Can tools contribute to integration in MSP? A comparative review of selected tools and approaches

被引:21
作者
Gee, Kira [1 ]
Blazauskas, Nerijus [2 ]
Dahl, Karsten [3 ]
Goke, Cordula [3 ]
Hassler, Bjorn [4 ]
Kannen, Andreas [1 ]
Leposa, Neva [5 ]
Morf, Andrea [5 ]
Strand, Helena [5 ]
Weig, Barbara [6 ]
Zaucha, Jacek [7 ]
机构
[1] Helmholtz Zentrum Geesthacht, Zentrum Mat Kustenforsch GmbH, Geesthacht, Germany
[2] Coastal Res & Planning Inst, Klaipeda, Lithuania
[3] Aarhus Univ, Dept Biosci, Aarhus, Denmark
[4] Sodertorn Univ, Sch Nat Sci Technol & Environm Studies, Huddinge, Sweden
[5] Swedish Inst Marine Environm, Gothenburg, Sweden
[6] S Pro Sustainable Projects, Berlin, Germany
[7] Maritime Inst Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland
基金
瑞典研究理事会;
关键词
Maritime spatial planning; Integration challenges; Tools and approaches; Direct and indirect benefits; DECISION-SUPPORT TOOLS; STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT; MARINE; PERSPECTIVES; INSIGHTS;
D O I
10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104834
中图分类号
P7 [海洋学];
学科分类号
0707 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 44 条
  • [1] Communicating Maritime Spatial Planning: The MSP Challenge approach
    Abspoel, Lodewijk
    Mayer, Igor
    Keijser, Xander
    Warmelink, Harald
    Fairgrieve, Rhona
    Ripken, Malena
    Abramic, Andrej
    Kannen, Andreas
    Cormier, Roland
    Kidd, Sue
    [J]. MARINE POLICY, 2021, 132
  • [2] [Anonymous], MARITIME SPATIAL PLA
  • [3] [Anonymous], PAN BALTIC CASE STUD
  • [4] [Anonymous], 2016, BONUS BALTSPACE DELI
  • [5] [Anonymous], 2013, ICES COOPERATIVE RES
  • [6] The perspective of Polish fishermen on maritime spatial planning
    Ciolek, Dorota
    Matczak, Magdalena
    Piwowarczyk, Joanna
    Rakowski, Marcin
    Szefler, Kazimierz
    Zaucha, Jacek
    [J]. OCEAN & COASTAL MANAGEMENT, 2018, 166 : 113 - 124
  • [7] Cormier R., 2018, ICES Cooperative Research Report, V342, DOI DOI 10.17895/ICES.PUB.4504
  • [8] Exclusion and non-participation in Marine Spatial Planning
    Flannery, Wesley
    Healy, Noel
    Luna, Marcos
    [J]. MARINE POLICY, 2018, 88 : 32 - 40
  • [9] Gee K, 2018, BONUS BALTSPACE DELI
  • [10] Gilbert C., 2008, STATE COAST S E BALT, P162