Assessing the viability of Stakeholders’ Engagement in Marine Spatial Planning and its Implications for a Sustainable Blue Economy

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3888713/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Assessing the viability of Stakeholders’ Engagement in Marine Spatial Planning and its Implications for a Sustainable Blue Economy

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3888713/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Marine spatial planning (MSP) is the key to attaining global ocean sustainability targets related to the blue economy (BE) and inclusive tapping of ocean resources. Although there has been robust progress in promoting MSP, e.g., in the European Union (EU), most countries have yet to develop comprehensive strategies focused on MSP, which could affect fragile ecosystems and vulnerable livelihoods that are already affected by anthropogenic impacts and natural/environmental pressures. Even within the EU, comprehensive MSPs have been developed only in individual countries or specific maritime zones. One of the gaps identified in the literature is related to the limited knowledge of stakeholder engagement in the MSP process. Our study tries to bridge this gap, and we used a mixed research approach—i.e., systematically reviewed 86 articles on MSP—and conducted a key informant interview intending to identify what type of stakeholders or which stakeholders are needed in the MSP process; how, when, and where could they be involved; and how could they impact a sustainable blue economy? The findings revealed that MSP is a systematic process in which different stakeholders are needed at different levels at different temporal and spatial scales. In addition, the approach used to involve stakeholders is required to be based on a given region's governance targets in that region. The study revealed that marine resource user conflicts that hamper sustainable governance and the use of blue economy resources could be solved through MSP. The approach for stakeholder engagement that we bring to the fore in this study could help in the design of more effective participatory conservation interventions that meet ocean sustainability targets.

Oceanography

Renewable Resources

Marine and Freshwater Ecology

Environmental Policy

Agricultural Economics and Policy

Environmental Law

Environmental Economics

Blue Economy

Marine Activities

Marine Spatial Planning

Stakeholders

Stakeholder Engagement

Sustainable Development

The focus on marine spatial planning (MSP) has gained much traction in international and regional discourse related to ocean and blue economy (BE) governance in recent decades [1]–[3]. A simple Science Direct electronic database search revealed that since 1999, additional research has focused on MSP (Fig. 1), thus reinforcing its importance in ocean spaces that are increasingly associated with increased human and ecological stressors, e.g., climate change and biodiversity loss/degradation [4]–[7]. Unfortunately, despite the prominence of the term in international and regional fora and programs [8]–[10], e.g., in the European Union (EU) region, e.g., in Estonia [11], MSP as a concept is poorly defined and largely under implemented in many maritime jurisdictions even within the EU region [11]–[13], as the focus has been on marine protected areas (MPAs) [14], e.g., in Indonesia [15] and Senegal [16]. In worst-case scenarios, few studies clearly show how, when, and which actors need to be involved in the MSP process to ensure sustainable outcomes related to marine space use and governance [17]–[19]. This approach might risk throwing MSP in limbo and render MSP a top-down political tool rather than a sustainable strategy for attaining practical ocean governance and management targets related to marine ecosystem health, social equity, and inclusive economic development [20]–[22]. Given the increasing urgency of addressing marine space ecosystem shocks evidenced by a decline in marine resources and ocean health [23] and the increased proliferation of anthropogenic activities in marine space, e.g., in the Baltic Sea Region [24], translating high-level conceptualizations of MSP and crucial implementing actors to enhance the practical implementation and sustainable operation of MSP for sustainable marine futures need to be prioritized.

This paper is concerned with the development of practical insights and pathways for ensuring the viability of stakeholder engagement in MSPs. Our main focus is to document which stakeholders are needed, when and where and how such stakeholders could guide MSP actions based on its implementation and operationalization. We further document how such stakeholder engagement could have positive ramifications for ocean governance and the focus on the BE. In other words, this study provides a detailed explanation of how stakeholders’ holistic participation in MSP processes could contribute to the success of MSP processes, especially in marine and coastal jurisdictions lacking MSP and Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) practices. In our view, we argue that the inclusion of all stakeholders could enhance the adoption and operationalization of MSP even in complex marine zones, as reported in several studies, e.g., in the Baltic Sea region [24]. What is lacking in most of the related literature is clear documentation and research on how several stakeholders and overarching ocean activities could be involved and integrated, respectively, to operationalize the MSP. We build on this proposition by exploring the literature on different MSP case studies and conducting a key informant interaction with an expert in MSP from South Korea to develop coherent insights into how coastal states could learn from Korean experiences, e.g., related to including stakeholders in the MSP process to enhance sustainability in the marine space. We begin by defining MSP based on different perspectives, theoretical origins, needs for MSP, and persistent gaps in MSP implementation, especially with a focus on stakeholder engagement. From this, we provide insights into the benefit of stakeholder engagement in the MSP process.

1.1. What is MSP?

A review of related studies reveals different perspectives on the meaning of MSP, and this depends on the jurisdiction and foci of a given country in relation to its marine space use [4]. The discrepancy in the meaning and definition of MSP also depends on the spatial scope, i.e., global, regional, national, and maritime targets of a given area in relation to the different users [25]; e.g., in the Mediterranean, MSP was initially aligned with MPA planning [26], with the aim of creating a foundation for sustainable and integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) practices, e.g., in Sweden [2]. In some countries, different terms have been used synonymously to refer to MSP, e.g., marine planning [27]; integrated ocean management, e.g., in Australia [25]; and marine or ocean zoning and management [28]. Most of the definitions have succinctly described MSP as either a tool or process focused on coastal and marine space ecosystem-based management, e.g., in the EU region and Australia, focusing on, inter alia, particularly, sensitive sea areas (PSSAs), vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs), emission control/special areas, and areas of particular environmental interest (APEIs) [27]–[29]. This perspective defines MSP as a regulatory mechanism or framework for ocean activities via different approaches, e.g., ocean zoning [30], as described in the Area Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) [27]. Although not all scholars agree with this definition, it provides insight into MSP. Other robust and more comprehensive definitions have thus evolved to define MSP. According to Zuercher et al [8], MSP is globally envisioned as an ocean-based management approach that denotes a paradigm shift toward a zonal-based, integrative policy focused on public processes that involve all stakeholders in the assessment, monitoring, and distribution of anthropogenic uses across the ocean environment. Thus, to provide a better understanding of ecosystem functioning and, eventually, for appropriate management and marine conservation strategies, MSP focuses on the efficient monitoring of spatiotemporal patterns and usage in ocean ecosystems [9]. This partly relates to the Australian model where MSP is envisioned as a part of Integrated Ocean Management (IM) [25] focused on developing sustainable BE initiatives, e.g., in Seychelles [1], and incorporates new ideas that shape new sustainable attitudes and system thinking synergies that value all users and open up new windows of opportunity for ocean policy change [5].

In the EU, MSP is viewed as a political tool [31], [32] focusing on, among other topics, the holistic involvement of all users in the development of the ICZM principles, e.g., around the Mediterranean Sea area [7]. These include the responsible growth of Europe's coastal areas and marine space in the interest of environmental health and marine restoration [31] and the embrace of nature-based solutions (NBSs), which promote marine ecosystem resilience by connecting all coastal activities, resources, and all users [33] to enhance ocean monitoring environments for adequate management and marine conservation policies [9]. This perspective, however, varies depending on the EU member state. In Spain, MSP is viewed as a collaborative tool for marine ecosystem protection and conservation, e.g., around the Sierra Helada Marine Natural Park, against destructive and competing human activities [34]. In the Baltic Sea zone, MSP is viewed as a public and political process [4] for achieving sustainability objectives and analyzing and allocating the spatial and temporal distributions of human activities in marine areas [3]. In Sweden, MSP forms a part of the Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) ecosystem, which focuses on the governance of complex human-ecological systems and the multiple interests of actors across different scales [2].

Most of these definitions, albeit with a few discrepancies, clearly show that the main focus of MSP is collaborative management and the use of marine space to achieve a win‒win scenario for marine resources and users. According to Nathaniel et al [2], MSP is a new instrument for ocean governance that aims to safeguard regions that support different health advantages while prioritizing health equity. MSP links sustainability considerations that are aligned with political processes, and this is accomplished through a rigorous public process that involves understanding and allocating the spatial and temporal distributions of human activities in marine areas [3]. MSPs use a variety of planning techniques, such as integrated coastal and ocean management (ICOM), as documented in Canada [10], to meet these goals. The ICOM focuses on identifying and ranking key locations in the marine environment that are significant for species, ecosystems, or human activities [35]. This suggests that MSP is a new marine space paradigm shift that draws on sustainability paradigms, such as those of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) criteria for marine biodiversity/ecosystem identification [10]; protection of vulnerable people's cultural legacies, such as in the EEZ [35]; and alignment of marine space users and uses to achieve politically mandated ecological, economic, and social objectives [11].

1.2. Theoretical origins of MSPs

A simple online review of MSP-related documents reveals that specific literature on MSP is relatively new (Fig. 1) and has proliferated over the last two decades [3], [28]. Although there is traditional evidence of MSP, as reported in historical maps and Atlases, e.g., the Piscatorial Atlas of the North Sea in 1883, in most coastal jurisdictions, there was a focus on specific marine sectors; activities, e.g., fishing catch and boats [28]; area resource management, e.g., on MPAs [36]; and migratory marine fishes/species with less focus on other competing users or activities [37], [38], which increased the risk of unsustainable resource utilization and degradation of the marine space, including the cultural heritage of vulnerable coastal communities and states [12], especially in coastal near-shore zones [6]. A number of studies document that this marine space complexity was critically recognized through the 1960s and conceptualized in the 1980s after the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which recognized the integration between the different maritime challenges and complexities that required integrated planning, zoning, and development of collaborative legislation on ocean space use and management even though the 1982 UNCLOS did not clearly specify how such activities could be planned [28], [35]. On a national level, early attempts at MSP were reported in the USA after the promulgation of the 1972 Coastal Zone Management Act and in the 1980s in Australia, where the authorities aimed at protecting and zoning marine resources and human activities around the Great Barrier Reef [28], [39]. In fact, Australia set an example as the second country after Canada’s Oceans Act, 1996 [28], to develop a holistic ocean policy (AOP1999) [25]. Subsequent regional conferences, e.g., the 4th Conference of the Baltic Sea Ministers for Spatial Planning and Development in 1996, further birthed strategies for spatial planning of the coastal zone in the Baltic Sea region [2], [28].

Today, the focus on developing comprehensive MSP is still at either the regional or national level, e.g., in the EU [11], and in other regions, e.g., Sweden [2]. In the EU, the increased focus was birthed after the EU Marine Spatial Planning Directive (MSPD) [40] coded 2014/89/EU [11], [31], which came into law in 2014 [4], [5]; among other factors, all European coastal states, e.g., in the Baltic Sea region [2], needed to sustainably and systematically develop MSP in the EU Member States and establish maritime spatial plans by Member States at least by early 2021 [11]. Member states should plan their resource use in their European ocean zones holistically, with an emphasis on using an ecosystem-based approach [4], [11]. Research has shown that this directive has played a significant role in assisting the majority of EU nations, including Sweden and Italy, in creating baseline procedures for MSPs [31].

Outside the EU region, other countries, e.g., in the Mediterranean region, are also trying to develop MSPs [6], e.g., around Algeria, with a focus on ICZM principles [7]. In Spain, an increased focus on MSP was initiated approximately 2005 around Marine Natural Parks [34]. In Portugal, MSP efforts gained more momentum approximately 2008, focusing on designing and implementing plans that not only coincide with MPAs but also biodiversity hotspots where several human activities, e.g., tourism and fisheries, interact/exist [32]. In South America, MSP efforts have been made, especially in fishery zones, e.g., of Rio Formoso in Brazil [41]. In China, e.g., around Hainan, interest in MSP has increased with increasing focus on citizen science, which promotes public participation in scientific research and monitoring in marine space [42]. In Micronesia, MSP efforts have become more robust since 2017 with the institutionalization of the UN Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) to draft a new biodiversity framework and propose an International Legally Binding Instrument (ILBI) under the UNCLOS to guide MSP [27]. In Canada, MSP is envisioned as ‘Canada’s Ocean City’, with a focus on the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) COP-15 and the draft Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which stipulates targets for increasing equity and shared benefits in green and blue spaces [10] to reinforce area-based ocean protection targets [12].

Currently, there is growing evidence that the majority of coastal states are implementing MSPs. For example, by 2019, 22 countries had operational MSPs, and 44 countries were in the process of developing MSPs [8]. By 2030, at least one-third of the global Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is predicted to have government-approved MSPs [11]. Studies have also reported that MSP is expanding rapidly from the national waters of coastal states to ABNJ with support from prominent organizations such as the United Nations to meet Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [8], [28]. In addition, several private actors and companies, e.g., those around France’s Mediterranean coast, are increasingly devoting effort, e.g., as solution providers and remote design office providers, to attaining MSP targets, e.g., for ecological restoration [6]. This shows positive advances in attaining global targets related to marine space use, implying that more knowledge on the benefits of MSP could be key in helping other coastal states and maritime regions increasingly focus on MSP [40].

1.3. Why MSP?

In most of the global literature related to marine governance, it is clearly recommended that MSP is key to unlocking the sustainability challenges related to marine resource management, especially the complex interests of users at different scales [28], [43]–[45]. This is because MSP has the potential to balance the competing interests of marine resource users while ensuring biodiversity management [11], [44]. In other words, MSP is core to the attainment of sustainability goals related to social equity, e.g., via the preservation of vulnerable cultural resources, especially for indigenous peoples, e.g., in Tasmania [10], [43] and citizens science [42] or citizen engagement [46]; biodiversity conservation and management, e.g., for migratory species in the ABNJ [25]; participatory fisheries governance, e.g., of octopus in Indonesia [47], [48]; and harnessing of the economic potential of the BE, e.g., related to inclusivity in marine resource harvesting and access among indigenous communities via the development of robust inclusion initiatives, e.g., the Indigenous peoples-centered Social License to Operate (SLO) approach in Australia and Canada, which aligns with indigenous values, ancestral rights, and interests [48], [49]. A study by Axon and Collier [29] clearly underscores the need for MSP by arguing that the tool ensures that marine resources and activities are managed equitably, transparently, and participatory, taking into consideration all stakeholders’ perspectives and needs, including coastal peoples, indigenous groups, and other relevant sectors. Such a participatory approach enhances the development of new and just BE transitions that could be key in developing futuristic global policy frameworks for the use of marine resources among various actors/sectors, e.g., fishing; shipping, e.g., in the Northern Low-impact Shipping Corridors initiative, e.g., in the North Arctic Zone of Canada [19]; and energy production and ensuring that conservation objectives are integrated into decision-making [24], [50].

In other words, MSP is envisioned as a benchmark for the development of the ecosystem-based approach (EBA) in marine space related to, e.g., green and blue infrastructure projects via the effective use of different stages of the MSP process, e.g., the scoping, developing, assessment, implementation, and follow-up stages, in marine space zoning, e.g., within the Baltic Sea zone [24]. The use of EBA could be key to marine conservation efforts, especially in areas with MPAs, since it enables the development and use of the 'Paper Park Indices' to identify potential 'paper parks' or ineffective MPAs [51], the evaluation of regional and global coral bleaching risks [15] and the mapping of critical benthic habitats, e.g., in the Canary Islands [20]. This perspective clearly yields results, e.g., in Taiwan, multipurpose marine protected areas (MPAs) that integrate underwater cultural heritage (UCH) and ecological heritage have been developed as sustainable marine resource management approaches [12], [23]; in Senegal, traditional knowledge and practices have been integrated into formal marine management structures [16]. This could further act as an economic avenue via the promotion of conservation finance initiatives, e.g., through tourism user fees, to aid in enhancing MPA management and outcomes [52]. This implies that MSP is key to addressing the challenges and conflicts in the designation of underwater cultural heritage protected areas and sustainability in the use of marine resources ([10], [11].

This could further help in building the social capital of different stakeholders and initiating robust political discussions that entail horizontal and vertical discussions across different hierarchies of power that shape stakeholders’ inclusivity in public participation [21]. This implies that the benefits of MSP are not only localized but also scaled up to areas beyond coastal states’ jurisdictions, which could be key in promoting global marine governance [20], [48]. In addition, several studies have reported that MSP processes can potentially enhance the spatial allocation of large societal benefits across ocean activities that may be at risk [20], [23], which ensures the long-term maintenance of ecosystem service (ES) supplies and offers a starting point for assessing current trade-offs between various ecological, social, and economic goals while gauging their level of achievement [2], [20], [42].

To clearly understand the need for MSP, it is crucial to show the sustainability benefits that EU countries have gained since the development of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) [22]. In countries such as Greece and Croatia, the MSFD helped in aligning and coordinating actors and marine users with national key policies that were previously hard to achieve [2], [22]. This was accomplished by streamlining the MSFD with the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (MSPD) [11] and developing policies governing ocean activities spatially and planning [20] to ensure that ocean activities do not create pressure on the ocean environment. The MSP was created in the EU as a strategy for sustainable marine development and as a multidisciplinary and collaborative process that guides decision-making. It addresses anthropogenic-environmental resource use complexities and issues pertaining to marine conservation and economic growth in relation to holistic ocean and coastal management (OCMA) and creative solutions for ocean sustainability [13], [18], [53], [54]. In brief, MSP is essential for long-term ocean-based transformational changes that are driven, inclusive, structural, and systemic [13], [22], [55] because it addresses a variety of socioenvironmental injustices ingrained in current ocean practices, such as the nonrecognition of certain identities, rights, and knowledge and value systems through participatory processes [3], [56], [57].

Therefore, MSP is desperately needed in most jurisdictions where it reduces socioeconomic costs and aids in the development of strong policies that have a clear focus on minimizing trade-offs between the objectives of biodiversity conservation and the financial interests of stakeholders [58], [59]. Agnostini et al, [59] state that when different sectors use shared data, information, and visualization tools such as maps, geospatial information systems (GIS), and tools, e.g., Marxan, in MSP processes, there are increased opportunities for agreement among stakeholders using MSP tools and procedures. According to the Australian Government [60], this approach helps managers grasp the complexity of the ecosystem and facilitates decision-making. In addition, gathering data from various maritime locations and incorporating them into geographic maps advances our understanding of ocean systems, which are catalysts for sustainable ocean management and resource use [61], thus enhancing sustainable blue spaces [10].

1.4. Persistent challenges and gaps in the adoption of MSP

In the previous section, we elaborated on the benefits of MSP in relation to marine sustainability targets across all jurisdictions, e.g., in the EU [13], [55]; in North America, e.g., Canada [10]; and in Australia [25], Africa and Asia [16], [42], [62]. Unfortunately, a critical review of related studies, especially related to the progress and implementation of MSP, reveals that much need to be done [2]. For instance, in the EU, only approximately 22 countries have fully enforced the EU directive on MSP, and in some small European states, complexities are still prevalent, e.g., on how to ensure the collaborative participation of different actors [2], [11], [22]. In marine biodiversity hotspots, e.g., in Micronesia, only 1.18% of ABNJ are under protection, and key stakeholders who are essential for guaranteeing legitimacy in the governance process among local users are lacking [27]. In some coastal states, studies have reported challenges related to the development of sustainable targets and outcomes, e.g., where there are many users [25], [28]. This has led to the proliferation of tradeoffs, e.g., between SDG 14 and other marine sectors, as well as an increase in social injustices in the use of ocean resources, e.g., in small island developing states (SIDS), e.g., Seychelles [1], [63] and Ocean Decade targets [64]. In coastal states dependent on service sectors, e.g., marine tourism, there has been an increase in pollution from marine activities, e.g., transport, urbanization, and mining [2]. This shows that even though MSP is highly recommended, there are gaps, e.g., related to implementation, since most countries’ ocean activities are managed at the per-sector level, with less focus on nesting all the system actors and sectors [25].

In most of the reviewed studies, we found that the persistent challenge reported related to MSP development and implementation has been related to a lack of awareness of participatory inclusion or stakeholder interest in kick-starting or sustaining MSPs owing to the different interests and influences of various marine users, irrespective of the spatial-temporal scale [1], [2], [22], [27]. For example, MSP mechanisms for organizing and conducting stakeholder selection and choosing inclusion guidelines are still absent in the Baltic region [4]. However, as studies conducted in Australia have shown, to achieve sustainable MSP outcomes, such participatory decisions need to address crucial concerns about why, who, how, and when to include people [25], [28]. The MSP has faced criticism in certain jurisdictions for its practical tendency to “secure democratic legitimacy for undemocratic goals” created by influential or favored actors rather than involving stakeholders in actual decision-making processes and for giving preference to new-liberal economic goals because of institutional inertia [5], [65].

Additionally, most MSPs target economic benefits, e.g., growing economic activity, and neglect the concerns of indigenous consumers by focusing primarily on offshore energy as a common actor [10]. This results in poor integration and results that are slow to improve critical reflection on institutional barriers to inclusion [31], lack of knowledge and guidance [28], [63], lack of data [25], and the use of scientific knowledge in environmental decision-making [5]. There are deficiencies in inclusive guidelines or accumulated practices for the assessment of MSP programmes and tools, even within the European Union [2], [26]. Key concerns in developing MSPs, such as deficiencies in governance frameworks, stakeholder engagement, coordination, and shifting to global environmental change, require improvements through an ongoing process of monitoring, evaluation, and revision [11], [34]. This may help to explain why, according to Argente García et al [34], 72% of the 1062 MPAs in the Mediterranean Sea zones, such as those around Spain, lack complete spatial plans. As a result, biodiversity may suffer as a result of an increase in anthropogenic uses and actors [11].

Another significant gap is the paucity of studies reporting on the process of developing a common vision among stakeholders in the MSP process in the literature [32]. This gap suggests that even when MSP processes are well designed and executed [66], [67], unfair and unequal conditions are likely to reduce the effectiveness of participatory processes [28]. Furthermore, current participatory projects may not always ensure that all knowledge holders are “empowered,” and they may even serve as a platform for one knowledge holder to abuse authority and control others [3], [68], [69]. This implies that even though studies related to MSP have subjectively reported on the need for stakeholder engagement, e.g., in the EU region [31], there is still evidence of marine space competition and ocean space grabbing by different actors [41], which leads to a continuation of top-down governance [70], less incorporation of local actors and their knowledge [71], [72] and bleak success of MSP in the future, as vulnerable people view it as a mere political tool with less focus on vulnerable people’s interests [2], [28]. With these gaps in mind, this study aims to provide a systematic perspective on the viability of stakeholder engagement in the MSP process by exploring which stakeholders are needed, when, how, and what could be the positive implications of stakeholder engagement in the MSP process for tapping into BE potential.

2.1. Inclusion/exclusion criteria

This secondary research on computer-assisted searches focused solely on articles found in the Science Direct database. The systematic literature search was limited to English, with a focus on publications from 2023 and beyond. All the other results were excluded, including those with no relationship to the MSP. The search term “roles of stakeholder engagement in marine spatial planning” was used to accrue 3028 results without limitations, and after limiting the search to 2023, a total of 308 articles were retrieved from the Science Direct database.

We downloaded these articles in .ris format and uploaded them to Covidence, an online tool that manages and streamlines systematic reviews. The articles were examined and screened by two reviewers working independently until a consensus was reached for all the studies. Out of the 308 articles, 211 were excluded after the title and abstract were screened. The 97 studies were further assessed for eligibility by conducting an in-depth full-text review, of which 11 papers were excluded due to failure to fit the assessment criteria for the study. In total, 86 articles met the eligibility criteria (see Fig. 2) and were considered for the data extraction stage using Microsoft Excel (https://t.ly/Gefev - “Data Extraction”).

The extracted data included study characteristics, for instance, title, author(s), publication year, countries where the project is conducted, what is MSP, why MSP, the theoretical origin of MSP, gaps/challenges, which stakeholders to be involved, when should the stakeholders be involved, how should the stakeholders be involved, and the implications on the blue economy (https://t.ly/Gefev - “Data extraction”). Reviewers evaluated the methodological rigour and bias risk of the included data.

2.2. Data Synthesis

The identified main themes were used to synthesize the findings from the chosen research using a narrative technique. By examining which stakeholders are required and when, how, where and what potential benefits stakeholder engagement in the MSP process may have for the BE, the synthesis sought to provide a methodical viewpoint on the feasibility of stakeholder participation in the process. For example, we paid attention to specific aspects, such as when and how early stakeholders are involved, as well as whether they were involved in all phases or just some of them. We also examined the level of stakeholder strength to determine the impact of the stakeholders on the procedure and results. Using a framework created by Pomeroy and Berkes, (1997), who provided a spectrum/hierarchy of co-management arrangements, we ranked the various stakeholder engagements (roles).

To validate the results, we conducted key performance interactions with a marine specialist at the Korea Maritime Institute (KMI) to provide her perspectives and experiences through which she went to develop her MSP in South Korea.

3.1. Stakeholder Engagement in MSP

The specifics of how such stakeholders are involved and engaged in the MSP depend entirely on the particular case and its interests, even though there are some fundamental guidelines and concepts that can help to improve stakeholder engagement in MSP processes globally [3], [57]. Therefore, stakeholder engagement in the MSP is applied in various ways depending on the context, and its procedures, methods, and governance structures are adjusted accordingly [3], [57]. One crucial denominator is that for effective MSP instruments and procedures to be achieved [2][28], the value of cooperation among stakeholders' aspirations, interests, and expectations in conjunction with geographic scientific knowledge is crucial [61], [74], particularly in regard to resolving human user-environment issues while ensuring sustainability [3]. This is partially because stakeholders' involvement in the MSP process is beneficial since it allows them to formally participate in activities, including information collection, consultation participation, teamwork, and possibly decentralized decision-making [66], [67].

Twomey [69] defines that engagement entails intentionally establishing a means of working together with stakeholders at every stage of the process, particularly prior to the consultation stage. Stakeholders are institutions or individuals who are interested in, are impacted by, or are involved in MSP measures or actions of any kind [3], [68], [69]. This focus on inclusive stakeholder involvement in ocean governance nodes and MSPs has been well explained in several studies on coastal resource management, where comanagement and individual and multilevel governance are the three commonly recognized modes [75]. These scholars contend that hierarchical governance typically denotes the absence of stakeholder and government agency collaboration in decision-making. According to Pomeroy and Berkes [73], comanagement includes a broad range of situations, from those in which the government merely consults stakeholders prior to enacting regulations to those in which the stakeholders take part in the creation, execution, and enforcement of rules and regulations while receiving guidance from the government. Self-governance is attained when all decision-making power rests with the stakeholders themselves. This implies that for an MSP to be achieved, it is crucial to understand who the key stakeholders involved in the process are and what their level of influence and interest are [3], [28].

3.2. Who are the key stakeholders for engagement in the MSP process?

In Fig. 3, we visualize a nested hierarchical system that shows the key stakeholders that are needed in the MSP broken in an integrated and collaborative manner at all levels. Since MSP is a collaborative process, knowledge of the key actors involved goes a long way in ensuring the sustainability of MSP in any jurisdiction [25], [41].

In the reviewed documents, it is clearly documented that these stakeholders vary depending on the scope and spatial-temporal dimension of the MSP, i.e., local, regional, or global [42], [65], [76], even though some actors are increasingly involved throughout the process to align with the citizen science paradigm and global frameworks of the BE [10], [28], [42]. Effective MSPs must take into account the needs and interests of all relevant players, which can be achieved only by integrating different actors and multiple views through equitable and inclusive processes involving distributive, procedural, and recognition components [77].

3.2.1. Local-level stakeholders

According to the reviewed articles, local-level actors are crucial at all stages, especially in the planning and implementation phases of an MSP [43], [78]. These stakeholders vary and mainly include local community users, e.g., multiple microactors across levels, including the forestry bureau, e.g., under the Natura 2000 network, which focuses on protected areas in the European Union; local/village governments; and communities [19], e.g., indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC), e.g., Aboriginals around the Australian Sea [17], [43], [47], [79]. Other stakeholders include conservation and restoration actors who manage the environment [78]; recreation anglers [80], [81]; coastal households/communities and local businesses and customer segments-residents [82]; local fisher communities [83]; seaweed farmers; processors, retailers, consumers, policymakers, local NGOs and community-based organizations (CBOs) [44], [64]; local media [84]; tourists [85]; and informal sector actors [86] who operate in local marine zones.

3.2.2. Regional/National-Level Stakeholders

These actors work privately or in organizations at the local, state, or federal levels. These include decision pilots (those who may or may not be the same as those who develop environmental policies), actors who centralize environmental data, and public and commercial organizations that provide environmental information [44], [78], [79]. They also include national governments, national NGOs and CSOs [53]; regional authorities; academics, e.g., researchers/scientists/universities; and private/individual actors, such as tourists or fisheries [77], [81], [87]–[89]. Other national stakeholders include National Ministries, e.g., for Finance [11]; Departments and Agencies (MDAs) [64], [80], [81]; coastal urban planners [46]; and national/regional scientific institutions [90], e.g., the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) for the Pan Baltic Scope project [24]. Considerations should also be given to regional indigenous peoples and local community (IPLC) organizations [91], e.g., Aboriginal groups in Australia, New Zealand and Canada [49]. A study in Japan clearly documented examples of key national stakeholders in its MSP ecosystem, e.g., the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries; local authorities (such as the Nakatsu City Office and the Oita Prefectural Government); educational research institutions (such as Oita University and Bunri University); businesses (such as TOTO and local industries and restaurants); the NPO Nakatsu Waterfront Conservation Association [92]; Advisory committees [23]; and researchers and surveyors, e.g., in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) [38].

At the regional level, key stakeholders may include regional commercial fisheries [83]; regional management organizations; conservationists, e.g., in the tourism and wildlife sector [82]; and regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs), e.g., the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization (SPRFMO) and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC), among others [93]; regional bodies, e.g., the EU [22]; and the Caribbean [94]. Some of the stakeholders in the BE context include aquaculture producers, tourism operators and recreational industry users; shipping companies; oil and gas; mariculture; transport and infrastructure; governance (local, provincial, and national government) [21], [29], [95]; national/regional media actors [50]; and civil servants [51].

3.2.3. Global-Level Stakeholders

These operations occur at a global level, though most of their involvement relies partly on regional, national, and local actors [1]. Some of these stakeholders include donor organizations and international conservation NGOs, e.g., the WWF [63], [77], [79], [81] and the International Whaling Commission (IWC) [93]; global scientific institutions, e.g., NOAA [90]; global media broadcasting companies [50]; and environmental journalists [51]. Others can include marine law practitioners and organizations to resolve ocean disputes, e.g., in the ABNJ [96], e.g., the UNCLOS and the UNESCO [12]; interest groups; and private companies in ocean carbon research and its applications [53], e.g., salmon interest groups, e.g., contractors; suppliers; the Tasmanian Salmon Growers Association (TSGA) [97]; global interagency teams; and committees [23], women's groups, youth groups and organizations [16].

One important finding is that the majority of these stakeholders functioned inside a hierarchical structure that was nested and interrelated. This observation is directly related to the framework that Pomeroy and Berkes, (1997) proposed to specify stakeholder roles in resource management processes. Pomeroy and Berkes, (1997) argue that legitimate and accountable local organizations and institutional arrangements are necessary for the development of comanagement conditions by regional and national stakeholders, such as national governments. They also argue that the platform for stakeholder involvement needs to be maintained by the government. Delegating authority and sharing accountability for overseeing different operations might be among the most difficult parts of establishing comanagement [2].

Their framework consists of the following:

The rights of stakeholders to organize meetings to discuss issues and potential solutions as well as to create comprehensive institutional arrangements (e.g., on management rights and norms) shall not be infringed upon by the government in this instance.
For stakeholders to feel as though their concerns and ideas will be heard, they must have access to the government and government personnel.
To address their demands, stakeholders should have the freedom to create their own organizations, as well as networks and coalitions for cooperation and coordination.

Pomeroy and Berkes, (1997) also discussed a range of potential interactions between all stakeholders in resource management procedures, as well as possible responsibilities for stakeholders in these processes. They referred to this spectrum as a "hierarchy."

These responsibilities include:

Informing stakeholders about decisions made by governments;

Consulting stakeholders and soliciting their opinions;

That stakeholders would serve in an advising capacity, indicating a greater willingness on the part of the government to take their recommendations into account when making management choices;

Collaboration and shared action occur when both parties have substantial power and make decisions together. This position could be seen as the first to imply comanagement or cogovernance;

Community control, in which decision-making is openly delegated to stakeholders without reliance on governmental permission. This is consistent with how self-government operates.

The advantages of comanagement include making management more appropriate, equitable, and practical Pomeroy and Berkes, (1997); this has been supported by several studies in the ocean space of Australia and Canada that show better progress related to MSP implementation [10], [28], [29]. This analysis showed that when conducting an MSP process, it is critical to understand which stakeholders can be involved [11], and this could be accomplished by conducting a stakeholder analysis [95]. Stakeholder analysis begins with stakeholder identification in the MSP process, which improves the choice of governance institutions and individuals to take part in the governance of BE activities. Research on MSP, e.g., Ehler and Douvere [3], recommends a participatory style of stakeholder engagement, where a broad spectrum of stakeholders should be involved in the greatest number of stakeholders possible. However, some MSP guides recommend the idea of ensuring that only the correct individuals (suitable stakeholders) are included and mention a smaller spectrum of stakeholder involvement than others, e.g., at the global level [28], [98], but with a sizable representation from each of those groups, e.g., indigenous local communities and groups [95], to gather more perspectives on important niche topics, e.g., the BE in SIDS [29], with the justification that more stakeholders’ ideas are crucial than few [99]. On the precise quantity and variety of stakeholders involved at each stage, very few publications have been evaluated [100], even at the national and local levels [88].

The previously mentioned factors, such as the number of groups included and the number of participants/representatives from each group, result in four basic process categories, each with advantages and disadvantages (Table 1). A greater number of stakeholder groups involved will likely lead to greater representation of the issues, and it should be feasible to address them all during the process [49]. Nevertheless, having more groups can lead to practical issues [91], such as making meeting scheduling more challenging, increasing costs (e.g., logistical support), increasing idea variability, and possibly creating a less structured and orderly process. Just as having lots of participants in each group, having many stakeholder groups present can help with idea generation and issue representation, but it will also offer logistical challenges related to cost and coordination [28]. Having a large number of participants in a group has the added advantage of potentially generating more innovative ideas for potential problem solutions, assuming that it increases the likelihood that some participants will be engaged and productive in identifying problems and proposing solutions.

Table 1

The four categories of stakeholder involvement are defined by whether there are few or many stakeholder groups involved.
	Limited stakeholder groups	Large number of stakeholder groups
Few Stakeholders’ Participation Scenario	• The costs incurred are relatively low. • Ease of bringing stakeholders reduces time. • The ability to develop grounded ideas is low. • Crucial institutions/stakeholder representation is limited. • Most ideas might not vary thus identical. • Discussions tend to be more organization and focused.	• Medium costs are incurred. • Medium time requirement necessary. • More ideas are generated related to MSP. • Many institutions are inclusively represented. • Ideas will also vary giving new perspectives. • The capacity to initiate order and organize ideas might be difficult.
More Stakeholders’ Participation Scenario with different groups.	• The costs are relatively low to medium. • Requires limited time for stakeholder meeting preparation and organization. • More participation leads to diverse ideas from diverse groups of stakeholders. • Most crucial organizations tend to have low representation • Most ideas will not vary much • Levels of orderliness among stakeholders are medium with difficulty in organization.	• Extremely costly. • Much time is needed to organize dates for all stakeholders • More ideas are generated with livid examples • Institutional and organizational representation is high • More ideas are generated with different perspectives. • Low levels of order and organization.

Analysis of the literature on the relevance of knowing which stakeholders are involved and the benefits (Source: Created by Authors).

The opposite of what is indicated for a large number of stakeholder groups with many participants per group is the category comprising few stakeholder groups and few participants per group. Coastal states that need to expedite the process to meet MSP targets, such as those in the EU [2], and SIDSs, such as the Seychelles [1], are more likely to use this approach. We argue that this approach should be used in smaller areas since it is easier to administer and can be more economical in scenarios involving fewer resources that sustain livelihoods in local contexts, e.g., in India [101].

The next two fall between the previously indicated more extreme categories: numerous stakeholder groups, few participants per group, and few stakeholder groups, many participants per group. Therefore, they also have intermediate benefits and drawbacks. For example, there are few financial expenses, and there should not be many organizational problems similar to what is reported in Seychelles [1]. However, because each group has a large number of members who may have similar beliefs depending on the business or organization they represent, the latter can be easier to organize. In the former, each group generates fewer ideas, and the actual events are seen from a narrower angle. In the latter, there is more idea generation from every group but less holistic presentation of experiences in the management area because there are fewer stakeholder groups involved.

Nevertheless, in many jurisdictions, many variations in the general summaries presented in this analysis can emerge. For instance, there is no assurance that if many individuals are involved in a process, many ideas will be developed. The level of productivity and engagement of the participants determine the amount of ideas that can be generated to uncover potential solutions to problems. It is also possible that a larger group will have the counterintuitive result of making people less engaged because other stakeholders could come up with ideas and solutions.

A review of MSP cases in the study proves that the scenarios in Table 1 can be represented in any jurisdiction because they are all broad in nature. On a more specific note, there are various situations in which some groups may attend a meeting more often than others, e.g., as reported in studies in the UK and Turkey [53]. Additionally, several of the situations examined could apply to multiple scenarios. In his analysis of Polish MSPs for the Gulf of Gdansk and South Middle Bank, for example, Zaucha [102] addressed the low data quality because a low number of stakeholders were involved in the data extraction. Depending on how one interprets the literature, these plans could fit into one of three scenarios (many groups, few participants; few groups, many participants; or few groups, few participants). The aforementioned analysis, it should be noted, is not constrained by any quantitative criterion (limit) of "how broad is wide, how narrow is narrow, how much is, or how costly is" since this criterion can be determined only locally depending on different countries and their unique management areas. However, a number of these studies show numerical engagement; for example, the Kenai River Fisheries (Alaska, United States) case included citations from seven major stakeholders, twelve secondary stakeholders, and nineteen tertiary stakeholders [100].

This practice is very different from that in the literature, which often encourages the engagement of a wide range of stakeholders since most key stakeholders are not considered in MSP processes in real-world scenarios [39]. For instance, in the U.S., certain marine stakeholders were excluded after being purposefully left out of the engagement process by having meetings held in unsuitable locations and on the wrong dates and times [30]. Other important stakeholders from other sectors were prevented from participating in the process because of the top-down nature of the planning body for the northern region of the US, which was heavily biased in favor of the development of offshore renewable energy.

There are many reasons why some stakeholders are excluded from MSP processes, e.g., in Brazil [85]. In some regions, e.g., the EU, the quick and fast involvement of government officials in hastening the MSP implementation process [90], as well as in the case of South Korea, even though the stakeholder engagement system is well developed, it is currently unable to provide meaningful stakeholder engagement in MSP implementation (key informant communication). Public hearings are formally needed during the planning process, but because they take place at the end of the process, it could be challenging to incorporate the opinions expressed there (key informant communication). Some studies have reported budgetary constraints on MSP processes as another difficulty since MSP is an expensive process that requires considerable funding, especially at the initial stages [103]. For instance, all members of the European Union are obligated by law to create MSPs within a certain amount of time [46], [104]. In the case of developing nations, this kind of time restriction may present particular challenges, e.g., in the Southeast Pacific and Indonesia [84], [93]. Certain MSP steps, such as "engaging stakeholders," may be easily skipped if these nations lack the financial resources to cover the necessary budgetary requirements [103]. Additionally, because MSP is a public procedure, national politics have a significant impact on it [105].

While some coastal states support in theory the direct engagement of stakeholders in MSP processes, political factors ultimately lead to the exclusion of others [105]. An MSP is meant to be a free expression process and to permit the free exchange of ideas, which includes disagreements, discussions, and debates, according to Flannery et al [105]. On the other hand, they contend that MSP is essentially postpolitical planning, which is anti-democratic in that it forces procedures to seek tenuous consensus and agreement even in the face of unsolved issues and imposes state agendas. Thus, the MSP system in most countries is unbalanced as a result of stakeholders' continued disempowerment, exclusion, or even lack of engagement due to concerns that the system is primarily designed to serve powerful stakeholders.

Stakeholders may not follow decisions made in such a controlled environment, and government actors normally respond by enacting strict laws and policies that may harm stakeholders' social and economic well-being [105]. This could affect the prospects of MSP. Korea is currently working to involve fisheries stakeholders in the early stages of MSP (key informant communication) after previously excluding fisheries from the program. Pomeroy and Douvere [106]’s advice to involve all pertinent stakeholders in the decision-making process may, however, also be broken by inviting participants to MSP meetings without giving them the chance to provide feedback. Government representatives regularly override the MSP system to further their state objectives [105]. In this scenario, attendees may discuss ideas that are never implemented or they may attend meetings but not participate in the discussions. This paradox demonstrates that even though the majority of coastal states acknowledge the comprehensive necessity of stakeholder involvement at all stages [64], there are still concerns about the best times and methods for involving these stakeholders, even at the local level [87]; we address these concerns in the following section.

3.3. When should the stakeholders be involved in the MSP process?

Another crucial consideration in developing MSP processes is the timing of stakeholder involvement. However, the majority of related studies focus on "which" and "how" questions without mentioning "when" to involve stakeholders. A study by Bergström et al [107] is one such example, who emphasized stakeholder interaction but did not offer any particular time recommendations. However, there have been cases—such as in Scotland—in which extremely early stakeholder participation has been promoted [69]. A further example is the Kenai River Fisheries in Alaska, where assertions have been made that stakeholders were engaged at some phases as opposed to all phases. Furthermore, most MSP guidelines discourage the inclusion of every stakeholder in the process from the beginning [3], [106]. In some studies, even though participatory stakeholder engagement is needed at all stages, there is less clarity, e.g., on the frequency of involvement and the timeframe [64], [78]. In this section, we dive into greater detail by showing (1) how early to involve stakeholders, (2) how often to involve stakeholders, and (3) whether to involve stakeholders throughout the process or at certain stages.

3.3.1. How early should the stakeholders be involved?

Any stakeholders who will be impacted by the MSP process or who have a connection to the ocean system that will be designed or managed in the MSP should be taken into account when answering this question. The early involvement of all stakeholders from the outset during preplanning is a common recommendation in the literature [108], [109]. By providing a better understanding of the process's workings and generating a "snowball effect," as described in New Caledonia, this approach will help the MSP process function more effectively. This approach will also help identify gaps in environmental monitoring and needs in the setting of objectives, as well as the cost of achieving them [78]. For example, Cyprus's chances of successfully implementing the MSP rely on its ability to absorb global best practices, such as early stakeholder involvement [110]. However, other group members in a different US example contended that active stakeholders should have been asked to participate in talks on particular projects rather than in the early phases of the process [105].

Some studies categorize stakeholders as primary (meaningful stakeholders), secondary, or tertiary based on the amount of money they invest [100]. The authors categorized the stakeholders in the fisheries, for example, according to their time and financial commitments. These categories included advocacy, education, revenue generation, research, regulation, resource management, land ownership, user social interest, and resource interest. The people who had committed large sums of money were considered the main stakeholders. In contrast to Krupa [100], who placed more emphasis on stakeholder involvement at specific stages Baker et al [1] proposed that because primary stakeholders are so important to decision-making, it is crucial to involve them at every level of MSP, e.g., in the Mahe Plateau Fisheries Plan. Compared to primary stakeholders, secondary stakeholders have less influence; thus, they should be involved only when necessary at certain periods. Tertiary stakeholders, such as international actors, are the last group and usually have the least amount of involvement in the MSP process [2].

However, they must be informed about MSP proceedings through the media [25] or other communication channels even if they are not directly involved in any of these stages [100]. This perspective is crucial in informing research related to the extent of stakeholders' influence on management. This finding is in line with the statement of Chuenpagdee [109] that to make the MSP process effective, all factors, including stakeholder knowledge and power, should be thoroughly investigated. A few things that might be of interest are learning the identities of these stakeholders, the groups they represent, the reasons they are involved in the process, and whether they adhere to established legal standards and processes [28]. This approach helps ensure that the MSP process is genuine and clear, reducing confusion among different stakeholders and resulting in improved outcomes while saving money, time, and energy.

3.3.2. How frequently are stakeholders involved?

MSP is a lengthy process that is held and finalized after lengthy intervals/interactions/planning processes [111]; thus, it requires flexibility and multistage monitoring [25]. In tandem, the majority of guidelines advise timely or earlier hosting of more stakeholder engagements [3], [72], [112]. This is because it helps in the initial capture and comprehension of key ideas from stakeholders before making decisions that might affect MSP implementation or guidance in future engagements. The intervals between subsequent sessions should not be too long to separate in time. This perspective is clearly documented in the study on MSP in the Baltic Sea region, where a focus was on the recognition of temporal changes depending on when the MSP objectives are debated or achieved [4].

3.3.3. Whether to engage stakeholders throughout the process or at certain phases/stages.

This question has some relationship to the preceding investigation of "how early". While Ehler and Douvere [74] advocate for ongoing stakeholder involvement, only if stakeholders are primary (important) should they be required to be involved at all stages of the process. While tertiary stakeholders may not be involved in particular phases of the process, they nevertheless need to be informed about it, and secondary stakeholders should be included as appropriate. As an illustration, Fiona [113] recommended that highly knowledgeable stakeholders of the fishery and experience in the field be included throughout the whole MPA creation process. The phases of planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation are identified by Ehler and Douvere [98] as the three primary periods when stakeholder interaction is essential. Furthermore, according to Ehler [28], involving key stakeholders at the appropriate stages saves money because resources such as finance can perform assigned duties to meet the projected MSP objectives, and it saves time because a large number of stakeholders engaged at the wrong time and in the wrong way can be distracting and therefore waste time.

Some BE sectors and activities, e.g., offshore renewable and sustainable energy production, are still in their infancy in many parts of the world; however, Young [114] noted in his case study that if key stakeholders are fully engaged from the beginning of MSP processes in management areas that may see the development of new uses, the industry could have enormous potential in the future [115]–[117]. Consequently, for the industry to reach its maximum potential, the players involved need to tackle challenges such as conflicts between users and resources, complicated regulations, a lack of awareness about the environmental effects of offshore renewable energy, and more general problems with ocean governance [114], e.g., related to disaster relief [118]. This can only happen if stakeholders are involved at every level of the MSP process. By doing so, issues that may cause disputes may be clarified, it becomes simpler to shift to new developments, and further new perspectives, e.g., on best management-related experiences, may even be sparked.

3.4. How should the stakeholders be involved?

In the previous sections, we identified which stakeholders were involved and when. Some of the reviewed documents also revealed that it is important to know how stakeholders need to be involved [1]. Although there is a need for participatory engagement [4], since different stakeholders have different capacities and capabilities, e.g., in zoning, legislation, and advocacy [2], [44], [77], the success of an MSP depends mainly on knowledge of how to involve a given stakeholder(s) to reduce the time and cost [64], [87]. The majority of related research and viewpoints regarding stakeholder involvement are examined through the lens of two main concepts: the style of governance, which prioritizes collaborative management, and the degree, or level, of intensity or influence [1], [28].

3.4.1. Modes of governance

Most of the MSP procedures that were examined showed how stakeholders are involved in the management arrangements that Pomeroy and Berkes [73] previously described. According to Correia et al [46], there are three general models for how stakeholders participate in MSP processes: (1) a highly inclusive stakeholder-driven process; (2) a process that is more government-driven; or (3) a process that, depending on the management action or target, falls somewhere in the middle and is both government- and stakeholder-driven. Any of these situations could work, depending on how important management is to the country; however, which would work best might depend on the details.

3.4.2. Inclusive stakeholder-driven process

These kinds of procedures frequently rely on the key decisions made by a few stakeholders who influence how the MSP process is initiated. The cases examined include those where a variety of stakeholders are impacted by the process and are given the opportunity to engage in it [103], which results in successful MSP implementation and operation. To uncover potential solutions to these issues, management authorities are typically under pressure from stakeholders to adopt cross-sectoral integrated management systems such as MSPs. Stakeholders may need to settle spatial conflicts in certain situations, such as when the Norwegian petroleum industry wants to expand into areas where other economic uses are already active or when they may want to invest in new potential uses in the management area, such as the renewable energy sector [119]. As a result, an integrated management system that can function across industries and account for temporal and spatial elements was needed. In an MSP, resolving customer conflicts through this method could be crucial because it encourages communication among all stakeholders. Furthermore, it promotes a sense of accountability and safeguarding for the choices and directives made during the procedure [69], [120].

3.4.3. Government-driven process

When there is a need to coordinate economic use impacts on the environment (resolving user-environment impacts), when there is a smaller effect or impact on people, such as in offshore regions with fewer economic uses, when new uses need to be developed in management areas, and when a new economic activity may generate significant revenue for the coastal state or nation, this is advantageous.

Several government-driven processes were examined in a number of cases. According to Olsen et al [119], in a Belgian scenario, the federal minister pushed for the creation of the MSP process, which first excluded fisheries because of its regional jurisdiction over the matter and involved parties from the aggregate extraction and renewable energy sectors. Eventually, certain aspects of fisheries activities were restricted, such as the ban on fishing in offshore energy concession zones and the restriction of various fishing methods, such as bottom trawling, to specific locations. The MSP procedure was also attributed to habitat preservation and protection.

In addition, on the west coast of Colombia, where commercial marine stakeholders were major players, the process was more government driven. Because whales are endangered and sanctuaries are thought to be a means of providing protection, this process requires the protection of living marine mammals (i.e., limiting whale hits by vessels) [121]. Whales have also been struck by large ships on their way to and from San Francisco Bay and other important ports in the Pacific Ocean. Among the many parties involved in this process were the shipping and fishing industries, recreational boaters, trade associations, marine exchanges, ship agents, and pilots [122]. The sustainable management of water resources, ecosystem protection, biodiversity preservation, and striking balance between economic and environmental interests are the goals of the government-overseeing MSP process in Australia's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which is another example of a government-driven process [123].

In general, scenarios where environmental issues are present tend to include fewer players and a more government-driven procedure. The key partners in this field are environmental organizations and marine conservationists.

3.4.4. Mixture of government- and stakeholder-driven processes

While governments or stakeholders have a significant impact on the procedures in the previously described situations, the roles of the two are more evenly balanced in a third set of cases. One example is from the United States, where the Obama administration issued an executive order to develop marine spatial plans in larger US waterways in response to stakeholder pressure [119]. A great deal of discontent among business economic users kept the MSP procedure from obtaining additional funding. However, stakeholder participation and transparency were more successful in the U.S. at the state and local levels [119].

According to Smythe and McCann [124], U.S. maritime resource managers have formed new councils, such as advisory boards for habitats and fishermen, and have thus far adopted MSP on a lesser scale. Government practitioners and stakeholders include, among others, integrated marine scientists, commercial anglers, NOAA sanctuaries, universities, environmental organizations, and municipal, county, state, federal, and tribal governments; they also include marine managers. In the U.S., stakeholder involvement is also more common than government-run procedures alone.

Hadjimitsis et al [110] addressed the Cyprus instance as a further illustration of this methodology. The study showed that because the country lacked a structure for the process, economic users were less confident and made fewer investments. The bulk of the new uses, such as the renewable energy sector, required government development and subsidization; therefore, the government needed to become more involved in the MSP process [115], [117], [125].

3.4.5. Individual stakeholder groups

Effective governance is necessary for the proper management of maritime habitats, and vertical and horizontal integration are essential elements [126]. Resource management across multiple levels of government, including local, state/provincial, federal, regional, and international, is known as vertical integration (cross-scale), whereas horizontal integration (cross-sectoral) refers to resource management across different sectors [67], [119]. For example, it is generally not advisable to manage fisheries with a system and process that are entirely different from those applied to other facets of ocean management. The management of all resources is governed by a broad framework, and there are always connections between various sectors.

Multilevel integration is very difficult to achieve even though some of the scenarios examined involve more vertical integration and others involve more horizontal integration [119]. Although most related research implies that MSP is important, very few examples of cases in which the fishing industry was left out exist. Most of the related research indicates that fisheries have historically had rights to the ocean and that if MSP is not completely integrated, it will not succeed [108]. We bolster this claim with the addition that, although disorganized fisheries management exists, successful integration requires organization. As a result, fisheries cannot be managed similarly to other ocean users Andrade [108]. Fisheries integration into MSP processes is crucial but challenging [127]. Given that many of these new applications have not yet been put into practice, prioritizing new uses of these fisheries may not be the best course of action. Therefore, fisheries must not be compromised to propel the maritime industry forward. On the other hand, we contend that there are many new potential uses that are most likely more renewable and sustainable than what we currently have on Earth. For example, the renewable energy sector is expected to drive MSP in various countries in the coming years Ehler [66], which is expected to boost the economies of various countries in the near future. Thus, attention should be given to all uses of the ocean, including fisheries, which are valued for producing more jobs for society and serving as a reliable source of protein [128]. This can be handled by producing renewable energy at other sites offshore and outside of fishing grounds or by using MSP to find shared spatial areas where all of these activities can coexist. Finding the appropriate balance and managing these conflicts is one of MSP's main objectives. This perspective is supported by a study by [129] and Bergström et al [107] in Sweden, which revealed synergies between competing needs allowing Integrated Multi Trophic Aquaculture (IMTA) farms and offshore wind energy to coexist.

Stakeholder integration has been essential for MSP procedures. The MSP was ultimately recognized as a favored tool in the U.S. when stakeholders were asked to provide feedback on management tools by the federal government. This resulted in the Obama administration passing an executive order to adopt MSP in the U.S. Many stakeholders developed trust and a sense of ownership as a result of the effective horizontal integration in this example, which included total openness, public papers, active stakeholder opinion gathering, and open meetings. This contrasts with the more tightly controlled and transparent situations in Belgium and Norway [119]. This result is in line with what would be predicted using Pomeroy and Berkes [73]'s paradigm.

The MSP procedures might benefit from a combination of vertical and horizontal integration; as exemplary examples, Norway and Belgium [119]. The two countries have a robust vertical integration structure and were successful at integrating both stakeholders. For example, Norway's government levels and sectors achieved horizontal cross-sectoral integration by using joint groups, forums, hearings, sectoral meetings, and open public meetings in its MSP process [119].

With respect to continuous (hierarchical) stakeholder roles in management arrangements, certain scenarios perform better than others. To lessen the impact that ships had on the whales on the Colombian Pacific coast, where whale mortality is high, sanctuaries were established, and communications were made to the public and stakeholders about the risk and potential solutions according to Abramson [122]. The commercial industry was given priority during the MSP process because it was a major influencer. According to Pomeroy and Berkes [73], informing is the least effective kind of comanagement; nevertheless, it is crucial when governments make decisions to foster confidence and trust. For instance, as reported in a case study by Bergström et al [107] that evaluated the impacts of offshore wind farms on marine animals, the Swedish government and the researchers collaborated to look for these consequences. Nevertheless, in this instance, it was not clear what kinds of partnership arrangements and how much power would be shared or integrated. The involvement of these stakeholders in management arrangements can aid in fostering mutual knowledge of challenges and facilitating collaborative decisions in complex situations [73]. The primary source of influence on animals was offshore wind farms; thus, those wind farms were moved to lessen adverse effects such as noise disruptions, silt dispersal, and electromagnetic fields. The wind energy industry is advised to be one of the main participants in this MSP process. Fisheries, aquaculture, oil and gas, and advocates for wildlife protection were among the other important stakeholders.

While some nations or areas have a single level of government, others have a multitiered system. For example, Belgium's multilevel government structure has very deep vertical integration between the federal state and the Flemish region at the highest levels [119]. This has been reported in EU zones in countries that initially used a top-down approach in MSP [28]. Due to the multiple levels of competence in various issues, it is thus challenging to establish considerable integration in multilevel governments. For example, most US authorities do not integrate well; in the three scenarios that were examined, sectoral integration was the only integration that seemed to be most important [124]. This is further illustrated in the Olsen et al [119] case, when it was said that the federal minister in Belgium's multilevel government structure expressed worries regarding the country's MSP development. The Minister was authorized to create a master plan, with the exception of the Flemish area's fisheries, which are under the purview of the region. It is therefore difficult to combine multilevel governments with robust top-down vertical integration.

The different perspectives related to MSP bring to the fore a duopoly of insights related to the complexity in conducting and the benefits of MSP in the marine space [130]. Moreover, creating effective mechanisms for MSP is key in reducing sustainability challenges in the use of marine resources and space [25]. From these insights, we draw key takeaways related to both stakeholder involvement and BE, as described in the next subsections.

4.1. Viability toward division of roles in the MSP process

The main target of MSP is to settle disputes among ocean users [119]. To address the aforementioned conflicts and issues brought about by rapid coastal development and ocean use, stakeholders' participation in the MSP process is essential and critical [131]. For MSPs to be embraced and accepted and to support their validity, credibility, inclusivity, and social fairness, their participation is essential [132], [133]. Stakeholders’ engagement is crucial at all levels, including during the preimplementation phase, which is synonymously called step zero [70], [109]. According to Ehler and Douvere [3], stakeholders are essential to the planning process at every stage because they assist in defining goals and objectives, mapping out human activities, analyzing user conflicts that occur now, defining future scenarios and analyzing conflicts that arise there, creating suggested ideal plans, tracking and assessing advancement, and reviewing management. In other words, the key benchmark for MSP is holistic and participatory engagement, as this will unlock the complexities in marine space at all levels and among different actors by addressing the most sensitive issues among users and developing acceptable regulations in marine space and resource use [80]. On the other hand, the lack of stakeholder involvement is thus a precursor to ocean livelihoods and resource vulnerability to several shocks. If all key stakeholders are not involved and are not given a voice during the preimplementation phase of formulating goals, stakeholders may be unable to agree on important issues and fail to settle the problems that the process was designed to address [108], [109]. Additionally, as MSP is normally developed in areas where there are already active conflicts, its effectiveness is directly influenced by how people perceive the issues, conflicts, and potential solutions as well as by the laws that have been adopted in such areas [134], [135], especially those relating to tapping the economic values of marine resources [77].

Another key insight is related to how and when stakeholders need to be involved. The study clearly documented that stakeholder participation in MSP processes can take many various forms, and these variations may have an impact on the process's results. The first concern is the type of stakeholders involved in the process. Most studies document and support the holistic involvement of all stakeholders in all aspects to the greatest extent possible [2], [4]. Unfortunately, there are some circumstances in which a significant portion of stakeholders are excluded. For instance, the fisheries industry is commonly mentioned as one of the crucial stakeholders involved in almost all MSP processes [68], [108], [134], [136], [137]. In contrast to certain situations where certain stakeholders are included, for instance, fisheries were previously excluded from MSP processes in Belgium [119]. In certain cases, such as when the commercial maritime industry was contacted to find solutions to the issue of ships colliding with whales in the Colombian Pacific Ocean, stakeholder involvement was further driven by the government [122]. However, in other cases, such as with Norway's petroleum industry, which actually came up with the idea of introducing MSP across the country, stakeholders have taken the initiative to engage [119].

An additional aspect of stakeholder involvement is when and at what point(s) they should become involved. This section addresses more detailed questions, such as when they should be involved (e.g., during the preimplementation phase or other later phases), how often they should participate, and whether they should participate at all or simply at particular points in the process. Stakeholders usually participate in all stages of MSP, as noted by Pomeroy and Douvere, and Hadjimitsis et al [106], [110]who offered examples from Europe to corroborate this claim. In the case of a Kenai River fishery, the frequency of stakeholder participation in the decision-making process was also ascertained through the use of a simplified method [100]. Complete stakeholder engagement was also demonstrated in a case study from Portugal [138], which started with the planning stage and lasted until the evaluation. Conversely, others show that stakeholders participate only during specific stages [98], [100].

How stakeholders participate in MSP procedures and what their roles are in the process constitute a third facet of stakeholder involvement. One common method of evaluating the involvement of stakeholders is to rank their influence and strength in management structures [67], [139]. This could include anything from just receiving information about problems and choices to having their preferences and opinions sought out to actively take part in the process [73]. For example, in the US's Northeast Regional Planning Process, stakeholders' roles were restricted to achieving preestablished MSP objectives [105], free speech was not allowed, and certain stakeholders were intentionally excluded for political reasons. Some developed biases and stopped taking part. Flannery et al [105] recommended practising an MSP that allows collaborative generation of ideas and decisions instead of justifying top-down methods. They also suggested that participatory MSPs be developed to prevent elite stakeholders from dominating the process and to acquire the trust of all stakeholders to prevent the exclusion of weak stakeholders.

4.2. Relevance in the context of the BE and Global Agenda, e.g., on Oceans

Most of the global focus has shifted to unlocking the potential of the BE and marine space as conduits for global development [43], e.g., in creating collaborative approaches that inform sustainable development initiatives [140]. Regretfully, most jurisdictions lack an understanding of how to responsibly strike the right balance between sustainable development and biodiversity protection to combat the loss of biodiversity [130]. We argue that with an increased focus on MSP using robust stakeholder engagement pathways, this challenge could be solved. This is partly because, in most of the studies, it is clearly documented that identifying systemic gaps in marine environmental monitoring and the demands in goal setting and the cost of achieving them in ocean zones may help to inform environmental management and policy [78]. Stakeholder participation in MSP decision-making, such as local area-based conservation measures, may help to alleviate environmental inequality and improve social and ecological outcomes in coastal states in the Global South, such as the SIDS, Kiribati, and other states [77]. Stakeholder participation in MSP decision-making, such as local area-based conservation measures, may help to alleviate environmental inequality and improve social and ecological outcomes in coastal states in the Global South, such as the SIDS, Kiribati, and other states [77]. For example, such participatory methods may play a pivotal role in Brazil in launching nature-based solutions that investigate the relationships between coastal risk indices and natural habitats at the subnational level and encourage local stakeholders to utilize them [81]. Collaborative stakeholder engagement could inform coral disease management decision-making in areas where marine ecosystems, such as coral reefs, are threatened, such as in Tuvalu and Puerto Rico. These engagements should involve diverse partners, make use of local knowledge, and promote interagency and cross-regional collaboration [79]. To put it simply, improved decision-making is facilitated by increased stakeholder engagement and knowledge, which allows for the exploration of trade-offs and synergies between environmental, economic, and social outcomes associated with protected areas (PAs) and their management. This approach fosters a more integrated approach to development, as seen, for example, in South Africa [82], using ecosystem-based management approaches [83].

In the EU zones, these insights could be key in unlocking the potential of the EU Green Deal and nature restoration programs [2], [77] and contributing to the development of a circular blue bioeconomy that is based on renewable resources and activities, e.g., seaweed cultivation, that promote a sustainable BE [44]. Through the BE, there are high possibilities that can benefit from MSP by promoting sustainable and equitable use of ocean resources, thus enhancing marine space peace and stability, e.g., in the Baltic Sea [64]. For SIDS, e.g., Seychelles, the study could aid in developing a participatory but critical and reflexive approach to the blue economy and ocean governance, which takes into account the social, cultural, and political dimensions of these issues [20], [63], [97] via the recognition and management of the ecological complexity of coastal ecosystems that help to mitigate the impacts of climate change, reduce the risk of coastal flooding and pollution and promote sustainability in the management of ocean resources [86], [90] as well as the incorporation of indigenous and local knowledge into the planning process, which can improve the accuracy and relevance of the resulting plans and support the sustainable use of ocean resources [29], [49], [88], [95].

Our study provides new insights into stakeholder engagement, which is lacking in the literature and could be used to design more effective participatory conservation interventions that meet both marine biodiversity management and sustainable livelihood targets. Although we contend that the application of the guidelines and descriptions related to stakeholder engagement might not be resoundingly applicable, especially in resource-poor and highly vulnerable marine spaces, they could be key in unlocking new synergies for participatory marine resources and sustainability across the marine space with the increased development of global policies and frameworks, e.g., under the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021–2030).

Acknowledgments: This project was funded by the E4LIFE International PhD Fellowship Program offered by Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham. I extend my gratitude to the Amrita Live-in-Labs® academic program for providing all the support.

Declaration of interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Data availability statement: Data supporting the reported results can be found in the shared Excel as supporting information.

Funding: This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. This project was funded by an International PhD Fellowship Program offered by our university.

S. Baker, N. Constant, and P. Nicol, “Oceans justice: Trade-offs between Sustainable Development Goals in the Seychelles,” Mar. Policy, vol. 147, pp. 1–14, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105357.
H. Nathaniel, D. Franzén, S. Lingegård, F. Franzén, T. Söderqvist, and F. Gröndahl, “Using stakeholder perceptions to deepen the understanding of beachcast governance and management practices on Gotland, Sweden,” Ocean Coast. Manag., vol. 239, pp. 1–13, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.106583.
C. N. Ehler and F. Douvere, “Marine Spatial Planning: A Step-by-step Approach toward Ecosystem-based Management,” IOC Manuals Guid., vol. 53, no. 53, p. 99, 2009, doi: 10.5670/oceanog.2010.100.
I. M. Bonnevie et al., “Engaging stakeholders in marine spatial planning for collaborative scoring of conflicts and synergies within a spatial tool environment,” Ocean Coast. Manag., vol. 233, pp. 1–17, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106449.
F. Wei and X. Zhan, “A review of ES knowledge use in spatial planning,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 139, pp. 209–218, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2022.11.003.
P. Boissery et al., “The ecological restoration: A way forward the conservation of marine biodiversity,” in Coastal Habitat Conservation: New Perspectives and Sustainable Development of Biodiversity in the Anthropocene, Elsevier Inc., 2022, pp. 171–191.
I. Boubekri, H. Mazurek, A. B. Djebar, and R. Amara, “Harnessing Fishers’ local knowledge and their perceptions: Opportunities to improve management of coastal fishing in Mediterranean marine protected areas,” J. Environ. Manage., vol. 344, pp. 1–15, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118456.
R. Zuercher et al., “Exploring the potential of theory-based evaluation to strengthen marine spatial planning practice,” Ocean Coast. Manag., vol. 239, pp. 1–10, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.106594.
M. Buzinkai et al., “Crowdsourcing biodiversity data from recreational SCUBA divers using Dive Reporter,” Ecol. Inform., vol. 77, pp. 1–10, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ecoinf.2023.102191.
K. Curran, K. M. Hamelin, and M. Bailey, “Humanizing marine spatial planning: A salutogenic approach,” Mar. Policy, vol. 154, pp. 1–18, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105660.
L. Lees et al., “Integrating maritime cultural heritage into maritime spatial planning in Estonia,” Mar. Policy, vol. 147, pp. 1–8, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105337.
N. Pearson and B. S. Thompson, “Saving two fish with one wreck: Maximizing synergies in marine biodiversity conservation and underwater cultural heritage protection,” Mar. Policy, vol. 152, pp. 1–10, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105613.
R. Tafon, A. Armoskaite, K. Gee, M. Gilek, A. Ikauniece, and F. Saunders, “Mainstreaming coastally just and equitable marine spatial planning: Planner and stakeholder experiences and perspectives on participation in Latvia,” Ocean Coast. Manag., vol. 242, pp. 1–12, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.106681.
D. T. Khuu, P. J. S. Jones, and P. Ekins, “Development of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in Vietnam from a coevolutionary governance perspective: Challenges of unholy alliances between the state, businesses and NGOs,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 149, pp. 1–15, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103560.
L. H. De Clippele et al., “Evaluating annual severe coral bleaching risk for marine protected areas across Indonesia,” Mar. Policy, vol. 148, pp. 1–11, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105428.
K. Senghor, S. Partelow, C. G. Herrera, and I. Osemwegie, “Conflicting governance realities: Aligning historical and cultural practices with formal marine protected area comanagement in Senegal,” Mar. Policy, vol. 155, pp. 1–11, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105706.
M. McLean et al., “Connecting conservation & culture: The importance of Indigenous Knowledge in conservation decision-making and resource management of migratory marine species,” Mar. Policy, vol. 155, pp. 1–9, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105582.
J. Chen, H. Chen, T. F. Smith, and N. Rangel-Buitrago, “Analyzing the impact and evolution of ocean & coastal management: 30 years in retrospect,” Ocean Coast. Manag., vol. 242, pp. 1–16, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.106697.
W. Wang, “UNDRIP rights to guide the governance of the Northern Low-impact Shipping Corridors initiative,” Mar. Policy, vol. 155, pp. 1–10, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105737.
V. Cordero-Penín, A. Abramic, A. García-Mendoza, F. Otero-Ferrer, and R. Haroun, “Mapping marine ecosystem services potential across an oceanic archipelago: Applicability and limitations for decision-making,” Ecosyst. Serv., vol. 60, pp. 1–12, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101517.
C. Jacob et al., “A two way process – Social capacity as a driver and outcome of equitable marine spatial planning,” Mar. Policy, vol. 149, pp. 1–11, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105507.
T. Paramana et al., “Achieving coherence between the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive,” Mar. Policy, vol. 155, no. March, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105733.
C. C. Kuo, C. H. Ou, W. Y. Chiau, and C. S. Lee, “Challenges and conflicts in the designation of Taiwan’s underwater cultural heritage protected areas,” Mar. Policy, vol. 153, pp. 1–12, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105656.
A. Ruskule et al., “Testing the concept of green infrastructure at the Baltic Sea scale to support an ecosystem-based approach to management of marine areas,” Mar. Policy, vol. 147, pp. 1–18, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105374.
R. L. Stephenson et al., “Integrating management of marine activities in Australia,” Ocean Coast. Manag., vol. 234, pp. 1–21, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106465.
H. B. Gemma Martínez-Laiz, F. Espinosa, D. L.-M. Patricio Peñalver-Duque, María Leonor García-Gutiérrez, and A. Terrón-Sigler, “Public engagement and its challenging role in conservation and monitoring,” in Coastal Habitat Conservation, F. Espinosa, Ed. 2023, pp. 193–224.
D. Gutierrez, H. Calado, and J. García-Sanabria, “A proposal for engagement in MPAs in areas beyond national jurisdiction: The case of Macaronesia,” Sci. Total Environ., vol. 854, pp. 1–13, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158711.
C. N. Ehler, “Two decades of progress in Marine Spatial Planning,” Mar. Policy, vol. 132, no. July 2020, p. 104134, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104134.
S. Axon and S. Collier, “Breaking Blue: Establishing comprehensive policy for a just and inclusive transition for the Blue Economy,” Mar. Policy, vol. 147, pp. 1–7, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105343.
W. Flannery, “Review of Marine Spatial Planning Best Practice of Relevance to Best Practice of Relevance to Ireland,” Queen’s Univ. Belfast - Res. Portal, no. 2015, p. 44, 2018.
S. W. K. van den Burg et al., “Monitoring and evaluation of maritime spatial planning – A review of accumulated practices and guidance for future action,” Mar. Policy, vol. 150, pp. 1–11, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105529.
M. H. Guimarães, M. Rangel, B. Horta e Costa, A. Ressurreição, F. Oliveira, and J. M. S. Gonçalves, “Creating a common ground for the implementation of a community-based Marine Protected Area – a case study in Algarve, Portugal,” Ocean Coast. Manag., vol. 240, pp. 1–12, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.106627.
B. C. O’Leary et al., “Embracing Nature-based Solutions to promote resilient marine and coastal ecosystems,” Nature-Based Solut., vol. 3, pp. 1–7, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.nbsj.2022.100044.
J. E. Argente García, A. P. Ramallo-González, J. Bernardeau-Esteller, Á. M. Enguix-Egea, J. V. Yago Martinez, and A. F. Skarmeta Gómez, “A combination of ICT solutions with socioecological and economic indicators to evaluate the governance and improve the management of Posidonia oceanica in the Sierra Helada Marine Natural Park,” Reg. Stud. Mar. Sci., vol. 60, pp. 1–14, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.rsma.2023.102841.
D. H. Guzmán, R. L. Mier, A. Vergara, and C. B. Milanes, “Marine protected areas in Colombia: A historical review of legal marine protection since the late 1960 s to 2023,” Mar. Policy, vol. 155, pp. 1–13, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105726.
G. C. Aguilar-Manjarrez, José; de Viçose, “International Conference on Marine Spatial Planning, Ecosystem Approach and Supporting Information Systems,” FAO Aquac. News Lett., no. 57, p. 22, 2017, [Online]. Available: https://search.proquest.com/openview/385d8b3f71ca63607844893754bd0d68/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=237326.
A. K. Gerlak et al., “Stakeholder engagement in the coproduction of knowledge for environmental decision-making,” World Dev., vol. 170, pp. 1–17, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106336.
C. Y. Kot et al., “Synthesizing connectivity information from migratory marine species for area-based management,” Biol. Conserv., vol. 283, pp. 1–17, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110142.
W. Flannery and J. Z. Vince, “International Progress in Marine Spatial Planning,” Res. gate, United Nations, no. June, pp. 172–212, 2018, doi: 10.1163/22116001-90000159.
M. C. Mangano et al., “Planning precision aquaculture activities in a changing and crowded sea,” Aquaculture, vol. 577, pp. 1–11, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2023.739881.
L. Pelage et al., “Fishers’ perceptions of global change to inform coastal planning in a data-poor socioecological system,” Mar. Policy, vol. 155, pp. 1–12, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105784.
J. Zhang, S. Chen, C. Cheng, Y. Liu, and T. C. Jennerjahn, “Citizen science to support coastal research and management: Insights from a seagrass monitoring case study in Hainan, China,” Ocean Coast. Manag., vol. 231, pp. 1–10, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2022.106403.
K. B. Winter, R. C. Young, and P. O. B. Lyver, Cultural aspects of seabird conservation. Elsevier Inc., 2022.
M. Cerca, A. Sosa, and F. Murphy, “Responsible supply systems for macroalgae: Upscaling seaweed cultivation in Ireland,” Aquaculture, vol. 563, pp. 1–10, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2022.738996.
I. Lukambagire, R. R. Bhavani, and J. S. Von Lieres, “Aerial Drone use for Sustainable Development in India – A Content Blog Analysis,” in 2022 IEEE Conference on Technologies for Sustainability (SusTech), 2022, pp. 31–38, doi: doi: 10.1109/SusTech53338.2022.9794169.
D. Correia, J. E. Feio, J. Marques, and L. Teixeira, “Participatory methodology guidelines to promote citizens participation in decision-making: Evidence based on a Portuguese case study,” Cities, vol. 135, pp. 1–13, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2023.104213.
R. Dudayev, L. L. Hakim, and I. Rufiati, “Participatory fisheries governance in Indonesia: Are octopus fisheries leading the way?,” Mar. Policy, vol. 147, pp. 1–8, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105338.
Y. Zou, Y. Yang, Y. Li, J. Liao, and H. Xiao, “How do tourists’ heritage spatial perceptions affect place identity? A case study of Quanzhou, China,” J. Hosp. Tour. Manag., vol. 55, pp. 460–470, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2023.05.018.
P. Lyons, S. Mynott, and J. Melbourne-Thomas, “Enabling Indigenous innovations to recenter social license to operate in the Blue Economy,” Mar. Policy, vol. 147, pp. 1–14, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105384.
P. S. Kemp et al., “The future of marine fisheries management and conservation in the United Kingdom: Lessons learnt from over 100 years of biased policy,” Mar. Policy, vol. 147, pp. 1–13, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105075.
V. Relano and D. Pauly, “The ‘Paper Park Index’: Evaluating Marine Protected Area effectiveness through a global study of stakeholder perceptions,” Mar. Policy, vol. 151, pp. 1–9, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105571.
C. Brown et al., “Entry fees enhance marine protected area management and outcomes,” Biol. Conserv., vol. 283, pp. 1–8, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110105.
R. J. W. Brewin et al., “Ocean carbon from space: Current status and priorities for the next decade,” Earth-Science Rev., vol. 240, pp. 1–41, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2023.104386.
L. A. Pace, O. Saritas, and A. Deidun, “Exploring future research and innovation directions for a sustainable blue economy,” Mar. Policy, vol. 148, pp. 1–10, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105433.
S. Paramasivam, P. Henry, P. Seethapathy, and T. Rajamohan, “A Strategic Model for Empowering Farmers by Improving Livelihood Security through Organic Farming Practices in Tamil Nadu, India,” J. Agric. Sci. - Sri Lanka, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 471–483, 2022, [Online]. Available: 10.4038/jas.v17i3.9926.
A. O. Tuda, T. F. Stevens, and L. D. Rodwell, “Resolving coastal con fl icts using marine spatial planning,” J. Environ. Manage., vol. 133, pp. 59–68, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.10.029.
E. Gissi and J. L. S. de Vivero, “Exploring marine spatial planning education: Challenges in structuring transdisciplinarity,” Mar. Policy, vol. 74, pp. 43–57, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2016.09.016.
E. J. Ens, M. Finlayson, K. Preuss, S. Jackson, and S. Holcombe, “Australian approaches for managing ‘country’ using Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge,” Ecol. Manag. Restor., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 100–107, 2012, doi: 10.1111/j.1442-8903.2011.00634.x.
V. Agnostini et al., “Global Open Oceans and Deep Sea-habitats (GOODS) bioregional classification,” no. May, p. 82, 2008.
Australian Government, “Guidelines for Applying an Ecosystem Approach in the Oceans,” Oceans, no. May, p. 27, 2006.
Government of Australia, “A guide to the integrated marine and coastal regionalization of Australia: IMCRA version 4.0.,” no. june, p. 16, 2006.
S. P. Subedi, “Problems and prospects for the commission on the limits of the continental shelf in dealing with submissions by coastal states in relation to the Ocean Territory beyond 200 nautical miles,” Int. J. Mar. Coast. Law, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 413–431, 2011, doi: 10.1163/157180811X567352.
L. Saddington, “Geopolitical imaginaries in climate and ocean governance: Seychelles and the Blue Economy,” Geoforum, vol. 139, pp. 1–10, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2023.103682.
R. Blasiak, J. B. Jouffray, A. Norström, C. Queiroz, C. C. Wabnitz, and H. Österblom, “The Ocean Decade as an instrument of peace,” Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., vol. 64, p. 101319, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101319.
S. Villasante, G. B. Ainsworth, P. Pita, A. Belgrano, N. Bennett, and U. R. Sumaila, “The role of marine protected areas (MPAs) in providing ecosystem services to improve ocean and human health,” in Oceans and Human Health, ora E. Fleming, L. B. A. Creencia, W. H. Gerwick, H. C. Goh, M. O. Gribble, B. Maycock, and H. Solo-Gabriele, Eds. 2023, pp. 23–37.
C. N. Ehler, “Marine Spatial Planning : an idea whose time has come Marine spatial planning An idea whose time has come,” Res. gate, United Nations, no. March, pp. 7–16, 2018.
P. J. S. Jones, L. M. Lieberknecht, and W. Qiu, “Marine spatial planning in reality: Introduction to case studies and discussion of findings,” Mar. Policy, vol. 71, pp. 256–264, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2016.04.026.
L. Fairbanks et al., “Assembling Enclosure : Reading Marine Spatial Planning for Alternatives,” no. January, 2018, doi: 10.1080/24694452.2017.1345611.
S. Twomey, “Engaging Stakeholders in Marine Spatial Planning Sarah Twomey Ocean Governance & Stakeholder Engagement Expert,” no. August, 2016, doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1732.8880.
H. Ritchie and G. Ellis, “Asystem that works for the sea? Exploring stakeholder Engagement in Maring Spatial Planning,” J. Environ. Plan. Manag., vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 701–723, 2010.
H.-J. Choi, “Introduction of Marine Spatial Planning in Korea,” Pingtang, Fuzhou , China, 2018.
Government of Korea, “Ocean Policy_MSP.” Government of Korea, p. 3, 2018.
R. S. Pomeroy and F. Berkes, “Two to tango : the role of government in fisheries,” Mar. Policy, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 465–480, 1997, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-597X(97)00017-1.
C. Ehler and F. Douvere, “International Guidelines for Ecosystem-based, Marine Spatial Management Charles Ehler and Fanny Douvere, Consultants Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme UNESCO Paris, France Conference on Marine Spatial Planning,” no. September, 2007.
R. Chuenpagdee and S. Jentoft, “Transforming the governance of small-scale fisheries,” Marit. Stud., no. 1, 2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-018-0087-7.
M. Sievers et al., “Co-occurrence of biodiversity, carbon storage, coastal protection, and fish and invertebrate production to inform global mangrove conservation planning,” Sci. Total Environ., vol. 904, pp. 1–10, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.166357.
J. M. Huber, J. Newig, and J. Loos, “Participation in protected area governance: A systematic case survey of the evidence on ecological and social outcomes,” J. Environ. Manage., vol. 336, pp. 1–12, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117593.
A. Comte, C. Surun, and H. Levrel, “Measuring and managing for environmental sustainability. An application of the Environmental Sustainability Gap (ESGAP) framework in New Caledonia,” Environ. Sci. Policy, vol. 146, pp. 113–122, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2023.05.007.
E. Korein, M. Vega-Rodriguez, and T. Metz Estrella, “Developing recommendations for coral disease management in Puerto Rico using key informant interviews and participatory mapping,” Ocean Coast. Manag., vol. 236, pp. 1–20, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.106488.
C. Slaton, D. Koemle, M. Birdsong, and R. Arlinghaus, “Explaining attitudes to management actions and beliefs about other user groups and conservation with angler characteristics: A case study in a coastal pike (Esox lucius) fishery in the southern Baltic Sea, Germany,” Fish. Res., vol. 263, no. July 2022, p. 106669, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.fishres.2023.106669.
S. Manes et al., “Nature as a solution for shoreline protection against coastal risks associated with ongoing sea-level rise,” Ocean Coast. Manag., vol. 235, pp. 1–9, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.106487.
S. King et al., “Accounting for protected areas: Approaches and applications,” Ecosyst. Serv., vol. 63, pp. 1–13, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101544.
M. Rifi et al., “Tackling bioinvasions in commercially exploitable species through interdisciplinary approaches: A case study on blue crabs in Africa’s Mediterranean coast (Bizerte Lagoon, Tunisia),” Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci., vol. 291, pp. 1–12, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ecss.2023.108419.
A. E. Sakya et al., “Sow the seeds of tsunami ready community in Indonesia: Lesson learned from Tanjung Benoa, bali,” Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., vol. 87, pp. 1–16, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103567.
M. O. Soares et al., “Lessons from the invasion front: Integration of research and management of the lionfish invasion in Brazil,” J. Environ. Manage., vol. 340, pp. 1–11, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117954.
L. T. T. Loan and R. M. Balanay, “Toward reinforcing the waste separation at source for Vietnam’s waste management: Insights from the Nudge Theory,” Environ. Challenges, vol. 10, pp. 1–13, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.envc.2022.100660.
W. Wang, D. Zhai, and B. Huang, “Implementation gaps affecting the quality of biodiversity conservation management: An ethnographic study of protected areas in Fujian Province, China,” For. Policy Econ., vol. 149, pp. 1–12, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2023.102933.
A. R. Oposa and E. J. Techera, “A review of shark conservation and management legal frameworks in the Philippines,” Mar. Policy, vol. 155, pp. 1–8, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105713.
W. DePuy, “Seeing like a smartphone: The coproduction of landscape-scale and rights-based conservation,” World Dev., vol. 164, pp. 1–14, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.106181.
M. Inácio, F. R. Barboza, and M. Villoslada, “The protection of coastal lagoons as a nature-based solution to mitigate coastal floods,” Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Heal., vol. 34, pp. 1–9, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.coesh.2023.100491.
L. V. Zanjani et al., “Territories of life as key to global environmental sustainability,” Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain., vol. 63, pp. 1–20, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101298.
S. Chakraborty et al., “Systematizing ecosystem change in coastal social-ecological systems: Perspectives from a multistakeholder approach in Nakatsu mudflat, Japan,” Ocean Coast. Manag., vol. 243, pp. 1–18, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.106729.
V. Chavez-Molina et al., “Protecting the Salas y Gomez and Nazca Ridges: A review of policy pathways for creating conservation measures in the international waters of the Southeast Pacific,” Mar. Policy, vol. 152, pp. 1–12, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105594.
K. E. Grimm, J. L. Archibald, S. E. Bonilla-Anariba, N. Bood, and S. W. J. Canty, “Framework for fostering just and equitable seagrass policy, management, and social-ecological outcomes: Lessons learned from Belizean marine resource managers,” Mar. Policy, vol. 152, pp. 1–14, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105606.
M. Laituri, M. W. Luizza, J. D. Hoover, and A. M. Allegretti, “Questioning the practice of participation: Critical reflections on participatory mapping as a research tool,” Appl. Geogr., vol. 152, pp. 1–10, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2023.102900.
Z. Han, K. Jiang, F. Peng, and S. Li, “The Philippines’ hedging strategy against China in the South China Sea dispute: Based on the human-ocean regional system,” Mar. Policy, vol. 151, pp. 1–12, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105578.
C. M. Condie, K. A. Alexander, E. A. Fulton, J. Vince, and M. Haward, “Polarized perspectives in salmon aquaculture warrant a targeted long-term approach to communication,” Aquac. Reports, vol. 30, pp. 1–12, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.aqrep.2023.101557.
C. N. Ehler and F. Douvere, “An International Perspective on Marine Spatial Planning Initiatives An International Perspective on Marine Spatial Planning Initiatives Résumé,” Res. gate, United Nations, Environ., vol. 2, no. June, pp. 10–20, 2014, [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236131678%0AAn.
N. Dudley, “Guidelines for applying protected area management categories,” IUCN (International Union Conserv. Nature), p. 86pp, 2008, doi: 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2008.PAPS.2.en.
M. B. Krupa, “Who ’ s who in the Kenai River Fishery SES : A streamlined method for stakeholder identi fi cation and investment analysis,” vol. 71, pp. 194–200, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2016.06.001.
V. K. Chandra Sekhar Bahinipati, P. K. Viswanathan, and K. Krishnakumar, “Estimation of districtwise livelihood vulnerability index for the four coastal states in India,” in Disaster Resilience and Sustainability, S. S. Indrajit Pal, Rajib Shaw, Riyanti Djalante, Ed. Elsevier, 2021, pp. 459–488.
J. Zaucha, “Sea basin maritime spatial planning: A case study of the Baltic Sea region and Poland,” Mar. Policy, vol. 50, no. PA, pp. 34–45, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2014.05.003.
Ú. Rojas-Nazar, C. F. Gaymer, F. A. Squeo, R. Garay-Flühmann, and D. López, “Combining information from benthic community analysis and social studies to establish no-take zones within a multiple uses marine protected area,” Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 74–86, 2012, doi: 10.1002/aqc.1239.
Commission of the European Communities, “Report to the European Parliament and the Council: An evaluation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in Europe EN,” 2007.
W. Flannery, N. Healy, W. Flannery, N. Healy, and M. Luna, “Exclusion and nonparticipation in Marine Spatial Planning Exclusion and nonparticipation in Marine Spatial Planning,” Mar. Policy, vol. 88, no. November 2017, pp. 32–40, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.001.
R. Pomeroy and F. Douvere, “The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process,” Mar. Policy, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 816–822, 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.017.
L. Bergström et al., “Effects of offshore wind farms on marine wildlife - A generalized impact assessment,” Environ. Res. Lett., vol. 9, no. 3, p. 22pp, 2014, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/9/3/034012.
F. A. L. Andrade, “Marine spatial planning in Portugal : an ocean policy analysis Doutoramento em Ciências do Mar Catarina Frazão da Fonseca Ribeiro dos Santos Tese orientada por :,” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318746796, no. July 2016, p. 255, 2017, doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27421.20963.
R. Chuenpagdee, J. J. Pascual-Fernández, E. Szeliánszky, J. Luis Alegret, J. Fraga, and S. Jentoft, “Marine protected areas: Rethinking their inception,” Mar. Policy, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 234–240, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2012.10.016.
D. G. Hadjimitsis, A. Agapiou, C. Mettas, and K. Themistocleous, “Marine Spatial Planning in Cyprus,” no. March, 2015, doi: 10.1117/12.2195655.
A. Joseph, “Stakeholder involvement in Marine Spatial Planning,” no. February 2018, pp. 2–3, 2017, doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13060.83843.
C. N. Ehler, “An Introduction to Marine Spatial Planning,” Res. gate, United Nations, no. November 2013, pp. 4–47, 2014.
D. J. D. Fiona J. Manson, “Incorporating commercial fishery information into the design of marine protected areas,” Ocean Coast. Manag., vol. 44, no. 7–8, pp. 517–530, 2001, doi: 10.1016/S0964-5691(01)00063-1.
M. Young, “Building the Blue Economy: The Role of Marine Spatial Planning in Facilitating Offshore Renewable Energy Development,” Int. J. Mar. Coast. Law, pp. 148–174, 2015.
J. De Decker and A. Woyte, “Review of the various proposals for the European offshore grid,” Renew. Energy, vol. 49, pp. 58–62, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2012.01.066.
K. J. Winiarski, D. L. Miller, P. W. C. Paton, and S. R. McWilliams, “A spatial conservation prioritization approach for protecting marine birds given proposed offshore wind energy development,” Biol. Conserv., vol. 169, pp. 79–88, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.004.
R. Perveen, N. Kishor, and S. R. Mohanty, “Offshore wind farm development: Present status and challenges,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 29, pp. 780–792, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2013.08.108.
R. Guntha, S. N. Rao, and M. V Ramesh, “Deployment Experiences with Amrita Kripa : Deployment Experiences with Amrita Kripa : A User-Friendly Feature Rich Crowdsourced Humanitarian Application Feature Rich Crowdsourced Humanitarian Application,” Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 171, no. 2019, pp. 302–311, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2020.04.314.
E. Olsen, D. Fluharty, A. H. Hoel, K. Hostens, and F. Maes, “Integration at the Round Table: Marine Spatial Planning in Multi-Stakeholder Settings.,” PLOS.org, no. 10, p. 9, 2014, doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109964.
R. Curtin and R. Prellezo, “Understanding marine ecosystem based management: A literature review,” Mar. Policy, vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 821–830, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2010.01.003.
I. C. Avila, L. M. Correa, and K. Van Waerebeek, “Where humpback whales and vessel traffic coincide, a Colombian Pacific case study,” Boletín del Mus. Nac. Hist. Nat. Chile, vol. 66, pp. 85–99, 2017, doi: issuu.com/mnhn_cl/docs/tr7_avila_et_al.
L. Abramson, “Vessel strikes and acoustic impacts.,” wiredscience. Rep. a Jt. Work. Gr. Gulf Farallones Cordell Bank Natl. Mar. Sanctuaries Advis. Counc. San Fr. CA., no. June, p. 43, 2012.
D. Hassan and A. Alam, “Marine spatial planing and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975: An evaluation,” Ocean Coast. Manag., vol. 167, pp. 188–196, Jan. 2019, doi: 10.1016/J.OCECOAMAN.2018.10.015.
T. C. Smythe and J. McCann, “Achieving integration in marine governance through marine spatial planning: Findings from practice in the United States,” Ocean Coast. Manag., vol. 167, pp. 197–207, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.1016/J.OCECOAMAN.2018.10.006.
R. Horbaty, S. Huber, and G. Ellis, “Large-scale wind deployment, social acceptance,” Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Energy Environ., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 194–205, 2012, doi: 10.1002/wene.9.
A. Charles and L. Wilson, “Human dimensions of marine protected areas,” ICES J. Mar. Sci. J. du Cons., vol. 66, pp. 6–15, 2008.
K. St. Martin and M. Hall-Arber, “The missing layer: Geo-technologies, communities, and implications for marine spatial planning,” Mar. Policy, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 779–786, 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2008.03.015.
FAO, “Sustainable fisheries management in the Bay of Bengal large marine ecosystem,” 2018. https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/CA2191EN.
A. Gimpel et al., “A GIS modeling framework to evaluate marine spatial planning scenarios: Colocation of offshore wind farms and aquaculture in the German EEZ,” Mar. Policy, vol. 55, pp. 102–115, May 2015, doi: 10.1016/J.MARPOL.2015.01.012.
L. Laxman and A. H. Ansari, “Environmental governance and biodiversity conservation in the ASEAN region,” in Conservation Policies for Agricultural Biodiversity, Woodhead Publishing, 2023, pp. 281–318.
M. Schubert, “Marine Spatial Planning,” in Handbook on Marine Environment Protection, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018, pp. 1013–1024.
K. K. Arkema et al., “Embedding ecosystem services in coastal planning leads to better outcomes for people and nature.,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., vol. 112, no. 24, p. 6, Jun. 2015, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1406483112.
C. Frazão Santos, T. Agardy, F. Andrade, L. B. Crowder, C. N. Ehler, and M. K. Orbach, “Major challenges in developing marine spatial planning,” Mar. Policy, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.1016/J.MARPOL.2018.08.032.
S. Jentoft, “Small-scale fisheries within maritime spatial planning: knowledge integration and power,” J. Environ. Policy Plan., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 266–278, 2017, doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2017.1304210.
A. O. Tuda, T. F. Stevens, and L. D. Rodwell, “Resolving coastal conflicts using marine spatial planning,” J. Environ. Manage., vol. 133, pp. 59–68, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.10.029.
M. Barbesgaard, “Blue growth: savior or ocean grabbing?,” J. Peasant Stud., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 130–149, 2018, doi: 10.1080/03066150.2017.1377186.
J. E. Wilen, J. Cancino, and H. Uchida, “The economics of territorial use rights fisheries, or turfs,” Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 237–257, 2012, doi: 10.1093/reep/res012.
M. A. Ferreira, “Evaluating Performance of Portuguese Marine Spatial Planning Evaluating performance of Portuguese Maria Adelaide de Oliveira Ferreira Marine Spatial Planning Tese de Doutoramento em Geografia e Planeamento Territorial Maria Adelaide de Oliveira Ferreira,” Res. gate, United Nations, no. April, p. 163, 2017, doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18448.20487.
M. H. M. Tatim, A. H. Omar, N. M. Abudallah, and A. Sarip, “Extending the concept of institutional analysis to the marine spatial planning practice Extending the concept of institutional analysis to the marine spatial planning practice,” 2018.
V. Ajith et al., “An integrated methodology for assessment of drinking-water quality in low-income settings,” Environ. Dev., vol. 46, pp. 1–14, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.envdev.2023.100862.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Assessing the viability of Stakeholders’ Engagement in Marine Spatial Planning and its Implications for a Sustainable Blue Economy

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1.0. Introduction

1.1. What is MSP?

1.2. Theoretical origins of MSPs

1.3. Why MSP?

1.4. Persistent challenges and gaps in the adoption of MSP

2.0. Methods and Materials

2.1. Inclusion/exclusion criteria

2.2. Data Synthesis

3.0. Key findings on the viability of stakeholder engagement in the MSP

3.1. Stakeholder Engagement in MSP

3.2. Who are the key stakeholders for engagement in the MSP process?

3.2.1. Local-level stakeholders

3.2.2. Regional/National-Level Stakeholders

3.2.3. Global-Level Stakeholders

3.3. When should the stakeholders be involved in the MSP process?

3.3.1. How early should the stakeholders be involved?

3.3.2. How frequently are stakeholders involved?

3.3.3. Whether to engage stakeholders throughout the process or at certain phases/stages.

3.4. How should the stakeholders be involved?

3.4.1. Modes of governance

3.4.2. Inclusive stakeholder-driven process

3.4.3. Government-driven process

3.4.4. Mixture of government- and stakeholder-driven processes

3.4.5. Individual stakeholder groups

4.0. Conclusions

4.1. Viability toward division of roles in the MSP process

4.2. Relevance in the context of the BE and Global Agenda, e.g., on Oceans

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1