IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i22p10148-d1525429.html

Inclusive Maritime Spatial Planning: Stakes at the Regional Level

Author

Listed:
  • Marilena Papageorgiou

    (School of Spatial Planning and Development, Faculty of Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece)

  • Georgia Pozoukidou

    (School of Spatial Planning and Development, Faculty of Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece)

  • Theodora Istoriou

    (School of Spatial Planning and Development, Faculty of Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece)

  • Theoni Kostopoulou

    (School of Spatial Planning and Development, Faculty of Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece)

Abstract

The paper focuses on Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) and the importance of incorporating participatory democracy and inclusivity, from a region-wise perspective. Traditionally MSP is a top-down (central government) process. Most responsibilities, competencies and jurisdictions lie at the national level, with usually limited input from local or regional stakeholders. However, the growing complexity of marine activities and the need for sustainable management of the marine environment require more inclusive and collaborative approaches. In other words, it calls for a more bottom-up approach, where local and regional stakeholders are involved in a meaningful way. Drawing on the REGINA-MSP project, the study presented in this paper identifies categories of regional and local stakeholders relevant to MSP. The paper identifies seven categories of MSP stakeholders deriving from the local communities of coastal regions. Following an in depth stakeholder analysis and mapping, fishers were identified as the ones having the lowest level of engagement and degree of representativeness in the MSP process, despite being among the most traditional marine users. The general public is also considered a “weak” MSP stakeholder. Regarding regional authorities/governments (NUTS 2 level according to the EU classification), their role and voice may also need further strengthening in the—nationally driven—MSP process. Communities of Practice is a tool that may encourage and advance participation and inclusivity in MSP, especially as regards local stakeholders of coastal regions.

Suggested Citation

  • Marilena Papageorgiou & Georgia Pozoukidou & Theodora Istoriou & Theoni Kostopoulou, 2024. "Inclusive Maritime Spatial Planning: Stakes at the Regional Level," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-16, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:22:p:10148-:d:1525429
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/22/10148/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/22/10148/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Samantha Miles, 2017. "Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(3), pages 437-459, May.
    2. Douvere, F. & Maes, F. & Vanhulle, A. & Schrijvers, J., 2007. "The role of marine spatial planning in sea use management: The Belgian case," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 182-191, March.
    3. Pomeroy, Robert & Douvere, Fanny, 2008. "The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 816-822, September.
    4. W. H. Voorberg & V. J. J. M. Bekkers & L. G. Tummers, 2015. "A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(9), pages 1333-1357, October.
    5. Louis Albrechts & Angela Barbanente & Valeria Monno, 2019. "From stage-managed planning towards a more imaginative and inclusive strategic spatial planning," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 37(8), pages 1489-1506, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Scarff, Gavin & Fitzsimmons, Clare & Gray, Tim, 2015. "The new mode of marine planning in the UK: Aspirations and challenges," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 96-102.
    2. Blau, Jason & Green, Lee, 2015. "Assessing the impact of a new approach to ocean management: Evidence to date from five ocean plans," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 1-8.
    3. Petteri Repo & Kaisa Matschoss, 2019. "Social Innovation for Sustainability Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-12, December.
    4. Wynen, Jan & Boon, Jan & Kleizen, Bjorn & Verhoest, Koen, 2020. "How multiple organizational changes shape managerial support for innovative work behavior : Evidence from the Australian Public Service," Other publications TiSEM 4f721d76-0c44-4d72-a494-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    5. Jaime-Andres Correa-Garcia & Maria-Antonia Garcia-Benau & Emma Garcia-Meca, 2018. "CSR Communication Strategies of Colombian Business Groups: An Analysis of Corporate Reports," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-19, May.
    6. Svana Helen Björnsdóttir & Pall Jensson & Saemundur E. Thorsteinsson & Ioannis M. Dokas & Helgi Thor Ingason, 2023. "Aligning Stakeholders and Actors: A New Safety and Security-Based Design Approach for Major National Infrastructures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-41, December.
    7. Ani V. Ter-Mkrtchyan & Aimee L. Franklin, 2023. "Stakeholder Analysis in the Context of Natural Disaster Mitigation: The Case of Flooding in Three U.S. Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-13, October.
    8. Philippe BANCE & Marie-J. BOUCHARD & Dorothea GREILING, 2022. "Conclusions and Directions for further Research," CIRIEC Studies Series, in: Philippe BANCE & Marie-J. BOUCHARD & Dorothea GREILING & CIRIEC (ed.), New perspectives in the co-production of public policies, public services and common goods, volume 3, chapter 0, pages 259-274, CIRIEC - Université de Liège.
    9. Ranger, S. & Kenter, J.O. & Bryce, R. & Cumming, G. & Dapling, T. & Lawes, E. & Richardson, P.B., 2016. "Forming shared values in conservation management: An interpretive-deliberative-democratic approach to including community voices," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 344-357.
    10. Benoît Desmarchelier & Faridah Djellal & Faïz Gallouj, 2018. "Public Service Innovation Networks (PSINs): Collaborating for Innovation and Value Creation," Working Papers halshs-01934275, HAL.
    11. Eunice Kabahinda & Rogers Mwesigwa, 2023. "Trust Mediates the Relationship Between Stakeholder Behavior and Stakeholder Management of Public Private Partnership Projects in Uganda," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 245-263, March.
    12. Shahidur Rahman & Md. Masud-All-Kamal & Priyong Sabastini, 2025. "Drivers and Challenges in Green Transition: A Case of Bangladesh's Textile Industry," Circular Economy and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 2751-2773, August.
    13. Cle‐Anne Gabriel & Kamran Shafique, 2024. "An ethical salience framework to achieve sustainable development goals," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(4), pages 3213-3225, August.
    14. repec:plo:pone00:0161321 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Anne Seneca Terkelsen & Christian Tolstrup Wester & Gabriel Gulis & Jørgen Jespersen & Pernille Tanggaard Andersen, 2022. "Co-Creation and Co-Production of Health Promoting Activities Addressing Older People—A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-20, October.
    16. Ramos, Flávio & Tavares, António F. & da Cruz, Nuno F., 2026. "Between promise and practice: a scoping review of the democratic outcomes of youth participation in local governance," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    17. Vassallo, Jarrod P. & Banerjee, Sourindra & Zaman, Hasanuzzaman & Prabhu, Jaideep C., 2023. "Design thinking and public sector innovation: The divergent effects of risk-taking, cognitive empathy and emotional empathy on individual performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    18. Tânia Martins & Alexandra Braga & Marisa R. Ferreira & Vítor Braga, 2022. "Diving into Social Innovation: A Bibliometric Analysis," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, April.
    19. Schembri, Joe & Tang, Yee Kwan & Fletcher, Margaret & Dimitratos, Pavlos, 2019. "How do European trade promotion organisations manage their stakeholders?," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 1-1.
    20. Pwint Kay Khine & Jianing Mi & Raza Shahid, 2021. "A Comparative Analysis of Co-Production in Public Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-13, June.
    21. Manuel Alméstar & Sara Romero-Muñoz & Nieves Mestre & Uriel Fogué & Eva Gil & Amanda Masha, 2023. "(Un)Likely Connections between (Un)Likely Actors in the Art/NBS Co-Creation Process: Application of KREBS Cycle of Creativity to the Cyborg Garden Project," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-25, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:22:p:10148-:d:1525429. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.