Pāriet uz galveno navigāciju Pāriet uz meklēšanu Pāriet uz galveno saturu

Implementing the EU MSP Directive: Current status and lessons learned in 22 EU Member States

  • Jacek Zaucha
  • , Kira Gee
  • , Emiliano Ramieri
  • , Leila Neimane*
  • , Neil Alloncle
  • , Nerijus Blažauskas
  • , Helena Calado
  • , Cristina Cervera-Núñez
  • , Vesna Marohnić Kuzmanović
  • , Margarita Stancheva
  • , Joanna Witkowska
  • , Sigrid Eskeland Schütz
  • , Juan Ronco Zapatero
  • , Charles N. Ehler
  • *Šī darba korespondējošais autors
  • Gdynia Maritime University // University of Gda?sk
  • Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon
  • National Research Council of Italy
  • Institute of Legal Science
  • University of Bergen
  • Ministry for Ecological and Inclusive Transition
  • Klaip?da University
  • University of the Azores
  • CSIC)
  • Independent Researcher
  • Center for Coastal and Marine Study (CCMS)
  • Maritime University in Gdynia
  • Ocean Visions Consulting

Zinātniskās darbības rezultāts: Devums žurnālamZinātniskais raksts (žurnālā)koleģiāli recenzēts

12 Atsauces (Scopus)

Kopsavilkums

This paper takes stock of the impact the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive 2014/89/EU has had on developing maritime spatial planning (MSP) practice in Europe. Drawing on the practical experience of 22 Member States, it analyses how countries with varying political, planning and regional contexts, as well as varying MSP experience prior to 2014, have chosen to implement the Directive and what lessons they have learned in the process. A key lesson is that while the Directive provides a normative framework for approaching MSP, this has been variously adapted to national contexts. MSP in Europe is thus characterised by varied territorial coverage of plans, different national institutional arrangements for MSP, a variety of planning processes, and a variety of sectors covered by maritime spatial plans. We then examine four topics that are likely to remain prominent in future MSP, namely: • taking account of climate change, • applying the ecosystem approach, • considering social and community impact of MSP and • improving coherence. While planners identify a range of challenges associated with each of these topics, countries have also developed practical solutions, although these are constrained by the respective remit and capacity of MSP as a process. The sheer diversity of maritime spatial plans and approaches, differing overall visions for MSP and methodological challenges, such as cumulative or socio-economic impact assessment, feature among the key challenges for achieving greater coherence in MSP within sea basins and beyond.

OriģinālvalodaAngļu
Raksta numurs106425
ŽurnālsMarine Policy
Sējums171
DOIs
Publikācijas statussPublicēts - janv. 2025

ANO IAM

Šis izpildes rezultāts palīdz sasniegt šādus ANO ilgtspējīgas attīstības mērķus (IAM)

  1. 8. IAM — Pienācīgas Kvalitātes Nodarbinātība un Ekonomikas Izaugsme
    8. IAM — Pienācīgas Kvalitātes Nodarbinātība un Ekonomikas Izaugsme
  2. 13. IAM — Klimatrīcība
    13. IAM — Klimatrīcība
  3. 14. IAM — Dzīvība Zem Ūdens
    14. IAM — Dzīvība Zem Ūdens

OECD Zinātnes nozare

  • 5.5 Tiesību zinātne

Nospiedums

Uzziniet vairāk par pētniecības tēmām “Implementing the EU MSP Directive: Current status and lessons learned in 22 EU Member States”. Kopā tie veido unikālu nospiedumu.

Citēt šo