4.6 Article

Marine spatial planning in Scotland. Levelling the playing field?

期刊

MARINE POLICY
卷 84, 期 -, 页码 33-41

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2017.06.024

关键词

Stakeholder engagement; Marine spatial planning; Wicked problems; Power; Governance; Scotland

资金

  1. Norwegian College of Fishery Science at UiT The Arctic University of Norway

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Marine spatial planning (MSP) is the leading tool for managing human activities at sea. It is designed to assist in decision making for marine resource access and use by considering the actions of those using the resources, interactions between these groups, and their cumulative impact on the natural environment. Being informed by ecosystem based management, MSP recognises that socio-natural systems are complex and that stakeholder and public input are key components of well-informed decision making. Therefore, MSP is rooted in the principles of good governance, including those of participation and transparency. This paper considers MSP processes in Scotland's inshore waters in the context of these good governance principles. The focus is on the institutional arrangements that allow stakeholders and the public to contribute to planning Scotland's seas and coasts. Whilst acknowledging the significant challenges faced by planners, and the work conducted so far, this research suggests that improvements could be made in how and when engagement takes place. It appears that at an early stage of introducing MSP in Scotland powerful stakeholders shaped the images, values and principles that guide it, and that including a broader range of actors early on might positively affect the legitimacy and acceptance of MSP in its later stages. The current institutional arrangements do not appear to allow for this. Ultimately, MSP in Scotland is in danger of institutionalising and thus legitimising existing power relations between marine resource users, and it does little to level the playing field.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据