNA metabarcoding and quantitative
PCR for molecular detection of marine invasive non-native species associated with
artificial structures. Biol. Invasions 24, 635–648.
Gill, D.A., Mascia, M.B., Ahmadia, G.N., Glew, L., Lester, S.E., Barnes, M., Craigie, I.,
Darling, E.S., Free, C.M., Geldmann, J., Holst, S., Jensen, O.P., White, A.T.,
Basurto, X., Coad, R.D., Gates, G., Guannel, G., Mumby, P.J., Thomas, H.,
Whitmee, S., Woodley, S., Fox, H.E., 2017. Capacity shortfalls hinder the
performance of marine protected areas globally. Nature 543 (2017), 665–669.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21708.
Haines-Young, R., Potschin-Young, M.B., 2018. Revision of the common international
classification for ecosystem services (CICES V5.1): a policy brief. One Ecosyst. 3,
e27108.
Harrison, P.A., Berry, P.M., Simpson, G., Haslett, J.R., Blicharska, M., Bucur, M.,
Dunford, R., Egoh, B., Garcia-Llorente, M., Geamănă, N., Geertsema, W.,
Lommelen, E., Meiresonne, L., Turkelboom, F., 2014. Linkages between biodiversity
attributes and ecosystem services: a systematic review. Ecosyst. Serv. 9, 191–203.
Hogue, A.S., Breon, K., 2022. The greatest threats to species. Conservation Science and
Practice 4, e12670.
ICES, 2021. Celtic Sea mixed fisheries considerations. In: Report of the ICES Advisory
Committee, 2021. ICES Advice 2021 https://doi.org/10.17895/10.17895/ices.
advice.9184.
Inter-Departmental Marine Coordination Group, 2012. Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth: an
integrated marine plan for Ireland. https://oar.marine.ie/handle/10793/810.
IPBES, 2019. In: Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondízio, E.S., Ngo, H.T., Guèze, M., Agard, J.,
Arneth, A., Balvanera, P., Brauman, K.A., Butchart, S.H.M., Chan, K.M.A.,
Garibaldi, L.A., Ichii, K., Liu, J., Subramanian, S.M., Midgley, G.F., Miloslavich, P.,
Molnár, Z., Obura, D., Pfaff, A., Polasky, S., Purvis, A., Razzaque, J., Reyers, B., Roy
Chowdhury, R., Shin, Y.J., Visseren-Hamakers, I.J., Willis, K.J., Zayas, C.N. (Eds.),
Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity
and Ecosystem Services. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany, p. 56. https://doi.org/
10.5281/zenodo.3553579.
Jochum, M., Schneider, F.D., Crowe, T.P., Brose, U., O’Gorman, E.J., 2012. Climate-
induced changes in bottom-up and top-down processes independently alter a marine
ecosystem. Phil. Trans. Soc. B. 367, 2962–2970.
Kaiser, W., Meyer, J.H., 2016. International Organizations and Environmental
Protection: Conservation and Globalization in the Twentieth Century. Berghahn,
New York.
16
Ocean and Coastal Management 244 (2023) 106796
Kelly, E., 2005. The role of kelp in the marine environment. In: Irish Wildlife Manuals,
No. 17. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage
and Local Government, Dublin, Ireland.
Kelly, C., Ellis, G., Flannery, W., 2018. Exploring transition pathways as an alternative
approach for the integrated management of Irish estuaries and coasts. In:
Heidkamp, C.P., Morrissey, J. (Eds.), Towards Coastal Resilience and Sustainability,
pp. 57–78. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429463723. Routledge, London, 2018.
Legagneux, P., Casajus, N., Cazelles, K., Chevalier, C., Chevrinais, M., Gu’ery, L.,
Jacquet, C., Jaffr’e, M., Naud, M.J., Noisette, F., Ropars, P., Vissault, S.,
Archambault, P., Bêty, J., Berteaux, D., Gravel, D., 2018. Our house is burning:
discrepancy in climate change vs biodiversity coverage in the media as compared to
scientific literature. Front. Ecol. Evol. 5, 175.
Lefcheck, J., Hughes, B.B., Johnson, A.J., Pfirrmann, B.W., Rasher, D.B., Smyth, A.R.,
Williams, B.L., Beck, M.W., Orth, R.J., 2019. Are coastal habitats important
nurseries? A meta-analysis. Conservation Letters 12, e12645.
Leiserowitz, A., Carman, J., Rosenthal, S., Neyens, L., Marlon, J., Desmond, M., Smith, S.,
Rochford, M.F., O’Mahony, J., Reaper, L., 2021. Climate Change in the Irish Mind.
Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, New Haven, CT.
Liquete, C., Pirrodi, C., Drakou, E.G., Gurney, L., Katsanevakis, S., Charef, A., Egoh, B.,
2013. Current status and future prospects for the assessment of marine and coastal
ecosystem services: a systematic review. PLoS One 8, e67737.
Loreau, M., de Mazancourt, C., 2013. Biodiversity and ecosystem stability: a synthesis of
underlying mechanisms. Ecol. Lett. 16, 106–115.
Madden, B., Jennings, E., Jeffrey, D.W., 1993. Distribution and ecology of zostera in Co.
Dublin. The Irish Naturalist’s Journal 24 (8), 303–310.
Maes, J., Teller, A., Erhard, M., Murphy, P., Paracchini, M.L., Barredo, J.I., Grizzetti, B.,
Cardoso, A., Somma, F., Petersen, J.E., Meiner, A., Gelabert, E.R., Zal, N.,
Kristensen, P., Bastrup-Birk, A., Biala, K., Romao, C., Piroddi, C., Egoh, B.,
Fiorina, C., Santos, F., Narusevicius, V., Verboven, J., Pereira, H., Bengtsson, J.,
Kremena, G., Marta-Pedroso, C., Snäll, T., Estreguil, C., Miguel, J.S., Braat, L., Grêt-
Regamey, A., Perez-Soba, M., Degeorges, P., Beaufaron, G., Lillebø, A., Malak, D.A.,
Liquete, C., Condé, S., Moen, J., Östergård, H., Czúcz, B., Drakou, E.G., Zulian, G.,
Lavalle, C., 2014. Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services. In:
Indicators for Ecosystem Assessments under Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy
to 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/knowledge/ecosystem_asse
ssment/pdf/2ndMAESWorkingPaper.pdf.
Marine Protected Area Advisory Group, 2020. Expanding Ireland’s Marine Protected
Area Network: A Report by the Marine Protected Area Advisory Group. Report for
the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Ireland.
McCorry, M., 2007. Saltmarsh Monitoring Project 2006. A Report for Research Branch.
National Parks and Wildlife Services.
McCorry, M., Ryle, T., 2009. Saltmarsh Monitoring Project 2007-2008: Final Report.
Report to the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Dublin, Ireland.
McFarland, K., Gerdes, H., 2016. Uptake of Ecosystem Valuations in Policymaking in
Europe’s Overseas Entities: Application, Barriers to Use, and Opportunities for
Improved Uptake. NetBiome-CSA. Grant Agreement n◦ 603710.
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being:
Synthesis, 2005. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, 1-59726-040-1. Available
online: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/Reports.html. (Accessed 15
October 2018).
Mielke, J., Vermaßen, H., Ellenbeck, S., Ferández-Milan, B., Jaeger, C., 2016. Stakeholder
involvement in sustainability science-A critical view. Energy Res. Social Sci. 17,
71–81.
Mirimin, L., Desmet, S., Romero, D.L., Fernandez, S.F., Miller, D.L., Mynott, S.,
Brincau, A.G., Stefanni, S., Berry, A., Gaughan, P., Aguzzi, J., 2021. Don’t catch me if
you can—using cabled observatories as multidisciplinary platforms for marine fish
community monitoring: an in situ case study combining Underwater Video and
environmental DNA data. Sci. Total Environ. 773, 145351.
Morrison, R., Bullock, C., 2018. A National Biodiversity Expenditure Review for Ireland.
University College Dublin.
NESC, 2014. Ireland’s Environmental Data: Inventory, Assessment and Next Steps.
Report No.136.
Neill, A.M., O’Donoghue, C., Stout, J.C., 2022. Conceptual integration of ecosystem
services and natural capital within Irish national policy: an analysis over time and
between policy sectors. Ecosyst. Serv. 57, 101468.
Norton, D., Hynes, S., Boyd, J., 2018. Valuing Ireland’s coastal, marine and estuarine
ecosystem services. Environ. Prot. Agency. http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/rese
arch/water/research239.html.
O’Hagan, A.M., Paterson, S., Le Tissier, M., 2020. Addressing the tangled web of
governance mechanisms for land-sea interactions: assessing implementation
challenges across scales. Mar. Pol. 112, 103715.
O’Leary, B., Fonseca, C., Cornet, C.C., de Vries, M.B., Degia, A.K., Failler, P., Furlan, E.,
Garrabou, J., Gil, A., Hawkins, J.P., Krause-Jersen, D., Le Roux, X., Peck, M.A.,
Pérez, G., Queirós, A.M., Różyński, G., Sánchez-Arcilla, A., Simide, R., Sousa
Pinto, I., Trégarot, E., Roberts, C.M., 2023. Embracing Nature-based Solutions to
promote resilient marine and coastal ecosystems. Nature-Based Solutions 3, 100044.
OPW (Office of Public Works), 2012. Strategic environmental assessment screening
statement. In: Maintenance of Coastal Protection Schemes under the Responsibility
of the Office of Public Works. http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/ire20889.pdf.
OPW (Office of Public Works), 2022. Biodiversity action strategy 2022-2026. https://
www.gov.ie/en/publication/3c132-opw-biodiversity-action-strategy/.
Paprotny, D., Terefenko, P., Giza, A., Czapliński, P., Vousdoukas, M.I., 2021. Future
losses of ecosystem services due to coastal erosion. Sci. Total Environ. 760, 144310.
Pérez-Lloréns, J.L., Mouritsen, O.G., Rhatigan, P., Cornish, M.L., Critchley, A.T., 2020.
Seaweeds in mythology, folklore, poetry, and life. J. Appl. Phycol. 32, 3157–3182.
G. Casal and T. McCarthy
Perry, E.E., Needham, M.D., Cramer, L.A., Rosenberger, R.S., 2014. Coastal resident
knowledge of new marine reserves in Oregon: the impact of proximity and
attachment. Ocean Coast Manag. 95, 107–116.
R Development Core Team, 2010. R: a language and environment for statistical
computing. Dalgaard, Peter (Producer). Computer programme. http://www.R-pro
ject.org/.
Rochette, J., Billé, R., Molenaar, E.J., Drankier, P., Chabason, L., 2015. Regional oceans
governance mechanisms: a review. Mar. Pol. 60, 9–19.
Sánchez- Arcilla, A., Cáceres, I., Roux, X.L., Hinkel, J., Schuerch, M., Nicholls, R.J.,
Otero, d.M., Staneva, J., de Vries, M., Pernice, U., Briere, C., Caiola, N., Garcia, V.,
Ibáñez, C., Torresan, S., 2022. Barriers and enablers for upscaling coastal restoration.
Nature-Based Solutions 2 (2022), 100032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
nbsj.2022.100032.
Schoenrock, K.M., Chan, K.M., O’Callagan, T., O’Callaghan, R., Golden, A., Krueger-
Hadfield, S.A., Power, A.M., 2020a. A review of subtidal kelp forest in Ireland: from
first descriptions to new habitat monitoring. Ecol. Evol. 10, 6819–6832.
Schoenrock, K.M., Krueger-Hadfield, S.A., Chan, K., O’Callaghan, R., Golden, A.,
Power, A.M., 2022. The Diversity and Resilience of Kelp Ecosystems in Ireland.
Environmental Protection Agency Report, 978-1-80009-050-7.
Schoenrock, K.M., O’Callaghan, R., O’Callahan, T., Connor, Aisha, Stengel, D.B., 2021.
An ecological baseline for Laminaria hyperborean forest in western Ireland. Limnol.
Oceanogr. 9999, 1–16.
Schoenrock, K.M., O’Connor, A.M., Mauger, S., Valero, M., Neiva, J., Serrão, E.Á.,
Krueger-Hadfield, S.A., 2020b. Genetic diversity of a marine foundation species,
Laminaria hyperborean (Gunnerus) Foslie, along the coast of Ireland. Eur. J. Phycol.
55, 310–326.
Science for Environment Policy, 2015. Ecosystem services and the environment. In-depth
Report 11 Produced for the European Commission, DG Environment by the Science
Communication Unit. UWE, Bristol available at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment
/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/ecosystem_services_biodiversity_IR11_en.pdf.
Smale, D.A., Burrows, M.T., Moore, P., O’Connor, N., Hawkins, S.J., 2013. Threats and
knowledge gaps for ecosystem services provided by kelp forest: a northeast Atlantic
perspective. Ecol. Evol. 3 (11), 4016–4038.
17
Ocean and Coastal Management 244 (2023) 106796
Tanneberger, F., Appulo, L., Ewart, S., Lakner, S., Brolcháin, N., Peters, J.,
Wichtmann, W., 2021. The power of Nature-Based Solutions: how petlands can help
us to achieve key EU sustainability objectives. Adv. Sustain. Syst. 5, 2000146.
Traganos, D., Lee, C.B., Blume, A., Poursanidis, D., Čižmek, H., Deter, J., Mačić, V.,
Montefalcone, M., Pergent, G., Pergent-Martini, C., Ricart, A.M., Reinartz, P., 2022.
Spatially explicit seagrass mapping across the entire Mediterranean. Front. Mar. Sci.
9, 871799.
Tripathi, M., Kumar, S., Sonker, S.K., Babbar, P., 2018. Occurrence of author keywords
and keywords plus in social sciences and humanities research: a preliminary study.
COLLNET J. Sci. Inf. Manag. 12 (2), 215–232.
Trodd, W., O’Boyle, S., Gurrie, M., 2022. Water quality in Ireland 2016-2021. Environ.
Prot. Agency. https://www.epa.ie/publications/monitoring–assessment/freshwater
–marine/EPA_WaterQualityReport2016_2021.pdf. (Accessed 20 February 2023).
Van Assche, K., Hornidge, A.K., Schlüter, A., Vaidianu, N., 2020. Governance and the
coastal condition: towards new modes of observation, adaptation, and integration.
Mar. Pol. 112, 103413.
Wabnitz, C.C., Andréfouët, S., Torres-Pulliza, D., Müller-Karger, F.E., Kramer, P.A., 2008.
Regional-scale seagrass habitat mapping in the Wider Caribbean region using
Landsat sensors: applications to conservation and ecology. Remote Sens. Environ.
112, 3455–3467.
Waldren, S., Scally, L., Atalah, J., Brown, M., Byrne, C., Crowe, T., Cunningham, C.,
Davies, A., Eschmann, C., Fitch, J., Fitzgerald, H., Galley, C., Gittings, T.,
Grennan, J., Guiry, M., Higgins, T., Harrison, S., Irvine, K., Kavanagh, R., Kelly-
Quinn, D.L., Long, M.P., McCarthy, T.K., Milbau, A., O’Callaghan, E., O’Halloran, J.,
O’Mahony, L., Osborne, B., O’Toole, C., Parnell, J.A.N., Rodríguez Tuñón, A.,
Stengel, D., Stout, J., 2011. Biochange. Biodiversity and environmental change: an
integrated study encompassing a range of scales, taxa and habitats. Synthesis report.
In: STRIVE Report Series Nº, vol. 68. Environmental Protection Agency, Wexford.
Wedding, L.M., Reiter, S., Moritsch, M., Hartge, E., Reiblich, J., Gourlie, D., Guerry, A.,
2022. Embedding the value of coastal ecosystem services into climate change
adaptation planning. PeerJ 10, e13463.
Weingart, P., Engels, A., Pansegrau, P., 2000. Risks of communication: discourses on
climate change in science, politics, and the mass media. Publ. Understand. Sci. 9,
261–283.