Suchergebnisse

This book is open access under a CC BY 4.0 license Maritime or marine spatial planning has gained increasing prominence as an integrated, common-sense approach to promoting sustainable maritime development. A growing number of countries are engaged in preparing and implementing maritime spatial plans: however, questions are emerging from the growing body of MSP experience. How can maritime spatial planning deal with a complex and dynamic environment such as the sea? How can MSP be embedded in multiple levels of governance across regional and national borders - and how far does the environment benefit from this new approach? This open access book is the first comprehensive overview of maritime spatial planning. Situated at the intersection between theory and practice, the volume draws together several strands of interdisciplinary research, reflecting on the history of MSP as well as examining current practice and looking towards the future. The authors and contributors examine MSP from disciplines as diverse as geography, urban planning, political science, natural science, sociology and education; reflecting the growing critical engagement with MSP in many academic fields. This innovative and pioneering volume will be of interest and value to students and scholars of maritime spatial planning, as well as planners and practitioners. Jacek Zaucha is Professor of Economics at Gdánsk University, Poland. He is long experienced in maritime spatial planning, and is currently leading the team preparing the first plan for Polish waters. Kira Gee is Research Associate at the Centre for Materials and Coastal Research (Helmholtz-Zentrum Geesthacht), Germany. She has been involved in MSP research and practice for over 20 years, and has participated in numerous national and transnational European MSP projects

Allein in den vergangenen zehn Jahren sind eine Vielzahl an deutsch- und englischsprachigen Publikationen in der Geographie und den Nachbarwissenschaften erschienen, die sich mit den natur- und kulturräumlichen Entwicklungen in Nepal auseinandergesetzt haben. Studien zu den sozioökonomischen bzw. kulturgeographischen Auswirkungen des Trekkingtourismus auf die Gesellschaft, zu den Land-Stadt-Beziehungen, zu Nationalismus und Ethnizität sowie zu Landeskunde und historisch-geographischer Entwicklung Nepals sind dabei entstanden. Jüngst kamen einige akteursbezogene Arbeiten hinzu, die vor dem konzeptionellen Hintergrund der Politischen Ökologie (u.a. Graner 1997; Soliva 2002) verschiedene Teilbereiche der nepalischen Gesellschaft, wie Forstwirtschaft und Naturschutz, behandeln. Was bislang wenig thematisiert blieb, war die Einbeziehung der äußeren Rahmenbedingungen bei der Analyse der Gesellschafts- und Wirtschaftsbereiche des Landes. Unter Verwendung des Konzeptes der Politischen Ökologie soll nachfolgend gezeigt werden, dass für die Behandlung und Bewertung eines regionalen Untersuchungsaspektes wie der Tourismusentwicklung in Nepal die Berücksichtigung der politischen Situation als Einflussfaktor von grundlegender Bedeutung ist. Nur so können Erkenntnisse gewonnen werden, die Grundlage für ein normatives Handlungskonzept sein und damit Anwendung in der politischen Praxis finden können.

A number of commentators have argued that up until now marine/maritime spatial planning (MSP) research and practice have been dominated by blue economy and environmental concerns and have tended to neglect what might be regarded as social sustainability concerns. To gain more insight into the character and extent of such a gap, as well as how to address it, this article examines how social sustainability has been addressed in peer reviewed scientific articles on MSP between 2005 and 2020. Using search terms such as participation, democracy, social inclusion, social cohesion, equity we systematically identify and review 310 scientific articles that address diverse social sustainability concerns within MSP and marine governance. The review showed that very few papers systematically conceptualised or developed a coherent framework for engaging with social sustainability. Instead, they mostly addressed particular social concerns including participation and engagement, equity and social justice, socio-cultural values and preferences. Marine management and planning efficiency, as well as related instrumental framings of the merits of participation were the key arguments for including these dimensions of social sustainability in MSP. In terms of how to better include social sustainability in MSP, most attention was given to social-cultural mapping and ways to improve social inclusion/participation while also redressing exclusion and maldistribution of outcomes in MSP practice. We conclude that there is a need to deepen and diversify MSP inquiry with respect to social sustainability. In particular, scholars would do well to delve deeper and more broadly in social science literature to find inspiration on ways to understand and elucidate social issues. Here, the enormous body of relevant work on justice, power, critical institutionalism, political ecology and terrestrial planning literatures has hardly been tapped. It is also evident from this review that there is a need for both the academic and practice-based communities to more comprehensively address how the multidimensions of social sustainability interact with each other, as well as with economic and environmental aspects of marine planning and governance. Based on these observations, we highlight a set of suggestions on how to develop MSP research and practice on social sustainability. Most importantly, we argue that more in-depth co-production, linking scholars, practitioners and society actors, is needed.

This article elaborates a conceptual framework to examine social sustainability in marinespatial planning (MSP). Based on a critical literature review of key texts on social sustainabilityin MSP and the broader sustainable development literature we show the need to elaborate acogent and comprehensive approach for the analysis and pursuit of social sustainability linkedto the sea. We then theorize social sustainability by developing a conceptual framework throughintegrating three dimensions: Recognition, Representation and Distribution. While these three socialsustainability/justice features clearly overlap and are interdependent in practice, the conceptualthinking underpinning each of them is distinctive and when taken together they contributetowards conceiving social sustainability as a pillar of sustainability. Our approach can support ananalysis/evaluation of MSP in that, first, its broad scope and adaptability makes it suitable to examinethe wide range of claims, demands, and concerns that are likely to be encountered across dierentpractical MSP settings. Second, it acknowledges the opportunities and challenges of assessing,implementing, and achieving social justice within a broader sustainability framework.

Despite the increasing attention given to marine spatial planning and the widely acknowledged need for transnational policy coordination, regional coherence has not yet improved a great deal in the Baltic Sea region. Therefore, the main objectives in this article are: (a) to map existing governance structures at all levels that influence how domestic marine spatial planning policy strategies are formed, (b) to identify specific challenges to improved regional cooperation and coordination, and (c) to discuss possible remedies. Based on data from in-depth case studies carried out in the BONUS BALTSPACE research project, it is shown that, despite the shared goal of sustainability and efficient resource use in relevant EU Directives, action plans and other policy instruments, domestic plans are emerging in diverse ways, mainly reflecting varying domestic administrative structures, sectoral interests, political prioritisations, and handling of potentially conflicting policy objectives. A fruitful distinction can be made between, on the one hand, regulatory institutions and structures above the state level where decision-making mechanisms are typically grounded in consensual regimes and, on the other hand, bilateral, issue-specific collaboration, typically between adjacent countries. It is argued that, to improve overall marine spatial planning governance, these two governance components need to be brought together to improve consistency between regional alignment and to enhance opportunities for countries to collaborate at lower levels. Issue-specific transnational working groups or workshops can be one way to identify and act upon such potential synergies. ; Marine Spatial Planning in the Baltic Sea Region – Integrating Scales, Sectors and Knowledge ; Towards sustainable planning of Baltic marine space (BONUS BALTSPACE)

The EU Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (MSP Directive) from 2014 is an example of a so-called new generation directive, which gives Member States room for adaptation to national contexts. Because of this larger room for adaptation, transposition becomes a process of designing domestic policy frameworks that fulfil the broad requirements of the Directive, rather than a simple and linear implementation procedure. However, allowing Member States to design marine spatial planning frameworks that fit domestic contexts, have thus far meant that regional coherence suffers. Although the pivotal role of transnational coordination is emphasised in the Directive, it does not stipulate how to set up such coordination, and the Member States have not yet been able to achieve much of self-organising in this area.A closer look is in this report taken on four policy-dimensions that are emphasised in the MSP Directive: Planning approach, Organisation, Sustainability, and Stakeholder inclusion. Based on in-depth case studies carried out in the BALTSPACE research project on MSP frameworks in Denmark, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Sweden, examples of coordination and coherency challenges are described and discussed for each dimension.It is shown that planning approaches can differ substantially between neighbouring countries, which can make it challenging to coordinate across country borders. Even though they share the same (EU) regulatory pressures, Latvia and Lithuania, for example, are developing national MSP frameworks based on quite different conceptual foundations. Whereas Latvia has taken the Ecosystem Approach as a point of departure for constructing a new MSP framework, Lithuania has instead chosen to adapt existing functional zoning approaches to management of maritime areas. Such diversity may be possible to explain because of differing domestic contexts, but may nevertheless lead to coordination problems when coordination is needed.Divergence between national MSP frameworks can also emerge from different political, jurisdictional and, administrative systems and traditions, that is, in societal organisation. In an example based on case studies undertaken in Denmark and Sweden, it is shown that degree of societal centralisation and distribution of political power can be related to differences in how environmental protection and blue growth are prioritised. However, it is difficult to tell whether diverging prioritisations have led to differences on organisation, or of it is the other way around, that differences in organisation have led to diverging prioritisations.It is stated in the MSP Directive that the overarching objective is to promote sustainable development. The focus on sustainable development can be said to reflect the Directive's new generation characteristics. The concept of sustainable development is broad and imprecise, which facilitates political agreement. However, when more precise details must be addressed, disagreements may surface that make implementation challenging. In cases where neighbouring countries diverge substantially on how ecological, economic and social sustainable ought to be balanced, finding agreements on how to coordinate policies and practices, when needed, can be difficult. Based on case studies in Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, and Sweden, it is, for example, argued that adoption of functional zoning or the Ecosystem Approach may not say much about how ecological, economic, and social dimensions are prioritised in different countries.Stakeholder consultations of some kind have historically been undertaken in all Baltic Sea countries. However, how such consultations have been undertaken, who have been invited, and the role the consultations play in relation to political decision-making differ, as shown in examples from Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Poland. Because the MSP Directive is silent on how to design stakeholder consultations – it only says that they should be held – there is no political pressure on regional coordination. It is not clear from our data if these differences cause efficiency losses due to coordination deficits, but a reasonable assumption is that when, for example, marine natural resources are shared between two or more countries, jointly designed and undertaken consultations on specific transboundary issues potentially can promote transparency, understanding, and coordination.In conclusion, it is suggested that while regional coherency is often called for as a means to reduce inefficiencies, it might not be a good idea to integrate without discretion. Considering that the MSP Directive allows domestic context to matter when Member States design national MSP frameworks and that adaptation to domestic context is likely to reduce implantation gaps and increase the legitimacy of marine spatial planning, a more reasonable objective can be to embrace domestic diversity, while simultaneously adaptively promoting possibilities to solve coordination problems at lower levels, if they emerge or can be foreseen. From this perspective, increased coherence is a tool to reduce efficiency losses, rather than an intrinsic good. ; BALTSPACE