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

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.

[1]  Matthew A. Williamson,et al.  Decision Support Frameworks and Tools for Conservation , 2018 .

[2]  Sue Kidd,et al.  The ecosystem approach and planning and management of the marine environment , 2011 .

[3]  Anne Luttmann,et al.  Knowledge integration in Marine Spatial Planning: A practitioners' view on decision support tools with special focus on Marxan , 2019, Ocean & Coastal Management.

[4]  Jan Adamowski,et al.  Serious Games as Planning Support Systems: Learning from Playing Maritime Spatial Planning Challenge 2050 , 2018 .

[5]  A. Morf,et al.  Imbalances in interaction for transboundary marine spatial planning: Insights from the Baltic Sea Region , 2018, Ocean & Coastal Management.

[6]  Arnold K. Bregt,et al.  The social side of spatial decision support systems: Investigating knowledge integration and learning , 2017 .

[7]  G. Ellis,et al.  ‘A system that works for the sea’? Exploring Stakeholder Engagement in Marine Spatial Planning , 2010 .

[8]  S. Jay,et al.  Consensus and variance in the ecosystem approach to marine spatial planning: German perspectives and multi-actor implications , 2016 .

[9]  A. Morf,et al.  Insights into integration challenges in the Baltic Sea Region marine spatial planning: Implications for the HELCOM-VASAB principles , 2019, Ocean & Coastal Management.

[10]  Stuart I. Rogers,et al.  Practical tools to support marine spatial planning: A review and some prototype tools , 2013 .

[11]  Jan Adamowski,et al.  Serious games as a catalyst for boundary crossing, collaboration and knowledge co-creation in a watershed governance context. , 2018, Journal of environmental management.

[12]  R. Pomeroy,et al.  The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process , 2008 .

[13]  Ibon Galparsoro,et al.  Decision support tools in marine spatial planning: Present applications, gaps and future perspectives , 2017 .

[14]  F. Scharpf Problem Solving Effectiveness and Democratic Accountability in the EU. IHS Political Science Series: 2006, No. 107 , 2006 .

[15]  Igor Mayer,et al.  Stakeholder Engagement in Maritime Spatial Planning: The Efficacy of a Serious Game Approach , 2018 .

[16]  M. Portman Decision Support Tools for Coastal and Ocean Planning and Management , 2016 .

[17]  M. Portman Zoning design for cross-border marine protected areas: The Red Sea Marine Peace Park case study , 2007 .

[18]  Noel Healy,et al.  Exclusion and non-participation in Marine Spatial Planning , 2018 .

[19]  Kristy Deiner,et al.  Perspectives on the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation , 2012 .

[20]  B. Hassler,et al.  Examining the role of integration in marine spatial planning: Towards an analytical framework to understand challenges in diverse settings , 2019, Ocean & Coastal Management.

[21]  L. Crowder,et al.  Coming to the table: Early stakeholder engagement in marine spatial planning , 2012 .

[22]  Harald Warmelink,et al.  Communicating Maritime Spatial Planning: The MSP Challenge approach , 2019 .

[23]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Marxan with Zones: Software for optimal conservation based land- and sea-use zoning , 2009, Environ. Model. Softw..

[24]  J. Piwowarczyk,et al.  The perspective of Polish fishermen on maritime spatial planning , 2018, Ocean & Coastal Management.

[25]  J. Gupta,et al.  The split ladder of participation: A diagnostic, strategic, and evaluation tool to assess when participation is necessary , 2015 .

[26]  C. Göke,et al.  Maritime Spatial Planning supported by systematic site selection: Applying Marxan for offshore wind power in the western Baltic Sea , 2018, PloS one.

[27]  A. Morf,et al.  BONUS BALTSPACE Deliverable D2.4 : MSP as a governance approach? Knowledge integration challenges in MSP in the Baltic Sea , 2017 .

[28]  Sverker C. Jagers,et al.  Balancing sustainability in two pioneering marine national parks in Scandinavia , 2017 .

[29]  R. Tafon,et al.  Taking power to sea: Towards a post-structuralist discourse theoretical critique of marine spatial planning , 2018 .

[30]  The ‘Living Q’—An Interactive Method for Actor Engagement in Transnational Marine Spatial Planning , 2018, Environments.

[31]  Frances Peckett Using Marxan and Marxan with Zones to support marine planning , 2015 .