Search results

Marine spatial planning (MSP) is advanced by its champions as an impartial and rational process that can address complex management issues. We argue that MSP is not innately rational and that it problematises marine issues in specific ways, often reflecting hegemonic agendas. The illusion of impartial rationality in MSP is derived from governmentalities that appear progressive but serve elite interests. By understanding the creation of governmentalities, we can design more equitable planning processes. We conceptualise governmentalities as consisting of problematisations, rationalities and governance technologies, and assess England's first marine plans to understand how specific governmentalities de-radicalise MSP. We find that progressive framings of MSP outcomes, such as enhanced well-being, are deployed by the government to garner early support for MSP. These elements, however, become regressively problematised in later planning phases, where they are framed by the government as being difficult to achieve and are pushed into future iterations of the process. Eviscerating progressive elements from the planning process clears the way for the government to focus on implementing a neoliberal form of MSP. Efforts to foster radical MSP must pay attention to the emergence of governmentalities, how they travel through time/space and be cognisant of where difference can be inserted into planning processes. Achieving progressive MSP will require the creation of a political frontier early in the process, which cannot be passed until pathways for progressive socio-environmental outcomes have been established; advocacy for disenfranchised groups; broadening MSP evaluations to account for unintended impacts; and the monitoring of progressive objectives.

AbstractChildren learn through interaction with their surroundings, meaning that their experiences of place directly contribute to their personal development. Despite this, the needs of the youth are rarely factored into development plans. This is a major obstacle to the sustainable and inclusive development of places. Examining potential pathways to correct this issue, this paper presents the findings of research conducted with young people from the Market area of Belfast. The research engaged with two groups (n = 11) in a participatory investigation of how young people engage with the built environment. Using several participatory methods, including narrative walkabouts, mapping exercises and semi‐structured group interviews, the children engaged as co‐researchers. We link to idea of 'third places' to frame our analysis, demonstrating how children in the Market community have strong opinions of how space is, and should be, designed and managed. We reveal interesting dynamics regarding the children's perceived exclusion from the city centre and concerns about how poor planning is harming their community's public health. We conclude by reflecting upon some of the children's proposed solutions, as well as by presenting two outcomes of our study that hint at the potential future role of young people in co‐designing the built environment.

There is growing concern that MSP is not facilitating a paradigm shift towards democratic marine management and that it may simply repackage old power dynamics in the rhetoric of participation. MSP has been advanced using the logic of 'rationality' and 'post-political' forms of planning that emphasise consensus and managerial-technological apparatuses for the governance of socio-political natural spaces. MSP has been described as the rational organization of the use of marine space. Rationality is, however, context dependent and the context of rationality is power. MSP processes are, therefore, arenas where specific and multiple instances of power manifests itself. MSP is also an inherently political (sensu Mouffee, 2005) process. Rather than acknowledging debate and dissensus, MSP is advanced as a neutral, participatory process that can develop win-win outcomes. The result is a choreographed form of governance and participation, with clearly defined roles, processes and acceptable outcomes, which renders invisible the politics of disagreement and legitimises the agendas of dominant actors. This chapter argues that to recapture its democratising potential, MSP requires explicit engagement with power and politics.

This article is not intended to be a thorough empirical analysis of the progress of MSP. Rather, it aims to provide an overview of how MSP is evolving within diverse national and regional contexts and illustrate the major trends that are emerging globally. By analyzing the legislative arrangements, objectives, implementation and evaluation processes, and the initial impact of MSP across 12 regional areas, this article presents an overview of how MSP is developing. The next section provides an overview of MSP's evolution over the last two decades. This is followed by a series of national reviews of MSP implementation in 12 regional ocean areas. These reviews showcase how MSP has quickly spread across the globe, as well as revealing the major factors that are supporting and inhibiting its fulfilment as an integrative means of marine management. This is followed by a discussion section that evaluates some of the key findings extracted from the reviews, reflecting upon the issues that are shaping the conceptualization and operationalization of MSP initiatives in different regional contexts, before questioning what this means for future MSP practice and research. Factors revealed as being challenges common to MSP initiatives include the rationale for MSP implementation, the need for legislative backing, the material consequences of MSP and the need for evaluative feedback loops, the use and production of knowledge, and a lack of innovation. This article concludes by briefly outlining a range of recommendations on how MSP can evolve in more sustainable and inclusive manners over the next decade and as it spreads to other nations and regions.