Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Marine spatial planning: a systematic literature review on its concepts, approaches, and tools (2004–2020)

  • Research
  • Published:
Maritime Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Marine spatial planning (MSP) was developed as a process for managing the marine environment under the scenario of increased demand for space with different uses and economic activities. In the last decades, the research interest in MSP has been reflected by the growing number of published scientific articles on this subject. Nonetheless, a systematic scientific literature review on MSP is still lacking. In this context, the present study is aimed at performing a global review highlighting the main trends and patterns of scientific article contents focusing on the concepts, approaches, and tools that have been used to inform and shape MSP. After text screening and application of the eligibility criteria, a total of 476 articles published between 2004 and 2020 were included in the analysis. The results showed that most studies published so far (74%) focused on conceptual aspects of governance issues (n = 98), investigated the role of economic activities in MSP (n = 98), evidenced the solutions that have been adopted to implement national plans (n = 71), or explored the strategies used to involve stakeholders in MSP (n = 83). A trend towards MSP applicability was expressed by the increasing number of studies related to stakeholders’ engagement methodologies, together with the development of decision support tools for MSP implementation in recent years. Overall, including progressive methodologies in the evaluation and assessment of all stages of MSP are needed to foster its applicability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data were gathered from electronic source (see Material and Methods).

Notes

  1. Marxan comprises a suite of different software applications to support conservation planning decisions.

  2. MESMA project focused on MSP and aimed to produce integrated management tools for Monitoring, Evaluation, and implementation of Spatial Managed Marine Areas.

  3. Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission - Helsinki Commission Visions and Strategies around the Baltic Sea.

References

  • Agapiou, A., V. Lysandrou, et al. 2017. The Cyprus coastal heritage landscapes within marine spatial planning process. Journal of Cultural Heritage 23: 28–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agardy, T., G.N. di Sciara, et al. 2011. Mind the gap: addressing the shortcomings of marine protected areas through large scale marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 35 (2): 226–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agostini, V.N., S.W. Margles, et al. 2015. Marine zoning in St. Kitts and Nevis: a design for sustainable management in the Caribbean. Ocean and Coastal Management 104: 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alam, A. 2020. Legal regimes for marine spatial planning. Environmental Policy and Law 49 (4-5): 240–245.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Albotoush, R., and A. Tan Shau-Hwai. 2021. An authority for marine spatial planning (MSP): a systemic review. Ocean and Coastal Management 205 (2021): 105551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, K.A., R. Janssen, et al. 2012. Interactive marine spatial planning: siting tidal energy arrays around the Mull of Kintyre. PLoS ONE 7 (1): e30031. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0030031.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Allnutt, T.F., T.R. McClanahan, et al. 2012. Comparison of marine spatial planning methods in Madagascar demonstrates value of alternative approaches. PLoS ONE 7 (2): e28969. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028969.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ansong, J., E. Gissi, et al. 2017. An approach to ecosystem-based management in maritime spatial planning process. Ocean and Coastal Management 141: 65–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aschenbrenner, M., and G.M. Winder. 2019. Planning for a sustainable marine future? Marine spatial planning in the German exclusive economic zone of the North Sea. Applied Geography 110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2019.102050.

  • Baker, S., and N.L. Constant. 2020. Epistemic justice and the integration of local ecological knowledge for marine conservation: lessons from the Seychelles. Marine Policy 117: 103921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bąkowski, T., and J. Nawrot. 2020. Transposition of the directive establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning into the polish legal order (main aspects and key solutions). Marine Policy 117: 103946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, K., and R. Mahon. 2014. A participatory GIS for marine spatial planning in the Grenadine Islands. Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries 63. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2014.tb00452.x.

  • Ban, N.C., J.E. Cinner, et al. 2012. Recasting shortfalls of marine protected areas as opportunities through adaptive management. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 22 (2): 262–271.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Bani, A., M. De Brauwer, et al. 2020. Informing marine spatial planning decisions with environmental DNA. Advances in Ecological Research 62: 375–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2020.01.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartelings, H., K.G. Hamon, et al. 2015. Bio-economic modelling for marine spatial planning application in North Sea shrimp and flatfish fisheries. Environmental Modelling and Software 74: 156–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, A.W. 2017. Revisiting approaches to marine spatial planning: perspectives on and implications for the United States. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 46 (2): 206–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker-Weinberg, V. 2015. Portugal’s legal regime on marine spatial planning and management of the national maritime space. Marine Policy 61: 46–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker-Weinberg, V. 2017. Preliminary thoughts on marine spatial planning in areas beyond national jurisdiction. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 32 (3): 570–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, N.J. 2018. Navigating a just and inclusive path towards sustainable oceans. Marine Policy 97: 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.06.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beriatos, E., and M. Papageorgiou. 2011. Maritime and coastal spatial planning: the case of Greece and the Mediterranean C3. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment 150: 3–17. https://doi.org/10.2495/sdp110011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bieda, A., T. Adamczyk, et al. 2019. Maritime spatial planning in the European Union on the example of the Polish part of the Baltic Sea. Water (Switzerland) 11 (3). https://doi.org/10.3390/w11030555.

  • Blake, D., A.A. Augé, et al. 2017. Participatory mapping to elicit cultural coastal values for marine spatial planning in a remote archipelago. Ocean and Coastal Management 148: 195–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boersma, P.D., P.G. Borboroglu, et al. 2020. Applying science to pressing conservation needs for penguins. Conservation Biology 34 (1): 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13378.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boyes, S.J., M. Elliott, et al. 2007. A proposed multiple-use zoning scheme for the Irish Sea. An interpretation of current legislation through the use of GIS-based zoning approaches and effectiveness for the protection of nature conservation interests. Marine Policy 31 (3): 287–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buhl-Mortensen, L., I. Galparsoro, et al. 2017. Maritime ecosystem-based management in practice: lessons learned from the application of a generic spatial planning framework in Europe. Marine Policy 75: 174–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calado, H., and J. Bentz. 2013. The Portuguese maritime spatial plan. Marine Policy 42: 325–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldow, C., M.E. Monaco, et al. 2015. Biogeographic assessments: a framework for information synthesis in marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 51: 423–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, M.S., K.M. Stehfest, et al. 2014. Mapping fisheries for marine spatial planning: gear-specific vessel monitoring system (VMS), marine conservation and offshore renewable energy. Marine Policy 45: 293–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, L.M. 2019. Marine spatial planning in a climate of uncertainty: an Irish perspective. Irish Geography 52 (1): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.2014/igj.v52i1.1375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalastani, V., K. Vasiliki, et al. 2021. A bibliometric assessment of progress in marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 127: 104329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, R., A. Oosthuizen, et al. 2014. Assessing the suitability of commercial fisheries data for local-scale marine spatial planning in South Africa. African Journal of Marine Science 36 (4): 467–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y., and B.H. Lin. 2016. Improving marine spatial planning by using an incremental amendment strategy: the case of Anping, Taiwan. Marine Policy 68: 30–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, J., and W. Flannery. 2020. The post-political nature of marine spatial planning and modalities for its re-politicisation. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 22 (2): 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908x.2019.1680276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccoli, C., I. Galparsoro, et al. 2018. Conflict analysis and reallocation opportunities in the framework of marine spatial planning: a novel, spatially explicit Bayesian belief network approach for artisanal fishing and aquaculture. Marine Policy 94: 119–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.04.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collie, J.S., W.L. Vic Adamowicz, et al. 2013. Marine spatial planning in practice. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 117: 1–11.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • COM. (2007). Communication from the commission to the European parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the Regions - an integrated maritime policy for the European Union European Union, COM (2007) 575 final, Brussels. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0575.

  • Craig, R.K. 2012. Ocean governance for the 21st century: making marine zoning climate change adaptable. Harvard Environmental Law Review 36 (2): 305–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, R.K. 2019. Fostering adaptive marine aquaculture through procedural innovation in marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 110: 103555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cranmer, A., J.R. Smetzer, et al. 2017. A Markov model for planning and permitting offshore wind energy: a case study of radio-tracked terns in the Gulf of Maine, USA. Journal of Environmental Management 193: 400–409.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Crowder, L., and E. Norse. 2008. Essential ecological insights for marine ecosystem-based management and marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 32 (5): 772–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, I.M., R. Watret, et al. 2014. Spatial planning for sustainable marine renewable energy developments in Scotland. Ocean and Coastal Management 99 (C): 72–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, J. 2008. The need and practice of monitoring, evaluating and adapting marine planning and management-lessons from the Great Barrier Reef. Marine Policy 32 (5): 823–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, J.C., R.A. Kenchington, et al. 2019. Marine zoning revisited: how decades of zoning the Great Barrier Reef has evolved as an effective spatial planning approach for marine ecosystem-based management. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 29 (S2): 9–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, V., R. Paxinos, et al. 2008. The marine planning framework for South Australia: a new ecosystem-based zoning policy for marine management. Marine Policy 32 (4): 535–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Freitas, D.M., S.G. Sutton, et al. 2013. Spatial substitution strategies of recreational fishers in response to zoning changes in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Marine Policy 40 (1): 145–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Grunt, L.S., K. Ng, et al. 2018. Towards sustainable implementation of maritime spatial planning in Europe: a peek into the potential of the Regional Sea Conventions playing a stronger role. Marine Policy 95: 102–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.06.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Santo, E.M. 2010. ‘Whose science?’ Precaution and power-play in European marine environmental decision-making. Marine Policy 34 (3): 414–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Santo, E.M. 2011. Environmental justice implications of maritime spatial planning in the European Union. Marine Policy 35 (1): 34–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Degnbol, D., and D.C. Wilson. 2008. Spatial planning on the North Sea: a case of cross-scale linkages. Marine Policy 32 (2): 189–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diggon, S., C. Butler, et al. 2019. The marine plan partnership: indigenous community-based marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 132 (1): 103510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.04.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dineshbabu, A.P., S. Thomas, et al. 2019. Marine spatial planning for resource conservation, fisheries management and for ensuring fishermen security - global perspectives and Indian initiatives. Current Science 116 (4): 561–567. https://doi.org/10.18520/cs/v116/i4/561-567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domínguez-Tejo, E., G. Metternicht, et al. 2016. Marine spatial planning advancing the ecosystem-based approach to coastal zone management: a review. Marine Policy 72: 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douvere, F. 2008. The importance of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-based sea use management. Marine Policy 32 (5): 762–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douvere, F., and C. Ehler. 2008. Special issue on the role of marine spatial planning in implementing ecosystem-based, sea use management - introduction. Marine Policy 32 (5): 759–761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douvere, F., and C. Ehler. 2012. Marine spatial planning: identifying the critical elements for success. In Spatial Planning: Strategies, Developments and Management, ed. Elia Ciccotelli and Benigno Calo, 233–250. Hauppauge, NY, USA: Nova Sciences Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drankier, P. 2012. Embedding maritime spatial planning in national legal frameworks. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 14 (1): 7–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duck, R.W. 2012. Marine spatial planning: managing a dynamic environment. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 14 (1): 67–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, D.C., A.M. Boustany, et al. 2011. Spatio-temporal management of fisheries to reduce by-catch and increase fishing selectivity. Fish and Fisheries 12 (1): 110–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunstan, P.K., N.J. Bax, et al. 2016. Using ecologically or biologically significant marine areas (EBSAs) to implement marine spatial planning. Ocean and Coastal Management 121: 116–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dupont, C., F. Gourmelon, et al. 2020. Exploring uses of maritime surveillance data for marine spatial planning: a review of scientific literature. Marine Policy 117: 103930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103930.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, R., and A. Evans. 2017. The challenges of marine spatial planning in the Arctic: results from the ACCESS programme. Ambio 46: 486–496.

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ehler, C. 2021. Two decades of progress in marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 32: 104134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehler, C., and F. Douvere. 2009. Marine spatial planning: a step-by-step approach toward ecosystem-based management. Paris: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehler, C., and F. Douvere. 2010. An international perspective on marine spatial planning initiatives. Environments 37 (3): 9–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehler, C., J. Zaucha, et al. 2019. Maritime/marine spatial planning at the interface of research and practice. In Maritime spatial planning: past, present, future, ed J. Zaucha and K. Gee, 1–21. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. 

  • Elliott, M., S.J. Boyes, et al. 2018. Using best expert judgement to harmonise marine environmental status assessment and maritime spatial planning. Marine Pollution Bulletin 133: 367–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2018.05.029.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, G., and W. Flannery. 2016. Marine spatial planning: cui bono? Planning Theory & Practice 17 (1): 122–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Espinoza-Tenorio, A., M. Moreno-Báez, et al. 2014. The marine spatial planning in Mexico: challenge and invitation to the scientific work. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Research 42 (3): 386–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • EU Directive. 2014. EU Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning. Official Journal of the European Union 2014: 135–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, P.G.H. 2018. Marine protected areas and marine spatial planning for the benefit of marine mammals. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 98 (5): 973–976. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0025315418000334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fa'Otusia, A., A.T. Mafi, et al. 2019. Plan, engage, coordinate, change: charting the path ahead for marine spatial planning. Environmental Policy and Law 48 (6): 420–429. https://doi.org/10.3233/epl-180111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairbanks, L., N. Boucquey, et al. 2019. Remaking oceans governance: critical perspectives on marine spatial planning. Environment and Society: Advances in Research 10 (1): 122–140. https://doi.org/10.3167/ares.2019.100108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fang, Q., S. Zhu, et al. 2019. How effective is a marine spatial plan: an evaluation case study in China. Ecological Indicators 98: 508–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.11.028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandes, M.L., L.P. Sousa, et al. 2020. Mapping the future: pressures and impacts in the Portuguese maritime spatial planning. Science of the Total Environment 715: 136863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136863.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, M.A., H. Calado, et al. 2015. Contributions towards maritime spatial planning (MSP) in Portugal - conference report. Marine Policy 59: 61–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, M.A., D. Johnson, et al. 2016. Measuring success of ocean governance: a set of indicators from Portugal C3. Journal of Coastal Research 1 (75): 982–986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, M.A., D. Johnson, et al. 2018. Developing a performance evaluation mechanism for Portuguese marine spatial planning using a participatory approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 180: 913–923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira, M.A., D. Johnson, et al. 2014. How can Portugal effectively integrate ICM and MSP? Journal of Coastal Research 70: 496–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foley, M.M., B.S. Halpern, et al. 2010. Guiding ecological principles for marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 34 (5): 955–966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazão Santos, C., T. Domingos, et al. 2014a. How sustainable is sustainable marine spatial planning? Part I-Linking the concepts. Marine Policy 49: 59–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.04.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazão Santos, C., T. Domingos, et al. 2014b. How sustainable is sustainable marine spatial planning? Part II-The Portuguese experience. Marine Policy 49: 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.04.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frazão Santos, C., M. Orbach, et al. 2015. Challenges in implementing sustainable marine spatial planning: the new Portuguese legal framework case. Marine Policy 61: 196–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredston-Hermann, A., S.D. Gaines, et al. 2018. Biogeographic constraints to marine conservation in a changing climate. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1429 (1): 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13597.

    Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, M.C., L. Whiting, et al. 2016. Assessing potential spatial and temporal conflicts in Washington’s marine waters. Marine Policy 70: 137–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friess, B., and M. Grémaud-Colombier. 2019. Policy outlook: recent evolutions of maritime spatial planning in the European Union. Marine Policy 132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.01.017.

  • Galparsoro, I., A. Borja, et al. 2012. Rocky reef and sedimentary habitats within the continental shelf of the southeastern Bay of Biscay. In Seafloor geomorphology as Benthic habitat, eds. Peter T. Harris and Elaine K. Baker, 493–507. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385140-6.00035-9.

  • Gao, J.Z., C.J. Liu, et al. 2017. Study on the management of marine economic zoning: an integrated framework for China. Ocean and Coastal Management 149: 165–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gazzola, P., M.H. Roe, et al. 2015. Marine spatial planning and terrestrial spatial planning: reflecting on new agendas. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 33 (5): 1156–1172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gee, K., N. Blazauskas, et al. 2019. Can tools contribute to integration in MSP? A comparative review of selected tools and approaches. Ocean and Coastal Management 179: 104834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentry, R.R., S.E. Lester, et al. 2017. Offshore aquaculture: spatial planning principles for sustainable development. Ecology and Evolution 7 (2): 733–743.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gerhardinger, L.C., M. Quesada-Silva, et al. 2019. Unveiling the genesis of a marine spatial planning arena in Brazil. Ocean and Coastal Management 179: 14825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104825.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, A.J., K. Alexander, et al. 2015. Marine spatial planning and good environmental status: a perspective on spatial and temporal dimensions. Ecology and Society 20 (1): 64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilek, M., A. Armoskaite, et al. 2021. In search of social sustainability in marine spatial planning: a review of scientific literature published 2005–2020. Ocean and Coastal Management 208: 105618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilliland, P.M., and D. Laffoley. 2008. Key elements and steps in the process of developing ecosystem-based marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 32 (5): 787–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gimpel, A., V. Stelzenmäller, et al. 2018. A GIS-based tool for an integrated assessment of spatial planning trade-offs with aquaculture. Science of the Total Environment 627: 1644–1655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.133.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gissi, E., S. Fraschetti, et al. 2019. Incorporating change in marine spatial planning: a review. Environmental Science and Policy 92: 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gissi, E., J. McGowan, et al. 2018. Addressing transboundary conservation challenges through marine spatial prioritization. Conservation Biology 32 (5): 1107–1117. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13134.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grip, K., and S. Blomqvist. 2020. Marine nature conservation and conflicts with fisheries. Ambio 49 (7): 1328–1340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01279-7.

    Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gustavsson, M., and K. Morrissey. 2019. A typology of different perspectives on the spatial economic impacts of marine spatial planning. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 21 (6): 841–853. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908x.2019.1680274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, B.S., J. Diamond, et al. 2012. Near-term priorities for the science, policy and practice of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP). Marine Policy 36 (1): 198–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, B.S., S. Walbridge, et al. 2008. A global map of human impact on marine ecosystems. Science 319 (5865): 948–952.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hassler, B., N. Blazauskas, et al. 2019. New generation EU directives, sustainability, and the role of transnational coordination in Baltic Sea maritime spatial planning. Ocean and Coastal Management 169: 254–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.12.025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassler, B., K. Gee, et al. 2018. Collective action and agency in Baltic Sea marine spatial planning: transnational policy coordination in the promotion of regional coherence. Marine Policy 92: 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.03.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, F.M., Y.H. Lin, et al. 2019. Coordination of marine functional zoning revision at the provincial and municipal levels: a case study of Putian, China. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 7 (12). https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse7120442.

  • Huang, W., J.J. Corbett, et al. 2015. Regional economic and environmental analysis as a decision support for marine spatial planning in Xiamen. Marine Policy 51: 555–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irish, O. 2018. Identifying ecological hotspots in the United States and Norway: turning ecosystem-based management into practice? Marine Policy 98: 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.09.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, M., T. Mendo, et al. 2018. AIS data to inform small scale fisheries management and marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 91: 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.02.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janßen, H., and F. Schwarz. 2015. On the potential benefits of marine spatial planning for herring spawning conditions-an example from the western Baltic Sea. Fisheries Research 170: 106–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janßen, H., F. Bastardie, et al. 2018a. Integration of fisheries into marine spatial planning: quo vadis? Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 201: 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2017.01.003.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Janßen, H., C. Göke, et al. 2019. Knowledge integration in marine spatial planning: a practitioners’ view on decision support tools with special focus on Marxan. Ocean and Coastal Management 168: 130–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.11.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janßen, H., R. Varjopuro, et al. 2018b. Imbalances in interaction for transboundary marine spatial planning: insights from the Baltic Sea Region. Ocean and Coastal Management 161: 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.05.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jay, S. 2010. Marine management and the construction of marine spatial planning. Town Planning Review 81 (2): 173–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jay, S. 2013. From disunited sectors to disjointed segments? Questioning the functional zoning of the sea. Planning Theory and Practice 14 (4): 509–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jay, S. 2019a. Measured as the water flows: the striated and smooth in marine spatial planning. Maritime Studies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-019-00158-x.

  • Jay, S. 2019. Measured as the water flows: the striated and smooth in marine spatial planning. Maritime Studies 19: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-019-00158-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jay, S., T. Klenke, et al. 2012. Early European experience in marine spatial planning: planning the German exclusive economic zone. European Planning Studies 20 (12): 2013–2031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jay, S., T. Klenke, et al. 2016. Consensus and variance in the ecosystem approach to marine spatial planning: German perspectives and multi-actor implications. Land Use Policy 54: 129–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jentoft, S. 2017. Small-scale fisheries within maritime spatial planning: knowledge integration and power. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 19 (3): 266–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jentoft, S., and M. Knol. 2014. Marine spatial planning: risk or opportunity for fisheries in the North Sea? Maritime Studies 12 (1): 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jessen, S. 2011. A review of Canada’s implementation of the Oceans Act since 1997-from Leader to follower? Coastal Management 39 (1): 20–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, D., P. Hoagland, et al. 2013. An empirical analysis of the economic value of ocean space associated with commercial fishing. Marine Policy 42: 74–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnsen, J.P., and B. Hersoug. 2014. Local empowerment through the creation of coastal space? Ecology and Society 19(2). http://www.jstor.org/stable/26269564.

  • Johnson, A.E., W.J. McClintock, et al. 2020. Marine spatial planning in Barbuda: a social, ecological, geographic, and legal case study. Marine Policy 113: 103793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, K., S. Kerr, et al. 2012. Accommodating wave and tidal energy - control and decision in Scotland. Ocean and Coastal Management 65: 26–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, P.J.S., L.M. Lieberknecht, et al. 2016. Marine spatial planning in reality: introduction to case studies and discussion of findings. Marine Policy 71: 256–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kafas, A., P. Donohue, et al. 2017. Displacement of existing activities. In Offshore energy and marine spatial planning, eds. K. L. Yates and C. J. A. Bradshaw, 88–112. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315666877-7.

  • Karlsson, M. 2019. Closing marine governance gaps? Sweden’s marine spatial planning, the ecosystem approach to management and stakeholders’ views. Ocean and Coastal Management 179: 104833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karnad, D., K. St, and Martin. 2020. Assembling marine spatial planning in the global south: international agencies and the fate of fishing communities in India. Maritime Studies 19 (1): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-020-00164-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keijser, X., H. Toonen, et al. 2020. A learning paradox in maritime spatial planning. Maritime Studies 19: 336–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-020-00169-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenchington, R.A., and J.C. Day. 2011. Zoning, a fundamental cornerstone of effective marine spatial planning: lessons learnt from the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Journal of Coastal Conservation 15 (2): 271–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kidd, S., H. Jones, et al. 2019. Taking account of land-sea interactions in marine spatial planning. In Marine Spatial Planning past, present, future, ed. J. Zaucha and K. Gee, 245–270. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkfeldt, T.S. 2019. An ocean of concepts: why choosing between ecosystem-based management, ecosystem-based approach and ecosystem approach makes a difference. Marine Policy 106: 103541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkman, S.P., L. Blamey, et al. 2016. Spatial characterisation of the Benguela ecosystem for ecosystem-based management. African Journal of Marine Science 38 (1): 7–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koivurova, T. 2012. Integrated maritime policy of the European Union: challenges, successes, and lessons to learn. Coastal Management 40 (2): 161–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koundouri, P., and A. Giannouli. 2015. Blue growth and economics. Frontiers in Marine Science 2:94. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2015.00094.

  • Kovačić, M., A. Zekić, et al. 2016. Maritime spatial planning in Croatia - necessity or opportunity for balanced development. Pomorstvo 30 (1): 82–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krämer, L. 2018. The EU Directive 2014/89 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning. Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law 15 (1): 24–41. https://doi.org/10.1163/18760104-01501003.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Kull, M., J.R. Moodie, et al. 2019. International good practices for facilitating transboundary collaboration in marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.03.005.

  • Kyriazi, Z., F. Maes, et al. 2013. The integration of nature conservation into the marine spatial planning process. Marine Policy 38: 133–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyvelou, S.S.I., and D.G. Lerapetritis. 2020. Fisheries sustainability through soft multi-use maritime spatial planning and local development co-management: potentials and challenges in Greece. Sustainability (Switzerland) 12 (5). https://doi.org/10.3390/su12052026.

  • Langlet, D. 2018. Planning from the margin-the European Union’s potential role in spatial planning for managing activities in the Marine Arctic. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 33 (2): 361–379. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718085-13320007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Tixerant, M., D. Le Guyader, et al. 2018. How can Automatic Identification System (AIS) data be used for maritime spatial planning? Ocean and Coastal Management 166: 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.05.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lester, S.E., C. Costello, et al. 2013. Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosystem services to inform marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 38: 80–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lester, S.E., E.O. Ruff, et al. 2017. Exploring stakeholder perceptions of marine management in Bermuda. Marine Policy 84: 235–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lester, S.E., J.M. Stevens, et al. 2018. Marine spatial planning makes room for offshore aquaculture in crowded coastal waters. Nature Communications 9: 945. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03249-1.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren, J. F., K. Andersson, et al. 2016. Infrastructure, marine spatial planning and shipwrecks. In Shipping and the environment: improving environmental performance in marine transportation, eds. K. Andersson, S. Brynolf, J. F. Lindgren and M. Wilewska-Bien, 237–253. Springer-Verlag.

  • Long, R. 2015. Harnessing offshore wind energy: legal challenges and policy conundrums in the European Union. In Energy from the Sea: An International Law Perspective on Ocean Energy, ed. N. Bankes and S. Trevisanut,130-155. Brill | Nijhoff.

  • Lubchenco, J., and N. Sutley. 2010. Proposed U.S. policy for ocean, coast, and great lakes stewardship. Science 328 (5985): 1485–1486.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lüdeke, J. 2017. Offshore wind energy: good practice in impact assessment, mitigation and compensation. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management 19 (1): 1750005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maes, F. 2008. The international legal framework for marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 32 (5): 797–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manea, E., S. Bianchelli, et al. 2020. Towards an ecosystem-based marine spatial planning in the deep Mediterranean Sea. Science of the Total Environment 715: 136884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136884.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Manea, E., D. Di Carlo, et al. 2019. Multidimensional assessment of supporting ecosystem services for marine spatial planning of the Adriatic Sea. Ecological Indicators 101: 821–837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.12.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCreary, S., P. Grifman, et al. 2016. Creating stable agreements in Marine Policy: learning from the California South Coast Marine Life Protection Act Initiative. Negotiation Journal 32 (1): 23–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie, E., S. Posner, et al. 2014. Understanding the use of ecosystem service knowledge in decision making: lessons from international experiences of spatial planning. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 32 (2): 320–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrie, A., and P. Olsson. 2014. An innovation and agency perspective on the emergence and spread of marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 44: 366–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, M., R. Weeks, et al. 2015. Real-world progress in overcoming the challenges of adaptive spatial planning in marine protected areas. Biological Conservation 181: 54–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moher, D., A. Liberati, et al. 2009. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine 151 (4): 264–270.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, S.A., G. Brown, et al. 2017. Identifying conflict potential in a coastal and marine environment using participatory mapping. Journal of Environmental Management 197: 706–718.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morf, A., J. Moodie, et al. 2019. Towards sustainability of marine governance: challenges and enablers for stakeholder integration in transboundary marine spatial planning in the Baltic Sea. Ocean and Coastal Management 177: 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.04.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, K.K., and S. Snow-Cotter. 2008. Toward more integrated ocean governance in Massachusetts: a progress report. Coastal Management 36 (4): 412–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munoz, M., A. Reul, et al. 2018. A spatial risk approach towards integrated marine spatial planning: a case study on European hake nursery areas in the North Alboran Sea. Marine Environmental Research 190–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2018.10.008.

  • Myakinenkov, V., P. Spirin, et al. 2015. Model structure and content of a comprehensive maritime plan: the case of Kaliningrad. Baltic Region 3: 58–68. https://doi.org/10.5922/2079-8555-2015-3-5.

  • Noble, M., D. Harasti, et al. 2019. Linking the social to the ecological using GIS methods in marine spatial planning and management to support resilience: a review. Marine Policy 108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103657.

  • Nomura, K.J., D.M. Kaplan, et al. 2017. Comparative analysis of factors influencing spatial distributions of marine protected areas and territorial use rights for fisheries in Japan. Marine Policy 82: 59–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ntona, M., and E. Morgera. 2018. Connecting SDG 14 with the other Sustainable Development Goals through marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 93: 214–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.06.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nutters, H.M., and P. Pinto da Silva. 2012. Fishery stakeholder engagement and marine spatial planning: lessons from the Rhode Island Ocean SAMP and the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan. Ocean and Coastal Management 67: 9–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O'Hagan, A.M., C. Huertas, et al. 2016. Wave energy in Europe: views on experiences and progress to date. International Journal of Marine Energy 14: 180–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O'Hagan, A.M., S. Paterson, et al. 2020. Addressing the tangled web of governance mechanisms for land-sea interactions: assessing implementation challenges across scales. Marine Policy 112: 103715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, E., D. Fluharty, et al. 2014a. Integration at the round table: marine spatial planning in multi-stakeholder settings. PLoS ONE 9: e109964. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109964.

  • Olsen, S.B., J.H. McCann, et al. 2014b. The State of Rhode Island’s pioneering marine spatial plan. Marine Policy 45: 26–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oral, N. 2008. Integrated coastal zone management and marine spatial planning for hydrocarbon activities in the Black Sea. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 23 (3): 453–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmowski, T., and M. Tarkowski. 2018. Baltic cooperation in marine spatial planning. Baltic Region 10 (2): 100–113. https://doi.org/10.5922/2079-8555-2018-2-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papageorgiou, M., and S. Kyvelou. 2018. Aspects of marine spatial planning and governance: adapting to the transboundary nature and the special conditions of the sea. European Journal of Environmental Sciences 8 (1): 31–37. https://doi.org/10.14712/23361964.2018.5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascual, M., A. Borja, et al. 2011. Marine biological valuation mapping of the Basque continental shelf (Bay of Biscay), within the context of marine spatial planning. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 95 (1): 186–198.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Pataki, Z., and D. Kitsiou. 2017. Marine spatial planning: a review of the different approaches. In Marine Spatial Planning: Methodologies, Environmental Issues and Current Trends, 93–114. New york: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paterson, S.K., E. Politi, et al. 2017. Framing marine spatial planning: future orientation and innovation as steps to success for global cooperation and sustainability. In Marine Spatial Planning - Methodologies, environmental issues and current trends, ed. D. Kitsiou and M. Karydis, 197–228. Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peel, D., and M.G. Lloyd. 2004. The social reconstruction of the marine environment: towards marine spatial planning? Town Planning Review 75 (3): 359–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pınarbaşı, K., I. Galparsoro, et al. 2017. Decision support tools in marine spatial planning: present applications, gaps and future perspectives. Marine Policy 83: 83–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plasman, I.C. 2008. Implementing marine spatial planning: a policy perspective. Marine Policy 32 (5): 811–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portman, M.E. 2011. Marine spatial planning: achieving and evaluating integration. ICES Journal of Marine Science 68 (10): 2191–2200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portman, M.E., G. Notarbartolo-di-Sciara, et al. 2013. He who hesitates is lost: why conservation in the Mediterranean Sea is necessary and possible now. Marine Policy 42: 270–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quero Garcia, P., J.A. Chica Ruiz, et al. 2020. Blue energy and marine spatial planning in Southern Europe. Energy Policy 140: 111421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quero García, P., J. García Sanabria, et al. 2019. The role of maritime spatial planning on the advance of blue energy in the European Union. Marine Policy 99: 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.10.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quesada-Silva, M., A. Iglesias-Campos, et al. 2019. Stakeholder Participation Assessment Framework (SPAF): a theory-based strategy to plan and evaluate marine spatial planning participatory processes. Marine Policy 108: 103619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redfern, J.V., M.F. McKenna, et al. 2013. Assessing the risk of ships striking large whales in marine spatial planning. Conservation Biology 27 (2): 292–302.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rees, S.E., M.J. Attrill, et al. 2010. Is there a win-win scenario for marine nature conservation? A case study of Lyme Bay, England. Ocean and Coastal Management 53 (3): 135–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rehhausen, A., J. Köppel, et al. 2018. Quality of federal level strategic environmental assessment—a case study analysis for transport, transmission grid and maritime spatial planning in Germany. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 73: 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2018.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Retzlaff, R., and C. LeBleu. 2018. Marine spatial planning: exploring the role of planning practice and research. Journal of Planning Literature 33 (4): 466–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412218783462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ripken, M., X. Keijser, et al. 2018. The ‘Living Q’—an interactive method for actor engagement in transnational marine spatial planning. Environments 5 (8): 87. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments5080087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, H. 2014. Understanding emerging discourses of marine spatial planning in the UK. Land Use Policy 38: 666–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, H., and G. Ellis. 2010. ‘A system that works for the sea’? Exploring stakeholder engagement in marine spatial planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 53 (6): 701–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. 2007. Proactive environmental planning for emerging shipping routes in Arctic waters. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs 6 (2): 207–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Frau, A., H. Hinz, et al. 2013. Spatially explicit economic assessment of cultural ecosystem services: non-extractive recreational uses of the coastal environment related to marine biodiversity. Marine Policy 38: 90–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahla, M., R. Kalliola, et al. 2016. Role of benthic habitat distribution data in coastal water wind turbine site selection. Ocean and Coastal Management 124: 78–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salvador, S., L. Gimeno, et al. 2019. The influence of maritime spatial planning on the development of marine renewable energies in Portugal and Spain: legal challenges and opportunities. Energy Policy 128: 316–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.12.066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sangiuliano, S., and S. Mastrantonis. 2017. From Scotland to New Scotland: constructing a sectoral marine plan for tidal energy for Nova Scotia. Marine Policy 84: 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, F., M. Gilek, et al. 2020. Theorizing social sustainability and justice in marine spatial planning: democracy, diversity, and equity. Sustainability (Switzerland) 12: 2560. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer, N., and V. Barale. 2011. Maritime spatial planning: opportunities & challenges in the framework of the EU integrated maritime policy. Journal of Coastal Conservation 15 (2): 237–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schütz, S.E., and A.M. Slater. 2019. From strategic marine planning to project licences: striking a balance between predictability and adaptability in the management of aquaculture and offshore wind farms. Marine Policy 110: 103556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, K.N. 2016. The evolution of marine spatial planning in New Zealand: past, present and possible future. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 31 (4): 652–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seraval, T.A., and F.L. Alves. 2011. International trends in ocean and coastal management in Brazil. Journal of Coastal Research 64: 1258–1262. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26482376

  • Shabtay, A., M.E. Portman, et al. 2018. Incorporating principles of reconciliation ecology to achieve ecosystem-based marine spatial planning. Ecological Engineering 120: 595–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2017.08.026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, K., A. Lanier, et al. 2016. The Oregon Nearshore Research Inventory project: the importance of science and the scientific community as stakeholders in marine spatial planning. Ocean and Coastal Management 130: 290–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.04.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smythe, T.C. 2017. Marine spatial planning as a tool for regional ocean governance? An analysis of the New England ocean planning network. Ocean and Coastal Management 135: 11–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smythe, T.C., and J. McCann. 2018. Lessons learned in marine governance: case studies of marine spatial planning practice in the U.S. Marine Policy 94: 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.04.019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smythe, T.C., and J. McCann. 2019. Achieving integration in marine governance through marine spatial planning: findings from practice in the United States. Ocean and Coastal Management 167: 197–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.10.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, H. 2019. Literature review as a research methodology: an overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research 104: 333–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spalding, M.D., H.E. Fox, et al. 2007. Marine ecoregions of the world: a bioregionalization of coastal and shelf areas. BioScience 57 (7): 573–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spalding, M.J., and H. Brooks. 2011. Sea science: marine spatial planning is changing the way we deal with oceans and coastlines. Planning 77 (10): 8–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spijkerboer, R.C., C. Zuidema, et al. 2020. The performance of marine spatial planning in coordinating offshore wind energy with other sea-uses: the case of the Dutch North Sea. Marine Policy 115: 103860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.103860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • St. Martin, K., and M. Hall-Arber. 2008. The missing layer: geo-technologies, communities, and implications for marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 32 (5): 779–786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stamoulis, K.A., and J.M.S. Delevaux. 2015. Data requirements and tools to operationalize marine spatial planning in the United States. Ocean and Coastal Management 116: 214–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stelzenmuller, V., J. Lee, et al. 2013. Practical tools to support marine spatial planning: a review and some prototype tools. Marine Policy 38: 214–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szuster, B.W., and H. Albasri. 2010. Mariculture and marine spatial planning: integrating local ecological knowledge at Kaledupa Island, Indonesia. Island Studies Journal 5 (2): 237–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tafon, R., F. Saunders, et al. 2019. Re-reading marine spatial planning through Foucault, Haugaard and others: an analysis of domination, empowerment and freedom. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 21 (6): 754–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908x.2019.1673155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tafon, R.V. 2019. Small-scale fishers as allies or opponents? Unlocking looming tensions and potential exclusions in Poland’s marine spatial planning. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 21 (6): 637–648. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908x.2019.1661235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taljaard, S., and L. van Niekerk. 2013. How supportive are existing national legal regimes for multi-use marine spatial planning?-the South African case. Marine Policy 38: 72–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tammi, I., and R. Kalliola. 2014. Spatial MCDA in marine planning: experiences from the Mediterranean and Baltic Seas. Marine Policy 48: 73–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taussik, J. 2007. The opportunities of spatial planning for integrated coastal management. Marine Policy 31 (5): 611–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teh, L.C.L., and L.S.L. Teh. 2011. A fuzzy logic approach to marine spatial management. Environmental Management 47 (4): 536–545.

    Article  ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Teng, X., Q. Zhao, et al. 2019. Implementing marine functional zoning in China. Marine Policy 103484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.02.055.

  • Trouillet, B. 2020. Reinventing marine spatial planning: a critical review of initiatives worldwide. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 22 (4): 441–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908x.2020.1751605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsilimigkas, G., and N. Rempis. 2017. Maritime spatial planning and spatial planning: synergy issues and incompatibilities. Evidence from Crete island, Greece. Ocean and Coastal Management 139: 33–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tunnicliffe, V., A. Metaxas, et al. 2020. Strategic environmental goals and objectives: setting the basis for environmental regulation of deep seabed mining. Marine Policy 114: 103347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.11.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, R.A., N.V.C. Polunin, et al. 2015. Mapping inshore fisheries: comparing observed and perceived distributions of pot fishing activity in Northumberland. Marine Policy 51: 173–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyldesley, D. 2006. A vision for marine spatial planning. Ecos 27 (2): 33–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullah, Z., W. Wu, et al. 2017. A study on the development of marine functional zoning in China and its guiding principles for Pakistan. Ocean and Coastal Management 144: 40–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNCLOS (1982). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Montego Bay, Jamaica, 10 December 1982, United Nations Treaty Series, vol.1833-A-31363-English. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201833/volume-1833-A-31363-English.pdf.

  • UNESCO-IOC/EU. 2021. MSP global International guide on marine/maritime spatial planning.: Paris, UNESCO. IOC Manuals and Guides, 89. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379196

  • UNGA. 2023. United Nations General Assembly on Draft agreement on an international legally binding instrument under the United Nations Convention on the law of the sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction. United Nations General Assembly Resolution. Resumed fifth session New York, 4 March 2023. Available at: https://www.un.org/bbnj/sites/www.un.org.bbnj/files/draft_agreement_advanced_unedited_for_posting_v1.pdf.

  • Văidianu, N., and M. Ristea. 2018. Marine spatial planning in Romania: state of the art and evidence from stakeholders. Ocean and Coastal Management 166: 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.03.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eck, N.J., and L. Waltman. 2010. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84: 523–538.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Eck, N.J., and L. Waltman. 2021. VOSviewer manual - manual for VOSviewer version 1 .6.17. Universiteit Leiden.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Hees, S. 2019. Increased integration between innovative ocean energy and the EU habitats, species and water protection rules through maritime spatial planning. Marine Policy 100: 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.10.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Hoof, L., and G. Kraus. 2017. Is there a need for a new governance model for regionalised fisheries management? Implications for science and advice. Marine Policy 84: 152–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Tatenhove, J.P.M. 2017. Transboundary marine spatial planning: a reflexive marine governance experiment? Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 19 (6): 783–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vince, J., E. Brierley, et al. 2017. Ocean governance in the South Pacific region: progress and plans for action. Marine Policy 79: 40–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Thenen, M., P. Frederiksen, et al. 2020. A structured indicator pool to operationalize expert-based ecosystem service assessments for marine spatial planning. Ocean and Coastal Management 187: 105071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.105071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrees, L.D. 2019. Adaptive marine spatial planning in the Netherlands sector of the North Sea. Marine Policy 132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.01.007.

  • Weiss, C.V.C., B. Ondiviela, et al. 2018. Co-location opportunities for renewable energies and aquaculture facilities in the Canary Archipelago. Ocean and Coastal Management 166: 62–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.05.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, C., B.S. Halpern, et al. 2012. Ecosystem service tradeoff analysis reveals the value of marine spatial planning for multiple ocean uses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109 (12): 4696–4701.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, G., K.M. Gjerde, et al. 2019. Marine spatial planning in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Marine Policy 132: 103384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.12.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yates, K.L., D.S. Schoeman, et al. 2015. Ocean zoning for conservation, fisheries and marine renewable energy: assessing trade-offs and co-location opportunities. Journal of Environmental Management 152: 201–209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Young, M. 2015. Building the blue economy: the role of marine spatial planning in facilitating offshore renewable energy development. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 30 (1): 148–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zacharoula, K., F. Maes, et al. 2013. The integration of nature conservation into the marine spatial planning process. Marine Policy 38: 133–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zanuttigh, B., E. Angelelli, et al. 2015. Boosting blue growth in a mild sea: analysis of the synergies produced by a multi-purpose offshore installation in the Northern Adriatic, Italy. Sustainability (Switzerland) 7 (6): 6804–6853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaucha, J. 2018. Methodology of maritime spatial planning in Poland. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology 19 (2): 713–720.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., C. Zhang, et al. 2017. Offshore wind farm in marine spatial planning and the stakeholders engagement: opportunities and challenges for Taiwan. Ocean and Coastal Management 149: 69–80.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

A special thanks to Guida Henriques for helping in elaborating Fig. 5 and to Vasco Peleteiro for the keywords database formatting. We also wish to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their valuable comments which improved the quality of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Task Group for the Extension of the Continental Shelf, R. Costa Pinto 165, 2770-047, Paço de Arcos, Portugal

    Teresa Rafael

  2. INRAE, UR EABX, 50 avenue de Verdun, 33610, Cestas, France

    Henrique Cabral

  3. Instituto de Ciências Sociais, Av. Prof. Aníbal Bettencourt 9, 1600-189, Lisboa, Portugal

    João Mourato & João Ferrão

Authors
  1. Teresa Rafael
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Henrique Cabral
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. João Mourato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. João Ferrão
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Teresa Rafael.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

No animal testing was performed during this study.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (26.5 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rafael, T., Cabral, H., Mourato, J. et al. Marine spatial planning: a systematic literature review on its concepts, approaches, and tools (2004–2020). Maritime Studies 23, 6 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-023-00349-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-023-00349-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation