SD
Steven Degraer
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
3 records found
1
Journal article
(2026)
-
Steven Degraer, Loreta Cornacchia, Alex Ziemba, Tundi Agardy, Sander W.K. van den Burg, Karin van de Braak, Luca A. van Duren, Annelies Declercq, Ghada El Serafy, More Authors
Nature-inclusive design (NID) of marine infrastructure comes in different forms, but always refers to the creation of optimized artificial habitat to locally enhance biodiversity. In essence, NID comprises the local addition of something non-natural to infrastructure with the aim of providing habitat for biodiversity assets in its widest sense. In its purest sense, NID is inspired by how the local environment would be without the infrastructure being present. NIDs of marine infrastructure, however, often comprise actions that promote biodiversity which does or did not naturally occur at that location. To ensure consistent use of terminology, we recommend adopting an NID trichotomy when reflecting on the appropriateness of NID applications in the marine realm, distinguishing between (i) restorative NID, linked to the restoration of lost local ecosystem values, and (ii) creative NID, referring to artificially created ecosystem assets and containing either (a) optimized infrastructure or (b) add-on structures. Restorative NID refers to measures which facilitate and speed-up nature restoration, while creative NID refers to measures to boost biodiversity ‘beyond the natural’. Beyond the importance of distinguishing different types of NID, it is important to also reflect on which biodiversity assets we elect to boost. Nowadays, much focus is placed on species richness or select species of commercial or conservational interest, while a focus on functional ecosystem assets may be more effective. A focus on functional ecosystem assets also provides better options for climate-proof NID designs. To adopt NID in an offshore renewables context, it is imperative to hold our horses and carefully consider what is the target to be achieved and how to get there. This requires a careful selection of the ecological assets that we aim to promote, while preserving the functional purpose of the marine infrastructure and incorporating the differing societal viewpoints on any potentially negative ecological consequences that may be incurred by NID solutions. In summary, restorative NID can be actively promoted, whereas creative NID requires more careful reflection; NID preferably prioritizes functional ecosystem assets and explicitly considers which ecological values to promote and why.
...
Nature-inclusive design (NID) of marine infrastructure comes in different forms, but always refers to the creation of optimized artificial habitat to locally enhance biodiversity. In essence, NID comprises the local addition of something non-natural to infrastructure with the aim of providing habitat for biodiversity assets in its widest sense. In its purest sense, NID is inspired by how the local environment would be without the infrastructure being present. NIDs of marine infrastructure, however, often comprise actions that promote biodiversity which does or did not naturally occur at that location. To ensure consistent use of terminology, we recommend adopting an NID trichotomy when reflecting on the appropriateness of NID applications in the marine realm, distinguishing between (i) restorative NID, linked to the restoration of lost local ecosystem values, and (ii) creative NID, referring to artificially created ecosystem assets and containing either (a) optimized infrastructure or (b) add-on structures. Restorative NID refers to measures which facilitate and speed-up nature restoration, while creative NID refers to measures to boost biodiversity ‘beyond the natural’. Beyond the importance of distinguishing different types of NID, it is important to also reflect on which biodiversity assets we elect to boost. Nowadays, much focus is placed on species richness or select species of commercial or conservational interest, while a focus on functional ecosystem assets may be more effective. A focus on functional ecosystem assets also provides better options for climate-proof NID designs. To adopt NID in an offshore renewables context, it is imperative to hold our horses and carefully consider what is the target to be achieved and how to get there. This requires a careful selection of the ecological assets that we aim to promote, while preserving the functional purpose of the marine infrastructure and incorporating the differing societal viewpoints on any potentially negative ecological consequences that may be incurred by NID solutions. In summary, restorative NID can be actively promoted, whereas creative NID requires more careful reflection; NID preferably prioritizes functional ecosystem assets and explicitly considers which ecological values to promote and why.
Facilitating an integrated assessment of impacts in marine multi-use
The Ocean Multi-use Assessment Framework (OMAF)
Journal article
(2025)
-
A. Van Gerven, T. R.H. Kerkhove, S. Degraer, M. Lago, A. Araujo, M. Berge, A. Ziemba, G. El Serafy, J. Tamis, G. Piet, Rozemeijer M.J.C.
In the era of blue growth, ocean multi-use is gaining popularity for its potential environmental, economic and societal synergies. Expectations are high for multi-use applications to alleviate marine spatial allocation conflicts amongst users of the sea, and to stimulate innovative ways of sustainably exploiting marine resources. However, a potential barrier to implementing multi-use and co-location is the lack of a well-defined framework to evaluate the impacts of ocean multi-use projects. This paper introduces the Ocean Multi-Use Assessment Framework (OMAF), which builds upon traditional environmental impact assessments but expands to include societal and economic dimensions. In addition to these three pillars of sustainable development, the framework incorporates two critical conditions: technological feasibility and regulatory appropriateness (legal, policy, and governance). The framework promotes the use of scenarios to compare single-use and multi-use approaches in an integrated manner. This approach allows for a comprehensive, holistic evaluation of multi-use projects compared to single-use alternatives, supporting decision-making. Strong stakeholder engagement throughout the process is emphasized. The OMAF has been developed and tested under the EU-funded Horizon 2020 UNITED project, where it was applied to five multi-use pilot projects. Despite challenges related to data availability for emerging marine activities, the framework has proven applicable and effective for most projects.
...
In the era of blue growth, ocean multi-use is gaining popularity for its potential environmental, economic and societal synergies. Expectations are high for multi-use applications to alleviate marine spatial allocation conflicts amongst users of the sea, and to stimulate innovative ways of sustainably exploiting marine resources. However, a potential barrier to implementing multi-use and co-location is the lack of a well-defined framework to evaluate the impacts of ocean multi-use projects. This paper introduces the Ocean Multi-Use Assessment Framework (OMAF), which builds upon traditional environmental impact assessments but expands to include societal and economic dimensions. In addition to these three pillars of sustainable development, the framework incorporates two critical conditions: technological feasibility and regulatory appropriateness (legal, policy, and governance). The framework promotes the use of scenarios to compare single-use and multi-use approaches in an integrated manner. This approach allows for a comprehensive, holistic evaluation of multi-use projects compared to single-use alternatives, supporting decision-making. Strong stakeholder engagement throughout the process is emphasized. The OMAF has been developed and tested under the EU-funded Horizon 2020 UNITED project, where it was applied to five multi-use pilot projects. Despite challenges related to data availability for emerging marine activities, the framework has proven applicable and effective for most projects.
Review
(2016)
-
Gijs van Kuik, Joachim Peinke, Henk Polinder, Asger Bech Abrahamsen, Gerard van Bussel, John Dalsgaard Sørensen, Peter Tavner, Carlo Botasso, Michael Muskulus, Denis Matha, Han Lindeboom, Steven Degraer, Rogier Nijssen, Oliver Kramer, Sebastian Lehnhoff, Michael Sonnenschein, Poul Ejnar Sørensen, Rolf Kunneke, Poul Erik Morthorst, Klaus Skytte, Denja Lekou, Jakob Mann, Jens Nørkær Sørensen, Carlos Simao Ferreira, Jan-Willem van Wingerden, David Schlipf, Pieter Gebraad
The European Academy of Wind Energy (eawe), representing universities and institutes with a significant wind energy programme in 14 countries, has discussed the long-term research challenges in wind energy. In contrast to research agendas addressing short- to medium-term research activities, this eawe document takes a longer-term perspective, addressing the scientific knowledge base that is required to develop wind energy beyond the applications of today and tomorrow. In other words, this long-term research agenda is driven by problems and curiosity, addressing basic research and fundamental knowledge in 11 research areas, ranging from physics and design to environmental and societal aspects. Because of the very nature of this initiative, this document does not intend to be permanent or complete. It shows the vision of the experts of the eawe, but other views may be possible. We sincerely hope that it will spur an even more intensive discussion worldwide within the wind energy community.
...
The European Academy of Wind Energy (eawe), representing universities and institutes with a significant wind energy programme in 14 countries, has discussed the long-term research challenges in wind energy. In contrast to research agendas addressing short- to medium-term research activities, this eawe document takes a longer-term perspective, addressing the scientific knowledge base that is required to develop wind energy beyond the applications of today and tomorrow. In other words, this long-term research agenda is driven by problems and curiosity, addressing basic research and fundamental knowledge in 11 research areas, ranging from physics and design to environmental and societal aspects. Because of the very nature of this initiative, this document does not intend to be permanent or complete. It shows the vision of the experts of the eawe, but other views may be possible. We sincerely hope that it will spur an even more intensive discussion worldwide within the wind energy community.