Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-j4x9h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T13:25:31.194Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Climate-smart socially innovative tools and approaches for marine pollution science in support of sustainable development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2023

Marcus Lange*
Affiliation:
Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon, Institute of Coastal Environmental Chemistry, Geesthacht, Germany
David Cabana
Affiliation:
Climate Service Center Germany (GERICS), Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon, Hamburg, Germany
Anna Ebeling
Affiliation:
Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon, Institute of Coastal Environmental Chemistry, Geesthacht, Germany
Ralf Ebinghaus
Affiliation:
Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon, Institute of Coastal Environmental Chemistry, Geesthacht, Germany
Hanna Joerss
Affiliation:
Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon, Institute of Coastal Environmental Chemistry, Geesthacht, Germany
Lena Rölfer
Affiliation:
Climate Service Center Germany (GERICS), Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon, Hamburg, Germany Faculty of Sustainability, Social-Ecological Systems Institute (SESI), Leuphana University, Lüneburg, Germany
Louis Celliers
Affiliation:
Climate Service Center Germany (GERICS), Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon, Hamburg, Germany Faculty of Sustainability, Social-Ecological Systems Institute (SESI), Leuphana University, Lüneburg, Germany
*
Corresponding author: Marcus Lange; Email: marcus.lange@hereon.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is a complex interaction between pollution, climate change, the environment and people. This complex interplay of actions and impacts is particularly relevant in coastal regions, where the land meets the sea. To achieve sustainable development in coastal systems, a better understanding is necessary of the role and impact of pollution and the connectedness of the elements, namely, pollution, climate and the people, as well as associated impacts unfolding in an integrated social–ecological system (SES). In this context, the enabling capacity of tools connecting scientific efforts to societal demands is much debated. This paper establishes the basis for climate-smart socially innovative tools and approaches for marine pollution science. The goal of developing a set of innovative tools is twofold: first, to build on, integrate, and further improve the well-founded strengths in diagnosis and process understanding of systemic environmental problems; and, second, to provide decision-making with usable information to create actionable knowledge for managing the impact of marine pollution on the SES under a changing climate. The paper concludes by establishing the scope for a ‘last mile’ approach incorporating scientific evidence of pollution under climate change conditions into decision-making in a SES on the coast. The paper uses case studies to demonstrate the need for collaborative tools to connect the science of coastal pollution and climate with decision-making on managing human activities in a SES.

Information

Type
Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Positive and negative pollution effects on Sustainable Development Goals relating to sustainable production and secondary sources.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Positive and negative effects in regard to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals relating to clean energy from the sea versus new point sources.

Figure 2

Figure 3. An iterative process for developing coastal pollution information services, tools and toolboxes to support the sustainable development of coastal and ocean areas.

Supplementary material: File

Lange et al. supplementary material

Appendix 1

Download Lange et al. supplementary material(File)
File 35.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Lange et al. supplementary material

Appendix 2

Download Lange et al. supplementary material(File)
File 73.1 KB

Author comment: Climate-smart socially innovative tools and approaches for marine pollution science in support of sustainable development — R0/PR1

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: Climate-smart socially innovative tools and approaches for marine pollution science in support of sustainable development — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to Author: The manuscript “Climate-smart, socially innovative tools and approaches for marine pollution science in support of sustainable development” aims to review the scientific literature, on the need for pollution management tools and approaches that are appropriate for the interacting impacts of climate and pollution in complex coastal SESs. It then makes recommendations on various tools and approaches to overcome the pollution-climate-people complexity in SESs.

This paper will make a valuable contribution to the journal. However, my main concern is that there is a lack of consistency and definition in many of the concepts and terminology used. A clearer definition at the end of the introduction of what the aims, objectives and work-flow of the paper are e.g. review (sections 2) > conceptual diagrams (frameworks? Section 3) > tool recommendations (section 4) would also enhance the paper for a general reader. More in depth discussion supporting later figures 2 and tables 1 would also strengthen the manuscript. There are also several typographical, grammatical and punctuation errors throughout the manuscript and need a thorough proof-reading.

Abstract

L 18 The authors refer several times throughout the manuscript to “the connectedness of the elements in this integrated social-ecological system” could they define specifically which ‘elements’ need to be better understood?

L27 Here and throughout the manuscript ‘cases’ and ‘case studies’ are used interchangeably; I would suggest using one or the other - consistently.

Impact Statement

L37 “of the elements”

L41 It is also called for to build on the well-founded strengths in diagnosis and process understanding of systemic environmental problems” Reference for this? Are you still referring to the SGDs?

L43 define ‘information services’.

L45-49 is repetition from the Abstract, rephrase.

L50 which ‘framework’? do you mean your figure 2, if so be clear. Also how specifically will it have an ‘impact’ will decision makers use the tools and frameworks you suggest?

Introduction

L63 implement not implementation and mitigating actions ‘are’ not ‘is’.

L 71 use a reference and define ‘planetary emergency’ your text in L 127 Rockstom et al., 2013 might fit better here.

L 72 Here and throughout the paper you switch to talking about several different forms of pollution e.g. here “chemical and nutrient pollutants” but later “metals, hazardous substances etc”. I think it would aid the reader to have a firm definition of ‘pollution’ or perhaps ‘marine pollution’ in the introduction and which ones you are specifically looking at in this review. If it is ‘all ‘ forms of pollution say this. The UN convention for example defines that there are three significant forms of oceanic and coastal pollution:

1) nitrogen-phosphorous pollution from agriculture, sewage, and urban and industrial run-off;

2) chemical pollution that comprises, but is not limited to, pesticides, petroleum, pharmaceuticals and personal care products, heavy metals and industrial discharge;

3) plastic-debris pollution.

Other definitions are available.

L 88 maybe a different word than purposive, semi-systematic ? or in depth? …would also be good to know roughly how many papers were reviewed.

L 103-105 “ the Last mile” perspective seems like a key conclusion (discussion element) from your work, seems a bit odd you are making this point in the introduction (i.e. before the review).

Section 2

L108 this section feels like an extension to the introduction, please state if is this is the outputs of your review? And link clearly back to the 3 aims in the introduction.

L110 Soils are terrestrial if this is a marine paper I suggest sediments.

L114 These are not clear ecosystem functions e.g. regulation or cleaning of what? carbon or nutrient cycling or sediments? Campaign activities is not an ecosystem function.

The Cai and Li 2011 reference is very old there is a much more up to date literature available on ecosystem functions and more specifically ecosystem services and pollution. E.g.

Watson, S.C.L, Paterson, D.M., Queirós, A.M., Rees, A.P., Stephens, N., Widdicombe, S. and Beaumont, N.J., 2016. A conceptual framework for assessing the ecosystem service of waste remediation: in the marine environment. Ecosystem services, 20, pp.69-81.

Or even more recently

Cabral, H., Fonseca, V., Sousa, T. and Costa Leal, M., 2019. Synergistic effects of climate change and marine pollution: An overlooked interaction in coastal and estuarine areas. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(15), p.2737.

L152-160 is really about Climate/Pollution effects on the environment/biology and would fit better under the previous heading.

L171 be careful with the word ‘ubiquitously’ are they really found in all humans? Needs a reference if so.

L 179 be consistent throughout the manuscript between aquatic, coastal and marine

L 213 from here the focus moves away from climate change and onto renewable energy impacts and pollution, it needs its own section (also its not just offshore wind but also tidal, wave and other Marine Renewable Energy Devices that can cause pollution).

L 216-218 “Zero-discharge principle applies to offshore wind farm construction; and procedures and measures are taken in order to prevent emissions from turbine operation” I’m not sure this is true for all countries needs a reference.

L219 wind towers vs wind turbines be consistent

Section 3

Line 234-236 Too many ‘ands’ use full stops and simplify.

Line 237-239 feels line a recommendation for the discussion (i.e. further research is needed) or are you saying these forms of pollution are in need of study in SES? If so anadromous fish is not a form of pollution.

Line 241 why just coastal? Surely also relevant for fully marine systems.

Line 245 Please define or explain clearly what you mean by positive and negative feedbacks e.g.

Positive feedback loops in a climate or ecological sense are destabilizing and tend to amplify changes and drive the system towards a tipping point where a new equilibrium is adopted. I think this is the opposite of what you mean here.

Figure 1 Your arrows only go one way but there is an argument that climate change could have a positive impact on the marine environment and reduce legacy contaminants e.g. in other areas than polar regions.

L 261-262 Need evidence for this statement, polar regions are remote, how exactly will it affect human communities? via increased contaminants in food? how will it actually affect human wellbeing/health? Your box 1 is good at defining the environmental impacts but links to the social system are less clear.

L 275 what are the specific climate targets formulated by the UN Paris Agreement?

L 281 I don’t think you have demonstrated they are non-linear - all your arrows are in the same direction i.e. they are sequential or straightforward. Perhaps clarify why nonlinear.

L 286 ‘Pollution is not a distant threat to biota in far-away places, out of sight in the oceans’ I respectfully disagree. If this is true the your case studies are flawed as the whole premise is based on the fact that the marine environment (not humans or coupled socio-ecological systems) are impacted even in remote locations (e.g.. polar regions).

L294 ‘Cases’ and no mention of ‘time-scales’ anywhere in the above text? E.g years or duration of effects? Remove or add detail to the above text about specific time-scales.

L295 Vague, define the political priorities and expansion stages do you mean construction -decommissioning stages? or the licencing process for offshore wind farms? Or something else.

L303 ‘of the elements’

L305 be consistent with the terms contaminants, pollutants or pollution throughout the document – this why a clear definition at the start (introduction) would be useful.

Section 4

L310-311 Too many plurals (‘s) also what are pollution or climate services? Are these ecosystem services? I would define here or better in the introduction.

L 317 again be consistent with systems terminology “land, sea and air bodies” e.g., you use air for the first time here - will these tools really help decision makers with air quality? Seems a stretch.

L328-329 “In terms of decades worth of ocean and coastal pollution research, coupled with the additional and compounding effects of climate change, what social innovation can support higher degrees of sustainability?” This question seems out of place as you don’t answer it. Suggest you rephrase that this is a key information gap and you will assess this by looking at xx tools and toolboxes below.

L331 I like your Figure 2 but you don’t go on to explain any of the interlinkages or approaches. I would suggest some text specifically outlining some of the iterative processes.

L339 ‘community is well-established’ needs a reference.

L350-351 You definition of toolboxes should come much earlier in section 4 (ideally before Figure 2)

Table 1 define diagnosis (D); transfer (T); services (S) either in the text or in the legend. Some of the text is cut off between the boxes.

L362- 382 Again you have provided a comprehensive list of tools in Table 1 but have not gone on to discuss any of these in detail e.g. which ones might be better for managers/decision makers in different contexts? Or which are more useful for certain pollutants? Or are there any limitations to any of the tools? More discussion and links back to table 1 are needed.

L 377 can any of the tools in table 1 be used to identify these ‘leverage points’?

L 388 there is a whole host of renewable energy ‘solutions’ to the climate crisis beyond offshore wind farms e.g. biomass, tidal, wave, floating solar CCS, hydrogen. Also it is very unlikely that offshore wind farm’s will have a ‘an environmentally neutral response for producing carbon neutral energy’. Reference this or rephrase.

L391 394 Yes agreed but how will your proposed tools help with the planning of spatial resources specifically?

Line 391 Too many plurals.

Conclusion

403 Highlighted > Highlight

405 and the social-ecological system. > on the social-ecological system(s).

409 remove the italics

423 achieving a good environmental status > achieving good environmental status of the oceans. This is a specific policy goal e.g. MSFD indicators link this.

423 Given the title of the paper is ‘Climate smart’ it would be useful somewhere in the conclusions to acknowledge how these tools are ‘Climate smart’ e.g. they can enable the exploration of different spatial management scenarios under different climate futures, as well as their prioritization in time. Perhaps link back to the SDGs or (UN) Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (IOC- UNESCO, 2018).

Recommendation: Climate-smart socially innovative tools and approaches for marine pollution science in support of sustainable development — R0/PR3

Comments

Comments to Author: This has potential to be a valuable contribution with extensive relevant material. As noted by Reviewer 1 there is a need for some additional attention to structure, definitions and consistency in terminology to ensure that this manuscripts maximizes it’s accessibility and impact. Of particular importance is to include a definition for pollution and a list of key pollutants. The paper currently only focuses on POPs and offshore energy. Whilst offshore energy will present a pressure, it is likely to be small as compared to other pollutants such as nutrients and plastics. As such it is recommended that the authors document the key pollutants (drawing on the extensive literature) and then provide some focus on those which are likely to have the most impact when combined with climate change. There needs to more justification for the case studies and they should be set in a broader context.

At present the structure is not well formed and needs substantial improvement - suggestions made by Reviewer 1 are recommended. The authors state they are undertaking a review but their approach to this is not clear. The manuscript seems to be based on a rather ad-hoc and random collection of papers. Details of how the review was approached and what literature was reviewed and why would be beneficial. A more thorough review of the literature is also advised.

There are a number of grammatical errors which need correcting for the paper to be understood. Many of these have been suggested by myself (below) and reviewer 1 but an additional detailed proof read by the authorship team would be recommended.

Reviewer 1 provides a details list of suggested updates which I would support. I also suggest a few additional edits as below.

I will look forward to seeing an improved resubmission as there is real potential in this manuscript.

Line 67 include reference to support importance of coast in ocean economy

Line 71 which goal? Be clear and state SDG ~14

Line 130 missing word, sentence doesn’t make sense

Line 130 – 133 grammatical structure needs addressing for sentence to be comprehensible

Line 155/156 “Thus climate change” Thus suggests that the previous text supports this sentence – it does not. If the authors wish to make this statement it should be referenced.

Line 170 “In the following paragraph” is stated. But it is in the current paragraph that Pops are focused on. This is very confusing. Why focus on POPs here? I would advise an earlier section defining the different types of pollutants and the in this section detail each group. Remove the word thus and instead provide a reference.

Line 202 – 221 The offshore wind is an interesting example, but given the many other pollutants it seems quite surprising to see a focus on this here. I would strongly encourage the authors to list all pollutant groups and then assess which of these are likely to have the most substantive effects and focus on these in this manuscript, Plastics and nutrients are two very significant pollutant groups which are hardly mentioned but which, when combined with climate change, will likely have a more significant effect (from a pollution perspective) than wind farms in the future years.

Figure 1 would benefit from more explanation in the text. It is not clear how one would “offset” another. The impacts of the two sides would be very different and not comparable, rendering any “offset” unworkable. Perhaps use an alternative word?

Section 3 is titled as describing SES but is focussed on SDGs with minimal and cursory links to SES – suggest revisit content or retitle.

Table 1 is a useful list of tools to connect science to decision making but it is generic and not specific to pollution of climate change. Suggest this is revisited to include examples specific to the manuscript focus. This section needs to include some examples of where science has been successfully used in a decision making context to impact the management of pollution and climate pressures. At present it is too generic and lacks focus.

Decision: Climate-smart socially innovative tools and approaches for marine pollution science in support of sustainable development — R0/PR4

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Climate-smart socially innovative tools and approaches for marine pollution science in support of sustainable development — R1/PR5

Comments

Dear Prof. Spencer,

We are delighted to be invited to submit our article on “Climate-smart, socially innovative tools and approaches for marine pollution science in support of sustainable development” with clear references to the SDG process.

We very much appreciated the very concrete and forward looking suggestions of both reviewers. These clearly helped to increase consistency of the framework and the paper. We hope to satisfy all reviewers' expectations.

We just want to emphasise the following. There was a basic decision of all co-authors to carefully balance adding more contextual details, as requested by both reviewers and particularly reviewer #2. For example, one reviewer asked for detail on chemical groups (list), properties and a valuation of the severity of them. We felt that adding more detail on these issues would distract from the major strands of the article. On the other hand we acknowledged the suggestion to be more concise and structured. We followed this suggestion by shortening paragraphs, and most importantly focussing on the key points.

These key points are summarized by the objective, which is “to establish the need for pollution management tools and approaches that are appropriate for the interacting impacts of climate and pollution in complex coastal SESs”. The focus is on illuminating the multiple cause-effect relationships of intended and unintended side effects in order to justify the development and application of a toolbox approach helping to provide actionable knowledge for a sustainable coast. The SDG relation seems to be an appropriate way to show these relationships.

We think that this is a useful way and hope it explains why some requested detail on chemicals was not included.

We are looking forward to the response and thanks for your support in publishing with the Coastal Futures journal,

Kind regards

Marcus Lange for the authors team

Just one remark,

We are considering using a graphical abstract based on one Figure in the article. Maybe we can discuss how to proceed.

Review: Climate-smart socially innovative tools and approaches for marine pollution science in support of sustainable development — R1/PR6

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to Author: The authors have largely addressed many of the concerns raised from the first round of review. As a result, the manuscript has been substantially re-written and is much improved. I do have a few final comments (below) following which I would suggest the manuscript is acceptable for publication.

1) First and most importantly - More detail is still needed around how you conducted your semi-systematic review – e.g. what key words you used? Did you exclude any studies? Which search engines did you use? and a list of the 120 papers which should ideally be included as an appendix.

2) The Abstract still refers to ‘cases’ rather than ‘case studies’.

3) Line 104-105 the rationale for looking at offshore wind farms is still unclear here (but better explained in the case studies). Suggest rephrase these lines by switching them e.g. the reason you are looking at offshore wind is because the data for point source pollution from offshore wind farms is scarce.

4) Line 261 The context here is very Europe focused – when in fact offshore wind and contaminants released from them is increasingly a global issue – with emerging markets in the UK, USA and China (but also a number of other countries). I would perhaps widen the scope here.

5) Line 481 “unintended side effects between the rapid expansion of offshore wind farms and their possible impact as a source of (heavy) metal pollution are emerging” needs a reference.

Recommendation: Climate-smart socially innovative tools and approaches for marine pollution science in support of sustainable development — R1/PR7

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Climate-smart socially innovative tools and approaches for marine pollution science in support of sustainable development — R1/PR8

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Climate-smart socially innovative tools and approaches for marine pollution science in support of sustainable development — R2/PR9

Comments

Dear Editors,

Dear Reviewers,

We very much appreciate the positive feedback. Many thanks for your invitation to submit a R2 of our manuscript titled "Climate-smart, socially innovative tools and approaches for marine pollution science in support of sustainable development”. We hope to satisfy the reviewer’s expectations and gratefully acknowledge spending time on reviewing the manuscript.

Please consider to assign the following existing Orcid IDs missing in the initial authors' list:

David Cabana: 0000-0002-2614-7276

Ralf Ebinghaus: 0000-0003-0324-5524

Hanna Joerss: 0000-0002-1779-1940

Please find below the responses to the reviewers' comments, whcih are also attached as seperate file.

Many thanks for your efforts in this submission process.

Kind regards

Marcus Lange for the authors team

Authors’ comments to Reviewers: Revisions #2

Handling Editor’s Comments to Author:

Handling Editor: Beaumont, Nicola

Comments to the Author:

(There are no comments.)

Reviewer: 1

General remarks:

The authors have largely addressed many of the concerns raised from the first round of review. As a result, the manuscript has been substantially re-written and is much improved. I do have a few final comments (below) following which I would suggest the manuscript is acceptable for publication.

Remark Response

First and most importantly - More detail is still needed around how you conducted your semi-systematic review – e.g. what key words you used? Did you exclude any studies? Which search engines did you use? and a list of the 120 papers which should ideally be included as an appendix.

We included all the requested information and implemented a supplementary material of the papers selected for the review for the appendix (see Suppl Material, Appendix 1). To ensure clarity of the re-written manuscript, we decided not dedicate a separate section on highlighting the methodology behind the review but to briefly mention it in the introduction. Further information can be found in the Appendix. We came up with following:

“[…](see Supplementary material, Appendix 1 for papers). We use a qualitative analysis based on an inductive approach (Grounded Theory Method) (Glaser and Strauss, 2017). Keywords used within bibliographic databases, including Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus were ‘climate change’, ‘pollution’, ‘coast’, ‘ocean’, ‘marine system’ and ‘social-ecological’ in title, abstract, keyword (Scopus) or Topic (WoS) of the publication, with no date limitation. Keywords served as initial filters to find other papers and branches of interest in a snowball sampling approach. Grey literature was not considered.”

The Abstract still refers to ‘cases’ rather than ‘case studies’.

Corrected.

Line 104-105 the rationale for looking at offshore wind farms is still unclear here (but better explained in the case studies). Suggest rephrase these lines by switching them e.g. the reason you are looking at offshore wind is because the data for point source pollution from offshore wind farms is scarce.

Justification and rationale changed in accordance to comment.

The context here is very Europe focused – when in fact offshore wind and contaminants released from them is increasingly a global issue – with emerging markets in the UK, USA and China (but also a number of other countries). I would perhaps widen the scope here.

The context has been widened by emphasizing:

The global offshore wind market has developed rapidly over the past decade. From an initial concentration of offshore wind constructions in Europe, the majority of new installations in recent years has been observed in Asia, especially in China (Global Wind Energy Council, 2022). In Europe, offshore wind power produces 28 GW compared to 55.9 GW worldwide and the UN has set the ambitious goal of expanding the global offshore wind capacity to 380 GW by 2030 (Global Wind Energy Council, 2022; WindEurope, 2022).

The impacts and adverse effects of wind turbine technology on the marine environment have been well-studied, including, noise, habitat change and bird collision (Busch et al., 2013; Carstensen et al., 2006; Dolman & Jasny, 2015; Kastelein et al., 2019; Larsen, 2007). However, data and information on the potential impact of chemical pollutants from turbines in a rapidly developing global offshore wind market are only emerging.

Line 481 “unintended side effects between the rapid expansion of offshore wind farms and their possible impact as a source of (heavy) metal pollution are emerging” needs a reference.

This was not correct. Rather this sentence was mentioned as an authors’ statement contributing to the conclusions. It was changed to:

“However, unintended side effects between the rapid expansion of offshore wind farms and their possible impact as a source of (heavy) metal pollution need to be considered.”

Recommendation: Climate-smart socially innovative tools and approaches for marine pollution science in support of sustainable development — R2/PR10

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Climate-smart socially innovative tools and approaches for marine pollution science in support of sustainable development — R2/PR11

Comments

No accompanying comment.