Stressors arising from the intensification of anthropogenic activities on land and in the sea are threatening marine environments and the numerous ecosystem services they provide at multiple scales1,2,3. Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) is a holistic management approach that considers whole ecosystems, including the role of people as part of the ecosystem4. EBM recognises that ecosystems are complex, with extensive interaction networks between different components, which underpin marine ecosystem resilience and health5. EBM additionally considers the multiple human uses of marine ecosystems, the services provided and the trade-offs that may occur among them6,7. EBM in some form is widely accepted as the necessary framework for achieving sustainable marine ecosystem management8.

The push for an EBM approach has stemmed from lessons learned from past environmental management approaches which have tended to only consider single states, species or stressors in isolation. For example, in Newfoundland, the cod fishery was managed with the goal to maximise cod landings using predicted extraction limits from single-species (cod-specific) stock assessments, but did not consider the importance of bycatch of non-commercial species in food webs and in maintaining ecosystem stability9,10. The overexploitation of cod ultimately led to the collapse of the fishery by the 1990s, with food web shifts and ecosystem instability likely further preventing recovery10. By taking a holistic approach to marine management, EBM moves towards an approach that considers the connectivity between multiple ecosystem components6,11. In the context of a fishery, management decisions would need to consider the important food web dynamics and environmental influences on species’ abundances as well as the multiple effects on each of these components from human activities. More recently, ecosystem impacts are increasingly being considered pre-emptively. For example, a recent court case in Aotearoa New Zealand (2022) resulted in a reassessment of the Total Allowable Catch of rock lobster in Northland12 because it was argued that the stock assessment had not adequately considered the wider impacts of reduced lobster predation on urchin populations and subsequent loss of kelp forests13.

EBM principles have been aligned with international frameworks aimed at the sustainable management and use of natural ecosystems for decades (e.g., United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), and are now commonly incorporated in international frameworks and agreements (e.g., Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Framework, Convention on Biological Diversity14). Globally, a range of marine management practices have adopted adaptive and flexible strategies which align with, and provide tangible steps towards enabling, a full suite of EBM principles to set the overarching attributes of how people will interact with the marine environment (e.g., the key principles for successful Marine Spatial Planning outlined in Reimer et al.15). Nevertheless, despite the increasing research on and demand for positive changes in marine management and practices16,17, transitions to EBM as a potential solution are disparate and the overall health of marine ecosystems is continuing to decline18,19. This disconnect between the research and the implementation of EBM into management processes is therefore an issue that needs urgent attention.

Several challenges have been identified for enabling the implementation of EBM8,20. Although the term EBM has been used for decades, definitions vary widely across international literature21. This creates a lack of clarity for decision makers, who also generally have not been involved in the development of these definitions, making it difficult to understand what an EBM approach means practically. In conjunction, a lack of broad public understanding of marine ecosystems and EBM in democracies, can lead to poor decision-making by elected officials who are chosen from and by the voting public, arising in part from inadequate media coverage22. Additionally, the fragmented nature of management jurisdictions, policy and laws in many areas around the world has been identified as a challenge for EBM implementation23. A lack of empirical data is also commonly identified as a barrier for using tools to support EBM8. However, a better understanding of data availability and requirements, and where quantitative gaps can be filled through combining quantitative and qualitative data (e.g., via expert opinion) can support decision-making24,25. Such real and perceived barriers to implementing EBM can result in a paralysis of decision-making for marine management26, contributing to further harm whereby ecosystems surpass tipping points and undergo regime shifts to more degraded states27.

In Aotearoa New Zealand, a stronger focus towards EBM for the sustainable management of marine environments occurred with the development of the Sustainable Seas National Science Challenge in 2014 (hereafter referred to as ‘Sustainable Seas’). The focus of this 10-year research initiative was to develop knowledge and tools to support the implementation of EBM in Aotearoa New Zealand. One of the first steps taken was to articulate principles for EBM based on a review of common principles that appear in the literature and various international documents (e.g., collaborative decision-making, adaptive management28). Sustainable Seas identified seven principles of EBM for Aotearoa New Zealand (Fig. 1)29. While the majority of these principles reflect the same aspects described in global literature28, they also incorporate the essential role Māori – the Indigenous People of Aotearoa New Zealand – have in society and law through Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi. For context, Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi are part of the founding constitutions of the New Zealand state30,31. There is one Tiriti/Treaty with te reo Māori text (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) and the English text (the Treaty of Waitangi) which are fundamentally different agreements to each other30,32. Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the authentic treaty with most chiefs signing this agreement alongside William Hobson (Britain’s consul (diplomatic representative))30,33,34. It protects Māori authority and sovereignty and taonga (prized gifts – including resources, language, knowledge)30. It is evident that the holistic approach of EBM also shares similarities with elements of te ao Māori (Māori worldview)35,36 and other Indigenous Peoples’ worldviews highlighting the interconnectivity within and between ecosystems and the close connection between people and nature37,38. As such, the EBM principles articulated for Aotearoa New Zealand emphasise co-governance (including tikanga (customs) and partnership) and the use of different sources of knowledge (including the validity of mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) as central to research as well as woven with Western sciences; Fig. 1)39,40.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The seven Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) principles developed by Sustainable Seas for Aotearoa New Zealand (as outlined by Hewitt et al.29).

Full size image

With an increase in the research on EBM, the availability and understanding of what is needed to help support its implementation has also increased. Through Sustainable Seas, a variety of guidance and frameworks were developed to assist decision-making for marine management (e.g., see www.Tohora.org.nz), alongside the identification and development of tools. A review of commonly used tools to support EBM25,41 identified that there is a wide variety of methodological approaches that can support decision-making ranging from ‘simple’ likelihood-consequence matrices (e.g., Campbell and Hewitt42) to more complex end-to-end models (e.g., Atlantis43,44). Here when we refer to ‘tools’ to facilitate decision-making we are inclusive of guidance and frameworks that can be considered ‘a basic structure’ plan or system, and of methodologies that perform or facilitate operations41. Globally, challenges arise from a lack of clear understanding of what tools are available, which are the most suitable to address specific environmental issues, and the data requirements8. These challenges hinder the uptake and continued use of tools by users to support marine management8,45,46. An enhanced understanding of tool availability and the utility of different tools to assist decision-making could empower their use to support EBM in marine environments.

This paper contributes to the practicable uptake of EBM by providing a framework for considering tools which can support EBM. We reflect on the barriers to and opportunities for the utilisation of tools to support the implementation of EBM. We focus on the selection of appropriate tools in the context of the issue to be tackled, and when and how tools are introduced into the management process. To facilitate this discussion, we draw on two examples of researcher–user engagement undertaken in Aotearoa New Zealand that purposely aimed to test pathways for using tools that can incorporate the principles of EBM to aid decision-making. With the concentrated effort to shift towards an uptake of EBM for informing environmental management decisions, with an emphasis on the incorporation of different forms of knowledge, these examples have the potential to provide insights for EBM implementation globally.

Key considerations for selecting tools

Many tools are available to support marine management. When selecting a tool or range of tools to support decision-making for EBM, the ability of each tool to support EBM principles and meet specific management outcomes needs to be considered. This section describes some of the considerations for selecting the right tool for the context of the issue to be tackled.

Assessment criteria, considerations and how that matches the EBM criteria

Various decision-support tools have been developed to enable evidence-based planning to foster the EBM principles (i.e., see subset of decision-support tools in Fig. 2a), including those which incorporate mātauranga Māori, tikanga Māori and kaitiakitanga (e.g., Bulmer et al.40). Clark et al.25 developed 12 criteria for assessing risk assessments in an EBM context, which we suggest can be applied more broadly to assess tools for supporting general EBM decision-making (e.g., expanding the evidence base to help in data poor situations). To help practitioners and decision makers identify decision-support tools that are fit for purpose, these criteria can be separated into six key questions that each address a different aspect of tool utility: Does the tool (1) integrate ecosystem complexity?; (2) accommodate a range of components, outcomes and stressors?; (3) assess risk at a specific place and time?; (4) accommodate different knowledge types?; (5) evaluate recovery as well as degradation?; and/or (6) evaluate and communicate uncertainty?25,41 (Table 1). These questions can help identify the utility of different tools with respect to outcomes, values, activities, stressors and connections (including underpinning knowledge types), and the utility of the tool to align with different principles of EBM (Table 1). While a given tool may not deliver on all aspects listed, the greater the number of aspects that are met by a tool, the greater the potential for that tool to align with the principles of EBM and support decision-making25.

Fig. 2: Tool selection to support an Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) restoration project identified by the Kotahitanga mō te Taiao Alliance (KMTT) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC).
figure 2

a Decision tree to help choose an illustrative subset of tools to support EBM objectives mapped to b the results chain for Case One for achieving the KMTT/TNC restoration strategy (1) to support cultural harvest and support ecosystem health and resilience. Results chain includes a series of expected outcomes/objectives (2–9) leading to the desired impact (10). Symbols distinguish if the outputs account for spatial (location marker) and temporal variation (clock), allow scenario testing (screen/monitor) and/or account for uncertainty (question mark). Each tool is also assessed as being easy (green), moderate (orange), or difficult (red) to use. Black boarders on result chain objectives (b) indicate those that could be supported with the use of a tool(s), as indicated on the decision tree mapping a (see Supplementary Table S1 for definitions of decision tree considerations (columns) (adapted from information presented in Clark et al.25 & Blackett et al.41)).

Full size image
Table 1 Key questions for decision-support tools and their ability to support the following principles of Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM): human activities (orange symbol), co-governance (light blue symbol), knowledge-based (pink symbol), sustainability (dark green symbol), collaborative decision-making (green symbol), tailored (brown symbol), and adapts (grey symbol)(see Fig. 1)
Full size table

Tools need to be assessed/prioritised based on suitability

Alongside the ability for tools to support EBM, the suitability of a tool is reliant on context, i.e., resource and data availability, and the users’ key considerations for management objectives (see additional tool considerations in Fig. 2a). For example, different tools vary in the effort required (time and cost) as well as the expertise needed to implement them. The outputs of tools will also vary in their interpretability by various audiences. A complex interplay ultimately exists between the precision, accuracy and uncertainty in the outputs that different tools can provide47. Importantly, only a subset of tools is likely to be useful for supporting the context and objectives of a management decision.

No single tool is likely to be enough

Tools do not need to be used in isolation and in some cases the use of only one tool could restrict the ability to support decision-making by aligning with only a few of the principles of EBM. Using multiple tools may support different parts of a management goal and cover more of the requirements to support EBM. Integration of a suite of tools into a holistic framework can be a powerful way to combine the advantages and counteract the limitations, of individual tools. For example, the Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing (ERAEF) is a hierarchical risk assessment framework developed to manage Australian fisheries48. It moves from a comprehensive but largely qualitative analysis of risk at Level 1 (Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis), through to a more focused and semi-quantitative approach at Level 2 (Productive-Susceptibility Analysis), to a highly focused and fully quantitative model at Level 3 (Sustainability Assessment for Fishing Effects)(Fig. 2a). The different levels of assessment provide a series of filters to screen out low risks, with the assessment moving to the next level only if the risk is judged to not have exceeded a determined threshold48.

Additionally, some tools can be nested together. In Bulmer et al.40, a species distribution model (SDM) was combined with a Bayesian Network (BN) model to spatially model the implications of different management scenarios on the likelihood of shellfish restoration. The nesting of these tools helped fill gaps in empirical datasets/relationships from the SDM with expert and Indigenous knowledge within the BN as well as to account for and display uncertainty in outputs using a probabilistic framework40. Another well-established example of nested tool use is the combination of, geospatial datasets representing ecological and/or socioeconomic values (derived from, e.g., SDMs or other tools that produce spatial outputs), in spatial prioritisation analysis. Spatial prioritisation tools aim to identify important areas for a given management objective (e.g., identification of marine protected areas) but they can also evaluate multi-objectives49, for example identify areas which maximise conservation benefits while minimising economic impacts to fisheries50.

Considerations for introducing tools into a management process

Besides the considerations for selecting the right tool or suite of tools for the context of the issue to be tackled, several considerations exist for introducing tools into a management process.

Fostering EBM as a transformation from social-ecological degradation toward more sustainable pathways requires collective engagement of all key stakeholders51 and collaborative, co-designed, participatory decision-making processes (Fig. 1). Assessing when and how to nurture the different partnerships required is a significant component of an effective EBM process.

One goal of the EBM tools developed through Sustainable Seas was for these to be available and accessible for use now and in the future by the users of research outputs; including marine resource managers, kaitiaki (environmental guardians), decision makers and marine businesses, amongst others. The use of those tools should help facilitate a practical pathway to implementing EBM and ultimately improve the health of our seas. All Sustainable Seas guidance, frameworks and tools are freely available through an AI assisted search tool Tohorā (www.Tohora.org.nz) and through an open access repository (https://niwa-nscs.figshare.com/). It is envisaged that users will be able to select some tools to adapt and use independently, while others are likely to require specialist technical expertise to support their uptake.

Two cases

In the second five-year phase of the 10-year research programme, Sustainable Seas adopted an explicit co-development approach to designing and implementing research52. All 35 research projects were co-developed (and implemented) between researchers and one or more of; marine businesses, communities, iwi/hapū (Indigenous Māori tribes/subtribes) or central and regional government agencies. Nevertheless, by the time Sustainable Seas was due to enter the final Synthesis Phase before programme end (January 2022–June 2024), many of the tools that had been developed for EBM through this process had not been trialled with end-users beyond the partners of the research projects. To address this, one activity within the Synthesis Phase was to explore with new end-users the practicalities of identifying and applying tools for EBM to meet specific objectives. A list of six potential cases (groups of end-users who were in the process of pursuing specific marine management objectives) was assessed against four criteria: (i) level of readiness and ability to engage, (ii) aims that can be generalised to other situations/end-users, (iii) at least one case with an industry (blue economy) priority as an entry point, (iii) at least one case where scenarios are able to be defined from a te ao Māori perspective and (iv) representative of different geographic scales and different levels of decision makers.

Two cases from the list met the criteria, including having end-users in a position to engage with researchers within the available time frame. Both cases comprised multiple end-users with different mandates, and each was undertaking different internal processes. For Case One we describe the process of identifying a series of relevant tools to support marine management objectives in a series of workshops that were part of a larger collaborative participatory process being facilitated separately from Sustainable Seas by the end-user group (described further below). This case included scenarios being defined from a te ao Māori perspective. For Case Two which was focused on fisheries management in a blue economy, we describe the outcomes of three workshops that were arranged specifically for this study, to socialise a tool used to undertake scenario testing as a means of supporting decision-making for EBM. Through working with end-users, we aimed to gain insights into the opportunities and considerations for tool uptake and use to support marine EBM implementation.

Case One: feeding tools into a multi-disciplinary participatory process

The process of identifying and selecting appropriate tools to support marine restoration projects was tested with a group of stakeholders that had been convened independently from Sustainable Seas, through a collaboration between the Kotahitanga mō te Taiao Alliance (KMTT) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC). KMTT was formed in 2017 and includes iwi and councils located across a vast geographic region spanning the top of Te Waipounamu/the South Island of Aotearoa New Zealand (New Zealand’s largest island)53, along with national government partners (e.g., the Department of Conservation). KMTT has a vision to restore and enhance the environment around the top of the South Island. The shared aim and the inclusive nature of KMTT determined that this group was well suited to an EBM approach.

The KMTT/TNC collaboration comprised six (sectoral) project workstreams. The marine workstream included government officials, scientists and experts that were nominated by KMTT member organisations. The project strategy involved a series of TNC facilitated workshops which used a very deliberate planning process to collaboratively identify and prioritise projects that would increase the interconnected wellbeing of local communities and marine environments across the top of the South Island. The ‘Restoration by Design’ process, based on TNCs institutional planning framework ‘Conservation by Design’54,55 and adjusted for the Aotearoa New Zealand context, culminated in a ‘Theory of Change’. This comprised results chains showing the direct relationship between one result (outcome) and another, and the state resulting from actions to achieve conservation/restoration goals55. A step in the KMTT/TNC facilitated process was to assess the interventions and/or tools that could be applied to achieve these results and to understand the requirements, resources and capacity to implement tools. The partnership between Sustainable Seas and KMTT/TNC was focused on this step. Although, it was beyond the end date of the Sustainable Seas Programme for researchers to maintain a collaboration with KMTT/TNC that would fully establish the requirements, resources and capacity to implement tools for a specific project. This highlights that although this activity was a timebound process for Sustainable Seas researchers, time scales for EBM implementation are not. It is expected that over time not all stakeholders will be able to be at the table and that different partnerships will need to be developed and nurtured.

The first workshops of the KMTT/TNC facilitated planning process were held in late 2022. Around the same time, Sustainable Seas researchers were invited to collaborate with the marine workstream to identify relevant guidance and tools developed within Sustainable Seas that could support identified restoration projects. Recognising that a level of trust and understanding was required as to what a ‘partnership’ with Sustainable Seas would bring to the process, one-on-one meetings were initially held with the TNC facilitators in the months leading up to the introduction of tools. At that time, it was agreed that the mechanism for determining the role of the researchers at each workshop, the type of information that would be presented, and how feedback would be elicited from the participants to contribute to this study, would be discussed with the facilitators at regular on-line meetings, at a minimum, before and after each workshop. During 2023, Sustainable Seas researchers attended four of the KMTT/TNC facilitated marine workstream workshops and/or meetings with small groups (either in person or online) at moments in the process that were judged to be relevant by the KMTT/TNC facilitators. This enabled the introduction and socialisation of tools to be undertaken within a staged, iterative and adaptive process. The researchers initially presented a broad summary of tools that Sustainable Seas had produced that could be relevant to the priority issues identified at an early stage of the ‘Restoration by Design’ process. Over time, the suite of options was narrowed down to those that seemed likely to be most relevant based on key considerations for tool selection identified by the marine workstream (Fig. 2a). These attributes included:

  • Assess risk from different points of view and acknowledge obligations under a Te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi partnership

  • Link and account for different social, ecological and cultural indictors

  • Be multi-disciplinary

  • Account for uncertainty

  • Account for different types of data (including mātauranga Māori)

  • Be used in situations with low data/information

  • Explore different scenarios and sensitivities, and/or

  • Account for and generate outputs that were temporally and spatially explicit.

While these attributes were the views of the marine workstream members, it is evident that these important attributes overlap closely with criteria for decision-support tools for EBM (see Table 1). Once a priority restoration project of the marine workstream had been identified – ‘Restoration and/or rehabilitation to support cultural harvest and support ecosystem health and resilience’ – the tools that could more specifically support the activities and objectives of the restoration project (e.g., selection of site; Fig. 2b) were mapped to the results chain by Sustainable Seas researchers (Fig. 2a). For example, using the decision tree (Fig. 2a), tools needed to be able to include multiple knowledge types (column 2, Fig. 2a) to achieve the goals of the study. This would narrow down the suitable methods to six: Likelihood-Consequence, Productivity Susceptibility Analysis, Agent-based models, Cumulative Effects principles, spatial prioritisation tools and Bayesian Networks (BNs)(Fig. 2a - acknowledging the list of tools provided is a subset of decision-support tools). Secondly, it would be important that the method account for multiple stressors or responses to explore possible management strategies for improving restoration outcomes (Medium – very high complexity, column 1, Fig. 2a). This would narrow down the suitable methods to four: Agent-based models, Cumulative Effects principles, spatial prioritisation tools and BNs. This process is continued until a final tool or combination of tools is selected, also considering output types, for example, whether the outputs are spatially explicit and/or temporal, whether the tool allows for scenario testing and/or accounts for uncertainty and the relative ease of using the tool. The most appropriate tools included those that used a “systems approach” (e.g., BNs, agent-based models, system mapping), and accounted for spatial, temporal, and scenario testing (e.g., species and biodiversity modelling, spatial prioritisation tools) (Fig. 2a). Many of the tools were identified as being able to support multiple outcomes of the results chain, although, no single tool could support them all (Fig. 2a, b). Thus, multiple tools were identified as being necessary to support the overall management goal.

In addition, the availability and refinement of tools will continue to change over time. For example, one document in production but not yet available to the Sustainable Seas researchers at the time of the workshops, was guidance on how different perceptions of risk and uncertainty influence marine management decisions41. This guidance was specific to Aotearoa New Zealand acknowledging the obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi to recognise the unique knowledge of Māori (mātauranga), and their exercising of kaitiakitanga (guardianship in relation with their environment)41. This guidance could also have been applied to the results chain.

Reflections from Case One on the engagement of people who are developing tools with decision-makers included: (i) there is value in scoping and building partnerships for accessing tools as early as is practicable in a collaborative and participatory EBM process, but as implementing EBM is a long term endeavour for managers, then different partnerships will be required, or be more or less effective, at different times; (ii) ideally there is sufficient time and opportunity to introduce tools in a staged and reflective manner, ensuring that stakeholders are not overwhelmed with too much information at one time; (iii) relationships (and the tools themselves) will change over time. Processes need to be adaptive to ensure that the best information is being used and that they are achieving their goal.

Case Two: socialisation of a tool for supporting decision-making using scenario testing

As part of the research by Clark et al.25, Bayesian Networks (BNs) were identified as meeting, to some extent, all the criteria required for EBM risk assessment tools. BNs are probabilistic models that provide a graphical representation of a network of variables (called nodes) and their interactions. The relationships between variables are displayed as links (arrows), with the direction, strength and shape of these dependencies quantified using conditional probabilities56. The utility of BNs as a tool for use in decision-making for marine management was tested with six employees from two key New Zealand government agencies; Fisheries New Zealand (part of the Ministry for Primary Industries) and the Department of Conservation. Information for selecting tools was supportive of meeting ongoing mandated management commitments in government agencies and as such, filled a purpose of informing a subset of stakeholders about tool options prior to undertaking a specific collaborative and participatory planning process. These agencies sought to increase their understanding of how to implement an EBM approach to marine management. Additionally, given the ability for BNs to strongly align with the EBM criteria, the agencies were interested in gaining experience in applying BNs as a decision-making tool and testing their utility for informing recommendations to manage the marine environment.

Three workshops were held between the Sustainable Seas researchers and the Fisheries New Zealand/Department of Conservation group specifically to explore the utility of BNs for aiding management decisions. At the initial workshop, it was decided that the focus would be on scenarios involving fishery management decisions which could influence the abundance of snapper (Chrysophyrys auratus), rock lobster (Jasus edwardsii), kina (sea urchin, Evechinus chloroticus) and kelp (e.g., Ecklonia sp.) cover. This topic was chosen as in Aotearoa New Zealand overfishing of large predators (e.g., snapper and rock lobster) has been identified as contributing to declines of kelp forests alongside coastal darkening due to increased inputs of terrestrial sediments57,58. This has resulted in shifts to kina barren habitats and a significant loss of biodiversity and ecological functioning of these areas57,58. In the second workshop, BNs were co-developed by the workshop participants and Sustainable Seas researchers (e.g., selecting nodes for the BNs), expanding on the BN developed by Parsons et al.59. The BNs incorporated detailed quantitative data (e.g. the size classes of snapper derived from a previously undertaken stock assessment), less detailed information on the quantity of terrestrial sediment in coastal habitats coming from the land59, and qualitative information on the interaction of kelp forests with snapper and crayfish abundance, kina barrens and the value of snapper and crayfish recreational fishing and tourism (unpublished BN model). A final workshop was held to present the end models and explore illustrative management scenarios of different fishery management decisions on kelp cover and the abundance of snapper, rock lobster and kina. The aim of this work was not to produce a BN model which had explanatory power, but rather to illustrate how scenario testing can be undertaken and used to support the decision-making process.

To gauge the effect of the socialisation of the BNs, at the start and end of the final workshop, participants filled in a poll regarding their perceptions of the usefulness of BNs to support their goals and to foster EBM/EBFM (Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management) based on a scale from 1 to 10 (1 = not useful, 10 = extremely useful). By the end of the final workshop, scores for usefulness of the tool for work/research goals increased from mean rating of 6 to 6.9, and usefulness for supporting EBM/EBFM increased from 6.6 to 7.3. This suggests an increased perceived usefulness of the tool possibly due to a feeling of greater understanding of how the tool works and how to interpret the outputs with greater confidence. In addition, the involvement of the group in selecting nodes for the BN and on the scenarios to be run in the final workshop may have contributed to this increased usefulness scores. Furthermore, the workshop participants identified what they thought were the attributes/benefits and weaknesses of using BNs as a fisheries management tool (Table 2).

Table 2 Attributes/benefits and weaknesses of Bayesian Network (BN) models identified by workshop participants from Fisheries New Zealand and the Department of Conservation following socialisation of the BNs as a tool to support marine management
Full size table

Key lessons for adopting tools for EBM

Through working with users in Case One and Two on the processes of introducing, selecting and socialising tools, we identified nine general lessons that could assist with the adoption of tools to support EBM implementation. Although we focus on the findings from these two Aotearoa New Zealand cases in marine environments, the lessons could also be used to support the adoption of tools in other environments and parts of the world. The lessons learned on tool selection are broadly applicable to other regions where definitions and principles for EBM have been established (e.g., as summarised in Long et al.28). However, a key distinction in our approach is the explicit recognition of the central role of Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand’s legal and societal frameworks within the EBM principles29. This serves as an exemplar for other countries where we argue that Indigenous leadership should shape EBM principles while aligning with national policy frameworks. Transitioning to an EBM approach that centres Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities in biodiversity conservation and sustainable use reflects international legal documents that acknowledge Indigenous rights to water and related ecosystems (e.g., Principle 3 of the 2018 Brasília Declaration of Judges on Water Justice60) (as discussed in Macpherson61 & Macpherson et al.62), and global commitments, such as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework14 where Indigenous knowledge and rights are explicitly embedded across multiple targets. The lessons outlined below for incorporating tools into an EBM process are applicable and adaptable globally, but importantly, the implementation of tools should consider both their appropriateness and ability to meaningfully integrate the growing recognition of the critical role Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities play in biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.

Tools can be useful as a communication tool for end-user engagement

The ease with which the purpose of a tool can be communicated amongst different groups and individuals, and its ability to illustrate the views or values of various stakeholders, was recognised as a desirable characteristic, particularly for community and stakeholder engagement (as also found by Laurila-Pant et al.63, Linkov et al.64 and Kaikkonen et al.65). Specifically, if the benefits and limitations of tools are able to be effectively communicated to end-users with a wide range of backgrounds and technical abilities then they could better support EBM. Further, tools that use inclusive, co-developed approaches can align with key components of EBM (Fig. 1, Table 1).

For tools to be effective, how they work needs to be understandable, and the results they produce need to be interpretable (by everyone involved)

For tools that support EBM to be adopted, how they work and the results they produce needs to be interpretable by users/stakeholders with a wide range of backgrounds and technical abilities. This is especially important under circumstances where the interpretability of results is compromised by the complexity of the tools or where there are information gaps in the data. Tools that can be developed through participatory processes with users/stakeholders can help to increase the confidence of end-users in understanding tools, making them less of a ‘black box’65,66. A particular level of understanding of the tool(s) can enable users who are not ecological experts to have confidence in the ecological insights provided for decision-making and planning processes. This highlights the value of the socialisation phase, so that tools can be applied, interpreted and communicated effectively.

For EBM tools to inform management, their outputs need to be trusted

One of the main barriers to the uptake of EBM tools is the level of trust in their underpinning models. This closely aligns with insights from previous studies, which found that communicating model limitations and uncertainty is vital if they are to be used in decision-making67,68. Model uncertainty is often poorly evaluated and reported69, and this can lead to misconceptions regarding the confidence level with which results can be used in decision-making70,71. Reporting uncertainty increases the confidence to use model outputs for decision-making as well as the credibility of models72. To help promote trust in model outputs, labelling the certainty of the results rather than the uncertainty should be undertaken.

Tools that can perform scenario testing are valuable

The ability to undertake scenario testing was identified as a valuable aspect of tools in both cases (Table 2). Scenario testing allows users to ask ‘what if’ questions in relation to achieving different management objectives. Scenario testing was also highlighted as useful for government officials as a means of exploring different management actions/decisions and the uncertainty around the likely outcomes of a particular action/decision (as also found by Johnson et al.73). Scenario testing can be facilitated by using a range of possible values to parameterise models, instead of final numbers, to determine how they might affect the management outcome74. This allows decision makers to identify the most favourable course of action.

There should be broad involvement in using tools to assist management implementation

The successful uptake of EBM requires an understanding of which policy processes and stakeholder needs must be addressed29. Effective application and uptake of EBM in policy and decision-making therefore not only requires understanding of the main topics and questions of interest, but also a close involvement of policy makers, practitioners and other relevant stakeholders throughout a process that aims to move towards EBM. It is therefore important to identify the relevant stakeholders to be engaged at different times to effect transformation75 so there is sufficient involvement of, and interactions between, stakeholders, scientists and policymakers in developing scenarios and models to assist policy design and implementation.

Ability for tools to be holistic and flexible is important for decision-making to transition towards an EBM approach

The flexibility of tools to accommodate different data types from different disciplines was identified as an important attribute of a tool (Table 2), recognising that this complexity is needed as decision-making transitions towards an EBM approach25. Tools that have the capacity to integrate multi-disciplinary information and different knowledge types allow the complexity of social-ecological systems to be reflected in line with a move towards the more holistic approach of EBM (Table 1; Fig. 2a)29. In addition, the capacity to integrate different knowledge types can allow tools to support an approach that is inclusive of different views and values of users as well as facilitating an adaptive approach to management.

In house capabilities are required to ensure the adoption of some tools

While some tools can be used with relatively little training with outputs that are easily interpreted and communicated, others are more complex and may require expert/technical knowledge to use (Fig. 2a). If financial resources permit the use of more complex tools, then strategic investment by an organisation in the technical capacity to support the use of such tools was recognised as being necessary to ensure their effective use. This might substitute, or complement, the contracting of capabilities to use the tool through research providers for discrete research projects.

Tools should be introduced via an iterative and adaptive process

For effective uptake of tools, an introduction to and socialisation of available tools is ideally undertaken within a staged, iterative and adaptive process (e.g., as for Case One). Information on the tools that are available to support EBM and their capacities will be helpful in the early stages of a project or process, but equally too much information too early on can be overwhelming. A staged introduction whereby additional information on tools and their capabilities are provided incrementally are most useful as it can allow tool use to be adapted as a project develops and capacity is known (e.g. available data, in-house capacity/funding, timeframes). Resources which make information on tools and their utility easily accessible and understandable for different groups and individuals can assist with this process outside of the need to bring in specialist knowledge (if required) (Table 2). For example, through the development and open access of user-friendly documentation for tools and examples of applications (e.g., BN model building software GeNIe, BayesFusion (https://www.bayesfusion.com/), Zonation49).

A challenge for introducing tools into a project or management process can be the relatively short timescales that are not set up for sufficiently participatory or collaborative approaches. Research funding periods to develop or refine tools is one example (e.g. 2–3 years for the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) Endeavour Fund Smart Ideas, 3–4 years for the equivalent UK Natural Environment Research Council’s Pushing the frontiers of environmental research). Longer-term projects, such as the National Science Challenges (10 years) and the EU Horizon projects (up to 5 years, but with the possibility of new projects directly following on from existing projects), that can allow for the co-development of tools have a greater chance of resulting in successful uptake and utilisation and just as importantly, can allow collaborations to be built across institutions and the skills and interests of different people to be known (e.g., ability to model BNs) which can continue to be leveraged for future implementation of EBM.

No single tool is likely to be enough

To address the different principles of EBM as well as the context of the issue being tackled, a suite of tools will likely be needed, as opposed to only one tool (as also highlighted by Papadopoulou et al.76). For example, while BNs have been identified to meet all the aspects required for an EBM approach, they only meet each aspect to a certain extent25. Thus, a combination of tools may be needed to support the different project objectives (e.g., as for Case One) as well as each of the aspects of EBM (e.g., Bulmer et al.40). Additionally, over time, management objectives may shift and new tools and approaches for their use will become more available, so having the flexibility in the use of tools may better ensure the best tools are being used to support management goals.

Conclusion

There are a range of decision-making tools that are readily available, are relatively easy to use and are fit for purpose to support EBM, especially when used in combination. Research in Aotearoa New Zealand has demonstrated that the rights, needs and aspirations of Indigenous People can be integrated into the principles of EBM29 and through the process of undertaking researcher-end-user engagement we have identified key considerations for selecting tools that can assist the implementation of tools in EBM. We have distilled lessons for integrating EBM tools into planning processes that will be valuable for fostering the implementation of an EBM approach to marine management around the world, supporting the goals and targets of global initiatives (e.g. Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Framework14). Our considerations and lessons can serve as a framework to help guide the uptake and utilisation of tools to support EBM and improve the health of our marine environments.