This paper explores the ontological differences between terrestrial and marine environments from a spatial perspective and reflects on the usefulness of the application of established ideas of terrestrial spatial planning in marine spatial planning, using the UK system as the main reference. Through a critical review of the literature an analytical framework is developed that is informed by four interlinked deficiencies, namely disciplinary, conceptual, legitimacy and knowledge deficits. The paper provides two main conclusions. First, as a discipline and profession, planning must reassess the suitability of present approaches to marine spatial planning and provide innovative thinking to a complex and different potential area of planning theory and practice. Second, that marine spatial planning should develop its own responses to the particular needs of the marine environment and take into consideration influences from various disciplines and perspectives to ensure appropriate and adequate consideration of marine-based concerns.
ArkemaKAbramsonSDewsburyB (2008) “Marine ecosystem-based management: from characterization to implementation”. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment4(10): 525–532
3.
BarnesBBloorDHenryJ (1996) Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis, Chicago: University of Chicago Press
4.
BerkesFBerkesMKFastH (2007) “Collaborative integrated management in Canada's north: the role of local and traditional knowledge and community-based monitoring”. Coastal Management35(1): 143–162
5.
BerkesFColdingJFolkeC (2000) “Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management”. Ecological Applications10(5): 1251–1262
6.
BlountBGPitchonA (2007) “An anthropological research protocol for marine protected areas: creating a niche in a multidisciplinary hierarchy”. Human Organisation66(2): 103–111
7.
BrownJSDuguidP (2001) “Organising knowledge”. California Management Review40: 90–111
8.
CardosoR (2005) Context and Power in Contemporary Planning: Towards Reflexive Planning Analytics, University College London, Planning Departmentworking paper 128
9.
ClaydonJ (2006) “Marine spatial planning: a new opportunity for planners”. Town Planning Review77(2): i–vi
CommonerB (1971) The Closing Circle: Nature, Man and Technology, New York: Knopf
12.
CowellROwensS (2006) “Governing space: planning reforms and the politics of sustainability”. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy24: 403–421
13.
CrowderLNorseE (2008) “Essential ecological insights for marine ecosystem-based management and marine spatial planning”. Marine Policy32: 772–778
14.
DavoudiS (2013) “On democracy: representation beyond the ballot box”. DiSP: The Planning Review49(3): 4–5
15.
DCLG, Department for Communities and Local Government (2011) Localism Act, London: Communities and Local Government The Stationery Office
16.
De SantoEM (2011) “Environmental justice implications of maritime spatial planning in the European Union”. Marine Policy35: 34–38
DouvereFEhlerC (2009) “New perspectives on sea use management: initial findings from European experience with marine spatial planning”. Environmental Management90: 77–88
19.
DrankierP (2012) “Embedding maritime spatial planning in national frameworks”. Environment Policy and Planning14(1): 7–27
20.
EdenSDonaldsonAWalkerG (2006) “Green Groups and grey areas: scientific boundary-work, nongovernmental organisations, and environmental knowledge”. Environment and Planning A38: 1061–1076
21.
Ehler C, Douvere F, 2009, “Marine spatial planning: a step-by-step approach towards ecosystem-based management” Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme, IOC Manual and Guides, No. 53, ICAM Dossier No. 6 (UNESCO, Paris)
22.
Espinosa-RomeroMJChanKMAMcDanielsTDalmerDM (2011) “Structuring decision-making for ecosystem-based management”. Marine Policy35: 575–583
23.
European Commission, 2013, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Establishing a Framework for Maritime Spatial Planning and Integrated Coastal Management (European Commission, COM(2013) 133 final, 2013/0074 (COD)
24.
European Parliament, 2008, “Marine strategy framework directive” Directive 2008/56 EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Commission of the European Communities, Brussels)
25.
FlanneryWÓ CinnéideM (2008) “Marine spatial planning from the perspectives of a small seaside community in Ireland”. Marine Policy32(6): 980–987
26.
FoaleS (2006) “The intersection of scientific and indigenous ecological knowledge in coastal Melanisia: implications for contemporary marine resource management”. International Social Science Journal58(187): 129–137
27.
ForesterJ (2000) The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes, Cambridge: MIT Press
28.
Gray T, 2002, “Fisheries science and Fishers' knowledge”, paper presented at ENSUS Conference on Marine Science and Technology for Environmental Sustainability, 16–18 December, Newcastle upon Tyne
29.
HandleyKSturdyAFinchamRClarkT (2006) “Within and beyond communities of practice: making sense of learning through participation, identity and practice”. Management Studies43(3): 641–653
HealeyP (2004) “The treatment of space and place in the new strategic spatial planning in Europe”. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research28(1): 45–67
32.
HelmreichS (2011) “Nature/culture/seawater”. American Anthropologist113(1): 132–144
33.
HM Government (2009) The Marine and Coastal Access Act, London: The Stationery Office
34.
HM Government (2010) Marine (Scotland) Act, London: The Stationery Office
35.
HM Government (2011) UK Marine Policy Statement, London: The Stationery Office
36.
HovikSSandströmCZachrissonA (2010) “Management of protected areas in Norway and Sweden: challenges in combining central governance and local participation”. Environmental Policy and Planning12(2): 159–177
37.
HuntingtonHP (2000) “Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methods and applications”. Ecological Applications10(5): 1270–1274
38.
IllsleyDRichardsonT (2004) “New National Parks for Scotland: coalitions in conflict over the allocation of planning powers in the Cairngorms”. Environmental Planning and Management47(2): 219–242
39.
IngoldT (2007) Lines: A Brief History, Abingdon: Routledge
40.
JauhiainenJSMoilanenH (2011) “Towards fluid territories in European Spatial Development: regional development zones in Finland”. Environment and Planning C29(4): 728–744
41.
JayS (2010) “Built at sea – marine management and the construction of marine spatial planning”. Town Planning Review81(2): 173–191
42.
JaySEllisGKiddS (2012) “Marine spatial planning: a new frontier?”. Environment Policy and Planning14(1): 1–5
43.
JensenORichardsonT (2000) “Discourses of mobility and polycentric development: a contested view of European spatial planning”. European Planning Studies8(4): 503–520
JonesPJS (2009) “Equity, justice and power issues raised by no-take marine protected area proposals”. Marine Policy33: 759–765
46.
KazaN (2006) “Tyranny of the median and costly consent: a reflection on the justification for participatory urban planning processes”. Planning Theory5(3): 255–270
47.
KiddSEllisG (2012) “From the land to sea and back again? Using terrestrial planning to understand the process of marine spatial planning”. Environment Policy and Planning14(1): 49–66
48.
KiddSShawD (2013) “Reconceptualising territoriality and spatial planning: insights from the sea”. Planning Theory and Practice14: 180–197
49.
KoumakhovR (2009) “Conventions in Herbert Simon's theory of bounded rationality”. Economic Psychology30: 293–306
50.
KuhnST (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: Chicago University press
51.
Laffoley D, 2000, Historical Perspective and Selective Review of the Literature on Human Impacts on the UK's Marine Environment, prepared by English Nature for the DETR Working Group on the Review of Marine Nature Conservation, English Nature Research Report 391, Peterborough
52.
Laffoley D, Maltby C, Vincent M, Mee L, Dunn E, Gilliland P, Hamer J, Mortimer D, Pound D, 2004, The Ecosystem Approach. Coherent Actions for Marine and Coastal Environments. A report to the UK Government English Nature
53.
Linley-AdamsG (2003) All at Sea: Welsh Case Study on Marine Renewable Energy, Cardiff: WWF CYMRU
54.
LoveringJ (2010) “Will the recession prove to be a turning point in planning and urban development thinking?”. International Planning Studies15(3): 227–243
55.
McGlashenDJDuckRWReidCT (2004) “The foreshore: geographical implications of the three legal systems of Great Britain”. Area36(4): 338–347
56.
MackinsonSWilsonDCGaliayPDeasB (2011) “Engaging stakeholders in fisheries and marine research”. Marine Policy35: 18–24
57.
McLeod KL, Lubchenco J, Palumbi S, Rosenberg AA, 2005, “Scientific consensus statement on marine ecosystem-based management” Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea (COMPASS) http://compassonline.org/?q=EBM
58.
MarshallT (2009) “Infrastructure and spatial planning – legitimacy under challenge”. Town and Country Planning78(9): 386–388
O'NeilJ (2001) “Representing people, representing nature, representing the world”. Environment and Planning C19(4): 483–500
61.
PeelDLloydMG (2004) “The social reconstruction of the marine environment: towards marine spatial planning?”. Town Planning Review75(3): 359–378
62.
Phillipson J, Symes D, 2013, “Finding a middle way between territorial and sectoral approaches to development: reviewing axis 4 of the European Fisheries Fund”, paper presented to the Congress of the European Society for Rural Sociology, ESRS, Florence
PitkinH (1964) “Hobbes's concept of representation”. The American Political Science Review58(2): 328–340
65.
PomeroyRDouvereF (2008) “The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process”. Marine Policy32: 816–822
66.
RitchieHEllisG (2010) “‘A system that works for the sea’? Exploring stakeholder engagement in marine spatial planning”. Environmental Planning and Management53(6): 701–723
SaletWThornleyAKreukelsA (2003) Metropolitan Governance and Spatial Planning, London: E&FN Spon
69.
SavilleGHutchinsonK (2006) Tangle of the Lough. The Need to Reform Management of Northern Ireland's Marine Environment, Belfast: Ulster Wildlife Trust and WWF Northern Ireland
70.
SchaeferNBaraleV (2011) “Maritime spatial planning: opportunities and challenges in the framework of the EU integrated maritime policy”. Coastal Conservation15: 237–245
71.
SimonH (1997) Administrative Behaviour, New York: Free Press
72.
St. MartinKHall-ArberM (2008) “The missing layer: geo-technologies, communities, and implications for marine spatial planning”. Marine Policy32: 779–786
73.
SteadSDawTGrayT (2006) “Uses of fishers' knowledge in fisheries management”. Anthropology in Action13(3): 77–86
74.
StrangeV (2005) “Common sense: water, sensory experience and the generation of meaning”. Journal of Material Culture10(1): 92–120
75.
Suárez de ViveroJLRodriguez MateosJCFlorido del CorralD (2008) “The paradox of public participation in fisheries governance. The rising number of actors and the devolution of process”. Marine Policy32(3): 319–325
Vierros M, Douvere F, Arico S, 2006, “Implementing the ecosystem approach in open ocean and deep sea environments – an analysis of stakeholders, their interests and existing approaches”, UNU-IAS Report, United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies, http://www.ias.unu.edu/binaries2/DeepSea_Stakeholders.pdf
78.
WengerE (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
79.
WildsonJWillisR (2004) See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream, London: Demos
80.
WilsonDC (2003) “Examining two cultures theory of fisheries knowledge: the case of bluefish management”. Society and Natural Resources16(6): 491–508
81.
WormBBarbierEBeaumontNDuffyEFolkeCHalpernBJacksonJLotzeHMicheliFPalumbiSSalaESelkoeKStachowiczJWatsonR (2006) “Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services”. Science314: 787–790
82.
YandleT (2003) “The challenge of building successful stakeholder organizations: New Zealand's experience in developing a fisheries co-management regime”. Marine Policy27: 179–192
