| 1. |
- Gee, Kira, et al.
(författare)
-
BONUS BALTSPACE Deliverable 3.3: Addressing MSP integration challenges: The role of tools and approaches. Geesthacht.
- 2018
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This report discusses seven different tools and approaches to address important integration challenges in marine and coastal spatial planning and management, namely in relation to sectors and policies, boundaries, stakeholders and different types of knowledge. BONUS BALTSPACE (2015-2018) was conceived against the background of the EU MSP Directive and the need for Member States to produce marine spatial plans by 2021. MSP is an integrative concept that requires integration of sectors and stakeholders, of different types of knowledge, as well as integration across administrative borders. BALTSPACE was the first transnational, interdisciplinary MSP research project in the BSR to focus on four key integration challenges in MSP, namely policy and sector integration, multi-level and transboundary integration, stakeholder integration and knowledge integration. Work Package 3 was tasked with developing and assessing practitioner-oriented approaches and tools for MSP to help deal with the integration challenges identified (www.baltspace.eu). The capacity of seven problem- and process-specific techniques and approaches (subsequently termed tools) was assessed in different case study settings: •Bowtie •Culturally Significant Areas •Governance Baselines •Integrated Indicator System for monitoring the spatial, economic and environmental effects of MSP solutions •Marxan •Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation •Spatial Economic Benefit Analysis (SEBA) Each tool was applied once in a particular country context in a format determined by the tool user. Some applications were desktop exercises, others were more participative, although most had some form of verification by stakeholders. Tool selection reflected both the variety of available methods and the diverse range of tasks in MSP, leading to the inclusion of product- and process-oriented tools, descriptive and analytical tools, as well as data and forecasting tools. One of the tools (SEBA) was specifically developed for MSP as part of BALTSPACE. An overview of academic literature revealed that “tools” in MSP are mostly understood as technical instruments that provide decision support. To a large part, the tools described in the literature rely on scientific data and information, in line with a view of MSP as an evidence-based exercise requiring data collection and analysis as a basis for planning. There is little mention of the role of process in MSP and the learning that might result from tool-supported processes. Also, most assessments do not focus on the indirect or ‘soft’ impacts of tool use, which are often related to the persons or groups engaging with the tool – and which could have positive integration effects by and for themselves. Examples of such impacts include greater mutual understanding or an improved sense of trust, both of which could arise from improved stakeholder and knowledge integration facilitated by a tool. Integration effects may therefore manifest themselves when the tool is being used - e.g. to generate a particular output such as a map – or when the results are being fed back into the MSP process. After a short overview of the purpose of each tool and where it fits in the MSP cycle, an analytical template is set out. This breaks down the four integration challenges into a series of sub-challenges, so as to enable a comparative evaluation of the seven tools against the same set of challenges. It also sets out some more general contributions the tools could make with respect to MSP, such as contributing to the efficiency of the MSP process or to improved decision-making. The assessment is based on the retrospective evaluation of the BALTSPACE researchers and largely descriptive, focusing also on the direct outputs and indirect outcomes of tool use. Throughout, the assessment focuses on the capacity of each tool, taking account of the fact that tool use is context-dependent and that a range of external factors comes into play when it comes to the actual integration results. The assessment shows that the integration challenges most readily addressed are stakeholder and knowledge integration. Conversely, policy integration is difficult to achieve as a direct result, although some tools are well suited to analysing the existing policy landscape and potential integration gaps. Multi-level (transboundary) integration depends on the scale of tool use and is potentially achievable as all tools can be up-scaled if necessary. Some tools are also well-placed to contribute to land-sea integration. An important difference is noted between the inherent capacity of the tools and their application. Some tools are better at certain tasks than others but ultimately, it is the application that is make or break. For example, some tools (such as OS or CSA) are specifically designed to support stakeholder and knowledge integration, in the sense that they would not deliver a result without them. Other tools that are less specifically designed for this purpose can also contribute to stakeholder integration, but this then happens as a result of how the tool is applied – in this case in a participative setting. To some degree, the capacity to facilitate stakeholder and knowledge integration depends on whether a tool is process- or product-oriented or analytical or experimental. Generally, process-oriented tools, especially complex ones such as OS require active stakeholder involvement and input, but there are also product-oriented tools (such as CSA or SEBA) that rely on the integration of various stakeholders and their knowledge. Analytical tools such as Bowtie or Governance Baselines could in theory be conducted as mere desktop exercises, which would restrict their impact on knowledge integration; if applied as participatory tools they would also make an indirect contribution to stakeholder integration. The mere fact that a tool requires stakeholder involvement does not automatically lead to integration benefits, although involvement is certainly a prerequisite. Especially with respect to process-oriented tools, much depends on the skill of the tool user and the quality of the application process, including for example facilitation skills, timing and resources, also on the part of the participating stakeholders. Much also depends on the quality of the (surrounding) MSP process and whether this is capable of absorbing the benefits that may be generated from tool use. The seven tools are unable to contribute to increasing national/transnational policy coherence and resolving institutional compatibilities, and less well placed to help evaluate the consequences of planned action. Only the most comprehensive process-oriented tool (OS) is able to create a forum for deliberation. A key aspect for applying the seven BALTSPACE tools in practice is to know the precise challenge to be addressed, the capacity of the tool (its potential outcomes) including any soft benefits to be achieved, and the capacity of those using the tool (time, timing, resources). It is also important to consider which role the tool is expected to play in the MSP process: Will it be used as a free-standing, independent entity and process, feeding results into the MSP process? Will it be used as a trigger of the MSP process and “way in” or door-opener, for example to motivate stakeholders? Or is the tool to be intimately linked to the entire MSP process, effectively running large parts of it? Insights and practical tips for using the tools are provided in a separate Tools Handbook which is available for download on the BALTSPACE website (www.baltspace.eu). The website also contains short video tutorials on selected tools, as well as a briefing note and short summary of the opportunities and challenges in using tools to support integration in MSP.
|
|
| 2. |
- Gee, Kira, et al.
(författare)
-
Can tools contribute to integration in MSP? : A comparative review of selected tools and approaches
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Ocean and Coastal Management. - : Elsevier. - 0964-5691 .- 1873-524X. ; 179, s. 1-11
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The role of tools and approaches is currently much debated in maritime spatial planning (MSP). Past evaluation has mainly concentrated on decision support tools and the tangible outputs these can provide for MSP, but little attention has so far been been given to the soft or indirect benefits tool use can have in MSP. This paper assesses the potential benefits of tool use in the context of four common integration challenges in MSP. Drawing on case study material from the Baltic Sea region, the paper reviews the potential contribution of five selected tools and approaches to multi-level and transboundary, policy and sector, stakeholder and knowledge integration. Specific end points are defined for each integration challenge, including general desired outcomes of integrated MSP processes as a template for assessment. Our review shows that the selected tools play different roles in moving towards the various end points of MSP integration. There is an important difference between the potential of each tool, or its inherent capacity, and how it is applied, e.g. in a participative or non-participative setting. Another lesson is that some integration benefits can be achieved by the tools alone, while others – often secondary benefits - depend on how the outcomes of tool use are taken up by the subsequent MSP process. Although the nature of a tool does restrict its potential contribution to MSP integration challenges, the secondary “soft” benefits that can be achieved through certain styles of application and good links to the MSP process can add important integration benefits up and beyond the tool itself. The results presented here may also be relevant to other types of spatial planning and conservation management.
|
|
| 3. |
- Gilek, Michael, 1965-, et al.
(författare)
-
In search of social sustainability in marine spatial planning : A review of scientific literature published 2005–2020
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Ocean and Coastal Management. - : Elsevier. - 0964-5691 .- 1873-524X. ; 208
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- A number of commentators have argued that up until now marine/maritime spatial planning (MSP) research and practice have been dominated by blue economy and environmental concerns and have tended to neglect what might be regarded as social sustainability concerns. To gain more insight into the character and extent of such a gap, as well as how to address it, this article examines how social sustainability has been addressed in peer reviewed scientific articles on MSP between 2005 and 2020. Using search terms such as participation, democracy, social inclusion, social cohesion, equity we systematically identify and review 310 scientific articles that address diverse social sustainability concerns within MSP and marine governance. The review showed that very few papers systematically conceptualised or developed a coherent framework for engaging with social sustainability. Instead, they mostly addressed particular social concerns including participation and engagement, equity and social justice, socio-cultural values and preferences. Marine management and planning efficiency, as well as related instrumental framings of the merits of participation were the key arguments for including these dimensions of social sustainability in MSP. In terms of how to better include social sustainability in MSP, most attention was given to social-cultural mapping and ways to improve social inclusion/participation while also redressing exclusion and maldistribution of outcomes in MSP practice. We conclude that there is a need to deepen and diversify MSP inquiry with respect to social sustainability. In particular, scholars would do well to delve deeper and more broadly in social science literature to find inspiration on ways to understand and elucidate social issues. Here, the enormous body of relevant work on justice, power, critical institutionalism, political ecology and terrestrial planning literatures has hardly been tapped. It is also evident from this review that there is a need for both the academic and practice-based communities to more comprehensively address how the multidimensions of social sustainability interact with each other, as well as with economic and environmental aspects of marine planning and governance. Based on these observations, we highlight a set of suggestions on how to develop MSP research and practice on social sustainability. Most importantly, we argue that more in-depth co-production, linking scholars, practitioners and society actors, is needed.
|
|
| 4. |
- Hassler, Björn, 1964-, et al.
(författare)
-
BONUS BALTSPACE: Deliverable 2.7: New generation EU Directives and the role of transnational coordination : Marine Spatial Planning of the Baltic Sea
- 2018
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The EU Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (MSP Directive) from 2014 is an example of a so-called new generation directive, which gives Member States room for adaptation to national contexts. Because of this larger room for adaptation, transposition becomes a process of designing domestic policy frameworks that fulfil the broad requirements of the Directive, rather than a simple and linear implementation procedure. However, allowing Member States to design marine spatial planning frameworks that fit domestic contexts, have thus far meant that regional coherence suffers. Although the pivotal role of transnational coordination is emphasised in the Directive, it does not stipulate how to set up such coordination, and the Member States have not yet been able to achieve much of self-organising in this area.A closer look is in this report taken on four policy-dimensions that are emphasised in the MSP Directive: Planning approach, Organisation, Sustainability, and Stakeholder inclusion. Based on in-depth case studies carried out in the BALTSPACE research project on MSP frameworks in Denmark, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Sweden, examples of coordination and coherency challenges are described and discussed for each dimension.It is shown that planning approaches can differ substantially between neighbouring countries, which can make it challenging to coordinate across country borders. Even though they share the same (EU) regulatory pressures, Latvia and Lithuania, for example, are developing national MSP frameworks based on quite different conceptual foundations. Whereas Latvia has taken the Ecosystem Approach as a point of departure for constructing a new MSP framework, Lithuania has instead chosen to adapt existing functional zoning approaches to management of maritime areas. Such diversity may be possible to explain because of differing domestic contexts, but may nevertheless lead to coordination problems when coordination is needed.Divergence between national MSP frameworks can also emerge from different political, jurisdictional and, administrative systems and traditions, that is, in societal organisation. In an example based on case studies undertaken in Denmark and Sweden, it is shown that degree of societal centralisation and distribution of political power can be related to differences in how environmental protection and blue growth are prioritised. However, it is difficult to tell whether diverging prioritisations have led to differences on organisation, or of it is the other way around, that differences in organisation have led to diverging prioritisations.It is stated in the MSP Directive that the overarching objective is to promote sustainable development. The focus on sustainable development can be said to reflect the Directive’s new generation characteristics. The concept of sustainable development is broad and imprecise, which facilitates political agreement. However, when more precise details must be addressed, disagreements may surface that make implementation challenging. In cases where neighbouring countries diverge substantially on how ecological, economic and social sustainable ought to be balanced, finding agreements on how to coordinate policies and practices, when needed, can be difficult. Based on case studies in Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, and Sweden, it is, for example, argued that adoption of functional zoning or the Ecosystem Approach may not say much about how ecological, economic, and social dimensions are prioritised in different countries.Stakeholder consultations of some kind have historically been undertaken in all Baltic Sea countries. However, how such consultations have been undertaken, who have been invited, and the role the consultations play in relation to political decision-making differ, as shown in examples from Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Poland. Because the MSP Directive is silent on how to design stakeholder consultations – it only says that they should be held – there is no political pressure on regional coordination. It is not clear from our data if these differences cause efficiency losses due to coordination deficits, but a reasonable assumption is that when, for example, marine natural resources are shared between two or more countries, jointly designed and undertaken consultations on specific transboundary issues potentially can promote transparency, understanding, and coordination.In conclusion, it is suggested that while regional coherency is often called for as a means to reduce inefficiencies, it might not be a good idea to integrate without discretion. Considering that the MSP Directive allows domestic context to matter when Member States design national MSP frameworks and that adaptation to domestic context is likely to reduce implantation gaps and increase the legitimacy of marine spatial planning, a more reasonable objective can be to embrace domestic diversity, while simultaneously adaptively promoting possibilities to solve coordination problems at lower levels, if they emerge or can be foreseen. From this perspective, increased coherence is a tool to reduce efficiency losses, rather than an intrinsic good.
|
|
| 5. |
- Hassler, Björn, 1964-, et al.
(författare)
-
New generation EU directives, sustainability, and the role of transnationalcoordination in Baltic Sea maritime spatial planning
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Ocean and Coastal Management. - : Elsevier. - 0964-5691 .- 1873-524X. ; :169, s. 254-263
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The EU MSP Directive is an example of a so-called new generation directive, which gives Member States room foradaptation to national contexts. The main objective in this article is to identify and analyse potential obstacles toeffective and efficient planning caused by the diversity among national MSP frameworks that the Directive'sbroad regulatory boundaries have led to. It is shown that planning approaches can differ substantially betweenneighbouring countries, which can make it challenging to coordinate across national borders. Divergence betweennational MSP frameworks can also emerge from how political, jurisdictional and, administrative systemsand traditions are organised in different Member States. It is shown that neighbouring countries can divergesubstantially in how the ecological, economic and social dimensions of sustainability are balanced, which canmake transnational coordination challenging. Furthermore, it is shown that stakeholder consultations differamong Member States in terms of, for example, who were invited, how the consultations were undertaken, andthe role they play in relation to political decision-making. Because of these, and other differences in how MSPframeworks are being developed in the Member States, it is suggested that regional integration should bepromoted with discretion. From this perspective, it seems reasonable to embrace diversity, while simultaneouslypromoting the adaptive management of coordination problems at lower levels, when, or if, they emerge or canbe foreseen. Thus, increased integration of national MSP frameworks should be viewed as an instrument toreduce concrete efficiency losses, rather than as an intrinsic good.
|
|
| 6. |
- Kidd, Sue, et al.
(författare)
-
Marine Spatial Planning and sustainability : Examining the roles of integration - Scale, policies, stakeholders and knowledge
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Ocean and Coastal Management. - : Elsevier. - 0964-5691 .- 1873-524X. ; 191
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) has been heralded as the key means of achieving a more integrated approach to marine use across sectors and spatial scales. Achieving greater integration and coherence in MSP governance arrangements is seen as a way to resolve current problems of marine governance (such as fragmentation) and address future resource demands in a sustainable way. However, there is a lack of clarity and consensus in practice regarding sustainability in MSP, both in terms of MSP governance practices and sustainable resource use. For example, how are we to treat the environment in MSP? Should we conceive the environment as just another sector with interests to be negotiated, or as the very boundary condition that limits possibilities for maritime activities and developments? How do we integrate diverse views on this in MSP decision-making? This is but one example of an integration challenge in MSP important for sustainability. There are numerous others. Integration is intimately connected to the ability of MSP to deliver sustainable marine resource use at various levels and scales. The roles of integration are diverse and interconnected, including those that affect social-ecological integration or land-sea interaction, but also aspects of good governance and social sustainability. The latter include inter-sectoral decisionmaking, stakeholder engagement, cross-border interaction and knowledge pluralism. How integration is exercised in these procedural aspects of MSP is likely to substantively affect outcomes both in terms of sustainable blue growth or the ability to deliver an ecosystem-based approach. Integration as a policy and analytical problem to be addressed has also been discussed elsewhere – most saliently in the fields of sustainable development, ICZM, environmental policy integration, planning theory and socio-ecological systems. While there has been some work on integration in MSP, additional insight is needed: to better empirically ground the roles of integration in MSP, to understand the multidimensionality and interdependencies of integration dimensions and to unpack what ‘balance’ might mean for understanding and pursuing sustainability in different MSP contexts. In response, this special issue aims to explore the roles, problems and opportunities of various types of integration in relation to MSP's sustainability ambitions.
|
|
| 7. |
- Saunders, Fred P., et al.
(författare)
-
BALTSPACE Deliverable: D1.2 : Final Guidance Document on Analysing Possibilities and Challenges for MSP Integration
- 2016
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This report makes a case for examining the role of integration and its links to how sustainable development is variably expressed in different marine spatial planning (MSP) contexts. The aim of the report is to refine an analytical approach to examine integration in MSP in the Baltic Sea through consideration of preliminary empirical results from a broad range of case studies. MSP is conceptualised here as a governance platform for improving processes to enable political decision-making with the aim to achieve sustainable development of marine space. Integration is universally espoused as a means to address a variety of challenges closely related to MSP’s sustainable development ambitions, such as supporting inter-sectoral decision-making, stakeholder engagement and cross-border interaction, but its role, value and implementation in MSP has not been examined in any empirical detail. Although increased integration may well have positive effects on MSP processes and outcomes, in some instances, the contrary might also be the case. With these thoughts in mind, this report argues that we need to analyse integration as a multidimensional concept in MSP processes and outcomes. Based on understandings of integration derived from MSP experience and concepts in the broader social science literature, an analytical framework is developed to examine MSP practice in the Baltic Sea. Integration is conceptualised as including transboundary/cross-border, policy/sectoral, stakeholder and knowledge dimensions. Despite common requirements under the European Union MSP Directive and policies, national jurisdictions are likely to adopt MSP differently, which has implications for the role integration is likely to play in national and transnational MSP practice. Drawing on empirical data derived from national MSP studies, stakeholder dialogue forums and preliminary interviews with stakeholders the analytical framework is applied to examine how particular integration challenges play out in both national and transnational marine space across the Baltic Sea Region. The analytical framework is then used to structure an examination of several case studies from different parts of the Baltic Sea Region. Based on consideration of the empirical work and an analyses of previous experiences in science and practice we then propose some revisions to the initial analytical framework presented earlier. The revised analytical framework, while capturing the integration dimensions mentioned earlier, also includes consideration of the following aspects of integration: how ‘balance’ between sustainable development dimensions is exercised; the character of cross-boundary interactions; and temporal dynamics. Instead of a conclusion, short think-pieces are presented to capture the main insights of the report, which could be used to aid the examination of integration in MSP in other MSP contexts, beyond the Baltic Sea.
|
|
| 8. |
- Saunders, Fred, 1961-, et al.
(författare)
-
Theorizing Social Sustainability and Justice in Marine Spatial Planning: Democracy, Diversity, and Equity
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Sustainability. - Basel : MDPI. - 2071-1050. ; 12:6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article elaborates a conceptual framework to examine social sustainability in marinespatial planning (MSP). Based on a critical literature review of key texts on social sustainabilityin MSP and the broader sustainable development literature we show the need to elaborate acogent and comprehensive approach for the analysis and pursuit of social sustainability linkedto the sea. We then theorize social sustainability by developing a conceptual framework throughintegrating three dimensions: Recognition, Representation and Distribution. While these three socialsustainability/justice features clearly overlap and are interdependent in practice, the conceptualthinking underpinning each of them is distinctive and when taken together they contributetowards conceiving social sustainability as a pillar of sustainability. Our approach can support ananalysis/evaluation of MSP in that, first, its broad scope and adaptability makes it suitable to examinethe wide range of claims, demands, and concerns that are likely to be encountered across dierentpractical MSP settings. Second, it acknowledges the opportunities and challenges of assessing,implementing, and achieving social justice within a broader sustainability framework.
|
|
| 9. |
- Stalmokaitė, Ignė, et al.
(författare)
-
Exploring social justice in marine spatial planning : planner and stakeholder perspectives and experiences in the Baltic Sea Region
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. - : Routledge. - 0964-0568 .- 1360-0559.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article contributes to the increasing traction of social justice in marine spatial planning (MSP) by exploring perceptions and experiences of social justice from the viewpoint of planners and different social groups who were included and (self)excluded in MSP processes. The study builds on empirical material from Poland, Latvia, and Germany consisting of interviews, MSP legislation, and documents that were analysed through the lens of a multidimensional social justice framework centring on recognition, representation, distribution, and capabilities. Results indicate that MSP institutional arrangements constrain possibilities for marginalised and less consolidated actor groups (residents, coastal tourism, and small-scale fisheries) to enjoy the same degree of recognition that is given to groups representing strategic national interests (renewable energy and shipping). We also highlight the role of planners’ self-reflectivity in enhancing/depriving capabilities of vulnerable social groups whose wellbeing and multidimensional relationships with the sea call for institutional responses adaptive to specific planning contexts.
|
|
| 10. |
- Tafon, Ralph, et al.
(författare)
-
Mainstreaming coastally just and equitable marine spatial planning : Planner and stakeholder experiences and perspectives on participation in Latvia
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Ocean and Coastal Management. - : Elsevier. - 0964-5691 .- 1873-524X. ; 242
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Community participation and influence are vitally important for meeting the multidimensional sustainability aims of marine spatial planning (MSP) and more specifically for procedural and distributive justice. While participation has received substantial research interest, we identify a need to: 1) develop equity-based principles for coastal community participation that can be used to assess and reform MSP practices; 2) generate rich empirical accounts of coastal community participation and representation linked to real-world MSP practices. Here we present the results of a study that synthesizes critical MSP and blue justice scholarship to develop principles and indicators of coastally equitable and just planning. Drawing on interviews with planners and stakeholders and analysis of planning and legal documents, these principles are used to assess participatory processes linked to Latvian MSP practices in the period 2015 to 2019. Our analysis shows that equitable and just MSP needs to be based on participation that is timely, inclusive, supportive & localized, collaborative, methodical and impactful. When applied to the Latvian case these six principles provide a comprehensive and versatile heuristic approach to assess participation in MSP. In the context of Latvian MSP practices, we revealed a fundamental challenge of maintaining inclusive and localized participation throughout the full planning cycle. To counteract the successive narrowing/hardening of participatory space our results indicate a need for continuously promoting diversity of voices and perspectives, opportunities for collaborative sense making, visioning and critique. This will help to bridge diverse MSP divides (e.g., between land and sea, between local, national, and global values and priorities, between science and local knowledge, and between blue growth, conservation, and justice goals). If applied more generally in research and as part of MSP evaluation an equity-based approach can promote the mainstreaming of coastally just and equitable MSP practices. Finally, considering contextual factors (e.g., history, culture, power, legislation) that shape participation and representation is crucial when applying the equity principles to a particular MSP setting to acknowledge and accommodate its particular characteristics and challenges.
|
|
