IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ovi/oviste/vxxiy2021i2p12-20.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Should Fisheries and Agriculture Be Considered Priority Domains for Maritime Spatial Planning in the Black Sea? A Stakeholder Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Kamer-Ainur Aivaz

    (“Ovidius†University of Constanta)

  • Mari-Isabella Stan

    (“Ovidius†University of Constanta)

  • DragoÅŸ-Florian Vintilă

    (“Ovidius†University of Constanta)

Abstract

The European Maritime Spatial Planning Directive 2014/89/EU requires that to promote sustainable and integrated development and to optimally manage human activities at sea, land-sea interactions (LSI) should be taken into account. In the context of preparing the national maritime spatial plan, this study analyzes the perception of stakeholders in Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) regarding the most important interactions and the reciprocal impact of the land and sea in the Black Sea area for maritime fishing activities, aquaculture, coastal fishing, agriculture and animal husbandry. The analysis was based on a questionnaire answered by 51 stakeholders with activities in sectors relevant to the use of marine space and carried out at different levels - international/national/local -, stakeholders being entities such as authorities, economic operators, non-governmental organizations, universities, and research institutes.

Suggested Citation

  • Kamer-Ainur Aivaz & Mari-Isabella Stan & DragoÅŸ-Florian Vintilă, 2021. "Why Should Fisheries and Agriculture Be Considered Priority Domains for Maritime Spatial Planning in the Black Sea? A Stakeholder Perspective," Ovidius University Annals, Economic Sciences Series, Ovidius University of Constantza, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 0(2), pages 12-20, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:ovi:oviste:v:xxi:y:2021:i:2:p:12-20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://stec.univ-ovidius.ro/html/anale/RO/2021-2/Section%201%20and%202/2.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ionela Munteanu, 2020. "An Overview of the Business Approach and Labor Costs in the Construction Industry. Case Study: Romania’s Counties by the Sea," Ovidius University Annals, Economic Sciences Series, Ovidius University of Constantza, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 0(2), pages 971-977, December.
    2. Crowder, Larry & Norse, Elliott, 2008. "Essential ecological insights for marine ecosystem-based management and marine spatial planning," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 772-778, September.
    3. Salomon, Markus & Dross, Miriam, 2013. "Challenges in cross-sectoral marine protection in Europe," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 142-149.
    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. Merrie, Andrew & Olsson, Per, 2014. "An innovation and agency perspective on the emergence and spread of Marine Spatial Planning," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 366-374.
    2. Bailey, Jennifer, 2016. "Adventures in cross-disciplinary studies: Grand strategy and fisheries management," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 18-27.
    3. Lu, Wen-Hai & Liu, Jie & Xiang, Xian-Quan & Song, Wei-Ling & McIlgorm, Alistair, 2015. "A comparison of marine spatial planning approaches in China: Marine functional zoning and the marine ecological red line," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 94-101.
    4. Frazão Santos, Catarina & Domingos, Tiago & Ferreira, Maria Adelaide & Orbach, Michael & Andrade, Francisco, 2014. "How sustainable is sustainable marine spatial planning? Part I—Linking the concepts," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 59-65.
    5. Maurizio Sajeva & Marjo Maidell & Jonne Kotta, 2020. "A Participatory Geospatial Toolkit for Science Integration and Knowledge Transfer Informing SDGs Based Governance and Decision Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-19, September.
    6. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    7. Tan, Tjui Yeuw & Miraldo, Marcel Câmara & Fontes, Roberto Fioravanti Carelli & Vannucchi, Fabio Stucchi, 2022. "Assessing bivalve growth using bio-energetic models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 473(C).
    8. Willsteed, Edward A. & Jude, Simon & Gill, Andrew B. & Birchenough, Silvana N.R., 2018. "Obligations and aspirations: A critical evaluation of offshore wind farm cumulative impact assessments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 82(P3), pages 2332-2345.
    9. Wenjia Hu & Weiwei Yu & Zhiyuan Ma & Guanqiong Ye & Ersha Dang & Hao Huang & Dian Zhang & Bin Chen, 2019. "Assessing the Ecological Sensitivity of Coastal Marine Ecosystems: A Case Study in Xiamen Bay, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-21, November.
    10. Caldow, Chris & Monaco, Mark E. & Pittman, Simon J. & Kendall, Matthew S. & Goedeke, Theresa L. & Menza, Charles & Kinlan, Brian P. & Costa, Bryan M., 2015. "Biogeographic assessments: A framework for information synthesis in marine spatial planning," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 423-432.
    11. Kelly, Christina & Ellis, Geraint & Flannery, Wesley, 2018. "Conceptualizing change in marine governance: Learning from Transition Management," MarXiv 649en, Center for Open Science.
    12. Carolyn K Robb, 2014. "Assessing the Impact of Human Activities on British Columbia’s Estuaries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-11, June.
    13. Kimberly Baldwin & Robin Mahon & Patrick McConney, 2013. "Participatory GIS for strengthening transboundary marine governance in SIDS," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 37(4), pages 257-268, November.
    14. Brennan, Jonathon & Fitzsimmons, Clare & Gray, Tim & Raggatt, Laura, 2014. "EU marine strategy framework directive (MSFD) and marine spatial planning (MSP): Which is the more dominant and practicable contributor to maritime policy in the UK?," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 359-366.
    15. van Leeuwen, Judith & Raakjaer, Jesper & van Hoof, Luc & van Tatenhove, Jan & Long, Ronán & Ounanian, Kristen, 2014. "Implementing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive: A policy perspective on regulatory, institutional and stakeholder impediments to effective implementation," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(PB), pages 325-330.
    16. Freire-Gibb, Lucio Carlos & Koss, Rebecca & Margonski, Piotr & Papadopoulou, Nadia, 2014. "Governance strengths and weaknesses to implement the marine strategy framework directive in European waters," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 172-178.
    17. Shucksmith, Rachel J. & Kelly, Christina, 2014. "Data collection and mapping – Principles, processes and application in marine spatial planning," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(PA), pages 27-33.
    18. Kendra Ryan & Andy Danylchuk & Adrian Jordaan, 2018. "Is Marine Spatial Planning Enough to Overcome Biological Data Deficiencies?," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(04), pages 1-21, December.
    19. Xiaolu Huang & Jishun Yan & Guangshuai Zhang & Jie Huang & Quanming Wang & Binyong Li & Yu Ma, 2023. "Marine Ecological Function Zoning and Management Countermeasures: A Case Study of the Sea Area of Zhejiang Province," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-17, February.
    20. Lu, Shiau-Yun & Shen, Cheng-Han & Chiau, Wen-Yan, 2014. "Zoning strategies for marine protected areas in Taiwan: Case study of Gueishan Island in Yilan County, Taiwan," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 21-29.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Land–Sea Interaction (LSI); fisheries and agriculture domains; stakeholder; Black Sea; Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP);
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O20 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - General
    • R10 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - General

    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:ovi:oviste:v:xxi:y:2021:i:2:p:12-20. 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: Gheorghiu Gabriela (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/feoviro.html .

    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.